[Winstonm]

Quote

The resulting system is logically inconsistent. You postulate a god of infinite power and infinite love who created a ludicrous system where millions upon millions of people are damned for eternity because they were born in the wrong place or time.

My understanding is that Einstein believed in some form of afterlife because he accepted that the human body contained energy, energy cannot be destroyed, hence that energy must continue in some form after the death of the mortal body.

I hope I am not misrepresenting him as I claim this by memory only - and mine is certainly fallible.

Although this energy can be explained biologically as phosphate molecules moving down the electron transport chain and attaching to oxygen molecules as a final receptor, energy alone does not explain the entire complexity of the human biological system of thinking and problem solving - it requires energy to do these things, but no one in science today can totally explain the function of the brain and the cognitive powers of the human mind.

It is my belief that this transformation of energy into a useful cognitive final product is the godliness of mankind - or if you prefer the god image in which man was created. I think; therefore I am; similar to god.

And in that hypothesis, everyone on the planet, regardless of place of origin, is part of god, has a bit of god within them - and god would not condone himself to an everlasting furnace, so after death this god-part of man is reunited with the whole of god.

It may be wrong, but I find it more consistent with the extremely powerful spiritual teachings of AA and Al-anon, that to find god you look inside yourself because he was there all the time - the only thing that keeps you seperated is ego, or the self.

[luke warm]

[quote name='hrothgar' date='Feb 10 2007, 11:22 AM'] First: You and DrTodd both seem to maintain that "good deeds" are insufficient for salvation. Faith in Jesus as one's personal saviour is an absolute necessity. [/quote]
yes, it is necessary to believe that Jesus took our place... that he paid our debt... in this sense he is my (our) personal saviour... it has to do with the nature of sin, and the fact that no amount of work can absolve it
[quote]Second:  The existence of "god" can't be proved logically or empirically.  It boils down to a question of faith. For better or worse I, along with the vast majority of the people who have ever been born either don't have faith or believe something very different.[/quote]
you (this is my interpretation of scripture) were given sufficient faith to believe, but you are not forced to do so
[quote]Third:  At this this point in time, salvation boils down to making a lucky guess between a multitude of conflicting faiths, each with their own distinct set of beliefs, doctrines, and requirements.[/quote]
anyone who sincerely calls on God for salvation will be saved... this is my belief, and it has nothing to do with time or space or nationality or anything else
[quote]The resulting system is logically inconsistent.  You postulate a god of infinite power and infinite love who created a ludicrous system where millions upon millions of people are damned for eternity because they were born in the wrong place or time.[/quote]
i guess it depends on our level of understanding of the premises involved... i find the way to salvation to be very logical... as for 'millions upon millions', it is my belief that all have been given internal and external proofs of God's existence, and all who truly seek him will find him... also, you are more than qualified to read and understand dr. craig's work in this area, although i can fully understand if it holds no interest for you
[quote]This doesn't seem like something that I should be hoping for...[/quote]
strangely enough, all you really need *is* the hope of salvation to come to it
[quote name='winston']But my contention is that this severe of instilled fear is impossible to change, it is part of the subconscience and you react to it without knowing it or even knowing about it.[/quote]
possibly it is harder to change if one's indoctrination occurred at an early age.. i was 9 years old when i first went to church... so it could be different for me... in any case, i'd hesitate to say it's impossible to change... i don't think anyone can make that statement with anywhere near to certainty
[quote]Psychologists have confirmed this to me. One told me that this is religious abuse and is as damaging to the young as sexual abuse or physical abuse.[/quote]
and of course it's better to put our trust in psychologists? i will agree with you (and them) that such a thing as religious abuse exists, and even that it's quite possibly as damaging as sexual abuse... but in all of this discussion i'm speaking of christianity the way i view it... i fail to see the abuse involved in what i teach
[quote]Just trying to make logical sense of Mike's oft quoted remark. It is scripture, is it not? It is in black and white, direct, and easy to understand. One should not need a convoluted explanation of such a simple phrase. Mustard seeds have no faith - you need an equal amount. What is hard to understand about that?[/quote]
it isn't hard to understand... but is it hard to understand that your interpretation might be incorrect?
[quote]Religions make the negative assumption that then belief in christ is necessary - but where in that passage does it say that? If could just as easily occur automatically after death when no belief or attempt to live a virtuous life - and that is consistent with the passage. [/quote]
there are many passages that do show a belief in Jesus is necessary, as you know... you have chosen one and seem to be saying an absence of certain things in it disproves those things... richard mentioned logical inconsistency above...
[quote]The phase says, "have been saved." Regardless of what the hellfire and brimstone crowd tries to say, that very plainly states an action which has already occured - there is no futher action necessary. [/quote]
winston, paul is writing a letter to the ephesian christians, so of course he says they 'have been saved'... and for them, no further action was necessary... next he says how they were saved
[quote]"through faith" - this clearly mean the faith of god, not man. "[/quote]
so you believe, or were taught, that we are saved not thru our faith in God, but in God's faith in himself? no, paul is simply telling the ephesians the vehicle necessary for salvation, which is faith... he goes on to tell them that this faith wasn't something they had to produce on their own, God gave it to them... faith and salvation were free gifts
[quote]and this is not from yourselves" - well, duh, you just said that. "it is a gift from god" - in the sense that blond hair and blue eyes is a gift from god, something you do not have to accept because it is a done deal and you can't change it. [/quote]
the faith a man exercises was given to him by God... reading it your way makes no sense... unless i misunderstand you, you read it "God has given salvation to himself ... it's a free gift and he has also given himself the free gift of faith so that you believe it"... grace and faith are interjoined in this passage, both are gifts of God to man, not from God to himself
[quote]"not by works" - oh, so this gift cannot be earned - nor can it be spurned - works are irrelevant.[/quote]
yes, *for salvation*... i have not moved beyond salvation because it hasn't been necessary up to now... but we can't earn it and we can't deserve it, else it would not be by grace
[quote name='jikl']You were born in India, hell for you.
You were born in China, hell for you.
You were born in Indonesia, OK, hell for most of you.[/quote]
this is not true and does not show an understanding of salvation
[quote name='helene']1: While religion is irrational belief, so is almost every possible belief.[/quote]
do you really believe this to be true, helene?

[helene_t]

Winstonm, on Feb 10 2007, 07:10 PM, said:

My understanding is that Einstein believed in some form of afterlife because he accepted that the human body contained energy, energy cannot be destroyed, hence that energy must continue in some form after the death of the mortal body.

I hope I am not misrepresenting him as I claim this by memory only - and mine is certainly fallible.

Nope. Einstein was an atheist and he did not believe in an afterlife, see e.g. Carl Sagan.

You find energy everywhere, in fact everything is energy. Preservation of energy has nothing to do with preservation of life, let alone with the preservation of the "soul".

[helene_t]

luke warm, on Feb 10 2007, 07:23 PM, said:

helene said:

1: While religion is irrational belief, so is almost every possible belief.

do you really believe this to be true, helene?

Yes, I think that for the vast majority of people it's too difficult to think rationally about the vast majority of issues. For example, many intermediate-level bridge players have quite irrational beliefs about probabilities of suit splits, the reasoning behind bidding principles etc. Considering that
1) Bridge players tend to have above-average inteligence.
2) Bridge has well-defined rules and well-known evidence.
3) Bridge players tend to think a lot about bridge
I think it's obvious that most people are unable to think rationally about much more complex issues such as the meaning of life, the nature of consciousness and the origin of the symmetry in the Universe.

Maybe my standards for "rationality" are unreasonably high. Rationality is probably to be measured on a grey scale, and some irrational ideas are less irrational than others.

I happen to be a scientist and as such I'm trained to think reasonably rationaly about scientific issues. But with regard to most everyday issues (what to eat, what job to apply for, with whom to fall in love etc.) I think almost 100% intuitively.

[luke warm]

helene_t, on Feb 10 2007, 12:38 PM, said:

luke warm, on Feb 10 2007, 07:23 PM, said:

helene said:

1: While religion is irrational belief, so is almost every possible belief.

do you really believe this to be true, helene?

Yes, I think that for the vast majority of people it's too difficult to think rationally about the vast majority of issues.

then is your belief in its truthfulness irrational, or is this one of the rational ones? if so, is one to subjectively choose those beliefs to be termed rational and those to be termed irrational?

[helene_t]

luke warm, on Feb 10 2007, 07:45 PM, said:

then is your belief in its truthfulness irrational, or is this one of the rational ones? if so, is one to subjectively choose those beliefs to be termed rational and those to be termed irrational?

Lol, if I have to default to intuition when judging the rationality of a theory, I'm on deep water. Maybe I should stop posting about knowledge in the abstract and stick to my own field.

No, seriously, when I wrote this I was more concerned with the reason somebody has to accept ("believe" is a too strong word for me) some idea. Consider
1) "I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster because I consider it the most plausible explanation for my personal spiritual experience"
2) "I don't believe in Flying Spaghetti Monster because my science teacher says He doesn't exist and I have to believe my science teacher to get good marks".

I have more sympathy for 1). Maybe "rational" is the wrong word, not sure .....

[Winstonm]

Quote

I often found myself regretting that I was unable to believe in God, since a religion might have filled up the slot in my mind that unfortunately became infected with the Marxist mind-virus. It has cost me a long struggle to get rid of that mind-virus.

I have deep empathy for what you went through as a child, Helene. It is unfortunate that mankind is so fallible and often children are raised by those trying to do the right thing by continuation of their instilled beliefs - a continuum of terror.

I have strong beliefs that there is a massive distinction between religion and spirituality. Everyone has the ability to be spiritual - religion is a manmade product
reflecting heirarchy and thus limited to those who are willing to conform to that structure. Had you had early religious training, one mind-virus would have been replaced by another type is all that would have occured - or maybe it's a pathogenic bacteria.

A recovered, seiriously hopeless alcoholic wrote an interesting book on the subject of spirituality entitled: A New Pair of Glasses. A lot of my beliefs came from that book. In it is this key phrase: the only thing that stands between you and me and me and god is ego.

The point being that he believed that god was part of everyone, as natural as our lungs and liver, and the only thing that kept the body and spirit apart was self, or micromanaging every aspect of our lives - being our own god.

In this theory, all you have to do is pretend to accept the concept of a power greater than yourself, act on that pretense, and then get self out of the way and let this pretend concept solve the big problems - it requires no faith but action. It requires no belief. His contention was once you get self out of the way, even a little bit by pretense, then the vacated area will be filled by god who was there all the time. And the god who fills that space is your own perception of what god should be - not what someone else teaches about god.

Whether you believe your mind can create god or god changes to accomodate your image is irrelevant - the only relevant issue is to stop self from blocking the god you would like to have there.

The book's title: A New Pair of Glasses, came from this man's personal experience with his homosexual son - for years they had clashed and argued, the father not accepting his son as he was and constantly trying to change his son's behavior. And then one day he saw his son is a new light, just another human being who like himself had his own foibles, frailities, and problems - and he realized in that instant of acceptance of his son that all that had changed was his own perception - his son was the same person.

Point being that no one has any control over anything other than their perceptions - and when you percieve yourself to be in need of a higher power and get self out of the way, you find that the higher power had been a part of you the whole time, and it had only been your perception of self-importance that had kept you in the dark.

[hrothgar]

>as for 'millions upon millions', it is my belief that all have been given internal and >external proofs of God's existence, and all who truly seek him will find him

>yes, it is necessary to believe that Jesus took our place... that he paid our debt...
>in this sense he is my (our) personal saviour... it has to do with the nature
>of sin, and the fact that no amount of work can absolve it

What if we conducted the following experiment:

We take 100 new born babies. We raise them in a completely controlled environment and create a brand new society out on a deserted island somewhere. We ensure that there is absolutely no contamination with any information related to Jesus, Christianity, what have you. We allow this society to grow and flourish for 100 years. At the end of 100 years, we conduct extensive interviews with all the inhabitants and poll them to determine whether they have independently developed the concept of a personal saviour who died for our sins.

I would argue that if the society spontaneously developed something resembling the Nicene creed this would be powerful evidence that something is going on. However, if the society did not develop these concepts, I'd argue that either

1. God doesn't exist
2. If God does exist, he's not especially benevolent (after all, he's letting a whole bunch of innocent babies burn through no fault of their own)

Needless to say, we can't conduct these types of experiments on new born babies. At the same time, we do have historical records about the belief systems that existed all across the world before the Christianity reached them...

Guess what they looked like (More accurately, guess what they didn't look like)

[Winstonm]

helene_t, on Feb 10 2007, 12:27 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Feb 10 2007, 07:10 PM, said:

My understanding is that Einstein believed in some form of afterlife because he accepted that the human body contained energy, energy cannot be destroyed, hence that energy must continue in some form after the death of the mortal body.

I hope I am not misrepresenting him as I claim this by memory only - and mine is certainly fallible. 

Nope. Einstein was an atheist and he did not believe in an afterlife, see e.g. Carl Sagan.

You find energy everywhere, in fact everything is energy. Preservation of energy has nothing to do with preservation of life, let alone with the preservation of the "soul".

Yes, that I knew - but I thought his thinking was that the energy of body could not be destroyed so must continue after life ends - not that he believed in any type of christian afterlife, as such. Just that energy continues after death.

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Feb 10 2007, 08:23 PM, said:

also, you are more than qualified to read and understand dr. craig's work in this area, although i can fully understand if it holds no interest for you

I just read the transcript for the debate between Dr Craig and Dr Ehrman from their debate at Holy Cross.

http://www.holycross.edu/departments/crec/...-transcript.pdf

I didn't find his arguments convincing.

[luke warm]

helene_t, on Feb 10 2007, 12:53 PM, said:

luke warm, on Feb 10 2007, 07:45 PM, said:

then is your belief in its truthfulness irrational, or is this one of the rational ones? if so, is one to subjectively choose those beliefs to be termed rational and those to be termed irrational?

Lol, if I have to default to intuition when judging the rationality of a theory, I'm on deep water. Maybe I should stop posting about knowledge in the abstract and stick to my own field.

No, seriously, when I wrote this I was more concerned with the reason somebody has to accept ("believe" is a too strong word for me) some idea. Consider
1) "I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster because I consider it the most plausible explanation for my personal spiritual experience"
2) "I don't believe in Flying Spaghetti Monster because my science teacher says He doesn't exist and I have to believe my science teacher to get good marks".

I have more sympathy for 1). Maybe "rational" is the wrong word, not sure .....

ok... what do you think of plantinga's definition of knowledge? it concerns proper function, warrant, and true belief... iow, knowledge is a warranted true belief from a properly functioning mind (i have *vastly* understated his views)... he is a highly respected philosopher who happens to be a christian... he has spent decades in his field, and he is not underestimated by his ideological foes

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on Feb 10 2007, 01:25 PM, said:

luke warm, on Feb 10 2007, 08:23 PM, said:

also, you are more than qualified to read and understand dr. craig's work in this area, although i can fully understand if it holds no interest for you

I just read the transcript for the debate between Dr Craig and Dr Ehrman from their debate at Holy Cross.

http://www.holycross.edu/departments/crec/...-transcript.pdf

I didn't find his arguments convincing.

why not? he has had many debates, and is a worthy foe (some would say feared)

[helene_t]

luke warm, on Feb 10 2007, 08:25 PM, said:

ok... what do you think of plantinga's definition of knowledge?

I'm not familiar with it. The fact that he's an Intelligen Design proponent doesn't serve as a recomendation but of course he could be OK in other fields. Anyway, as a scientist my immediate association with the word "knowledge" is either scientific knowledge, or knowledge as a psychological phenomena. I don't know what the word "knowledge" usually means in a theological context so I guess I wouldn't have a qualified opinion about Plantinga's knowledge concept, which seems to be a theological one.

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Feb 10 2007, 09:28 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Feb 10 2007, 01:25 PM, said:

luke warm, on Feb 10 2007, 08:23 PM, said:

also, you are more than qualified to read and understand dr. craig's work in this area, although i can fully understand if it holds no interest for you

I just read the transcript for the debate between Dr Craig and Dr Ehrman from their debate at Holy Cross.

http://www.holycross.edu/departments/crec/...-transcript.pdf

I didn't find his arguments convincing.

why not? he has had many debates, and is a worthy foe (some would say feared)

Heading out to see Pan's Labrynth, followed by dinner at Redbones. I'll try to provide a more detailed response later on. However, to me, it boils down to the following:

The core of Craig's presentation is based on discussion of "4 Historical Facts"

1. Jesus was buried
2. The Discovery of the Empty Tomb
3. His post-mortem appearance
4. The origin of the disciples belief in his resurrection

I don't think that Craig was able to establish that these facts were true. I felt that Ehrlich constructed (plausible) alternative explanations with better explantory power.

To make a gross oversimplification, Ehrlich argues that the Gospels are largely inaccurate. I felt that Ehrlich's concluding paragraph on page 29 particularly convincing. (It starts with the words "Let me conclude by telling you what I really do think about Jesus' ressurection" and ends with the start of the Q+A session)

[pbleighton]

"Heading out to see Pan's Labrynth"

When you come back, did you like it?

I thought it was great.

Peter

[Winstonm]

Quote

yes, it is necessary to believe that Jesus took our place... that he paid our debt... in this sense he is my (our) personal saviour... it has to do with the nature of sin, and the fact that no amount of work can absolve it

anyone who sincerely calls on God for salvation will be saved... this is my belief, and it has nothing to do with time or space or nationality or anything else

These two statements seem paradoxical. Are you claiming a corollary to: I and the Father are One? Belief in god automatically includes belief in jesus, even if you don't know it or acknowledge it?

Quote

possibly it is harder to change if one's indoctrination occurred at an early age.. i was 9 years old when i first went to church... so it could be different for me... in any case, i'd hesitate to say it's impossible to change... i don't think anyone can make that statement with anywhere near to certainty

QUOTE 
Psychologists have confirmed this to me. One told me that this is religious abuse and is as damaging to the young as sexual abuse or physical abuse.


and of course it's better to put our trust in psychologists? i will agree with you (and them) that such a thing as religious abuse exists, and even that it's quite possibly as damaging as sexual abuse... but in all of this discussion i'm speaking of christianity the way i view it... i fail to see the abuse involved in what i teach

Yes, the earlier ages are more critical in establishing world view - ages 2, 3, 4, 5.
Perceptions, reactions, and base instictual causations instilled at these ages are impossible to change - they can be overcome, but not changed. To overcome them, you have to recognize their existence and understand your own reactions to certain events - then cognitively, you can chose to ignore these base feelings.

Yes, I put more faith in psychologists to understand psychology, as I place more faith in a nuclear scientist to understand nuclear fusion.

I did not say you abused. But if to instill a belief system a person uses terror of retribution on a child of 2, 3, 4, and 5 then that is abuse.

Quote

it isn't hard to understand... but is it hard to understand that your interpretation might be incorrect?

This is the point, is it not - why would I need an interpretation of a straightforward phrase? Wasn't this the reason Martin Luther posted the bible for all to read?

Is it possible you are "forced" into making an interpretation because otherwise the statement does not adhere to your views?

I think it is pretty clear cut. Mustard seeds are incapable of faith. But if you believe faith a necessary ingredient of salvation, then you would have to interpret this phrase to fit that view. It seems to me yours the more convoluted effort, IMHO.

[mike777]

pbleighton, on Feb 10 2007, 01:48 PM, said:

"Heading out to see Pan's Labrynth"

When you come back, did you like it?

I thought it was great.

Peter

Great Movie

Hmm I thought Luther posted some 95 things on some door in Wittenberg or something?

What did Guttenburg(sp) publish?

[Winstonm]

Quote

Hmm I thought Luther posted some 95 things on some door in Wittenberg or something?

Brain gets ahead of fingers.

[akhare]

pbleighton, on Feb 10 2007, 01:48 PM, said:

"Heading out to see Pan's Labrynth"

When you come back, did you like it?

I thought it was great.

Peter

I saw it last week and thought it was pretty good, but nothing to rave about.

BTW, while we are on the topic of movies that deal with faith, what do people things about the following:

1) The Ninth Configuration: I thought it was very good, but the last 2 minutes ruined it for me (may be absent from some versions)

2) Breaking the Waves

3) Babette's feast

Also, what do people think about "Au hasard Balthazar"?

[Al_U_Card]

Guttenburg used the first movable type press to print the bible. Luther posted his 90 Theses on a church door.