Religion II

[Buckeye]

I like the idea of breaking it down to human beings vs. the monkeys.

That's what I tried to do.

[Light]

Originally Posted by boxcar

So, what does all that nonsense have to with the kingdom parable in Matthew 20? Again, do you agree with your "best friend" Jesus that the landowner in the parable treated all his laborers justly? Yes or no.

I already answered the question with a Yes or no. Go back and see.

[Light]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Now...as for "your essence within...", then why do you fret and rant and rave like a lunatic about what Trump does outside your reality. What Trump does is simply an illusion, according to your own definition of reality. He's really NOT bringing harm to anyone. Any harm he's bringing is strictly the product of your own non-existent mind. His "harm" is an illusion in your own head.


Plus you have already said that good and evil are illusions, themselves. (Well, at least you did before you contradicted yourself and said his actions were immoral in nature.) So, why do you get so upset with someone's amoral actions? It seems to me you should really be upset with all your own internal conflicts and the Chronic Cognitive Dissonance Disorder from which you suffer.

In other words, you need to get some real help. Quit paying attention to this external, non-existent physical world and get in touch with your "essence" within. Quit looking out the window. In fact, if you were to stick your head where the sun never shines, that would really put you in touch with your INNER self and essence, in a way you never thought imaginable, and you'd never see the outside world of illusion. You'd be illusion-free forever. Guaranteed.

Please stop insulting my intelligence with your stupidity.

You are either a real idiot, or you make believe you are an idiot so you can misrepresent what people say to make them look as stupid as what you say.

[Light]

More Boxcar lies of idiocy

Originally Posted by boxcar

Light…He's a hypocrite and swears that Jesus is his "best friend", while believing virtually nary a word he has spoken

To the rest like Light, Jesus' words are foolishness.

You are nothing but jealous that I have a REAL relationship to Jesus in the here and now and yours is a fantasy that only serves to prop up your ego.

Yes, Jesus is my best friend and is active in my life everyday. Why does that offend you and make you defensive enough to lie about what my position is to Jesus?

And you consider yourself a born again Christian? I consider you a born again fool because you are born from your Ego. Instead of rejoicing that another being has found Jesus you want to put him down so only you and your ego will look like the "chosen one". And your only knowledge of Jesus is from a book with a million different versions.

FYI Jesus cannot be known from a book. Only from your heart where he resides.

[Buckeye]

I'm sorry to watch this degenerate into an I don't know what Light.

Jesus would never attack anyone, he would let it go and leave it up to his father to take care of it.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Light

More Boxcar lies of idiocy

You are nothing but jealous that I have a REAL relationship to Jesus in the here and now and yours is a fantasy that only serves to prop up your ego.

Yes, Jesus is my best friend and is active in my life everyday. Why does that offend you and make you defensive enough to lie about what my position is to Jesus?

And you consider yourself a born again Christian? I consider you a born again fool because you are born from your Ego. Instead of rejoicing that another being has found Jesus you want to put him down so only you and your ego will look like the "chosen one". And your only knowledge of Jesus is from a book with a million different versions.

FYI Jesus cannot be known from a book. Only from your heart where he resides.

(emphasis mine)

And this is precisely why you're not a born again disciple of Christ per Jesus' own words, which of course mean nothing to you. Having the Word of God within and having the Living Word within you are not mutually exclusive -- in fact, both are necessary! You cannot claim to have one without the other.
To have one without the other means you are not a true disciple.

If you had the Spirit of Christ within, it would be impossible for you to denigrate His Word as you have repeatedly done -- something Jesus never did!. Jesus, unlike you, is not divided against himself. If you had the Spirit of Christ within you, you would have the mind of Christ within! Heck...you can't even have that because you think Mind is mere illusion!

I bet you think even God doesn't have a mind. He's just a rolling fuzz ball of energy that you call "love", right?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Light

Please stop insulting my intelligence with your stupidity.

You are either a real idiot, or you make believe you are an idiot so you can misrepresent what people say to make them look as stupid as what you say.

What have I misrepresented? If I have lied, prove it. I know what you have said, for I have kept all your recent posts since I have known for a long time you're as duplicitous as they come. And that is saying quite a bit, considering some of the contributors on this thread!Q

You have said that evil doesn't exist -- that it's an illusion in the mind -- and that mind itself is an illusion. You have also said that good can be an illusion. So all your ranting and raving against Trump is entirely incoherent because he cannot possibly be an evildoer; therefore, his actions cannot be immoral in nature, as you have recently claimed -- only amoral.

If you believe nothing else, believe this: You don't need anyone to help make you look stupid. All anyone has to do is step aside, and let you ramble and in short order you remove any and all doubt about the true state of your mind.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Light

I already answered the question with a Yes or no. Go back and see.

No, you haven't. You gave me some nonsense that it "coincides" with giving to Caesar and God. Yes, you did say "yes< but that it coincides with Matthew 22. When I asked you specific follow up questions regarding your qualified "yes", you did not reply.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

I don't make disparaging remarks about science, which I marvel at and which informs my life of faith, as faith informs my reason. I, like many others (including atheists Massimo Pigliucci, Julian Baggini, et.al.), disparage the philosophy of scientism that produces, according to Merriam-Webster, "an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)."

You and boxcar disparage science by calling it "scientism". A rather pejorative term missing the advantages of not accepting repetitive ground in believes simply being passed down without testing. Only those with a lack of knowledge of the rise of science and it's impact on the world, and it's difference from the tendency of the religious to devolve into superstition use the word scientism as a way of denying valid criticisms of their knee-jerk beliefs leveled at them.


Funny thing is religion IMHO in it's truer sense, should be tested.
And can be tested.

Yet whenever practical approves favored in eastern and mystical ways like meditation and inner work are mentioned here you and boxcar exclude that approach from being valid ways and often as anti-Christian.

A few times you have DISPARAGED eastern mysticism as only "popularized new-wave fads". Not worthy of serious discussion.

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

]You altered my statement containing the phrase, "practical scientism", making the rest irrelevant.

Not really. That phrase is meaningless. Care to elaborate?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

I, like many others (including atheists Massimo Pigliucci, Julian Baggini, et.al.), disparage the philosophy of scientism that produces, according to Merriam-Webster, "an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)."

Can you quote anyone here actually engaging in your so-called "scientism"?. Boxcar can not and I am pretty sure neither can you.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Buckeye

Nobody gets a pass dnlgfnk.

Everything we write for that matter.
Sure.

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk.

hcap, et.al., and Actor are having a drink over the concept of Karma.

I doubt Actor accepts Karma, but Light and Gus probably do.

Cheers!

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

You and boxcar disparage science by calling it "scientism". A rather pejorative term missing the advantages of not accepting repetitive ground in believes simply being passed down without testing. Only those with a lack of knowledge of the rise of science and it's impact on the world, and it's difference from the tendency of the religious to devolve into superstition use the word scientism as a way of denying valid criticisms of their knee-jerk beliefs leveled at them.


Funny thing is religion IMHO in it's truer sense, should be tested.
And can be tested.

Yet whenever practical approves favored in eastern and mystical ways like meditation and inner work are mentioned here you and boxcar exclude that approach from being valid ways and often as anti-Christian.

A few times you have DISPARAGED eastern mysticism as only "popularized new-wave fads". Not worthy of serious discussion.

Not really. That phrase is meaningless. Care to elaborate?

Hey, Hcap, anyone ever tell you that the metaphysical world is not in the purview of science?

My definition of scientism is this: Science that believes it is the final authority and has the final word on what is true and what is false , what is real and what isn't real, what is factual and what isn't factual in this world and universe. In other words, Science that pretends to be God.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by hcap

You and boxcar disparage science by calling it "scientism". A rather pejorative term missing the advantages of not accepting repetitive ground in believes simply being passed down without testing. Only those with a lack of knowledge of the rise of science and it's impact on the world, and it's difference from the tendency of the religious to devolve into superstition use the word scientism as a way of denying valid criticisms of their knee-jerk beliefs leveled at them.


Funny thing is religion IMHO in it's truer sense, should be tested.
And can be tested.

Yet whenever practical approves favored in eastern and mystical ways like meditation and inner work are mentioned here you and boxcar exclude that approach from being valid ways and often as anti-Christian.

A few times you have DISPARAGED eastern mysticism as only "popularized new-wave fads". Not worthy of serious discussion.

Not really. That phrase is meaningless. Care to elaborate?

M-W provides a definition of "scientism" as a reality, an existent "exaggeration" of authentic science into fields outside it's boundaries. You requested an example?..."Science and religion are in conflict. To accept one the individual must reject the other." (emphasis mine)...

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...postcount=9057

Without consulting, I'm sure M-W doesn't provide the same definition for "science" as for "scientism". Neither do a multitude of other individuals, some of whom I've cited, who champion science while distancing themselves from the aforementioned "exaggerations". Eliminative materialist Alex Rosenberg embraces the term as a description of his worldview. You're proving my case. Actor, for one, would scoff at your mysticism and pursuit of interior perfection, since you're only a "machine made of meat". You must either accept science or Eastern Mysticism, else you're "accomodating".

I didn't disparage Eastern methods, as late as my last post, but mentioned a while ago that I perceive some of the western attraction as the desire to be chic in the midst of largely declining traditional forms of religion/spirituality. I wasn't disparaging the East wholesale. One of my favorite philosophers, Bill Vallicella, has adopted it's practices while holding to basic Christianity. I don't expect you to be assuaged. I'm stating this for the nth time.

Boxcar has struck up the term "scientism" of late? I don't attend here everyday. Is that why we are currently joined at the hip?

Again, my fundamental difference is the experience of "agape" love, which in this life mysteriously necessitates suffering. When my interlocutor consults the word and arrives at the common definition rather than "selfless, sacrificial, unconditional love", I don't expect to be understood--which is why I would rather enjoy the racing at Parx instead of the fruitless exchanges here.

All the same, cheers! to you also, hcap.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by hcap

You and boxcar disparage science by calling it "scientism". A rather pejorative term missing the advantages of not accepting repetitive ground in believes simply being passed down without testing. Only those with a lack of knowledge of the rise of science and it's impact on the world, and it's difference from the tendency of the religious to devolve into superstition use the word scientism as a way of denying valid criticisms of their knee-jerk beliefs leveled at them.


Funny thing is religion IMHO in it's truer sense, should be tested.
And can be tested.

Yet whenever practical approves favored in eastern and mystical ways like meditation and inner work are mentioned here you and boxcar exclude that approach from being valid ways and often as anti-Christian.

A few times you have DISPARAGED eastern mysticism as only "popularized new-wave fads". Not worthy of serious discussion.

Not really. That phrase is meaningless. Care to elaborate?

Practical scientism...practical atheism...practical pragmatism...practical Christianity...practical fill-in-the-blank...the adoption of a philosophy, behavior, etc., exemplifying or living out it's characteristics without definitively accepting or stating such in every forum post, e.g. My definition.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

M-W provides a definition of "scientism" as a reality, an existent "exaggeration" of authentic science into fields outside it's boundaries. You requested an example?..."Science and religion are in conflict. To accept one the individual must reject the other." (emphasis mine)...

I am nor disputing that science could be used in a mechanical and unenlightened sense. I am disputing you and boxcar claiming anyone here is using it that way. Claiming we are is what is pejorative.

I do not accept that religion and science are in conflict. But my definition of religion is not Actor's. My understanding needs no Abrahamic deity. I believe Actor is commenting on the ensuing conflict when that "old man floating in the sky" is taken on it's face value and literal lowest level.

Creators are not required in my take on "religion" Nor do I exclude that possibility.

Disputing proofs for god is not "sciemntism". Whereas claiming the earth is 1/1,000,0000 times younger than it really is, or claiming infants are born evil, is not religion or even rational. It is a projection of rather superstitions minds onto reality.