Why would God sacrifice Himself ...?

Great Debates
141

**Exprix wrote:

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.**

All too true! As a Polytheist, all I ask is respect for me, to allow me to believe what I do without being mocked or insulted. Unfortuntately, many Atheistist take up the crusade to show Theists the “error of their ways” as Christians such as Foggie want to show Heathens and Non-Christians the error of their ways. Both are equally distasteful.

I can’t logically prove the existence of the Gods, I have no physical evidence. On the other hand, I can’t deny my own personal experiences with Them. Some Atheists would point out that “hearing voices” or having “delusional” experiences where you encounter non-corporal beings as a sign of mental illness or defect. Prehaps. And if I were the only one, I’d agree. But what if thousands (if not HUNDREDS of thousands) of people are having similar experiences. Are all those people mentally ill, too? Or should we look at how we define mental illness? Or should we acknowledge that the Universe has aspects to it we don’t and (presently) cannot understand?

If I were to hop into my mythical time-machine and go back 2 or 3 hundred years and try to explain radio waves or charmed quarks to a learned person back then, wouldn’t I get the same results as trying to explain a personal encounter with Deity to an Atheist today?

142

Vague is good. :wink: Just consider me predominantly a Humanist UU with a spiritual mish-mosh thrown in for good measure.

Esprix

143

Could be. It’s not impossible. Besides, it is not considered a mental illness unless it seriously and negatively affects the person’s daily life, if it keeps you from working or having friends or leaving the house or causing you to commit crimes, etc. See Britannica’s definition of “mental disorder.”

I am curious: Why would you think it was an illness only if you were the only one suffering? If every person in the world had cancer, would that mean cancer is not an illness?

If we cannot presently understand something, then it must have supernatural causes? Maybe the cause is natural but we just haven’t found it yet?

“Any sufficiently advanced technology should have the appearance of magic.” –Arthur C. Clarke And vice versa?

144

Originally posted by me on a Pit thread where SqrlCub accused me of being too skeptical (can you say “irony”?:D)–

145

Actually, I’m only here to hitch a ride on a brief hijack.

Well, this atheist has never appreciated the “mental illness” argument as a general description of religious experience (it might apply to specific cases, of course. If God speaks to you through the dog’s mouth and tell you to kill young women, for instance.) “Delusional” and “mental defect” might be strictly appropriate, but both carry connotations which are better avoided. I tend to think of it as a perceptual problem.

Human beings interpret phenomenological data to create a model of external reality. Gestalt and perceptual psychology have clearly demonstrated that this process does not precisely correspond ot the map of reality produced by “objective” models. In a trivial example, a significant portion of humans will perceive a vertical line segment to be longer than a horizontal segment of the same length. Even in this trival example, though, additional relationships play a part: vertical bisection greatly increases the illusion, horizontal bisection has less effect.

The experience of “God” is real. It is a phenomological event which has been reported by thousands of people for thousands of years. However, as in simpler perceptual illusions, the model of reality generated by that perception does not precisely align with objective models.

In the old days, when gods were considered physical beings who lived in specific places, it would have been possible to place the “religious model” and the “objective model” into direct conflict. Now, the “religious model” most often put forth avoids this conflict by removing God(s) to a spiritual plane. Said spiritual plane is rarely defined in precise terms (perhaps that task is impossible) but one constant aspect of it seems to be “not subject to material verification”. The consequence of this seems to be a necessarily dualistic (pluralistic?) model of reality (whether following Plato, Descartes, or L Ron). Whether that is a drawback, of course, remains to be perceived.

In short, Poly (hey, flip your monitor on its side; it looks shorter that way), you have experienced a perception which your mind has interpreted as “God”. I think that your interpretation is incorrect. However, the specifics of that interpretation specifically exclude any direct conflict with a materially objective model. Thus, I would avoid labels like “delusional” and “mental defect” which have negative connotations that depend upon a demonstrable conflict with material models.[sup]1[/sup]

Well, if you were smart enough to take a not–so-mythical radio transmitter and recevier with you it would certainly make the job easier. At the very least, it would provide a reliable, reproducible material effect to bolster the idea that “radio waves” accurately model external reality. Love the palantir illustration, though. I always wanted one of those. It would come in handy on nights when nothing good’s on the TV.

[sup]1[/sup][sub]Actually, as applied historically such terms have often relied more upon consensual subjective models than upon materially objective ones, but I’d like to think that we can learn from past mistakes. On the other hand, some version of the you’re too dangerous to let off the leash aproach seems inescapable, whether or not we can prove that the dog was lying.[/sub]

146

Well put, Spiritus. I do not think any atheist should necessarily consider all theists SuperDaddy-hungering madmen who make up imaginary friends to avoid the inevitabilty of their own death. (I would hope none would–and I do not–but I do not as yet have total control of the Evil Atheist Cabal and as such cannot dictate on matters of policy. :slight_smile: (Vote Gaudere in April!)) Nor do I think that any theist should necessarily perceive all atheists as blind God-denying fools who wouldn’t accept a supernatural reality even if all the dead rose from their graves. Geez! Assuming that everyone who has reached conclusions different from you are blindly skeptical/denying obvious reality/stupidly credulous/insane hardly helps us to explore our perceptions of reality. And yet…those perceptions must always be examined, at times perhaps harshly, to try to find the truth as best we can. Our perceptions do not always directly map reality, and I know mine certainly do not always do so. So we must examine them, with the tools at hand, and yet still avoid dividing people into “us” and “them”–or “insane” and “blind”-- when it is not truly applicable. I would hardly consider someone insane or delusional if they see the line with the pointy-arrows pointing inwards as being longer than the one with the pointy-arrows pointing out–but I’d still think that they’re wrong when I measure the lines and find them the same. And spiritual matters tend to eschew such tests of empirical proof v. perception, though they may me amenable to Occam’s razor or logic. We may reach different conclusions, and one of us may indeed be mistaken, yet no wise person would consider a reasonable yet differing interpretation of a perception of reality to inevitably be evidence of insanity or stubborn blindness.

[Edited by Gaudere on 04-05-2001 at 01:46 AM]

147

Spiritus, jmullaney says your argument is built upon sand.

148

Xeno:

Life is what Love wants. Just as there is no Love in the atoms, neither is there any Life in them. The Resurrection is essential because it is the very expression of Love, wherein the fullness of Life is to be found.

Gaudere:

Forgive my sloppiness. I ought to have explicitly expressed what was implicitly implied, namely that if they will ever die, then they are already dead. The Spirit, as you know, is eternal.

It is the atoms that are not real. Again, the moral context is quite real, whether good or evil. Death is just as real as Life. (Of course, we’re not talking about cells here…)

In this analogy, the fire extinguishers are those moral decisions that are dead (i.e., cold, without Love).

The Spirit applies its own epistemology: Love.

And yes, our Spirit affects the physical world all the time. That’s the whole reason it’s there, to serve as a mis-en-scene for our Spirit. How will your Spirit respond to the old lady standing on the street corner? Will you mug her, help her cross, ignore her, or something else?

But what is significant about the Spirit’s effects is not how the atoms end up, but how the morality does.

149

Individual atoms are not alive, no, but in the right combinations, a living thing is present.

Oh, baloney.

Love is how the Spirit knows what it knows? :confused:

150

Jab:

Given your assertion for the sake of argument, would you call this phenomenon a gestalt?

And which are the atoms that compel you to post here?

Yes. Love knows what is good and what is evil.

151

“Look at that cloud-it looks just like a pony! Perhaps if we sneak up on it we can ride it.”
walks closer
“That’s funny, it doesn’t look like a pony when you get closer.”
walks into cloud
“Hey! Where did that cloud go?”

Libertarian, your arguments sound good from afar, but when they are examined the logic and reasoning dissapates.

152

I’d call it a biological gestalt.

The ones that comprise my brain.

But, how?

153

Hey Lib, if atoms aren’t real, can I have your stuff? After all, it’s nothing compared to Love.

Send me an email with your address, and I’ll come pick it up. In the meantime, go ahead and PayPal me your money.

Thanks, and good luck with Love.
Quix

154

Slythe:

Good.

Let the man who looks at a sound through his microscope declare that nothing is there. Let the man who listens to green with his hearing-aid hear nothing. But let the man who opens his heart know Love.

Jab:

Fine. Then what are the atoms that account for the ontological shift?

They do?

If that is the case, then Agent Smith can examine those atoms and post on your behalf. You are no longer needed. Your synaptic spasms will suffice.

What is it that makes a Rolls Royce an automobile of such distinction? For every attribute that you might name — its whisper quiet engine, its sumptuous leather appointments, its timeless style — none of these is why it is the motor car that it is. It is the craftsmanship of her master artisans that calls into being that which is so special.

Likewise, it is not your brain that compels you to post here, but your heart. Your brain is the tool that your heart uses. The sentiment you express here, your contempt of me and my beliefs, comes from your Spirit. Your brain merely obeys what your heart intends.

Jesus says it best: “This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.”

Quix:

When there is a chord, does a man hear only one note?

The atoms are not real, but the moral context is. A good Spirit is a good steward. Do not lust after what little I have; it will extinguish the goodness within you.

155

When one reshapes and refits reality so that it fits one’s mindset, instead of the other way around, one tends to lose both reality and mind. Unless and until you grace us with a Libertarian-English/English-Libertarian dictionary, I think I’ll stop responding to posts which hold meaning only to the poster.

156

Slythe:

As you wish. If my words offend you, though no offense were ever intended, it is right that you ignore them.

157

Lib, I don’t think your words are offending anyone (well, at least not Czarcasm) (I think), it’s just that you keep rearranging the same words to restate your defense of something that can’t be defended or described with logic.

In your OP, you stated your belief that salvation through the Agony and Resurrection of Christ presents no inconsistencies in Christian thought. Frankly, I agree with you, but only if we accept all of your axioms:[ul][li]that regardless of the temporal nature of Man’s observation of the Crucifixion and Resurrection, the acts are Eternal[]that Christ’s perfection of Spirit is unattainable within a mortal existence[]that through the C&R Christ fulfills a requirement which individuals cannot do for themselvesthat fulfillment of that requirement allows salvation through acceptance of the Love embodied by Christ[/ul](Did I get those right?)[/li]
It’s the defense of your axioms that most of your questioners (including me) seem to object to. I submit that they cannot be justified, but can only be stated as articles of faith. They are insupportable by logic or rhetoric, and unsubstantiative by observation. Once any of them are removed or replaced with other widely held axioms, your premise is eminently assailable.

158

I have no idea what you mean. Is that a Zen koan that didn’t make it into the handbook? I cannot possibly see any relevance, and suspect that you’re trying to seem lofty and wise… but failing miserably.

Don’t you worry about my Spirit; I’m trying to help YOU out here. Throw away the not-Real shackles of possession. I’m not lusting after what little you have, I’m trying to help your Spirit blaze. My goodness will burn brighter for doing a service to my fellow Spiritual Being.

Still waiting on that address,
Quix

159

Xeno:

If we give a man credit, as I presume you give to me, that he is presenting his case honestly and in accordance with common practice, then the phenomenon you describe occurs most often in two cases: (1) a person is defining something within his definition, or (2) a person is restating an axiom.

The nature of definitions is such that they are circular. Suppose you define a word, A, such that its definition consists of five other words, A1, A2, A3, A4, A5. Someone might then say, “define A3”. You define A3 with A3.1, A3.2, A3.3, and so on. Then you might have to define A3.2 with A3.2.1, A3.2.2, etc. Eventually, your definition will come full circle, just as all identities do.

Axioms are unprovable assertions, and when they are explained, they must be explained such that they still mean the same thing they did before.

To give you a sense of what I mean, make the assertion that “parallel lines never intersect”, and watch how I can twist you 'round like a cyclone. I will begin by demanding that you define all four words, and then that you define the words you use to define those words, and so on. Once you are exasperated with those distractions, I will begin to present universes within which your axiom does not hold. Spheres, for example.

On the other hand, with very little effort I can meet you half way. As a person of reasonable intelligence, with merely ordinary perception, I can discern that you are talking about lines on a plane, and I can assume that you are talking about the same parallel I generally think of.

So in the end, it comes down to the fact that some are interested (like you), and some are not (like some others). And some are reading with a captive interest while never posting anything. It is understandable that people who are new might ask what I mean by “Love”, for example, since they are not privvy to earlier posts that are buried a dozen pages deep and go back many many months.

Self-critically, I most regret my use of metaphorical terms, like “the atoms”. Sadly, there is little choice when speaking of things spiritual but to use familiar terms that you hope convey meaning by way of analogy. Like parables, for instance.

Well, let’s see…

Yes. Isaiah saw them “before” they happened, James saw them “as” they happened, and we see them “after” they happened. God, of course, sees them all at once and always.

Not sure about the term “mortal”. Perhaps you are making reference to what I mean by the atoms. The universe itself is “mortal” in that sense, and that is certainly one of my axioms: a second or a trillion years makes no difference. Evil is already dead. Neither does expanse of space make any difference. Love is already everywhere.

Clearly, there can be no Life lest it come from its own source (Love). The requirement that is (was, will be) fulfilled is God’s own: namely, the inalienable tenacity of His own Goodness. He plucks out the eye that offends Him.

Well and clearly stated. There is no Life outside His Love, and within His Love there is the whole fullness of Life. Death, after all, is what we’re being saved from.

Noted.

I merely do the best I can, just as they (and you) do. I can defend my axioms to a point, but only, as I have stated, based upon my own experience. I am describing how I came to God. Other men will come in other ways.

Well, certainly, Xeno. That’s what axioms are. They are pieces of knowledge taken on faith. A man might not agree with my axioms, but that is his priviledge, and I don’t begrudge the man who will say, “Your axioms are not valid in my experience (or some other arbitrary ontological universe).” That man will present his own case, and will explain why, in his own universe or consciousness, there is some other reality.

I can easily discern the difference between that man and the man who assails me a priori, “Nonsense! You’re a dreamer, a wordsmith, a perverter of truth!” That man, when asked to prove his own existence, or to prove that A is A, or to prove that atoms exist (without the elenchi usage of other atoms to do it), begins to hurl insults, make strawman challenges about property, or take his ball and go home. He cannot himself do what he requires of me.

When a discussion descends to ridicule, despite however asteistic, civil discourse can seldom be reclaimed. Nothing on these pages is hidden from the thinkers among us.

Well, they are substantiated by my own observation. Your mileage may vary. From the closed set of your own consciousness, you might perceive a very different universe than the one I perceive. That is what is so wonderful about God’s brilliant utility of the atoms. They are whatever we make of them.

Of what epistemology is that not true?

Quix:

Your suspicions notwithstanding, you failed to quote the chord itself, which immediately followed the statement: [1st note] The atoms are not real, [2nd note, which ws bolded to make it more audible] but the moral context is.

You heard the first note when you said, “Hey Lib, if atoms aren’t real, can I have your stuff?” But you missed hearing the second note, which speaks to such matters as stewardship. Though the atoms are not real, the Spirit that motivates our participation in them is very real indeed.

I do not doubt that I deserve your mockery. I am the weakest of all God’s vessels. You have done my Spirit the very best service by reminding me of that. God go with you always.

160

Ok, now I understand. I still contend that you’re trying to sound lofty (and I also still contend that you’re failing). Rather than trying to sound Zen, you could have said, “You missed the part where I said that your Spirit that motivates you is very real.” Much less pretentious, and much more effective. Whatever.

I see, asking that you remain consistent in your practice of your clusterf*ck of a theology/philosophy is “mocking.” If you don’t want to give your possessions to me, fine. I was being an ass, and I wouldn’t give anything to me if I were you either. But giving your possessions away is generally considered a GOOD thing. Come on, sacrifice a little. It probably isn’t much of a sacrifice anyways, since your clothing, your computer, your shelter, your car–none of these are real anyways. But no, you’d rather spew out platitude after meaningless platitude. You won’t put your money where your mouth is, and I think it does your “philosophy” a great disservice. Although perhaps that disservice is overshadowed by the fact that what you’re saying doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.

I don’t know how to respond to you saying, “God go with you always.” If it’s your God, who makes you speak empty words, who doesn’t require you to DO anything, and who wants you to be reminded that you’re “the weakest vessel,” keep Him. I’d rather speak coherently and logically, continue to lead my life by the morals which I feel are right, and believe that I’m not utterly worthless, even though I’m imperfect.

In other words, I’d like to be nothing like you or your God.
Quix

P.S. I retract most of my words if you show that you DO live a life of abject, willful poverty because of your service to Charity. Feel free to make me retract.