Saved ?

You apparently don't read very well, either.

I have NEVER asked you for proof -- or concrete evidence.

Nearly as I can tell - it ain't available -- so it would be silly of me to ask for it.

I am merely making some points about things one "accepts on faith."

Husker

You quoted Max saying:



and you added:




Okay, so you both guess that the Bible tells us about GOD -- and since the god described in that book possesses all of the negative traits we've been talking about -- I understand why you also guess it is necessary to "save" yourself from the god (for the god).

My question still holds.

Why not guess a different kind of GOD? Why not just guess a GOD that would not have all those vile traits -- and from whom no one would have to be saved?

Actually, an important distinction is not being made by the theist, and it is one which theists are unwillingly to make. The atheist or the agnostic points out that a undeniably certain choice has been made to believe any one of what Frank here identifies as a range from A to M (and, of course, the range can be extended--the detail is unimportant)--but the theist always rejoins with something along the lines of god is evident in this or that, god is revealed in this or that--and in the most extreme cases, where god is not amenable to being folded and crammed into the definitional box, god moves in mysterious ways. In so responding, the theist always leaves out the caveat that this is belief, this is suppositional, even when just having acknowledged the principle of the supposition, as when Husker refers to the "wonder of faith." When pressed, the theist will acknowledge that these are matters of belief, inadmissable of demonstrable evidence. But when not pressed to that admission, which is the vast majority of the time, the theist makes categorical statements about the nature of god and the implications of such statements, which have the force of law for that individual's life. This opens a Pandora's box of evils into human existence, because it is a very short step, involving a very deep plunge, from simply failing to acknowledge the suppositional nature of statements about god to insisting upon the absolute truth of such statements. This discussion is something which would only have been possible thousands of years ago, or within the last few decades of the history of European people (which is what we all here are)--in the times between the ascendancy of christianity, long after the death of the Emperor Constantine, until the post-apocalyptic intellectual climate after the second world war, it was not simply dangerous to hold and espouse beliefs inimical to a belief in god, it was usually a matter of risking one's life.

For this reason, if for no other (and i personally have many others), i will always take the opportunity to speak forthrightly about what i see as a potentially dangerous credulity--even if i must become flurried to do so.

Did you know that God said in Isaiah 40:22 that our planet was circular and not flat? Pretty big battles over the earht being flat over time!
ISA 40:22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth

Sorry frank, I took from this that it was your thinking that we could "make up whatever rules we wanted" regarding God.

I disagree with that, and am unable to prove to you that I am right or you are wrong.

Actually, I think I read rather well.

I was just out reading and found this:

[quote]Doubters are easier to find than friends of faith.
Doubting satisfies our tendency toward self-protection.
Doubting is contagious, requires no..............

[/quote]

No, you haven't got it correct yet, frank.

We don't save ourselves from God, God saves us from being without him.

There is an infinity of difference between the two, and unless you acknowledge the difference, further discussion is futile.

For whatever it may be worth to you, Husker, i have no doubt that religious certainty inevitably leads to religious fanaticism (of some if not of all) and i have no doubt that religious fanaticisim is dangerous. I also have no doubt about the existence of deities--none exist.

agreed


Now put some boundries on "fanaticism" see where we go there.

I would suggest that adherence of the social contract puts bounds upon fanaticism; however, many of the religious want to frame the negotiations of the social contract in terms of the "ancient wisdom" from which they allege their belief to arise. It's a disturbing matter for those who are not religiously convinced to contemplate, because their liberty, and perhaps their lives, are at stake.

Faith is clearly something that can be accomplished and acted upon without the help of any god...max's earlier post was interesting to me as he stated that in our earthly existence we do not need god, but yet, he accepts without hesitation that man is a product of god, and not the other way around.

"We don't save ourselves from God, God saves us from being without him."

This is intriguing...isn't it worth considering that god is actually just an archetype that saves us from ourselves?

Yeah, I know this was directed at Husker, and perhaps your physician has prescribed no communication with me for your blood pressure, Setanta, I am not equally afflicted.

I agree with you regarding "deities", I have no doubt that there is just one.

I also, like Husker, await your definition of fanaticism.

fanatic = one who believes that everyone who does not share his/her beliefs will burn in hell for eternity

Main Entry: ar·che·type
Pronunciation: 'är-ki-"tIp
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin archetypum, from Greek archetypon, from neuter of archetypos archetypal, from archein + typos type
Date: 1545
1 : the original pattern or model of which all things of the same type are representations or copies : PROTOTYPE; also : a perfect example
2 : IDEA 1a
3 : an inherited idea or mode of thought in the psychology of C. G. Jung that is derived from the experience of the race and is present in the unconscious of the individual

cav: Since we are made in God's image, I will accept, with reservations, your characterization.

Ok maxeo, I can live with that

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
One entry found for fanatic.
Main Entry: fa·nat·ic
Pronunciation: f&-'na-tik
Variant(s): or fa·nat·i·cal /-ti-k&l/
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin fanaticus inspired by a deity, frenzied, from fanum temple -- more at FEAST
Date: 1550
: marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion <they're fanatic about politics>
- fanatic noun

nothing about burning in hell

One entry found for fanaticism.
Main Entry: fa·nat·i·cism
Pronunciation: f&-'na-t&-"si-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1652
: fanatic outlook or behavior

Husker, i took your question to mean how would one deal with fanatics. I'm rather surprised to think that you'd have been looking for a definition. At any event, working from the definition you have there, it is not at all difficult to envision, nor unreasonable to suggest, the exploitation of fanaticism by the charismatic--either deluded or venal--with a great potential for negative consequences, if not actually diasterous. I apply such a minatory analysis to ideologues as well the religious. Perhaps i should take into account that not all of those who read this have plunged so deeply into history, or have, but don't see what i see in that reading--that fanaticism has always been exploitable, with dire consequence for the polity in which it occurs.

Nothing about blowing people up for religion either.

This suggests that it's up to individual interpretation as to what constitutes fanatical behavior.




My interpretation is that a belief that those who do not share your beliefs will burn forever in hell while you live in heaven forever is a fanatical outlook.

Interpretations may vary. Product sold by weight.

Pounds or grams?