Big Think

HerbieP on June 2, 2008, 6:25 PM

Well I regard myself as a person of at least average intelligence, I have read the bible a couple of times and read about the council of Nicea but I didn’t understand a word of that. Would you mind trying to say that a little more clearly for the less scholarly among us Luke?

Denys Artasevych on June 2, 2008, 7:11 PM

As soon as constantine got his hands on christianity it became 95% politics. But of course if he did not christianity would have ben long forgoten much like the cult of Isis.

My question is how does one determine the validity of the gospells? Nisea was only one point were the history of the holly book is sketchy. Constantine surelly put his own political spin on it. But how do we know that the original writers did not do the same. The point is rellying on a book writen by thousands of years ago, changed an mutilated for political purpouses as you compas for spirituality is problematic. How do we know what jesus actually said. Constantine could have him saying what ever he wanted, just like luke, and john could.

And why do christians hold the 69 books sacred. Dogma, dogma, dogma. Same reason you would get kiked out of your church for asking an educated question( how obsurd). Same reason that you wont get many christians responding to this post (there are only a few here on big t, right not its just pokij and jesse). Most christians could not stand up to the barage of questions that fly at them on this site, even poor pokoj had to revert to accepting that christianity was illogical, though he still belives it. SO good luck to you mate, just remember bring though and inquery, leve dogma at the door.

Sorry that was not really a christian response but as i said there isnt many here.

Musycks on June 2, 2008, 11:19 PM

Luke.. sorry to crash the Xtian party.. I notice you’ll probably get some pesky non believers like us chipping in.. so I’ll pass on my 2 cents (or tuppence)…

only to recommend a couple of books if you haven’t already come across them..
The Gnostic Gospels by Dr Elaine Pagels
the best stuff I’ve read on those texts.
and
The History of God by Karen Armstrong
an historian and ex-nun.. a suprbly concise rendering of a lot of what we bang on about on this site.

Good luck with the Xtians.

Luke Allen on June 3, 2008, 12:25 PM

I appreciate Atheist! Thanks Musycks, Skeptic44 and HerbieP for responding. I was looking for JesSeeks, Pokoj, point of view particularly just because we are the one’s that call the Holy Bible the truth and think it is an incredibly important work. Which I do as well, I just don’t know, once one is educated in History and really reads Jesus’s word if we can still have that point of view.

HerbieP

Simply, I am using historical events and Jesus’s word coupled with the backround of the “books” in the Bible to show that it shouldn’t be grouped together the way it is.

I am a Jesus freak that loves my Lord but doesn’t defend the council of Nicea’s decision to exclude woman in the New Testament.

Skeptic44,

The validity of the Gospel’s is simple. You could’ve been hanged for distorting the Gospels back then. Nowadays, I just get sued if I start writing as Richard Dawkins. Even with only the threat of being sued, we accept that the author who is on the book really wrote the book, how much more can we be sure if we would be killed if we made something up?

The other thing we can rely on is reading. Skeptic44 pick up a bible (new english) read the wisdom in Matthew, Mark, Luke & John. Further if you want to read more check out Musyck’s suggestion of Dr. Pagels Gnostic Gospels particularly Mary, Bartholomew, Phillip, and Sophia. Then you will see that one other can’t be the speaker as his wisdom is infinate, lol… I know you won’t agree on the last point but I think you’ll understand the man Jesus was if nothing else, a genius.

MUSYCKS!

Brother, you are never an annoyance or crashing the party at all, I like reading all of your thoughts!

I just wrote the title because whether or not the Holy Bible is the word of God is usually a pretty low concern for those who don’t believe in God.

Karen Armstrong I think I have that book in my library: she was the woman born as a Jewish person, went into the nunnery and left to be Muslim now right? Wow, no wonder you Atheist think we are all nuts! I think, if I am remembering correctly she used the ancient Greek, and Aramic to show that Jesus wouldn’t have called himself God? There is another book I can’t remember the author but I read it like 9 years ago and it was titled: Jesus Was a Jew. It has the same premise and he was a Catholic priest as well. I concluded a few things: 1. I can’t read Greek or Aramic so personally I can’t debate someone who does. 2. If Jesus isn’t God, he would tell me at the pearly gates and I would laugh and still ask in. 3. None! who speak positively about the Holy Ghost, Whether they are Tao, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, or Hindu will be thrown out of heaven. We are all the same. This I think was Dr. Armsrong’s point and therefore, it didn’t stick to well as I had already adopted it.

Can I ask you Atheist something: (maybe I should and might make it another idea?) Why are you so sure your body dies and bam that’s it? Why don’t you have at least an inclination that something might be more than these quick years? Not judging just very curious.

Pastor Jennifer on June 3, 2008, 2:48 PM

Dear Luke:
Sorry I don’t have a lot of time today, but are you seeking answers in gnosticism? The texts that you have mentioned were rejected for a number of reasons.
Gnosticism posits the existence of both an evil and a good God warring with each other. This runs counter to the Christian faith. Or have I misunderstood you, as usual?

Denys Artasevych on June 3, 2008, 2:49 PM

Hanged for distorting the gospels, while they were being written? I must be missing something. Im saying why could the writers of the gospels not have fabricated the events surounding jesus. And constantine, coul have fabricated anything he wanted, who i going to hang a roman emperor.

I was not questioning the authorship of the gospels, rather the validity of what they present. But i gues we can never really be sure if the name on any book is really the author of that book.

I have read the bible. If you aproach it without the forgone conclusion that its the word of god. Then it just reads like any other ancient myth, poorly written at that (sorry mate). Again Jung was onto something with his observation of mythological patterns. Pik up Ovid’s metamopphosis, much better written mythology similar patterns to the bible.

Jesus (if he ever existed) did say some pointfull things(if he really said these things), genius, i dont know about that. But any man vain enough to declare himself god, i dont think i can really respect.

Pastor Jennifer on June 3, 2008, 2:53 PM

Luke:
Are you serious about Karen Armstrong?
She is Xian born, bred and is!
She quit monastic life and re-embraced life as a conciliator between all religions.
Why do you pretend to diminish your intelligence in these debates? You are smart and can write quite cogently whenever you want to.

Luke Allen on June 3, 2008, 3:03 PM

Sorry about the incorrect portrayel of Karen Armstrong… really didn’t mean to say something she isn’t… I don’t know why I remembered her incorrectly. Sorry again Pastor Jennifer.

However, From the Gospels of Mary, Bartholomew, Phillip and Sophia I don’t remember any verses pertaining to a warring God? Maybe I missed that to; but I don’t read anything other than equality of the sexes that contradicts the New Testament. Am I missing something in those four Gospels? I don’t claim to own all Gnostic texts just those attributed to God. (Jesus)

Luke Allen on June 3, 2008, 3:12 PM

Hey Skeptic44,

Yeah back then they were pretty brutal to anyone that wrote down errors in the Holy word. This is true for Judaism before Christ and the early church.

Using this logic: “But i gues we can never really be sure if the name on any book is really the author of that book.” We could debate whether any of us truly exist; however, utilizing Ochman’s razor I’d rather realize the simplest answer is probably the most correct and the simplest answer here is that people kept good enough records that Constatine wouldn’t have been able to pervert it too much. I state too much because it is my belief that God is perfect and can only be perverted by imperfect beings attempting to explain what they hear when God talks to them.

The Genius of Jesus in question… really? I mean really, really, skeptic44, you want to go there? What year do you live in, AD right After Death? Whose death? Religion with the most followers in America? I mean I can call Bill Belicheck, in my opinion, a Genius. I call Lao Tzu, Buddha, Gandhi, even Dawkins, etc. etc. Genius… But to you Skeptic44 Jesus doesn’t make the cut? Please explain your standard of Genius.

Luke Allen on June 3, 2008, 3:29 PM

Also PastorJennifer, I do have A History of God in my library, I only have read to page 162… don’t remember why I stopped reading it but look forward to seeing why I made the error.

Further, do you know where I made my incorrect statements about Dr. Armstrong I would like to retract them but don’t remember where I posted that info… sorry.

HerbieP on June 3, 2008, 3:33 PM

I don’t believe what is written in the newspapers today, much less what was written in 2000 year old texts. Every written document is a point of view of the author, coloured by personal circumstances that we can’t know, influenced by the poitics of the time, occasionally suppressed and selectively edited and distorted. History, even recent history, is largely opinion and speculation. second law of thermodynacis, infromation is lost over time, you cannot reconstruct the past any more than you can predict the future.

Luke Allen on June 3, 2008, 3:51 PM

Hey HerbieP,

GREAT POST! question everything, absolutely, but find some answers.

I understand and hope people have a critical eye to Christianity. I tell new Christians to get lost in the word of God, because if you don’t know what a man says but claim he is God, I can convince you of anything. My declaration of my faith is due to long studies, and questions and the depth I find in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John that I can’t find from any other author in history.

I agree perfect history is incorrect, just like perfectly understanding the future is to. However my investments use my limited ability to predict the future and my understanding of history takes into account, as much as possible, all the biases you present.

Still I end with: It is better Descarte’s statement: “Cognito ergo sum” than Socrate’s statement: “I know nothing”. I’d rather be wrong attempting to know something, than right knowing I can’t know anything.

Jesse Akers on June 3, 2008, 3:53 PM

CAREFUL LUKE- if your new here you must pass through many levels before you are accetped as you are- a christian-

I went through the whole muyscs thing as well- he s a tough little noogie;)

the majority of people here will want to tear down your beliefs so that they can interject their own

i totally understand your questions and will be back soon to answer them…

DONT LET EM GET TO YOU

Jesse Akers on June 3, 2008, 4:02 PM

Statement of Faith
The term translated faith in the Bible is ay-moon in the Hebrew and pistis in the Greek which are verbs and not nouns. A verb is an action and a noun is a person, place or thing requiring no action. The word Faith has been morphed by traditional religions into meaning belief. The etymological root of both in synopsis means; the circumspect perusal of the evidences to come to the truth and persuaded thereby. In the case of the Word of God it would equate to trusting the Truth. Getting to the Truth requires an action, belief does not. If a thing is not the Truth, it’s a lie. The Truth is referred to as Light by the Word of God. God has commanded Lights in the Firmament to give Light unto the Earth and to separate darkness (lies) from Light (Truth), therefore lies from Truth.

our original concepts of faith and belief are more logical that you might realize

pokoij- no need to call your belief illogical as long as you are searching it

Jesse Akers on June 3, 2008, 4:02 PM

Statement of Faith
The term translated faith in the Bible is ay-moon in the Hebrew and pistis in the Greek which are verbs and not nouns. A verb is an action and a noun is a person, place or thing requiring no action. The word Faith has been morphed by traditional religions into meaning belief. The etymological root of both in synopsis means; the circumspect perusal of the evidences to come to the truth and persuaded thereby. In the case of the Word of God it would equate to trusting the Truth. Getting to the Truth requires an action, belief does not. If a thing is not the Truth, it’s a lie. The Truth is referred to as Light by the Word of God. God has commanded Lights in the Firmament to give Light unto the Earth and to separate darkness (lies) from Light (Truth), therefore lies from Truth.

our original concepts of faith and belief are more logical that you might realize

pokoij- no need to call your belief illogical as long as you are searching it

Jesse Akers on June 3, 2008, 4:02 PM

Statement of Faith
The term translated faith in the Bible is ay-moon in the Hebrew and pistis in the Greek which are verbs and not nouns. A verb is an action and a noun is a person, place or thing requiring no action. The word Faith has been morphed by traditional religions into meaning belief. The etymological root of both in synopsis means; the circumspect perusal of the evidences to come to the truth and persuaded thereby. In the case of the Word of God it would equate to trusting the Truth. Getting to the Truth requires an action, belief does not. If a thing is not the Truth, it’s a lie. The Truth is referred to as Light by the Word of God. God has commanded Lights in the Firmament to give Light unto the Earth and to separate darkness (lies) from Light (Truth), therefore lies from Truth. Therefore the Statement of Faith for the Firmament is Light/Truth.

Jesse Akers on June 3, 2008, 4:02 PM

from – http://www.thefirmament.org/faqs.html

eileen fleming on June 3, 2008, 4:03 PM

Dearest Luke,

Not only have i thought about your questions, I offer you what i was led to:

Two thousand years ago, there were many different understandings of Jesus among Christians.

Thanks to the treasures of Nag

sciencesaves on June 3, 2008, 4:22 PM

luke, Yes, find answers, but don’t create them!

Looks like the delusion is running rampant around here these days.

Are you people trying to preach, or have a meaningful discussion among intelligent thinkers?

sciencesaves on June 3, 2008, 4:26 PM

jesse, We’re not here to “tear down your beliefs”, merely to expose them for what they are.

You decide whether you want to continue with the delusion or not.

HerbieP on June 3, 2008, 4:38 PM

Eileen and all that matters because…?

Luke Allen on June 3, 2008, 4:57 PM

Jesseekers and Eileen Flemming THANK YOU for your posts. Sciencesaves we create answers all the time. We just create better ones later, the VCR had its time before DVD I hope you don’t get mad at the VCR creators.

HerbieP! REALLY! Eileen Flemming put a well researched thoughtful post and you discredit it with just topicality? Are you realizing the post your commenting on? The topicality of the post was the reason why her comment mattered and is deeply appreciated. I thought your side liked well researched answers?

sciencesaves on June 3, 2008, 5:13 PM

luke, Thanks for the clarification. As opposed to creating new answers, science usually creates a hypothesis, then FINDS and VERIFIES the answers with PROOF, instead of guessing, or relying on hearsay.

NGR

HerbieP on June 3, 2008, 5:42 PM

Well Eileen said a lot of stuf but didn’t make a point. Just showing that you have read a lot of material doesn’t actually take the discussion any further. however if it did something for you then it wasn’t in vain.

HerbieP on June 3, 2008, 5:43 PM

Oh and Luke – I don’t have a side.

Luke Allen on June 3, 2008, 6:25 PM

Sciencesaves… ideally science works like that too often the proof is argued debated and turned into a muddy version of: this expert believes… while this expert believes….

HerbieP

I thought her point was that the Gnostic Gospels are valid? Did I miss that? Also has anyone tried to check out Ms. Flemming’s page? I can’t really access it, is it my fault? New here again sorry.

Jesse Akers on June 3, 2008, 6:52 PM

“then FINDS and VERIFIES the answers with PROOF”

…no they dont, they are just persuaded enough to call it proof as we all are…

Jesse Akers on June 3, 2008, 6:55 PM

luke- these guys dont really read the posts, for the most part, most of them just see it says something about God and automatically dismiss it…

they get angry when “believers” do the same

along with hebrews 11 that statement of faith is the best i ve ever read,

Musycks on June 3, 2008, 8:44 PM

Luke… every tradition has mysticism through it. The gnostics are one of the Xtian strands that point out the battle between dogma, from the apostolic line of thought, and kerygma, or core knowledge that an adept can attain in the more esoteric variations. The Jews had it, and the Muslims with their Sufi followers et al.. I see it all as a progression..

start with the sun.. when we were less good at seeing complex patterns, at least that one made an impact.. seemed to rise every day… warmth was good, you could feel the sun on your face as a good thing intuitively without having to know the science… so not remarkably as our thinking grew more complex and abstract the idea of light as goodness and dark as bad, informed all our belief systems.
The inner light of the mystics could have been the secret level of message JC was said to have alluded to by the gnostics? again, every faith has the idea that only special adepts can be given powerful information, that given to less informed minds would only cause confusion.. in Islam in the 10th century Al-Halladi was crucified for revering Jesus! at his death he said, ‘I am the truth’.. which was blasphemous to Muslims (remind you of anyone).. what he meant was he had stripped back his ego and attained oneness with his inner light or god, which is exactly what JC was on about.
… and if Al-Halladi declared himself god, it was in this sense of union with the idea of god.
The Xtian interpretation is just a crude version of the mystic ponderings, where JC was elevated to godhead by a Roman Emperor.. nothing unusual there.. one even made his horse a senator!

peace on ya Luke.

and Karen Armstrong.. regardless of her personal tortuous history of faith, has written a remarkable scholarly and balanced synthesis of religious history in that book at least.

Denys Artasevych on June 3, 2008, 8:53 PM

It seems this conversation is getting more an more emotional. Jesse i think all the atheists here have been really polite to you, though perhaps not always to your beliefs. But isnt that the point to question?

And to all you atheists, he does have a point dont attak or dismiss something simplly because the comment is about god.

Luke 2 people qualify as genius for me. Socrates, and David Hume. Just because alot of people folow someone does not make what they say profound. In fact those who usuall get the most folowers, are the onse with a simplle message that promises people that they can have their cake and eat it too.

"Still I end with: It is better Descarte’s statement: “Cognito ergo sum” than Socrate’s statement: “I know nothing”. I’d rather be wrong attempting to know something, than right knowing I can’t know anything."

I am the exact opposite. Whats the point of subscribing to a belief that is at least as likeley to be wrong as it is to be right. A guess nothing more. And if someone claims they know the truth, to me it is nothing more then vanity.

HerbieP on June 4, 2008, 1:56 AM

Luke tracing the history of something doesn’t make it valid. That wuld be like showing the historical origin of Newton’s ideas gave them validity. It’s the content that’s important. How particular documents are chosen to give JC validity does not matter. What matters is what is in those documents and whether it makes any sense. If all that is being argued is the provenance of the documents then that is just pure history and Eileen was quite confusing in her scholarship.

Musycks on June 4, 2008, 2:22 AM

Jesse… you assume a little too much there buddy? ’don’t read the posts’??we hang on your every word mate!
and no, it’s not a surprise to me that some posts in the faith and beliefs section will mention the ‘G’ word!.. sorry, have to scoot and work on the pentagram.. now where did I put that goat?!

sciencesaves on June 4, 2008, 9:38 AM

jesse, Think what you will, but when it comes time for some necessary medical attention, remember that without science, and the “proof” that gives us knowledge beyond blind faith, you could have been in for a nice bleeding, or the laying on of hands to cure your malady.

Science is the best thing we’ve got going right now, and it sure trumps anything that “god” has “given” us.

Let’s put things in perspective, please.

NGR

Luke Allen on June 4, 2008, 10:49 AM

Thanks guys for all your awesome posts… I hope to keep it going, great exchanges all around.

Jesseaker’s I don’t worry about the tadpole Dawkin’s subscriber’s calling my God a mythical fairy tale. But it will be funny when something more intelligent proves our ignorance. Just a belief; shed it as much as you want Atheist.

Musycks’s awesome analogy. The problem is the validity. Utilizing your argument any person or thing could be God and the examples of 6 major religions would have never came to fruition.

Skeptic44 utilizing this logic: “I am the exact opposite. Whats the point of subscribing to a belief that is at least as likeley to be wrong as it is to be right” Will keep you with the listening to only live music as those damn record players will just become obsolete someday. Seriously, all belief’s, even thoughs in science, are shown to be false or worse ways of doing things in time. Progress only comes from those souls attempting to state truth’s and watch them destroyed.

Sciencesaves, you hit the nail on the proverbial head, with this comment: “Luke tracing the history of something doesn’t make it valid. That wuld be like showing the historical origin of Newton’s ideas gave them validity. It’s the content that’s important” This is why Christians hate the argument that their word could be corrupted; the content ascribed to Jesus is the best truest reading I’ve ever had. He is my Lord from that purpose of my critical thinking and reading of His word. It is also why particularly the Gospels of: Mary, Bartholomew, Phillip and Sophia are parts of my God and why I ask other Christians why they don’t include them as Holy Books.

Musyck’s another valid point… too often Christians get caught calling out our own bias Atheist perceptions… I’m quite sure you don’t sacrifice goats right? I mean even Anton Levay denounced animal sacrifices, lol.

Sciencesaves: medical model is another example of how science only saves if it is based on the humility of what it is doing now, can be better. Nothing like bleeding out those old wounds… care to try that? Of course not, you want the newest greatest technology and when that doesn’t work if you were, heaven forbid, ever in a life threatning situation you would go even further and try all manners of healing. This is all spiritual people do. The one thing we all know all of us will do… no matter your belief’s is die. I tend to think the soul is immortal and have studied religions and their archetypes my whole life. If you think we are just dust that is fine but neither of us can prove anything, therefore, the medical model doesn’t help do much but grant me a few more years and isn’t useful in showing any proof of what happens when we die. Nothing can.

I look forward to your responses.

Jesse Akers on June 4, 2008, 4:14 PM

skeptic- no all the atheist have been polite, in fact muyscs in the beginning was very indiscrimantley rude

all your points aside- even if his beliefs are wrong how ethical is it to try to tear someone down from the interent, what if he went into a depression? killed himself? killed others?

my point is for some people losing thier faith means losing their lives if you dont do it gradually enough

i love you guys and i just try wathcing out for the guy next to me is all…

sciencesaves on June 4, 2008, 4:21 PM

luke, Hmm. Not sure how to respond to your comments. You seem to have adopted a superiority complex, and are attempting to placate those who disagree with your statements, somewhat like a pat on the head with a “that’s nice, good for you, (what a moron)” attitude.

Is this part of the game? I can guarantee that the seduction by kindness won’t get too far on this forum. Show some conviction, man!

sciencesaves on June 4, 2008, 4:23 PM

jesse, I warned luke right off the bat, his blood is not on my hands!

Lighten up, virtual midwest neighbor!

:)

Musycks on June 4, 2008, 10:35 PM

Jesse… thank you for civilising me.

I love you too… just in a narky, testy
atheistic kinda way!

rock on Jesus warrior.

Jesse Akers on June 4, 2008, 10:38 PM

“that’s nice, good for you, (what a moron)” attitude"

HAHAHAHAHAHA

reminds me of how my dad treats idiots

Luke Allen on June 4, 2008, 10:46 PM

Jesseakers no worries my friend… since the first post I made on the only “dumb” Atheist I’ve encountered on here I’ve realized that the Atheist/Agnostics on here, on balance, are incredibly intelligent and well reasoned. I actually base my philosophy on disagreement. I prefer people to disagree with me on here.

Sciencesaves… my position again is clear. I am still overwhelmed by the overall intelligence on this site. Reality is, very few people can have discussions of this depth and enjoy them, I would even venture to say most of us love this site so much because it is one of the first intelligent discourses we have found.

My superiority complex rearing its ugly head? I don’t ever know when it comes out or how or why people see it that way; so I can’t fix it. However, you would not be the first to point this out and therefore, I give credence to your point and assure you, even though it isn’t my intent it is a very real emmotion I invoke. I can’t seem to see how I could show more “conviction”. I don’t think anyone is completely right or wrong and look for the right and wrong in every statement. Not just here, in life in general… kinda my m.o. if you will…

I appreciate your comments Sciencesaves no matter how much more brutal they come…

Denys Artasevych on June 4, 2008, 11:37 PM

“Is this part of the game? I can guarantee that the seduction by kindness won’t get too far on this forum. Show some conviction, man”

Kindness aside, the best way is leave your emotion at the door. Attking other peoples view point does nothing more then strengthen their conviction and rive the conversation into oposite pols. Alot like democrats and republicans. I always see discourse and thought as an end in itself, the point isnt simplly to batter everyone with my views but invite conversation.

Conviction hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
ahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Conviction sir is the mother of all delusion.

Luke Allen on June 4, 2008, 11:43 PM

Skeptic44

utilizing this logic: “I am the exact opposite. Whats the point of subscribing to a belief that is at least as likeley to be wrong as it is to be right” Will keep you with the listening to only live music as those damn record players will just become obsolete someday. Seriously, all belief’s, even thoughs in science, are shown to be false or worse ways of doing things in time. Progress only comes from those souls attempting to state convictons and watch them destroyed.

Convictions and eventually proving them wrong is the only reality my brilliant friend.

Denys Artasevych on June 5, 2008, 12:16 AM

But if you are willing to admit that your conviction can be wrong is not much of a conviction.

I cant form a conviction without absolute justification, i just cant do it my logical mind will not alow it.

Check out my explanation of why i am agnostic in roakes “atheism vs agnosticsm” idea, that will give you a bit of insight into my thinking.

By the way i much like yourself prefer disagreement.

Luke Allen on June 5, 2008, 12:30 AM

“Conviction sir is the mother of all delusion.” This statement you made Skeptic44 is proof you have very strong convictions. I read your post on Atheist Vs. Agnostics and felt a little like Iran in the first gulf war… lol… j/k.

Also Skeptic44 this statement you made in that thread: “I think evryone who is not either extremlly ignorant or extremmly vain is really an agnostic” has very strong convictions.

Finally, “But if you are willing to admit that your conviction can be wrong is not much of a conviction.” couldn’t be further from the truth. Simply, nothing is permament and insisting it is, doesn’t prove deeper convictions but more shallow ones. The willingness to admit mistakes in your convictions, ultimately, leads to deeper and stronger convictions as evidence by your powerful convictions I just showed you have.

Do you disagree?

Denys Artasevych on June 5, 2008, 1:57 AM

Those arent convictions about an objective truth. They are subjective opinions. “I think Eric Clapton is a great guitarist” is that an objective truth or a conviction? No, it is an opinion. Eric is neithe objectivelly great nor objectivelly terible.

But i guess you can say that i am convinced that we can objectivelly prove almost nothing. I think we seteled on “i think therefore something is” as the only statment that can be proven objectivelly true.

Now you may say your convictions are subjective opinions. That is not true however, because they claim a universal truth.

Lets continue this in roakes’ agnosticism idea.

sciencesaves on June 5, 2008, 2:26 PM

luke, Thanks for the clarification. I respect your position, and I reserve the right to introduce all the reason and rationality at my disposal. Glad you’re here, and I hope we can both gain some perspective with these discussions, you seem to be a thoughtful and even-tempered person.

That goes a long way around here!

S44, Come on, show some conviction, believe in the power of the comedic value of this forum!
:)

Jesse Akers on June 5, 2008, 7:17 PM

be so skeptical as to consider that everything may be plainly seen and understood

sciencesaves on June 6, 2008, 8:56 AM

jesse, Wow, that’s quite profound!
I think you’re a great person, even though we don’t necessarily agree on viewpoint, we both survive the midwest, and I have a high opinion of people who hang out in libraries, especially the ones who get paid to!

Keep on keepin’ on, my neighbor!

Jesse Akers on June 7, 2008, 1:16 AM

faith, hope, and love

even the bible states that love is the most important of all these

atheist, agnostic, theist should all be able to conclude that the absence of love is detrimental to mankind
much love y’all

Luke Allen on June 7, 2008, 2:18 AM

Hey Skeptic44 this is the definition from Webster’s dictionary:
2 a: the act of convincing a person of error or of compelling the admission of a truth.

Now I know you don’t know any truth or whatever your Socrate’s claims but you are absolutely trying to convince someone of their errors whether they are subjective or objective.

Face the facts Skeptic44 you are one of the MOST convicted people I know.

ScienceSaves and Jesseeks thanks for the Love friends… Love that ultimate emmotion impossible to perfectly describe or understand. Yes God is Love.

Denys Artasevych on June 7, 2008, 3:38 AM

Ok fair enough i will concede. I am convinced that we can not prove anything objectivelly. I would say that its a logical fact. but we have recentlly deduced that logic may not be fully onjective either, because it much like everything else is derived from the senses.

But here is a question, im not saying that objective proof is imposible im just saying curentlly we have none. Is that a conviction? Or is it a self evident fact, no one has yet been able to prove anything from all posible angles.

Triky question. I would say it is a conviction of sorts.

I dont know about me being most convinced. Having one conviction, that is rather abstract and dificult to define as that i dont think makes me more convinced then anyone else.

Luke Allen on June 7, 2008, 3:53 AM

Glad you own that. It helps because you do fight so hard for all to see their errors in their ideas of objectivity so you shouldn’t have to worry about people proving your very strong convictions but you claim to only have one abstract idea but this post I made shows three at least you have:

“Conviction sir is the mother of all delusion.” This statement you made Skeptic44 is proof you have very strong convictions. I read your post on Atheist Vs. Agnostics and felt a little like Iran in the first gulf war… lol… j/k.

Also Skeptic44 this statement you made in that thread: “I think evryone who is not either extremlly ignorant or extremmly vain is really an agnostic” has very strong convictions.

Finally, “But if you are willing to admit that your conviction can be wrong is not much of a conviction.” couldn’t be further from the truth. Simply, nothing is permament and insisting it is, doesn’t prove deeper convictions but more shallow ones. The willingness to admit mistakes in your convictions, ultimately, leads to deeper and stronger convictions as evidence by your powerful convictions I just showed you have.

Those three statements are proof of a great man full of convictions! Thanks for the awesome dialogue

Denys Artasevych on June 7, 2008, 4:17 AM

“Conviction sir is the mother of all delusion.”

Ok this is basically the conviction of lack of proof that i admited to.

“I think evryone who is not either extremlly ignorant or extremmly vain is really an agnostic”

Thats not a conviction, it is an subjective opinion.

“But if you are willing to admit that your conviction can be wrong is not much of a conviction.”

That is a fact. It simplly seems we are using slightlly diferent definitions of conviction. If you take coinviction to mean. “I know for certain that this is true” then admitance of posible falibility in that conviction disqualifies it.

Denys Artasevych on June 7, 2008, 4:28 AM

Bheres a question you missed though. Logically speaking, if no one can provide absolute objective proof of anything. Then does the statement “nothing can curentlly be proven objectivelly” become a fact? And if it is a logical fact, is conviction nessisary?

Luke Allen on June 7, 2008, 9:54 AM

Ok Skeptic44 I thought we agreed that convictions could be subjective opinions. For me, and maybe we are just arguing the different definitions of the word, but for me, subjective opinions have people more convinced and hence show signs of strong convictions.

What you are doing by eliminating ALL objectivity is the age old argument of reduction ad absurdum. No one is denying that eternal implications mean that eventually all truth comes to pass. I had a conversation with a genius once where he stated that when you think of eternity it literally mathematically means that everything would become true in time due to the fact eternity never ends and any degree of certainty even .0000000000000000000000001 has the advantage that over time that comes true.

However, if there was no objectivity we would be still further behind than the Amish. (they use farming techniques that someone had to objectively prove true) Reduction ad absurdum arguments need to be abolished by standards. (true the standards become wrong over time but then your falling back on the reduction ad absurdum)

The reason people are still like you is the necessity of importance or more particularly lack thereof of other’s grandiose ideas of importance. Truly. the most evil, vile acts in history have been done under the best of intentions, by people that where sure of their objectivite truths. Whatever it is; one cannot force another one to accept it or it isn’t anything but the “devil in disguise”

So to conclude. As long as you know you are a person with some convictions you can no longer just point out that “convictions are delusions.” Because that argument doesn’t move the idea forward; it only moves reduction ad absurdum further.

The point Roakes and I are trying to make is that the depth that occurs by making bold statements is better than not making statements. Seriously, have you took into consideration what the world would be like if we didn’t have ANY objectivity. People wouldn’t invent or work hard for things they don’t have convictions for and unfortunately, when you take the good of the automobile you have to understand that it is the #1 killer of people between 18-34 in the US. One’s good must be taken with one’s bad and objectively try to find ways to eliminate the bad aspect of all good. Meaning, solutions for the tragedy of a life taken too soon by automobile accidents.

I look forward to your response my friend.

pokój! on June 7, 2008, 5:38 PM

Luke it is sad to me, that you are not comfortable enough with your church to bring up this type of question, but I understand completely… I very rarely find a church that I am fully comfortable with…

In response to the questions, I have to say I have very limited knowledge so far of the gnostic gospels, and other texts that were left out of scripture. I do not doubt there is much wisdom to be found… I also want to become as familiar with the Scripture that is readily available as the Bible as I can before delving into the deeper spirituality that is found in the Gnostic gospels. I also am not entirely sure if all these texts were meant to be discussed… Jesus instructed His disciples to not speak as plainly and openly about the mysteries of God as He did… I have thought this can be attributed to the idea that being immersed in the presence of Jesus itself allowed for more profound understanding of His teachings than we can know reading them translated and handed down and manhandled for thousands of years… I believe this is along the same lines as Lau Tzu not wanting to write down his teachings, though we can assume he was eventually persuaded to as we now have the Tao Te Ching readily available.

I often wonder if God allowed these specific books to be published as they are to give cause for Christians to further deepen their faith with doubt and research into spiritual truths that are found outside of the Bible with the guidance and Discernment of the Holy Spirit.

Thats a start i guess… sorry it took so long I just found this topic…

jesse: what were you referring to with the illogical statement? I haven’t posted in this topic yet, was it from another one?

Denys Artasevych on June 7, 2008, 7:23 PM

“Ok Skeptic44 I thought we agreed that convictions could be subjective opinions”

When did i admit this? I define convivtion only as a profession of an absolute objective truth. Or an absolute objective falsehood. I dont consider the staement “i like” or “my opinion of ….. is ….” a conviction. Because another persons opinion may be oposite yet hold equal validity.

“when you think of eternity it literally mathematically means that everything would become true in time due to the fact eternity never ends and any degree of certainty even .0000000000000000000000001 has the advantage that over time that comes true.”

That is interesting, eternity is a tricky subject. First again degree of certainty is not objective, its subject ot individual. SO degree of certainty is not a degree of probability. Which is exactlly why i said i cant assign numbers to my agnostic stance. Because they have no objective meaning, and even subjectivelly such things are incalculabele.

Another problem with that statment is, that it refers to mathematical frequenistic probability. And yes any event will happen just insert infinity. When we are talking about such suposedlly objective concepts as the existance of god, or a soul, we can not assign to them a frequanistic probability, number. Much leas an objective probability numbere, making that statement rather void.

“However, if there was no objectivity we would be still further behind than the Amish”

I am missing what you are trying to say here. First just to make my point clear, im not saying there is no objective truth (in facct as i said we astablished one “i think therefore something is”) im onlly arguing that we do not know what is objectivelly true and what is not. Again the “my red your red argument” that i have stated many times.

I never said “convictions are delusions” i said “conviction is the mother of delusion” which means conviction may lead to delusion.

Again you may say that my stanse, that nothing can be proven objectivelly form all angles, is a conviction, which i would say it is. But untill someone can produce absolute objective proof, what other stanse can i have?

And again if something can not be absolutley proven objectivelly why make it your conviction? You can make it your assumption, “coffe cup” again, haha. But why say its absolutley true if you do not know. We can advance while taking our knowledge to be an assumption, rather then unyelding truth.

Jesse Akers on June 7, 2008, 11:04 PM

pokoj-what did i say about an illogical statemnet??

Luke Allen on June 7, 2008, 11:47 PM

Hey Pokoj!!!

No worries about when you join just happy you are here. Right away: According to the book Tao written By Osho. The reason that Te Ching was written was because Lao Tzu wanted to die, as an old man should (according to him) up in the mountains where he wouldn’t bother others with his suffering in old age. However, his guard would not let him pass and threatened to keep him there until he finally relented and wrote the book.

My Church: Calvary Chapel Spring Valley is great! They are wonderfully nice and caring people but they absolutely subscribe to the infallibility of the Holy Bible and I’ve never been that convinced. I don’t doubt the authenticity of Jesus’s message but I can read the difference even just in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and I don’t subscribe that to what non-believers claim is inconsistency but rather imperfect vessels trying to interpret a perfect being. Being a perfect being I think you are absolutely right about: “I often wonder if God allowed these specific books to be published as they are to give cause for Christians to further deepen their faith with doubt and research into spiritual truths that are found outside of the Bible with the guidance and Discernment of the Holy Spirit” This is done by the hand of the Lord for sure. Still we Christians, who believe this, are in the minority and I wouldn’t want to make another Christian find something that leads them from their faith.

Wonderful post Pokoj I look further to more dialogue. Advice on the Bible: Get lost in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John first.

Luke Allen on June 7, 2008, 11:50 PM

Skeptic44
Very deep and interesting post! It will take my slow mind a day or two to respond appropriately… sorry.

Jesseakers:
First HA! I always thought your name was Jes (person) Seakers (group) I just realized in a different post when Skeptic44 called you Jesse that it could be Jesse Akers, did you mean for that?
Second, Check your Ecclesiates blog.

pokój! on June 8, 2008, 12:00 AM

jesse:
6/03:pokoij-no need to call your belief illogical as long as you are searching it

Musycks on June 8, 2008, 6:54 PM

well when two fine Xtian lads like pokoj and Luke are saying that the text is hard to believe as written, by a god who divinely guided it? what’s left for me?!
pokoj has said before the bible is ‘how god wants it’.. again for an omnipotent being it should have been no great trick? though I wonder why he didn’t have man invent some more durable mediums on which to write than papyrus et al? guess he didn’t want to wait for the printing press. You’re right.. he hasn’t made it easy for any of us!

Luke Allen on June 8, 2008, 9:26 PM

Hey Musycks,

I think this statement is a bit disingenious: “well when two fine Xtian lads like pokoj and Luke are saying that the text is hard to believe as written, by a god who divinely guided it? what’s left for me?!” I think you know that the omnipotence of God is limited by our rights to free-will. If not then that is yours and Stenger’s answer as well I guess.

In his book he laments that God doesn’t exist because new information is never obtained in near death expiriences. This is a flawed argument due to a lack of understanding of a Christian’s premises.

Our premise is we serve a God, willingly. If there wasn’t a doubt in the word and it was written perfectly we wouldn’t be having this debate. There would be no religion and we would be mindless drones. Choice and the allowance of free will is what causes the misinterpretation of the scriptures and the debate in the church. Don’t make the mistake of debate meaning lack of authenticity. The best scientific knowledge is that that comes under the heaviest debate. It is this debate aspect to the word that gives us free-will.

Jesus said in Luke 12:51 “Suppose ye that I came to bring peace? I tell thee nay but rather division.” Why? For the believer the answer is easy. The Lord came perfectly. No needs unmet; no question unanswered. However, the generation he came in there was still so much evil and ignorance (to me those words are complete similies but that is another debate topic) that every generation gets better and understands his word better and thus divides every time.

This is why the texts are debatable and why can’t Atheist get better or deep arguments than those that we can easily destroy. The very idea of an omnipotent God is one in which the PROOF you seek wouldn’t be there lest your argument would be not that he isn’t God but rather what a rude entity that took my free-will this God is. It’s a no win circular argument and I wonder why those are accepted by the science believers?

Musycks on June 11, 2008, 2:47 AM

Luke.. to clarify… are you saying your god is not omnipotent and is limited by the fact he gave us free will? ie.. he has no control over what we choose.. he just sets the choices in front of it and off we go?
again this puts you in direct competition with your own Xtian team-mates, never mind us evil athiests! ;)
and I’m surprised you think this modern mystical version of Jesus hasn’t been on offer before.. his re-invention has mostly matched the spirit of the times, so usually a time of peace and plenty will throw up a ‘loving’ god, and when things go bleak, you get the avenging Old T guy making a comeback. And to add interest there are the nutters who say you need to suffer no matter what the times bring forth.
With roughly 30 people claiming to be the returned Jesus in the last 1900 years.. and about 22 known messiah claimants for the ones who thought JC was not that special, it might be a while before your side line up all the ducks my friend.

Good luck in the hunting.

ps.. science doesn’t require belief, just demonstrable theories (ie. facts).. no need to believe in a fact, it exists outside of subjective opinion… unlike religion.

Luke Allen on June 11, 2008, 10:03 AM

Hey Musycks,

As always a brilliant post. I don’t need to limit an omnipotent God with free-will. My Omnipotent God chose to give us free-will and this means not being the most factual entity. God has, and always will be misquoted, due to our ability of free-will.

This statement is almost laughable if you guys didn’t believe it so much: “science doesn’t require belief, just demonstrable theories (ie. facts).. no need to believe in a fact, it exists outside of subjective opinion… unlike religion” Pick any demonstrable theory and I will show you a demonstrable theory that is in conflict with whichever one you pick. Meaning: Is the Atkins diet right or Pritkin? Because they are demonstrable theories that are exactly opposite: one is eat little carbs and focus on proteins and fats; the other is eat lots of carbs limit proteins and fats. How about the hard medical sciences: Would you prefer me to go the Medical Doctor or MD route that uses statistics and probabilty or the Osteopath Physician or DO route that says it is all the state of your body? Not hard enough: Hmm lets try Economics where the testable theories of society always yields different results, would supply-side economics work or does it drain resources to those in need; Again I can find science on both sides here and could get a PhD to back up any opposite testable theory you may claim. Maybe, the economy is still too subjective for you; how about money? Do you need to hold and watch grow or sell high and buy low. It is a common and simple math problem that has “testable theories” on both sides of the debate. Finally maybe money is still too subjective for you; how about Mathematics, o wait should we go with Newton’s law of gravity or Einstein’s theory of relativity because these testable theories both are provable but their mathematics are incompatible (this is Physics position as Dr. Greene’s pointed out in the Elegant Universe) Seeing as mathematics, which is the most objective of sciences, has testable theories that still require debate and assumption how could you ever make this statement: “science doesn’t require belief, just demonstrable theories (ie. facts).. no need to believe in a fact, it exists outside of subjective opinion… unlike religion” Musycks do you believe in Newton’s Math or Einstein’s or since they are both provable do you believe in a new Mathematics that combines them both with 11 dimensions? Can you explain all the different dimensions for me Musycks? This is your hard science?

I look forward to your response.

Musycks on June 11, 2008, 11:29 PM

Luke,
No matter where science comes down on any of those issues, you seem to think it a static discipline where as it is obviously fluid? The great thing about science is it will not atrophy in the arrogant assumption it has solved the puzzle… if a better or more provable option can be peer reviewed, it will be the position of choice until a better one is found. Religion can make no such claim. You should really compare apples with apples I think.

Apart from your pantheistic leanings, you are the one proposing an invisible entity who knows all our inner thoughts and who will reward/punish us on how well we conform to some ‘moral’ code after we die?
But you can provide no evidence for this position? Now I am expected to take your version of inclusivist JC as valid, where all nice people go to heaven, even nice atheists, but lots of other Xtians tell me
I’m going straight to hell?! Why do I believe you instead of them?

keep swingin’ pal….

Musycks on June 12, 2008, 9:15 AM

Thanks RO.. well put.

Of course the Jesus industry has now problem in milking those cash cows? to quote the marauding bandit character played by Eli Wallach in ‘Magnificent Seven’, when he’s about to plunder the poor villagers
‘If the Lord had not wanted them to be shorn, he would not have made them sheep’.

gfds fds on June 12, 2008, 8:43 PM

Late to the party, good thoughts all.

To address your original question:

The council did not pick the canon randomly, much debate went into the selection of texts. As I understand, the main controversies centered around the inclusion of books that ultimately were canonized (Hebrews) with much less dissension about the books that were ultimately left out. Theology was an important consideration to the group, and there were texts that were left out because they felt that they MUST be frauds because they saw God in a different way, but this seems to have been primarily aimed at the gnostic texts. There were other practical considerations: of course no writing was considered for canon that the council did not have access to, but what about those they only had a few copies of? These too were generally left out, though some of them fit well with the overall doctrines of the church. At its core, the council just gathered and said, “What does your church consider to be holy?” If they all agreed on a particular text (the Gospel of Matthew for instance was used almost universally) they probably did not even debate it.

Aside: Someone earlier in the conversation stated an early date for the writing of the Gospel of Thomas. I would contend a much later date of somewhere around 120. This is debatable and debated and there are many experts who argue on either side. Regardless of date, it would not have been accepted any more than Marcion’s Gospel of Luke, since the theology behind it had already been refuted.

The bigger question that you ask, about the intentional suppression of women is addressed in feminist theological texts quite often. The more reasonable conclusions that I read from such texts note that both the writers and those at the council were men who saw the world from a particular perspective. There is no attempt to demonize them or say that their omission of texts more sympathetic to women was done with ill intent, only that they were, as humans, limited.

In a similar way, I have read critiques of earlier portions of the Hebrew Bible that point out that the text is not strictly monotheistic. This does not mean we throw out the earlier ideas, just that we recognize them as being written from the point of view of a human who had human limitations.

From this (and a great deal of other contemporary ideas) I think that we, as modern Christians say that in this collection of thoughts about God, we have over the centuries discovered truth about God. Our biggest claim is that the text points us toward God, not that it in every detail it perfectly describes God.

Luke Allen on June 12, 2008, 10:45 PM

Hey Musyck’s,

“but lots of other Xtians tell me
I’m going straight to hell?! Why do I believe you instead of them?”
First, I am sorry ANYONE ever told you, you were going to hell. This is not Christ’s teaching’s at all. He specifically said that “where two are in the field on the day of judgement one will be taken while the other remains and on that day there will be many surprises.” Also that whole thing about “judge not for if you do then you will be judged by the eyes of the father. (where none can past his judgement)” Specifically in Hebrew’s means the type of judgement for eternal life or not. Judge kinda like love has more than one word in Hebrew; so it has kinda watered down by the english language. Christians can be judges for society like any other member of society, but we CAN NOT claim to know who is going to heavan or hell. So again, I am sorry if anyone told you that. Why is it misunderstood… again I am going to tell you that we are flawed human beings and, hell, I could be wrong as well, I promise you that. Therefore, I can’t conclude theologically that anything I write or text is meaningful in you in the least. This is why I don’t try to convert and am embarrassed when I see other Christians trying.

What my last message to you was trying to point out was the message that you wrote me when you wrote: “The great thing about science is it will not atrophy in the arrogant assumption it has solved the puzzle.” Once I know you think this, I would never debate the validity of science with you. My point of contention isn’t that science is right or wrong; my point of contention is that it is the only right. When I read this statement from you: “science doesn’t require belief, just demonstrable theories (ie. facts).. no need to believe in a fact, it exists outside of subjective opinion… unlike religion” I incorrectly thought since it was fact for you; you were sure and therefore, didn’t need new facts. Since I know it is fluid for you, as it is me, we are in complete agreement here in this discussion Musyck’s.

I’ve always stated in writing or talking I don’t need anything to communicate with someone other than the idea that there is still something out there. I don’t need you to believe in my God or Aliens or extra-dimensions nothing at all. I just need you to know there is still so much to learn. Some on both sides of the God coin claim to already know. I don’t care if your Billy Graham or Dawkin’s neither could I have a conversation with. By already knowing one can’t learn more and that is the only point I care to enforce.

I WILL NOT!!! And I repeat! WILL NOT! ever try to convince you or anyone that Christ is the only way into heavan. What I am trying to do is show you that I am logical and believe science saves but still hold on to what you think is a “fairy tale” and I know, for me, to be my eternal truth.

Thanks for the wonderful post and communication Musyck’s.

Luke Allen on June 12, 2008, 10:53 PM

Hey Roakes,

“I get the impression that you hold that science can only be credible if it comes up with definitive answers on any question”

Not at all my friend. Science is credible and believable to me as long as it is demonstratable. I don’t respect those who only cling to one ideological perspective. Meaning for your terms, both supply side and keynesianism (I didn’t even know that term till you wrote it) would be correct in different formats and different situations. Any dogmatic rigidity I fight; whether it is in religion or science. That is all.

Thanks for the informational post and sorry I gave the wrong impression.

As a quick aside, tithing 10% saving at least 20% and never taking ANY loans for longer than 7years (biblical financial principles) Does have my personal income pretty good for my age of 28. In about two more years my divedend yields SHOULD (Still praying LOL) be more than my yearly income. This biblical training was all I had in finance before 20 so it helped me even if it isn’t: “being taken very seriously by Wall Street”

Luke Allen on June 12, 2008, 11:24 PM

Hey Brother Tiak,

Since you wrote and understand this: “The more reasonable conclusions that I read from such texts note that both the writers and those at the council were men who saw the world from a particular perspective” Wouldn’t it be reasonable to either a. add books to our Holy Bible. b. Acknowledge the Holy Bible is NOT the INFALLIBLE word of God. or c. Claim its divine right but know that our only INFALLIBLE word of God is our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ? Which one would you prefer as a Christian or do you want to stay with the status quo: Our Holy Bible is the infallible word of God.

I look forward to your response.

gfds fds on June 13, 2008, 1:21 AM

I think that rumors of infallibility have been greatly exaggerated. Actually, I am not sure that we always know what in the world we mean when we say such things.

In answer to your question, I wouldn’t choose a. if for no other reason than there is no individual or group that I trust not to mess things up worse including myself. I would definitely go with c. Jesus, the logos is literally the word of God and I do believe him to be infallible (being God does that for a being).

Other than down here in the evangelical South (I’m half-evangelical myself, on my Father’s side) I didn’t know many Christian groups really push the issue to the extreme. The problem gets to be that we keep having to redefine infallibility to include the latest way that our interpretation proved to be incorrect. I do believe that the Bible is a reliable witness, of God’s self-revelation in Jesus, but it is not the revelation itself and infallibility is just too hard a word to define.

After writing this, I must say that I don’t think that most Christians give much thought to what we mean by ‘Word’ either. Historically, we could mean three very different things. Jesus is the word, word being our best translation of logos. The Bible is the word, being the witness of God’s revelation which is recognized by the Church (I’m trying to choose my words carefully here not to say more or less than I mean). And, the proclamation of the gospel (in our tradition, the sermon) is also the word (Watch out for any minister who has this sort of understanding of Word of God who is not scared to death by it: sooner or later he’ll ask you to drink the cool-aid.) So we call three different things Word of God, but we mean the words in very different ways, and we by no means ascribe to all of these the same measure of accuracy or authority.

Musycks on June 13, 2008, 2:51 AM

Luke and Tiak, both good and smart men.. thanks for the dialogue… but the core of my problem with believers is.. how can you at one point claim that god, irrespective of the Jesus-centric view, is an unknowable, ineffable, unattainable reality for man, and then start to try to convince someone that somehow this thing is key to ‘his’ nature, or that thing is? it’s a paradox and most scholars recognise this and retreat into mysticism to escape it, where logic has no place. You both seem to want logic and reason to have a seat at the table still? I have no problem with the mystic variation and I reserve the 1% agnostic part of my make up for that ;)
I doubt any mystic religioso will be flying planes into building exhalting their deity of choice, salivating over the waiting virgin buffet?!
peace guys.

gfds fds on June 13, 2008, 7:25 AM

with apologies musycks, but when have I said that God is unknowable?

I believe what you are referring to is the classic problem of how God could be both transcendent and imminent. And if by “retreat into mysticism” you mean “throw up their hands and use the old Catholic cop-out of calling it a a mystery” you would probably be just as close to the truth.

I’ve got a lot of mystic tendencies, and no good answer for the paradox, but I don’t think that it is impossible to know God, just impossible to know all of God.

Keegan Burkholder on December 15, 2008, 2:48 PM

alright, as a Non-Bible Christian, I have always been intrigued by the churches defense of Christ saying Heaven and Earth will fade away but my words will remain forever as a reason to have the bible. No where in recorded history does Jesus look to his apostles and say “Yo, you better write this @#$% down, cuz this is it dogg.”

Isn’t it just as likely that the point is the TRUTH is the TRUTH, and even if there is no heaven and earth it will still be the truth.
AND THIS IS SPECIFICALLY FOR YOU LUKE. "If we are cochroaches in our understanding that would also mean in our understanding of the truth of Jesus so it doesn’t matter how many times you try to explain how to work a TV to a cochroach he will never be able to turn the thing on.

Why doesn’t anyone ever point out that you won’t be going to heaven for eternity because Jesus said very clearly “Heaven and Earth WILL PASS.”

I also have read the other books that Luke is referring to and have found for me it helps to make more sense out of the rest of the bible, and does not take away from it. As i have said to Luke and a couple of other Christians I know, stand up for your God not your Christianity. Fall into spiritual seeking not book reading.