Posted on 07/02/2010 6:56:08 PM PDT by Desdemona
Based on the quote by Alamo-Girl (#540). It had no connection with Richard Dawkins. Wrong gender for a room mate.
Ditto. A tale is a tale and one cannot differentiate between a talking mirror in the Snow White and the talking donkey, or pink unicorns on Jupiter for that matter.
I see all sorts of assertions made without a speck of proof, Jonah living in the belly of a whale three days is a “fantastic tale”. Where is your proof that it is a “fantastic tale”?
It doesn't happen in the real world. It doens'thappen because (1) digestive juices are highly acidic, lethal, and tend to dissolve a body, (2) there is not enough air in the stomach, resulting in suffocation, (3) smooth muscle movements would crush the body, etc.
Now if you insist on flying reindeer and talking mirrors, then we can talk about Jonah too in the same category.
However, you will have to show me either a talking mirror, a flying reindeer or someone who actually, verifiably spent three days inside a giant animal's stomach and lived to talk about it before I move that story out of the fairy tale section.
No, it's based on the real world. Humans have to learn and develop; even Jesus was said to be 'developing.'
And it happened in an instant
What happened in an instant?
the loving embrace of a Divine hand on my very real and very physical heart
That's not the gospel. I wrote "No one, out of a clear blue has the whole gospel downloaded Paul style in an instant."
Beyond that, I can only tell you, dear brother, that life has made more sense since that moment, than I ever could have imagined it making before.
People will tell you that for a variety of reasons.
Love has overcome anger. Hope has replaced despair. And Faith has amplified my knowledge beyond my wildest dreams
Why anger? Why despair?
Faith has amplified my knowledge beyond my wildest dreams
How? You are using generalities. It's like me saying "I feel much better." What does that mean? Much better than what?
In an instant.
In an instant how? What happened?
I am only one man. Are you positive you know the experience of Faith shared by the other Two Billion?
Not not at all. There are at least a billion Muslims who have had their own "experience" convincing them of a different God, and so on. There are close to a billion Hindus who believe in something different. What do these numbers supposed to prove? Nothing.
I only know that people have to "develop" and learn and that instant downloads don't work on human brains. You are more than welcome to share with your experience in detail so that we may all understand what happened 'in an instant' besides the 'hug' and how it expanded your 'knowledge' (knowledge of what?). Details, please.
I sincerely wish for you that peace I know, which passes all understanding.
If it is beyond understanding what exactly are you trying to accomplish? Take your word for it? How about this: when you believe me that there are pink unicorns on Jupiter I will believe you. No understanding needed.
That is so silly. Can you give me one documented, verifiable "instant learning" of a complex subject example that's not an unverifiable anecdotal account?
Some things just don't happen in the real world. Like talking donkeys...
That's not what he says. He said he heard the Gospel from no man.
So much for that theory...
What happened? The reality and implications of the facts I knew (but viewed skeptically) became blindingly clear. That is the Gospel.
That tells me absolutely nothing, shibumi. Example?
Why anger and despair? Because if any man (including you) is honest with himself, has clear introspection and a realistic view of the world (without Christ) he knows there is nothing but "...fear in a handful of dust..."(Eliot)
Just the way the world is. Taoist thinkers found peace in that without trying to figure out why the world is the way it is.
We all start out riding "high horses" just as Paul was riding a physical one. Yours appears to be a hyperbole ad absurdum of a pink unicorn. /I>
Pink unicorns or talking donkeys...no difference.
You are attempting to deny the reality of who Saul of Tarsus was, and what he knew.
He knew the Scriptures. He knew the story of Jesus’ life. He knew what Christians claimed, and he persecuted them for it.
Did you think he was handing out tickets for jaywalking?
If he didn’t know what they were preaching, how could he persecute them for it?
The statement you reference, which is similar to my own profession of faith, is a descriptiion of understanding the facts, not accumulating them.
(By the way, Good Night.)
A logical "truth" is meaningless unless..
Irrelevant to the point that logical statements require logical proofs.
Saying 2 + 2 = 4 is meaningless if you have nothing that corresponds to real numbers (such as two sets of two apples each).
This is all quantity, physical science anyway. And your point is granted and still irrelevant. The spheres of knowledge are concentric and inclusive, yet, for proof, we use different tools in different spheres. You don't prove there are four apples using logic - you count them.
The first thing any thinker does is apply his abstract logic to the real world to see if it corresponds to the observed reality
Irrelevant again. If you're proving something physical, you use physical science. No logic required, other than "you can trust your senses, because..."
Other religions do not see God as anything transcendent.
Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, the major religions according to their theologians do. Certainly for the purposes of discussing Christianity as we are, God is transcendent. As far as nature - immanent and transcendent.
So do my pink unicorns on Jupiter.
No, they don't. They would be in the physical sphere, detectable by the senses and their extensions.
I understand that very well, but there is no category error because God is presented as real and physically present in the world
Immanent and transcendent, omnipresent and invisible. No simple location, not detectable by the senses, not measurable by any instrument.
No comparision to pink unicorns.
Therfore he should be demonstrable in real physical terms.
By what? A reading on a God meter? Weight on a scale? No, there's no physical scientific measurement possible of God according to Christian theology. You can see God through creation or creation through God or creation without God - creation in all of these cases appears exactly the same objectively when examined using science and reason/logic. Nothing about a transcendent God is proved or disproved using these methods.
In which case the whole thing becomes a tale.
I'm would prefer not to go off track into scripture, there are others you can have that discussion with. I'm sticking to your problems of proof of anything transcendent.
If the transcendent exists, it impossible to see with the tools you require - tools that by design cannot see it. Therefore, you claim it does not exist. That's a error in reason called a category error.
If you mean to say "aware of" (awareness), then of course physical science and logic are not the only way we "know." There are other types of "knowledge."
Good enough. I was settling for the fact that physical science and reason/logic cannot prove they alone can know everything that exists or can be known.
But I don't think awareness is knowledge.
To the extent of my awareness when tasting it, I know what a strawberry tastes like.
Awareness does not connect the dots; reason does.
There really are no dots to connect in the taste of a strawberry. I can't prove what it tastes like to me, I can't give you the knowledge of what it tastes like - except by giving you one and having you taste it also.
Then we both have more knowledge about the taste of strawberries than before. Subjective knowledge of course. But that's the way the world is. Some knowledge is subjective.
We can compare our tastes, describe it, say what it is similar to, whether it tastes good or bad - to us. But it's quite impossible to prove it tastes the same or even that it tastes "good." It would still be accurate for me to say "I know what a strawberry tastes like, and therefore I know more about the strawberry than if I didn't."
And if all this is a hallucination, and that's a big if, then maybe there is no such a thing as reality...
My point was that, in the extreme, you can't prove otherwise. My discussion here is about knowing, proof, different ways of knowing, what can be proved and how, what can be known and how. I'm battling your reductionism in the process.
No one in his right mind will leap off a tall building, jump into the fire, or let me talk them into letting me shoot them with a .22 in the head...
Irrelevant again. This is all physics. You know the physical using physics.
We all know what reality is…
We all know the basics of our shared reality, we don't disagree on what can be reduced to purely physical for example. We don't agree on the reality of the larger picture.
Some things we just don't test
Some things can't be tested according to your test requirements.
and we all agree on; no philosophy 101 needed. And it unfailingly involves reason and logic, the dots..
Again, knowledge of the physical world, pure science, is the firmest we have, logic/reason next. Of course we tend to agree on such matters as "rocks are hard" and "hitting the pavement at 30 miles an hour is not good for your body."
What you are trying to do is reduce everything to the physical or reason/logic and say if it can't be, it doesn't exist or it can't be known or it can't be proved. And, again, you cannot do that and not violate your own rules of reason/logic.
It just fails on it's on requirement.
What you can say is it cannot be proved as certainly as physical reality can be proved; it can't be known as firmly as deductive reasoning; it can't be objectively ascertained and transmitted by mathematics, physics, etc. All throughout our knowledge of reality are levels of certainty and objectivity and provability.
I realize the distinctions you're making. Certainly I can't expect someone to take anything on my word without some convincing proof. I'm not trying to. But I'm drawing a distinction between knowledge that can be proven and knowledge that cannot be proven using science and reason/logic.
Catholics tend to see apparitions; Protestants will have "revelations," etc. It is learned, and varies form sect to sect.
Certainly there is a cultural/societal aspect of knowledge. How we view reality is partly through our senses, partly through our society and partly subjective. All three of these aspects affect how we know what we know about reality in total. We are not ever fully objective, we are always viewing reality in a context and with limitations, among them the fact that it is most difficult to see ourselves looking - to separate ourselves from what it is we are examining.
But, you're not immune. If the subjective or conditioning exists for others, it exists for you. If this disproves their worldview, it disproves yours as well. The best we can attempt is to be aware of our biases and distractions and remove them as much as possible.
It's like having a serous discussion about Santa's flying reindeer, if you know what I mean, and pretending that reindeer can actually fly.
I hear you and, seriously, step away from the miracles and apparitions, etc. If you really are interested in knowledge, if you really are interested in what may exist transcending physics, stop beating your dead horse. Forgive my presumption, but I think you've gotten about all you can get from it.
Well, anyway, I think you understand my dilemma better than others, and I appreciate your patience with me. I do understand your arguments. But I hope you understand that you are logically defending the illogical. All the best.
I think I understand it because I think went through it. The arguments you make are an echo of mine - although you are much more learned than I was. I rejected everything I grew up with in the Christian church using the same arguments. Not to the degree that you have, because, I think, I never was very accepting of them or devout in the church.
And I don't mean to be condescending to you. I think you have very successfully thrown off what others told you about God. For me, this was an absolute necessity. I was agnostic and then atheist for many many years, more years than I've been Catholic.
I love science, philosophy and logic and continue to learn everything I can about them. Yet, the area of knowledge properly deemed "religion" held me, I'm just that way, I like to argue it, discuss it, think about it, explore it. I think you have this same interest, or at least I've seen a great deal of evidence of it.
For what little it's worth, in my opinion, I think you have firmly worked out for yourself what you cannot accept of other's view, definition, description of God. In my opinion again, that's a good thing. For some, a minority I think, it is an absolute necessity.
This marks the end of accepting on authority or blind faith. However, this is not necessarily the end of your knowledge of what some call God.
Thank you very much for your reply and your patience as well.
Faith is what we do. We can do some things wrongly or do them out of a false conviction, but nevertheless that is what faith is. The desire to distill some purely intellectual content and call that faith, and the rest “works” is not found anywhere in the Gospel. It is a New Times invention.
Now, that doesn’t make things magical. It is God’s choosing to make baptismal water salvific or make blood into wine. It sure is supernatural, as is the subject matter of all Christianity.
You point out validly that the historical apostolic faith is integral with the liturgical and charitable works that embody it. Protestant faith, in contrast, if like Jefferson’s Gospel, a faith on its way out to be snuffed completely.
Of course it is possible for a non-Christian to have a sincere prayer to God Whose name he does not know and Whose Church he never stepped into. Since we are saved by our works and not by faith alone, it is possible for non-Christians to be saved, too. This should not be surprising to you, given, for exampe, the parable of the Talents. That righteous non-Christian was given so little, yet he may produce a far better yield, and the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ be on him, — rather than on an emaciated, untested, declarative faith of a middle class American, who then has the gall to declare himself not only with faith, but already “saved”.
I have no trouble at all believing your narrative and experience. GOD DOES MANY SUCH WONDERFUL THINGS FOR MANY PEOPLE.
LOL.
I ALWAYS KNEW
you were INFINITELY SMARTER THAN
a gnat.
And with at least as much spunk as a badger.
And you show it so graciously. LOL.
No one in the real world could learn a new and complex language in a very short time, say a week, but one man did. He learned the Icelandic language in one week, ONE WEEK, and even made jokes playing upon the peculiarities of the language. One week.
But things like are impossible!..... like falling thousands of feet to the ground from a plane and surviving. Not in the real world!. some things just don't happen!
Well, let's see, he says he was "all things to all men." Supposedly a Jew who for a strange reason was also a Roman citizen, a tent maker who claimed to be formally educated in religious matters, and a Sanhedrin deputy tantalizing Christians. Outside of that we know nothing about him because nothing is written.
One does not have to be a scholar to be a persecutor. A sheriff's deputy does not need to a law degree. As a Jew he would have known that Christians are sectarians and that they believed in what Jews considered blasphemy. Do you think persecutors of Anabaptists were all well read and versed in Anabaptist theology? It doesn't require rocket science to arrest people.
But Paul goes out of his way to state that he neither received nor was taught the gospel by any man. So, if anything, Paul is denying who you think he was and what you think he knew.
Maybe it pleases you to compare your experience to his, even though I don't see a parallel, you having 30 years of religious education, except for a sudden "revelation" just like Paul's, but you have yet to tell me what that revelation was with one single, concrete example.
Dear kosta, let's just cut to the chase here. It appears the central problem is you have closed your soul against the Author of your own being. In so doing, you have also detached yourself from the Logos, divine Truth which is the basis of human reason. Then you write to justify your rebellion against God your Father, and are evidently trying to recruit others to join you in apostasy. I don't know why you do this; but my heart goes out to you. For you have chosen a miserable course....
I do not know how one can live without God.
May the prodigal son return to the house of his Father Who loves him.
Thank you ever so much, dear brother in Christ, for this magnificent testimony, the truth of which I can validate from my own soul. That is how it is with me, too.
May God ever bless you!
you: Sure he does. Your own scriptures say that only those who have been given the spiritual faculties can. It's not a matter of our will.
And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and [their] ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with [their] eyes, and hear with [their] ears, and should understand with [their] heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. But blessed [are] your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear. – Matthew 13:14-16
Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. - James 2:19
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. - John 3:5-7
What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost [which is] in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? - I Corinthians 6:19
For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. - Colossians 3:3
Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye [are] the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. - John 15:4-5
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. - Romans 8:9
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.