no such thing as deconversion
There is no such thing as “deconversion” from life in Christ my dear lady. The gospel is not a package of propositions the acquiescence to which makes one a Christian. It is a supernatural individual resurrection of a soul dead in sin to the true and eternal life of God Himself. Whatever you were “deconverted” from, it was not that. Do what you want. Believe what you want, but you are living a lie. A sort of spiritual epoxy if you will. The false religion you believed before being like the resin and this present desperate belief system being like the hardener. The two together comprising a rather masterful deception which is yielding Satan’s desired result. Tiribulus aka Greg
I love this particular belief held by the majority of Christians. It seems to them that if an atheist claims to have been religious in former times, there was clearly something ‘wrong’ about their belief. Because no-one could love and communicate with the good Christian god God and his son Jesus, only to realise the whole thing is nonsense. Unfortunately for many of us atheists, we too once had the firmly held belief that we had a special relationship with the creator of all things – that he knew every hair on our head, guided our every action and was watching our every move with his benevolent gaze.
But fortunately for all of us atheists, we have somehow managed to either avoid indoctrination altogether through a fortunate upbringing, or escape the sticky claws of indoctrination through chance encounters that enabled us to question and investigate our faith in the invisible deity we loved so dearly.
I breathe a long sigh of relief that I no longer have to worry about why I haven’t given up all my possessions to follow Jesus; I no longer have to fret in the corner of my mind about why billions of human beings were created only to suffer eternally for never having had the opportunity to hear about Christianity; I no longer have to panic about fleeting sexual thoughts sparked off by my natural animal chemical reactions with other human beings; and I no longer have to stress about the horrifically poor treatment of women in the what is supposed to be the Word of my benevolent god.
There’s no such thing as deconversion. Certainly. In the same way as there’s no such thing as conversion. There’s programming, indoctrination, superstition and desperation. But in the superstitious, desperate indoctrinated corners of every believer’s mind, there’s the knowledge that none of it really makes sense. The question is, how much devastation to your world view can you take in this short life?
Why ya gotta do this to me? WHY!?!?!?!?!?!?
I have no time to do all the stuff I’m in the middle of already. I will however do my best to be your guinea pig.
LikeLike
Oh violet, you clearly have a new fan 🙂
I think your next post should be about sums.
For example.
Here I have two apples. Here I have two plums. What does that add up to? Difficult one I think.
Maybe two apples plus two apples, so how many apples do we have?
Look, they are right there, in front of us. Do we have four apples or do we need to fall on the floor and ask for the answer?
LikeLike
Oh dear, let me ask a friend to pray over that math.
LikeLike
Or on that prayer mat?
LikeLike
A prayer mat should suffice but I hope they bring their own compass
LikeLiked by 1 person
Maybe the prayer mat and the jump to conclusions mat should be sold as a box set. :p
LikeLike
We could run the shop, we will make money am sure
LikeLike
Well, it all depends on whether you believe in the god God or not, clearly. But 5 I think.
LikeLike
I regret to say, under the evil influence of John Zande I am tempted to play sums. I should leave it alone, but sometimes a little distraction is called for.
LikeLike
I accept all culpability. Now where’s the game on at?
LikeLike
Hey, I see he is interested… down the bottom. There’s your chance, Roughseas
LikeLike
You. Are a terrible Aussie wind-up merchant. I’m having none of it. I’ve already made the irresistible mistake of getting involved with
Son of ManSimple of Mind, and Put Your Clothes On You Shameless Hussy You and Stop Corrupting The Men Becky Luella Whatsit.LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, you might have four apples but they don’t mean anything unless you do fall on the floor and thank the god God that you have them.
LikeLike
Apples was a bad one. Eve and all that. Should have chosen figs. Ooops no, far too sexual and def no bananas. Oranges maybe?
Can’t even get the choice of fruit right me.
LikeLike
Ha!
Neither fortunate nor unfortunate. Mere happenstance.
Seems to me that those of a religious persuasion treat apostates as sheep who need to be brought back within the fold, and original atheists as people to lecture at but aren’t worth bothering with because they are ignorant twerps who can’t conceive of godly stuff.
There is a big difference between never believers and the fallen from grace.
LikeLike
I wish I was an ‘original atheist’. That sounds very cool!
LikeLike
Nice tag. I’m merely someone who let the drivel float over her head. Hardly an original atheist, that implies thought.
LikeLike
I can imagine how difficult it must be, in countries where the level of education is not nearly as widespread and the tenets of science not nearly as doggedly pursued, for a follower of Islam to give up their beliefs. The West experienced an Age of Reason that the Middle East, and the African and Asian countries they influence, have yet to achieve. The peer pressure alone must be unbearable.
LikeLike
Near impossible if they plan on stoning you.
LikeLike
I have work guys. Later.
LikeLike
I’ve been told on several occasions that I was never a TRUE CHRISTIAN(TM). I think it’s because to admit that someone can de-convert is to admit that people can choose to reject the belief system surrounding their deity. If that’s possible, maybe whatever they worship isn’t almighty.
LikeLike
I think that sums it up nicely. But they can always blame the devil Devil and the weak sinful nature of the person who chose to only believe in a half-arsed manner.
LikeLike
Excellent summation. The best I have heard.
LikeLike
Wouldn’t a “True Christian” be someone who follows the ways of Jesus? I have yet to witness anyone who fits that example well.
LikeLike
Greg is, quite clearly, the product of some terrible trauma.
LikeLike
There you go again Zande. Skip the argument and straight onto the personal insults. You’re going to make Brandon cry (although I think he did that on the last post and finally abandoned this ship of vile heathens).
LikeLike
I explained my language to Brandon. And I’m not insulting Greg, merely making an observation concerning the motivations driving his fabulously peculiar take on reality.
LikeLike
“You’re going to make Brandon cry (although I think he did that on the last post and finally abandoned this ship of vile heathens).” – one could only wish, but Brandon is inescapable – like a flu germ, you couldn’t get rid of him if you tried.
LikeLike
LOL
LikeLike
Psychologist Marlene Winell, who was published in the British Association for Behavioural and Cognitive Psychtherapies regarding Religious Trauma Syndrome, wrote:
http://www.babcp.com/Review/RTS-Trauma-from-Leaving-Religion.aspx
For many of us, it was very difficult leaving the faith. As I told Greg, deconversion is not for the faint of heart. When people like him say that we were not really “true” Christians, it’s one of the ways they deal with cognitive dissonance, and do so at our expense.
Violet, your second to last paragraph was flippin’ awesome. I couldn’t agree more.
LikeLike
Although you and I have been emailing for the better part of a year, Victoria, and you had told me of the death of your husband, I had no idea, until you brought it up in a comment yesterday or the day before, the lengths to which you went, after his death, to live up to the expectations of your (then) religion. I can’t imagine what that must have been like – not just doing those things for the sake of appearance, but truly believing they were right and necessary.
LikeLiked by 1 person
archaeopteryx1: “not just doing those things for the sake of appearance, but truly believing they were right and necessary.”
I am VERY sorry for your pain Victoria. 😦 Is there somewhere you have written about this?
If truly believing meant believing truth then you folks would have to declare my beliefs true because I truly believe them.
Whatever you truly believed Victoria, it did not include saving faith in Jesus Christ for the reasons I’ve given. Or, if it did, He WILL bring you back. And you WILL come. Willingly, humbly and joyfully telling everybody here how wrong you were.
roughseasinthemed “Seems to me that those of a religious persuasion treat apostates as sheep who need to be brought back within the fold, and original atheists as people to lecture at but aren’t worth bothering with because they are ignorant twerps who can’t conceive of godly stuff.”
Absolutely false. It is FAR more likely that a godless heathen be born again, than one who has fled God’s truth. The closer to the actual truth what they fled from was, the less likely the conversion.
Hebrews 6: (ESV)
4-For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5-and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6-and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt. 7-For land that has drunk the rain that often falls on it, and produces a crop useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. 8-But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed, and its end is to be burned.
God sometimes delights in subduing the most rabid, foaming, snapping pagans for His glory.
LikeLike
“If truly believing meant believing truth then you folks would have to declare my beliefs true because I truly believe them.” – When it comes to beliefs, each of us is entitled to their own – what’s true for you, may not be for anyone else.
LikeLike
Speaking of which, I see Put Your Clothes On Becky has closed comments because the three of us are too thick to see that women displaying flesh = advertisement for sexual availability and evil promiscuity. (Sorry violet, derailment, off topic etc, should be on your previous post, but it is Friday night) But the ‘Three of You’ seems to lump me in with you and Ark. What sort of honour and glory is that, might I ask?
LikeLike
“Speaking of which, I see Put Your Clothes On Becky has closed comments” – I NOTICED that! Could it have been something I said –?
Or it might have been you, dancing around in your underwear, like you were on Ark’s site! And you, with a broken ankle! For shame, tsk, tsk.
Here’s one you might remember, dance to it! If it’ll make you feel more comfortable, I’ll strip down to my underwear and dance around too – I think Victoria has a picture of that —
LikeLiked by 1 person
You look adorable in your undies, Arch. Now give me the keys to your car. I suspect you bought lime flavored Mountain Dew. 😉
LikeLike
Was that as good for you, as it was for me? Whew!
I should probably put my clothes back on, I’m in Walmart —
LikeLike
Were you directing that comment at me or Kate? I suspect she’s retired for the evening.
LikeLike
The first sentence was to RoughSeas (begun and posted before I noticed your comment) – the last was sort of to myself. Thanks for offering to be the designated driver, but I’ll crawl home, it’s not like I haven’t done it before —
LikeLike
Surprisingly I’m still awake. And counting my fingers. Yes I have four plus one thumb. But does that equal five?
LikeLike
Welcome back to the “party”, Kate, and thank you for your comment earlier.
LikeLike
The ‘party’ that celebrates 1 + 1 = 2
Wooop 😀
LikeLike
I’ll drink to that. *does happy dance* Glad you’re still up. Cheers.
LikeLike
“I’ll drink to that. *does happy dance*” – You too? And you always say we never do anything together –!
LikeLike
But I’m with Kate. I’ll check my dance card and see if I can fit you in. In the mean time — *wubbles*
LikeLike
“The ‘party’ that celebrates 1 + 1 = 2” – but only in a base-10 numerical system.
LikeLike
So you’re chatting amicably with RoughSeas over the backyard fence, while I’m out there, crawling around on the highway? Well I NEVER –! Ok, sometimes, I have —
LikeLike
You want me to pick you up or just run over you and put you out of your misery?
LikeLike
I say, flip a coin —
LikeLike
*puts car in reverse* 😈
LikeLike
How the hell do you do that? Always!
LikeLiked by 1 person
You can stand up for yourself but I couldn’t keep my mouth shut. It really racked me off. You are never rude or abusive that I have noticed, so there was no call to say you were talking rubbish, because you don’t do that either. Your comments are factual and evidence-based. Even the ones about Arch 😉
LikeLike
“Even the ones about Arch 😉 “
High five sista. 😀
About your other comments, again thank you. I have, at times, been curt and I’m ever working on my diplomacy skills. However, I do get triggers still and will comment on impulse, later wishing I had worded my comment(s) differently.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That is so American. *Embarrassed British sigh*.
I think you mean succinct. Nothing wrong with that.
You put a lot of time and effort into sharing what you have learned. I usually read your links and always learn something. And that’s why the comment annoyed me. Basically it was wrong. Inaccurate. Incorrect. Erroneous. Garbage.
Are the AA twins diplomatic? Don’t buy into women need to be nice but men can get away with being nasty. That is so not you (or me).
LikeLike
I really appreciate you taking the time to read my links. I post them because I try to back up my opinion and hope that those who are seeking answers the way many of us have, will find them helpful. But I generally don’t expect people like Greg to actually read them because they think they already have all the answers, and it’s between the pages of an archaic book written for an archaic culture.
I do agree with you that sometimes we need to call a spade a spade and sometimes there’s just no way to be diplomatic about it. I lose patience because I see, everyday, the damage that Greg’s belief system does to humanity. Sometimes I just want to SOL.
LikeLike
But that’s what I’m saying. You aren’t talking out of the back of your arse (to call a spade a shovel). It is very rude of people to tell thinking people (well just little women really) you, Ruth, violet, that they have got it wrong and don’t know what they are talking about.
We’ve had discussions before about my apathy, but clearly this is one issue that did liven me up 😀 Just, do not, say that an intelligent woman is talking garbage because she no longer believes in god. And don’t patronise her either. I should have gone to bed hey?
LikeLike
LOL — hear, hear. Greg’s so humble he actually says he’s learned from women — EVEN black women, he says. *gasp* Imagine that. Whatta guy.
LikeLike
Oh I remember that. I read it and thought no, go away MI.
He’s cool huh, respects women and all that…
LikeLike
They won’t admit it but they’ve been brainwashed to have a deep-seeded hatred of women. After all, we are the seed of Eve, the cause of the fall of humanity, the reason Jesus had to die, according to his feeble fable. But then they’ll come back and say “NO, Adam just didn’t “man up” and shouldn’t have allowed himself to be “seduced” by that evil (Eve for short) women. Hence why they believe to this day that men should have the rule over their women (Genesis 3:16. Don’t even get me started.
LikeLike
Feeble fable is great alliteration. Irrelevant but I had to say it.
The problem with the internet is that I have learned that there are some serious whackos out there. I know you think I am naive but it has never impacted on my life. Reading about indoctrination and how difficult it is to chuck religion has been an eye-opener. And one that leaves me feeling ever more atheist. If that was possible.
Totally irrelevant, but I read something about palmistry today. Because it makes as much sense as religion, ie you can read anything into something if that’s what you choose.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“ie you can read anything into something if that’s what you choose.”
Exactly. I often think about living in a place where the fundies don’t roam. My life would have turned out so much better (I would have followed my bliss) had I never been exposed to this culture of make-believe. But I try to look on the bright side. I learn a lot in this journey, though I can find better ways of learning than through blood, sweat, tears and fears.
LikeLike
An even brighter side, is look at the legacy you’re leaving to others.
LikeLike
Thank you Arch. Against all odds, I guided my daughter to think for herself — to ask questions — and to be true to herself. She’s beautiful inside and out, and I’m certain that when she has children, she’ll do the same. That’s a legacy I can be proud of.
LikeLike
You’re alright, Kid – no matter what they say about you —
LikeLike
I don’t believe you, your comment was “wubbles”-less, and that speaks volumes!
LikeLike
Better?
LikeLike
Well, Ok, I believe you now…
LikeLike
You’d better! It took me nearly a freakin’ HOUR to bring that to the board, I don’t have the world at my cursor-tip as you seem to!
BTW – you’ve got mail —
LikeLike
Arch I got your video, and I’ve tried to reply twice but got a message both times:
Is your email down? I replied regarding the video you sent and got this message:
Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:
(then it shows your email addy)
Is your email down? I did a test and sent an email to another email addy I have and it went through.
LikeLike
Clearly it’s fine, or I wouldn’t have gotten this. I got an email from Carmen around noon, but nothing since – still, with it being Halloween, most people with kids or grandkids, are likely out Trick or Treating.
LikeLike
Well you know me and my process of elimination tendencies. I sent you a separate email just in case the glitch had to do with the Halloween video card you included, and sure enough, it went through. Did you get that one? Seems my suspicious were most likely right — the card was the culprit.
LikeLike
You might be right, but I’m stumped if I know why – I’ve been sending cards like that from that email addy for at least four years.
LikeLike
Could have been just that particular card. Dunno. It’s a mystery. Maybe we should ask Greg. He’s got a direct line to the king of the jungle.
LikeLike
Just look through that original email you sent. The return message was long with all kinds of numbers but here’s what I found:
“This message has been rejected due to content judged to be spam by the internet community”
Mystery sold. Your spamming me now? 😛
LikeLike
““This message has been rejected due to content judged to be spam by the internet community”” – I get emails from Nigeria every day, promising me millions of dollars, and a Halloween card gets tagged for spam?
LikeLike
“You’d better! It took me nearly a freakin’ HOUR to bring that to the board”
Awww, a labor of wubbles.
LikeLike
Correction: *learned
LikeLike
“Don’t even get me started.” – Oh, I KNOW better than that! Learned it LONG ago!
LikeLike
LikeLike
LOL — oh well.
LikeLike
I KNEW there was someone T reminded me of —
(Incidentally, Billy Ridden – the boy playing the banjo – now 56, works at Walmart in Georgia, “pickin up trash and that kinda stuff.”)
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Incidentally, Billy Ridden – the boy playing the banjo – now 56, works at Walmart in Georgia, “pickin up trash and that kinda stuff.”)
No way, really?
LikeLike
“>em>No way, really?” – Would I lie?
LikeLike
Is that a rhetorical question?
LikeLike
“We’ve had discussions before about my apathy” – Well, at least you’re better off than those who don’t care enough to be apathetic!
I’m…gonna go work in the yard now —
LikeLike
Watch out for those toesies. And anything else if you are still in your underwear.
LikeLike
“And anything else if you are still in your underwear.” – gravity has yet to work THAT much of its magic —
LikeLike
Snort. Of the day!
LikeLike
Now Arch, why do you have to be a spoil sport and go make love to your lawn mower again. Seriously, I think you need to just chill out tonight and be among friends.
LikeLike
Post time!
LikeLike
I got your “High five sista.“!
(Grabs crotch – again)
LikeLike
I’ll show you a high five if you don’t behave.
LikeLike
“Your comments are factual and evidence-based. Even the ones about Arch” – Huh?
LikeLike
“But does that equal five?” – Yes, but only in a base-10 numerical system.
LikeLike
I think that must prove that the Christian god God exists. I can totally see where Greg is going with this.
LikeLike
But four fingers and one thumb are not the same, see? It’s complex this adding up stuff. Of course, you could say there are five digits, which is a different matter. Why are we all getting into this silly crap? 😀
LikeLike
“Why are we all getting into this silly crap?” – Because we’re talking to a silly man, about his silly beliefs, about a silly god – silly + silly + silly = a whole bunch of silly! But only in a base-silly numerical system.
LikeLike
Didja ever notice that if you say “silly” a whole bunch of times, it begins to sound – well, silly –?
LikeLike
I’ll leave it to you Arch. It’s way above my intellectual capacity 🙂 which is merely silly really.
LikeLike
I’m gonna go work in the yard, and hope I don’t mow off a toe or two – in a base-10 numerical system, of course.
LikeLike
Yard = garden yes?
You are going to cut the lawn in the garden. Is that an accurate translation? Americanese will be the death of me.
LikeLike
No, yard – in my case – means the area of ground I own that excludes the house – the “yard.” Possibly a better term would be the lawn, but there’s not as much lawn as I would like, thanks to the drought. But there’s no such thing as Global Warming,” right?
LikeLike
Don’t you have gardens in our former colony?
A yard movies concrete, ashphalt, cement, ie hard standing. A garden is soft and pretty. Rather like me. OK that was a stretch too far.
Global warming happens. Has happened before. Just we contribute to it more than we should.
LikeLike
“Don’t you have gardens in our former colony? – Ah, you must mean the country we kicked you out of!
Why yes, I used to design and build them for a living (among many other things), but not in my yard at the moment, unless you include three scraggly tomato plants that will likely meet their demise tomorrow night, if the temperature drops below freezing, as is possible.
LikeLike
Ah. You sprung me. Yes, my clothing is indeed minimal. After all I don’t venture outside, and certainly wouldn’t be seen at that heathen’s place in SA.
However, yes, I am sure it was something she said, I mean you said. She answered all of us, told us we were stupid and then closed comments. Neat huh? And I was just about to launch into such a happy feminist rant. 😦
I don’t remember it actually. I liked early Queen. Seven Seas of Rye. Although I wore a dress when I danced to that. I was clearly displaying my availability for sex though as I got a (crap) boyfriend out of it.
Anyways, I am still miffed at being included in the AA club.
LikeLike
Well that clearly wasn’t “early” Queen – Freddie Mercury had a mustache.
LikeLike
I never said a thing about why you left Christianity. I asked if you wrote about it somewhere? Is there?
LikeLike
I never said you said a thing about why I left Christianity but I hear the same BS all the time. That I left because I was hurt or angry. I was simply making a statement to curtail any future assumptions.
LikeLike
Fair enough, but the assumptions I made were in response to archaeopteryx1 mentioning the passing of your husband. A thing you can rest assured that you have my sincere condolences for. He seemed to indicate that the way you were treated and or acted in the wake of that contributed to your leaving the church. If not then I apologize.
Where can I read about why you DID leave? And your life in the church actually?
LikeLike
Thank you, Greg. Btw, I already shared with you why I left Christianity. Do not assume that I was not fully committed. And do not preach to me anymore. Believe if you must, but you should keep it to yourself. The Biblical teachings you promote cause psychological harm to others, interfere with people getting help from mental health professionals (as was the case with my late husband), cause significant brain atrophy, encourage tribalism and Othering, and so much more.
Unfortunately, fundamentalists never accept responsibility for the harm and dysfunction they cause. They have a scapegoat.
LikeLike
Speaking of psychological harm — this just came across my reader.
http://valerietarico.com/2014/10/31/psychological-harms-of-christianity/
LikeLike
There has never been nor will there ever be a shortage of techniques used by the enemies of God to attempt escape from moral accountability to Him Victoria. I can send you some I’ve dug up in past research just like this one if you want.
What this proves is that sin is ever on the march. Won’t last forever though.
roughseasinthemed says”Each to our own.”
Really? Tell that to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and let me know how it goes. I have a feeling that they REALLY are certain that 1+1=2.
LikeLike
Greg, what it proves is that you have no understanding of the causes of antisocial behavior. Your god had the understanding of a primitive Iron/Bronze Age man — used methodologies that actually contribute to antisocial behavior and social dysfunction.
LikeLike
Hey dickhead, did you hear the lady? You are off the farking chart. You need help, man.
LikeLike
Hey dickhead! Don’t call my blog guests dickheads.
LikeLike
Really? How about bovine fecal matter to use the Dickhead’s own words?
LikeLike
Ban him! Ban him! Torches, pitchforks – the works!
LikeLike
It was on the other thread, T – the one you just left to come here! What was that you were saying to me about paying attention? ADD much?
LikeLike
This godless heathen is most unlikely to be born again. Nor is she rabid, foaming or snapping. I do take exception to be being described as mentally deranged because I don’t share someone’s religious views. To some of us, the idea of believing in a god and a religious book smacks of insanity. Each to our own.
LikeLike
roughseasinthemed: “I regret to say, under the evil influence of John Zande I am tempted to play sums. I should leave it alone, but sometimes a little distraction is called for.
It’s a simple question. Are you certain that 1+1=2? Why or why not? You have no doubt noticed that I have gotten every form of diversionary response imaginable from “hippocampal atrophy” to low grade locker room ridicule and everything in between.
I have been called brain damaged, stupid, dangerous, dishonest and “d*ckh**d. 😀
What has not happened is anybody so much as taking a feeble stab at that question.
I remind everybody once again that I did not start this. Violet asked my permission for citation which I instantly gave and which stands forever for anything I ever say. SHE came after ME and here I am seeking a bit of philosophical/epistemological engagement from all you brilliant, enlightened and progressive pagans and what I get is “”d*ckh**d”.
It’s embarrassing. It’s one thing to proclaim atheism. You sesame Street sellouts ain’t even good at it. What could there possibly be to fear to from a brain dead, anachronistic fanatical religionist like me according to you people and yet NObody will answer my question.
LikeLike
“Are you certain that 1+1=2?”
Apologies that no-one has answered this, it just doesn’t seem like a very serious question, unless you’re a maths expert, in which case it might get overly complex and boring. But on the most simplistic level, yes, I’m certain that abstractly the label that we attach to a singular object “1” when placed with another singular object “1”, we label as totalling “2”. (or I added to I equals II in Roman numerals if you prefer)
LikeLike
Are you certain?
LikeLike
Yes
LikeLike
I apologize Violet. I now see that you already said you were certain. (have mercy. I’m jugging a lot of people here)
Why? Why are certain? I agree that you are. So am I. (this is a tacit admission, inadvertent though it may be, that there ARE absolutes btw)
I’m asking you from whence arises this certainty? Certainty is a function of logic. Is it merely a feature of the material universe? Can you email me some? Point me to where I can buy some? Harvest some? Or even where it resides at all? Logic is invisible, immaterial, absolute and universal. OR, you couldn’t actually be certain. Even astronomically high probability to the zillionth fraction of a percentage point of certain is still not certainty.
I’m asking you please not to assume and jump ahead. We’ll get to “my” particular God. I promise.
LikeLike
Yes, I am 100% certain (in a base-10 system), that Humankind has agreed that 1 + 1 = 2, in a 10-base system. We invented it – a number of prototypes fell by the wayside – but in order for all of us – at least the portion that engages in commerce of some kind with others of us, to achieve a common system of reference, we have come to a mutual agreement that for our purposes, 1 + 1 will equal 2, in a 10-base numerical system.
Any questions?
LikeLike
This 1+1=2 seems to muddy the waters. But rather than proving an absolute 1+1=2 expresses a value. One plus one does equal 2 in the most simplistic terms. But if we add together say, 1 cup of vinegar and 1 cup of baking soda, then it won’t equal two as one of those things changes molecular structure. One plus one doesn’t necessarily always equal two. It is dependent on context.
LikeLike
Depends how you argue the semantics, one could say that one cup of vinegar plus one cup of baking soda (hasn’t the Brit taught you how to do things properly yet? ;)) = two cups, or even two units.
Needless to state, I don’t see where the relevance of god comes into adding up. I’ll bear it in mind for this year’s tax return though. Maybe I’ll just write, I can’t do this, please ask god.
LikeLike
Depends how you argue the semantics, one could say that one cup of vinegar plus one cup of baking soda (hasn’t the Brit taught you how to do things properly yet? ;)) = two cups, or even two units.
The broader point is that logic is abstract and not necessarily concrete. Regardless of the unit of measure if you mix 1 unit of vinegar with one unit of baking soda they will no longer equal two complete units. They will become less than two complete units upon measure as the molecular structure changes.
The only relevance is if one believes that any logic comes from God and not human convention.
LikeLike
Ruth says: “The broader point is that logic is abstract … The only relevance is if one believes that any logic comes from God and not human convention. “
Those are excelelnt points Ruth. As I said to Violet:
” Logic is invisible, immaterial, absolute and universal. “
In other words, “abstract” as you have said. Logic does however govern our entire existence. Which is another way of saying that CERTAINTY governs our entire existence. Uncertain logic is a contradiction in terms.
Whether base this or base that, our reality is reduced to unnavigable and incoherent irrationality if 1+1 does not equal 2 every time in our activities of life.
Who disagrees?
Yes, I will demonstrate, not that some theistic god is necessary for the existence and function of logic, but that only the God described as follows from the WESTMINSTER CONFESSION OF FAITH of 1646 is thus capable:
CHAPTER II.
Of God, and of the Holy Trinity.
I. There is but one only living and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute, working all things according to the counsel of his own immutable and most righteous will, for his own glory, most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek him; and withal most just and terrible in his judgments; hating all sin; and who will by no means clear the guilty.
II. God hath all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of himself; and is alone in and unto himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which he hath made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting his own glory in, by, unto, and upon them; he is the alone foundation of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom, are all things; and hath most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them, whatsoever himself pleaseth. In his sight all things are open and manifest; his knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature; so as nothing is to him contingent or uncertain. He is most holy in all his counsels, in all his works, and in all his commands. To him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience he is pleased to require of them.
III. In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.
Now I’m gone until later.
LikeLike
“Logic does however govern our entire existence.”
That statement cannot be validated until the entire realm of quantum physics is thoroughly understood, and that could be a while. For example, it has been proven that a single electron can pass through two holes simultaneously (see Young’s Experiment) – that is totally illogical, yet it is true. You, yourself, Mr. IT guy, keep referencing the “very computers we use to comment,” and yet many of the elements of the workings of any computer, depend entirely on quantum mechanics that we barely understand, yet have somehow managed to bend to our will, and make our computers work.
So until you can explain to us – and to all of the quantum physicists out there – the whole of how quantum mechanics works, and demonstrate just how logical it all is, I don’t see how you can tell anyone that logic rules the universe.
LikeLike
I suggest you also look into Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, and the enigma of Schrodinger’s Cat.
(Cop stops Schrodinger, asks what he’s got in the trunk of his car. Schrodinger tells him a cat. Schrodinger is told to open the trunk. Cop looks in and says, “Your cat’s dead!” Schrodinger says, “SURE, it is NOW!!!”) – you had to be there —
LikeLike
Who was the suck-up who wrote that crap?
LikeLike
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_Confession_of_Faith
LikeLike
So, then, anonymous, much like many of the books of the Buyubull – wasn’t he also the guy who wrote the poem about the girl from Nantucket?
LikeLike
” Logic is invisible, immaterial, absolute and universal. “
In other words, “abstract” as you have said. Logic does however govern our entire existence.
It completely depends on the context and whether you’re talking about inductive or deductive logic. And your contention that logic is both abstract and absolute is a contradiction. Abstracts are ideas and thoughts which are not concrete.
LikeLike
I have refrained from commenting on this particular form of logic. 1+1=2 logically because we can count. The words one and two are representative of things [apples, oranges, ducks, people, etc]. 1+1 would equal 2 whether or not God exists.
I think the reason no one is tackling it is because it seems you are starting with the premise that without God nothing means anything. We cannot *disprove* god the same as you cannot *prove* God. So if your starting point is without God nothing means anything there really is no debate. All anyone can say is if that’s your opinion you’re entitled to it.
LikeLike
Ruth, in spite of what he says, his question was addressed. Arch addressed him and so did I. But those weren’t the answers he wanted to hear. There might be a creator, but just because we have a mathematical equation, 1 + 1 = 2, doesn’t prove that his Iron/Bronze Age war god is the creator.
LikeLike
No, I realize this. God being or not being does not make 1+1=2. As I said in a later comment 1+1 does not always even equal 2. I saw where he said something about the why of this having to do with worldview. I’m trying to get to the part where he explains why this is so instead of just declaring that it is without any evidence or explanation of such except…it just is.
LikeLike
I’m showing there are no absolutes. 😉
LikeLike
I’m starting with the premise that the conventions of logic are universally and inescapably binding upon all mankind. That we live and breathe in a universe of certainty without which not even the simplest daily functions could be carried out. The computers we are having this conversation on for instance are impossible without engineering that depends completely on invisible and inescapable laws of thought that man is not capable of accounting for on his own.
Ruth says: “1+1=2 logically because we can count.”
Why? Where does the framework by which we can count come from? Are the abstract laws of logic present in matter? Our brains? (come on Victoria) Where?
If 1+1 does NOT equal 2 then our entire reality collapses into unintelligible nonsense. Hence our incurable addiction to certainty.
Certainty, is the intellectual currency of life. Without it there can’t even be probability. Modern man likes to deny that there is certainty, but lives every second assuming there is. And then calls ME crazy.
EVERYBODY is certain that 1+1=2. Regardless of what modified base 10 blah blah blah mental masturbation he tries to comfort himself with, he knows that even that is uncertain unless 1+1 does in fact equal 2 in his day to day life.
If I can get anybody to talk long enough I will demonstrate why I believe only the ontologically triune AND comprehensively sovereign (read divinely deterministic) God of the ancient Christian scriptures is capable of making 1+1 certainly equal 2. Himself then being the foundation of all thought, any evidence marshaled against Him already belongs to Him and declares him even in the alleged denial.
Back slapping laughter is not an argument. I can’t live in front of this computer screen, though being an IT guy I get more time online than most. At the risk of sounding the wrong way, this is a serious discussion and you underestimate my humble ability by the grace of God to make His case to your own peril.
I can guess who will start the infantile sneering first.
LikeLike
I am simply asking you to make whatever your case is. I have already demonstrated that 1+1 does not always equal 2. We might want certainty but certainty is elusive. I suppose I’ve been cured of that because I am most uncertain of a great many things.
I have made no insult toward you. I haven’t underestimated anything. Lay your case out.
LikeLike
1 + 1 = 2 only in a 10-base numerical system, and it is so because Humankind has agreed that it is so.
LikeLike
It appears that Ruth and Violet disagree. 😦 That will make it much rougher on me.
Ruth says:” I have already demonstrated that 1+1 does not always equal 2″
And
archaeopteryx1 says: “i[1+1=2] because Humankind has agreed that it is so.”
Do you agree that numbers are an entity unto themselves regardless of what linguistic symbols a given society labels them as?
I’m going to be on and off until much later and maybe until tomorrow.
LikeLike
“Do you agree that numbers are an entity unto themselves regardless of what linguistic symbols a given society labels them as? – No, numbers are a strictly Human construct. There are relationships between and among things in the universe, that we use numbers to define, but we are using only OUR definitions.
“I’m going to be on and off until much later” – Likely more “off” than on, even when you’re on —
LikeLike
“I can guess who will start the infantile sneering first.” – why would anyone need to? I would never sneer at someone with Down’s Syndrome, why would I sneer at anyone with any other mental disorder?
LikeLike
Very good sir!! LOL!! (I rest my case)
LikeLike
“If I can get anybody to talk long enough I will demonstrate why I believe only the ontologically triune AND comprehensively sovereign (read divinely deterministic) God of the ancient Christian scriptures is capable of making 1+1 certainly equal 2.” – In other words, you will back us into a corner with the brilliance of your logic! Bear in mind, that while you’re proving that ‘God of the ancient Christian scriptures is capable of making 1+1 certainly equal 2’,” you’ll need to first prove that he exists, and then prove that no other god could have done it equally well. Marduk was always pretty sharp with numbers – but with four heads though, you’d probably expect that, right?
LikeLike
“Are you certain that 1+1=2? Why or why not?”
In a base 2 numerical system, 1 + 1 does not equal 2, it equals 10. Now, I’ve answered you twice – that would be 1 answer + 1 answer in a base 2 numerical system, which would equal 10.
LikeLike
And you wonder why we question your ability to comprehend? As I stated in Violet’s other post, no matter what we might say or have said or explained, you are so indoctrinated and obsessive with being vigilant because “Satan as a roaring lion, walks about seeking whom he may devour”, that any discourse with you is fruitless. That’s how cults work. They got you good, Greg.
LikeLike
That, my dear, is a great steaming pile of bovine fecal matter. 😉
Forget about convincing me. How about you do it to expose me? If even half the dismissive allegations you folks are throwing at me are true, it should take ten seconds to lay utter waste to my campaign once and for all. Not ONE of you will even try. Because you’re afraid. Not of me. You’re terrified of the truth.
Make no mistake, I have had this debate more times than I can count (literally) with some frighteningly capable secular intellectuals all over the world. Multi lettered academics who didn’t hesitate to engage. Not you folks though. I say again. I really expected more when Violet contacted me.
LikeLike
It is a little unreasonable to criticise Ark for calling you a dickhead and then to tell Victoria she is talking a pile of bullshit. Apart from anything else, her comments are always well thought through, lucid and invariably well-referenced.
LikeLike
Well, a Dickhead would say that when confronted with the truth of his bovine fecal matter.
Clever people like Victoria bring out the best in some and in others, reveal the truth of how rotten to the core they are.
LikeLike
Between you and Victoria, and including your A twin you just about clean everything up. Did you see I was lumped with the pair of you by Becky No Clothes? What a flipping insult.
I shan’t be commenting on her how to interact with ignorant atheists post after that, I tell you.
LikeLike
His “A twin”? Bite your tongue! What did I ever do to you?
LikeLike
It was that Becky woman. Linked me with the biggest pair of reprobates on the planet.
LikeLike
“Linked me with the biggest pair of reprobates on the planet.” – That would be Ark and –?
LikeLike
Well it wasn’t Victoria or Ruth, so the choices are narrowing …
LikeLike
I’ll figure it out, if it takes all night!
LikeLike
It’s a difficult one, maybe you should stick to 1 + 3 = 5?
LikeLike
You go girl! I’ll hold your coat.
LikeLike
I am NOT a girl. Nor am I wearing a coat. Didn’t you read the earlier posts about scantily unbecky friendly people dancing around?
LikeLike
BAZINGA! Take THAT, Ark! Right in the garbonzo beans!
LikeLike
Garbonzo beans? LMAO
LikeLike
Garbanzos ? Or chick peas?
LikeLike
I was using Street Parlance in an effort to get into the swing of things, while trying to do my best Don King impersonation in anticipation of the next Rumble in the Jungle.
I’ll hold your frock? Your Hand bag?
LikeLike
T shirt? But that’s one of the only two items of clothing I’m wearing, see I’m totally corrupted by the evil double A twins. But I live in hopes. I am a rabid snarling something else pagan ripe to be born again. All is not lost.
LikeLike
Behave! Now my hadns wlii eb shaking on the keybaodr.
LikeLike
Sorry, my fault. Becky was right after all.
LikeLike
LikeLike
Well except she linked me with the terrible twins 😦
You three, she said, no less. And then closed comments before I could clear my name and associations.
Mortified. Of Gibraltar.
LikeLike
I’m sorry to laugh — but I can’t help it. This sounds all too familiar. 😀
LikeLike
What, being linked with *them*! Or someone having the last word and closing comments?
I will never get over this, I tell you. Being linked with the evil twins.
LikeLike
I’m just sorry I missed all the action. Imagine if I had joined in. 1 + 3 = 5 😈
LikeLike
Never mind. You can always nip over and tell her how to engage atheists 🙂
LikeLike
“What, being linked with *them*!” – You say that like it’s a bad thing —
LikeLike
“I am a rabid snarling something else pagan ripe to be born again. All is not lost.” – That’s because, as per Becky, you’re scantily clothed!
My stray cat, that I feed, has taken it a step further than that – she’s totally nude! And according to Becky, ripe for rape!
(No, Ark, before you even think it – not by me!)
LikeLike
“I’m totally corrupted by the evil double A twins” – I’ve been pleasantly corrupted by evil double D twins on more than one occasion.
LikeLike
That’s right — blame da woman. Why am I not surprised?
LikeLike
What blame? I said, “pleasantly corrupted” – it’s you who’s assuming that corruption is a bad thing!
LikeLike
It was the fact that you used the term ‘evil’.
LikeLike
Well, now that you mention it, I guess “wicked” might have been a more accurate description (it’s been so LONG!), but it wouldn’t have echoed RoughSeas accusation. I’m all about the literature.
LikeLike
Yeah, it was the timing after I had commented earlier that women were considered the seed of Eve (evil), primarily blamed for the fall of humanity, and have suffered greatly throughout history because of this perception.
LikeLike
I never even noticed the connection, clearly you did. I was only trying to match RoughSeas’ term, “evil A twins,” to make a joke, but then you know me well enough to know that, which means you’re only yanking my chain to see how far you can make me backpedal. Male or female, you ARE evil!
LikeLike
There have been 108 comments since I was last here this afternoon. There are 3 or 4 that merit response. The rest are pretty much dive bar ghetto banter.
Victoria says in response to roughseasinthemed “LOL — hear, hear. Greg’s so humble he actually says he’s learned from women — EVEN black women, he says. *gasp* Imagine that. Whatta guy.”
Yes, I am often accused of both misogyny AND racism. Because.. ya know.. I’m a Christian. A statement like the one I made is intended to dispel both since neither are true and the dozens of black women I know well in my church would laugh you down the block if you suggested that I had anything except the highest regard for women OR black folks. Try it and see what happens. They’re all over my Facebook page.
The endlessly loquacious yet rarely substantive archaeopteryx1 breaks his pattern and mentions: “quantum physics and Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle,”
Allow me to clarify, as it appears that it is my fault that you have made a major assumption that has led you afield of my thought. When I say that logic governs our universe, I mean by that that our subjective perception and powers of analysis as regards the universe are governed by logic.While not an expert by any means, I am well aware of quantum research and Heisenberg’s principle.
The issue is that the apparently illogical behavior of matter at the particulate level says nothing of our remaining dependence upon logic to observe it. Indeed logic itself is still required even to note the sub atomic world’s apparently illogical nature. In short, we ourselves remain intellectually bound to logic regardless of what discoveries we may find elsewhere.
We’re getting WAAAY ahead of ourselves, but quantum mechanics fall exactly in line with the covenant Christian worldview. Exactly. Where our logic eventually fails, God’s does not. We’ll get there, but at this point only Ruth and Violet are making that possible.
Violet said the following far above: “Apologies that no-one has answered [your 1+1=2 question], it just doesn’t seem like a very serious question, unless you’re a maths expert, in which case it might get overly complex and boring. But on the most simplistic level, yes, I’m certain that abstractly the label that we attach to a singular object “1” when placed with another singular object “1”, we label as totaling “2”. (or I added to I equals II in Roman numerals if you prefer)
See now this is a good intelligent answer. In fact, the part at the end where she includes the alternative linguistic representation of the equation is insightful and rather brilliant. She correctly infers that it doesn’t make any difference what linguistic symbols we assign to the components. EVERYbody innately KNOWS what “1”, “plus”, “equals” and “two” means. In every culture in every corner of the world. Somebody make the case that if enough people agreed that 1+1 did not equal 2 that it wouldn’t. I mean out here where we live. Preferably somebody who thinks I’M The idiot.
I responded to Violet above as follows:
“Why? Why are certain? I agree that you are. So am I. (this is a tacit admission, inadvertent though it may be, that there ARE absolutes btw)
I’m asking you from whence arises this certainty? Certainty is a function of logic. Is it merely a feature of the material universe? Can you email me some? Point me to where I can buy some? Harvest some? Or even where it resides at all? Logic is invisible, immaterial, absolute and universal. OR, you couldn’t actually be certain. Even astronomically high probability to the zillionth fraction of a percentage point of certain is still not certainty.
I’m asking you please not to assume and jump ahead. We’ll get to “my” particular God. I promise.”
Ruth also had some worthwhile contributions above to which I had long responses. I won’t reproduce those here. I’m trying to separate an actual conversation from all the rest of this mass of text here. Neither Violet nor Ruth has responded further. This is most likely because they are in Europe sleeping. At least I hope so. I would very much like to continue. It’s not that I mind being ridiculed and called names, I’m used to that. I actually think it bothers you Violet more than it does me, but I suspect you’re afraid of speaking up TOO loudly for fear of appearing to be defending me and alienating your friends. I appreciate the kind thought anyway (I actually really do) and understand.
LikeLike
I did respond to your question. I said, yes.
Don’t worry about the name calling, it’s just Ark’s way of demonstrating he can’t win an argument. It’s been a point for half-hearted rebuke for over a year now. I know you can take it though.
LikeLike
Ah, missed you next question in that succinct comment. I’m certain because experience tells me that at the most obvious basic level, if I have one singular object and place it with another singular object, there are always two objects. Admittedly this is the just the quantity label we’ve developed for the concept of ‘2’ but I can verify there are two with my eyes, which confirm, for instance, there’s not still one object, and there aren’t three objects.
LikeLike
“The rest are pretty much dive bar ghetto banter.”
According to sources, “Dive bars are unpolished, imperfect places filled with unpolished, imperfect people, just like us. And that’s just one of many things things that make these establishments the best.”
Greg, sometimes we go OT and its because of those times that we’ve established friendships. So come on down from your high horse and join us imperfect human beings at our level. Wait — why are you here? You’re associating with the enemies of your god. We are wicked, lawless, unrighteous and dark — right? (2 Corinthians 6)
Whether you realize it or not, you come across as self-righteous, haughty, cocky, and arrogant which is why people return the gesture. While you may be the creme of the crop in your ghetto dive church as far as behavior is concerned, you are not viewed that way here, and it’s not because you are a Christian.
Regarding your comment about women and black women? It’s the mere idea that you even mentioned race, and while you may not realize it, it came across as condescending “to boot”.
Btw, you seem to think that you’ve been invited here. What gives you that idea? Violet was simply bringing awareness about your distorted view of reality which is the norm of fundamentalism.
The idea that you minimized our once Christian devotion does not put you in a good light. The fact that you think genocide, mass killings, stealing, torture, horrific suffering, and other antisocial atrocities are OK if it’s your god doing it, also speaks volumes of your character.
LikeLike
I finally had time to read the article you suggested, Victoria – “Psychological Harms of Christianity.” – this seems to fit T to a, well…T!
It goes on to say:
I certainly agree with the conclusion it draws:
LikeLike
I know you already know this, but this is for others who may not – also from the article:
LikeLike
Arch, I appreciate you taking the time to read the article and quoting from it. The psychologist is spot on. I can’t emphasis enough the short and long-term psychological harm done to people in the name of a Bronze/Iron Age war god, nor how common it is.
LikeLike
But wait, there’s more! I also posted a link to it to other sites, such as Maks (where I also complimented you – now I KNOW you’ll hurry over there), and on Think Atheist – actually, there I handed it off to someone who will create a topic, using it – a little girl who came on the board a couple of years ago, believing she could convert us, and wound up deconverting. She should do a good job with it, as she also suffers from PTSD, from having been stalked by an ex, and I’m sure the comparison to PTSD will resonate with her.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Btw, you seem to think that you’ve been invited here. What gives you that idea?”
I did pretty much invite him round. Besides which, he’s obviously welcome to defend his ideas from the mockery they’ve elicited. Actually, anyone’s welcome, even SOM and Ark, and you lot with your late night drunken chats, hehe.
I’m interested to see where he goes with the 1+1 line, although I have very low hopes of it even starting to make sense, nevermind being something resembling a convincing argument. Even if he somehow completely revolutionises my understanding of arithmetic or logic, I can’t see how the conclusion could be Christianity.
LikeLike
“and you lot with your late night drunken chats” – WELL! I like THAT! – No, I really do, I LIKE that —
LikeLike
“I did pretty much invite him round.”
My bad. In either post, I didn’t see any formal invites; only quotes from him and opinion from you. I can only surmise that when you posted a link to one of his comments on your blog and to a post on his site, that was your way of bating him to have discourse. *shrugs*
LikeLike
She invited him from Becky’s site.
LikeLike
Thanks for the clarification, Arch. I was not aware of that.
My apology to Greg and Violet.
LikeLike
“and you lot with your late night drunken chats, hehe. ”
LOL — well, I was definitely not drunk, not even tipsy. Can’t speak for Arch, though. I do, however, appreciate you allowing us to have fun here last night. Unlike your culture, Arch, Ruth and I live in a fundamental culture where we are despised, shunned and considered untrustworthy by Christians, and for no other reason than the fact that we no longer believe in their feeble fables.
Greg set off a trigger when he mocked what little “fellowship” we do get to experience online. Again, thanks for putting up with us and taking up your blog space. I’ve told you before, and I’ll share it again…this is one of my favorite places to hang. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
You beat me to it on the ‘dive bar ghetto’ comment. Well, I had to translate it first, seedy pub came to mind.
An internet friendship that is flippant, fun, teasing, joking, and to a certain extent cliquey (which is the down side) shouldn’t be devalued. We all get something out of it.
Carrying on a masters or PhD level intellectual conversation all the time can be draining. Sometimes, it’s nice to have fun. There is no animosity and there is humour and good nature. I don’t think that should be dismissed lightly, patronised or derided.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hear, hear!
LikeLike
Had to dust off your dictionary for THAT one, didn’t you?
“See now this is a good intelligent answer.” – because it directs the conversation in the direction you want it to go.
“Preferably somebody who thinks I’M The idiot.” – Since you believe in an immortal magic man, clearly that’s a given.
“I’m asking you from whence arises this certainty? Certainty is a function of logic.” – What certainty? Heisenberg established that there IS no certainty – “N + 1” is probably the closest we can ever come to that.
“Is it merely a feature of the material universe?” – Probably not.
“Can you email me some? Point me to where I can buy some? Harvest some?” – Probably not.
Or even where it resides at all?” – It probably doesn’t reside anywhere, as it probably doesn’t exist.
“Logic is invisible, immaterial, absolute and universal. OR, you couldn’t actually be certain.”” – I’m not, and neither are you, no matter how hard you pretend to be so.
“Even astronomically high probability to the zillionth fraction of a percentage point of certain is still not certainty.” – Finally, you’ve said something that seems to make sense.
“It’s not that I mind being ridiculed and called names, I’m used to that.” – I would imagine that by now, you would be. A good therapist and medication could possibly help you with that.
LikeLike
Neither Violet nor Ruth has responded further. This is most likely because they are in Europe sleeping. At least I hope so.
I’m in the US. Had a boatload of trick-or-treaters and then I was down for the count because I’d been up since 3:30 a.m.
LikeLike
You see, T, one significant difference between those like yourself, who believe in a magic sky-fairy, and those who prefer the tenets of science, is that the religious are certain that the words, written by Bronze Age priests, are true and immutable.
Science, on the other hand, is certain of nothing – knows that nothing is true, only probable, and even then, must be proven so by empirical evidence. Because such suppositions are accepted as being only highly probable, they are treated as true for practical reasons, but men and women of science are always on the alert for exceptions to the rule that may, at some point, prove the “truth” not to be, and if it is found not to be, science is willing to modify its stance, while those in religion are reluctant to accept that any portion of their belief system could possibly ever be in error.
LikeLike
Greg, you might find this documentary (Dangerous Knowledge) interesting. I thought it was fantastic and have watched it several times over the years. As the description notes, the doc looks at four brilliant mathematicians – Georg Cantor, Ludwig Boltzmann, Kurt Gödel and Alan Turing.
The doc begins with Georg Cantor, the great mathematician whose work proved to be the foundation for much of the 20th-century mathematics. He believed he was God’s messenger and was eventually driven insane trying to prove his theories.
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/dangerous-knowledge/
LikeLike
The documentary has one minor flaw, Victoria – while Georg Cantor did ultimately go insane (he believed that god personally gave him some of his mathematical theories), and in fact, finished his days in a mental institution, he did not commit suicide.
LikeLike
“he did not commit suicide”
Arch, I’ve watched the doc about 4 times over the last couple of year, maybe more and I don’t recall it saying that Cantor committed suicide. Only that he had severe mania and schizophrenia and became institutionalized. If you can point out where it was mentioned in the actual doc as opposed to the write-up, I’d appreciate it. I posted this particular link because the documentary can be viewed in most countries if viewed from that link.
Thanks.
LikeLike
It’s not in the doc, it’s in the preface, 1st paragraph:
LikeLike
Yes, I was aware it was in the preface. You didn’t, however, say preface. You said the doc itself was in error. You shouldn’t always believe what you read. 😉
LikeLike
Is this the part where I need to apologize again? I always look to you for guidance in these matters of propriety —
LikeLike
No apologies necessary, Arch. I’m glad we got the matter cleared up.
LikeLike
You have my word. As soon as I can. Actually I will probably extract the audio and listen in my car.
LikeLike
Thanks Greg.
LikeLike
“Thanks Greg.”
Of course 🙂
Violet says: “I did pretty much invite him round.”
To which Victoria responds:
My bad. In either post, I didn’t see any formal invites; only quotes from him and opinion from you. I can only surmise that when you posted a link to one of his comments on your blog and to a post on his site, that was your way of bating him to have discourse. *shrugs*
=======================================================
archaeopteryx1 says: [Violet] invited [Greg] from Becky’s site.”
Victoria then again responds:
Thanks for the clarification, Arch. I was not aware of that.
My apology to Greg and Violet.”
No need to apologize to me Victoria, but I do appreciate it.
LikeLike
Those documentaries were very good, Victoria. Thanks for recommending them!
LikeLike
I don’t remember if I ever linked this here, but I gave you full props VICTORIA.
Came up again this morning. I’m being very non-sarcastically serious. I have sent somebody those videos at least 50 times.
LikeLike
I’m not checking your link. If you’re going to give me props (you actually didn’t get the reason why I shared the video), be sure to tell them that Calvinists, just like yourself, were fully responsible for the death of my husband, and who knows how many others. I have nothing more to say to you, Tiribulus, except — leave me alone. I’m being very non-sarcastically serious.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There is a very good possibility that the god the Hebrews originally worshiped was Amurru, god of the Amurrites (Amorites), who conquered the Akkadians and took over Mesopotamia about the time that the fictitious Abraham was believed, by those responsible for his fable, to have “lived.” Then, when a group of them formed an alliance, a few hundred years later, with another nomadic tribe known as the Kennites, aka the Midianites, personified in the Buybull as being a marriage between the fictitious Moses and the daughter of Jethro, a Midianite/Kennite priest, who worshiped an obscure desert god they called YHWH, the Jews merged the two gods, as was often done in those times, to create Yahweh, who carried the name of YHWH, but maintained the attributes and history of Amurru.
But the gullible, such as yourself, would rather accept those Bronze Age fables as fact, rather than do any significant research into other possibilities. Don’t expect everyone else to do the same.
LikeLike
violet says: “I’m certain because experience”
There is the empirical and pragmatic level…
…tells me that at the most obvious basic level,”
… and there is the analytical/logical level.
The latter dictates and governs the former in sane, functioning human beings. “Experience” would be totally incoherent were it not for the “obvious basic” conventions of structured thought that we call in the English language, “Logic”. Do you agree?
Violet says: “if I have one singular object and place it with another singular object, there are ALWAYS two objects. Admittedly this is the just the quantity LABEL we’ve developed for the concept of ‘2’ “(emphasis mine)
Quite so. The label could be anything, but in your mind, where you live, the concepts of “1” “+” “=” and “2” yield the same result as long as you remain mentally sound. The concepts themselves make this unavoidable. Whether actually applied to to an external object or not. Do you further agree?
Violet says: “but I can verify there are two with my eyes, which confirm, for instance, there’s not still one object, and there aren’t three objects.”
Well, your eyes do the reporting (the empirical and pragmatic level), to your mind which actually does the verification (analytical/logical level). If you have agreed with me thus far, you will of necessity agree with this as well. If not, I would be interested in your reasoning.
Ruth quotes me as saying:” Logic is invisible, immaterial, absolute and universal. “
In other words, “abstract” as you have said. Logic does however govern our entire existence.”
And then responds with:
It completely depends on the context and whether you’re talking about inductive or deductive logic…”
I understand why you say this, but it is a semantic issue, again caused by my lack of clarity. I have by my language, unintentionally led you to treat “logic” and “epistemology” as strictly synonymous terms in usage. By the word “logic”, I have intended to convey, that axiomatic framework of concepts and categories by which all information entering the human mind is rendered intelligible. Deduction and induction are alike subject to the foregoing, regardless of what it’s called (just like numbers), but the term in English is “epistemology”. How do we “know”? Not how do we know this or that particular bit of information, but how do we know ANYTHING at all?
I have thus far used “logic” as practically synonymous with “epistemology” without adjusting to context. I will make that note and adjust accordingly. I should have made this clear from the beginning, but it is difficult trying to address like 6 or 8 people at once.
Ruth says: ”And your contention that logic is both abstract and absolute is a contradiction. Abstracts are ideas and thoughts which are not concrete.”
I respectfully disagree Madam. If by “concrete” you mean to say “comprised of matter”, and thus advance the notion that only matter can be absolute, I submit that that is a begging of the question as you are assuming what you are being called upon to establish. I say it’s just the opposite. That only ideas and abstractions even CAN be absolute and that it is their very “absoluteness” (read certainty) that we are presently, one and all, demonstrating to be the most basic requirement (Violet is correct) for our accurate apprehension of 1+1 equaling 2. The very same ground of thought that makes 1+1=2, also makes every other truth true as well.
I beg your indulgence and reiterate. I WILL show how the God I preach, and not just any ol theistic god, is THE explanation for this state of affairs. This is the God of the bible so magnificently proclaimed in the Westminster Confession of Faith 368 years ago and St. Augustine 1000 years earlier as quoted by myself ABOVE Far from being some bizarre new novel view of my own as John Zande so erroneously alleges, this was the majority Christian view, particularly among Christian academia, on this continent until the 20th century. Yes I can absolutely establish that as well.
LikeLike
“If you have agreed with me thus far, you will of necessity agree with this as well.” More or less, in as much as I detest attempts to analyse such simple concepts and make them seem more significant than they are. My brain is about to reach shut down, please get to the point.
LikeLike
They are actually simple aren’t they? It’s just that the vast majority of people have never thought about them so they can seem quite foreign though they are lived in every second of every day. “Simple” does NOT indicate “insignificant though. Legs is pretty simple, but the table falls down without them.
I’ve spent considerable time on these comments this morning and now I’m behind on work.
I apologize for what appears to you to be frivolous tedium. I assure you it is not and ask for your further patience when we continue.
LikeLike
“in your mind, where you live, the concepts of “1” “+” “=” and “2” yield the same result as long as you remain mentally sound. The concepts themselves make this unavoidable. Whether actually applied to to an external object or not. Do you further agree?”
No. There is a high probability that this may be correct, but not “unavoidably” so.
You mention an “analytical/logical level” – while analysis is ever-present and ongoing, it is not always logical – the two are not automatically a team to be hitched to the same wagon. For example, there are those who read the fables and contradictions in the BuyBull, and through analysis, come away believing in a magical sky-fairy, and there’s nothing logical about that.
I can’t agree with your contention that “Logic does however govern our entire existence.” – we humans make illogical decisions all of the time – some of us believe in magical sky-fairies, for example.
As for linking logic with epistemology, your definition is off-base – Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion, but in neither instance, are we dealing with actual, evidentiary facts, just beliefs and opinions.
“The very same ground of thought that makes 1+1=2, also makes every other truth true as well.” – Not so, we humans ASSUME certain things to be true, for the sake of convenience and workability, but as N+1 would indicate, nothing is ever more than probable, and subject to alteration as new information is admitted into our knowledge base. Mathematician Ludwig Georg Boltzmann, for example, in the article that Neuro suggested earlier, postulated the existence of molecules and atoms, and was in fact laughed into committing suicide, only to have his theories confirmed a year later – science is self-correcting (eventually), while religion is not. “Science,” as a wise man once said, “consists of questions that may never be answered. Religion consists of answers that may never be questioned.”
“I WILL show how the God I preach, and not just any ol theistic god, is THE explanation for this state of affairs. This is the God of the bible so magnificently proclaimed in the Westminster Confession of Faith 368 years ago and St. Augustine 1000 years earlier”
So? Is that it? Is this your big revelation that you’ve been leading us on about for the past three or four days? Some proclamation, touted by men who knew less about science and the actual workings of the world than most of us here today?
I’m disappointed, T – I really expected more –: (
LikeLike
archaeopteryx1, you are a gold medal winning champion of point missing. Really impressive. I mean that. You did however introduce the concept of “probability”. I was hoping it wouldn’t be you or Arkenaten to be honest. It’s very difficult having a conversation with people who bury little tidbits of substance in 80 yards of knee deep bluster.
Tell me though. You are denying the existence of certainly. Am I right? You are instead postulating the intellectual rule of probability? If these are not correct please clarify. If they are then please define “probability” for us.
(my schedule is hectic again today. I’ll do my best to be as attentive as I can)
LikeLike
(N+1) – (a given number, plus one) is probably the best definition of probability I know of. We assume the law of gravity to be true, in fact, everything we see in the world around us, points to it being true. But if we drop a ball 100 times, and each time, it falls to the ground, can we be CERTAIN that it will the next time, as well? There is a strong probability that it will, but we can never be certain until we do it, and if it does, what about the next time?
A lighter explanation might well be Murphy’s Law. Murphy’s Law states that if anything CAN go wrong, it will. Can we be certain of that? Of course not, because Murphy’s Law must also apply to Murphy’s Law!
LikeLike
Those are examples. Not a definition. My pointing at a beagle, does not define what a dog is.
This is actually not a jab at you personally, but you are demonstrating how difficult it is for people to self consciously think at a truly foundational level. Even though it is dead simple as Violet has said they do it every second they exist. It did not come easy for me either. Seriously.
(now I actually do have to f\go to work. My on call schedule changes constantly. )
LikeLike
“My on call schedule changes constantly.” – as does, it would seem, your tenuous hold on sanity.
LikeLike
Epistemologically, that was an opinion.
LikeLike
I respectfully disagree Madam. If by “concrete” you mean to say “comprised of matter”, and thus advance the notion that only matter can be absolute,
I’ll await your explanation of how ideas and thoughts are absolute. You seem to be assuming a metaphysical component which you also are calling absolute. I do presume thoughts and ideas to be abstract and not concrete because they are subject to inductive reasoning. One’s beginning premises have to be correct for the conclusions drawn to be correct. Therein lies the rub. If you start with a [specific] metaphysical presumption that is more difficult to prove/disprove. Certainly we can all look at evidence to come to some reasonable conclusion and obviously not everybody’s conclusion is the same. If your “logic” is so absolute whence comes faith?
Certainly I do think the only things that can be called absolute in the sense that the are set in stone are physical, material things.
LikeLike
Very VERY good Ruth. Tons to do tonight and have to be up early, but I will TRY to respond later. Some key stuff in here.
LikeLike
Thanks! I’m smarter than the average bear!
But, really, big flowery polemic is not my thing. You said somewhere you’re a tenth grade drop-out? I do hold a high school diploma but that’s as far as I got. So can we drop the pretense and use laymens’ terms?
Btw, I’m not sure if it’s the wine talkin'(meaning me) or if you really are being patronizing.
LikeLike
Ruth asks: “Btw, I’m not sure if it’s the wine talkin'(meaning me) or if you really are being patronizing.”
Oh no Maam! No patronization at all. I was being absolutely sincere. Clearly you are a sharp girl. I do not need, nor do I desire to to denigrate anybody’s person or intelligence in a debate. That is a sign of insecurity and weakness. Being a child of the most high God I have neither. My peace and my strength are all His. I stand on the power of His Word and It accomplishes exactly what He intends. As I say. My job is obedience. The results are up to Him.
Ruth says: “You said somewhere you’re a tenth grade drop-out?”
That is true. Let’s just say for now that I was not seeking truth and righteousness in my youth. I received Christ in 1984 when I was 20 years old.
Ruth says: ” So can we drop the pretense and use laymens’ terms? “
That’s not pretense. That’s how I talk. I’m not trying to dazzle you with my command of the language, (here comes Arc n Ark) That’s how I’m used to debating. I’ve been doing this a long time. I honestly don’t know any other way.
If you are imbibing in a touch of the grape this evening, (no I do not believe that alcohol is sinful in itself) I would prefer not to continue tonight then. You will not be at your best. Though I’d still be happy to talk generally as opportunity permits.
LikeLike
“(here comes Arc n Ark)” – Not to worry, you haven’t dazzled me in the least.
LikeLike
I only had a small glass. That was just my diplomatic way of pointing out language on your part that seemed patronizing and condescending which is likely why you illicit negative responses, contrary to your assertion that it’s due to your religious affiliation. That “sharp girl” comment is another example.
Fair enough about the language. Is that how you speak in everyday parlance? Or just debate?
LikeLike
A drawback of not being able to see somebody’s face or hear their voice. I am not being condescending. It is, as the Lord lives, just the opposite. I always assume the best of my opponents. My “sharp girl” comment was meant to say just exactly that. You are a female who is obviously very sharp. Good grief! Is this how this is gonna go with you people? Complaining about the way I sincerely compliment somebody?
When in this kind of discussion this is how I talk. No matter where or who with. It is not possible to discuss ultimate questions as if they were water cooler small talk.
I have church. Later.
LikeLike
My “sharp girl” comment was meant to say just exactly that. You are a female who is obviously very sharp. Good grief! Is this how this is gonna go with you people? Complaining about the way I sincerely compliment somebody?
My apologies. It was the “girl” part of that particular phrasing which struck me as a bit condescending. As though you weren’t talking to a grown woman but rather a young, and [by implication] possibly not thoughtful, individual. Were you speaking to Arch, Ark, or Zande you likely wouldn’t call them “boy” unless you were intending to condescend.
Anyway, enough about that. It’s a side issue, really.
LikeLike
I also wouldn’t hold the door or remove my hat for them either. I promise you I meant nothing by the using the word “girl”. Women have referred to themselves and each other as “girl” for as long as I can remember.
Old women. (at least around here)
It won’t happen again.
LikeLike
Women and men call women ‘girls’ for a lot of reasons that I suspect are out of your world view. I doubt you would understand why it causes offence. Maybe you call women ‘ladies’ too. I don’t know. It’s good of you to acknowledge Ruth’s comment though.
And, I’m interested, why wouldn’t you hold the door or remove your hat? Not that I think you should, I’m just being very nosy.
LikeLike
Agreed, Ruth. I’m definitely seeing a smugness and arrogance that goes against the teachings of Yeshua, and is likely to land him at the Kiddie table at that big banquet in the sky.
LikeLike
Do you get the feeling this is a big time-wasting exercise? He complains no-ones answers his questions and when we both dutifully go through the motions, he’s suddenly too busy to take the conversation any further, yet has time to write long screeds of replies to other threads. Mr T’s just having a bit of fun here, methinks.
LikeLike
I was not suddenly too busy Violet. I’ve spent tons of time in here the last couple days and a huge chunk of the morning today responding to yourself and Ruth. I have 27 comments on this page alone, a bunch on the last one and now you have another one up. Surely you see the time consuming responses I’ve wrote to you alone, never to others as well. I am one man surrounded in hostile territory. Not that I don’t have the right if I so choose, but point us to these “screeds” in other threads please. Would you do that?
Your entire comment is false and disappointing. I didn’t think I’d see this from you. I challenge you to establish any of it. I will never falsely accuse you like this.
LikeLike
I challenge you to complete your proof that the Christian God exists following my explanation of my certainty that 1+1=2. How convoluted can this be?
LikeLike
We’re just gonna skip over the false accusations huh? (that actually hurt my feelings) Ok. Like I say. You’ll never have to worry about that from me.
Violet says: “I challenge you to complete your proof that the Christian God exists following my explanation of my certainty that 1+1=2. How convoluted can this be? “
Look, if you folks are so certain that my views are undiluted dim wittery, then it shouldn’t make any difference how I make the case. Allow me a bit of Socratic indulgence. Allow me alot. How can that change the outcome according to you? You stepped up. If you don’t want to continue, fine, but I don’t think in 10 second sound bites. A worldview is a system of thought. It takes time to develop.
I also now see that you are pregnant. You have other things to worry about and like or not, your body is making demands that may effect your patience for some thing like this too.
LikeLike
(have to fix hurried typos. Sorry)
I was not suddenly too busy Violet. I’ve spent tons of time in here the last couple days and a huge chunk of the morning today responding to yourself and Ruth. I have 27 comments on this page alone, a bunch on the last one and now you have another one up. Surely you see the time consuming responses I’ve written to you alone, nevermind to others as well. I am one man surrounded in hostile territory. Not that I don’t have the right if I so choose, but point us to these “screeds” in other threads please. Would you do that?
Your entire comment is false and disappointing. I didn’t think I’d see this from you. I challenge you to establish any of it. I will never falsely accuse you like this.
LikeLike
Well, we’ve both asked him politely to cut to the chase. One would think if he’s been debating this for years he’d have a pretty “ready” response. Possibly even something already prepared that he could just cut and paste?
LikeLike
I’ve watched the first 35 minutes of the first of Victoria’s videos. (will get to the rest) People spend their lives studying the things we are discussing here. Including me. The very weightiest and deepest of life’s questions are being addressed. According to Victoria’s video too. I agree. By God’s grace and to His glory I have spent years on these things. I assume when I am invited into a room full of sneering atheists that they have too. Cantor spent decades driving himself mad attempting to solve, what amounts to the ancient “problem of the one and the many”. Unity in diversity. An utterly definitional component of my worldview. I’m trying to get there.
What do I get over here? “Cut to the chase”. “Hurry up, I’m getting impatient”. “Make your point”.
I refuse to believe that anybody I have spoken to on this blog is not up to this pursuit. I will be grievously disappointed if you prove me wrong. It is YOU who are being condescending in assuming that a drooling retarded Christian like me is only equipped for Sesame Street discussion that can be reduced to a couple quick paragraphs. Take this how you must, but if that truly IS your intellectual life, than your atheism here is of a very low and fragile quality. I’ve seen far better.
LikeLike
Personally I think if it takes 3 days to justify a belief system, it’s been over-thought. We need only look to ridiculous attempts like that of Descartes to be sure that all the ‘great’ philosophical thinkers just had too much time on their hands and not enough information.
Take atheism: we can’t see any evidence of the existence of any of the many supernatural deities around which man has created religions, and we can see plenty of evidence for the human need to imagine these stories in the context of the evolution of our species. Therefore, it’s highly unlikely that the invisible superbeings of any of the world’s many religions actually exist.
It’s so simple we don’t even have to resort to arithmetic. Perhaps Ruth will choose to take you up on running through your clearly much more complex world view.
LikeLike
When you study the Bible thoroughly, Vi – and by that, I don’t mean just read the words, but research WHEN each of the parts were written – one thing you realize is that all of the grandiose miracles came to the authors by word of mouth, from unverifiable oral traditions passed on for who knows how many generations. Then, as the writers began writing about events closer to their own times, the grandiose miracles cease – the only miracles from these periods, are minor, personal ones, observed by few, if any witnesses. This, then, is what leads the authors and the prophets to question why their god hides his face, leading to the ultimate plaintive cry of the author of Psalms 22, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Later used by pseudo-Mark and his plagiarist, pseudo-Matthew, to put into the mouth of their protagonist, Yeshua.)
I maintain that their belief that their god went away, stems from the fact that as Humankind matured, the need for constructing tall tales subsided, as has our own (where are the Paul Bunyans, the Johnny Appleseeds, the Pecos Bills, the John Henrys of today? Europe too, must have its own.), though our need to believe in them seems to have hung around for the last 3000 years.
LikeLike
I beg your indulgence and reiterate. I WILL show how the God I preach, and not just any ol theistic god, is THE explanation for this state of affairs. This is the God of the bible so magnificently proclaimed in the Westminster Confession of Faith 368 years ago and St. Augustine 1000 years earlier as quoted by myself ABOVE Far from being some bizarre new novel view of my own as John Zande so erroneously alleges, this was the majority Christian view, particularly among Christian academia, on this continent until the 20th century. Yes I can absolutely establish that as well.
Here, and in a couple of other places, you seemed to imply you had a standard line of argumentation. I didn’t mean to imply that it should be short and sweet; only that we seem to be continually sidetracked, never getting to the part where you show this.
It is YOU who are being condescending in assuming that a drooling retarded Christian like me is only equipped for Sesame Street discussion that can be reduced to a couple quick paragraphs.
No, I didn’t expect it to be reduced to a couple of quick paragraphs at all. I understand if there’s some build-up. Let’s start building.
LikeLike
“Take this how you must, but if that truly IS your intellectual life, than your atheism here is of a very low and fragile quality. I’ve seen far better.”
Translation: I DARE you to give me time to spin my web that I will use to trap you.
Who can resist a dare?
LikeLike
Between services so only a minute now.
archaeopteryx1 quotes me as saying: “Take this how you must, but if that truly IS your intellectual life, than your atheism here is of a very low and fragile quality. I’ve seen far better.”
and then translates:
“Translation: I DARE you to give me time to spin my web that I will use to trap you.
Who can resist a dare?”
No translation needed. That’s what I meant above when I asked Violet for a bit of “Socratic indulgence.” Does that intimidate anybody here? What do you have to lose? If what I’m advancing is false then NOTHING I could possibly do or say can establish it’s truth.
You most assuredly DO have my motivation wrong too. I am not here to win. I won 2000 years ago when the incarnate Word of God stepped from that grave in victory over my sin.
I am here to be faithful. I was invited, which it makes it all the better. If you view my time here as a campaign to prove I’m the more brilliant and capable debater, you are in deadly error. It appears I have higher regard for you folks than you have for yourselves.
Victoria’s videos are PERFECT. (I mean like really) I look forward to finishing them.
LikeLike
“It appears I have higher regard for you folks than you have for yourselves.” – no, just a higher regard than I have for you.
LikeLike
But that wouldn’t be any fun, Ruth. I have a card trick, that in the end, when I show you the card you originally chose, out of a deck of 52, leaves you believing that you, yourself, not I, chose all of the options I offer that leads up to the discovery, whereas, I have carefully set up the parameters, so that no matter which choice you make, I will eventually lead you in the direction I want you to go.
This is the purpose of each of his, “Would you agree?” questions – he wants to clearly establish that you agreed to Step 1, agreed to Step 2, etc., so it is you, yourself, who appears to have arrived at HIS conclusion on your own.
This is why I say never walk into another man’s bar bet, and that’s all this is. You’ve lost as soon as you do. He’s already bragged to us that he’s left experts flabbergasted at being unable to prove him wrong, which should have told us early on, that he’s been using this gambit for quite some time now, it all involves getting you to give him the answers he wants.
LikeLike
Agreed, which is why I haven’t agreed to any of his parameters. I challenge his assertions regarding the nature of logic. People may want certainty enough to delude themselves into thinking it exists in many forms but the reality is there isn’t much certainty. There is a lot of chaos. Which explains why humans want certainty, IMHO.
LikeLike
And please don’t take this as a criticism, Ruth – you know I love you like a sister – but have you noticed that both T and Kathy, after listing to responses from all of us, seemed to have settled on you as a target audience? As I began noticing this, I started analyzing the things you say for a “tell,” that gives them an indication that you’d be easy pickings, and I can’t find one, but then everyone knows I don’t have a predatory nature – maybe you have to have one to see the tell-tale signs that lambchops like me would tend to overlook.
LikeLike
I don’t take it as a criticism. I did notice that and wondered about it myself. I wondered what I was saying that made it seem like I hadn’t thought deeply about these things and am just superficially atheist. Perhaps it’s because I don’t just poo poo them outright and provide them with a platform?
LikeLike
For one thing, you’re not abrasive, as rumors have it some here are. Possibly they mistake kindness and courtesy for weakness.
LikeLike
I try to be kind to everybody. Do unto others and all that… I guess I probably don’t come across as very formidable, and most assuredly not as menacing. 🙂
LikeLike
Maybe you could ask Vi for lessons. I’d suggest RoughSeas, but she’s more acidic than menacing – it’s hard to be menaced by someone pirouetting in their lacy underwear (hey, I don’t know if it’s lacy or not, but you have your fantasies and I’ll have mine!).
LikeLike
Well look at this, didn’t even see this comment before I suggested you take lessons from Ruth. You really have it back to front Arch.
LikeLike
This is an interesting conversation Ruth, Arch and Violet, and I agree with all 3 of you in certain degrees. I think that you all offer techniques that work with different personality types, but there is not one technique that works with everyone, including Ruth’s. A sociopath would target Ruth in a heartbeat, and there is a high number of sociopaths in religion.
Clery is listed in the top 10 professions of sociopaths.
http://mic.com/articles/44423/10-professions-that-attract-the-most-sociopaths
But they will disguise their vanity by claiming humility. They can be very charming and charismatic. It’s worked for centuries and one doesn’t have to actually be in a clergy position. There are plenty sitting in the pews. Just being in a religious environment feeds their personality type.
There have been sociopath personality types among us in discourse. Sometimes, the best way to keep them at bay is to be like a Redback spider, where a bright red marking on their back can ward off predators. I’m am empathic and it has caused a lot of pain in my past due to the fact that I spent the better part of my life in a religious environment. I’ve wised up. When I have dialog with certain personality types, and I spot those tendencies, I won’t hesitate to display my bright red markings when necessary.
Read about empaths, sociopaths and apaths:
http://www.addictiontoday.org/addictiontoday/2013/10/empathy-trap-sociopath-triangle.html
LikeLike
A sociopath would target Ruth in a heartbeat, and there is a high number of sociopaths in religion.
I do seem to be a magnet for that type. Fortunately I’m pretty wise to the behavior so, even though I remain polite I don’t get sucked in. I also eventually draw a line.
But they will disguise their vanity by claiming humility. They can be very charming and charismatic.
They do seem to think they have everyone fooled, don’t they? 😉
LikeLike
“I remain polite I don’t get sucked in. I also eventually draw a line.”
I’ve seen that pattern with you. You haven’t always remained polite though, and I think your lack of politeness was warranted and necessary. At first you do get sucked in, but then you recognize and draw the line. I got burned rather badly by several of these personality types, all devout Christians, so I tend to be much less polite than you once I catch on. It’s probably a protective mechanism and I’ll react on impulse. While engaging in discourse, most people don’t know what going on. That’s how sociopaths work their magic and draw unto them, apaths.
LikeLike
While engaging in discourse, most people don’t know what going on. That’s how sociopaths work their magic and draw unto them, apaths.
I agree with this. Because of personal experience I usually know. Most times well before I draw the line.
Been there, done that, burned the t-shirt.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve written about the tendency for sociopaths to identify with religions before. I think they search it out because it validates them and justifies their sociopathic behavior.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You talking about Pink? Oh wait, he doesn’t disguise his vanity… *evil*
LikeLike
LOL — truth that.
LikeLike
I snatched up that first link like a frog in a fly farm – I can use that!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I wished I could catch my typos the first time around. Good thing some of you actually see what I intended to write. *clergy.
LikeLike
NO WAY!! Just the opposite.
Service is tarting now. Later
LikeLike
I’ve noticed you say that sort of thing to Ruth before. You’re completely wrong. She’s just much better at having level-headed conversations with people than the rest of us. We slam doors in people’s faces when we’ve had enough, which isn’t an attractive or constructive quality. You should study her and modify your technique.
LikeLike
“You should study her and modify your technique.”
Good idea, I’ll do that.
Oh look, up in the air!
It’s a bird!
It’s a plane!
No, it’s a flying pig!
LikeLike
I know … it’s difficult for old people, all stuck in their ways. 😀
LikeLike
See, Ruth – these are the kinds of lessons in acerbic that I suggested you might be able to acquire from Vi – how (uncharacteristically) kind of her to demonstrate those for you – at my expense.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think that’s right. Unlike the rest of us (underwear regardless, and do you know how itchy lacy underwear is in 40 degrees? So stick to your fantasies). Violet’s comment below is interesting where she disagrees with you, yet I think we are all saying the same thing. Ruth is polite and courteous, doesn’t use sarcasm (well only occasionally) or lip, or call people dickheads, lunatics or just lose patience and say **** off.
To me that is a sign of a very strong character, well in control, and one I would not mess with. I certainly wouldn’t call her a sharp girl. And my response would have been a little less moderate. Assuming I had bothered with one.
And no point suggesting adopting my style. I know JS nada about bibles and gods (only Roman and Egyptian ones), can’t tell my Numbers from my Deuteronomy and my only relevant knowledge is based on a mere history and archaeology degree that covered a few hundred relevant years regarding the establishment of Christianity and how it impacted on the Roman Empire.
So I’m not a contender for serious debate o a role model. Happily. I just come along for the ride. Or the acid trip.
LikeLike
Exactly, she dealt with the patronising smart girl comment brilliantly, made her point clearly but without the arrogance or sarcasm that some of us would undoubtedly have used.
LikeLike
Victoria is right in that we all deal differently with people. Look at the terrible A twins for example.
Being nice doesn’t work for me. Hell’s teeth I was nice to no clothes Becky, said I was sorry for the personal insults against her (which I genuinely was, I thought they were unwarranted and grossly sexist) and what happened? Lectured on purity, promiscuity, comments closed and got the AA association 😦 Last time I try being nice.
However you look at it, Greg has talked down to two long term women commenters on your blog, both of whom are intelligent, thoughtful, supportive and caring, to name just a few attributes from the little I know.
It’s always wise to check the temperature of a blog before diving in, as most us learn to our cost at some point.
LikeLike
“Exactly, she dealt with the patronising smart girl comment brilliantly,
Yes, I thought she handled it well, too. She brought awareness. Now if it happens again, she may need to be more stern. Jackson Katz. who works with men to help bring about change with regard to the way women are often treated by men, said that they (men) need to be called out more sternly if the behavior continues — even shamed if need be.
I was watching the Weather channel today, and they had a segment about the way women are often called “weather girls” but men are never called “weather boys”. Christian men are some of the worst offenders because whether they are conscious of it or not they do see women as more inferior, primarily due to biblical teachings. It comes out in their language, often.
LikeLike
His mindset was clear from the outset on Becky’s blog. He immediately locked testosterone with Ark and Arch, calling them worthy advisories, treating them with respect even in the face of Ark’s silly insults, but was completely and patronisingly dismissive of both me and the quoted Samantha. You get the measure of men like that in a whiff, just the way they chimp round other men. It’s such basic behaviour.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Quite true. On your other post, the twin A’s and Greg got into a pissing contest for a while. I popped some popcorn, sat back and enjoyed the entertainment. 😀 It does, however, become non-entertaining after a while, and I’ll switch channels. lol.
LikeLike
“the twin A’s”
Et tu Bruté?
LikeLike
What about me?
LikeLike
Caesar’s words (according to Shakespeare), when he saw Brutus stab him – literally, “You too, Brutus?”
“Then ingratitude, more strong than traitor’s arms, quite burst his mighty heart and vanquished him, and there, great Caesar fell.“
LikeLike
You calling me a traitor? I was never into Old English.
LikeLike
I was left with the impression – mistaken or not – that it was Samantha’s bisexuality that bothered him, more than her being a woman. She clearly stated she was Christian, one would have thought they’d have teamed up.
LikeLike
“do you know how itchy lacy underwear is in 40 degrees?” – not since the office Christmas party a couple of years ago, there was an accidental underwear exchange that neither of us were sober enough to notice until it was too late to change back.
“So stick to your fantasies” – they’re all I have left to live for.
LikeLike
I completely disagree with Arch. I think you’re right that you engage people in meaningful discussion and are sensible enough to hear out exactly what their argument is. There’s a world of difference between a ‘soft touch’ and a careful listener who can have a more meaningful and constructive discussion with someone. The rest of us are impatient, irritable, quick to mock and quick to jump to conclusions about what other people are saying. I’d like to be more like you (but I’m seriously too impatient and judgemental)
LikeLike
“I completely disagree with Arch.”
SURPRISE!
LikeLike
Some people are very difficult to have a meaningful conversation with. If we just go round and round in circles and it never goes anywhere that gets old pretty fast. I engaged Kathy far too long. Live and learn.
Thanks for the kind words, ma’am. It’s funny, I’d like to be a bit more like some of you. Perhaps I am a bit too long suffering; a glutton for punishment, maybe.
LikeLike
I understand why you say this, but it is a semantic issue, again caused by my lack of clarity. I have by my language, unintentionally led you to treat “logic” and “epistemology” as strictly synonymous terms in usage. By the word “logic”, I have intended to convey, that axiomatic framework of concepts and categories by which all information entering the human mind is rendered intelligible. Deduction and induction are alike subject to the foregoing, regardless of what it’s called (just like numbers), but the term in English is “epistemology”. How do we “know”? Not how do we know this or that particular bit of information, but how do we know ANYTHING at all?
But the distinction between deductive logic and inductive logic are important. Some things are simply observable which makes them much more clear than those things which are not. In fact, if something is not observable it makes it quite difficult, maybe even impossible, to be 100% certain of the conclusions drawn. I’m not sure that I agree that this is a semantic issue. You are correct that “logic” or “epistemology” are products of a worldview. And that is where you and I will diverge greatly. I subscribe to the theory of evolution. I do not believe that humankind was placed here on earth “knowing” anything at all. This knowing, or logic if you prefer, is a product of evolution. Mankind had to discover the Theory of Gravity. It is a measurable, definable, physical thing.
LikeLike
That first video will answer this comment for me. I’m sorry I must have missed it before.
LikeLike
Violet quotes Victoria as saying: “Btw, you seem to think that you’ve been invited here. What gives you that idea?”
and then responds with
“I did pretty much invite him round.”
You did didn’t you? I didn’t address Victoria in this regard because I figured YOU would. 🙂 Ya know despite our differences, yer a standup lass Violet. Yer growin one me.
Violet says: “I’m interested to see where he goes with the 1+1 line,..”
And I am very much interested in your responses.
Violet says: “Even if he somehow completely revolutionizes my understanding of arithmetic or logic,..”
I very much doubt that. All I’m doing is bringing some self conscious focus to things that you yourself are demonstrating that you’ve known all along.
Violet says: “I can’t see how the conclusion could be Christianity.”
God through the apostle in the first of Romans says you do. Always have.
Please do understand. My success or failure here has nothing to do with your response or anybody else’s. My success is measured by my obedience. If I have declared to you folks God’s truth as it is in Christ with a heart of love for my fellow children of father Adam, then I am a success whether anybody listens or not. Most won’t. Jesus Himself said so. That breaks my heart, but is beyond my control.
LikeLike
If there is a God and He has a truth, wouldn’t it be connected to that which we have come to understand through science?
In that understanding, any version of God that has a basis in the Old Testament has been called into great question, if not dis-proven entirely based on the accounts of Genesis, assuming it is the literal story of the beginnings of existence.
That’s not to say that there isn’t an entity that created the universe, but it is to say that the majority of the people on this planet are way off-base in their understanding of that creator – if He/She/It actually exists.
LikeLike
“Ya know despite our differences, yer a standup lass Violet. Yer growin one me.” – THAT’S one for the refrigerator door, Violet! In fact, I’d frame that! (and hang it over the loo – See? I can speak English when I want to –)
LikeLike
“Violet says: ‘I can’t see how the conclusion could be Christianity.’
God through the apostle in the first of Romans says you do. Always have.”
Ah, you must mean Paul, who was not an Apostle* – the guy who had an epileptic seizure and flopped around like a carp on the ground for a bit, then got up with hysterical blindness and believed he had seen/heard a vision. Yeah, I’d listen to THAT guy!
LikeLike
Why Lord? Why am I doing this to myself? Paul introduced each of his letters by calling himself an apostle and does so a total of 16 times overall.
LikeLike
“Paul introduced each of his letters by calling himself an apostle and does so a total of 16 times overall.”
I knew a guy once who called himself Napoleon, a lot more than 16 times, kept yelling for Josephine – fortunately he was in a straitjacket at the time, we’ve learned a lot since then.
LikeLike
“Why Lord? Why am I doing this to myself?” – Isn’t that what your god said, when he was hanging on the cross?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Please do understand. My success or failure here has nothing to do with your response or anybody else’s. My success is measured by my obedience. If I have declared to you folks God’s truth as it is in Christ with a heart of love for my fellow children of father Adam, then I am a success whether anybody listens or not. Most won’t. Jesus Himself said so. That breaks my heart, but is beyond my control.”
So…is that your farewell speech? Moses to the Israelites? Washington to his troops? Caesar to – nevermind, Caesar’s only last words were, “Damn, that hurts!”
LikeLike
Violet has a standing invitation to Christians. I think she really does want to hear other perspectives. And unless they get nasty, which I don’t remember happening really, she abides their reasoning even if she disagrees. She has on many occasions past called down others who don’t abide opinions they disagree with.
LikeLike
To Victoria, Arch, Roughseas, and Violet: I’m really sorry I missed the party!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh Ruth – haven’t you learned by now that there will ALWAYS be another party? You just came from a 5,000-comment party with Kathy, one would think you’d be partied out by now, but here you are, raring to go! You must have gotten some good rest last night, you party girl, you!
LikeLike
You and I clearly have different definitions for party. Ghetto dive bar talk is a party. 😀
LikeLike
Wisp accused Victoria and and I of using her blog for a late-night drunken chatroom – I guess you DID miss that —
LikeLike
LOL — it was fun while it lasted.
LikeLike
Well, I certainly enjoyed it. But drunken, it is to laugh – ha, ha.
Did I mention I thought I had a tomato problem, with frost? Missed me entirely, it’s a miracle!
LikeLike
“Missed me entirely, it’s a miracle!”
Heh, I lost power for 3+ hours today after the cold front moved through with 60 mph wind gusts. We will have freezing temps tonight here in the foothills. Had snow in the mountains. We are under a freeze warning.
LikeLike
WOW! I guess it intensified after it left here! I had a mild breeze out of the north (10 to 15), and temps around 30 – I have no idea how my tomatoes survived – I went to bed early, so I could get up before the frost moved in at 6, but after I’d been asleep an hour and a half, my grandson accidentally butt-dialed me (I’m on his speed dial), then I couldn’t get back to sleep, and over slept. I went out this evening, to hold a tomato memorial, only to find them alive and well – in fact, I picked one for my dinner salad.
LikeLike
“but after I’d been asleep an hour and a half, my grandson accidentally butt-dialed me “
LOL — that reminded me of a news article I read not long about about a guy who pocket-dialed 911 while discussing the purchase of drugs. The cops were alerted and he was arrested with possession.
LikeLike
I can see how that could happen – I could hear every word he was saying to his mom, and he couldn’t hear a word I was saying.
LikeLike
We’re getting a tad off-topic – we should probably expect another dressing down from “the Wisp,” when she awakens.
LikeLike
She’s awake.
LikeLike
Not my fault, someone else is awake and whacking my belly … yawn.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh Violet, you poor dear. I was wondering if it was a bad case of heartburn that woke you up. I was plagued with HB when I was pregnant. Interesting enough, my daughter was more active overnight than during the day.
LikeLike
Yeah, I think active overnight babies are common. On the bright side (?), prepares our bodies for more disturbed nights …
LikeLike
“On the bright side (?), prepares our bodies for more disturbed nights …” – and yet you “prepared” ladies roll over to us unprepared guys, and murmur, “Honey, would you mind taking care of that –?”
LikeLike
I see, what a talented lactating man you must be!
LikeLike
It doesn’t take a lot of talent to heat up a few ounces of formula – I ain’t lettin’ MY boobs sag down to my kneecaps!
LikeLike
LOL — Violet that reminds me of something: Daddy doody. 😀
[video src="http://vidmg.photobucket.com/albums/v701/Gemimages/Babies_and_Fatherswmv.mp4" /]
LikeLike
Must be “Ya Ya Sisterhood” code —
LikeLike
For some reason I couldn’t get the link to work. Maybe it’s because it’s an MP4
I’ll share the YT link. Just not sure if Violet can view it in the UK. I’ll take a chance. I won’t embed it. Will be to small.
— http://youtu.be/WTij4txO8Uk —
LikeLike
I suspect, luv, that I’ve changed far more diapers than you, having become a single father when my youngest was 9 months, and all without a HazMat suit.
LikeLike
You have to admit — that was hilarious.
LikeLike
Yes, I did. On a more personal level, I once thought I’d freak if I ever got poop on my hands, but then I did, yet I didn’t, and from there on, it was no big deal. Vomit and spit-up? Fact of life.
LikeLike
And a good excuse to buy a new tie, without having to wait for Father’s Day.
LikeLike
Btw, I changed a chit-load of diapers when my brother was a baby, and my nephews and nieces, and when I was a baby sitter for many years in my teens. So I am not so sure you changed more diapers than I did.
LikeLike
If that’s the case, you could be right – we’ll never know, as I didn’t count and neither did you.
I think it’s time to hit the hay.
LikeLike
Well let me try this again:
[video src="http://vidmg.photobucket.com/albums/v701/Gemimages/Babies_and_Fatherswmv.mp4" /]
LikeLike
I’m sure I was out of town that weekend. Oh, you meant tonight —
LikeLike
“She’s awake.” – suddenly I had a mental image of a close-up of a single dragon’s eye opening, its vertical iris glowing in the dim light of a cavern. A shudder rippled through me.
LikeLike
Roughseas snarkily accused Ark and I of being the “A” twins (I’m the good one!) – so come to think of it, I guess you DID miss a few things.
LikeLike
1 + 1 = 3 for very large values of 1 (modified from a nerdy t-shirt I saw, and I mean nerdy as a compliment)
=)
LikeLike
Ah, maybe that’s where he’s going. The god God exists!
LikeLike
“Look at the terrible A twins for example.”
Here we go with the “evil A twins” again –! Ark, where are you? Come slap some evil on her! Show her what REAL evil is like! (I’m the good one –) You can do it, I have every faith in you —
“Last time I try being nice.” – FIRST time too, wasn’t it?
LikeLike
LOL — but Arch, I never said “evil”, not to say I wasn’t tempted. 😀
LikeLike
THAT’S what tempts you?! So what do I do with all these candy bars? Nevermind, sorry I asked —
LikeLike
Is it chocolate?
LikeLike
Could be, if you play your cards right —
LikeLike
He’s been busy slapping sexism on me on my blog. And then denying it. 😦
How can I argue with those who deny the truth?
I’m beginning to think you could be the lesser of two evils. Good is a little optimistic.
I’m sure it wasn’t the first time. Just don’t ask me to look for the others. Flipping Christians. Associating me with the heathen AAs.
LikeLike
“I’m beginning to think you could be the lesser of two evils.” – I’ve been TRYING to TELL you –!
LikeLike
Stop shouting. You are both evil. So that’s nice and fair isn’t it? Just differently evil 🙂
LikeLike
“That’s how sociopaths work their magic and draw unto them, apaths.” – My very words, rephrased!
LikeLike
I’ve read all of today’s comments.
I must say, I have never EVER seen such meandering disingenuous evasion in my entire life.
Let’s try this. Victoria’s VIDEOS couldn’t be more relevant. (assuming the 2nd is similar). My hat is off N℮üґ☼N☮☂℮ṧ . Can I suggest that any who wish to continue this conversation watch those (at least the first one) first?
Yes, Victoria, the topic of those videos IS pretty much what I’m talking about here. The trouble is you assume there is no solution and yawn your way past my good faith comments in the name of that erroneous pre-commitment. I am in the process of making the case that the eternally triune and invincibly sovereign Christian God IS Himself that solution.
You folks have wasted a galaxy of page space on utterly preposterous allegations against my character and motivations that could have been much better spent on actually dispatching my views on MY terms. How embarrassing would that be to me? To have you follow me into my “trap” and then spring your own, thus exposing my degraded hippocampus and corresponding brainwashed jack assery right in my face. But no. You’re content with talking to each other ABOUT me instead.
Ruth and Violet. I focused on you two because you answered with intelligent substance and an at least seeming willingness to have a grown up conversation. It’s not any more complicated than that. In complete contradiction to your guys yet further false accusations, whenever possible I intentionally go after the most capable and formidable opponents I can find in whatever place I happen to be at the moment.
I do NOT want weaklings. I want the VERY best God’s opposition has to offer. Think whatever you want. You should take it as an indication of respect that I put more focus on you two. It wouldn’t make a bit of difference WHAT I said though. Would it. You would pronounce me deranged and stupid no matter what.
Now. Can I prevail upon you to watch your friends videos and discuss them with me? Or am I just a sociopathic waste of your time who would be best off moving on to somewhere else.
If you’re really interested where I ‘m going Violet, it would by my honor and blessing to oblige, but you’ll have to let me do it my way or we will not get there. Victoria’s BBC vids are a Godsend. Quite literally.
LikeLike
“Yes, Victoria, the topic of those videos IS pretty much what I’m talking about here. The trouble is you assume there is no solution and yawn your way past my good faith comments in the name of that erroneous pre-commitment. I am in the process of making the case that the eternally triune and invincibly sovereign Christian God IS Himself that solution.”
Greg, I was curious how you would perceive this video through your religious filter. Cantor had schizophrenia. He was so sure god was leading him here and there. He was so certain and it contributed to his madness. What benevolent god would allow this, supposedly knowing that Cantor would end up in a mental institution. You think such a god would just give him the formulas, but no. He gave him mental illness instead.
I asked you in Violet’s other post how you discerned, especially since hyper-religiosity is a major feature in several mental disorders. You never answered me. These people always have certainty in their god beliefs as one of the symptoms.
I’ve shared studies with you, and you have yet to share anything with us except your opinion.
LikeLike
Cantor had the wrong God Victoria. 😉 So does everybody else who doesn’t have mine. “Religiosity” is a thing I myself vehemently reject.
Be back Later.
LikeLike
“Cantor had the wrong God Victoria. 😉 So does everybody else who doesn’t have mine.
Oh my.
Religiosity” is a thing I myself vehemently reject.”
Surely you jest.
LikeLike
Do you want to talk about YOUR videos or not?
LikeLike
I want you to prove to us that your god exist.
LikeLike
Exit Mr. Humility —
LikeLike
I’m sorry, can you elaborate on this? From the video I couldn’t discern which God he was referring to and assumed it was the Christian God. There are a lot of different Christian sects. Are they all wrong except yours?
LikeLike
On a catch up here to see if I missed any parting and came across your most snort-worthy comment. I so like a good laugh to brighten up my morning 🙂
That was a rhetorical question I take it;)
LikeLike
😀
LikeLike
While we did go off-topic, which is something we do often(I’m sure you noticed), I don’t remember anyone here calling you a sociopath. It was merely a side-topic, and an interesting one since I’ve had dealings with a few. I didn’t even make any allegations about your motivations as to why you were conversing with me. I made a fairly positive remark abut my willingness to actually engage rather than name-call and be rude.
You seem to be derailing the progress of this discussion as much as anyone.
LikeLike
Seems you and violet have made the cut (you smart girl, you) for being selected to an intellectual debate while the rest of us are merely stuck in the dive bar ghetto. Come join me, Victoria and Arch when you’re done with that clever thinking stuff. You may need the party 😉
LikeLike
Kate, I’m ready to party now.
LikeLike
Yay! Except, not allowed to go OT, enjoy ourselves and have fun. 😦 Must. Consider. Religion.
I think I’ll need more than a helping hand there. Nah, stuff it, let’s party. But let me read some of your links first, I’ve got a couple to catch up on.
LikeLike
Which of my COMMENTS are of topic? I have spent at least 95% of my energy ON the topics here that I didn’t even write. I doubt if the rest of you put together have spent 20.
Are you interested in watching Victoria’s videos?
LikeLike
Tiribulus.
I’m sorry, I wasn’t suggesting any of your comments were off topic, although I’m still unclear why 1+1=2 is relevant to why there is a Christian god dominating our lives.
I was merely replying to Victoria about party party. Sometimes we like to have fun.
I prefer the written links, I absorb written media faster than visual. I try and check out all her links as they are always informative.
LikeLike
Yikes! I was talking about the rest of us going off-topic. It happens a lot. I don’t know how many comments I’ve made, but the ones directed to you were on-topic.
You derail the conversation with these kinds of comments. This was what I meant when you thought I was tapping my foot at you. I commented to you earlier that I realize you may need some build-up but I don’t even see a foundation yet. You say you’ll be back later to show your God is the reason we know 1+1=2 and when you return it’s for the petty comments.
I’ve watched the first video and I’m about to watch the other. I may have to watch that first one again.
LikeLike
I do enjoy these long, rambling comments on some level. But you’ve revealed that you don’t actually read the comments (or you get side-tracked by our side-tracked comments).
With regards to the discussion in hand, I was more than clear that I’m not interested in continuing it because where we’ve got to thus far (quick recap: 1+1=2, are you sure? why are you sure? all in 20,000 words) leads me to believe this is a waste of time.
Ruth was more than clear that she’s happy to continue. Continue with her. Succinctly.
LikeLike
If you’re really interested where I ‘m going Violet, it would by my honor and blessing to oblige, but you’ll have to let me do it my way or we will not get there.
I did assume that the rules of debate would be even – not stacked in favor of one side or the other. Is this so you can ask leading questions?
LikeLike
Violet says: “His mindset was clear from the outset on Becky’s blog. He immediately locked testosterone with Ark and Arch, calling them worthy advisories, treating them with respect even in the face of Ark’s silly insults, but was completely and patronisingly dismissive of both me and the quoted Samantha. You get the measure of men like that in a whiff, just the way they chimp round other men. It’s such basic behaviour.
They appeared the most game and capable at the time. I have since revised my view based on more complete observational data.
What bothers me about Samantha is the very fact that she does claim to be a Christian. (for now according to her) She is not relevant to our discussion at this point. You can find dozens of other websites like hers with similar denouncement from me there.
Gotta run again. Leaving the church. Don’t lemme down Violet. Check those IP addresses and see if I’m lying.
LikeLike
BTW, if anybody cares, every significant comment I’ve made and will make on this site is kept HERE
LikeLike
Ruth says:” Here, and in a couple of other places, you seemed to imply you had a standard line of argumentation”
Let give you a living example of what I’m about to say:
Violet SAYS
“I’m certain””
<<>>
But you (Ruth) SAY
People may want certainty enough to delude themselves into thinking it exists”
So I have one, according to you deluded Violet, who says certainty DOES exist and you who says certainty does NOT exist. How can there be a strictly standard line in this situation? You two ARE both headed in the same direction, with God as the destination. EVERYone and EVERYthing has the true and living God as their destination. Origin and journey too actually. He is Himself the ground of all being and knowledge. He is unavoidable and inescapable. However, I must either spend time getting you to where Violet already is and leave her hanging for the time being , which she doesn’t seem to like, OR continue with both of you separately which doubles my already time consuming workload. And trust me, this is not the only thing I have going in my life.
Certainty most assuredly DOES exist. We could not function without. (I asked one of the A’s about probability, but never got an answer)
We cannot account for certainty of ourselves as demonstrated by the fact that our internal logic and reason ultimately terminates in tautological circularity in every case. Hence some people’s denial that certainty exists.
However, certainty is so basic to our consciousness that men like Cantor will drive themselves mad attempting to discover it’s origins and thereby verify it. They grope in the darkness of their own sinful finite minds until insane.
The problem of “the one and the many” (look it up), that is, the inability to account for both the unity and diversity in the fabric of our reality. Is THE philosophical conundrum that trumps all others. It is what drove Cantor mad as he whittled away at his own sanity with one new attempt after another for decades to find the one infinity that governed all the other infinities. Unity and diversity. One and many.
The eternally triune God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, of the ancient Christian scriptures IS eternally one and many. Every particle of His creation bears his fingerprint, but especially us who alone carry His divine image.
You have not yet afforded me the opportunity to establish that and this is the barest nutshell version of only one, though a very important one component. Next comes the elimination of contingency. Can’t have any of that about or certainty collapses. Maybe you folks just haven’t thought much about philosophy and just aren’t interested. That’s ok and doesn’t make you stupid at all. It also wouldn’t make me right. I love this kinda stuff and I have found many terrifyingly capable unbelievers who do as well. Some of the exchanges have been epic and educational.
If you’re not interested please say so.
Violet says: “Personally I think if it takes 3 days to justify a belief system, it’s been over-thought.”
Tell that to Cantor.
Nonetheless, it can be done in several hours with somebody willing to have the conversation and in a mature, uncluttered environment. I can’t keep track of a conversation amidst the dozens and dozens of wholly unrelated nested filler that is all over this page.
LikeLike
Greg, before you get started on your hypothesis, I’d like to ask you if god has a sex. You keep referring to your god as a male.
LikeLike
I’m at the landlady’s church. (yes Violet, another IP address) Limited time, but this is quick. Yes, we have a very busy life.
Victoria asks: “Greg, before you get started on your hypothesis, I’d like to ask you if god has a sex. You keep referring to your god as a male.”
“He” refers to Himself in the masculine and therefore so do I. That’s all I’m told. I would not be shocked to learn in eternity that gender doesn’t apply to the Godhead the same way it does to us.
LikeLike
“That’s all I’m told.”
Who told you that?
LikeLike
Though an occasional female metaphor is applied to God, from Gen. to Rev. the bible uses male pronouns for instance to refer to God (among other things). This view has enjoyed a 99.9% majority view among those with an interest in such things until the 20th century.
(yes, I’m aware of all the arguments 😉 ) This is a total sidetrack though,
LikeLike
Not a sidetrack. I just wanted clarification as to who told you and to determine the depth of your knowledge about the the Bible. I guess the Shekhinah (feminine) has been dwelling in your right hemisphere. 😉
Carry on.
LikeLike
Sorry, I’m not gonna bite. I know all the arguments. That’s a bad one and this is the very last comment I’ll make on the gender of God in this thread, unless it becomes useful later. It is irrelevant right now.
LikeLike
“‘He’ refers to Himself in the masculine and therefore so do I. That’s all I’m told.”
When did he mention this to you? You two get together once a week for tea and crumpets, do you? How does that work exactly?
LikeLike
We are never apart. I mean that quite literally. Read the 1st chapter of EPHESIANS if interested. Actually up to verse 10 of chapter 2.
LikeLike
“We are never apart.”
Unless you are a split-brain patient. 😉
So I’m guessing — one hemisphere will go to heaven and the other to hell.
LikeLike
I’ve read Ephesians many times, there is no mention of any god speaking with you, much less discussing his gender. Having a gender, male, would involve his having a penis – what need would he have of one? Since he appears to speak with you, would you ask him/her/it?
LikeLike
Nevermind
LikeLike
“I asked one of the A’s about probability, but never got an answer
So you’re saying you don’t recall anything I said about N + 1? Have you ever been tested for early onset Alzheimer’s?
Possibly this caveat should have been added to the discussion before you began:
http://www.thinkatheist.com/profiles/message/show?id=739652207&folder=Sent&page=1
LikeLike
“Have you ever been tested for early onset Alzheimer’s?”
Oh dear — atrophied hippocampus?
LikeLike
Have you seen this, Neuro?
http://religiouschildabuse.blogspot.ca/2011/07/snapshot-of-religion-related-child.html
LikeLike
Arch, that’s a powerful blog post. It will be quite beneficial in my research. I’m saving that to my files. I could really relate to this:
My research is primarily on how the religious environment, especially authoritarian religions (i.e., Abrahamic), affect the brain development of children and ultimately society. Have you seen this?
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-secular-life/201410/secular-societies-fare-better-religious-societies
LikeLike
No, I haven’t, but I’ve opened it in my browser and I’ll read it in the morning, over coffee. I’ve just come in about an hour ago, from working outside in the yard, in the cold, in the wind, and tonight, I intend putting my feet up and having a couple before I microwave my traditional bowl of chili, topped with a slice of cheddar.
I WILL, however, periodically lurk.
LikeLike
The data isn’t anything I haven’t already shared quite often in comments, and I know you’ve familiar with the stats. But this article consolidates a good bit of the data.
Enjoy your chillin’ and chili.
LikeLike
“Enjoy your chillin’ and chili.” – ; p
LikeLike
Arch, your link takes you into a sign in page.
LikeLike
It’s kinda embarrassing when you try to pull off a dramatic gesture, and you do it wrong – like storming out of a room in a huff and slamming the door, except it doesn’t close. This is what I’d intended to post:
LikeLike
Let’s see what he has to offer. If anything, this is a great case study. He believes he’s got the dibs on the “real” god God. I’m curious, especially since there’s what…around 42,000 Christian sects with their own interpretation of the Bible and claiming to have a pipeline to the “real” god God?
LikeLike
Oh, I’m curious too, but not enough to leap into any trap he might have set.
LikeLike
No, I meant THIS ONE
(sorry for not being clearer) You never gave a me a definition of probability. I might’ve missed it. It is hard to keep up with this many people at once.
LikeLike
I’m not scurrying all over the place, checking out your links – if you want to bring back a blast from the past, use copy/paste. If it’s not here, I’m not reading it.
LikeLike
It’s a link further up this page
“Those are examples. Not a definition. My pointing at a beagle, does not define what a dog is.
This is actually not a jab at you personally, but you are demonstrating how difficult it is for people to self consciously think at a truly foundational level. Even though it is dead simple as Violet has said they do it every second they exist. It did not come easy for me either. Seriously.
LikeLike
“…pointing at a beagle, does not define what a dog is”
Actually, I would think that pointing at a beagle would go much further toward defining what a dog is, than language, with its ambiguities, innuendos, misconceptions, etc.
LikeLike
Otherwise, why would it be said that a picture is worth a thousand words?
BTW, you wouldn’t happen to have a Polaroid of your god, would you? I mean, if he talks to you, maybe you could get him to hold still for a snapshot – just sayin’ —
LikeLike
You’ve said you believe in “probability” and Heisenberg’s principle. Do you happen to have Polaroids of them?
LikeLike
I asked you first.
LikeLike
While I’m waiting for Ruth (and I’d like to finish those vids before going on in earnest if possible too), Victoria, what is your takeaway from those videos? Also, I have no “dibs” on the “real God”. There have been, are and will be millions who also know the real God. I am nobody unique.
archaeopteryx1: “Oh, I’m curious too, but not enough to leap into any trap he might have set.”
I don’t understand this. How could you possibly be wary of any trap set by somebody as woefully impaired and deluded as you have declared me to be?
I’m gonna have to be offline again for a while here in a minute.
LikeLike
“How could you possibly be wary of any trap set by somebody as woefully impaired and deluded as you have declared me to be?”
The deluded are the most dangerous.
LikeLike
In a debate? Over the internet? That is a truly inane answer. Come on. I know you can do better than that.
LikeLike
I prefer inane over insane any day.
LikeLike
“Also, I have no “dibs” on the “real God””
OK — just trying to figure out where you are coming from since you claimed that Cantor, who was a devout Christian (Lutheran), had the wrong god God — and so did everyone else who didn’t have yours. Are you a Calvinist?
LikeLike
I’ve watched both videos and gone one further:
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/high-anxieties-the-mathematics-of-chaos/
LikeLike
I found the full program. You linked only a 7 minute segment. I am taking it and the second of Victoria’s in the car. These should be great food for thought. I’d be interested in what you think at the bottom of the page, under my last one to you. If you would be so kind.
LikeLike
I didn’t think about you downloading them. When you watch online all the segments play back-to-back.
LikeLike
Victoria quotes me as saying: Also, I have no “dibs” on the “real God”
and
“Cantor had the wrong God Victoria. 😉 So does everybody else who doesn’t have mine.”
And then responds with:
OK — just trying to figure out where you are coming from since you claimed that Cantor, who was a devout Christian (Lutheran), had the wrong god God — and so did everyone else who didn’t have yours. Are you a Calvinist?
Cantor was no Christian. No Christian can live in the state of literally insanity inducing uncertainty like he did. The God of the bible IS certainty itself.
A person is not a Christian because they say so. I doubt if 10% of the people claiming to be Christians in the last 50 years in the western world actually are.
Lutherans can be Christians. He wasn’t one of em though. You can tell by how they live and how they speak. There are multitudes of true Christians who disagree with me on plenty. I’m not the standard. The bible is the standard.
I do of course believe my views are the most biblical among true converts. There are quite a few who believe like I do too. I’m no rogue elitist who thinks I’m the only one with the truth. They will be few though. Jesus Himself said so.
That’s why there’s no such thing as “deconversion”. It IS possible to look, act and sound like a Christian for a time. Jesus parable of the sower and the seed makes that clear. I don’t believe I’ve met a single “ex-Christian” , who from talking to them have much of an idea at all what being a Christian means. I doubt if there’s a way I can say this that will not offend you ladies, but I truly do not say it for that Purpose. It’s just questions like the ones you’re asking right now that make that point
There ARE also people who have been genuinely abused by others calling themselves Christians. We are getting WAAAY afield of the topic at hand here again though.
Ruth says: “I’m sorry, can you elaborate on this? From the video I couldn’t discern which God he was referring to and assumed it was the Christian God.”
There are two worldviews. The Christian one and all the rest which all ultimately amount to the same thing. It doesn’t make any difference which particular paint job Cantor had, under the hood false gods are all the same. So when you say you couldn’t recognize which God Cantor had, it doesn’t matter. What matters is the one he didn’t have. You can tell by the obsessive, idolatrous, self exalting fruit of his life. Brilliant though he most certainly was.
Ruth says: “There are a lot of different Christian sects. Are they all wrong except yours?
No. Being in a certain denomination is not what saves a person. Being in Christ is what saves a person and many groups and denominations preach the gospel with enough purity to bring and disciple people into Christ. I have Facebook friends who are on the other side of the galaxy of theological orthodoxy from me, but I call them brother (and sister)
As I say. We are getting WAAAY afield of the topic at hand here again though.
LikeLike
You can tell by the obsessive, idolatrous, self exalting fruit of his life. Brilliant though he most certainly was.
So mental illness is the result of having the wrong God?
LikeLike
Cantor was no Christian. No Christian can live in the state of literally insanity inducing uncertainty like he did. The God of the bible IS certainty itself.
Doubting means you’re not a Christian?
LikeLike
Not by itself. No. Doubt as a normative state of mind indicates the non presence of the indwelling of the life of Christ. Every Christian is at war with their old nature while in this body. Doubt can be part of that war, but it is not the prevailing mindset.
LikeLike
Fascinating stuff!
So are you of the opinion that Mother Theresa was not a Christian? Is she now burning in hell? She doubted and was quite frank about it.
LikeLike
He thinks all Catholics are false believers…
LikeLike
His God is certainly merciful. He wants everyone to be saved, and even if you believe he exists, unless you believe just the right way you’ll be a crispy critter. Very loving, this God.
LikeLike
Well, lucky for Greg he picked the right version. Must be a real bummer for the Christians who get it wrong. All that wasted faith!
LikeLike
Surprise party at the inferno!
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’ll be raging!
LikeLike
You are no better than Ruth. This your blog. Stop making me laugh with snarky snarks. You are the moderate voice amidst the heretics,
LikeLike
Don’t know what you mean. I was expressing genuine pleasure and relief for Greg’s clearly superior soul.
LikeLike
Nah, I was thinking about all the ones who spent years not believing correctly who got it plain wrong because they weren’t real Christians believing in Greg’s gog, I mean god.
LikeLike
Greg’s gog Gog?
LikeLike
Given his reply to Victoria, I think that’s a rather too generous interpretation.
LikeLike
Stop it Ruth, you are inciting people to start an early ghetto dive party or whatever it is called.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Violet says: “He thinks all Catholics are false believers… “
Catholicism is a false gospel. Whether there are some therein that God mercifully grants saving faith to is not out of the question.
Ruth says: “His God …wants everyone to be saved”
No, God does not want everyone to be saved or they would be. He always gets His way. We WILL get to this if we continue with my 1+1=2 dialog. I promise.
Even if just for your own historical education please read the first 10 or so short chapters of the WESTMINSTER CONFESSION OF FAITH OF 1646 I agree with 95 % of the substance of this 360 year old biblical synopsis, the meat of which WAS the majority Christian view at the founding of the United Sates.
As I say. I have a couple hours of Michigan autumn yard work and a very tedious computer job to do today. Will be on and off.
LikeLike
“God does not want everyone to be saved or they would be” Ah, the very definition of a benevolent creator.
LikeLike
You don’t get to tell Him what good and evil is Violet. He is not trying to impress you. Read that confession please. Off to the yard now.
LikeLike
“You don’t get to tell Him what good and evil is Violet. He is not trying to impress you.”
But you can’t have it both ways. For Christians the god God is the source of all morality, our sense of right and wrong is beamed down from his goodness (or so I’m frequently told). Except the actions you believe he committed don’t reach the generally held standards of right and wrong held by your average citizen in today’s society. It’s a made up story from the Bronze Age – hence the Bronze Age morals.
LikeLike
I should have realized you were Calvinist when you posted this Confession of Faith previously. What make you so certain that Calvin had it right and all others have it wrong?
I will agree with you, however, that Calvinism was the predominate view in early US history and that it was distaste for the view that only those God wanted to be saved would be.
I’m interested to know how you reconcile the idea that your God, indeed, predestined some to hell with the idea of an all-loving, merciful God.
And, thank the real God that you have been one of the elect. To hell with everyone else.
LikeLike
I read the first ten chapters, which was about all I could stomach – it reads like a crock of crap to me, written by some superstitious idiots prior to the Age of Reason, who haven’t a clue that modern archaeology and biblical research have demonstrated that by far the vast majority of both testaments are no more than pure fabrication.
LikeLike
Thank you for reading Arch. The Westminster assembly of the 1640’s was one of the most faithful and qualified body of men ever to undertake to set forth the essential truths of the Christian Faith in summary form.
LikeLike
It was clearly written by men who probably still believed the sun revolved around the earth.
Speaking of which, T, believing as you’ve indicated you do, that the BuyBull is infallible, what possible value was there to be gained in the battle in Joshua, of the sun standing still – it would have had no effect on the passage of time. In fact, the sun, being so large, appears to rotate so slowly, that it seems not to move at all as it is, and its revolution around the galactic plane is so small, compared to the size of the plane, again, it would appear not to move – in either case, it would have no effect on time on earth – yet according to Joshua, written by scientifically illiterate men, it lengthened the day! Explain that please – oh, and be aware, the Bullshit Detector is still running —
LikeLike
“No Christian can live in the state of literally insanity inducing uncertainty like he did.” – Yet clearly T believes, by his own testimony, that a Christian can live in the state of literally insanity-inducing certainty like he does.
LikeLike
I sincerely ask again. Victoria, what is your takeaway from those videos? I’m giving you props here. They are a fabulous and eminently relevant contribution to this discussion. What do they teach you.? Or affirm that you already believed? It’s an honest question. Am I allowed to ask?
LikeLike
Greg, you wrote:
“I do of course believe my views are the most biblical among true converts.”
Your last dissertation truly reveals your mental state. People like you lead people like my husband to suicide and then hauntingly proclaim they were never a Christian. There’s only one explanation for your psychologically abusive language.and I truly hope other Christians who have been questioning the madness and dysfunction that is so evident in the bible, will finally see their belief system for what it is.
You came into Violets blog clanging your symbols and beating your drums, proclaiming boastfully, and without empathy, that god can do as much evil as he wants because, after all, he’s the god God That was a huge red flag.
Tiribulus on October 29, 2014 at 4:09 pm said:
My take on the video is not of importance in the grand scheme of this discussion. I shared it with you to see your perception of it, especially with Cantor. I got my answer loud and clear. Thanks for taking the time to watch it. I hope you will heed the recommendation I made on Violet’s previous post, but I doubt you will.
LikeLike
Victoria says: “People like you lead people like my husband to suicide and then hauntingly proclaim they were never a Christian”
NOW we have arrived at the truth in Victoria’s case 😦 My dear you cannot possibly know how my heart BROKE when I read this. I obviously know nothing of the details of these circumstances beyond what you’ve said here and am therefore unequipped to form a view. I will only say that I am not of the opinion that suicide is an automatic indicator that somebody was not a Christian. This is a very tough topic with variables that are many times best left to God. It is quite possible that you were dealt with in a very unbiblical and therefore unloving and cruel manner by some who either may not know any better OR are in the death grip of self righteousness.
I must also say that you have so very grievously misjudged me and the God that I proclaim. It’s only His truths that I preach that could have saved your husband’s life. 😦 OH how I wish you could hear my heart with your own and believe that I would do anything before intending to cause you more pain. I am so sorry and even sorrier that the Love of Jesus was denied you and your husband (I’m assuming that’s the case) when you needed it most.
Victoria says: “You came into Violets blog clanging your symbols and beating your drums, proclaiming boastfully, and without empathy, that god can do as much evil as he wants because, after all, he’s the god God”
God is incapable of evil Victoria. He uses evil for His own just and holy ends which yes, is His right. I have said and I will now say again. God decrees and governs evil thus rendering it certain, while keeping himself utterly free from it’s stain. He does this by divine mechanisms known only to Himself. I don’t understand how that works and I gave up trying many years ago.
Don’t you see that the God I came here with is able to show you purpose and eternal meaning to all you have been through? (I have my armor on. [Ephesians 6] you all may fire when ready)
It is this God alone who could have saved Cantor’s sanity AND made him an unstoppable weapon in His army. I know quite a bit more about Cantor’s life than I do your husband’s, so I’m only making a general correlation.
I would consider myself most honored to talk to you about this further somewhere else. You have been given very wrong answers. You will find that I’m a rather nice fella despite my sometimes seemingly academic detachment.
I have a couple hours of Michigan autumn yard work and a very tedious computer job to do today. Will be on and off.
LikeLike
Violet quotes me as saying: “You don’t get to tell Him what good and evil is Violet. He is not trying to impress you.”
And then responds with:
our sense of right and wrong is beamed down from his goodness (or so I’m frequently told). Except the actions you believe he committed don’t reach the generally held standards of right and wrong held by your average citizen in today’s society. It’s a made up story from the Bronze Age – hence the Bronze Age morals.”
Our sense of right and wrong fell into irrevocable corruption in Adam Violet. EVERYone descended from him is conceived and born in sin and spiritual death. Our moral compass is now corrupt and fatally self deceptive. Hence, most people’s opinion. Only those freed from this bondage to the very autonomous thinking that the serpent brought to Eve, through the blood and resurrection of Jesus Christ, are even able to see the kingdom of God and be thereby enabled to intentionally surrender to God’s dominion.
This is toddler’s Sunday School 101. I mean like seriously. EVERY single even vaguely Christian denomination, including Catholicism, preaches some version of what I just said. How am I to believe you were deconverted from something you are right before my eyes displaying you have not even the most basic cursory knowledge of? I just don’t know how to say it any more gently.
LikeLike
“This is toddler’s Sunday School 101. ” – That’s ONE thing you got right, your kind likes to get ’em while they’re young and malleable.
LikeLike
This one paragraph alone, at least on the host website, contains 18 links to many instances of child abuse through early indoctrination via the denial of the right to freedom FROM religion, as well as freedom OF religion, of children too young to make an intelligent, informed choice:
LikeLike
Define “probability” for me please.
LikeLike
“Define ‘probability’ for me please.”
I’ve done that already – N + 1
LikeLike
Could I prevail upon you to be a real hip n groovy guy and elaborate for me a bit further please?
LikeLike
I can’t be responsible for your inability to comprehend, I didn’t take you to raise. If I haven’t given you the right words to sink a hook into, you’ll have to make do with the words I’ve already used.
LikeLike
Ruth says and asks: “should have realized you were Calvinist when you posted this Confession of Faith previously. What make you so certain that Calvin had it right and all others have it wrong?”
The label of “Calvinism” is very unfortunate and is only still used by me because of it’s long standing recognition. Calvin himself would have very much disapproved. He had close associates promise to bury his body in a secret place so it could never be the occasion of idolatrous pilgrimages and homage like the papists do. His grave site is unknown to this day.
I hold a comprehensive system of theology, philosophy and ethics that encompasses and subsumes the whole of reality. Temporal and eternal. Created and uncreated. Material and metaphysical.
I believe it to be true because from the foundation of the world I was elected by a sovereign God, in spite of my damnable sin, to believe it to be true. I am in the process of demonstrating to you folks my intellectual foundation for this system of belief, but ultimately it is based on faith. Just like your knowledge of 1+1equaling 2 and therefore all other intelligible reason as well. That simple equation is only a tool I use and is not itself the point. It’s only a handy example.
Ruth says: “I will agree with you, however, that Calvinism was the predominate view in early US history..”
That is absolutely correct Ruth. As I have already said. 44 of the 55 delegates to the 1st Constitutional Convention openly associated with Calvinistic communions. That’s not the same as saying that they were Christians. My point is that my views are not weird and novel and bizarre and new. They are indeed THE historic protestant views held by many millions of Christians and many alive today as well. The western church has become a castrated, soft and whimpering caricature of itself.
Ruth says: “and that it was distaste for the view that only those God wanted to be saved would be.”
This doesn’t appear to be a fully formed sentence. Don’t feel bad, I do it too sometimes. Yes, properly exegeted and exposited the scriptures clearly teach that Christ paid only for the sins of those who were given to Him by His Father as a reward for that payment. They are HIS. They WILL believe and He will NOT lose even one.
Ruth says: “I’m interested to know how you reconcile the idea that your God, indeed, predestined some to hell with the idea of an all-loving, merciful God.”
God IS love, but that’s not the same as all lovING. God is not ALL lovING. He is also blindingly holy and righteous and just and glorious beyond all possible human comprehension. He could have justly and rightly left ALL men (chicks too) to perish in their sin. Which would have happened had He not set set His saving affection on SOME of them, which is the point. I don’t question why God leaves who he does to their chosen path of death in sin. I MARVEL at His mercy and grace in saving ANYBODY!!!
Picture a gang who has raped and murdered the members of a king’s family. Brutally and sadistically. The victim’s father and husband turns out to be the judge in the case as well as king of the land. He comes into the courtroom and says:
“You two I sentence to death by hanging. Sentence to be carried out immediately. You there, the third man. Not only will I not condemn you, but I will submit to being hanged myself in YOUR place and you are to move into my castle and inherit my estate.”
An imperfect analogy, as all analogies regrading an infinite God must of necessity be, but you get the point. The courtroom would be loudly aghast and buzzing. Not because of the sentence imposed on the first 2 men, but in astonishment over the unthinkable mercy and active substitutionary grace show to the 3rd.
The reason God chose a single bite from a piece of forbidden fruit to be the first death dealing sin was to demonstrate that ANY disobedience is worthy of eternal death, not because of the act itself, but because of WHO it is against. Yes every child of Adam, including myself without Christ, is the first 2 men in my illustration. Myself and any others of God’s elect are the third. Only He knows who is who. My job is to preach. He gives me that unbelievable honor of participating in His purposes in the earth. Only He knows His elect and saves them as He sees fit.
Ruth says: “And, thank the real God that you have been one of the elect…
Ohhhhh you have no idea my friend!!! Where once I was dead and bound for eternal perdition and happy to be so, He raised me to new life in His eternally begotten Son Jesus Christ!!! You better believe I thank Him!! And praise Him and sing to Him and serve Him with all that I am and all that I have!!! How could somebody dare to say they are a Christian and it be any other way?
Ruth says: “To hell with everyone else.”
NO MAAAM!!! We PRACTICE what we preach. We go into the most dangerous and depraved neighborhoods you ever heard of on Detroit’s deep east side. Life is very cheap and despair on these streets hangs in the air. We feed them and give them free clothes and pray with them and tell them about Jesus. We see somebody buy like 6 bucks worth of gas and we know they are broker than us and we buy them some more and pray with them too.
Yes, He will save who He wills, but He uses people to do it. I want to be one of those people. No there is not the slightest inconsistency in that.
LikeLike
I’ve read Alice in Wonderland multiple times (to multiple children), and even the Mad Hatter couldn’t make up a load of horse hockey like that!
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. At no time, will you ever see his fingers leave his hands —
LikeLike
NO MAAAM!!! We PRACTICE what we preach. We go into the most dangerous and depraved neighborhoods you ever heard of on Detroit’s deep east side. Life is very cheap and despair on these streets hangs in the air. We feed them and give them free clothes and pray with them and tell them about Jesus. We see somebody buy like 6 bucks worth of gas and we know they are broker than us and we buy them some more and pray with them too.
I did not mean to imply that you don’t care for anyone else, nor that you don’t help the poor, or preach to them for that matter. My point was that you know by your theology that your God has predestined some people for hell. You’ve already said he doesn’t intend to save everyone. And yet you are totally cool with that. It’s no skin off your nose. You think this God who you believe creates people, and also for the express purpose of eternal torture no less, is worthy of worship. That, I’m afraid to say, is just a little twisted.
You do not need to tell me that if this God is real he can do what he wants to, I know that full well. I’m not trying to tell your fictitious God what to do. But is abhorrent all the same.
LikeLike
Ruth says: “My point was that you know by your theology that your God has predestined some people for hell. You’ve already said he doesn’t intend to save everyone. And yet you are totally cool with that.”
That depends on what you mean. If you mean that I believe that God is fully right and holy and just in decreeing the damnation of sinners then yes, for the reasons I’ve given, I am not only totally cool with that, but praise Him for His flawless perfection in doing so. If, on the other hand, you mean that since I myself have been redeemed, that it’s of small consequence to me whether my fellow Children of father Adam are eternally lost, then no. I am NOT totally cool with that and do whatever I can to bring the saving knowledge of Jesus to whoever I can. By my words AND my life. I am far from perfect, but if you knew me out in the real world, what you see here is what you get. I am the same guy in person.
Ruth says: “You do not need to tell me that if this God is real he can do what he wants to, I know that full well. I’m not trying to tell your fictitious God what to do. But is abhorrent all the same.”
This will be even more abhorrent. In the judgement, EVERY knee WILL bow and EVERY tongue WILL confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father. There will be no trial, no disputation, no appeal and NO argument. One second in the presence of this God and the lost will KNOW why they are being damned. They will know that it is just and right and they will not allow so much as a whisper of protest to fall from their lips. His consuming holiness that outshines one trillion suns by infinity will itself testify of their pollution and filth before Him. From that perspective, the lost will be totally cool with it too.
Ruth says: “As for Victoria’s videos: I thought they were terrific!”
So did I! I listened to the 2nd one while I was working, so did not get to absorb it like I wanted to, but absolutely fabulous, what I caught and played over. Here’s an old quote of mine from another website a few years ago.
““Man has throughout his history, by virtue of the remaining though sinfully broken image of God, been so absolutely RIGHT about so very much of what he’s observed and published. While, due to this brokenness in sin, being so ABSOLUTELY wrong about how and why he’s right about it. This has led him to utterly corrupt and perverse conclusions even from the things he’s right about.”
These videos are a flashing neon demonstration of the immediately above. NO sarcasm whatsoever here. If I had known of their existence I would have linked them myself.
Ruth says: “Ultimately I disagree with you about the nature of mental illness. My personal opinion is that Cantor’s obsession with the problem of infinity was a manifestation of mental illness. There are loads of scientists, mathematicians, and philosophers who are unable to solve problems who don’t go mad.”
I tend to disagree, but am not up to telling you why at the moment, though I wouldn’t go to the mat disputing what you’ve said. You could be right In in the cases of Cantor and Boltzmann. It does just seem odd that two titanic intellects in a row crack up over the EXACT same thing.
Ruth says: “I think the nature of our anxiety as it relates to the uncertainty of this world is a refusal to accept it.”
I think you live every second in direct contradiction to this statement.
Ruth says: “As I said to you before, I don’t think certainty exists.”
The God of the bible says you do and therefore so do I.
Ruth says: “When I add a cup of vinegar to a cup of baking soda and measure it doesn’t equal two cups.”
That’s because “cup” actually IS an arbitrary and random human preference for measuring material entities that are the SUBJECTS of mathematics and logic, but NOT maths or logic themselves which ARE certain. These videos actually proclaim Gods truth as to that very thing all the while alleging to do the opposite. There absolutely IS uncertainty TO US, but you’re looking for it’s explanation in the wrong place. As are these videos.
Ruth says: “That doesn’t throw my world into chaos.”
No it doesn’t because that example is not susceptible to certainty in the first place. Try LIVING in Cantor’s infinities and give me a chaos report after five minutes 😉
Ruth says: “But, then again, I’ve accepted uncertainty.”
I will concede that you have, but in the wrong place. Yes, I know that’s gonna be a zinger. It appears I’m contradicting my self when I just said above that you DO believe in certainty. It really isn’t. Our human consciousness left to itself, as Cantor discovered, is ENSLAVED to both existential certainty AND epistemological UNcertainty, leaving us eternally unable to navigate our own reality by ourselves. This is called “finitude”. Therefore, FAITH in SOMEthing beyond our comprehension and by definition unprovable by our common intellectual means is required to traverse that gulf between the many and the one. Most people live and die without ever once really meaningfully thinking about this. Cantor and Boltzmann were exceptions,
It’s time for the gym. I’ll hopefully pop in a bit later.
LikeLike
“The God of the bible says you do and therefore so do I.” – Exactly where does he say that? Or are you referring to one of your (pl) private conversations?
LikeLike
Tiribulus says: “That depends on what you mean. If you mean that I believe that God is fully right and holy and just in decreeing the damnation of sinners then yes, for the reasons I’ve given, I am not only totally cool with that, but praise Him for His flawless perfection in doing so. If, on the other hand, you mean that since I myself have been redeemed, that it’s of small consequence to me whether my fellow Children of father Adam are eternally lost, then no. I am NOT totally cool with that and do whatever I can to bring the saving knowledge of Jesus to whoever I can. By my words AND my life. I am far from perfect, but if you knew me out in the real world, what you see here is what you get. I am the same guy in person.”
I did not mean either of those things. I meant that according to your own theology nothing can happen unless your God WILLS it. You have said that those whom your God WILLS to be saved will be, even if he drags them kicking ans screaming; irresistible grace. By extension that also means that he WILLS that some portion of those whom you believe he created will go to hell because he WILLS it to be so; people who are born sinners, according to your theology, through no fault of their own; people who he WILLS to condemn. Whether you realize it or not, your assertion that he is perfectly justified in doing so, and even praise him for it, is inconsistent. And whether you realize it or not, the fact that nothing happens that he does not WILL to happen, even belies this. Because unless he had WILLED it to be so your fictitious Adam could not have fallen. He even WILLED that.
Tiribulus says: “Man has throughout his history, by virtue of the remaining though sinfully broken image of God, been so absolutely RIGHT about so very much of what he’s observed and published. While, due to this brokenness in sin, being so ABSOLUTELY wrong about how and why he’s right about it. This has led him to utterly corrupt and perverse conclusions even from the things he’s right about.”
These videos are a flashing neon demonstration of the immediately above. NO sarcasm whatsoever here. If I had known of their existence I would have linked them myself.”
I am not in the least surprised that you would view it this way. No matter what amount of evidence there might be contrary to your given position you hold that it is actually evidence for it.
Tiribulus says: “I tend to disagree, but am not up to telling you why at the moment, though I wouldn’t go to the mat disputing what you’ve said. You could be right In in the cases of Cantor and Boltzmann. It does just seem odd that two titanic intellects in a row crack up over the EXACT same thing”.
Perhaps a bit odd, but those with OCD and associated mental illnesses are drawn to the maths and sciences. I will concede, though, that being slapped in the face of a reality that contradicts what we hold as a certainty it does cause an existential crisis and, sometimes, psychotic episodes.
Tiribulus says: “I think you live every second in direct contradiction to this statement.”
Can you elaborate on what you mean by this?
Tiribulous says: “The God of the bible says you do and therefore so do I.”
I would expect no less. You believe the Bible to be God’s word. I do not.
Tiribulus says: “These videos actually proclaim Gods truth as to that very thing all the while alleging to do the opposite. There absolutely IS uncertainty TO US, but you’re looking for it’s explanation in the wrong place. As are these videos.”
Again it is not surprising to me that you would spin the evidence for uncertainty in favor of certainty. I’m not looking for an explanation for certainty. Without those SUBJECTS and arbitrary units of measurement I submit that you would not know what 1+1 is equal to because you would have nothing to base it on.
Tiribulus says: “No it doesn’t because that example is not susceptible to certainty in the first place. Try LIVING in Cantor’s infinities and give me a chaos report after five minutes.”
I will admit that the vinegar and baking soda is a minute example but it does demonstrate a point. How are the SUBJECTS of maths and logic, which you contend are certain, not subject to the laws of that certainty? How would they not be susceptible to the CERTAIN maths and logic of whose laws, according to you, they obey?
Tiribulus says: “Our human consciousness left to itself, as Cantor discovered, is ENSLAVED to both existential certainty AND epistemological UNcertainty, leaving us eternally unable to navigate our own reality by ourselves. ”
I think this gives some insight into why you disagree with me about the nature of mental illness. Even if we do desire existential certainty that does not mean that exists.
LikeLike
Ruth, you do honor me with your time and trouble. Unfortunately I cannot address this now. I will though.
For now, I mean this only a public service. IF you or anyone else finds it useful.
This simple CODE
produces this simple PAGE
Simply change the relevant information for your own use.
Not all tags work on all sites, but bold, italics and links work on just about all of the major blog software at default configurations. Try the rest as they may become useful. You can test a particular blog by copying and pasting all the code like this:
BOLD
Also bold for some sites
ITALICS
LINK
This is a scrolling marquee
“RED”
“BLUE”
“GREEN”
LikeLike
Whatever renders correctly, works on that blog site. Thank you for your conversation. Time to vote and do some other stuff.
LikeLike
I actually thought I was putting your quotes in bold, but I think I used the wrong code so when the comment posted it removed the formatting.
LikeLike
No problem. I posted my attempted help comment above before I saw this. TTYL 🙂
LikeLike
And see then I mess up one of my own links this
This should should read like this:
This simple CODE
produces this simple PAGEPAGE
LikeLike
HAHA!! I’m in a hurry again. I left the extra “page” on the end of the line Sorry 🙂
LikeLike
As for Victoria’s videos: I thought they were terrific! Ultimately I disagree with you about the nature of mental illness. My personal opinion is that Cantor’s obsession with the problem of infinity was a manifestation of mental illness. There are loads of scientists, mathematicians, and philosophers who are unable to solve problems who don’t go mad. I think the nature of our anxiety as it relates to the uncertainty of this world is a refusal to accept it. As I said to you before, I don’t think certainty exists. When I add a cup of vinegar to a cup of baking soda and measure it doesn’t equal two cups. That doesn’t throw my world into chaos. But, then again, I’ve accepted uncertainty.
LikeLike
Ruth I promise you your thoughtful comment was not made for nothing. Things have been busy all day and I have a very stubborn corrupt Win 7 installation that I must conquer for a customer too. I will answer as soon as I can. I don’t know if it will be tonight. I also got a bad burn on the cd I made of the audio from your video, so it cut off a few minutes in in the car and I haven’t been able to get back to it. What I heard sounded great too though.
LikeLike
No worries. In your own time.
LikeLike
Pingback: VIOLETWISP…
I got further in your video today Ruth. Man how I wish we could actuality talk verbally all of us here. HUGE discussion. There is a fundamental confusion of categories goin on there. The show is gripping and I’m enjoying it, but the whole premise is built upon man’s erroneous demand that the “one” be found IN the “many” on his own terms or the one cannot exist. Man LIVES in the “many” and is only able to apprehend the “one” by faith. That faith can either be in the God who alone accounts for both the one AND the many, or it can be in ANYthing else that accounts for neither. The other options are to despair of a solution and go mad and or take one’s own life to escape it, or just smile a lot and pretend certainty is impossible and unnecessary, while continuing to live enslaved by it’s rules. (1+1 DOES = 2 in any way that is even accidentally useful to us)
The many gives us certainty, which is navigated by logic.
The one, being beyond our comprehension, is IN OURSELVES uncertain, and hence only grasped by faith. Remember Victoria’s 2nd video? “Things which are inescapably true, but completely unprovable!!!” I almost veered off the road when I heard that. 😀 That’s exactly right!!! Guess who that is. These people are declaring I mean PRECISELY what Romans 1 says.
I am telling you that philosophically speaking, the resolution of “the one and the many” is what’s being discussed in all these videos so far, even if they’re not calling it that. I’ll get to all of it and the points in your last comment.
LikeLike
“(1+1 DOES = 2 in any way that is even accidentally useful to us)” – FINALLY, you’re beginning to realize that some qualification is necessary —
““Things which are inescapably true, but completely unprovable!!!””
I forget – did it also say that all things which are unprovable are inescapably true?
LikeLike
archaeopteryx1 asks: “I forget – did it also say that all things which are unprovable are inescapably true?”
The man in Victoria’s video said that while discussing “principium”, (a word that I myself use) which is that all governing base principle upon which ALLLLLLLL others depend for both their existence AND meaning, but which is itself by definition unprovable. Like I say I almost wrecked my car 😀 How perfect and true!!!
EVERYBODY has one whether they realize it or not. They have no choice. Following Romans 1 to the letter, even Victoria’s guy says so. They are designed that way. (Victoria’s guy won’t say THAT though 😉 )
Mine explains the one AND the many. Cantor’s maddening infinities (the inexplicable, yet inescapable one) and Newton’s certainty which we are all still bound to live in for life to “work” at all. (the mathematically certain many) The latter requires the former.
Yours doesn’t explain 1+1 equaling 2.
I need to continue working on Ruth’s response.
LikeLike
“Mine explains the one AND the many. Cantor’s maddening infinities (the inexplicable, yet inescapable one) and Newton’s certainty which we are all still bound to live in for life to “work” at all. (the mathematically certain many) The latter requires the former.
Yours doesn’t explain 1+1 equaling 2.
Yours only explains the one AND the many in that you have decided that and elusive entity is an unprovable truth. Yes, he did say that there are things which are inescapably true that are also unprovable. But he later also said that one would never know whether the problem he was working on was just a really hard problem or one that was unsolvable. Yours only explains 1+1 equaling 2 because you are placing God in the gap of uncertainty so that you can have certainty that you desire.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“you are placing God in the gap of uncertainty so that you can have certainty that you desire”
It’s fascinating they can’t acknowledge that. They all dismiss the ‘god of the gaps’ argument as if it means nothing, yet fall back on it without fail.
LikeLike
One thing at a time please ladies. I’m still working on my last one to Ruth. My God is not a God of the gaps. 🙂 I’ve heard that one a thousand times too. I made this pic myself 😉
LikeLike
Sometimes it’s worth considering if things we hear a thousand times from people might have a grain of truth to them. Just saying …
LikeLike
“Sometimes it’s worth considering if things we hear a thousand times from people might have a grain of truth to them.” – You KNOW he’s gonna turn THAT around on you! Just sayin’ —
LikeLike
Violet says: “Sometimes it’s worth considering if things we hear a thousand times from people might have a grain of truth to them. Just saying …”
Actually it’s just the opposite. What is most popular and pervasive among thinking sinners is least likely to be true. This is compounded by how brilliantly it’s presented. The bible teaches that too.
Again, Tiribulus principles of online DEBATE #5:
archaeopteryx1 says: “You KNOW he’s gonna turn THAT around on you! Just sayin’ –”
😀
I have to finish up Ruth’s response. I have work at noon.
LikeLike
If that’s your attitude you’re never going to believe anything with any evidence base or credibility, simply because it’s what most other people know to be true. Now we know how you arrive at your conclusions…
LikeLike
It really is ‘head I win, tails you lose’. If there is the tiniest shred of any hard evidence for his proposition then, it’s true. And even if there isn’t that others would draw another conclusion is clearly evidence that his proposition is true.
LikeLike
“that others would draw another conclusion is clearly evidence that his proposition is true”
Interesting way of sustaining delusion. Do you think it’s perhaps a little narcissistic and arrogant though? I’d hate to suggest …
LikeLike
Do you think it’s perhaps a little narcissistic and arrogant though? I’d hate to suggest …
I guess we’ll each have to draw our own conclusions about that…
LikeLike
Violet says: “If that’s your attitude you’re never going to believe anything with any evidence base or credibility,”
You’re a different case at this point Violet. Unlike your home girl Ruth, you are on record as saying that you ARE certain. Why? On what basis, I ask again, do you escape from Cantor’s infinities? And if you haven’t listened to Victoria’s videos at least, then you should if you want to meaningfully participate here. Ruth’s is very relevant too, but makes a different brilliant mistake than Victoria’s do. (yes, mistakes can be based on broken brilliance)
Violet says: “simply because it’s what most other people know to be true. “
Oh no! NOTHING is true or false BECAUSE anybody except God says so. Consensus among unbelievers actually proves nothing one way or the other. My point was that where ultimate questions are concerned, that is, ones where the ramifications directly address mans moral accountability to God, the truth will never be popular among a specie whose very nature is to suppress it in unrighteousness. (Romans 1:18)
Ruth says: “It really is ‘head I win, tails you lose’..
It is isn’t it? How could it be otherwise IF the God I am here preaching IS God indeed. How could there possibly exist a single quark or neutrino’s worth of actual evidence that so much as even challenges a God like THIS
He holds and IS all the cards LOL! Is this the God you ladies abandoned? There is NO way that it is.
LikeLike
“Is this the God you ladies abandoned? There is NO way that it is.”
Sorry Greg, I’m not into worshiping psychopaths. You can’t see it. We can, but we didn’t always see it because we were so indoctrinated. Once neural circuitry associated with critical social assessment and judgement reactivates, if it ever does, you will be in for a shock of your life.
Until then, all we can do is pity you and those you try to seduce into believing that your god is an awesome god.
LikeLike
Hey Neur-
Coming to the party a bit late, and will leave early, but it appears to me, being an observer of your interplay, that Trib has been more than patient and fair, and has refrained from caustic accusations, and has tried in good faith to discuss the things of the day as noticed in this post.
You said: ———–:Once neural circuitry associated with critical social assessment and judgement reactivates, if it ever does, you will be in for a shock of your life”.———–
If you had any style points, they were just erased in this one comment. I would like to see your associates here agree with me .
C’mon Wisp, step up and be counted.
LikeLike
“If you had any style points, they were just erased in this one comment.”
If you had any knowledge of the neurological underpinnings and methodologies of persuasion and mind-control techniques, you’d realize that your comment hold little weight.. And yes, you are late to the party and have not been privy to the previous conversation with Greg on previous posts.
So catch up or forever hold your peace.
LikeLike
And might I add — open a science book for a change.
LikeLike
So Neur-
In your view, I need a PHD to recognize an insult??
oh, ok.
LikeLike
There was no insult. You can’t just pop in and make assumptions based on one comment or post. What you need is to catch up. Greg and I have already been in extensive dialog for several days.
You appear to be using Greg as an excuse, but it is you who is offended because I won’t bow down to your biblical god, Yahweh. I’m not saying that there isn’t a creator. There might be. But I simply cannot believe that a mind that could create this universe would share the same insecurities, the same need for respect and recognition, the same demand for loyalty, submission and obedience as the worst of dictators.
As I mentioned previously, you fail to understand the neurological underpinnings of attachment involving reward receptors and deactivated neural circuitry, the power of persuasion and emotional manipulation, which have been used on the masses all throughout history.
Don’t just pop in, say you’re late to the party, and will be leaving it early, and expect me to take you seriously as one interested in having a serious discourse.
LikeLike
LikeLiked by 1 person
True that!
LikeLike
Yeah, like I’m going to disagree with Victoria’s professional opinion on brain stuff. Greg clearly has some interesting wiring going on there.
LikeLike
Well why not disagree VW-
Saying a believer worships a ‘psychopath’ God is not insulting. Ok, sure.But it does speak more to the mind of he /she who would bring such a charge.
Sometimes common sense overrules a thousand phd’s.
LikeLike
“Saying a believer worships a ‘psychopath’ God is not insulting.”
Clearly, you’ve not spent much time reading and studying your Bible, and if you have, and still justify such psychopathic behavior condoned and commanded by your god, then this is a clear indication of deactivated neural circuitry. I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt.
LikeLike
Neur-
The hole you have dug keeps getting deeper.
May be unstable to YOU, but not to a mind that has understanding of God and His creation, where He is patient in a world full of miscreants.
It must be wonderful to have the Creator subject to your questioning of his ways.
LikeLike
“The hole you have dug keeps getting deeper.”
No CS, you have been profoundly indoctrinated and emotionally manipulated, and now you continue to indoctrinate yourself, willingly. You keep Christianity in bu$ine$$. You’ve dug a hole so deep that you can’t see that you are in the abyss of deception.
Now, if Yahweh is the creator, I have far more ethics, compassion and empathy than your god does. Your god displays the mindset of a Iron/Bronze age war god. You can’t see it, though, because you have an attachment to this god, and that has affected the wiring of your brain.
There’s no other way to explain your justification (outside of hyper-religiosity), since you condone such horrific behavior that you would call evil if humans do it, yet righteous if humans are command by your god to do it.
LikeLike
For clarification:
*Its finest
*feel guilty
LikeLike
No, what’s wonderful, Stormy, is the fertile Human imagination of the men who invented this god, and added to his fictional exploits of derring-do over a period of nearly a thousand years. That same Human imagination is responsible for all of the art and music and literature that Humankind has ever produced, and even those whose fiction comprises the Buybull should be honored for it..
LikeLike
Oh, I thought you were objecting to the personal analysis of Greg.
You’re objecting to her calling the depiction of the Christian god in the Bible a psychopath? Yes, I have a much stronger opinion about that. Of course it is! Have you not read the book? Abraham kill your son, traumatise him and yourself and then I’ll realise you are afraid of me and stop you in the act; Job, just want to check how much you love me so I’m going to kill everyone you care about and put you through utter horrors; every human on earth who I created intimately, you disgust me, so I’m going to drown you all; etc etc. Can’t see a psychopath? Need your eyes tested mate!
LikeLike
Nope, V- eyes are good.
Your argument has one glaring weakness, and it crushes your opinion of God.
You underestimate the nature of sin, and the holiness of God. May I repeat?
You underestimate the nature of sin and the holiness of God.
Get a grip on this, and everything else is rather easy.
LikeLike
I’m underestimating the holiness of a being you’ve never actually personally spoken to? I’m underestimating the holiness of an invisible being that every Christian seems to have a different conception of? You underestimate the nature of delusion.
LikeLike
Well V-
Delusion is subject to interpretation; sin is clear as crystal.
Delusion is a by product of sin, where holiness is not. 😉
I’m sticking with the God of Creation.
LikeLike
“I’m sticking with the God of Creation”
Which one? And if a creator exists, what makes you think Yahweh, the Iron/Bronze Age war god is “the” creator? Did this god speak to you? Did this god visit you? Or did momma, daddy, preacher, and/or an archaic book with massive contradictions, embellishments, omissions, copying errors, forgeries, anonymous writers, etc, tell you?
LikeLike
“You underestimate the nature of sin, and the holiness of God. May I repeat?”
Indoctrination at it’s finest. You’re the shameful, sinful creature, willed into existence by an all powerful, all-knowing, perfect god so that he can forgive you for not being perfect..
Authoritarian religion is guilt driven so that what they make you fell guilty of will make you come back to church. Cha ching. But to reinforce this, they invented the indoctrination of hell and yes, of course, heaven. Death anxiety tends to be more pronounced in your most faithful of followers.
As Phil Hellenes poignantly stated, religion has amazing powers. It can unite people by the millions, and turn sadness into joy. It can sooth the shattered heart and triumph over mountains of evidence. It can inspire rapturous belief where none seemed possible before. Unfortunately, you can say the same thing about lies.
Lies like salesmen, like gods, need us to believe in them, but there’s always a price to pay. You see, CC (and Greg), all you have to do is not lie.
don’t say you know its name;
don’t say it told you to tell others what to do with their lives;
don’t say that those who do otherwise must be punished;
don’t say it sends earthquakes, tsunamis and other calamities, and
don’t say it ever hurts anyone for any reason because that’s sick.
LikeLike
“Nope, V- eyes are good.” – that leaves the brain.
LikeLike
Yes Arch-
The brain would be useless without the conscience. Just a blob, but wonderfully enough, man is a bit different than the animal.
You can thank the creator. By the way ARch, your name, for they who may not know, has the Greek root for ‘beginning.’
Arche-
Interesting, beginning of what? Strange how the scriptures open:
IN THE BEGINNING……………….enjoy the rest of the day/night
😉
LikeLike
“Interesting, beginning of what? Strange how the scriptures open:
IN THE BEGINNING……………….”
What’s also interesting, is that those words were written by Bronze Age/Early Iron Age priests in captivity in Babylon, writing their opinion of how the universe began. They had no concept of singularities, nor of any such phenomena as the Big Bang, nor that the “beginning” was over 13 and a half billion years earlier.
According to reliable biblical scholars, such as Richard Friedman, Bart Ehrman, and others, those priests believed the Genesis written by the Yahwist Source, in the Southern Kingdom of Judah nearly 500 years earlier, had gotten it all wrong – that their god was never so anthropomorphic as to come down to Earth for walks “in the cool of the day,” and sew clothes for Adam and Eve on his Celestial Singer, so they wrote their version of a more ethereal god, who maintained his distance from Humanity, intending that it replace the earlier version entirely, but the Redactor (editor) who combined the four sources into the Torah and tacked Moses name onto it, decided to cover his butt by including both versions, thus we have the contradictions between Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 of Genesis, in your inerrant book.
LikeLike
Hey ark-
Yea, the stone age priests were pretty clever to come up with a being called the Cherubim, yea sure
And they wrote that Goliath was over nine foot; seems like quite a thing to say…unless it was true..
I guess they named the animals too? Oh wait my mistake, that was Adam who named the animals….
😉
.
LikeLike