Why not believe in Thor or Leprechauns?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

So is there a separate chromosome for these supposed “special faculties” of yours then?

Why so coy?

I don't get it. Can you give an example of what you mean?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I don't get it. Can you give an example of what you mean?

“Other faculties are involved in the recognition of the divine, revelation being one of them” (Vlad - Reply 621).

As you’re claiming to have “other faculties” I was just wondering what they might be? I reckon magic specs like Joseph Smith had is a good shout, but you may of course be claiming to have some other “faculties” entirely. An inbuilt god-o-meter maybe?

Do tell. 

[ProfessorDavey]

We know the Y chromosome to be a reduced version of the x chromosome hence conditions like haemophilia. So given you can start a reproductive process with a single cell neither a male gamete nor a resulting female is a necessity

Parthenogenesis does occur in many species, albeit I don't believe it has ever been demonstrated in humans. However in species that use XX, XY as chromosomal determinants of sex the offspring are female.

................ God of course could raise a male gamete ''from the dust''(to go full bible) but doesn't even have to go there.

In which case the divine male gamete would literally mix or fuse with the material female gamete, completely refuting your claims.

Since the bible doesn't describe the process we are fairly free to speculate IMHO.

Of course the bible doesn't describe the process because the people who wrote it were ignorant of the mechanisms of human reproduction.

Sure we can speculate - here is some speculation - it is all non-sense and a myth. Jesus was born by standard sexual reproduction mechanisms, involving a human mother (and oocyte) and a human father (and spermatocyte).

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

You seem to be hedging your bets here

Just allowing for the concept of "sin" to be interpreted in many different ways by imperfect humans using imperfect language.

I cannot see how you can have a concept of human imperfection outside the context of human perfection.

Yes I get that you can't see it; in the same way I can't see how a human can be perfect - human perfection to me is meaningless because the way I use the word "human" it has the necessary characteristic of being imperfect. If it was perfect it would lose what it was that makes it human and relatable.

Of course we don't have to have empirically seen human perfection but we are aware of it hence our awareness of imperfection.

I am aware of imperfections, which leads me to think that all imperfections, whether I am aware of them or not, could in theory be removed. As I said that would mean for me that it was no longer human. That is why I have no idea what you mean by a perfect human. I agree you are free to assert a perfect human. Equally I am free to assert that a human cannot simultaneously be perfect. It's just the way we each use and understand words.

The idea of not being right must betray some state of being right

From observation whether something is right or wrong from a human's perspective seems to be a matter of individual human taste. So the state of being right is temporary e.g. you are in a room full of people where more people think you are right than wrong and then something you observe or hear might change your/their perspectives 

I believe it was socrate's who meditated on the appearence of the perfect person and concluded that he would be eventually be put to death on, presumably, the principle of nobody liking a smartarse.

Sounds like that imperfection goes with the territory of being human.

I suppose what I am saying is the concept of the imperfect is meaningless without the concept of perfection and in the same impenetrable way imperfection and the awareness of it has been transmitted to us from earliest humanity so has the impenetrable and confused idea and awareness of perfection. Biblically I think the term is used far less than the word perfected or perfecting and of course the key issue is the discussion of sin and holiness.

Yes I can understand the concept of perfection, just not a perfect human. Sin is another abstract concept that isn't really explained. Not really surprising since we haven't got very far explaining god. Humans imperfectly interpreting the concept of "divine" and divine laws from an inexplicable god may not make much sense to people who are not on a similar wavelength for that particular interpretation.   

[ekim]

'Why are you calling me good?  No one is good except God.'  (Mark 10:18) This Jesus saying seems to suggest that he didn't see himself as perfect and, as it is recorded in the New Testament that he prayed to his God, this seems to suggest that he didn't think that he was God.

[ProfessorDavey]

I suppose what I am saying is the concept of the imperfect is meaningless without the concept of perfection and in the same impenetrable way imperfection and the awareness of it has been transmitted to us from earliest humanity so has the impenetrable and confused idea and awareness of perfection.

But the concepts of perfection and/or imperfection in the context of a human are entirely subjective matters. They sit entirely within the realm of human subjectivity.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just allowing for the concept of "sin" to be interpreted in many different ways by imperfect humans using imperfect language.Yes I get that you can't see it; in the same way I can't see how a human can be perfect - human perfection to me is meaningless because the way I use the word "human" it has the necessary characteristic of being imperfect. If it was perfect it would lose what it was that makes it human and relatable.I am aware of imperfections, which leads me to think that all imperfections, whether I am aware of them or not, could in theory be removed. As I said that would mean for me that it was no longer human. That is why I have no idea what you mean by a perfect human. I agree you are free to assert a perfect human. Equally I am free to assert that a human cannot simultaneously be perfect. It's just the way we each use and understand words. From observation whether something is right or wrong from a human's perspective seems to be a matter of individual human taste. So the state of being right is temporary e.g. you are in a room full of people where more people think you are right than wrong and then something you observe or hear might change your/their perspectives  Sounds like that imperfection goes with the territory of being human.Yes I can understand the concept of perfection, just not a perfect human. Sin is another abstract concept that isn't really explained. Not really surprising since we haven't got very far explaining god. Humans imperfectly interpreting the concept of "divine" and divine laws from an inexplicable god may not make much sense to people who are not on a similar wavelength for that particular interpretation.

I don't see how you can gauge/identify imperfection without having some benchmark of perfection. I agree our perceptions are likely imperfect and we suffer from bias which imbues us with a measure of incompetence but at the very least we have the inklings.

Let's put this in an Islamic context. Is the Koran a book? Is it imperfect? Is it the material manifestation of the word of God?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I don't see how you can gauge/identify imperfection without having some benchmark of perfection.

Maybe you could use those magic "faculties" of yours to do the job?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

'Why are you calling me good?  No one is good except God.'  (Mark 10:18) This Jesus saying seems to suggest that he didn't see himself as perfect and, as it is recorded in the New Testament that he prayed to his God, this seems to suggest that he didn't think that he was God.

My interpretation is that he is challenging his listeners to think about the connections they are making without thinking. If Jesus was, to the audience, so Good they had to talk about it, might they not have made the connection between Jesus and God and not fully realised it?

Also do you realise he is saying no one is good except God? How do you .....and they..... feel about that?

If he is Good, then he is God......... if he isn't good, then who can be?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Maybe you could use those magic "faculties" of yours to do the job?

We all have magical faculties Blue. Your super power is turdpolishing.

your superhero identity........The Polisher.

[Bramble]

'To make the imperfect perfect
It is enough to love it.'

Kathleen Raine

[jeremyp]

your argument for the universe being the necessary entity

I haven't made any such argument.

I think you have yet to explain how, in other words your reason for believing that and what evidence you have since it seems to lie in an unevidenced part of the universe.

Nope. I don't have to do any such thing since I have not asserted that the Universe is necessary. You're the one asserting that your god exists. You're the one that has to present evidence for your case.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

“Other faculties are involved in the recognition of the divine, revelation being one of them” (Vlad - Reply 621).

As you’re claiming to have “other faculties” I was just wondering what they might be? I reckon magic specs like Joseph Smith had is a good shout, but you may of course be claiming to have some other “faculties” entirely. An inbuilt god-o-meter maybe?

Do tell.

Well, a good old God dodge betrays a God detector. Being prepared to dump the principle of sufficient reason, dump cause and effect (effectively the raison d'etre of science) prepared to argue from an unobserved and therefore unevidenced part of the universe thus overturning your own evidential standards, suggesting everything is contingent and floating an infinite regress thus multiplying entities beyond necessity to the max looks like a mad scramble for the door to dodge God.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

'To make the imperfect perfect
It is enough to love it.'

Kathleen Raine

Thumbs up to that.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

We all have magical faculties Blue. Your super power is turdpolishing.

your superhero identity........The Polisher.

Ah yes – always a safer bet to try an ad hom rather than actually engage with numerous mistakes in your semi-literate, logically incoherent, substantially dishonest efforts here.

You were the one claiming to have special faculties though remember? If you now want to run away from that as you do so often when you run out of road that’s a matter for you. Pity though – I was rather counting on you claiming magic specs, but I guess we’ll never know now.       

[jeremyp]

In terms of a beer belly, copious quantities of beer are necessary.

This is disingenuous. You are conflating the everyday meaning of "necessary" with the technical term from philosophy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Ah yes – always a safer bet to try an ad hom rather than actually engage with numerous mistakes in your semi-literate, logically incoherent, substantially dishonest efforts here.

You were the one claiming to have special faculties though remember? If you now want to run away from that as you do so often when you run out of road that’s a matter for you. Pity though – I was rather counting on you claiming magic specs, but I guess we’ll never know now.     

Is it absurd?, Is it a pain?, No, It's the Polisher! Faster then a speeding teatowel, more powerful than concentrated Brasso. The polisher mild mannered defender of wonky new atheism.

[jeremyp]

Yes, but that would be possibly the most effective way of demonstrating his love to mankind, would it not? John 3:16.

It would have been if God had sacrificed his only son, but he didn't: he only sacrificed a weekend.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Well, a good old God dodge betrays a God detector.

Gibberish.

Being prepared to dump the principle of sufficient reason, dump cause and effect (effectively the raison d'etre of science) prepared to argue from an unobserved and therefore unevidenced part of the universe thus overturning your own evidential standards, suggesting everything is contingent and floating an infinite regress thus multiplying entities beyond necessity to the max looks like a mad scramble for the door to dodge God.

All of which straw men, fallacies and lies you’ve have detonated multiple times now. Maybe if you had a sudden rush of honesty for once you could try at least to address the falsifications you’ve been given so many times now?

What are the chances of that though eh? 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I don't see how you can gauge/identify imperfection without having some benchmark of perfection. I agree our perceptions are likely imperfect and we suffer from bias which imbues us with a measure of incompetence but at the very least we have the inklings.

Let's put this in an Islamic context. Is the Koran a book? Is it imperfect? Is it the material manifestation of the word of God?

The doctrine based on faith is the Quran is a message - the word of Allah and perfect.

People who were with Prophet Mohamed memorised verses as they were revealed / recited by him and also started writing it down on scraps of animal skin, leaves, parchment. It got organised into chapters in a book (after Prophet Mohamed died) by Caliph Umer and then Caliph Usman, who were companions of Prophet Mohamed.

If you look at different copies of the Quran there may occasionally be slight minor differences in the diacritics in different copies of the book - maybe due to printers - who knows. I know this because I recite it in Arabic over Zoom with others and we sometimes spot differences. 

I'm probably the wrong person to ask about the Islamic context as I would say as a human I don't have the capability to judge what is perfect so it's just doctrine. I don't even know what perfect means. It's a matter of taste. Language is ambiguous etc etc

When I point this out to Muslims they say the Quran being perfect is a faith position.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Is it absurd?, Is it a pain?, No, It's the Polisher! Faster then a speeding teatowel, more powerful than concentrated Brasso. The polisher mild mannered defender of wonky new atheism.

See Reply 689. Didn’t Jesus have something to say about bearing false witness?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The doctrine based on faith is the Quran is a message - the word of Allah and perfect.

People who were with Prophet Mohamed memorised verses as they were revealed / recited by him and also started writing it down on scraps of animal skin, leaves, parchment. It got organised into chapters in a book (after Prophet Mohamed died) by Caliph Umer and then Caliph Usman, who were companions of Prophet Mohamed.

If you look at different copies of the Quran there may occasionally be slight minor differences in the diacritics in different copies of the book - maybe due to printers - who knows. I know this because I recite it in Arabic over Zoom with others and we sometimes spot differences. 

I'm probably the wrong person to ask about the Islamic context as I would say as a human I don't have the capability to judge what is perfect so it's just doctrine. I don't even know what perfect means. It's a matter of taste. Language is ambiguous etc etc

When I point this out to Muslims they say the Quran being perfect is a faith position.

So here again we have an instrument of discernment, faith, an object of perfection manifested, which is or derives from the divine?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

So here again we have an instrument of discernment, faith, an object of perfection manifested, which is or derives from the divine?

I think this was mentioned a few posts back - that you hold a faith position. A faith position isn't a convincing argument. If it was you would be convinced by my faith position into becoming a Muslim or I would be convinced by your faith position into becoming a Christian or a follower of Thor.

If by "discernment" you mean taste, then different faith positions are not to everyone's tastes. And whether my taste for something is enough to convince someone else to give it a go is a bit hit and miss. Taste is subjective based on nature/nurture - there are so many different interpretations available of Islamic or Christian doctrines depending on the individual tastes of the person holding that faith position. People who are somewhat misogynistic or authoritarian may argue the meaning of the words in a doctrinal text one way, those of a more liberal persuasion will argue for a different meaning of the doctrine. Sure someone can feel a connection with someone else's faith position but just as easily someone else might not connect with it.

e.g. I was in the British OTC at uni so I can relate to non-pacificst interpretations of faith doctrines as the culture I absorbed in the British army was that violence was not always a bad thing and was praised as courageous, and a patriotic duty etc and being a leader sometimes might involve going to battle. Hence when I came across the history of Islam and Prophet Mohamed in a land of tribal rivalries, it did not put me off that a man like Prophet Mohamed, who was both a religious and political leader for 13 years of a state that united the rival tribes, was occasionally required to be on the battlefield leading from the front against threats to the state but could also show compassion to enemy armies. But despite this I feel no connection with more overtly war-like concepts of gods such as Thor.

And I can see why some people whose tastes lean towards much more pacifist ethereal tendencies would find it off-putting for religious leaders to concern themselves with earthly matters of governance and political stability rather than just focusing on spiritual concepts.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think this was mentioned a few posts back - that you hold a faith position. A faith position isn't a convincing argument. If it was you would be convinced by my faith position into becoming a Muslim or I would be convinced by your faith position into becoming a Christian or a follower of Thor.

If by "discernment" you mean taste, then different faith positions are not to everyone's tastes. And whether my taste for something is enough to convince someone else to give it a go is a bit hit and miss. Taste is subjective based on nature/nurture - there are so many different interpretations available of Islamic or Christian doctrines depending on the individual tastes of the person holding that faith position. People who are somewhat misogynistic or authoritarian may argue the meaning of the words in a doctrinal text one way, those of a more liberal persuasion will argue for a different meaning of the doctrine. Sure someone can feel a connection with someone else's faith position but just as easily someone else might not connect with it.

e.g. I was in the British OTC at uni so I can relate to non-pacificst interpretations of faith doctrines as the culture I absorbed in the British army was that violence was not always a bad thing and was praised as courageous, and a patriotic duty etc and being a leader sometimes might involve going to battle. Hence when I came across the history of Islam and Prophet Mohamed in a land of tribal rivalries, it did not put me off that a man like Prophet Mohamed, who was both a religious and political leader for 13 years of a state that united the rival tribes, was occasionally required to be on the battlefield leading from the front against threats to the state but could also show compassion to enemy armies. But despite this I feel no connection with more overtly war-like concepts of gods such as Thor.

And I can see why some people whose tastes lean towards much more pacifist ethereal tendencies would find it off-putting for religious leaders to concern themselves with earthly matters of governance and political stability rather than just focusing on spiritual concepts.

Discernment as taste? Not sure, my view is that even the 'unfaithful' discern God but don't acknowledge the resultant thoughts, feelings and urges to bail out or draw back as such. I know though that encounter can be a matter of fact, undramatic experience though.

Did the fact that Mohammed was a military man attract you to Islam?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Discernment as taste? Not sure, my view is that even the 'unfaithful' discern God but don't acknowledge the resultant thoughts, feelings and urges to bail out or draw back as such. I know though that encounter can be a matter of fact, undramatic experience though.

I don't know. I don't discern Jesus as God - I just can't relate to the concept of it as you have described it or the concept of the Trinity or the concept of Jesus dying on the cross to redeem everyone's sins. As I said for me it doesn't make sense and it is not a story I can relate to but it clearly makes sense to you. I think I had a more emotional reaction to the narrative when the story was presented in Narnia with a lion etc but with a man in Nazareth - not seeing anything more than a man.

The feeling of lack of connection and not buying into that concept emotionally or intellectually - is that what you mean by "feelings and urges to bail out or draw back". Don't you feel the same way about Allah and Prophet Mohamed? Are you saying you discern Allah?

Did the fact that Mohammed was a military man attract you to Islam?

No - it just was not a deal-breaker.

I was attracted by some of the verses in the Quran - the bluntness in the way it presented human psychology, motivations, strengths and weaknesses but also intertwined with poetic imagery and the combination of bluntness and poetry in the Quran about Allah. There was both a simplicity and complexity to it - as it seemed to be ok to just say things were a mystery and unknowable but if you wanted to think more deeply there were metaphors and analysis. Reminded me of English A'Level analysis. It also helped that its adherents that I encountered seemed to have a strong family bond, were fun and were very hospitable

The doctrine in Islam is that Prophet Mohamed is human, not divine, and he lived a human life and died a human death and he is not to be worshipped, but people can see examples from his words and actions. So his words and actions need to be relatable and human and cover many different kinds of scenarios that ordinary people might encounter - poverty, hunger, hostility, religious persecution, threats of war, having to negotiate for peace, offers of bribes, threats to life, exile, insults, compromise, religious practices, marital and family life, discord, sexual attraction, giving charity, business dealings, contracts, commerce etc.

Obviously many things might not be so relatable in 21st century Britain, but there is a lot that is, and the practices of other cultures can be fascinating and can help me to see British cultural norms in a different perspective and my British culture also influences my interpretation of Islam.