tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post3305257623501720229..comments2023-09-05T04:09:28.653-04:00Comments on Sacred Space: Faith cast in concrete sinksUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger85125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-52979445019368760862008-02-06T20:29:00.000-05:002008-02-06T20:29:00.000-05:00Nick, I was clear what the intent was on the diffe...Nick, I was clear what the intent was on the different books of the Bible. Different Christian sects have different sets of books they consider "The Bible".<BR/><BR/>Justice of hell: I was clear about this in the past I didn't want to rehash. I don't see how eternal punishment for not believing in god because of lack of evidence and because god is notoriously bad communicator is just.<BR/><BR/>Omniscience: So if god knows everything (including future) then your life (and everyone else's) is predetermined, right? If it is, then there is no way free will exist.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-78179698922566526862008-02-06T19:29:00.000-05:002008-02-06T19:29:00.000-05:00Iztok responds. Let's see. What do we have on a re...Iztok responds. Let's see. What do we have on a response about Secret Mark and the canon? Nothing. What about my post on the justice of Hell? Nothing. Instead, just another question. Let's see what happens this time.<BR/><BR/>Omniscience simply means that God knows everything and I believe that includes future propositions as well.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16175830373964472006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-2228111575481134362008-02-06T09:39:00.000-05:002008-02-06T09:39:00.000-05:00Nick: "But in the Christian system, we have God as...Nick: "But in the Christian system, we have God as omniscient. Now you can say you don't think he is, but then you're not dealing with the Christian system."<BR/><BR/>Can you define omniscient for us? This way we can determine if Jealous is really omniscient or not. Once you've defined the term we can see if this is true or not.<BR/><BR/>Thanks!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-38198756269411569502008-02-06T08:50:00.001-05:002008-02-06T08:50:00.001-05:00Bill: Any part that causes needless pain, sufferin...Bill: Any part that causes needless pain, suffering, disability, and/or early death, for anyone, now and in the future.<BR/><BR/>Me: But is this really the case? Have we not agreed that some pain is good and some suffering is good? Also, are we saying the final good is the absence of pain rather than the attaining of happiness?<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Bill: I agree that pain and suffering are going to be present as a part of being alive, and that we will never get rid of them, or of disability and early death. What I refer to is having as little of them as possible. That's why we go to doctors.<BR/><BR/>Me:But you don't say none. You say as little as possible. We could simply ask if you know that this has been done or not. <BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Bill: The crucial question is, "What is the total outcome of doing X," with the recognition that it is indeed difficult to predict much of the outcome, especially in the far future.<BR/><BR/>Me: But in the Christian system, we have God as omniscient. Now you can say you don't think he is, but then you're not dealing with the Christian system. (And I'll be glad to debate any open theists on this point.) If he is and says indeed that "All things work together for good to them that love the Lord." then we can rest assured in that outcome even though our present understanding is lax.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Bill:Do you believe that all in Christianity has always been good in the end? Would that include crusades, inquisitions, and witch-burning?<BR/><BR/>Me: And this is why I said what I said. It's about Christianity and not the practices often done under the name of Christianity. (Although history has revisioned several of these and made them far far worse than they were.) Were these events the result of Christianity or were they the result of human nature misusing Christianity? I urge you to show me how the teachings of Christ logically lead to an Inquisition.<BR/><BR/>Bill: There is a problem with understanding your meaning. Are you assuming that there is only one thing called Christianity? Do you believe there is more than one kind of Christianity? If Christian denominations disagree with each other, which one is the real Christianity? What are the essentials of Christianity? Would everyone agree with you? If one of the denominatons is correct, aren't the odds only 1/N (N = no. of denominations) that a particular one is the correct one? For you, what does Christianity mean? Would there be any Christians who would disagree with you? If one denomination is all good, doesn't that mean that others are not perfect? Could they improve? Why could not your particular Christianity improve like the others?<BR/><BR/>Me: Which Christianity is true is simple. It is Mere Christianity. This is just what C.S. Lewis talked about. I can worship just fine in a church that holds to essentials and those are the beliefs that if they were not true, Christianity could not be true.<BR/><BR/>If Jesus did not physically rise from the dead, if he is not God incarnate, if there is no Trinity, and if salvation is not by grace through faith, then we do not have Christianity. If, on the other hand, my opinion is off in the Calvinism/Arminian debate, then that is not a big deal.<BR/><BR/>Bill: I believe that anything within a religion that causes individuals to hate themselves, causes them to live in fear, causes them to be isolated from others, causes them to turn against others, causes them to stereotype and denigrate others, or causes them to kill others is probably a bad thing. People have commented, rightly or wrongly, that Christianity has done these things.<BR/><BR/>Me: Isn't this a crux of it all? They have commented rightly or wrongly. Either these things were done by Christianity or they weren't. However, the belief system is incapable of acting. It is people that hold the belief system that act and the acts that are condemned are not the logical outworkings of a Christian worldview.<BR/><BR/>Bill: It is something at least worth thinking about and talking about. And the belief that "I am perfect" or "we are perfect" seems to run counter to experience and I believe interferes with increasing wisdom. <BR/><BR/>Me: Good thing I never said it then.<BR/><BR/>Bill: I think Jesus' message to a great extent was that we should be more loving and understanding, as opposed to judgemental, hostile, and vengeful. God has been portrayed by some Christians as judgemental rather than understanding, hostile rather than loving, and vengeful rather than forgiving, and God has been portrayed by some as being very narcissistic, irrational, and punitive. These images of God have come from somewhere. Did God give them to us, or did we create these images of God out of our own perception of ourselves?<BR/><BR/>Me: Yes. Teachers who often teach love and forgiveness get crucified. Jesus did teach such things, but the crux of his teaching was his identity as ushering in the Kingdom of God.<BR/><BR/>Now you say that we experience God as vengeful instead of forgiving. Doesn't that imply that there is something to forgive? If there is something to forgive, then there is a reality known as sin.<BR/><BR/>Bill: I think our religions are very important, and my particular religious tradition is Christian. I think we should always assume that we can do even better, until proven otherwise (by study, understanding, practice, and advocacy).<BR/><BR/>Me: I have no problem with that provided we are holding to what Christianity really is. While I can disagree with others on secondary issues, we hold hands and walk in unity on the essentials.<BR/><BR/>Bill: I hope this answers your questions more thoroughly. Why not come to the Charlotte Philosophy Discussion Group (Meetup.com) and share and compare ideas?<BR/><BR/>Me: I usually work on Sundays. I've signed up, but when I can attend I'm not sure. I've also got a few papers to write for classes anyway.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16175830373964472006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-48387907293149122382008-02-06T08:50:00.000-05:002008-02-06T08:50:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16175830373964472006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-68471757044154080272008-02-06T00:25:00.000-05:002008-02-06T00:25:00.000-05:00Nick, my replies are in boldBill. That doesn't ans...<B>Nick, my replies are in bold</B><BR/><BR/>Bill. That doesn't answer the question though. What part of Christianity doesn't do that?<BR/><BR/><B>Any part that causes needless pain, suffering, disability, and/or early death, for anyone, now and in the future.</B><BR/><BR/>I will grant some parts of Christianity cause pain, but then so do some doctor's visits. It does not mean the doctor did wrong. It might mean he did so necessarily. (Major surgery is hardly good in experience but good in its final result.) <BR/><BR/><B>I agree that pain and suffering are going to be present as a part of being alive, and that we will never get rid of them, or of disability and early death. What I refer to is having as little of them as possible. That's why we go to doctors.</B><BR/><BR/>I have no problem with God allowing pain for a greater good or with having to realize I am a sinner if the end is that I will be holy.<BR/><BR/><B>The crucial question is, "What is the total outcome of doing X," with the recognition that it is indeed difficult to predict much of the outcome, especially in the far future.</B><BR/><BR/><BR/>In short, I see all in Christianity as good in the end. There is not a thing I would change about Christianity in its essentials.<BR/><BR/><B>Do you believe that all in Christianity has always been good in the end? Would that include crusades, inquisitions, and witch-burning?<BR/><BR/>There is a problem with understanding your meaning. Are you assuming that there is only one thing called Christianity? Do you believe there is more than one kind of Christianity? If Christian denominations disagree with each other, which one is the real Christianity? What are the essentials of Christianity? Would everyone agree with you? If one of the denominatons is correct, aren't the odds only 1/N (N = no. of denominations) that a particular one is the correct one? For you, what does Christianity mean? Would there be any Christians who would disagree with you? If one denomination is all good, doesn't that mean that others are not perfect? Could they improve? Why could not your particular Christianity improve like the others?<BR/><BR/>I believe that anything within a religion that causes individuals to hate themselves, causes them to live in fear, causes them to be isolated from others, causes them to turn against others, causes them to stereotype and denigrate others, or causes them to kill others is probably a bad thing. People have commented, rightly or wrongly, that Christianity has done these things. It is something at least worth thinking about and talking about. And the belief that "I am perfect" or "we are perfect" seems to run counter to experience and I believe interferes with increasing wisdom. I think Jesus' message to a great extent was that we should be more loving and understanding, as opposed to judgemental, hostile, and vengeful. God has been portrayed by some Christians as judgemental rather than understanding, hostile rather than loving, and vengeful rather than forgiving, and God has been portrayed by some as being very narcissistic, irrational, and punitive. These images of God have come from somewhere. Did God give them to us, or did we create these images of God out of our own perception of ourselves?<BR/><BR/>I think our religions are very important, and my particular religious tradition is Christian. I think we should always assume that we can do even better, until proven otherwise (by study, understanding, practice, and advocacy).<BR/><BR/>I hope this answers your questions more thoroughly. Why not come to the Charlotte Philosophy Discussion Group (Meetup.com) and share and compare ideas?<BR/><BR/>Bill Van Fleet<BR/>HomoRationalis.com</B>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-307014564759522372008-02-05T18:18:00.000-05:002008-02-05T18:18:00.000-05:00Iztok. I see you only chose to respond to Secret M...Iztok. I see you only chose to respond to Secret Mark and nothing else. Alright.<BR/><BR/>Why not believe in Secret Mark? Let's see.<BR/><BR/>First off, has anyone read Secret Mark? Do we have a manuscript of it anywhere? Answer: We don't.<BR/><BR/>Secondly, do we have any references to Secret Mark? Answer: We don't.<BR/><BR/>Thirdly, do we have reason to believe that Morton Smith, the man who made the claim pulled a hoax on the scholarly community by telling about finding Secret Mark? Answer: We do.<BR/><BR/>Morton was a pro-homosexual who in making the reference left tell-tale marks behind that hoaxers often do. A word in the text that he claims to have found translates to bald even, which was a trait that Smith was known for.<BR/><BR/>Why accept the four gospels? Simple. Those are the ones that showed themselves to be reliable, they're the closest to the times, they can be tested archaeologically, (Unlike others, I have read gnostic gospels) they were accepted by the church as a whole, and they had apostolic authority.<BR/><BR/>Do I pick and choose? You bet I do! I pick and choose that which is true.<BR/><BR/>And by the way, when it was said the four gospels were in the canon, it was hardly breaking news. It would have been breaking news if it had been other gospels.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16175830373964472006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-35703330151579832002008-02-05T14:59:00.000-05:002008-02-05T14:59:00.000-05:00Re Secret Mark. I didn't mention the book itself b...Re Secret Mark. I didn't mention the book itself but the event that it supposedly describes. The point was that many people consider different books when it comes to holy writ. Some Christians consider 66, some 72 different books. Differences go on. It is obvious that at most one can be right. Same as it is obvious that at most one religion can be right on its claims. Most people reject hundreds of other religious gods and books, so why pick and choose?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-73212580037487441792008-02-05T14:04:00.000-05:002008-02-05T14:04:00.000-05:00Bill. That doesn't answer the question though. Wha...Bill. That doesn't answer the question though. What part of Christianity doesn't do that? I will grant some parts of Christianity cause pain, but then so do some doctor's visits. It does not mean the doctor did wrong. It might mean he did so necessarily. (Major surgery is hardly good in experience but good in its final result.) I have no problem with God allowing pain for a greater good or with having to realize I am a sinner if the end is that I will be holy.<BR/><BR/>In short, I see all in Christianity as good in the end. There is not a thing I would change about Christianity in its essentials.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16175830373964472006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-516048074675687412008-02-05T13:57:00.000-05:002008-02-05T13:57:00.000-05:00Nick, you said"Bill. Seeing as you said there's go...Nick, you said<BR/><BR/><I>"Bill. Seeing as you said there's good and bad in all religions, I'd like to know what is bad in Christianity."</I><BR/><BR/>I really already answered that when I defined "good" in the above post.<BR/><BR/>I see a lot of good in Christianity, consistent with Humanianity, but there is a certain amount that promotes pain, suffering, disability, and early death. I think we are gradually getting rid of those things, and the increasing tolerance of openness of debate, especially dialogue between Christians and non-Christians, is one part of what is bringing that about.<BR/><BR/>The best presentation of my ideas is at HomoRationalis.com in the freely downloadable "textbook." This is now available in the files on Charlotte Philosophy Discussion Group also.<BR/><BR/>But ask yourself whether a particular aspect of Christianity causes joy, contentment, and appreciation, or whether it causes pain, suffering, disability, and/or early death. That's all I mean by what I say.<BR/><BR/>Bill Van Fleet<BR/>HomoRationalis.comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-23695366107952731362008-02-05T13:34:00.000-05:002008-02-05T13:34:00.000-05:00Iztok.First off, it depends on intolerance. If int...Iztok.<BR/><BR/>First off, it depends on intolerance. If intolerance simply means thinking that other people are wrong, then you are guilty as well as you think all people that disagree with your worldview are wrong.<BR/><BR/>If intolerance though means that you don't respect the holder of the view, then I condemn intolerance. I do not believe Muhammad to be a prophet for instance, but I could be a friend with a Muslim no problem while saying his worldview is wrong. I have a good friend who's an atheist who now attends church with me and comes up regularly for some games and DVDs.<BR/><BR/>Now as for Hell...<BR/><BR/>First off, your question relies on a moral standard. However, you have yet to give one. Is it unjust for God to punish evil? Is it unjust to reward good? If someone does not want to be with God, is it unjust of God to honor that?<BR/><BR/>Secondly, what is the purpose of morality? Is morality a means or an end? If you treat it as an end, then you make morality an idol, and God is a jealous God. He won't allow any other gods before him, not even a good thing. Any good thing is wrong when made to be the most important good of all. If God is the greatest good and we treat morality as if it is, then we make morality god instead of God.<BR/><BR/>Can a mass murderer repent and go to Heaven? Of course! Why should it be any other way? If you don't think that's right, then you tell me what God should do. How long should he have the mass murderer be in purgatory or Hell?<BR/><BR/>And the Buddhist? If what I'm saying is true, then the Buddhist who has not been seeking truth has been denying God his whole life. Why should God honor one who denies him? Now it is up to God to judge in that case. I am rest assured he will judge rightly.<BR/><BR/>By the way, you never did get back to me from that thread where you wrote about Secret Mark. I'm still waiting.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16175830373964472006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-30475491879925590882008-02-05T13:26:00.000-05:002008-02-05T13:26:00.000-05:00Nick, same thing as it is wrong with any other dog...Nick, same thing as it is wrong with any other dogma. It promotes intolerance towards those who think or think differently. It enables people to misuse and abuse others in the name of it.<BR/><BR/>For me just the mere notion that in Christianity there is a place called Hell where loving God is going to put anyone who doesn't worship him is preposterous. (Even person otherwise would be labeled as a good person and except for not accepting Jesus as his/her personal savior lived a model life.)<BR/><BR/>Just simple model of:<BR/><BR/>Mass murderer that at the end recants and accepts Jesus as personal savior gets to heaven while a Buddhist who never harmed a living being goes to hell.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-49025270763010961122008-02-05T12:26:00.000-05:002008-02-05T12:26:00.000-05:00Bill. Seeing as you said there's good and bad in a...Bill. Seeing as you said there's good and bad in all religions, I'd like to know what is bad in Christianity. (Note that I don't mean bad in Christians or some false secondary doctrines but in the essentials.)Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16175830373964472006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-63817297566864532192008-02-05T10:04:00.000-05:002008-02-05T10:04:00.000-05:00I am a Humanian Christian. Humanianity implies th...I am a Humanian Christian. Humanianity implies that all of our religions can be improved. They have both good and bad in them. What we need to do is to enhance the good and shed the bad. The good is that which promotes not only the survival of our species but also the good life for everyone, now and in the future, the good life meaning as much joy, contentment, and appreciation as possible and as little pain, suffering, disability, and early death as possible.<BR/><BR/>This link for the Charlotte Philosophy Discussion Group (Meetup.com) has more of my thoughts on this.<BR/><BR/>http://philosophy.meetup.com/240/boards/view/viewthread?thread=4154142&lastpage=yes#<BR/><BR/>Bill Van Fleet<BR/>HomoRationalis.comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-34783721653772499112008-02-04T05:48:00.000-05:002008-02-04T05:48:00.000-05:00Catholic,This thread is titled "Faith cast in conc...Catholic,<BR/>This thread is titled "Faith cast in concrete sinks". If you were less concrete in your faith in Paul's opinions, then you wouldn't need to think homosexuals are, "...filled with every form of wickedness, evil, greed, and malice; full of envy, murder, rivalry, treachery, and spite... gossips... scandalmongers... senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless... and deserving of death."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-2372384001325251042008-02-04T02:12:00.000-05:002008-02-04T02:12:00.000-05:00In response to homosexuality:18 The wrath of God ...In response to homosexuality:<BR/>18 The wrath of God is indeed being revealed from heaven against every impiety and wickedness of those who suppress the truth by their wickedness. <BR/>19 For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them. <BR/>20 Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse; <BR/>21 for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened. <BR/>22 While claiming to be wise, they became fools <BR/>23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes. <BR/>24 Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts<BR/>15 for the mutual degradation of their bodies. <BR/>25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. <BR/>26 Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, <BR/>27 and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity. <BR/>28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper. <BR/>29 They are filled with every form of wickedness, evil, greed, and malice; full of envy, murder, rivalry, treachery, and spite. They are gossips <BR/>30 and scandalmongers and they hate God. They are insolent, haughty, boastful, ingenious in their wickedness, and rebellious toward their parents. <BR/>31 They are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. <BR/>32 Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them. (Romans 1)Catholichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02959106800891736347noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-49227353241546641722008-02-01T22:02:00.000-05:002008-02-01T22:02:00.000-05:00PornStudent. The question is simply "What is the p...PornStudent. The question is simply "What is the purpose of sexual intercourse?" I would contend that it is procreation simply because sexual intercourse is the only thing that can bring it about. If you want a child, you have to get the sperm to meet the egg. You can get pleasure in many ways and intimacy in many ways, although sexual intercourse is a good one, but that is not the final cause of intercourse.<BR/><BR/>Now if sexual intercourse is random and chaotic and purposeless, then go ahead and do whatever you want with it. If it has a clear purpose though, then we dare not abuse it.<BR/><BR/>Btw, I could be slow in answering from here on out. I am going to be busy busy busy with class work so if I don't respond for a day or two or more, that is why.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16175830373964472006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-87915148192988512012008-02-01T09:21:00.000-05:002008-02-01T09:21:00.000-05:00pornstudent, the Bible is not believed by people o...pornstudent, the Bible is not believed by people of faith to be the WORDS of God, but to contain the Word of God. I am sure that you have the brains to know the difference.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-53413779959945107692008-01-31T14:28:00.000-05:002008-01-31T14:28:00.000-05:00Nick - "... the ways you mentioned homosexuals hav...Nick - "... the ways you mentioned homosexuals having children [in vitro fertilization and surrogacy] are not the natural ways." What does this have to do with homosexuality being immoral?<BR/><BR/>"This is just revealing that the system inherently does not work." Homosexuals aren't having sex in order to have kids so there isn't a failure, malfunction or error in the "system."<BR/><BR/>"... homosexuality does not treat the man as a man and the woman as a woman." Not as heterosexuals do. So?<BR/><BR/>"Now is it a sin to have sexual intercourse and not get pregnant? Not at all. However, I think the door should be open for that." You mean there needs to be the possibility of pregnancy in order for sex not to be sinful? This is getting complicated.<BR/><BR/>"It denies that there is any design whatsoever to sexuality and any higher purpose." Not necessarily. But this is a matter of faith in a creator.<BR/><BR/>I don't think I'll be reading <I>Laws</I> any time soon, but thanks for the reference.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-85122753359039537642008-01-31T09:47:00.000-05:002008-01-31T09:47:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-23178116919710524472008-01-31T08:25:00.000-05:002008-01-31T08:25:00.000-05:00Pornstudent.Notice the ways you mentioned homosexu...Pornstudent.<BR/><BR/>Notice the ways you mentioned homosexuals having children are not the natural ways. This is just revealing that the system inherently does not work. It is not that the system is malfunctioning, but that the whole system is in error.<BR/><BR/>Now is it a sin to have sexual intercourse and not get pregnant? Not at all. However, I think the door should be open for that. We cannot control whether we get pregnant or not, but we can certainly limit the possibilities. It all depends on what sexuality is. <BR/><BR/>And this is what is the problem with homosexuality. It does not treat the man as a man and the woman as a woman. It denies that there is any design whatsoever to sexuality and any higher purpose. If the purpose of sexual intercourse is to produce children, then homosexuality certainly falls.<BR/><BR/>By the way, this is not just a religious opinion. You can find it in several other writings. Go read the Laws, a dialogue of Plato, and see how he condemns homosexuality as well.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16175830373964472006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-87529927461385788062008-01-31T08:22:00.000-05:002008-01-31T08:22:00.000-05:00Bill: I would not necessarily say they were "man-m...Bill: I would not necessarily say they were "man-made," but that they appeared along with language, group phenomena, the development of prefrontal cortex, etc. I would not necessarily say that chimps' ability to use stems to fish for termites was "chimp-made."<BR/><BR/>Me: An ability is not the same as a belief system. A belief system is either given by another or comes from the person himself.<BR/><BR/>Bill: You would say that no activities of humans (e.g., science) can tell us about entities (e.g., volcanoes), because those procedures are not from the entities (science is not from volcanoes)? If God tells us about himself, then don't we therefore just have our ideas about him, obtained from him? What is it that we have that is not "just our ideas about him"?<BR/><BR/>Me: Not at all. I would say that reason alone can tell us a number of things even about God, but there are things it cannot tell us about God. I could not find out the doctrine of the Trinity or the atonement by reason alone. This is where divine revelation comes in.<BR/><BR/>Bill: As I pointed out, I don't say that "the purpose of religion is to...." I say that our religions have various "functions," just as do our technology, manner of dress, language, etc.<BR/><BR/>Me: Perchance for others, but for mine, the function of religion is to reveal God as he is that I may know him as he is. This may hit on other areas, and in fact will, but those are secondary.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Bill: Was your religion revealed to you by God, or by your parents, Sunday school, etc.?<BR/><BR/>Me: Notice I did not say revealed to me but simply revealed. How I came to the knowledge that it came from God is something else and I have gone through my share of skepticism and doubt before, but the more I read and learn, the more convinced I am that my faith in Christ is very well-placed.<BR/><BR/>Bill: "...and how to live accordingly." Does this refer to how to treat your fellow man?<BR/><BR/>Me: It refers to all areas. My fellow man is just a part. How do I treat the world itself? How do I treat myself? How do I respond to God? Christianity allows me to treat things as they are, which is most importantly God.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Bill: I don't think you necessarily should. But if you were to, it should only be because you believed that my way of modeling existence was more accurate and helpful. And I don't know what you are considering to be "presuppositions" as opposed to definitions and/or conclusions. To call a person's ideas "presuppositions" somewhat implies that the person has done no thinking about them, just accepting them as given.<BR/><BR/>Me: No. I accept there is thinking behind them, but there is presuppositions behind the thinking. Those could have been thought through as well, but they are there. It is simply in understanding the worldview others come from.<BR/><BR/>I agree, I should only change belief X to belief Y because X is false and Y is true. I have yet to meet someone who can give me a reason why Christ is not true though.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16175830373964472006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-40278713877459505542008-01-31T07:17:00.000-05:002008-01-31T07:17:00.000-05:00Nick, in your reasoning for the immorality of homo...Nick, <A HREF="http://janepope.blogspot.com/2008/01/faith-cast-in-concrete-sinks.html#c2200269661595933972" REL="nofollow">in your reasoning</A> for the immorality of homosexuality you referred to the Bible then you mentioned three "facts". I disagree with these "facts" because homosexuals can have kids using in vitro fertilization and surrogacy, and the rectum is very close to the vagina. But even if these "facts" were true, why would they make homosexuality wrong? What is immoral about having sex without getting pregnant?<BR/><BR/>As far as it being immoral to do things that we weren't created for, you first of all need to believe there is a creator. Then, how would we know what it is we are created for, I mean, would it be OK to play golf and fly? Then, we need to ask, why would it be immoral to do something we weren't created for?<BR/><BR/>If it is a matter of faith that homosexuality is immoral, why not admit it? Christians accept and reject many things on faith.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-59184398247892722372008-01-30T23:06:00.000-05:002008-01-30T23:06:00.000-05:00Nick, I am in bold.Bill. Then apparently, our pres...<B>Nick, I am in bold.</B><BR/><BR/>Bill. Then apparently, our presuppositions are the problem.<BR/><BR/><B>See below re: "presuppositions"</B><BR/><BR/>It seems for you, all religions are naturally man-made so that it is the purpose of religion not to tell us about God so much as how to get along with our fellow man. They can't tell us about God since none of them are from him. They are just our ideas about him.<BR/><BR/><B>I would not necessarily say they were "man-made," but that they appeared along with language, group phenomena, the development of prefrontal cortex, etc. I would not necessarily say that chimps' ability to use stems to fish for termites was "chimp-made."<BR/><BR/>You would say that no activities of humans (e.g., science) can tell us about entities (e.g., volcanoes), because those procedures are not from the entities (science is not from volcanoes)? If God tells us about himself, then don't we therefore just have our ideas about him, obtained from him? What is it that we have that is not "just our ideas about him"?<BR/><BR/>As I pointed out, I don't say that "the purpose of religion is to...." I say that our religions have various "functions," just as do our technology, manner of dress, language, etc.</B><BR/><BR/>As for me though as a Christian, I find it reasonable to see my religion as revealed from God and thus, the purpose of religion is not to tell me how to treat my fellow man, but reveal truth about God and the universe he created and how to live accordingly.<BR/><BR/><B>Was your religion revealed to you by God, or by your parents, Sunday school, etc.?<BR/><BR/>"...and how to live accordingly." Does this refer to how to treat your fellow man?</B><BR/><BR/>So the question would be, why should I leave my presuppositions for yours?<BR/><BR/><B>I don't think you necessarily should. But if you were to, it should only be because you believed that my way of modeling existence was more accurate and helpful. And I don't know what you are considering to be "presuppositions" as opposed to definitions and/or conclusions. To call a person's ideas "presuppositions" somewhat implies that the person has done no thinking about them, just accepting them as given.<BR/><BR/>Bill Van Fleet<BR/>HomoRationalis.com</B>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-43859167625095666982008-01-30T22:12:00.000-05:002008-01-30T22:12:00.000-05:00Bill. Then apparently, our presuppositions are the...Bill. Then apparently, our presuppositions are the problem.<BR/><BR/>It seems for you, all religions are naturally man-made so that it is the purpose of religion not to tell us about God so much as how to get along with our fellow man. They can't tell us about God since none of them are from him. They are just our ideas about him.<BR/><BR/>As for me though as a Christian, I find it reasonable to see my religion as revealed from God and thus, the purpose of religion is not to tell me how to treat my fellow man, but reveal truth about God and the universe he created and how to live accordingly.<BR/><BR/>So the question would be, why should I leave my presuppositions for yours?Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16175830373964472006noreply@blogger.com