Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

A universal need for forgiveness for the 'crime' of being human and therefore imperfect -

A need for forgiveness......what about a need for God? Being a Human is not a crime but humans commit crime or more pertinently that which they regret because it is intrinsically wrong.

One reason we don't turn to God is that we suspect we will have to accept the need for his foregiveness. That is not an ego affirming thing.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Not sure what you mean here. After all this is not merely a matter of intellectual assent or I suppose assertion but an encounter with God.

Been a while since old Vladdo tried the reification fallacy - he thinks he had "an encounter with God" et voilà, he had an encounter with God. No logic, no argument, no evidence, no reasoning, no attempt even to consider the alternative (but no doubt less thrilling) possible explanations, not even a definition of what this "God" might be - God it is then. He's the Sam Allardyce of theism I suppose - strictly route one stuff: it felt like god paid me a visit, therefore god paid me a visit and you'd jolly well better believe me about that or I'll thcweam and thcweam until you do.

One wonders to if not for "intellectual assent" what he did use for assent. Kneecaps? Twiggy the Twig Man who lives in the woods? The roll of a di perhaps?

I think we should be told! 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

A universal need for forgiveness for the 'crime' of being human and therefore imperfect - in other words the 'crime' of being the way god created us, means that said god is simply unfair and unjust.

And, as I said, there is no hint of evidence or iota of reasoning to support this daft, self-contradictory superstition, anyway.

It is not daft nor self contradictory.

Man starts of in perfect communion with God man breaks this communion God offers forgiveness through the eternal and universal act of taking sin upon himself, relationship now possible to those who choose it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Not really since Hitchins too conveniently forgot about Christ in all of this. Saving ourselves is the equivalent of not needing to bother with God.

Hitchens did no such thing. Personal beliefs you happen to have about Christ are a matter for you, not for epistemic conversations between grown ups.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

One reason we don't turn to God is that we suspect we will have to accept the need for his foregiveness. That is not an ego affirming thing.

And another for more rational thinkers is that no-one has yet managed an argument for this "God" existing in the first place that doesn't work equally well for leprechauns.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Been a while since old Vladdo tried the reification fallacy - he thinks he had "an encounter with God" et voilà, he had an encounter with God. No logic, no argument, no evidence, no reasoning, no attempt even to consider the alternative (but no doubt less thrilling) possible explanations, not even a definition of what this "God" might be - God it is then. He's the Sam Allardyce of theism I suppose - strictly route one stuff: it felt like god paid me a visit, therefore god paid me a visit and you'd jolly well better believe me about that or I'll thcweam and thcweanm until you do.

One wonders to if not for "intellectual assent" what he did use for assent. Kneecaps? Twiggy the Twig Man who lives in the woods? The roll of a di perhaps?

I think we should be told!

I am not going to sqwueem at your final choice Hillside.
This thread has made much of the subconscious being able to work the complex stuff without letting on immediately what it's up to. We can all relate a Henry Higgins moment where we realise something that has been brewing subconsciously. 'Damn Damn Damn' says Higgins 'I've grown accustomed to her face' supporters of Torridon can no longer argue that they definitely are not encountering God in their subconscious so hopefully your Henry Higgins moment vis a vis God will come.

Unfortunately all the alternatives to an encounter with God suffer from being off the peg arguments from undemonstrable philosophies. I said not merely intellectual assent Hillside, I see you diddled that one.
I know you are not a depth man Hillside so I will couch this in other terms. Do you love your wife and family by mere intellectual assent?, Do you like or hate marmite by mere intellectual assent? Do you like jazz by mere intellectual assent?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hitchens did no such thing. Personal beliefs you happen to have about Christ are a matter for you, not for epistemic conversations between grown ups.

Of course he did.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And another for more rational thinkers is that no-one has yet managed an argument for this "God" existing in the first place that doesn't work equally well for leprechauns.

It was using the word yet that stole your own thunder.

[bluehillside Retd.]

…supporters of Torridon can no longer argue that they definitely are not encountering God in their subconscious so hopefully your Henry Higgins moment vis a vis God will come.

Oh dear – and here we see the straw man (no-one says they “definitely are not encountering God” any more than they say they definitely are not encountering leprechauns – rather they (ie, we) just say that there’s no evidence for either) eliding it’s way into the negative proof fallacy (“you can’t disprove God, therefore….err…).   

Unfortunately all the alternatives to an encounter with God suffer from being off the peg arguments from undemonstrable philosophies.

They do no such thing. There’s no “undemonstrable philosophy” about a transient temporal lobe fit to give just one example.   

I said not merely intellectual assent Hillside, I see you diddled that one.

No, you did. If not for your intellect (such as it is), what tool did you use to investigate the various potential causes of your “experience”?

I know you are not a depth man Hillside so I will couch this in other terms.

Irony never was your long suit was it.

Do you love your wife and family by mere intellectual assent?, Do you like or hate marmite by mere intellectual assent? Do you like jazz by mere intellectual assent?

See whether you can work out for yourself were you’ve gone wrong there. Here’s a clue: none of these things relate to factual claims about the world that I expect other people to accept as true just on my say so. As you’ve never understood what “category error” means you’ll understand if I don’t bother explaining it to you again.

So let's do a fallacy count shall we? In one short post you managed to include a straw man, an NPF, an untruth, a false accusation, and a category error.

Bravo!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Of course he did.

No, he really didn't. What he did do though (correctly) was not to accept the reifications of those who would assert that we should accept at face value their claims and beliefs about Christ. That's where you went wrong.

[bluehillside Retd.]

It was using the word yet that stole your own thunder.

Word salad.

[Stranger]

It is not daft nor self contradictory.

Man starts of in perfect communion with God man breaks this communion God offers forgiveness through the eternal and universal act of taking sin upon himself, relationship now possible to those who choose it.

But I personally did not start off in "perfect communion" and then chose to break it - yet I am being condemned for its consequences (being an imperfect human, a sinner, and unable to please god) and being told I need forgiveness. That is a clear injustice.

It most definitely is daft and self-contradictory (god is said to be just and yet is acting like a sick sadist by condemning us for the nature it forced on us).

Being daft and self-contradictory is just another reason for rejecting it, over and above the total lack of evidence or reasoning to suggest it is anything more than a superstitious fantasy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Oh dear – and here we see the straw man (no-one says they “definitely are not encountering God” any more than they say they definitely are not encountering leprechauns – rather they (ie, we) just say that there’s no evidence for either) eliding it’s way into the negative proof fallacy (“you can’t disprove God, therefore….err…).   

They do no such thing. There’s no “undemonstrable philosophy” about a transient temporal lobe fit to give just one example.   

No, you did. If not for your intellect (such as it is), what tool did you use to investigate the various potential causes of your “experience”?

Irony never was your long suit was it.

See whether you can work out for yourself were you’ve gone wrong there. Here’s a clue: none of these things relate to factual claims about the world that I expect other people to accept as true just on my say so. As you’ve never understood what “category error” means you’ll understand if I don’t bother explaining it to you again.

So let's do a fallacy count shall we? In one short post you managed to include a straw man, an NPF, an untruth, a false accusation, and a category error.

Bravo!

Oh yes all religious people have temporal lobe epilepsy of course and of course temporal lobe epilepsy means there is no God, and of course an encounter with God in some people would never, ever, possibly bring on an episode of epilepsy....and of course God's manifestations are limited to temproral lobe epilepsy.

Appeal to temporal lobe epilepsy is a bit desperate even for you.

I see you are still spraying fallacies......like a cat......iin the hope that some of them might stick.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Oh yes all religious people have temporal lobe epilepsy of course…

And liar boy is among us again. So which bit of, “to give just one example” confused you then?

…and of course temporal lobe epilepsy means there is no God..

Oh dear – it no more “disproves god” than your Mum fessing up to putting the 50p under your pillow disproves the Tooth Fairy, which is why there was no such claim.
They’re just examples of possible real world explanations is all. 

…and of course an encounter with God in some people would never, ever, possibly bring on an episode of epilepsy....

What are you even trying to say here?

…and of course God's manifestations are limited to temproral lobe epilepsy.

You do know that the straw man is a form of lying right?

Appeal to temporal lobe epilepsy is a bit desperate even for you.

Er, no – it’s just an example of the types of causes that are known to cause strongly held beliefs. You can even cause them artificially given the right kit.   

I see you are still spraying fallacies......like a cat......iin the hope that some of them might stick.

Why do you thinking lying like this helps you? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But I personally did not start off in "perfect communion" and then chose to break it - yet I am being condemned for its consequences (being an imperfect human, a sinner, and unable to please god) and being told I need forgiveness. That is a clear injustice.

It most definitely is daft and self-contradictory (god is said to be just and yet is acting like a sick sadist by condemning us for the nature it forced on us).

Being daft and self-contradictory is just another reason for rejecting it, over and above the total lack of evidence or reasoning to suggest it is anything more than a superstitious fantasy.

I find it difficult to credit that one was aware of their ''start off'' or that there was no time when one chose to do something one knew to be wrong.

It is only contradictory if one ignores the role of Jesus which you seem to continue doing. Jesus overturns original sin and the way has been clear between God and man since the fall if only one will avail themselves of it.

So we don't believe in original sin and not all Christians have or do. There is still mankind's sins caused by volition and so we need to turn to God.

[Stranger]

It is only contradictory if one ignores the role of Jesus which you seem to continue doing. Jesus overturns original sin and the way has been clear between God and man since the fall if only one will avail themselves of it.

So we don't believe in original sin and not all Christians have or do. There is still mankind's sins caused by volition and so we need to turn to God.

I'm not ignoring the role of Jesus - it's the idea that everybody sins and therefore needs forgiveness (via Jesus) that is the contradiction with a god that is just and fair.

Yet again - if everybody sins, it cannot possibly be be a genuine, realistic choice, that an ordinary human being can make, to not do so. Therefore the test is unfair and unjust. We are being condemned for the nature god has given us.

That's without considering that free will from the point of view of an omnipotent, omniscient creator who therefore has control of all of our nature and all of our nurture is a complete nonsense.

Which is in turn without considering that the whole story has no supporting evidence and no sensible arguments to suggest that it is even remotely likely to be true (at least none that I have ever encountered).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm not ignoring the role of Jesus - it's the idea that everybody sins and therefore needs forgiveness (via Jesus) that is the contradiction with a god that is just and fair.

Yet again - if everybody sins, it cannot possibly be be a genuine, realistic choice, that an ordinary human being can make, to not do so. Therefore the test is unfair and unjust. We are being condemned for the nature god has given us.

That's without considering that free will from the point of view of an omnipotent, omniscient creator who therefore has control of all of our nature and all of our nurture is a complete nonsense.


Which is in turn without considering that the whole story has no supporting evidence and no sensible arguments to suggest that it is even remotely likely to be true (at least none that I have ever encountered).

Sin is a matter of choice since no one forces a person to sin. Going back to institutional behaviour nobody is relieved of personal responsibility for behaving thus since one was free to behave in a different way. The power of original sin is countered from the get go by Christ. Not everybody fails to turn to Christ and those that do, do so of their own volition.

We do not occupy any position other than our own.

[Gordon]

Sin is a matter of choice since no one forces a person to sin.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the Christian doctrine that we are all already 'sinners' at the point we are born? If so, where is this 'choice' you mention?

[Alan Burns]

Are you going to address the logic or just go on posting these silly, bland, inane and meaningless statements?

If it's the "free spirit" that makes the choice - that is what the logic apples to. Whatever you call the final decision making entity and no matter what magical realm you think it resides in, the logic applies.

Yet again: If a completely exhaustive list of absolutely every reason for a choice, in complete and exact detail, does not fully define exactly one choice, then there can be no reasons left to choose between the alternatives and something that happens for no reason is random.

Why are you so afraid of facing this head-on and saying why you think it's wrong?

You do not seem to understand the power of free will given to you, that you are free to choose what you want to do.  You are not entirely pre determined by past events.

[Alan Burns]

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the Christian doctrine that we are all already 'sinners' at the point we are born? If so, where is this 'choice' you mention?

The choice we are offered is to accept Jesus as our saviour, to free us from sin and death.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the Christian doctrine that we are all already 'sinners' at the point we are born? If so, where is this 'choice' you mention?

Mainstream Christianity has we are all inheritors of original sin and committers of actual sin. The catholic position is that baptism cancels original sin. Chrystostom, Athanasius and Cyril of the early east and African churches. Talk more of inheriting a tendency to sin and some commentators deny a doctrine of original sin in Augustinian terms in the early church. There was no such tendency to sin in eden therefpre no design fault. The means of inheritance are not as far as I can see clear or at all establisked in genetic mendelian terms although imitation of behaviour is not favoured.

The term actual sin speaks volumes since the commission of sin makes Actual sinners aside from being original sinners.

Part two is that Jesus deals with all sin, however ''inherited'' or committed. And becomes the Way to choose or reject.

[Gordon]

Mainstream Christianity has we are all inheritors of original sin and committers of actual sin. The catholic position is that baptism cancels original sin. Chrystostom, Athanasius and Cyril of the early east and African churches. Talk more of inheriting a tendency to sin and some commentators deny a doctrine of original sin in Augustinian terms in the early church. There was no such tendency to sin in eden therefpre no design fault. The means of inheritance are not as far as I can see clear or at all establisked in genetic mendelian terms although imitation of behaviour is not favoured.

The term actual sin speaks volumes since the commission of sin makes Actual sinners aside from being original sinners.

Part two is that Jesus deals with all sin, however ''inherited'' or committed. And becomes the Way to choose or reject.

This all sounds both imprecise and about as contrived as the plot of a particularly simplistic story written for children: we all sinners by default, so we all need saved and gee-whizz up pops a convenient saviour.

Sounds too like those of us unbaptised as Christians are being treated differently: would that be correct?

[torridon]

You do not seem to understand the power of free will given to you, that you are free to choose what you want to do.  You are not entirely pre determined by past events.

Yes, but what we want is a consequence of past events.  Given we can't change the past, it is not so much of a freedom really. Desires arise within us as a consequence of something, otherwise they must be random.  Wants do not come out of thin air.

[torridon]

So was my choice to accept Jesus as my Saviour just a pre determined event over which I had no control?

Have you never noticed that Christians tend to live in Christian countries, and muslims tend to live in muslim countries ?  Had you been born in Karachi you probably wouldn't have taken that path; did you have any control over where you were born ? Had you been born in an uncontacted Amazonian tribe you certainly wouldn't have taken that path; did you have any control over where you were born ? We are all products of our broader culture, and within that, products of our particular family and social environment and within that products of our unique personal genome over which we had no control but to be born with.

[torridon]

But our freedom to consciously assess evidence in the light of our personal experience to come to an opinion is in itself evidence that we have been given the freedom to do this.  Can you honestly say that this conscious assessment is all done in the sub conscious before we become aware of it?Nature, with all its perceived beauty and awesome wonder is God's creation.   The ability for it to be consciously manipulated by acts of human will or God's will is obviously what God intended.  I would not have it any other way, because I am in no position to dictate to God how He should do things.

There is nothing 'obvious' about that; if it were obvious then everyone would be able to agree on it.  Given there is no evidence for gods, it's a bit of a non-starter.  To me, this just looks like anthropogenic narcissism on steroids.  Wow I can manipulate things so these things must have been put there just for me.  Check out Mr Adams and his puddles one day.