0
   

The nature of the Almighty

 
 
boagie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jun, 2007 03:13 pm
@Irishcop,
Irishcop,Smile

Speculation is not what the church or the faithful call it now do they? They call it faith and it apparently gives them certainty,how this is possible,I fail to grasp.Religion does not even claim to have knowledge in the traditional sense for in the presence of knowledge,there would be no need of faith------say good night Gracie! All I can say is these people sure must be smoking some really good ****.



:eek: Did you ever wonder what they based that old movie,"Invasion Of The Body Snatchers",on? Just get that glazed look in your eyes my friend,and they will not know you are not one of them.




Honk if you love Jesus!!:p
Irishcop
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jun, 2007 06:02 pm
@boagie,
boagie wrote:
Irishcop,Smile

Speculation is not what the church or the faithful call it now do they? They call it faith and it apparently gives them certainty,how this is possible,I fail to grasp.Religion does not even claim to have knowledge in the traditional sense for in the presence of knowledge,there would be no need of faith------say good night Gracie! All I can say is these people sure must be smoking some really good ****.



:eek: Did you ever wonder what they based that old movie,"Invasion Of The Body Snatchers",on? Just get that glazed look in your eyes my friend,and they will not know you are not one of them.




Honk if you love Jesus!!:p


Indeed, but I'm not debating "the Church", or the "Faithful". I'm debating you, sir.
Quote:

in the presence of knowledge,there would be no need of faith

A bold statement for someone who admittedly has no knowledge of faith, isn't it? You are basing your assertion on an unknown value.
boagie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jun, 2007 07:16 pm
@Irishcop,
Irishcop wrote:
Indeed, but I'm not debating "the Church", or the "Faithful". I'm debating you, sir.:eek:

A bold statement for someone who admittedly has no knowledge of faith, isn't it?You are basing your assertion on an unknown value.":eek:

Irish,Smile

Perhaps you could be Christian about this and tell me the value of X, what is the foundation of X how many X's equal the weight of a bag of rocks.:eek:

Your Victorian reaction is odd if nothing else,"I'am debating you sir!!" Well yes,and these things are elements in the debate,the ground rules do not change because you feel some discomfort.I think we had best drop this dialogue as we are not yet defined enemies.We agree to disagree.I recognize the truely faithful when I hear them,and I know to you that is a compliment,so,you can if you chose,be pleased.Smile I know you can believe anything you set your mind to!
Irishcop
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jun, 2007 10:58 am
@boagie,
boagie wrote:
Irishcop wrote:
Indeed, but I'm not debating "the Church", or the "Faithful". I'm debating you, sir.:eek:

A bold statement for someone who admittedly has no knowledge of faith, isn't it?You are basing your assertion on an unknown value.":eek:

Irish,Smile

Perhaps you could be Christian about this and tell me the value of X, what is the foundation of X how many X's equal the weight of a bag of rocks.:eek:

Your Victorian reaction is odd if nothing else,"I'am debating you sir!!" Well yes,and these things are elements in the debate,the ground rules do not change because you feel some discomfort.I think we had best drop this dialogue as we are not yet defined enemies.We agree to disagree.I recognize the truely faithful when I hear them,and I know to you that is a compliment,so,you can if you chose,be pleased.Smile I know you can believe anything you set your mind to!


I was pretty amused to hear you read that as a Victorian style, but it seems to bode well with some of your misconceptions, or at least misreads. Could it may be a product of a prejudice you have for anybody who believes in a God? Actually I had slip into a quite secular professional mode, I am a cop remember, thus if all courtesy is not extended when dealing with folk of differing opinions, I get calls on me, about how rude I am.
Also, I am decidedly not your enemy, we can agree to disagree, in fact that is what the forums are all about, is it not? I dont take anything you've said personally. It would make for a boring bout if both boxers came out of their corners and ... had tea and crumpets.
But we can unlock horns, if you choose, I'm sure we both can find other dragons to slay, or windmills depending on your point of view.
Ultimately, at the end of our days, it will boil down to two scenarios if one of us is right, ....either, I die and cease to exist never knowing I was wrong, or you die and lament forever that you were wrong.
For now, I know you can believe anything you set your mind to! too.
boagie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jun, 2007 12:59 pm
@Irishcop,
Irish,Smile

Your a real cop!O'Well you have just taken a very large leap up in my estimation,I have the deepest respect for the boys blue.You are of course right about the nature of conflict,you have my apology if I got a bit testy,though I thought I sensed a little testy on your end as well.

You seemed to have difficult with the idea that in the presence of knowledge there is no need for faith,it is only logical if you think a moment.If I know something to be true,why would I need the help of faith.Knowledge and faith create an oxy moron.You are the better man if you do not take things personally,I,I am afraid to often do,character flaw no doubt,and in the passion of the moment sometimes say regetable things.Indeed as a police officer I could see where discipline would prove the virtue and carry over into other realms.

I am a little amused at your wrap up though,my life long friend is a retired police officer and a born again Christian,you get the **** he is spared.I have often heard that logic from my friend,if I am wrong there will be no consequences,if you are wrong your ass will burn in hell.The diffirence in approach is this,I do not will myself to believe in what is most pleaseing to me,and have never understood this process in others.My friend has to ignore a great deal and avoid learning a good deal to stay on his straight and narrow path.In some respects his faith seems to strengthen him for life's struggle but certainly does not do much for the intellect,so many books to avoid.

I am aware however that there must be some very large differences between believers as my friend could never tolerate and intense dialogue, it simply would never get off the ground.I value his friendship more than being right, so the topic is avoided.My friend to understands his bible in the literal sense,he does not believe in evolution and until just a few years ago he thought slavery was alright as long as the slaves were black,the bible tells him so.Well I don't think either of us is going to change our positions but perhaps mellow out a bit.

Update:Religion seems to think it should be respected by all,even those who do not agree,and that it had for sometime,the degree to which it has become political has change all that.The church from my perspective should make up its mind whether its business is spiritual or political, if it choses political or even both,it then should be treated as a political organisation,political entity/possiable enemy--the American Taliban.
Irishcop
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jun, 2007 09:55 pm
@boagie,
boagie wrote:
Irish,Smile

Your a real cop!O'Well you have just taken a very large leap up in my estimation,I have the deepest respect for the boys blue.You are of course right about the nature of conflict,you have my apology if I got a bit testy,though I thought I sensed a little testy on your end as well.

You seemed to have difficult with the idea that in the presence of knowledge there is no need for faith,it is only logical if you think a moment.If I know something to be true,why would I need the help of faith.Knowledge and faith create an oxy moron.You are the better man if you do not take things personally,I,I am afraid to often do,character flaw no doubt,and in the passion of the moment sometimes say regetable things.Indeed as a police officer I could see where discipline would prove the virtue and carry over into other realms.

I am a little amused at your wrap up though,my life long friend is a retired police officer and a born again Christian,you get the **** he is spared.I have often heard that logic from my friend,if I am wrong there will be no consequences,if you are wrong your ass will burn in hell.The diffirence in approach is this,I do not will myself to believe in what is most pleaseing to me,and have never understood this process in others.My friend has to ignore a great deal and avoid learning a good deal to stay on his straight and narrow path.In some respects his faith seems to strengthen him for life's struggle but certainly does not do much for the intellect,so many books to avoid.

I am aware however that there must be some very large differences between believers as my friend could never tolerate and intense dialogue, it simply would never get off the ground.I value his friendship more than being right, so the topic is avoided.My friend to understands his bible in the literal sense,he does not believe in evolution and until just a few years ago he thought slavery was alright as long as the slaves were black,the bible tells him so.Well I don't think either of us is going to change our positions but perhaps mellow out a bit.

Update:Religion seems to think it should be respected by all,even those who do not agree,and that it had for sometime,the degree to which it has become political has change all that.The church from my perspective should make up its mind whether its business is spiritual or political, if it choses political or even both,it then should be treated as a political organisation,political entity/possiable enemy--the American Taliban.


Yes sir, I am a Deputy Sheriff, but I was educated at Ohio University, with a major titled "An Astronomy Concentration in Physics" and a minor in Geology. I had to leave college in the third year for family problems. So you see, I don't shy away from knowledge, I seek it out.
In college, the majority of my professors did not meddle in the topic of religion, but I suspect they were agnostic or atheist.
One professor, a Geologist, spent the first week spewing forth atheistic sermons, which I felt was not only uncalled for, but a waste of everybody's tuition for the sole fact we were there to study Geology, not his religious views. I would have felt similarly slighted if he had preached creationism. I can compartmentalize, and I see scientific knowledge as the way that God created this universe.
I had as much problem with clergy who dismisses science, as I have with professors who dismiss religion. Actually, I don't see where the two (science and the Bible) conflict, ....when taken in context. The Biblical account in Genesis is a very good way to express the Nebular Cloud theory and early Earth history, to an ancient readership. Chronologically, its order is perfect.
So yes, I disagree with your premise, from a personal point of view that knowledge will cancel faith. Science is what it is, a culmination of knowledge, which admittedly must be tweaked as we find new facts. And, Religion is what it is, a culmination of wisdom, which must be read in the context of which it was given. Then the two are not in conflict, I see them like a body and soul.
Its not a matter of willing myself to believe, I simply see it differently than you, and have drawn a different conclusion than yours.

The only folk I have little tolerance for are Islamists. I have no respect for that cult, because of the barbaric nature of its canons, rape, slavery, and murder, rather than a message of forgiveness, not only layed out by its founder but also executed by him. Mohamed was a serial rapist, pedophile, and mass murderer. His legacy is a world tragedy, and has only brought horror to us all.

I seriously never felt testy with you, it could have just been my bluntness showing through. I have several atheist friends, they are good people, even if I think they are misguided. I'm used to receiving alot worse than what you were dishing, ....in fact, I do this to relax Very Happy

"God* does not play dice with the universe" Einstein on the Uncertainty Principle.

*Spinoza's God
Len phil
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jun, 2007 11:43 pm
@boagie,
I have been following this thread finding myself siding with Irish here and Boagie there. It's been an interesting discussion to say the least.

I would like to offer something of value if I may with regards to the "KNOWING" vs "Faith" issue.

boagie wrote:
Irish,Smile

You seemed to have difficult with the idea that in the presence of knowledge there is no need for faith,it is only logical if you think a moment.If I know something to be true,why would I need the help of faith.


Quote:


"Knowing is that which is the Light within us. It is the cause of the effect which our senses observe."

Walter Russell
The Message Of The Divine Iliad Vol. 1


I would side with Boagie here. KNOWING requires no Faith.
Irishcop
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jun, 2007 11:59 pm
@Len phil,
Len wrote:
I have been following this thread finding myself siding with Irish here and Boagie there. It's been an interesting discussion to say the least.

I would like to offer something of value if I may with regards to the "KNOWING" vs "Faith" issue.





I would side with Boagie here. KNOWING requires no Faith.


Boagie didnt postulate "knowing requires no faith". Rather, he has concluded that knowledge makes faith obsolete and nullifies it. In other words, he believes only an ignorant person has faith, .... if I read him right.
boagie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Jun, 2007 07:20 am
@Irishcop,
Irishcop wrote:
Boagie didnt postulate "knowing requires no faith". Rather, he has concluded that knowledge makes faith obsolete and nullifies it. In other words, he believes only an ignorant person has faith, .... if I read him right.


Len,Irishcop,Smile

I think I must be missing something here Irish,if I am standing in the rain,I know its raining,why would I need faith to support that conclusion.Indeed faith is dependent upon the absence of knowledge by defination,you do not know there is a god-----Lord help my disbelief,you have faith that there is a god.Perhaps if you define what you mean by faith,what exactly is it but wishful thinking.The will to believe? Before you consider a response consider what every other religion since the begining of time has used it for,to reach belief, without substantial evidence in its support.For the blind,knowing where the furniture is beats the hell out of stumbling,dumping and falling over their inanimate objects,you might say that they have faith that the funiture is in the same place as it was before,based on past knowledge,only if they continue in not being able to see and are simply told the objects are in their familar places might you say it is faith again,faith in an individual telling them this is so.Boagie IS postulating, knowing requires no faith,just as faith requires no knowledge but simply a premise.

Thanks Len,and welcome to the dialogue!Smile
0 Replies
 
boagie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Jun, 2007 08:12 am
@Irishcop,
Hi Irishcop!

Hell,no offense intended,even I could wrap my mind around Spinoza's god.Spinoza's god is totality and as part of that totality we are then divine aspects,for there are no other kinds.You are a most interesting fellow Irish,like the friend I told you about,you are intrigueing and a puzzle,but of good intent and a good heart me thinks.

That business of being force-fed someone elses personal belief system would offend me as well,even if I agreed with it.Perhaps in this multicultural reality we have you can see where Christianity does not have a special place in the American classroom.You speak of Christianity as if it were wisdom literature--I can see that to some extent.As wisdom literature however, I do not think it holds a candle to the Hindu scriptures,the bible tends to be ethical and more concerned with the social order,rather than the complexity of being.

As far as Islam is concerned,yes I agree it is dangerous,but here again the power that drives it is faith.Interpretation of holy texts is mind boggling whether Islam or Christianity,it can mean whatever one wishes to read into it.Mass murder,slavery,the oppression of women are all supported by both holy texts.
Irishcop
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Jun, 2007 11:10 am
@boagie,
boagie wrote:
Hi Irishcop!

Hell,no offense intended,even I could wrap my mind around Spinoza's god.Spinoza's god is totality and as part of that totality we are then divine aspects,for there are no other kinds.You are a most interesting fellow Irish,like the friend I told you about,you are intrigueing and a puzzle,but of good intent and a good heart me thinks.

Hell, none taken, and thanks.

Quote:

That business of being force-fed someone elses personal belief system would offend me as well,even if I agreed with it.Perhaps in this multicultural reality we have you can see where Christianity does not have a special place in the American classroom.You speak of Christianity as if it were wisdom literature--I can see that to some extent.As wisdom literature however, I do not think it holds a candle to the Hindu scriptures,the bible tends to be ethical and more concerned with the social order,rather than the complexity of being.

I speak of Christianity as if it were wisdom, and a myriad of other great things.
Quote:

As far as Islam is concerned,yes I agree it is dangerous,but here again the power that drives it is faith.Interpretation of holy texts is mind boggling whether Islam or Christianity,it can mean whatever one wishes to read into it.Mass murder,slavery,the oppression of women are all supported by both holy texts.

You'll not see that in the New Testament, additionally you'll not see Jesus doing any more than cleaning house on moneychangers in the Temple. In light of the moneychangers' contemporaries ..... Tele-evangelists, can you really fault him for that? Very Happy
boagie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Jun, 2007 07:09 pm
@Irishcop,
Irishcop,Smile

The universe does seem an open system,its totality however is beyond our comprehension,it is a bit like saying the universe is of itself whole,but we do not have the capcity to view it as such,but only through the imagination.Certainly one acceptable form would be a god of some sort but not one of a personality cult.Christians often refer to a personal god,but in doing so they must realize in the same breath the possiablity of the impersonal god,the one defines the other.It is logical to look toward a source,it is when believers insist on a particular image and the certainty of that image.I can more easily deal with a universal concept,"The truth is one,the sages speak of it by many names." Upanishads We are however getting a little off topic.I thought I might suggest the reading of Schopenhaur on this topic of self-sacrifice but that would be asking to much,if any one is interested however it is to be found in his works,"The World As Will And Representation."

Enjoy!Smile
Irishcop
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jun, 2007 09:25 am
@boagie,
boagie wrote:
Irishcop,Smile

The universe does seem an open system,its totality however is beyond our comprehension,it is a bit like saying the universe is of itself whole,but we do not have the capcity to view it as such,but only through the imagination.Certainly one acceptable form would be a god of some sort but not one of a personality cult.Christians often refer to a personal god,but in doing so they must realize in the same breath the possiablity of the impersonal god,the one defines the other.It is logical to look toward a source,it is when believers insist on a particular image and the certainty of that image.I can more easily deal with a universal concept,"The truth is one,the sages speak of it by many names." Upanishads We are however getting a little off topic.I thought I might suggest the reading of Schopenhaur on this topic of self-sacrifice but that would be asking to much,if any one is interested however it is to be found in his works,"The World As Will And Representation."

Enjoy!Smile


Ahhhh, you opened up a can of tuna in the sun, we better eat before it starts to smell.

Quote:

The universe does seem an open system,its totality however is beyond our comprehension,it is a bit like saying the universe is of itself whole,but we do not have the capcity to view it as such,but only through the imagination.


I agree, it is beyond our comprehension. God, Black Holes, Quantum Mechanics, even something that seems simple at first, like the Big Bang are mind boggling. Jump into any of those pools, and you'll never dive deep enough to see the drain.
How then is the notion of God, with a capital G, so easy for you to dismiss? Especially if the following is true?

Quote:

Certainly one acceptable form would be a god of some sort but not one of a personality cult.Christians often refer to a personal god,but in doing so they must realize in the same breath the possiablity of the impersonal god,the one defines the other.

and
Quote:
It is logical to look toward a source,it is when believers insist on a particular image and the certainty of that image.


If the Universe is too much of an inigma to comprehend, how can you eliminate God? What is the source for your notion of god, with a lower case g?

Are Sages more authoritative than Saints?
boagie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jun, 2007 11:08 am
@Irishcop,
Irishcop,

Why my friend are there so many both past and present, that claim to be the one true religion,it is religion that kills wonder for they have the ultimate answers to the most pressing of problems------Oh sweet Certainty,but one apple for this William Tell! Do you not see where that closes the door on wonder.Carl Jung the psychologist--and not an atheist--,stated organized religion is a defense against having a religious experience.Actually your boxed and ready god is much simplier then mine which necessarily remains undefined,that is it,defineing god is just plain silly,why for you can it not be what it truely is,unknown?

Actually Irish,I think it is you who has eliminated god,if you think it to be the unfortunate tale told about this desert god.

Are Sages or Saints more authoritative,well,sages are known to be such because of their wisdom,while Saints are known to be such because of their goodness,authoritative to me would more greatly involve wisdom-------so Sages it is!
Irishcop
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jun, 2007 12:47 pm
@boagie,
boagie wrote:
Irishcop,

Why my friend are there so many both past and present, that claim to be the one true religion,it is religion that kills wonder for they have the ultimate answers to the most pressing of problems------Oh sweet Certainty,but one apple for this William Tell! Do you not see where that closes the door on wonder.Carl Jung the psychologist--and not an atheist--,stated organized religion is a defense against having a religious experience.Actually your boxed and ready god is much simplier then mine which necessarily remains undefined,that is it,defineing god is just plain silly,why for you can it not be what it truely is,unknown?

Actually Irish,I think it is you who has eliminated god,if you think it to be the unfortunate tale told about this desert god.

Are Sages or Saints more authoritative,well,sages are known to be such because of their wisdom,while Saints are known to be such because of their goodness,authoritative to me would more greatly involve wisdom-------so Sages it is!


I obviously believe your logic is flawed, and it brings to mind this email I received. Ponder this while I work on the real reply.


The following is an actual question given on a University of Washingtonchemistry mid-term:

The answer by one student was so "profound" that the professor shared it with colleagues, via the Internet, which is, of course, why we now have the pleasure of enjoying it as well :

Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)?

Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law(gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some variant.

One student, however, wrote the following:
First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So weneed to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving.
As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different religions thatexist in the world today. Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell becauseBoyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to staythe same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.
This gives two possibilities:
1). If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enterHell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.
2) If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls inHell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.
So which is it?
If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year that, "It will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you," and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number two must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over.
The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct..... leaving only Heaven, thereby proving the existence of a divine being which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting "Oh my God."
THIS STUDENT RECEIVED THE ONLY "A".

My two points here being, A) amusement, and B) be careful who you accept as a sage.
boagie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jun, 2007 03:46 pm
@Irishcop,
My two points here being, A) amusement:D , and B) be careful who you accept as a sage.

That might apply to anyone,any recommendations on sages??:eek:
Irishcop
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jun, 2007 04:53 pm
@boagie,
boagie wrote:
My two points here being, A) amusement:D , and B) be careful who you accept as a sage.

That might apply to anyone,any recommendations on sages??:eek:


The Christ.
boagie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jun, 2007 04:57 pm
@Irishcop,
Christ the prophet!You must be a bloody Muslim.:eek: Wink




The new atheist:D

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070625/aronson
Irishcop
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jun, 2007 05:01 pm
@boagie,
boagie wrote:
Christ the prophet!You must be a bloody Muslim.:eek: Wink

He is a prophet among other greater things.
boagie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jun, 2007 07:10 am
@Irishcop,
Smile Bush and the right wing Christian political movement veto stem cell research--------two steps back George.God no doubt told him to do it.

http://www.wsws.org:80/articles/2007/jun2007/cell-j21.shtml

Life is like a box of chocolates! Look at George is that the face of God!:eek:


:mad: angry!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What a Christian!!:p
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 03:05:00