|
|
Post by franko on Dec 30, 2004 18:39:12 GMT -5
My world-view begins with the existence of a (monotheistic) transcendent God. Everything else stems from that.
The Bible is a religious record trying to understand this God’s plans, purposes, and workings.
Science is a search for understanding of the universe’s workings.
Science and religion can work hand in hand in the search for meaning and should not fear one another.
Most important in religious matters (and I speak from a Christian perspective) is humanity’s relationship with this God and hence with other people. The important Christian text is love God with heart, soul, mind, and strength (your whole being) and (the principle found in other religions as well) your neighbour as yourself . . . adding on to that is the instruction that whatever we (as Christians) do should honour God.
I am in full agreement with Blaise that Mr. Bush has fallen far from this lofty ideal. The Iraqi situation is a political quagmire that has attempted to be justified nationalistically but cannot be justified Christianly (afaiac: war is not justifiable from a Christian perspective).
Specific doctrines? I’m game to discuss, though hopefully more meaningful discussions will arise soon – as in a HABS season!
|
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Dec 30, 2004 22:09:26 GMT -5
Seeker, what are your thoughts on how a transcendent one and only deity has been transmogrified by organized religions into multiple deities? The Hebrews (by no means the originators of monotheism) were content with a single unknowable God and acknowledge none other as objects of worship. (Thou shalt know no other God before me.) Ironically, while Jews and Muslims still believe that, billions of other people seem to be uncomfortable with monotheism and add layer after layer of overt or thinly veiled polytheism that clutter the scene. God the Father? Jesus the Son? Holy Ghost? Virgin Mother Mary whose Assumption to Heaven is the subject of a papal decree? In Spanish-speaking countries more prayers are addressed to Santa Maria than to Jesus, and certainly more than to Dios. The Holy Ghost would draw a blank stare. The plastic saints fastened to some dashboards may be considered minor deities. Or how about the multiple Hindu deities? I have philosophical problems with Judaism, Islam, the diverse branches of Christianity, Buddhism, Vedantism (i.e., Hinduism), Jainism, Zoroastrianism, animism, and all other theologies. No organized religion or sect has entirely clean hands, but some have more sordid global histories than others.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 31, 2004 13:05:15 GMT -5
Seeker, what are your thoughts on how a transcendent one and only deity has been transmogrified by organized religions into multiple deities? I think that the eminent “theologian” Jethro Tull says it best: In the beginning Man created God; and in the image of Man created he him. Or further, People - what have you done
locked Him in His golden cage.
Made Him bend to your religion
Him resurrected from the grave.I don’t like that God has been transmogrified by any religion at all, as you might expect. Humanity has hijacked God for her own ends. And having said that, I acknowledge that I am probably just as guilty of doing so as I seek to understand, for my understanding of the infinite is but limited. As I am. Two thousand years of Christian debate and discussion have not cleared the air but have muddied the waters even more (to mix metaphors). My Protestant perspective sees Father, Son, and Spirit as a unity of three persons within the One Godhead. But our understanding fails. Many attempts have been made to explain the Trinity as One (all disappoint; I think that most are quite lame). The early church realized that if Christ were not divine they could not worship Him without becoming idolaters ( no other God); yet He claimed to be God, and the disciples (at least Thomas) called Him God. A quandary; debate continues. I see God in the person of Jesus. Virgin Mary? Exalted far beyond what she should be. Yup. Something concrete to grasp, I guess. Man’s search for meaning leads to all kinds of different religious ideas . . . and to all kinds of different scientific ideas. Our investigations lead us in different directions while we seek the answers and the questions . Unfortunately, you are right. But that points back to Tull: if we make God in our image we can do whatever we want and “blame” Him. |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Jan 19, 2005 22:04:20 GMT -5
Wow!
How ballsy, or perhaps I've been stuck in Toronto too long! There is no subject which makes people more afraid.
Way cool.
What guts!
I love it.
Can one prove the existence of God?
BRAVO!
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jan 19, 2005 22:14:27 GMT -5
How about giving up Jehova for Christ and future considerations?
;D
Drop the Puck!
|
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Jan 19, 2005 23:52:43 GMT -5
How about giving up Jehova for Christ and future considerations? ;D Drop the Puck! That's pretty funny |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Jan 20, 2005 18:31:53 GMT -5
Hey Franko
Good stuff. I spent a year at U of T in a philosophy course where the arguments for and against proving the existence of God was discussed and debated. I believe that it is true to say that increasingly thinkers consider the materialism of the post-Descartes era to be seriously inadequate. Scientism has cracked long ago and the culture will catch up with this in another seventy-five years or so, which is a common timeframe for things to get digested. People still say things like "Everything is relative" as if it really means something long after Einstein.
If you want to be the smartest kid on your block and help restore sanity to the planet, take a look at a book by Dr. Anthony Rizzi, a distinguished physicist, who incidentally solved an eighty year puzzle in Einstein's relativity theory. He found science pretty dull and lifeless stuff and then discovered the great thinkers of history, Aristotle, Aquinas, et al, and had his intelligence greatly refreshed.
He has written "The Science Before Science" which is the most startlingly clear and interesting book I have read in a long time. A Notre Dame philosophy prof considers it one of the most important books of the last hundred years which will set off a revolution in how we consider science and knowledge in general. He points out the simply goofy illogic and philosophic naivete underlying such ideas as the primary notion that our human senses are unreliable, which should be a joke, and lots of nonsensical ideas like that of "possible universes". It's a wonderful mind bath of staggering import. His treatment of the idea of the spiritual and the idea of God is awesome.
I bought a few copies over the net and some friends are much in agreement with the subtitle that considers the book "a guide to thinking in the twentyfirst century. I'd love to hear what you think of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jan 20, 2005 21:54:17 GMT -5
Can one prove the existence of God? No . . . though neither can non-existence. Argumetns for and against can be equally debunked. I spent a year at U of T in a philosophy course where the arguments for and against proving the existence of God was discussed and debated. I spent some time studying philosophy, religion, and the philosophy of religion, though my original majors were English and History with a minor in Phys Ed. Must say that my brain has not been exercised in this particular discipline for a number of years, though. I've read a reivew of the book that was not altogether flattering; will check it out eventually but am in the midst of some other study at this time. Always like a challenge or a recommendation. |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Jan 20, 2005 22:01:52 GMT -5
No . . . though neither can non-existence. Argumetns for and against can be equally debunked. Hi Franko How was Aquinas' argument from motion debunked? Who did it? Why didn't they tell me? ] |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jan 20, 2005 22:35:40 GMT -5
How was Aquinas' argument from motion debunked? Who did it? Why didn't they tell me? My role in this discussion/debate is to argue the "for" side. Blaise is looking after arguing the "against" side. ;D However . . . Aquinas' argument parallels the traditional cosmological argument (the uncaused cause). For simplicity, Aquinas would say motion cannot exits on its own; something must have caused it to move; there must have been a first mover, itself motionless and causing all other forms of motion. This first mover is God. Argument against (if nothing else): why must it be God? |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Jan 20, 2005 22:41:55 GMT -5
My role in this discussion/debate is to argue the "for" side. Blaise is looking after arguing the "against" side. ;D However . . . Aquinas' argument parallels the traditional cosmological argument (the uncaused cause). For simplicity, Aquinas would say motion cannot exits on its own; something must have caused it to move; there must have been a first mover, itself motionless and causing all other forms of motion. This first mover is God. Argument against (if nothing else): why must it be God? Because such a necessary uncaused cause, being pure act, pure infinite actuality cannot be anything else. (I'm looking to buy a new driver on Ebay...Titleist 975D wih El-70 shaft..how's that for excitement!) |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jan 21, 2005 7:54:16 GMT -5
Because such a necessary uncaused cause, being pure act, pure infinite actuality cannot be anything else. "God must exist . . . therefore He exists"? The argument is tenuous at best. The existence of God cannot be existentially proven, which is what many people demand. His existence is a faith proposition -- you believe or you don't. God said "I AM". Period. No amount of philosophizing will convince, which is why there are still doubters and deniers. I see the grandeur of a created world; others see grandeur in nature. You are giving up the hockey season already? The Leafs haven't been eliminated from the Stanley Cup Playoffs -- the golf season is not yet nearly begun! |
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Jan 21, 2005 14:54:00 GMT -5
Faith, mirages, hall of mirrors, DTs, psychotropic drugs, electrical stimulation of the brain--they can all produce distortions of reality. I just don't want anyone, least of all my government, to preach to me when I'm ill-disposed to receive the sermon. When George W. Bush talks about his faith it produces a retching sensation that prompts me to hit the remote control. I'll have to hand it to organized religions for commissioning great art, architecture, and music. I attend churches only to hear the marvelous oratorios by Johann Sebastian Bach, Heinrich Schütz, William Byrd, Marc-Antoine Charpentier (no, he doesn't play right wing in the QMJHL), and other sublime composers, or to admire the Cologne cathedral or the Sistine chapel.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Jan 21, 2005 19:27:00 GMT -5
"God must exist . . . therefore He exists"? The argument is tenuous at best. The existence of God cannot be existentially proven, which is what many people demand. His existence is a faith proposition -- you believe or you don't. God said "I AM". Period. No amount of philosophizing will convince, which is why there are still doubters and deniers. I see the grandeur of a created world; others see grandeur in nature. You are giving up the hockey season already? The Leafs haven't been eliminated from the Stanley Cup Playoffs -- the golf season is not yet nearly begun! When I wrote"Because such a necessary uncaused cause, being pure act, pure infinite actuality cannot be anything else. " ,I was not offering an ad hoc ontological argument, which itself has some subtleties to recommend it. It has been described as the most sublime argument extant. But, I digress. If anything the cosmological arguments are existential, and are not tautological but rest upon the metaphsical schema of Aristotle, who was existential enough as to have been credited with saving the "real" as distinct from Plato's idealism. You seem to be making statements of faith (albeit the notion du jour) about our incapacity to demonstrate the being or non-being of absolute being. On what firm principle do you rest the idea that we have no idea. What is the flaw in Aquinas' arguments? I spent a year examining counters from quite a few philosophers including Kant and did not discover a telling argument against them. What's the flaw or error? Reasoning does not require faith. Do you think that the 97% of Canadians (roughly recalled stat from Mcleans poll a few years ago) who believe that some supreme being of some sort must exist have no rational foundation though admittedly they lack the philosophical training to examine the question. Faith is not, cannot be an irrational act. Would your God go to all the trouble of creating a process that led to intelligent, reasoning creatures and then demnand that they perform an irrational act to kick things off. I don't think so. Supra-rational. but, not irrational. That would be irrational. I'm still looking for a driver. Anybody know the best shaft for a Titleist 975D with a swing speed of a little over 100mph? Apparently it has an inset hosel that makes it play stiffer than is normal....hence the challenge |
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Jan 21, 2005 21:27:41 GMT -5
The world isn't good enough, so the uncertain conjure up a heaven for the good. The world isn't bad enough, so the uncertain conjure up a hell for the evil. Now the uncertain are certain? Of course not. They take it upon themselves to punish the evil horribly on the way to hell, for they fear that God may adjudge otherwise. God spare us from the certain/uncertain who act in His name. They are morally flawed theocratic usurpers who in many cases live lavishly while claiming entitlement.  |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Jan 21, 2005 22:49:55 GMT -5
Faith, mirages, hall of mirrors, DTs, psychotropic drugs, electrical stimulation of the brain--they can all produce distortions of reality. I just don't want anyone, least of all my government, to preach to me when I'm ill-disposed to receive the sermon. When George W. Bush talks about his faith it produces a retching sensation that prompts me to hit the remote control. I'll have to hand it to organized religions for commissioning great art, architecture, and music. I attend churches only to hear the marvelous oratorios by Johann Sebastian Bach, Heinrich Schütz, William Byrd, Marc-Antoine Charpentier (no, he doesn't play right wing in the QMJHL), and other sublime composers, or to admire the Cologne cathedral or the Sistine chapel. Hi Blaise I experience the same retching sensation when Bush talks, while I must confess to an only slightly reduced retching reflex at the platitudes that arise from all over. While better at the theory than practice, as is true of me in all things, I think one must or should at least try to find a framework for understanding. It has been observed of his brand of belief, that there can be no drama in such a life. He's a believer so that's it: done deal: he goes to heaven when he dies. That is not representative of Christianity, but of a more simplistic variety of unreflective and very unattractive fundamentalism. I've thought for some time that the perversion of the idea of justification by faith is one of the reasons why so Americans are so incredibly unreflective and naively confident in this amorphous catchall called "the American Way". A hallmark of spirituality is reflectiveness, an ability to get beyond oneself. Like Regan before him, he strikes one as moralistic, not moral. It is one thing to decry abortion as a great evil and I agree that it is, but it rings shallow when one has no concern for single mothers and those without options in life. In this century of rampant cynicism we would also do well to not rest content with whipping the politicians, but recgnize our own greed and indifference to the suffering of our fellow man. It's been a very long time since I herad anyone in North America speak of that most common vice, that of conspicuous consumption. The piety of my own political constituency, that of the Canadian left, itself leads a hell of a lot to be desired. A delusion is a delusion. If God exists, and I personally think that the evidence is overwhelmingly more in support of that proposition, then all who think, rather believe not, though really only a fairly number are, ipso facto, deluded. People delude themselves in a million ways. There are few people more agressively dogmatiic than agnostics. Look at your top line. In my experience the agnostic examination is pretty light fare intellectually. Bertrand Russell is considered clever in this crowd. I have been watching "The Barbarian Invasion", the Dennis Arcan film of such note. A great film, but note in the end he is killed by his loved ones with heroin. "Death with Dignity" anyone? This wasn't a case of pain management reaching that delicate point where the lungs shut down, but more a statement of. Ok. My life: That's it. So, whose life is it anyway? Ours, mine, yours, the pharohs', Canada's, Uncle Sam's? end of blazing rant. Still want driver shaft advice and proof that the Leafs haven't already lost to les gloriuex. Any comparison to Montreal has Toronto losing because Montrealers love hockey and Torontonians love Tie Domi. OK I'll admit it. I loved meeting John Ferguson senior while collecting on my friends paper route and I love watching him chase Eddy Shack. spelt "X", though the blues. |
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Jan 21, 2005 23:39:45 GMT -5
I can't help you with the driver. All I have are some useless old wooden hockey sticks that I can't even donate.
George W. Bush (or as I now refer to him, Georges d'Arc) spent a dissolute youth. He had a drinking problem but somehow got over it when he married. At the age of 40 he discovered Jesus, which supplanted his need for booze. As a reformed alcoholic he uses his faith as a necessary crutch. As with many other individuals who have followed the same path, he can't go halfway. He sees things in black and white. In addition to being simplistic he is stubborn and takes the stance that you are either with him or against him. If you are with him (as in the case of some detestable rulers who suppress human rights and some of his felonious Texas cronies), he remains loyal and tends to overlook your faults.
It is ironic that he is consumed by foreign policy, because when he was first elected he expressly foreswore it. Because he is relatively uninformed, advisors with an agends and able to influence him into taking harmful steps. His administration remains riddled with neocons who believe that the United States, as the foremost world power, can and should impose its will. Apparently they haven't read Paul Kennedy's The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. Obviously Bush hasn't read it (or much else), because reading books is too taxing for him.
As for his Christian charity, he pays lip service. He pretends to compassionate conservatism but his policies have worsened the status of millions of Americans while his tax cuts have added to the wealth of the already wealthy. He speaks Christ but serves Mammon.
If Jesus returned to earth and discoursed with Bush, as in the Grand Inquisitor scene from Dostoyevsky's The Brother's Karamazov, he would weep. That is, if he could penetrate Bush's wall of secrecy and get to him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Jan 21, 2005 23:52:21 GMT -5
I can't help you with the driver. All I have are some useless old wooden hockey sticks that I can't even donate. George W. Bush (or as I now refer to him, Georges d'Arc) spent a dissolute youth. He had a drinking problem but somehow got over it when he married. At the age of 40 he discovered Jesus, which supplanted his need for booze. As a reformed alcoholic he uses his faith as a necessary crutch. As with many other individuals who have followed the same path, he can't go halfway. He sees things in black and white. In addition to being simplistic he is stubborn and takes the stance that you are either with him or against him. If you are with him (as in the case of some detestable rulers who suppress human rights and some of his felonious Texas cronies), he remains loyal and tends to overlook your faults. It is ironic that he is consumed by foreign policy, because when he was first elected he expressly foreswore it. Because he is relatively uninformed, advisors with an agends and able to influence him into taking harmful steps. His administration remains riddled with neocons who believe that the United States, as the foremost world power, can and should impose its will. Apparently they haven't read Paul Kennedy's The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. Obviously Bush hasn't read it (or much else), because reading books is too taxing for him. As for his Christian charity, he pays lip service. He pretends to compassionate conservatism but his policies have worsened the status of millions of Americans while his tax cuts have added to the wealth of the already wealthy. He speaks Christ but serves Mammon. If Jesus returned to earth and discoursed with Bush, as in the Grand Inquisitor scene from Dostoyevsky's The Brother's Karamazov, he would weep. That is, if he could penetrate Bush's wall of secrecy and get to him. Well and truly spoken Blaise, with one slight editorial suggeston. I believe you described Bush as "relatively" uninformed on foreign policy. May I suggest an alternative? How about "totally". He is an extremely dangerous unreflective depressive. As to the rest of your succinct observations, What can one say, but Amen |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Jan 22, 2005 0:35:30 GMT -5
I can't help you with the driver. All I have are some useless old wooden hockey sticks that I can't even donate. George W. Bush (or as I now refer to him, Georges d'Arc) spent a dissolute youth. He had a drinking problem but somehow got over it when he married. At the age of 40 he discovered Jesus, which supplanted his need for booze. As a reformed alcoholic he uses his faith as a necessary crutch. As with many other individuals who have followed the same path, he can't go halfway. He sees things in black and white. In addition to being simplistic he is stubborn and takes the stance that you are either with him or against him. If you are with him (as in the case of some detestable rulers who suppress human rights and some of his felonious Texas cronies), he remains loyal and tends to overlook your faults. It is ironic that he is consumed by foreign policy, because when he was first elected he expressly foreswore it. Because he is relatively uninformed, advisors with an agends and able to influence him into taking harmful steps. His administration remains riddled with neocons who believe that the United States, as the foremost world power, can and should impose its will. Apparently they haven't read Paul Kennedy's The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. Obviously Bush hasn't read it (or much else), because reading books is too taxing for him. As for his Christian charity, he pays lip service. He pretends to compassionate conservatism but his policies have worsened the status of millions of Americans while his tax cuts have added to the wealth of the already wealthy. He speaks Christ but serves Mammon. If Jesus returned to earth and discoursed with Bush, as in the Grand Inquisitor scene from Dostoyevsky's The Brother's Karamazov, he would weep. That is, if he could penetrate Bush's wall of secrecy and get to him. As to serving Mammon, it's axiomatic, that if a person is not interested in justice, and I do not mean justice in the narrow, punitive legal sense, but in the true biblical sense of justice for the poor, then one is not at all interested in God. That is at the core of Christianity, not moralistic posturing and solicitous servility to the wealthy. I too have a dozen or so wooden hockey sticks and some newer ones (Conspicuous consumption ??) but I have developped a bad hip from hockey, tennis, stupidity and an iron overload condition that encourages arthritis. I may need a little surgery before I can play again. I have read Paul Johnson's "The Birth of the Modern", which again ironicaly , given the thread, deals somewhat with the rise of the state to the status of absolute, which is closer to the reality of things in people's heads than one would expect. I think I'll pick up "The Ride and Fall of the Great Powers"...should be a great read I love Dostoyesky, especially the sublime "Crime and Punishment" and "the Idiot" It's a good thing he kept going broke! I think I'll pick up "The Ride and Fall of the Great Powers"...should be a great read. I am still reading "Paris 1919" along with a few other pretty good books. Poor Joan. I see Henman just got blown out at the Australian Open. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jan 22, 2005 2:17:57 GMT -5
Hi Blaise I experience the same retching sensation when Bush talks, while I must confess to an only slightly reduced retching reflex at the platitudes that arise from all over. While better at the theory than practice, as is true of me in all things, I think one must or should at least try to find a framework for understanding. It has been observed of his brand of belief, that there can be no drama in such a life. He's a believer so that's it: done deal: he goes to heaven when he dies. That is not representative of Christianity, but of a more simplistic variety of unreflective and very unattractive fundamentalism. I've thought for some time that the perversion of the idea of justification by faith is one of the reasons why so Americans are so incredibly unreflective and naively confident in this amorphous catchall called "the American Way". A hallmark of spirituality is reflectiveness, an ability to get beyond oneself. Like Regan before him, he strikes one as moralistic, not moral. It is one thing to decry abortion as a great evil and I agree that it is, but it rings shallow when one has no concern for single mothers and those without options in life. In this century of rampant cynicism we would also do well to not rest content with whipping the politicians, but recgnize our own greed and indifference to the suffering of our fellow man. It's been a very long time since I herad anyone in North America speak of that most common vice, that of conspicuous consumption. The piety of my own political constituency, that of the Canadian left, itself leads a hell of a lot to be desired. A delusion is a delusion. If God exists, and I personally think that the evidence is overwhelmingly more in support of that proposition, then all who think, rather believe not, though really only a fairly number are, ipso facto, deluded. People delude themselves in a million ways. There are few people more agressively dogmatiic than agnostics. Look at your top line. In my experience the agnostic examination is pretty light fare intellectually. Bertrand Russell is considered clever in this crowd. I have been watching "The Barbarian Invasion", the Dennis Arcan film of such note. A great film, but note in the end he is killed by his loved ones with heroin. "Death with Dignity" anyone? This wasn't a case of pain management reaching that delicate point where the lungs shut down, but more a statement of. Ok. My life: That's it. So, whose life is it anyway? Ours, mine, yours, the pharohs', Canada's, Uncle Sam's? end of blazing rant. Still want driver shaft advice and proof that the Leafs haven't already lost to les gloriuex. Any comparison to Montreal has Toronto losing because Montrealers love hockey and Torontonians love Tie Domi. OK I'll admit it. I loved meeting John Ferguson senior while collecting on my friends paper route and I love watching him chase Eddy Shack. spelt "X", though the blues. God exists. I saw him inagurated on TV. Bush hasn't changed. He attended 10 parties in one night just like he did at Yale. Ferguson was the greatest. I loved the way he would encourage Shack to stop acting like a girlie man. Bertrand Russel explained Einsteins Theory of Relativity but failed to prove anything about God. Saying God exists without defining what he is or what he does clarifies nothing. If God is neither good nor evil and refuses to interfere with mans freedom of choice; what difference does it make if he exists or doesn't. He may have created the Big Bang, but nothing that precedes the Big Bang is relevant to anything that followed it. It reduces God to a referee who keeps his whistle in his pocket. Zero impact on the game and doesn't even drop the puck for faceoffs. Bush is the President of the most powerful country in the world. He is a distinguished leader and deserving of the respect accorded to a head of state. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jan 22, 2005 9:52:08 GMT -5
George W. Bush (or as I now refer to him, Georges d'Arc) spent a dissolute youth. The "Bush" thread is elsewhere . . . can we leave him out of this one? And yet . . . As do far too many others . . . which is why I say there is a difference between the religious and the Christian. He doesn't have to return to earth to see what is going on and weep. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jan 22, 2005 9:55:57 GMT -5
As to serving Mammon, it's axiomatic, that if a person is not interested in justice, and I do not mean justice in the narrow, punitive legal sense, but in the true biblical sense of justice for the poor, then one is not at all interested in God. That is at the core of Christianity, not moralistic posturing and solicitous servility to the wealthy. Well said. Too many people ignore the example of Jesus in their Christianity, and fill their lives with hyper-morality which leads to being judgemental, rather than being actively compassionate. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jan 22, 2005 10:02:21 GMT -5
Saying God exists without defining what he is or what he does clarifies nothing. Have you not heard? God is love. If God intervenes with man's freedom of choice we become mere puppets in His hands; what difference does it make if he exists or doesn't. This is the deist viewpoint: the watchmaker that set things in motion by winding up the watch and then does nothing else to it. The point of a relationship with God as opposed to merely believing there is a God (here my evangelistic/"born-again" tendencies show) is that our lives change from selfishness to "otherness", which leads us to acceptance of other people, which leads to tolerance and/or compassion. |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Jan 22, 2005 12:53:04 GMT -5
God exists. I saw him inagurated on TV. Bush hasn't changed. He attended 10 parties in one night just like he did at Yale. Ferguson was the greatest. I loved the way he would encourage Shack to stop acting like a girlie man. Bertrand Russel explained Einsteins Theory of Relativity but failed to prove anything about God. Saying God exists without defining what he is or what he does clarifies nothing. If God is neither good nor evil and refuses to interfere with mans freedom of choice; what difference does it make if he exists or doesn't. He may have created the Big Bang, but nothing that precedes the Big Bang is relevant to anything that followed it. It reduces God to a referee who keeps his whistle in his pocket. Zero impact on the game and doesn't even drop the puck for faceoffs. Bush is the President of the most powerful country in the world. He is a distinguished leader and deserving of the respect accorded to a head of state. RE:"God exists. I saw him inagurated on TV. Bush hasn't changed. He attended 10 parties in one night just like he did at Yale. " That's excellent. The immutable has been found. Is there a difference between immutable and pickled? How about corrupt and incorruptible? How does one select sections to respond to without quoting the whole piece, awe-inspiring as they unfailingly are. RE;"Saying God exists without defining what he is or what he does clarifies nothing. " Agreed. Too true. Socrates knew that all hangs with the definition.In Aquinas' five ways, he never presupposed anything. His first way starts with the proposition "Things move." In human cognition, we do not grasp "infinite". What we grasp is "finite". Our knowledge of infinite is then negative and in such considerations the "analogy proper proportionality" is a necessary tool. Philosophers arrive at "pure actuality" and this concept is further defined in reasonable deductions. Philosophy is not religion but the power of reason is employed in the examination of the claims of all. Theist, atheistic materialist, agnostic, deist, leaf-fan, etc. If the whole point of existence is about relationship writ large, then free will is a necessary precondition. Anything else is mere mechanics. You are indeed describing deism, not theism. Deism is dumb, a product of fideism which holds that the spiritual/religious/ faith field and the ratio-scientific and empiriometric are separate spheres that don't enjoy intercourse (if you can imagine not enjoying intercourse). Bush is mostly a fideist, as are the majority of "religious" Americans. Catholics and Jews aren't generally. They are theists for the most part. Speaking about Bush, the political order is intrinsic to rational creatures, and the office of president insofar as it effectively serves the common good, is worthy of repect. An instituted office which provides an absurd ammount of power to a single fallible human being is extremely dangerous. Incidentally I consider an extremely naive democtatic institution which should be changed to something more rational. It too reflects the fideism, deism and "sola fides" history of the US. Call me an alarmist, but I can even envision an paranoid agressive agitated depressive fideist misusing the office, relying on a tame automobile-selling media to be the feel-good sychopants they are, and drag the entire country into a war on the basis of either hyped information or outright lies. I know I'm crazy to suggest such a thing could be possible, but hey. The office of the president such as it is deserves respect, Mr. Bush deserves respect just as do you and the people on death row in Texas, but everyone has a moral obligation to be help ensure that those in power are accurately reflected. I think Mr Bush gets just about the ammount of international respect that he deserves. That it is derisive is as it should be. The Emperor is indeed wearing no clothes. Don't fault the child for having the innocence to point it out. It should be noted however that Bush is probably doing about exactly as well as he can with his limits of character, intelligence and insight, and I am not his ememy. My he be warmly greeted in heaven with Gehngis Khan and Trotsky for doing the best he could with what he had and the gang he travlelled with. God is to be found within, in the still voice of conscience. We are all little bushes, shrubs in the desert. Of course some shrubs aren't quite as dangerously stupid and simple-minded as others |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jan 22, 2005 13:05:13 GMT -5
How does one select sections to respond to without quoting the whole piece, awe-inspiring as they unfailingly are. Simply bracket the selected text that you wish to reply to with the "quote" tag: [quote] Begin text...yadda yadda yadda...end text. [/quote] |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Jan 22, 2005 13:42:00 GMT -5
[quote]Simply bracket the selected text that you wish to reply to with the "quote" tag[quote]: Now let's see.....You'd think that by now, appearing stupid to the list should be the least of my worries. That horse left the barn a long time ago....Like that? By Jove! I think I've got it! Jeeves! Come quickly! I think I've invented the telephone and am on the line to England with your inventor! Merci Monsieur BoZo |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jan 22, 2005 13:58:55 GMT -5
Now let's see.....You'd think that by now, appearing stupid to the list should be the least of my worries. That horse left the barn a long time ago....Like that? By Jove! I think I've got it! Jeeves! Come quickly! I think I've invented the telephone and am on the line to England with your inventor! Merci Monsieur BoZo You're welcome, but don't forget to put a "/" in front of "quote" in the closing tag (sans quotation marks of course). |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jan 22, 2005 14:01:42 GMT -5
Jeeves! Come quickly! I think I've invented the telephone and am on the line to England with your inventor! Merci Monsieur BoZo Mr. Clinton! Come quickly! I think I've invented the Internet and am in line to become President! |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Jan 22, 2005 14:07:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Feb 16, 2005 1:02:08 GMT -5
Why did God create predators? How did they fit into the Grand Plan? Is this part of Intelligent Design? Enlighten me if you can.
|
|
