Religion II

[Light]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Then all parts of the bible must have been written by ignorant men, since very obviously you do not believe that the entire bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit

I do believe the Bible was divinely inspired. But only parts of it is accurate which is easy to tell if you have divine experience.

Originally Posted by boxcar

His soul can only react by a righteous revulsion to the thoughts, words and deeds of sinners -- all of which find their root in man's evil nature and is the fruit of that nature.

To believe that God would "react" (with "revulsion") to something he knows long before it will happen, is to be caught in your own stupidity. Another obvious lie written by idiots into the Bible.

Originally Posted by boxcar

While a large segment of Christianity teaches that "God loves the sinner but hates the sin", this is an illogical and unbiblical statement for the reason stated above. Further biblical proof of this is found in the spiritual fact, that sinful thoughts, words and deeds themselves will never stand before God's bar of justice to be judged. Rather, it will be the DOERS of Evil -- the SINNERS themselves, who committed actual sins, who will stand before God. They will suffer God's wrath, not their sins!

You are obsessed with sin. The original word used in the Bible for sin comes from a Greek word which does NOT mean what it has come to be known. It means "to miss the mark". Not "an offense".

Originally Posted by boxcar

Of course, Christians are not called to hate sinners. We are called, rather, to love sinners and to leave room for the wrath of God.

LOL. You love "the wrath of God". Why don't you make a movie of it. Nobody would go see such a stupid movie because nobody believes in a hypocritical God that says "turn the other cheek" while he destroys everyone with a childish tantrum.

Originally Posted by boxcar

It also fails to take into account all the passages that teach that God's love toward his people is a qualified love. (We have discussed this previously, but of course, this is an inconvenient truth to you.)

Your interpretation of God to love only part of his creation on conditions makes him imperfect. Therefore whomever you are refereeing to is not God because God is perfect, especially in his love.

Originally Posted by boxcar

You said yesterday that the greatest crime in the world was the murder of Jesus.
I would like to understand how you got to that extreme point from what you said a few months ago about Jesus simply being another martyr.

The reason it surprises you is that you don't listen when people talk. I said Jesus was a martyr, not "just another martyr". That's the spin YOU put on it.

I have told you how Jesus is my #1 friend in my life. That I love Jesus. How he has made miracles for me and moved me to tears since I was a kid till this present day, but you do not believe.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Light

I do believe the Bible was divinely inspired. But only parts of it is accurate which is easy to tell if you have divine experience.

So, God is an idiot? He's not infinitely wise and omniscient? Got a lot of things, wrong did he?

To believe that God would "react" (with "revulsion") to something he knows long before it will happen, is to be caught in your own stupidity. Another obvious lie written by idiots into the Bible.

See my comments above and apply what you just said to your opening remarks.

But regarding my remarks, I'm speaking anthropomorphically; for there is no other way to explain God's hatred for sin. However, we do know from scripture that no spiritually unclean thing will ever reside in the presence of God. Sin is revolting to God. Even Jesus taught this:

Luke 16:15
15 And He said to them, "You are those who justify yourselves in the sight of men, but God knows your hearts; for that which is highly esteemed among men is detestable in the sight of God.
NASB

What men highly esteem are themselves, the world and their sins. (Jesus is an idiot, too, right?)

You are obsessed with sin. The original word used in the Bible for sin comes from a Greek word which does NOT mean what it has come to be known. It means "to miss the mark". Not "an offense".

God was "obsessed" with sin, too. So much so that in eternity he "planned" (speaking anthropomorphically again, since an eternal God who is infinitely wise and omniscient does not think in successive stages; for all knowledge is instantaneous with Him) to send his only begotten Son into the world to atone for sin so that the sin debt of His people would be paid by Jesus.

But, yes, sin is "missing the mark" -- it misses the mark of God's holiness, which all sinners do. But also sin is breaking God's holy law.

1 John 3:4
4 Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.
NASB

In additiion to this, the Law of God was made for SINNERS, i.e. those who "miss the mark"!

1 Tim 1:8-10
8 But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9 realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers 10 and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching...

Therefore, the following text also stands to reason, for it tells us the WHY behind God's holy Law:

Gal 3:19a
19 Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator...

How is it that you miss so very much of what divine revelation teaches? Oh yeah...now I remember....you believe in lots of different deities, don't you? (You did say that once upon a time, right?) Jesus is just one of many, yes?

LOL. You love "the wrath of God". Why don't you make a movie of it. Nobody would go see such a stupid movie because nobody believes in a hypocritical God that says "turn the other cheek" while he destroys everyone with a childish tantrum.

The wrath of God is a huge theme in divine revelation. Read the bible some day.

Your interpretation of God to love only part of his creation on conditions makes him imperfect. Therefore whomever you are refereeing to is not God because God is perfect, especially in his love.

If God loved everyone unconditionally in the absolute sense, then all men would would live with God for all eternity when they died, regardless of how they lived. (Of course, this is what you believe, which is diametrically opposed to divine revelation.) In fact...if God loved each and every human being unconditionally in the absolute sense, salvation would not be necessary. The Cross of Christ would not have been necessary; for all human beings are sons and daughters of God regardless of their spiritual condition, their lifestyles, their beliefs. (After all, would a truly loving God actually demand that people repent of their sins and believe on him? Would he impose himself upon people like that?) But the biblical fact is that God's love for people is a qualified love and rightly so, since God himself qualifies each and every saint he chooses to inherit eternal life (Col 1:12). God's election of his saints, therefore, is absolutely unconditional, but once the sinner has been converted and is adopted into God's family, God is anything but indifferent to his born again child. If God were indifferent toward any of his adopted sons or daughters, his love would be markedly inferior to the love of an earthly father toward his own children. In fact, God so loves his adopted children that he will discipline them when they get out of hand! That's how much he loves his saints!

Heb 12:5-11
5 and you have forgotten the exhortation which is addressed to you as sons,"My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord,Nor faint when you are reproved by Him; 6 For those whom the Lord loves He disciplines, And He scourges every son whom He receives." 7 It is for discipline that you endure; God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline? 8 But if you are without discipline, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. 9 Furthermore, we had earthly fathers to discipline us, and we respected them; shall we not much rather be subject to the Father of spirits, and live? 10 For they disciplined us for a short time as seemed best to them, but He disciplines us for our good, that we may share His holiness. 11 All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful; yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness.
NASB

Since you, apparently, have never been disciplined by God, I would suggest that this is very strong indication that you're an illegitimate son.

Jesus himself drives home the point (on more than one occasion) that His Father's love toward his people is indeed qualified. But I recall how you tapped dance around these passages some time back, so I'm just going quote one for now:

John 16:27
27 for the Father Himself loves you, BECAUSE you have loved Me, and have believed that I came forth from the Father.
NASB

There are TWO (2) qualifying clauses in this statement by the guy you "believe in" but hardly ever believe -- The Father loves the disciples BECAUSE of their love for His Son and because of their faith in Him.

So...the bottom line here it that this truth makes God consistent and perfectly righteous. God loves those whom he predestined to save in eternity. And who he has predestined, he qualifies them to receive the inheritance of eternal life.

Also, there is another reason God doesn't love each and every person in the world unconditionally: There is no command in the bible for God's saints to love the entire world in the distributive sense. The second greatest commandment is very limited in scope -- Christians are to love their neighbor. And Jesus even defined what that would look like -- who a "neighbor" would be (cf. Lk 10:29ff.)

The reason it surprises you is that you don't listen when people talk. I said Jesus was a martyr, not "just another martyr". That's the spin YOU put on it.

Which would make Jesus just one in many millions of martyrs over all these centuries-- in other words -- just another martyr. What makes Jesus' martyrdom any different from anyone else's? Don't all martyr's die for God?

So, now answer the question: How do you get from Jesus is a martyr (yes, just another martyr out of very many) to his martyrdom was the greatest crime on earth?

I have told you how Jesus is my #1 friend in my life. That I love Jesus. How he has made miracles for me and moved me to tears since I was a kid till this present day, but you do not believe.

None of these things are the marks of a Christian. None of these things define a Christian.

[boxcar]

Mr. Light, God's love is very limited quantitatively but never qualitatively. Read this following excerpt from divine revelation of which you believe so very little:

There is such a thing as unconditional love in God, but it’s not what most people mean by it.

It’s not a saving love that he has for everybody. Else everybody would be saved, since they would not have to meet any conditions, not even faith. But Jesus said everybody is not saved (Matthew 25:46).

It’s not the love that justifies sinners since the Bible says we are justified by faith, and faith is a condition (Romans 5:1).

It’s not the love of working all things together for our good because Paul says that happens “to those who love God” (Romans 8:28).

It’s not the love of the most intimate fellowship with the Father because Jesus said, “He who loves me will be loved by my Father” (John 14:21). And James said, “Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you” (James 4:8).

It’s not the love that will admit us into heaven when we die because John says, “Be faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life” (Revelation 2:10). And faithfulness is a condition.

https://www.desiringgod.org/articles...-unconditional

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by hcap

From "Thomas Nagel is not crazy"

But what if science is fundamentally incapable of explaining our own existence as thinking things? What if it proves impossible to fit human beings neatly into the world of subatomic particles and laws of motion that science describes? In Mind and Cosmos (Oxford University Press), the prominent philosopher Thomas Nagel’s latest book, he argues that science alone will never be able to explain a reality that includes human beings. What is needed is a new way of looking at and explaining reality; one which makes mind and value as fundamental as atoms and evolution.

I agree. I quoted the Tao Te Ching Chapter 1
In order to try to illustrate the ancient understanding of the transformation of "one to the many" Or how a a tree contains all of the parts within, but is still all an inclusive one.

Modern science starting from all the branches and leaves, attempts to project what all those parts connect up to and "mean" as a whole with varying results. Whereas religion starts at the whole and attempts to find how and why the myriad fragments are connected also with varying results.

The ideal approach I thinks is to use both in some sort of balance.

We can no longer afford the stalemate of past centuries between theology and science, for this leaves nature Godless and religion worldless.

In the Gurdjieff-Ouspensky teaching, matter, energy and spirit are looked at in a different way.

In the Fourth Way cosmology, all that exists is seen in the context of a table of "hydrogens," where the term 'hydrogen' simply means substance in general. Some hydrogens are material, some are information, others are spiritual energies for which there is no general description in human language.

Consciousness:

Hydrogens are ranked based on their degree of 'density of vibration,' their 'vivifyingness' or 'intelligence.' This corresponds to how far removed each specific category of hydrogen is from the source of all creation or the Absolute.

The term higher hydrogen refers to those hydrogens which from the human point of view are no longer strictly matter or information.

The hydrogens are classified as follows:

H1 The substance of the Absolute
H3 The first level of the created. Not in human experience.
H6 the energy of the higher intellectual center. Manifests very rarely with humans.
H12 The energy of the higher emotional center, generally energy of intense emotion. Occurs rarely in humans.
H24 The energy of the lower emotional center and moving center.

Extends all the way down to:

H3072 Inanimate matter, minerals, metals.

Notice the "relative" densities from Hi to H3072
......................................

The Absolute in this teaching is the entire existence or universe. Pantheistic maybe? In theory we will not know until we move closer. And knowing may not be the correct word.

This conceptual system involving hydrogens, triads, and octaves is complex and is described in greater detail in P. D. Ouspensky's In Search of the Miraculous.

We're talking around each other. I'm addressing philosophy of the mind as philosophers have since Democritus: the mind-body problem.

It is a problem for the materialist because the early moderns rejected non-quantifiable aspects of nature (qualia) as matter, but only existent in the subjective mind. This backs the materialist into a corner. If the mind then contains immaterial qualia, thought cannot be the result of a completely physical process.

But apparently this was your segue to syncretism, which I am allergic to. I see no way that a mono-myth requires me to regard all as metaphor, somehow uniting requisite meritorious suffering (Rom 8) with it's Eastern avoidance, or that in loving or thanking God or another, I'm experiencing transcendent love and gratitude extended to myself.

I'll leave Joe Campbell to others. I'll take Rene Girard, who late in life saw that Christianity revealed what the mono-myth wished to veil.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

So, God ... He's not infinitely wise and omniscient?

None of the actions attributed to the character called God in the fiction known as the Bible require infinite power or infinite knowledge. Many would require extremely great amounts of energy and quite a bit of knowledge but none require omnipotence or omniscience.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

I'm addressing ...the mind-body problem.

It is a problem for the materialist because the early moderns ...

Who?

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

... rejected non-quantifiable aspects of nature (qualia) ...

Can you give an example of a "non-quantifiable aspect of nature?"

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

...as matter, but only existent in the subjective mind.

What do you mean by "subjective mind?"

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

This backs the materialist into a corner.

How?

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

If the mind then contains immaterial qualia, thought cannot be the result of a completely physical process.

Why not?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

We're talking around each other. I'm addressing philosophy of the mind as philosophers have since Democritus: the mind-body problem.

It is a problem for the materialist because the early moderns rejected non-quantifiable aspects of nature (qualia) as matter, but only existent in the subjective mind. This backs the materialist into a corner. If the mind then contains immaterial qualia, thought cannot be the result of a completely physical process.

But apparently this was your segue to syncretism, which I am allergic to. I see no way that a mono-myth requires me to regard all as metaphor, somehow uniting requisite meritorious suffering (Rom 8) with it's Eastern avoidance, or that in loving or thanking God or another, I'm experiencing transcendent love and gratitude extended to myself.

I'll leave Joe Campbell to others. I'll take Rene Girard, who late in life saw that Christianity revealed what the mono-myth wished to veil.

I think I am more of a mystic than many here, quite suspicious of ordinary language. However my western engineering background prejudices me, so I tried to open up the definition of "materialist ", as well as "immaterialist", by providing a "spectrum" of phenomena roughly using something like density as a criteria.

I suspect the entire mind-body problem is the outcome of again using ordinary language too much. Yes, we do not have much of a choice communicating without it however the scientist at least tries to define words more precisely than the philosopher and theologist. Mathematics does this.

But I also said the scientist starts from the leaves and branches of the figurative tree of the Tao or the "myriad things".and works his way up. Whereas the theologist starts with the whole tree and works downwards to what the those leaves and branches. Top to bottom and bottom to top both achieve varying results. Studying both I think are complementary.

The study on mind from top down occurs in art, architecture, literature, poetry, and legend and mythology. A whole range of human experiences including direct encounters with ones inner consciousness, and occasionally others (less clearly).

It is valid until we over-intellectualize. It should I think be examined from the corner of the mind's eye. For example a great piece of art or music looses it's power and value when picked apart and analyzed with the language of words ignoring the language of color or notes.

The study of mind from bottom up uses things lke psychology, electroencephalography, and behavioral analysis. All of this is helpful.

But there is a complimentary scientific/religious study of mind derived form older schools, particularly many eastern religions. Today things like mindfulness, meditation and the gurdjieff ouspensky fourth way self remembering techniques are ways of enhancing direct understanding of mind...

I will continue later. 4 azm is enough..

[hcap]

I'm addressing philosophy of the mind as philosophers have since Democritus: the mind-body problem.

So am I.

I think one must start with one's own mind, when discussing Mind-Body. This subject arises when mind and body are considered distinct, based on the premise that the mind and the body are fundamentally different in nature. I am attempting re-defining both as a variation in universe "stuff." I used the Eastern Tao illustrating an ancient philosophical approach that is really not ant--Christian. No, Eastern philosophy, does not require "meritorious suffering" Buddhism maintains this is our state normally, and detaching from suffering is the goal.

Sorry, you did not like me drawing on diverse schools of thought, but my "syncretism" is aimed at allowing for a more inclusive approach employing other ways of thinking than usually proposed here on the "religious" threads, which are dominated by Christians. In fact many established religions have used syncretism. Christianity being perhaps the one which used it th most. Whenever a new sect is developed, elements of prior versions are accepted or removed in combinations that out number any other religion.

"World Christian Encyclopedia (David A. Barrett; Oxford University Press, 1982) apparently estimated almost 21,000 denominations" Ok, many are close but there sure are elements of complex syncretism obviously.

Legend and myth ala Joseph Campbell should not be dismissed outright. Commonalities shared among many apparently different religions unite looking at cross cultural "stories" prevalent in ancient societies. Unlike you. I think various archetypes and mainly the mono myth are central ax·es religions revolve about. Studying these allows a "de-syncretism" Unification of principles is good in philosophy as it is in science. As actor brought op recently

Originally Posted by Actor

Christ was in fact originally an allegorical figure and today’s literal figure was plagiarized from this earlier allegorical version.

The Christian god is loving. So is the compassion of Buddha.
The mind-body conundrum has many philosophical variations, we could argue forever, but my distrust of words alone led me in another direction. It may boil down to trying to understanding "I" .

Can we explain consciousness as more than a mechanical electrochemical process? Maybe knowing "I" . might help. As I said one must start with knowing one own mind. Observing and not re-acting mechanically helps us witness first hand the convoluted inner process.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

The Christian god is loving.

You did mean to say until the Hebrew-Christian God isn't, didn't you?

Hos 9:15
15 All their evil is at Gilgal;
Indeed, I came to hate them there!
Because of the wickedness of their deeds
I will drive them out of My house!
I will love them no more;
All their princes are rebels.
NASB

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Actor

Who?

Can you give an example of a "non-quantifiable aspect of nature?"

What do you mean by "subjective mind?"

How?

Why not?

-------------------------
"Who?"...Descartes and Locke, et,al...(Third paragraph...) "Philosophical reflections on color properties and color experience intensified during the early modern period, when Descartes and Locke (among others) developed
a distinction between primary (quantitive) and secondary (qualitative) qualities...https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~hatfield/HatRealQualErk.pdf

I'll add Hobbes.

-------------------------
"Can you give an example of a "non-quantifiable aspect of nature?"...https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/#Uses

----------------------------
What do you mean by "subjective mind?" ..."The word qualia refers to our subjective experience of the world and includes the properties of our experience that cannot be located in the world external to our minds"....http://www.def-logic.com/articles/silby014.html

------------------------------------

"How? Why Not?"...You experience some type of quale-like, subjective, qualitative, 1st Person experience (pain, exhilaration from Justify's win, etc.). You flinch from the felt pain, or clap for Justify, etc. The 1st person qualitative sensation can have nothing to do with your reaction, since a physical brain state can only have a causal role in bringing about other physical states (recoil, clap).

If qualia have been reclassified as non-existent in the objective, external world, how can the qualitative experience (pain, exhilaration) be in any way relevant to the resultant physical reaction (recoil, clap, etc.)?

Descartes and others realized this and became dualists...

https://www.iep.utm.edu/descmind/

I subscribe to hylemorphic dualism...

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7S...RadUVaXzg/view

[hcap]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

I'm addressing philosophy of the mind as philosophers have since Democritus: the mind-body problem.

I am somewhat reluctant to propose this "connection", but it may apply. I said this:

However science and mathematics is not necessarily contrary to what we do not understand. Iimmateriality may have to be re-defined in light of modern physics and science.

Matter and energy are not necessarily foreign to the spiritual.
I think the spirit may be beyond all terms we use, including spirit, matter and energy.

Quantum physics has modified classical physics beyond how we are accustomed to thinking. Reflecting on the "hydrogen table" of the Gurdjieff-Ouspensky teaching, where matter, energy and spirit are looked at in a different way. Never understood the ramifications until I considered that the ultimate fine density lowest number "hydrogen", Ouspensky assigned to higher levels of mind, might correlate with "Zero-point energy"

Zero-point energy (ZPE) or ground state energy is the lowest possible energy that a quantum mechanical system may have. Unlike in classical mechanics, quantum systems constantly fluctuate in their lowest energy state due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.[1] As well as atoms and molecules, the empty space of the vacuum has these properties. According to quantum field theory, the universe can be thought of not as isolated particles but continuous fluctuating fields: matter fields, whose quanta are fermions (i.e. leptons and quarks), and force fields, whose quanta are bosons (e.g. photons and gluons). All these fields have zero-point energy.[2] These fluctuating zero-point fields lead to a kind of reintroduction of an aether in physics,[1][3] since some systems can detect the existence of this energy. However this aether cannot be thought of as a physical medium if it is to be Lorentz invariant such that there is no contradiction with Einstein's theory of special relativity.[1]

As I proposed earlier, Iimmateriality and Materiality may be looked at as different points along a spectrum of "densities"

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

None of the actions attributed to the character called God in the fiction known as the Bible require infinite power or infinite knowledge. Many would require extremely great amounts of energy and quite a bit of knowledge but none require omnipotence or omniscience.

Prove your premises. You're making the claims.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Prove your premises. You're making the claims.

You're trying to shift the burden of proof.

Theists make the claim that God has at least three attributes: omnipresence, omniscience and omnipotence, i.e., he's everywhere, he's all-knowing, he's all-powerful. I can find no passage in the Bible that confirms this. Rather I find: he's been around, he knows more than you, and he's bigger than you.

If you insist that I have made a claim then that claim is simply the I can find no passage in the Bible which makes any claim that God has any attribute which is infinite. To ask me to prove "I can't" is trivial.

I would speculate that the ancients who wrote the Bible were unfamiliar with the concept of infinity and therefore did not mean to imply such.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

You're trying to shift the burden of proof.

You made the claim. Prove it. The burden lies with the person making the claim.

And now you appeal to the lack of biblical proof for God's attributes as the basis for making your claim? Really? Since when have you ever cared what the bible has said, since you have always stated emphatically and quite often that the bible proves nothing? If the bible proves nothing, how can you be seeking any proof from the bible that God possesses the three attributes?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You made the claim. Prove it. The burden lies with the person making the claim.

And now you appeal to the lack of biblical proof for God's attributes as the basis for making your claim? Really? Since when have you ever cared what the bible has said, since you have always stated emphatically and quite often that the bible proves nothing? If the bible proves nothing, how can you be seeking any proof from the bible that God possesses the three attributes?

But I'm not trying to prove that. Just the opposite, if anything. I'm simply demonstrating that the Bible proves nothing. The claims of the three big Omni's are from believers like yourself. If they point to the Bible as justification for these claims then that justification simply is not there. Prove me wrong. Did I miss it?