Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on January 15, 2017, 07:26:13 AM
-
Are we like rowing boats frantically trying to bail out the rising water of God and failing or will we be successful and stop the leak?
-
Are we like rowing boats frantically trying to bail out the rising water of God and failing or will we be successful and stop the leak?
Ehhhhhhhhhhhh?
-
Are we like rowing boats frantically trying to bail out the rising water of God and failing or will we be successful and stop the leak?
actually ,I'm a little tea pot .
-
Vlad, universalism is an interesting subject to discuss.
What on earth is your OP about though?
-
It's the Vlad Random Word Generator running at full steam again.
-
It's the Vlad Random Word Generator running at full steam again.
What?
People quote me........are you suggesting their stupid?
-
*cough* :D
-
What?
People quote me........are you suggesting their stupid?
Priceless.
-
Second laugh out loud of the day.
-
Vlad use modify and have another try.
Ippy
-
Anybody want to kick off a discussion about the alleged thread topic, to wit, universalism?
Or shall we carry on pondering about spoons and camels and other random shit?
-
Ok.
If God is all loving and all merciful then salvation has to be universal - it's not logical to believe that such a God could behave differently.
Yet scripture flatly contradicts this and universalists go with 'feelings' about God rather than 'facts' in the Bible (I know, I've been one).
As an aside, no other debate I've ever had has been so venomous as that I once had with a group of Christians on another forum years ago when I stated that I was a universalist. In the end I was told I wasn't welcome there.
-
Ok.
If God is all loving and all merciful then salvation has to be universal - it's not logical to believe that such a God could behave differently.
Yet scripture flatly contradicts this and universalists go with 'feelings' about God rather than 'facts' in the Bible (I know, I've been one).
Hm. Does it though? I was reading around the subject not ever so long ago (I was researching something about the Quakers, I think, and followed a link to a link to a link to a link ... as you do) and the universalists think they have scriptural support for their position - they can and do dial up all the appropriate verses.
Perhaps the simple if rather dully predictable truth is that scripture contradicts itself and contradicts the contradictions all over the shop. Sloppy work for omnipotence, as I always say.
As an aside, no other debate I've ever had has been so venomous as that I once had with a group of Christians on another forum years ago when I stated that I was a universalist. In the end I was told I wasn't welcome there.
That's all-embracing love and charity for you.
-
It's hard to justify scripturally. You can infer it and read it into certain passages. But Jesus is (apparently) pretty explicit about us being sheep and goats.
-
What?
People quote me........are you suggesting their stupid?
Like as if anyone would dream of suggesting such a thing! ;D ;D ;D
-
It's hard to justify scripturally. You can infer it and read it into certain passages. But Jesus is (apparently) pretty explicit about us being sheep and goats.
Indeed. And as somebody once put it, "A God all mercy is a God unjust."
Can't see the chain of logic there, but no doubt that's just me.
-
Indeed. And as somebody once put it, "A God all mercy is a God unjust."
Can't see the chain of logic there, but no doubt that's just me.
As a species we like to think of other people getting theirs. God is made in our image.
-
As a species we like to think of other people getting theirs.
I know a big fancy-pants term for that!
God is made in our image.
Aye. You'd think we could have aimed a little higher, wouldn't you.
-
Rhiannon
Yet scripture flatly contradicts this and universalists go with 'feelings' about God rather than 'facts' in the Bible (I know, I've been one).
Rhiannon, I'm interested to know what caused the change, if you don't mind
.
-
Indeed. And as somebody once put it, "A God all mercy is a God unjust."
Can't see the chain of logic there, but no doubt that's just me.
though a god that believes in eternal punishment for something is also unjust.
-
though a god that believes in eternal punishment for something is also unjust.
Exactly, for then punishment ceases to have any correctional function and becomes merely sadism - torture for its own sake.
-
though a god that believes in eternal punishment for something is also unjust.
does that mean both good and bad people live for eternity ?
-
Ok.
If God is all loving and all merciful then salvation has to be universal - it's not logical to believe that such a God could behave differently.
I disagree since love would allow a final parting of the ways surely.
-
Ok.
If God is all loving and all merciful then salvation has to be universal - it's not logical to believe that such a God could behave differently.
Yet scripture flatly contradicts this and universalists go with 'feelings' about God rather than 'facts' in the Bible (I know, I've been one).
As an aside, no other debate I've ever had has been so venomous as that I once had with a group of Christians on another forum years ago when I stated that I was a universalist. In the end I was told I wasn't welcome there.
...and what are you guys trying to tell me on this board?
-
If God is all loving and all merciful then salvation has to be universal - it's not logical to believe that such a God could behave differently.
Salvation is indeed offered to everyone. And it is logical that in order to receive what is offered, you need to accept God's love and mercy. God has given us the gift of free will in order that we can freely accept His love and forgiveness. It is not logical for those who reject God's love and mercy to receive His gift of salvation.
-
You're on shaky ground invoking the concept of logic, Alan.
-
AB,
Salvation is indeed offered to everyone. And it is logical that in order to receive what is offered, you need to accept God's love and mercy. God has given us the gift of free will in order that we can freely accept His love and forgiveness. It is not logical for those who reject God's love and mercy to receive His gift of salvation.
A word of advice old son: if you really want to proselytise for your god, you really should stay away from any mention of logic. The moment you try to apply logic to your arguments for "God" they collapses in a heap. You're better advised just to stick with "but that's my faith" which is essentially unchallengeable, though I'll grant you that it comes at the cost of providing no reason at all for anyone else to agree with you.
-
Vlad,
...and what are you guys trying to tell me on this board?
Perhaps that telling lies does you no favours?
-
AB,
A word of advice old son: if you really want to proselytise for your god, you really should stay away from any mention of logic. The moment you try to apply logic to your arguments for "God" they collapses in a heap. You're better advised just to stick with "but that's my faith" which is essentially unchallengeable, though I'll grant you that it comes at the cost of providing no reason at all for anyone else to agree with you.
Oh dear. Hillside in Arthur Daly mode.
The That's my faith argument.....pure Dawkinsian strawman.
-
Oh dear. Hillside in Arthur Daly mode.
The That's my faith argument.....pure Dawkinsian strawman.
So you're presumably disagreeing that Alan's statements (most recent example: #24) are based on his faith?
-
So you're presumably disagreeing that Alan's statements (most recent example: #24) are based on his faith?
No Dawkins goes on about theists saying in the public domain that things are true because of the theists faith. That is a Dawkinsian strawman par excellence.
Hillside also is either chucking the word logic or God around shamanic-ally to bolster his car crash of an argument.
-
No Dawkins goes on about theists saying in the public domain that things are true because of the theists faith.
I'll ask the question again - perhaps you'll answer this time. Are you stating that theists do not as a matter of fact do exactly and precisely this?
-
Vlad,
Oh dear. Hillside in Arthur Daly mode.
The That's my faith argument.....pure Dawkinsian strawman.
You mean you have an argument for "God" other than your personal faith?
Really?
Wow!
OK, it's been years in the waiting but I've got the Twiglets and a case of Vimto in so, finally, give it your best shot Big Guy!
-
Vlad,
No Dawkins goes on about theists saying in the public domain that things are true because of the theists faith. That is a Dawkinsian strawman par excellence.
Er, no - it's actually what the religious will often tell you to be the case. Your can't blame RD for quoting it.
Hillside also is either chucking the word logic or God around shamanic-ally to bolster his car crash of an argument.
If you think an argument to be a "car crash", rather than just assert the charge why not finally at least attempt an argument to that effect?
-
A word of advice old son: if you really want to proselytise for your god, you really should stay away from any mention of logic. The moment you try to apply logic to your arguments for "God" they collapses in a heap. You're better advised just to stick with "but that's my faith" which is essentially unchallengeable, though I'll grant you that it comes at the cost of providing no reason at all for anyone else to agree with you.
Logic is God's gift. You can use it to discover the truth. Nothing I believe about God is illogical to me. And none of the anti theist logic on this board makes any sense to me because it is very shallow. The ultimate questions you should ask yourself are: How and where did logic originate, where precisely does it reside, can it be defined in material terms and can it be used to explain its own existence?
-
I'll ask the question again - perhaps you'll answer this time. Are you stating that theists do not as a matter of fact do exactly and precisely this?
A few might. Most of us know there's a swivel eyed intellectual totalitarian antitheist lurking around so don't bother.
And, says Vlad in his best David Attenborough, if we wait quietly one will be along any minute.
-
Vlad,
You mean you have an argument for "God" other than your personal faith?
Really?
Wow!
OK, it's been years in the waiting but I've got the Twiglets and a case of Vimto in so, finally, give it your best shot Big Guy!
I'd like to Hillside but I'm afraid I have a prior and more profitable engagement explaining the arguments for God to a brick wall.
-
Logic is God's gift. You can use it to discover the truth. Nothing I believe about God is illogical to me.
MRDA - Mandy Rice-Davies Applies. (i.e. "He would say that, wouldn't he?").
And none of the anti theist logic on this board makes any sense to me.
Sorry to be blunt, old fruit, but that's because you show no sign whatever of understanding it.
The ultimate questions you should ask yourself are: How and where did logic originate, where precisely does it reside, can it be defined in material terms and can it be used to explain its own existence?
Most of those sound like exactly the questions you don't ask about your god hypothesis, for some reason.
-
AB,
Logic is God's gift. You can use it to discover the truth. Nothing I believe about God is illogical to me. And none of the anti theist logic on this board makes any sense to me. The ultimate questions you should ask yourself are: How and where did logic originate, where precisely does it reside, can it be defined in material terms and can it be used to explain its own existence?
You misunderstand the word "logic". You can't have logic just for you, and nor is there "anti-theistic" logic. Logic is logic - thus, say, the statement "all lions are cats, therefore all cats are lions" is logically false regardless of your personal opinions for or against something. When you try to argue for "God" using logic that's false (as you do often) then that logic is false, just as it would be if you attempted the same arguments for anything else.
If you'd start with at least a basic understanding of what logic entails perhaps you'd see where you keep going off the rails here.
-
Sorry to be blunt, old fruit, but that's because you show no sign whatever of understanding it.
I understand more than you give me credit for. The problem is that it breaks down when you try to fit it in with a universe derived entirely from random unguided deterministic events.
-
Vlad,
I'd like to Hillside but I'm afraid I have a prior and more profitable engagement explaining the arguments for God to a brick wall.
Yes, that's probably sensible. As you've never attempted a cogent argument for "God" before it's probably wise to try it out on an inanimate object first so at least you can hear where you get it wrong. I'm not sure talking to a wall will help with your lying problem mind, but baby steps eh?
OK, once you've done that by all means come back and share where you've got to. After all those years of broken logic, misrepresentations and just ignoring pretty much every question put to you I'm quite excited at the notion of you of all people actually attempting an argument!
Good luck with it though...I'll alert the committee for the Templeton prize while you're away
-
I understand more than you give me credit for.
I'm resolutely unconvinced. That's because you don't just lay down one bald assertion of personal belief as fact or one logically fallacious non-argument and leave it at that; you keep on doing it time after time after time after time, month in, year out, even when corrected.
So, as I say, I'm unconvinced.
-
AB,
You misunderstand the word "logic". You can't have logic just for you, and nor is there "anti-theistic" logic. Logic is logic - thus, say, the statement "all lions are cats, therefore all cats are lions" is logically false regardless of your personal opinions for or against something. When you try to argue for "God" using logic that's false (as you do often) then that logic is false, just as it would be if you attempted the same arguments for anything else.
If you'd start with at least a basic understanding of what logic entails perhaps you'd see where you keep going off the rails here.
I wonder how logic chucked around shamanically fits into this.
-
AB,
I understand more than you give me credit for. The problem is that it breaks down when you try to fit it in with a universe derived entirely from random unguided deterministic events.
You think that logic "breaks down"? How so?
If you really think you understand anything at all about logic, why then would you keep trying arguments that are obviously logically false? Surely someone with any grasp at all of the subject would avoid the fallacies and instead focus his efforts on attempting an argument that's logically robust wouldn't he?
-
I wonder how logic chucked around shamanically fits into this.
I wonder how your misuse of words you don't understand fits into this.
-
Vlad,
I wonder how logic chucked around shamanically fits into this.
Not as much as I wonder why you keep using meaningless phrases like "chucked around shamanically" rather than engage with what's actually said.
-
Salvation is indeed offered to everyone. And it is logical that in order to receive what is offered, you need to accept God's love and mercy. God has given us the gift of free will in order that we can freely accept His love and forgiveness. It is not logical for those who reject God's love and mercy to receive His gift of salvation.
Really? Do you have any idea what an egotistical bully you make your god sound?
-
I wonder how logic chucked around shamanically fits into this.
Explain what this means please.
-
Shales,
I wonder how your misuse of words you don't understand fits into this.
So far as I can tell the split is about 50:50 - half the long words he attempts he genuinely doesn't understand, the other half he deliberately re-defines ("scientism", "philosophical materialism" etc) to support an argument that's long-since been lost.
Given how often he's been corrected on both though he persists with them anyway, so it's all dishonest at heart.
-
Rhi,
Explain what this means please.
There is no explanation - it's just more avoidance.
-
Rhi,
There is no explanation - it's just more avoidance.
I'm giving him a chance. He's using a legitimate spiritual term as an insult and I want to see him justify it.
-
Explain what this means please.
It means that Hillside expects the mere use of the word to win him any argument.
Hillside + word = what can possibly go wrong?
-
I'm giving him a chance. He's using a legitimate spiritual term as an insult and I want to see him justify it.
In which case I apologise to shamans for demeaning their profession by comparison to what Hillside does.
-
Vlad,
It means that Hillside expects the mere use of the word to win him any argument.
Hillside + word = what can possibly go wrong?
That's PRICELESS!
If not for "mere" words, how else do you think an argument can be won? By racing raindrops down a window pane perhaps? How about by dropping pooh sticks into a stream and seeing which one wins?
Do tell...
-
In which case I apologise to shamans for demeaning their profession by comparison to what Hillside does.
I see. You used it as an attempt at cheap point scoring.
-
Really? Do you have any idea what an egotistical bully you make your god sound?
https://onsizzle.com/i/let-me-in-why-so-i-can-save-you-from-1058508
-
Rhi,
I see. You used it as an attempt at cheap point scoring.
More avoidance than point-scoring I'd say, but either way can't you see where you've gone wrong here? You've only gone and made your point using "mere words" haven't you. What a bozo eh? Of course what you should be using is "Vlad's Patented (But Still Entirely Secret) Magical Method of Winning an Argument Without Using Words" instead.
Hope that helps!
-
https://onsizzle.com/i/let-me-in-why-so-i-can-save-you-from-1058508
Other theologies than antitheist caricature are available.
-
Other theologies than antitheist caricature are available.
Yup, and they're all on an equal footing as regards evidential support.
-
https://onsizzle.com/i/let-me-in-why-so-i-can-save-you-from-1058508
That's very funny, and it also captures the Mafia qualities of salvation, according to some Christians anyway; God will make you an offer you can't refuse, and if you do refuse, it's the horse's head for you.
You will be saved, if ... Well, the if seems to vary according to different theologies. So you have to get things right, and then you will be alright, but if you don't get things right, then you won't be alright. Something like that.
Well, a cross between the Mafia and the Stockholm syndrome.
-
Typically I use the example of the Krays, but yes, same thing exactly.
"Pay us protection money."
"Protection from what?"
"From us, if you don't pay protection money."
-
For many Protestants, it's the wrath of God that has to be averted. But hang on, if God wasn't wrathful, then we wouldn't need protection, would we?
So salvation in this view is a kind of protection racket by the Gangster in the sky.
-
For many Protestants, it's the wrath of God that has to be averted. But hang on, if God wasn't wrathful, then we wouldn't need protection, would we?
So salvation in this view is a kind of protection racket by the Gangster in the sky.
Shouldn't that be "Gangsta"?
-
Really? Do you have any idea what an egotistical bully you make your god sound?
I am simply stating that it would not be logical for God to offer eternal salvation with Him in heaven to those who refuse to accept His love and mercy. We were given free will for a purpose, and this is the ultimate purpose.
Today our priest offered up the consecrated host, saying "Behold the lamb of God, behold Him who takes away the sins of the world". The lamb in this context is not the fluffy thing bouncing around in a field, but the sacrificial lamb used by the Jews to offer as an atonement for their sins. I was able to say with all my heart and soul that Jesus is my Lord and Saviour. My ability to say this is not due to the unguided deterministic chemical activity in my brain. It comes from my soul which gives me the conscious awareness and free will to say this.
-
I am simply stating that it would not be logical for God to offer eternal salvation with Him in heaven to those who refuse to accept His love and mercy. We were given free will for a purpose, and this is the ultimate purpose.
Today our priest offered up the consecrated host, saying "Behold the lamb of God, behold Him who takes away the sins of the world". The lamb in this context is not the fluffy thing bouncing around in a field, but the sacrificial lamb used by the Jews to offer as an atonement for their sins. I was able to say with all my heart and soul that Jesus is my Lord and Saviour. My ability to say this is not due to the unguided deterministic chemical activity in my brain. It comes from my soul which gives me the conscious awareness and free will to say this.
Gosh, thanks for explaining that it wasn't a fluffy lamb that your priest was referring to. I'd never have got it otherwise. ::)
So your god is so puny he can't forgive those who haven't been able to change their minds? How utterly pathetic you make your God out to be.
I used to be a universalist because the god I believed in was so big, so full of love that he rejected nobody, and no one could reject him in the end, however evil. It meant sharing heaven with utter shits, and that didn't seem fair, but that's what a truly loving god is - endlessly merciful. All loving. All powerful. And certainly not a god that rejected people because they didn't get on their knees in front of him. Yours sounds very...human. And not especially pleasant.
-
Typically I use the example of the Krays, but yes, same thing exactly.
"Pay us protection money."
"Protection from what?"
"From us, if you don't pay protection money."
Funny that, I'm doing a re-read of Murder Inc about the Mafia, it was a lot of years ago I first read it, I suppose a lot of its content it shares with the bible, hadn't thought of that on the first read, thanks for that fellers.
ippy
-
I used to be a universalist because the god I believed in was so big, so full of love that he rejected nobody, and no one could reject him in the end, however evil. It meant sharing heaven with utter shits, and that didn't seem fair, but that's what a truly loving god is - endlessly merciful.
No doubt I've got this all wrong, but presumably, according to universal reconciliation, by the time the utter shits are in heaven they're no longer utter shits, by definition.
But hey; que sais-je, as Mickey Montaigne was known to say when he'd been on the turps.
All loving. All powerful. And certainly not a god that rejected people because they didn't get on their knees in front of him. Yours sounds very...human. And not especially pleasant.
Very human; in fact, as David "Dave" Hume put it, a god with an endless appetite for applause.
-
No doubt I've got this all wrong, but presumably, according to universal reconciliation, by the time the utter shits are in heaven they're no longer utter shits, by definition.
But hey; que sais-je?
Very human; in fact, as David "Dave" Hume put it, a god with an endless appetite for applause.
There's not much in the Bible about life in heaven beyond we are supposed to be 'like the angels' engaged in perpetual worship - there's next to nothing to justify the notion of being reunited with auntie doris in the afterlife - and to be honest that sounds as dull as shit. But universalism means 'knowing' that the bastards you read about torturing kids in the news get in too, and in this life - the only one we have, probably - that doesn't necessarily seem fair.
-
There's not much in the Bible about life in heaven beyond we are supposed to be 'like the angels' engaged in perpetual worship - there's next to nothing to justify the notion of being reunited with auntie doris in the afterlife - and to be honest that sounds as dull as shit. But universalism means knowing that the bastards you read about torturing kids in the news get in too, and in this life - the only one we have, probably - that doesn't necessarily seem fair.
You make a strong case, grasshopper. I shall ponder further.
I am just going outside, and may be some time.
-
Gosh, thanks for explaining that it wasn't a fluffy lamb that your priest was referring to. I'd never have got it otherwise. ::)
So your god is so puny he can't forgive those who haven't been able to change their minds? How utterly pathetic you make your God out to be.
I used to be a universalist because the god I believed in was so big, so full of love that he rejected nobody, and no one could reject him in the end, however evil. It meant sharing heaven with utter shits, and that didn't seem fair, but that's what a truly loving god is - endlessly merciful. All loving. All powerful. And certainly not a god that rejected people because they didn't get on their knees in front of him. Yours sounds very...human. And not especially pleasant.
Yes, the protection racket aspect of Christianity is amazing really, when you look at it. God has to make the threat, in order to remove it - but hang on, how about not making the threat? Or why not just help people? Why punish?
I don't think all Christians have this view - off the top of my head, the Orthodox are different, and there are universalists scattered about - but then they have a problem, because salvation isn't needed, is it?
Also, I think many Christians conceal the punitive aspect, don't they?
-
So your god is so puny he can't forgive those who haven't been able to change their minds? How utterly pathetic you make your God out to be.
Forgiveness is a two way thing. You can't forgive someone who does not repent for what they have done.
-
Forgiveness is a two way thing. You can't forgive someone who does not repent for what they have done.
Nonsense. Of course you can. I can let go of hurts done to me by others, even if they don't regret it. What is the point of hanging on to them?
-
Forgiveness is a two way thing.
That's about as wrong as a wrong thing can be wrong while still being a wrong thing.
You can't forgive someone who does not repent for what they have done.
Why not, Alan? You make forgiveness seem conditional. "If X, then forgiveness."
I can think of a great many examples - a lot of them associated with that troubled but often ridiculously lovely nugget of territory called Northern Ireland; not all of them - of exactly that phenomenon.
I'm not a Christian; I'm not even a theist. Yet even I have heard of, respect, admire, don't entirely 'get' but respect people like the recently deceased Jill Saward and Desmond Tutu, who have forgiven unspeakable (figure of speech: no evil is unspeakable) wickedness. Unconditional forgiveness. No strings, no ifs or buts, no small print, no T & C's. I think that that can very likely lead to a slightly happier, somewhat more peaceful state of being, done right.
Why don't you?
-
Forgiveness is a two way thing. You can't forgive someone who does not repent for what they have done.
In that case there are a lot of misguided Christians out there who have forgiven those that have wronged them unconditionally - rapists, murderers, suicide bombers, abusers... your god doesn't forgive those who don't believe in him. Well, ok, if that helps you sleep better.
-
Yes, you have to earn forgiveness, in this warped view. Other people go around letting go of bad stuff which was done to them, but God hangs on to it for grim death, and exacts punishment. I had an Irish friend who used to say, the IRA never forget an injury done to them, and they plan payback over years, but of course, ordinary Irish people forgive stuff all the time. So guess which one God is like?
-
Are we like rowing boats frantically trying to bail out the rising water of God and failing or will we be successful and stop the leak?
Who made the boats? I blame the boat maker.
-
Yes, you have to earn forgiveness, in this warped view.
I do wish somebody had told Desmond Tutu of this. He'd have been a right badass bar steward otherwise. Des "Knuckles" Tutu.
-
Nonsense. Of course you can. I can let go of hurts done to me by others, even if they don't regret it. What is the point of hanging on to them?
But if your forgiveness is rejected, it is worthless to the recipient.
-
But if your forgiveness is rejected, it is worthless to the recipient.
But not to the donor. If I've learnt anything at all about these extraordinary acts of forgiveness briefly alluded to earlier, it's that those who give it - not the recipients - do so in order to live at peace with themselves and not be consumed ever after with anger, vengeance and bitterness.
Doesn't your book say somewhere about forgiveness to seventy times seven? I can't believe that I, of all people, am having to say this. RTFM.
-
Forgiveness is a two way thing. You can't forgive someone who does not repent for what they have done.
Does that mean, then, that you could not forgive someone who had wronged you if that person did not repent?
-
Does that mean, then, that you could not forgive someone who had wronged you if that person did not repent?
Of course you can offer forgiveness, but it will not be complete until the other party accepts it.
It is the same with gifts - the giving of a gift is not completed until the gift is accepted.
Salvation is God's gift to us.
-
...and what are you guys trying to tell me on this board?
More likely asking the question about why you introduce a topic called "Universalism", which several of us here understand as a theistic (and more specifically Christian) concept, and then go on to waffle on in words which seem to be vaguely related to your favourite topic of 'God-dodging'. That's assuming your first post meant anything at all.
As Rhiannon has said, Universalism is an interesting topic to discuss - would you like to contribute, rather than ranting on about Richard Dawkins?
-
What?
People quote me........are you suggesting their stupid?
They might suggest that you're (sic) one of that disconconcertingly large number of people who don't know the difference between the possessive adjective 3rd person, and the contracted form of "they are" (or other contracted forms of the verb to be).
-
Of course you can offer forgiveness, but it will not be complete until the other party accepts it.
It is the same with gifts - the giving of a gift is not completed until the gift is accepted.
Salvation is God's gift to us.
Yeah, but it's a gift that we can't refuse!
-
Of course you can offer forgiveness, but it will not be complete until the other party accepts it.
Okay I'll try asking the question again. If a person who had wronged you did not repent before his/her death, then you cannot forgive them, can you.
-
But not to the donor. If I've learnt anything at all about these extraordinary acts of forgiveness briefly alluded to earlier, it's that those who give it - not the recipients - do so in order to live at peace with themselves and not be consumed ever after with anger, vengeance and bitterness.
Doesn't your book say somewhere about forgiveness to seventy times seven? I can't believe that I, of all people, am having to say this. RTFM.
Isn't the whole issue or mechanism of forgiveness about it being asked for by the offender in the first place which starts the process off. If this initiation isn't proffered then forgiveness is not on the table. What you are talking about is personal internal reconciliation within yourself, to yourself.....?
-
Yeah, but it's a gift that we can't refuse!
but many seem not to have accepted it. How many because they don't feel they need it? How many are finding alternative arrangements?
-
Vlad,
but many seem not to have accepted it. How many because they don't feel they need it? How many are finding alternative arrangements?
Or because they've sensibly reasoned their way to concluding that there's no "gift" there in the first place.
-
but many seem not to have accepted it. How many because they don't feel they need it? How many are finding alternative arrangements?
Accept what? It's like fake news, it's just words that go nowhere.
-
Okay I'll try asking the question again. If a person who had wronged you did not repent before his/her death, then you cannot forgive them, can you.
In that case I would ask God to offer forgiveness on my behalf because they will be on His side of the fence.
-
Of course you can offer forgiveness, but it will not be complete until the other party accepts it.
It is the same with gifts - the giving of a gift is not completed until the gift is accepted.
Salvation is God's gift to us.
If God has some good thing to give then he will give it to everyone without fear or favour. That simply follows from God being good. Anything less defines God as some sort of tyrant.
-
Accept what? It's like fake news, it's just words that go nowhere.
Not in my experience.
-
Not in my experience.
And there lies your problem. It is a subjective matter of experience, which when portrayed as an objective issue hits a brick wall.
-
If God has some good thing to give then he will give it to everyone without fear or favour. That simply follows from God being good. Anything less defines God as some sort of tyrant.
Perhaps we need to open the gift rather than write ''Not at this address'' on the packet.
-
Perhaps we need to open the gift rather than write ''Not at this address'' on the packet.
What gift?
If it is a gift it cannot be taken back
-
Perhaps we need to open the gift rather than write ''Not at this address'' on the packet.
God would know not to trust any delivery service, especially during christmas, winter strikes and all that. That would set up an arbitrary discrimination between those that get it and those that don't. A God, being good and wise, would save everyone and everything regardless of postcode and shoe size.
-
Perhaps we need to open the gift rather than write ''Not at this address'' on the packet.
Is there one of those gift receipts so we can exchange it if it turns out to be a bit of a dud?
-
Perhaps we need to open the gift rather than write ''Not at this address'' on the packet.
God - Hello Earthling.
Bipedal carbon based life form - Who? Me?
God - You have a problem.
Bcblf - Do I? Are you sure you've got the righ...
God - Yes! Your problem is SIN.
Bcblf - Sin? What's that? I'm still not sure whether you need to be talking...
God - I can solved your problem.
Bcblf - Are you sure you've got the right address? I haven't really got any probl...
God - I can solve your problem with this gift.
Bcblf - But? Problem? Gift? What?
God - Just sign here please.
Bcblf - Hang on, what's the ... what?
God - Look mate, I just need a signature then I'll be on my way.
Bcblf - Oh well if it'll get rid of you then .
God - Cheers mate laters.
Bcblf - What if I don't want it?
God - Sorry mate, no returns. Now you can look forward to endlessly worshipping me for eternity. Latersbyebyegottagothesegiftswon'tdeliverthemselvesdonchaknowwwwww.....
-
God - Hello Earthling.
Bipedal carbon based life form - Who? Me?
God - You have a problem.
Bcblf - Do I? Are you sure you've got the righ...
God - Yes! Your problem is SIN.
Bcblf - Sin? What's that? I'm still not sure whether you need to be talking...
God - I can solved your problem.
Bcblf - Are you sure you've got the right address? I haven't really got any probl...
God - I can solve your problem with this gift.
Bcblf - But? Problem? Gift? What?
God - Just sign here please.
Bcblf - Hang on, what's the ... what?
God - Look mate, I just need a signature then I'll be on my way.
Bcblf - Oh well if it'll get rid of you then .
God - Cheers mate laters.
Bcblf - What if I don't want it?
God - Sorry mate, no returns. Now you can look forward to endlessly worshipping me for eternity. Latersbyebyegottagothesegiftswon'tdeliverthemselvesdonchaknowwwwww.....
For some reason that reminded me of the part in the film The Meaning Of Life when they come round to that blokes place to cash-in on his liver donor card.
-
I'm resolutely unconvinced. That's because you don't just lay down one bald assertion of personal belief as fact or one logically fallacious non-argument and leave it at that; you keep on doing it time after time after time after time, month in, year out, even when corrected.
The reason I persist is because whatever is offered as a "correction" is in essence just an alternative opinion. Just to summarise, regarding free will I maintain that "I" am in control of me, not the uncontrolled deterministic forces of nature. And regarding perception, there has been no real progress in defining how perception works since Leibniz first explored this conundrum in 1687 (see Leibniz Mill).
-
The reason I persist is because whatever is offered as a "correction" is in essence just an alternative opinion.
No; it isn't just somebody else's opinion that you throw out personal conviction as established fact; it isn't just somebody else's opinion that you commit one logical fallacy after another (that is to say, deploy invalid logic); these are facts. Trying to claim parity here is to place you firmly in a post-truth, totally relativistic universe where every opinion is precisely and exactly equal to any - and every - other, across the board.
Guess what? That's not the universe we're in, even if it's the one you seem to want to inhabit.
regarding free will I maintain that "I" am in control of me, not the uncontrolled deterministic forces of nature.
That, of course, definitely is merely opinion.
-
AB,
The reason I persist is because whatever is offered as a "correction" is in essence just an alternative opinion.
You can have "alternative opinions" as much as you like. What you can't have though is alternative facts. When you attempt an argument that's logically false then it's a fact that it's logically false, and no amount of personal opinion on the matter will change that.
This is what you're attempting here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vH4XCGaSGfk
-
What you can't have though is alternative facts.
I suppose that we grudgingly have to thank a certain Ms. Conway for a phrase which we're going to be hearing a lot more of from now on.
-
I see that AB cites the Leibniz mill; well, this is the classic statement of incredulity about consciousness and perception. I suppose AB is right, incredulity hasn't really moved on. Meanwhile, neuroscientists and researchers into cognition, are, well, actually studying perception, bit of a shock, eh?
-
I see that AB cites the Leibniz mill; well, this is the classic statement of incredulity about consciousness and perception. I suppose AB is right, incredulity hasn't really moved on. Meanwhile, neuroscientists and researchers into cognition, are, well, actually studying perception, bit of a shock, eh?
But many fail to realise the difference between perception and reaction. You can't define perception in terms of observed physical reactions.
-
AB,
You can have "alternative opinions" as much as you like. What you can't have though is alternative facts. When you attempt an argument that's logically false then it's a fact that it's logically false, and no amount of personal opinion on the matter will change that.
Just as an example, I am often told that I do not have free will because investigations show that an apparent act of free will has its origins in brain activity which occur before we are consciously aware of the action. I do not dispute this fact, but I do dispute that it can be used to prove that free will does not exist. What I maintain is that the human soul has the power to do whatever is needed to induce an act of free will, because it is not a physical entity and is not restricted to compliance with laws of science which apply to our physical universe. It can interact with our physical universe, but it is not restricted by its observed physical laws. So my perception of reality indicates that this interaction does take place, even if it appears to contradict what we deem to be logically impossible.
-
AB,
But many fail to realise the difference between perception and reaction. You can't define perception in terms of observed physical reactions.
Perception is "reaction" Alan. Deal with it.
-
AB,
Perception is "reaction" Alan. Deal with it.
No
Perception is awareness of reaction.
-
AB,
Just as an example, I am often told that I do not have free will because investigations show that an apparent act of free will has its origins in brain activity which occur before we are consciously aware of the action. I do not dispute this fact, but I do dispute that it can be used to prove that free will does not exist. What I maintain is that the human soul has the power to do whatever is needed to induce an act of free will, because it is not a physical entity and is not restricted to compliance with laws of science which apply to our physical universe. It can interact with our physical universe, but it is not restricted by its observed physical laws. So my perception of reality indicates that this interaction does take place, even if it appears to contradict what we deem to be logically impossible.
Then you're locked into some very bad circular reasoning. If you want to argue for "free" will even though there's no evidence for it, that's up to you and, having done so, you're also free to populate the space with a little man at the controls you call "soul" if you like. What you can't do in the same breath though is posit "soul" as your explanation for free will, because that's circular.
What you'd have to do is to demonstrate either "free" will as you define it, or "soul" - you can't have both though when each provides the rationale for the other.
-
AB,
Perception is awareness of reaction.
Nope. Sense organs receive wavelength data that's passed to the brain, neurons "react" by firing and collectively creating models we call "awareness" or "perception". If you want to open up a whole separate category of experience you call "perception" then you'll have to demonstrate it without recourse to the little man at the controls you're trying to argue for in the first place.
-
AB,
Then you're locked into some very bad circular reasoning. If you want to argue for "free" will even though there's no evidence for it .......
There may be no physical evidence to support the concept of free will, but there is evidence in my perception of reality, which indicates that every key I physically type is induced by the conscious awareness of the human soul which is "me".
-
But many fail to realise the difference between perception and reaction. You can't define perception in terms of observed physical reactions.
Well, the Leibniz mill is one of the classic arguments against materialism, although as I said, it strikes me as a statement of incredulity. It refers to a water-mill, and Leibniz argues that if you could walk around inside the brain as inside a mill, you would find levers, and cogs and wheels, (or the equivalent), but you would not find perception or consciousness.
However, if you could walk around inside a molecule of water, you could watch the particles interacting (hydrogen and oxygen), but would you find the properties of water? I doubt it. Or walk around inside a lap-top - can you see the software?
-
AB,
Nope. Sense organs receive wavelength data that's passed to the brain, neurons "react" by firing and collectively creating models we call "awareness" or "perception". If you want to open up a whole separate category of experience you call "perception" then you'll have to demonstrate it without recourse to the little man at the controls you're trying to argue for in the first place.
Neuron activity may well represent a thought in the same way that ink on a piece of paper represents the meaning of a word. But you do not discover the meaning of the word by minute examination of the ink particles and paper molecules. The meaning is derived from external perception, not from internal examination.
-
AB,
There may be no physical evidence to support the concept of free will, but there is evidence in my perception of reality, which indicates that every key I physically type is induced by the conscious awareness of the human soul which is "me".
Your "perception of reality" is fine for a story you want to tell yourself, even though there's no evidence for it (indeed the evidence we do have contradicts it). What that doesn't give you though is a claim to any sort of objective reality, so proselytising or evangelising is a non-starter - just as it would be if I wanted to assert m belief in leprechauns to be true for you too.
-
AB,
Neuron activity may well represent a thought in the same way that ink on a piece of paper represents the meaning of a word. But you do not discover the meaning of the word by minute examination of the ink particles and paper molecules. The meaning is derived from external perception, not from internal examination.
Discovering a the meaning of a word is an emergent property of the physical stuff of which we're made. I've pointed you toward a very good book about this several times now - why not read it?
-
Well, the Leibniz mill is one of the classic arguments against materialism, although as I said, it strikes me as a statement of incredulity. It refers to a water-mill, and Leibniz argues that if you could walk around inside the brain as inside a mill, you would find levers, and cogs and wheels, levers, and cogs and wheels, (or the equivalent), but you would not find perception or consciousness.
However, if you could walk around inside a molecule of water, you could watch the particles interacting (hydrogen and oxygen), but would you find the properties of water? I doubt it. Or walk around inside a lap-top - can you see the software?
A bad analogy, because lap tops do not have the property of self awareness (neither does water), and all the internal levers, and cogs and wheels, (or the equivalent), merely explain how the laptop produces the results, or why water behaves as it does.
-
Neuron activity may well represent a thought in the same way that ink on a piece of paper represents the meaning of a word. But you do not discover the meaning of the word by minute examination of the ink particles and paper molecules. The meaning is derived from external perception, not from internal examination.
Or it might be more akin to writing the word on the page - what's left isn't the act of imparting meaning, any more than the record of the neural activity is the act of thinking, but they are the traces we have from which to deduce what we can.
O.
-
A bad analogy, because lap tops do not have the property of self awareness (neither does water), and all the internal levers, and cogs and wheels, (or the equivalent), merely explain how the laptop produces the results, or why water behaves as it does.
Functionally, though, the various component parts of the human brain don't behave any differently to the component parts of the bird brain, or the crocodile or octopus... are they self aware? Are they 'as' self-aware as humans? Are all humans self-aware?
How do you know that lap-tops aren't self-aware, and just don't have the capacity yet to comprehend that we're self-aware agents out here interacting with them?
O.
-
A bad analogy, because lap tops do not have the property of self awareness ....
Human infants are not self-aware whilst adult dolphins, elephants and chimpanzees are. So I guess that means that infants don't have souls whereas adult chimps do.
-
A bad analogy, because lap tops do not have the property of self awareness (neither does water), and all the internal levers, and cogs and wheels, (or the equivalent), merely explain how the laptop produces the results, or why water behaves as it does.
It's not an analogy about awareness, but emergence. I'm sure you are aware that analogies are not 100% parallel, if they were, they wouldn't be analogies!
-
It's not an analogy about awareness, but emergence. I'm sure you are aware that analogies are not 100% parallel, if they were, they wouldn't be analogies!
But the emergent properties of the lap top are fully understood by human scientific knowledge. You cannot compare this to awareness or perception because there is no scientific definition for how they work. You can't just assume emergence for something we can't define in physical terms.
-
Human infants are not self-aware whilst adult dolphins, elephants and chimpanzees are. So I guess that means that infants don't have souls whereas adult chimps do.
The animals you describe do not show any ability to "will" themselves against instinct or learnt experience as humans can. And the mind-soul interaction of an infant can't work until the physical engine of the human brain can attain sufficient functionality to interact with the soul.
-
But the emergent properties of the lap top are fully understood by human scientific knowledge. You cannot compare this to awareness or perception because there is no scientific definition for how they work. You can't just assume emergence for something we can't define in physical terms.
This is the argument from ignorance, then - we don't understand X at the the moment, therefore in place of X we simply plug in 'soul' and consider that an explanation.
-
The animals you describe do not show any ability to "will" themselves against instinct or learnt experience as humans can.
Which is agency, and there is nothing magic about agency. It means that humans have greater cognitive capacities to consider possible future scenarios and perhaps choose a course of action different from the more ancient instinctive action. Agency is not some either/or ability, it admits of degrees and it varies from species to species and from individual to individual.
And the mind-soul interaction of an infant can't work until the physical engine of the human brain can attain sufficient functionality to interact with the soul.
When does an infant get its soul ? And how is it attached ? How does it interact ?
-
This is the argument from ignorance, then - we don't understand X at the the moment, therefore in place of X we simply plug in 'soul' and consider that an explanation.
What I am saying is that you can't use "emergence" to prove the human soul does not exist, because any emergence is entirely dependent on the physical properties of the material from which the emergence comes. So unless you can define Conscious Awareness in physical terms, you can't just assume that it is an emergent property.
Can you not come to terms with the fact that it is not possible to define conscious awareness as a physical property? Any entity of awareness needs to perceive, not just react to, the content of many brain cells, and as I have already indicated, perception is achieved from outside, not within.
-
And the mind-soul interaction of an infant can't work until the physical engine of the human brain can attain sufficient functionality to interact with the soul.
And the mind-body interaction of an animal can't work to he same level as a human because the physical engine of the animal is not as capable as that of a human. Thus it cannot attain sufficient functionality to interact with its soul in the same way as a human. Some get a wee bit close, like apes and dolphin and elephants though.
-
What I am saying is that you can't use "emergence" to prove the human soul does not exist, because any emergence is entirely dependent on the physical properties of the material from which the emergence comes. So unless you can define Conscious Awareness in physical terms, you can't just assume that it is an emergent property.
It is a manifestation of our biology though: biologically inactive brains aren't consciously aware of anything.
Can you not come to terms with the fact that it is not possible to define conscious awareness as a physical property? Any entity of awareness needs to perceive, not just react to, the content of many brain cells, and as I have already indicated, perception is achieved from outside, not within.
This is just you falling into the fallacy of composition, yet again.
-
biologically inactive brains aren't consciously aware of anything.
And biological activity alone does not define conscious awareness.
Awareness itself does not need activity, it just perceives it.
-
What I am saying is that you can't use "emergence" to prove the human soul does not exist
Clearly you're in charge of the negative proof fallacy while Hope spends a little time on the naughty step.
-
And biological activity alone does not define conscious awareness.
However you define conscious awareness it is dependant on functioning biology: without said functioning biology you are neither conscious nor aware.
Awareness does not need activity.
Then trying asking a dead person for directions to the nearest Tesco and let me know how you got on.
-
Gordon,
Then trying asking a dead person for directions to the nearest Tesco and let me know how you got on.
No silly. As I understand it, those who would assert "soul" also think that when its host dies it settles its bill for the mini fridge and checks out and, um, floats around for a bit until the next person needing its services is born and then, you know, magics its way into that baby.
Or something.
-
AB,
What I am saying is that you can't use "emergence" to prove the human soul does not exist...
This is painful. Do you not think that it would help you if you grasped at least the barest bones of a logically coherent line of argument? No-one says that the evidence for an explanation "disproves" conjectures about a different one. Lots of people have seen babies born, but that doesn't disprove the conjecture that they're just brainwashed to think that by the stork that actually flies them through the window.
Your "soul" conjecture is equivalent here to the stork conjecture. There's strong evidence for consciousness being an emergent property of the physical stuff of which we're made, just as there's strong evidence of babies coming from women's tums. Neither evidence though disproves alternative conjectures even though there's no evidence for them whatever, especially when you also assert for them magical properties.
In short, you've just fallen back into the negative proof fallacy. As it's been explained to you many time now, my question is: why?
-
Clearly you're in charge of the negative proof fallacy while Hope spends a little time on the naughty step.
Looks like Alan is in charge permanently?!
-
Looks like Alan is in charge permanently?!
So I now see!
-
Seb,
Looks like Alan is in charge permanently?!
Alan has the honorary title of Permanent Caretaker Emeritus of the NPF, whereas Hope is the NPF Chief Operational Officer. Alan Burns is making a late bid for a position on the NPF Board, but he lacks the credentials of at least 1,000 usages before he can be considered.
-
Seb,
Alan has the honorary title of Permanent Caretaker Emeritus of the NPF, whereas Hope is the NPF Chief Operational Officer. Alan Burns is making a late bid for a position on the NPF Board, but he lacks the credentials of at least 1,000 usages before he can be considered.
Hope has 'voluntarily' stepped down!
-
Then trying asking a dead person for directions to the nearest Tesco and let me know how you got on.
As I said, awareness does not require physical activity as you may well find out when your physical body ceases to function. The body is just a biological machine with replaceable parts - every molecule gets replaced many times. The only thing which can give continuity is the little man at the controls - You.
So what happens to this little man at the controls when the body dies? His awareness of this physical universe may no longer be there because he has lost the window into it, but the awareness which is You may have a new window into something else. We shall see.
-
As I said, awareness does not require physical activity as you may well find out when your physical body ceases to function. The body is just a biological machine with replaceable parts - every molecule gets replaced many times. The only thing which can give continuity is the little man at the controls - You.
So when the antelope become aware of the lion creeping up on it, it is the little antelope at the controls that is becoming aware.
So what happens to this little man at the controls when the body dies? His awareness of this physical universe may no longer be there because he has lost the window into it, but the awareness which is You may have a new window into something else. We shall see.
No evidence for that though; just make-believe with no justification :(
-
So when the antelope become aware of the lion creeping up on it, it is the little antelope at the controls that is becoming aware.
It simply reacts in accordance with its biological programming - no little antelope at the controls because the controls do not need to be consciously overridden.
-
No evidence for that though; just make-believe with no justification :(
There is abundant evidence in God's inspired scriptures and in His revelations through Jesus, and in the lives of many saints, and in your own God given ability to contemplate the meaning of your own existence.
-
There is abundant evidence in God's inspired scriptures and in His revelations through Jesus, and in the lives of many saints, and in your own God given ability to contemplate the meaning of your own existence.
As Torridon point out: no evidence, and just you asserting what you'd like to be true using (in this case) a combination of fallacious arguments from authority, tradition and your personal incredulity.
-
Hi Gordon,
As Torridon point out: no evidence, and just you asserting what you'd like to be true using (in this case) a combination of fallacious arguments from authority, tradition and your personal incredulity.
It's also the fallacy of reification: he just asserts there to be a "God" who's "inspired" and made some "revelations" and then he calls those assertions evidence. He seems to be entirely oblivious to the problem he's being asked to address, namely finding some evidence for these assertions being true in the first place.
That he keeps getting the discussion about consciousness and free will flat wrong isn't helping him, but it's not his central problem.
-
As Torridon point out: no evidence, and just you asserting what you'd like to be true using (in this case) a combination of fallacious arguments from authority, tradition and your personal incredulity.
Gordon,
You appear to be somewhat selective in the posts you respond to because, I suspect, that you look for things you deem to be fallacious arguments. But you, along with others, seem to ignore or overlook some of the deeper points I make - such as the ultimate cause of me typing these keys, or how the content of many brain cells get perceived by the single entity which is you, or what can provide the continuity in You, when all your parts get replaced, or the question of what is in control - is it You or the uncontrolled deterministic rules of science? You may well try to write all these off as personal incredulity, but this does not make them go away, and there is still the big question of what is driving my personal incredulity? Is it just down to natural uncontrollable causes, or is it the free spirit which is Me?
-
It simply reacts in accordance with its biological programming - no little antelope at the controls because the controls do not need to be consciously overridden.
He said, doing his accustomed hop, skip and jump. Clearly it is untenable that humans are the only creatures with eyes that can actually see with them, so now it is over to overriding natural instincts rather than awareness as your gap of the moment.
-
AB,
Is it just down to natural uncontrollable causes, or is it the free spirit which is Me?
The first one, only we have the sensation of control because that's what consciousness does.
If though you want to argue for a "free spirit" and a "Me" that's outwith the stuff of which you're made then you have all your work ahead of you. What are these things? Where do they reside? What evidence is there for them? How would you test that evidence? etc.
I understand that you'd like these things to be real because they underpin your religious beliefs, which clearly mean a lot to you. It'd be painful therefore to realise that they're imaginary - too painful I suspect for you ever to concede the point. The fact remains though that all you have here is faith, and faith moreover that often contradicts the evidence we do have. Now that's fine for you if you find it persuasive, but it gives you nothing whatever in the locker that's persuasive for anyone else.
And that's a problem because you opened up here by proselytising and evangelising on the basis we now know only of your faith.
-
But you, along with others, seem to ignore or overlook some of the deeper points I make - such as the ultimate cause of me typing these keys, or how the content of many brain cells get perceived by the single entity which is you, or what can provide the continuity in You, when all your parts get replaced, or the question of what is in control - is it You or the uncontrolled deterministic rules of science? You may well try to write all these off as personal incredulity, but this does not make them go away, and there is still the big question of what is driving my personal incredulity? Is it just down to natural uncontrollable causes, or is it the free spirit which is Me?
Your incredulity is not an argument and it is not evidence.
I'm sure someone around here must have pointed that out to you before now.
Many of the findings of science are counter-intuitive, or they are at first; but that does not constitute a licence for indulging make-believe as a preference. What we can do, is make the effort to get our heads round it, and thus come to a deeper and more authentic understanding eventually.
-
I understand that you'd like these things to be real because they underpin your religious beliefs, which clearly mean a lot to you. It'd be painful therefore to realise that they're imaginary - too painful I suspect for you ever to concede the point. The fact remains though that all you have here is faith, and faith moreover that often contradicts the evidence we do have. Now that's fine for you if you find it persuasive, but it gives you nothing whatever in the locker that's persuasive for anyone else.
And that's a problem because you opened up here by proselytising and evangelising on the basis we now know only of your faith.
BIB - Something I've said many a time here before. Alan is so deeply and intensely invested emotionally in his (needless to say, entirely unevidenced) belief system that he can't even concede that it's only faith, or that he uses, repeatedly, utterly fallacious, invalid, illegitimate arguments (#139 being the most recent instance). To do that might open an initially tiny crack of critical rational scepticism, and who knows where that might ultimately lead? I've long thought that Alan is one of those sorts of people who, if they lose their emotional life support system, would have their entire world come crashing down around their ears, so it has to be fortified and defended at all costs, even to the extent of ignoring being told that he's deploying bad arguments and invalid logic, time after time after time.
This is why the flow of - well, I was going to say information, except that it isn't information, is it? Let's call it the flow of discussion - with Alan is one way only: everything out (i.e. assertion and fallacy), but absolutely nothing in. Sad, really.
-
Gordon,
You appear to be somewhat selective in the posts you respond to
I've heard it all now.
But you, along with others, seem to ignore or overlook some of the deeper points I make
Absolutely none of which reach any deeper than personal belief hawked around as fact, and bad arguments.
-
AB,
...you look for things you deem to be fallacious arguments. But you, along with others, seem to ignore or overlook some of the deeper points I make...
You try this "you deem" line a lot. It's not that someone deems a logically false argument to be logically false - it is logically false. If I said "2+2=5", you explained that I was wrong about that and I replied, "well if you just deem me to be wrong" etc you'd look askance right? Well that's effectively what you do when you make a logically false argument and then try to dismiss the rebuttal of it.
And that's why you have no "deeper points" to make. Once you've relied on a mistake for your thinking, any points you hope to build on that mistake are ipso facto null.
-
AB, You try this "you deem" line a lot.
It's an attempt to make a logical fallacy not-a-logical-fallacy and nothing more than somebody's opinion, I guess.
-
Gordon,
You appear to be somewhat selective in the posts you respond to because, I suspect, that you look for things you deem to be fallacious arguments.
In your case, Alan, the fallacies are hard to avoid.
But you, along with others, seem to ignore or overlook some of the deeper points I make - such as the ultimate cause of me typing these keys, or how the content of many brain cells get perceived by the single entity which is you, or what can provide the continuity in You, when all your parts get replaced, or the question of what is in control - is it You or the uncontrolled deterministic rules of science? You may well try to write all these off as personal incredulity, but this does not make them go away, and there is still the big question of what is driving my personal incredulity?
You're certainly a dab hand with the deepities, Alan: there's no doubting that.
Is it just down to natural uncontrollable causes, or is it the free spirit which is Me?
It is you Alan, doing what your biology drives you to do: in your case you've decided 'God' and tried to support that with a bunch of fallacious arguments.
-
It'd be painful therefore to realise that they're imaginary ....
But if I am totally controlled by natural uncontrollable events, where does this concept of "imaginary" actually come from? What is it that "imagines"?
-
in your case you've decided 'God' and tried to support that with a bunch of fallacious arguments.
At least you have conceded that it is "Me" that decides ;)
-
At least you have conceded that it is "Me" that decides ;)
Indeed I did, although I did specify the biological you.
-
AB,
But if I am totally controlled by natural uncontrollable events, where does this concept of "imaginary" actually come from? What is it that "imagines"?
Who is this "I" of whom you speak?
Your question wrongly assumes there to be an "I" independent of the physical stuff of which you consist. The concept "comes from" your consciousness, which is itself an emergent property of trillions of connections between the neurons in your brain. If you find out something about emergence you'll have a better chance of understanding this.
-
Have we established yet why some Christians dislike the concept of universal salvation?
-
So what happens to this little man at the controls when the body dies? His awareness of this physical universe may no longer be there because he has lost the window into it, but the awareness which is You may have a new window into something else.
Whatever it is it wont be 'you' though will it?
No memories of 'you' or your loved ones or even that you existed on earth at all.
So just what do you think that there will 'be' to be aware of?
-
If you find out something about emergence you'll have a better chance of understanding this.
But nothing actually emerges. Emergence is just a perceived complexity or functionality as seen from outside.
Conscious awareness requires a recipient of information which is impossible to define in material terms.
-
Have we established yet why some Christians dislike the concept of universal salvation?
I assume that it's due to the belief that some don't deserve it - that if salvation comes to everyone without exception (eventually) it removes any need/incentive for moral behaviour, and doesn't distinguish between Desmond Tutu and Peter Sutcliffe.
-
AB,
IBut nothing actually emerges. Emergence is just a perceived complexity or functionality as seen from outside.
Conscious awareness requires a recipient of information which is impossible to define in material terms.
This kind of response is exactly why I said you need to understand something of emergence before replying. What emerges is consciousness - there is no "outside" and no "recipient". It's consciousness that you perceives itself as "you". The Cartesian split you're attempting has long been abandoned by thinkers and more recently by the findings of neuroscience - you might as well be saying over and over, "but it's Thor who causes thunder" while ignoring the evidence all around you to the contrary.
You seem to have a huge mental block about this - presumably because you've built on the mistake the edifice of a religious belief you find to be comforting. There are though theists who understand this better than you who don't rely on conjectures about a separate "I" but who still believe in their various gods. All I can say is that, if you really find the thought of "God" to be comforting, you don't have to cling to your profound misunderstanding of the facts to keep it.
-
Conscious awareness requires a recipient of information which is impossible to define in material terms.
Wow - been away from the forum for ages and the first thing I read is AB making the same old dishonest claims...
In order to make this statement honest you would need to understand exactly what conscious awareness is and how it works and then have a full knowledge of what is possible in "material terms".
We established some time ago that you don't know how conscious awareness works and that you can't define it in any terms (material or otherwise) and nobody seriously claims to have a full knowledge of the physical universe.
Isn't it about time you stopped being dishonest..?
-
Welcome back, SKoS. Hope you stick around - several waifs and strays have returned to the fold recently.
-
Wow - been away from the forum for ages and the first thing I read is AB making the same old dishonest claims...
--------------
-------------------
Isn't it about time you stopped being dishonest..?
Definition of DISHONEST:
adjective
behaving or prone to behave in an untrustworthy, deceitful, or insincere way.
"he was a dishonest hypocrite prepared to exploit his family"
synonyms: fraudulent, corrupt, swindling, cheating, double-dealing; More
intended to mislead or cheat.
"he gave the editor a dishonest account of events"
In order to be dishonest there has to be intent. AB is perfectly sincere.
Anyway good for you coming back, as Shaker says a few waifs and strays have returned recently. Others have gone for good, booted out the back door.
-
Brownie,
Definition of DISHONEST:
adjective
behaving or prone to behave in an untrustworthy, deceitful, or insincere way.
"he was a dishonest hypocrite prepared to exploit his family"
synonyms: fraudulent, corrupt, swindling, cheating, double-dealing; More
intended to mislead or cheat.
"he gave the editor a dishonest account of events"
In order to be dishonest there has to be intent. AB is perfectly sincere.
Anyway good for you coming back, as Shaker says a few waifs and strays have returned recently. Others have gone for good, booted out the back door.
But what word would you use for someone who says the equivalent of, "Thor causes thunder", has the facts explained to him, then repeats "Thor causes thunder" endlessly no matter how much his mistake is explained while never once attempting even to engage with the reason and evidence that undoes him?
That seems to me to be a type of dishonesty at least.
-
Brownie,
But what word would you use for someone who says the equivalent of, "Thor causes thunder", has the facts explained to him, then repeats "Thor causes thunder" endlessly no matter how much his mistake is explained while never once attempting even to engage with the reason and evidence that undoes him?
That seems to me to be a type of dishonesty at least.
Surely the issue is that the person would have to accept that they were facts rather than you just saying they were?
-
#131
No-one says that the evidence for an explanation "disproves" conjectures about a different one. Lots of people have seen babies born, but that doesn't disprove the conjecture that they're just brainwashed to think that by the stork that actually flies them through the window.
Your "soul" conjecture is equivalent here to the stork conjecture. There's strong evidence for consciousness being an emergent property of the physical stuff of which we're made, just as there's strong evidence of babies coming from women's tums. Neither evidence though disproves alternative conjectures even though there's no evidence for them whatever, especially when you also assert for them magical properties.
In short, you've just fallen back into the negative proof fallacy. As it's been explained to you many time now, my question is: why?
Taking the last question first: Possibly because he disagrees with you?
You claim that he has fallen back into the negative proof fallacy. All you have done is set up a scenario that you claim is unfalsifiable, claim that Alan’s position is similar, then claim the NPF. It is not an approach based on properties of truth.
Go into any primary school of your choice and see how many children will give you any kind of alternative explanation as to where babies come from. Are you really claiming that the conjecture they're just brainwashed to think that by the stork that actually flies them through the window is not falsifiable? So every woman on the planet who has ever given birth, every midwife, every eye-witness present at a birth are all potentially wrong?
Really?
Seriously? ? ?
Even if I were to briefly entertain your stork conjecture, what evidence supports it? Your alleged claim that it is unfalsifiable, then applied to Alan’s position is yet another illustration of your circular reasoning approach. You make an assumption about his position and then create an argument to try and justify your assumption.
The circular nature of your reasoning has been pointed out to you twice already this year, both times by the same non-theist, yet you persist with it. Why?
-
Surely the issue is that the person would have to accept that they were facts rather than you just saying they were?
Yes, to someone who believes 'Thor causes thunder' any other explanation isn't factual - they believe 'alternative facts'.
-
#131
Taking the last question first: Possibly because he disagrees with you?
You claim that he has fallen back into the negative proof fallacy. All you have done is set up a scenario that you claim is unfalsifiable, claim that Alan’s position is similar, then claim the NPF. It is not an approach based on properties of truth.
Go into any primary school of your choice and see how many children will give you any kind of alternative explanation as to where babies come from. Are you really claiming that the conjecture they're just brainwashed to think that by the stork that actually flies them through the window is not falsifiable? So every woman on the planet who has ever given birth, every midwife, every eye-witness present at a birth are all potentially wrong?
Really?
Seriously? ? ?
Even if I were to briefly entertain your stork conjecture, what evidence supports it? Your alleged claim that it is unfalsifiable, then applied to Alan’s position is yet another illustration of your circular reasoning approach. You make an assumption about his position and then create an argument to try and justify your assumption.
The circular nature of your reasoning has been pointed out to you twice already this year, both times by the same non-theist, yet you persist with it. Why?
that seems to be so divorced from, and such a misrepresentation of bluehillside's position that it must have taken quite a lot of effort. I recommend you have a nice cup of tea and reread what was said.
-
Yes, to someone who believes 'Thor causes thunder' any other explanation isn't factual - they believe 'alternative facts'.
but they aren't being dishonest.
-
but they aren't being dishonest.
Nope.
-
NS,
Surely the issue is that the person would have to accept that they were facts rather than you just saying they were?
But it's not a matter of someone "just saying" facts. If someone says, "2+2=5", has presented to him the logic that falsifies that, ignores that logic entirely and just repeats, "2+2=5" endlessly then it's the refusal to address the argument that seems to me to be a type of dishonesty.
I'd have no problem if instead he said, "OK - I've considered your logic/evidence and I think it's wrong for the following reasons". There'd be disagreement and perhaps further discussion, but at least it would be an honest exchange. Where's the honesty though in asserting "2+2=5" on an endless loop?
-
Taking the last question first: Possibly because he disagrees with you?
Here's another question. How many times does it have to be explained to someone that they have no grounds for disagreement because that disagreement rests on (1) no evidence and/or (2) a logical fallacy of some sort before one begins to suspect either obtuseness or even deliberate dishonesty in them?
A lot of people have spent a lot of time over a long period saying: your argment is invalid and your logic illegitimate. If those arguments and that poor reasoning persists, that's more than mere disagreement.
-
NS,
but they aren't being dishonest.
Even when overwhelming evidence to the contrary is shown to them and they just ignore it and assert the Thor claim again?
-
Hullo Sword, long time no see.
I am not going to copy all of your long post, anyone is capable of going back and reading it for context. You said:
Taking the last question first: Possibly because he disagrees with you?
Yes.
Disagreeing should not be a hanging offence on a discussion forum. We all disagree, that's what it's about.
The circular nature of your reasoning has been pointed out to you twice already this year, both times by the same non-theist, yet you persist with it.
Yes. Double standards.
-
NS,
But it's not a matter of someone "just saying" facts. If someone says, "2+2=5", has presented to him the logic that falsifies that, ignores that logic entirely and just repeats, "2+2=5" endlessly then it's the refusal to address the argument that seems to me to be a type of dishonesty.
I'd have no problem if instead he said, "OK - I've considered your logic/evidence and I think it's wrong for the following reasons". There'd be disagreement and perhaps further discussion, but at least it would be an honest exchange. Where's the honesty though in asserting "2+2=5" on an endless loop?
But to people back in the day a god creating thunder was in it way a logical explanation for it in the absence of other understanding. If a devotee of Thor today still believes that it is because faith and logic don't belong together so much these days. That's still a different thing from bean counting and then making up an answer.
-
NS,
But it's not a matter of someone "just saying" facts. If someone says, "2+2=5", has presented to him the logic that falsifies that, ignores that logic entirely and just repeats, "2+2=5" endlessly then it's the refusal to address the argument that seems to me to be a type of dishonesty.
I'd have no problem if instead he said, "OK - I've considered your logic/evidence and I think it's wrong for the following reasons". There'd be disagreement and perhaps further discussion, but at least it would be an honest exchange. Where's the honesty though in asserting "2+2=5" on an endless loop?
And 'refusal to address the argument' is your opinion here that you are presenting as objective fact. Perhaps you should avoid this type of underhand tactic, or rather use of the begging the question fallacy. Most of Alan Burns stuff recently has revolved around the inability to falsify his belief, and that he eeroences things as if it were true. It might be that we think there are things he isn't seeing, and indeed I do, but that just means greater efforts to get him to understand.
-
In order to be dishonest there has to be intent. AB is perfectly sincere.
Since he previously conceded one of the main points:
I admit that I do not know how conscious awareness and free will can work in the spiritual sense...
I find it difficult to understand how he can be sincere unless he is totally failing to grasp the logic or is simply unwilling to consider it (in which case, he is being dishonest in the sense that he is only pretending to engage in a discussion).
Perhaps he can clarify how he has come to his conclusion given that he has admitted that he doesn't know how conscious awareness works and he obviously doesn't have a complete knowledge of the physical universe and its capabilities?
-
NS,
Even when overwhelming evidence to the contrary is shown to them and they just ignore it and assert the Thor claim again?
Surely 'overwhelming evidence' here is begging the question. Your approach seems to lead to anything you think is true because of what you see as overwhelming evidence should be seen to be true by others. This seems very like Alan Burns approach - you just think evidence is something different.
-
Rhi,
But to people back in the day a god creating thunder was in it way a logical explanation for it in the absence of other understanding.
Yes I know. They were being honest about that to the best of their ability to be so.
If a devotee of Thor today still believes that it is because faith and logic don't belong together so much these days. That's still a different thing from bean counting and then making up an answer.
Yes it is, but the term "dishonest" is quite nuanced. There's flat out dishonesty as you describe, but there are more subtle forms of it too. NS I think would say something like, "But if someone genuinely thinks he's being honest then he is" whereas I'd say that a belief is wilfully obdurate when it involves putting your fingers in your ears and - when it is - that a sort of dishonesty is in play.
-
Surely 'overwhelming evidence' here is begging the question. Your approach seems to lead to anything you think is true because of what you see as overwhelming evidence should be seen to be true by others. This seems very like Alan Burns approach - you just think evidence is something different.
Unless I'm reading it all wrong this seems to sail very close to the "Ah well, I have my truth which is true for me but your truth is true for you" kind of relativistic morass that leaves us unable ever to say anything about anything.
-
Unless I'm reading it all wrong this seems to sail very close to the "Ah well, I have my truth which is true for me but your truth is true for you" kind of relativistic morass that leaves us unable ever to say anything about anything.
not really, it's only an issue here given the attempts to say :people who I disagree with who I think I have presented overwhelming evidence to that don't agree with me must be lying'
Evidence is athung that to make progress with you need to after what it means and how it is tested. We miss out that first step at our peril and end up with people using terms that mean completely different things.
-
NS,
And 'refusal to address the argument' is your opinion here that you are presenting as objective fact.
No it isn't. Counter-arguments have been put to AB many times and, so far as I'm aware, he's never once tried to engage with them.
Perhaps you should avoid this type of underhand tactic, or rather use of the begging the question fallacy. Most of Alan Burns stuff recently has revolved around the inability to falsify his belief, and that he eeroences things as if it were true. It might be that we think there are things he isn't seeing, and indeed I do, but that just means greater efforts to get him to understand.
Perhaps instead you should avoid your actual underhand tactic of claiming that I've behaved in a way that I haven't. IF AB said something like,"OK, I have considered your argument and I consider it to be mistaken for the following reasons" and I said that it was a fact that he hadn't then you'd have a point. That's not what he's done though.
-
NS,
No it isn't. Counter-arguments have been put to AB many times and, so far as I'm aware, he's never once tried to engage with them.
Perhaps instead you should avoid your actual underhand tactic of claiming that I've behaved in a way that I haven't. IF AB said something like,"OK, I have considered your argument and I consider it to be mistaken for the following reasons" and I said that it was a fact that he hadn't then you'd have a point. That's not what he's done though.
He considers you wrong for what to me seems bad reasoning, he seems to me inconsistent, confused,but that does not mean he is lying. That he argues badly or missed the point doesn't mean you can claim something about his intention 'refusal' as a fact.
-
not really, it's only an issue here given the attempts to say :people who I disagree with who I think I have presented overwhelming evidence to that don't agree with me must be lying'
I agree that it's not necessarily conscious, deliberate and explicit dishonesty, but the other option - sheer obtuseness - isn't great either.
-
Rhi,
Yes I know. They were being honest about that to the best of their ability to be so.
Yes it is, but the term "dishonest" is quite nuanced. There's flat out dishonesty as you describe, but there are more subtle forms of it too. NS I think would say something like, "But if someone genuinely thinks he's being honest then he is" whereas I'd say that a belief is wilfully obdurate when it involves putting your fingers in your ears and - when it is - that a sort of dishonesty is in play.
If someone is avoiding being honest, then that would be dishonesty and that's what your approach here would requite. You still haven't shown Alan is avoiding being honest merely asserted it by your personal incredulity.
-
I agree that it's not necessarily conscious, deliberate and explicit dishonesty, but the other option - sheer obtuseness - isn't great either.
there only is conscious, deliberate explicit dishonesty. It's part of the term as it is used here. As to 'sheer obtuseness' that's a false dichotomy.
-
there only is conscious, deliberate explicit dishonesty. It's part of the term as it is used here. As to 'sheer obtuseness' that's a false dichotomy.
In the context of the current discussion, I'm not convinced that it is. When a claim is made or an argument is advanced by A, and B demonstrates that the claim is baseless and/or the argument fallacious, and A comes back with exactly the same all over again not just once, but repeatedly, time after time, then it can only be down to dishonesty or sheer obtuseness - you call this a false dichotomy but I can't see a third (at least) option.
One now ex-member of this forum (naming no names) was notorious for using the negative proof fallacy aka appeal to/argument from ignorance. It was explained to said poster many, many times by many different people for an extended period of time that this is an invalid argument and - crucially - the reason why it's invalid. Yet the poster concerned carried on using it exactly the same as though those explanations never existed. What's your explanation for such behaviour?
-
I have often said that AB is dishonest, for example, he has quote-mined my posts, i.e. chopped a bit off, thus changing the meaning. I am not going to go back and find an example, however. Also, as others have said, he just ignores objections, and then says the same thing, as if the objection had not been raised.
I suppose you could argue that this is not dishonest but forgetful, or imprecise. That is certainly charitable. Well, I will make sure to highlight the next example that I see, and it won't be long probably.
-
In the context of the current discussion, I'm not convinced that it is. When a claim is made or an argument is advanced by A, and B demonstrates that the claim is baseless and/or the argument fallacious, and A comes back with exactly the same all over again not just once, but repeatedly, time after time, then it can only be down to dishonesty or sheer obtuseness - you call this a false dichotomy but I can't see a third (at least) option.
One now ex-member of this forum (naming no names) was notorious for using the negative proof fallacy aka appeal to/argument from ignorance. It was explained to said poster many, many times by many different people for an extended period of time that this is an invalid argument and - crucially - the reason why it's invalid. Yet the poster concerned carried on using it exactly the same as though those explanations never existed. What's your explanation for such behaviour?
Thing is, I've seen the same frustration from theists who don't understand why when they point out all the miracles they've seen and how aren't living creatures brilliant and but there's like that Kalamazoo thing and Jesus, what a dude, and bunnies and... and... and... And they can't believe that I am not god dodging because just look look look look at the evidence!!!!
Maybe they haven't got the base parts of the arguments agreed, maybe ecerytime they've gone 'that's the god works in mysterious ways justification', they haven't made it clear how and why, maybe because I see somethings differently so the next faithful step doesn't feel that way to me, maybe even horror of horrors they have to explained something so badly that every time they make the point, I lose the thread of their argument again.
-
Any who, perhaps we should get off the personal track and finally steer the discussion away from specific individuals before the Dark Lord Gord On puts us on the naughty step.
-
Who cares about the norty step? Good company there, I expect. Still I agree it's not good to be dissecting a particular person.
I've been accused in the past of being Universalist.
To me it means believing that there is more than one way and seeing the integrity in beliefs that are not our own.
-
I've been accused in the past of being Universalist.
To me it means believing that there is more than one way and seeing the integrity in beliefs that are not our own.
It's a kindly and humane belief for sure, but doesn't fit with a belief system such as Christianity or Islam which makes absolutist claims - this is the truth and the only truth.
Thinking that there are lots of valid paths within a belief system that insists on only one valid path must be a tricky position to maintain.
-
It's not difficult if you believe that faith is ever evolving. As time goes on and mankind learns new facts it is quite natural for our faith to take a different path and to have our eyes opened to what others believe. The Quakers believe that but, originally, when George Fox kick started the movement, they were conservatively Christian - up to a point, difficulties arose with other Christians because of their belief that we all carry God within us (The Light); now the Friends are less exclusive and recognise 'The Light' in non-Christians.
Quite a lot of churches adopt the same principle which shows in their attitude towards non-Christian faiths - hence Interfaith. They do not seek to convert.
After I posted my previous offering it occurred to me that there almost certainly are religions in which I would find it difficult to see the integrity (there is a programme on TV tonight about a cult which imprisoned some of its members), but I was meaning most of the well known faiths: Judaism in all its forms, Islam of various shades, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, etc, and many branches of Christendom.
-
You would think that universalism is contradicted by some Protestant churches, which believe that salvation occurs through Christ alone, and in fact, through the correct beliefs in Christ. In this framework, universalism renders Christ redundant. Also true, I think, of conservative Catholics; liberal ones, I don't know.
Here you go: 'in universalism, Satan can work his false doctrines through its adherents'.
https://carm.org/danger-universalism
-
Oh yes, many Christians are against it and some churches have a definite drive to convert non-Christians. That's how come I've been accused of being "Universalist", it wasn't meant as a compliment :-). It didn't bother me and when it first happened I looked it up because I hadn't heard of it before.
-
Well, it's a binary approach, to say that salvation is through Christ, the rest are damned. Or I should really say, dualistic, as with Zoroastrianism. It's not a coincidence that those against universalism, often talk about Satan, as they believe in a kind of dualistic universe, whereas universalists don't really. I suppose a lot of the New Testament is dualistic really, but I am not going to check! (By dualistic, I don't mean matter/mind, but God/Satan, or if you like, Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu (Zoroastrian)).
-
Manichaeism, man.
-
That's it. Old Mani.
-
That's it. Old Mani.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mani_(musician)
-
NS,
there only is conscious, deliberate explicit dishonesty. It's part of the term as it is used here. As to 'sheer obtuseness' that's a false dichotomy.
No there isn't. Here's Wiki for example:
Dishonesty is to act without honesty. It is used to describe a lack of probity, cheating, lying or being deliberately deceptive or a lack in integrity, knavishness, perfidiosity, corruption or treacherousness. Dishonesty is the fundamental component of a majority of offences relating to the acquisition, conversion and disposal of property (tangible or intangible) defined in criminal law such as fraud.
Lying is dishonest, but not all dishonesty is lying. Selective quoting is one example of "lacking in integrity" but I wouldn't go so far as to call it lying. That's why I used the term "dishonest" rather than "lying".
As I don't suppose we'll agree about this though, I'm not sure there's any more to discuss.
-
I think there is semi-conscious dishonesty, which is a bit like Sartre's bad faith. In fact, I suspect it is quite common, in situations where I refuse to acknowledge to myself that I am being economical with the truth.
It connects with self-deception in Sartre's work.
-
Who cares about the norty step? Good company there, I expect. Still I agree it's not good to be dissecting a particular person.
I've been accused in the past of being Universalist.
To me it means believing that there is more than one way and seeing the integrity in beliefs that are not our own.
I was a universalist in that I believed in universal salvation. I never had such venom from my then fellow believers over any other issue, not even gay marriage.
I think Wiggs is right in that it can be seen as removing the need for Christ, or more specifically the Cross, but I also felt that quite a few were miffed at the thought of losing their special status as one of the saved.
-
I think there is semi-conscious dishonesty, which is a bit like Sartre's bad faith. In fact, I suspect it is quite common, in situations where I refuse to acknowledge to myself that I am being economical with the truth.
Or not wanting to look at truths (whatever they are) the we find uncomfortable.
-
(last but one post). That's a good point, Rhiannon. There is that sense, for some Christians, that they are the elect.
-
Wiggi, you mean like self delusion I think. I expect we are all guilty of that at times, sometimes it can be soothing but it doesn't last.
Rhi, I know exactly what you mean about the venom and loss of special status. I've received many a battering on forums for my attitude.
-
(last but one post). That's a good point, Rhiannon. There is that sense, for some Christians, that they are the elect.
Yes, they are the older sons pissed off by the prodigal. Its all in the Bible, mate.
-
Or not wanting to look at truths (whatever they are) the we find uncomfortable.
In some ways, once you accept the idea of psychological growth, you are going to accept the idea that we would rather not look at some things, but gradually, (or maybe suddenly), you become able. Very painful, often.
I was reading Sylvia Plath's diaries, and there is an amazing section where she realizes how much she hates her mother. But she always has, but concealed it from herself (and presumably her mother!).
I don't think this is dishonest, but it is inauthentic, or something like that.
-
In some ways, once you accept the idea of psychological growth, you are going to accept the idea that we would rather not look at some things, but gradually, (or maybe suddenly), you become able. Very painful, often.
I was reading Sylvia Plath's diaries, and there is an amazing section where she realizes how much she hates her mother. But she always has, but concealed it from herself (and presumably her mother!).
Yes, I understand this (not that I hate my mother).
-
I was a universalist in that I believed in universal salvation. I never had such venom from my then fellow believers over any other issue, not even gay marriage.
I think Wiggs is right in that it can be seen as removing the need for Christ, or more specifically the Cross, but I also felt that quite a few were miffed at the thought of losing their special status as one of the saved.
The idea of the main pleasure of being in the club is to enjoy the misery of those outside it goes back at least to Aquinas, and doubtless well before.
Jehovah's Witnesses are a little like this, aren't they? Only 144,000 will be saved. I'm pretty sure there are more than 144,000 JWs in the world, so how they square that one is anybody's guess.
-
The idea of the main pleasure of being in the cub is to enjoy the misery of those outside it goes back at least to Aquinas, and doubtless well before.
Jehovah's Witnesses are a little like this, aren't they? Only 144,000 will be saved. I'm pretty sure there are more than 144,000 JWs in the world, so how they square that one is anybody's guess.
If I understand it correctly, being a JW is a step towards being one of the saved but it is actually reliant on a revelation from God. They go to heaven and everyone else - including surplus JWs - go to heaven on earth, as 'the other sheep'. JW literature often promotes a Garden of Eden kind of afterlife.
-
Surplus JWs ;D
-
Still on dishonesty, Freud used the word 'scotoma' which is obviously 'blind spot', and argued that everybody has them. In fact, you could argue that they are necessary and healthy, when we are young, but less so, as we grow up. Being authentic is not always a good idea.
-
Still on dishonesty, Freud used the word 'scotoma' which is obviously 'blind spot', and argued that everybody has them. In fact, you could argue that they are necessary and healthy, when we are young, but less so, as we grow up. Being authentic is not always a good idea.
No doubt Freud held that they were at some level - albeit unconsciously - deliberate rather than automatic?
-
Jehovah's Witnesses are a little like this, aren't they? Only 144,000 will be saved. I'm pretty sure there are more than 144,000 JWs in the world, so how they square that one is anybody's guess.
Rhiannon is right - JWs may be a bit stupid, but not that stupid. The 144,000 are the really special ones, destined for a spiritual eternity: the rest will live a perfected physical existence. Strangely enough, the spiritual elect only includes those who've lived post-Jesus, and so excludes worthies such as Noah, Moses, David, Solomon and Isaiah.
I wonder if John the Baptist got enough of the 'full revelation' to qualify for the spiritual lot? I may lose a lot of sleep wondering.....
-
NS,
No there isn't. Here's Wiki for example:
Dishonesty is to act without honesty. It is used to describe a lack of probity, cheating, lying or being deliberately deceptive or a lack in integrity, knavishness, perfidiosity, corruption or treacherousness. Dishonesty is the fundamental component of a majority of offences relating to the acquisition, conversion and disposal of property (tangible or intangible) defined in criminal law such as fraud.
Lying is dishonest, but not all dishonesty is lying. Selective quoting is one example of "lacking in integrity" but I wouldn't go so far as to call it lying. That's why I used the term "dishonest" rather than "lying".
As I don't suppose we'll agree about this though, I'm not sure there's any more to discuss.
Why do you think that quote makes your case at all? Seems to obviously build up mine.
-
I think there is semi-conscious dishonesty, which is a bit like Sartre's bad faith. In fact, I suspect it is quite common, in situations where I refuse to acknowledge to myself that I am being economical with the truth.
It connects with self-deception in Sartre's work.
I don't disagree that that is true BUT I think defining it in others is hugely dubious.
-
In some ways, once you accept the idea of psychological growth, you are going to accept the idea that we would rather not look at some things, but gradually, (or maybe suddenly), you become able. Very painful, often.
I was reading Sylvia Plath's diaries, and there is an amazing section where she realizes how much she hates her mother. But she always has, but concealed it from herself (and presumably her mother!).
I don't think this is dishonest, but it is inauthentic, or something like that.
It's called repression.
-
Still on dishonesty, Freud used the word 'scotoma' which is obviously 'blind spot', and argued that everybody has them. In fact, you could argue that they are necessary and healthy, when we are young, but less so, as we grow up. Being authentic is not always a good idea.
Surely then the claim that someone has a scotoma on something may be one's own scotoma?
-
Surplus JWs ;D
Number 144,001 must really feel pissed off!!!
-
No doubt Freud held that they were at some level - albeit unconsciously - deliberate rather than automatic?
You do what you need to do to survive.
-
Rhiannon is right - JWs may be a bit stupid, but not that stupid. The 144,000 are the really special ones, destined for a spiritual eternity: the rest will live a perfected physical existence. Strangely enough, the spiritual elect only includes those who've lived post-Jesus, and so excludes worthies such as Noah, Moses, David, Solomon and Isaiah.
I wonder if John the Baptist got enough of the 'full revelation' to qualify for the spiritual lot? I may lose a lot of sleep wondering.....
If it is post Jesus then that excludes Jesus....?
When Christ transfigured wasn't he seen with Moses?
-
Have we established yet why some Christians dislike the concept of universal salvation?
The reason why many Christians do not subscribe to Universalism (and why all Christians should not) is that it is not supported by Scripture. So while it might intuitively have a good deal of appeal to Christians, there is no escaping the fact that we need to do a balancing act on a Scriptural knife edge. Because the Scriptures are quite clear that while God is a God of love who went to great lengths to procure the opportunity for salvation for all, He is equally a holy God who cannot tolerate sin. Thus, if his free gift of salvation is rejected there are consequences, however uncomfortable that concept might be, even for many Christians.
In some ways universalism is a reflection of Western culture. It is of interest that when the Gospel was brought to Africa subjects such judgement and its consequences were not an issue for the listeners. It was when subjects such as turning the other cheek, going the extra mile and feeding you enemy when he was hungry came up that the early missionaries lost their audience who were often affronted by any such suggestions.
On a lighter note perhaps all will get to heaven eventually. I suspect that for many on this forum the idea of having me remind them every morning that I was right and they were wrong would be – well – sheer hell. :P :P
-
I was a universalist in that I believed in universal salvation. I never had such venom from my then fellow believers over any other issue, not even gay marriage.
I think Wiggs is right in that it can be seen as removing the need for Christ, or more specifically the Cross, but I also felt that quite a few were miffed at the thought of losing their special status as one of the saved.
The tenor of quite a few of the recent posts on this subject have concerned the idea that Christians believe that only they, and none other, get to heaven. In terms of my understanding of the teaching of Scripture this is a serious misconception and is simply not correct.
The classical text verse used to support this view is Peter’s statement in Acts 4:12 ‘And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.’ So it is only Jesus who can save. This is the unambiguous claim of Scripture and I believe it is the absolute truth.
The problem arises when many Christians conclude that the corollary to this Scripture is that only Christians find salvation and get to heaven. Such a conclusion is false and stands in contradiction to several other Scriptural passages. Some examples.
In John 5:24 Jesus says, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.
So as a Christians I will not appear before God’s Judgement Throne. Through my belief in Jesus I have already be declared (not found) not guilty and have eternal life through grace by faith.
Now there are two great judgements described in the New Testament. The first is in Matt 25:31-46, sometimes referred to as the Judgement of the Nations. The second is the Great White Throne Judgement of Revelation 20:11-15. Now if Christians do not come under judgement then there can be no Christians appearing before these tribunals. And yet in both cases there are those who find salvation. And the basis for their salvation is their works, not grace. Who are these people? If not Christians they can only be from those of other faiths or even those of no faith.
So while Universalism is not supported by Scripture, neither is the teaching that only Christians are saved. There will be both surprising additions and surprising omissions when the roll is called up yonder.
So the only remaining issue is to reconcile the truth that while salvation is only found in Jesus this is not necessarily exclusive, with non-Christians also able to find salvation. But a little bit of thought will reveal that that is easily done.
-
The reason why many Christians do not subscribe to Universalism (and why all Christians should not) is that it is not supported by Scripture. So while it might intuitively have a good deal of appeal to Christians, there is no escaping the fact that we need to do a balancing act on a Scriptural knife edge. Because the Scriptures are quite clear that while God is a God of love who went to great lengths to procure the opportunity for salvation for all, He is equally a holy God who cannot tolerate sin. Thus, if his free gift of salvation is rejected there are consequences, however uncomfortable that concept might be, even for many Christians.
Makes no sense to me. If God is a God of love he will do what is best for all without fear or favour, that simply follows from being a God of love. If God is going to discriminate on some basis of people's cognitive ability to recognise truth then he is falling well short of being all that he could be.
-
Makes no sense to me. If God is a God of love he will do what is best for all without fear or favour, that simply follows from being a God of love. If God is going to discriminate on some basis of people's cognitive ability to recognise truth then he is falling well short of being all that he could be.
Agreed.
-
NS,
Why do you think that quote makes your case at all? Seems to obviously build up mine.
Because it doesn't build your case at all - it undermines it. Phrases like, "lacking in integrity" give the game away - you can lack integrity without being a liar, and you can't just conflate the two.
This reminds me of the discussions about morality. Almost no-one thinks themselves to be immoral, even though everyone else might. The 9/11 hijackers for example were pious men who thought they were moral exemplars. Similarly, when folks like Alan Burns cherry pick, quote mine etc while they may not think themselves to lack integrity other people do. It all goes to intent - can you be dishonest without intending to be? I do, though you presumably don't.
-
The reason why many Christians do not subscribe to Universalism (and why all Christians should not) is that it is not supported by Scripture. So while it might intuitively have a good deal of appeal to Christians, there is no escaping the fact that we need to do a balancing act on a Scriptural knife edge. Because the Scriptures are quite clear that while God is a God of love who went to great lengths to procure the opportunity for salvation for all, He is equally a holy God who cannot tolerate sin. Thus, if his free gift of salvation is rejected there are consequences, however uncomfortable that concept might be, even for many Christians.
Two points - firstly, that's only important if you're a Christian who thinks that the scriptures are something more than a guide or an imperfect human conceptualisation of the reality; secondly, if God cannot tolerate sin, why did he create it? If he can forgive sins - which apparently he can, as we're all sinners - why is the sin of not believing somehow different to the others?
In some ways universalism is a reflection of Western culture.
Or, perhaps, just the influence of culture at all on what is, fundamentally, a fairly primitive and barbaric premise with centuries of patina, veneer, tradition and obfuscation lacquered over the surface.
It is of interest that when the Gospel was brought to Africa subjects such judgement and its consequences were not an issue for the listeners. It was when subjects such as turning the other cheek, going the extra mile and feeding you enemy when he was hungry came up that the early missionaries lost their audience who were often affronted by any such suggestions.
And, similarly in the ultra-capitalist US you get things like prosperity theology... it's almost as though it's a pernicious, fact-free, malleable framework that can be shaped to fit any underlying cultural mores and subvert them to establish a control system...
On a lighter note perhaps all will get to heaven eventually. I suspect that for many on this forum the idea of having me remind them every morning that I was right and they were wrong would be – well – sheer hell. :P :P
On an even lighter note, if you're wrong none of us will have to sit through the awkward remonstrations :)
O.
-
Makes no sense to me. If God is a God of love he will do what is best for all without fear or favour, that simply follows from being a God of love. If God is going to discriminate on some basis of people's cognitive ability to recognise truth then he is falling well short of being all that he could be.
The logic here would be that if all pass the test then what is the point of the test? The whole point of a test or "race", as Paul puts it, is that some may lose or fail to complete it.
-
The tenor of quite a few of the recent posts on this subject have concerned the idea that Christians believe that only they, and none other, get to heaven. In terms of my understanding of the teaching of Scripture this is a serious misconception and is simply not correct.
The classical text verse used to support this view is Peter’s statement in Acts 4:12 ‘And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.’ So it is only Jesus who can save. This is the unambiguous claim of Scripture and I believe it is the absolute truth.
The problem arises when many Christians conclude that the corollary to this Scripture is that only Christians find salvation and get to heaven. Such a conclusion is false and stands in contradiction to several other Scriptural passages. Some examples.
In John 5:24 Jesus says, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.
So as a Christians I will not appear before God’s Judgement Throne. Through my belief in Jesus I have already be declared (not found) not guilty and have eternal life through grace by faith.
Now there are two great judgements described in the New Testament. The first is in Matt 25:31-46, sometimes referred to as the Judgement of the Nations. The second is the Great White Throne Judgement of Revelation 20:11-15. Now if Christians do not come under judgement then there can be no Christians appearing before these tribunals. And yet in both cases there are those who find salvation. And the basis for their salvation is their works, not grace. Who are these people? If not Christians they can only be from those of other faiths or even those of no faith.
So while Universalism is not supported by Scripture, neither is the teaching that only Christians are saved. There will be both surprising additions and surprising omissions when the roll is called up yonder.
So the only remaining issue is to reconcile the truth that while salvation is only found in Jesus this is not necessarily exclusive, with non-Christians also able to find salvation. But a little bit of thought will reveal that that is easily done.
Matt 7:21 Not all those who say Lord, Lord...
Just mentioning it, I'm not a Christian.
-
DaveM: Peter’s statement in Acts 4:12 ‘And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.’ So it is only Jesus who can save. This is the unambiguous claim of Scripture and I believe it is the absolute truth....
Well Dave, that is what many Christians believe but my view is that we have to read scripture in the light of the times in which it was written; so much has been uncovered and discovered since Peter's time and as humankind develops and learns, so faith evolves.
That's my opinion.
-
Matt 7:21 Not all those who say Lord, Lord...
Just mentioning it, I'm not a Christian.
Thanks for a good Scriptural reference, which I think gives added support to the phrase you highlighted in my post about some surprising omissions.
-
Hi Brownie,
Well Dave, that is what many Christians believe but my view is that we have to read scripture in the light of the times in which it was written; so much has been uncovered and discovered since Peter's time and as humankind develops and learns, so faith evolves.
That's my opinion.
I remember that awful casuist Alister McGrath trying the same line (I think in a conversation with Richard Dawkins), and I find it very curious. As I understand it, those who think scripture to be authoritative think it to be definitively and so unchangingly so. What actually happens though when its content is thought to be morally iffy or worse is that we’re told that we should now interpret it differently.
Once the foundation of literal certainty is swept away though, whence the confidence that the interpretation we put on it today will be the same in, say, 100 years’ time? And if that confidence is misplaced, what value has scripture beyond that of any other early and crude attempt to define the human experience and set a few rules of moral probity?
-
...that awful casuist Alister McGrath
That's what I've always called him.
Well, more or less.
-
DaveM: Peter’s statement in Acts 4:12 ‘And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.’ So it is only Jesus who can save. This is the unambiguous claim of Scripture and I believe it is the absolute truth....
Well Dave, that is what many Christians believe but my view is that we have to read scripture in the light of the times in which it was written; so much has been uncovered and discovered since Peter's time and as humankind develops and learns, so faith evolves.
That's my opinion.
Hi Brownie. Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding of your post is that we are both agreed that there will be those who do not subscribe to the tenets of Christianity who will find salvation. My view on this is squarely rooted in the teachings of Scripture but I cannot determine from you post whether this is also the prime reason for your view or not.
Where we appear to differ is that you seem to have concluded that, based on this view, Peter’s claims about ‘no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved’, no longer applies. But I believe this is the unambiguous claim of Scripture and therefor remains the absolute truth. I do this on this basis of my belief that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the supreme authority for believers. To me Scriptures such as Isaiah 40:8, ‘the grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever and Mark 13:31, ‘heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away’ need to be taken seriously.
So the challenge for me is how to reconcile these two apparently contradictory truths that, while salvation is only found in Jesus, this is not necessarily exclusive, with non-Christians also able to find salvation. I believe this can be done, at least it can be to my own personal satisfaction.
-
Hi DaveM,
Hi Brownie. Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding of your post is that we are both agreed that there will be those who do not subscribe to the tenets of Christianity who will find salvation. My view on this is squarely rooted in the teachings of Scripture but I cannot determine from you post whether this is also the prime reason for your view or not.
Even if they devoutly worship a different god entirely and therefore spend their lives driving a coach and four through the first commandment (or indeed any of the others)?
If so, why bother with it/them?
Where we appear to differ is that you seem to have concluded that, based on this view, Peter’s claims about ‘no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved’, no longer applies. But I believe this is the unambiguous claim of Scripture and therefor remains the absolute truth. I do this on this basis of my belief that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the supreme authority for believers. To me Scriptures such as Isaiah 40:8, ‘the grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever and Mark 13:31, ‘heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away’ need to be taken seriously.
Which is a personal faith belief to which you’re perfectly entitled of course. Just out of interest though, if you think the rules of Scripture to be unambiguous and set in stone what role do you think there to be for the subsequent “interpretation” of them as Brownie suggests?
So the challenge for me is how to reconcile these two apparently contradictory truths that, while salvation is only found in Jesus, this is not necessarily exclusive, with non-Christians also able to find salvation. I believe this can be done, at least it can be to my own personal satisfaction.
How would you reconcile these two flatly contradictory claims please?
-
I heard on the news (yesterday I think) that the Bishops have again stuck to their outmoded, outdated, prejudiced, unhelpful, unkind, etc interpretation of their, man-made, lrules of celibacy, because they must stick to the scriptures. *deep sighs* for clergy who are gay, etc. How dare they so flatly and firmly refuse to drag themselves out of their blinkered views. I'dlike to go and give them a bit of a shake! Oh, and I forgot to add the word bigoted!
-
Hi Susan,
I heard on the news (yesterday I think) that the Bishops have again stuck to their outmoded, outdated, prejudiced, unhelpful, unkind, etc interpretation of their, man-made, lrules of celibacy, because they must stick to the scriptures. *deep sighs* for clergy who are gay, etc. How dare they so flatly and firmly refuse to drag themselves out of their blinkered views. I'dlike to go and give them a bit of a shake! Oh, and I forgot to add the word bigoted!
Indeed, the upside though being that the CofE has painted itself as even more outmoded, unpleasant and irrelevant than it was before. Every cloud and all that!
-
Makes no sense to me. If God is a God of love he will do what is best for all without fear or favour, that simply follows from being a God of love. If God is going to discriminate on some basis of people's cognitive ability to recognise truth then he is falling well short of being all that he could be.
Apologies for the delay in responding. Not sure why but I was responding to some of the later posts first.
I am not surprised that it makes no sense to you. If Christians struggle with this concept it can hardly be expected that the non-Christians would not do likewise. The only difference is that for many Christians this seems to be what Scripture teaches and thus Christians need to grapple with the idea and seek answers if possible.
Christian responses to this issue generally fall into three broad categories.
There are those, a minority, who seem to relish in the idea of perpetual condemnation. But this is not a Christian attitude as Scripture makes it clear that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked but would rather they should turn from their ways and live.
Others simply reject the doctrine and conclude that Universalism must be correct.
Others, like myself, struggle with the concept but accept that this is the teaching of Scripture. This is but one of a number of issues, like the problem of suffering that the Christian grapples with. And like suffering, although we can reach some tentative conclusions, we fall short of even ‘seeing through a glass darkly’ in our search for answers that satisfy. In the end we accept that there are certain problems where we will not know the true answers this side of the grave.
Of course issues like these have no influence on the fact that God ‘is’. But they do confront with the challenge to think very deeply over the nature of God and why we still believe and have come to know that He is a God of Love.
-
DaveM,
Apologies for the delay in responding. Not sure why but I was responding to some of the later posts first.
I am not surprised that it makes no sense to you. If Christians struggle with this concept it can hardly be expected that the non-Christians would not do likewise. The only difference is that for many Christians this seems to be what Scripture teaches and thus Christians need to grapple with the idea and seek answers if possible.
Or perhaps question whether the intractable contradictions suggest that Scripture is just primitive moral philosophy rather than a “God-inspired” rule book?
Christian responses to this issue generally fall into three broad categories.
There are those, a minority, who seem to relish in the idea of perpetual condemnation. But this is not a Christian attitude as Scripture makes it clear that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked but would rather they should turn from their ways and live.
“Wicked” here presumably defined as, “what Christians decide it means". There’s are some who are condemnatory here I’d say, and they seem to be able to pull out quotes from eg Leviticus that do confirm their biases (albeit that they do so selectively – the shellfish eaters get off pretty lightly for example).
Others simply reject the doctrine and conclude that Universalism must be correct.
Fair enough. Why then bother being a Christian at all though given that the prize of eternal non-fattening pizza and endless re-runs of Songs of Praise is on offer anyway?
Others, like myself, struggle with the concept but accept that this is the teaching of Scripture. This is but one of a number of issues, like the problem of suffering that the Christian grapples with. And like suffering, although we can reach some tentative conclusions, we fall short of even ‘seeing through a glass darkly’ in our search for answers that satisfy. In the end we accept that there are certain problems where we will not know the true answers this side of the grave.
Personally, I reach for my shotgun when a Christian reacts to the contradictions in his faith beliefs with this “it’s a mystery” escape clause. It just assumes a benevolent “God” and the inerrancy of Scripture, and so concludes that when the logic collapses that must be a fault in reasoning rather than with the assumptions in the first place.
Why not instead challenge the assumptions?
Of course issues like these have no influence on the fact that God ‘is’.
That’s not a fact at all – it’s your personal faith belief, and just asserting it to be fact is called the fallacy of reification.
But they do confront with the challenge to think very deeply over the nature of God and why we still believe and have come to know that He is a God of Love.
So why do you? If you must have “God” and you don’t want to dodge the problems you’ve identified with the “it’s a mystery” line, wouldn’t it at least be better aligned with the observable facts to think “Him” to be an evil rather than a loving deity?
-
This morning I was just passing some time starting to go through favourites list in order to delete stuff. I got as far as this link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSzttF8EXrE&feature+channel
and watched three or four of these quite amusing you tubes* and the cartoon one (about fourth, but I didn't count) is quite fun and ends with a human pointing out that it was humans who created god.
* Ignore the music at the beginning - it doesn't last long.
-
Makes no sense to me. If God is a God of love he will do what is best for all without fear or favour, that simply follows from being a God of love. If God is going to discriminate on some basis of people's cognitive ability to recognise truth then he is falling well short of being all that he could be.
But love is a two way thing
If God's love is rejected, the inevitable consequence is eternal separation from God.
-
Once the foundation of literal certainty is swept away though, whence the confidence that the interpretation we put on it today will be the same in, say, 100 years’ time? And if that confidence is misplaced, what value has scripture beyond that of any other early and crude attempt to define the human experience and set a few rules of moral probity?
This reminds me of John Lennon's controversial quote that He was more famous than Jesus, but would he still be more famous in 2000 years time?
-
But love is a two way thing
If God's love is rejected, the inevitable consequence is eternal separation from God.
Bollocks. My kids can reject me all they like but there's no inevitable consequence of separation until I'm in my grave.
-
This reminds me of John Lennon's controversial quote that He was more famous than Jesus, but would he still be more famous in 2000 years time?
You do love your fairy stories Alan, Lennon's far more interesting and brought a load of joy to all.
ippy
-
Bollocks. My kids can reject me all they like but there's no inevitable consequence of separation until I'm in my grave.
If the separation is just one sided, it is still separation. No amount of love from one side can count if it is continually rejected.
-
But love is a two way thing
If God's love is rejected, the inevitable consequence is eternal separation from God.
Since there isn't even the hint of jot of any objective evidence that this god even exists, how can it be said that anyone is rejecting its supposed love...?
-
If the separation is just one sided, it is still separation. No amount of love from one side can count if it is continually rejected.
But that means that love isn't a two way thing, doesn't it? Which is what you claimed.
-
But love is a two way thing
Monumental bullshit even by your habitual standards, Alan, and that's a tall order in itself.
-
If the separation is just one sided, it is still separation. No amount of love from one side can count if it is continually rejected.
Are you talking about love - which is where you started in #240 - or separation? Because any reasonably normal human being, as I'm increasingly coming to think you are not, recognises the difference between these two entirely different things.
You have children, I gather. Let's say they reject you, spurn you, turn their backs on you - do you love them less because of this? I'm not referring to how sad it would make you as that's a different thing - would you love them less? Remember that you said that love is a two way thing, so your answer may well show you up to be inconsistent, even incoherent ... not for the first time I might add.
But please, feel free to ignore the question and gloss over it as though you'd never even seen it. That's what you normally do, after all.
-
Apologies for the delay in responding. Not sure why but I was responding to some of the later posts first.
I am not surprised that it makes no sense to you. If Christians struggle with this concept it can hardly be expected that the non-Christians would not do likewise. The only difference is that for many Christians this seems to be what Scripture teaches and thus Christians need to grapple with the idea and seek answers if possible.
Christian responses to this issue generally fall into three broad categories.
There are those, a minority, who seem to relish in the idea of perpetual condemnation. But this is not a Christian attitude as Scripture makes it clear that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked but would rather they should turn from their ways and live.
Others simply reject the doctrine and conclude that Universalism must be correct.
Others, like myself, struggle with the concept but accept that this is the teaching of Scripture. This is but one of a number of issues, like the problem of suffering that the Christian grapples with. And like suffering, although we can reach some tentative conclusions, we fall short of even ‘seeing through a glass darkly’ in our search for answers that satisfy. In the end we accept that there are certain problems where we will not know the true answers this side of the grave.
Of course issues like these have no influence on the fact that God ‘is’. But they do confront with the challenge to think very deeply over the nature of God and why we still believe and have come to know that He is a God of Love.
That reads like a tawdry choice to indulge apologetics rather than doing the right thing. If a teaching or a law appears to be wrong or divisive or unhelpful or hurtful then what is wrong in saying so ? It is a triumph for tribalism over personal integrity to settle for ignoring what your own conscience is telling you and instead yielding to group think; it is a triumph for weakness over courage to avoid the challenge of questioning your deepest assumptions. Many christians seem to be able to distance themselves from the excesses of the wrathful Old Testament god with talk of context, applicability to the Jewish people etc. but seem to have a blind spot when in comes to the need for contextualisation in respect of the New Testament. All scriptures, whether written by Hindu or Jew or Moslem or Christian have at least one thing in common, they are all written by humans and all humans get things wrong, it comes with the territory. And if we can all admit to our human fallibility then the world would be a less divisive, friendlier place.
-
But love is a two way thing
If God's love is rejected, the inevitable consequence is eternal separation from God.
Makes no sense. Humans have limited understanding, God is omniscient, or so they say. So it is not a relationship of equals, rather a paternalistic one. A good father will do what is best for his all children because he knows, whereas we humans will inevitably get things wrong. A good father would love all his children unconditionally without fear or favour.
-
Makes no sense. Humans have limited understanding, God is omniscient, or so they say. So it is not a relationship of equals, rather a paternalistic one. A good father will do what is best for his all children because he knows, whereas we humans will inevitably get things wrong. A good father would love all his children unconditionally without fear or favour.
You're expressing rational thoughts torri, I think you can fill in the rest.
ippy
-
Are you talking about love - which is where you started in #240 - or separation? Because any reasonably normal human being, as I'm increasingly coming to think you are not, recognises the difference between these two entirely different things.
You have children, I gather. Let's say they reject you, spurn you, turn their backs on you - do you love them less because of this? I'm not referring to how sad it would make you as that's a different thing - would you love them less? Remember that you said that love is a two way thing, so your answer may well show you up to be inconsistent, even incoherent ... not for the first time I might add.
But please, feel free to ignore the question and gloss over it as though you'd never even seen it. That's what you normally do, after all.
I think God's love and human rejection of it is aptly illustrated in the story of the prodigal son. Ultimately God wants us to turn back to Him and accept His love, but we all have the free will to turn away from Him. As I said, love is a two way thing, and God will never force His love upon us.
-
I think God's love and human rejection of it is aptly illustrated in the story of the prodigal son. Ultimately God wants us to turn back to Him and accept His love, but we all have the free will to turn away from Him. As I said, love is a two way thing, and God will never force His love upon us.
This is repetition, not explanation.
You keep asserting that love is or has to be a two-way thing to count as love. So here's a question for you, since you ignored the previous one as I predicted. God may never force love upon anyone, but nevertheless, if a human being rejects this love, does this make God's love any less - yes or no? Did the father of the prodigal son love his son any less - yes or no?
-
This is repetition, not explanation.
You keep asserting that love is or has to be a two-way thing to count as love. So here's a question for you, since you ignored the previous one as I predicted. God may never force love upon anyone, but nevertheless, if a human being rejects this love, does this make God's love any less - yes or no? Did the father of the prodigal son love his son any less - yes or no?
I was just thinking, that new musical, what did they call it? 'La La Land', can't think what brought it to mind?
ippy
-
Ultimately God wants us to turn back to Him and accept His love, but we all have the free will to turn away from Him.
Even if free will, from the point of view of an omnipotent and omniscient creator, wasn't the logical absurdity that it is; how can I possibly turn back or turn away from a being that doesn't even reveal its existence to me?
-
Makes no sense. Humans have limited understanding, God is omniscient, or so they say. So it is not a relationship of equals, rather a paternalistic one. A good father will do what is best for his all children because he knows, whereas we humans will inevitably get things wrong. A good father would love all his children unconditionally without fear or favour.
I find no moral content here at all. Is God merely a quizmaster asking what facts one knows or one's skill set? I'm not sure that's it at all.
-
I find no moral content here at all. Is God merely a quizmaster asking what facts one knows or one's skill set? I'm not sure that's it at all.
God, as expressed by you and other, believers already known what it would take to change my mind from believer to unbeliever.
So why are there unbelievers?
1) Lack of evidence.
2) An inability to assess the evidence properly.
3) There is no evidence.
4) God dodgers one and all......... these are people how think that there REALLY is a GOD but DENY him even though (secretly) he knows GOD LOVES them UNCONDITIONALLY.
5) other, available request.
You would have thought the multi-Omni God could have sorted this one...
-
This is repetition, not explanation.
You keep asserting that love is or has to be a two-way thing to count as love. So here's a question for you, since you ignored the previous one as I predicted. God may never force love upon anyone, but nevertheless, if a human being rejects this love, does this make God's love any less - yes or no? Did the father of the prodigal son love his son any less - yes or no?
Of course a big No - God's love is constant and eternal. But to fulfil the Love God offers, we have to freely accept it. The prodigal son's rejection of his father's love did not in any way diminish that love, but the love was not brought to fruition until the son repented and turned back to the father of his own free will.
-
Of course a big No - God's love is constant and eternal [...] The prodigal son's rejection of his father's love did not in any way diminish that love
Right. So you've just gone back on your earlier assertion (in #240) that love is a two way thing, by now saying that it isn't.
Is it, or is it not?
And in any case, isn't saying
Ultimately God wants us to turn back to Him and accept His love
saying that God is lacking in some way because he needs a certain thing? That there is something that God doesn't have?
-
But to fulfil the Love God offers, we have to freely accept it.
Boloney! Damn great bucketfuls mof boloney!
To get the love that God offers you have to get on your knees, give up any pretence of free will, do exactly and precisely what you are told or burn in Hell for eternity!
That is NOT love by any definition of love that I understand! Except perhaps Love as defined by the (thank Christ) mythical Mr Gray!
-
I find no moral content here at all. Is God merely a quizmaster asking what facts one knows or one's skill set? I'm not sure that's it at all.
But that is the implication of those rejecting universalism : rather that saving everyone, God discriminates, selecting only those with the correct beliefs.
-
Of course a big No - God's love is constant and eternal. But to fulfil the Love God offers, we have to freely accept it. The prodigal son's rejection of his father's love did not in any way diminish that love, but the love was not brought to fruition until the son repented and turned back to the father of his own free will.
The story of the prodigal son is only partially relevant to the wider issue. For starters, the son would presumably have no doubts about his fathers paternality or his existence. In reality, we have not established grounds beyond reasonable doubt that a paternallistic god even exists, so all that follows about a lost son returning does not even get out of the starting blocks as a viable metaphor.
-
Of course a big No - God's love is constant and eternal. But to fulfil the Love God offers, we have to freely accept it. The prodigal son's rejection of his father's love did not in any way diminish that love, but the love was not brought to fruition until the son repented and turned back to the father of his own free will.
did gods love exist before humans arrived and if so how do you know?
And if humans become extinct, how do you know if gods love is eternal.?
-
did gods love exist before humans arrived and if so how do you know?
And if humans become extinct, how do you know if gods love is eternal.?
Walter if you get anything like a sensible answer I will need to go and have a good lay down whilst trying to recover.
I'm certain this is a classic case of 100% indoctrination, otherwise we wouldn't be hearing such a load of old tripe from that direction, none of the magical, mystical and superstitional based parts of the tripe he bangs out has any kind of evidential base other than in his imagination.
Well we don't hear that much about Zeus or the old Norse gods etc nowdays, I suppose likewise it'll be a while before the majority of these cases die out but there'll always be the odd, emphasis on the odd, hardliner hanging on like grim death; sweeping around them might be the best move, but the only trouble with that is they're still doing their best to hand on their misguided indoctrinational tendencies to the next generation, so that makes it a duty to challenge them.
ippy
-
Walter if you get anything like a sensible answer I will need to go and have a good lay down whilst trying to recover.
I'm certain this is a classic case of 100% indoctrination, otherwise we wouldn't be hearing such a load of old tripe from that direction, none of the magical, mystical and superstitional based parts of the tripe he bangs out has any kind of evidential base other than in his imagination.
Well we don't hear that much about Zeus or the old Norse gods etc nowdays, I suppose likewise it'll be a while before the majority of these cases die out but there'll always be the odd, emphasis on the odd, hardliner hanging on like grim death; sweeping around them might be the best move, but the only trouble with that is they're still doing their best to hand on their misguided indoctrinational tendencies to the next generation, so that makes it a duty to challenge them.
ippy
Not only challenge but a good strong dose of ridicule should also be employed in the hope that it will shame them into keeping quiet . Plus they should not be allowed near children , even their own, until such time they can provide any empirical evidence to support any religious claims they make.
I thank you.
-
did gods love exist before humans arrived and if so how do you know?
Because love does not come from a cloud of exploding gas
And if humans become extinct, how do you know if gods love is eternal.?
Because the human soul is eternal
-
Because the human soul is eternal
He asserted - without the first hit if a suggestion of a scintilla of evidence or rational argument...
-
AB,
Because love does not come from a cloud of exploding gas
Because the human soul is eternal
Once again you commit the fallacy of reification - you assert your claims of fact with neither logic nor evidence to support them, then proceed to draw conclusions from them.
You clearly want your various claims to be taken seriously, so let me help you. When someone makes claims of fact, the basic idea is that they should then provide some reasoning or evidence to enable others to distinguish those claims from just guessing. What you do though is to make a series of remarkable claims of fact, but you provide nothing at all to suggest that you're right.
Why not start afresh, and finally attempt at least to construct a cogent argument that would validate your assertions?
-
The story of the prodigal son is only partially relevant to the wider issue. For starters, the son would presumably have no doubts about his fathers paternality or his existence. In reality, we have not established grounds beyond reasonable doubt that a paternallistic god even exists, so all that follows about a lost son returning does not even get out of the starting blocks as a viable metaphor.
The story is given to illustrate the nature of God's love for us, and it aptly illustrates the error in your post about God's love giving salvation to all, even when it is rejected. God gives us the ability to freely choose our destiny - He does not force this choice upon us.
-
The story is given to illustrate the nature of God's love for us, and it aptly illustrates the error in your post about God's love giving salvation to all, even when it is rejected. God gives us the ability to freely choose our destiny - He does not force this choice upon us.
you are just making this up for comedic effect aren't you? I know your game. ;)
-
God gives us the ability to freely choose our destiny - He does not force this choice upon us.
You keep on asserting this despite its utter absurdity.
How can we exercise "free will" (neglecting for a moment the innate absurdity of the concept in this context) if we have no indication that the choice is even real. I see no god - I see no choice to make...
-
I see no god - I see no choice to make...
Billions of human beings would disagree.
-
Billions of human beings would disagree.
and flies eat shit!
-
Billions of human beings would disagree.
This would be a classic argumentum ad populum fallacy if it wasn't for the fact that billions of people don't agree - they disagree with each other about which god(s) is(are) real...
Whichever god(s) you believe in, most people think you are wrong.
-
AB,
Billions of human beings would disagree.
That's called the argumentum ad populum, yet another of the various logical fallacies you commit.
It also incidentally gives you the problem that many of those billions don't believe in your god at all. If you really want to go the route of truth as a popularity contest though, shouldn't you convert to Islam before it's too late?
-
Billions of human beings would disagree.
billions of human beings would disagree that your god is the God. Now what?
-
AB,
That's called the argumentum ad populum, yet another of the various logical fallacies you commit.
It also incidentally gives you the problem that many of those billions don't believe in your god at all. If you really want to go the route of truth as a popularity contest though, shouldn't you convert to Islam before it's too late?
peace be upon him , phew!
-
The story is given to illustrate the nature of God's love for us, and it aptly illustrates the error in your post about God's love giving salvation to all, even when it is rejected. God gives us the ability to freely choose our destiny - He does not force this choice upon us.
It must be frustrating for you when as you must be aware your belief has no foundation in fact, you can't establish that there is anything in or factual about any of the magical mystical or superstition based parts of them.
Anybody can make assertions, even if it's several billion making the assertions, if it'not true it doesn't matter how many people assert it, it'still not true.
It's a little worrying several posters on this thread have tried to explain the above to you and you still can't get it, you should be worried too A B.
ippy
-
That reads like a tawdry choice to indulge apologetics rather than doing the right thing. If a teaching or a law appears to be wrong or divisive or unhelpful or hurtful then what is wrong in saying so ? It is a triumph for tribalism over personal integrity to settle for ignoring what your own conscience is telling you and instead yielding to group think; it is a triumph for weakness over courage to avoid the challenge of questioning your deepest assumptions. Many christians seem to be able to distance themselves from the excesses of the wrathful Old Testament god with talk of context, applicability to the Jewish people etc. but seem to have a blind spot when in comes to the need for contextualisation in respect of the New Testament. All scriptures, whether written by Hindu or Jew or Moslem or Christian have at least one thing in common, they are all written by humans and all humans get things wrong, it comes with the territory. And if we can all admit to our human fallibility then the world would be a less divisive, friendlier place.
After your comments on the EU on another thread it is a shame you don't enforce your high ideals on yourself with regards to the EU. They have rules and laws that harm their people because they keep to their treaties and ideology which for them is their 'Bible'.
-
After your comments on the EU on another thread it is a shame you don't enforce your high ideals on yourself with regards to the EU. They have rules and laws that harm their people because they keep to their treaties and ideology which for them is their 'Bible'.
I'm really not interested in your naive conspiracy theories Jack, Just grow up.
-
I'm really not interested in your naive conspiracy theories Jack, Just grow up.
But it is your conspiracy theory that I entertain conspiracy theories that is at fault here. So why don't you grow up and stick to the facts.