You could easily argue or conclude that this incident has very little to do with prejudice or stereotyping and quite a bit to do with a dysfunction created by irrational fears. It is an odd irony that terrorists main goal is to get people to act irrationally. It may not have been the direct effect they wanted, but it is definitely a direct result. Law of unintended consequences?
That being said, if there are a few logical fallacies in your arguments. First, a visitor to a culturally and racially monolithic country like China will always be regarded with "extra prudence." In your example about a white person traveling to China you leave out the part where that person is continually regarded with additional scrutiny by everyone they meet because they are not Chinese. This seems strange to you because you live in a multicultural society where tolerance of myriad cultures and races is admirable, but to someone who is not it is natural and proper to eyeball the outsiders.
Perspective indeed. If I am on a plane seated between a white man and a man in traditional muslim garb I am not worried about getting mugged by the white man at all. Even if the guy is fresh out of prison and a career criminal, no one gets mugged on a plane. I will start to worry about the white guy in the parking lot. However, the number of muslim extremists that do dastardly things on airplanes is significantly greater than zero and has been hyped by sensational media coverage. Being wary of someone in traditional muslim garb on a plane is just your hindbrain's way of saying it would like to see tomorrow.
Witholding water from a person dying of thirst, a sin of omission if you will, is an entirely different set. However, it implies threats of physical violence to restrain the dying person and also contains the presumption that the one witholding is already acting in a violent manner, though not overtly. Not exactly a stellar example on your part.
You seem to have confused firing with persecution, fact with emotional content, and reality with one-sided editorial commentary. As it is, I have to assume that no "persecution" occurred, as the facts are not verifiable nor has a disinterested third party offered a judgement on the case. Regardless, it is not acceptable for someone to react with physical interactions of any kind to a physically non-threatening situation. An appropriate punitive response to a situation where you feel you have been wronged in this way would be to get a lawyer; not fling objects at people.
As understandable and justifiable as you think it is, I refuse to think that way. If instead of a notepad, a mouse was thrown, would it be different? What if it was a paperweight? A rock? Is that too much? Ok, what if the employer had personally insulted her before firing her or used a derogatory racial epithet? Would that justify something larger than a notepad? Where is the line of impropriety crossed? For me it is simple. Treat others with honor, respect, and dignity, and thusly, keep your hands and projectiles to yourself. Escalating to physical contact opens the door to reprisals and further escalation and betrays a mental attitude that is either immature, malicious, or both.
How you can interpret my personal abhorence for physical violence and respect for the sanctity of others' physical bodies as Naziism is fascinating. Then again, you have shown yourself to be overtly emotional in your thoughts, capable of assumptions of fact where they are not verifiable, and lacking logic in your analogies and comparisons. Whether you are misguided or just inept has lost its relevance to me. Fortunately for me, we are not having this conversation in person. People who can rationalize unjustified physical contact and who also happen to posess an excitable, emotional disposition combined with poor logic skills frighten and disgust me.
"is it still a tantrum if the EXACT same thing happened but the notebook thrower was Jewish and was forced out by a company run by Nazis?"
The short answer is yes. The long answer is you are intentionally confusing the issue with emotionally charged mumbo jumbo in an attempt to defend an undefendable point.
When someone resorts to physical interaction when none has been threatened or initiated against them it is a sign they have failed to act as a rational entity. In my personal opinion, they have failed to act as a human in that interaction.
The real irony of your comparison of Jews and Nazis is that the Nazis did the same thing you are trying to support. They violated otherwise peaceful people because of their religious beliefs. Hypocrisy in spades.
Re:The author is wrong about accupuncture
on
Trick or Treatment
·
· Score: 1
If the treatment is effective most people would not care if it was described as balancing humours, directing Chi, or modifying the phase variance on the tachyonic transducers. The semantics of a treatment are irrelevant in the face of its usefullness.
Furthermore, if acupuncture is effective, I would think that studying the jargon and information structures of "Chi" could have some beneficial effects on "western" medicine. Perhaps they refer, in stylistic, archaic, and veiled terms to some kind of bio-electric byproduct of the nervous system that can be manipulated by acupuncture. Comparing acupuncture/chi to humours reeks of premature dismissal in light of the studies that show acupuncture is effective for some purposes.
"Japan had already started the peace negotiations before we dropped the bombs."
The beautiful symetry of Japan's suprise bombing attack on the US to start the war and the US's *suprise* bombing attack on Japan to end the war is not lost on the generals who ordered, I am sure.
"The simplest explanation is a black hole, but it could be something else..."
For some reason when i read this sentence I got an image of bestial, slavering, Lovecraftian interdimensional creature of immesurable size and even more unfathomable appetites...with a straw.
I do not enjoy television. I find it ironic to sit and watch TV with real people in the room with me.
When I play WoW (or other MMO Games) I guess it is like being in the TV show and talking to other real people experiencing it with me. However, unlike passively receiving television images, there is planning, cooperation, and coordination required to do some things in the game. Sometimes this takes up to 40 people playing their parts with precision and intelligence to accomplish. Somehow, I find this endlessly more entertaining than watching sitcoms.
Most importantly there is the social aspect. I choose who I play with and when. Like attracts like I guess, and because of that our group of players are friends. Even though I have never met many of these people in person, I know that if I needed a place to crash in their hometown I wouldn't have to ask. We hang out two or three nights a week for 1-3 hours each and play the game, talk shop, make jokes, etc. It's like a party with 25 people where you only have to clean up after yourself and you never leave your computer desk.
There probably are some other reasons. I enjoy games in general. You could say I am a computer game enthusiast. From Pong to text based adventures and Doom and all its subsidiaries I have played games. However, the complexity of MMO games lends itself to constant tweaking and cogitation that FPS shooters do not. It is multidimensional in that you rely not only on your reflexes and reactions, but also on your preparation, clarity of thought, and experience.
Thats about it I guess. I hope that gives you a little glimpse of why I enjoy it.
"Prohibition or legalization are answers to an entirely different question, but defiantly not the question of abuse.."
Maybe not, but I would also posit that many people seen as abusers are unintentionally self-medicating undiagnosed or untreated phisiological or psychological problems.
With legalization, regulation, and oversight of drugs people who have been unproductive malcontents could be assisted with their underlying problems. It might not cure them of what ails them, but it could allow them to begin the process of managing their own behaviors and mental condition. Until they receive treatment they will operate as an automaton, bouncing from uncontrolled negative internal stimuli to overmedication or improper medication.
No it won't help everyone. And, no, government legalization and regulation of illicit drugs won't cure everyone of abuse problems. However, I know for sure it will help people to get off the wrong drugs and would provide an avenue for users and physicians to interface in a constructive way that prohibition and punitive law enforcement never will.
My wife had a similar dream where her paternal grandmother came to her though the second story window and said goodbye because she was dying.
She was awoken by her mother calling to tell her that her grandmother had passed suddenly that night. My wife's response was that she already knew, and she was already crying when she woke and answered the phone. The strange synchronicity of it was amplified by the fact that her grandmother was in apparently good health, and her death was, obviously, a suprise to everyone in the family.
"...taking into account all the victims in New Orleans there were the exclusive fault of your government..."
Yeah, that huge storm had absolutely nothing to do with it.
Oh, and barring forced evacuations those people there were individually responsible for thier lives. The day my government is responsible for whether I live or die in a huricane is the day I DO kill myself because I will have nothing to live for.
Please don't purposely misinterpret someone's hyperbolie as literal and then base your argument on it. It makes you look obtuse.
As for the final word on those promises Obama has made, the guy hasn't even made it into office yet. What we have seen so far is Obama spit in the eye of everyone who wanted the "Change" he so vehemently promised by packing his appointed offices with the same ol' same ol'. Sadly, I will wager as time goes on more and more of his campaign promises will turn out to be unrealistic. I say this not from any malice toward Obama, but out of experience. Campaign promises are just that. They expire as soon as the last vote is counted and the winner is declared.
If Obama is any different when it comes to keeping those promises it will truly be a breath of fresh air in the sepulcher that American politics has become. The snapshot from the recent apointees shows one foot in the grave already, but I can't tell whether he is stepping in or out. Hopefully we will see in January, February, and March where he is really headed.
"But hey, you wouldn't have gotten modded up if you'd just stuck to the facts, right?"
And getting elected is like being modded up by a plurality of the voters. I think the guy was saying you don't get elected if you stick to the facts, either.
Here is a good summary, though you have to read the whole thing to get the idea: http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1765 The future events described in Revelation are a culmination of events that began before mankind was created. It is not an understatement to say that every major event in the Bible is related to it. Pay attention to the footnotes about the names and designations of Satan and what they actually mean. There is also reference to the book of Job, though that is, like I said, only a starting point.
Also, it is Revelation. When you state the plural "Revelations" it is indicitive of having not read or understood the full title. Revelation is explicity "The Revelation of the person of Jesus Christ" and is therefore always singular.
The doctrine of grace encompasses so much more than specific psalms. It is the methodology of action on God's part toward mankind and a part of God's immutable character. It is a key underpinning of all interactions between mankind and any of the three persons of Christian deity. Therefore, like the angelic conflict, it is a subtext of many themes and occurences in the bible. Not including both in your frame of reference when reading the bible could lead to misunderstanding.
I begin to see the boundaries that your conclusions have been derived from. Maybe this is closer to what you are thinking: If god was discreet from creation (not connected), and therefore was not detectable from objective reality, there would be no way to include him in the discussion due to the axiom of knowability you mentioned. Therefore, if we postulate a "god" existing, it would have to be something we could observe in reality. Creating a scenario where the two ideas I presented (god exists, but is undetectable from reality) could coexist violates the idea of parsimony as well, which is what you are striving for. Please understand, I am trying to understand you and I hope this is closer to what you were thinking.
I have yet to check the two items you referenced. I cannot from my current computer, but I appreciate your attempt at explaining your viewpoint to me. I will check them later today.
Ibn's words are interesting and familiar to me in spirit at least if not in actual text. Whenever I see something stated as fact I try to poke holes in it, as I did with your postulates. Similarly, I enjoy learning about other people's observations and am constantly questioning my own and others viewpoints.
As for reality, I expect that there is only one reality. Human observation of reality and the fallability of not only observation but also cognition, compounded with self-referential reinforcement of ideas and personal preferences, leads to an infinite number of interpretations of what actually occurs. However, imperfect observation of something does not change what truly happened. I guess I am saying I am a philisophical realist when it comes to my ideas on reality. Unfortunately, I cannot ascertain whether that is the question you were posing and how it realtes specifically to the discussion. That paragraph is particularly hard for me to understand; I suspect a comma should be a period somewhere there. I hope, after checking out the links you posted, I can get a better frame of reference on your ideas.
What do you mean "except?" The previous poster said religious books do not have a substantive reason for the creation of mankind. I referenced a doctrinal point from the bible that shows a very specific reason for the creation of mankind.
There was never an assertion of fact vs fiction here, only content of a specific book. In fact, if you read the DISCLOSURE at the top of my post it alludes to that. I was sure that would eliminate posts like yours, but I guess I was wrong.
Invariably, when a religious text comes up, people want to comment on their opinions of its veracity. In this discussion your opinion is exceptionally unnecessary and off topic. Even if it was, you provide no references for your refutation. If you make an asseriton on the truthfulness of a subject you should point to specific evidence of your opinion if you want to be taken seriously.
One more thing, the Bible does not have mind reading snakes. There isn't even one in the creation account in Genesis, though you wouldn't know that.
The references to the angelic conflict are immense in the canon. However, reading an english version of the Bible will not give you the details you need to read between the lines. An in depth investigation of the book of Job is a nice starting point.
True, if you are looking for a textbook explanation of the angelic conflict laid out for you in easily digested format you will not find it. Neither will you find the doctrine of the Grace outlined in a websters definition format, though this is a doctrinal fact for just about every denomination. If you are familiar with the entirety of scripture you can reconstruct the details quite easily. The references are, quite literally, everywhere.
Sure. The disclaimer is this: This is not an endorsement of the views contained within the Bible itself, only an attempt to convey those views with a semblance of accuracy.
The existence of mankind is essentially a long winded answer to a question. The question was posed by Lucifer. How can a self proclaimed perfect being that loves His creations cast them into eternal torment? Essentially, the question is an indictment of God's character and integrity. It could be considered and appeal to the sentence of roughly 1/3rd of the angels who, through their support of Satan and rebellion against God, were condemned to the lake of fire.
God seeks to use beings with lower status than angels (mankind) to prove His character without a doubt to the angelic hosts. In addition, He plans to show all of creation that his decision is just and correct.
The bible definitevely answers why mankind was made. If you haven't discerned what that answer is you don't really posess even a passing knowledge of the bible.
First, eternal means infinite in duration. Nowhere in its definition does it mention interconnected coexistence or any other relation to physicality, only time and existence.
Second, saying the universe is made of god is not necessarily true. If omnipresence is your single point of reference for proof of this, you have oversimplified. For example, take light. Light can pass through and be prepsent in any transparent substance and vaccum. However, if you were to say that air, or glass, or vaccum is made of light people would look at you strangely. Another, probably better analogy would be magnetic fields. Those can permeate all types of matter. To say that all matter is, therefore, made of magnetic fields is not a valid conclusion. Similarly, god could be present throughout the universe and yet not be the substance of the universe.
On an entirely different note, trying to logically argue the limits and characterestics of an undefined entity that created the universe is silly without a reference. If you exclude historical characterizations of God and progress from logic only, eliminating the possibility of discreet existence of diety is not parsimony. I would call it occams razor handle. You left out the blade by oversimplifying.
"the whole idea that there are multi-verses goes right against the grain of science itself"
Not really. It is a hypothesis. The real trick, however, is to devise an experiment to test it. Agreed, devising a whole cosmology based on an untested hypothesis and subsequently using that to postulate why life and the universe exists smacks of religious invention and is not science. It's like a smart atheist is trying waaaaaay to hard to conceive a way to eliminate the possibility for God.
That being said, the pursuit of a cosmological model that can explain multiple unresolved questions of our observed realty is definitely a worthy scientific pursuit. Now, if we could think of a way to actually test the string/multiverse model we might not prove the hypothesis true but we would find out some very interesting things.
Also, saying that the universe is God in 1a sounds like an oversimplification. Definitionally, the universe contains everything observed and postulated, so would contain God if in its conceptual purview if He exists. However the concept that God IS the universe is not necessarily a true statement.
The bible states specifically that a believer is a member of the elect. They were known and preparations were made for them in eternity past before the creation of the universe. That status is a byproduct of the omniscient foreknowledge of God and in no way interferes with their free will. Misunderstanding the relationships of God's foreknowledge to the actions of God and misapplying the antecedents of God's actions with respect to the believer's eternal status leads to cause and effect confusion when you mix in immutable free will.
Lets make it easier to understnd: If you know a storm is coming tomorrow, does taking your umbrella out and putting it by the door make it rain? In essence, saying that since God prepared things for the elect in eternity past they do not have free will is the same thing. The observation and subsequent preparation by one party does not cause the actions of another party. It is just harder to seperate the cause and effect when one party is known to have perfect pre-knowledge of evry thing that happens in the future.
As for saving grace, it is provided as a gift from God and is not resident in the believer until God deposits it there as a result of the positive volition of the one who wants to believe.
Every position you state is also held by some people who are not religious. All of those issues are related to morality (among other concerns), which can and do exist completely independent of religion.*
A corollary of this is that not all religious people support those things you list. Many are fervently against those things.
Instead of condeming religious people realize the world is full of different viewpoints, most of which will not align with your point of view. Expecting the world to change based on your personal viewpoint points to a lack of perception of how things really are. Blaming one group of people for it confirms this.
Also, on the issue of gay marriage, the people of the US have the right to govern themselves. If they overwhelmingly are against this, and follow the legal channels properly, that should be sufficient. Disclaimer: This observation is independent of my personal thoughts on the subject.
*Teaching of creationism in science class should be supported by everyone. The contrast between real science and creationism as seen through the eyes of science would be instructive to all students. Those religious types who want this should be careful what they wish for. If they get it I am sure it will not be what they want, though I cannot say it would be bad for their children.:)
Both of you are comparing chipmunks and asteroids.
The ignorance you posit does not exist. Maybe one day, when science does the impossible and proves or disproves the existence of God, life after death, the meaning of the universe, and true absolute morality you can make value judgements equating ignorance and religion. Until that time we are all woefully unenlightened and posess inadequate information about the truth of those things.
"I also have my faith firmly rooted in my belief that it's entirely unprovable. If I wasn't convinced of that, my faith would collapse"
I agree completely with this statement. I think the unprovability of God is a prerequisite for free will and that free will is the gift provided to mankind that surpasses all others.
This thought first occured to me when I heard someone say, "If God wanted me to believe in Him, He would reveal Himself to me in a way that I would have no doubt."
My reaction was that if this were to occur, what has happened to the free will of the person? In other words, if God could do something that would MAKE you believe in Him, where is your choice in the matter? Furthermore, if that was all God wanted then why create free will in the first place? Robots that say "I love Jesus!" would be just as good.
I find it odd that religious people have a hard time with this. Then again, the religious people I know are quite different than the stereotypical Christian so oft maligned here.
Slashdot Mirror
"Fortunatly my experiences turned me into the strong person that I am today."
I don't think it was only your experiences. You're probably just better than most of us.
"Bottom line, fearing "Muslim's" is irrational."
You could easily argue or conclude that this incident has very little to do with prejudice or stereotyping and quite a bit to do with a dysfunction created by irrational fears. It is an odd irony that terrorists main goal is to get people to act irrationally. It may not have been the direct effect they wanted, but it is definitely a direct result. Law of unintended consequences?
That being said, if there are a few logical fallacies in your arguments. First, a visitor to a culturally and racially monolithic country like China will always be regarded with "extra prudence." In your example about a white person traveling to China you leave out the part where that person is continually regarded with additional scrutiny by everyone they meet because they are not Chinese. This seems strange to you because you live in a multicultural society where tolerance of myriad cultures and races is admirable, but to someone who is not it is natural and proper to eyeball the outsiders.
Perspective indeed. If I am on a plane seated between a white man and a man in traditional muslim garb I am not worried about getting mugged by the white man at all. Even if the guy is fresh out of prison and a career criminal, no one gets mugged on a plane. I will start to worry about the white guy in the parking lot. However, the number of muslim extremists that do dastardly things on airplanes is significantly greater than zero and has been hyped by sensational media coverage. Being wary of someone in traditional muslim garb on a plane is just your hindbrain's way of saying it would like to see tomorrow.
Anonymous troll food, but oh well.
Witholding water from a person dying of thirst, a sin of omission if you will, is an entirely different set. However, it implies threats of physical violence to restrain the dying person and also contains the presumption that the one witholding is already acting in a violent manner, though not overtly. Not exactly a stellar example on your part.
You seem to have confused firing with persecution, fact with emotional content, and reality with one-sided editorial commentary. As it is, I have to assume that no "persecution" occurred, as the facts are not verifiable nor has a disinterested third party offered a judgement on the case. Regardless, it is not acceptable for someone to react with physical interactions of any kind to a physically non-threatening situation. An appropriate punitive response to a situation where you feel you have been wronged in this way would be to get a lawyer; not fling objects at people.
As understandable and justifiable as you think it is, I refuse to think that way. If instead of a notepad, a mouse was thrown, would it be different? What if it was a paperweight? A rock? Is that too much? Ok, what if the employer had personally insulted her before firing her or used a derogatory racial epithet? Would that justify something larger than a notepad? Where is the line of impropriety crossed? For me it is simple. Treat others with honor, respect, and dignity, and thusly, keep your hands and projectiles to yourself. Escalating to physical contact opens the door to reprisals and further escalation and betrays a mental attitude that is either immature, malicious, or both.
How you can interpret my personal abhorence for physical violence and respect for the sanctity of others' physical bodies as Naziism is fascinating. Then again, you have shown yourself to be overtly emotional in your thoughts, capable of assumptions of fact where they are not verifiable, and lacking logic in your analogies and comparisons. Whether you are misguided or just inept has lost its relevance to me. Fortunately for me, we are not having this conversation in person. People who can rationalize unjustified physical contact and who also happen to posess an excitable, emotional disposition combined with poor logic skills frighten and disgust me.
"is it still a tantrum if the EXACT same thing happened but the notebook thrower was Jewish and was forced out by a company run by Nazis?"
The short answer is yes. The long answer is you are intentionally confusing the issue with emotionally charged mumbo jumbo in an attempt to defend an undefendable point.
When someone resorts to physical interaction when none has been threatened or initiated against them it is a sign they have failed to act as a rational entity. In my personal opinion, they have failed to act as a human in that interaction.
The real irony of your comparison of Jews and Nazis is that the Nazis did the same thing you are trying to support. They violated otherwise peaceful people because of their religious beliefs. Hypocrisy in spades.
If the treatment is effective most people would not care if it was described as balancing humours, directing Chi, or modifying the phase variance on the tachyonic transducers. The semantics of a treatment are irrelevant in the face of its usefullness.
Furthermore, if acupuncture is effective, I would think that studying the jargon and information structures of "Chi" could have some beneficial effects on "western" medicine. Perhaps they refer, in stylistic, archaic, and veiled terms to some kind of bio-electric byproduct of the nervous system that can be manipulated by acupuncture. Comparing acupuncture/chi to humours reeks of premature dismissal in light of the studies that show acupuncture is effective for some purposes.
"Japan had already started the peace negotiations before we dropped the bombs."
The beautiful symetry of Japan's suprise bombing attack on the US to start the war and the US's *suprise* bombing attack on Japan to end the war is not lost on the generals who ordered, I am sure.
"The simplest explanation is a black hole, but it could be something else..."
For some reason when i read this sentence I got an image of bestial, slavering, Lovecraftian interdimensional creature of immesurable size and even more unfathomable appetites...with a straw.
Gotta lay off the quad espresso in the morning.
I do not enjoy television. I find it ironic to sit and watch TV with real people in the room with me.
When I play WoW (or other MMO Games) I guess it is like being in the TV show and talking to other real people experiencing it with me. However, unlike passively receiving television images, there is planning, cooperation, and coordination required to do some things in the game. Sometimes this takes up to 40 people playing their parts with precision and intelligence to accomplish. Somehow, I find this endlessly more entertaining than watching sitcoms.
Most importantly there is the social aspect. I choose who I play with and when. Like attracts like I guess, and because of that our group of players are friends. Even though I have never met many of these people in person, I know that if I needed a place to crash in their hometown I wouldn't have to ask. We hang out two or three nights a week for 1-3 hours each and play the game, talk shop, make jokes, etc. It's like a party with 25 people where you only have to clean up after yourself and you never leave your computer desk.
There probably are some other reasons. I enjoy games in general. You could say I am a computer game enthusiast. From Pong to text based adventures and Doom and all its subsidiaries I have played games. However, the complexity of MMO games lends itself to constant tweaking and cogitation that FPS shooters do not. It is multidimensional in that you rely not only on your reflexes and reactions, but also on your preparation, clarity of thought, and experience.
Thats about it I guess. I hope that gives you a little glimpse of why I enjoy it.
"Prohibition or legalization are answers to an entirely different question, but defiantly not the question of abuse.."
Maybe not, but I would also posit that many people seen as abusers are unintentionally self-medicating undiagnosed or untreated phisiological or psychological problems.
With legalization, regulation, and oversight of drugs people who have been unproductive malcontents could be assisted with their underlying problems. It might not cure them of what ails them, but it could allow them to begin the process of managing their own behaviors and mental condition. Until they receive treatment they will operate as an automaton, bouncing from uncontrolled negative internal stimuli to overmedication or improper medication.
No it won't help everyone. And, no, government legalization and regulation of illicit drugs won't cure everyone of abuse problems. However, I know for sure it will help people to get off the wrong drugs and would provide an avenue for users and physicians to interface in a constructive way that prohibition and punitive law enforcement never will.
My wife had a similar dream where her paternal grandmother came to her though the second story window and said goodbye because she was dying.
She was awoken by her mother calling to tell her that her grandmother had passed suddenly that night. My wife's response was that she already knew, and she was already crying when she woke and answered the phone. The strange synchronicity of it was amplified by the fact that her grandmother was in apparently good health, and her death was, obviously, a suprise to everyone in the family.
"...taking into account all the victims in New Orleans there were the exclusive fault of your government ..."
Yeah, that huge storm had absolutely nothing to do with it.
Oh, and barring forced evacuations those people there were individually responsible for thier lives. The day my government is responsible for whether I live or die in a huricane is the day I DO kill myself because I will have nothing to live for.
Please don't purposely misinterpret someone's hyperbolie as literal and then base your argument on it. It makes you look obtuse.
As for the final word on those promises Obama has made, the guy hasn't even made it into office yet. What we have seen so far is Obama spit in the eye of everyone who wanted the "Change" he so vehemently promised by packing his appointed offices with the same ol' same ol'. Sadly, I will wager as time goes on more and more of his campaign promises will turn out to be unrealistic. I say this not from any malice toward Obama, but out of experience. Campaign promises are just that. They expire as soon as the last vote is counted and the winner is declared.
If Obama is any different when it comes to keeping those promises it will truly be a breath of fresh air in the sepulcher that American politics has become. The snapshot from the recent apointees shows one foot in the grave already, but I can't tell whether he is stepping in or out. Hopefully we will see in January, February, and March where he is really headed.
"But hey, you wouldn't have gotten modded up if you'd just stuck to the facts, right?"
And getting elected is like being modded up by a plurality of the voters. I think the guy was saying you don't get elected if you stick to the facts, either.
Now really, how far fetched is that?
Here is a good summary, though you have to read the whole thing to get the idea: http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1765 The future events described in Revelation are a culmination of events that began before mankind was created. It is not an understatement to say that every major event in the Bible is related to it. Pay attention to the footnotes about the names and designations of Satan and what they actually mean. There is also reference to the book of Job, though that is, like I said, only a starting point.
Also, it is Revelation. When you state the plural "Revelations" it is indicitive of having not read or understood the full title. Revelation is explicity "The Revelation of the person of Jesus Christ" and is therefore always singular.
The doctrine of grace encompasses so much more than specific psalms. It is the methodology of action on God's part toward mankind and a part of God's immutable character. It is a key underpinning of all interactions between mankind and any of the three persons of Christian deity. Therefore, like the angelic conflict, it is a subtext of many themes and occurences in the bible. Not including both in your frame of reference when reading the bible could lead to misunderstanding.
I begin to see the boundaries that your conclusions have been derived from. Maybe this is closer to what you are thinking: If god was discreet from creation (not connected), and therefore was not detectable from objective reality, there would be no way to include him in the discussion due to the axiom of knowability you mentioned. Therefore, if we postulate a "god" existing, it would have to be something we could observe in reality. Creating a scenario where the two ideas I presented (god exists, but is undetectable from reality) could coexist violates the idea of parsimony as well, which is what you are striving for. Please understand, I am trying to understand you and I hope this is closer to what you were thinking.
I have yet to check the two items you referenced. I cannot from my current computer, but I appreciate your attempt at explaining your viewpoint to me. I will check them later today.
Ibn's words are interesting and familiar to me in spirit at least if not in actual text. Whenever I see something stated as fact I try to poke holes in it, as I did with your postulates. Similarly, I enjoy learning about other people's observations and am constantly questioning my own and others viewpoints.
As for reality, I expect that there is only one reality. Human observation of reality and the fallability of not only observation but also cognition, compounded with self-referential reinforcement of ideas and personal preferences, leads to an infinite number of interpretations of what actually occurs. However, imperfect observation of something does not change what truly happened. I guess I am saying I am a philisophical realist when it comes to my ideas on reality. Unfortunately, I cannot ascertain whether that is the question you were posing and how it realtes specifically to the discussion. That paragraph is particularly hard for me to understand; I suspect a comma should be a period somewhere there. I hope, after checking out the links you posted, I can get a better frame of reference on your ideas.
What do you mean "except?" The previous poster said religious books do not have a substantive reason for the creation of mankind. I referenced a doctrinal point from the bible that shows a very specific reason for the creation of mankind.
There was never an assertion of fact vs fiction here, only content of a specific book. In fact, if you read the DISCLOSURE at the top of my post it alludes to that. I was sure that would eliminate posts like yours, but I guess I was wrong.
Invariably, when a religious text comes up, people want to comment on their opinions of its veracity. In this discussion your opinion is exceptionally unnecessary and off topic. Even if it was, you provide no references for your refutation. If you make an asseriton on the truthfulness of a subject you should point to specific evidence of your opinion if you want to be taken seriously.
One more thing, the Bible does not have mind reading snakes. There isn't even one in the creation account in Genesis, though you wouldn't know that.
The references to the angelic conflict are immense in the canon. However, reading an english version of the Bible will not give you the details you need to read between the lines. An in depth investigation of the book of Job is a nice starting point.
True, if you are looking for a textbook explanation of the angelic conflict laid out for you in easily digested format you will not find it. Neither will you find the doctrine of the Grace outlined in a websters definition format, though this is a doctrinal fact for just about every denomination. If you are familiar with the entirety of scripture you can reconstruct the details quite easily. The references are, quite literally, everywhere.
Sure. The disclaimer is this: This is not an endorsement of the views contained within the Bible itself, only an attempt to convey those views with a semblance of accuracy.
The existence of mankind is essentially a long winded answer to a question. The question was posed by Lucifer. How can a self proclaimed perfect being that loves His creations cast them into eternal torment? Essentially, the question is an indictment of God's character and integrity. It could be considered and appeal to the sentence of roughly 1/3rd of the angels who, through their support of Satan and rebellion against God, were condemned to the lake of fire.
God seeks to use beings with lower status than angels (mankind) to prove His character without a doubt to the angelic hosts. In addition, He plans to show all of creation that his decision is just and correct.
The bible definitevely answers why mankind was made. If you haven't discerned what that answer is you don't really posess even a passing knowledge of the bible.
Semantic games seem to be the order of the day.
First, eternal means infinite in duration. Nowhere in its definition does it mention interconnected coexistence or any other relation to physicality, only time and existence.
Second, saying the universe is made of god is not necessarily true. If omnipresence is your single point of reference for proof of this, you have oversimplified. For example, take light. Light can pass through and be prepsent in any transparent substance and vaccum. However, if you were to say that air, or glass, or vaccum is made of light people would look at you strangely. Another, probably better analogy would be magnetic fields. Those can permeate all types of matter. To say that all matter is, therefore, made of magnetic fields is not a valid conclusion. Similarly, god could be present throughout the universe and yet not be the substance of the universe.
On an entirely different note, trying to logically argue the limits and characterestics of an undefined entity that created the universe is silly without a reference. If you exclude historical characterizations of God and progress from logic only, eliminating the possibility of discreet existence of diety is not parsimony. I would call it occams razor handle. You left out the blade by oversimplifying.
"the whole idea that there are multi-verses goes right against the grain of science itself"
Not really. It is a hypothesis. The real trick, however, is to devise an experiment to test it. Agreed, devising a whole cosmology based on an untested hypothesis and subsequently using that to postulate why life and the universe exists smacks of religious invention and is not science. It's like a smart atheist is trying waaaaaay to hard to conceive a way to eliminate the possibility for God.
That being said, the pursuit of a cosmological model that can explain multiple unresolved questions of our observed realty is definitely a worthy scientific pursuit. Now, if we could think of a way to actually test the string/multiverse model we might not prove the hypothesis true but we would find out some very interesting things.
Also, saying that the universe is God in 1a sounds like an oversimplification. Definitionally, the universe contains everything observed and postulated, so would contain God if in its conceptual purview if He exists. However the concept that God IS the universe is not necessarily a true statement.
The bible states specifically that a believer is a member of the elect. They were known and preparations were made for them in eternity past before the creation of the universe. That status is a byproduct of the omniscient foreknowledge of God and in no way interferes with their free will. Misunderstanding the relationships of God's foreknowledge to the actions of God and misapplying the antecedents of God's actions with respect to the believer's eternal status leads to cause and effect confusion when you mix in immutable free will.
Lets make it easier to understnd: If you know a storm is coming tomorrow, does taking your umbrella out and putting it by the door make it rain? In essence, saying that since God prepared things for the elect in eternity past they do not have free will is the same thing. The observation and subsequent preparation by one party does not cause the actions of another party. It is just harder to seperate the cause and effect when one party is known to have perfect pre-knowledge of evry thing that happens in the future.
As for saving grace, it is provided as a gift from God and is not resident in the believer until God deposits it there as a result of the positive volition of the one who wants to believe.
Your argument has but one flaw, and it is fatal.
Every position you state is also held by some people who are not religious. All of those issues are related to morality (among other concerns), which can and do exist completely independent of religion.*
A corollary of this is that not all religious people support those things you list. Many are fervently against those things.
Instead of condeming religious people realize the world is full of different viewpoints, most of which will not align with your point of view. Expecting the world to change based on your personal viewpoint points to a lack of perception of how things really are. Blaming one group of people for it confirms this.
Also, on the issue of gay marriage, the people of the US have the right to govern themselves. If they overwhelmingly are against this, and follow the legal channels properly, that should be sufficient. Disclaimer: This observation is independent of my personal thoughts on the subject.
*Teaching of creationism in science class should be supported by everyone. The contrast between real science and creationism as seen through the eyes of science would be instructive to all students. Those religious types who want this should be careful what they wish for. If they get it I am sure it will not be what they want, though I cannot say it would be bad for their children. :)
Both of you are comparing chipmunks and asteroids.
The ignorance you posit does not exist. Maybe one day, when science does the impossible and proves or disproves the existence of God, life after death, the meaning of the universe, and true absolute morality you can make value judgements equating ignorance and religion. Until that time we are all woefully unenlightened and posess inadequate information about the truth of those things.
"I also have my faith firmly rooted in my belief that it's entirely unprovable. If I wasn't convinced of that, my faith would collapse"
I agree completely with this statement. I think the unprovability of God is a prerequisite for free will and that free will is the gift provided to mankind that surpasses all others.
This thought first occured to me when I heard someone say, "If God wanted me to believe in Him, He would reveal Himself to me in a way that I would have no doubt."
My reaction was that if this were to occur, what has happened to the free will of the person? In other words, if God could do something that would MAKE you believe in Him, where is your choice in the matter? Furthermore, if that was all God wanted then why create free will in the first place? Robots that say "I love Jesus!" would be just as good.
I find it odd that religious people have a hard time with this. Then again, the religious people I know are quite different than the stereotypical Christian so oft maligned here.