? So from now on, your posts to this thread will consist of chocolate-chip cookie recipes and discourses on 19th century French poets? 
(We did a triple-bagger simulpost on that last one!)
Libertarian and jmullaney remember: A philosophy that is both emotionally and intellectually satisfying is not necessarily true.
Right back at ya.
Well, since Lib and his stripe of Christian and Atheists alike don’t “know” anything of the sort (IMHO, you can’t “know” something that isn’t true), then they would call it satisfying.
YMMV, as usual.
Esprix
Gaudere:
Yes! You’ve got it! Given that God exists, what else would be real?
Remember, the only part of us that is real is the flame. The rest is dead.
Yes! Without Goodness (the oxygen), how can there be a flame?
Given your faith in the atoms, what would you say exists outside the universe? What do you think a spiritual epistemology would predict about what exists outside of God?
You betcha. We will also ignore God’s molecular structure.
Conservation of energy applies to waves. God is not waves. God is Spirit.
But you can’t know anything about Hitler, other than what severely prejudiced sources have told you. Unless you have both complete knowledge of his entire moral play (his life in the atoms) and perfect moral judgement, any of your musings about Hitler are at worst a self-condemnation, and at best a waste of time.
If you want hypotheticals, then keep them abstract, lest your judgement be prejudiced by such fallacies as Appeal to Emotion. Take, for example, “an evil person with a little bit of good.” Unloading this, we know that the only “part” of the person that is alive is the good “part”. In the Soddom and Gemorrha allegory, we know that the God symbol was willing to spare the whole place if only one good person could be found.
Regarding “a good [person] who does not worship ‘correctly’”, we know that Jesus said to worship God in Spirit and in Truth. Since Goodness is the source of Truth, it is not possible that a good person can worship incorrectly. Regarding a “sorta-good-sorta-bad person”, we know that the disciples themselves, Paul, and all the rest of us are sorta-good-sorta-bad people. Regarding “an evil person who repents, a mostly good person who never repents”, we know the question Jesus asked the religion politician: “Who did what his father asked, the son who said he would not go work in the field but did anyway, or the son who said he would go work in the field but did not?”
I give you Jesus crashing the temple marketplace.
Indifference toward what, a pair of shoes to match your dress or the torture of a young woman by a serial murderer? These are things you discover about yourself as you interact with the atoms.
Which is better, masturbation or sex with the person you hold most dear?
Which is greater, a single entity who loves perfectly, or many? Think of the famous loaves and fishes.
In the end, you will have more Love. When the tiny flames are no longer being squelched by the evil fire extinguishers, what is to stop them from blazing into full glory?
What did Jesus mean by this? “The first shall be last, and the last first.”
**Libertarian wrote:
In the manner you express, you are certainly correct. There are many different gods that go by many different names. And that does not concern me. I begrudge no one who wants to worship the god of his choice.**
This is great, because I feel the same way. Oh Joy! Oh Rapture! Oh Big Pink Fuzzies, I did IT!!
I can speak only about the God I worship, Who is Living Love. And all that I’m saying about Him is that sometimes people might call Him by this or that phonemic combination. What bothers me (enormously) is any invocation of His name that is blasphemous. Some, for example, will call out the name of Jesus to condemn someone, as though Jesus were their private voodoo doll. I remember when the woman screamed out at Madalyn Murray O’Hair, "You’ll know the love ‘o Jesus when you’re burnin’ in Hell!"
I’ve made my peace the the Judeo/Christian/Islamic God a while back. I’ve called upon His name, especially when asking for help for some beloved Christian friends.
I certainly agree with you about invoking His name for such spiteful, hurtful things like you cite above. shudder Aren’t those people going to be in for a shock after they die. snicker
**Gaudere wrote:
Freyr: I think you two may have to agree to disagree. Your initial axioms are too far apart; Lib’s God is pure love and all love is all the same love, your many Gods are not so. Lib accepts as axiomatic that all “Gods” that love are one and the same, while you take various God’s followers (or the Gods themselves) at their word when they say they are different. But FWIW, Lib’s rather nontradtional theology does not appear to result in you going to hell becuase you do not have the tradtional Christian Jesus as your Lord and Savior. I admit the “Buddha is my savior” comment threw me for a bit, too.**
You’re probably right about our respective initial axioms, but we have reached an agreement, respecting each other’s opinion, which is fine with me.
My participation in this thread and the SDMB in general is to remind people that just because the Judeo/Christian viewpoint has been dominant in Western thought for the past several hundred years doesn’t mean it’s the ONLY viewpoint. I’ve tried, in my own quiet way to remind people that Jews & Christians aren’t the only “religious” people on the planet. There are other choices when practicing a faith.
Fryer:
They’re already dead.
Hi,
The OP really caught my attention but i was kinda dissappointed with the discussion going on. Ok heres a different angle and the explanation of everything…
There is no Christianity
Yes you heard it…I mean not in the atheistic sense. There is no true form of christianity as it was. The christianity we follow now should be called Paulanity 'cos it was St.Paul who really made the religion known as christianity today. Basically the main concepts i.e original sin and son of god theory i.e trinity were never presented by Jesus himself. It was St. Paul who added them to the religion of christianity (or maybe someone before him, but it was he who really spread the ideas).
Ok where does that put us…in fact it puts us out of our misery…as The Quran (islamic holy book) explains it…Jesus is not the son of god…but one of a series of around 124,000 prophets who were chosen amongst the people to teach them the true path. These people were mortal beings and hence they died etc. This really would explain the whole confusion over this matter. Any contradictions are welcome since i’m not really 100% on that paulanity thingy.
JESUS IS NOT GOD or the SON OF GOD???
Well yeah. 'cos the whole concept of Trinity is wierd from the start. How come all other prophets such as Noah,Moses and Abraham are just prophets but Jesus is God/The son of God…is it only because christians believe in him???
When Jesus died he said “ELI ELI LAMA” which is probably arameic (or most probably latin since it probably came from the bible) translated as “Oh God! Why hast thou forsaken me”. Why the hell would he say this if he was God himself???
How could he be the son of God and God??? so basically he’s his own son?
How could Jesus be the son of God. So mary was a Virgin and God kinda screwed her celestially or sumfin so she became pregnant yet remained a virgin, gave birth to Jesus and so on…well Its just not right. So lets go to Islam again and it does not endorse the opinion of Jesus being the son of God…yet it has the teaching of mary’s virginity.
ORIGINAL SIN???
well the whole theory is absurd. Why would Man be born with sin. Religions differ on this fact. Christianity says that man is born with sin…which means that sin is transmitted so then why isn’t sin commited by a father transmitted to a son.
Islam has a different opinion of the whole concept. It does not endorse original sin. In fact Islam says that a child is born completely sinless and the only sin is that which he earns during his lifetime. If a child dies he will not go to hell just because he hasn’t been baptised and cleansed of original sin. A child no matter what religion his parents are falls into will of course go to heaven since he is clean and pure and sinless.
Besides why would God want to pay for mans sins. I know its been reasoned and stuff…but its just illogical. God doesn’t really need to repay anyones sins since he’s the one in control and hence he can just forgive the sin. having to account for sins would not make him almighty.
Its just a theory that was presented a long time after christ and we were stupid enuff to accept it.
Jesus could not have repaid for sins anyway. He was persecuted for his preaching and pissing off the romans. Other prophets have also been persecuted…its nothing new.
Please try and get the Quranic Passages that deal with this issue. That explanation is really much more logical than any I could give.
Thanks, Prof. That was more logical than anything Libertarian or jmullaney have written here.
Lib, when you say the people who taunted O’Hair are already dead, you mean spiritually?
There is only one kind of death: Biological. All else is fiction. When the brain is dead, the person is dead, never to return. His personality has been erased like a movie from a videotape. And once erased, it cannot be re-created. (This goes for you, too, Freyr: No one is gonna be shocked AFTER they are dead. Dead people are incapable of feeling ANYTHING. They’re dead.)
I’m going to be blunt with you, Lib: It’s difficult to take seriously anyone who says that material things are not real but spiritual things are.
I also must say that you are both long-winded and cryptic; you write much and say little.
Which means WHAT, exactly?
The Free Spirits might disagree with you there…
I don’t recall Jesus complaining when John the Baptist called him “the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.” Jesus presents the basic idea of the trinity during the Sermon at the Last Supper. I don’t recall Paul mentioning the trinity, but I suppose he might have as well.
Do Muslims believe in Jesus’s ressurection? Sure, there have been, are, and will be those with the gift of prophesy.
If Jesus came back from the dead, that certaintly makes his situation unique. God also promised David one of his descendants would sit at His right hand. Jesus seems a likely candidate, and also confessed to being the Son of God when called to the mat about it.
This is the first line from the song Psalm 22. It ends with “it is finished” words reported to be Jesus’s last (the account you refer to gives the first line as one of the last few things he said before the piercing of his side, which may have limited he ennunciation of the rest.) Why was Jesus singing holy songs while being cruxified? I don’t know, but I don’t think it means what you think it means.
You can’t have a father without children. You can’t have children without a parent.
Yeah… I’ve never cared much for Lukes story. In Mark’s version Jesus is a decendant of David and isn’t the Son of God until his baptism. But, who knows?
Man isn’t so much born with sin as he is born into a sinful world and hence is more likely to sin.
For example, take this thread. In it some are maintaining VarlosZ, because he was born in America has an obligation, if called upon, to go kill people or be thrown into prison if he refuses. I pointed out that everyone is born in a nation somewhere, and every nation, they said, has the right to imposed a draft. So I aked them if they thought everyone, by nature of them having been born, has to have this problem. Basically the answer was yes. Why should poor Varlos, merely as a result of his existence, have to potentially choose between prison or murder? Original Sin. Would he perhaps be more inclined to choose killing others over prison (some countries have the death penalty for this)? Yes. This too is Original Sin.
That is just one example. Obviously, there isn’t a major war or draft here today, but there are many similar questions for which the answer is “Original Sin.” So to claim “Original Sin” doesn’t exist you have to maintain the questions for which it is the answer doen’t exist. That is much more adsurd, IMHO.
No, it doesn’t. But it is no surprise that some can’t grasp the spiritual understanding of this.
Well, Islam also believes it is OK to kill your enemies. So for the example I gave, they do not think the question is valid.
In Catholicism, a persistence in mortal sin is required for damnation – although they have their rites and do feel they are important. It is very hard to be sinless because of Original Sin.
Certaintly some one who refused to sin is much less likely to die because of what Jesus did. That is a form of payment in advance.
He’s not really in control of the world though. Man also has free will.
I think people who do not understand justice and holiness and the lack of it in the world wouldn’t understand most explanations.
Right, because of Original Sin. The problem isn’t solved – Jesus founded a kingdom which hasn’t taken over yet. But since a Christian need not fear death or prison, though he may be killed or locked up, eventually it will be.
hey Islam does believe that its ok to kill your enemies…and christianity says love your enemies…so what does that make us all…Islam followers…or followers of christianity…have we all loved our enemies or killed them…if the US followed christianity as it was presented imagine where they’d be now for loving the Germans in world war2 and the russians in the cold war…just imagine what we’d be doing then. Where would the world be…Islam has a practical point of view no matter what fantasies may say…practicality is what man always follows.
As St. James said – he who fails in one of Christ’s teachings fails in them all. So I postulate that on December 6th, 1942 that everyone in the entire nation did the whole sackcloth and ashes repentance thing and extrapolate from there. You’d still have a hundred million people in solidarity with a hundred million voices. Every martyrdom would make those voices stronger, and the enemy’s resolve weaker. Historically, this has often been the case.
The soldier who pierced Jesus’s side with the spear, for example, repented and became a monk[sup]*[/sup]. Not your typical war of attrition, but a war of sorts anyway. Is love stronger than hate?
As George Shaw said: “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”
[sub]* standard disclaimer: this is according to Catholic On-line, though I appreciate that Christianity didn’t have monks back then according to certain strongly held techical definitions of what constitues a monk popular on this board. It’s a long story…[/sub]
Gee, can’t a guy make a non-error and express embarrassment over not screwing up without getting mildly reassured all over the place? (Thanks, you two.)
Prof. Dumbledore: You should do a search for “Christianity” “Paul” and “gospel” (match all) in “Great Debates” for “Any Date”. You’ll find some rip-roaring discussions along the lines of your “Why is everyone going around in circles?” post.
Libertarian: I hope you’ll have time to answer my question regarding the “essential” aspect of the Resurrection. You seem to have explained the doctrine of Love in this thread fairly successfully, but you’ve been (IMO) unclear in your defense of your OP.
jmullaney
Uhh…what’s special about the date December 6th, 1942? It’s 364 days after Pearl Harbor was bombed, but I don’t see how that’s relevant.
And are you suggesting the war might have ended if the entire nation (which nation?) had donned sackcloth and ashes on that day (and again, why that day?)?
Sorry for the hijack, but this is bugging me.
Crap. I meant '41 obviously. I never studied.
I suggested the war would have continued, but that the US still could have eventually won. You must admit, the professor asked an outrageously hypothetical question. What kind of an answer were you expecting?
Lib, did you just indict yourself by passing judgment on specific people immediately after telling me that doing such a thing was a waste of time/self-condemnation?
Um, what are the “evil fire extinguishers” and how do they squelch in any way the only thing that is real?
Does the spirit think, reason, apply logic, etc.? Do you think the spirit can physically affect the physical world?
Maybe God grew to the point where he had to divide into several gods. One of them destroyed (or consumed) the rest, including the element of the original god that required certain things of it’s believers.
Sure, Badtz Maru, why not? Since Libertarian has specifically excluded logic and intelligence from the terms of this discussion, you can pretty much make up any old thing and it will be consistent.
And Libertarian will still express condescending amusement at our failure to get it.
Alas, logic and intelligence and faith can very often mutually exclusive - is that not, indeed, included in the very definition of faith? I have never expected religion to make sense, but that doesn’t mean that someone who believes in it doesn’t deserve respect, and that the belief itself doesn’t deserve respect. Then again, faith doesn’t always have to make sense. 
Esprix
According to the Epistle to the Hebrews, “To have faith is to be sure of the things we hope for, to be certain of the things we cannot see.” (Heb 11:1, TEV).
My assertion would be that it cannot be **contra-**logical or an insult to intelligence. It may very well present us with a paradox to resolve (paradox = an apparent contradiction between two terms), and it need never be provable. In fact, anything taken on faith is presumably not provable except through the eyes of faith (which is a classic begging of the question) and will not fit Occam’s Razor, as its absence would produce a presumably simpler system – though I have heard some laboriously strained “explanations” of why a specific story presuming divine intervention might have happened without it.
To me, faith is a matter of where one puts one’s trust. I would never hope to prove God to JAB or Gaudere – He is not a scientific proposition, but a personal entity. I would hope that someday they would see God in the evidence for Him in the sense that these posts and the occasional pictures online show them that I too am real and a person with whom they interact, not a very well designed Turing program with a badly skewed dataset.
That’s been my witness. I’ve known Him; it’s enriched my life, and made me a much more decent and caring person. I wish others would see their way clear to know Him too, and that ties into His expectation that I will serve as His witness. It’s not a case of “saving your souls” in the fundamentalist “snatch-you-from-the-jaws-of-Hell” mode – He’s much too loving a God to depend on my skills to do any such thing, even if He were the sort of unjust judge who would pull off such a caper. It’s more like introducing you to a Friend I think you’ll enjoy knowing, and fall in love with as I did. And as Lib did.
Any other exercise here is simply trading verbiage. I’m sure Gaudere and David can counter any argument I can come up with. Except one: I know Him and love Him. And because I think and care a lot about them, I’d like them to get to know and love Him too. On their terms, not the First Church of Apostolic Regimentation’s terms, or the Spiritual Franciscans’ (whose witness seems to have lost his own connection with the Truth), or anybody else’s.
I’ve got a vague grasp of where your spirituality is, Esprix, and I have no problem with it. Like mine, it’s not adequate to describe what we both know is there – we apprehend in part but don’t comprehend in full. But at least neither of us is certain what shape the elephant really is.