This is the Message Centre for minniemouse
Alpha Course
astrolog Posted Jan 11, 2004
Quote;
"Those who are the true priests. They are priests by spiritual calling and not by choice. It is the misunderstanding of the province and duties of a priest which has led all the Churches (in the East and in the West) to their disastrous authoritarian position. The love of God, and the true spiritual incentive which recognizes God immanent in all nature and peculiarly expressing that divinity in man, is lacking in the bulk of the priesthood in all the world religions. Love is not the guide, the indicator and the interpreter. Hence the dogmatism of the theologian, his ridiculous and profound assurances of correct interpretation, and his oft-times cruelty, cloaked by his claim of right principles and good intentions. But the true priest exists and is found in all religions. He is the friend and the brother of all and, because he loves deeply, wisdom is his and (if he is of a mental type and training) his intuition is awakened and revelation is his reward. Ponder on this. The true priest is rare and is not found only in the so-called "holy orders".
Djwhal Khul"
Alji
Alpha Course
Researcher 524695 Posted Jan 11, 2004
I am surprised to have to post this...
I, quite reasonably, asked:
The response:
"Why do you take two sentences from different parts of a text and percieve one as necessarily referring to the other? What reason do you have to consider that the words 'It is necessity' was referring to the Holocaust, which was mentioned only briefly, quite a few sentences earlier? Unless you are deliberately trying to misunderstand what is being written so as to be able to make silly accusations?"
Are you planning on actually answering the question at any point, Insight? Or are you going to dissemble, evade, excuse, and waffle?
You said, in one paragraph, this:
"Things such as the World Wars, the Holocaust, and the September 11th attacks, to name a few, could have been prevented if God enforced his laws. He has shown, in the past, that it is not enough to only punish the very worst people. He has been showing for some time what happens if he punishes no-one. Eventually all will have to admit that it is best for mankind if those who refuse to follow God are removed. Eventually the case will be finished, and for the sake of humanity, those who will insist on disobeying God will have to go. Is that unloving? It is necessity."
I repeat the questions above.
If your response is anything other than clear and unequivocal, I shall have to write you off as worthless scum and ignore your prattlings from now on.
Alpha Course
azahar Posted Jan 11, 2004
hi number,
<>
Well, that's quite a positive incentive to help make Insight want to respond to you further!
Okay, I understand your frustration because Insight, so far, has not been able to back up his statements with any proof other than quoting bible passages. I am still giving him the benefit of the doubt that he can say a thing or two that does not involve bible quotes, but so far this remains to be seen.
Unlike yourself, I think Insight is an intelligent and thoughtful young man who is attempting to make his point. My main disagreement with him is that he believes his personal and particular belief in his personal and particular God is the Only Right And True Way.
Also, according to his religion, he is supposed to be converting us heathens. Well, so far on this thread he hasn't been doing much of a job of that.
But really, number, to say you will consider him worthless scum if he cannot express himself in a way you would like . . . that is just nasty. And seriously counter-productive in terms of debate. You are smart enough to know how to get someone to respond in other more positive ways. I've seen you do it before. The way you are speaking to Insight at the moment will only make him not ever want to attempt debating with you in future - and quite frankly, I wouldn't blame him in the slightest.
az
Alpha Course
azahar Posted Jan 11, 2004
<>
Perhaps more than just a state of mind, a state of being.
az
Alpha Course
Jordan Posted Jan 12, 2004
I have to ask, why should Insight be able to back up his belief without referring to the Bible? Scientists don't have to back up theirs without referring to science.
I've been thinking about a problem for a while, on and off, from when I started my article on resolving tensions between science and religion. You said, so far as I recall, that people believe in religion because they want to. I say that people believe in whatever they believe for a similar reason, and don't make distinctions between scientific and religious mindsets.
Piaget theorised, broadly, that people learn through adding to schema, and that when data which doesn't fit those schema is assimilated, they are in a state of disequilibrium resolved through equilibriation, which changes the present schema to take account of the new data. I propose that people have an innate drive to reach and maintain a state of equilibrium (though not necessarily in the sense of schema theory), forming a holistic model of the Universe around them.
The implication is that science and faith are two sides of the same coin: those who accept a scientific mindset do so not because it is logical, but because it is consistant with their own beliefs, experiences, knowledge, emotional state and mental drives, and those who follow a religion do so for exactly the same reason.
Thus, conversion from one to the other is not necessarily spurred by logical inconsistancy, but rather from any internal disequilibrium which may or may not be connected to a supposed logical contradiction.
- Jordan
Alpha Course
Jordan Posted Jan 12, 2004
'I, quite reasonably, asked:
'The response:
'"Why do you take two sentences from different parts of a text and percieve one as necessarily referring to the other? What reason do you have to consider that the words 'It is necessity' was referring to the Holocaust, which was mentioned only briefly, quite a few sentences earlier? Unless you are deliberately trying to misunderstand what is being written so as to be able to make silly accusations?"
'Are you planning on actually answering the question at any point, Insight? Or are you going to dissemble, evade, excuse, and waffle?'
Are you planning on actually understanding what Insight posts at any point, Member? Or are you just going to ignore, misconstrue, insult and moan?
In case you don't understand, I shall demonstrate his point.
He said: -
'...even now, evidence is being given as to what happens if God does not step in to put an end to wrongdoing. Things such as the World Wars, the Holocaust, and the September 11th attacks, to name a few, could have been prevented if God enforced his laws.'
'Eventually the case will be finished, and for the sake of humanity, those who will insist on disobeying God will have to go. Is that unloving? It is necessity.'
You responded thus: -
'So what you're saying is that the horrifying deaths of millions in the WWI, the horrifying deaths of millions more in WWII, the horrifying deaths of millions in the Holocaust, and the horrifying deaths of just over two and a half thousand on September 11th, were all PREVENTABLE? And God did nothing? And we're supposed to RESPECT this creature?'
'Says who? Are you saying the Holocaust was a necessity? Seriously?'
Now, if you had actually read and understood the first part, he said that things like the Holocaust etc. happen if the wicked are not removed, i.e. God does not enforce his laws. Then, he said that, therefore, the wicked would have to be removed - '[i]s that unloving? It is necessity.'
Somehow, you skip over the whole 'that's what happens if...' part of his post and interpret him as saying 'the Holocaust was neccesary.' What he actually said is clear: the Holocaust etc. happened because of the wickedness of some men, and it would be better if those wicked men were removed.
Do you take classes in misinterpretation? Seriously. So he did answer your question, by informing you that you had misinterpreted him completely. Unless what you said wasn't intended to follow on from what you quoted immediately before it, in which case, why didn't you actually phrase your post so it could be understood by non-psychic human beings?
Honestly. To answer on his behalf: no, it wasn't necessary, it happened because people didn't obey His (i.e. God's) laws, and He wasn't enforcing them. And surely you don't have a problem with Him not enforcing these laws immediately anyway, because you can barely stand the thought that He will do so after everyone has had free reign to do as they please without interruption?
Besides which, try looking at this from his perspective (it's only fair, since you so often implore him to look at things from a non-Biblical one). The people killed in the Holocaust will be judged according to what they did, not what was done to them. They're going to be resurrected all the same, and their death and suffering, while dramatic, is only temporary. So, in David's mind at least, what happened to them on Earth is not really significant when considered sub specie aeternitatus. That is, at least, a partial answer based on my knowledge of David's beliefs concerning the victims of mass-culls. That's not to say he isn't concerned about them, and about preventing suffering if he can, but that he believes God doesn't intervene (and, in the past, instigated them) because earthly death is irrelevent when one considers that we are meant pass on to eternal life.
'If your response is anything other than clear and unequivocal, I shall have to write you off as worthless scum and ignore your prattlings from now on.'
In view of this bombast, needless, vituperative and ignorant statement from someone who evidently isn't up to understanding the very postings he questions, a few choice phrases come to mind, many common utterances of a certain ex-housemate. Suffice to say, if you are Hoo (the evidence is mounting, and if you are, my opinion of you has taken a serious drop) then you'll understand, with reference to song titles, why I call you a 'hearthead.'
- Jordan
Alpha Course
Jordan Posted Jan 12, 2004
'...are you just going to... dissemble...'
Insight would never knowingly lie. That is, he might say something wrong because he doesn't know that it is wrong, but he would never intentionally tell an untruth. This is something of which I am certain, especially in a relatively minor matter like this.
- Jordan
Alpha Course
azahar Posted Jan 12, 2004
hi Jordan,
I can't agree with you that science and faith are two sides of the same coin. Believing in, say, gravity is hardly the same as believing in a god that created the universe in six days. Also, as with the example given earlier using 'love', people don't worship gravity and set up religions about this force. It just is.
I do not believe the bible is a holy book that was dictated by God Amighty. I believe it to be a book about the mythology surrounding the christian god. So it is senseless for Insight to keep posting quotes from this bible to convince me, or other non-christians, of his version of Truth. Especially when he says stuff like this:
<>
*All* will have to admit this? I think it is total arrogance to say such a thing. I think Insight, like all fundamentalists, has an extremely narrow view of life and the world. He cannot see beyond what it says in his bible. Which is fine for him if he chooses to live such a life, but to insist that anyone who does not accept his god 'will have to go' is both arrogant and delusional. And when asked why *his* god is right and all other people's gods, or people who have no gods, are wrong his only response is - 'cos it says so in the bible'. Duh?
az
Alpha Course
badger party tony party green party Posted Jan 12, 2004
Hi Jordan, in the words of Eric Morcambe.
Get out off that one without moving.
Morming az, coaching to day, but I'll have more time to speak later.
Alpha Course
Jordan Posted Jan 12, 2004
Hi az!
'I can't agree with you that science and faith are two sides of the same coin. Believing in, say, gravity is hardly the same as believing in a god that created the universe in six days. Also, as with the example given earlier using 'love', people don't worship gravity and set up religions about this force. It just is.'
The belief in gravity or God, and the result of believing in one rather than the other, might be wildly and profoundly different, but the drive that leads to believing in one as opposed to another is the same, i.e. the drive for holistic harmony of beliefs with knowledge and experience.
'I do not believe the bible is a holy book that was dictated by God Amighty. I believe it to be a book about the mythology surrounding the christian god. So it is senseless for Insight to keep posting quotes from this bible to convince me, or other non-christians, of his version of Truth.'
Insight is explaining his own beliefs. His beliefs are predicated on the Bible. Thus, he will use it to explain his beliefs. If he wants to show how the Bible makes sense logically (something he always stresses is that his faith is almost entirely based on the apparent congruence, to him, between reality and what the Bible says), it makes sense to quote the Bible on the matter, and then demonstrate how it makes sense. Ignoring the Bible isn't going to do him any good, because he'd have to ignore the fundamental tennet of his own beliefs, and would be unable to demonstrate any correlation between the Bible and objective reality.
'*All* will have to admit this? I think it is total arrogance to say such a thing. I think Insight, like all fundamentalists, has an extremely narrow view of life and the world. He cannot see beyond what it says in his bible.'
And very few atheists can see beyond their own apparent superiority. And I think you're misinterpreting how he means it. He's saying that if God comes up to you and says 'Hi, I'm God, you're resurrected, so what do you think?' people are going to realise that they were pretty wrong. Most scientifically minded people think that the religious are blinding themselves from reality (see Member and toxx), and this is just a religious person saying scientists are blinded from reality.
'Which is fine for him if he chooses to live such a life, but to insist that anyone who does not accept his god 'will have to go' is both arrogant and delusional. And when asked why *his* god is right and all other people's gods, or people who have no gods, are wrong his only response is - 'cos it says so in the bible'. Duh?'
He doesn't say that. He says '[e]ventually all will have to admit that it is best for mankind if those who refuse to follow God are removed. Eventually the case will be finished, and for the sake of humanity, those who will insist on disobeying God will have to go.' Note that he isn't talking about people who don't know his God, or don't follow his God, but about people who INSIST upon not acknowledging or following him. So just because people haven't heard of Him or don't understand Him aren't necessarily going to be tossed out into nonexistance.
- Jordan
Alpha Course
badger party tony party green party Posted Jan 12, 2004
I do anything that my sports and play qualifications will allow me to do in play and youth settings but my only National Governing Body Specific qualifications are in rugby and volleyball.
Any way got to finish some more stuff off here then Im off. See ya later.
Alpha Course
badger party tony party green party Posted Jan 12, 2004
Jordan, well done you did get out without moving, sort of.
That is a decent justification of Insight's reliance on his chosen scripture.
However the stance of myself and others not swayed by *any* scriptures self verifying stance is just that, they are only verified by themselves and those who believe in them.
Science demands that prior to anything being accepted the theory and the way it has been checked or otherwise worked out or whatever is checked again. The bible has never been subject to such rigour and as such does not hold as much or sometimes any sway with people who prefer their theories to be checkable.
Alpha Course
azahar Posted Jan 13, 2004
hi Jordan,
<>
What is the difference between people who don't follow his god and people who INSIST upon not following him?
I do not follow his god, though I would not say that I *insist* on not following him because following him is just not an option for me since I do not believe any one god is 'the one and only' god.
I also don't *insist* on not acknowledging his god, I simply do not acknowledge him as a God Almighty that I should have to worship and obey. I would only insist on this if someone else insisted I should.
And if people who haven't heard of Him or don't understand Him aren't about to be tossed out into nonexistance, then what is the point of acknowledging Him or understanding Him at all? Anyhow, this is not what I was taught as a child. I was taught that if I did not follow and obey this God then I would go to Hell everlasting.
No one can prove the existence of this God. He is something that people choose to believe in and they require faith to do so.
<>
The fact remains that to someone who does not believe that the bible is the Word of God and doesn't even believe in this God, then using the bible as a tool for argument does not make sense. And so far he has not shown me *how* the bible makes sense.
<>
I have not asked him to ignore his bible, just to try and use another means to explain his position. He can still use his belief in the bible as a basis to express his opinions, but as I have said before, merely quoting the bible is not sufficient.
<>
I would not say that athiests feel themselves to be superior to god, they just don't believe that god exists. In the same way that I don't feel superior to the tooth fairy or santa claus.
<>
And when he dies and if there is no God to say this to him? He is also going to realise that he was pretty wrong.
You seem to keep missing my basic point, Jordan. I have nothing against anyone's god belief or religion. I simply do not accept that some are right and others are wrong. I totally accept Insight's belief in his god and I know that for him this god exists. My take is that the christian god is just one of many and that, anyhow, gods are concepts that humans have created to help them understand life and death. So if Insight and others want to believe in this God Amighty character, then that's totally fine with me.
The main difference is that I don't go around telling them (or anyone else) they are WRONG and that if they don't believe in MY god concept then they are going to end up quite sorry for it. And I certainly don't tell them that my god concept has the right to 'get rid of them'. I couldn't care less if people acknowledge my god concept or believe it exists. And I think the world would be a better place if others did likewise. Live and let live.
az
Alpha Course
Noggin the Nog Posted Jan 13, 2004
It's not so much that he shouldn't refer to the bible, as that this, by itself, is not sufficient, particularly when conversing with those who do not take the bible as true, a priori, as it were. There also needs to be reference to shared forms of reality and logical inference. Science is in a slightly different position, because these references are already part of the methodology of science.
The problem is that that knowledge and experience is partly *produced* by belief and forced into conformity with them, so that while the validity of a particular belief within a system can be judged from within the system, the validity of the system as a whole cannot be, except in as much as it leads to successful prediction, perhaps. For a successful dialogue all parties need to stand back a bit and find whatever common ground there is, or all that results is "talking past each other."
Noggin
Alpha Course
Matholwch - Brythonic Tribal Polytheist Posted Jan 18, 2004
.......Helloooooooooooo....Helloooooooooooo....Helloooooooooooo
Alpha Course
Jordan Posted Jan 19, 2004
'What is the difference between people who don't follow his god and people who INSIST upon not following him?'
Someone does something because they don't think there's anything wrong with it. Suppose this person finds out that it is, in fact, wrong to do that thing. If they would then change their ways, we simply have a person who doesn't follow a given moral rule. If that person REFUSES to change their ways, we have a person who insists upon not following a given moral rule. The difference is a disregard for whether they're right or not, i.e. stubborn determination to ignore the truth.
That answer is, of course, begging the question 'well, what about Insight, who stubbornly ignores scientific evidence?' However, remember that Insight does not accept such evidence as irrefutable proof, and has other explanations for much of it. God appearing to you and making his presence evident is, on the other hand, a pretty definite reason to believe in him.
'I do not follow his god, though I would not say that I *insist* on not following him because following him is just not an option for me since I do not believe any one god is 'the one and only' god.
I also don't *insist* on not acknowledging his god, I simply do not acknowledge him as a God Almighty that I should have to worship and obey. I would only insist on this if someone else insisted I should.'
That's partly my point. You don't choose not to follow Him or acknowledge Him because you insist that you wouldn't, and in all likelihood if his God appeared to you, you would say 'ah, sorry about that.' (Or something similar - Chris Tarrant might say 'are you sure you're the one and only God? Fifty-fifty? Phone a Messiah?')
'And if people who haven't heard of Him or don't understand Him aren't about to be tossed out into nonexistance, then what is the point of acknowledging Him or understanding Him at all?'
I don't quite understand. I would like to say more, but I'm not totally confident I'd be making valid doctrinal points about Insight's faith - it's time for him to answer! I'm on shaky ground already, all I was saying was that some interpretations of what he said weren't quite based on what he actually said.
'Anyhow, this is not what I was taught as a child. I was taught that if I did not follow and obey this God then I would go to Hell everlasting.'
I thought the point was what Insight believed? Weren't we questioning his faith? Wasn't noMember's ad hominem attack directed at Insight?
'No one can prove the existence of this God. He is something that people choose to believe in and they require faith to do so.'
Very well, but on the other hand no one has proven the non-existence of God. Scientifically, there's no reason to include a God, and one might even say that, applying the principles of Occam's razor and statistical significance, we can scientifically prove that he does not exist. However, faith reflects personal experience as well as objective reality - using David's definition, 'an evident assurance of things not seen,' the basis of faith is not defined, and thus is open to individual interpretation.
'The fact remains that to someone who does not believe that the bible is the Word of God and doesn't even believe in this God, then using the bible as a tool for argument does not make sense. And so far he has not shown me *how* the bible makes sense.'
Not for lack of trying. His personal view may not be relevent to you, but it is supremely relevent to him, just as yours is relevent to yourself, and mine is relevent to myself. If you want him to fully convince you, he would have to argue on your terms, and to convince me, he would have to argue on mine. Perhaps there is some area of shared ground on which we agree, but this is, on it's own, probably not sufficient to explain one's own beliefs.
'I have not asked him to ignore his bible, just to try and use another means to explain his position. He can still use his belief in the bible as a basis to express his opinions, but as I have said before, merely quoting the bible is not sufficient.'
The difference between not citing it/using other sources and ignoring the bible is very fine. Also, if his beliefs are predicated on the bible, then there may be no other way he can explain them - how can he use 'other means' when there are none? And I have to ask, if he can't quote the bible, how can he justify the beliefs which he takes from it?
'I would not say that athiests feel themselves to be superior to god, they just don't believe that god exists. In the same way that I don't feel superior to the tooth fairy or santa claus.'
That's not what I said - I meant that many (in fact, probably most, although some are less vocal about it) consider themselves superior to theists. If my phrasing was unclear, I apologise.
'And when he dies and if there is no God to say this to him? He is also going to realise that he was pretty wrong.'
Well, of course, if he realises anything at all!
'You seem to keep missing my basic point, Jordan. I have nothing against anyone's god belief or religion. I simply do not accept that some are right and others are wrong. I totally accept Insight's belief in his god and I know that for him this god exists.'
Very well. But something follows on from that...
'...I don't go around telling them (or anyone else) they are WRONG and that if they don't believe in MY god concept then they are going to end up quite sorry for it.'
...which is that, if you believe in an Almighty God and absolute truth, then you necessarily believe that others are wrong. You seem to believe that they are wrong because they go around telling people that they are wrong... And their choice is to tell people what they think or refuse to care about them enough to tell them.
'And I certainly don't tell them that my god concept has the right to "get rid of them".'
Well, if something is right, it's right. And when something that is right does something it knows to be right, it has a perfect right to because it is doing the right thing. And if I turn right at the second right, then I would rightly go right round the bend by counting the number of times I've used the word 'right' in these two sentences right here.
'I couldn't care less if people acknowledge my god concept or believe it exists. And I think the world would be a better place if others did likewise. Live and let live.'
And they think the world would be a better place if others believed what they believed, in this respect. Live and help live.
- Jordan
Key: Complain about this post
Alpha Course
- 141: astrolog (Jan 11, 2004)
- 142: azahar (Jan 11, 2004)
- 143: Researcher 524695 (Jan 11, 2004)
- 144: azahar (Jan 11, 2004)
- 145: azahar (Jan 11, 2004)
- 146: Jordan (Jan 12, 2004)
- 147: Jordan (Jan 12, 2004)
- 148: Jordan (Jan 12, 2004)
- 149: azahar (Jan 12, 2004)
- 150: badger party tony party green party (Jan 12, 2004)
- 151: Jordan (Jan 12, 2004)
- 152: Jordan (Jan 12, 2004)
- 153: badger party tony party green party (Jan 12, 2004)
- 154: badger party tony party green party (Jan 12, 2004)
- 155: DA ; Simply Vicky: Don't get pithy with me! (Jan 13, 2004)
- 156: azahar (Jan 13, 2004)
- 157: Noggin the Nog (Jan 13, 2004)
- 158: azahar (Jan 18, 2004)
- 159: Matholwch - Brythonic Tribal Polytheist (Jan 18, 2004)
- 160: Jordan (Jan 19, 2004)
More Conversations for minniemouse
Write an Entry
"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a wholly remarkable book. It has been compiled and recompiled many times and under many different editorships. It contains contributions from countless numbers of travellers and researchers."