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.
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
I’m not entirely clear as to why you’re addressing your response to my comment, to Ark, but whatever floats your boat – hopefully, he will respond, but I doubt it.
“Yea, the stone age priests were pretty clever to come up with a being called the Cherubim, yea sure
Maybe you ARE talking to Ark, because I know that I said nothing about Stone Age priests.
“And they wrote that Goliath was over nine foot; seems like quite a thing to say…unless it was true..”
Did you know that in early America, there lived a giant of a man named Paul Bunyon? Paul invented lumberjacking, you know. When he was born, it took five storks, working overtime, just to deliver him to his parents. By the time he was a week old, he was wearing his father’s clothes. He had a big blue ox, named “Babe” – the two of them were so large, the tracks they made traipsing around the Minnesota pine forests, filled up with water and made the 10,000 lakes. Now that 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….”
Actually, each nationality named the animals they encountered in their own languages – new species are still being found and named today, mostly using Latin.
BTW, do you happen to have book, chapter and verse where Adam, as you say, lists the names of all of those animals? I’d like to read that. He mentions koalas of course, right? Wombats? How about duck-billed platypusses? Polar bears? Archaeopteryxeses?
LikeLiked by 1 person
hey arch-
Follow the bread crumbs, you will sooner or later end up with a man named Adam, who yes, named the animals.
And by the way, how do you suppose the designations male/’female man/woman came to be? Hmmmmmmmmm? Which by the way have been universally recognizable since creation. Who sat down and came up with these awkward names for upright creatures????
How do your sources explain this phenom?
A nine foot man? No biggie,
LikeLike
Follow the matzo crumbs, you will sooner or later end up with a book full of fables, that ends in a crucifiction and a zombie floating up into the air. Even the Grimm brothers decided that was a little too bizarre to include in their book of fairy tales!
LikeLike
hey arch-
Very nice non response. I see u took a detour around the important fact of male/ female???
you may want to reconsider that, as the ramifications are staggering.
Take another look, and tell me how the term male/ female came into existence; instead of your fairy tale comments. C’mon step to the plate and be counted.
LikeLike
Sexual reproduction began with a common ancestor of eukaryotic organisms, single-celled organisms that first developed approximately 1.6–2.1 billion years ago. They likely didn’t have names.
Stay in school, kid – don’t do drugs!
LikeLike
You keep ignoring the fact that I gave up on the long discussion several days. I told you twice. If you can only get to “why are you certain?” after 10,000 words, it’s not a discussion that’s going to keep my interest.
Your insistence that you know the Truth is a total waste-of-time signpost too. I don’t mind having long conversations with Christians who are open about the uncertainties in their belief system but I can’t be bothered with Christians who write off everyone and other denominations as unsaved – like you do with Catholics. It reveals a smallness of mind that’s not worth exploring.
I’m enjoying the banter though! 😉 And your beard is funny.
LikeLike
“Is this the God you ladies abandoned?”
None of these ladies abandoned ANY gods, because there’s no evidence that any gods exist, or ever did, no matter how much time and verbiage you spend rambling on about it.
LikeLike
Turn it around? Hardly. Give a predictable response is the best we can hope for with Greg. He’s a really long way down his personal path of I Know the Truth. At least his doesn’t involve beating children or oppressing women (we hope).
LikeLike
Clearly you’ve not lurked his blog.
LikeLike
Oh no, seriously? How can you keep being nice to him then? I tried lurking his blog but it was a rambling pile of disorganised nonsense. Just don’t have the time. Got a link to anything that’ll make me angry?
LikeLike
Not sure if it’ll make you angry or not. It’s not really a post per se. There are comments under a podcast(which I attempted to listen to but has since been removed).
http://tiribulus.net/wordpress/?p=442
Tiribulus is so progressive that he even has no problem learning from women.
LikeLike
The podcast piece was an experiment I never really played with after the first day. If you’re curious about my voice, here’s an EXCERPT from a radio show I called into several years ago.
LikeLike
No, I was curious about the material the spawned the comments you made about it, not your voice.
LikeLike
OMGoogle — I laughed out loud loudly.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My “blog” is not a blog Violet. It’s a messy desk with my notes all over it. Read my about page and you’ll see that. I use it to edit and proofread myself for other sites. If anybody else goes there and benefits in some way, I consider it a blessing and a bonus. It’s not nice of you to pressure Ruth not to talk to me when we are having a perfectly levelheaded and substantive conversation here. Just another quick reminder. YOU invited ME. Remember? How could it bother you if we keep talking?
Ruth, I’ve been working on my response to you all morning because you deserve that after taking so much time to talk to me. I’m still not done though and I have work. Pretty close. Should almost certainly finish it today. Depends though on how long this job is. With computer repair it could be five minutes or 5 hours. I don’t know until I get there.
LikeLike
As I said, in your own time. I’m in no particular rush.
LikeLike
I’m beginning to lose all interest – if he had anything significant to say, he’d have said it by now.
LikeLike
archaeopteryx1: “I’m beginning to lose all interest…”
GOOD!! I can put my fly swatter away now and won’t have to have you landin on my nose every so often!! 😀 (come on. That was funny)
LikeLike
In case you didn’t notice Ruth, that area you linked is in disagreement with any view of patriarchy that abuses or oppresses women and or children. I am denouncing those views. Not promoting them. I’ll be very disappointed if you start to resort to cheap shots too. I misunderstood this comment before.
Violet’s probably been over there by now praying (no pun) that she can find some horrific thing she can use to further satisfy herself, and it looks now like others as well, that I’m not worth listening to. Then I can be written off without having to address my arguments. Classic ad hominem in other words. She will not succeed, as nothing there can be any more offensive than what I’ve said here.
Besides. Have I not addressed you ladies as intellectual equals and engaged in discussion just as I would if you were men? Are you really gonna say I haven’t done that? Can we skip that truly meaningless sidetrack, so I can work on Ruth’s response some more please?
LikeLike
In case you didn’t notice Ruth, that area you linked is in disagreement with any view of patriarchy that abuses or oppresses women and or children. I am denouncing those views. Not promoting them.
I read the entire comment section.
Then I can be written off without having to address my arguments. Classic ad hominem in other words.
We are still waiting for your arguments. Can you say that I haven’t addressed you courteously? Can you say that I am not attempting to address your arguments?
Can we skip that truly meaningless sidetrack, so I can work on Ruth’s response some more please?
Please feel free to ignore any meaningless sidetracks. I am patiently awaiting your response.
LikeLike
Ruth quotes me as saying: “Then I can be written off without having to address my arguments. Classic ad hominem in other words.”
And then responds with:
We are still waiting for your arguments. Can you say that I haven’t addressed you courteously? Can you say that I am not attempting to address your arguments?
I was talking to Violet Ruth who clearly wants to get rid of me now without actually kicking me out.
Yes, you have been an enjoyable and substantive interlocutor. I appreciate that. While I’m working on your response, please me what I should make of these two sentences.
“We are still waiting for your arguments.”
And
“I am … attempting to address your arguments”
Sincerely. Those sentences follow one another.
LikeLike
You asked:
While I’m working on your response, please me what I should make of these two sentences.
I said: “We are still waiting for your arguments.”
We are still awaiting your complete arguments.
Then I said: “I am … attempting to address your arguments”
I have attempted to address the arguments you’ve made thus far. And will continue to attempt to address whatever arguments you make in the future.
LikeLike
Ruth, what I’m gathering from Greg is that he’s attempting to prove that his biblical god, Yahweh, is THE god God, and after nearly a week in discourse, has yet to even come close to proving it. As I mentioned, if he does — what does that say about his mindset, that he would justify such unethical behavior. He already knows how I feel. No matter how much he tries to justify his god’s behavior, and call it righteous, it shows that the hell this god created is a hell fit for this king of kings.
LikeLike
Yes, this was my impression. That he was setting about to prove that the creator of the universe is not just any ol’ god, but his God.
It is apparent that belief in the sovereignty of his God is paramount to him. This sovereignty entitles this God to do whatever it likes with it’s creation and the fact that he created it justifies such action; even makes this action good in the minds of those who believe it. As I mentioned to you before, there have been many sovereign rulers. Such sovereignty, left without checks and balances. leads to this totalitarian thinking and some of the most vile and horrific actions in the history of mankind.
LikeLike
Well stated. John Dalberg-Acton wrote:
“Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
LikeLike
Ruth says: “No, I was curious about the material that spawned the comments you made about it, not your voice. “
Oh LOL! I ‘m trying to do too many things at once again. I thought you were referring to the podcast test that I thought I had hidden over there. Misunderstood Sorry and did think it was a little odd.
HERE is the podcast you were looking for. 31:17. Now I am NOT looking at my email 🙂
LikeLike
Answering THIS
Ruth says: “I did not mean either of those things. I meant that according to your own theology nothing can happen unless your God WILLS it.”
That’s true yes. Apart from His all governing decree, not one atom in all the vast cosmos dare twitch.
Ruth says: “You have said that those whom your God WILLS to be saved will be, even if he drags them kicking and screaming; irresistible grace.”
No Maam. I have not, nor would I EVER say such a thing. All that the Father has given the Son from before creation will COME. No dragging, kicking or screaming. They will do it willingly and humbly and gratefully and permanently. Once given new eternal life in Christ they ARE more than willing.
Ruth says: “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”
Yes. Despite superficial interpretations of some passages that appear to say otherwise.
Ruth says: “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.”
Inconsistent? Are you certain? 😉
Ruth says: “Because unless he had WILLED it to be so, your fictitious Adam could not have fallen. He even WILLED that.”
Yes He did and I have already said so. The cross of Christ was not plan B to fix Adam’s fall into sin. Adam’s fall into sin was so that there could BE a cross of Christ. That was always His intent
Ruth says: “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.”
Oh but it’s not contrary. Besides. In your world of uncertainty, what’s your defense if I simply turn this charge back on you? Which is exactly what the bible says btw. You will believe or deny literally anything it takes trying to convince yourself that you are not a creature of a holy God to whom you owe your existence, your worship and your moral obedience. In other words, you believe what you believe, NOT because you REALLY believe it. That would make God a liar which is impossible. No, you believe what you believe to escape from believing what I believe.
=======================================================================
Ruth said above: “I think the nature of our anxiety as it relates to the uncertainty of this world is a refusal to accept it.”
To which I responded with: “I think you live every second in direct contradiction to this statement.”
Ruth now asks this
Can you elaborate on what you mean by this?
You gave me a first rate example below. You said:
Think with me my friend. How can there be evidence for ANYthing without certainty? Blissfully uncertain evidence? This is what you base your life on? No Maam, this is NOT what you base your life on. You are forced to assume certainty even in order to deny it. You are certain of the insurmountable evidence against certainty? Or not?
If you’re as smart as I think you are, you’ll now begin an appeal, as did archaeopteryx1, to “probability”. I will be again then asking for a meaningful definition of what probability is. NOT an example. A definition. At which time I will then happily demonstrate to you that “probability” is also meaningless without certainty. THAT is what I mean. You do NOT accept uncertainty and in fact are pickled in it through this entire conversation as well as all the rest of your life.
Ruth says: “Again it is not surprising to me that you would spin the evidence for uncertainty in favor of certainty.”
See above please
Ruth says: “I’m not looking for an explanation for certainty.”
I know. That would lead you to the throne of God. That’s the very LAST thing you’re looking for.
Ruth says: “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.”
I again respectfully disagree. The representative equation of 1+1=2 is a fully formed sound and valid logical certainty even in it’s metaphysical abstraction. Just sitting here on this page it is inescapably true. It IS however, along with our perception of the whole of the material universe, a specimen of the “many” and here is where I think I’m losing you guys. (NOT because you’re stupid) Logic and maths are not ultimate in themselves. They “acquire” for lack of a better word, their existential, practical ultimacy from the “one”, which IS ultimate. BOTH are actually ultimate (eternal), but in different senses. As the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, so also, the “many” is eternally begotten of the “one”.
Ruth asks: “How are the SUBJECTS of maths and logic, which you contend are certain, not subject to the laws of that certainty?”
I can understand how you didn’t exactly follow this part. Dynamically quantifiable material substances like liquid vinegar and powederized solid baking soda are not susceptible to strict mathematics in the same way that solid objects like marbles or practical concepts like money are. One “cup” of liquid or powder can vary in usage rather widely by it’s very nature. What if you add a small pinch to a cup of baking soda or a drop or two to a cup of vinegar? Or if you spill a bit of either? Are they still a cup? Who cares? Whatever use you had for either can still be fulfilled, so actual strict mathematical certainty is useless in these kind of cases before the discussion even starts. Of course your world is not thrown into chaos. Now if you put the measuring cups next to each other on the counter and then try to tell me that there are not two of them, regardless of what dynamically measurable substance is inside them, then that’s another story. I hope that makes what I’m saying clearer.
Ruth asks: “How would they not be susceptible to the CERTAIN maths and logic of whose laws, according to you, they obey?”
They are, but not in the same pragmatic way. Please see above.
==============================================================================
Ruth quotes me as saying: “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. ”
And then responds with:
“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 it exists.”
==============================================================================
Our desires have nothing whatever to do with the existence (or definition) of anything. Yours, mine or Cantor’s. God’s decree determines the actual and possible existence (and meaning) of everything. We react, interact and respond. So no, our desire for existential certainty says nothing regarding it’s actual existence, either yay OR nay. Your desire for it’s NONexistence so as to escape God does not make the NONexistence of existential certainty a reality either. Finding what is to us objectively true, both of ourselves and the environment we find ourselves in, is all that matters. What we wish about that couldn’t be less relevant.
Here’s the problem. While a useful and reliable level of “objectivity” is afforded us on the level of the many, that is, the level of everyday life, we are utterly incapable of objectivity on the level of the one. Both because we are finite and because we are dead in sin without Christ. However, and here we are back to Cantor again, as Cantor so accurately found out, our life of many is completely unlivable without the unity of the one. It is a nonsensical and meaningless and amoral, nihilistic waste of time, space and energy to attempt to live in the denial of the certainty of either the one OR the many. An uncertain one cannot provide for a certain many.
What then to do? Unable to find within ourselves OR the universe, an infallibly certain one to give sanity to our existentially certainty many, most today simply don’t think about it deeply enough for it to be an issue for them. When forced by somebody like me (And I’m certainly not the only one), to do so, most will go on a virulent campaign of trying to convince me (but really themselves) of how certain they are that certainty doesn’t exist.
That’ll have to be enough for now. I’ll discuss your video later. I appreciate your patience and your company Ruth 🙂
LikeLike
To your long and wearisome rant on the certainty of certainty, I can only repeat, all is probability – probably.
LikeLike
I can only repeat that you have given me NO actual definition of “probability”. None. NO you have NOT. I will continue to wait.
LikeLike
Dictionary
probability |ˌpräbəˈbilətē|
noun ( pl. -ties)
the extent to which something is probable; the likelihood of something happening or being the case : the rain will make the probability of their arrival even greater.
• a probable event : for a time, revolution was a strong probability.
• the most probable thing : the probability is that it will be phased in over a number of years.
• Mathematics: the extent to which an event is likely to occur, measured by the ratio of the favorable cases to the whole number of cases possible : the area under the curve represents probability | a probability of 0.5.
PHRASES
in all probability, used to convey that something is very likely : he would in all probability make himself known.
ORIGIN late Middle English : from Latin probabilitas, from probabilis ‘provable, credible’ (see probable ).
Thesaurus
probability
noun
1 the probability of winning: likelihood, prospect, expectation, chance, chances, odds.
2 relegation is a distinct probability: probable event, prospect, possibility, good/fair/reasonable bet.
LikeLike
Did you really just give me a dictionary definition? And a pathetic one at that? This so called definition is no definition at all. It simply restates the baldly obvious a dozen slightly different ways and gives examples. Even Wikipedia’s definition is a thousand times better. Come on man think for yourself. Are you telling me that you are staking your life on a concept you can’t even define without copying and pasting? And that from a practically empty definition? I can hear you already, but this is terrible.
Probability is “the extent to which something is probable”, Well thank you so very much for that. Yes, I read the whole thing, but it didn’t say anything more after that first sentence. I’ll tell you what’s going on here. You have no experience whatsoever in the areas of philosophy, logic and critical thought. In fact the only one here who does at all is Ruth. You have my word before my God that I do NOT intend that as an insult or a denigration of yours or anybody else’s intelligence in any way. There is no shame in simply saying “hey, this ain’t my thing”. There’s plenty of things that ain’t my thing.
OR, please give me an actual definition. Absolutely no. I am NOT being difficult for the sake of it.
LikeLike
“Are you telling me that you are staking your life on a concept” – No, I’m not telling you that, as my life is not in jeopardy.
You asked for a definition, I gave you one – live with it. The fact that you don’t care for it is a personal problem, about which I could not possibly care less.
LikeLike
Thank you for your detailed reply. I’m rather busy today but I will have a rebuttal either later tonight or tomorrow.
LikeLike
Let me preface this by saying that I appreciate the effort you’ve gone to. What I am posting here is a rebuttal to your response and I will leave you with the final word.
Ruth says:”This sovereignty entitles this God to do whatever it likes with it’s creation. ..
Tiribulus replies: Yes, but that’s only part of the reason. (it’s also an oversimplification that I cannot address now too btw.)
The comprehensive and invincible sovereignty of the only true and living God IS the “one” that eternally begets the “many”. Being Himself the ground of all being, His multipersonal singularity is the explanation for both the one and the many. He is one being who eternally exists as three persons. Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Neither dividing the substance nor confounding the persons. The equal ultimacy of His oneness and many-ness is is seen in the very fabric of our reality, AS a signature. Not that He IS His creation. No, that would be pantheism. I’m not saying that at all. Gotta go take a computer back.
That is quite an assertion and polemic. A creator might explain the one and the many; so might something that actually exists and is simple, like space itself.
Ruth says: “I did not mean either of those things. I meant that according to your own theology nothing can happen unless your God WILLS it.”
Tiribulus replies: That’s true yes. Apart from His all governing decree, not one atom in all the vast cosmos dare twitch.
And do any of these atoms have a choice? No freewill? Determinism all the way?
Ruth says: “You have said that those whom your God WILLS to be saved will be, even if he drags them kicking and screaming; irresistible grace.”
Tiribulus Replies: “No Maam. I have not, nor would I EVER say such a thing. All that the Father has given the Son from before creation will COME. No dragging, kicking or screaming. They will do it willingly and humbly and gratefully and permanently. Once given new eternal life in Christ they ARE more than willing.”
I see. I was taking liberties with my paraphrasing. People do lick the boots of this tyrant willingly.
Ruth says: “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”
Tiribulus Replies: “Yes. Despite superficial interpretations of some passages that appear to say otherwise.”
I can see the attraction to following such a horrendous being. How can you be sure you aren’t one of the ones who has been WILLED to be deep fried? Or do you have a choice in the matter? From what I’m sensing you don’t believe you do. In which case, if this God you worship decided to delude you you’d be none the wiser. That is what your saying, is it not? That your God tricks people into believing they’re saved when they’re really not. Because people don’t really have a choice about that? They’re thoughts are twitching to whatever tune God has given them to dance to. Dance Pinocchio, dance…with your God pulling the strings?
Ruth says: “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.”
Tiriublus Replies: “Inconsistent? Are you certain? ;)”
Probably… 😉
Ruth says: “Because unless he had WILLED it to be so, your fictitious Adam could not have fallen. He even WILLED that.”
Tiribulus Replies: “Yes He did and I have already said so. The cross of Christ was not plan B to fix Adam’s fall into sin. Adam’s fall into sin was so that there could BE a cross of Christ. That was always His intent”
So your God WILLED people to become objects of his wrath so that he could kill himself to save some tiny portion of them from the hell he, himself, has WILLED them into? Sounds…lovely.
Ruth says: “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.”
Tribulus replies: Oh but it’s not contrary. Besides. In your world of uncertainty, what’s your defense if I simply turn this charge back on you? Which is exactly what the bible says btw.
I’m aware of what the Bible says. It’s why I made the statement. What better defense to any criticism than…”see, I told you that would happen.”
Tiribulus says: You will believe or deny literally anything it takes trying to convince yourself that you are not a creature of a holy God to whom you owe your existence, your worship and your moral obedience. In other words, you believe what you believe, NOT because you REALLY believe it. That would make God a liar which is impossible. No, you believe what you believe to escape from believing what I believe.
Wait…do I get a choice? According to your earlier statements your God is pulling my little Pinocchio strings. I believe what I believe because your God has WILLED me to be an object of his wrath, apparently.
==================================================================
Ruth said above: “I think the nature of our anxiety as it relates to the uncertainty of this world is a refusal to accept it.”
To which I responded with: “I think you live every second in direct contradiction to this statement.”
I think there are more things that we are uncertain about than those that we are certain of. We might make up things to be certain about so that we feel we have stability, but if our presuppositions are incorrect so are we whether we are ever aware of it or not.
Ruth now asks this
Can you elaborate on what you mean by this?
and
Tiribulus responds with this:
You gave me a first rate example below. You said:
Think with me my friend. How can there be evidence for ANYthing without certainty? Blissfully uncertain evidence? This is what you base your life on? No Maam, this is NOT what you base your life on. You are forced to assume certainty even in order to deny it. You are certain of the insurmountable evidence against certainty? Or not?
If you’re as smart as I think you are, you’ll now begin an appeal, as did archaeopteryx1, to “probability”. I will be again then asking for a meaningful definition of what probability is. NOT an example. A definition. At which time I will then happily demonstrate to you that “probability” is also meaningless without certainty. THAT is what I mean. You do NOT accept uncertainty and in fact are pickled in it through this entire conversation as well as all the rest of your life.
See below. Also when we come to areas we are not certain of we do resort to probabilities. Some concepts are difficult to articulate but my best stab at it is that probabilities are likelihoods based on experience. We can know what has already happened, so by definition, it is a certainty because it has already happened. So, in a sense you are right to say that I don’t live my life as if everything were uncertain. I make plans, I have a mortgage, and I recycle. I live my life today as if I will wake tomorrow because I’ve woken every day since I was born. But it isn’t certain. It’s not guaranteed. I’ve experienced enough loss to know that I am promised nothing.
Ruth says: “I’m not looking for an explanation for certainty.”
Tiribulus replies: “I know. That would lead you to the throne of God. That’s the very LAST thing you’re looking for.”
Why would I avoid the throne of God? I have looked for it, according to you in all the wrong places. Sincerely. Tell me what would be the benefit to me to deny the existence of a being if it truly exists. If there truly is mercy at this throne what is there to fear or avoid?
Ruth says: “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 replies: “I again respectfully disagree. The representative equation of 1+1=2 is a fully formed sound and valid logical certainty even in it’s metaphysical abstraction. Just sitting here on this page it is inescapably true. It IS however, along with our perception of the whole of the material universe, a specimen of the “many” and here is where I think I’m losing you guys. (NOT because you’re stupid) Logic and maths are not ultimate in themselves. They “acquire” for lack of a better word, their existential, practical ultimacy from the “one”, which IS ultimate. BOTH are actually ultimate (eternal), but in different senses. As the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, so also, the “many” is eternally begotten of the “one”.”
I simply meant that you must have some concept of what 1 represents in order for any statements about it’s logical conclusions to make any sense whatsoever. If you had no SUBJECTS you wouldn’t know what 1 even means. It would just be gobbledy gook on a page. No, if you had no subjects you wouldn’t even have a 1+1 logical statement to make because the statement itself would be most unnecessary. You need material for the logic of 1+1=2 to even apply. Without it you have no frame of reference and, frankly, no need for the logic itself. It seems to me that logic is dependent on material subjects.
Ruth quotes me as saying: “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. ”
And then responds with:
Tiribulus quotes me as saying: “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 it exists.”
and responds with:
Our desires have nothing whatever to do with the existence (or definition) of anything. Yours, mine or Cantor’s. God’s decree determines the actual and possible existence (and meaning) of everything. We react, interact and respond. So no, our desire for existential certainty says nothing regarding it’s actual existence, either yay OR nay. Your desire for it’s NONexistence so as to escape God does not make the NONexistence of existential certainty a reality either. Finding what is to us objectively true, both of ourselves and the environment we find ourselves in, is all that matters. What we wish about that couldn’t be less relevant.
Yes, that was precisely my point. Ones’ desire for certainty has no impact whatsoever on whether that certainty exists or not. By certainty I mean certain knowledge. That does not mean that there is nothing that is certain but certainty is elusive. Truth is elusive. So your assertion that it is God’s decree that determines the actual and possible existence(and meaning) of everything is nothing more than that; an assertion. I’ll explain further what I mean by this after your next quote.
Here’s the problem. While a useful and reliable level of “objectivity” is afforded us on the level of the many, that is, the level of everyday life, we are utterly incapable of objectivity on the level of the one. Both because we are finite and because we are dead in sin without Christ. However, and here we are back to Cantor again, as Cantor so accurately found out, our life of many is completely unlivable without the unity of the one. It is a nonsensical and meaningless and amoral, nihilistic waste of time, space and energy to attempt to live in the denial of the certainty of either the one OR the many. An uncertain one cannot provide for a certain many.
This is the first time I’ve debated this particular issue so I may not have been articulating my thoughts very well. I sort of jumped in willy nilly to find out more about what you were actually getting at because I don’t fancy the ‘I know you are but what am I’ sort of banter. I actually do like to find out more about a person’s thinking even if I disagree with them.
Having said that I need to explain what I mean by uncertainty. I do not mean by uncertainty that there is not a one certain thing, or that we cannot be certain of anything. While I might agree with you that an uncertain one cannot provide for a certain many, it might be beyond our ability at this time for us to be certain of what that one is. The logic we possess might well have originated from outside ourselves but that does not mean that the originator of such has revealed itself to us nor that it is even capable or desirous of doing so. Not knowing what that “one” is leaves it open to our imagination. And imagine we do. Furthermore, the argument can be flipped. Without material objects there would be no need for the logic which we use in our everyday life.
What then to do? Unable to find within ourselves OR the universe, an infallibly certain one to give sanity to our existentially certainty many, most today simply don’t think about it deeply enough for it to be an issue for them. When forced by somebody like me (And I’m certainly not the only one), to do so, most will go on a virulent campaign of trying to convince me (but really themselves) of how certain they are that certainty doesn’t exist.
I am not trying to convince you nor myself that certainty does not exist. I merely intended to show that what you are so certain of, meaning Yahweh, is not a certainty but faith. You did that yourself(which I appreciate your admission of) saying,
“I am not falling back on anything. I have been preaching this same thing for two and a half decades. I have never once used the word “proof” for anything either. I’ve said, “establish” and “demonstrate”, for instance. There’s a huge difference. NOTHING can be “proven” by our own autonomous finite and fallen reason. Nothing. Not even 1+1=2. Yet here IS certainty all around us. Utterly certain and utterly unprovable. YOUR OWN videos that YOU posted highlight this very thing.”
All you have demonstrated or established is that you believe you know what the “one” is. You have not demonstrated that it is utterly certain that Yahweh is the “one” to anyone except those who already believe that to be true. Honestly this seems like a flowery unmoved first mover or uncaused first cause argument.
See, the problem here is, and what offends the senses and sensibilities of atheists is your assertion of certainty about something that is not certain at all. Which you dutifully go about putting forth as an absolute truth. It simply is not. While you might be certain of a ONE your assertion that we can be certain of precisely what that ONE is is nothing more than a belief. Instead of just sharing your beliefs as a possibility you assert them as a positivity and in the process tell other people that they are dirty sinners in need of your (uncertain)God or they will rot in hell for eternity – on nothing more than a belief.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We can’t even be certain that the sun is shining, although we’re staring directly at it (which our mothers all warned us never to do!) – we can know that it WAS shining 8 minutes earlier, when the light that we’re seeing left its surface on its journey to our eye, but we live our lives as though it were anyway – it’s the only way we know how to live.
LikeLike
Preparing oneself does not equal certainty.
LikeLike
Thank you Ruth. Of course I see you and of course I will answer when possible. Your time and attention is greatly valued and appreciated.
LikeLike
This is gonna take some work Ruth. I know you’re not pressuring me, but I’m reiterating anyway. To do it justice is gonna take a bit of time. You REALLY took some time yourself. No matter what else may happen, I’ll always appreciate that.
LikeLike
Like you said, we all have lives. We’re busy. When you get to it…
LikeLike
Victoria says: after nearly a week in discourse, has yet to even come close to proving it.”
Any God that can be “proven” on the basis of finite and sinful human reason is a false one. God must be known by “faith” in order to be known as Father and Savior. Please read THIS
Ruth says: “It is apparent that belief in the sovereignty of his God is paramount to him.”
Indeed it is. Absolutely paramount.
Ruth says:”This sovereignty entitles this God to do whatever it likes with it’s creation. ..
Yes, but that’s only part of the reason. (it’s also an oversimplification that I cannot address now too btw.)
The comprehensive and invincible sovereignty of the only true and living God IS the “one” that eternally begets the “many”. Being Himself the ground of all being, His multipersonal singularity is the explanation for both the one and the many. He is one being who eternally exists as three persons. Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Neither dividing the substance nor confounding the persons. The equal ultimacy of His oneness and many-ness is is seen in the very fabric of our reality, AS a signature. Not that He IS His creation. No, that would be pantheism. I’m not saying that at all. Gotta go take a computer back.
Later ladies.
LikeLike
“Any God that can be “proven” on the basis of finite and sinful human reason is a false one. God must be known by “faith” in order to be known as Father and Savior.”
Yes, the perfect escape from proving your god exist. Faith. Such a brilliant strategy, and you know what? It works on a lot of people — often throughout their lifetime. That’s what makes it so brilliant yet so diabolical.
LikeLike
LikeLike
It’s working on you right now, only not from God. Every single thing you think you know you know by faith Victoria. Everything. 1+1=2, all your brain studies and everything in between. ALL of it. All by faith. What you call “proof” is enslavement to a free falling “MANY” with no “ONE” to save it. The very framework of analysis you use to reach conclusions from your research belongs to the God you use that research to deny. I understand. You have no choice.
I also understand your guys point of view.
I totally understand that. No sarcasm at all.
LikeLike
Greg, you wrote:
“Any God that can be “proven” on the basis of finite and sinful human reason is a false one. God must be known by “faith” in order to be known as Father and Savior.”
You see, Greg, you have spent all this time trying to use your finite and “sinful” human “reasoning” to prove your god exists, and now you fall back on faith as a safeguard, and act as though none of us have been in your shoes and have had a devout faith like yours. Now, if you say otherwise (which you have), you are indeed being arrogant and haughty.
The fact of the matter is that you need to believe — and that’s OK. We all have to do what we need to do to cope. But keep it to yourself. Don’t go around casting primitive seed on people, pretending to be in the know because you have discovered the magical formula to “real” faith. You appear to have an intense need to feel special, and that belief, that you are one of the few chosen, gives you huge hits of reward chemicals. The anticipation of heaven, even more so according to studies. Your behavior is very predictable and very primate-like.
We, who went through a deconversion spent years studying to get to where we are now — an understanding of the bible, human nature, and the sciences, you apparently have yet to comprehend based on your comments. We have gained a peace that far surpasses the peace that believers claim they have. Most of us here have been on both sides of the fence. Yes, the grass is greener on the other side, and it ain’t on your side of the fence.
Your lack of high school education doesn’t mean anything to us, but apparently it means something to you or you wouldn’t have brought it up. We don’t judge you for not graduating. But it is clear that you’ve not taken the time to educate yourself with vast amounts of information available at your fingertips 24/7. Your faith is a filter. Your intense love for your imaginary god has deactivated neural circuity and you are rewarded, neurochemically, affecting your judgement.
This attachment involving reward chemicals, i.e. dopamine, vasopressin, oxytocin, evoled to keep couples together long enough to ensure the survival of our species. But throughout history, people in high places understood, through observation, that if you could convince people to devote their best love to an invisible sky daddy, solely based on faith, then they could get filthy rich and powerful, and it worked like a charm. Like I told you previously, Greg, you’ve been duped. You sold out to the rich and powerful — to a delusion — and became anti-human. In other words, you’re so heavenly minded, you appear to be no earthly good.
LikeLike
“In other words, you’re so heavenly minded, you appear to be no earthly good.”
Where’s the “Like” button? And can you only click it once? You need a button, Vi, that makes bells and whistles, fireworks and sirens all go off at once, some comments deserve that, and this is one!
Talk about an epitaph!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, in my dinosaur-ish ways, I don’t know how to make like buttons visible on the page. Any tips appreciated!
LikeLike
VW
To enable your ‘likes’
Dashboard>
Settings>>
Ratings>>>
u can fine tune it from there- remember to ‘save’
(I notice your chatter back and forth, but u have chosen to avoid a very worthy response)
;).
LikeLike
Thanks, but is that not the thumbs up and thumbs down stuff? I had that on before and it was rubbish. I’m looking for the ‘like’ button to appear.
LikeLike
THIS may also help.
LikeLike
Nope, but thanks for trying. Insanity sorted it.
LikeLike
Yeah, okay, but how did you do that? I had been trying to figure it out myself…
LikeLike
It’s in the sharing section of the dashboard under all the Facebook and Twitter stuff I don’t use so don’t look at. There’s a turn on likes for comments bit.
LikeLike
Well who knew?!? Thanks! I turned on that thumbs up, thumbs down rubbish but that wasn’t what I was looking for.
LikeLike
Well, wayward granny insanityb knew. We all need to acknowledge her wisdom now. 🙂 I had those annoying thumbs on for a bit too.
LikeLike
I don’t suppose there’s a symbol for “raised middle finger” —
LikeLike
LOL — no Arch — you’ll just have to settle for emoticons for the time being.
LikeLike
Yoink!
LikeLike
“Any tips appreciated!”
TIP: Ditch WorthlessPress and get a REAL blogging app – they average $4 per month, and well worth it.
LikeLike
No comment. Except, now that I’ve got the ‘like’ buttons, I really need to find where the ‘don’t like’ button resides … 🙂
Honestly, Arch, just move already …
LikeLiked by 3 people
“Honestly, Arch, just move already …”
Seriously, right? I’ve met an amazing community here, not to mention that I’ve gained life-long friends, both believers and non-believers. But he continues to moan about WP. I swear, he sounds like a fundie sometimes, not satisfied with anything but perfection. 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Honestly, Arch, just move already …”
I don’t even need to guess who the “1 person” was who “liked” your comment – her initials would be N℮üґ☼N☮☂℮ṧ!
Don’t rush me – I’m shopping for the most user-friendly format.
LikeLike
😛
LikeLike
At this rate my friend, just do self hosting. You have been searching long
LikeLiked by 2 people
makagutu says”At this rate my friend, just do self hosting. You have been searching long”
My humble but beloved all purpose SERVER
My WordPress site and a bunch of other stuff is hosted on this old HP L.A.M.P. box.
LikeLike
If this is how a god can be known, it is obvious it isn’t meant for reasonable people. For lack of a better word, anyone who writes such a statement has ceased being worthy of a response.
Vi, this is such a good response and I agree with arch, fireworks should go off for such responses.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“If this is how a god can be known, it is obvious it isn’t meant for reasonable people. For lack of a better word, anyone who writes such a statement has ceased being worthy of a response.”
Clearly, Mak, you don’t understand:
LikeLiked by 1 person
You really are this clueless after all this time aren’t you? 😉 There are no facts without faith. I am not saying anything close to what his idiotic sign says.
LikeLike
Now I know
LikeLiked by 1 person
Noel, to you and Arch, I thank you for the feedback. But I take no pleasure in writing such a response. The main reason why I have discourse of this nature is because I am profoundly aware of the harm fundamentalism does to the psyche of humanity. It literally changes the brain and it also causes people to have such low regard for humanity that it creates social dysfunction. I’ve already shared research showing that where fundamentalism thrives, social well being takes a dive.
Greg and others like him are of the belief that any goodness that comes from humans is like filthy rags (Isaiah 64). In other words, his view of our intrinsically prosocial nature is that of the discarded blood on a sanitary napkin. That’s literally what it means, and this kind of mindset that has such disdain for humanity, hurts us all, but especially children during crucial periods of brain development and synaptic pruning.
Jonathan Edwards, a Christian Calvinist preacher, philosopher, and theologian, observed and perfected techniques starting in 1735 in Northampton, Massachusetts, where he would deliver sermons like “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God”. These revivals gave Edwards an opportunity for studying the process of conversion in all its phases and varieties, and he recorded his observations, narrowing them down to the ones that were the most effective in emotionally manipulating the crowd.
Later, he published “Discourses on Various Important Subjects”, the five sermons which had proved most effective in the revivals, and of these, none, he claims, was so immediately effective as that on the “Justice of God in the Damnation of Sinners”. By inducing guilt and acute apprehension and by increasing the tension and self-doubt, the “sinners” attending his revival meetings would break down and completely submit. Sources state that some committed suicide.
Charles J. Finney was another Christian revivalist who learned of and used the same techniques four years later in mass religious conversions in New York. The techniques are still being used today by Christian clergy, especially evangelicals. What Greg appears to be doing is subjecting people who come across his path to emotional manipulation and it is, in my opinion and based on extensive research, a form of psychological abuse.
LikeLike
And that is precisely why, Neuro, he wants you to tell him your life story, to lay yourself open, so he can find elements within it to manipulate you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Victoria says: “You see, Greg, you have spent all this time trying to use your finite and “sinful” human “reasoning” to prove your god exists, and now you fall back on faith as a safeguard,”
The only one who has been paying attention is Ruth. I downloaded your videos, extracted the audio and listened to them a few times each Victoria. Read all your articles AND watched some of your YouTube videos.
You can’t show me even the barest modicum of respect by paying just about ANY real attention to what I say. I said on my very first day here” OCTOBER 30, 2014 at 3:29 pm
On Rebecca’s site the day we all met I said the following:
I am not falling back on anything. I have been preaching this same thing for two and a half decades. I have never once used the word “proof” for anything either. I’ve said, “establish” and “demonstrate”, for instance. There’s a huge difference. NOTHING can be “proven” by our own autonomous finite and fallen reason. Nothing. Not even 1+1=2. Yet here IS certainty all around us. Utterly certain and utterly unprovable. YOUR OWN videos that YOU posted highlight this very thing.
You’re not engaging me. You’re largely ignoring me and curling up in your security blanket of these studies which, far from providing escape from your God, must steal from Him in order to make their case against Him. I am truly grieved for your pain and loss 😦 (you have no idea) This, however, is not the solution. Can you please point me to where you tell your story in detail. Including the church and or denomination you left? I am NOT looking to beat you down in a debate. You and I are not even having a debate. I WANT to understand you better. Can you show me where I should read?
LikeLike
“You can’t show me even the barest modicum of respect by paying just about ANY real attention to what I say. —- You’re not engaging me. You’re largely ignoring me and curling up in your security blanket of these studies which, far from providing escape from your God, must steal from Him in order to make their case against Him.
Greg, see my comment above that I made to Noel and Arch. You are incorrect when you say that I have not been engaging you or paying attention. I have posted many comments to you, explaining what I have learned in this journey and you reject it all.
Trust me, I most certainly have been paying attention and have spent a good bit of my time engaging you. But you do not want to accept anything I present because you already have the answers. You believe you have tapped into the honcho sky daddy of creation and you are “in the know” and the rest of us poor suckers will burn in hell. People cannot have an intelligent conversations with you because you ignore everything that is not based on your version of Christianity.
You project when you say that I am curling up in my security blanket. No, Greg, it is you who has curled up in your security blanket of delusion. As I mentioned to Noel, you do a great disservice to humanity with your obsession with sin and obedience. You would do any dictator proud.
LikeLike
Ok 🙂
LikeLike
Ruth says: “Thank you for your detailed reply. I’m rather busy today but I will have a rebuttal either later tonight or tomorrow.”
People have lives Ruth and I am quite certain I am not the most important thing in yours. Nor should I be. I’d rather you take your time and bring your best than have you hurry. Take a week if need be.
This is exactly what my “blog” is for. I work on my responses until they’re done and then send them live there and copy and paste the text to where the comment is actually for.
LikeLike
While I am working on your rebuttal, may I ask IF or HOW freewill fits into your theology?
LikeLike
If by “freewill” is intended the power of volition to act in any way independently of God’s eternal decree, then there is no such thing. The best my finite mind can formulate is that God infallibly ordains man’s free and responsible decisions, again, by divine mechanisms known only to Himself. I have no idea how that works. Check the 9th chapter of Romans (among other places) https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+9&version=ESV
LikeLike
Victoria mentions: “Charles J. Finney”
Charles Finney was a humanistic pelagian heretic whose theology especially but even his methods as well were not the same as Edwards. It will not be possible for me to continually correct your uninformed second hand reporting, but I would encourage any who may actually be interested in the truth (anybody?) to do your own research. Intellectually incestuous self interested bias is not research.
LikeLike
Greg, Finney rejected tenets of “Old Divinity” Calvinism, which he felt were unbiblical and counter to evangelism and Christian mission. Can you be any more transparent or tribal? 😉
LikeLike
I was a disciple of Finney before I became a Calvinist in 1988 my dear. I know Finney like the back of my hand. He rejected the whole of historic orthodoxy on key doctrines that 99% of protestants and even Catholics had agreed on for 13 or 14 centuries. He was also a legalist of the first order. It doesn’t really matter. You just continue to display your lack of knowledge of the Christian faith. That’s just a fact.
David was speaking for you too Victoria:
You cannot run from your creator. ALL the fractured sinful studies that will ever exist, will get you no further from His sight. I hope you stop running.
LikeLike
And here we have a prime example of emotional manipulation.
LikeLike
And you (or her) are afraid I might succeed? Even if you were right about my motivation , what possible danger could an obviously lobotomized retard like me pose to such cerebrally superior specimens as yourselves?
LikeLike
I don’t see you as lobotomized “retard” at all. I used to work for the Association for Retarded Citizens. They have lower than average IQ’s, no fault of their own. It was a joy working with them. I don’t think you have a lower than average IQ. I also believe you know exactly what you are doing.
LikeLike
Victoria says:” …I also believe you know exactly what you are doing. “
And what in your estimation would that be Victoria?
LikeLike
Proselytizing.
LikeLike
Of course. So are you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, I already explained why I’m here. To bring awareness that beliefs such as yours are harmful to children as well as adults.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ok, I’m proselytizing and you’re not.
LikeLike
And we are here to show the utter impossibility of a world without God, to be a wee voice in the wilderness as it were, with a loud and incontrovertible message.
And to dismiss all the arrows of doubt, unbelief, mockery, and oppositions of science falsely called.
Hi Trib-
http://thenakedtruth2.wordpress.com/2014/11/02/stephen-the-atheist-and-the-dew-drop/
LikeLike
Wow, Greg, the only sound comment you’ve written to date.
LikeLike
That’s once in a row!
LikeLike
Here’s what I have so far Ruth. I don’t wanna leave you hangin anymore.
============================================================
Ruth on November 9, 2014 at 2:23 pm said:
Let me preface this by saying that I appreciate the effort you’ve gone to. What I am posting here is a rebuttal to your response and I will leave you with the final word.
My pleasure
Ruth says: A creator might explain the one and the many; so might something that actually exists and is simple, like space itself.
Please tell me more. Seems if it were as simple as you say, then a number of the greatest minds in history would have figured it out, when in fact your video and both of Victoria’s say there is no solution. Please also define “space”.
Ruth says: “I did not mean either of those things. I meant that according to your own theology nothing can happen unless your God WILLS it.”
To which I replied
Tiribulus replies: That’s true yes. Apart from His all governing decree, not one atom in all the vast cosmos dare twitch.
And then Ruth further replied with
And do any of these atoms have a choice? No freewill? Determinism all the way?
I say again. God decrees the free choices of His image bearing creatures and I have no idea how that works.
Ruth says: “You have said that those whom your God WILLS to be saved will be, even if he drags them kicking and screaming; irresistible grace.”
To which I replied with
Tiribulus Replies: “No Maam. I have not, nor would I EVER say such a thing. All that the Father has given the Son from before creation will COME. No dragging, kicking or screaming. They will do it willingly and humbly and gratefully and permanently. Once given new eternal life in Christ they ARE more than willing.”
Ruth now responds with:
I see. I was taking liberties with my paraphrasing. People do lick the boots of this tyrant willingly.
No, they worship lovingly in response to His divine love in loving them first. They are enabled to do so by the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit given to them by grace alone through faith alone.
Ruth says: “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”
To which I responded with:
Tiribulus Replies: “Yes. Despite superficial interpretations of some passages that appear to say otherwise.”
Ruth now asks:
How can you be sure you aren’t one of the ones who has been WILLED to be deep fried?
Because He promised, and it is impossible for God who is truth itself to lie, that all those who come to Him in faith believing in the shed blood of His Son as the payment for their sins, and His resurrection life being theirs in Him by faith, will be saved.(Romans 10) Number two, I hunger and thirst after righteousness because it is my greatest joy to please Him. (1st John 3) I also love my brethren (1st John 3 as well) As far as earthly assurance? I do truly love my enemies and pray for those who spitefully treat me. (Matthew 5) That includes the folks on this blog. Whether you believe that or not is beyond my control. Lastly, but certainly not least, His Spirit bears witness with my spirit that I am His child. (Romans 8:16)
Ruth asks: “In which case, if this God you worship decided to delude you you’d be none the wiser. That is what your saying, is it not? That your God tricks people into believing they’re saved when they’re really not.”
This really disappointed me Ruth because there is no Christian denomination in the history of this planet who would ever say such a thing and least of all myself. Again. It is impossible for God to lie and every syllable of scripture screams the falsehood of this accusation.
Ruth asks: “Because people don’t really have a choice about that? They’re thoughts are twitching to whatever tune God has given them to dance to. Dance Pinocchio, dance with your God pulling the strings?”
Once again. God decrees the free choices of His image bearing creatures and I have no idea how that works. We are neither puppeteered automatons, nor autonomous agents. We freely do, think and say whatsoever He has decreed that we freely do think and say. Yes, He can foreordain and predestine free and responsible volitions in His creation. He does this in the same inexplicable way He renders 1+1 as 2 in our minds.
Ruth asks: “Ruth says: “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.”
I understand how it might appear that way. Paul anticipated that EXACT objection in the 9th chapter of his letter to the Romans. I would ask that you please read that whole CHAPTER as it directly addresses precisely what you are alleging. Here are verses 19-24 where he specifically says people will ask how they can be held responsible if God has set their life for them.
Paul’s answer to your question? Who are you to question God? (in short)
Tiriublus Replies: “Inconsistent? Are you certain? ;)”
Ruth says: “Probably” 😉
HAHA!! Very good 🙂 I still need a definition of probability from somebody though.
Ruth says: “Because unless he had WILLED it to be so, your fictitious Adam could not have fallen. He even WILLED that.”
To which I answered with:
Tiribulus Replies: “Yes He did and I have already said so. The cross of Christ was not plan B to fix Adam’s fall into sin. Adam’s fall into sin was so that there could BE a cross of Christ. That was always His intent”
Now Ruth says: “So your God WILLED people to become objects of his wrath so that he could kill himself to save some tiny portion of them from the hell he, himself, has WILLED them into? Sounds…lovely.”
God cannot die, but He can die AS A MAN, like He did in Jesus of Nazareth. The sacrifice for God’s elect people could not be a mere man, even if sinless, because then His value would only be for the sins of one other man. Jesus Godhood makes His sacrifice infinitely efficacious and thereby applicable to as many as He would see fit. God’s justice forbade Him from simply forgiving without payment because being THE righteous judge He could not simply allow crimes to go unpunished in His courtroom.
All of God’s creatures reproduce after their kind. Adam changed “kinds” when he began thinking for himself in independence from his creator. That’s what destroyed these men in these videos. They were asking the most important intellectual questions that could ever be asked. Those questions brought them face to face (so to speak) with the living God and rather than acknowledge and honor Him, they chose madness and self destruction instead. That’s what everyone does unless God changes their heart first.
Adam died in sin when he disobeyed, just like God promised He would. Being a dead sinner, he begets dead sinners. Dead men cannot even SEE the kingdom of God, to say nothing of entering it. (Jesus in John 3) Dead sinners love sin and death. As the old preacher said, “water will sooner flow uphill than a sinner seek God without God seeking him first”. The damned wouldn’t have it any other way. I myself would not have had it any other way had He not raised me to new life in Christ. Romans 3 teaches us that there are no exceptions among the children of Adam. ALL wallow and feast on corruption and evil. There is NOBODY who wants to be saved who is turned away. EVER. Because those who will want to be are those He has infallibly elected and given to Christ as His reward for paying for them. Every one of them will come and of them He will lose none, but raise them up on the last day. (John 6)
Did God decree that all of this would certainly come to pass? The scripture taken as a systematic whole says yes He did and as I declared in my very first post on this site. He does not care one bit whether you like that or not. He’s in charge n you ain’t. Also, from the philosophical standpoint, a God who makes His decisions in response to His creation is literally as contingent as His creation is and would be just as uncertain and would therefore justify Cantor, Boltzmann, Godel and Turing in their despair. Nadda “chance”. (no pun)
LikeLike
That’s the biggest crock of convoluted crap I think I’ve ever heard! I shudder to think of the state of turmoil your mind must be in. Is that REALLY what it takes, for you to get through the day? If that’s the case, I’m genuinely sorry.
LikeLike
I keep thinking that one of these times you are going to say something of genuine substance that will actually contribute to an adult dialog.
You however continue to steadfastly persist in this undying heroic mission to prove me wrong.
LikeLike
I couldn’t care less about proving you wrong, you do that with every rant you make – I just feel badly that you have to depend on myth and fable to get a grip on your life.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dude your point missing prowess has just officially earned you the Tiribulus lifetime achievement award. I assure you that is a singular honor and takes SOME doing. I have known some truly spectacular point missers. The immediately above comment gets you the gold medal hands down. Summa yer own folks here musta been smackin their forehead behind this one.
“I couldn’t care less about proving you wrong,”
Really? I had to reread that several times to make sure I was seeing it right.
LikeLike
Trying to find a suitable place to ask this question – will put it here because I don’t want to ruin your threads with Ruth, but these scuffles with Arch don’t seem important. 🙂
Anyway, do you believe your god can look at sin?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for you consideration Violet. And especially in your own house. That’s very nice of you and I believe sincere.
Do feel free to comment on my “blog” if you are so inclined. Just because I don’t try to get readership doesn’t mean I turn away comments either.
However, do study Habakkuk 1:13 a bit more please. Actually study the whole bible a bit more before trying these clumsy tricks on me. 😉
This will sound arrogant no matter how say it. I don’t know everything, I make public mistakes and I have to admit them in public when I do, but I am a veteran of this kind of full contact debating my dear. I’ve been doing it a very long time. You’re gonna have to try a lot harder than this.
LikeLike
I’m not clear from that what your answer is. There was not trick intended. I was discussing the matter on another blog, and seemed to remember you might have written something about your god not looking on sin. I know about the Habakkuk verse, what’s your take on it? And is there anything else that affects your opinion? But, just so I’m clear (no trick question) – do you think your god can look on sin?
LikeLike
God cannot look passively on sin. Not forever. His holiness and justice make that clear. There is nothing He doesn’t see. The first chapter of Habakkuk records the prophet’s imprecation at the state of international affairs at that time. He’s saying, in VERY short, that
“I know you are holy and judge evil when you see it. What’s takin you so long this time?”
It doesn’t mean He’ll turn into a pumpkin if He sees any sin.
LikeLike
So, Greg, in other words, when Yahweh is antisocial, it’s not sin — it’s righteous indignation. But when humans are antisocial, or break Yahweh’s rules as he did on a regular basis in the bible, it’s consider sin.
I know, I know. He’s God. He can do any damn thing he wants. Anyone who calls himself/herself a leader and implements rules, but doesn’t live by example, is not worthy to be a leader, much less worshiped. Some people get this, many don’t.
LikeLike
“these scuffles with Arch don’t seem important. 🙂”
Say WHAT?!!!
LikeLike
I have just the place for that award – in a box with all the trinkets I’ve gotten out of Crackerjacks over the years.
LikeLike
If you had to concentrate somewhere for now, I’d ask that you please go here:
Ruth says: A creator might explain the one and the many; so might something that actually exists and is simple, like space itself.
Please tell me more. Seems if it were as simple as you say, then a number of the greatest minds in history would have figured it out, when in fact your video and both of Victoria’s say there is no solution. Please also define “space”.
LikeLike
Thank you for your reply.
Tiribulus says: “Please tell me more. Seems if it were as simple as you say, then a number of the greatest minds in history would have figured it out, when in fact your video and both of Victoria’s say there is no solution.”
I said simple, not easy. You see, the difference between you and me is that I say I don’t know. You contend that you do.
Space would be that nothingness, which really isn’t nothing, which stretches out into infinity.
If I’m understanding you correctly it is your contention that consciousness creates reality; that a divine consciousness is what has created and governs the laws of logic and nature that you and live and operate in. But please tell me how consciousness without anything to be conscious of is consciousness at all. We exist and our consciousness arises from that existence, not the other way around. Things must exist before we can be aware of them. We are not born knowing that 1+1=2; we have to learn that. When are we given consciousness(awareness)? Where was it before we were born? What happens to it when we lose consciousness? Does it just wait until our material body returns for it? What if it never does? Then our consciousness is said to be dead.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Excellent response Ruth. I should be able to properly reply tonight. For now you simply must believe that I am not engaging in meaningless metaphysical casuistry for the sake of it when I ask you for more meat as regards this:
“Space would be that nothingness, which really isn’t nothing, which stretches out into infinity. “
Yes, the definition of “space” and the definition of “nothing” are VERY important. I spent several days a couple years ago with a few guys debating what “nothing” is. (How can nothing be something for instance?)
I hope you can trust that this is all part of system of thought. I think you actually enjoy this kinda thing anyway. I know I do.
LikeLike
Tiribulus says: “For now you simply must believe that I am not engaging in meaningless metaphysical casuistry for the sake of it when I ask you for more meat as regards this:
“Space would be that nothingness, which really isn’t nothing, which stretches out into infinity. “
Are you asking me to elaborate on my definition of “space” or “nothing”? I read through your thread and quite agree that “nothing” doesn’t exist. By definition it cannot.
LikeLike
Ruth, please read THIS short thread. Super quick background. This is a fitness and nutrition site that is also home to some of the most educated and exceedingly capable pagans I have ever personally encountered. I know everybody in that discussion well, though I haven’t been there much the last year or so. The guy calling himself “Kamui” is a Frenchman with two earned doctorates in philosophy and the history of philosophy. He is bar none, the most titanic and terrifying intellect I have EVER known. He is also a NON Christian shall we say.
I could bring him over here and he would manhandle everybody on this site at once defending me, IN DETAIL, right up until the last ultimately defining 1% or so. (looooong story) Everything you folks don’t understand? He does. He has asked ALL the right questions. Just like Cantor and Boltzmann. Except he has engineered a systematic solution that allows him in his mind a philosophically viable escape from the God that He freely admits, in public, also answers all those right questions, but like you, he quite inconsistently finds morally reprehensible. For different reasons than you do though. (like I said. Long story) When we first met, he agreed with me so much, I thought he was a christian. He has fairly poor English, but still manages to express Himself on such a high level so that I have very rarely misunderstood him.
Anyway. That is an interesting discussion about dark matter initially and then about “NOTHING/SPACE”.
LikeLike
Greg, what does any of that have to do with Yahweh being the God god??
LikeLiked by 1 person
Trust me. Everything.
We’ll get there oh petulant and impatient one.
Gym time. .
LikeLike
“Only a mind that operates by faith in this God can be made free of this ultimately subjective and uncertain bondage of sinful autonomous man.”
A quote from the site you posted. Greg, any time I see a believer in Yahweh, who clearly demonstrated its ignorance (via the bible) of its creation, especially humans, go on about the uncertain bondage of sinful autonomous man, I just want to let out a big sigh. Especially because Yahweh created the very environmental conditions that led to some of the behaviors it claimed was humankind’s fault.
It’s very discouraging to see a grown man so zealous about such a character he’s dedicated his whole life too yet appears to know so little about the fact we are intertwined with our environment. Most of us have a knowing that we are all interconnected. But you want to shove a war god down people’s throat.
It shows you lack understanding on the basics in biology, physiology, genealogy, neurology, geophysiology, sociology, psychology, anthropology, primatology, and cosmology with regard to space weather’s impacts on humans and their behavior, etc.
I’m not an expert of all of these subjects but I’ve studied enough (actually quite extensively) over the last decade or so to know that Yahweh exemplifies the knowledge and lack thereof of the Iron/Bronze Age.
If a relgion requires faith to believe in its god, then that religion is a fraud.
LikeLike
I also meant to add:
You find it quite inconsistent that those who don’t believe in Yahweh find the theology surrounding him morally reprehensible. I find it quite inconsistent that you find it morally just.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Theologies such as the one Greg is promoting causes people to become desensitized and interferes with their empathic instincts. Coming out of my own stupor due to religious indoctrination caused me to experience grief and shame for a period. It was a wake-up call for me which led me to studying the varied methodologies authoritarian religions use that program people to dehumanize and embrace inhumane ideology.
LikeLike
Tiribulus says: “Everything you folks don’t understand? He does. He has asked ALL the right questions.”
There you go with this “you folks” again. I never claimed I was a high-minded philosopher, but I don’t really think you need to be one to think practically about the extension of propositions and reason them out to their logical conclusions. No, if you’re looking for a Cantor or Boltzmann – or even a Kamui – you’re not likely to find one in me. I don’t hold any philosophy degrees. Do you find Kamui to be
Tiribulus says: “Except he has engineered a systematic solution that allows him in his mind a philosophically viable escape from the God that He freely admits, in public, also answers all those right questions, but like you, he quite inconsistently finds morally reprehensible.”
I think you might be calling the kettle black, here, pot. You and I might well agree on a great many things, such as the unsolvable problems. The difference is you seem to have decided if the problem is unsolvable it equals God. I get where you’re going with your 1+1=2 but you don’t know why either. You simply claim to know the one who does, which I think is the unsolvable. I’m not saying that I know why but having said that I’m not sure that this is a reason to conclude Yahweh.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sorry, just saw a typo in my first reply:
Do you find Kamui to be “bar none, the most titanic and terrifying intellect I have EVER known. He is also a NON Christian shall we say. ”
because he is in 99% agreement with you? What if he disagreed on more of the positions you hold?
LikeLike
Victoria says: “If a relgion requires faith to believe in its god, then that religion is a fraud.”
Until you tell me how and why 1+1=2, every single particle of information your RELIGION teaches is based on faith and faith alone. You understood literally NOTHING that was said over there because like DrMatt (he’s another long story) you have built a security blanket belief system that floats in synapse space with NO foundation whatsoever. All of your “_____ologies” are so much delusional dim wittery without an intellectual basis for their existence.
kamui wrote: “concepts like “thing” and “existence” [maths/logic] are on the opposite side of the spectrum, so to speak.Their extension is obvious, their (non-tautological) definition impossible.
I added [maths/logic] which is absolutely correct. Remember Cantor’s utterly unprovable, but inescapably true axioms in your videos? Here they are. Do you know what a tautology is? I hope so because every time you launch a barrage of YOUR “_ologies” at me, TAUTology is the delivery system you send them on. Yes you do. And I truly mean no ill to you, but if that ever comes crashing in on you it will be devastating. It was to the men in your videos.
LikeLike
You know, Greg, your childish game is not working, and your projection is obvious. You’ve had two+ weeks and you’ve really added nothing to the discussion thus far.
I will ask you again, Greg, and I’m not going to wait around for another 2 weeks. Besides naming it and claiming it by faith, prove to me that the Iron/Bronze age war god, Yahweh, is the creator of the universe?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Um. I was talkin to Ruth. YOU came back in here remember? Not that I don’t want you to talk to me, but you should have no reason to then. Let’s see how long you last while Ruth and I talk. Arch didn’t make it a whole day.
And Ruth, time has gotten away from me. I am deliriously tired after a brutal leg workout too. I will certainly get to both of the ones I owe you. THIS I really do think you’ll find it interesting because I sense that you like these kinds of discussions.
LikeLike
Well, you never answered my question, remember? And for the record, I didn’t just come back in here. I’ve been following the discussion which I’ve also been involve in for the last two weeks.
Now answer my question and stop playing games.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This verbatim to a guy I was debating with on something else about a year ago or so. I simply changed his name to yours Victoria.
==============================================
Here is one of the primary problems we’re having [Victoria]. It also largely accounts for our communication troubles. I approach life, indeed reality itself, from the standpoint of “worldview”. A deliberately all consuming and subsuming systematic approach to existence, consisting of theology, philosophy and ethics. I see every particle of knowledge and being as and in it’s role in that system while at once being also a component OF the system as well.
That is anathema to you.
You approach each area and topic of life as if it were what amounts to an independent study in itself. Being informed no more broadly than by a general acceptance of the certainty of a view of logic that quite inconsistently fails to provide you with certainty where it matters most. Or so you mistakenly think. (it won’t do any good to go after this humongous topic right now)
This is why you keep accusing me of failing to answer you. My answers come necessarily within a systematic structure of thought. I MUST build for you a sufficient enough portion of the surrounding system in order for you (or anybody) to properly grasp the individual point that depends on the system for life. You are demanding that I answer you on the basis of your method of thinking wherein individual points live or die on their own with either no or a very deficient reference to the rest of the reality of which they are only one inextricable piece. This is post modern man’s favorite attempted escape from the faith once for all delivered to the saints. (Jude verse 3) It is also tragically being embraced by so called Calvinists with heartbreaking results.
LikeLike
It will be interesting to see what other tricks in your hat and scripted tactics you come up with to justify immoral and inhumane behavior associated with your god ,Yahweh, and your belief system.
LikeLike
“Arch didn’t make it a whole day.” – Not the case, T, you just haven’t said anything worth responding to.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Violet please help this man 😀 LOL!!! Unbelievable!!! I just don’t have the heart anymore.
LikeLike
Well, you know, instead of giving up on you, like I have, he’s at least still engaging and replying to your comments. He’s clearly frustrated that you’re not progressing the conversation in any way. 100,000 words later, you’ve still not started to address why if we even accept your absurd idea that we need to question 1+1, it could ever lead to the conclusion your specific god exists.
LikeLike
I don’t think T is trying to get us to question 1+1. I think he’s trying to get us to question how we know what we know – anything that we know. His theology tells him that ALL knowledge comes from the logic that his God created by. I’m pretty sure his contention is that matter arose from the consciousness of Yahweh, instead of consciousness arising from matter. I’m kind of on the fence about which came first. Is it the chicken or the egg? Perhaps they are interdependent. Regardless whether I agree with him or not on his conclusions I do see where he’s coming from. Even if I agreed that there might be a creator that doesn’t get us to Yahweh. I just think he has a less than tactful way of saying things that comes across condescending and arrogant, like his “you folks” and “you people”. He swears he doesn’t mean anything by that but I think he just doesn’t understand that underlying that he really does mean something by it. It comes across as, “why don’t you dumb asses just listen to me ’cause I’m way smarter than you”. It also comes across as separatist; us and them; othering. Which I do think he intends. He considers himself “set apart” from the “world”.
He has a systematic theology that builds line upon line which is why this is progressing slowly.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I must say this, Ruth – you are exhibiting an intellectual depth (AND a perseverance) that I’ve never seen in you before! You ROCK! Personally, I don’t have your patience.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks, arch. A real shocker, huh? 😉
LikeLike
LOL — You called his hand, Ruth. I did a facepalm when he said he’d never seen that kind of depth in you before. Where the hell has he been?
LikeLike
Hahaha! I wondered if I was the only one who thought that was a backhanded compliment. I didn’t exactly know how to respond to that. I’m pretty sure he meant it in the nicest way possible. 😉
LikeLike
No doubt he meant it in the nicest way possible. Arch and I have been back in forth, via email, about his “communication skills”. 😀
LikeLike
Heh! I know he was being nice. It’s just more fun to give him a hard time about it.
LikeLike
He wouldn’t want it any other way. 😈
LikeLike
Exactly! Regarding communication, I maintain that you should always be sincere, whether you mean it or not.
Now, I’ve been invited (at the last minute) to T-giving lunch at my 8-year old granddaughter school, and I shall return anon, whenever that is.
LikeLike
“I maintain that you should always be sincere, whether you mean it or not.”
Arch in true form. LOL
Enjoy Grandpa.
LikeLike
“Arch and I have been back in forth, via email, about his ‘communication skills’”
True story, though I’m not sure why the irrepressible Mz Neuronotes saw reason to place communication skills within quotation marks. After much deliberation, it was mutually concluded (though Mz Notes supplied the terminology) that I am a SmartAss. In my defense, I was born this way – I popped out saying, “‘Bout damn time! When do they serve lunch around here? Hey, THAT’s a cool food-bag, I look forward to seeing LOTS more of those!” – and the rest, as they say, is history.
LikeLike
LMAO — never a dull moment with you around.
LikeLike
You’re only saying that because it true —
I tol’ you and tol’ you – dull is b-o-r-i-n-g!
LikeLike
You’re only saying that because it’s true —
I tol’ you and tol’ you – dull is b-o-r-i-n-g!
LikeLike
Predictability can be boring sometimes. A little novelty can add rise to the occasion. 😉
LikeLike
“A little novelty can add rise to the occasion” – that’s why I got those little blue pills you suggested, if I ever need one, I’ll have it – for the novelty.
LikeLike
LikeLike
Btw, I’ve been listening to/watching this series: It’s pretty cool for anyone who is interested in “space” and “nothing”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I saw this on Nova (PBS) a couple of years ago. It was superb. I’ve saved it to my favs on YT as I’d love to watch it again as time permits. Thanks.
LikeLike
“I must say this, Ruth – you are exhibiting an intellectual depth (AND a perseverance) that I’ve never seen in you before!”
I saw it right away.
” You ROCK!”
So do you Arch. No disrespect to her, Ruth is very sharp but she isn’t a thousand times smarter than you. Or anybody else here. She’s just secure enough in her unbelief to not resort to juvenile contemptuous sneering dismissal like the rest of you do and Violet just has.
“Personally, I don’t have your patience.”
Oh yes you do. You have more comments to me here than anybody except MAYBE Victoria. You have plenty of patience to constantly follow me around and shoot spitballs at the back of my head. Anybody doubting that need only open their eyes.
What you don’t have is ANY experience whatsoever in philosophy in general and epistemology in particular. This doesn’t make you a bad guy or an idiot. It just makes you inexperienced in those areas. What makes you a bad guy who appears so idiotic is your refusal to just admit that. Instead you roll your eyes and write me off. Somebody like Ruth will rightly say to herself:
“I TOTALLY disagree with Tiribulus, but he’s not actually a brain dead simpleton and what these guys are bringing does nothing to answer him.”
I said this already. Work time.
LikeLike
“What you don’t have is ANY experience whatsoever in philosophy in general”
Just choked on my false teeth! Everything I’ve followed of your arguments (granted, I switched off on the lot of the longer ones) is painfully childish with the twist of an arrogant adult. I mean it’s kind of amusing, but let’s not pretend you know ANYTHING about philosophy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There ARE those, Vi, who are easily deceived into believing that those who use big words, actually KNOW something, and that isn’t necessarily the case.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“You have plenty of patience to constantly follow me around and shoot spitballs at the back of my head.” – but it’s such a shiny target —
LikeLike
Ruth, his arguments are not unique, just worded differently; nor does he seem to comprehend that we get where he’s coming from. To gain what he believes is an eternal life, Greg chose to lower his standards as an ethical human being to become loyal to an unethical, cultural deity. That’s where I’m coming from in this discussion, not that a creator is not possible.
His theology is anti-human.
LikeLike
Ruth, his arguments are not unique, just worded differently; nor does he seem to comprehend that we get where he’s coming from.
No, I know that. I’ve realized as this progressed, though, that when we throw up our objections based on ethics and morality that he discards them as unworthy of discussion. He truly believes this God exists and that if that is true this God is sovereign and has the right as the potter of the clay to do what he wants with it, including scrap it and start over.
The problem with that as I see it is, we aren’t clay pots. Clay pots don’t have consciousness to even ask, “is it cool that I’m just being discarded”. If it wanted clay pots to go about doing whatever it created us for he should have made clay pots. Why give us a consciousness and then demonize us for using it? It makes no sense.
I’m in agreement that it’s unethical. But as long as Greg is in a frame of mind that questioning God’s ethical standards is a moot point those objections are not going to mean anything to him. He can find a scripture to defeat each and every one.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree, which is why this discussion will go no where. He’s desensitized. You can’t have an intellectual discussion with someone who sees himself as a little god.
LikeLike
“He truly believes this God exists and that if that is true this God is sovereign and has the right as the potter of the clay to do what he wants with it, including scrap it and start over.” – On the other hand, since we humans invented this god, in our own image, then we also have the right to scrap him and start over – this time, let’s vote in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, at least some parts are edible.
LikeLike
Yum! Spaghetti! Great…now I’m hungry.
LikeLike
Thanks for explaining that Ruth! You are a communication goddess that you managed to extract that from his repetitive ramblings. It’s great to finally understand that his argument rests on the fact that the world it soooo amazing in terms of how we humans can currently understand it that it must have been made by … [pick a deity] the ancient god of the Jewish tradition. Now there’s some 12 year old logic for you!
LikeLike
I’m coming to the conclusion, Vi, that he “wins” his debates by filibuster – he rants til his audience is soundly asleep, then proclaims himself the winner.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t know what happened to you early in your life, T, but it couldn’t have been good, to cause you to spend the rest of your life hiding behind an imaginary protector. It’s so much easier to raise a healthy child, than to mend a broken man.
LikeLike
Ruth on November 18, 2014 at 5:25 pm said:
There you go with this “you folks” again.
I am on my way out the door, but I MUST say and do plead with the people on this site to believe that I mean nothing derogatory by this short phrase. Nothing.
LikeLike
Ruth, I am now 3 comments behind with you. 2.5 actually as I did address half your first long one. I am going to ask a favor that you are of course not obligated to grant.
Is there any way you could pick like say the top 3 questions that you feel would be most usefully answered by me to you? Or even the top 5?
If you want me to I’ll still do my best to catch all the way up, but it is becoming daunting and unless you tell me I’m wrong, I really do believe we’re communicating. Which isn’t the same as saying I think you’re agreeing with me. Please lemme know. Thanks.
LikeLike
What? You can’t keep up with a doorknob like me? j/k 😉
I’ll look over what I’ve said so far and see what I come with. I will say that so far as I’m concerned the ideas of heaven and hell and salvation are a bit secondary to me and epistemology would be more what I’m interested in. Not that those things aren’t important but it’s pointless to argue theology until you establish why epistemology is superior.
LikeLike
…until you establish why epistemology is superior.
…until you establish why your* epistemology is superior.
LikeLike
Ruth on November 19, 2014 at 1:29 pm said:
I don’t think T is trying to get us to question 1+1. I think he’s trying to get us to question how we know what we know – anything that we know. His theology tells him that ALL knowledge comes from the logic that his God created by. I’m pretty sure his contention is that matter arose from the consciousness of Yahweh, instead of consciousness arising from matter. I’m kind of on the fence about which came first. Is it the chicken or the egg? Perhaps they are interdependent. Regardless whether I agree with him or not on his conclusions I do see where he’s coming from. Even if I agreed that there might be a creator that doesn’t get us to Yahweh. I just think he has a less than tactful way of saying things that comes across condescending and arrogant, like his “you folks” and “you people”. He swears he doesn’t mean anything by that but I think he just doesn’t understand that underlying that he really does mean something by it. It comes across as, “why don’t you dumb asses just listen to me ’cause I’m way smarter than you”. It also comes across as separatist; us and them; othering. Which I do think he intends. He considers himself “set apart” from the “world”.
He has a systematic theology that builds line upon line which is why this is progressing slowly.
Ruth? I love ya 🙂 I knew it. You are THEE only one here who has had so much as a particle’s understanding of what I’ve been talkin about. While not perfect, this is perty dern good indeed.
Ruth says I seem to intend: “It comes across as, “why don’t you dumb asses just listen to me ’cause I’m way smarter than you”
I WILL find a different way of expressing myself then because I tell you before Father and Son and Holy Spirit that this is absolutely NOT what I mean to convey. 😦 I do apologize if this is how I sound. I do also believe though that I am speaking with the authority of God Himself by speaking His word. Anybody who does so is. I will never back down on that.
Ruth says: “It also comes across as separatist; us and them; othering. Which I do think he intends. He considers himself “set apart” from the “world”.
This is true. But not because I’m better or smarter than anybody else. Just the opposite actually. Left to myself I am dead in my mid teens. It is only by His merciful electing grace that I am even alive, to say nothing of being privileged to live in His service to His glory by proclaiming His truth in the way He has called and equipped me to proclaim it. That’s why I’m here. Not to show you how smart I am.
Ruth says: “He has a systematic theology that builds line upon line which is why this is progressing slowly.
Indeed, a worldview. Consisting of theology, philosophy and ethics. I don’t think in small, snack sized, microwavable, 7-Eleven tidbits. 1+1=2 is to me a profoundly significant and vastly consequential, as well as representative specimen of the very essence of our reality. I haven’t read the rest of your recent comments. I will take a look now, but probably won’t have time to say much more until later.
LikeLike
Tiribulus says: “Indeed, a worldview. Consisting of theology, philosophy and ethics. I don’t think in small, snack sized, microwavable, 7-Eleven tidbits.”
Yes, I should have used the word worldview and not theology.
Tiribulus says: “1+1=2 is to me a profoundly significant and vastly consequential, as well as representative specimen of the very essence of our reality.
Are you saying that mathematics/logic is a priori or independent of our reality? I don’t think we can make any abstractions mathematically or logically without first having a concrete process. By that I mean that we know that 1+1=2 [or anything else for that matter] because we can see it. When you say that the abstraction is not dependent on reality you are undercutting the base of our knowledge, and that is what is observable. You are denying the base upon which knowledge is even built. The only reason we are even able to make abstractions is because we have a concrete base.
Tiribulus says: “Is there any way you could pick like say the top 3 questions that you feel would be most usefully answered by me to you? Or even the top 5? “
I’ve already given you one above. The next is related to it and one which I’ve already asked:
If I’m understanding you correctly it is your contention that consciousness creates reality; that a divine consciousness is what has created and governs the laws of logic and nature that you and live and operate in. But please tell me how consciousness without anything to be conscious of is consciousness at all. We exist and our consciousness arises from that existence, not the other way around. Things must exist before we can be aware of them. We are not born knowing that 1+1=2; we have to learn that. When are we given consciousness(awareness)? Where was it before we were born? What happens to it when we lose consciousness? Does it just wait until our material body returns for it? What if it never does? Then our consciousness is said to be dead.
I am not discounting the intuition that Godel and Boltzmann and Cantor believed to exist. What I am saying about that intuition is that it is only in the concrete and testable that we can know if our intuition is valid or not. It is only because those “unprovable truths” are applied to what we do know that we can even formulate the idea that they are true.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I see you Ruth. 🙂 SOOPER busy work day today. Excellent comments/questions as usual.
LikeLike
Ruth says: “I’ll look over what I’ve said so far and see what I come with. I will say that so far as I’m concerned the ideas of heaven and hell and salvation are a bit secondary to me and epistemology would be more what I’m interested in. Not that those things aren’t important but it’s pointless to argue theology until you establish why epistemology is superior.”
That’s right 🙂 And my point since the second I “set foot” in here. Until we know how and why we know ANYthing at all, any questions of WHAT we know are utterly meaningless. I’ll give you all the time it takes for responses. NOT because I think you’ll change your mind, though I hope so, but because intelligent dialog about life’s most significant questions is what I’m all about, and it appears so are you. Thank you again for you time and consideration.
(doorknob LOL!! No, you’re no doorknob.)
LikeLike
Ruth on November 19, 2014 at 3:17 pm said:
Btw, I’ve been listening to/watching this series: It’s pretty cool for anyone who is interested in “space” and “nothing”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUtVw7NMYoY
That series looks unbelievably awesome too.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ruth, midnight crept on me again and I’m still not done with this computer job. You have a couple meaty ones in here. I can’t do them justice in a hurried fashion.
LikeLike
No worries. I’ve been fairly busy myself. Whenever you get to it’ll be fine. I’m in no particular rush.
LikeLike
Pingback: Born in Sin? | Nan's Notebook
Please forgive any typos. I am half asleep. Here’s what I have so far.
======================================================
Ruth on November 20, 2014 at 3:12 pm quotes me as saying:
Tiribulus says: “1+1=2 is to me a profoundly significant and vastly consequential, as well as representative specimen of the very essence of our reality”.
And then responds by asking:
“Are you saying that mathematics/logic is a priori or independent of our reality?
Yes. Mathematics/logic have eternally existed in the mind of God. Here’s where none except biblical philosophy properly declares the being and nature of God. We tend to think of God as a REALLY big man (so to speak). As the highest peak on a scale of universal being ala the ancient Greeks. We have raw matter at the low end and God at the high end with minerals, bacteria, plants, fish, reptiles, mammals (etc) and man in between, but all on the same scale. This is wholly incorrect. There is God and everything else. Entirely distinct and utterly disparate at the very ontological level. Eternal uncontingent creator and finite, dependent creation.
The whole of the latter designed and brought into existence by the former. Every particulate bit of the former therefore without autonomous definition, function or purpose on any level. EVERY fact outside of the being and nature of Father, Son and Holy Spirit is a created one and is unintelligible without direct reference to the eternal infinite mind that engineered it. Maths/logic primarily included. Just as with all other manifestations of the creator-creature distinction, Maths and logic exist in man AND his environment as finite creations, with man (women too) being sentient moral and intellectual replicas of God because He has built into them His image and likeness.
Logic has existed as long as God has. When He created us to be like Him, He gave us some. However, it’s not simply that God has MORE logic than we do. No, His is of an entirely different order than ours. I firmly believe that as we delve further and further into the subatomic quantum world we get closer and closer to the actual being of God that is sustaining it’s existence. That’s why OUR logic begins to break down there. It’s also why Cantor’s infinities will never surrender to resolution without faith. ALL existence, whether in the realm of pure metaphysical mathematics in the case of Cantor or empirically observable physics in the case of Boltzmann. Absolutely NO fact of any kind is perceivable to us in non tautological fashion. (Which was Kamui’s brilliant point). We are left with forever unresolvable infinity if left to ourselves.
It is not possible for us to live in unresolvable uncertainty like that though. Oh we can proclaim with all pagan piety that we are willing to do so, but even the proclamation itself requires an immediate contradistinction to UNwillingness, along with several other logical assumptions in order for it to make the slightest bit of sense to anybody. So the religious unbeliever assumes by faith that which she proposes to deem unnecessary in the very proposal itself.
Ruth says: “I don’t think we can make any abstractions mathematically or logically without first having a concrete process.
How can a “process” be concrete? It may be applied to the concrete, but a process itself is a set of ideas which is by definition an immaterial abstraction. It appears we’ll get into that a bit more below.
Ruth says: “By that I mean that we know that 1+1=2 [or anything else for that matter] because we can see it.”
I must respectfully yet vehemently disagree once again. Numbers ARE abstractions until applied to “things” we can see, but they exist in their own right. 1+1=2 is a complete statement of truth just sitting here on this page and in our minds even if NEVER applied to physical objects. It was true in and for God from eternity when He was the THE only existant. Even if one were to argue that we can’t understand mathematics UNTIL it is applied to the phenomenological universe (a thing I do not concede), it would still be the case that once consciously experienced at all, math and logic are then seen to first be metaphysical truisms that then govern our day to day life.
The law of non contradiction illustrates this perfectly. A statement cannot also be what contradicts it in the same sense at the same time. That second of the three “laws of logical thought” requires NO particular specimen for its truth to be universally binding if we are to stay alive for 5 minutes and also do so in any sort of meaningful fashion. It exists as a rule that we APPLY in practice, but again, a rule, an idea, (or set of them) is not a physical thing.
Ruth says: “When you say that the abstraction is not dependent on reality”
Oh no Maam!! I say the abstraction IS reality. The eternal Spirit that IS almighty God, is the original reality and everything else, while just as real, is derived from Him. Not simply as an unmoved first mover or being than which nothing greater can be conceived, but as He without whom neither argument can even exist or be intelligible if they did, which is also impossible.
Ruth says: “you are undercutting the base of our knowledge, and that is what is observable. You are denying the base upon which knowledge is even built.”
Not so. I am providing the only base of our knowledge that will ever be possible. I am further saying that, though directly relying on that base every conscious second you’re alive, you will NEVER believe that until freed from sin and death in Christ. Never. Anything I can talk anybody into, somebody else can talk them out of. I am not here to persuade you with my self perceived brilliance. I am here to proclaim God’s truth and rejoice in the privilege and opportunity to do so. HE will do with it what He sees fit.
Ruth says: “The only reason we are even able to make abstractions is because we have a concrete base.”
Nonsense Madam 🙂 It is the abstractions that provide the interpretive framework for what we observe. The “concrete” as you call it. Without logic, which being invisible AND immaterial IS the quintessential definition of abstraction, not ONE single thought we could ever have would make sense. The so called scientific method does not “make abstractions”. It utilizes them at every point and on every level. If whatever makes 1+1 equal 2 is NOT true and binding? Then absolutely NONE of anything we think say or do is possible. Yet there it all is. Logic precedes application. The metaphysical dictates the physical.
Even at the level of quantum physics, where again, OUR logic begins to fail us, we couldn’t even know that unless the logic God gave us kept working in us even then. It’s there that we are coming face to face with HIS logic.
LikeLike
I’ll repeat what I’ve previously said – what a horrible experience you must have had as a child, in order to go to such elaborate lengths to weave such a complex security blanket.
LikeLike
You honor me far beyond my worth or accomplishments sir. While the particular formulations may be mine, I have woven nothing. I stand on the self revelation of the living God and the shoulders of giants who have gone before me. None of what I’m saying is unique or original with me. God forbid. It is no chore, but my greatest insatiable desire and highest joy to learn of and know the holy God who is himself the ground of all thought and being.
I’m going to get to the rest of Ruth’s question as soon as I can.
LikeLike
Bat barf!
LikeLike
LikeLike
LikeLike
Ah, Ourovoros Ophis – nice shot! Your T-giving dinner, I presume –?
LikeLike
Ruth, I have the next part done as well. Unless you really want me to post it right now, Id like to sit on it for a while. There’s plenty on the table already and some of what is in the new one was addressed in the last one as well.
Besides, I know Arch is a busy man and I wouldn’t want him to feel obligated to commit any more significant portions of his time composing these goose bump inducing profundities of his.
LikeLike
I’m sure that no one here’s in any rush to read your rants.
LikeLike
I did see your reply. I’ve been pretty busy, myself, so it’s probably going to be a few days before I make a response. I don’t mean to leave you hanging.
It’s up to you whether you want to post the next part or hang onto it.
LikeLike
To all of those who celebrate it Thursday, HAPPY T-GIVING!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m going to go ahead and post this one too Ruth. I was thinking that maybe there’s something in this that will spur a question that is important to you.
===================================================================
Ruth queries: “If I’m understanding you correctly it is your contention that consciousness creates reality; that [THE] divine consciousness is what has created and governs the laws of logic and nature that you and I live and operate in.(slight revision, mine)
Please see all of my last response, but in short and with those qualifications, yes.
Ruth queries: “But please tell me how consciousness without anything to be conscious of is consciousness at all.”
If you are referring to God, then His singular consciousness of Himself and the three persons of themselves and each other is perfect, infinite, eternal and exhaustive consciousness indeed. If everything was so perfect “before” (for lack of yet another better term) God created, then why did He do it? I dunno. I don’t even know how and why 1+1=2 by myself. How am I supposed to know something like that?
If you’re talking about us then we cannot exist without the rest of God’s created environment for us. Therefore the question in our case is moot. I might speculate on whether humans are capable of pure internal self consciousness as God is, but I’m inclined to say no. It is a manifest impossibility to test too. We can’t even define “nothing”, nevermind creating it to put somebody in for a test 😉
Ruth asserts: “We exist and our consciousness arises from that existence, not the other way around.”
That is an assertion Ruth. Not an argument. Should I take that on faith in your word?
Ruth says: “Things must exist before we can be aware of them.”
I can be aware of the idea of a six legged orangutan even if one does not now nor actually ever does exist. For the sake of this discussion though, I’ll tentatively concede your point with the aforementioned qualification.
Ruth queries: “We are not born knowing that 1+1=2; we have to learn that.”
This is a monstrously huge room you just opened the door to, but how do you know that? It’s not even that I necessarily disagree. I just want to know how YOU know?
Ruth says: “When are we given consciousness(awareness)? Where was it before we were born?”
It existed only in the mind of God and is given temporal reality at conception, even if our brain with which we express it in this universe is not physically developed yet. We are not given many details in this area. What is your answer? And can I get it without faith?
Ruth queries: “What happens to it when we lose consciousness? Does it just wait until our material body returns for it? What if it never does? Then our consciousness is said to be dead.”
Again, huge theological topics about which men I consider brethren disagree. My reading of the scriptures tells me that human consciousness, once extant, is never ending. Our physical bodies are a necessary component of what we are, but essential sentience persists without it.
Ruth queries: “I am not discounting the intuition that Godel and Boltzmann and Cantor believed to exist.”
It was far more than an intuition. “Inescapably true AND utterly unprovable”. This is the equivalent of Paul’s dealings with the Greeks at the Areopagus in Athens in the 17th chapter of the book of the Acts of the Apostles. In quoting Aratus “Phoenomena,” he tells them that “the God I proclaim is so inescapable that even your poets are forced to get some things right about Him”. Contrary to popular belief though, Aratus particular views were not favored by the Epicureans whom Paul was addressing. His point was that this God was not unknown to them despite what the idols of their city claimed. (a long different story)
Ruth queries: “What I am saying about that intuition is that it is only in the concrete and testable that we can know if our intuition is valid or not. It is only because those “unprovable truths” are applied to what we do know that we can even formulate the idea that they are true.”
I’m going to give you the opportunity to acknowledge the shamelessly circular nature of this statement before going any further. I’m allowed to have circles, remember? I’m the one saying outright that ALL human knowledge is unintelligibly tautological and circular in itself without my God to explain and operate it. What’s your explanation?
LikeLike
Ruth asserts: “We exist and our consciousness arises from that existence, not the other way around.”
That is an assertion Ruth. Not an argument. Should I take that on faith in your word?
Are you saying that our individual consciousness exists apart from our existence but not until we exist? No, I’m not asking you to take my word on FAITH that this is not true, I’m asking you to examine the evidence. What evidence do you have, apart from scriptures, that our sentience persists without our physical existence? Every bit of scientific evidence that I’m aware of leads me to the conclusion that our neurons must be firing, that our consciousness(individually) arises from the interconnectivity in our brains, and that it ceases to exist when that interconnectivity does. Do you have some evidence to the contrary? Here’s an interesting article.
I’d like to get down to the nuts and bolts of your argument. We could go back and forth for, well, an eternity on some of the ideas we are discussing since I don’t know the answers and neither do you. All we can do is speculate. I’m not at all certain why you are allowed circular reasoning that explains everything and I am not. Invoking your God’s name doesn’t change the rules. I can come up with some entity that, in my mind is perfect, to explain the Universe and everything in it. Just because I don’t know all the answers doesn’t entitle me to do that. It appears you are saying, “we don’t know the answers, so it can only be my God.” Well, that settles it.
Right, rather that just keep copying your responses and replying to them one by one I’d like to establish what exactly your argument is. Here’s what I’ve got so far:
Premise A:
1. Logical Absolutes transcend matter, motion, time, space, etc.
2. Anything that does not arise from these is not physical by definition.
3. Things that are not physical are conceptual(abstract).
4. Therefore, Logical Absolutes are conceptual.
Premise B:
1. Conceptual Things depend on a mind to exist.
2. Logical Absolutes are conceptual.
3. Logical Absolutes exist.
4. Therefore, Logical Absolutes depend on a mind or minds to exist.
Premise C:
1. Logical Absolutes are authored by a mind or minds.
2. Logical Absolutes are completely perfect.
3. Therefore, Logical Absolutes are authored by a perfect mind.
Premise D:
1. Logical Absolutes are authored by a perfect mind.
2. A minds must exist to author concepts.
3. Therefore, the perfect mind that authored Logical Absolutes exists.
Feel free to correct any of these to reflect your actual thinking on the matter if I’ve misrepresented or misunderstood. I’d like to nail down specifically what your argument is.
LikeLike
Working on a response Ruth..
LikeLike
Premise A1
THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION OF FAITH (1646) Chapter I sect IV
“IV. The authority of the holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or Church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the Author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.”
Every single other syllable I’ve typed since coming to this site is built on that premise. The Christian scriptures and the God who reveals Himself therein is not subject or susceptible to investigation, interrogation or verification. He and they are themselves the inescapably true and utterly unprovable infinities that give existence to and define all others.
“Evidence” presumes a canon or standard which when subjected to, demonstrates the truth or falsity of a proposition. There is no, and indeed CANNOT be, any standard beyond God and His word to which He can point as making His case. He has no case to make. ALL cases are made by Him.
For unbelievers, and unfortunately even many (most) calling themselves Christians today, this most basic of all truths is denied. For them, THEY are the inescapably true and utterly unprovable infinity to which all others, including God, must bow, before they will declare a thing true or false. They, including you, will vociferously and contemptuously deny this out of one side of their mouth while constantly practicing it out of the other.
Ruth asks: “Are you saying that our individual consciousness exists apart from our existence but not until we exist?”
Everything first exists as an idea in the mind of God. It takes on temporal reality in this universe when He says so.
Ruth says: “I don’t know the answers and neither do you.”
This is a key point Ruth and one I’ve made probably acoupla dozen times on this site. WE human critters have NO answers to or for ANYthing. Not even 1+1 equaling 2. The thang is that we do NOT live like that though do we? No, we do not. We blithely stroll through day after day unconsciously assuming that maths and logic are just as certain as Newton did. To say that there ARE no answers is to declare yourself insane. Because what could be less sane than to live every second of one’s life as if the very framework required to do so was untrue?
Ruth asks: “I’m not at all certain why you are allowed circular reasoning that explains everything and I am not.”
Go ahead. As long as I don’t hear that charge leveled against me like I do 99.99% of the time from unbelievers. Circular reasoning, which is the practical covenant spouse of tautology, is the stock in trade for human epistemology. EVERYbody’s reasoning is circular. Which in turn necessitates their living by utterly blind faith (necessarily true, but by definition unprovable). And so I do say yet again, it’s only a matter of what in. It’s not like I have faith and you have evidence. Your so called evidence is no more objectively true, nor could it be, than any of the, to you, most outlandish stories of the bible.
Ruth says: ” I can come up with some entity that, in my mind is perfect, to explain the Universe and everything in it.”
That’s what my Frenchman buddy Kamui did. Long before he met me. And he did it masterfully and systematically and with totally arbitrary contrivance. For the express purpose of answering the very questions we have been discussing. He was (Like Cantor and Boltzmann) honest enough with himself to refuse to just clamp the most important and defining part of his mind shut in the name of self deceived artificial contentment. (I had the opposite experience. God gave me the answers 25 years ago before I even really understood what the questions were.)
Nobody can live with that kind of shifting sand under their intellectual, moral and spiritual feet. And they don’t. Cantor went insane, Boltzmann hung himself and Kamui built an ingenious comprehensive system of thought to escape the fate of Cantor and Boltzmann AND to escape his God all in one fell swoop. Ruth simply smiles and pretends everything is ok. The vast majority of people, multitudes calling themselves Christians included, never allow themselves to think deeply enough to consciously have this problem. They are too busy numbing themselves with the inanities of modern life. This site is home to a bunch of those.
If you’ll think back a ways now Ruth, Violet took the opposite course from the one you have and then retreated. She admitted right up front that 1+1 was certainly 2 to her. Not realizing until later how she had delivered herself into my hands in so doing. If her and I had continued I would have spent this time showing her how she has no basis for knowing ANYthing for certain (even though she does). With you I’m spending this time showing how you DO in fact know EVERYthing for certain. All the while proclaiming that you don’t 😀 The one thing that is never an option, for Cantor, Boltzmann, Kamui, you or Violet, is the truth. Because that truth cannot be embraced apart from the saving grace of God in Christ.
I know for certain that 1+1=2 and I know how and why. My basis for this certainty is once again, utterly inescapable yet utterly unprovable. Faith. Just like yours. Except mine brings me home to the bosom of my Father who created me. Yours spirals off into infinities of nothingness. But of course you prefer that to moral accountability to your maker. This is called “sin”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Except mine brings me home to the bosom of my Father”
And that right there explains it all. Just as I suspected.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Except mine brings me home to the bosom of my Father” – I realize it’s pure semantics, but notice how all meaning seems to change when it’s written, “Except mine brings me home to the boobs of my Father“? I just took out an “m” and put in a “b” —
LikeLike
Yep. It’s so obvious and it’s sad, really. Reality isn’t for the faint of heart. Many still need the security of a mama figure (primary caregiver). In the case of a jealous god (men who did his damndest to repress and devalue women), a father figure.
My cousin is a missionary and an extremely devout Christian. A fundamentalists. She told me, the last time she visited me, while sharing pictures of the children (orphans) she ministers too in Cambodia, that they are not orphaned. They have their heavenly father watching out for them. She said they are comforted by that thought, especially the little girls who fear being victims of rape and sex trafficking.
Interestingly enough, my cousins mother never bonded with her when she was a child. She had pregnancy complications, didn’t release enough oxytocin (necessary for bonding), and stressors in her mother’s life led to her mother becoming mentally ill. Her father did have a “bond” with her — he sexually molested her throughout her childhood.
There are all kinds of reasons why people become believers, but it all really boils down to indoctrination, death anxiety, needing certainty and a yearning for a primary caregiver’s love (nurturing, attention, nutrition, comfort, feeling of safety) that they may not have gotten as children for any number of reasons.
John Calvin’s mama died when he was a young child.
LikeLike
Even the word, “mama” suggests “mama-ry,” but then some men see boobs in everything, which is how the Grand Tetons got their name —
LikeLiked by 1 person
😉
LikeLike
“He and they are themselves the inescapably true and UTTERLY UNPROVABLE infinities that give existence to and define all others.” – Or, in other words, opinion. And mine’s as good as, if not better than, yours.
[EMPHASIS, mine]
LikeLike
“If her and I had continued I would have spent this time showing her how she has no basis for knowing ANYthing for certain” – (“SHE and I,” actually – if you’re gonna live in the country, learn the language!) – Which is why I said, many of your rants ago, that all was probability. We don’t even know if the sun is presently shining, and won’t for another 8 minutes, but we must live our lives as though it PROBABLY is, none of which points to a god, and certainly not to your god, which brings us back to opinions, and you know what they say about opinions, they’re like rectums, everyone has one.
LikeLike
“Violet took the opposite course from the one you have and then retreated. She admitted right up front that 1+1 was certainly 2 to her. Not realizing until later how she had delivered herself into my hands in so doing.” – What did I say at the onset about walking into another man’s bar bet?
LikeLike
Tiribulus says: “Ruth simply smiles and pretends everything is ok.”
Wow, really? Another Christian who knows me better than I know myself. How refreshing.
and then says:
Except mine brings me home to the bosom of my Father who created me. Yours spirals off into infinities of nothingness. But of course you prefer that to moral accountability to your maker. This is called “sin”.
I’m glad you have your God. If that’s what keeps you from going stark raving mad and from raping and pillaging. For 20+ years I had no issue with moral accountability to Yahweh or any other. In fact, I still do not. I am accountable. I alone am responsible for my failures. I just don’t happen to think that there’s a God out there who will fix it all up for me.
I was expecting a response to my understanding of your arguments because I don’t want an infinite back and forth of how your faith is better than sliced bread. Will you have more forthcoming?
LikeLike
“Will you have more forthcoming?” – I have a feeling, Ruth, that that was his grand finale, his “Aha! Gotcha!” moment, let-down that it was – at least I certainly HOPE so!
LikeLike
Was that meant to be a “Aha! Gotcha!” moment? The thing about it is,arch, I see his point – to a point. We DO NOT KNOW how consciousness arises. I just don’t happen to think that comforting myself with Yahweh is an answer. It obviously is for him. Additionally, I’m fairly agnostic with regards to some sort of creator. Is there some sort of universal consciousness from which everything has been created? I don’t know. Based on the evidence we have, though, it seems to me that material, nature, physicality is primary and consciousness/idealism is secondary. That is today. Ask me again tomorrow and I may give you another answer. Because unlike some people I am not so ingrained in my idealism and my certainty that I cannot change my mind on the matter with additional information.
However, it appears to me that Tiribulus certainty in this:
“IV. The authority of the holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or Church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the Author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.”
forces him to form an epistemology around that fact. His belief in scripture informs his epistemology – not the evidence to hand and, IMHO, not reality.
LikeLike
“That is today. Ask me again tomorrow and I may give you another answer.” – Based, most likely, on probability – probabilities alter as new data is acquired.
“forces him to form an epistemology around that fact – forces him to form an epistemology around that OPINION.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes. The fact that I was speaking of is the fact of his belief about the scriptures; not the validity thereof.
LikeLike
There you go with that word again Arch. Until I get a definition of probability from you, your verbal flatulence will continue to clutter up this page.
LikeLike
The intelligent people on the board seem satisfied with my definition, and that’s good enough for me.
And if anyone is responsible for “verbal flatulence,” it would certainly be you, reams of it, and it don’t smell like roses —
LikeLike
Hey ArcH- 😉
(Tiribulus- Great post, especially the final paragraph, which any thoughtful person should appreciate in its fairness)
Unprovable?
Yet, things are CLEARLY seen, by the evidence. That’s the point.
Try denying that SIN does not exist.
Try denying that death is the GUARANTOR of sin.
Try denying that YOU are not a sinner.
This is where your opinion is irrelevant.,
LikeLike
Yo – CS – define, “sin” —
If you say it has anything to do with anything “divine,” I deny all three!
LikeLike
@ arcH-
Fortunately, you are getting the short answer, now listen with your conscience:
The last funeral you attended, and saw Adam, er, ah, excuse, me, your friend or family member…………(sorry, always get them mixed up)
I need not define it to you, because you know what it is. 😉
LikeLike
CS — are you able to comprehend how self-centered you are to think that suns/stars die because of man’s sin.
Nothing is more arrogant than man’s belief that he’s the center of the universe.
LikeLike
Well Neuro-
hello again-
It would be hard for you to justify your position saying that I believe man ‘is the center…..’ when I have stated repeatedly we are but members of an ant farm; hardly sounds like a kingdom of gods.
(on the other hand, they without God may have crafted a kingdom of gods…just sayin)
As to your first point, it is far more involved. Certainly, ‘the whole creation groans,’ need proof? Just look at the fear and dread of man by the animal kingdom.
But there was a whole lot goin on before man came along…..
So your suggestion of arrogance disappears like a wisp.
LikeLike
LOL — fear and dread of man by the animal kingdom? Roar. 😉
Man learned to defeat (murder) his “enemies”, you know — those who don’t/didn’t bow down to your god. You believe that man was given dominion over all the beasts, fish and birds. Had it not been for man’s self-importance, using a god to make himself the center of such importance, there would be far more harmony on this planet and much less mental illness.
LikeLike
I feed birds Neuro-
Daily. At my feeder. They are not only afraid of me…….they dread me. Why? I would not raise a finger against them, and they could never understand.
Sin has far reaching consequences. But like this bird; you do not understand.
Your perpetual reference to ‘religion’ is clouding your judgment.
LikeLike
OMG — i feel like I’m having discourse with a 5 year old. Clearly you have no concept of reality. I am embarrassed for you. If you can’t open a damn science book and learn something for a change, than stick with your coloring book — but for crying out loud, don’t go near any children.
LikeLike
Thank you for the compliment, there is much wisdom in what you say about the faith of a 5 year old.
But my issue to you had nothing to do with faith; that was fact. Equally factual as the Ferguson riots, and Sodom being levelled.
But I’ll take your crumbs of laud.
LikeLike
You are the cause of all this — people like you to believe in Yahweh are responsible for the hate in Ferguson. You serve a monster. With having the full awareness of the behavior of your god, and justifying it, you, therefore, are a monster — or insane, or both.
LikeLike
Neuro are you ok?
You are making connections that do not exist. You are missing the point entirely.
I made no such connection, and any reasonable person would agree.
I was speaking of an event that happened, not WHY it happened.
It was in the news for God’s sake, I could have just as easily mentioned the death of Nelson Mandela or the Cowboys football game.
You really should try to THINK about the post before you embarrass yourself.
LikeLike
I repeat — what’s gone down in Ferguson is due to your belief system. Your god condoned slavery and Othering.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-courage-our-conniptions/201007/does-religious-belief-make-you-more-racist
Now Colorstorm, reading your comments for the past month now, you show clear evidence of retarded frontal lobes, which is exactly what fundamentalist religion does. It deactivates circuity in critical judgement and encourages increased gray matter volume in the right amydala (fear, disgust, negative emotions).
As adults, our frontal lobes usually mature by the time we are 25. Belief systems (i.e., fundamentalism), curtails that maturing, and you have shown this to be the case based on your posts. You do think — but much like a human still with underdeveloped frontal lobes.
LikeLike
5 sighs neuro-
You are so far off topic that Jack Sparrow couldn’t right the ship, or Admiral Perry, lest I be accused of fantasy. 😉
You are harping on Ferguson, and I ONLY alluded to it as a historical fact; SOMEHOW in your blazing ability to steer off course, you speak of racism?? Nice work.
The ‘race baiters’ were the mindless media, fueling the fire of ‘unfairness,’ against a grand jury that HAD evidence and obviously used their brains to acquit.
Who rioted? Who were the racists? And How on earth does this have anything to do with my point referencing Tirub post?
(also nice work- I went from a 5 year old, to an adult in stature. Wow. Speaks well of you. -so I have the same problem as Paul the apostle 😉
LikeLike
Well, you just proved my point, yet again. Incapable of reasoning.
LikeLike
CS — I would like you to try really really hard to think about what you wrote here:
“But my issue to you had nothing to do with faith; that was fact. Equally factual as the Ferguson riots, and Sodom being levelled.”
Now — I brought up Ferguson because it is a fact that racism is condoned in your Bible. But there is zero facts about Sodom except that this teaching has caused enormous prejudice (Other), suffering and death among homosexuals.
This caused by Western fundamentalist Christians:
“Fanned by Western evangelicals homophobia has spread across the African continent voraciously in recent years, to the point that the European Union’s highest court last week ruled that fear of imprisonment [and death] for homosexuality in African countries is grounds for asylum in the EU.”
—————————–
So when I see people like you, who have vast amounts of information available to them, and willingly chose to have the gullibility of a child, and the frontal lobes immaturity of a rewarding-seeking (limbic system) teenager, then I have every right to question your idiocracy.
You justify the evil condoned by your god in order to keep the reward chemicals flowing. In order to cling to the illusion of certainty. No, I am not off topic, but you are out of your mind if you justify the behavior of your god.
LikeLike
Neuro- neuro- neuro-
You are careful and troubled about many things; things in which you should not be troubled at all.
No true christian would approve of a man burning another. Imposters they were. Yet, the heading reads: Western Fundamentalists.. Yeah ok.
integra mens augustissima possessio (coming from the cerebrally challenged)
LikeLike
“No true christian would approve of a man burning another”
Yet you worship Yahweh, who did. What does that say about you?
LikeLike
Ah, progress. 😉
I agree with you completely. It says NOTHING about me.
When was the last time you saw God order the death of people? Why?
If you knew anything of the character of God, you would know why heaven is silent today. You would stand in awe. And you would not ask why.
You may even ask ‘how’ could this God tolerate man?
(hint: flood of Noah)
LikeLike
“(hint: flood of Noah)”
Oh yes — genocide.
You really are showing your ignorance now. Arch — take it from here. 😉
LikeLike
As always neuro-
arcH
and any member of the A-team
You see with eyes wide shut. You mock God for sending a flood upon the world of the ungodly…………………….
YET
YET
YET you disregard the 120 years of God’s longsuffering and patience while the ark was a preparing.
For 120 years people were intreated to amend their ways. and you mock God?
You may want to revisit your genocide idea, because you lost this argument using your own logic.
It is this poor reasoning that allows you to question God as if He is the culprit. Sorry, MAN is the misfit, not God.
Again let me remind you of the last sentence of Tiribulus post…………………..naw, look it up yourself, you will remember it better.
LikeLike
You’re a troubled man. Again, let me remind you — anyone who defends crimes against humanity has antisocial issues.
LikeLike
Oh neuro-
Hmmm…
A double hmmm…
Did I hear this correctly? You are accusing God of crimes against humanity?
Did you REALLY read my last post neuro? didja? 120 years of God’s patience against every conceivable wicked vice. And you use the word genocide?
C’mon Neur- use your noodle. Be fair for once. Say,’Yea, you know what, I don’t believe it, but that’s a good point.’ God gave all men opportunity.
Try neur-try to see things from His point of view.
LikeLike
“Try neur-try to see things from His point of view.”
No, what you really mean is “try to see things from MY point of view.”
People invented the war god. Gullible people like you, who have been brainwashed to have disdain for humanity and themselves, promote it.
You are a sucker follower leading others astray.
LikeLike
“…try to see things from His point of view.” – I can’t see anything from the point of Santa Claus, because he doesn’t exist – same with your god.
LikeLike
“MAN is the misfit” – You’re right as far as you go, Man is indeed the misfit for putting such genocidal words into the mouth of an imaginary boogy-man and frightening simple, superstitious people with it.
LikeLike
“(hint: flood of Noah)” – Oh, I KNOW you don’t want to get me started on THAT! Actually, I would, for someone I thought would listen, but I just can’t waste that much time on someone who is as far gone as you.
LikeLike
“Omni est Galia divide en tres partes —” – “amo, amas, amat, amamos, amatis, amant” – What does that prove?
LikeLike
Neuro usually uses bigger words than I do, CS – let me break what she said down, in terms you’re more likely to understand, hopefully short of “See Dick run. See Jane run. See Spot run. Spot can run fast.”
When Neuro first equated the rioting in Fergason, to religion, you pointed to the fact that it was the African/Americans who were rioting, and referred to it as racism – Neuro is saying it is “othering” – “us” vs “them,” which the Bible fosters and actively promotes – Joshua at least through Hosea, which you and I have already discussed – well, I discussed, while you proselytized, as usual – is loaded with it! The whole NT “Jews” vs “Gentiles” is an example of “othering,” Abraham sending to Syria for a wife for Isaac – “othering.”
LikeLike
Sodom lay on the faultline that runs from the Olduvai Gorge in Africa up into the Levant and past the Dead Sea – Sodom was leveled hundreds of years before the “Lot” story was ever written. Neuro’s right, try reading a book that isn’t the Bible, you could learn a little about the REAL world for a change.
LikeLike
I prefer the common dove arcH-
you know the ones seem to hang out in pairs…………
Yep, they dread man also.
The ruling on the field stands. The whole creation groans………….
LikeLike
Nice-
You have admitted as to the existence of Sodom. Thank you. Imagine, the reliability coming from such cavemen.
Not its just a matter of which account is believed as to the demise of Sodom and ‘the cities of the plain.’ 😉
LikeLike
“You have admitted as to the existence of Sodom. Thank you. Imagine, the reliability coming from such cavemen.” – Archaeology attests to the existence of a Sodom, and geology, as to the date and cause of its destruction – what’s not to admit?
What reliability? The reliability of a priest to write about an event in his folklore that happened hundreds of years earlier? Hey, CS – San Francisco was hit by an earthquake in 1906, and Chicago experienced a great fire in 1871 (the cow did it!) – how’s THAT for reliability!?
What cavemen? Are you watching The Flintstones again?
LikeLike
“You have admitted as to the existence of Sodom. Thank you. Imagine, the reliability coming from such cavemen.” – Archaeology attests to the existence of a Sodom, and geology, as to the date and cause of its destruction – what’s not to admit?
What reliability? The reliability of a priest to write about an event in his folklore that happened hundreds of years earlier? Hey, CS – San Francisco was hit by an earthquake in 1906, and Chicago experienced a great fire in 1871 (the cow did it!) – how’s THAT for reliability!?
What cavemen? Are you watching “The Flintstones” again? Oh well, at least they’re more real than that god you’ve been preaching about.
LikeLike
“I feed birds Neuro-” – To what?
“They are not only afraid of me…….they dread me. Why? – it could be that you’re incredibly ugly. More likely, it’s because millions of years ago, some birds flew out of fear, without taking the time to make a judgment call, while others did not and were eaten – those that survived, taught their offspring by example, to fly in fear. A good example is little over a century old, when the dodo was plentiful on the Galapagos and other islands of the Pacific, but as they had no natural predators, they never learned to fear, and so walked right up to early explorers, who rewarded their trust by clubbing them to death – the dodo is extinct today, except for a few theists who still haunt the web.
LikeLike
“(sorry, always get them mixed up)” – Which says a lot about your mental state.
Well, we can’t discuss it, if you can’t define it.
LikeLike
Who are you morally accountable to Ruth?
LikeLike
My fellow man and my own conscience. I don’t need to be accountable to a deity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ruth says: “My fellow man and my own conscience. I don’t need to be accountable to a deity.”
What you think you need is irrelevant. You ARE accountable to the one true and living God.
Who’s right if you and your fellow man disagree?
LikeLike
You have already said that you take your one true and living God on faith. Yet you preach it as though it were absolute truth, as if no other conclusions may be drawn from the evidence. Your evidence is an ancient text, fraught with genocide, slavery, misogyny, etc. The difference is, I don’t preach and threaten people with certain punishment if they don’t believe the same thing I do. I am not accountable to that which does not exist.
You ask:
“Who’s right if you and your fellow man disagree?”
I follow the “first do no harm” mantra. I try my best not to harm my fellow man or, animals for that matter. If I’ve harmed my fellow man then I am at fault. You are aware that, even though your book sets down some very strict rules, that there is still dispute over who’s right if you and you fellow man disagree? One person interprets the “right” this way and another that. Your God should have been a bit more clear about that. Perhaps there would be more unity in the church were that so.
LikeLike
Define “harm”. please.
LikeLike
Harm – to injure another, maltreatment, mistreatment, abuse – whether physical, emotional, or psychological. I know that you believe your God sets the standard for what “harms” another. I just happen to think if there is such a being that their standard is much higher. Funny thing, that. I don’t even believe there is a God, but if there were, I think more highly of it than you do. For I believe it’s moral code would be a better standard than “an eye for an eye”.
LikeLike
I said above: “For unbelievers, and unfortunately even many (most) calling themselves Christians today, this most basic of all truths is denied. For them, THEY are the inescapably true and utterly unprovable infinity to which all others, including God, must bow, before they will declare a thing true or false.”
I rest my case Ruth. YOU will decide what God MUST be like IF there is one. I’ll ask again. What if you and your fellow man define “harm” differently. After all. One’s man’s harm is another man’s economic or biological necessity.
Who decides what is “right”?
LikeLike
YOU will decide what God MUST be like IF there is one.
Yes, I do get to decide what attributes, using the brain that I’ve been given, are worthy of worship. The mere act of creation is not it. If I give birth to a child and then leave it to fend for itself, with no contact other than some archaic ramblings written down by others, barring my death during childbirth that doesn’t make me a mother, does it?
After all. One’s man’s harm is another man’s economic or biological necessity.
That is true with or without your God. Why, Jacob was the trickster, and your God loved him and hated the faithful Esau.
LikeLike
You seem intent on defining things in moral terms, black and white, right and wrong, as if there were no grey – when even in your own book there are areas of grey.
I have not decided what any God MUST be like, IF there is one. I’ve decided what any God MUST be like if it is at all worthy of worship. So, to your point, your God might exist. It is possible, just not very likely. IF he does, he’s a monster.
At any rate, you still have not shown your epistemology to be superior to being able to show enough humility to say you believe that Yahweh is real but you can’t be 100% certain. You are 100% certain of an uncertainty.
What if me and my fellow man define harm differently? That’s what laws are for. If it isn’t a case of legality then it is between me and my fellow man to either work it out or go our separate ways.
LikeLike
Another thing I’ve noticed:
Instead of answering my question with regards to your epistemology you have deflected to issues of theology. Because for you the two are inseparable. So it’s not as if you came to a “proper” epistemology and therefore believe based on that. You believe in Yahweh so your epistemology reflects that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ruth says: ” So it’s not as if you came to a “proper” epistemology and therefore believe based on that. You believe in Yahweh so your epistemology reflects that. “.
If this wasn’t clear before, I apologize. Yes, that is exactly right. Nobody reasons their way to truth by themselves. Not even 1+1=2.
If you’ll recall, I said above: “God gave me the answers 25 years ago before I even really understood what the questions were.”
LikeLike
Then I rest my case. You believe your God answers those questions. That might be true if your God is, indeed, real. But if he’s as imaginary as all the other gods, he’s no answer at all. Having faith in a thing doesn’t make it true.
LikeLike
“You are aware that, even though your book sets down some very strict rules, that there is still dispute over who’s right if you and you fellow man disagree? One person interprets the ‘right’ this way and another that.” – You may not be aware of it Ruth, but within the Jewish faith, there has arisen over the centuries, a second, oral, Torah, specifically to respond to the many MANY instances in which the written Torah is vague about the law – the oral Torah consists of interpretations of the written Torah, so as to clarify the law. In other words, opinions of men defining the opinions of other men.
A piece of biblical verse, “to follow the many” [Exodus 23:2], was cited as grounds for deciding according to the rabbinic majority, even though the verse in its biblical context may appear to mean something completely different. In this doctrine, the word of “god,” from Sinai, was subject to a democratic vote of a group of human authorities – once that group ruled, nothing could overrule them, not a prophet, not a miracle, not even a voice from the sky.
A fascinating story appears in the Talmud, that on one occasion, a majority of rabbis rejected the view of Rabbi Eliezer, though Eliezer attempted every argument he could muster to persuade the majority that his view was correct.
From the Talmud:
We, it would seem, are not the only ones who have had a problem with interpretation – all is opinion, which even T admits is unprovable.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for that excerpt, arch. Yes, I was aware of the Talmud and the Midrash. I’m also very aware that the Jewish people look at, and interpret, their own scriptures very differently than Christians.
LikeLike
“I’m also very aware that the Jewish people look at, and interpret, their own scriptures very differently than Christians.” – That was my point, Ruth, that no one agrees, supporting your earlier comment, yet T claims he has THE truth!
LikeLike
I have some errands to run.
Ruth you have been very good about reading things I ask you to. I am honored by that. Truly I am. I am not owed that kind of consideration and I appreciate it. If I may ask yet again. Please start with the very last post on THIS page and continue on with BrianHanson and I until he left the conversation. You’ll see when. A few pages I think. Or not. BUT, it bears heavily on the direction we are steering into. I really believe you’ll find it interesting.
EVERYthing is inseparable to me Ruth. Worldview. Theology, philosophy and ethics. To me every “fact” is a fish swimming in the ocean of God’s truth. To you too, but you’ll never own that until given a new heart in Christ.
BBL
LikeLike
“BBL” – DROMA (Don’t Rush On My Account –!)
LikeLike
Real quick for now Ruth.
“What if me and my fellow man define harm differently? That’s what laws are for. If it isn’t a case of legality then it is between me and my fellow man to either work it out or go our separate ways. “
Let me know when (if) you’ve read the conversation between BrianHansen and myself I LINKED above. This was a terrible, simplistic and sophomoric answer. Being that I have come to hold your powers in far higher regard than this would seem to justify, I therefore conclude that you have never really thought this through. Just like Arch has never really thought through the concept of “probability”. His copy and paste attempt was pretty bad too.
For the record there ARE no pagan answers to questions like the one I gave Brian at that link, which is simply a more elaborate version of the one I gave you here. I don’t expect a good answer because you couldn’t possibly give me one, but I would hope for better than this.
LikeLike
I realize that any answer short of your God providing objective morality is going to fall short for you. But your God’s objective morality is as subjective as relativism. It’s wrong to do this or that unless your God commands it. Your morality is at his whim and his whims are awfully subjective for a God who remains the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.
You will never accept that morality is a byproduct of evolution and that the empathy we’ve acquired through evolution is the source of that morality we have today. It is simply unacceptable to you that morality isn’t objective. I did read part of that link. I will read the rest as I have time.
LikeLike
I want to rephrase what I said here:
“It is simply unacceptable to you that morality isn’t objective.”
It is simply unacceptable to you that morality isn’t objective because of your God. I do not believe that morality is a human construct nor a product of culture(though some of it is). Morality is intrinsic to our nature. Now, I must admit here that if you believe your God is the author of our nature it would only stand to reason that you believe that morality is objective because of your God.
LikeLike
“Your morality is at his whim and his whims are awfully subjective for a God who remains the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.”
LikeLike
Victoria says:Now Colorstorm, reading your comments for the past month now, you show clear evidence of retarded frontal lobes, which is exactly what fundamentalist religion does. It deactivates circuity in critical judgement and encourages increased gray matter volume in the right amydala (fear, disgust, negative emotions).
As adults, our frontal lobes usually mature by the time we are 25. Belief systems (i.e., fundamentalism), curtails that maturing, and you have shown this to be the case based on your posts. You do think — but much like a human still with underdeveloped frontal lobes.”
Do know that you are in my prayers Victoria. I don’t just say that either. Because I view the privilege of personally addressing almighty God as precious indeed. If I say you are in my prayers it is because you are and because you matter to me.
I don’t care what you say. Nobody around here is carrying more hurt than you are and all these worthless idiotic studies you worship with every bit of the religious fervor you accuses us of, will continue to leave you empty and dead. Your joyless desperation is heartbreaking. You will no doubt think I’m saying this in a retaliatory and hurtful fashion. I can’t help that. You’re just as wrong about that as you are about everything else.
LikeLike
This is why you never give them too much information, Neuro – their favorite ploy is to attack where you’re most vulnerable, but I’m sure you can see right through that. Be sure and listen for “Just As I Am” being hummed softly in the background.
LikeLike
Arch, I didn’t give too much information. I shared for the sake of others who might fall prey to his predatory methodologies. He’s a dope addict and will do what ever it takes to keep the bio-pharmacy open 24/7 even if it means promoting a monster like Yahweh.
LikeLike
Greg, please, no prayers. The god (belief system) you worship is evil, which makes you an accessory to crimes against humanity.
LikeLike
Victoria, what Greg quoted is demonstrative of the intellectual arrogance of thinking you can make clinical diagnoses off of an internet persona and without any medical training. What’s worse is that it appears like you are not doing this out of advocacy, but out of ridicule. And, your anecdote of evangelicals being evil, I will have to remind you is not representative of the whole of research out there. Remember Gallop and Netherlands? There’s a lot more where these came from.
You need to humble yourself and stop trying to blast other people with one-sided google results that cannot possibly be understood for their quality or scope by copy and pasting snippets here. That is not scholarly or representative.
You have an opportunity to stop this intellectual arrogance, and I think you are capable of it!
LikeLike
You need to remind yourself that Greg is promoting a monster. What part of that do you not understand, Brandon? Tell me?
Even you justify genocide and murder in the name of your god When I started studying the OT, the shock of the immorality of Yahweh (and Jesus in Revelations) reactivated neural circuitry associated with critical judgement. You, Greg and Colorstorm justify inhumane behavior.
Remember Brandon, you have severe mental illness (your late grandmother who killed herself and your mother who is in very bad shape) in your family and that can be inherited. You have expressed very troubling posts about your own mental state.
I suggested that you see a mental health professional because I cared, but it is your own arrogance, denial and need for certainty that you cling to at your own peril.
I once remember someone who acted just like you in his last days — and is now 6 feet under.
LikeLike
Victoria, you sound defensive. I would like you to keep the things I said about my family confidential, that’s a low blow.
Remember last time you said I should get a neurological exam? You are a fool, because you obviously don’t even know what that means.
And, your comparison of me to “friends” or you late husband is foolish. You probably don’t know the objective risk factors for suicide because. . . you have zero medical training. You could google them, but don’t bother. I am not at risk. In fact, religion is protective against suicide, but you wouldn’t know that because. . . you have zero medical training.
Repent of your arrogance.
LikeLike
“Repent of your arrogance.” – Well, at least, much like a snake’s skin, you’ve shed your sycophantic, smarmy facade – I guess that’s a start, at least no one will mistake you for something you aren’t.
LikeLike
“Victoria, you sound defensive. I would like you to keep the things I said about my family confidential, that’s a low blow.”
It’s not a low blow. You put it publicly on your blog, and I’m reminding you to stop fucking around with your mental health and promoting a religion that causes enormous harm to humanity. Btw, religion is no preventive of suicide. I get emails nearly every day from people who’ve read the research and have told me that their partner, friend or other family member didn’t get the help they needed because they were given poor religious counsel — told it was “spiritual warfare” and/or demons. But people like you, Greg and Colorstorm, actually contribute to mental health problems in others because you have such a disdain for humanity.
Published in the British Association for Behavioral Psychotherapies it states:
LikeLike
Victoria, it’s a low blow. Don’t justify it.
You are an arrogant fool to say that religious belief cannot prevent suicide.
http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/suicide/riskprotectivefactors.html
This is taught in all medical schools across the country.
LikeLike
Brandon — from the CDC link you provided:
Risk Factors for Suicide (listing the ones that can be related to religious practice)
**Cultural and religious beliefs
**Isolation, a feeling of being cut off from other people
**Barriers to accessing mental health treatment
**Unwillingness to seek help because of the stigma attached to mental health and substance abuse disorders or to suicidal thoughts
**Loss (relational, social, work, or financial)
All of these situations are caused by Christianity, in particular evangelicals and the RCC — they stigmatize mental health and tell people that it’s demons or spiritual warfare. Even your buddy Jesus supposedly cast out demons of those having a convulsive seizure.
Christianity causes barriers to accessing mental health treatment (much like you are doing right now) If you don’t measure up to the rules (especially for children) of your sect of Christianity you can be cut off.
People commit suicide when they lose jobs, social, work, financial, due to leaving religion and being shunned or stigmatized in their community. Droves of pastors who no longer believer are still preaching because of the repercussions as noted above.
Protective Factors: (Just listing the ones that could be related to religious practice)
**Family and community support (connectedness)
**Cultural and religious beliefs that discourage suicide and support instincts for self-preservation
Now Brandon, I agree that religion can provide community within the church, and studies show that having a social outlet is healthy. But it’s no religion, it’s people that provide this connection. I have a problem with you because you go around promoting the belief that humans are sinful. You promote low self-esteem.. You label things as sin, when it is you who has addictions but paints a broad stroke with a brush that includes everyone.
Let’s not forget the high suicide rates among LGBTs.:
“A new study presented this week at the European Symposium of Suicide and Suicidal Behavior examines the suicide attempt rate among Israeli youth, finding that it was much higher than reported in official statistics. Among LGBT youth, 20 percent reported suicide attempts, 112 times the rate of the general population in Israel. In particular, those who were particularly religious had the highest rates
Indeed, here in the United States, the Family Acceptance Project has thoroughly documented how family rejection of LGBT youth contributes significantly to suicide attempts, substance abuse, and homelessness:”
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/09/06/806641/study-religion-increases-likelihood-of-suicide-attempt-for-lgbt-people/
LikeLike
Did you copy and paste and delete part of it? The CDC link had this:
Increased risk:
“Cultural and religious beliefs (e.g., belief that suicide is noble resolution of a personal dilemma)”
Protective:
“Cultural and religious beliefs that discourage suicide and support instincts for self-preservation”
Clearly, Christianity promotes self-preservation over suicide. There may be religions that view suicide as a noble resolution, but not Christianity.
LikeLike
Brandon, I posted those already. Both of them. The e.g. part in the first listing under “Increased Risk) one was left out intentionally because I knew you would hone in on it. This in turn would give me the opportunity to make the readers aware that my partner was told, just hours before his suicide, that demons would be coming in to our new born daughter because of him.
Therefore, he killed himself, partly because he thought it was the right thing to do to protect his family (noble). This is the kind of sick teachings that are so prevalent in evangelical Christianity and promoted by the 2nd largest denomination in America. But the RCC is equally dangerous in promoting demon possession and oppression.
LikeLike
“Because you knew I would hone in on it” That’s called data manipulation.
LikeLike
Brandon, data manipulation is your middle name. 😉
I will repeat — you are afraid of reality.
LikeLike
It seems like the study cited by CDC specifically means religious beliefs that promote self-preservation, not necessary the connection factor provided by religion. You cannot make that assertion without proving it with evidence.
LikeLike
I’ll put some evidence on the table. From the Scotland study linked by CDC:
Click to access 0073687.pdf
Pg. 49
LikeLike
Having a sense of community will certainly benefit well being. While telling people that if they commit suicide they are going to burn in hell may curtail suicide, it certainly is not an indication of a better quality of life. It’s all about connection with other human beings, not religion. Religion is the vehicle for connection. In the U.S., the states with the highest quality of life tend to be least religious.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-secular-life/201410/secular-societies-fare-better-religious-societies
According to the World Health Organization, the suicide rate is rather high for the U.S. compared to China and the majority of secular European countries.
http://www.rferl.org/contentinfographics/suicide-rates-around-world/25475212.html
LikeLike
Please pay close attention.
You asserted your opinion here: “It’s all about connection with other human beings.” The links you provide include 1) a blog post that is vacuous opining, 2) data of correlation rather than causation.
The studies I just referred to are very well designed and disprove your opinion thoroughly. You are being wishful and antiscientific because you seem to have an arrogance problem.
Stop being arrogant. You are just a layman and your opinion here would be crushed in the real academic world.
LikeLike
Brandon, you crack me up. You base everything you believe in on the opinions of others some 2000+ years ago, as well as people, much like yourself, who experienced delusions of grandeur.
Time to face the music — you are too afraid of reality.
LikeLike
You obviously don’t know what I base my belief on. Stop assuming. Stop the arrogance.
You aren’t qualified to diagnose delusions of grandeur. You are just a layman, so stop being so arrogant.
You don’t know what I’m afraid of. Stop assuming. Stop the arrogance.
LikeLike
Again, you base all your opinions on the opinions of people some 2000+ years ago who claimed their writings were inspired by the god you believe in. You have absolutely destroyed your credibility.
LikeLike
The problem for you is, I have far more credibility than you in anything science related. But, that is not a virtue of mine. It’s just because of my career path. I notice you making horrible blunders. You don’t seem to understand the nature of scientific evidence, and it’s not because you are stupid. It’s because you are too arrogant to sit down and work your way through it, or go take classes and receive the proper training to evaluate scientific data.
I encourage you to improve. Go take classes. Go learn. Don’t be intellectually arrogant. I want you to improve because I care.
And, credibility with worldview, I think we’re all on equal ground here. You are not superior to me, neither am I to you. Don’t you think? No, that’s not what you think. You think you are better than theists. You think all theists are psychologically weak. You create hierarchies and indulge in your position of superiority. But, this is illusory. You are not really on that cloud, you are down here with the rest of us.
Do you need that little dopamine rush from feeling superior to theists? Does it really do it for you? Come back down here with the rest of humanity, on equal ground.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“You don’t seem to understand the nature of scientific evidence,”
OK big boy, show me the evidence of your god.
LikeLike
Quit acting immature and actually read what I wrote, Victoria. Stop with the competition. It’s over. It’s not fun. It does no one good.
You need training. You need a little humility with your worldview. I really want these for you.
LikeLike
“You need training. You need a little humility with your worldview. I really want these for you.”
And you need a psychological evaluation and possibly years of therapy – I really want these for you.
LikeLike
I’ll even help you. I can refer you to good resources and we can discuss them. You can learn the nature of scientific evidence.
LikeLike
This coming from a guy who believes mythology and the delusions of Bronze Age men are “the” truth.
LikeLike
I’m sure that Neuro would be glad to help even you, Brandon, by referring you to a therapist who specializes in hyper-religosity.
Speaking – and you were – of teaching Neuro to use the scientific method, these would be the proper steps, would they not?
The steps of the scientific method are to:
• Ask a Question
• Do Background Research
• Construct a Hypothesis
• Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
• Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Suppose I could get you to use your degreed expertise and demonstrate for us how that works, by using it to show us how you used the scientific method to determine:
A.) that a god exists,
and,
B.) that the god you have proven to exist is the god mentioned in the Bible.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The response to this has already been stated here.
LikeLike
Wait, let me rephrase that — show me the scientific evidence of your god. I don’t want to hear about your lucid dreams and delusions caused by your troubled, fundamentalist childhood, toxic stress, sleep deprivations and addictions, nor the mythologies and fables contained in religious books.
Show me the scientific evidence.
LikeLike
Not all of my beliefs are based on scientific evidence. Also, none of my moral beliefs are based on scientific evidence. I think this is the case for everyone — there is no experiment to determine what a good or evil action is, we have to know what good from somewhere else. Also, I don’t believe that an external reality exists because of scientific evidence. There is no science to refute solipsism.
LikeLike
Brandon, you’ve made it clear that you are quite distressed that one day all of this, our planet and our species will be extinct — that is unless humanity finds another planet to populate that won’t be impacted when our sun dies.
You’ve also made it clear that you pretty much can’t understand why humans should even bother to live fully and be prosocial if there is no god and/or our sun is going to die someday. Even though I get really frustrated with you regarding your intentional (and non-intentional) denials, I do understand how hard death anxiety can be on the psyche.
For a vast number of people — they simply can’t face their own mortality. The brain has evolved to delude itself and attempts to connect the dots of our world into meaningful patterns that explain why things happen. In essences, these meaningful patterns become beliefs.
It’s normal to try and make sense of our world, but it is, IMO, ethically wrong to teach children that these meaningful patterns that become beliefs (fairy tales, fables and mythologies) are real. After years of investing in a false belief infused with love, the betrayal causes much more hardship than facing ones own mortality.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’ve made it clear that you don’t understand my references to nihilism have never been because I’m a nihilist. Why is that you want me to be nihilistic? Hmmmm. No matter.
I have three serious questions for you. 1) What are theories of religious conversion besides Deprivation Theory? 2) What does having more than one theory of religious conversion say about lumping everyone into this scheme? 3) Does Deprivation-based conversions make religion any more or less likely to be true?
These are serious and challenging questions for you to consider.
LikeLike
Brandon, you have yet to give me a straight answer to any of my questions regarding evidence of your god’s existence. Also, with the evidence we have now that hyper-religiosity is a major feature of common mental disorders such as mania, obsessive-compulsive disorder, schizophrenia, temporal-lobe epilepsy and other related disorders, and according to the Journal of the Association of Medicine and Psychiatry, these disorders are frequently misdiagnosed due to their behavioral, and cognitive symptoms, it shows how incredibly desperate you are to hold on to your beliefs..
Some of the common symptoms are hypergraphia (extensive writing about ones god-religion-beliefs), the false sense of an external presence, hearing voices and/or having visions (delusions-hallucinations) attributed to a god, and believing that one has been chosen — is to provide guidance for mankind — is on a mission for god. The bible is full of characters with these symptoms.
I ask you — yet again — how do you discern? After a year of asking you this question, you never have given me a straight answer. But no worries — you are not the only one. The answer is — you can’t. All you can rely on is faith, which makes you one hell of a trusting, (and naive) dude. Yes indeed, you are a naive thinker.
LikeLike
I’m not here to prove the existence of God. I’m surprised that you keep wanting me to. You want me to be something, but I’m asking you to listen.
I am here to challenge you. I’ll come back tomorrow and you can look up the answers to my three questions.
One last thing, please stop insulting me. You are feeding some evil brain circuitry in yourself with ridicule and insults. The sooner you quit the easier it will be to think clearly.
LikeLike
Brandon, you are continually trying to prove the existence of your belief system — the resurrection of Jesus, the validity of Paul’s visions (hallucinations) and that “your” god exists. Stop playing games because you always end up the loser.
I have addressed all of your questions above over the course of the last year, and then some. Not only have I addressed your questions but so have many others (extensively) who are quite educated and reputable on WP. Your repetitive questions are a deterrent to avoid our que3stions.
You have, quite frankly, been tagged by the most civil of blogger as being intellectually dishonest.
The OP is about a people, Christians, i.e., Greg, who believe there is no such thing as deconversion. Now why the hell are you here? Do you agree?
“One last thing, please stop insulting me.”
That’s funny coming from you, considering how many times have you apologized to me for being an asshole? 😉
LikeLike
I’m shocked that you haven’t paid attention to anything I’ve said. Go back and read my very first blog post.
I am unapologetic about most of the content. You have demonstrated several instances of being an arrogant fool. You don’t understand how to evaluate scientific literature. And, the worst part is that you are showing me you are too immature to even have an adult conversation. Like a foolish kid in a middle aged woman’s body.
If you want to go on acting defensive and denying your arrogance and keep insulting and ridiculing like a bully, fair enough. If you don’t want to be challenged because you have all the answers and reject skepticism and reject sound science, fine. Go on with your indoctrinated foolishness. But, be warned that when you are humbled one day, be it tomorrow or 10 years from now, it will feel much worse than what I offer you — help understanding your unscientific thought patterns.
LikeLike
Projection anyone?
Brandon, no matter how you want to make yourself out to be the victim here, and attempt to discredit me, most see through it including my colleague, a behavioral neuroscientist. We’ve been aware of your intellectual dishonesty for about a year now. At first, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and even defended you several times. But over the course of a year, your patterns have emerged.
LikeLike
“At first, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and even defended you several times. But over the course of a year, your patterns have emerged.”
So — I was WHAT again? I think it starts with an “R” – come on, Neuro, you can say it!
LikeLike
Yes — you and several others. But I make no apologies for giving Brandon the benefit of the doubt. I didn’t just take your word for it, and neither did I allow your opinion and that of others to cloud my judgement.
LikeLike
I have nothing to say to this, you can have the last word. I stand by everything I’ve stated.
LikeLike
“what I offer you — help understanding your unscientific thought patterns”
This, from a man who believes in magic and spirits and zombies rising from the dead – do people actually come to you to get well? “Take a dose of Jesus and call me in the morning –!”
LikeLike
“I am here to challenge you”
Sorry, we challenged you first – prove the existence of a god, then the existence of YOUR god, then we may have something to talk about. Get your good buddy T to help you!
Oh, and I’m thinking quite clearly, but thanks for your concern —
LikeLike
I wasn’t addressing you. But, now that you’ve trolled in, why don’t you try to remember how all of our conversations have gone about proving the existence of God.
You don’t have the same thought patterns as Victoria. I see you as different. I still can’t figure out much about your beliefs because most of your interaction is trolling. So, tell me what you believe, then we can from there.
LikeLike
“So, tell me what you believe, then we can from there.”
Sorry, it doesn’t work that way – we just want to watch how you use the scientific principles you’re complaining that Neuro doesn’t understand, to demonstrate that,
A) a god exists,
and,
B) that YOUR god exists – please proceed.
LikeLike
Read my first blog post.
LikeLike
“Read my first blog post.” – Sorry, too much trouble. Besides, since you’re insisting on putting on a performance, designed to denigrate Neuro and all of the work that she does, I believe it’s only fair that you demonstrate before that same audience what a twit you are. You’re doing a bang-up job so far —
LikeLike
However you may see it, it is a rebuke, and I’ve made a serious offer for help because I think Victoria is a dignified human. Not worthy of ridicule, insults, and not so worthless that I shouldn’t rebuke her.
You would love it if I demonstrated that I was a twit. But, look at yourself. You have already demonstrated that you are a troll beyond any reasonable doubt. And, that’s pathetic for an old man like you.
LikeLike
“I think Victoria is a dignified human. Not worthy of ridicule, insults, and not so worthless that I shouldn’t rebuke her.” – Ah, so your “rebuke” is because you value her – “rebuke” is biblical phraseology, isn’t it? It wouldn’t surprise me if you went around “rebuking” a lot of people that you feel “have value,” which I assume you to mean, “can do something for you” – how does your wife take to being “rebuked,” and if they are unfortunate enough for you to have children, I suspect you “rebuke” them too, do you not? My translation of your term, “rebuke,” is simply, “I’m right and can’t understand how you could be so stupid as to not see that!” Yes, I’d bet that your wife gets rebuked a lot.
First of all, you have no idea what my age is, and secondly, I noticed you made it a point to call Neuro a “middle-aged women” – is this a new ploy of yours? It’s too coincidental to be a coincidence.
BTW – how is the effort going to stop masturbating? They don’t make a patch for that, do they –?
LikeLike
It means criticism, but it’s meant for a good end such as encouraging intellectual humility by demonstrating intellectual arrogance.
My relationship with my family is none of your business.
I know that Victoria has to be middle aged and you are probably an “old man” from your past comments.
Nice troll comment at the end.
LikeLike
“My relationship with my family is none of your business.” – no it isn’t, but then neither is anyone’s age. If you’re not divorced already, I suspect you soon will be, unless your wife happens to be codependent.
“Nice troll comment at the end.” – I don’t know what you mean, you said, in an earlier comment, either on your or Neuro’s blogsite, that you had had a problem with porn addiction, and I just wondered how that was coming along. Had you mentioned you had a headache, would you consider me a troll for asking if it went away? Unless of course you feel guilt about masturbating, which is as normal as any other bodily activity, and you feel no guilt about a headache – THEN I can see where you might be a tad touchy – no pun intended —
LikeLike
First paragraph = more trolling
Second paragraph = slightly more sophisticated trolling, nice try though
LikeLike
We just want to sit at your feet and learn from your degreed expertise —
LikeLike
What exactly is your profession? Because with this kind of attitude, I predict it’s not STEM. What do you do besides trolling?
LikeLike
I don’t believe that’s any of your concern, I didn’t ask yours. You may choose to be pigeonholed or stereotyped if you like, I don’t.
LikeLike
You’re right, it’s not. I’m just making a prediction. You are the only one who knows if I am right. And, if I am right, that ought to raise some questions for you to consider.
LikeLike
The only question ANY of your behavior has ever raised in my mind, has been, “Why doesn’t he get help?”
LikeLike
Straight from under the bridge.
LikeLike
“Risk factors are those characteristics associated with suicide” – Wow, Brandon, i can’t imagine you just handing that to Neuro – among the risk factors, I see SO many of your own qualities!
LikeLike
“Key dysfunctions in Religious Trauma Syndrome are:
Cognitive: Confusion, difficulty with decision-making and critical thinking, dissociation, identity confusion
Affective: Anxiety, panic attacks, depression, suicidal ideation, anger, grief, guilt, loneliness, lack of meaning
Functional: Sleep and eating disorders, nightmares, sexual dysfunction, substance abuse, somatization
The severity of RTS ranges and depends on a number of factors. Persons most at risk of RTS are those who were:
a) raised in their religion,
b) sheltered from the rest of the world,
c) very sincerely and personally involved, and/or
d) from a very controlling form of religion.
The important thing for us to realize is that Religious Trauma Syndrome is real. While it may be easier to understand the damage done by sexual abuse or natural disaster, religious practices can be just as harmful. More people are needing help and the taboos about criticizing religion need to be questioned.”
“There are different churches in this category with beliefs and practices that vary but core doctrines are consistent.
1) Foundation of fear
2) Self as bad
3) Cycle of abuse
4) Don’t think, don’t feel
5) Abuses of power”
http://www.babcp.com/Review/RTS.aspx
LikeLike
Victoria, I did a pubmed search for so-called Religious Trauma Syndrome and got 16 results and none of them with the term in the title. It may not be actually referred to in any of these articles. It’s not a diagnostic category in the DSMV. It sounds entirely fabricated and unvetted by the scholarly psychiatric and psychological health care professionals. It’s kind of how multiple personality disorder.
But, you wouldn’t understand this. You know why? Because you are not trained to understand scientific literature. You are not trained in the medical field. You are just someone with google who arrogantly thinks they know something.
LikeLike
Brandon, what part of the articles in the British Association for Psychotherapies did you not understand? It is people like you who bring enormous harm to society because people like you actually make it taboo to talk about and people traumatized end up isolating themselves.
All of these experiences have happened to people and are happening on a regular basis. You have your head in the clouds of denial about the harm authoritarian religion brings to society, and you show your lack of empathy when you minimize people’s trauma. People are coming out of the woodwork now, and it will only be a matter of time when it will no longer be taboo in the professional sector to cast a spotlight on the harm caused by authoritarian religion, like the Abraham faiths.
Authoritarian religion lies to people — and for many who come out from it are shunned, distrusted, lose jobs, lose their social network, get shunned from families, and a number of other negative factors as noted in articles. Then they have to deal with the trauma of betrayal. That’s after they have come through a deconversion. Then there are the other factors (while involved in Christianity) as noted. Read the articles. I already provided the link.
I was just thinking about you a few minutes ago. It’s hard to wrap my brain around someone with a PhD who is still promoting fairy tales, and for very, very self-centered reasons. You lie to people and you know it deep in your core that it is all a big lie.
LikeLike
Victoria, I will repeat myself again. You are untrained to evaluate scientific literature. You cannot tell a crank from what might be real. You just come up with little anecdotes about friendly emails you receive, but these have zero scientific value. Why don’t we just open a pastor’s email inbox instead of a hobby anti-theist’s email inbox?
The way you just assert that this or that about religion and lump things into “authoritarian religion” makes me question your understanding of deductive logic. But, not because your intellect is blunted, rather because you are so arrogant you are actually blinded.
By the way, I have a Doctorate in Medicine (M.D.). The fact that you assume I have a Ph.D. is telling. Stop making assumptions. Especially about your own ability to google things and all the sudden make slam dunk cases against religion.
The truth is of course religion can be harmful. But, so can atheism or any other belief for that matter. But, generalizing cases is a fallacy. You cannot generalize your limited microcosm of experience with your church, your late husband, your emails, to all of reality. That’s why we have science. To root out what are causes of things.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Victoria,
I came off a bit harsh in my rebuke tonight, so I do apologize for that. This is very difficult for me. Ultimately I love you and really want for you to come to an intellectual humility no matter if you are an atheist or agnostic. I hope and pray that I am helping.
Have a good evening and please stay with us.
LikeLike
“…please stay with us” – What unmitigated arrogance! She’ll be here LONG after you’ve run off with your tail between your legs!
LikeLike
I have a serious question for you to consider: why troll? Have you not noticed that I ignore the vast majority of your trolling? I mean it might be worth if you had any indication that it was upsetting me. But, it’s just not there. So, why?
LikeLike
“Have you not noticed that I ignore the vast majority of your trolling?”
As your opinion means less than nothing to me, Brandon, no – I really haven’t.
“So, why?”
Why what? Why do I make comments concerning you? Because I want others to see the side of you that I see, such as the smarmy, sycophantic debating technique you tried using when you first began posting to the majority of us, which you finally dropped as ineffective once I called others’ attention to it. And because sometimes the best way to deflate a pompous windbag, is simply to laugh at it. But mostly because it gives me pleasure.
LikeLike
It’s interesting that you think I’ve somehow changed. There is a natural evolution of engagement when patterns emerge with the people you interact with. The fact that you wish I somehow changed suggests something to me.
The reason I’m here is. . . already typed in another comment on this page.
So, let me ask you. Do you think your pleasure justifies trolling? Do you think other trolls would say something similar?
LikeLike
“It’s interesting that you think I’ve somehow changed.”
You haven’t changed in the least, you’ve only been taught that one of your ploys will no longer work here. As far as trolling is concerned, if anyone is a troll on this blog, it’s you.
LikeLike
Just because you use ploys doesn’t mean that I use ploys. This is called projection in psychology. You don’t have to troll. You have the power to stop.
LikeLike
You really ARE the King of de Nile, aren’t you?
LikeLike
Cute. This is a recycle, don’t you remember using it on me before?
LikeLike
And yet the shoe still fits —
LikeLike
Fair enough. I’ll keep your opinion in mind.
LikeLike
But that gives me cause to ask you a question now – why are you here? Why are you not off chasing your little tin god somewhere instead of wasting your time here, where you’re convincing no one of anything?
LikeLike
Brandon, you don’t love me. You don’t even know me so please stop with the fake Christian rhetoric. I heard enough of that bullshit when I was a Christian. Secondly, I’m not the least bit offended by what you write. As you say, this is hard on you, I understand. You can’t keep the lie, the facade up for ever.
Ultimately what I’d like for you to do is stop promoting lies.
————
LikeLike
ColorStorm, my question for you is, do you have any sympathy for these criticisms of the bible? If not, I mean if you just dismiss everything, how do you expect to have fruitful engagement?
LikeLike
What criticisms?
LikeLike
Just in general.
LikeLike
Victoria, I want you to know that if we ever met in real life, I would greet you with a big smile and a bigger hug. I mean that. I have none of the animosity for you that you have for me. I grieve with you to the depths of my heart for the loss of your husband whom you clearly loved. You just cannot know how that breaks my heart. It is broken even more severely as I watch you push away the only path to peace that will ever be possible for you.
Like all of us, certainly including myself, you are doing a deplorable job of running your own life. Your hard hearted misery simply oozes from your comments. That’s not an insult. Honest it’s not. It’s tear jerking concern.
OH if you could only believe that.
When you’re alone. In the dark, In the pain and the emptiness? Call out to Him. You can even tell Him you don’t really believe He’s there. Ask Him to make Himself real to you. Tell Him your heart is broken and you don’t how to pull your own way through it. That your attempted remedies are not working. (He knows that already anyway)
Ask Him to allow you to understand better the ultimate perfection and goodness in His all governing providence over His creation. Try to mean it. Even if you can’t. Tell Him that too. (He knows that anyway as well)
I promise you, no HE promises you, He will reach down into the death of your life and make you live. And ya know what? If that happens, it will be your JOY to tell everybody on this site and in your life about His truth. THEN you will know contentment and settled peace that passes understanding. Even if the whole rest of you life falls further apart, which it may.
Even if I never found about it in this life, I want you as my sister in Christ. With absolutely NO gloating I would join with all the angels of heaven in rejoicing at seeing you shed these chains and live in the freedom that only comes from a spirit to Spirit relationship with God Himself.
I have no illusions. You’ll probably tell me to F**K OFF after reading this, but God knows my heart. I would raise hands with you in tearful magnificent celebration of His working in you like has has in me..
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tirib, Tirib, Tirib – you are SO transparent! Come on T, let’s hear you sing, ♫”Just as I am, without one plea –“♪
You have already seen all of the angels you will ever see!
LikeLike
T really knows which buttons to push, doesn’t he? Lots of practice —
LikeLike
“Like all of us, certainly including myself, you are doing a deplorable job of running your own life. Your hard hearted misery simply oozes from your comments. That’s not an insult. Honest it’s not. It’s tear jerking concern.”
Greg, your empathy comes across as fake and you haven’t a clue about my life. Any problems I have in my life are directly related and caused by Christians who either contributed to killing of my partner, or shunned me when they found out I was an unbeliever. I don’t volunteer the information and for good reason.
According to several studies, unbelievers are considered the most distrusted in America – equal to a rapist. The researchers discovered that people distrust atheists because of the belief that people behave better when they think that God is watching over them.
“If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed.” ~Albert Einstein
If I’m wrong, and Yahweh is “the” god, then I will burn with dignity rather than lower my ethical standers and kiss the ass of a diabolical dictator. You can’t face reality — that’s the bottom line. As pinkagendist recently stated: “It takes an extraordinarily thick skin to be able to confront what the world actually is. A degree most people are trained into ‘not having’ “.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I was wondering if I’d ever get a turn. I was beginning to feel left out.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t want to miss out on an opportunity to tell you what a wimp you are. 🙂
LikeLike
And I wouldn’t want to miss out on a an opportunity to tell you that I wish only for the Lord’s best for you. I do. Good night. It’s late here.
LikeLike
“the Lord’s best”
You have indeed lowered your standards.
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”
Epicurus (Greek philosopher, BC 341-270)
LikeLiked by 1 person
LikeLike
I myself am not allowed any standards Victoria. Neither are you. And neither was Epicurus whose disciples Paul was specifically confronting in the 17th chapter of the book of the acts of the apostles. This however comes to us through Isaiah. God is not impressed with our opinion. Therefore neither am I
==============================================
“Behold, the Lord God comes with might,
and his arm rules for him;
behold, his reward is with him,
and his recompense before him.
He will tend his flock like a shepherd;
he will gather the lambs in his arms;
he will carry them in his bosom,
and gently lead those that are with young.
Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand
and marked off the heavens with a span,
enclosed the dust of the earth in a measure
and weighed the mountains in scales
and the hills in a balance?
Who has measured the Spirit of the Lord,
or what man shows him his counsel?
Whom did he consult,
and who made him understand?
Who taught him the path of justice,
and taught him knowledge,
and showed him the way of understanding?
Behold, the nations are like a drop from a bucket,
and are accounted as the dust on the scales;
behold, he takes up the coastlands like fine dust.
Lebanon would not suffice for fuel,
nor are its beasts enough for a burnt offering.
All the nations are as nothing before him,
they are accounted by him as less than nothing and emptiness.
To whom then will you liken God,
or what likeness compare with him?
….. …..
Do you not know? Do you not hear?
Has it not been told you from the beginning?
Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth?
It is he who sits above the circle of the earth,
and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers;
who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;
who brings princes to nothing,
and makes the rulers of the earth as emptiness.
Scarcely are they planted, scarcely sown,
scarcely has their stem taken root in the earth,
when he blows on them, and they wither,
and the tempest carries them off like stubble.
To whom then will you compare me,
that I should be like him? says the Holy One.
Lift up your eyes on high and see:
who created these?
He who brings out their host by number,
calling them all by name,
by the greatness of his might,
and because he is strong in power
not one is missing.
Why do you say, O Jacob,
and speak, O Israel,
“My way is hidden from the Lord,
and my right is disregarded by my God”?
Have you not known? Have you not heard?
The Lord is the everlasting God,
the Creator of the ends of the earth.
He does not faint or grow weary;
his understanding is unsearchable.
He gives power to the faint,
and to him who has no might he increases strength.
Even youths shall faint and be weary,
and young men shall fall exhausted;
but they who wait for the Lord shall renew their strength;
they shall mount up with wings like eagles;
they shall run and not be weary;
they shall walk and not faint.”
God almighty – circa everlasting to everlasting. Through the prophet Isaiah. 40th chapter
==============================================
LikeLike
Laughable words, from a Bronze Age superstitious man, ignorant in all facets of the science of how the world works. High reference indeed.
LikeLike
Greg, every time you open your mouth, or should we say “fingers” you show just how dumbed down you’ve allowed yourself to become.
LikeLike
Careful, Neuro – he’ll whup some of those twenty-dollar words on you that he likes to use to prove he knows twenty-dollar words!
LikeLike
archaeopteryx1 sneers: “Careful, Neuro – he’ll whup some of those twenty-dollar words on you that he likes to use to prove he knows twenty-dollar words!”
I’ve had about all I’m gonna take outta you Arch. This the LAST straw. Every man has his limits and you have just reached mine. I’ll have you know sir that I have NEVER in my life used a word valued at more than 13 dollars and 76 cents. I demand that you recant this slanderous and libelous allegation forthwith.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Watch out Arch — you know how quickly Greg’s god can get his panties in a wad when you’ve offended one of his chosen. He’ll send bears to rip you to shreds. Oh wait, never mind — God gets his rocks off doing that to children.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ya know, in a thread purported to advance the notion of the so called “deconversion” of individuals from Christianity, it really is ironic how forcefully some of you insist upon making MY case for me. I did this for a guy named HeadHunter a few years ago, but it’s definitely your size too Victoria.
LikeLike
LikeLike
You posted that already. I responded already and actually have responded to this kinda stuff for a couple decades. The bottom line Victoria, is that HE is God and YOU are not. I stand by my very first post on this site. THIS is the meaning for it all my dear. 1+1=2 and your beloved husband’s tragic passing. You will never, and I do mean NEH-VER have peace until He frees you to trust Him. My first post after Violet’s invitation.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Here, lemme help ya out. From my FACEBOOK PAGE” earlier this year
The day after the Newtown shooting where all those children were mercilessly gunned down, a known Christ hater asked at T-Nation if God is perfect in light of this event. The following is what I told him. I was reminded of this conversation by Pastor Chris’s sermon yesterday: http://tiribulus.net/audio/brooks_acts2.mp3
===========================================
THE God, who in the beginning created the heavens and the earth, is Himself the standard by which ALL things are measured. That means when he commands Joshua to kill every man, women, child and beast in Canaan that that is PERFECTLY holy, righteous, just and good. It means that when he causes Israel to eat their own children as reported in Jeremiah 19 that that is PERFECTLY holy righteous, just and good. It means that if He has decreed all of the horrific human misery, suffering and death in all of history that that is PERFECTLY holy righteous, just and good. It means that if He has decreed the existence of billions of human beings for the expressed purpose of casting them into the lake of fire in judgement for sin that He also decreed that that is PERFECTLY holy, righteous, just and good. It means that if He has purposed that everything we consider to be pointless evil, immorally unjust and unthinkably unfair shall be so ordered by divine mechanisms known only to Himself, to His own glory for reasons sufficient unto Himself that that is PERFECTLY holy, righteous, just and good.
It also means that His not caring one bit how you (or I) feel about that is most assuredly PERFECTLY holy, righteous, just and good. I sleep like a baby knowing that every time I hear about some gut wrenching blood curdling act of barbaric depravity that my Father God has from eternity seen fit to assign purpose to it that is PERFECTLY holy, righteous, just and good. IF IT WERE MY OWN FAMILY? You ask? Most ESPECIALLY then would I fall to my knees and worship Him knowing that evil has NOT triumphed, but that a PERFECTLY holy, righteous, just, good AND LOVING God who calls me brother, bride and son though I myself belong in that lake of fire will receive honor and glory by my praising His name while the world loses it’s collective mind. EveryTHING and everyONE belongs to HIM. His exaltation and glory IS the purpose for all that is. No more PERFECTLY purpose could ever exist.
=============================================
OR…. He’s doin the best He can and things get away from Him sometimes. Actually most times. I tell you nay. The movement of every particle in this universe is governed by his invincible providence.
LikeLike
“You posted that already. ”
Yes, I am fully aware. It is a reminder that you have lost your humanity. One who will justify antisocial behavior, because its your god doing it, is morally corrupt.
Your belief system allows perfectly sane people to believe by the billions what only lunatics could believe on their own.
LikeLike
You have a whole bunch of definitions in there Victoria that you have no right to. You have no idea what “humanity”, “justify”, “antisocial”, “moral”, “corrupt”, “perfect”, “sane”, or “lunatic” even mean. You have built your life squarely upon a liquid foundation of your own emotional preferences.
Morality, or “right” is the nature and character of the creator God as He has Himself graciously revealed in the collection of ancient books known as the Christian scriptures. Conversely, “sin” or “immorality” (wrong) is any want of conformity to same.
The trouble with you Victoria is that like your T-Shirt says, you don’t understand a thing about the holiness of God or the exceeding sinfulness of sin. Everybody deserves far worse than the most horrific judgments of God upon sin in the old testament, yes children included. All of that is there, including the bloody, tedious, laborious drudgery of the Levitical system of animal sacrifices, to point us to the once for all satisfaction for ALL of it in Christ.
Not one drop of innocent blood was ever shed under the direction of YAHWEH. Not one. He gets to decide that and you don’t. You can jump up and down and scream and yell and snarl and spit, while copying and pasting your fingers raw from all your brain sites. It is nothing but empty stiff necked rebellion against the God who called the universe into existence by fiat command.
You ARE right about one thing. You WOULD rather go to hell than serve the living God. Not because you have higher morality than Him, but because you have NO actual morality at all. I say again. Your life is built squarely upon the liquid foundation of YOU. Your angry, miserable, bitter comments make it all very plain.
It does not have to be this way. I really DO understand how ridiculous I sound to you. Am I saying though that you’ll be blissfully warmed by the evil in the world and indifferent to Gods’ extermination of sinners in the Old Covenant? I’m sure not. I do however understand them and yes, I do praise God for His perfect Holy justice, because it shows me what I have been saved from, though there is plenty I’ll never understand.
Remember what I said. He is never too far to hear and you cannot possibly out sin that blood. How well I know.
LikeLike
I repeat. I will not lower my ethical standards and bow down to your God – a god who would make the worst of serial-killing psychopaths gasp.
LikeLike
“You have a whole bunch of definitions in there Victoria that you have no right to. You have no idea what “humanity”, “justify”, “antisocial”, “moral”, “corrupt”, “perfect”, “sane”, or “lunatic” even mean.”
I’ll tell you the same thing Louis Armstrong said to the man who asked, “What is jazz?” – If you have to ask, you’ll never know. And clearly, you don’t.
LikeLike
“Louis Armstrong said…”
HE DID!?!?!??!?!?!?!?
Father, Son, Holy Spirit and Louis Armstrong? 😉 I didn’t ask anything Arch.
archaeopteryx1 exclaims: “that entire tirade is just fucking sick!”
I don’t see a definition of “probability” in there.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Victoria says: “I repeat. I will not lower my ethical standards and bow down to your God – a god who would make the worst of serial-killing psychopaths gasp.”
Well. I guess that’s settled then. Lemme get back to Ruth. I kinda left her hangin. Sorry abut that Ruth.
LikeLike
Anyone who likes, can check any website I’ve ever commented on and see that I never use this word on a public forum, but in this instance, I’ll make an exception – that entire tirade is just fucking sick!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Victoria says to Brandon: “You have absolutely destroyed your credibility.
Now just a neuro-plastically disingenuous minute here. Do you mean to say that he once HAD credibility?
LikeLike
Yes! At one time fairy tales, fables and mythologies were not his reality.
LikeLike
archaeopteryx1 says to Brandon:
And you need a psychological evaluation and possibly years of therapy – I really want these for you.
And YOU need the gift of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ for the application of His blood for the forgiveness of your sins and new life in Him. I REALLY want that for you. (like REALLY)
LikeLike
Could you back up a little there T, the light off your head is blinding me —
YOU need the gift of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ for the application of His blood for the forgiveness of your sins and new life in Him.
Yeah, or Quetzalcoatl – I’m leaning toward the Q-man, I’ve heard he gives Green Stamps —
LikeLike
N℮üґ☼N☮☂℮ṧ on December 3, 2014 at 4:59 am said:
Brandon, you are continually trying to prove the existence of your belief system — the resurrection of Jesus, the validity of Paul’s visions (hallucinations) and that “your” god exists. Stop playing games because you always end up the loser.
I have addressed all of your questions above over the course of the last year, and then some. Not only have I addressed your questions but so have many others (extensively) who are quite educated and reputable on WP. Your repetitive questions are a deterrent to avoid our que3stions.
You have, quite frankly, been tagged by the most civil of blogger as being intellectually dishonest.
The OP is about a people, Christians, i.e., Greg, who believe there is no such thing as deconversion. Now why the hell are you here? Do you agree?
Brandon says “One last thing, please stop insulting me.”
That’s funny coming from you, considering how many times have you apologized to me for being an asshole? 😉
You have no idea how it hurts me watching you Victoria. (no sarcasm) The old saying is right. “Bitterness is drinking poison hoping the other person gets sick.”
Sin and rebellion are eating you alive from the inside out. Ebola is a sniffle by comparison. I can’t get it outta my head that one of these nights the pain and heartache will drive even you to hopeless, despairing prayer with nuthin to lose and everything to gain, just in case you’re wrong about all this. He IS tender and merciful, as well as just and holy.
LikeLike
Wow! Talk about trying to plant subliminal thoughts in your head, Neuro – the man has been watching some VERY manipulative people, and monkey-see, monkey-do – his effort was about the biggest pile of monkey-doo I’ve seen in quite some time! Well, since SOM!
LikeLike
Arch, I’m sure you remember several months ago when I told you that I was asked to co-write a book with a behavioral neuroscientist. This post has been delicious — and Greg is the ideal case study in one of the chapters I’ve been writing regarding the personalities traits of emotional and spiritual abusers. I can’t write fast enough these days — and I am thankful to Greg for providing the fuel. At this rate, if he keeps it up, I’ll be done with this chapter in no time. 😉
LikeLike
I’m sure he is glad to help you advance your career – he wubbles you, as does Brandon – you can’t help it you’re just so damned wubbleable!
LikeLike
Btw, Arch — remember the article I shared with you a while back regarding the top 10 professions of psychopaths; one of them being clergy? I thought you might also like to read this article written by Joe Navarro — a 25-year veteran of the FBI where he served on the National Security Division’s Behavioral Analysis Program. He recently published a book (in September) titled “Louder Than Words: Clues to Deceit: A Practical List; and Dangerous Personalities.
I did a post last year on my other blog regarding predatory, emotionally abusive personalities in leadership positions in Christianity. In this article, Navarro discusses the advantages for the predator in a religious organization.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/spycatcher/201404/why-predators-are-attracted-careers-in-the-clergy
LikeLike
I found this particularly interesting, as we’ve all heard this before:
Personally, I would like to see all persons of public authority, from police officers, to clergy, to politicians forced to submit to a psychological profile as a condition of their employment.
LikeLike
“Personally, I would like to see all persons of public authority, from police officers, to clergy, to politicians forced to submit to a psychological profile as a condition of their employment”
Me, too, Arch. Psychological and neurological. Absolutely!
LikeLike
N℮üґ☼N☮☂℮ṧ on December 3, 2014 at 3:01 pm said:
Arch, I’m sure you remember several months ago when I told you that I was asked to co-write a book with a behavioral neuroscientist. This post has been delicious — and Greg is the ideal case study in one of the chapters I’ve been writing regarding the personalities traits of emotional and spiritual abusers. I can’t write fast enough these days — and I am thankful to Greg for providing the fuel. At this rate, if he keeps it up, I’ll be done with this chapter in no time. 😉
Why ya gotta be so shy after all we’ve been together Victoria? Ya want an interview? Just say the word. 🙂 I am always honored to represent my Lord and King. We can do it right online. You can record every word I say and use it as you see fit so long as you don’t edit me to be saying anything I am not actually saying. You can ask me anything.
LikeLike
LOL — Greg, you are so predictable. *winks at Carmen* Thanks for the offer — but no need for an interview. I’ve got all the material I need. Ya done ‘good’. 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
. . . and while predictability has its place, a little novelty once in awhile is appreciated! Go ahead, Greg – tell us anything!! 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well Victoria, my offer stands. I’d love to meet your partner too. Seriously. Link please? This not the first time this has happened btw. Second actually. A couple guys with similar interests as yours were putting me through the mill. They didn’t know I knew 😉 I played along.
“I sleep like a baby, awaken with His praise on my lips and His peace in my heart. A trade I will vote for every time. You have no idea of this Ephrem and it does appear to you unbalanced and maybe even insane. I understand. Because like I’ve been telling you since you and Mike were using me as guinea pig way back when. (and you thought I didn’t know =] )” 09-24-2011, 12:53 PM on THIS page.
I don’t mind you making fun of me. You either Carmen. 🙂 Ya now why? Because I KNOW who I am and WHOSE I am. For me to live IS Christ and to die IS gain. (Philippians 1) All bases are covered in Him. I can’t be angry at you. Without Jesus, I AM you. So. Can I meet your partner and do I get to see the piece when it’s done? I’d like that if you would be so kind.
LikeLike
I’m not making fun of you any more than you are making fun of me. I’m sorely disappointed and dismayed that you smugly say you can sleep at night knowing that the god you cream in your jeans over is untold suffering, and then projects his fuck-ups onto humans, much like you are doing. I only say that not because I believe in your Yahweh war god is real, but because there are so many people like you who justify the inhumanity and immorality of your god.
He is a monster, and the sad thing is — you promote this monster — so what does that say about you, Gregory?
LikeLike
Correction: that the god you cream in your jeans over is OK with untold suffering. Don’t forget — your god knew the beginning from the end — so you are indeed promoting a god who is a psychopath.
LikeLike
Sounds like a good idea to me, Greg.
My hope is that they will acknowledge all the science showing the benefits of religion. Without this it will be seen as having an anti-religious bias which will destroy the book’s credibility.
My further hope is that Victoria will get formal training in psychology and neuroscience and in evaluating scientific literature before attempting this sort of project. Otherwise it may be criticized as laymen opinion, or worse, pseudoscience.
LikeLike
“My further hope is that Victoria will get formal training in psychology and neuroscience and in evaluating scientific literature before attempting this sort of project.”
My wished, Brandon, that you spent more time reading the research and staying up-to-date on it than spending time on forums trying to prove your brand of Christianity is “the truth”. 80+ hours a week (does that include your 2 hour a day transit time?) working a “thankless job” as you say, plus hours posting extensive comments on WP (which you say takes you a long time to compose) and who knows where else to prove your stance, does not afford you much time to stay abreast of the copious amounts of neurological research much less sleep and spending time with your partner.
I spend close to 60 hours a week reading neurological research and have done so for over a decade as an advocate for brain injuries awarenss and seizure disorders — an advocate for the Dana Foundation and Brain Injury Association of America.
Now — if you really were up-to-date you’d know that neurologists state that people, such as those with epilepsy, have to become their own advocates because while epilepsy is as common as breast cancer and takes as many lives, it is the least funded when it comes to research. We have superstition and religion to thank for that.
You really demonstrated that you are not very well educated about epilepsy and other neurolgo9cial disorders, even though you pretend you are. Flashing your credentials around only makes you look pompous and insecure, not educated and aware.
I’ve already mentioned before, numerous times, that there are some benefits to religion, but most certainly not religions that promote fear, an authoritarian god, demon possession, shame, hell, slavery, misogyny , Othering, tribalism, etc. You know — like the RCC and evangelical Christianity, such as the Southern Baptist Convention — two of the largest Christian denominations in America.
So Brandon, shut up and stop trying to discredit me. By doing this you hinder progress. I can tell you that while I’m sure I most likely work much harder than you, I do NOT whine about it and call it a thankless job.
What an incredibly ungrateful, spoiled, narcissistic human being you come across as being.
Nevertheless, I have still given you the benefit of the doubt because I think you have issues going on upstairs, yet you would rather discredit me and make yourself look good than to seek help.
““People with seizures look like everyone else when they are not having a seizure, and seizures are not contagious. Yet, as far back in history as we know, people with seizure disorders have been viewed with fear. In many civilizations, they have been shunned; in others, they have been thought to have a special ability and be in communication with higher powers—good gods in the case of the Romans, the devil in the case of early Christianity.
The early Greeks called epilepsy “the sacred disease,” but it later became known as “the scourge of Christ,” probably as a result of the passage in the Gospels in which Jesus casts out an unclean spirit from a young boy. The boy’s father says (in the Gospel according to Luke), “Teacher, I implore you, look on my son…Behold, a spirit seizes him, and he suddenly cries out; it confuses him so that he foams at the mouth; and it departs from him with great difficulty, bruising him.”
Keep in mind, that is only mentioning convulsive seizures, not non-convulsive seizures which are the most misdiagnosed do to their behavioral and cognitive behaviors, i.e., hyper-religiosity.
To this day, many ordinary people still believe patients with epileptic seizures are “possessed,” and a person with seizures is forbidden to take Holy Orders (become a priest) in the Roman Catholic Church.”
http://www.dana.org/Cerebrum/Default.aspx?id=39178
Brandon, you should be very disappointed in yourself, but you are not. You are too busy rebuking others rather than seeing the bigger picture and just how intellectually dishonest you have been. Any respect I had for you in the past is long gone.
LikeLike
Victoria, I was just telling Greg what I hope for you.
I do hope for you to see your mistakes and it will be humbling. Reading research does not guarantee you understand it and especially it’s limitations. And, if you are googling to find what to read, you have a flawed method of knowing the range of what is published. Science is not performed in uniform agreement. There are conflicting results and controversies. There are cranks and data manipulators. You need to humble yourself and realize your limitations as a layperson. Go take some classes and get educated.
Please stop taking things I say out of context (work hours and so on) and stop insulting me.
LikeLike
Clarification: I was responding from the tiny reply box (WP window), and just noticed that my comment, “Keep in mind, that is only mentioning convulsive seizures, not non-convulsive seizures which are the most misdiagnosed do to their behavioral and cognitive behaviors, i.e., hyper-religiosity.”, accidentally showed up in the middle of a quote from the Dana Foundation, most likely because I went back in to add the comment and didn’t realize at the time that I had added it in the of the quote until after I posted it.
Also, I meant to write “due” not “do” and “symptoms” not “behaviors”
LikeLike
Brandon and Greg –
I have read through the comments both of you have directed towards Victoria, which I have found to be demeaning and meant to discredit her personally.
Here’s the problem with your criticism: you both believe in a fantasy. A FANTASY, fellows. A fairy tale, a myth. Where Victoria offers scientific study and scholarship, you put forward pathetic platitudes about sin and rebelliousness. You depend on a figment of your own imagination to get you through the day and you love to talk about this make-believe entity. Worse than that, you expect to be taken as credible individuals.
I expect that those reading this thread know exactly who the intelligent, sensible, reasonable, perfectly well-adjusted people are.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m not sure I’m saying exactly the same thing as Greg. Not because of any disagreement between us, but my criticism comes from a scientific stance and also from knowing Victoria, i.e. the internet persona, for many months.
So, if you are being serious, you need to be more specific.
LikeLike
N℮üґ☼N☮☂℮ṧ on December 3, 2014 at 11:53 pm said:
I’m not making fun of you any more than you are making fun of me. I’m sorely disappointed and dismayed that you smugly say you can sleep at night knowing that the god you cream in your jeans over is untold suffering, and then projects his fuck-ups onto humans, much like you are doing. I only say that not because I believe in your Yahweh war god is real, but because there are so many people like you who justify the inhumanity and immorality of your god.
He is a monster, and the sad thing is — you promote this monster — so what does that say about you, Gregory?
So when do I get to meet your behavioral neuroscientist friend with whom you are publishing this piece on me? Soon I hope. I’m excited.
Carmen says:” I expect that those reading this thread know exactly who the intelligent, sensible, reasonable, perfectly well-adjusted people are.”
You mean you expect that they’ll agree with you guys? Me too. At least I sure hope so. If not that would mean I wasn’t preaching the truth.
1st Corinthians 1: (NASB. Caps as per the translation crew indicating an old testament citation.)
18-For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
19-For it is written,
“I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE,
AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE.”
20-Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21-For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 22-For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; 23-but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, 24-but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25-Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26-For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; 27-but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, 28-and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, 29-so that no man may boast before God. 30-But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, 31-so that, just as it is written, “LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD.”
LikeLike
Greg, your identity will remain anonymous just like the other numerous case studies that are so similar to yours. Btw, your god sure loves destroying, has zero humility, and totally full of himself. Not exactly a good example for humanity. You couldn’t pick a nicer god? There are thousands of them. Oh wait — you were born in a Christian culture. Monkey see, monkey do. Never mind. 😉
LikeLike
Show me a case study. Prove it.
I challenge you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
😉 Now ya just had ta go n do that didn’t ya? Look, this is MY trap. Go find your own. 🙂
I do also suspect that Victoria has an imaginary playmate.
LikeLike
“I do also suspect that Victoria has an imaginary playmate.”
That was funny coming from someone who has an imaginary playmate. 😀
LikeLike
Brandon, I have shown case studies over the past year, multiple times, and you have brushed them off. I have posted them in comment sections on my blog, on Matt’s blog, on John’s blog, on your blog, on Howie’s blog, on Violet’s blog, on Arks blog, on Ken (KC’s) blog, on Mak’s blog, and many others, and I know that those who read my comments will back me up.
I will not waste my time with you anymore. You are playing games.
LikeLiked by 1 person
He means, as do I, one with your elusive behavioral neuroscientist partner. Where is this person? Invisible, like our God?
LikeLike
This is one of the first times I smiled during this whole thing. 🙂 You don’t have anything. You can’t possibly say anything about Greg’s mental health. I know this because I’m a doctor, and you are an arrogant layperson who just got called on your bluff.
LikeLike
Brandon, this is a perfect example of your intellectual dishonesty. Anyone who follows my comments will back me up that you have bushed off anything I have shared with you from credible sources.
Yes, Brandon, you are a doctor, and a sick on at that.
LikeLike
This whole “dishonesty” thing is an assertion. It just means you are willing to defend your ego over admitting the truth about your abilities according to your education.
LikeLike
Look man, you and I need to talk,. I’ve been smiling this whole time 🙂
LikeLike
“You can’t possibly say anything about Greg’s mental health. I know this because I’m a doctor” – Are you saying you’re a psychologist? A psychiatrist? If not, you have no personal insights, unless T happens to have an ingrown toenail.
LikeLike
🙂 Actually, you are wrong. American doctors are all trained to recognize problems that are best referred to specialists. All doctors must be able to recognize psychiatric signs and symptoms, even if we don’t work them up to a final diagnosis and treatment plan.
Also, performing an adequate mental health assessment cannot be accomplished on the internet by observing people.
Nice try though. You don’t know enough about the profession to make comments like these.
So, I hate to say this. . . but this is just more trolling.
LikeLike
“All doctors must be able to recognize psychiatric signs and symptoms, even if we don’t work them up to a final diagnosis and treatment plan.” – I find that difficult to believe, since it’s obvious that self-diagnosis is so beyond your grasp.
LikeLiked by 1 person
*Face palm*. . . A new low has been achieved. Please just stop.
LikeLike
This also demonstrates your ignorance as to the usefulness of a case study. They present very weak evidence.
You wouldn’t get your leg amputated based on a case study. Go get a science education.
LikeLike
Brandon, for nearly 6 months I ignored what people were saying about you, but I can assure you that now I am definitely seeing just how unauthentic you really have been.
Advocates are not going away any time soon. With hospital errors being the 3rd leading cause of death in America, I assure you that having “Dr.” in front of your name doesn’t make you a doctor.
LikeLike
Victoria, by “people” you must mean Arch. 🙂 Also, you didn’t ignore him. I read some of our old conversations. You also ran a smear campaign of me at one point. I watched it and it was uncomfortable. But the main point is, don’t pretend like you made some kind of revelation all the sudden recently.
This is legitimate criticism of American healthcare, but it’s sad to see you try to use that as some kind of insult towards me. You just had to get an insult in, huh? Did it make you feel a little superior? This is a troll tactic.
LikeLike
I wasn’t the one that smiled.
LikeLike
Did you forget? You respond to our challenge first —
“
LikeLike
Fine. I’ll remain anonymous in the study. When do I get to meet your partner?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Victoria, I’m gonna make you deal. Stop this charade right now and simply admit that you’re lying and this person does not exist, which isn’t the end of the world, we all do stupid stuff, myself included.
OR, I WILL convince everybody here that you are. Even the ones with their head in their hands wishing they were not watching it. NOT because because I want to hurt you, though it almost certainly will.
Come on now. Fess up. There is no publishing partner is there. You’re a rogue, just like Brandon says. Though I must admit, I give you credit for more expertise than he probably does. One CAN learn a lot without going to school.
LikeLike
“OR, I WILL convince everybody here that you are. Even the ones with their head in their hands wishing they were not watching it.” – She’s under no obligation to tell you ANYthing, and certainly not to introduce a fool like you to a professional person.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Victoria, this male chauvinist pig clearly does not fancy you capable of handling things yourself without his patriarchal oversight. You simply CANNOT let this stand.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I get the feeling, T, that your threat really isn’t making her knees quake – what else you got?
LikeLike
I never threaten people arch. I have no problem being wrong. If this phantom accomplice materializes I will gladly recant. That doesn’t mean just a name and someletters on a blog post that can be faked. I really don’t care if my name is used. I’m the subject. I want to meet this person. Wouldn’t you?
LikeLike
“I really don’t care if my name is used. I’m the subject. I want to meet this person. Wouldn’t you?” – I wouldn’t behave in such a way to get myself studied as a subject of abnormal behavior.
LikeLike
“Victoria, I’m gonna make you deal. Stop this charade right now and simply admit that you’re lying and this person does not exist, which isn’t the end of the world, we all do stupid stuff, myself included.”
Oh, I assure you, Greg, it’s no charade. But don’t you worry your pretty little head about it — there are so many like you who are unnaturally obsessed by their religion/god that you’ll hardly stand out. We are not talking about normal religious people but rather, hyper-religious people — many who have gotten massive followings throughout history after they had a sudden religious conversion, a major feature among people with certain mental disorders.
I take no pleasure in meeting people like you and Brandon. Obsessions like yours affect the well being of our species as a whole.
LikeLike
We WILL get to see the piece wen it’s done right?
LikeLike
I’m sure you will if you’re still around. When it’s published I will have a link on my blog.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And I will be there to repent of my accusation when it is. ETA? (approximate)
LikeLike
No ETA yet, Greg. We are in the early stages and bogged down in research.
Greg, have you ever heard of Ellen While? When she was a child she was hit in the head with a rock and when she woke up from a coma, she started having “spiritual” experiences. But neurologists who have studied her extensively have determined that her “experiences” were auras from non-convulsive temporal lobe seizures due to the brain injury she sustained. She believed she was “chosen” by Yahweh.
She’s the co-founder of the 7th Day Adventist denomination, with approximately 25 million attending church weekly with baptized membership of about 18.02 million. She’s deceased now. She was a prolific writer (hypergraphia). During her lifetime she wrote more than 5,000 periodical articles and 40 books
The church operates in 202 out of 230 countries and areas recognized by the United Nations, making it probably the most widespread Protestant denomination and is considered one of the fastest growing protestant denominations in the world. It has been endorsed by 2 American Presidents (GW Bush and Bill Clinton).
As of May 2007, it was the twelfth-largest religious body in the world, and the sixth-largest highly international religious body. It has a missionary presence in over 200 countries and territories and is ethnically and culturally diverse
It operates 7,598 schools, colleges and universities, with a total enrollment of more than 1,545,000 students and approximately 80,000 teacher.
It runs a large number of hospitals and health-related institutions. Their largest medical school and hospital in North America is Loma Linda University and its attached Medical Center. It is the largest not-for-profit, Protestant, multi-institutional healthcare system in the United States.
The 7th Day Adventists had the first religious program to air on color television and was the first major Christian ministry to utilize satellite uplink technology.
It operates multiple TV networks both in America and Internationally, 24 hours a day in 40 languages simultaneously on cable, satellite and the Internet.
They own and operate many publishing companies around the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh-day_Adventist_Church
My point in sharing all this is to say that just one person had such a huge influence on tens of millions. You simply cannot be certain that those in the bible, and people who followed were not subject to similar disorders.
As I’ve mentioned numerous times, there are a number of neurological disorders that cause people to become extremely religious and believe they’ve been chosen by the god or gods of their culture to bring a message to humankind.
LikeLike
I know all about Ellen G White and the 7th day Adventists, yes.
LikeLike
Because you mentioned me, I think I’ll comment.
This is a perfect example of your ignorance of psychiatry and how don’t know the scientific literature on religion. Please go get an education and stop the arrogance.
LikeLike
Remember, Brandon, you are the one who believes in ancient fairy tales, fables and mythologies. Like I mentioned earlier, anyone who has access to as much information as you, and who has been in extensive discourse with some of the most learned people on the subject, and still clings to his faith like a baby on the tit of his mother, has got more going on than just expressing faith.
LikeLike
Alright, I’ll follow up on your troll comment. What do I believe that is an ancient fairy tale, fable, or myth? Please tell me.
Otherwise you trolled that one one for either because you want to feel superior or you just don’t have any other response.
LikeLike
Let’s see. You believe that man needed a bloody sacrifice and Jesus was crucified and was resurrected. (Such a common mythological story). You also believe Paul’s visions are the real McCoy. So Brandon, if some dude walks up to you and tells you the exact same story (visions) as Paul, would you believe him or would you recommend that he have a thorough neurological evaluation? If not, why not. You have yet to answer me on how you discern.
” Yeah and now everyone who is religious must have epilepsy right? Because that’s what scientists are saying.”
Again showing your intellectual dishonesty.
LikeLike
In order for you label, say, the resurrection as fairy tale, fable, or myth (which even in terms of literature it doesn’t fit these, this is just a trolling tactic of using pejorative labels), you need to tell me how you know it did not happen. Enlighten me. Don’t be arrogant and just assume you know the truth, tell me all the steps to get to the truth.
And, prove to me that it was a “common mythological story”. Just another arrogant assertion.
LikeLike
LOL — Brandon, you claim that god exists and people had visions of your god and these people believed they were chosen of god to bring a message to humankind.
Now, I ask you again — how do you discern where there are mental disorders where people claim the same thing.
How do you discern? Was it because you believe your own experiences? How do you discern your own experiences when mental illness runs in your family?
LikeLike
I never “claim that god exists”. That’s what you want me to say, but I don’t.
How can we tell if Paul had or didn’t have a mental illness? And, why is this relevant? Ultimately, how do you know the truth? Enlighten me oh wise one with so much knowledge about psychiatry.
Please don’t refer to my family again. That’s a low blow. If you knew anything about science, you would know that family history is only a risk factor. I believe in what I do for the same reason anyone else believes in anything.
LikeLike
“If you knew anything about science, you would know that family history is only a risk factor.” – if you knew anything about genetics, you would know that it’s more than a “risk factor,” it represents a degree of probability. And if you are going to come on this board and insult a respected guest, then I don’t see that ANYthing is off the table.
LikeLike
Meant to say “if you are going to come on this board and insult the integrity of a respected guest, then I don’t see that ANYthing is off the table.”
LikeLike
How do you draw a distinction between risk factor and “degree of probability”?
Also, you already know that this is a rebuke intended to benefit Victoria.
LikeLike
I view a “risk factor” as having a much greater range of likelihood than a “probability.”
And there you go with the “rebuking” again – who the hell are you to rebuke anyone? How sanctimonious can you get?
LikeLike
Your view doesn’t really matter when there are definitions for risk factor in place. For all intensive purposes, there is no difference between risk factor and probability.
LikeLike
“For all intensive purposes” – That phrase is, “For all intents and purposes” – where did you say you got all of those degrees, online?
You know, you have really aged between that first pic and this one – must be all that religion —
LikeLike
You have such a fascination with my photos. Kinda weird man!
LikeLike
“You have such a fascination with my photos.” – Not your photo’s certainly, rather your aging process – if your hairline moves any closer to your neckline, you and T could pass for twins.
LikeLike
I never “claim that god exists”. That’s what you want me to say, but I don’t.
Brandon, do you or do you not believe that god exists? Do you believe that Jesus is god? Do you believe that Paul’s visions were authentic, and if so, how did you come up with this belief? If you were born in China, do you think you’d pay much attention to what Paul said? Would you even care? Maybe you would if some missionary came knocking at your door.
My point in asking this is that you put so much stock into what Paul says and your own experiences — which I later learned in more detail was “lucid dreams” and an “epiphany”? Correct? Arch, John, Matt, Raut, Daniel, Ark — we were all in extensive dialog with you for months both on your blog and on Matt’s and you gave us all the impression that you believe god exists and that the resurrection of Jesus happened. Am I right?
“How can we tell if Paul had or didn’t have a mental illness? And, why is this relevant?
How could it not be relevant? You appear to be basing much of your belief (coming back to Christianity) on your “experiences” and faith, am I right? Also, you said you were able to stop some habits right away. My late husband was a smoker. This was before he became hyper-religious. One day he said he wasn’t going to smoke anymore, and that was it. He never picked up another cigarette again. Placebos can also do wonders, but we have discussed all this extensively with you — to no avail.
But in all our discussions I have yet to see you answer how you discern considering that there are so many risk factors that can lead to people having “experiences”, then convincing others that they are “truth”.
Ultimately, how do you know the truth? Enlighten me oh wise one with so much knowledge about psychiatry.
I’ve never claimed to know “truth”. What is truth to you Brandon? There is a possibility that there might be a creator, but there is no evidence of this and certainly no evidence that Yahweh or Jesus were deities, and that Paul’s visions were authentic. You simply have to take other people’s word for it.
Please don’t refer to my family again. That’s a low blow. If you knew anything about science, you would know that family history is only a risk factor.
Again, it is not intended to be a low blow. For example, if I had mental illness in my family, then I’m at risk. Now, if I had a toxic environment as a child, my chances increase. If I am under significant stress as an adult, my risk factor goes up again. If I experience sleep deprivation, add to the risk. If I have medical conditions, such as heart disease, stroke, diabetes, cancer, hormonal disorders (especially perimenopause or hypothyroidism, known as “low thyroid”), Parkinson’s disease, and Alzheimer’s disease, add more to the risk of mental illness.
http://www.medicinenet.com/mental_health_psychology/page3.htm
You have shared a lot about your personal life, and so I’m curious as to why you wouldn’t consider all of these piled up risk factors? Also, you have no idea what kind of childhood Paul had, and we know little about Jesus’ childhood, if he even existed. We have no idea of the genetic risk factors, if their mothers had pregnancy problems, if they were exposed to toxic stress as children, or disease, etc.
So, again, how do you discern considering the fact that hyper-religiosity is a major feature of several comment mental disorders? The reason I brought your family into it was not to be disrespectful but to make a point that you have experienced a number of these risk factors, so why would you just assume you are right about Paul, Jesus’ resurrections, etc? And considering how chaotic is was back in biblical times, why wouldn’t you take all this into consideration — e.g., that Paul and the other were at risk themselves?
Again, how do you discern? One last note. The behavioral neuroscientist that I am co-writing the book with is an atheist, but he believes in the belief in god. Meaning, he is fully aware that some people need to believe and that to delude ourselves can sometimes be beneficial, such as having hope. I see no problem with this on a personal level, but to teach that one’s cultural god real, and children and adults are to submit and obey this cultural god and especially told that this god is a jealous god and you must love it or you will be punished is unethical.. The problem I have is the very negative aspects of belief — which is so prevalent in mainstream Christianity and can and does cause enormous harm. Cultural Christians seem to fair OK — but evangelicals tend to continually produce negative side-effects.
I would never, ever want Greg to indoctrinate children. I also wouldn’t doubt that he believes you are going to burn in the hell he believes his god created for those who were not “chosen”, given the number of comments he’s made. I’m not sure if you have been following Greg’s comments over the last month, on 3 of Violets blogs, but I have read them all.
Do you believe Greg’s beliefs are healthy for humanity?
LikeLiked by 2 people
For clarification: In the quote, the beginning of it should have read
“Mental illness is the result of a complex group of genetic, psychological, and environmental factors.”
LikeLike
BTW, if you want to argue that resurrection was a “common mythological story” don’t refer me to some crank website. Show me a primary source.
LikeLike
Alright, I’m calling it a night. Group hug everyone: Victoria, Brandon, Arch, Greg, Carmen(?), any lurkers. Gather in for a hug as human brother and sisters. Don’t make any nasty jokes Arch.
Until next time, peace and love.
LikeLike
I’ll pass – in case it’s not obvious, I really don’t like you Brandon – no joke.
LikeLike
That’s really not very neighborly Arch. I gotta say, the joy and love that flows out of all the godless heathen around here is really inspiring.
Don’t worry Brandon. I’ll hug im for both of us. 🙂
LikeLike
“Don’t worry Brandon. I’ll hug im for both of us. 🙂” – Definitely not your healthiest plan —
LikeLike
Please, I’ve known that for a long time. But, you don’t have to like someone to laugh with them.
LikeLike
With? I’d rather laugh AT them, and you make it so easy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Greg, here’s a guy who was never religious a day in his life though he lived in a Christian culture. He did drugs and drank a lot in his teen years. Then, bam. He starts getting relgious. His drinking and drug use most likely was responsible for his temporal lobe lability (low threshold), which led to seizures. Now most of the time he just wants to talk philosophy.
George W. Bush was a functioning alcoholic (mostly weekend binges) and his wife, Laura, in a TV interview said on one major weekend binge, bam, he had a sudden religious conversion and started attending bible studies with Billy Graham later that week. When he became president he believed god told him to go to war. He believed he was chosen by god — the god of his culture — Yahweh. He was on a crusade — his words.
LikeLiked by 1 person
LOL 😉
You are either hyper-religious or one hell of a gullible dude.
LikeLike
Oh.
LikeLike
🙂 Yeah and now everyone who is religious must have epilepsy right? Because that’s what scientists are saying.
LikeLike
I guess, despite all of your degreed scientific knowledge, you can’t discern between “religious” and “hyper-religiosity” —
LikeLike
“I trust God speaks through me.”
— George W. Bush —
LikeLike
And?
LikeLike
Oh dear, my comment posted in the wrong section in response to your “And?”
I’ll repeat it — you are either hyper-religious or one hell of a gullible dude.
I’m fully aware by now that anything I say to either you or Brandon is like water off a ducks back, but I appreciate the opportunity to share some of the information again, in hopes that lurkers with a more open mind will take pause and do more research for themselves.
Don’t think for one minute that because you overcame some bad habits that it had anything to do with Yahweh. People overcome a lot of bad habits in their lives and are fully cognitive of the fact that they overcame it on their own. Some people need a placebo, some don’t.
LikeLike
Thank you so much for this stunning irrelevant insight. AA is full of hellbound sober drunks.
LikeLike
Brandon
“There is no science to refute solipsism.”
Brandon, what sort of nonsense are you trying to spin here? Both solipsism and delusion can be ruled out using the same process: examine the experience and see if anything in it can not be from your own mind. A self-generated delusion (a pot plant talking to you, for example) cannot contain information you don’t already have because you are generating it. Reality on the other hand does contain things you don’t know, meaning it can’t be self-generated, and this pretty much puts a bullet between the eyes of solipsism.
Now, as a budding, but non-accomplished apologist, you can go a long way in establishing some plausibility for your particular Middle Eastern god from the Ugarit pantheon by asking the same question: Can my god be a self-generated delusion or, perhaps, a solipsistic error? The answer you are, of course, looking for is, No, but to arrive at that answer you have to establish whether your particular flavour of religion has revealed anything to us (at any time) that we didn’t already know.
Has it?
LikeLiked by 1 person
John, a pot plant talking has nothing to do with solipsism. I’d like you to clean up your case against it. Prove that solipsism is false. Maybe use a syllogism.
Your trolling comment about me being a “non-accomplished apologist” I have no response for. Two things here. Atheism could just as easily be a self-generated delusion. Second, what does “revealed anything to us that we didn’t already know” have to do with truth? Do you really think God thinks things like, “Hey I’m going to tell the Israelites how to build an MRI machine so they’ll believe me”? And, besides, I’m not sure you have a historical case either way that “revealed anything to us that we didn’t already know” actually happened. It’s just an assertion.
LikeLike
If you actually read my comment, Brandon, you’d see I said a pot plant talking was a sign of “delusion.” Delusion and solipsism (opposites) can however be ruled out using the same method. Re-read the comment if you must, it might help.
So, back to the question: Can you name a single thing that your religion (supposedly through your god) has revealed that was not already known, therefore marking it out as something not generated from the mind of the participant?
LikeLike
As a working example: name something genuinely new Jesus, perhaps, said. Jesus, of course, being your god in the flesh….
LikeLike
John, first of all your idea of hallucination/delusion coming from preexisting knowledge is not always true. Can’t humans can create and imagine? (Don’t you need this in your arsenal to explain away religion in the first place?) That’s why we have novelty in the first place. But, the question of solipsism is deeper than this. You are suggesting something like this:
1. We have experience, E, which we cannot generate ourselves.
2. What we cannot generate must come from a source external to the mind.
3. Therefore, the mind cannot be the source of E.
The weakest premise is 1. What are you saying we experience that couldn’t just be generated by a mind? Do you have an airtight logical proof for this?
Before addressing novelties found in the Judeo-Christian scripture, I must ask, why does this matter one bit? This is a serious question.
LikeLike
As placed in my first comment, right at the top, I was reading your comments and saw “There is no science to refute solipsism.” There is, and it’s the same method we can use to determine delusion. Reality contains things we do not know, a delusion cannot. I do not know, for instance, how many fish are presently in Ball Bay, Norfolk Island. There is an answer, and it’s fixed for this moment, but that exists outside my head. It only applies to Christianity because that’s the central theme here. It works equally well with any belief system (or raving lunatic on the street) which makes a claim to supernatural or supernal knowledge. Hence the question: can you identify a single thing revealed through your religion (your god) that was not already known. Yes, this is drifting more into proving your religion as a functional delusion, but we got there through solipsism. So, as Jesus was your god in the flesh (so you believe) can you name something genuinely new which he said… something that was entirely original?
LikeLike
Apologies, to your first point: Can we imagine something completely out of the realm of what is known? It’s a big call to suggest we can. I think you’ll find everything we can imagine has some root in reality, even the most fantastic science fiction.
LikeLike
John, I hope you don’t mind if we just shelve the solipsism question for a minute, because neither one of is a solipsist. 🙂 Delusions are something that might be more interesting.
I’m having trouble understanding what you are saying. Let me summarize what I think, and you can correct my misunderstandings.
This is what I think you are saying: beliefs can only be held as true if they are testable (i.e., counting the fish). If beliefs are not testable, they may be true or false, but they should be counted as false hence the term “functional delusion”. Would you modify these statements?
LikeLike
Fair enough. Solipsism is really a monstrously silly, essentially improvable subject.
No, I wasn’t really talking about beliefs at all, sorry. Sure, you have a belief a man named Jesus was the embodiment of a once lowly Ugarit pantheon god named Yhwh, one of the 70 sons of El, but that’s not what is in question here, rather the validity of your belief in this Jesus and the claims made. That is to say, is there anything in what Jesus said which proves he wasn’t delusional, and if he was delusional, then your belief is unjustified and invalid, correct? So, the test to see if Jesus was as he claimed, a god, or just a deluded Judean crisis cultist who thought the end of the world was at hand, we must look to what he said and determine if any of it was genuinely new… if anything he said was genuinely unique and demonstrably otherworldly.
LikeLike
Of course, I should add, we already know Jesus didn’t know basic regional history (bungling terribly by saying Moses was a real historical character), but he can regain some credibility if he said anything that was truly new and unknown to 1st Century Palestine.
LikeLike
So, your case is that you definitely know that Jesus was parroting others or that he said something false, so why take him seriously on anything else?
On most of what you said, I personally find weak. I haven’t seen a convincing case that YHWH was from El, or that Moses did not exist. But, let’s set those points aside for now despite how tempting it must be to bring up William Devers and Finkelstein and the gang. Let’s just say I grant that there is at least one thing Jesus said that did not line up with the OT. So what? Does this really discredit everything he said?
As far as originality, we will just debate till we are blue in the face. There are plenty of atheist/agnostic scholars who admit that Jesus did bring a novel sense of community with love and humility. So what? What does originality have to do with truth?
The truth is there is no test for what is divine. There is also no test for why the universe exists, for how the universe will end, why consciousness exists, there is incredibly embarrassingly to humans no test for what is moral. We are all in the dark here on equal ground. This is were beliefs come in.
LikeLike
“Let’s just say I grant that there is at least one thing Jesus said that did not line up with the OT.” – Then we could, with equal ease, say that as a consequence, he couldn’t have been part of an omniscient triune godhead.
LikeLike
Brandon, it was a tremendously simple question: name something genuinely new which Jesus said… something (anything</em) genuinely unique to 1st Century Palestine which had not been said by anyone, at any time, before.
Is that so very difficult to answer, free of the song and dance?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Parables
Kindgom of Heaven
His specific phrase for the greatest command
Referring to God as Father
Being born again in John 3
He said he was I AM
He claimed to have the authority to forgive sins
What is truth? To Pilot
The Great Commission
That’s just an off-the-top-of-my-head list. Are these not unique? Am I missing something?
LikeLike
The fact that you believe in magic has cost you any respect I may have ever had for you – which was never a lot.
LikeLike
Hello troll.
LikeLike
You’re a fool, Brandon. You’re not even an idiot, like T – you KNOW there are no talking snakes or donkeys, no world-wide flood, no “confusing of languages” and dispersing of people to the far corners of the world, no evidence of a Moses leading two and a half million people out of Egypt and living with those for forty years in the Sinai without leaving as much trash as was left behind at Woodstock in a weekend, and the intelligence (unlike T) required to research the history of how the Bible was written, and yet you still believe, espouse, and proselytize the crap that you do. That, in my opinion, is at least A definition of a fool.
LikeLike
It’s hard to imagine that you can combine a strawman argument with a trolling response, but you managed to pull it off.
LikeLike
“It’s hard to imagine that you can combine a strawman argument with a trolling response, but you managed to pull it off.” – Must be a miracle! Could it be your god’s way of telling you you’re full of it?
LikeLike
You can attack Neuro’s integrity all you like, it doesn’t change what you are.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t say any of this is an attack on integrity. It is very specifically aimed at her use of science. And, her arrogance with thinking she can diagnose or somehow understand other’s motivations.
LikeLike
Diagnosing you is easy – you’re a fool – I thought that had already been established.
LikeLike
Good response. . . if you were a teenage kid troll. 🙂
LikeLike
“Are these not unique?” Well, no, they’re not, not at all, I’m afraid to say.
Parables are stories. Are you suggesting Jesus was the first person in history to encase moral messages in a short story? Aesop’s fables put Jesus’s parables to shame in both quantity and quality.
Kindgom of Heaven: Are you suggesting Jesus was the first person in history to promise some supernal afterlife? Zoroastrianism, which pre-dates Jesus by as much as 2,500 years, detailed heaven in quite specific ways.
The “specific phrasing”of anything is an absurd thing to identify. Word choice and grammatical structure does not make anything genuinely new, and as we don’t even have any firsthand records of words specifically said, if indeed said, to even allude to this is pure nonsense. And the “great commandment” is from the OT, so hardly original.
The concept God the Father is a central theme in Judaism, so hardly original to Jesus, yet it can, once again, be traced much further back to Zoroastrianism, to identify just one far older source.
Being born again is an obscure poetic flight of fancy, a well-honed notion of renewal. Hardly original to Jesus.
I AM is, once again, found in the OT, so not at all original to Jesus. The concept, though, of God being self-contained is as old as the gods themselves. Olódùmarè was a self-contained I AM.
The forgiveness of sin is also hardly new, and simply “claiming the authority” to do so is rather ridiculous. The Saoshyant in Zoroastrianism (the saviour figure who is referred to as the World Renovator and Victorious Benefactor who will defeat “the evil of the progeny of the biped” and establish the Kingdom of Good Thought righteousness) predates Jesus by a loooong way in the concept of redeeming, or abolishing sin.
What does What is truth? To Pilot even mean? What are you trying to say is genuinely original here, a person claiming to know the “truth”?
Are you suggesting The Great Commission, the idea to spread a religion, was new to Jesus?
So, Brandon, you have failed to name a single genuinely new or original thing Jesus said or did. You claim this person was a god, the Creator of the Universe, yet you can’t identify a single thing that was truly unique, which is to say, wasn’t already in reality. This indicates delusion, not godhood, or even genuine revelation.
Want to try again?
LikeLiked by 1 person
What is your criteria for uniqueness? Criteria that does not arbitrarily rig the game for you to win. Because I can see when that happens, and it doesn’t impress me.
LikeLike
Brandon, please… It is such a simple question, and asking for definitions of uniqueness is just a little insane, don’t you think? Unique = genuinely new, exclusive, unheard of, or unseen before. For example, ignorance typically leads believers to say (claim) the Golden Rule was “unique” to Jesus. Such a belief is, of course, absurd. The concept (in written form) can be traced back to the Egyptian Middle Kingdom (c. 2040–1650 BCE) “Now this is the command: Do to the doer to cause that he do thus to you,” and was so common it was even in popular culture some 600 years before Jesus (see Homer’s Odyssey : “I will be as careful for you as I will be for myself in the same need”).
So, I’m asking you to name just one genuinely new/unique thing Jesus said. Just one thing. One thing (a concept, if need be) that had not been heard by human ears before, and is therefore evidence of some supernal knowledge. Again, you believe this rabbi was The God, The Creator of the Universe, so one would expect, naturally, for this “God” to have said something somewhat unique, something “new,” something that actually justified his time on earth. If not, then it’s clear we’re just dealing with an ordinary 1st Century Judean crisis cultist (a dime a dozen in those days) who believed the world was about to end, correct?
LikeLike
🙂 The golden rule example is unimpressive. Our first record of it is Egyptian, not Greek or Chinese. Either way, I’m being serious here. Can you not tell that Jesus’ parables about the Kingdom of Heaven are unique in history? Who else talks about this? Who else talks about it in parables? Who else uses these specific parables? I’m afraid to say, unless you jam a definition of unique down our throats, Jesus had quite a lot of unique material.
LikeLike
Our first record of it is Egyptian, not Greek or Chinese.
You’re exposing yourself as having not even read the comment. Try reading it again, Brandon, you’ll see the first example I gave was Egyptian. The Golden Rule was also, however, found in the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi (1780 BCE), as well as in the Mahabharata (8th Century BCE) “The knowing person is minded to treat all beings as himself,” in Homer’s Odyssey (6th century BCE), “I will be as careful for you as I will be for myself in the same need,” 6th century BCE Taoism, “Regard your neighbour’s gain as your own gain, and your neighbour’s loss as your own loss,” in 5th century BCE Confucianism, “Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself,” in 4th century BCE Mohism, “For one would do for others as one would do for oneself,” and was articulated by the Greek, Pittacus (640–568 BCE), who said: “Do not do to your neighbour what you would take ill from him.”
Is that “impressive enough” for you?
Jesus had quite a lot of unique material.
Great, show me what this “unique” material was. Identify one genuinely original thing Jesus said that was unheard of. Stop dodging, and lay it out. Name something without the song and dance. The more you dance, the more it becomes apparent that you have nothing.
Do you have anything?
Again, citing the structure of parables is ridiculous. How information is presented is essentially meaningless, and as I already pointed out, Aesop’s shames Jesus in both quantity and quality. Are not “fables” just another word for “parables”?
And again, Zoroastrians had detailed the concept of heaven over 2,000 years before Jesus, the Egyptian Book of the Dead is dedicated to heaven, the Hittite’s had a very clear idea of it, Buddhists have five heavens, Hindus has Svargam where the Gods and good people reside after death, and Judaism was centrally focused on Shamayim (heaven): the dwelling place of God.
Are you seriously trying to suggest Jesus was the first person to speak of a heaven? Please. If Jesus was to have said anything at all new about heaven, the Judaic heaven which he believed in, he could have said Judaism had it all wrong, and the earth was not a flat disk floating in water with the heavens above. He didn’t, did he? All he offered was poetic fluff.
So Brandon, please don’t evade the question one more time. Name one genuinely new thing Jesus said.
LikeLike
John, I didn’t mean to imply that you didn’t know about pre-Greek expression of the golden rule.
Let me write something about this and get back later. It’s probably going to be the concept of the Kingdom of Heaven or the concept of God as Father, both of which to my understanding are genuinely new.
LikeLike
“God as Father” – Should be interesting to see how that differs from Jupiter, aka Zeus Pater, aka Zeus, the Father.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If that’s all you have, if that’s the very best you can come up with, then don’t bother. As I’ve already demonstrated, and can continue to demonstrate, the concept of “heaven” was not new to Jesus, and his own religion, Judaism, had well-established theistic views on the Father. There is absolutely nothing new or unique there, and to even suggest that there is patently absurd. Have you no knowledge of the Torah? Are you exercising such extreme ignorance just to stay alive in this conversation for another day?
Brandon, quit your dancing. Quit the evasion and just admit you cannot name a single genuinely new thing which Jesus said. How you deal with this tremendously awkward revelation is up to you, but please just stop this excuse-riddled, evasive dance.
LikeLike
Ok I see where you are going to go on those so howz about these:
Jesus teaching that looking at a woman lustfully is having adultery in one’s heart
Jesus teaching that divorce is unacceptable with the exception of infidelity
Jesus forgave people of their sins
Jesus predicted that God would judge Jerusalem within a generation (i.e., razing the temple)
Jesus claimed to be YHWH, I AM, who else in history has made that claim?
LikeLike
Well, I did warn you not to bother.
Jesus teaching that looking at a woman lustfully is having adultery in one’s heart
Are you honestly suggesting Jesus was the first man in history to try and wrestle with men’s attraction to women and the delightful temptations of the flesh? Please. I could fill pages here with texts and warnings and advice from all religions on this very subject, but let’s just present a few.
The greatest problem of any man is woman (Igala Proverb, Nigeria).
Confucius said, “I have never seen anyone whose desire to build up his moral power was as strong as sexual desire.” (Analects 9.17 and 15.12)
The Buddha said, “Of all longings and desires, there is none stronger than sex. Sex as a desire has no equal. Rely on the Oneness. No one under heaven is able to become a follower of the Way if he accepts dualism [the attraction of opposites].”
When all the desires that surge in the heart are renounced, the mortal becomes immortal. (Hinduism. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.6-7)
From lust springs grief, from lust springs fear; for him who is wholly free from lust there is no grief, much less fear. (Buddhism. Dhammapada 212-16)
A man should always incite the good impulse in his soul to fight against the evil impulse. If he subdues it, well and good; if not, let him study Torah…. If [by that] he subdues it, well and good; if not, let him pray upon his bed. (Judaism. Talmud, Berakot 5a)
He who delights in subduing evil thoughts, who meditates on the loathsomeness of the body, who is ever mindful–it is he who will make an end of craving. He will sever Mara’s bond. (Buddhism. Dhammapada 350)
Continence is to regard the wife of another as one’s own sister or daughter, and to realize that the bodies of women are full of impurity and that charm can only delude the mind. (Jainism. Kartikeya, Anupreksa 337-39)
Jesus teaching that divorce is unacceptable with the exception of infidelity
Again, are you serious? Judaism alone is rife with the subject, and the dissolution of marriage is considered an unholy act. The prophet Malachi said “. . .the Lord has been witness between you and your wife of your youth against whom you have dealt treachorously, though she is your companion, the wife of your covenant” (2:14). In Jainism, divorce is considered an act of violence; an invitation for misery and confusion. Sikhs believe that marriage is an indissoluble union that should never be terminated with divorce, and in Hinduism and Zoroastrianism divorce traditionally isn’t even recognsied.
Jesus forgave people of their sins
And again, are you serious? I can forgive people their sins. You can forgive people their sins. A mother is forever forgiving her children’s sins. Please. Anyone can forgive sins.
Jesus predicted that God would judge Jerusalem within a generation (i.e., razing the temple)
Are you perhaps referring to mark 13? There is no mention at all that this will happen within a generation, and if we’re simply dealing with predictions, then wasn’t Isaiah making all sorts of predictions, too, loooong before Jesus? Please, Brandon: Flamboyant, entirely vaporous prophecies are a staple of all religious characters. Zoroastrianism alone is driven by the prophecy of the Saoshyant; the saviour figure who is referred to as the “World Renovator” and “Victorious Benefactor” who will defeat “the evil of the progeny of the biped” and establish the Kingdom of Good Thought (righteousness).
Jesus claimed to be YHWH, I AM, who else in history has made that claim?
There are people today, like Vissarion, who claim to be Yhwh! Claims are pretty easy to make, Brandon, but are you suggesting Jesus was however the first person in history to claim he was a god? Krishna was God. Attis was God. Horus was God. Heracles was the Son of God, and Zoroaster was the “Word made flesh.” Excuse the pun, but God only knows how many people have claimed to be God, or from God.
And anyway, Jesus said “No one is good – except God alone which is far, far, far from identifying himself as Yhwh. He also said “But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only… again, not exactly calling himself god, is he? And in John 13:3 Jesus acknowledges that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God, and went to God. Further still, in John 7:16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me, in John 12:49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak, in John 8:26 I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him, and John 14:24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me.
So no, Brandon, you have still failed to identify a single genuinely new thing Jesus said or did…. An odd revelation, isn’t it, for a self-proclaimed god, or part thereof? I mean, if he couldn’t say a single genuinely new thing, why even bother with the earthly sojourn? Those 30 odd years clearly weren’t justified by anything he said or did, as you have so effectively demonstrated.
LikeLiked by 1 person
BAZINGA!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hmmm, there seems to be a lot of confusion on terminology and in hermeneutics here.
Let me ask you one simple question: what is a prototypic example of unique or original or novel, or whatever the exact concept you are going for. And, why is it a good example.
I can’t type much tonight, or I would say more, so I’ll be back tomorrow.
Peace and bazinga. 🙂
LikeLike
The only confusion seems to be with you, I’m afraid to say. Most people would have no problem recognising what “genuinely new and original” means.
And I have already given you an example: The Golden Rule is not something genuinely new, or original. You, though, are giving yourself plenty of examples… Everything you’ve listed to date is far, far, far from being genuinely new, or original.
LikeLike
You’re still not being clear though. So, let me propose a definition of originality. It must be a concept that has no historically recorded precedent. What do you think of this definition?
Let’s roll with that one. Then, actually everything I said was original from Jesus holds true against your counterargument, for example, because none of these state specifically that lust equates to adultery. Buddha (to my understanding) taught that all desires were the source of suffering, so to reach nirvana all you have to do is meditate your way into an undesiring state. The only thing special about sexual desire is its strength. He did not say that lust equated to adultery and was evil. Buddha does not seem to have a concept of evil if I remember correctly. Certainly not a Jewish conception of evil.
So, you need to do a better job than googling some silly quotes.
You need to show a few things – 1) someone expressing an equivalent concept, 2) with an earlier historical record than the gospels.
Here are just a few of Jesus’ original concepts:
1) Lust equates to adultery
2) Jesus himself had the authority to forgive sins
3) Jesus was YHWH (antecedents don’t count by definition)
4) Divorce is unacceptable except on grounds of infidelity
5) Predicting the destruction of the temple in 70 AD
LikeLike
Brandon, do you have any idea how astonishingly stupid you look here? It would seem not. I addressed every one of your “suggestions” and showed them to be un-original, or in the case of Jesus claiming to be Yhwh, categorically incorrect. And you want to repeat the humiliation by listing the same things again?
OK let’s go again, just to put you out of your misery.
Lust equates to adultery
It is true that you commit no actual crimes; but when you meet a beautiful
woman in another’s home and cannot banish her from your thoughts, you have
committed adultery with her in your heart. Consider a moment! Would you
have sufficient control over yourself to imitate the sage Lu Nan-tze if
you were placed in a similar position? When he once found himself obliged
to pass the night in a house whose only other occupant was a woman, he
lighted a lamp and read aloud until morning to avoid exposing her to un-
just suspicions.(Taoism. Treatise on Response and Retribution, Appended Tales)
Clear enough for you, Brandon?
Jesus himself had the authority to forgive sins
Who says, the bible? LOL! As I have already pointed out, I have the authority to forgive sins, you have the authority to forgive sins… We all have the authority to forgive sins. So no, Brandon, this is not unique, and are you perhaps deliberately forgetting a small character (who Jesus knew) called John the Baptist? Maybe you should look at Mark 1:4… John was forgiving sins, with authority, before Jesus. But looooong before we have, of course, the Saoshyant: the Saviour, the “World Renovator” who will defeat “the evil of the progeny of the biped” and establish the Kingdom of Good Thought (righteousness). The Saoshyant, I’m afraid Brandon, was already around in human consciousness, ready to cleanse the world of sin with the authority of Ahura-Mazda.
So, you’ve really, really failed here.
Jesus was Yhwh
I’ve already thoroughly rebutted this. Nowhere does Jesus say he is Yhwh, and you just look ridiculous repeating the claim. Further to the point, god-men were somewhat prevalent among the ancients… or have you never read history?
Divorce is unacceptable except on grounds of infidelity
Once again, I’ve already rebutted this. Tell me, do you even read what people write? Perhaps, though you should read up on some Hindu texts, specifically the epic of Ramayana, and you might find that Lord Rama divorced his wife, Ahalya, specifically because she was unfaithful, or at lweast he thought so. Do remember, Brandon, divorce is not even recognised in Hinduism, yet here we have an example in which it is permissible. In fact, I’m reading here (link below) that infidelity is the only reason why a Hindu man can divorce his wife.
Whoops. Fail, again.
http://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/h_divorce.asp
Predicting the destruction of the temple in 70 AD
OK, it’s clear you don’t read what people write. Where does Jesus say the temple will be destroyed in 70AD? Specific quote with date, please. And yet, you have failed anyway here, as you believe Isaiah’s prophecies were true, don’t you, so there’s nothing at all new or original in your own mind of a person making a prediction. Sages have been making predictions since time immemorial, Brandon, so please don’t exercise your wilful ignorance on such a public stage.
So Brandon, you have failed completely (again) to identify a single genuinely new or original Jesus said or did. Odd, isn’t it, considering the claim you attach to Jesus.
LikeLike
John, I’ve never seen you be as passionate about something as this, but I wish the strength of your argument matched your passion. The ad homenin attacks are the only thing more empty than your arguments.
Let’s start with Taoism. Treatise on Response and Retribution (Taishang Ganying Pian) was penned in the 12th century CE (1). That’s a whopping 11 centuries after Christ! And, it’s after Christianity had been introduced and later outlawed in China which gives a plausible route for Jesus’ teaching to enter the cultural consciousness. Seems to me that Jesus really was saying something original about lust.
“Who says, the bible? LOL!”
The saddest part is that we are not even analyzing the truth of Jesus’ unique authority to forgive sins, just the originality of it. John the Baptist preached a baptism, but he himself never expressed the authority to forgive sins. There is a quite massive distinction.
You comparison of Zoroastrianism’s World Renovators who bring a “Kingdom of Good Thought” reeks of propagandist atheist websites rather than academic comparative religion studies. If you want to prove that Jesus’ Kingdom of Heaven is a recapitulation of Zarathustra’s Kingdom of Good Thought, it’s going to take more work than one single citation carelessly torn out of context and completely undeveloped.
“Nowhere does Jesus say he is Yhwh. . . Further to the point, god-men were somewhat prevalent among ancients. . . or have you never read history?”
The tetragrammaton is thought to mean “to be” or put another way “I AM”, so the point stands. Also, I am unaware of anyone claiming to be YHWH. That would make it, you know, unique which is what I thought we were talking about.
“. . . you should read up on some Hindu texts, specifically the epic of Ramayana, and you might find that Lord Rama divorced his wife, Ahalya, specifically because she was unfaithful, or at least he thought so. . . “
Please let me steer you back to the point here. You need to produce a pre-Christian text of someone saying that divorce is only acceptable on grounds of infidelity. Epics about this or that don’t matter, unless the character gives a moral edict that matches Jesus’. Your pointing out the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 is embarrassingly 19 centuries too late.
“Where does Jesus say the temple will be destroyed in 70 AD?”
Yes the Olivet Discourse as interpreted from the partial preterist position. I will refrain from more detail as this topic could easily be multiple discussions on its own. Needless to say, the only thing that matters here is that what Jesus said was unique. Whether or not you think any old sage making a prophecy is ridiculous is totally irrelevant to question of what they predict being unique.
(1) http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/192962 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treatise_On_the_Response_of_the_Tao
LikeLike
And you just keep digging that hole deeper and deeper….
The Treatise on Response and Retribution is the recounted tales (wisdom) of Lao Tze, born 604 BCE. Are you going to try and suggest Jesus lived before Lao Tze? LOL!
The saddest part is that we are not even analyzing the truth of Jesus’ unique authority to forgive sins.
What truth, Brandon? There exists a “claim”, not a “truth.” Are you even aware of the difference? Can you make the distinction? Apparently not.
And as much as you’d like to dismiss Zoroastrianism, the facts remain the facts. Facts are, as Rabbi Sherwin T. Wine so accurately said, “Enormously discourteous.” To repeat: The Saoshyant, Brandon, was already around in human consciousness, ready to cleanse the world of sin with the authority of Ahura-Mazda. The removal of sin, of World Renovation pre-dates Jesus by 2,000 years! Nothing new or original there.
And you’re trying to dismiss John the Baptist, huh? Interesting. Tell me then, by what authority was John the Baptist forgiving sin? Was he simply faking it? Was he making it all up? Was he deluded? If you’re suggesting he was deluded, then Jesus was also deluded by being baptised by him, correct?
“I AM”, so the point stands
LOL! No, Brandon, the point does not stand as you have failed to even make a point. I, however, showed you example after example of Jesus specifically identifying the Father as something distinct. Here, shall we look at some of these testimonials once again? Perhaps we should:
Jesus said “No one is good – except God alone
Jesus said “But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only
John 13:3 the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God, and went to God.
John 7:16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me
John 12:49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak,
John 8:26 I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him
John 14:24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me.
Is that clear enough for you, Brandon? Is that finally sinking in?
Epics about this or that don’t matter
Are you serious? I repeat, Are you serious? The Mahabharata is Hindu scripture, you fool, and it pre-dates Judaism by centuries. Infidelity is directly identified as the only reason why a man can divorce his wife. What, you don’t accept the authority and words of Lord Rama? I’m sure a billion Hindus also couldn’t care less about Jesus. LOL!
But let’s focus on this for a second. Are you suggesting the only reason for your god to send his son to earth was to say “Infidelity is the only reason why a man can divorce his wife”? You do seem to be suggesting this, which is astonishing. Of all the myriad of things he could have said, this legal note was, in your mind, the most important thing in the entire universe. LOL! Quite the god you worship there, Brandon!
“Where does Jesus say the temple will be destroyed in 70 AD?”
I believe that was a fairly specific, easy-to-understand question, Brandon… Why the evasion? Show me exactly the quote where Jesus says the Temple will be destroyed in 70 CE. Don’t evade. Don’t dance. No creative interpretation. Show me exactly the quote where Jesus says the Temple will be destroyed in 70 CE.
But again, a sage making predictions is anything but new or original, and you yourself even confirm this. Do you not believe Isaiah’s predictions? Yes or No, Brandon. If Yes, which I already know to be the answer, then you already have an example of someone making a prediction before Jesus! Nothing genuinely new or original there, correct?
So, Brandon, are you going to persist in digging your hole deeper and deeper, are you going to continue failing in such a public manner, or are you just going to concede that you cannot identify a single genuinely new or original thing Jesus said or did?
LikeLike
John, I’m going to be patient with you, because I like you. I am a bit surprised by your zealousness though. Does your worldview depend on the strength of this argument or something?
The Treatise on Response and Retribution is merely attributed to Lao Tze, but it’s contents represent 12th century Taoism and, lo and behold, this is also when it shows up in history as written by one Li Ying-Chang. Please look at my sources for this. If you want to dispute this further, you need to produce something beyond your assertion. I have produced an account of scholarly analysis.
As for Jesus forgiving people of sins, you are still missing the point entirely. We are discussing UNIQUENESS, not the truth of theologies. Again, who else acted as if they had the authority to forgive sins and also preceded Jesus?
As for Zoroastrianism, you have not demonstrated to any degree whatsoever of scholarly satisfaction that Christianity borrowed from Zoroastrianism, and certainly and more importantly, not any of the unique teachings of Jesus that I brought up. I am more interested in the latter.
“And you’re trying to dismiss John the Baptist. . . by what authority was John the Baptist forgiving sin?”
John the Baptist was preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness for sins, but he himself did not have the authority to forgive sins. Jesus actually told sinners, “Your sins are forgiven.” There is a big difference here. Baptism is a ritual similar to a Sin Offering as detailed in Leviticus. The major similarity is that God granted forgiveness of sin through the ritual and faith. Jesus was different. He simply forgave people of their sins, without any certified ritual. He expressed the authority to forgive sins. This, I submit once again, is UNIQUE.
“I. . . showed you example after example of Jesus specifically identifying the Father as something distinct.”
Ahem *clears throat* Thou hast not studied Trinitarian theology. Thy provocations showeth me thou dost understandeth as the fool.
Seriously, it’s a bit odd for you to counterargue against Jesus’ unique claim of being YHWH with a question of theology. Nay, it is not odd, it is missing the point. Now get back to the point and please show me any pre-Christian documentation of someone claiming to be YHWH.
“The Mahabharata is Hindu scripture. . . “
Here is what you need to show. You need to show that at least one pre-Christian interpreted this to mean that infidelity was grounds for divorce even for women. You yourself are not an ancient interpreter, so you’re interpretation is worth a steaming mountain of feces.
But let’s focus on this for a second. Are you suggesting the only reason for your god to send his son to earth was to say. . .”
You systematically do not understand what the conversation we are having is about. It’s about uniqueness.
“Show me exactly the quote where Jesus says the Temple will be destroyed in 70 CE.”
“When some were speaking about the temple, how it was adorned with beautiful stones and gifts dedicated to God, [Jesus] said, ‘As for these things that you see, the days will come when not one stone will be left upon another; all will be thrown down.’
They asked him, ‘Teacher, when will this be, and what will be the sign that this is about to take place?’
. . .
‘When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. Then those in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those inside the city must leave it, and those out in the country must not enter it; for these are days of vengeance. . . For there will be great distress on the earth and wrath against this people; they will fall by the edge of the sword and be taken away as captives among all nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.”
(excerpt from Luke 21)
“But again, a sage making predictions is anything but new or original, and you yourself even confirm this.”
By this logic nothing can be unique. “Oh that’s just a moral edict, and moral edicts have been given before”, “Oh that’s just a scientific theory, there have been scientific theories before it”. Please do not play logic games to escape. David Copperfield might be impressed, but everyone outside of the hobbiest anti-theist trendy bandwagon and in the grown up world of academic discourse will not be impressed.
LikeLike
Good lord you’re tiresome. This will be my last exchange here with you unless you can actually identify a single genuinely new or original thing Jesus said or did. To date, you have failed to do so, but evidently you have no intellectual integrity to actually admit it.
“attributed to Lao Tze”… You mean like the Gospels are “attributed” to Jesus? LOL! So, let’s revisit Lao Tze’s wisdom on lust and adultery, shall we:
It is true that you commit no actual crimes; but when you meet a beautiful
woman in another’s home and cannot banish her from your thoughts, you have
committed adultery with her in your heart.
My goodness, that sounds awfully like Jesus’ words, doesn’t it… yet the thought was articulated 600 years before!
Zoroastrianism The subject is not whether Judaism stole pretty much all its concepts from Zoroastrianism, that fact is clear to see. I don’t even know why you’re trying to deflect the subject onto that. The subject is, Brandon, the concept of the forgiver of sin (a saviour) being in human consciousness 2,000 years before Jesus, named: the Saoshyant. Fact. Jesus is nothing but a carbon copy of the Indo-Iranian saviour figure: The World Renovator.
Jesus says he’s Yhwh” Really? So when Jesus says ” My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me he’s referring to whom, precisely? Who “sent” him? LOL!
Temple destruction Brandon, where does Jesus say the “temple will be destroyed in 70 CE”? Do you see a date there, Brandon? You did say “70 CE,” didn’t you? So, where is it?
Now, you’re proving yourself more pathetic here than even I gave you credit for in the past, and you’re boring me senseless with your evasions and excuses. If you choose to continue dancing I’m just going to ignore it. It’s quite clear to all who read this that you have nothing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is the most intellectually bankrupt conversation I’ve had with you and for that you should be ashamed. I recommend you go back to the drawing board and rethink the meaning of “uniqueness” and how to undertake scholarly examination so you won’t embarrass yourself with anyone else.
Paz e amor
LikeLike
Priceless. Enjoy sleeping with yourself, Brandon.
LikeLike
It’s your lucky day, John – he’s going to be patient with you because he likes you! Of course he’s totally ignoring the fact that these stories were written by anonymous authors who only SAY that their Yeshua did this or that, based on hear-say information and pure fabrication.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m not John. But, nice job being a troll (again).
LikeLike
BRANDON! – (he said “troll” – everybody drink ’em if ya got ’em!! Let’s see how many times we can make him say it –)
LikeLike
Alright Ruth. While cleaning the spam attempts (pending comments) out of my blog, I must have deleted your post that I was finally going to work on. Of course this was an accident. I can’t find it on this page now. So could you either point me there, or once again give me a question or three that you are interested in? I was very much enjoying our conversation.
Did you want to anything further on my take of your seeking God without success? For instance? Something else/too? How is that one armed wallpaper job coming btw 😉
LikeLike
In case I haven’t made myself clear, let’s remind ourselves of the claim you are prescribing to Jesus. You say he is God, the Creator of the Universe, the Omnipotent, Omniscient centre of all things… And yet you cannot identify a single genuinely new thing he said or did. Not one thing, and the things you are “suggesting” (all of which have been categorically rebutted) are so futile, so non-descript, so minor that they themselves negate the very claim. This is astonishing, would you say? What possible explanation can be made for this awkward fact?
Further to the point, you will not be able to identify a single new thing because there was no new thing said or done that hadn’t been said or done by characters who lived long, long before Jesus. Take for example the thought to be “revolutionary idea” of turning the other cheek. It’s an ancient utterance:
Lao Tzu, said it this way: I treat those who are good with goodness. And I also treat those who are not good with goodness. Thus goodness is attained
Zhuangzi said it this way: Do good to him who has done you an injury.
Rishabha said it this way: My Lord! Others have fallen back in showing compassion to their benefactors as you have shown compassion even to your malefactors. All this is unparalleled.
Mahavira said it this way: Man should subvert anger by forgiveness, subdue pride by modesty, overcome hypocrisy with simplicity, and greed by contentment.
In Hinduism its said this way: A superior being does not render evil for evil; this is a maxim one should observe; the ornament of virtuous persons is their conduct. One should never harm the wicked or the good or even criminals meriting death. A noble soul will ever exercise compassion even towards those who enjoy injuring others or those of cruel deeds when they are actually committing them–for who is without fault?
And Siddhartha Gautama said it this way: Conquer anger by love. Conquer evil by good. Conquer the stingy by giving. Conquer the liar by truth.
Your very public song and dance, your evasion tactics, don’t work, and they will not work. You can either face the facts, or knowingly delude yourself into believing something that even you, in your deepest mind, cannot ignore: you cannot identify a single genuinely new or original thing Jesus said or did.
And as I said earlier, how you deal with this ugly corporeality is up to you, but to ignore it, to evade it, is to admit you don’t inhabit the real world where facts take precedence.
LikeLike
JZ says ” claim you are prescribing to Jesus.”
It’s Ascribe here, not PREscribe. Let’s tighten it up over there huh pal: 😉
LikeLike
True, but not at all surprising that the only thing you could fault me on was lazy word choice, not content 😉
LikeLike
On December 14, 2014 at 10:10 pm I quoted JZ:
“JZ says ” claim you are prescribing to Jesus.”
And then responded with:
It’s Ascribe here, not PREscribe. Let’s tighten it up over there huh pal: 😉
JZ has now said: “True, but not at all surprising that the only thing you could fault me on was lazy word choice, not content 😉
Ya know even the dead hearted duo, Arch and Victoria have allowed a hint of a sense of humor to peek out from behind their scowls. It looks like I was expecting too much outta you.
LikeLike
“Predicting the destruction of the temple in 70 AD” – In a book that was written AFTER 70 AD? What’s tricky about that? I predict that Barack Obama will become President of the US in 2008 – now let’s sit back and see if that happens – What? It already DID? Am I good, or what?!!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Was it written after 70 AD? 🙂 I’m glad that you know something of scholarly opinion, now I urge you to read into this further. Find out exactly why the gospels are dated as they are. Examine the assumptions.
LikeLike
Already have.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I mean this is like saying Isaac Newton’s science was not unique. It was just science. People were already doing science and writing books, so Newton was not unique. Just another guy.
LikeLike
Zoroaster was the “Word made flesh.”
What text says that?
LikeLike
In this instance, I have no idea, but it certainly appears in many descriptions concerning Zoroaster: Word made flesh. As far as I am aware, though, Zoroaster never claimed to be a god, so his inclusion here was a tad in error, although an awful lot of Judaism (and therefore Christianity) is lifted almost entirely from Zoroastrianism. The six-part Judaic creation story, the cardinal couple Mashya and Mashyana (Adam and Eve), the duality of the universe, the human condition, the concept of Free Will, and even the End Times prophecies with a Saoshyant – a saviour figure – were all “borrowed” from the far older Indo-Iranian religion. The larger point however is, of course, that history pre-Jesus is peppered with god-men, so there’s absolutely nothing new or original there. But this is even beyond the point. Brandon tried to claim Jesus said he was Yhwh, which is dead wrong, as I demonstrated. He never once said so, and in fact is cited in numerous places clearly distinguishing himself from the Father, the “one who sent him.” Sure, he also says “I and the Father are one,” which must be read as speaking for the Father, not “being” the Father.
LikeLike
“I and the Father are one” could also easily mean, “The Father and I are of one mind/accord.”
LikeLike
That’s what I was thinking, and it certainly bears out through distinction Jesus is forever making between him and the “Father.”
LikeLike
Which brings us back to
LikeLiked by 1 person
God sacrificed himself,
To himself,
To save humanity from himself.
LikeLiked by 1 person
LikeLiked by 1 person
LOL! How this nonsense survives in the US is utterly beyond me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“LOL! How this nonsense survives in the US is utterly beyond me.” – Because most Americans don’t like to think too much, which is why we invented television.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, the Scot, John Logie Baird, invented TV, but the Americans sure did master how to fill that box with distracting, pacifying nonsense 🙂
LikeLike
“Well, the Scot, John Logie Baird, invented TV” – I knew SOMEone was going to catch me on that, I’d rather it was you than T or Clueless.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s OK, you Americans also think you invented the plane. The rest of the world learns it was Dumont. No biggie. We’ve all learned to love you regardless of the historical embellishments, like also trying to claim you won WW1, or defeated the Nazi’s 🙂
LikeLike
“…like also trying to claim you won WW1, or defeated the Nazi’s” – Well, we gave Churchill every chance to do it, but when he didn’t, we decided we’d better give him a hand —
LikeLike
Oh, and a much needed hand. I’m certainly not diminishing the US’s actions (or sacrifice) in WW2, but how many Americans today would answer, if asked in the street, “The Russians took the full force of German divisions (270 divisions in the east, as opposed to 80 in France) and defeated Nazi Germany, taking Berlin and ending the war”?
As an Australian, though, you saved our asses. Our 2nd String army (our real army was in north Africa fighting Rommel) stopped the Japanese along the Kakoda Track, but if it wasn’t for the US Navy, Darwin would have been taken in a few weeks and we would have had to effect the Brisbane Line: full withdrawal, ceding the northern half of the country. The Coral Sea exchange put pay to that idea and Tojo, the fucker, never made it.
(“Tracy,” referred to in the song, is Cyclone Tracy which leveled Darwin on Christmas Eve, 1974. Tracy is saying she’s better than Tojo)
LikeLike
Well, I found the conversation between you two very enlightening and amusing! 🙂
LikeLike
Amusing, and a little pathetic, to see Brandon’s “suggestions” for things genuinely new, certainly…. Desperately tiresome to prove them all thoroughly deficient three times in a row, and still have him continue with his impudence to the facts.
LikeLike
I actually was talking about you and Brandon. I only see a reply button to your post way up top and not for any of the sub-posts, so it keeps putting my posts at the bottom of the entire exchange.
If you found the exchange tiresome, why did you continue to engage him? What did you hope to accomplish?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I found traversing already trampled ground “tiresome,” and Brandon’s excuses, as I’m sure you recognised, to be quite pathetic. I gave him three chances to identify something genuinely new. He couldn’t, and ignored the clear evidence presented to him. Conversation concluded there as deluded people like him, people who simply don’t care about displaying their wilful ignorance publically, cannot be shown reason. They’ve excused themselves from the world where facts take precedence, and there’s really no point in attempting any adult conversation beyond that point. As I said to him, he has to sleep with himself at night. I, on the other hand, can sleep very comfortably 🙂
LikeLike
Oh, you were talking about Arch and I, whoops! 🙂
LikeLike
Thanks, John, he needed that —
LikeLiked by 1 person
JZ declares: “Reality on the other hand does contain things you don’t know,”
And how exactly is it that you know this?
JZ declares: “meaning it can’t be self-generated,”
Is that so? Define “reality” please, and how pray tell, YOU know, not only that it is NOT self generated, but what DOES generate it then?
I have my tissue in hand to wipe the tears of hilarity from my face. Go ahead.
LikeLike
Was I speaking to you, Greg?
My assessment of you remains unchanged: I truly hope you have no contact with children. You are unwell.
LikeLike
Well thank you so very much for this powerful and penetrating profundity. I just don’t know how I ever could have doubted you.
LikeLike
Again, was I speaking to you?
LikeLike
It is not nice of you to deprive me of a good therapeutic laugh. I already had my tissue outta the box and everything. 😦
LikeLike
“I already had my tissue outta the box and everything. 😦” – Oh, I’m sure you can find SOME use for it – oh, wait, that’s Brandon with the porn and masturbation issues, isn’t it? Since he now has a beard and you both spout religious crap, I keep getting the two of you mixed up.
LikeLiked by 1 person
archaeopteryx1 on December 4, 2014 at 5:13 pm said:
if you knew anything about genetics, you would know that it’s more than a “risk factor,” it represents a degree of PROBABILITY…”(emphasis mine)
It really is quite instructive watching a man incessantly rely on a word for which he is unable to give a definition. Watching him do this while he demeans the intelligence and mental stability of others is pure entertainment. Thank you Arch. I got my therapeutic laugh after all!! 😀 😀 😀
LikeLike
“I got my therapeutic laugh after all!!” – Well, you can certainly use all of the therapy you can get, no matter what form it may take.
LikeLike
Victoria,
Thanks for your response. I really mean that.
Yes, I do believe that God exists, Jesus was raised, etc. But, there is a difference between my personal belief and making a “claim”. A “claim” as such is saying that others should believe the same (i.e., as in a political ideology or scientific theory). I have specifically avoided this. I prefer for everyone to be free and on their own intellectual and spiritual journey, not me creating a hierarchy between me and them.
That’s actually one of the main differences I see between me and most atheists and even Greg. Greg and I will discuss this eventually. When you claim that atheism is true, you necessarily create a hierarchy between you and those who disagree. The hierarchy you create is that theists are psychologically weak. This makes you superior to them. The hierarchy Greg creates (to my understanding) is that atheists sinfully suppress knowledge of God. The difference is Greg believes in the doctrine of grace, so he can never legitimately say he is superior to you. But, by your worldview, you really are superior. The high enlightened one, the brights, the light to the world. The majority of people will find this distasteful.
My point of view is much more postmodern and it may have to do with my generation. You guys, actually all of you – John Zande, you (Victoria), Greg, Arch – you are all from a different generation. A generation that grew up with different philosophical assumptions. You were inculturated with these assumptions, similar to the way indoctrination occurs. I try hard to point out these, but I’ve absolutely failed to be able to communicate this to almost everyone except one person – Howie.
I suspect that it’s so ingrained into your generation’s belief template, that it cannot be spotted.
“My point in asking this is that you put so much stock into what Paul says and your own experiences – which I later learned was “lucid dreams” and “epiphany”?
My journey had lots of twists and turns, but yes Paul has always been important. And, I did have one lucid dream. I’m writing a book about it. 🙂
“How could [Paul having a mental illness] not be relevant?
Because mentally ill people can still tell the truth. This is not an admission that Paul had a mental illness, I think that’s impossible to determine. It’s a statement that goes: so what?
[My husband] never picked up another cigarette again. Placebos can also do wonders, but we have discussed all this extensively with you – to no avail.
Sure, but you have to first prove that Christianity is just a placebo. How do you know it’s not the real medicine? How do you know if God really does help transform people’s lives when they accept it? Wait wait wait wait.
I know what you are thinking. You are thinking that because I made that statement, I’m actually “claiming” that it is true. I am not. All I am saying is that you, Victoria Neuronotes, are in the same boat as me as far as knowing if it is true or false. I’m saying that we are equal.
I have yet to see you answer how you discern considering there are so many risk factors that can lead to people having “experiences”, then convincing other that they are “truth”.
Well, “experience” isn’t really the best way to describe it for me. I’ve always described it as something compelling. How do you know that this is even a common element in the first place? This is a serious question. What you are saying is that what happens to me is the same as what happened to, say, Joseph Smith. But, how do you know? You don’t.
At the same time I also believe there is very strong anthropological evidence for a universal religious impulse. This means, we are all built this way. There is no escape from religion. Even atheists have religion, it’s just not called religion. You worship worldly things. You have mythologies like that the cosmos is eternal. Of course this universal religious impulse can lead to all sorts of weird beliefs, so there must necessarily be many perversions of the truth.
Again, it is not intended to be a low blow.
Fair enough, I’ll take your word for it. No matter what, please don’t refer to it.
There is no point. The simple fact is that you cannot possibly know if I have a mental illness. So, there is no point in talking about risk factors.
how do you discern considering the fact that hyper-religiosity is a major feature of several common mental disorders?
I’ve never seen hyper-religiosity clinically. I am highly skeptical that it really is as big of a deal as you make it out to be. Maybe Richard Dawkins is hyper-religious for atheism. Maybe you are hyper-religious for atheism.
To me this all seems to go back to your central problem: creating a hierarchy and absolutely requiring that religious believers are psychologically weak. You can’t accept that the majority of religious folks are not mentally ill at all.
The behavioral neuroscientist that I am co-writing the book with is an atheist. . . he is fully aware that some people need to believe and that to delude ourselves can sometimes be beneficial, such as having hope.
How do you know atheism isn’t the delusion? I mean don’t you feel psychologically strong compared to all those weak minded religious people? Maybe you are the one who is deluded because you need to feel superior. Wait wait wait.
These kind of theories all fit under the guise of Critical Theory. Marxism – money is the need, Nietzsche – power is the need, Freud – psychological well-being is the need. Blah blah blah. It’s so fun to have a nice tidy explanation of reality. Brandon – nice tidy explanation is the need.
I mean to no end. When you start thinking that someone “needs” this or that, the analysis can be turned right back around to show that you, Victoria, are not an atheist because you are intellectually honest. Rather, it’s because you get a sense of superiority, you get power, you get to write a book and get your moral outrage dopamine rush, you get your psychological comfort. You must have a superiority complex by this regime.
I’m not saying any of this is true. The point is, do you see how that game works now?
*Sighs* I hope you and others read this and understand it.
Do you believe Greg’s beliefs are healthy for humanity?
Greg is good people as far as I know him, and if he has children, I bet they are blessed tremendously by his love. Me and him have some disagreements, but I don’t think I would say his views are “unhealthy”. But, there are many theologies I would call unhealthy. Look at ISIS and the Crusades, the Inquisition, etc. etc. Greg is not in this camp at all. There are plenty of secular ideologies that are harmful. Darwinianism leading to the holocaust, etc.
If you want to call evil by it’s name, which you seem to not want to do considering your adoption of the PC “antisocial” jargon, you should call ISIS evil. Racism, hate crimes, bullying, theft, Darwinian political ideologies, etc.
LikeLike
“Darwinianism leading to the holocaust, etc.” – Interesting you should say that, when I see Paul and his cult, in their effort to distance themselves from the Jews in order to practice their brand of Christianity without Roman interference, as leading far more toward the holocaust, than anything Darwin did or said.
LikeLike
Paul always went to the synagogue first. There is strong evidence that the majority of Christian converts were Jewish, and there is archaeological evidence that Christians and Jews lived in harmony. Antisemitism was a late development. At least found at the time of Luther.
On the other hand the goal of Nazism depended on social Darwinism. Nazism could easily dispense with antisemitism from any source, Luther or otherwise, but not social Darwinism.
I say this as someone who is perfectly fine with biological evolution as you know.
LikeLike
Brandon, thanks for giving more clarification on your stance even though you still didn’t answer my question about how you discern. The fact that you say you haven’t seen hyper-religiosity isn’t surprising for two main reasons: One, I think you show symptoms of it so why would you recognize something you think is normal, and secondly, as I have stated several times, due to its symptoms and a religious culture that embraces extremism under the guise of religion, and the fact that a psychological journal states it is frequently misdiagnosed, I see why you’d answer in the manner you did.
If you needed to see a doctor, would you take the word of the doctor that he is indeed a doctor because he says so or would you require credentials? What credentials does Paul have? What credentials does Jesus have that prove they are what they say they are? This is what I mean when I say people who believe are gullible.
It’s not that I think I’m superior in any sense. I just don’t appreciate people going around claiming that their god is real (a god who make his child a scapegoat) then attempts to convince others that it’s true. I don’t claim that a creator doesn’t exist. I do, however, claim that humans made up the gods we know of because there is simply no evidence that these gods exist. Religions, like Christianity, made it clear that it requires faith.
When I asked you if Greg’s beliefs were healthy to humanity, you pretty much endorsed him. That fact that you did is very disconcerting. Do you endorse his world view, such as his recent comment ➡ “AA is full of hellbound sober drunks.” ??
When I mention that there are some people who can’t cope with reality due to death anxiety or for other reasons (like the hope of seeing a dead loved one someday) and need a belief in god and an afterlife, that is not acting superior. Study Terror Management Theory. The fact that I have embraced my own mortality does not make me superior, and I have never claimed it did. Death anxiety is just that — anxiety over the fact that someday people are going to die. It can have toxic side-effects, as is quite evident throughout many cultures who claim their god is the right god.
When you claim that you don’t make claims and then spend countless hours writing comments on blogs to counter people’s lack of belief in gods, are you not claiming that the god you believe in is real — that you are right and they are wrong? When you ignore all the literature that explains there are many causes for people having delusions, hallucinations, sensed presence, etc., and put your beliefs first over all these other possible (more likely) causes, are you not making a claim that your experiences superior, and the other explanations are inferior?
Brandon, if you kept your personal belief in god to yourself, then I might take your claim that you don’t make claims in the existence of your gods, but clearly you spend hours trying to make people believe that your god is real — the god of the bible. When children, who tend to be very trusting and look up to adults to tell them the truth, are these adults, who have absolutely zero evidence that gods exists, not being deceptive to these children when they say gods are real and they shouldn’t question?
When you tell children that a bloody sacrifice is necessary (shaming them for being human and not like a supposedly perfect god), are you not being abusive? When you have full access to information that explains the causes of inappropriate behavior, antisocial behaviors and social ills, then claim that a scapegoat is required, are you not aware how incredibly archaic and naive this indoctrination is? It is not only naive, but it contributes to social ills.
From you past comments, you have claimed that your beliefs that your cultural god is real and that this belief has been beneficial for you because you were able to overcome a few habits you thought were unhealthy for you — though you labeled them as sin. Tell a baby boy who plays with his penis, and tries to masturbate instinctively that he’s a sinner, and I’ll show you a child abuser.
Now, if you were masturbating to porn all the time and not able to get it up with your wife because you chose novelty over connection with a human being, then this will cause relationship problems, but that does not make viewing porn or masturbation a sin. It simply means that you are more in tune with an instinctual drive to fertilize multiple females — thus getting more bang for your buck with novelty than intimacy with just one person who is suppose to be your lover.
My point is — if believing in a god helped you with your relationship then then that’s fine on a personal level. Not everyone needs to believe in a god to overcome certain instincts that may be disadvantageous to an intimate relationship.
When you claim that you needed a command from your cultural god of the bible to love others, and that helped you in some say see humans in a more positive light — then my hat off to ya. But do understand that people do not need to be commanded to love and respect others. It’s intrinsic, and while it might be hardwired to get edgy around people who are different than it, who falls into that category is decidedly malleable. Your biblical god pretty much claims that if people don’t submit to Jesus, then Jesus is going to call the birds from the sky to eat the flesh of dead unbelievers who died because of unbelief. (Rev 19).
What person in their right might would think this is prosocial belief? Peace and love, it is not.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Trip to New Orleans got delayed until tomorrow.
So. . .
Victoria,
You cannot diagnose hyperreligiosity. Please stop with this; you are untrained, unqualified, and furthermore, I actually question your understanding of the term.
“When I mention that there are some people who can’t cope with reality due to death anxiety or for other reasons (like the hope of seeing a dead loved one someday) and need a belief in god and an afterlife, that is not acting superior.”
You are de facto saying that those who “need” this are psychologically weak. They can’t cope like you can. Like I said, in this game everything can be turned on you.
We all need need need need, blah blah blah. I’m trying to draw your attention to how silly this whole game really is. What we really NEED is to stop playing psychologizing games.
“When you claim that you don’t make claims and then spend countless hours writing comments on blogs to counter people’s lack of belief in gods, are you not claiming that the god you believe in is real — that you are right and they are wrong?”
No I’m not making a claim like this. Sometimes I run counterarguments on common ground. For example, I argued against the entity, Religious Trauma Syndrome, because there does not appear to be any substantial research to back it up. But, you wouldn’t understand that because you don’t know how to evaluate scientific literature. You just expect everyone to believe you when you copy and paste it as if it is authoritative as if you were the mental health neuroscience pope.
When having an argument on common ground, there is a real temptation to feel superior. So, I need to be explicit (again) that when I argue against your scientific views, I reject the explanation that I am superior to you in any way. I simply have a scientific career path — I’ve been thrust into the world of science. Otherwise I would be making the same mistakes you are. You know, when I first started biomedical research I discovered the hard way that a good deal of published research is unreproducible garbage. I had to learn what type of data to value. After that, in medical school, we had courses on evaluating the strength of studies. That’s how I know that case studies are far weaker than randomized-controlled trials. When you say you can somehow present a case study (i.e., of TLE with hyperreligiosity or something else) and diagnose Greg with this, it’s absolutely laughable. No medical professional or academic would take you seriously if you wrote something like this in your book.
“When you ignore all the literature that explains there are many causes for people having delusions, hallucinations, sensed presence, etc., and put your beliefs first over all these other possible (more likely) causes, are you not making a claim that your experiences superior, and the other explanations are inferior?”
I don’t ignore any of this literature, I actually comprehend it. I diagnose schizophrenia, I look at CT scans and MRI scans, I have dissected human brains and spinal cords, I have an understanding of the scientific method and the limitations of studies.
The reason your understanding and use (abuse) of scientific literature is inferior to mine is because of my credentials and experience. That’s why when I tell you that some of your approaches abuse science, you should take it seriously.
“When you tell children that a bloody sacrifice is necessary (shaming them for being human and not like a supposedly perfect god), are you not being abusive?”
I’m going to defer commenting for now because we have more common ground in other issues. Of course, I totally disagree with you on this.
“Now, if you were masturbating to porn all the time. . .”
Trolling.
“When you claim that you needed a command from your cultural god of the bible to love others, and that helped you in some say see humans in a more positive light — then my hat off to ya. But do understand that people do not need to be commanded to love and respect others.”
I don’t recall ever saying I needed a command. (Did I hear the word “need” anyone? Anyone?)
LikeLike
““Now, if you were masturbating to porn all the time. . .”
Trolling.” – Interesting how you call “trolling” anyone who disagrees with you.
I’m curious as to your reasons for spending so much time masturbating to porn – was there something you wanted your wife to do for you in bed, but she declined, and that’s the reason you had to go online to find it? Is she still with you, or did she leave to avoid your “rebuking”?
“You want me to suck WHAT?“”“Now, if you were masturbating to porn all the time. . .”
Trolling.” – Interesting how you call “trolling” anyone who disagrees with you.
I’m curious as to your reasons for spending so much time masturbating to porn – was there something you wanted your wife to do for you in bed, but she declined, and that’s the reason you had to go online to find it? Is she still with you, or did she leave to avoid your “rebuking”?
“You want me to suck WHAT?“
LikeLike
Trolling again, old man? Pathetic.
LikeLike
““Now, if you were masturbating to porn all the time. . .”
Trolling.” – Interesting how you call “trolling” anyone who disagrees with you.
I’m curious as to your reasons for spending so much time masturbating to porn – was there something you wanted your wife to do for you in bed, but she declined, and that’s the reason you had to go online to find it? Is she still with you, or did she leave to avoid your “rebuking”?
“You want me to suck WHAT?“
LikeLike
Brandon, yet more intellectual dishonesty and an avoidance of the question on how you discern. Over the past year you have demonstrated your lack of knowledge in neuroscience. Having an MD doesn’t make you a good doctor. Based on your posts I’d have to say you have flawed ways of thinking.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/misdiagnosis-is-more-common-than-drug-errors-or-wrong-site-surgery/2013/05/03/5d71a374-9af4-11e2-a941-a19bce7af755_story.html
You demonstrated your lack of scientific knowledge by the way you rejected the numerous peer-reviewed studies I and others have shared with you over the course of this past year. In fact, your replies came across as though you had never taken the time to read them.
Again, what were Jesus’ and Paul’s credentials besides hearsay from anonymous writers and self-proclaimed messengers of the Abrahamic god?
One more time — how do you discern when the major feature of common mental disorders are delusions with religious content? The fact that you even question the legitimacy of hyper-religiosity or DRC (delusions with religious content) demonstrates just how uneducated you are on the subject.
I don’t ignore any of this literature, I actually comprehend it.
Not based on your responses.
I have an understanding of the scientific method
You’ve certainly not demonstrated that in discourse.
The reason your understanding and use (abuse) of scientific literature is inferior to mine is because of my credentials and experience.
“No medical professional or academic would take you seriously if you wrote something like this in your book.”
You have no idea what the book is about and I’m not the only one writing it. I have not made diagnoses though I have recommended neurological evaluations by a specialist. I would certainly never recommend someone to you.
Again, you show very little understanding of scientific literature when it is presented to you in discourse. The bottom line is that here is no evidence that Jesus was god and no evidence that Paul’s visions were divine.
http://www.currentpsychiatry.com/home/article/how-to-care-for-patients-who-have-delusions-with-religious-content/c4d09baf5dd83ef913af3d6794e0d3b9.html
Enjoy your time in New Orleans and behave — Jesus is watching your every move. 😉
LikeLike
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, Mengele was doctor —
LikeLike
Victoria,
I assure you none of this criticism is intellectual dishonesty. You have demonstrated your inability to evaluate scientific literature and flat out abused science to make your points. Let’s look at some of the issues you have raised in more detail.
Religion is a protective factor for suicide – after broad literature review (i.e., better than a single case study or one author’s opinion), the Scottish Risk and Protective Factors for Suicide and Suicidal Behaviour: A Literature Review concluded: “There is a wide range of evidence to suggest that religious participation may be a protective factor against suicidal behavior. However, this may vary according to the level of secularization within a country or community. Moral sanctions against suicide promoted by members of a religious community may have wider protective effect on the non-religious members of a community where the religious members are in the majority. Religious observance does not confer equal protection on individuals. . .” (1) In this summary they hedge by saying “may” but they do that for all of their summaries. The evidence strongly favors religion as a protective factor. I have not seen a single study showing religion was a risk factor (with the exception of suicide cults, obviously not relevant to Christianity). You were just flat out wrong when you claimed that religion increases risk for suicide.
Religious Trauma Syndrome – this is not a diagnostic entity yet. It is not in the DSM-V and psychiatrists do not use it as a diagnosis and would not get reimbursed by insurance or CMS by using it as a diagnosis. Go to http://www.cms.gov/medicare-coverage-database/staticpages/icd-9-code-lookup.aspx and type in “religion” and all you see is “refusal of treatment for reasons of religion or conscience”. If you go to PubMed, a premier biomedical database, there are 4 results from using keywords “religious trauma syndrome” and none of them in the title. Basically, this is just made up out of thin air. I could make up syndromes like this. Divorce Frustration Syndrome. Religious Joy Syndrome. Google Expert Syndrome.
Spirituality and religion in epilepsy – epilepsy affects 0.5-1% of the population. Authors in one study performed a literature survey finding: “between .4% and 3.1% of partial epilepsy patients had ictal religious experiences; higher frequencies are found in systematic questionnaires versus spontaneous patient reports. Religious premonitory symptoms or auras were reported by 3.9% of epilepsy patients. Among patients with ictal religious experiences, there is a predominance of patients with right TLE. Postictal and interictal religious experiences occur most often in TLE patients with bilateral seizure foci. Postictal religious experiences occurred in 1.3% of all epilepsy patients and 2.2% of TLE patients. Many of the epilepsy-related religious conversion experiences occurred postictally. Interictal religiosity is more controversial with less consensus among studies. Patients with postictal psychosis may also experience interictal hyper-religiosity, supporting a “pathological” increase in interictal religiosity in some patients.” (2). Now, I want you to take note of a few things here. First, there are terms like “religious conversion experience”, “religiosity”, and “hyper-religiosity”. Things are all different, complicated, and dependent on how the phenomenon is described. Second, notice that this is quite rare. Third, notice that it affects epilepsy patients – people who have seizures. Most churchgoers do not have epilepsy. I do not have epilepsy. I don’t think Greg has epilepsy.
Gastaut-Geschwing syndrome in patients with TLE – I’m sure you are aware of this syndrome. One case-control study (note: better than case study) compared regular churchgoers were “different in content and intensity” (3). When I’ve read the case studies of hyper-religiosity, God is talking to them, they go to heaven and see angels and so on. Most people, including myself, do not report this.
Psychosis and religion – yes, there are patients on almost every psych ward with religious-related hallucinations or delusions. What relevance does this have to most people? Schizophrenic patients usually have cognitive deficits that prevent them from being high functioning in society – you know holding a job, paying bills, etc.
Hyperreligiosity in mentally healthy individuals – I cannot find a single study on this. It’s scientifically laughable for you to diagnose Greg with this.
Your ability to say anyone exhibits hyper-religiosity – you are completely unqualified due to your lack of training. You don’t understand psychiatry or medicine. You don’t understand how to evaluate scientific literature.
Your ability to say anyone exhibits hyper-religiosity off of internet conversations – not even a licensed psychiatrist would do this. Don’t be silly.
Misdiagnosis happens all the time – yeah, but that means the true diagnosis must EXIST in the first place and also be PLAUSIBLE. If it’s even plausible that someone like me or Greg are hyper-religious, we should have partial seizures. Or, if our religiosity was somehow linked to a mental illness, we would have to have it. Overall, your point is irrelevant.
Do you have any other scientific claims?
Again, what were Jesus’ and Paul’s credentials besides hearsay from anonymous writers and self-proclaimed messengers of the Abrahamic god?
What does this matter?
how do you discern when the major feature of common mental disorders are delusions with religious content?
You need to take a good patient history which may entail speaking with family members depending on the patient’s functional status and historian abilities. It depends largely on the timing to determine causation. For example, if a patient describes “having gone to heaven” while they are in the post-ictal state of a seizure, you can deduce that their brain generated this experience during the ictal state. It is accomplished by a careful history and observance over time.
I have not made diagnoses though I have recommended neurological evaluations by a specialist.
You are not even qualified to recommend this. But, I am.
(1) http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/251539/0073687.pdf, pg 52
(2) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18171635 (abstract)
(3) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16919503 (abstract)
LikeLike
PLEASE tell me you’re not running around with M.D. tacked onto your name, and don’t know that not all epileptics demonstrate seizures —
LikeLike
Please Arch. 🙂 Don’t even bother trolling anymore. It’s useless.
LikeLike
“Hyperreligiosity in mentally healthy individuals – I cannot find a single study on this.”
That’s because it doesn’t occur in mentally healthy individuals. 😉
What part of “epilepsy is as common as breast cancer and takes as many lives” did you not get? http://www.epilepsy.com/node/986825
500 new cases are diagnosed everyday in the U.S. TLE (complex partial seizures — CPS) with religious auras are frequently misdiagnosed, as noted the Primary Care Companion to the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470651/:
Also noted in the PCC to the JCP, with complex partial seizures (TLE), it can be difficult establishing diagnosis using laboratory tests
In conclusion — the numbers you presented meaningless, and we are only talking about one neurological disorder here. According to the Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, as many as 60% of those with schizophrenia have religious grandiose delusions consisting of believing they are a saint, God, the devil, a prophet, Jesus, or some other important person. But as I shared earlier with Greg, it only takes one person to believe they were “chosen” by god to get millions of followers. People like you who claim to be well read on the subject, and flash MD credentials around, are actually a hindrance to people getting the necessary help they need. =/
Regarding religion and suicide, I already addressed that at length, but as usually, you only see what you want to see. People are scared to commit suicide for fear they will burn in an eternal hell promoted by your beloved religion. Rather than encouraging “morality through fear” via authoritarian religion, why don’t we actually get to the root causes of depression instead of promoting fear of eternal torment to curtail it?
Brandon, I can understand why you might need a belief system to help you cope with reality, but you are obsessed with sin and evil and that is a sign of a very unhealthy mindset.
Still, all of your rhetoric, to put the spotlight on me, is a smoke screen to avoid answering the question. How do you discern?
LikeLike
the numbers you presented meaningless
🙂 You wish they were. Don’t be anti-intellectual.
According to the Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, as many as 60% of those with schizophrenia have religious grandiose delusions consisting of believing they are. . .
Did you even read what I typed? Have you ever even met someone with schizophrenia?
People like you who claim to be well read on the subject, and flash MD credentials around, are actually a hindrance to people getting the necessary help they need.
Trolling. And, a stupid comment no less.
People are scared to commit suicide for fear they will burn in an eternal hell
Evidence please.
Brandon, I can understand why you might need a belief system to help you cope with reality, but you are obsessed with sin and evil and that is a sign of a very unhealthy mindset.
Trolling.
Still, all of your rhetoric, to put the spotlight on me, is a smoke screen to avoid answering the question. How do you discern?
Please specify your question.
LikeLike
Interestingly, Brandon is the only commenter ever to be banned from NeuroNotes’ website – to me, that says a lot about Brandon, as anyone who knows Neuro, knows she would only do that under the most extreme conditions.
LikeLike
For the record. (not that anybody will care) As much as Brandon and I disagree, it is deplorable the hateful way you folks treat him.
LikeLike
“it is deplorable the hateful way you folks treat him” – I suspect it’s his hypocrisy – you’re an idiot and you come across that way, no pretense – Brandon is a fool, and he began coming on boards on which we post about a year ago, pretending to be a “naive thinker,” while trying to draw us into debating traps – you know, kind of like you, except with finesse and subtlety. Most of us have lost any and all respect for what he is and what he could ever be, because of his subterfuge – you, on the other hand, are at least blatantly obvious about being an idiot. You had to be there, we were. And then, of course, there’s who cares what you think?
LikeLike
Oh, you put up your traps too, don’t feel left out, but they’re about as subtle as a steamroller – like a spider that puts up a sign reading, “SPIDERWEB” in fly language —
LikeLike
You are another hardhearted, angry, bitter, miserable person Arch. 😦
LikeLike
Not at all – I like sunshine, and lollipops, puppies, fuzzy kittens and little children – about the only thing I really can’t tolerate are theists who try to batter others into believing as they do – can’t stand ’em.
LikeLike
“As much as Brandon and I disagree, it is deplorable the hateful way you folks treat him.”
That’s funny coming from a guy who believes Brandon is going to burn in hell because he is not a “real” Christian. Oh, and btw, how soon you seem to have forgotten that Brandon “rebuked” you not long ago. Crickets — all we heard after that were crickets.
There’s nothing worse than a Christian who smiles in your face, but his thoughts say otherwise. They are a dime a dozen and you are no exception. You know what I’m talking about, Greg. You’re a dude running around obsessively telling people about the grace of god and that he (god with a penis) loves them, yet in your heart you believe most people are going to experience great suffering at the hands of your diabolical god because they were not “chosen”.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I argued against the entity, Religious Trauma Syndrome, because there does not appear to be any substantial research to back it up.
Would you argue against it in any context? You don’t think Religious Trauma Syndrome exists? Or just that there is no Religious Trauma Syndrome with regards to Christianity?
LikeLike
See my comment above.
LikeLike
Are you familiar with Dr. Marlene Winell?
LikeLike
She has ZERO publications on Pubmed. She writes op-eds for ex-Christian.net and I’m unsure if she’s published even a single peer-reviewed scientific study. That’s just from a Pubmed and google search, so I could be missing something.
As a scientist, I am unimpressed. My impression is that she is biased against Christianity (even writing about toxic messages at Christmas 🙂 ) and she made up RTS out of thin air and touts her PhD as credibility. This is not how real science proceeds.
LikeLike
So you don’t think that anyone has experienced any trauma at the hands of religion – any religion? And you are totally a-okay with people being treated as second class citizens for not believing in the religion of their culture? And losing one’s faith isn’t the slightest bit traumatic?
I realize this is not a category in the DSM. I also realize that Dr. Winell is lobbying for it to be a category in the DSM. I’m sure that she will have to produce something in the way of peer reviewed studies in order to do that. Weren’t a lot of the categories that are now in the DSM once just thought of as crackpot theories made up out of thin air? Yes, she coined the term, and I would agree that she will necessarily have to produce some scientific evidence for it to be even considered as an addition or change to the DSM. However, as someone who has been traumatized by her loss of faith, it’s hard for me to agree that it’s made up out of thin air.
LikeLike
Ruth,
It sounds like you are trying to get me to offer my opinion, so I’ll do that.
I do think transitions in belief can bring anxiety and social tension, but when we use words like “trauma” it generally really needs to be quite bad: almost dying, losing a spouse, suffering severe injury, witnessing an accident, war, etc. Those are traumatic. But, a deconversion? Gimme a break. I’ve deconverted and it certainly couldn’t be described as traumatic. Victoria said her deconversion made her happier. I’m not saying deconversion, depending on the circumstances, can be stressful and lead to problems. But, I think we need more clear terminology. Trauma usually refers to a single short term event such as witnessing a school shooting. Deconversion it seems would be hard to define what kind of single short term event happens. It’s a drawn out process of questioning and cognitive dissonance and resolution.
So, let’s say we augmented this alleged syndrome into deconversion anxiety. Even then, you have to justify why it needs to be specific to deconversion. (There could be a REconversion anxiety or a loss-in-faith-of-a-political-candidate anxiety, etc.). The DSM has general categories for anxiety, so why is deconversion so unique? That may seem like a trivial question, but it’s not. For example, in the DSM V there is no category of sex addiction. That may come as a surprise, but it’s true. The reason cited: lack of research.
I wouldn’t argue that some people have uncomfortable deconversion experiences, but a sociologist would question whether it had anything to do with beliefs. For example, academic sociologists tend to see ISIS as NOT primarily motivated by ideology, but rather something like power. Sam Harris, our atheist friend, has criticized them, but they have a reason for this. I’m not saying I agree or disagree with this assessment, but it is another point that a sociologist would make.
Deconverted people are likely happy they found the truth, but sad that it gives them nihilistic feelings or whatever. So, you’ve got to justify a pathway from belief to anxiety, and you’ve got to find a reproducible pattern.
Aren’t you happy you found the “truth”? Are you really “traumatized”? Aren’t you happy there is no hell, for example?
LikeLike
“It sounds like you are trying to get me to offer my opinion, so I’ll do that.” – Now THAT took some arm-twisting! Ruth, you’re stronger than I realized.
“Trauma usually refers to a single short term event” – So hanging by your thumbs for a year wouldn’t be traumatic in any sense, because it wasn’t “short term,” is that what you’re saying? Wanna try it? Stick out your thumbs – I’ll check back with you in a year for a full report. You kinda make up your own definitions as you go along, don’t you Brandon?
LikeLike
Trolling and. . . pathetic.
LikeLike
I am much happier now, yes. But there are things about Christianity that did affect me greatly. For instance, even though I know there’s no hell, sometimes things happen that trigger a fear of it. I realize that is irrational and can talk myself down from it, but it’s there. It’s palpable. Then again my experiences with fundamentalist religion may be different from yours. And just because you were not traumatized by it doesn’t mean that no one is. Though I do see what you are saying, there likely is already a category in the DSM that fits whatever anxiety a person feels at the loss of their faith. To be perfectly honest, I was more traumatized by my doubt than I am my disbelief. When I first began to doubt I was quite despondent and had thoughts of ending my life to prevent a loss of faith. I’d have rather faced the God I still believed in at the time having committed suicide than having rejected him. I guess everyone is different. There are those who go to war who don’t suffer from PTSD and those that do. Just because everyone who sees a terrible event doesn’t have it doesn’t mean that no one does. I don’t really care what you call it, but I did need professional help to deal with my fear and anxiety. My doubt produced panic attacks and a fairly deep depression.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“I know there’s no hell, sometimes things happen that trigger a fear of it” – Indoctrination is a powerful tool! It plays on our most basic fears.
“I don’t really care what you call it, but I did need professional help” – Of course it was real, Ruth – the fact that it’s not in the DSM-V means very little, he’s just playing head games. No one just wakes up one morning and decides to place a disorder in the DSM. The 5, for example, began with a conference in 1999, yet it wasn’t until 2007 that a task force was formed, and the manual itself wasn’t published until just last year, in May. There are discoveries being made as we speak that may not show up in a DSM for another 15 years – does that mean they’re not real? That no one suffers from them? Of course not, it merely means they’re not universally recognized, a bit similar to how long it takes for a scientific hypothesis to become a theory, to become a fact and show up in scientific journals. Brandon uses his knowledge as a weapon on those whom he believes knows less on a subject than he does, withholding information that’s detrimental to his cause – a typical manipulation technique.
LikeLike
I realize it takes a very long time for anything new in the field of science to be considered a legitimate theory. He isn’t telling me anything that I don’t know. There must be studies, there must be repeatable and reliable data. I get that.
I also get it that many of the disorders listed in the DSM were considered crackpot theories made up out of thin air by quacks at one time, too.
In all honesty, what I got from what he said was that his deconversion wasn’t all that traumatic so deconversion isn’t traumatic for anyone. A bit ridiculous.
LikeLike
I don’t know what you call the nights that I cried out to the God I believed in at the time and begged for more faith or death, but I wouldn’t say it was a walk in the park. And there are things that now trigger me for some major anxiety related to Christianity. I have a better handle on it now, but it’s still there and it’s very palpable.
LikeLike
“I don’t know what you call the nights that I cried out to the God I believed in at the time and begged for more faith or death” – At 12, I stood on a hilltop in an electrical storm (what was I thinking?!) and challenged Yahweh to prove he was there. I got nothing but wet.
LikeLike
I’m sorry it was such a bad time for you, and I appreciate your willingness to share something like this. Are you doing OK now? I think you are several years out right?
My experience was more about anger towards religious people which could bring up anxiety but certainly not suicidal thoughts or depression. Also, I should say, I was not trying to generalize my case to all cases as you mentioned in your reply to Arch. Please don’t think that. I only have two points. First, I have a hard time thinking the general phenomenon of deconversion can fit the definition of trauma. Am I just splitting hairs? Well, at least not when we are discussing diagnostic categories.
Another thing which I think you point out that is agreeable is that deconversion can be different depending on our personalities and circumstances. That’s why if we want to say this experience causes a syndrome, we need to study a large population to eliminate confounding factors and to see if there is any common elements that are statistically significant.
Even if we did this and found that 70% of people experience anxiety or depression during their deconversion, like I said before, we need reasons to create a new syndrome. I.e., can we treat this like other anxiety or mood disorders? If so, why do we need a new syndrome?
Most people with clinical depression, for example, have a good reason for it. They lost their job, their child has cancer, their father died, they got divorced, their husband is in jail. Despite different life circumstances, their symptoms fit a reproducible pattern for depression and this diagnosis determines the treatment. We don’t have psychiatric diagnoses for all of these circumstances. We do have one for loss of a loved one — bereavement — and this is considered normal and not pathologic. There has been research into how to differentiate normal bereavement from clinical depression, so we have ways to separate these.
So, that’s my second point. We need good justification to create a new diagnostic category.
LikeLike
“Are you doing OK now? I think you are several years out right?”
Yes, I’m about 4 years out now and I’m doing quite well. As I said, my doubt was far more distressing than my disbelief.
“My experience was more about anger towards religious people which could bring up anxiety but certainly not suicidal thoughts or depression.”
I have, to this day, not been angry with religious people. I loved them then and I love them now. How on earth could I be angry with them? They believe all of this as truth. It’s not as if they deliberately lied to me about anything.
“That’s why if we want to say this experience causes a syndrome, we need to study a large population to eliminate confounding factors and to see if there is any common elements that are statistically significant.”
I have already conceded that for this to be added to the DSM I understand that studies will need to be done. I was simply dispelling the notion that deconverting from any strongly held religion is not just some ho hum event. It’s not like deciding between pancakes and waffles.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Just to let you guys know, I’m going to New Orleans for the weekend and will not have the internets. Group hug everyone, except Arch. He’s too cool for school.
I thought Arch should get a new photo to analyze.
Peace and love.
LikeLike
“I thought Arch should get a new photo to analyze.” – Awww, your first comb-over —
LikeLike
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ruth, I have been unavoidably detained by a previous commitment. I promise, I would never forget about you.
archaeopteryx1 says: “yeah and no matter how hard we try, you won’t let us forget about you either.”
I just figured I’d save ya the trouble arch 🙂
LikeLike
No worries. I’ve been busier than a one-armed wallpaper hanger so I wouldn’t have had time to really even think about this, much less respond.
LikeLiked by 1 person
HAHA!! 😀 good one 🙂 (one armed wallpaper hanger)
LikeLike
Are you someone I should know –?
LikeLike
Jesus is someone you should know Arch.
http://tiribulus.net/wordpress/?page_id=206
LikeLike
“Jesus is someone you should know Arch.” – There are SO many dead men, I really don’t have time to meet them all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I wouldn’t wanna meet any dead people either. Not the greatest conversationalists. Jesus is alive in my heart AND is seated at the right hand of the Father in majesty on high. He can do that bein God n all. I am saved by His life. Death and the grave were swallowed up in victory when stepped from that tomb. He could even make you live Arch. You’d hug Brandon AND myself then. Wouldn’t it be wonderful? You wouldn’t have to be hard hearted, loud mouthed, irrelevant troll anymore. 🙂
LikeLike
“Jesus is alive in my heart” – Yeah, well, next time you do an electrocardiogram, say “Hi” for me!
“You’d hug Brandon AND myself then.” – Yuck!
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Tiribulus,
I’d like to know, specifically, which question you posed to BrianHansen that you think is a stumper? Was it the one about pedophelia or something to with Naziism? Or something else altogether. I’ve read through several pages of that exchange.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If morality is whatever cultural consensus is ascendant at any given moment, on what basis does he protest sexual aggression toward his children if he were living in a society that deemed such activity to be therapeutic for instance? I prefaced that with my declaration of it being for illustrative purposes only and that I intended no ill or disrespect to his family or children.
To this day I haven’t gotten an answer from him. Maybe you have a different theory of morality?
Also, I have an unusually high level of busyness at the moment due to a major offline event as well. I know you’re not pressuring me, but I again reiterate that I haven’t forgotten about you. I continue to very much appreciate your willingness toward intelligent engagement and even more so your willingness to read my links.
You’re right too that copying and pasting a mountain of studies that allege to demonstrate my brain damaged victim hood will fall on deaf ears for all eternity. They make me yawn. I’m told to expect that from the all the forces of unbelieving so called science. They will come to absolutely ANY conclusion except the truth. Victoria’s campaign is like shooting spitballs at an aircraft carrier.
She keeps thinking:
They all show n tell the same thing to me. Pagans using their God given life and gifts against Him because they hate Him and will believe ANYthing that they think will provide escape from moral accountability to Him.
LikeLike
Can you define what you mean by pedophelia? And do you feel your abhorrence toward it come from any written words in your Bible?
LikeLike
“VI. The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture:”
Westminster Confession of Faith of 1646, Ch. 1. sect. VI.
I concur wholeheartedly.
LikeLike
Yes, you’ve said so a number of times. I find your scriptures wholly silent on the issue of pedophelia. To go a step further, in instances of even rape, it seems rather….vague…as to the actual moral implications of such.
Before you jump the gun and think that I advocate that pedophila is a harmless activity which should be lawful, think again. It’s a disgusting act which I shall refrain from giving my opinion on punishment. It likely wouldn’t go over well with my fellow atheists.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And, again, can you define what you mean by pedophelia?
LikeLiked by 1 person
This would be the granddaddy of all sidetracks and yes I have been over absolutely all of it before. This is also another HUGE set of topics with gross misunderstanding everywhere even among many Christians. Very briefly and I have to go for now. This is where the systematic study of scripture is so vital.
What IS taught makes God’s original design of one man and one women for life, normally (but sometimes not) capable of reproduction, the exclusively blessed state of marriage, sex and family. Yeah, yeah yeah, I know about “polygamy. That was a regulated compromise and part of the penalty to women for Eves’ sin. The New Covenant catapulted both women and marriage to a state that is even better than the original. (like I say LOOONG story)
No there is no ambiguity on rape once Deuteronomy18 is actually interpreted responsibly. My capable friend Fred Butler just did a blog about that as a matter of fact.
LikeLike
“This would be the granddaddy of all sidetracks and yes I have been over absolutely all of it before.”
Hahahaha! Literally. Out. Loud. I’m pretty sure I chased you down this rabbit hole.
So, any woman of age to menstruate is marriage material?
Regulated compromise? From a God of absolute morality?
Talk about sidetracks. You didn’t answer the question.
LikeLike
“No there is no ambiguity on rape once Deuteronomy18 is actually interpreted responsibly.” – Translated from T-speak: “rationalized” —
Yet still no answer, except, “Gotta go –“
LikeLike
I’ll bet she wishes you had answered her question, instead of going into a proselytizing rant —
LikeLike
“Westminster Confession of Faith of 1646, Ch. 1. sect. VI.” – words of men, regarding the words of men.
LikeLike
You’re right too that copying and pasting a mountain of studies that allege to demonstrate my brain damaged victim hood will fall on deaf ears for all eternity. They make me yawn. I’m told to expect that from the all the forces of unbelieving so called science. They will come to absolutely ANY conclusion except the truth. Victoria’s campaign is like shooting spitballs at an aircraft carrier.
I realize you believe that you know the truth and that we are suppressing it. I disagree with that conclusion. I have my own personal thoughts about the mental state of a number of fellow bloggers I’ve run across, both theists and non-theists, but I generally keep those to myself because they are exactly personal opinions. I’ve learned from very recent discussions that calling into question the mental status, intellectual capacity, or the integrity of another is not an effective strategy.
Victoria does do valuable research and has helped a number of people with her advocacy for mental health awareness. No one is immune from mental defect. It is not a respecter of persons. So I prefer not to malign her or her efforts. It seems to me, and I hope that I am wrong about this, that you are attempting to set me at odds with the other members of this group. If you will notice I have stayed as Switzerland as possible.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Does she do valuable research? How do you make that judgment? That doesn’t sound very Switzerland to me.
Advocacy on the other hand is commendable. I’ll all for it.
LikeLike
Acknowledging that she is helping people and drawing attention to mental health issues is somehow not neutral? I’ve also said that I think you’re a genuinely nice guy. Is that taking a side, too? Who knew?
LikeLike
“They all show n tell the same thing to me. Pagans using their God given life and gifts against Him because they hate Him and will believe ANYthing that they think will provide escape from moral accountability to Him.”
Greg, we are under no obligation to be morally accountable to someone who is clearly immoral ➡ the god a.k.a. religion you’ve chosen to worship.
I’ve never once stated that you had brain damage. I just find it quite interesting that you are so trusting — that you will believe anything from the bible which we have significant evidence showing that it was copied and recopied over and over, corrupted, embellishedl writings deliberately omitted, canons selectively chosen by people with questionable characters and agendas, and full of anonymous writers who didn’t have the courage to put their name on these writings.
What it shows, Greg, is that you have deliberately chosen to remain ignorant and entrusted people who could have easily had mental health issues that caused delusions with religious content — a phenomena which is common, and probably more so back in biblical days when environmental conditions that are the leading cause of mental disorders were much worse.
I completely agree with Ruth that sharing the type of information I do is fruitless with people like you and Brandon. But I know from the numerous emails I get that there are lurkers who do appreciate the data. Authoritarian religion, that endorses inappropriate, antisocial behavior should have a spotlight shown on it.
Brandon has his own brand of religion/Christianity where he cherry pics to help him with cognitive dissonance, although he still seems to have lost contact with reality when it comes to understanding the causes of inappropriate behavior. But your beliefs are down right unethical and you can’t see it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Victoria, you haven’t the first flickering clue what morality is 😦 You’re a soon to be dead organized pile of chemicals that has been given life by the only being that will ever exist who has the right or capability to determine what is moral or ethical.
YES, you ARE under obligation to repent, and surrender everything you are and everything you have to the spotlessly pure and holy God who designed and built you. I am very much hoping and praying against it, but persistence in this path of insolent rebellion will have eternally fatal consequences.
People like me are the only real friends you have in this world. I MUST go til later now.
LikeLike
“You’re a soon to be dead organized pile of chemicals that has been given life by the only being that will ever exist who has the right or capability to determine what is moral or ethical.” – According to Bronze Age men who believed the sun revolved around the Earth – I’d hang on those guys’ every word!
LikeLike
Arrogance. Foolish arrogance once again. Things were getting better for a while, what happened?
LikeLike
“on what basis does he protest sexual aggression toward his children if he were living in a society that deemed such activity to be therapeutic for instance?…Maybe you have a different theory of morality?”
I’m with you, Big Fig – I say we go all biblical on him and refer him to the story of Lot! Oh, wait, that may not be the best approach —
LikeLike
I think you’ll find that T is a bit of a legend in his own mind, with delusions of grandeur thinly disguised as humility.
LikeLike
Ruth says: “I’ve learned from very recent discussions that calling into question the mental status, intellectual capacity, or the integrity of another is not an effective strategy.”
Very wise. Even if true, by definition, such a person would be immune to any assertions concerning their own “mental” heath. It’s been rather disconcerting watching Victoria quote studies to a mental case about their being a mental case. Does it not occur to the dear lady that her own data precludes such a person from hearing her no matter how much she piles it on? Of course you realize I’m conceding her nothing. I’m only pointing out the inconsistency.
Ruth says: “No one is immune from mental defect. It is not a respecter of persons.”
Maladies of the brain that effect thought and hence behavior are very real and no, nobody, including Christians is automatically immune. The providence of God ultimately determines that.
Ruth says: “It seems to me, and I hope that I am wrong about this, that you are attempting to set me at odds with the other members of this group.”
Ruth you ARE at odds with the other members of this group. Don’t you remember Violet, early on after SHE invited ME here, trying to get you to quit “being nice” to me? (I’ll link it if need be) Every single person on this site except you has treated me like a blithering brain dead retard since the moment I stepped through the “door”. (I’m quite used to it after all these years 😉 ) They aren’t going to disown you, but to them you are lending me intellectual credibility that they refuse to acknowledge. Don’t kid yourself. While not fatal, that puts you at odds with them.
Ruth says: “If you will notice I have stayed as Switzerland as possible.”
Given the truth of the aforementioned, you have done an admirable job of both engaging me and maintaining loyalty to your friends. I hope they appreciate it as much as I do.
LikeLike
“Every single person on this site except you has treated me like a blithering brain dead retard since the moment I stepped through the “door”. (I’m quite used to it after all these years 😉”
So you must experience it other places as well – why do you suppose that is? Doesn’t that tell you anything? If I were despised everywhere I went, I would wonder what I was doing wrong. But not you. Interesting.
LikeLike
” If I were despised everywhere I went, I would wonder what I was doing wrong. But not you. Interesting.”
According to his theology it isn’t him. It’s us. He believes it is his message that rubs you the wrong way, not his methods.
LikeLike
In fact, I would dare say, that he likely uses the amount of disdain heaped upon him as a measure of how well he is conveying his God’s message.
LikeLike
“Ruth you ARE at odds with the other members of this group. Don’t you remember Violet, early on after SHE invited ME here, trying to get you to quit “being nice” to me? (I’ll link it if need be) Every single person on this site except you has treated me like a blithering brain dead retard since the moment I stepped through the “door”. (I’m quite used to it after all these years 😉 ) They aren’t going to disown you, but to them you are lending me intellectual credibility that they refuse to acknowledge. Don’t kid yourself. While not fatal, that puts you at odds with them.”
If having a different opinion about matters means I’m at odds with others I’m likely at odds with the whole of humanity.
LikeLike
Actually, Ruth, you are not only NOT at odds with me, I stated earlier that I’m impressed, not ONLY with your patience, but with your knowledge, logic, and the ability to stand up on your hind legs and roar your opinion. You GO, Girl!
His “divide and conquer” strategy won’t work.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ruth! Just read a post that you and everyone else might love. Ssh don’t tell Greg.
https://defeatingthedragons.wordpress.com/2015/04/10/men-write-letters-to-me
LikeLike
I read it earlier and smiled. Nailed it.
LikeLike
Totally. There are so many Christian men like that. I find them quite sinister sometimes, all that control seeking rage bubbling under the surface. I don’t sense it off Tiribulus to be honest. He seems to be more open rage when he’s in the mood, and friendly incoherent rambling the rest of the time.
LikeLike
I think it depends on how you approach him. I sensed it and he got very defensive when I mentioned it.
LikeLike
“Every single person on this site except you has treated me like a blithering brain dead retard since the moment I stepped through the “door”. (I’m quite used to it after all these years 😉 “
So, what you are saying is that people with personalities like Hitler deserve respect? 😉
Greg, you do not deserve respect because you do not respect humanity. You really are no different than the followers of Hitler. It doesn’t take a neuroscientist to figure that one out. You’ve lost any integrity you might have had at one time when you endorsed the antisocial behaviors of Yahweh who would make psychopathic dictators like Hitler, gasp.
Yahweh is mythology. Hitler was real, but used the methodologies exhibited in the bible (Yahweh) to inflict great suffering on humanity.
Anytime I see your picture, I see a Nazi.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I knew a guy like T once – I didn’t like him either.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve known hundreds, maybe thousands of guys like you Arch. I honestly can’t think of one offhand that I really didn’t like.
LikeLike
That’s understandable.
LikeLiked by 1 person
OUTSTANDING!!! I walked right into that one HAHA!!
I’ll be Dum Dum this time 🙂
LikeLike
THIS time –?
LikeLike
Few more minutes now
Ruth on December 8, 2014 at 3:35 pm quotes me as saying:
“This would be the granddaddy of all sidetracks and yes I have been over absolutely all of it before.”
and then responds with
Hahahaha! Literally. Out. Loud. I’m pretty sure I chased you down this rabbit hole.
I know and I understand, but we are going to go way off our main topic here. However I will answer your questions as best I can with appropriate concision. You have been most patient with me.
Ruth asks: “So, any woman of age to menstruate is marriage material?”
Not necessarily and that is a vast oversimplification. There is a reason however why God turns us on when He does. Marriage for both sexes is designed to be early and permanent. Unless specifically called otherwise, life, all of it, male and female, is to be learned in the service of God in the service of one’s covenant spouse and usually children. Marriage and sex are God’s earthly illustration of Christ’s love for His church bride. Singularly precious in His sight for that reason. Which is why it was denigrated between Genesis 3 and Acts 1 and also why sexual sin is especially abhorrent to Him. God often describes Israel’s sin in (EXPLICIT) terms of whoredom and adultery as well as their restoration as His taking them back into his intimate embrace.
Ruth asks: “Regulated compromise? From a God of absolute morality?”
IV. The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God, so far manifest themselves in his providence, that it extendeth itself even to the first Fall, and all other sins of angels and men, and that not by a bare permission, but such as hath joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to his own holy ends; yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the creature, and not from God; who being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin.”
Westminster Confession of Faith of 1646, Ch. 5 sect IV
He works ALL things to His own purposes.
Ruth asks: “Talk about sidetracks. You didn’t answer the question.”
In areas of morality, theology and worship, whatever is not commanded is forbidden. That’s the reformed view. The so called “liberty” passages of the New Testament (1 Cor. 9, Romans 14 and others) do not mitigate this principle. We are permitted liberty only where no moral content is intrinsic. Food, drink, cars, electronics etc. Sex with children, which has no set number attached to it though, runs contrary to everything sex is.
> Certainly sex with anyone not matured to reproductive function is sin in every case.
> Hence marriage to to such a young persons is a contradiction in terms.
> Once reproductive age is reached, marriage by God’s design should not be REAL far off though certainly other principles of godliness are required as well. Like the ability for material sustenance for instance.
> Modern western culture, not surprisingly, has rendered itself almost entirely incapable of practicing God’s design in these most foundational of all social principles.
Our epistemology discussion will take care of this too.
LikeLike
Greg writes: “Marriage for both sexes is designed to be early and permanent. ”
Bronze Age nonsense. It counters everything that is human and instinctual. It counters the research showing that having children young significantly increases the risk of mortality both in women and children. But I could share hundreds of studies that counter your unlearned mindset which clings to an unlearned Bronze Age culture.
To be published in the American Journal of Sociology next month, the study notes that religiously conservative states Alabama and Arkansas have the second and third highest divorce rates in the U.S., at 13 per 1000 people per year while New Jersey and Massachusetts, more liberal states, are two of the lowest at 6 and 7 per 1000 people annually.
The researchers attribute it to the earlier ages at first marriage and first birth, and the lower educational attainment and lower incomes among conservative Protestant youth.
“Restricting sexual activity to marriage and encouraging large families seem to make young people start families earlier in life, even though that may not be best for the long-term survival of those marriages,” the non-profit Council on Contemporary Families, where Glass is a senior scholar, quotes the researcher as saying.
In their study titled, “Red States, Blue States, and Divorce: Understanding Regional Variation in Divorce Rates,” Glass and Levchak also say that people who simply live in counties with high proportions of religious conservatives are also more likely to divorce than their counterparts.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/divorce-rate-higher-in-counties-with-more-conservative-protestants-study-says-113392/
Like I’ve mentioned before, your beliefs are a contributing factor to the social ills of society.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Victoria you have been my greatest unwitting ally here so far. That is not even sarcastic. First your videos and now this. NO country, including the whoring United States or even the so called churches in those countries, practices anything that could even be accidentally mistaken for biblical morality anymore. “Marriages” simply existing without divorce, but without Christian principles are also useless.
Please. Keep talking. I’ll give ya money. You are are saving me typing. Maybe one day I’ll have time and we can go through this in detail. YOUR debased, debauched and immoral promiscuous worldview, which is THE CHURCH’S fault, is what is choking the life out of the western world and especially the U.S.
Yes, the moral truth counters everything that is instinctual to dead sinners. That has been the bible’s declaration for 4 thousands years. The vast majority of mankind, despite my most fervent wishes, will never believe what I believe. I accepted that a few decades ago. Are actually citing it as some kind of argument to me?
LikeLike
“Victoria you have been my greatest unwitting ally here so far. That is not even sarcastic. First your videos and now this. NO country, including the whoring United States or even the so called churches in those countries, practices anything that could even be accidentally mistaken for biblical morality anymore. “Marriages” simply existing without divorce, but without Christian principles are also useless.”
Greg, again, that completely went over your head, just like the videos did. You have no idea how much you have dug a hole for yourself and continue to do so with your own shovel. My assessment of you from the very beginning was spot on. You are a dictator’s dream come true. You sold out to your own species (surrendered your humanity) to cleave to the illusion of being chosen by a Bronze Age war god, and an assurance in eternal life.
LikeLike
“NO country, including the whoring United States….” – How al Qaeda of you!
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Not necessarily and that is a vast oversimplification. There is a reason however why God turns us on when He does. Marriage for both sexes is designed to be early and permanent.”
How is it a vast oversimplification when you go on to say, “Marriage for both sexes is designed to be early and permanent?”
It is unsurprising to me that you should say,
“Modern western culture, not surprisingly, has rendered itself almost entirely incapable of practicing God’s design in these most foundational of all social principles.”
Yes, modern western culture does frown upon children getting married. By children I am referring to anyone under the age of at least 17. Most sensible parents don’t want their children to get married until they’ve gotten a proper education and have the means to materially sustain themselves.
LikeLike
I CANNOT pursue all the other stuff I have going on, our original conversation AND this Ruth. Have mercy.
Please trust when I say there is more to my views here than I am able at present to state. You must see that assumption is not serving anyone well since I’ve been around here.
LikeLike
“I CANNOT pursue all the other stuff I have going on, our original conversation AND this Ruth. Have mercy.”
Fair enough. I only pursued this because you steered the conversation to morality.
I didn’t intend to assume anything. I was merely pointing out there might be some inconsistency with your logic here. I realize that physical maturity and psychological maturity don’t necessarily coincide and that this is vastly complex. Morality is vastly complex. Logic and knowledge are vastly complex.
So anytime you want to get back to the original conversation is fine with me.
LikeLike
Ruth says directly above: “Fair enough. I only pursued this because you steered the conversation to morality.”
Ruth on December 8, 2014 at 3:35 pm quoted me when responding to her question about pedophilia:
“This would be the granddaddy of all sidetracks and yes I have been over absolutely all of it before.”
And then responds with
“Hahahaha! Literally. Out. Loud. I’m pretty sure I chased you down this rabbit hole.”
Not a huge deal, but I thought I’d point out that actually you were the one who steered us into the area of ethics and morality.
LikeLike
Not that it matters, really, but the discussion turned to morality when I responded to this comment by you:
Tiribulus on December 1, 2014 at 2:24 pm said:
“… But of course you prefer that to moral accountability to your maker. This is called “sin”.
LikeLike
“also why sexual sin is especially abhorrent to Him.” – An entity capable of creating an entire universe, is concerned about the sex life of one particular species of Earth’s myriad of animals – oh, yeah, i believe that, and the tooth fairy, and leprechauns, and….
“Westminster Confession of Faith of 1646, Ch. 5 sect IV” – words of men, regarding the words of men.
“whatever is not commanded is forbidden” – According to your book, he breathed into Adam the breath of life, but he didn’t command him to exhale – if your statement is true, it must be true about everything, you can’t cherry-pick.
“Once reproductive age is reached, marriage by God’s design should not be REAL far off though certainly other principles of godliness are required as well. Like the ability for material sustenance for instance.” – You REALLY don’t sound as though you’re on really firm ground here!
“Modern western culture, not surprisingly, has rendered itself almost entirely incapable of practicing God’s design” – Now do you know what that is because your god speaks to you personally, or do you know it because Bronze Age men who believe the sun revolved around the earth, wrote it and you read it?
LikeLiked by 1 person
We’re the only one’s created in His image and likeness Arch. That’s why we are the only ones who have moral agency. Ours is the only sex life capable of being moral or not.
“whatever is not commanded is forbidden” – According to your book, he breathed into Adam the breath of life, but he didn’t command him to exhale – if your statement is true, it must be true about everything, you can’t cherry-pick.
READ carefully now. I said:
See there. God doesn’t care what food I eat or what kind of car I drive or computer settings I prefer for instance as a matter morality, because none of those carry moral content. Your assertion that I’m obligated to apply this principle to “exhaling” is truly an all time imbecilic low. Even for you. Every time I think I’ve witnessed the fullest depths of your irrelevant prattling you display a new level of achievement. I can’t wait to see what you come up with next. Please do not mistake this as an assault on your intelligence. Absolutely not. This is simply what you’re reduced to when running from Jesus.
Arch quotes me as saying “Modern western culture, not surprisingly, has rendered itself almost entirely incapable of practicing God’s design”
And then asks:
“Now do you know what that is because your god speaks to you personally”
I know this because when I see His designs in His word and compare that to what’s in front of my face, the conclusion is inescapable. That’s exactly what I’m told I should expect. The vast majority of mankind with all his resources arrayed in unified rejection of the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ and it’s corresponding morality. All the science, all the philosophy, all the education, all the entertainment, all the maths and logic, which fuels the whole thing. All of it. Leading corrupt, dead, sinful man to absolutely ANY conclusion except the truth. It doesn’t matter how ostensibly different the various schools of thought in all these areas are. What matters is that they are all lies and have their rejection of the one true and living God in common. That is precisely what I am told should be happening and looky there. IT IS!!
LikeLike
Coming from you, I would take any an assault on my intelligence as high praise indeed – if you began praising it, THEN I would be greatly concerned.
Your religion is fading fast, this is why your kind want to try proselytizing to children in public schools, why you (pl) feel you need your symbols plastered all over public buildings, why some of you are even trying to put McDonalds into churches. It may take another 200 years for it to die, but die it will, just like all of the other religions before it, and hopefully, Humankind will have advanced to the point where it won’t feel the need to create any more gods in our own image.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I do not want to proselytize in public schools schools or put McDonald’s in churches. Actually Christianity is BOOMING in China. Part one was great too. See if you can make it through this. Over 10 years ago now. 300 million Chinese Christians. God will ALWAYS have His remnant. Always.
LikeLike
“Actually Christianity is BOOMING in China.” – So is smoking, now that cigarette advertising is banned here. If ya can’t sell it here, sell it somewhere where people are more gullible! It’s the American way.
LikeLike
archaeopteryx1 on December 8, 2014 at 6:24 pm quotes me as saying:
“Every single person on this site except you has treated me like a blithering brain dead retard since the moment I stepped through the “door”. (I’m quite used to it after all these years ;)”
And then responds with:
“So you must experience it other places as well – why do you suppose that is? Doesn’t that tell you anything? If I were despised everywhere I went, I would wonder what I was doing wrong. But not you. Interesting.
========================================================
Copied and pasted from several years ago:
Gospel of Luke, 6:22 The words of Jesus:<<>>
Matthew 10:22 Jesus speaking to His disciples. <<>>
John 15:19 Jesus speaking again. <<>>
John speaking in his 1st epistle, 3rd Chapter, 13th verse: <<>>
The apostle James chapter 4 verse 4b <<>>
The defining reason? The Lord Jesus speaking of Himself. John 3:19-20 <<>>
LikeLike
Arch — Greg can’t see the writing on the walls. Persecution complex and a common strategy used among cunning people in power. Get them to believe they are going to be persecuted by “outsiders” and that it is an honor, even righteous to suffer for Jesus’ (rulers’) sake, are much more likely to remain loyal under any circumstances. Why? Cuz this strategy also gets them high. 😉 They were clever, were they not?
In Greg’s case, based on his comments, that pretty much sums it up. He’s not only getting high on believing he’s chosen (special) but he’s riding high by feeling he’s getting done by.
LikeLike
“You get the mellow buzz of the moral high ground, but without arrogantly claiming it as your own.” – I like that, especially!
So THAT’s what a marijuana leaf looks like!
LikeLike
“So THAT’s what a marijuana leaf looks like!”
Five fingers that say high. 😀
LikeLike
I’d guess.
LikeLike
Actually I’m riding high on the fact that despite of being anything BUT special, and fully deserving of eternal death, God loves me anyway.
LikeLike
Oh, what a guy this god is you worship. So desperate to be acknowledged, you bow to the lowest of behavioral depravity.
LikeLike
“The defining reason? The Lord Jesus speaking of Himself. John 3:19-20” – Ah, you must meaan anonymous authors, writing 40 to 70 years after the alleged Yeshua purportedly lived, SAYING that Yeahua said that – got it, I’ll run it right over to the bank —
LikeLike
OOPS the BB tags from the other site don’t right here. My fault.
archaeopteryx1 on December 8, 2014 at 6:24 pm quotes me as saying:
“Every single person on this site except you has treated me like a blithering brain dead retard since the moment I stepped through the “door”. (I’m quite used to it after all these years ;)”
And then responds with:
“So you must experience it other places as well – why do you suppose that is? Doesn’t that tell you anything? If I were despised everywhere I went, I would wonder what I was doing wrong. But not you. Interesting.
========================================================
Gospel of Luke, 6:22 The words of Jesus: “Blessed are you when men hate you, and ostracize you, and insult you, and scorn your name as evil, for the sake of the Son of Man.”
Matthew 10:22 Jesus speaking to His disciples. “You will be hated by all because of My name, but it is the one who has endured to the end who will be saved.”
John 15:19 Jesus speaking again. “If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you.”
John speaking in his 1st epistle, 3rd Chapter, 13th verse: “Do not be surprised, brethren, if the world hates you.”
The apostle James chapter 4 verse 4b “Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.”
The defining reason? The Lord Jesus speaking of Himself. John 3:19-20 19-“This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. 20-“For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.”
LikeLike
Again, anonymous authors SAYING that your Yeshua said what they say he said, alf a century after he allegedly said it.
LikeLike
Again, anonymous authors SAYING that your Yeshua said what they say he said, half a century after he allegedly said it.
LikeLike
Greg,
You obviously see yourself as a glorious martyr (and feel quite puffed-up about it) but I see you as something else – you know, there’s ‘one born every minute’ (and no, P.T. Barnum didn’t say it).
LikeLiked by 1 person
I see myself as an average Christian Carmen. Unremarkable and invisible in previous eras.
LikeLike
Well, Greg, since there are so many definitions for that word, ‘christian’, your comment doesn’t really tell me much.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nope. Only one. Same one since the foundation of the world. Lotsa denominations and groups have it right enough to be considered truly Christian before you start that completely false 30,000 sects thing.
Busy night. Gotta go pick up a friend from the train station. Please do carry on without me. I’ll be very disappointed if there aren’t at least a dozen more uninformed irrelevant comments here when I get back. Don’t lemme down now.
LikeLike
“I’ll be very disappointed if there aren’t at least a dozen more uninformed irrelevant comments here when I get back.”
Prepare to be disappointed because you won’t be here to post those uninformed, irrelevant comments.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not bad Victoria HAHA!! Tou·ché 😀
LikeLike
Busy night. Gym time now.
LikeLike
@Brandon, I’m starting a new thread. I’m not going to be in discourse with you after this comment because after a year of intellectual dishonesty from you, you have also demonstrated that you are determined to sweep under the rug (at the cost of people’s mental health) religious obsession (hyperreligiosity), hallucinations, etc., due to neurological disorders. Where is your compassion? Btw, schizophrenia affects over 2 million people in the U.S., and as I mentioned above as many as 60% will have religious delusions — thinking they are God, a saint, a prophet, “chosen by god”, etc.
Again, for the last time, because I’m tired of playing your mind games:
How do you discern? If Jesus were walking around today claiming to be god, and that the world was coming to an end and he was going to commit suicide by proxy, he would be considered mentally ill by mental health professionals.
Paul believed he’d been “chosen” to bring a message to humanity — that he was caught up in the heavens and had visions of Jesus.
Mohammad had symptoms of TLE — http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina41204.htm — and yet he has billions of followers all believing his delusions were divine.
You have no way of knowing that Jesus was really god rather than a self-proclaimed guru with symptoms of mental illness. You have no way of knowing that any of the people in the bible were prophets or apostles. You can only accept this by faith.
One more note then I’ll leave a quote: Religion (Christianity) did not prevent my husband from committing suicide. It was the main catalyst.
From the Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences:
http://neuro.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.neuropsych.11090214
LikeLiked by 1 person
LikeLiked by 1 person
Exactly!
LikeLike
That’s a clever opinion by Mr Barker arcH, and in return, you are applauding your own ignorance.
Now let’s hear what it really is:
‘Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.’ -the word of God
So u see, there are few religious people in the world.
:
LikeLike
“And this is eternal life, that they know … the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom [He has] sent.”
-Jesus Christ. The Almighty Eternal Creator Logos in Human Flesh-
LikeLiked by 1 person
— and part-time Notary Public —
LikeLike
Nice one! And the bible confirms this mental state too, where Jesus’ own neighbours thought him a raving lunatic
“Many of them said, “He is demon-possessed and raving mad. Why listen to him?”
(John 10:20)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Precisely, John. What all-knowing god, in “his” right mind, would send a “savior” to earth who exhibited the exact same symptoms of those with common mental disorders?
Dan Barker nailed it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A God should probably inspire, “Holy crap! That’s awesome!!!” Not… “Sweet Moses, he’s a stark raving lunatic! Eyes down, just keep walking and he might not notice us…”
LikeLiked by 1 person
LOL
LikeLike
Like I said Victoria, Just keep talking. JZ is very helpful now too.
This is why I always argue worldview for worldview.
You are absolutely COMMITTED to one for which you have zero epistemological basis. An entire intellectual framework that you PREsume MUST be true because that’s how you want it to be. You really don’t see that do you?
LikeLike
Greg, you keep digging that hole and we will no longer see you. 😉
LikeLike
WOW! Talk about projection! If that lasts more than four hours, you should see a doctor – just sayin’ —
LikeLike
@Tiribulus
Okay, but if you’re arguing worldview for worldview, it does raise the problem about how is one supposed to determine they are in fact holding the correct worldview. Suppose Neuronotes entire intellectual framework is based on the presumption that it must be true because she really wants it to be. How can we be sure that your beliefs aren’t also based on presumptions that you just hope to be true?
Are you a fan of Plato, by the way?
LikeLike
Victoria,
I am being completely honest with you for the record (again). I want you to improve in your scientific thinking. I am always willing to talk about these issues if you wish to in the future.
How do you discern? If Jesus were walking around today claiming to be god, and that the world was coming to an end and he was going to commit suicide by proxy, he would be considered mentally ill by mental health professionals.
Your understanding of Jesus a rigid. Did Jesus ever say the world was coming to an end? Well, that depends on if you are partial preterist or a futurist or something else. Commit suicide by proxy? Just pejorative language for sacrifice his life. If a soldier sacrificed her life for you, would this be committing suicide by proxy? Tell that to her family.
I’ve already answered this question, but let me expand. Let’s consider the paper you cited which I read when it was first published. I’ll show you at least three problems:
1) The authors are methodological naturalists. They are saying, “Let’s assume God does not exist and miracles do not occur, and try to squeeze historical characters into a modern diagnostic category.” By what basis have they ruled out miracles? They haven’t.
2) Even within the modern paradigm of psychiatry, there is a problem with religious belief in considering mental illness. For example, in psychiatry, delusion is defined as a false belief with the exception of culturally accepted religious beliefs. Try it out. Go to a psychiatrist and tell them you belief Jesus resurrected. They will not count this as a delusion. Go to a psychiatrist and tell them your great grandfather resurrected and calls you on the phone every Saturday, and the psychiatrist will be concerned. They will have to consider a differential diagnosis of psychosis.
So, the Jews believed that a messiah was coming, and Jesus seemed to believe that he was this prophecied messiah. That is certainly not home run delusion. The authors are going to have to do much better than this.
3) There are huge problems with psychohistory and it is highly criticized by the academic community. There are good reasons for this. For example, I could review this paper and absolutely destroy it on historical and logical grounds just like I did with the original paper suggesting Paul had TLE. Do you remember that? I could do the same here. But, it’s not because I am brilliant or anything, rather it’s because psychohistory has so many intrinsic problems, i.e. with hermeneutics. Take for example the authors don’t consider that Paul’s spiritual experience in 2 Corinthians 12 could be a Near Death Experience from when he was stoned and thought to be dead. Things like this are not on their radar, and that concerns me for bias which is almost certainly necessary for the authors to paint these characters how they want them to be.
So, my conclusion is this. It is what I have said before. You cannot say these biblical characters had mental illness any easier than you can rule them out. The simple fact is that we cannot interview them and perform a medical exam on them. And, it relies heavily on interpretive gymnastics and methodological naturalism.
Their suggested new diagnostic category for updates of the DSM will never be vetted. There have also been religious mental health professionals who have suggested an Axis VI for spiritual problems added to the DSM. Probably not going to happen either.
Religion (Christianity) did not prevent my husband from committing suicide. It was the main catalyst.
This is your interpretation. Maybe it’s true, maybe it’s not. But, one things for certain, if it is true, your husband was an exception to the rule according to science.
LikeLike
“If a soldier sacrificed her life for you” – Soldiers rarely ever deliberately sacrifice their lives for anyone, far more often, they’re simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.
“By what basis have they ruled out miracles? They haven’t.” – By what basis have they ruled out Leprechauns? They haven’t. And why not? Because there’s no need to rule out anything for which there is no evidence.
Interestingly, I saw no links of corroboration in any of this post, rendering it entirely opinion.
I’ve watched in the past, Brandon, how a person has told you they’re disgusted with you and declining to continue responding to your comments, and your manipulative nature has absolutely compelled you to try to manipulate them into breaking their resolve by drawing them into writing at least one more comment. Victoria has told you that she’s finished with you, and you’re trying it again, aren’t you?
LikeLike
100% trolling. Time to grow up.
LikeLike
“Time to grow up.” – says the man who believe in zombies and sky fairies —
LikeLike
“Time to grow up.” – says the man who believes in zombies and sky fairies —
LikeLike
I repeat: time to grow up and stop trolling.
LikeLike
Not trolling, B – just trying to keep the spotlight trained on you during your visit here, Brandon, so that people can get a good clear look at what you are. Well, that and making sure you don’t pocket any silverware on your way out —
LikeLike
Trolling, yup
LikeLike
Anybody remember the old “Bob Newhart Show”? There was a college drinking game that came out of that show – kids would take a drink everytime someone on the show said, “Bob.” Everyone involved would yell “BOB!” and take a drink.
I think that would be a fun game to play everytime Brandon says any form of the word, “Troll.”
LikeLike
archaeopteryx1 on December 10, 2014 at 11:46 pm said:
“Time to grow up.” – says the man who believes in zombies and sky fairies –
Says the man who preaches the gospel of “probability” when he doesn’t even know what it is.
LikeLike
I gave you a definition of probability – your problem you didn’t accept it. Probability doesn’t function within the fiction of a gospel, it’s based on the real world. The entire discipline of quantum mechanics operates entirely on probability.
LikeLike
We’ve been over this. Copying pasting a moronic kindergarten non definition from somebody else’s site is not a giving a definition. At least lift one from a grown up site will ya please?
LikeLike
archaeopteryx1 on December 11, 2014 at 12:28 am said:
“You kinda make up your own definitions as you go along, don’t you Brandon?”
Even if true, at least he tries. “Probability” Arch. Where is that definition?
LikeLike
“‘Probability’ Arch. Where is that definition?” – I gave it to you once, if you want it, go find it – I can’t do ALL your thinking for you! Fetch! Good Boy!
LikeLike
Ruth says: “I am much happier now, yes. But there are things about Christianity that did affect me greatly. For instance, even though I know there’s no hell, sometimes things happen that trigger a fear of it. I realize that is irrational and can talk myself down from it, but it’s there. It’s palpable. Then again my experiences with fundamentalist religion may be different from yours. And just because you were not traumatized by it doesn’t mean that no one is. Though I do see what you are saying, there likely is already a category in the DSM that fits whatever anxiety a person feels at the loss of their faith. To be perfectly honest, I was more traumatized by my doubt than I am my disbelief. When I first began to doubt I was quite despondent and had thoughts of ending my life to prevent a loss of faith. I’d have rather faced the God I still believed in at the time having committed suicide than having rejected him. I guess everyone is different. There are those who go to war who don’t suffer from PTSD and those that do. Just because everyone who sees a terrible event doesn’t have it doesn’t mean that no one does. I don’t really care what you call it, but I did need professional help to deal with my fear and anxiety. My doubt produced panic attacks and a fairly deep depression.”
Not having known you then, (and not really even knowing you now), I can’t give much of a personal response to this Ruth. Despite an erroneous surface reading of the account of Esau in Hebrews 12, I do know this. There is no such thing as a heart truly broken over sin that God turns away. I am compelled by inescapable conviction to say that.
I have no fear of hell whatsoever. I trust His promises, but even that trust is itself His gift.If I have any fear at all it is in the possibility of dishonoring my beloved Lord and Master by my failure to represent Him properly.
Not that you asked, but I wish I had better answers for you. I simply don’t know you or your situation well enough to say more. I am very sorry that you chose to abandon Him, though I’m pretty sure you will say that if He’s actually there, it’s HE that abandoned YOU. That’s just not possible.
LikeLike
“There is no such thing as a heart truly broken over sin that God turns away. I am compelled by inescapable conviction to say that. “
When I was a believer I uttered these words, myself, to others. I also understand why you say this even though I no longer believe.
“I have no fear of hell whatsoever.”
Why should you fear hell? Even though you believe it’s a real place you also believe you’re one of the chosen, so you won’t be making the toasty trip. When I believed that I believed I had no fear of hell either, except for other people’s sake. It would not be I who would be going there, after all, only those other people who didn’t believe. You don’t doubt. When I didn’t doubt I didn’t fear hell either. It was only in my doubt that I feared hell and began to entertain the possibility that I had not believed correctly or enough.
“I trust His promises, but even that trust is itself His gift.”
A gift that, if he exists, he obviously doesn’t bestow upon us all.
“I am very sorry that you chose to abandon Him, though I’m pretty sure you will say that if He’s actually there, it’s HE that abandoned YOU.”
I know what you believe. I’m also sure that you wholeheartedly believe that whoever shall seek shall find. I’m sure you also believe that I didn’t seek the “right” way or the “right” God. *shrug* All I can tell you is that I looked for the God of the Bible. I came up empty. Not that that was THE reason I stopped believing, it was a contributing factor. Rather than think that a merciful, compassionate, God of grace would abandon me, it seamed more rational to think the reason he was so silent, and so hidden, was that he simply was not there.
LikeLike
“It would not be I who would be going there, after all, only those other people who didn’t believe.”
During this time, did you ever have changes in theology (i.e. theology of salvation)?
LikeLike
Brandon, I went through a lot of transition. Yes, I did have changes in theology. I left a fundamentalist evangelical theology and went to a more progressive theology. I tried to accept the stories in the OT as allegory and consider their literary value. My views about hell and salvation both changed significantly. I looked at the possibility of hell being figurative and not literal. I looked at salvation as being a transformation of self and not a salvation from hell and a reward of heaven. Seeing God as an entity who would choose to eternally torment those who didn’t love him seemed an abuse and a slander to any deity. So I considered universal salvation and I also considered that whatever value salvation had it might be only in this life as there might not be a next.
But when I changed my views so significantly I also saw that they no longer lined up the what the Bible actually does say about these things. At a certain point it felt disingenuous to continue to call myself a Christian. I know that I’ve said this elsewhere but I considered, even after losing my faith in Jesus as a savior, converting to Judaism as, at the time, I still believed in Yahweh.
My thoughts about all of this have been slow and methodical. As I said to Tiribulous, they have not been taken lightly. I don’t look at this as a frivolous matter.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike.”
— Delos B. McKowan —
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeah, like your definition of probability. 😀
LikeLike
LikeLike
This is the 4th in the series, the first of which Ruth posted. I’ll listen to it Arch. I had planned to anyway, but even if I hadn’t, I would just for you 🙂 Because that’s just the kinda guy God has made me.
LikeLike
You are a therapist’s nightmare, but no therapist will ever know that, will they?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed they do.
LikeLike
And, for the record, when I was a believer(if you could call me that since the contention is that I never was) my greatest fear was not adequately representing my Lord properly, that I would be a stumbling block to someone else, or that I would miss an opportunity to witness, or be the blessing he wanted me to be in someone else’s life.
LikeLike
In what way did you feel you might be a stumbling block? I ask because this is the only one of the three things you mention that might be included in what I mean by “dishonoring” Him. I’m not playin games with you Ruth. This is not about trapping you. You have my word. I want to understand.
LikeLike
Well, of course as a believer I didn’t remotely think I was perfect. So anything….gossip, unwholesome talk, having a beer around someone who thought that might be a sin, any level of hypocrisy, not dividing the “word” rightly…anything at all that might not be holy. Seriously, Tiribulus, you couldn’t trap me if you wanted to. I haven’t lived an unexamined life and I didn’t make the decisions I did lightly. I didn’t decide a life a debauchery would be more fun so I’d pretend I don’t believe in God. No, that would never do. I know that my belief or disbelief in the existence of a thing has absolutely no impact on whether it actually does exist.
LikeLike
I am poor and have a broken car. Don’t panic. I haven’t left. I see all you’re saying Ruth.
LikeLike
“I am poor and have a broken car.” – Ride a donkey, like your hero!
LikeLike
Put your hands on the hood and say, “In the name of Big Daddy, Junior and the Holy Spook, I command you to HEAL”
Hey, I’m just tryin’ to be helpful —
LikeLiked by 1 person
john zande on December 13, 2014 at 6:11 pm said:
LOL! How this nonsense survives in the US is utterly beyond me.
Well God didn’t create man sinful. That’s impossible, but putting that aside it is ridiculous isn’t it? 😀
Man from dust, talking snakes and donkeys, floating axe head, supernatural plagues, sea parting, manna from heaven, pillar of cloud , pillar of fire, 300 men destroy an entire army, 3 men are thrown into a glowing hot furnace and emerge unscathed, spirit fingers writing on a wall, a virgin birth, a God man, fish with a coin in it’s mouth, conversations with the devil and demons, walking on water, feeding 5000 with a couple fish and loaves, instantly healing incurable diseases by command, multiple resurrections from the dead, bodily visible ascension into a “heaven”, archangels fighting demons, etc etc etc…. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! All this and more from a God who eternally exists as one being in three persons?!?!!? That’s the STOOPIDDEST thing anybody ever heard of LOLOLOLOL!!! Disney is more believable than that.
LikeLike
. . . and to anyone reading along who might have been wondering about Trib’s mental state – he’s now confirmed it.
LikeLiked by 3 people
You’re too easy Carmen 😉
LikeLike
Too funny, Trib! You must have passed with flying colours, eh? 🙂
LikeLiked by 3 people
But you have to admit, Carmen, that’s the most intelligent thing he’s said since he’s been here!
LikeLike
I couldn’t find a reply button to your question, Greg, so I’m posting it in a new comment. I think we left off our original conversation here:
“Ruth asserts: “We exist and our consciousness arises from that existence, not the other way around.”
That is an assertion Ruth. Not an argument. Should I take that on faith in your word?
Are you saying that our individual consciousness exists apart from our existence but not until we exist? No, I’m not asking you to take my word on FAITH that this is not true, I’m asking you to examine the evidence. What evidence do you have, apart from scriptures, that our sentience persists without our physical existence? Every bit of scientific evidence that I’m aware of leads me to the conclusion that our neurons must be firing, that our consciousness(individually) arises from the interconnectivity in our brains, and that it ceases to exist when that interconnectivity does. Do you have some evidence to the contrary? Here’s an interesting article.
I’d like to get down to the nuts and bolts of your argument. We could go back and forth for, well, an eternity on some of the ideas we are discussing since I don’t know the answers and neither do you. All we can do is speculate. I’m not at all certain why you are allowed circular reasoning that explains everything and I am not. Invoking your God’s name doesn’t change the rules. I can come up with some entity that, in my mind is perfect, to explain the Universe and everything in it. Just because I don’t know all the answers doesn’t entitle me to do that. It appears you are saying, “we don’t know the answers, so it can only be my God.” Well, that settles it.
Right, rather that just keep copying your responses and replying to them one by one I’d like to establish what exactly your argument is. Here’s what I’ve got so far:
Premise A:
1. Logical Absolutes transcend matter, motion, time, space, etc.
2. Anything that does not arise from these is not physical by definition.
3. Things that are not physical are conceptual(abstract).
4. Therefore, Logical Absolutes are conceptual.
Premise B:
1. Conceptual Things depend on a mind to exist.
2. Logical Absolutes are conceptual.
3. Logical Absolutes exist.
4. Therefore, Logical Absolutes depend on a mind or minds to exist.
Premise C:
1. Logical Absolutes are authored by a mind or minds.
2. Logical Absolutes are completely perfect.
3. Therefore, Logical Absolutes are authored by a perfect mind.
Premise D:
1. Logical Absolutes are authored by a perfect mind.
2. A minds must exist to author concepts.
3. Therefore, the perfect mind that authored Logical Absolutes exists.
Feel free to correct any of these to reflect your actual thinking on the matter if I’ve misrepresented or misunderstood. I’d like to nail down specifically what your argument is.”
OR a more simplified version of that:
1) If Yahweh does not exist my thoughts/knowledge is not possible.
2) My thoughts/knowledge are possible.
3) Therefore Yahweh exists.
LikeLike
Ruth: “We exist and our consciousness arises from that existence, not the other way around.””
T: “That is an assertion Ruth. Not an argument. Should I take that on faith in your word?”
At least the same degree of faith on which you take the words of 3000-year old ignorant, Bronze Age men!
(BTW – brilliantly done, Ruth! I just don’t have it in me to deal with him as patiently as you’ve been. As with Samson and his strength, I’m of the impression that T’s wisdom was stored in his hair.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m of the impression that if I outlive Methuselah, I’ll never see a definition of probability from Archaeopteryx1 .
LikeLike
I gave you one. I then gave you a video on quantum mechanics, whose entire premise is based on probability. If you’re still short a definition, that strikes me as a personal problem – I can buy you books and buy you books, but that will do little good if you keep eating them.
LikeLike
Ruth I actually did deal with that HERE
“OR a more simplified version of that:
1) If Yahweh does not exist my thoughts/knowledge are not possible.
2) My thoughts/knowledge are possible.
3) Therefore Yahweh exists.”
I completely understand why you would do this and on one level it might even make some Christian sense, but Yahweh cannot be contained in a syllogistic restatement of the cosmological argument. Even explicitly regarding Himself. He is infinitely more basic than that.
LikeLike
Yahweh cannot be contained in a syllogistic restatement of the cosmological argument.
Errrum, don’t you mean, ontological argument?
LikeLike
You could formulate it either way I suppose, but regardless of whether uncaused first cause of thought or thinker than which nothing greater can be conceived, neither properly conveys the relation of Yahweh to His creation.
LikeLike
You could formulate it either way I suppose
Emmm, no. You cannot “formulate it either way.” The cosmological argument and the ontological argument are two completely different exercises with absolutely no connection to the other in any way.
LikeLike
The way she stated it JZ, yes you can.
LikeLike
How brave of you, trying to deflect blame onto Ruth, when you made the rather embarrassing blunder of not knowing your ontological from cosmological arguments.
LikeLike
There is no blame to deflect. Did actually have something grownup and significant to say?
LikeLike
Says the “man” who wanted to pick over the words “prescribe/ascribe”….
Now don’t get all defensive, Greg. So you didn’t know the difference between the ontological argument and the cosmological argument. That’s OK. What’s not Ok is when one isn’t adult enough to admit their failings, and instead try to blame another for those shortcomings.
LikeLike
And another book hits the digestive tract —
It doesn’t matter, John – his first premise is flawed and has no basis in fact: “1) If Yahweh does not exist my thoughts/knowledge are not possible” – I could just as readily say,
1) If fuzzy pink unicorns do not exist, my thoughts/knowledge are not possible.
2) My thoughts/knowledge are possible.
3) Therefore fuzzy pink unicorns exist.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Or a giant house brick named, Errol. The moment an apologist raises the ontological argument (what T “thinks” is the cosmological argument 🙂 ) it shows me they’re not interested in inhabiting the adult world, as you have demonstrated… Peace Be Upon the Great Pink Unicorn.
LikeLike
I realize that you believe Yahweh to be the fundamental basis to everything. While I may not disagree that there is something that seems to be the fundamental basis to everything I’m ambivalent, at best, that it is some deity desirous of worship. I don’t agree with your statement that I do, indeed, know everything for certain. My evidence is not so called. It is evidence of the reality of this world and, indeed, this universe. Evidence of which much contradicts the sacred scriptures you adhere to. Unless, of course, you take them to be allegory and not literal. But I suspect that you do take them literally.
You have accused Kamui totally arbitrarily contriving an entity that explains this. I suspect it is not arbitrary at all. He has followed the evidence of what IS seen to establish a justified belief instead of comparing what is real and before his very eyes and deciding that it must not be true in order to comply with some text.
LikeLike
Might I also add that I have followed the evidence to an uncertain conclusion. I have seen sufficient evidence to conclude that Yahweh as described in scripture is not the basis for everything. What that evidence has not done is prove what that fundamental something is. In which case I’m justified in saying that I am uncertain what the basis is for all that is. I don’t feel that anyone can say for CERTAIN what that is. Now, if you choose to put your faith in something which claims to be that basis that is your prerogative. But I have yet to see on what basis you make your claim with such certainty.
LikeLike
Ruth, my admiration for your intellect just continues to grow exponentially! Who knew?
LikeLike
archaeopteryx1 exclaims: “Ruth, my admiration for your intellect just continues to grow exponentially! Who knew?”
I did 😉
LikeLike
Apparently I keep it well hidden. 😉
LikeLike
“I completely understand why you would do this and on one level it might even make some Christian sense, but Yahweh cannot be contained in a syllogistic restatement of the cosmological argument. Even explicitly regarding Himself. He is infinitely more basic than that.”
Right, but aren’t you, in essence, saying that if Yahweh doesn’t exist nothing is possible. That is what your argument boils down to if I’m understanding it correctly.
LikeLike
Out to a job Ruth. As usual, I’ll answer when I can.
LikeLike
john zande on December 17, 2014 at 5:07 pm said:
Says the “man” who wanted to pick over the words “prescribe/ascribe”….
Now don’t get all defensive, Greg. So you didn’t know the difference between the ontological argument and the cosmological argument. That’s OK. What’s not Ok is when one isn’t adult enough to admit their failings, and instead try to blame another for those
You’re embarrassing yourself man. I was joking with you about the PREscribe/Ascribe thing as anyone with a nominally functioning sense of humor would grasp.
I’m going to say this one time for your benefit as I suspect you are the only one who insists I am ignorant of the classical theistic “proofs”. YOU are the one who inserted the idea of “blame” into this perfectly good conversation because you have absolutely NOTHING of substance to add. There is NO blame anywhere to be found. There was nothing wrong with Ruth’s question, and neither was there in my response.
The way she stated it it could indeed be formulated into either argument, which in the end, are versions of one another. There isn’t a thing wrong with that. Though she will contend that my transcendental argument is yet another version. Also, I was fully versed in every single argument made for and against “god” in the history of the world by 1990. Whether you believe that or not is your own affair.
You may now continue playing (quietly) with your fully posable Daniel Dennet action figure while the adults are speaking. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Whatever you say, Greg. For your own good though, do try and be more careful in the future when attempting to sound smart. Such basal, elementary blunders in what is ground floor apologetics looks quite pedestrian.
LikeLike
Good heavens. Just got in. Street mission all day tomorrow. A sudden surge in work too. Didn’t want my dear friends to worry 🙂
LikeLike
I didn’t know you had any.
LikeLike
I am trying to juggle way too many things at once. I have absolutely not forgotten you Ruth. In fact, I have a very big request this time.
Tiribulus principles of online debate #4
“4. Master literally every conceivable attack upon my own position/s by genuinely pretending to be the most formidable opponent I could ever meet and arguing as if them against my own position/s. I kid you not, I ruthlessly and jealously defend my opposition’s positions to myself as if my life depended on them being true.”
You have my word in front of everybody here that this is not a trap. I am seriously curious. You’ll enjoy it anyway. IF you are so inclined, I ask that you watch Arch’s VIDEO on multiverse theory and tell me the glaring vulnerabilities in arch’s use of this video that you would see if you were me. Unless I missed it, there is also NO definition of probability here. It’s ok Arch just to say you never thought about it really and you don’t know. It really is. I’d hassle you far less for that than I am for your total reliance on it while demonstrating no knowledge of what it actually is, but pretending you are. I’m going to listen in the car again just in case.
LikeLike
“there is also NO definition of probability here” – the entire theory of quantum mechanics is based on probability, if you can’t see probability in there anywhere, I’m sorry for you. Maybe you could find a Middle-Schooler to explain it to you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What I do NOT see is.. hang on now… a DEFINITION of “probability”. You have incessantly thrown EXAMPLES at me with to this day, no DEFINITION. Pointing to 1+1=2 as an INSTANCE of mathematics, is in no way the same as defining WHAT mathematics are. WHAT do we mean when we say that a thing is probable, or more or less so than another thing? This can be expressed in a few sentences and actually meaningfully distilled down to one. Despite your best efforts to prove otherwise at times, you are not a low intelligence life form. THINK for yourself (you really can do it), and tell me what YOU mean when you say a thing is “probable”. The fact that there are degrees of probability should be a big clue.
LikeLike
I’ve listened to this twice but while working. So I get what you mean by trying to juggle too many things at one. Over the weekend I’ll have another listen when I can really dedicate my ear to it and listen to it properly.
I have some pretty good ideas and I do get what your saying. You want me to argue your position for you. It’s all good. I can argue it both ways. And have. Because of my lack of certainty I self-check my position frequently.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you Ruth. I must say, I am very much enjoying your “company”. I don’t know if you’ve ever actually done this kind of thing before, but it is very profitable. Seriously. Once you get started thinking like your opponent, the internal “conversation” can really flow. (there’s your que Arch) If one is thorough and gets some practice, by the time you have an actual real conversation with the person, you are fully armed before either side has said anything.
I’d also like to wish a Merry Christmas to everybody here. With NO in your face religiosity, but just as the decent thing to do. Violet, I’m not sure how glad you are you did it, but thank you for the invite. I mean that. I consider my time to be very well spent.
LikeLike
I wanted to also wish everybody here a happy new year. 🙂 We’ll get back on track here pretty soon. I have a feeling Ruth is still slammed too.
LikeLike
No I have not forgotten about my dearly beloved friends here and especially you Ruth.
LikeLike
That’s too bad – we all had the highest of hopes.
LikeLike
Like clockwork Arch. How’s the new year going so far?
LikeLike
Actually, I was hoping you’d been raptured – special circumstances —
LikeLike