Okay now I have a question (if it sounds familiar it is because I just Plagerized Mark )
Ok my skeptical friends
What is the quality and quantity of evidence that you can provide in order to show that there IS NOT a supernatural entity that is spiritual (i.e., not consisting of matter) and non-corporeal (i.e., does not occupy a finite space) in nature? Keep in mind that this evidence would, by nature, have to be effects consequent to the non -existence of this entity,.
i mean...all this talk of truth and proof and whatnot...
i find myself skeptical of the actual quality of the "skepticism" going on
and second, it seems striking to me how the usual argument goes around and around these days
(and not just here)
often limited to "is there a god behind the curtain...or is there nothing behind the curtain"
as if it covers every possibility and farthest range of logical reasoning
i mean...is it possible that there are there unexplored options besides those same basic two positions?"
anyone?
Todd,
I have done the neti neti exercises a long, long, long time ago when I was in college. They weren't called that, but the same format was done to prepare the mind to go into a transcendental state for meditation. It's a useful exercise. A similar exercise was taught as part of a progressive relaxation regimen. The basic mental skills one learns through these exercises is useful when a person wishes to deeply contemplate any given subject, be it the existence of God, the derivation of pi, or a particularly difficult problem. The ability to consciously shut out distractions allows one to concentrate particularly deeply on one specific subject and can help one develop incredible clarity in recognizing a solution set.
Let me suggest another contemplative technique that you might enjoy. I have mentioned it on another thread a while ago, but am not sure that you read it. The technique is called Lectio Divina. It means literally "divine reading." It is a meditative reading of scripture that allows the reader to slowly enjoy the scripture and to allow God to speak to the reader through that slow, prayerful reading. Its origins can be traced back to the second century AD, but it gained popularity Saint Benedict, the founder of western monasticism (from around 500 AD). There are essentially four key activities to this:
lectio (reading), where one reads slowly, deliberately, and prayerfully the text selected. Some schools of thought have the person read normally a whole section of scripture until one passage stands out -- that passage is the one selected for the 'lectio.' This deliberate reading is repeated several times until it is understood by the reader.
meditatio (meditation), where the reader then ponders this scripture in his heart. Ruminate on it. Think about it. Allow it to interact with your thoughts. Personalize it.
oratio (prayer), where the reader takes the product of that meditation and offers it up to God, asking God to inculcate that scripture into the reader's heart.
contemplatio (contemplation), where the reader just sits in silence, in the glow of the presence of God, allowing God to work.
Keep in mind that externally through the first three phases, all an observer would see is the person repeating the passage over and over again. There is no distinct shift from one phase to another in this process...it just happens.
Anyway, fwiw, maybe you would get some enjoyment out of this technique. You can google lectio divina if you'd like or check out this link if you'd like. Try it a few times and let me know what you think.
Okay now I have a question (if it sounds familiar it is because I just Plagerized Mark )
Ok my skeptical friends
What is the quality and quantity of evidence that you can provide in order to show that there IS NOT a supernatural entity that is spiritual (i.e., not consisting of matter) and non-corporeal (i.e., does not occupy a finite space) in nature? Keep in mind that this evidence would, by nature, have to be effects consequent to the non -existence of this entity,.
Mo, it is not now nor has it ever been my intention to claim, much less prove, that a supernatural entity doesn't exist. My position is that I don't know. I would love to know that I know that I know but that is just not my experience. Hence this topic.
I'm open to there being a God. If He exists, how do we know Him? Can we know Him? Is the bible reliable? If there is no God, as the topic proposes for discussion purposes, what are the other options? How does one deal with that conclusion? Is there something inside us driving us to the spiritual so that we need to fulfill that desire with something else? Is there life after confronting the inconsistencies of the bible and those who claim to speak for God?
These are the types of questions that are going through my head and that I'm hoping to spark some discussion on. Its not about God not existing.
i would even go as far as to say that the kinds of practice of "negative theology" and "witnessing techniques" date back as far as the era of Abraham, though it also seems to have appeared in most of the world's cultures, to some degree
which is a simple but radical deepening of our own subjectivity, which is useful prior to any thing else we do...from Lectio Divina to changing baby diapers
like becoming aware of awareness itself...rather than merely aware of things
like "when the fish finally sees how wet it is"
"I AM" is what the ancients often said when they realized that there is no "God," per se
the "ultimate ground of all being" is another term given to it
or "spirit as ultimate emptiness"
or "the final starting point"
to use a happy paradox
and it seems too, like "contemplation" and "meditation" have a lot of the same basic forms
archetypical variations in objective and subjective focusing and relaxing
and other crazy things the monastics did as they sat and died
often mistaken for religion by both science and religion
The basic mental skills one learns through these exercises is useful when a person wishes to deeply contemplate any given subject, be it the existence of God, the derivation of pi, or a particularly difficult problem. The ability to consciously shut out distractions allows one to concentrate particularly deeply on one specific subject and can help one develop incredible clarity in recognizing a solution set.
yes yes...true, like the kid said
which is to say..."but, also..and, to add..."etc...
i think it is pretty much true of most contemplation and meditation
that even if one actually finds a way to use it to reach those kinds of states
how we interpret and reinterpret the experiences varies wildly, and naturally so
all of which is then further complicated by the distinctions between temporary states and permenant stages, etc...
and then notions of ascending and descending styles, whatnot...
I'm open to there being a God. If He exists, how do we know Him? Can we know Him? Is the bible reliable? If there is no God, as the topic proposes for discussion purposes, what are the other options? How does one deal with that conclusion? Is there something inside us driving us to the spiritual so that we need to fulfill that desire with something else? Is there life after confronting the inconsistencies of the bible and those who claim to speak for God
If He exists, how do we know Him?
The same way you get to know anyone. In His case you read the scriptures you talk to him (informal prayer) You look for signs of his presence ...A dragonfly unfurling its wings, a sunset, that sudden peace that comes over you and you realize that everything at least for today is gong to be okay... it isn't going to happen all at once (few of us have a Damascus in our lives). But just as you would strive to get to know a person who you wanted in your life you need to work on getting to know God. Too many people think of God as a hidden Lucy Van Pelt with her "5 cents please" sign out.
Can we know Him?
We can know him on a superficial level or we can feel him as a constant presence, we can visit occasionally , or not at all. You can know Him as well as you desire to
Is the Bible reliable?
If you mean 100% infallible--I don't believe that--but we put our trust everyday in things far more fallible--the brakes on our cars, the smoke detectors in our houses, the pilot of the plane--with no problem. The Bible was never intended to be a one stop fix-it-all
If there is no God, as the topic proposes for discussion purposes, what are the other options?
There are no other options-either there is a supreme deity or there isn't. Even if you accept a multitude of deity's the issues are the same. SO it is a pretty back and white issue in terms of whether it is real or not
How does one deal with that conclusion?
If you don't believe in a deity there is nothing to deal with ....you just go on about your business
Is there something inside us driving us to the spiritual so that we need to fulfill that desire with something else?
That is kind of a catch 22 --If you feel the drive to fulfill a spiritual need in your life--that would be the Holy Spirit trying to get through. So if you have that feeling and desire the mere fact you have it would prove the existence of GOD since with out God there would be no Holy Spirit. If on the other hand you feel the desire and the drive and refuse simultaneously to believe there is A God , Holy Spirit, Jesus Christ connection then you are left with the conundrum fog of why you have this desire to connect with something that is not real.
Is there life after confronting the inconsistencies of the bible and those who claim to speak for God
Of course, unless you add cyanide to your breakfast cereal--sorry I don't mean to sound flip but you do have freedom of choice... rejection of God does not mean that He is going to hurl lightening bolts at you ala Zeus.
I Guess my point is that if you are still doing all this questioning, at some level you know there is a God you just aren't sure how to make him more real in your life. I have met true Atheists and agnostics ...they have no questions about their beliefs, just as I have no questions about my belief that Gods is real.
Not much really, I mean, in contrast to biblical accounts, almost nothing. Just verified, tangible, reproduceable evidence. The kind of stuff that WayWorld promised but never delivered. Prayer that worked EVERY time (yes, holy wonderful, selfless, Godly kinda prayer would be fine) in a predictable manner. Hell, that'd be enough right there. And why not? Does God have some sort of affinity for the gullible?
And if that's asking too much, then what SHOULDN'T we beieve? I mean, if looking for evidence is evil, then BigFoot must be real, Buddha too, and cold fusion is a reality, right? There must be some sort of criteria for what to believe, no? Why do we accept The Bible but reject the Koran? Or the Bhagavahgita? Or the sayings of Buddha? Is it all just how God works in your heart? If so, how do you know you're not just suffering from delusions?
And really Mark, the quotes you highlighted as being so derisive and obnoxious, geeze, I guess we really do live in alternate universes, as I don't even know what you found offensive about them. O.K. "Biblethumper" is probably not the best choice of epithets, but other than that what? You find it offensive that I've never seen the miraculous come to pass? Well, I haven't.
And I thought we WERE having a pleasant discussion. Whaddu I know?
And Mo, to paraphrase Carl Sagan, suppose I told you I had an invisible fire-breathing dragon in my garage, would you feel obligated to prove that I don't? I wouldn't think so. The obligation for proof is on the one making the assertion. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, or so I've heard...
Not much really, I mean, in contrast to biblical accounts, almost nothing. Just verified, tangible, reproduceable evidence. The kind of stuff that WayWorld promised but never delivered. Prayer that worked EVERY time (yes, holy wonderful, selfless, Godly kinda prayer would be fine) in a predictable manner. Hell, that'd be enough right there. And why not? Does God have some sort of affinity for the gullible?
And if that's asking too much, then what SHOULDN'T we beieve? I mean, if looking for evidence is evil, then BigFoot must be real, Buddha too, and cold fusion is a reality, right? There must be some sort of criteria for what to believe, no? Why do we accept The Bible but reject the Koran? Or the Bhagavahgita? Or the sayings of Buddha? Is it all just how God works in your heart? If so, how do you know you're not just suffering from delusions?
And really Mark, the quotes you highlighted as being so derisive and obnoxious, geeze, I guess we really do live in alternate universes, as I don't even know what you found offensive about them. O.K. "Biblethumper" is probably not the best choice of epithets, but other than that what? You find it offensive that I've never seen the miraculous come to pass? Well, I haven't.
And I thought we WERE having a pleasant discussion. Whaddu I know?
And Mo, to paraphrase Carl Sagan, suppose I told you I had an invisible fire-breathing dragon in my garage, would you feel obligated to prove that I don't? I wouldn't think so. The obligation for proof is on the one making the assertion. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, or so I've heard...
And I thought we were having a normal discussion, but I was getting reproved for being insensitive.
I cited the three examples that I did earlier because they have been studied with scientific rigor. With both the shroud and the tilma, both have been subjected to intense scrutiny and the results are that the images on both cannot be explained with the technology that was available when the objects came into existence. Neither can be explained as the result of natural phenomena. I could go into detail and provide you with links documenting these analyses, but the fact remains that they are both simply effects and don't put God into a petrie dish for examination.
The miraculous healings at Lourdes are another example of an effect. In the modern day and age, for a healing to be declared to be a 'miraculous healing,' there are very tight criteria that must be met. First, the person's medical condition preceding the healing must be completely and unambiguously documented. Then, the person's medical condition must be completely and unambiguously documented after the 'healing'. Then an exhaustive search is done to rule out any possibility of a medical treatment having an impact on the person's cure. Only after any possibility of a medical cure is ruled out and the fact that the person is healed of a condition positively verified is the cure declared a 'miracle.' There have been thousands of 'cures' reported, but only 67 of them met these stringent criteria. That's not to say that the others did or did not happen, many have never been investigated and others have had some defect in the case that would allow a skeptic to possibly dismiss them. Again, there have been independent studies done on these cases. Those cures officially identified have not been debunked. At a minimum, they have been attributed as 'unknown' or a 'statistical anomaly.' But again, the fact remains that they are effects of God and don't allow a scientist to put got into a test tube (as opposed to a petrie dish) for spectroscopic examination.
On all of the above, I can provide you links and recommend books. None of them are "mary in a grilled cheese sandwich" -- they are extensively documented and rigorously studied. But since the best they can do is show 'effects' and aren't verified, tangible, reproduceable evidence, I would imagine that none of them would meet your criteria.
There are many, many other cases out there that I am familiar with. Many are documented, but not as extensively as the above so I won't even bother to mention them. Apparations can be written off as mass hysteria, so why bother going there. A person's personal testimony of being healed or experiencing some sort of 'miracle' is likewise subject to scorn.
If I read you correctly, you want to be able to reach out and touch God...to put Him on a scale and say that he weighs 513.21 kg and measures 2134.5 mm in length and resides at 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202 (the devil may reside there, but I highly doubt that God does ). I can't ever do that. God's characteristics don't lend themselves to measurement (spiritual, noncorporeal). I don't know of any religion more advanced than the primitive polytheistic religions, such as those from ancient Greece, ancient Egypt, and ancient Rome that would assign such limited scope to God. And if that's what you're looking for, I can't help you.
When I approach something like what I listed above, I always approach it from a skeptical attitude. There are a lot of charlatans out there and a lot of crackpots out there. But I don't out-and-out deny them because I recognize that miracles have happened in the past and see no reason why they can't happen in the present. So maybe I'm gullible enough to be satisfied with the criteria listed for miraculous healings, above. And so on...
You said,
The kind of stuff that WayWorld promised but never delivered. Prayer that worked EVERY time (yes, holy wonderful, selfless, Godly kinda prayer would be fine) in a predictable manner.
Is that the issue, George? You got burnt by TWI and the faulty theology they taught? (and I'm talking Mike-type doctrine, I'm not even talking about screwed-up practice, like your wife getting raped by Rev so and so or whatever) And then figured that the whole concept of religion, in of itself, is crap? If that's the case, I think I can understand, after a fashion.
As to which religion is correct, well, I'm obviously biased. I've briefly looked at Hinduism, Taoism, and Buddhism when I was in college. Not studied them, per se, but examined them. They have several good tendencies, particularly the emphasis on the transcendent vice the temporal. I studied Islam when I lived in Turkey...I didn't convert and had no real interest in doing so, but I wanted to understand the religion. And the way the imam that I met with explained it to me, it had some compelling points, particularly the surrender of the WHOLE being to God. There were a lot of good cultural things I saw from it: for example, banks cannot charge interest on loans (interest being identified as usury). Rather they charge a flat fee for borrowing money. One thing he explained, though, was that there was no caliphate...therefore, there were as many interpretations of Islam as there were Imams. He equated that to Protestantism in Christianity...a thought I found sort of humorous. I've listened to Morman missionaries. Respectfully, too. Again, there are a lot of strengths to their beliefs and the application of those beliefs. But not my cup of tea. I used to have a Wiccan girlfriend years and years ago. She taught me a lot about Wicca...but again, not my cup of tea.
I said elsewhere here that it all comes down to two things: love God with the whole heart, mind, soul, with all that you are. And love your neighbor as yourself. It's my belief that God will show incredible mercy to all who truly obey those two commandments, whether Christian or not. It's also my belief that there will be a lot of people who call themselves Christians but pay only a passing regard to those two commandments will find themselves surprised. That's not fear-mongering or some kind of a veiled threat; it's just an opinion.
If so, how do you know you're not just suffering from delusions?
Bottom line for me: I can't really know for sure, so I always consider it as a possibility.
I'm open to spiritual and/or supernatural experiences, but I'm not open to gettting played for a sucker. If I hear a voice telling me to "be still and enjoy the beautiful sunset", it doesn't much matter if I'm deluded, or some bad drugs are finally kicking in; but if the voice says "give all your money to a ministry that is teaching the accuracy of God's Word", I'll consider the delusion angle a little more seriously.
Assume that there is no God?
I have no problem with that, nor do I have a problem with there being one. If there is or isn't a God is not determined by what I think.
Ethics, love, compassion, all manner of good works speak louder when they are done altruistically, rather than because that is what some deity expects. This is not to say that religious faith taints any of thse actions, but that purely humanistic motives can be just as great.
I said elsewhere here that it all comes down to two things: love God with the whole heart, mind, soul, with all that you are. And love your neighbor as yourself. It's my belief that God will show incredible mercy to all who truly obey those two commandments, whether Christian or not. It's also my belief that there will be a lot of people who call themselves Christians but pay only a passing regard to those two commandments will find themselves surprised. That's not fear-mongering or some kind of a veiled threat; it's just an opinion.
well said
and mostly cuz i think i know what you mean
but so...where does that leave all the many many branches of christianity?
and many many branches of catholicism?
and many many hybrid and blends of and with all those other exotic isms?
how do we know what is good?
what is true?
beautiful?
if language and interpretation is something beside behaviour?
You're serious about the shroud of Turin and the healings at Lourdes? Well, we have some rather divergent reading material, I'll guarantee. The sources I've read said that yes, the shroud had been tested, rather extensively, and was shown to be a painting done on a 13th century piece of cloth. One researcher even went to the extent of reproducing the painting and, in wrapping it around a 3-dimensional object (like a body) found that the image was indeed two-dimensional and did not conform to an object in 3-d. YEARS later it again became a cause celeb amongst some decidedly biased group of folks, whose only defense seemed to be to denigrate the scientific evidence. And even if none of that was the case, what connection does that clothe have to Jesus of Nazareth? It's beyond silly...
And Lourdes, I confess to not reading much about it at all, other than seeing the movie of St. Bernadette (is that the right saint?) and finding out how much she suffered in silence, so, yeah, she was deserving of sainthood. I guess God likes it when people suffer? I dunno, I never figured out how that worked. "Oh, you've suffered a WHOLE BUNCH, let's put a gold star by your name!" Maybe the movie did a poor job of portraying the actual events.
But out of the thousands (millions?) that have been there over the last 150 years, we get what? Sixty-something people who claim to be healed? How is this comforting or reassuring to the faithful? Wouldn't they have better luck with a lottery ticket? Gawd, Benny Hinn heals every damn body, never misses.
And no, the issue isn't that I got "burnt" by WayWorld theology. I'd been burnt long before I got involved with those goons (though, admittedly, they didn't help any). I was pretty much an agnostic when the cute young girl came along and offered me her foot in exchange for taking "the class", but I digress. Even as an eight-year-old kid, sitting in a Methodist church basement, doing the "childrens' Bible study" routine, I often asked the "wrong" questions. "How do we know we have the right religion?", "If God loves everybody, why do people suffer and die?" "Why do babies die?", and such like. No, I never got satisfying answers then, either. Got a lot of hemming and hawwing, and a lot of spin, "It's all part of God's Plan", etc.
But in The Bible, if it is what it claims to be, God's Holy Word, there's all kinds of miraculous stuff that happens all the time. Peter and the disciples get to see Jesus walking on water, healing the sick, RAISING THE DEAD! Sheesh, that would be cool. But what do we get, "Yeah, you prayed for so and so, and they died anyway, but it's all part of God's PLAN!" Yeah, I'm underwhelmed...
And for all of that, doesn't it just make a whole helluva lot more sense that the world's religions are simply the expressions of an ignorant and desperate bunch of people? People who lived in an absolutely brutal environment with little or no knowledge of biology, geology, astronomy, and desperate to garner whatever edge they can. So they cook up superstitions. They paid obeisance to an invisible friend who would protect them. And in their position, who would dare not? But to hang onto those fanciful notions today, sorry, I can't do it anymore. That is, unless you've got some proof...
but so...where does that leave all the many many branches of christianity?
and many many branches of catholicism?
and many many hybrid and blends of and with all those other exotic isms?
how do we know what is good?
what is true?
beautiful?
if language and interpretation is something beside behaviour?
Thanks.
As to the many different spin-offs, there are many different rites within the Catholic Church. Not just the Latin Rite that is so familiar here in the west. Many of those rites have parishes in this country, just not nearly as many as are in the Latin Rite. And, you know, it really doesn't matter so much. Even though the worship services are different, they are considered "particular churches" within the Universal Church.
There are many schismatic groups out there as well. Even though these groups are schismatic and adamantly refuse to be in union with the Universal Church, there is still one Universal Church. I personally view it as a case of the pride of man causing the schisms, but that's just my understanding of it. Blessed be God for His providence in preserving the degree of truth that is still passed on through these separated groups and my prayer is for them to again come back to be subjectively within the Universal Church at some point in time.
As far is the other -isms, there has always been a bunch of -isms. Any of them contain some element of truth to them, some more than others, but in any case that I know of, there is 'something.' Again, my view of things.
How do we know what is good, true, beautiful? Again, my view: there is one God who created the universe. My understanding is that God is supremely good and that He made His creation good. And when I look at something, I try to view things in that light. However, at the risk of being called pollyanish, I recognize that, as the result of the free will that God has allowed (how can there be love if not through free will), there has also been pride in the world since the beginning. And, in an ultimate sense, that pride, with its accompanying arrogance, despair, egoism and the actions/ behaviors that have resulted from all of the above, are the ultimate cause of that in creation which does not reflect the goodness of God.
This is why I didn't want to get into this in the first place. For any 'evidence' I can supply, you can discount it. And I knew that before I started. If you'll re-read what I wrote, I clearly stated that I could not empircally prove the existence of God and that all I could do would be to identify verified effects, but that those would likely be discounted (And George, I know you're not interested, but this is for other readers: they could look at: http://www.shroudstory.com/ for a ready list of information on the shroud) And, by the way, for the record, each thing you've said about the shroud is, in fact, patently and provably incorrect.
To reiterate (ad nauseum), I am not trying to convince you of anything. The bottom line, in my experience, as I have said before, is that a person is going to believe what he is going to believe and there is really little, without divine intervention, that another person is going to be able to do to change that fact. If a person chooses to believe in God, there are things that will help affirm that faith (I called them evidences of effect). If a person chooses to not believe in God, the same things will be interpreted differently to help affirm his skepticism. Nothing I can do about that.
St. Thomas had to actually feel the holes in the resurrected Lord's hands before he'd believe. Had St. Thomas been a true skeptic, he would have said that this was the Lord's identical twin and that he drove nails through his own hands to produce an elaborate fraud. That's just the way it is.
Rather than wasting any more of my time in making long posts that will not accomplish anything and wasting your time in reading those posts and responding, I'd rather just shake hands and move on.
and i cant tell ya how much i appreciate your even manner, mark
although, i hafta say, your last post in response to me was such a compact chunk of answers, it inspired within me a half dozen off topic questions worth a thread of their own...mostly as they relate to the notions of an exclusive universal church, the various ways of union and seperation and heresy and spin-offs, and the value of texts and textual ethnocentricity
and i hate to say it, but your response to my little package of questions sounded more like a pamphlet, to me...it didn't really address the "how" of the question, imo, especially as it relates to the main thrust of this thread
Since the assertion of this thread is "Assume there is no GOd' I would say that that places the burden of proof squarely in the non believing camp
Mo, you really need to pay more attention to the content of the posts. Nobody here is attempting to prove God doesn't exist. I'm glad your faith works for you but some of us can't get to that place based on our current understanding of religion, spirituality and the world around us. And its not for lack of trying. Pat answers about reading scripture just don't cut it anymore. Been there, done that. It doesn't fit. What now?
Mo, you really need to pay more attention to the content of the posts. Nobody here is attempting to prove God doesn't exist. I'm glad your faith works for you but some of us can't get to that place based on our current understanding of religion, spirituality and the world around us. And its not for lack of trying. Pat answers about reading scripture just don't cut it anymore. Been there, done that. It doesn't fit. What now?
Sorry, bad day
I guess what confuses me still is why you are still trying if you believe there is nothing there. ???
Iif you believe that something is there maybe you need to try less and relax and let God do the work. I know that seems simplistic--but what I see is a never ending round of, Prayer, reading , agonizing, and frustration. It's not like that--it is a peace- a feeling that no matter what your back is covered. Stop battering at the gates of heaven as it were--I think the door is already open it's just that YOU are so busy doing that God hasn't had a chance to get a word in edgewise.
This is not a put down--been there myself many times. You just have to let go and one day you'll be pottering around and go "Gee I wish..."and lo and behold it will happen.
By letting go you can't say "okay GOD I'm letting go now but If nothing has happened by Thursday...." letting go means letting go
I hope this helps I really do--I I hope it doesn't come across as condescending because that really isn't my intent
Re:"St. Thomas had to actually feel the holes in the resurrected Lord's hands before he'd believe. Had St. Thomas been a true skeptic, he would have said that this was the Lord's identical twin and that he drove nails through his own hands to produce an elaborate fraud. That's just the way it is."
See, this is the kind of remarks that rub ME the wrong way. You make the baseless assertion that had Thomas been a "true skeptic" he'd have come up with some bogus reason to deny the obvious. That's not skepticism, that's being a dumbass. Trust me, if I'd ever come upon somebody with multiple fatal wounds, walking around and talking to me, I wouldn't assume it was a twin brother (how would that explain away the fact that he had a hole clean, clear through him? I don't get it...).
Skepticism isn't not believing anything. It's simply requiring a modicum of proof before buying in. It's something we would have all done well to cultivate before our sojourns into cultworld. It's something that would-be jihadists would do well to garner a bit of. And it's something that every scientist in the world MUST have if he's going to do anything worthwhile. I don't think it's an option. Either adopt a skeptical mindset, or spend a good portion of your life chasing rainbows or being played for a fool (and yes, I have done both)...
George: LOL on chasing rainbows and being played for a fool. I've done both too, more times than I like to remember.
Mo, I don't doubt your intentions. You've never given me reason to believe you're anything less than a big-hearted and kind person. I appreciate that.
I suppose I keep trying because I really do want God to be there and I still hold a hope that He is. To reiterate, I am not an athiest. I just can't reconcile the vision of God as promulgated by contemporary religion(s) and the world I see around me. I don't want to believe that God doesn't exist, but realistically I have to believe that is one possibility. Its not the only possiblity but it certainly is one of them.
Re:"St. Thomas had to actually feel the holes in the resurrected Lord's hands before he'd believe. Had St. Thomas been a true skeptic, he would have said that this was the Lord's identical twin and that he drove nails through his own hands to produce an elaborate fraud. That's just the way it is."
See, this is the kind of remarks that rub ME the wrong way. You make the baseless assertion that had Thomas been a "true skeptic" he'd have come up with some bogus reason to deny the obvious. That's not skepticism, that's being a dumbass. Trust me, if I'd ever come upon somebody with multiple fatal wounds, walking around and talking to me, I wouldn't assume it was a twin brother (how would that explain away the fact that he had a hole clean, clear through him? I don't get it...).
Skepticism isn't not believing anything. It's simply requiring a modicum of proof before buying in. It's something we would have all done well to cultivate before our sojourns into cultworld. It's something that would-be jihadists would do well to garner a bit of. And it's something that every scientist in the world MUST have if he's going to do anything worthwhile. I don't think it's an option. Either adopt a skeptical mindset, or spend a good portion of your life chasing rainbows or being played for a fool (and yes, I have done both)...
George,
I have actually seen people, when presented with objective reality, refuse to change their opinions. Most recently, I've seen a lot of that in the political arena. On both wings. I've seen it in other arenas, as well.
However, if using the word skeptic disturbs you, nominate a substitute and I'll try to use it in the future. The bottom line of that message that I tried to communicate was that if a person was truly disinclined to believe, it wouldn't matter the nature or the quality of the evidence presented, that person simply will not believe. (There...is that said in an inoffensive enough fashion?)
Now if you want to call that person a skeptic, an agnostic, a weak atheist, a strong atheist, a nontheist, an antitheist, or whichever, I'll be more than happy to use whichever term gets the message across.
I do agree with you, though, that a person does need to have a cautious/skeptical view when presented some information and determining whether or not to accept or reject that information. However, a person's prejudices (and we all have prejudices) may alter the level of proof required so that no amount information that is counter to those prejudices will ever be accepted.
I'm honest enough with myself to say that I am predisposed to believing in a spiritual entity larger than myself and that information counter to that paradigm will be much more strictly judged than information that affirms that paradigm. That's not to say that I am going to be highly skeptical of so-called prophets (see the latest Pat Robertson thread) or "mary-in-a-grilled-cheese" phenomena. Believe me when I tell you that I laugh just as hard as the strongest atheist when I see foolishness along those lines. That's why I had no problems with leaving TWI in 1989 when I decided that it had just gotten too weird. However, I know and acknowledge my paradigm.
Sirguess, I went through this with my wife this morning while we were taking our morning walk.
She said "That is really cool. Very cool." So... thanks for that.
Also, I want to commend Mark and George for staying at it and keeping a civil tone about them. I was beginning to think that civility had suffered the same fate of long underwear - not many people use it anymore...
So many times, threads seem to take on the appearance or personna of a person throwing frisbees for a pack of over-excited dogs.
As a closing attempt at a summary illustration - I offer a few thoughts.
Sometimes I have been referred to as "Too Old Now" instead of "Too Gray Now". Let's get it right!! :)
I think there is a LOT of gray out there... nothing is as black or white as I used to think it was... including all kinds of proofs of many things I used to think were nailed down tighter than the proverbial drum. Well, dog gone if the top didn't pop off and out jumped all manner of "neat" concepts that someone had put in there.
They all ran out on me - the broken cistern holding no water. That is what black and white thinking did for me...
Said another way; I let someone else pack my parachute for me. The tangled lines of thought from PFAL put a hurtin' on me when my chute didn't open. I was lucky to have walked away.
But, I didn't give up skydiving for good - like some have... I just quit letting someone else pack my chute for me. - and it took me along time to get comfortable with packing my own chute. A long time.
So, it seems - JJ - a similar question might be - "For you skydivers - pretend for a min. that there is no air" Well, that sort of puts the kybash on future jumps with a standard parachute, now doesn't it.
I don't think the kind of God exists that I once thought did. But, no big deal - I have a different type of chute, now.
Sirguess has taken some jumping lessons from some other instructors :)
Mark went back to packing a full canopy, classic style and has a deep appreciation for the sport and the skills of those before him.
I wouldn't want to push George into an airplane any more than I would like to be pulled from my chair by the arm by a drunk, slurring woman shouting "Come ON!!! Let's hit the dance floor!" I offer a very simple explanation to anyone who attempts to do such... "No! I don't want to!!" That should do it. But some people just can't take no for an answer.
George might appreciate not having his arm pulled by zealots sporting a jumpsuit button saying "Insured by God - So Let's JUMP!". I could almost hear George dryly say "Happy Landing!!!"
Anyway, I have beat this to death. I gotta pack my chute for tomorrow. And don't anyone try and stop me, either.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
32
40
51
31
Popular Days
Dec 31
38
Jan 5
23
Jan 21
18
Jan 4
18
Top Posters In This Topic
GarthP2000 32 posts
CM 40 posts
templelady 51 posts
markomalley 31 posts
Popular Days
Dec 31 2005
38 posts
Jan 5 2006
23 posts
Jan 21 2006
18 posts
Jan 4 2006
18 posts
templelady
Okay now I have a question (if it sounds familiar it is because I just Plagerized Mark
)
Ok my skeptical friends
What is the quality and quantity of evidence that you can provide in order to show that there IS NOT a supernatural entity that is spiritual (i.e., not consisting of matter) and non-corporeal (i.e., does not occupy a finite space) in nature? Keep in mind that this evidence would, by nature, have to be effects consequent to the non -existence of this entity,.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
im a skeptic, TL...
first, did anyone try the neti neti exercise?
i mean...all this talk of truth and proof and whatnot...
i find myself skeptical of the actual quality of the "skepticism" going on
and second, it seems striking to me how the usual argument goes around and around these days
(and not just here)
often limited to "is there a god behind the curtain...or is there nothing behind the curtain"
as if it covers every possibility and farthest range of logical reasoning
i mean...is it possible that there are unexplored options besides those same basic two positions?
anyone?
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Todd,
I have done the neti neti exercises a long, long, long time ago when I was in college. They weren't called that, but the same format was done to prepare the mind to go into a transcendental state for meditation. It's a useful exercise. A similar exercise was taught as part of a progressive relaxation regimen. The basic mental skills one learns through these exercises is useful when a person wishes to deeply contemplate any given subject, be it the existence of God, the derivation of pi, or a particularly difficult problem. The ability to consciously shut out distractions allows one to concentrate particularly deeply on one specific subject and can help one develop incredible clarity in recognizing a solution set.
Let me suggest another contemplative technique that you might enjoy. I have mentioned it on another thread a while ago, but am not sure that you read it. The technique is called Lectio Divina. It means literally "divine reading." It is a meditative reading of scripture that allows the reader to slowly enjoy the scripture and to allow God to speak to the reader through that slow, prayerful reading. Its origins can be traced back to the second century AD, but it gained popularity Saint Benedict, the founder of western monasticism (from around 500 AD). There are essentially four key activities to this:
Keep in mind that externally through the first three phases, all an observer would see is the person repeating the passage over and over again. There is no distinct shift from one phase to another in this process...it just happens.
Anyway, fwiw, maybe you would get some enjoyment out of this technique. You can google lectio divina if you'd like or check out this link if you'd like. Try it a few times and let me know what you think.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JumpinJive
Mo, it is not now nor has it ever been my intention to claim, much less prove, that a supernatural entity doesn't exist. My position is that I don't know. I would love to know that I know that I know but that is just not my experience. Hence this topic.
I'm open to there being a God. If He exists, how do we know Him? Can we know Him? Is the bible reliable? If there is no God, as the topic proposes for discussion purposes, what are the other options? How does one deal with that conclusion? Is there something inside us driving us to the spiritual so that we need to fulfill that desire with something else? Is there life after confronting the inconsistencies of the bible and those who claim to speak for God?
These are the types of questions that are going through my head and that I'm hoping to spark some discussion on. Its not about God not existing.
-JJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
thanks Mark
yes...i am familiar
here is near where i first heard of it
i would even go as far as to say that the kinds of practice of "negative theology" and "witnessing techniques" date back as far as the era of Abraham, though it also seems to have appeared in most of the world's cultures, to some degree
which is a simple but radical deepening of our own subjectivity, which is useful prior to any thing else we do...from Lectio Divina to changing baby diapers
like becoming aware of awareness itself...rather than merely aware of things
like "when the fish finally sees how wet it is"
"I AM" is what the ancients often said when they realized that there is no "God," per se
the "ultimate ground of all being" is another term given to it
or "spirit as ultimate emptiness"
or "the final starting point"
to use a happy paradox
and it seems too, like "contemplation" and "meditation" have a lot of the same basic forms
archetypical variations in objective and subjective focusing and relaxing
and other crazy things the monastics did as they sat and died
often mistaken for religion by both science and religion
also often considered insanity
or demonic behaviour
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
yes yes...true, like the kid said
which is to say..."but, also..and, to add..."etc...
i think it is pretty much true of most contemplation and meditation
that even if one actually finds a way to use it to reach those kinds of states
how we interpret and reinterpret the experiences varies wildly, and naturally so
all of which is then further complicated by the distinctions between temporary states and permenant stages, etc...
and then notions of ascending and descending styles, whatnot...
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
If He exists, how do we know Him?
The same way you get to know anyone. In His case you read the scriptures you talk to him (informal prayer) You look for signs of his presence ...A dragonfly unfurling its wings, a sunset, that sudden peace that comes over you and you realize that everything at least for today is gong to be okay... it isn't going to happen all at once (few of us have a Damascus in our lives). But just as you would strive to get to know a person who you wanted in your life you need to work on getting to know God. Too many people think of God as a hidden Lucy Van Pelt with her "5 cents please" sign out.
Can we know Him?
We can know him on a superficial level or we can feel him as a constant presence, we can visit occasionally , or not at all. You can know Him as well as you desire to
Is the Bible reliable?
If you mean 100% infallible--I don't believe that--but we put our trust everyday in things far more fallible--the brakes on our cars, the smoke detectors in our houses, the pilot of the plane--with no problem. The Bible was never intended to be a one stop fix-it-all
If there is no God, as the topic proposes for discussion purposes, what are the other options?
There are no other options-either there is a supreme deity or there isn't. Even if you accept a multitude of deity's the issues are the same. SO it is a pretty back and white issue in terms of whether it is real or not
How does one deal with that conclusion?
If you don't believe in a deity there is nothing to deal with ....you just go on about your business
Is there something inside us driving us to the spiritual so that we need to fulfill that desire with something else?
That is kind of a catch 22 --If you feel the drive to fulfill a spiritual need in your life--that would be the Holy Spirit trying to get through. So if you have that feeling and desire the mere fact you have it would prove the existence of GOD since with out God there would be no Holy Spirit. If on the other hand you feel the desire and the drive and refuse simultaneously to believe there is A God , Holy Spirit, Jesus Christ connection then you are left with the conundrum fog of why you have this desire to connect with something that is not real.
Is there life after confronting the inconsistencies of the bible and those who claim to speak for God
Of course, unless you add cyanide to your breakfast cereal--sorry I don't mean to sound flip but you do have freedom of choice... rejection of God does not mean that He is going to hurl lightening bolts at you ala Zeus.
I Guess my point is that if you are still doing all this questioning, at some level you know there is a God you just aren't sure how to make him more real in your life. I have met true Atheists and agnostics ...they have no questions about their beliefs, just as I have no questions about my belief that Gods is real.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Mark,
What would it take for me to believe (again)?
Not much really, I mean, in contrast to biblical accounts, almost nothing. Just verified, tangible, reproduceable evidence. The kind of stuff that WayWorld promised but never delivered. Prayer that worked EVERY time (yes, holy wonderful, selfless, Godly kinda prayer would be fine) in a predictable manner. Hell, that'd be enough right there. And why not? Does God have some sort of affinity for the gullible?
And if that's asking too much, then what SHOULDN'T we beieve? I mean, if looking for evidence is evil, then BigFoot must be real, Buddha too, and cold fusion is a reality, right? There must be some sort of criteria for what to believe, no? Why do we accept The Bible but reject the Koran? Or the Bhagavahgita? Or the sayings of Buddha? Is it all just how God works in your heart? If so, how do you know you're not just suffering from delusions?
And really Mark, the quotes you highlighted as being so derisive and obnoxious, geeze, I guess we really do live in alternate universes, as I don't even know what you found offensive about them. O.K. "Biblethumper" is probably not the best choice of epithets, but other than that what? You find it offensive that I've never seen the miraculous come to pass? Well, I haven't.
And I thought we WERE having a pleasant discussion. Whaddu I know?
And Mo, to paraphrase Carl Sagan, suppose I told you I had an invisible fire-breathing dragon in my garage, would you feel obligated to prove that I don't? I wouldn't think so. The obligation for proof is on the one making the assertion. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, or so I've heard...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
And I thought we were having a normal discussion, but I was getting reproved for being insensitive.
I cited the three examples that I did earlier because they have been studied with scientific rigor. With both the shroud and the tilma, both have been subjected to intense scrutiny and the results are that the images on both cannot be explained with the technology that was available when the objects came into existence. Neither can be explained as the result of natural phenomena. I could go into detail and provide you with links documenting these analyses, but the fact remains that they are both simply effects and don't put God into a petrie dish for examination.
The miraculous healings at Lourdes are another example of an effect. In the modern day and age, for a healing to be declared to be a 'miraculous healing,' there are very tight criteria that must be met. First, the person's medical condition preceding the healing must be completely and unambiguously documented. Then, the person's medical condition must be completely and unambiguously documented after the 'healing'. Then an exhaustive search is done to rule out any possibility of a medical treatment having an impact on the person's cure. Only after any possibility of a medical cure is ruled out and the fact that the person is healed of a condition positively verified is the cure declared a 'miracle.' There have been thousands of 'cures' reported, but only 67 of them met these stringent criteria. That's not to say that the others did or did not happen, many have never been investigated and others have had some defect in the case that would allow a skeptic to possibly dismiss them. Again, there have been independent studies done on these cases. Those cures officially identified have not been debunked. At a minimum, they have been attributed as 'unknown' or a 'statistical anomaly.' But again, the fact remains that they are effects of God and don't allow a scientist to put got into a test tube (as opposed to a petrie dish) for spectroscopic examination.
On all of the above, I can provide you links and recommend books. None of them are "mary in a grilled cheese sandwich" -- they are extensively documented and rigorously studied. But since the best they can do is show 'effects' and aren't verified, tangible, reproduceable evidence, I would imagine that none of them would meet your criteria.
There are many, many other cases out there that I am familiar with. Many are documented, but not as extensively as the above so I won't even bother to mention them. Apparations can be written off as mass hysteria, so why bother going there. A person's personal testimony of being healed or experiencing some sort of 'miracle' is likewise subject to scorn.
If I read you correctly, you want to be able to reach out and touch God...to put Him on a scale and say that he weighs 513.21 kg and measures 2134.5 mm in length and resides at 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202 (the devil may reside there, but I highly doubt that God does
). I can't ever do that. God's characteristics don't lend themselves to measurement (spiritual, noncorporeal). I don't know of any religion more advanced than the primitive polytheistic religions, such as those from ancient Greece, ancient Egypt, and ancient Rome that would assign such limited scope to God. And if that's what you're looking for, I can't help you.
When I approach something like what I listed above, I always approach it from a skeptical attitude. There are a lot of charlatans out there and a lot of crackpots out there. But I don't out-and-out deny them because I recognize that miracles have happened in the past and see no reason why they can't happen in the present. So maybe I'm gullible enough to be satisfied with the criteria listed for miraculous healings, above. And so on...
You said,
Is that the issue, George? You got burnt by TWI and the faulty theology they taught? (and I'm talking Mike-type doctrine, I'm not even talking about screwed-up practice, like your wife getting raped by Rev so and so or whatever) And then figured that the whole concept of religion, in of itself, is crap? If that's the case, I think I can understand, after a fashion.
As to which religion is correct, well, I'm obviously biased. I've briefly looked at Hinduism, Taoism, and Buddhism when I was in college. Not studied them, per se, but examined them. They have several good tendencies, particularly the emphasis on the transcendent vice the temporal. I studied Islam when I lived in Turkey...I didn't convert and had no real interest in doing so, but I wanted to understand the religion. And the way the imam that I met with explained it to me, it had some compelling points, particularly the surrender of the WHOLE being to God. There were a lot of good cultural things I saw from it: for example, banks cannot charge interest on loans (interest being identified as usury). Rather they charge a flat fee for borrowing money. One thing he explained, though, was that there was no caliphate...therefore, there were as many interpretations of Islam as there were Imams. He equated that to Protestantism in Christianity...a thought I found sort of humorous. I've listened to Morman missionaries. Respectfully, too. Again, there are a lot of strengths to their beliefs and the application of those beliefs. But not my cup of tea. I used to have a Wiccan girlfriend years and years ago. She taught me a lot about Wicca...but again, not my cup of tea.
I said elsewhere here that it all comes down to two things: love God with the whole heart, mind, soul, with all that you are. And love your neighbor as yourself. It's my belief that God will show incredible mercy to all who truly obey those two commandments, whether Christian or not. It's also my belief that there will be a lot of people who call themselves Christians but pay only a passing regard to those two commandments will find themselves surprised. That's not fear-mongering or some kind of a veiled threat; it's just an opinion.
So where now, George? Are we at an impasse here?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
I'm open to spiritual and/or supernatural experiences, but I'm not open to gettting played for a sucker. If I hear a voice telling me to "be still and enjoy the beautiful sunset", it doesn't much matter if I'm deluded, or some bad drugs are finally kicking in; but if the voice says "give all your money to a ministry that is teaching the accuracy of God's Word", I'll consider the delusion angle a little more seriously.
Assume that there is no God?
I have no problem with that, nor do I have a problem with there being one. If there is or isn't a God is not determined by what I think.
Ethics, love, compassion, all manner of good works speak louder when they are done altruistically, rather than because that is what some deity expects. This is not to say that religious faith taints any of thse actions, but that purely humanistic motives can be just as great.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
well said
and mostly cuz i think i know what you mean
but so...where does that leave all the many many branches of christianity?
and many many branches of catholicism?
and many many hybrid and blends of and with all those other exotic isms?
how do we know what is good?
what is true?
beautiful?
if language and interpretation is something beside behaviour?
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
i see it like this...
pure delusion is our original state, it seems
and we are all trying to be free from it, more or less
and we come out of it in such a wild variety of ways
magnitude and complexity of delusion really only seems to evolve and get wierder
more than anything
human delusion is common and widespread
just as it always has been
and so if we can find ways to better understand the nature of delusion itself
all those crazy people might not make us crazy as they used to
which is good
and a certain specific kind of liberty
i would think
of course, the truth of the matter is a different story entirely
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
SInce the assertion of this thread is "Assume there is no GOd' I would say that that places the burden of proof squarely in the non believing camp
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Mark,
You're serious about the shroud of Turin and the healings at Lourdes? Well, we have some rather divergent reading material, I'll guarantee. The sources I've read said that yes, the shroud had been tested, rather extensively, and was shown to be a painting done on a 13th century piece of cloth. One researcher even went to the extent of reproducing the painting and, in wrapping it around a 3-dimensional object (like a body) found that the image was indeed two-dimensional and did not conform to an object in 3-d. YEARS later it again became a cause celeb amongst some decidedly biased group of folks, whose only defense seemed to be to denigrate the scientific evidence. And even if none of that was the case, what connection does that clothe have to Jesus of Nazareth? It's beyond silly...
And Lourdes, I confess to not reading much about it at all, other than seeing the movie of St. Bernadette (is that the right saint?) and finding out how much she suffered in silence, so, yeah, she was deserving of sainthood. I guess God likes it when people suffer? I dunno, I never figured out how that worked. "Oh, you've suffered a WHOLE BUNCH, let's put a gold star by your name!" Maybe the movie did a poor job of portraying the actual events.
But out of the thousands (millions?) that have been there over the last 150 years, we get what? Sixty-something people who claim to be healed? How is this comforting or reassuring to the faithful? Wouldn't they have better luck with a lottery ticket? Gawd, Benny Hinn heals every damn body, never misses.
And no, the issue isn't that I got "burnt" by WayWorld theology. I'd been burnt long before I got involved with those goons (though, admittedly, they didn't help any). I was pretty much an agnostic when the cute young girl came along and offered me her foot in exchange for taking "the class", but I digress. Even as an eight-year-old kid, sitting in a Methodist church basement, doing the "childrens' Bible study" routine, I often asked the "wrong" questions. "How do we know we have the right religion?", "If God loves everybody, why do people suffer and die?" "Why do babies die?", and such like. No, I never got satisfying answers then, either. Got a lot of hemming and hawwing, and a lot of spin, "It's all part of God's Plan", etc.
But in The Bible, if it is what it claims to be, God's Holy Word, there's all kinds of miraculous stuff that happens all the time. Peter and the disciples get to see Jesus walking on water, healing the sick, RAISING THE DEAD! Sheesh, that would be cool. But what do we get, "Yeah, you prayed for so and so, and they died anyway, but it's all part of God's PLAN!" Yeah, I'm underwhelmed...
And for all of that, doesn't it just make a whole helluva lot more sense that the world's religions are simply the expressions of an ignorant and desperate bunch of people? People who lived in an absolutely brutal environment with little or no knowledge of biology, geology, astronomy, and desperate to garner whatever edge they can. So they cook up superstitions. They paid obeisance to an invisible friend who would protect them. And in their position, who would dare not? But to hang onto those fanciful notions today, sorry, I can't do it anymore. That is, unless you've got some proof...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
heerz another cup of tea...
another way to remove god from the picture
in a sense
Thich Nhat Hanh's centering prayer...
i can imagine it being sung slow like the gregorians
with full heart and breath and presence
Be still and know that I am God...
Be still and know that I am...
Be still and know...
Be still...
Be...
...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Thanks.
As to the many different spin-offs, there are many different rites within the Catholic Church. Not just the Latin Rite that is so familiar here in the west. Many of those rites have parishes in this country, just not nearly as many as are in the Latin Rite. And, you know, it really doesn't matter so much. Even though the worship services are different, they are considered "particular churches" within the Universal Church.
There are many schismatic groups out there as well. Even though these groups are schismatic and adamantly refuse to be in union with the Universal Church, there is still one Universal Church. I personally view it as a case of the pride of man causing the schisms, but that's just my understanding of it. Blessed be God for His providence in preserving the degree of truth that is still passed on through these separated groups and my prayer is for them to again come back to be subjectively within the Universal Church at some point in time.
As far is the other -isms, there has always been a bunch of -isms. Any of them contain some element of truth to them, some more than others, but in any case that I know of, there is 'something.' Again, my view of things.
How do we know what is good, true, beautiful? Again, my view: there is one God who created the universe. My understanding is that God is supremely good and that He made His creation good. And when I look at something, I try to view things in that light. However, at the risk of being called pollyanish, I recognize that, as the result of the free will that God has allowed (how can there be love if not through free will), there has also been pride in the world since the beginning. And, in an ultimate sense, that pride, with its accompanying arrogance, despair, egoism and the actions/ behaviors that have resulted from all of the above, are the ultimate cause of that in creation which does not reflect the goodness of God.
But, as others have said, your mileage may vary.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
George,
This is why I didn't want to get into this in the first place. For any 'evidence' I can supply, you can discount it. And I knew that before I started. If you'll re-read what I wrote, I clearly stated that I could not empircally prove the existence of God and that all I could do would be to identify verified effects, but that those would likely be discounted (And George, I know you're not interested, but this is for other readers: they could look at: http://www.shroudstory.com/ for a ready list of information on the shroud) And, by the way, for the record, each thing you've said about the shroud is, in fact, patently and provably incorrect.
To reiterate (ad nauseum), I am not trying to convince you of anything. The bottom line, in my experience, as I have said before, is that a person is going to believe what he is going to believe and there is really little, without divine intervention, that another person is going to be able to do to change that fact. If a person chooses to believe in God, there are things that will help affirm that faith (I called them evidences of effect). If a person chooses to not believe in God, the same things will be interpreted differently to help affirm his skepticism. Nothing I can do about that.
St. Thomas had to actually feel the holes in the resurrected Lord's hands before he'd believe. Had St. Thomas been a true skeptic, he would have said that this was the Lord's identical twin and that he drove nails through his own hands to produce an elaborate fraud. That's just the way it is.
Rather than wasting any more of my time in making long posts that will not accomplish anything and wasting your time in reading those posts and responding, I'd rather just shake hands and move on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
interesting...
and i cant tell ya how much i appreciate your even manner, mark
although, i hafta say, your last post in response to me was such a compact chunk of answers, it inspired within me a half dozen off topic questions worth a thread of their own...mostly as they relate to the notions of an exclusive universal church, the various ways of union and seperation and heresy and spin-offs, and the value of texts and textual ethnocentricity
and i hate to say it, but your response to my little package of questions sounded more like a pamphlet, to me...it didn't really address the "how" of the question, imo, especially as it relates to the main thrust of this thread
some other day, perhaps
cheers
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
JumpinJive
Mo, you really need to pay more attention to the content of the posts. Nobody here is attempting to prove God doesn't exist. I'm glad your faith works for you but some of us can't get to that place based on our current understanding of religion, spirituality and the world around us. And its not for lack of trying. Pat answers about reading scripture just don't cut it anymore. Been there, done that. It doesn't fit. What now?
-JJ
Edited by JumpinJiveLink to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Sorry, bad day
I guess what confuses me still is why you are still trying if you believe there is nothing there. ???
Iif you believe that something is there maybe you need to try less and relax and let God do the work. I know that seems simplistic--but what I see is a never ending round of, Prayer, reading , agonizing, and frustration. It's not like that--it is a peace- a feeling that no matter what your back is covered. Stop battering at the gates of heaven as it were--I think the door is already open it's just that YOU are so busy doing that God hasn't had a chance to get a word in edgewise.
This is not a put down--been there myself many times. You just have to let go and one day you'll be pottering around and go "Gee I wish..."and lo and behold it will happen.
By letting go you can't say "okay GOD I'm letting go now but If nothing has happened by Thursday...." letting go means letting go
I hope this helps I really do--I I hope it doesn't come across as condescending because that really isn't my intent
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Mark,
Re:"St. Thomas had to actually feel the holes in the resurrected Lord's hands before he'd believe. Had St. Thomas been a true skeptic, he would have said that this was the Lord's identical twin and that he drove nails through his own hands to produce an elaborate fraud. That's just the way it is."
See, this is the kind of remarks that rub ME the wrong way. You make the baseless assertion that had Thomas been a "true skeptic" he'd have come up with some bogus reason to deny the obvious. That's not skepticism, that's being a dumbass. Trust me, if I'd ever come upon somebody with multiple fatal wounds, walking around and talking to me, I wouldn't assume it was a twin brother (how would that explain away the fact that he had a hole clean, clear through him? I don't get it...).
Skepticism isn't not believing anything. It's simply requiring a modicum of proof before buying in. It's something we would have all done well to cultivate before our sojourns into cultworld. It's something that would-be jihadists would do well to garner a bit of. And it's something that every scientist in the world MUST have if he's going to do anything worthwhile. I don't think it's an option. Either adopt a skeptical mindset, or spend a good portion of your life chasing rainbows or being played for a fool (and yes, I have done both)...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JumpinJive
George: LOL on chasing rainbows and being played for a fool. I've done both too, more times than I like to remember.
Mo, I don't doubt your intentions. You've never given me reason to believe you're anything less than a big-hearted and kind person. I appreciate that.
I suppose I keep trying because I really do want God to be there and I still hold a hope that He is. To reiterate, I am not an athiest. I just can't reconcile the vision of God as promulgated by contemporary religion(s) and the world I see around me. I don't want to believe that God doesn't exist, but realistically I have to believe that is one possibility. Its not the only possiblity but it certainly is one of them.
-JJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
George,
I have actually seen people, when presented with objective reality, refuse to change their opinions. Most recently, I've seen a lot of that in the political arena. On both wings. I've seen it in other arenas, as well.
However, if using the word skeptic disturbs you, nominate a substitute and I'll try to use it in the future. The bottom line of that message that I tried to communicate was that if a person was truly disinclined to believe, it wouldn't matter the nature or the quality of the evidence presented, that person simply will not believe. (There...is that said in an inoffensive enough fashion?)
Now if you want to call that person a skeptic, an agnostic, a weak atheist, a strong atheist, a nontheist, an antitheist, or whichever, I'll be more than happy to use whichever term gets the message across.
I do agree with you, though, that a person does need to have a cautious/skeptical view when presented some information and determining whether or not to accept or reject that information. However, a person's prejudices (and we all have prejudices) may alter the level of proof required so that no amount information that is counter to those prejudices will ever be accepted.
I'm honest enough with myself to say that I am predisposed to believing in a spiritual entity larger than myself and that information counter to that paradigm will be much more strictly judged than information that affirms that paradigm. That's not to say that I am going to be highly skeptical of so-called prophets (see the latest Pat Robertson thread) or "mary-in-a-grilled-cheese" phenomena. Believe me when I tell you that I laugh just as hard as the strongest atheist when I see foolishness along those lines. That's why I had no problems with leaving TWI in 1989 when I decided that it had just gotten too weird. However, I know and acknowledge my paradigm.
What's your paradigm?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Too Gray Now
Pardon, me - please...
Sirguess, I went through this with my wife this morning while we were taking our morning walk.
She said "That is really cool. Very cool." So... thanks for that.
Also, I want to commend Mark and George for staying at it and keeping a civil tone about them. I was beginning to think that civility had suffered the same fate of long underwear - not many people use it anymore...
So many times, threads seem to take on the appearance or personna of a person throwing frisbees for a pack of over-excited dogs.
As a closing attempt at a summary illustration - I offer a few thoughts.
Sometimes I have been referred to as "Too Old Now" instead of "Too Gray Now". Let's get it right!! :)
I think there is a LOT of gray out there... nothing is as black or white as I used to think it was... including all kinds of proofs of many things I used to think were nailed down tighter than the proverbial drum. Well, dog gone if the top didn't pop off and out jumped all manner of "neat" concepts that someone had put in there.
They all ran out on me - the broken cistern holding no water. That is what black and white thinking did for me...
Said another way; I let someone else pack my parachute for me. The tangled lines of thought from PFAL put a hurtin' on me when my chute didn't open. I was lucky to have walked away.
But, I didn't give up skydiving for good - like some have... I just quit letting someone else pack my chute for me. - and it took me along time to get comfortable with packing my own chute. A long time.
So, it seems - JJ - a similar question might be - "For you skydivers - pretend for a min. that there is no air" Well, that sort of puts the kybash on future jumps with a standard parachute, now doesn't it.
I don't think the kind of God exists that I once thought did. But, no big deal - I have a different type of chute, now.
Sirguess has taken some jumping lessons from some other instructors :)
Mark went back to packing a full canopy, classic style and has a deep appreciation for the sport and the skills of those before him.
I wouldn't want to push George into an airplane any more than I would like to be pulled from my chair by the arm by a drunk, slurring woman shouting "Come ON!!! Let's hit the dance floor!" I offer a very simple explanation to anyone who attempts to do such... "No! I don't want to!!" That should do it. But some people just can't take no for an answer.
George might appreciate not having his arm pulled by zealots sporting a jumpsuit button saying "Insured by God - So Let's JUMP!". I could almost hear George dryly say "Happy Landing!!!"
Anyway, I have beat this to death. I gotta pack my chute for tomorrow. And don't anyone try and stop me, either.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.