Figuring Out Religion

[Mountaineer]

For those of you who are agnostics, or discard the concept of faith in a God that cannot be proven, I have a question.  I'm making the assumption you do have "faith" in arithmetic and logic, hence my question. 

How do you reconcile the Peano Axioms and Gödel's Undecidability or Incompleteness Theorem, or said another way, how do you continue to trust math?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel%27s ... s_theorems

... Mountaineer

Edited to repair broken link.

Does anyone wish to comment?  My question concerned why some pick and choose an "unseen" entity or object or unprovable idea to have faith in and not pick others?  What is the foundational principle upon which you decide such things?  Or, maybe I misunderstood Gödel's work ... if so, could someone explain it.

... Mountaineer

The (almost) silence is eerie - and also QUITE illuminating. 

... Mountaineer

[moda0306]

Mountaineer,

But the silence doesn't really prove much. Philosophy gets into some really meta-physical stuff.


If the most seemingly obvious aspects of the physical world are true, then that lends a lot of credence to logic and the scientific method.  If they are not true, that lends almost no evidence to your interpretation of reality.  Also, it means that we have almost no basis to trust ANY interpretation we might have of reality.

So you might want to shy away from trying to get people to question logic and science.  It takes you to a place where your bible and Jesus also do not exist, most likely.

[Mountaineer]

Mountaineer,

But the silence doesn't really prove much. Philosophy gets into some really meta-physical stuff.


If the most seemingly obvious aspects of the physical world are true, then that lends a lot of credence to logic and the scientific method.  If they are not true, that lends almost no evidence to your interpretation of reality.  Also, it means that we have almost no basis to trust ANY interpretation we might have of reality.

So you might want to shy away from trying to get people to question logic and science.  It takes you to a place where your bible and Jesus also do not exist, most likely.

Actually, I agree with the first bolded statement you made (depending on your definition of obvious, aspects, true)  ... as long as one uses the logic and scientific within the  applicable boundaries and does not try to prove or disprove things/ideas that are outside those boundaries.

Your second bolded statement, I disagree with.  To me, as one thoroughly trained in the scientific method - less so in logic, the evidence is overwhelming that Jesus is who He says He is, His resurrection actually happened, and His promises will come to pass.  Of course, you are free to disagree, but from my perspective, you are playing with fire and the only extinguishing agent is one in which you refuse to acknowledge. 

From my perspective, I do think the silence is VERY illuminating.  Sometimes it is extremely difficult for people to get a glimpse of a reality they do not wish to deal with; the brain is a marvelous organ, it can so very effectively shield us from an inconvenient truth without us even being aware of what is happening - pretty much the old primal fight or flight thing that is built into us and activates when our situation is threatened.

And, for what it's worth, I can relate to an agnostic much more than I can a self-proclaimed atheist because there really are no atheists; they are just unwilling for some reason to acknowledge what/who their god really is.

Regardless, I enjoy your posts and discussing things with you.  Have a great remainder of the weekend.

... Mountaineer

[moda0306]

Mountaineer,

If we need to question existence, math, etc (you know the things we take for granted as just true), much less all the inductive scientific method stuff, then any evidence you have that Jesus is the son if God is massively suspect.

That was my point. That we all interpret reality. If we have to question deductive and strong inductive reality, then all religions have little basis in which to believe them. 


And I share your feelings if preference towards agnosticism vs atheism, but you are redefining God. An atheist doesn't believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing entity that created the universe. They may be arrogant sometimes, but your definition of god doesn't match the definition that they use when defining their atheism.

And, once again, we are ALL putting ultimate faith in our ability to interpret reality. It's what everything else flows from, including our belief in (or knowledge of, if you prefer) God (the actual definition). Without your ability to interpret reality, you'd never be aware of God's presence. So everything you believe about truth stems from that ultimate faith.  Sorry, but there's just no other way.

You enjoy the weekend as well!!  I'd love to be smoking some brisket with you and Desert... Along with a couple agnostics so "team reality" doesn't get overwhelmed.

[moda0306]

Ps, when you talk about that "primal fight or flight" feature, you don't mean the one that evolved from when we we lesser forms of primates, do you? 

[Mountaineer]

Ps, when you talk about that "primal fight or flight" feature, you don't mean the one that evolved from when we we lesser forms of primates, do you? 

I was waiting for that.    That is certainly one way to understand the definition by a statist, evolutionary delusional, blood sucking, liberal pig (surely you do know I'm kidding  ), but I was thinking of "primal" more in this sense:

primal
adjective
basic, fundamental, essential, elemental, vital, central, intrinsic, inherent.

I will leave it to you to determine whether you were made in God's image or in the image of a primate - gorilla or baboon, or orangutan like, tree hugging and hanging or ground dwelling, knuckle dragging beast. 

... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

Mountaineer,

If we need to question existence, math, etc (you know the things we take for granted as just true), much less all the inductive scientific method stuff, then any evidence you have that Jesus is the son if God is massively suspect.

That was my point. That we all interpret reality. If we have to question deductive and strong inductive reality, then all religions have little basis in which to believe them. 


And I share your feelings if preference towards agnosticism vs atheism, but you are redefining God. An atheist doesn't believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing entity that created the universe. They may be arrogant sometimes, but your definition of god doesn't match the definition that they use when defining their atheism.

And, once again, we are ALL putting ultimate faith in our ability to interpret reality. It's what everything else flows from, including our belief in (or knowledge of, if you prefer) God (the actual definition). Without your ability to interpret reality, you'd never be aware of God's presence. So everything you believe about truth stems from that ultimate faith.  Sorry, but there's just no other way.

You enjoy the weekend as well!!  I'd love to be smoking some brisket with you and Desert... Along with a couple agnostics so "team reality" doesn't get overwhelmed.

I understand where you are coming from, but from my perspective you are discounting revelation (as in God's Word) when you make that statement.  It is just as much "in" me as my DNA but I do admit I do not know if I knew that prior to being able to read and hear - maybe yes, maybe no, but I do believe I was given the Holy Spirit by the Word/water in my baptism (a means of Grace) so very likely I "knew" God before I knew I knew Him.  I also know that he knew me before I was.  Is that convoluted enough for you?   

And, finally, bring on that brisket!  Do you prefer Dogfish 90 or Leinenkugle to wash it down?  And, please do not tell me you want a Shirley Temple or a Cosmo.  Also, never fear, Desert and I will feel free to wow all your friends with either facts, overwhelmingly convincing Gospel,  or BS - for ya'll to determine which is which (with a little help from my old friend - Joe Cocker).   

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wG6Cgmg ... el=sveta14

... Mountaineer

[moda0306]

Mountaineer,

If we need to question existence, math, etc (you know the things we take for granted as just true), much less all the inductive scientific method stuff, then any evidence you have that Jesus is the son if God is massively suspect.

That was my point. That we all interpret reality. If we have to question deductive and strong inductive reality, then all religions have little basis in which to believe them. 


And I share your feelings if preference towards agnosticism vs atheism, but you are redefining God. An atheist doesn't believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing entity that created the universe. They may be arrogant sometimes, but your definition of god doesn't match the definition that they use when defining their atheism.

And, once again, we are ALL putting ultimate faith in our ability to interpret reality. It's what everything else flows from, including our belief in (or knowledge of, if you prefer) God (the actual definition). Without your ability to interpret reality, you'd never be aware of God's presence. So everything you believe about truth stems from that ultimate faith.  Sorry, but there's just no other way.

You enjoy the weekend as well!!  I'd love to be smoking some brisket with you and Desert... Along with a couple agnostics so "team reality" doesn't get overwhelmed.

I understand where you are coming from, but from my perspective you are discounting revelation (as in God's Word) when you make that statement.  It is just as much "in" me as my DNA but I do admit I do not know if I knew that prior to being able to read and hear - maybe yes, maybe no, but I do believe I was given the Holy Spirit by the Word/water in my baptism (a means of Grace) so very likely I "knew" God before I knew I knew Him.  I also know that he knew me before I was.  Is that convoluted enough for you?   

And, finally, bring on that brisket!  Do you prefer Dogfish 90 or Leinenkugle to wash it down?  And, please do not tell me you want a Shirley Temple or a Cosmo.  Also, never fear, Desert and I will feel free to wow all your friends with either facts, overwhelmingly convincing Gospel,  or BS - for ya'll to determine which is which (with a little help from my old friend - Joe Cocker).   

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wG6Cgmg ... el=sveta14

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer,

I really, really think a lot of our conversations here are hinging on the nature of this thing called revelation.  When I say "we use our senses to interpret reality," you say "but you're not including revelation."

I think I have to clarify what I am saying, and hopefully fit revelation into it the way I see it.

When I say that "we use our senses to interpret reality," I don't mean that in the same way animals do, and no more.  Our senses combine with our intellect to organize information.  Even though I feel a sense of fear going up a roller-coaster, my ability to organize and access information about reality tells me that I'm safer than if I were driving a car, most likely.

But whether something is interpreted correctly by our based senses (fire is hot... keep a safe distance), or incorrectly, and therefore in need of juxtoposition against inductive & deductive logic about the world (the earth is the center of the universe, flying in an airplane is dangerous, etc), we use the main two functions unique to animal & human life, respectively... our senses & emotions, and our intellect.

Revelation is a form of information gathering.  God cannot reveal himself to a rock.  A rock doesn't have the consciousness to realize that something is being revealed to it.  God can, however, due to our apparent ability to interpret reality, reveal himself to us (assuming he exists).  It is fully dependent, though, on our ability to interpret certain aspects of reality.  Therefore, accepting revelation as Truth DEMANDS that we have faith in our ability to interpret reality.  Otherwise what we deem to be revelation could simply be another myth we convince ourselves of.  There is simply no way around this.  God can't reveal himself to an entity that doesn't have the consciousness/soul with which to receive his presence and consciously interpret it as God.  If we are 100% confident in God's existence, nature, will, power, etc, we are 100% confident in some aspect of our interpretation of reality. 

Perhaps this "revelation" accesses something so deep within us that it is very, very difficult (or perhaps impossible) to accept that it is a false sense of reality, but you simply CAN'T assert that accepting revelation is NOT putting a massive amount of faith in your ability to interpret reality.  If you can't realize this, and admit to it, I have to scratch my head and stick on this point, because I think this is where we are truly worlds apart.  You are a processor of many things.  Senses... Feelings... logical processes... perhaps even a revelation of God.... but ALL of these things REQUIRE that you interpret them, and any time you're sure of something, you're sure of your ability to process/interpret reality on some level.

Can we agree on that?

[Mountaineer]

Mountaineer,

If we need to question existence, math, etc (you know the things we take for granted as just true), much less all the inductive scientific method stuff, then any evidence you have that Jesus is the son if God is massively suspect.

That was my point. That we all interpret reality. If we have to question deductive and strong inductive reality, then all religions have little basis in which to believe them. 


And I share your feelings if preference towards agnosticism vs atheism, but you are redefining God. An atheist doesn't believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing entity that created the universe. They may be arrogant sometimes, but your definition of god doesn't match the definition that they use when defining their atheism.

And, once again, we are ALL putting ultimate faith in our ability to interpret reality. It's what everything else flows from, including our belief in (or knowledge of, if you prefer) God (the actual definition). Without your ability to interpret reality, you'd never be aware of God's presence. So everything you believe about truth stems from that ultimate faith.  Sorry, but there's just no other way.

You enjoy the weekend as well!!  I'd love to be smoking some brisket with you and Desert... Along with a couple agnostics so "team reality" doesn't get overwhelmed.

I understand where you are coming from, but from my perspective you are discounting revelation (as in God's Word) when you make that statement.  It is just as much "in" me as my DNA but I do admit I do not know if I knew that prior to being able to read and hear - maybe yes, maybe no, but I do believe I was given the Holy Spirit by the Word/water in my baptism (a means of Grace) so very likely I "knew" God before I knew I knew Him.  I also know that he knew me before I was.  Is that convoluted enough for you?   

And, finally, bring on that brisket!  Do you prefer Dogfish 90 or Leinenkugle to wash it down?  And, please do not tell me you want a Shirley Temple or a Cosmo.  Also, never fear, Desert and I will feel free to wow all your friends with either facts, overwhelmingly convincing Gospel,  or BS - for ya'll to determine which is which (with a little help from my old friend - Joe Cocker).   

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wG6Cgmg ... el=sveta14

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer,

I really, really think a lot of our conversations here are hinging on the nature of this thing called revelation.  When I say "we use our senses to interpret reality," you say "but you're not including revelation."

I think I have to clarify what I am saying, and hopefully fit revelation into it the way I see it.

When I say that "we use our senses to interpret reality," I don't mean that in the same way animals do, and no more.  Our senses combine with our intellect to organize information.  Even though I feel a sense of fear going up a roller-coaster, my ability to organize and access information about reality tells me that I'm safer than if I were driving a car, most likely.

But whether something is interpreted correctly by our based senses (fire is hot... keep a safe distance), or incorrectly, and therefore in need of juxtoposition against inductive & deductive logic about the world (the earth is the center of the universe, flying in an airplane is dangerous, etc), we use the main two functions unique to animal & human life, respectively... our senses & emotions, and our intellect.

Revelation is a form of information gathering.  God cannot reveal himself to a rock.  A rock doesn't have the consciousness to realize that something is being revealed to it.  God can, however, due to our apparent ability to interpret reality, reveal himself to us (assuming he exists).  It is fully dependent, though, on our ability to interpret certain aspects of reality.  Therefore, accepting revelation as Truth DEMANDS that we have faith in our ability to interpret reality.  Otherwise what we deem to be revelation could simply be another myth we convince ourselves of.  There is simply no way around this.  God can't reveal himself to an entity that doesn't have the consciousness/soul with which to receive his presence and consciously interpret it as God.  If we are 100% confident in God's existence, nature, will, power, etc, we are 100% confident in some aspect of our interpretation of reality. 

Perhaps this "revelation" accesses something so deep within us that it is very, very difficult (or perhaps impossible) to accept that it is a false sense of reality, but you simply CAN'T assert that accepting revelation is NOT putting a massive amount of faith in your ability to interpret reality.  If you can't realize this, and admit to it, I have to scratch my head and stick on this point, because I think this is where we are truly worlds apart.  You are a processor of many things.  Senses... Feelings... logical processes... perhaps even a revelation of God.... but ALL of these things REQUIRE that you interpret them, and any time you're sure of something, you're sure of your ability to process/interpret reality on some level.

Can we agree on that?

Moda, I truly appreciate your willingness to discuss this with, from your perspective, a likely nutcase.    So, in the spirit of camaraderie, I'll comment on some of your points, from my perspective.  I've bolded your comments taken from your post above.  I'll comment in regular text.  Some of my responses are in the form of playing devil's advocate so take them in that light.  I too am just trying to get us to some common ground from which to pursue the heavy duty stuff.  Maybe this is the heavy duty stuff ... who knows.  It shall be revealed. 


we use the main two functions unique to animal & human life, respectively... our senses & emotions, and our intellect.  I understand from my organizational theory/practice courses there are four components to the whole person (parentheses items are yours and similar to the terms I am using):  body (senses), mind (intellect), heart (emotions), and spirit - your definition leaves out spirit.

Revelation is a form of information gathering.  My perspective is that revelation comes from outside of ourselves - thus I don't think (subject to change if you have some convincing arguments) we are the ones gathering anything, that would be active on our part.  Revelation is passive on our part since it is someone outside of ourselves doing the acting - the revealing.

God cannot reveal himself to a rock.  A rock doesn't have the consciousness to realize that something is being revealed to it.  How is it you know that?  Especially the first statement.  I would agree that given our current state of using the scientific method within its applicable boundaries you are correct.  But your statements, to me, are outside of the applicable boundaries and thus unknowable as to whether they are true or not.  That is even if you leave faith in God's abilities completely out of the picture.

Therefore, accepting revelation as Truth DEMANDS that we have faith in our ability to interpret reality.  Otherwise what we deem to be revelation could simply be another myth we convince ourselves of.  I disagree.  How do you know that?  And, secondly, since revelation emanates from outside of us, it has nothing to do with my abilities to interpret - which as I comment on below is very suspect since we are living in this life under the curse and all people, things and methods are potentially corrupt and give false answers.  I believe  your statement is what you believe at this point, but is not applicable for one who has faith in the promises of God, or said another way, trusts that God says things that we are incapable of understanding even though they are true.  For example, I can try to explain nuclear fission and nuclear fusion to a first grader.  I (the external source from the child's perspective) know that fission and fusion are factual and true.  I do not think the first grader will believe what I tell him based upon his ability (internal to the child) to understand ... if they trust me sufficiently, they will believe me even though they do not understand.  Even adults have to trust something beyond what they personally can prove, observe, or experience, especially in this complex technological world.

God can't reveal himself to an entity that doesn't have the consciousness/soul with which to receive his presence and consciously interpret it as God.  How do you know that?  As I mentioned before, I received the Holy Spirit at my baptism from an external to me source (from my perspective this is fact since I believe God's Word and that God is always truthful); again, this is outside the applicable boundaries of science as we know it at this time and cannot be proven true or false from a non-believers perspective - I think, maybe you can comment on this.

but you simply CAN'T assert that accepting revelation is NOT putting a massive amount of faith in your ability to interpret reality.  Sure I can, just a surely as you can say I can't.  I need no ability to receive that revelation, it is there, given for all, and available for all, regardless of my actions or inactions.  Side comment: you seem to want a God that is smaller, or at least no bigger, than one you are able to understand.  Is that the kind of God you would REALLY want, assuming you might want some assurance about what happens when you die, or assurance about any other really big questions you may harbor?

You are a processor of many things.  Senses... Feelings... logical processes... perhaps even a revelation of God.... but ALL of these things REQUIRE that you interpret them, and any time you're sure of something, you're sure of your ability to process/interpret reality on some level.  I agree that I process many things and apply interpretation inside the applicable boundaries.  And, I agree that many of those things require interpretation, but not necessarily by me; For example, Scripture interprets Scripture as a hermenutic is the best one from my perspective, but this gets into the area of authority of Scripture which we may not want to pursue right now.  But, no, I'm not SURE of my future abilities, I can only reflect on the past and determine what seemed to work in a given situation and what did not; I am a sinful being that innately rebels against God and I am cursed in this creation post "fall" and curse; if I were not, death would not be at the end of my earthly journey - i.e. there may be lots of speculation about why "life" dies, but no hard core scientific reasons to the best of my knowledge.  In other words, can science accurately predict the the exact year, month, week, day, minute, and second when I'm going to die, or what is differenct about this bag of flesh one microsecond prior to death and one microsecond after?  Why would I arrogantly think that I could interpret anything outside of the boundaries of science and intellect that God has given me to help my neighbors in this earthly life and given my neighbors to help me?  I'm just thankful for all the wonderful gifts from God that I can use inside the boundaries that are provided by my neighbors: family relationships, friend relationships, medicine, electricity, transportation, clothing, food, and the list goes on. 

... Mountaineer

[moda0306]

Mountaineer,

Man let's cut to the chase...

1) Outside that learned via revelation, would you agree that every single aspect of what we think or know to be true involves some level of interpretation by our body, mind, heart and spirit to determine its truth?


2) You're asserting that God revealing his presence via this thing called revelation does not require said interpretation by our spirit?

[Mountaineer]

Mountaineer,

Man let's cut to the chase...

1) Outside that learned via revelation, would you agree that every single aspect of what we think or know to be true involves some level of interpretation by our body, mind, heart and spirit to determine its truth?


2) You're asserting that God revealing his presence via this thing called revelation does not require said interpretation by our spirit?

1.  No.  Truth is truth regardless of what we think about it.  Planet X with a 1 cm diameter diamond on it (hypothetical - assume it really is out there - or pick any other object that is out there that we do not (yet?) know about) exists whether we can see it, sense it, or otherwise use our body, mind, heart and spirit to interpret whatever it is we are interpreting.

2.  Correct.  But I'm not saying you or I will necessarily know it.  Unprovable either way; it is outside the boundaries.

I'm starting to think we are trying to discuss closed and open systems without understanding exactly what the parameters are, or we have different ideas about which systems are closed and which are open.

... Mountaineer

[moda0306]

Regarding #1, that isn't what I asked. I asked if everything we come to know or think we know involves us interpreting the world around us.  Not if actual truth does.  The earth may go around the sun.  This doesn't mean that I don't have certain feelings and processes that have to interpret inputs to come to that conclusion.

This isn't about reality, per se, but our ability to perceive it correctly.

Care to change your answer now that I've clarified?

[moda0306]

Side issue/note:

I've been inclined to watch as much atheist/agnostic vs religious debates and creation/evolution/big-bang debates on youtube as I can. 

One lecture by Richard Dawkins produced a fact that shocked me to the core.  I really didn't believe it.  It was a 1987 campaign comment by George Bush 1.

Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?

Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

As a guy who sort of likes liked George, I am pretty disgusted.  Not even so much by Bush.  More-so the media and American people for not losing their f*cking minds over a comment like that.

And I'm no militant atheist.  There very well might be a God. There are some deep mysteries about existence that confound my imagination. But could you imagine anyone saying something like that about ANY human US citizen group in 1987 and getting away with it?

Sorry Desert and Mountaineer... You're gonna be getting a bit more snark from me (than usual) on religion topics for the next few weeks. 

[Mountaineer]

Side issue/note:

I've been inclined to watch as much atheist/agnostic vs religious debates and creation/evolution/big-bang debates on youtube as I can. 

One lecture by Richard Dawkins produced a fact that shocked me to the core.  I really didn't believe it.  It was a 1987 campaign comment by George Bush 1.

Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?

Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

As a guy who sort of likes liked George, I am pretty disgusted.  Not even so much by Bush.  More-so the media and American people for not losing their f*cking minds over a comment like that.

And I'm no militant atheist.  There very well might be a God. There are some deep mysteries about existence that confound my imagination. But could you imagine anyone saying something like that about ANY human US citizen group in 1987 and getting away with it?

Sorry Desert and Mountaineer... You're gonna be getting a bit more snark from me (than usual) on religion topics for the next few weeks. 

Moda,

A couple of comments.  One - are you sure the quote is accurate?  Be sure to read to the end.  http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archiv ... 8.php  If you don't like this article, try googling to find some reputable souces - I could not find much.  Perhaps that is why the media did not go nuts.  Perhaps you are just hearing what you want to hear on the subject and not being objective - NO!  Tell me NO!

Two - even if the quote is accurate, why do you assume all Christians hold the same sentiments, any more than all atheists hold the same view, or all Muslims, or all blacks, or all whites, or all rocket scientists?  Seems you are heavily assuming - and you do no that to assume makes an ASS out of U and ME  .  Anyway, if it is a true statement, and since I've repeatedly said all of us are sinners and corrupt, are you unable to forgive a boneheaded statement regardless of who makes it?  Why would you let a 27 year old quote of very questionable validity influence you about anything?  That seems way out of character for a logician.

However, if you still want to be snarky, go for it; does this mean you are going thermonuclear on us?  Seems excessive for the heat required to cook brisket.  By the way, a snark is:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SM-62_Snark 

... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

Regarding #1, that isn't what I asked. I asked if everything we come to know or think we know involves us interpreting the world around us.  Not if actual truth does.  The earth may go around the sun.  This doesn't mean that I don't have certain feelings and processes that have to interpret inputs to come to that conclusion.

This isn't about reality, per se, but our ability to perceive it correctly.

Care to change your answer now that I've clarified?

I am not certain; on one level I agree with you.  On another level, I think quite a bit of faith is involved - is that perception, interpretation, reality, fact, truth?  Somehow, I come to "trust" or "have faith in" my physics teacher, my parents, my friends, etc. even though I have not tracked back down the line why what they are telling me is provable or unprovable.  Your statement about our ability to perceive  correctly is not true from my perspective - in other words I do not know everything there is to know about anything.  I tend to believe that our "understanding" of anything is heavily based on the presuppositions we hold.  For example, in your adjacent post about Bush, somehow you held a presupposition (I do not know this but that is the conclusion I came to) that because some atheist said it, it must be true ... even though a very quick search indicated the alleged statement was very suspect.  My ability to perceive correctly all things at all times and in all places is flawed because of the curse.  Once again, you are making "man" the center of all that is wise and knowable; I disagree.  An ant will know more about "ant life" than man will ever be able to comprehend, let alone God stuff. 

Perhaps I've misunderstood what you are trying to get at.  It does seem to me that you want to make this religion topic a closed system, I believe I am dealing with an open system, which seems to be the case on (almost?) all things that man is a part of.  For example, a wristwatch may appear to be a closed system, and from the perspective of the inanimate watch, it may be.  But from my perspective, as soon as I look at the watch to determine the time, the system is open - who set the time?  Is it correct?  To what degree of accuracy?  To what degree of precision?  Am I dyslexic?  Do I know what the symbols on the watch mean?  How do I know that?  Etc.  Sort of like the Schrödinger cat thing. 

Maybe you could give a try to addressing the comments I made in my 6:23pm post last night.  This "cut to the chase" thing is not so clearly cutting to the chase from my perspective.

... Mountaineer

[moda0306]

Side issue/note:

I've been inclined to watch as much atheist/agnostic vs religious debates and creation/evolution/big-bang debates on youtube as I can. 

One lecture by Richard Dawkins produced a fact that shocked me to the core.  I really didn't believe it.  It was a 1987 campaign comment by George Bush 1.

Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?

Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

As a guy who sort of likes liked George, I am pretty disgusted.  Not even so much by Bush.  More-so the media and American people for not losing their f*cking minds over a comment like that.

And I'm no militant atheist.  There very well might be a God. There are some deep mysteries about existence that confound my imagination. But could you imagine anyone saying something like that about ANY human US citizen group in 1987 and getting away with it?

Sorry Desert and Mountaineer... You're gonna be getting a bit more snark from me (than usual) on religion topics for the next few weeks. 

Moda,

A couple of comments.  One - are you sure the quote is accurate?  Be sure to read to the end.  http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archiv ... 8.php  If you don't like this article, try googling to find some reputable souces - I could not find much.  Perhaps that is why the media did not go nuts.  Perhaps you are just hearing what you want to hear on the subject and not being objective - NO!  Tell me NO!

Two - even if the quote is accurate, why do you assume all Christians hold the same sentiments, any more than all atheists hold the same view, or all Muslims, or all blacks, or all whites, or all rocket scientists?  Seems you are heavily assuming - and you do no that to assume makes an ASS out of U and ME  .  Anyway, if it is a true statement, and since I've repeatedly said all of us are sinners and corrupt, are you unable to forgive a boneheaded statement regardless of who makes it?  Why would you let a 27 year old quote of very questionable validity influence you about anything?  That seems way out of character for a logician.

However, if you still want to be snarky, go for it; does this mean you are going thermonuclear on us?  Seems excessive for the heat required to cook brisket.  By the way, a snark is:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SM-62_Snark 

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer,

It's possible it's not accurate, and even if it's accurate, it appears perhaps it was obscure enough of a source that maybe that's a good excuse for it not to make national news.

I don't think most religious people think like that... but it dumbfounded me how someone who said that could even be elected, or that the media wouldn't have had that airing all over.

I'll leave it alone.  It really has little bearing on our conversation, most likely.

[PP4me2]

As I mentioned before, I received the Holy Spirit at my baptism from an external to me source (from my perspective this is fact since I believe God's Word and that God is always truthful);

Can you describe for us about receiving the Holy Spirit at baptism? Is it just a matter of faith because your church teaches that you receive the Holy Spirit at baptism and therefore you believe it, or did you have some inward experience that told you that you had received the Holy Spirit?

[PP4me2]

I think the basic problem with Christianity and why it won't continue to exist in its present form for very much longer is its basic premise.

And the basic premise is that God hates you because you are a sinner. And because your are a sinner you will spend eternity in a place called hell where you will be tormented for all eternity. But Jesus came to save you from this fate because God is love.

Go figure.

Mountaineer can present all of his math problems and try to explain it away all he wants but in the end, if he is honest, I can't see how he can't truthfully admit that what I say is true. He can only sound like Obama the politician and continually speak a bunch of total bullshit to plaster over the real truth of what he actually believes.

[Mountaineer]

I think the basic problem with Christianity and why it won't continue to exist in its present form for very much longer is its basic premise.

And the basic premise is that God hates you because you are a sinner. And because your are a sinner you will spend eternity in a place called hell where you will be tormented for all eternity. But Jesus came to save you from this fate because God is love.

Go figure.

Mountaineer can present all of his math problems and try to explain it away all he wants but in the end, if he is honest, I can't see how he can't truthfully admit that what I say is true. He can only sound like Obama the politician and continually speak a bunch of total bullshit to plaster over the real truth of what he actually believes.

PP4Me2,

With all due respect, you have it pretty much assbackwards about the basic premise or teachings of Christianity.  Scriptures teach: We are all sinners (except Jesus) from the very beginning.  God does not hate all sinners; He wants us all to live with Him for eternity.  God is also just and cannot let sin go unpunished, either original sin (began with the 'fall' in Gn 3) or actual sin (evil actions and thoughts contrary to God's will that we do during our lives).  The way God punished those sins was to send His son Jesus to have all sin from all time placed on Jesus and take those sins to the grave.  Because of what Jesus did, God no longer sees us as sinners, we are declared justified because of what Jesus did.  Jesus rose from the dead and will return to judge the living and the dead.  Those who believe this will get a "free pass" at the Last Day when Jesus returns to judge us; if you do not accept the promises of Jesus, you have done the "Hell thing" to yourself. 

You may wish to go back and read through this thread if you are really concerned about what happens after your death, and/or if you want to learn more about Christianity.  From my perspective, you have somehow developed a really warped view of what Scriptures teach.

Re. your baptism question in a separate post, go to this webpage and look for "Holy Baptism" in the list of topics midway down the page.  http://www.lcms.org/belief-and-practice  The short answer is that I received the Holy Spirit at my baptisim because that is what Scripture teaches, it has nothing to do with my feelings or decision - it is all external to me what happens.  It is one of the "Means of Grace".

... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

I think the basic problem with Christianity and why it won't continue to exist in its present form for very much longer is its basic premise.

And the basic premise is that God hates you because you are a sinner. And because your are a sinner you will spend eternity in a place called hell where you will be tormented for all eternity. But Jesus came to save you from this fate because God is love.

Go figure.

Mountaineer can present all of his math problems and try to explain it away all he wants but in the end, if he is honest, I can't see how he can't truthfully admit that what I say is true. He can only sound like Obama the politician and continually speak a bunch of total bullshit to plaster over the real truth of what he actually believes.

PP4Me2,

Again, with all due respect, I have a suggestion for you.  You might enjoy the Christianity forum at Amazon more than this thread on the Permanent Portfolio forum.  Link:  http://www.amazon.com/forum/christianity/ 

The Amazon forum is populated by many people that seem to be more interested in belittling others and mocking Christianity than this one and frequently the "snark factor" is readily apparent.  You may feel comforted by those who behave similarly to you.  This forum seems to be heavily populated by people who are intelligent, courteous,  open to the ideas of others, respectfully state their positions, are genuinely trying to learn from each other, and refrain from calling others liars - at least that is my perception of the members.

I hope you find peace, or whatever it is you are looking for.  And, it likely means little to you, but I forgive you for calling me a liar.  If you wish to continue asking questions of me, feel free to ask directly, you do not need to refer to me in the third person as you did above.  I'll do my best to answer you.  P.S.  In your post above, the correct gramatical usage is you're, not your. 


... Mountaineer

[PP4me2]

Those who believe this will get a "free pass" at the Last Day when Jesus returns to judge us; if you do not accept the promises of Jesus, you have done the "Hell thing" to yourself.  [/i]

Your God sounds like a typical domestic abuser to me. "If you had only done what I told you to do I wouldn't have had to smash your head in so you have nobody to blame but yourself".

As for your baptism answer I would have had a lot more respect for what you had to say if you had told me about your personal experience of the Holy Spirit entering you when you were baptized. When you say that's what happened because that's what the scripture says or what my church says I have NO respect for that. You can think of me as a mocker if you want but I think a lot of what you believe and present here in a public forum is worthy of mocking and you aren't the only one who feels compelled to let light shine in the darkness.

[PP4me2]

In your post above, the correct gramatical usage is you're, not your. 

Thanks for pointing that out. I damn well know the difference between your and you're but lately I find that I type faster than I think.

Will try to avoid incorrect "gramatical" usage in the future.

[l82start]

In your post above, the correct gramatical usage is you're, not your. 

Thanks for pointing that out. I damn well know the difference between your and you're but lately I find that I type faster than I think.

Will try to avoid incorrect "gramatical" usage in the future.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4vf8N6GpdM grammar related link

[Xan]

As for your baptism answer I would have had a lot more respect for what you had to say if you had told me about your personal experience of the Holy Spirit entering you when you were baptized.

Hi PP4me2,

Many Christians would agree with you, PP4me2.  Others, like Mountaineer and myself, believe that God's promises are far more trustworthy than fuzzy feelings and personal experiences.  If there were a time when I felt I had been spiritually regenerated I would be deeply suspicious of it.  Meanwhile, God has promised that the old Adam in me has drowned and died in my Baptism.

[PP4me2]

Many Christians would agree with you, PP4me2.  Others, like Mountaineer and myself, believe that God's promises are far more trustworthy than fuzzy feelings and personal experiences.  If there were a time when I felt I had been spiritually regenerated I would be deeply suspicious of it.  Meanwhile, God has promised that the old Adam in me has drowned and died in my Baptism.

I've read the Bible and it sure does seem to me it's chock full of personal experiences. You mean you never even had a fuzzy feeling that God's promises are more trustworthy than personal experiences? You just came to you Christian beliefs with pure intellect?