A Challenge for Believers in God.

reply to post by Akragon


You wrote:

["If you say the real answer lies in True Syncretism, why would you call it worthless, and even dangerous. This can't be a real answer if its also worthless... Love is a simple concept... you're just complicating things."]

After having sorted out which components in a constellation are 'real' and not just fabulations (a process difficult enough in itself), true syncretism is to determine the intrinsic and SPECIFIC qualities of each component and to find how that relates to the 'totality greater than the sum of the parts'. There's the feed-back aspect of all existence ('relating', 'interaction') in play here.

'Things' have existence, meaning and function by how they relate to other 'things'.

Quote (on my introduction of 'scientism' as a one-perspective, out-of-context, approach): ["This has no valid use in this conversation."]

There are many examples of such in this general category of one-perspective approaches. Just take fake-zen and some bhakti-positions, with their pronounced anti-intellectual attitudes.

Quote: ["You see why i call it "THE" absolute though. We're not talking about what puts food on the table here,..."]

Well, I am. As a pragmatically observation of what mankind presently uses as a base for decission-making.

Quote: ["we're talking about a mutual respect for all man kind, not letting people suffer because its more convienent to do so."]

I'm less idealistic than you are, so I have different premises for arriving at 'answers'.

Quote: ["Being intelligent unfortunatly does not always include empathy or concern for others, as a matter of fact is usually quite the opposite. "Intellectuals" tend to be quite self centered believing their ideas are better then others."]

Pushing is mainly done by emotional types. That they disguise themselves through pseudo-intellectual arguments is sad.

Quote: ["Intellect is by no means an absolute, it just further seperates us as a species."]

As little or as much as emotions.

Quote (on my request for a manifested love-absolute society): ["Nowhere as far as i know actually, i didn't say its something that exists currently... only that its proveable."]

Again. I'm more of a pragmatic, less of an idealist.

Quote: ["I couldn't care less about pauline doctrine."]

I know, and my inclusion of it was not directed at you, but as an example of the dangers of doctrines per se, apart from missionary attitudes.

Quote: ["but again these people choose not to think for themselves, only because its more convienent then reading for themselves."]

That's easy to say, if you aren't standing in front of offically sanctioned doctrinal thugs.

Quote: [" They still have the choice to leave said establishment. Fear of the reprecussions of leaving the church is the only thing that keeps most people there."]

I'm talking in much broader contexts than just churches.

Quote: ["Well again i disagree... There is a right and wrong that fits everyone. Unfortunatly not everyone agrees with what is right and what is wrong."]

There are many CLAIMS. Reality is a compromise.

Quote: ["Mutual respect for all is the "right" way... Love your neighbour as you love yourself. Selfishness, greed, hatred, envy and other such "human" traits get in the way of that ideal though."]

This is an idealist presentation of indecessive and vague generalizations. It can, and has been, interpretated any old way, to justify atrocities.

reply to post by bogomil

'Things' have existence, meaning and function by how they relate to other 'things'.

As do humans would you not agree?

Generally speaking a group of persons will react differently to each other depending on how each person is percieved by the group and each individual. I know this is besides the point you're making but it hints on my absolute

Quote: ["we're talking about a mutual respect for all man kind, not letting people suffer because its more convienent to do so."]

I'm less idealistic than you are, so I have different premises for arriving at 'answers'.

Sadly though i can be idealistic, im more of a realist myself... Im not saying "love for all mankind" will ever happen, but heres hopeing i guess....

There are many CLAIMS. Reality is a compromise.

I'd like to come back with a sad cleche like "reality is what we make it"... but thats barely reality is it. Though deep inside all of us i believe we all know whats right and what isn't.

Quote: ["Mutual respect for all is the "right" way... Love your neighbour as you love yourself. Selfishness, greed, hatred, envy and other such "human" traits get in the way of that ideal though."]

This is an idealist presentation of indecessive and vague generalizations. It can, and has been, interpretated any old way, to justify atrocities.

true... but it could be a reality, and would bring peace to our world.

reply to post by Akragon


Sorry about the late answer. Busy, busy, busy.

You wrote (on cosmic interaction being the basis of cosmic existence):

["As do humans would you not agree?]

Imo it's all an (allegorical) big mirror-cabinet with reflections of reflections of reflections. From the smallest to tthe greatest. Somewhere on the scale also including the individual biological being, who in it has an interplay of the basic triple-emanations, which I suggest is the first step in the formation of cosmos (the gunas to use one of its names).

Quote: ["I'd like to come back with a sad cleche like "reality is what we make it"... but thats barely reality is it. Though deep inside all of us i believe we all know whats right and what isn't."]

The cosmic interplay/interaction is (in my 'model') a chinese box with small constellations inside bigger constellations, where, at each level, the components of each constellation interacts with those at the same level directly and form 'units', but also up and down between levels constellations as units influence or are influenced by units 'below' or 'above'.

So we can create our own existence level to some extent, but not completely free of external influences. As it is though, our limitations are less a result of external influences, but our inability to grasp the overall 'as above so below' cosmic principles.

It's complex to think in such terms, and I'm not quite finished with all the finer points of it myself, but it's essentially easy to understand in the frame of 'relative reality', which I'm so fond of mentioning.

This subject is something which has interested me for years upon years, and my understanding of it has grown slowly over time. But I'm afraid, that this is not the place to expand on it.

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare
Name a moral act that could be carried out by a believer (person with faith); that could not be carried out by a non-believer (person without faith in god)

What about immoral acts? It's not hard to think of examples whereby immoral acts are carried out by someone who thinks they have a "divine" warrant, by someone who thinks they have Holy permission.

edit on 6-7-2011 by ExistentialNightmare because: (no reason given)

First off there is no challenge I believe in Jesus.

Secondly morals are not subjective as those of worldly belief would claim.

Third a non believer can follow all of the Godly moral values, yet that does not give him an E ticket.

Forth every one is a sinner and therefore all even believers can and do commit immoral acts.

See not a challenge at all.

reply to post by ACTS 2:38


You wrote:

["First off there is no challenge I believe in Jesus."]

If you choose to have impenetrable filters, that's your choice. There are similar examples in all extremist-versions of ideology.

Quote: ["Secondly morals are not subjective as those of worldly belief would claim."]

And ofcourse everybody have to accept your self-proclaimed 'truths', presented as 'absolutes'. Without any apparant reason, but just like that.

Quote: [" Third a non believer can follow all of the Godly moral values, yet that does not give him an E ticket."]

And why should a non-believer care about such empty 'threats'.

Quote: ["Forth every one is a sinner and therefore all even believers can and do commit immoral acts."]

And continuing in the same style of blind-faith generalizations. All christians are ...bleep.., all people are sleeping buddhas, all men who die fighting go to Valhalla, sacrificing virgins will make the sun rise another year and the flying spaghetti monster personally blesses all matured whiskey.

Quote: ["See not a challenge at all."]

Apart from that your kind of christianity is dying, because it can't meet challenges except by repeating circle-argumented doctrines, centuries passed best-sales-date.

reply to post by bogomil


Morals are subjective to those who do not believe in a God,

Just go through ATS and read.

do you believe all stealing is wrong or do you think taking a pencil from work is not stealing, or any item.

do you believe killing a human is murder, and do you support abortion as a choice and not murder.

Do you believe that unwed sex is ok, and see above abortion choice.

Do you believe that perverted acts are ok , and should be put in books, TV's, computers and such. And feel they have no bearing upon the degrading of society.

If you answered yes to anyone of these you have a subjective view.

There is a moral code, that is greater then anyone of us, it is the lust of the flesh and enough that wish to break these clear lines that creates the appearance of change.

I know some that their children are morally conscience of the rights and wrongs that there parents chose to break.

As for choosing to believe in God, your choice is not to even though all evidence proves there is a Creator.

reply to post by bogomil


Quote: [" Third a non believer can follow all of the Godly moral values, yet that does not give him an E ticket."]

And why should a non-believer care about such empty 'threats'.

It is clear that your conscience has been poked as I did not threaten you or anyone with my above statement.

It is just proof that you do realize that there is a God in your spirit, your mind which wants to live for the world does not.

reply to post by ACTS 2:38

Morals are subjective to those who do not believe in a God,

Incorrect.

Sam Harris
Ayn Rand.

reply to post by ACTS 2:38


You wrote:

["It is clear that your conscience has been poked as I did not threaten you or anyone with my above statement."]

And when all (even slightly) rational arguments fail, christian fundies resort to pop-psychology and character-analyses, which they don't have any comptence for and in any case can't be performed on the information available on a public forum.

May the flying spaghetti monster save me from cheap debate-tactics and lead us all back to the real subject of the thread (which is not my character).

reply to post by ACTS 2:38

As for choosing to believe in God, your choice is not to even though all evidence proves there is a Creator.

Any particular god you have in mind?
He already said he believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Don't you think that is good enough, or like I already asked, is it only acceptable to you that he believe in your god?

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by ACTS 2:38

 

As for choosing to believe in God, your choice is not to even though all evidence proves there is a Creator.

Any particular god you have in mind?..

is it only acceptable to you that he believe in your god?

Do you consider Jesus a liar or lunatic? (John 14:6)

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by ACTS 2:38

 

As for choosing to believe in God, your choice is not to even though all evidence proves there is a Creator.

Any particular god you have in mind?..

is it only acceptable to you that he believe in your god?

Do you consider Jesus a liar or lunatic? (John 14:6)

I consider people who use that line from CS Lewis to be lacking in original thought and not well versed in logic.

Originally posted by jmdewey60

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by ACTS 2:38

 

As for choosing to believe in God, your choice is not to even though all evidence proves there is a Creator.

Any particular god you have in mind?..

is it only acceptable to you that he believe in your god?

Do you consider Jesus a liar or lunatic? (John 14:6)

I consider people who use that line from CS Lewis to be lacking in original thought and not well versed in logic.

Sorry, do you think Jesus was dishonest or insane in John 14:6?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by jmdewey60

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by ACTS 2:38

 

As for choosing to believe in God, your choice is not to even though all evidence proves there is a Creator.

Any particular god you have in mind?..

is it only acceptable to you that he believe in your god?

Do you consider Jesus a liar or lunatic? (John 14:6)

I consider people who use that line from CS Lewis to be lacking in original thought and not well versed in logic.

Sorry, do you think Jesus was dishonest or insane in John 14:6?

And with exactly the same kind of 'logic', do you think the flying spaghetti monster is dishonest or insane...

..... in Bogomil's Epistle on blind faith 37:14.

reply to post by ExistentialNightmare

Name a moral act that could be carried out by a believer (person with faith); that could not be carried out by a non-believer (person without faith in god)

I personally do not know anyone who does not believe in some sort of god.
I know there are some people I know who have some sore-spot towards talking about god. I think I knew someone who may have most likely had been a total atheist but never felt any sort of need to say so, but if he had been really devoid of any sense of the reality of a god, I can't explain his (figuratively speaking) violent reaction to my profession of belief in a god.

reply to post by bogomil


You live in a blind faith everyday, will the car start, will you make it to work, The big bang was never seen and yet you believe it happened as they say with out proof blind hypothetical faith.

Lizards birthing chickens, blind faith.

UFO's blind faith.

ET blind faith.

Money has worth blind faith.

there is not a heaven nor hell blind faith.

reply to post by ACTS 2:38


Your understanding of contemporary methods for truth/reality-seeking, which aren't the same as those you use for having faith in a mythological manual, could do with some brushing up.

There's a gradually rising list of the various degrees of 'truth':

Faith, which doesn't require any proof at all, and is subjective.

Belief, which is based on some kind of factual, though uncertain knowledge.

Hypothesis, which appears to be true, but still in need of adjustment of the model and testing by scientific procedure.

Theory, which has passed testing

And finally theory, which is universally accepted.

You can ofcourse question such a way of grading truth-criteria, so don't hesitate to suggest another way; preferably also demonstrating why and how your model is better.

In this post addressed to me, the word 'you' is used. I wonder if this 'you' is me, or just general. As it is some of the examples you bring up, dont refer to my position; one is actually yours to prove (not anyone else's to disprove...at least in standard logic); and some refer to a category, where belief exists, but not proven theory.

You may possibly think, that I try to play 'smart', intimidating you with academic requests and lingo; but as it is, it's you who initially make some claims of 'absolute truth' (which you regularly dish out), so it's not so strange, that you are expected to validate these 'truths' of yours.

If you prefer to abstain from validating 'truths' and methods, we can alternatively preach at each other instead. I'm a newly converted pastafarian, and I burn to test my missionary zeal on someone.

Who knows, maybe I can save you from the ungodly religion you now belong to.

reply to post by bogomil


I believe that I can climb Mount Everest, and I climbed Mount Everest.

I believe in God, ?

reply to post by ExistentialNightmare

Name a moral act that could be carried out by a believer (person with faith); that could not be carried out by a non-believer (person without faith in god)

Help someone repent from immoral acts and ask forgiveness from God.

Not to make God feel hurt.

Talk to people about God's Kingdom as the hope and solution to all of mankinds problems.

Read God's word with the intention to learn more about God - his likes and dislikes.

Pray to God for others.

Proclaim Jesus to heartbroken that his is the saviour.

Devote at least one day to God each week. (should be every day)

Ask for forgiveness from God for ones own mistakes.

I think I'll stop here so as not to make the list longer.

As for:

What about immoral acts? It's not hard to think of examples whereby immoral acts are carried out by someone who thinks they have a "divine" warrant, by someone who thinks they have Holy permission.

“For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” (Romans 3:23)


But:

“He who carries on sin originates with the Devil, because the Devil has been sinning from [the] beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was made manifest, namely, to break up the works of the Devil.” (1 John 3:8)

Originally posted by edmc^2


Help someone repent from immoral acts and ask forgiveness from God.

Forgiveness via vicarious redemption. Dismissing your own personal responsibility and allowing another to take it upon themselves. In other words scapegoating.

Extremely immoral.