|
nucleicmaxid posted:You can't, because it's all made up. hth. I will be satisfied with this answer when a religious person gives it
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 06:26 |
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:And if not - if you recognize that many people have to be wrong about many things, despite their certainty - why do you trust the conclusions you've drawn over any other? As it was hammered over and over in the LDS church to me by teary eyed witnesses: You feel it in your heart. Its one big appeal to emotion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
Catholicism, because of its majesty, continuity and the amount of positive change insiders can effect. I'm actually not kidding.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
Any religion worth its salt proposes that humans have an intuitive god-sense, which is similar to an emotional appeal except that it's much more reliable. (Of course, it's not only religions that claim this kind of thing.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:I will be satisfied with this answer when a religious person gives it Lol you're not very bright.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:I'd like to bring this back up: it seems like you are contending that the way to sort out genuine revelation from false is to assess the person who gives it. However, I feel that even this would fall quickly into absurdity. First of all, what do you define as a "fruitful" person? Let's say it's something like how much they pray and how charitable they are. Are you arguing that the most pious person is also the most correct? And that if there is a "tie" - that is, if there is a group of extremely pious and charitable people, but no most pious and charitable - are you arguing that they would all agree on everything theological 100%? I mean, maybe that's the case, but it seems like a stretch. If the most fruitful people disagree on something, then what? How do we figure out the truth in that case? Also, if an extremely pious person told you that women are unfit to teach in church or that gay people are unfit for the kingdom of god or something, would you by default adopt their views? First public piety is not a positive good. Indeed Jesus warned against it (Matthew 6:1-8). And secondly you can't know one specific person well enough to tell enough about them. When I was growing up, Jimmy Saville and Rolf Harris were popular childrens' entertainers. No person is an island, and there is no philosophy however good that doesn't have a few scumbags - or however bad that doesn't have a few good people following it. You need to look at the groups of believers. What they try to accomplish, and what they accomplish. Of course I've the belief that the Golden Rule transcends individual religions (and other such philosophies) and can be used as such a measure. That most systems of morality are trying to guide towards a mix of benevolence and largely positive reciprocity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:After a great deal of consideration from the discussion in this thread and elsewhere, I think I'd like to approach my question from a different perspective to see if we can get any closer to an answer: I think you're glossing over something crucial here (besides the fact that of course Lutheranism is the most correct, duh). That crucial thing is thousands of years of serious philosophy and theology, literary research, history, anthropology, knowledge of ancient languages and all that stuff they value highly in universities and seminars across the world. The guys in your example are ignoring that in favour of intuition. There was some reasoning versus faith discussion going on earlier but I've learned that presenting those two as opposites is a bit like presenting science and religion as adversaries. I don't see why you couldn't apply the already existing research, and experiences of many people across ages and cultures, when solving problems related to matters of faith. Claiming that you can hear in your head what God wants AND being 100% certain of that you understand Him correctly is a pretty dangerous claim. quote:Just to head this off in advance: I don't accept that praying on the issue myself is a valid answer. For one, that's just one extra subjective interpretation to add to the mix, and two, I don't think my powers of interpretation are any better than either hypothetical friend - indeed, as someone who has been a nonbeliever so long and who is just coming around to an acceptance of the faith (in this example, not in real life), I would value my interpretations of God less strongly than my friends, who have been in communion with Him for a long time. You (in your hypothetical example) are pretty wise. In my experience, recent converts have the biggest danger of being ultra-certain of themselves and seeing everything in black and white. The longer you've been a Christian, the more you hopefully (and in my experience usually) become to realize how little you can trust yourself to be 100% correct. That's not to say you act any better since of course you also develop habits and beliefs you don't notice. In this light, I'd say praying is in fact extremely important. Like: "I'm doing what I can, could You please see to it that I'm not doing too much damage?" quote:When it's just two Christians differing on one viewpoint, from my neutral position, they seem to have about a 50/50 shot of being right. But when it's 2 billion Christians, each with varied and nuanced views on hundreds (if not thousands) of viewpoints, just based on pure probability, it is a near certainty that any given Christian is dead wrong about something, if not most things, that they believe. And I think we can agree that, since there are so many conflicting views out there on what God is and what God thinks and what God wants, most people have to be wrong. And it's not a stretch from there to say that they all are, at least in part. Most people probably are wrong in most matters, yeah. It makes sense. quote:How, then, do I trust communication with God, when that method is so demonstrably faulty? How can I simply have faith when it's impossible to decide which thing to even have faith in? If you are a believer, how do you take your own communications with God as more valid than anyone else? Do you think that you are the best at interpreting God, better than everyone else on Earth? Are you really willing to argue that when another believer disagrees with you on something, that they are necessarily wrong? I don't think I have answers to the first two questions. Those seem like the type where finding an answer of your own is the point. In our Catechism (=Lutheranism 101, basically) there's actually something along the lines of developing trust and faith being in the domain and on the responsibility of God. It's kind of hard to simply decide to believe (in) something. For the rest, though: I don't take my communication with God as more valid than anyone else's. I'm not good at interpreting God at all. I have a bad habit of acting like I'm alvays correct. I'm often not. However, I do believe there has been one person I can trust being the best at interpreting God, by the virtue actually being His son. We have pretty good documents available about what he has taught and I think it's really important that we strive to understand those documents to the best of our ability. This Jesus person also highly valued the sacred writings of the people he was born among of, so those are probably really important as well. Then there are letters written by his students and some of their colleagues so I'm quite certain they know what they're talking about way better than I myself could figure out two millenia later. I'm not being cheeky above. If Jesus was who he said and who his followers testified he was, research of the Bible is crucial because that's the only document we have of him and prayer is critical in that process because we're prone to insert our own preconceptions everywhere anyway. Consulting some experts will help to understand many things, too. They're also only human and can be wrong but I need experts in repairing my car so I don't think it's wise to ignore them in this matter either. (No, not the mechanics.) quote:And if not - if you recognize that many people have to be wrong about many things, despite their certainty - why do you trust the conclusions you've drawn over any other? I cannot go against my conscience. Ultimately I go with the conclusions I find most convicing or I find making most sense or that I for some reason believe in above all the others. I might be wrong, of course, but it's not me and my ability to reason things I'm putting my faith into. It's someone else. Please ask me to elaborate if I'm not actually answering your question here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
Valiantman posted:Please ask me to elaborate if I'm not actually answering your question here. You're getting very close, but it still seems like you have faith without a good reason to have faith - and not reason as in "logic and reason" but as in "x is the reason I have the faith in the first place". You say you recognize your own limits and your own ability to be mistaken about your internal/subjective views on God, yet you seem to still trust them in the end. You say you go with what is most convincing, but I don't understand why you are so convinced by Christianity and not something else. You say: quote:I do believe there has been one person I can trust being the best at interpreting God, by the virtue actually being His son. But plenty of people have claimed to have profound connections to God that you don't take as seriously as Jesus. I mean, Mohammed claimed to have been dictated to directly by an angel, Joseph Smith claims to have been visited by Jesus and led to the brass tablets, Kirishna is also said to be the son of God, and you don't follow any of the religions propagated by those claimed revelations. What I'm saying is even the belief that Jesus is really the son of God - and that anyone else claiming something similar, or a direct and especially profound connection to the mind of God, is wrong - takes a great deal of the kind of faith that you yourself admit is incredibly faulty. Do you at least understand how, from my perspective, the better explanation for why you believe in Jesus is because you simply were brought up that way, and not necessarily because it's true? quote:If Jesus was who he said and who his followers testified he was, research of the Bible is crucial But if he's not then we can no more trust his ideas on what God wants than anyone else. We can't use his claims of divinity as proof - plenty of people claim divinity, even today - and we can't use accounts presented in the Bible to prove that the Bible is true. It's too circular for me to accept. If Jesus is God, we can trust his opinions of what God wants, yes, but we can't determine that to be true other than by praying and believing we've been told by Jesus that he is in fact God. quote:it's not me and my ability to reason things I'm putting my faith into. It's someone else. You're right, it is, but only after trusting your ability to reason things in finding out which divine claim from among the world's myriad religions is actually valid. If there were something substantial setting Christianity apart from all other faiths, if there were some keystone that indicated that I should take this faith's claims more seriously than any other's, and if it were provable or at least shown to be very very likely that Jesus was in fact who he claimed to be, I'd have something to build the rest of a faith on, but as it stands I still do not. I'm perfectly willing to accept one, though, were it presented to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
On the note of finding a "keystone", is there any historical evidence, disputed or undisputed, of Jesus performing miracles?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 04:58
|
|
|
LookingGodIntheEye posted:On the note of finding a "keystone", is there any historical evidence, disputed or undisputed, of Jesus performing miracles? Other than the Bible, you mean?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 05:02
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Other than the Bible, you mean? E: Probably should have framed the first question better.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 05:07
|
|
|
LookingGodIntheEye posted:Using the Bible as historical proof of Jesus's miracles is less persuasive an argument than OJ proving his innocence with If I Did It. Yes, I agree, which is why I don't. Other than Josephus's history pointing towards Jesus merely having existed - which itself is not terribly reliable since it was written later than the gospels - I see no evidence, no. Perhaps I am not the one that needs to be answering this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 05:23
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Yes, I agree, which is why I don't. Tacitus also mentions him in passing, which if anything speaks to there being a dude of that name living just under two millennia ago who sorta mixed up far eastern Roman politics.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 05:27
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Tacitus also mentions him in passing, which if anything speaks to there being a dude of that name living just under two millennia ago who sorta mixed up far eastern Roman politics. Ah yes, I thought there was another that I was forgetting. Anyway, again, this is a source written nearly a century after Christ's death, but I'm willing to concede that a man of his name existed and died. But obviously, this isn't enough to prove Christianity; we know Mohammad existed and Joseph Smith existed and that doesn't add any weight to them being right. e: missed this neonchameleon posted:You need to look at the groups of believers. What they try to accomplish, and what they accomplish. Of course I've the belief that the Golden Rule transcends individual religions (and other such philosophies) and can be used as such a measure. That most systems of morality are trying to guide towards a mix of benevolence and largely positive reciprocity. So by fruits of their labor, you speak of accomplishing goals successfully? Okay, I didn't consider that reading of it. So whichever church does what they set out to do most consistently also has correct doctrinal interpretation? This seems impossible to quantify, and also dangerously close to tyranny of the majority (after all, most churches try to spread, so the biggest one is the most successful). I'm not exactly sure why you bring up the golden rule either - whichever church follows it the closest is right about everything else they think too? I think there are too many generalizations and too many vaguely defined points to take "fruits of their labor" as a mark of correct interpretation of God. Evil people can be successful in their goals too. GAINING WEIGHT... fucked around with this message at 05:40 on Dec 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 05:35
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:So by fruits of their labor, you speak of accomplishing goals successfully? Okay, I didn't consider that reading of it. So whichever church does what they set out to do most consistently also has correct doctrinal interpretation? By fruits of their labour I consider what they set out to do as well as what they accomplish - and you judge what they set out to do by the Golden Rule. A lot of what churches have set out to do isn't good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 14:08
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:By fruits of their labour I consider what they set out to do as well as what they accomplish - and you judge what they set out to do by the Golden Rule. A lot of what churches have set out to do isn't good. Okay! That's an interesting take, and it narrows the problem considerably, assuming one can make an accurate assessment of what many many groups are both attempting and succeeding at (though that is a big assumption, and I'm not sure gathering that kind of data is indeed feasible). But let's say we have two churches who both set out to do noble deeds, and are both reasonably successful at it, but one holds the Bible as literal while the other does not. Basically, extend my individual Pentecostal and Presbyterian friends to full churches who meet your criteria. How would we determine who is correct in their take on the Bible then? Or are you suggesting that this is impossible? That no two churches who attempt good deeds and succeed equally in them would ever differ on theological matters, or conversely, that churches who differ could never have the same level of success or the same goodness of deeds? What IS the best church?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 15:18
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:What IS the best church? Has it occured to you that Modern Christianity is the greatest trick ever played by Lucifer, designed to corrupt and lead people away from God and his untarnished glory? What could be a greater victory for the ultimate evil in the world than making people believe in a God that requires blood sacrifice for forgiveness and strict interpretations of literature that damns the majority of the human race? The problem with revelation isnt who's right, it's that they're all the whispers of Satan and madness.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Okay! That's an interesting take, and it narrows the problem considerably, assuming one can make an accurate assessment of what many many groups are both attempting and succeeding at (though that is a big assumption, and I'm not sure gathering that kind of data is indeed feasible). The first answer is that both are incorrect. Humans being imperfect (call it Original Sin if you like) means that no such organisation will be entirely correct about so complex a matter. And any entity that declares itself infallible on matters of faith and morals demonstrates that it has been overtaken with the sin of pride and however erudite it may be with its reasoning its moral reasoning is at best that of a child (and it shouldn't be trusted round children unsupervised). quote:Or are you suggesting that this is impossible? That no two churches who attempt good deeds and succeed equally in them would ever differ on theological matters, or conversely, that churches who differ could never have the same level of success or the same goodness of deeds? I'm suggesting that no two organisations are ever precisely equal although an exact rating scale is impractical. Where they succeed better you have more to learn from them and how they make their decisions. quote:What IS the best church? One that has no humans involved -but that's also the worst church. Perfection is inhuman. Failing that, and from my own personal observation, I'm going to say that the best Church I know of is the one that will quite happily admit it and revises its holy book every ten years at its equivalent of a Synod. And recognises that Creeds are traps based on a set human understanding. neonchameleon fucked around with this message at 19:24 on Dec 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:I'm suggesting that no two organisations are ever precisely equal although an exact rating scale is impractical. Where they succeed better you have more to learn from them and how they make their decisions. So really we're back to subjectivity. I have to rely on my own interpretive powers to judge churches and eventually come to a conclusion about who God is and what he wants. Is there a point? Or do you think that, whatever God is, he doesn't care what version of which religion I follow as long as I endeavor to know him? And if so, how is that answer satisfactory enough for you, given that many believers of God are sure that he will smite all non true believers? What if they are the ones who are right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
You could try the Buddhist approach. Just be members of each denominational group, based maybe on large differences for practicality's sake, one after another. Either you'll find your personal path eventually, or you'll find Christianity wanting, and move on to something else. Morality is way too personal for there to be a one-size-fits-all catchall for religion, since most religious claims are moral claims. Alternatively, you could just ask your parents, since religion tends to be a traditional institution as well. Edit: If you do go that route, just try to avoid stuff that's too culty. Peeps be vulnerable to weird rear end brainwashing techniques, and nobody really wants to die in a jumpsuit drinking poison. bobtheconqueror fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Dec 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Is there a point? Or do you think that, whatever God is, he doesn't care what version of which religion I follow as long as I endeavor to know him? For some reason you think God cares if you "endeavor to know him". I don't think he does.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:So really we're back to subjectivity. I have to rely on my own interpretive powers to judge churches and eventually come to a conclusion about who God is and what he wants. Is there a point? Or do you think that, whatever God is, he doesn't care what version of which religion I follow as long as I endeavor to know him? or maybe its all made up and this is silly
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
Gaining Weight, given your apparent intense discomfort with subjectivity, maybe the religion you're looking for is libertarianism. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 02:45
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:So really we're back to subjectivity. I have to rely on my own interpretive powers to judge churches and eventually come to a conclusion about who God is and what he wants. Is there a point? Or do you think that, whatever God is, he doesn't care what version of which religion I follow as long as I endeavor to know him? Starting with the second half, if there is a God then they clearly don't want certainty about their existence. The Universe is something where every mystery ever solved has turned out to be not magic. If God is such that they will smite all non true believers and at the same time hides then God is the Platonic embodiment of evil - and the moral course of action if you are brave enough is to spit in their eye. If God wanted to ensure you had answers they could do better than The Bible and whichever church there is. And yes, yes you do. Objectivity is ... rare. (IMO there are few places it is used practically outside mathematics and arguably engineering, and even then "Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? That's not my department, says Wehrner von Braun".) What God wants is an interesting question of course.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 12:59
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:For some reason you think God cares if you "endeavor to know him". I don't think he does. I don't think that, I'm asking if that's the case. neonchameleon posted:Starting with the second half, if there is a God then they clearly don't want certainty about their existence. The Universe is something where every mystery ever solved has turned out to be not magic. If God is such that they will smite all non true believers and at the same time hides then God is the Platonic embodiment of evil - and the moral course of action if you are brave enough is to spit in their eye. If God wanted to ensure you had answers they could do better than The Bible and whichever church there is. Well, that kind of leads me back to "I won't pick a religion because none seem accurate and God, by definition, seems unknowable". I guess I don't understand how you can claim that God hides and obscures his wants (if there are any) and that it is impossible to truly know him, yet claim Christianity to be more viable than the other religions. Unless I'm getting you confused with someone else. What is your religious designation? Just for the record.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:I don't think that, I'm asking if that's the case. Literally nobody knows. If a God exists, it hasn't actually told anyone anything. You're basically asking if Harry Potter prefers orange juice or grapefruit juice with his breakfast.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
nucleicmaxid posted:Literally nobody knows. If a God exists, it hasn't actually told anyone anything. You're basically asking if Harry Potter prefers orange juice or grapefruit juice with his breakfast. Gospel According to Hermione 4:16 "Squeeze ye not the juice of the grapefruit and drink not thereof for it is an abomination in the eyes of the LORD your Harry. Peel not the orange with thy fingers, and breed not a seedless orange lest Harry strike thee down in thy insolence against what He has called good". God, it's like you've never even heard of special revelation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 02:57
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Gospel According to Hermione 4:16 "Squeeze ye not the juice of the grapefruit and drink not thereof for it is an abomination in the eyes of the LORD your Harry. Peel not the orange with thy fingers, and breed not a seedless orange lest Harry strike thee down in thy insolence against what He has called good". Look, in this passage Hermione is clearly referring to an individual squeezing grapefruit and drinking the juice, not grapefruit juice bought in a store. This is clearly a commentary on Ron not washing his hands before preparing breakfast, not a blanket condemnation of all grapefruit juice everywhere, you fundamentalist. Don't make the Book of Harry look bad because you can't understand context.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 05:23
|
|
|
Perhaps I should resort to a method Christians love and cherish: parables! 1A scientist of sound mind and a lifelong love of astronomy made an extraordinary claim: 2he had found a new planet in the solar system. Additionally, he claimed that only from his observatory could this planet be seen. 3Now the people of the land were understandably skeptical, but their own observations suggested nothing since they were not made from the scientist's observatory. 4So a group of other scientists, equally skilled and passionate about understanding the cosmos, made their way to the observatory to see for themselves. 5A strange result then occurred: the scientists' various observations differed greatly! 6Some claimed to see no planet, while others claimed to have found it, but in a different location, 7while still others claimed that it was precisely where it was supposed to be, but did not match the original scientist's description. 8Since no consensus could be made, the people demanded that the method by which the scientists were finding the planet be examined. 9It was discovered that all of them had made their observations using the same telescope, 10and when the telescope was examined, internal damage was found that had caused false images to sometimes appear. 11The people then called for further proof of the planet's existence, but among all the scientists, none could be found. 12And so the claim that there was a new planet was rejected, 13for the method used to find it had been found faulty, and the evidence it had provided was dismissed, 14and no new evidence could be given.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
Your boring thread had almost died, until you posted some pointless and oddly formatted thing. What is the point of what you posted? vvv listen to this guy vvv Yngwie Mangosteen fucked around with this message at 19:34 on Jan 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
Just accept that you're an atheist and move on man.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
You started the thread with the intention of finding out something, I'm not entirely sure what, about how people know or seem to know things about God. You assumed God spoke to them in what you called revelation. People generally thought you were right in doubting those who intuitively claim to know what He wants. Believer or unbeliever, I think the keyword was intuitively. I don't think anyone suggested that God could be proven to exist or not, or if former, submit under the kind of observation the scientists in your parable are doing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
Valiantman posted:You started the thread with the intention of finding out something, I'm not entirely sure what, about how people know or seem to know things about God. You assumed God spoke to them in what you called revelation. People generally thought you were right in doubting those who intuitively claim to know what He wants. Believer or unbeliever, I think the keyword was intuitively. I don't think anyone suggested that God could be proven to exist or not, or if former, submit under the kind of observation the scientists in your parable are doing. At this point I think he's either an idiot or a troll. I wonder if there's a law like Poe's Law, where as the post count increases, it becomes more and more difficult to tell a troll from someone mentally challenged.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
drat, aren't we pissy tonight. No, I'm not a troll. I just haven't gotten an answer to my question yet, beyond "hey just dive in and believe," which is still a problem, because: dive in and believe what? Buuuuuut I suppose the thread has run it's course. Ah well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 00:28
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:drat, aren't we pissy tonight. No, I'm not a troll. I just haven't gotten an answer to my question yet, beyond "hey just dive in and believe," which is still a problem, because: dive in and believe what? Buddhism is cool, you could also try Unitarian Universalism if you want a church that welcomes all religions. Or you can be a true American and go full syncretism; I'm a reincarnation-believing Universalist Christian, which is heretical as hell to most Christian sects, and yet it's what I feel is "right".
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 02:15
|
|
|
Y'all infidels give up too easily. Any thread is what you make of it - want it to be good and interesting? Then make interesting and good posts. This is from a ways back, apologies for the late reply, the holidays took precedence. GAINING WEIGHT... posted:No, seriously, I am not misreading anything. I understand exactly what you are saying. You posit that we (meaning any human who looks toward anything supernatural at all) are all worshiping the same thing, even if we call it different things or conceptualize it differently. There is a correct version of God, which we are all perceiving, but just maybe not fully or accurately. Christians, Hindus, Egyptians, and Pastafarians alike are actually talking about the same thing, just in different ways. You do seem to sort of understand part of the universalist perspective, but then you ask questions and make statements that seem like you don't. I'm sorry for the implications that your reading is poor, it's just as likely that I haven't been clear enough. I bolded the parts in your post that I think are causing the misunderstanding. God transcends human ability to completely describe or truly comprehend, we have to be content with hints and anthropomorphizations. You got that right. But remember that holy texts are written by people, who are interpreting their experiences with the divine within their temporal contexts. Universalism simply doesn't consider the "only mine is true" to be a correct interpretation. This seems to be where your having trouble. Remember, the Bible is a record of the evolving Christian understanding of God. That's why there are stories where pagan practices and concepts are rejected, much more quickly and sharply than they would have been in actuality (because it's mythology, not history). And as a Catholic I'm not even limited to the Bible, I can keep on growing, adding insights and revelations from any time and place. quote:How do you separate the false claims about what God is from the true? Have you made some mistakes in interpreting what The Thing is and what it wants? If so, how can you be sure that the interpretation, "it's all the same God, and he doesn't care exactly what version you worship" is a correct one? Your own doctrine disagrees with that quite strongly. Again, claims are separated by interpretation, the same careful thinking you apply to anything. I don't think I've made any mistakes, but I accept the possibility. No, the Church is adamant that any honest and good person concerned with Truth and Justice is walking in the big ole light. We do still allow for Cyprian's petty salvation, if only to keep the jerks from getting too upset, but as any child can point out, exclusion does not jive with the Golden Rule or the concept of Forgiveness, not at all.  Let's see if we can get some interesting posts: What would qualify, to you reading this, as a genuine revelation? What conditions would disqualify? Would God himself have to take a body, 12 feet tall and robed with flowing manes, and bust through your living room wall Kool-Aid man style to shout at you, with an actual voice? Careful guidance under a yogi like mystic? Reading a bunch of books? Smoking dope and listening to loud music? If I haven't been clear in this thread, my position is that the revelation itself is more important than the means that it occurs. The "truthiness" hinges on how much it makes sense, is useful/moral/etc. I think it can come out of the blue to people who weren't even aware they were looking for it, and others it could take a life-time of study. Most people I know IRL are split on the the drug question: some think that using substances like hallucinogenic drugs would invalidate a revelation, others think that it grants special insights that can't be accessed sober. I think it depends on whether the thought stands up to scrutiny once the effects wear off. I get the impression that for some of you, the revelation would have to be in a book, an absurdly comprehensive and authoritative book and we all speak the same language and there is no disagreement about it, so I guess we aren't even humans anymore?? This is probably unfair, but thats the impression I get from some the criticisms offered.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 02:29
|
|
|
I find your thread infuriating because it's like watching a child claim that they're hungry with a big ol' bowl of mac and cheese in front of them but refusing to eat because you've given them a fork instead of the spoon they're used to. But then I remember you're just like everyone else a limited organism with only so much ability to break out of your preconceived programming and I read something else instead.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 02:47
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:drat, aren't we pissy tonight. No, I'm not a troll. I just haven't gotten an answer to my question yet, beyond "hey just dive in and believe," which is still a problem, because: dive in and believe what? If you find a belief that truly speaks to you, you (hopefully) won't need to post a thread to try to get people to artificially convince you of its objective factuality. If not, that's fine too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 03:00
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:drat, aren't we pissy tonight. No, I'm not a troll. I just haven't gotten an answer to my question yet, beyond "hey just dive in and believe," which is still a problem, because: dive in and believe what? You obviously do not have what it takes to be a Christian (not necessarily a bad thing) so why do you keep torturing yourself over these pointless and unanswerable questions? You're never going to be satisfied because the things you're asking for - a rigorously scientific justification for faith - are impossible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 04:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 06:26 |
|
|
Black Bones posted:You do seem to sort of understand part of the universalist perspective, but then you ask questions and make statements that seem like you don't. I'm sorry for the implications that your reading is poor, it's just as likely that I haven't been clear enough. Okay, I'll concede that I also phrase my replies poorly so as to add to this confusion. I think what I haven't been clear enough on is when I jump between schools of though on God without declaring it. I do understand the Universalist perspective, as you say, but my further claims reflect those who follow a non-universalist perspective. I understand what Universalism claims, but I am pointing out that there is a vast quantity who are not Universalists who would say that (for instance) Allah is a false God while YHWH is the true God, and furthermore, it is very important that your reverence and worship be toward this correct God. Anecdotally, though I assume you will concede that point, I have just talked with someone who not only saw it as incredibly important to be a Christian (and thus worshiping the correct God), but also claimed that people only become other faiths because they didn't seek God sincerely enough to find the real Him. So yeah, these people really are out there. I'd be happy to find that Universalism is true, that there is no "correct" God, and that we're all participating in this divine experience together, however we're doing it - and no one is hellbound - but still, this assertion suffers from the same issue I see in my initial post. If religious people are all worshiping and/or communicating with the same divine, what accounts for the millions who are assured that there is an angry, jealous God waiting to smite the horrible sinners who chose the wrong faith? They make mistakes in their interpretations of God, you would say? But when you claim that God is the Universalist one, you haven't made the same mistake? If you agree that a huge amount of divine interpretation is subject to mistake, perhaps you are the one misreading The Divine to make you think Universalism, when actually Fire and Birmstone-ism is how God actually operates. quote:Remember, the Bible is a record of the evolving Christian understanding of God. That's why there are stories where pagan practices and concepts are rejected, much more quickly and sharply than they would have been in actuality (because it's mythology, not history). And as a Catholic I'm not even limited to the Bible, I can keep on growing, adding insights and revelations from any time and place. And some people find that the Bible is the literal Word of God, free from any error, and that going to outside sources - especially from the perspective of other faiths - is tantamount to blasphemy. Interpreters of God make a lot of mistakes, but sometimes they also get stuff right, yes? Why not this? quote:Again, claims are separated by interpretation, the same careful thinking you apply to anything. I don't think I've made any mistakes, but I accept the possibility. No, the Church is adamant that any honest and good person concerned with Truth and Justice is walking in the big ole light. We do still allow for Cyprian's petty salvation, if only to keep the jerks from getting too upset, but as any child can point out, exclusion does not jive with the Golden Rule or the concept of Forgiveness, not at all. There are plenty of times in the Bible where God disagrees with the rules he set out for people - visiting punishment on the child for the sins of the parents, for instance, is something God forbids people to do in Deuteronomy 24:16 but does himself in Deuteronomy 5:9. I know, I know, we're really past quoting scripture, but my point is scripture can be interpreted wildly and used to justify almost anything, so it still boils down to: you interpret it a certain way, because you believe that to be the way God intends it to be interpreted, whatever or whoever God may actually be. But you admit an ability to be mistaken about God - why not in this instance? Perhaps God is a being who commands people to treat each other via the Golden Rule, but still willfully casts people into hell forever. Yes, you feel differently, but how are those feelings any more reliable than the feelings of any other person? quote:
If you mean strictly definition wise, a genuine revelation is when God both actually did communicate with a person, and that person interpreted it correctly; but obviously, the question you intend is: how do we determine genuine revelation? Belief that one heard God and is correct about what they heard certainly doesn't qualify, since people do that all the time and disagree. Certainty in your conclusions similarly proves nothing. Revelation that, when followed, produced a positive result (I can clarify this further if need be), would certainly point toward that revelation being perhaps better - this is the "fruit of their labors" argument in a different form - but I feel we can find people who produced positive results with their interpretations yet still disagree. There are literalists and non-literalists, after all, who both have great lives and do considerable good with their time on Earth. The revelation leading to happiness, fulfillment, etc also might suggest correctness, but probably suffers from the same problem even more - there are happy and fulfilled people from all faiths, and even from no faith at all. I guess in the end there would need to be some physical event accompanying the revelation for me to take it seriously - a "miracle" for instance, though maybe not in the walking-on-water sense, but something unmistakable that I can perceive and observe from the person making the claims from their revelation. quote:If I haven't been clear in this thread, my position is that the revelation itself is more important than the means that it occurs. The "truthiness" hinges on how much it makes sense, is useful/moral/etc. I think it can come out of the blue to people who weren't even aware they were looking for it, and others it could take a life-time of study. Most people I know IRL are split on the the drug question: some think that using substances like hallucinogenic drugs would invalidate a revelation, others think that it grants special insights that can't be accessed sober. I think it depends on whether the thought stands up to scrutiny once the effects wear off. I want to go out of my way to say I appreciate that your response to revelation is to carefully evaluate it to determine its truth. I think that's the correct response. I also agree that it shouldn't really matter how the revelation came about, rather only its content. But "making sense", "being useful", and "being moral" are themselves up for debate; the Divine Command people would say that you don't get to judge morality: whatever God decrees, that is the moral action. You might be someone who derives morals independently, from seeing that murder is harmful to the murdered and to the society where the murder occurred, so you feel murder immoral, but how many times did God tell people in the Old Testament to kill the poo poo out of such-and-such tribe or whatever? To some, those killings were entirely moral. Ultimately we still fall back to: people make mistakes in interpreting the divine. Were you to encounter a person claiming to have a revelation to kill someone, you would claim that the revelation is immoral and therefore that person has made a mistake in his interpretation, but why isn't it you misinterpreting that God actually wants us to murder (in whatever situation in this scenario)? That it is actually moral in the first place? quote:I get the impression that for some of you, the revelation would have to be in a book, an absurdly comprehensive and authoritative book and we all speak the same language and there is no disagreement about it, so I guess we aren't even humans anymore?? This is probably unfair, but thats the impression I get from some the criticisms offered. Actually, not the exaggerated book you say, but something where the book itself had properties impossible to explain by any other means - much like the "miracle" requirement above. The Koran is said to have scientific knowledge that would have been impossible for a 7th century person to know, and that its design also contains some mathematical properties - something like the number of words and books form some palindromic equation, my memory is rusty, sorry - that a simple person would never have been able to put together on their own. I haven't delved into it too deeply to determine if that is the case, but it's definitely swayed 1.5 billion Muslims, and it would be the type of thing that would sway me. And before you say it's an absurd requirement for every revelation to be accompanied with miracles to prove their authenticity, remember: that's exactly how Jesus supposedly proved himself. I hope I've answered and addressed everything satisfactorily.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 04:59
|
|