Posted on 04/05/2009 8:10:35 PM PDT by betty boop
[[Independent thought in this case is thought that is free from the constraints of the threat of eternal damnation]]
How is a warning a ‘threat’? Would it be ‘liberating’ for a child to ignore their parent’s warnign about a hot stove and stick their hand on it anyways? Woudl it be ‘liberating’ for a person to be warned agaisnt investing in a bogus stock, and for that person to buy into it despite the warnings?
Liberating? I hardly htink so
[[illogical set of rules that religion gives]]
Oh please do elaborate- this ought to be rich!
[[ free from the promise of eternal salvation and all the selfish things that come from such motivation ‘to act.’]]
I take it you think it’s ‘gallant’ to reject God’s gracious offer? Is it also goign to be gallant for eternity? Better to reject Your creator than to ‘accept such a selfish offer’ eh? Almost a form of self-denial for the sake of self-righteousness it woudl seem- but better self-righteous, than JUSTIFIED via free offer. Wouldn’t want to appear to be the ‘unliberated selfish’ person now would we? Much better to place our compelte trust in self-pride- so much more ‘liberating’
The song in the flames “I did it MY way” - but better to burn than to be beholden to someone else- that’s my motto- Better to do things ourself, than to admit we need help- better to bleed than to admit we can’t save oruselves- better to pretend somethign doesn’t exist than to listen to that still small voice- don’t want to be seen as weak and needy- better for others to be impressed with our sense of selfrighteousness- better to get temporary praise from others than to face eternity
Yes, liberating- how liberating it is to be held in esteme temporarily by others who also shut out that stil lsmall voice- that icky religion- so stifling and old fashioned! “Intellectuals don’t beleive in such htings’ (or so we’re led to beleive based on the vioces of the loudest smallest groups) Must keep yelling to drown out that still small voice- liberation! Liberation! Religious peopel are ignorant and afraid! Stuck i nthe dark ages! Bound by ‘silly rules’! Morlaity is subjective! (Contrary to the evidence )
Your argument is entirely dependent on the existence of hell and therefore not valid.
It is your belief that hell is as real as a hot stove. I am inclined to disagree with that opinion.
—How is a warning a ‘threat’? Would it be ‘liberating’ for a child to ignore their parent’s warning about a hot stove..—
ALSO:
—[[illogical set of rules that religion gives]]
Oh please do elaborate- this ought to be rich!—
The idea of ‘jihad’ is a fine example.
The rest of your response kinda proved my point, thanks.
“Some truth can be true today and false tomorrow.”
No, that is a mistake. Every true statement is always true. The postmodernists and linguistic analysis tried to put that one over, but all statements are contextual and the kind of argument you are making can only be made by dropping the context.
For example, if someone says, “Harry is still alive” on thursday, when Harry is alive, and Harry drops dead on Friday, someone might say, “the statement, “Harry is still alive,” is no longer true. But that drops the unstated (but understood) context, which is, “On this Thursday, Harry is still alive,” and that statement will be true for eternity because on Thursday, Harry was still alive, and will always have been alive on that Thursday.
Many, possibly most, fallacious arguments come from dropping the context of atatements. The most famous class of such fallacies is Ayn Rand’s identification of the “floating abstraction.”
Hank
Could it/that be TRUE?... "
I can't state strongly enough: I have zero doubt that it is absoutely true!
[[Your argument is entirely dependent on the existence of hell and therefore not valid.]]
You have proof hell doesn’t exist? Lol. Just keep thinking somethign doesn’t exist- just don’t ask the rest of us to buy that crap when we’ve Met Christ personally- you speak from innexperience, then try to tell everyone that God and Hell don’t exist? You stand on the outside, trying to peer through the windows, informing everyone on the outside about htings you have no experience with- You’re apparently not even willing to see for yourself, and you expect others to beleive you? You can stomp your foot outside the door all you like, but unless you take God at His word, put your trust in Him, you can not speak as an authority on anythign concerning Him-
The argument is entirely valid- you simply refuse to speak from the position of authority via experience, and hterefore, your argument is invalid because quite frankly, you have no idea what you’re talkign about- It’s akin to you, never having seen ice in your life, refusing to beleive someone who has seen it who states it exists despite being able to produce it. Repeating over and over again that it doesn’t exist isn’t a valid argument unfortunately for you
[[It is your belief that hell is as real as a hot stove. I am inclined to disagree with that opinion.]]
Nope- it obviously went right over your head- the point is that it is NOT a ‘threat’ to warn someone of something- it is love- Your failse accusation that a waning is akin to a ‘threat’ is simpyl false- it is NO more a ‘threat’ than it woudl be for a parent to tell hteir child a hot stove will hurt them- and it certainly is NOT ‘liberating’ for that child to ignore the warning and place htier hand on that stove. Whether you personally beleive hell exists or not is irrelevent, but your accusation is false, and your attempt to make Christians out to be ignorant sheep with psychological insecurities isn’t welcome here- especially from someone who speaks from complete ignorance on the subject being that you again, refuse to meet your Creator personally
[[The idea of ‘jihad’ is a fine example.]]
Jihad has NOTHING to do with Christianity
[[Your argument is entirely dependent on the existence of hell and therefore not valid.]]
You have proof hell doesn’t exist? Lol. Just keep thinking somethign doesn’t exist- just don’t ask the rest of us to buy that crap when we’ve Met Christ personally- you speak from innexperience, then try to tell everyone that God and Hell don’t exist? You stand on the outside, trying to peer through the windows, informing everyone on the outside about htings you have no experience with- You’re apparently not even willing to see for yourself, and you expect others to beleive you? You can stomp your foot outside the door all you like, but unless you take God at His word, put your trust in Him, you can not speak as an authority on anythign concerning Him-
The argument is entirely valid- you simply refuse to speak from the position of authority via experience, and hterefore, your argument is invalid because quite frankly, you have no idea what you’re talkign about- It’s akin to you, never having seen ice in your life, refusing to beleive someone who has seen it who states it exists despite being able to produce it. Repeating over and over again that it doesn’t exist isn’t a valid argument unfortunately for you
[[It is your belief that hell is as real as a hot stove. I am inclined to disagree with that opinion.]]
Nope- it obviously went right over your head- the point is that it is NOT a ‘threat’ to warn someone of something- it is love- Your failse accusation that a waning is akin to a ‘threat’ is simpyl false- it is NO more a ‘threat’ than it woudl be for a parent to tell hteir child a hot stove will hurt them- and it certainly is NOT ‘liberating’ for that child to ignore the warning and place htier hand on that stove. Whether you personally beleive hell exists or not is irrelevent, but your accusation is false, and your attempt to make Christians out to be ignorant sheep with psychological insecurities isn’t welcome here- especially from someone who speaks from complete ignorance on the subject being that you again, refuse to meet your Creator personally
[[The idea of ‘jihad’ is a fine example.]]
Jihad has NOTHING to do with Christianity
[[Your argument is entirely dependent on the existence of hell and therefore not valid.]]
You have proof hell doesn’t exist? Lol. Just keep thinking somethign doesn’t exist- just don’t ask the rest of us to buy that crap when we’ve Met Christ personally- you speak from innexperience, then try to tell everyone that God and Hell don’t exist? You stand on the outside, trying to peer through the windows, informing everyone on the outside about htings you have no experience with- You’re apparently not even willing to see for yourself, and you expect others to beleive you? You can stomp your foot outside the door all you like, but unless you take God at His word, put your trust in Him, you can not speak as an authority on anythign concerning Him-
The argument is entirely valid- you simply refuse to speak from the position of authority via experience, and hterefore, your argument is invalid because quite frankly, you have no idea what you’re talkign about- It’s akin to you, never having seen ice in your life, refusing to beleive someone who has seen it who states it exists despite being able to produce it. Repeating over and over again that it doesn’t exist isn’t a valid argument unfortunately for you
[[It is your belief that hell is as real as a hot stove. I am inclined to disagree with that opinion.]]
Nope- it obviously went right over your head- the point is that it is NOT a ‘threat’ to warn someone of something- it is love- Your failse accusation that a waning is akin to a ‘threat’ is simpyl false- it is NO more a ‘threat’ than it woudl be for a parent to tell hteir child a hot stove will hurt them- and it certainly is NOT ‘liberating’ for that child to ignore the warning and place htier hand on that stove. Whether you personally beleive hell exists or not is irrelevent, but your accusation is false, and your attempt to make Christians out to be ignorant sheep with psychological insecurities isn’t welcome here- especially from someone who speaks from complete ignorance on the subject being that you again, refuse to meet your Creator personally
[[The idea of ‘jihad’ is a fine example.]]
Jihad has NOTHING to do with Christianity
You have stumbled on the "observer problem"..
What one observer sees/notices can be occluded to another observer.. due to time or qualia or position.. Assuming humans can even see reality clearly or at all..
As I said, as Jesus said, reality and truth is not in a statement, theory, assumed fact, or mental figment but in a person.. Jesus is truth.. Its hard to get your mind around that at least for me.. But if, Jesus is truth, everything else isn't, by itself..
It is possible humans with picayune sensory organs and multifarious mental problems(blind spots) cannot see universal reality as it is... Truth then would be "roll your own" observations.. basically opinion.. The life of a scientific fact is timestamped..
You have stumbled on the "observer problem"..
What one observer sees/notices can be occluded to another observer.. due to time or qualia or position.. Assuming humans can even see reality clearly or at all..
As I said, as Jesus said, reality and truth is not in a statement, theory, assumed fact, or mental figment but in a person.. Jesus is truth.. Its hard to get your mind around that at least for me.. But if, Jesus is truth, everything else isn't, by itself..
It is possible humans with picayune sensory organs and multifarious mental problems(blind spots) cannot see universal reality as it is... Truth then would be "roll your own" observations.. basically opinion.. The life of a scientific fact is timestamped..
For Heraclitus (ca. 535–475 BCE), it meant both the source and fundamental order of the Cosmos (universe):
But though the Logos is common, the many live as if they had a wisdom of their own. [Fragment 2]In short, Logos means source and fundamental order of the Cosmos. (One might think of it as "algorithm from inception.") Thus it is also the standard or criterion by which men may distinguish things truthfully, "according to their nature."Those who speak with the mind must strengthen themselves with that which is common to all [i.e., the Logos].... For all human laws nourish themselves from the one divine [i.e., the Logos] — which prevails as it will, and suffices for all things and more than suffices. [Fragment 114]
Although this Logos is eternally valid, yet men are unable to understand it — not only before hearing it, but even after they have heard it for the first time. That is to say, although all things come to pass in accordance with this Logos, men seem to be quite without any experience of it — at least if they are judged in the light of such words and deeds as I am here setting forth. My own method is to distinguish each thing according to its nature, and to specify how it behaves; other men, on the contrary, as as forgetful and heedless in their waking moments of what is going on around and within them as they are during sleep. [Fragment 1]
Which is basically the way I see it, as further elaborated by the Gospel of John, which identifies Jesus as the incarnation of the Logos, through which all things are made; and as divine intermediary between God and the world.
You wrote: "When a news reporter presents some wild story you know can’t be true, and someone remarks, 'that’s not the truth,' what does that mean?"
It means: Someone realizes that the reporter is presenting a falsification of reality.
It is ever a quest, and never a final possession.
There is only reality, dear. Have no idea what you think "universal reality" would mean.
It still amazes me that people who think human intelligence is so feeble are nevertheless absolutely cconvinced their grasp of concepts written in a language they cannot read, translated by people they do not know, still gives them certain knowledge. You'll have to explain how you do that with your puny "finite" intellect. (I'm not accusing you of anything, just using the language that is used with me. I think your mind is fine. Just don't agree with how you are using it.)
Hank
One is a action, the other is a thing. You can label it process or search, but either way, the search for something cannot be the thing itself.
So it's not circular reasoning, it's not reasoning at all.
Life as science defines it is ONLY physical life, not the eternal life of the soul.
If your definition of life includes messages from Beyond and Mary the mother of God it is not a scientific theory.
That is the enormous blind-spot of the Newtonian paradigm which rejects formal and final cause on principle and which can only anticipate by syntactical encoding, e.g. Fibonacci series - entirely unaware of the semantical ambience of nature (Rosen model) much less so that which is Spiritual!
oops. Sorry I didn’t see this.
Betty, what language did Heraclitus write in?
What language was the book of John written in?
You do know there is a difference, don’t you? (The question is rhetorical, I think.)
Have a question for you. Why do you always have to “characterize” people and their comments with words like “reductionist?” Is that just a Christian’s way of calling people names? Don’t feel you have to stop. It doesn’t bother me, just wonder why you feel the need to do that rather than just addressing the issues.
Hank
Not at all Hank. Reductionism is an epistemological strategy. A person who employs it can be fairly described as "reductionist." Or so it seems to me.
I'm sorry to have given you offense.
YES!!!!!!!!!!! Outstanding observation, dearest sister in Christ!
The reality of the Universe.. Reality beyond what is experienced on this planet.. The evolution of humans to the next stage..
You know... being "born again"..
Darwin was on the right track its just his God was too small..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.