|
Kyrie eleison posted:Those who do not experience the deity have had their hearts hardened by Him, and should pray that he reveal Himself to them. How can those who's hearts have been hardened by God overcome such hardening to pray for divine revelation? Is his work so paltry and weak a thing that mortal man can overcome it?
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 22:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 00:42 |
|
|
steinrokkan posted:No, but of all possible candidates to the position of truth, only the truly true one can be said to represent the one God, by His very nature, regardless of how humans call it in their words or how the truth was misrepresented in the past. Similarly: when the atomists said that atom was the smallest indivisible part of matter, and later on the name was ascribed to a divisible particle, the atomists weren't wrong, it was those who tried to apply their terms who were wrong in identifying the thing that would fit the essential properties of atom. But the atomists were wrong, because the definition of the atom also required it to retain the properties of the bulk element. The atomic theory said that all elements were made of a single, unique particle that could not be altered or destroyed, and that was not true. That's why when we found the atom had constituent parts, we didn't just rename those parts "atoms" because unlike every previous instance of division of an element into smaller pieces, those constituent parts were no longer that element. History of science aside, this is a trivial claim you're making here. Essentially you're just defining Christianity to mean "The Essential Truth of The Universe" therefore no matter what Essential Truth we actually discover, it is Christianity whether or not it has anything in common with the Scriptures or the doctrine of the Church.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 22:16
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Saying that the immaterial is inknowable and closed to science is ignorant, isn't persuasive, and spectacularly ignores everything leading to and including modern phenomenology and basically all epistemological philosophies. Considering you'd have to entirely redefine science and the scientific method for that to be true, I'm pretty sure you are the one working with ignorance. Stop treating metaphysics as a still valid science. Its not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 22:17
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Man, if that whole system wasn't made up by humans, you might have a point. You are out of touch with reality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotelian_theology
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 22:18
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:You are out of touch with reality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotelian_theology  Oh, I thought we were talking about his actual work with science, since you are trying to cite scientific reasoning behind religious standing. Metaphysics is neat in the philosophy realm, but it is not a valid science, not since naturalism took over. Hasn't been since at least the 19th century. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 22:23 on Dec 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Man, if that whole system wasn't made up by humans, you might have a point. If it wasn't. I would say there is merit to considering that perhaps it is indeed an 'if'. I would not ask that you to agree that it wasn't just bored humans in the desert, just not entirely rule out the possibility there's more to it. Hell, could perhaps consider God may be the fabric of reality itself. In the end no one will truly know one way or the other while we're still alive. Before that it's all a matter of faith. Which, apparently, would be an important part of the design for some reason I don't presume to know.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:As I said: It requires spiritual labour. Go read doctors of the Church, the apologetics, Erasmus, and of course the Bible... The system isn't simple, but it has been constructed, and explaining it in a forum post would be as productive as summarizing Aristotlian thought through the same medium. Come back when you've read all of mises.org  ronpaulendthefedMr. Wiggles posted:So what's all this about moral revelation then? It's not as though the Bible is the only source of moral behavior - the Bible makes no such claim (and indeed cannot by its very nature). Not even the Church makes such a claim. It is surely possible to have a good and moral set of laws or manner of behavior quite apart from any influence of scripture. That's interesting. Paul does not seem to agree, but if you don't think Scripture is authoritative then that obviously doesn't matter to you. Do I still go to hell if I have a good and moral manner of behavior but I pick some heathen faith or worse, none?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Considering you'd have to entirely redefine science and the scientific method for that to be true, I'm pretty sure you are the one working with ignorance. The entities to which phenomena of abstract / ideal things can be reduced isn't different from the entities to which the cogitationes used by natural science can be reduced, so there's hardly any reason to assume difference in treating them as different for the purposes of intellectual instrumentality.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Allow me to cut through the confusion once again. Do not debate and discuss within this thread in the debate and discussion subforum! Accept my premise upfront because I am clearly right! All hail Darksied! VitalSigns posted:Come back when you've read all of mises.org I have to say, the similarities to the libertarian thread is actually quite startling to me. Caros fucked around with this message at 22:28 on Dec 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Do you know what people used to do, and for a very long time this was done, they used to write lives of Jesus stories. They'd take the Christ story and set it, in their time and place and tell it again in that context. These things were seen as an act of worship, and they were understood to be what they were. And true for them might have been : what this guy I trust told me. You'll get no argument out of me here. Christianity is a broken myth and understanding that is a big deal. Not in God, that's for sure quote:I believe we hurt each and it's not ok. We think about ourselves first and put ourselves above others and we do this by necessity because we need to protect ourselves (and those we are closest to), because they are other and separate and not us. Here's the thing, we, every single one of us, can look at the other, the separated people around ourselves and forgive them for doing this and we can forgive ourselves for doing it. Now we aren't going to stop hurting each other if we forgive, in fact we might get hurt more, we might even get killed for choosing to do it! But we don't have to be separate and alone! I believe this all is fundamentally tied up with being human (and more broadly as a consequence of existing) and how humans live together in societies. And it's how I have chosen to live (and if necessary to die). Sounds good to me. quote:Christians tell a story about all this, parts of that story are fabricated, but very core of it, a person crucified for forgiving others while also boldly standing up to them, a story only written down in a context of the communities trying to follow that example only to be wiped out by the Romans... I think that's true. I think it happened! Oh it happened. It happened a bunch of times. But the Lord wasn't crucified. A bunch of powerless men, women and children were crucified, and instead of taking the Master's real message that the low is high, the church spent centuries trying to make the one man the highest and keep the low, low. The real message is here with us, the humanists. Jesus isn't in Christianity, he's in our shiny new code of ethics. quote:Christianity might also be unbroken. Things matter, Brandor.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Come back when you've read all of mises.org I'm sorry if you've absorbed everything in your life automatically without effort, other, less perfect beings have had to spend time to study most things - and even then most remain insecure in the knowledge they have gleaned.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
Is Jesus ok with anime, if so, then I am ok with Jesus 
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:The entities to which phenomena of abstract / ideal things can be reduced isn't different from the entities to which the cogitationes used by natural science can be reduced, so there's hardly any reason to assume difference in treating them as different for the purposes of intellectual instrumentality. Metaphysics is a neat philosophical idea, but not a science. Its a Science of Philosophy, but not science as the layman uses it. Regardless, comparing the atmomists and the eventual refinement of the structure of the atom to hypothesis about an unknowable god are not valid comparisons. One plainly left the realm of philosophy and became knowable. The other never did. steinrokkan posted:I'm sorry if you've absorbed everything in your life automatically without effort, other, less perfect beings have had to spend time to study most things - and even then most remain insecure in the knowledge they have gleaned. They must study to know the unknowable to known the unknown to make it apply to the unknowable. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 22:32 on Dec 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Allow me to cut through the confusion once again. You sound like you are speaking with authority you do not have to me. The last two lines are particularly bothersome, but hardly the only facets.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:I'm sorry if you've absorbed everything in your life automatically without effort, other, less perfect beings have had to spend time to study most things - and even then most remain insecure in the knowledge they have gleaned. You're the one posting about this supposedly unanswerable ur-persuasive argument like it's the end of the debate. I've read the Bible, cover-to-cover. I've read Summa, I've read Augustine. If you don't want to discuss the issue then fine, but rather than just lazily waving me to all of Christian thought in history and saying "if you're not persuaded by all that, it's cuz you loooooooove Satan", how about some direction, a link even to something you found persuasive. Man, even when the Libertarians in that other thread drop a post full of links or some long-rear end Lew Rockwell quote, there's at least something to discuss there if the reader is so inclined beyond "I'm right, suck it plebs" The Snark posted:You sound like you are speaking with authority you do not have to me. The last two lines are particularly bothersome, but hardly the only facets. The Argument From My-Big-Brother-Will-gently caress-You-Up-Just-Wait.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 22:35
|
|
|
Caros posted:I have to say, the similarities to the libertarian thread is actually quite startling to me. It's no accident that Brandor has been as active as he has in that thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 22:35
|
|
|
The Snark posted:You sound like you are speaking with authority you do not have to me. The last two lines are particularly bothersome, but hardly the only facets. Kyrie actually prays to Mars.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 22:35
|
|
|
Caros posted:I have to say, the similarities to the libertarian thread is actually quite startling to me. If people come to the libertarian threads posting "BITCOIN, AM I RIGHT ANYWAY WHATS LIBERTARIANISM GUYS" while other posters are trying to talk about Nozick (I doubt about that, but I'll give them some credit), the libertarians are quite justified in telling those people to read up on the topic that is the subject on the thread. Like, in the Eastern Europe thread there used to be a plenty of idiots who did nothing but insult other posters for being anti-Russian fascists, demand proof that pro-Ukrainian reports aren't written by fascist, and then dismiss any linked sources as deception created by fascists. The natural reaction was to tell them to go read a newspaper and stop repeating the same nebulous and willfully ignorant accusations over an over, regardless of how many responses they received.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
Islam is obviously true. Have you read every piece of work ever written by a Muslim? No? Well it's all there, go get it and be persuaded  steinrokkan posted:Like, in the Eastern Europe thread there used to be a plenty of idiots who did nothing but insult other posters for being anti-Russian fascists, demand proof that pro-Ukrainian reports aren't written by fascist, and then dismiss any linked sources as deception created by fascists. The natural reaction was to tell them to go read a newspaper and stop repeating the same nebulous and willfully ignorant accusations over an over, regardless of how many responses they received. This would be an important difference between their posts and yours, which are just "I say so" in paragraph form.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
Saw this thread and was like, no way. This is a joke thread. Then I read and I'm like, ok cool, he's for serious. Then I read more and yeah, its definitely a joke thread. Right? Kyrie is kidding, right? Why you do this to me? Maybe I'll ask a question: If Jesus Christ is the most important facet of existence, how do we square that with things like evolution which make a Jesus figure irrelevant? How do we square entire cultures and civilizations, both living and dead, that either reject or haven't heard of Jesus Christ? Does this mean he's only important if you're a Westerner and hold Western Values, or does it mean its important to everyone and they are done hosed up for being born in the wrong place/time/way?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
The Snark posted:You sound like you are speaking with authority you do not have to me. The last two lines are particularly bothersome, but hardly the only facets. Claiming to know what God will or won't forgive you for is pretty seriously not good, on top of the other problems of claiming to know what God does or doesn't think about something. That is pretty clearly contesting with God, saying God MUST punish someone fully for something instead of forgiving them, and implying His mercy is finite and you know where it ends. You don't tell God what to do bro.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:If people come to the libertarian threads posting "BITCOIN, AM I RIGHT ANYWAY WHATS LIBERTARIANISM GUYS" while other posters are trying to talk about Nozick (I doubt about that, but I'll give them some credit), the libertarians are quite justified in telling those people to read up on the topic that is the subject on the thread. No, the connection is that you both make smug statements that you are correct, and that you can only be proven incorrect after reading this mountain of 'evidence' that will surely sway you to their side. What do you mean you don't want to read this evidence? Well clearly then you just aren't open to the terms of the debate, and I don't have to even pretend to acknowledge all of the many, many flaws that are being pointed out in my argument. That's you. You are the Jrodefeld Jr. of this thread. You have the same self satisfied smugness about how right you are, but you lack the ability to provide any evidentiary backing for what you say. Kyrie on the other hand is the Shiranaihito of this thread, a raving lunatic who comes in and screams about how everyone who disagrees with him is a troll, idiot or in this case, going to hell.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
Caros posted:No, the connection is that you both make smug statements that you are correct, and that you can only be proven incorrect after reading this mountain of 'evidence' that will surely sway you to their side. What do you mean you don't want to read this evidence? Well clearly then you just aren't open to the terms of the debate, and I don't have to even pretend to acknowledge all of the many, many flaws that are being pointed out in my argument. Remember kids: Libertarianism is a religion!
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:You're the one posting about this supposedly unanswerable ur-persuasive argument like it's the end of the debate. I think those texts make sense. You don't. Fine. All I really care about are retarded misrepresentations like "you think I worship Satan, ain't I clever with my sick nasty burns, lol". That some people are unconvinced is a fact that nobody denies, all I've been saying is that it makes sense to assume there can be a comprehensive theory of metaphysics, and that if such a theory can indeed exist, Christianity must adopt it regardless of its relation to its prior doctrine.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:I think those texts make sense. You don't. Fine. All I really care about are retarded misrepresentations like "you think I worship Satan, ain't I clever with my sick nasty burns, lol". That some people are unconvinced is a fact that nobody denies, all I've been saying is that it makes sense to assume there can be a comprehensive theory of metaphysics, and that if such a theory can indeed exist, Christianity must adopt it regardless of its relation to its prior doctrine. Making sense and being correct and grounded in reality are two different things. People think Ayn Rand made sense, and that Fair Tax and Free Market makes sense. They don't when actually grounded to reality.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
Caros posted:No, the connection is that you both make smug statements that you are correct, and that you can only be proven incorrect after reading this mountain of 'evidence' that will surely sway you to their side. What do you mean you don't want to read this evidence? Well clearly then you just aren't open to the terms of the debate, and I don't have to even pretend to acknowledge all of the many, many flaws that are being pointed out in my argument. I don't know how to back anything, because I don't really know what point of departure there is. Most posts are just some formulation of "lol God" and even basic assertion that metaphysics is possible from which any conjuncture could be made is too outlandish, apparently.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:I don't know how to back anything, because I don't really know what point of departure there is. Most posts are just some formulation of "lol God" and even basic assertion that metaphysics is possible from which any conjuncture could be made is too outlandish, apparently. The entire purpose of metaphysics is to deal with outlandish claims and conjecture, but even metaphysics itself says our brains are not capable of COMPREHENDING such claims. Which is why, outside of philosophy, its not a valid science.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:If Jesus Christ is the most important facet of existence, how do we square that with things like evolution which make a Jesus figure irrelevant? How do we square entire cultures and civilizations, both living and dead, that either reject or haven't heard of Jesus Christ? Does this mean he's only important if you're a Westerner and hold Western Values, or does it mean its important to everyone and they are done hosed up for being born in the wrong place/time/way? 1. Evolution deals with the age of rocks, not the rock of ages; our salvation is a separate field of endeavor from the details of the origin of our mortal bodies. If we were methane-breathers or dinosaurs or something we would still be sinners, lusting after our neighbor's cloaca or what have you. (To be fair, the modern Catholic church does not contest evolutionary theory, and this is an easy point to get Catholics going "aha!" and making a smugface, if you assume they are like Ken Ham the creation science museum guy.) 2. Maybe God will have mercy on the ones who lived good lives anyway. Alternately: Hell. 3. No, it means you need to give everyone Jesus, BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY. The fact that they might have had the protection of ignorance before and now do not is irrelevant, because Jesus said to do it (more or less), and Jesus is identical with God, and anything God says to do would be good, by definition. Kyrie eleison posted:Allow me to cut through the confusion once again. Why do we have this entire complicated framework of free will, original sin, whatever it is you want to call the nature that prevents us from meekly obeying our masters and kings-- er-- God, if its only purpose is as something we have to overcome in order to become subservient to our masters? Did not God create our reason and will? If he did, were they not good? What real, lasting, eternal harm can come from the exercise of a good thing? I mean, I've had spiritual experiences as well - but they're pretty clearly nothing like the ones you had, which I suppose means that clearly they were false.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:Claiming to know what God will or won't forgive you for is pretty seriously not good, on top of the other problems of claiming to know what God does or doesn't think about something. That is pretty clearly contesting with God, saying God MUST punish someone fully for something instead of forgiving them, and implying His mercy is finite and you know where it ends. You don't tell God what to do bro. I said that you invite punishment; I would also have written that you deserve punishment. I did not write that God is morally obligated to punish you, rather I said that whatever God does is inherently good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
Caros posted:No, the connection is that you both make smug statements that you are correct, and that you can only be proven incorrect after reading this mountain of 'evidence' that will Kyrie on the other hand is the Shiranaihito of this thread, a raving lunatic who comes in and screams about how everyone who disagrees with him is a troll, idiot or in this case, going to hell. And both of them regularly misuse the term "sociopath," as well. Come to think of it, I haven't ever seen Kyrie and Shiranaihito in the same place at the same time...  Kyrie eleison posted:I did not write that God is morally obligated to punish you, rather I said that whatever God does is inherently good. It's not that Nixon was wrong, per se, rather he just had his sights set too low.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:I think those texts make sense. You don't. Fine. All I really care about are retarded misrepresentations like "you think I worship Satan, ain't I clever with my sick nasty burns, lol". That some people are unconvinced is a fact that nobody denies, all I've been saying is that it makes sense to assume there can be a comprehensive theory of metaphysics, and that if such a theory can indeed exist, Christianity must adopt it regardless of its relation to its prior doctrine. I pointed this out before, but you appear to be defining Christianity here as "whatever is true" regardless of whether that truth agrees with or disproves the doctrines and dogmas generally recognized as Christianity. I could just go ahead and create the open-ended philosophy VitalSignsism with no tenets other than "whatever we find out to be true, however we find out about it" but it doesn't seem like a useful philosophy and saying that Vitalsignsism is true is completely meaningless in that case. This is like ultra-ontological proof of Christianity: "assume a comprehensive theory of metaphysics exists, this we call Christianity, therefore no matter what the theory turns out to be, Christianity is true: 
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 22:52 on Dec 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:I said that you invite punishment; I would also have written that you deserve punishment. I did not write that God is morally obligated to punish you, rather I said that whatever God does is inherently good. Man, if only the unknown was knowable. Then we could actually figure out who this divine punisher is! But remember kids: Hell is very real and you will go there!
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
We're not a hive mind, you know. We have different opinions. Not all Christians believe in hell or that Jesus was real or that the Bible was true. Stop associating me with all the people on Paul of Tarsus' blog. You don't have any proof Paul wrote those racist emails. Besides I disagree with Paul on many key points. In any case here's an article I think you may find interesting. pauloftarsus.org/women-should-be-silent-in-church/
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Making sense and being correct and grounded in reality are two different things. Those things can be argued against, and have been argued against. Christian doctrine can be argued against, and has been argued against. It's that simple. The evidence brought against it can't be held in hand, and can't be put into graphs, but it can be understood and tackled as a system of things that exist in their own space independent from the physical world (maybe), and I don't know how anybody could find it offensive since it doesn't infringe on conventional science or on anybody's self-realization. It's just people refining their understanding of what they consider divine by treating it as real by the virtue of being contained in real spiritual movements.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 22:52
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:We're not a hive mind, you know. We have different opinions. Not all Christians believe in hell or that Jesus was real or that the Bible was true. Stop associating me with all the people on Paul of Tarsus' blog. You don't have any proof Paul wrote those racist emails. Besides I disagree with Paul on many key points. In any case here's an article I think you may find interesting. pauloftarsus.org/women-should-be-silent-in-church/
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:I said that you invite punishment; I would also have written that you deserve punishment. I did not write that God is morally obligated to punish you, rather I said that whatever God does is inherently good. Exactly, you are telling God who does and doesn't deserve punishment, something that is for God and God alone to determine. You don't get to tell the deity where its mercy begins and ends, saying someone deserves punishment or is inviting it onto themselves implies that you think someone will or should punish them, claiming the ability to know what the divine is thinking and having power over it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I pointed this out before, but you appear to be defining Christianity here as "whatever is true" regardless of whether that truth agrees with or disproves the doctrines and dogmas generally recognized as Christianity. Well, it would perhaps become useful if people used it to help formulating their own ideas.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
Do other species exhibit religious behavior or superstition?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:
No of course not. Christ died for all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 00:42 |
|
|
SedanChair posted:We're not a hive mind, you know. We have different opinions. Not all Christians believe in hell or that Jesus was real or that the Bible was true. Stop associating me with all the people on Paul of Tarsus' blog. You don't have any proof Paul wrote those racist emails. Besides I disagree with Paul on many key points. In any case here's an article I think you may find interesting. pauloftarsus.org/women-should-be-silent-in-church/ Google John of Patmos end the world.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 22:55
|
|