Religion II

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Light

Any man who thinks he deserves heaven is not a Christian

You have finally said something that is true; for no one can claim to be saved by God's grace alone in one breath and then turn around and say that he deserves God's salvation. An oxymoron if there ever was one.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Does a saint KNOW that he is a "saint"?

Absolutely. See 1Jn 5:13.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by jms62

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/a...rse-hypothesis

I guess that trip to Mars wouldn't really be a trip at all, would it?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Of course it can. I substantiated it by applying the law of noncontradiction, and atheistic materialism failed the test miserably.

Name one piece of evidence that you have presented and which you have substantiated in any manner whatsoever.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by Actor

Name one piece of evidence that you have presented and which you have substantiated in any manner whatsoever.

Where science is still scratching its collective head about is answering the question, what was the universe like before the big bang? boxcar's case rests on the argument that if everything has a cause, something must have caused the universe to come into existence, and it couldn't have caused itself to come into existence; therefore there must be a supreme being that created the universe. Frankly, the problem with science is that we only have speculation at this point about anything prior to the big bang. .

Of course, boxcar is trapped by the same argument. What caused god to come into existence? Of course religion allows itself an argument that science cannot. God always was.

Science can meld with religion by simply assuming God predated our universe and created the big bang, after which naturalism took over. What we might call deistic naturalism. Of course, boxcar doesn't buy that either. But, thousands of scientists do.

Of course, we could say, since you have no proof god created the universe, by default it must have come about through natural means. boxcar will always remain convinced he is on the right side of this argument, despite mountains of evidence for the "naturalist" explanation for how we got to where we are. And those who believe in science will at the very least reject the Genesis stories as being metaphorical tales.

I think what we can be sure of is this. boxcar's literal interpretation of Genesis is wrong to almost a certainty, and the scientific explanation for the universe from the big bang forward, including evolution, is almost certainly right. And beyond that there is only faith.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

I think what we can be sure of is this. boxcar's literal interpretation of Genesis is wrong to almost a certainty...

I've been thinking about this at length...and I'm not sure that I agree with you.

Let's say that we place our kids in a comfortable home, with a well-stocked refrigerator...and the only request that we make of them is that they refrain from eating any of the apples that we have in the bottom drawer of the fridge. But, to our dismay...we come home one night only to find that our kids have disobeyed us...by having partaken in the eating of the "forbidden fruit". Are we not justified in getting insanely mad at them, and throwing them out of the house...and into a life of toil and suffering?

The more I think about this...the more REASONABLE it seems to me.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I've been thinking about this at length...and I'm not sure that I agree with you.

Let's say that we place our kids in a comfortable home, with a well-stocked refrigerator...and the only request that we make of them is that they refrain from eating any of the apples that we have in the bottom drawer of the fridge. But, to our dismay...we come home one night only to find that our kids have disobeyed us...by having partaken in the eating of the "forbidden fruit". Are we not justified in getting insanely mad at them, and throwing them out of the house...and into a life of toil and suffering?

The more I think about this...the more REASONABLE it seems to me.

You have been watching too many reruns of "Father Knows Best" Stuck in boxcvar's anthropomorphic 50's sitcom version of reality. Make sure though you wear a wide belt instead of suspenders for any "righteous" punishment you must dole out. The Christian "God the Father"fails in human classic comic terms box is so found of spouting. His version of religion devalues the definition.

Diety
Shmirty

The ancient Israelites pegged how the word and concept of god is rapidly transformed into a golden calve by intellectually trying to grasp the scope of the ungraspable. Zen is better than the 1950's

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by hcap

You have been watching too many reruns of "Father Knows Best" Stuck in boxcvar's anthropomorphic 50's sitcom version of reality. Make sure though you wear a wide belt instead of suspenders for any "righteous" punishment you must dole out. The Christian "God the Father"fails in human classic comic terms box is so found of spouting. His version of religion devalues the definition.

Diety
Shmirty

The ancient Israelites pegged how the word and concept of god is rapidly transformed into a golden calve by intellectually trying to grasp the scope of the ungraspable. Zen is better than the 1950's

You honestly thought I was SERIOUS in that post?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I've been thinking about this at length...and I'm not sure that I agree with you.

Let's say that we place our kids in a comfortable home, with a well-stocked refrigerator...and the only request that we make of them is that they refrain from eating any of the apples that we have in the bottom drawer of the fridge. But, to our dismay...we come home one night only to find that our kids have disobeyed us...by having partaken in the eating of the "forbidden fruit". Are we not justified in getting insanely mad at them, and throwing them out of the house...and into a life of toil and suffering?

The more I think about this...the more REASONABLE it seems to me.

Speaking of thinking about things at length...What bothers me about the god of the old testament is that he is flawed in ways most of us wouldn't be, and the casting out of the garden is a good example. You could go on at length about god setting them up to fail, and knowing all along he was going to punish not only them, but everyone after them. It would be like you punishing the friend your child will make next year because your child grabbed the apple last year. Who would do that, and if anybody did, who would call him sane? Then, in order to give your thieving kid real forgiveness, you have to kill one of your other kids after thinking about it for 4,000 years.

I always said one thing you demand from a boss is that he/she be better at the job than you would be. I'm not sure there aren't millions of people who would have done a better job as god of the old testament than the one we apparently got. It's an amazing tale, and even more amazing you can get people to say, of course it is true.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

You honestly thought I was SERIOUS in that post?

Not really, but it gave me an opportunity to compare "god the father" to a TV sitcoom. And the literal mangling of potential transcendent and metaphorical concepts that are at the root of religion to the "classic comic" versions of those religions bandied about on this thread.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

Speaking of thinking about things at length...What bothers me about the god of the old testament is that he is flawed in ways most of us wouldn't be, and the casting out of the garden is a good example. You could go on at length about god setting them up to fail, and knowing all along he was going to punish not only them, but everyone after them. It would be like you punishing the friend your child will make next year because your child grabbed the apple last year. Who would do that, and if anybody did, who would call him sane? Then, in order to give your thieving kid real forgiveness, you have to kill one of your other kids after thinking about it for 4,000 years.

Actually although there are misunderstandings, misinterpretations an terrible distortions in the OT, original sin came about after the OT was written. The OT as the NT and other religious scriptures come down to us as the result of a humongous game of multi-generational telephone.

Buried in many scriptures are representations of what Ouspensky, and George Gurdjieff, called the law of seven and the law of three.
Both also show up in the one to many distribution in natural structures like trees and rivers and are described mathematically by fractal geometry



Another esoteric principle was laid out in the Emerald Tablet of Hermes Trismegistus: "That which is Below corresponds to that which is Above, and that which is Above, corresponds to that which is Below, to accomplish the miracles of the One Thing."
Phrase............(or only god can make a tree)

[hcap]

The law of three is for instance expressed by yin and yang. "This ancient Chinese philosophy describes how seemingly opposite or contrary forces may actually be complementary, interconnected, and interdependent in the natural world, and how they may give rise to each other as they interrelate to one another."

Heaven and Earth.

Tao Te Ching - Lao Tzu - chapter 11

Thirty spokes share the wheel's hub;
It is the center hole that makes it useful.
Shape clay into a vessel;
It is the space within that makes it useful.
Cut doors and windows for a room;
It is the holes which make it useful.
Therefore profit comes from what is there;
Usefulness from what is not there.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

Where science is still scratching its collective head about is answering the question, what was the universe like before the big bang? boxcar's case rests on the argument that if everything has a cause, something must have caused the universe to come into existence, and it couldn't have caused itself to come into existence; therefore there must be a supreme being that created the universe. Frankly, the problem with science is that we only have speculation at this point about anything prior to the big bang. .

Of course, boxcar is trapped by the same argument. What caused god to come into existence? Of course religion allows itself an argument that science cannot. God always was.

Science can meld with religion by simply assuming God predated our universe and created the big bang, after which naturalism took over. What we might call deistic naturalism. Of course, boxcar doesn't buy that either. But, thousands of scientists do.

Of course, we could say, since you have no proof god created the universe, by default it must have come about through natural means. boxcar will always remain convinced he is on the right side of this argument, despite mountains of evidence for the "naturalist" explanation for how we got to where we are. And those who believe in science will at the very least reject the Genesis stories as being metaphorical tales.

I think what we can be sure of is this. boxcar's literal interpretation of Genesis is wrong to almost a certainty, and the scientific explanation for the universe from the big bang forward, including evolution, is almost certainly right. And beyond that there is only faith.

Boxcar is not trapped by the same argument concerning origins because:

Divine Revelation makes it clear that God created ALL things. He didn't just create one thing and then let a very long process take over at that point from which that one thing created from which all else was created (evolved).

Secondly, it is science that is caught between a rock and hard place because any godless naturalism science wants to throw at us would be a self-defeating philosophy, since, logically, nothing can cause or create itself.

Thirdly, Divine Revelation also makes it clear that God is the, Eternal Self-Existent One -- a view that is not logically absurd. Not too shabby for a bunch of illiterate, stupid herdsmen or knuckle-dragging, cave-dwelling neanderthals (however you wish to view the ancients). They actually came up with a worldview that doesn't violate any laws of logic. They actually said that there is a transcendent Creator, outside the universe, who called all creation into existence. This is far more than can be said for Hitchens, Dawkins and Hawkings of the modern world.

Finally, Thomas Aquinas, refining Aristotleism, did exactly what Paul said could be done in Romans 1 when Aquinas observed the universe and was able to soundly reason to the Unmoved Mover -- Someone who is not subject to Change as the universe is. And again...he did this by not violating any laws of logic in the process.

So...I tell you what...you can boast in your forensic scientism that is grounded in numerous a priori, untestable, unverifiable assumptions, that beg the question and are logically absurd, and I will boast in my a posteriori monotheism that is grounded in Divine Revelation and violates no laws of logic.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Divine Revelation makes it clear that God created ALL things. He didn't just create one thing and then let a very long process take over at that point from which that one thing created from which all else was created (evolved).

I will boast in my a posteriori monotheism that is grounded in Divine Revelation and violates no laws of logic.

You could argue that the creation of the big bang was in essence the creation of all things since matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed in this universe. Everything that ever will be was created at that point in time. Even your plug and play universe is constantly changing with things coming in an out of existence. The fable of Genesis can in no way explain the complexities of the universe, and it doesn't try. It is the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and saying LA-LA-LA while someone tries to explain evolution.

If you can say that the god for which you have no proof is eternal and self existent, of course you can violate your law of non-contradiction. It is laughable.

While you may believe you violate no law of logic, you violate most laws of the physical universe.

I have to laugh based on what I have seen from creationist debate videos. When you have one by the short hairs, they simply go back to the playbook.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

The law of three is for instance expressed by yin and yang. "This ancient Chinese philosophy describes how seemingly opposite or contrary forces may actually be complementary, interconnected, and interdependent in the natural world, and how they may give rise to each other as they interrelate to one another."

Heaven and Earth.

Good and Evil: God permitted entrance of Evil into this world to show us what the highest form of Good is: Unconditional Love.

Good and Evil: God allows Evil into this world because he alone can bring Good out of Evil.

I take it, Mr. Hcap, that your "ancient Chinese philosophy says nothing about Heaven and Hell? For your info...heaven and earth are not contrary to one another but heaven and hell are.