Careful about those links. In your original link, about a third of the footnotes came from creationist references. In the links you provide below, half of them come from infidels or talkorigins-- sources that have a stated bias. Just as I would discount the creationist footnotes, so too as I would discount your links on the same grounds. I don't know how authoritative their remaining footnotes are. They may just be fluff-- footnotes to create the impression of scholarship. Your remaining link are from wikpedia. Wikpedia is Ok as a starting point in trying to find out about a topic, not unlike an encyclopedia in a middle school library or a Sunday newspaper supplement. But as a scientific resource, it is worthless and I would be embrassed to use it to support a scientific position. But what has more crediability are current peer reviewed scientific monographs.
I am not saying that your understanding of the points in question is incorrect. But you do need to improve on how you arrive at that understanding. The search for truth is hard work and there are no short cuts.
versatile and fantastic you can roast it, braise it, or serve it with aspic quodam quiddity qua - the the capcity of quintillion - 1000000000000000000 (US) 1000000000000000000000000000000 (Britain) quietude quietus quod erat demonstrandum - which was to be demonstrated quuits
Kitty and my boy. The TV is showing a commercial for "Evan Almighty."
Kitty was abandoned at a shelter in very poor health. (They called him "Gate", because he was left at the gate.) Today, he is a lively and loving cat who loves attention. I think he may be part Somali.
Kitty loves the sun and the sun loves him. Here is Kitty sun-bathing.
What about those who hate themselves? What about those who have no self-esteem? What about masochists? Should they do onto others as they would have others do onto themselves? Is that the proper basis of morality? My answer is no.
First, your question needs to be contextualized with what the Bible says.
(Luke 6:27-36) "But I say to you who listen: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29 If anyone hits you on the cheek, offer the other also. And if anyone takes away your coat, don't hold back your shirt either. 30 Give to everyone who asks from you, and from one who takes away your things, don't ask for them back. 31 Just as you want others to do for you, do the same for them. 32 If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. 33 If you do [what is] good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. 34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners to be repaid in full. 35 But love your enemies, do [what is] good, and lend, expecting nothing in return. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High. For He is gracious to the ungrateful and evil. 36 Be merciful, just as your Father also is merciful. (Also compare to Matthew 5:38ff).
The Bible doesn't state what we call the Golden Rule, but the implication of loving your enemies is unmistakeable. Compare those verses, for example, to Leviticus 24:20: "Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him." You're not the first person who has criticized the ethic of reciprocity. George Bernard Shaw, for example, said, "Do not do unto others as you would they should do unto you. Their tastes may not be the same."
My view is that it is a valid but limited moral principle. The Bible makes no claim that this is the only or the most important moral principle that should govern one's actions. The principle of mutual respect certainly doesn't work for people who do not respect themselves. A stronger moral principle that the Bible states by implication is the centrality and signficance of the individual-- that you matter. Those that deny they matter will also deny that others matter, not always by word but by deed. Those who have believe they matter, who have strong but balanced esteem and character, will embrace this ethic. I'm not talking about the esteem of the swaggering bully, which is usually no esteem at all. And so it is no coincidence that this principle is found in most religions.
In my view, a stronger moral ethic is one that disclaims kind of positive tit for tat-- but rather you act because it is simply the right thing to do. It is moral obligation divorced from consequences or even the specificity of whether or not someone is a masochist or lacks self-esteem. As Kant put it: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."
The renovation of our home is proceeding nicely since I posted my blog entry on March 30th. The exterior is completed and the bathrooms are moving along well. We'll probably work on the kitchen next April.
A form of dollar-cost averaging is to invest in your home when property values are dropping, to exploit cheaper costs for when there is a rebound.
The exterior and patio.
A two hundred year-old stained glass window in the living room facing the Arizona sun. I salvaged this from a mansion in Wisconsin
"Sin" means estrangement from God and from ourselves, our own humanity. We are all equally estranged and need to come to a stae of wholeness.
Wrongful acts certainly differ. Crossing my neighbor's lawn (trespassing) is certainly less important than committing murder. Some people would refer to thsese acts as "sins." I perfer to think of them as wrongful acts. But does the Bible support the distinction that crossing my neighbor's lawn is less important that committing murder? I thnk the answer is yes.
All humans are bound by original sin. One statement of faith states the following: “Originally created to have fellowship with God, man defied God, choosing to go his independent way, and was thus alienated from God and suffered the corruption of his nature, rendering him unable to please God. The fall took place at the beginning of human history and all individuals since have suffered these consequences and thus in need of the saving grace of God.” But "that all have sinned" relates more to this condition of existence rather than to specific acts of immorality, as others on this thread have noted.
Romans 7:15ff refers to strife of the two natures, or what some refer to as the sins of the flesh versus the sins of the spirit, contrasting the natural to the supernatural man. “The sins of the flesh are bad, but they are the least bad of all sins,” C.S. Lewis points out in Christian Behavior. “All the worst pleasure are purely spiritual: the pleasure of putting other people in the wrong, of bossing and patronizing and backbiting, and the pleasure of power, of hatred.” The flesh is the total human personality that is reborn through Christ. Thus, the sins of the flesh were primarily those attitudes that contrasted most sharply with supernatural virtues, such as hardness of heart, greed, envy, cruelty, injustice, and pride.
According to Mark 3:28-29, there is but one unforgivable sin, suggesting that there must be a hierarchy of sins. “Verify I say unto you,” Jesus says, “All sins shall be forgiven unto the sins of men, and blasphemies with which they blaspheme; but he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.”
Jesus says in Matthew 5:17 that He did not come the destroy the law. The moral principles, the implication is, that reside in the Ten Commandments and elsewhere, still obtain.
Finally, in Revelations 20:13, "the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their (good or bad) works."
What constitutes loving they neighbor as thyself?
I have asked this question a number of times. I have never received an answer.
... as far as I know there's no prohibition against rape or slavery, to pick two items at random. That doesn't strike me as much of a moral code.
Your statement-- what is loving thy neighbor as thyself-- and there is no Bibical prohibition against rape or slavery-- is contradictory, unless you can show that rape and enslavement is a manifestion of love for others.
Could it be that the Bible is less a compilation of injunctions and prohibitions than principles that need to be interpreted and applied as times and circumstances change, not unlike our Constitution?
Loving thy neighbor as thyself is basically extending empathy and esteem towards others in the same measure that we apply esteem or self-regard to ourself.
Not if you believe that it was written or inspired by a god as a seamless, inerrant whole. (I don't know whether you personally believe that, but an awful lot of Christians seem to.)
I'm not even sure the Bible itself claims that it is seamlessly inerrant or that it is even a reliable or the only spiritual guide . I'm as skeptical as you are of self-validating documents.
If, OTOH, it's a compendium of different writings compiled over the course of a thousand years or so, it can be used to seek wisdom and rules and all sorts of other things. There's a danger in that, though: what if I read a passage and interpret it as A, while you read the same passage and think, Non-A. Of what use is it then?
Well, then, you must be wrong. (Kidding.)
Thanks for the explanation. I strongly suspect that vanishingly few people esteem their neighbors as much as they do themselves and their family.
I know that I don't, but that doesn't diminish its moral power any more than Ted Bundy's knowledge of law voids the constiitution or Adolf Eichman's knowledge of categorical imperative nullify Kant's moral philosophy. It is surely a radical change from the lex talonus that prevailed then and prevails now in the Middle East.
I believe the Bible in its entirety is the Word of the Lord. I don't believe in cherry picking verses.
I too believe the Bible in its entirety is the Word of the Lord. However, I believe in cherry picking verses so I don't end up stoning my kids, owning slaves, and having concubines.
My cat is now 11 years old. We got her when she was only weeks old.... Now the older she gets, the more scared I get and sad. To say that I am a animal lover, is an understatement.... and just the thought that within a few years, she wont be here anymore.... makes me scared to death and very sad. I just dont know, what I will do, or how to deal with it. I have never had a cat of my own, I have never had to see it or anything like that. I had 2 cats that have passed away, but when I moved out of my parents house they stayed, so when they did pass away, I wasnt actually there. I had a hard time dealing with those as it was, so I cant imagine how I will be when mine does, here in my home. I love her sooooo much, and she has been in our family for 11 years now, I just cant imagine her not being here...It will be one of the hardest things i have to deal with. I wish I didnt care so much, at times like these...:((
When my cat died just short of 17 years, it took me more than a year to get through the grieving process and for several years after that I could bring myself to get another cat. In the waning months of his life, as he lost his hair, weight, and flexibility, I struggled with the question of euthanasia. In my cat's case, there wasn't so much an erosion of health. It was more a sequence of increasingly debilitating collapses-- a plateauing down. I remember taking Rex to the vet once. In the lobby was a burley teamster with tears streaming down his face. He had just watched his doctor put his dog “to sleep.” The subject of euthanasia is too complex for this post, but needless to say, I just couldn’t bring myself to take that step. So long as he wasn’t in acute pain so far as I could tell, I resolved to continue to provide as best as I could and play and comfort him until the end. After giving him a bath one night, he had a stroke and died the next morning.
I suppose I could do worse.
One of the many gifts that our fur-kids give us is that they compress time, decades into years. As much as death of someone you love is a desolation and a devastation, there is compensation. By giving us the lesson of death, they teach us about life, that life is short but infinitely joyous. As I type thse words, Kitty is lying in a pool of sun, and sometimes when I've heard a word too much from politicans or tele-evangelists, I find contentment in looking at life through the eyes of my cat, worry less about taxes and war and treasure and marvel at the orbit of life that make up my cat's existence. As I get older, I accept more and more that death is a great gift, not because of what it takes from me, but what it gives to me-- a nobility and poignancy and urgency to life. We accept the death of our pets as an inevitable part of life, but that still doesn't decrease the pain and the sense of loss. Even in death, they wrap their souls around our hearts and so continue to live on in our hearts.
"Zogby said continuing uncertainty about Iraq contributed to the bad public mood and helped push down ratings for Bush and the Democratic-controlled Congress.
"I think we are seeing an anti-institution mood here," he said. "Post-Katrina, and now with Iraq and the economy getting worse, people just don't have faith that anybody is solving their problems."
The same folks-- many of whom never saw a day of combat themselves-- who are shocked-- shocked!-- at such rudeness to Bush's puppet saw fit to cheer the swift-boating of Senator Kerry.
As entertaining as plagerized photos from the tabloids are, you really need to get you facts straight.
The Illuminati have nothing to do with witchcraft. As a matter of philosophy as well as paractice, they are diametrically in opposition, one have to do with rationalism and the other having to do with paganism.
One other question that I have been thinking about is if Jesus did not consider himself God in the flesh then how could he speak and act with the authority that he had. He taught the multitudes as one having authority, even more so than Moses and the Old Testament prophets. (Matthew 7:29). He said he had authority to forgive sins (Luke 5:24-26). He had authority to make people well from sickness (Luke 5:13). He had authority to calm the sea and storm (LUke 8:24-25). Really, if he wasn't God in the flesh would he be able to do that? Or is there some other explanation you are thinking of? Or are you going to claim that these things are just fables and did not happen at all?
Unless I see a good reason not to, I take the historical account in Gospels at face value. There not fables from my perspective.
My view is that Jesus saw Himself as God in the flesh, the incarnation of the Logos of John 1:1, since He was God. On the other hand, He did appear to be circumspect in stating that he was God. Perhaps the closest He came to that was when Jesus was questioned by his disciples near Caesarea Philippi: Mark 8:27-30 "On the way he asked them, "Who do people say I am?" 28 They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets." 29 "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" Peter answered, "You are the Christ." (literally in the Greek, "the annointed one") 30 Jesus warned them not to tell anyone about him." Matthew 16:16 expands on this statement: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus responds: "Blessed art thou, SImon Bar Jona; for flesh and blood hat not revealed it unto thee, but my Father, who is in heaven." Even in this passage, Jesus doesn't state that He is God, only that He (Jesus) was sent by God, and that Peter's insight that He was the Christ also came from God who was in Heaven, not "flesh and blood" or Jesus who was talking to him. But of course it really was Jesus after all!
Perhaps the subsequent riling up of the Pharisees comes from what is best stated in Cool Hand Luke: "What we have here is a failure to communciate."
There is an article on Conservapedia on atheism located here: http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism The reason I mention this article is that often articles that are popular at Conservapedia climb up the Google rankings quite fast and currently this article has been featured on Conservapedia's main page. Accordingly, I was wondering if anyone was interested in attempting a rebuttal of this article or at least hitting upon various points of it and posting it somewhere prominently on the internet.
I don't have a beef with this kind of a contrary voice. In the dialectical market place of ideas, truth will always shake out dishonesty.
You may want to compare conservapedia's account with Wikpedia's.
Conservapedia is frank about its point of view, and its seems to be oriented primarily to religious fundamentalist home schoolers. Although it tries to appear scholarly and objective, the effect is to undermine its own presumption of a commitment to integrity, not unlike the methodology promoted by holocaust revisionists and tobacco lobbyists-- an appearance of the search for truth rather than the substance of the search for truth.
It's editors will reject any kind of rebuttal within its own pages, and I'm not sure that a rebuttal outside its pages will do much good.
I note that atheists according to this article are often the product of bad fathers + good times + depravity.
According to the Conservapedia entry on Copernicus:
"The reception to his work was initially positive within the Catholic Church (contrary to popular belief, Galileo was not persecuted for supporting the Copernican theory, but because he was disrespectful to the Pope). However, the reaction was negative among Protestants who felt it conflicted with some literal interpretations of the Bible, such as the account of how Joshua benefited from the sun standing still as it passed over the earth. "And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day." Joshua 10:13. But there were few Protestants in Poland then (or now), and Copernicus died without much controversy. To this day, most Protestant countries reject the Copernican theory."
"Conservapedia is a much-needed alternative to Wikipedia, which is increasingly anti-Christian and anti-American. On Wikipedia, many of the dates are provided in the anti-Christian "C.E." instead of "A.D.", which Conservapedia uses. Christianity receives no credit for the great advances and discoveries it inspired, such as those of the Renaissance. Read a list of many Examples of Bias in Wikipedia."
There you have it, folks. Galileo was persecuted for dissing the Pope, but now everything's hunky-dory (btw, the entry on Galileo says the exact opposite). If you are Catholic it's now kosher (pun intended) to believe the earth revolves around the sun, but not if you are Protestant.
After two weeks, there was no response from First Aid and CPR, a website that certifies teachers in first aid. We were able to reverse payment through our credit card company, however.
To: customerservice@firstaidandcpr.com Subject: Please update the date on my transcript Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 20:32:46 +0000
To Whom it May Concern.
Two years ago I took and passed the first aid and cpr test. After doing so I had no problem paying for and printing out the wallet sized card. My card expired this year and when I retook and passed the test again. I paid for the transcript and the date on the new card remained the same, (2005-07-30). I have to have a current card at all times due to the fact that we are inspected by The Department of Health and Family Services (DHS). If my card is not current we are fined and inspected again at a later date. I would appreciate your help in correcting this problem immediately.
I paid for this service on August 19th in the amount of $24.95. I have already spoken to the the PAYPAL customer service person who was not only unable to help, but was also unable to give me any kind of contact number to get in touch with you.
Please contact me as soon as possible to let me know what is being done to resolve this issue.
It seems as though when Jesus talked to him disciples about going to the cross and dying and rising again that it was a foregone conclusion in His mind. But, the statement that Jesus makes about if this cup can pass from me in the Garden would suggest that Jesus thought that there might be other alternatives or that it was at least possible or why else ask for that?
Yes, that is puzzling. On one hand, you have the Biblical narrative that appears to sweep forward towards some kind of historical resolution-- a last battle. On the other hand, you clearly see the workings of individuals including Adam and Eve and Jesus making choices that open doors to one destiny or another. My bias is to the latter. For example, I see prophetic scriptures not so much in terms of what will be but what can be, not unlike the message delivered by Dicken's Ghost of Christmas Future, that as masters of ourn fate we can change the shadows of the things that may be:
The Spirit stood among the graves, and pointed down to One.
"Before I draw nearer to that stone to which you point, answer me one question. Are these the shadows of the things that Will be, or are they shadows of the things that May be only?" Still the Ghost pointed downward to the grave by which it stood.
"Men's courses will foreshadow certain ends, to which, if persevered in, they must lead. But if the courses be departed from, the ends will change. Say it is thus with what you show me!"
The Spirit was immovable as ever.
Scrooge crept towards it, trembling as he went; and, following the finger, read upon the stone of the neglected grave his own name, -- EBENEZER SCROOGE.
"Am I that man who lay upon the bed? No, Spirit! O no, no! Spirit! hear me! I am not the man I was. I will not be the man I must have been but for this intercourse. Why show me this, if I am past all hope? Assure me that I yet may change these shadows you have shown me by an altered life."
There seems to me to have been a lot of discussion about the Trinity on this forum since I have been a part of it. I thought we could discuss whether or not we thought it was biblical and why. I will say that I think if we only had the Old Testament that we could not form the doctrine called the Trinity. I do think that it is demonstrated in the New Testament. Though the word "Trinity" is never used as many are fond of pointing out. Some possible scriptures we could start looking at are:
Deut 6:4- Says that the "Lord is one"
Psalm 2:7- says the Kings of the earth take their stand against the Lord and His "anointed one".
Isaiah 6:8- Says the voice of the Lord was heard saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" Notice the word "us".
Genesis 1:26 when God was making man he said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, and over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." Notice again the use of the words "us" and "our".
Matthew 3:16-17 As Jesus is coming up out of the water at baptism he sees the Spirit of God descending on him like a dove and a voice from heaven. Seems to be all three members of the Trinity there.
Matthew 28:19-20 The disciples are told to baptize in the name of the Father and the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
2 Corinthians 13:14 This letter ends with a Trinitarian final word "May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all."
John 14:16- Jesus said he would ask the Father and the Father would send another Counselor, who Jesus called the Spirit of truth. Jesus also referred to himself as sent by the Father.
I take the view that the Bible does not support the doctrine of the trinity. Having said that, as I explain in my essay, I don't regard the nature of God to be especially important. So this is a some what academic albeit interesting question.
Did Jesus think he was God? There is some ambiguity within the gospels on this point. He surely saw Himself as from and of God. In John 10:30, Jesus says, “I and my Father are one” and in John 14:9, He says, “he that hast seen me hath seen the Father.” I’m not sure that this is a ringing claim of His godhood. Was Jesus claiming that he was God or that he was one with God, as suggested in this familiar hymn?
We are One in The Spirit, We are One in The Lord, We are One in The Spirit, We are One in The Lord. And we pray that all unity may one day be restored,
And they’ll know we are Christians by our love.
But it is clear is that the high priests thought that Jesus was claiming he was God, and His sacrilege was one of the reasons they sought His death. Also, the later writers of the New Testament clearly identified Jesus as God. The question also becomes whether or not God died when Jesus died, or, more specifically, what part of Jesus died? When Jesus said in Luke 23:46, “Into thy hands I commend my spirit” , could it be that only his body had died, while His spirit where still alive—commended to God? So, did God redeem mankind by have one third of the Trinity go to earth as Jesus and then one third of Jesus—His body—die for two days? It seems to me that this cannot be true, as in the Bible the physical death of the body is an illusion and an instant in time whereas the death of the soul is not. So did the soul of Jesus die? If God sent Jesus to die, then did God commit suicide? In describing the passion of Christ, preachers often dwell on Christ’s suffering, as if it was the physical rather than the spiritual pain and death of Jesus that redeems us. In what way is humanity complicit is the death of Jesus? Was the passion a pre-ordained cosmic play, or could any number of alternatives unfold based on choices freely taken by Jesus, Judas, or Pontius Pilate?
The process of trying to answer these questions has compelled me to reconsider whether not the trinity is a valid doctrine. My conclusion is that we have grounds for doubt that it is valid. God consists of “three Persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost,” according to the first article of religion of the Church of England. The Willow Creek Community Church Statement of Faith uses different words but says basically the same thing: “We believe there is one true, holy God, eternally existing in three persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—each of Whom posses equally the attributes of deity and the characteristics of personality.” And we sing that familiar hymn
Holy, holy, holy!
Merciful and mighty!
God in three persons
Blessed Trinity!
Are we saying that God is really three distinct people, like the three tenors Carreras, Domingo, and Pavarotti? Jesus was a person on earth, but was he a person in heaven, and, if so, is God the Father and the Holy Spirit also separate beings? When we say that God is “three in one”, the question must be: one of what? A spirit body? Or does God refer to the Godhead—the office of God, much like an executive board consisting of the president, vice president, and treasurer? There are verses in the Old Testament that affirm monotheism while others suggest polytheism. In fact, the first verse in the Bible uses the plural form of the noun elohim. Many but not all of the church fathers affirmed the Trinitarian view of God. In the Gnostic teachings, the Gospel of Thomas, and the Apocalypse of Peter, some Christians thought that there were two, twelve, or even thirty gods. Tertullian, in the third century, was apparently the first to formulate the term, giving theological definition that God was Lord of the universe, father of Christ, and the continuing source of the church’s life.
Apologists have tried to explain trinitarianism using analogies that I think don't do much to illuminate this belief. For example, H20 consists of liquid water, steam, and ice under different conditions. But trinitarianism posits three different persons under the same conditions. Another analogy is to a shamrock leaf. But that isn’t accurate either, unless we have in mind a three-headed god. The sun, consisting of light, heat, and radiation, or the mind, consisting of emotion, will, and intelligence also fail as analogies, as these are different but integrated manifestations from a single source. An egg consisting of yolk, white, and shell isn't accurate as they are merely parts of a whole, whereas the presumed attributes of the trinity such as omniscience cannot be so isolated between the persons. Time, consisting of past, present, and future, is also a bad analogy, as past and future do not in any real sense exist, except as memory or expectation. We need to be clear in what we are trying to analogize-- three independent beings who co-exist and share the attributes and qualities of each other without compromising their uniqueness.
It could be that the “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” or “Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer” formulas may be a bit like calling me “father, programmer, and Republican”-- three names to different roles of the same person. (The theological term for this is modalism.) If this is the case, then we could also have three thousand names for the same person. The idea of three persons of one substance, is true with any collection of gods be they ancient Greek, ancient Norse, or Hindu. All those groups of gods have a common divinity but manifest different qualities. I only wish the Trinitatarians would be more honest in identifying their belief for what it is: Polytheism. Triniterianism may have developed as a compromise between monotheistic and polytheistic views of God. But, if this is true, then it would be a compromise the humans created rather than what really exists. Furthermore, it defies common sense. Consider three Chicago Bulls players on a basketball court. Even if every one of those players were clones of Michael Jordon—the same in every way—the team would still consist of those three people. There is no mystery here. It seems clear to me that if there are three people who are God, there must be three gods, even if those gods are acting collectively, as would team members on a basketball court. Thus, in defining my monotheism in a way that is consistent with the Bible as I read it, I would say that God the Father is Jesus who is also the Holy Spirit and perhaps much more. I suppose my view is shaped to some degree by Occum’s razor, the principle that “entities should not be multiplied save out of necessity,” and I cannot conceive why God would consist of three people when one would do, and most importantly I don’t see that claim in the Bible. No where do I see for example an independence of will or personality between the Holy Spirit and the other two persons. Thus, when you grieve the Holy Spirit, God and Jesus grieve as well—because they are, I believe, one and the same.
On the other hand, there does appear to be a difference in will between God the Father and Jesus, as we see in Matthew 26:39: “O, my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt.” When Jesus was talking to “my Father,” was he talking to another person who was distinct from him or to himself, much as we do when we have an interior dialogue? The mystery deepens when you consider the role of Mary, whom Catholics regard as the mother to God while still believing in the Trinity, consisting of two persons that were not brought into existence by Mary—the Holy Spirit and God the Father. In John 14:16, Jesus says that "I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Comforter" -- the Holy Spirit. In what sense is the Holy Spirit a person? We talk about the "pleasant" sunshine and the "angry" sea, but neither the sunshine nor the sea are people that have emotions. Is that the same when we look at the Holy Spirit-- not as a person but as a spirit? If so, how can that spirit be a person in the same way that Jesus was a person? According to Luke 24, Mark 16, and Acts 1, Jesus ascended bodily into heaven, but does it follow that Jesus has a physical body in heaven, and that God the Father, and the Holy Spirit also have bodies?
The doctrine of the trinity is largely based on the Nicene Creed drawn up by the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD. This creed came out of a debate about who Christ was and how scripture was to be interpreted. On one side, you had the Arians who interpreted the scripture literally and believed that Christ was not of the "same substance" as God. If he wasn't of the same substance as God, then there was a time when he didn't exist. On the other side you have the school of thought coming out of , where scripture was interpreted mystically and where they believed that Christ was of the "same substance" as God, and thus was God coming to earth as a man. At the Council of Nicea, the literalists lost—an irony as conservatives regard the literalists as closer to the true meaning or fundamentals of the Bible. Athanasius, later bishop of , pushes through the Alexandrian creed that God and Christ were one. This was the direct pre-cursor of the Nicene Creed. The debate came to a head in 380 AD when the Emperor Theodocius the Great declared Christianity the official religion of the . He called the First Council of Constantinople in 381 AD to resolve the debate. The council that convened were mostly followers of the Alexandrian creed of God and Son being one of the "same substance". Theodocius declared this to the official creed of the Empire. With Christianity being the official religion of the realm and a formal creed being accepted by the emperor, the debate was over. The church did all it could to make sure this was the accepted creed. Anyone opposed to this creed were declared heretics. But time would work against the church on this subject. With the Renaissance and the Protestant breaks with the church, the Bible would be translated into common languages, and more and more people would become literate. Scholars during the Enlightenment began to examine the history and philosophy of the ancient world and they began to see the parallels between Greek and Egyptian mysticism and the development of the Trinity within the Christian church. This questioning turned to direct examination of the scriptures and how they supported the Trinitarian teachings and the Nicene Creed. The examinations were not favorable to the Trinitarian teachings. As I reflect on this question, I have become more persuaded that this doctrine sprang not from the pages of the Bible but from the political compromises, mystical pagan influences, and organizational dynamics of the church in the third century AD.
My view is that there is but one God who is Jesus who is also the Holy Spirit. There is no "trinity"-- there is just God who is Our Savior. Most Christians who read this probably believe what they have been taught-- in the trinity. But we can put our selves in the shoes of the early church fathers who debated this issue in 380 AD, with nothing more than the Bible and our mind. If we start with the premise that triniterianism is true, then we'll find verses to support that position. But we're in effect trying to find an answer from our conclusion. We're begging the question. If we posit the conclusion that the earth is flat, polygamy is moral, and people should be enslaved, we can find in the Bible ample justification, which doesn't mean that those propositions are true. Perhaps a more honest approach is to empty our mind of presuppositions about the nature of God and then research the question much like the early church father did from the holy texts. But, for the sake of argument, let's assume that triniterianism is true. To make that case, we may want to create a chart consisting of four columns, with attributes in the first column and texts in the other columns.
But with this we haven't even scratched the surface. The question is not: what does the Bible say about God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit? Rather, the question is: what does the Bible say about God? After we determine that from the evidence of the scriptures, we can then decide whether or not a trinity fits the evidence. So, to take our study to a higher level, we should add another column consisting of a name of God used almost 7,000 times in the Old Testament-- Jehovah. And then we could add another column with yet another-- Creator-- or yet another name-- I AM. The Old Testament alone has hundreds of verses that use these names for God. We could also draw yet more columns. For example, El is used 250 times, Elohim 2,570 times, El Shaddai is used 48 times, and Adonai is used 300 times. And there is no reason to stop with the Old Testament. We could reference the many names of Jesus to draw yet more columns: Shepherd of the Sheep; Master; King of kings; Lord of lords; Bishop and Guardian of our Souls; Daystar, Deliverer, Advocate, Last Adam, Ancient of Days, Branch, Chief Cornerstone, Immanuel, First Born, Head of the Body, Physician, Rock, Root of Jesse, Stone, Potentate; Chief Apostle; Great High Priest; Author and Finisher; Lamb of God; Lamb Slain before the Foundation of the World; Lord God Almighty. In the Bible, there are upwards to 1,000 different names used for God. No one suggests that each of these names represent a different person of the godhead-- that there are 1,000 people that are God. But that is triniterian thinking taken to its logical extreme, and it is that theory that strikes at the heart of Biblical monotheism. There is nothing magical about the number three, and there could very well be seven persons or twenty persons, using the same logic that the triniterians use-- asserting personhood from the verses that are synonyms for God. Some proof texts also have dubious parentage. An example is I John 5:7-8: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one." Scofield writes "It is generally agreed that this verse has no ms. authority and has been inserted." Finally, I find it curious and perhaps compelling that the apostle Paul began each of his epistles without referencing the Holy Spirit, a strange omission if the Holy Spirit was indeed a person of the godhead:
Romans 1:1, 7-9: “Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all…”
I Corinthians 1:1, 3: “Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God…Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.”
II Corinthians 1:1-3: “Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God…Grace be to you and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ. Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ…”
Galatians 1:1, 3: “Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead)…Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ.”
Ephesians 1:1-3: “Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at …Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ.”
Philippians 1:1-2: “Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus, which are at Phillipi…Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.”
Colossians 1:1-3: “Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God…Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. We give thanks to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ…”
I Thessalonians 1:1: Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians… Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
II Thessalonians 1:1-2: Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians… Grace unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Philemon 1:1, 3: “Paul, a prisoner of Jesus Christ, and Timothy our brother, unto Philemon our dearly beloved, and fellowlabourer…Grace to you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.”
Titus 1:1, 4: “Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness…To Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Savior.”
These verses not only challege the Triniterians. They also challenge me, as they imply two distinctive divine beings-- the Father and Jesus. Elsewhere, the Bible mentions that Jesus prayed to His Father in heaven, and that His death would be God's will, that Jesus mediates between us and God, and that Jesus sits on God's right hand. My resolution is to insist what is obvious to me-- that Jesus is God. There is absolute identity of Jesus with God. He was God before he came to earth, was incarnated as a human of earth, and is God now. References to His Father is simply language indicating His humility and momentary abdication of His throne while on earth to redeem us from our sins. They do not indicate a biological or a subordinate relationship. Jesus is, in the words of the benediction in Jude 1:24-25 "able … to present you … to the only wise God, our Savior, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and forever." Thus, Jude suggests, there is only one God, who is our Savior.
No where does the Bible state the theology of the Trinity. It’s an argument pasted together by taking passages out of context then stringing them together and coming to a conclusion, using the same kind of sophistry to support, for example, the Catholic doctrine of purgatory. But I’m not prepared to claim that the triniterianism is apostasy. Nor do that I suggest that preachers should stop preaching about the Trinity or that we should strike the word from the names of our institutions and creeds. I acknowledge that the weight of Biblical tradition and popularity leans towards triniterianism, and that alone prevents me from claiming dogmatically that God is one spirit-person. I can only say that I’ve yet to read an explanation of triniterianism that makes it clear that we’re not worshiping three gods-- tritheism-- consisting of God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit or two gods consisting of God the Father and Jesus. Faith is fine, so long as it is based on the authority of the Bible. The authority in this case is not so much the Bible as it is in a millennia and a half of creeds, sermons, and hymns which may be only peripherally based on the Bible. Triniterianism is so embedded in our culture that any challenge is regarded as unorthodox, despite its paucity of scriptural support. Students must attest to a Trinitarian creed before going to seminary. They are taught by professors who must also affirm triniterianism. Thus, there is little chance we will learn anything but triniterianism in either the seminaries or the churches. Appeals to tradition and authority are not always fallacious but they do weaken the Trinitarian case. After all, tradition and authority claimed for several millenniums from the scriptures that the earth was flat. “Why do we follow the majority? “ Pascal asked. “Is it because they have more reason? No, because they have more power. Why do we follow ancient laws and opinions? Is it because they are more sound? No, but because they are unique and remove from us the root of difference.” On the other hand, I must also be skeptical of my own skepticism, and allow for the possibility that I’m wrong.
Is it important to believe that God is one or three people? A good rule of thumb is that if a doctrine is ambiguous, it is probably not important. What is important is that Jesus is God and that Jesus died so that we can live. “He that believeth on the Son has everlasting life.” (John 3:36) And, as interesting as it is to think about this, there are limits to disputation and much wisdom in the words of Thomas a Kempis (1380-1471) that evoke the spirit of I Corinthians 13. In Of the Imitation ofChrist, he wrote "What doth it profit thee to enter into deep discussions concerning the Holy Trinity, if thou lack humility, and be thus displeasing to the Trinity? For verily it is not deep words that make a man holy and upright; it is a good life which maketh a man dear to God. I had rather feel contrition than be skillful in the definition thereof. If thou knewest the whole Bible, and the sayings of all the philosophers, what should this profit thee without the love and grace of God?"
Your inquiry brings to mind the strangely endearing friendship between the English atheist G.H. Hardy and the more mystical Srinivasa Ramanujan, the "Hindu calculator", who famousely said "An equation for me has no meaning, unless it represents a thought of God."
There's an institutional mentality that develops in prisons. I don't know if it's the natural result of being confined and regulated-- I do think some personalities tend towards it. I guess it's just easy to give up, after a while. For some people.
Human phsychology is indeed an uncharted continent. In the last day or so, I've been pondering what demons promoted The Juice to firstly writing a book entitled If I did It-- meaning the mother of his children-- and secondly the most recent incident that has put him for now behind bars. Someone once said that what Jack says about Jill tells us more about Jack than Jill. Were the words he said "mother*******" really a self-description? Does he at some deep level want to be imprisoned, despite his love of golf, motor boating, easy women, and the club scene?
Alternatively, he may simply be a narcisstic moron.
No where in you list of verses is the word "omnipotent" mentioned or "having unlimited power or authority" mentioned. But let's take your verses one at a time.
"Genesis 1:1-2:1 / John 1:3 / Romans 11:36 / Ephesians 3:9 [and others] - All things were created by God."
Yes, God is the creator. But this says nothing about power. It doesn't follow that God exceeds the power of that which he created any more than humans exceeds the power of an atom bomb or a sling shot for that matter. There is nothing in God's creatorship that implies omnipotence.
""All things are possible with God" Mark 10:27, Matthew 19:26"
You need to read these passages again. The context has to do with the difficulty of a rich man entering heaven. What Jesus is saying that with God rich men can enter heaven.
"Psalm 119:91 - All things serve the Lord"
First, aren't you dipping into poetry? Secondly, can you say that is true? Do abortionists and gas chambers serve the Lord?
"You are the ruler of all things." 1 Chronicles 29:12
Well, I read this verse in the KJV somewhat differently: "Both riches and honor come of thee, and thou reignest over all." In Daniel's prayer to God, there is again no implication that he is all powerful-- only that he is the ruler of all.
"Lord, you know all things." John 21:17 [Peter speaking to Christ (God in flesh)]
Knowledge is not the same as power.
Christ (God in flesh) is over all things - Hebrews 1:6
You need to be more accurate in your proof texting. Here is the verse as it is written in the KJV: "And again, when hr bringeth in the first-begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him." The context of this chapter makes this a clear reference to Jesus. But nothing is implied about omnipotence-- only that angels will worship him.
Romans 11:36 - all things are directed by God
Here you get into theological interpretation especiually as regards the question of theodicy. If it is your view that God directs your choices and the choices of all people from the dawn of time then I would ask why was there a need for the atonement since no one from Adam on can be held responsible for what God directs-- making God a co-consipirator in every evil than man does. God would basically be a cosmic puppet-master and the entire Bible a play with a pre-ordained beginning, middle, and end, which would undermine any semblance of what we call morality.
My view is that God is indeed King of kings and Lord of lords of the exterior world, but not our faith, our choices, our will, our intentions.
It seems to me you are left with two choice. Either a rejection of that which is not even explicitly stated in the Bible although it is in plenty of creeds, the claim that God is omnipotent, that God is not omnipotent-- or circumscribes His own power-- to allow for choice and morality. Or that God is indeed all powerful, but that would make him at least as evil as the most evil person who ever lived or demon who has ever existed, since God must have in some way allowed that evil because he is all powerful.
I found this site of people who have died and came back to tell about their experience. Here is one short example
" I was watching the paramedics perform CPR on me when my glowing companion suggested I might like to go back. I asked her where I would be going back to. With that, two other beings arrived, my grandmothers, one I had never met and one who passed into spirit only 18 months previously. I knew instinctively that I would be safe whatever choice I made. I was surrounded by love. I was encompassed by warmth and a sense of belonging I've never experienced since." Leonie, age 5.
I was wondering what you all thought of experiences like this that people tell and whether or not you thought they were valid? Does it increase your faith or make no difference to you that so many have these types of experiences?
I've had only one such experience about two decades ago, although it's unclear how close I was to death. I lost consciousness at the health club and banged my head on the floor. What people saw was somebody who moved like a half crushed beetle in a puddle of blood. What I felt was the way I feel on a Saturday morning after a long, peaceful sleep-- a feeling of deep, soft comfort and well-being. I'm sure there were neurological and physiological defense processes at work. Nevertheless, this strange episode left me with a fearlessness of death as well as a hightened awareness of the now.
Time magazine's headline for it's last issue: "How much longer?" That is the most stupid question I can imagine. Why doesn't Time magazine go ask the insurgents and terrorists "how much longer"?
Would you put down your gun and "hateful ideology" if a foreign force occupied America?
But they're going to stay there and proudly serve until their job is done. And they will have the support of the majority in this country.
Seem kind of utopian for us to commit our forces until peace and love reigns through the Middle East. The soldiers will continue to have the support of America so long as most Americans don't have to pay a price unlike during WWII. They will still drive their SUVs with their yellow ribbon magnets that claim their support for our troopers. However, as more coffins start coming home to Main Street, USA, it will dampen your kind of bluster.
The general and ambassador gave lots of statistics and facts in their 17 hours before Congress. But the only metric that would convince me is two: the number of daughters that Bush is willing to sacrifice on the altar of liberty in Iraq on behald of the United States. Of course, that will never happen.
By the way, what about you? Have you served or are your children serving in Iraq?
Any member of Congress that thinks they know how to run a war - which, by the way, is NOT their job - from thousands of miles away in a nice comfortable office with his shiny leather shoes and expensive suit is suffering from severe dementia and possibly even brain damage. Congress simply cannot second-guess General Petraeus because Congress isn't there and doesn't know what's going on. They are not military men, they are politicians. They have no basis on which to second-guess Petraeus' proposals other that posturing and grandstanding.
Wrong. Since when do soldiers make military policy? It is yet another constitutional principle that the president has gutted. It looks to me that Petraeus is part of the echo chamber-- his master's voice-- and has the same credability another soldier had a generation ago-- General Westmoreland. There are people like Senator McCain who think we should have stayed in Viet Nam to "finish the job" and that 58,000 American lives were not enough. He doesn't make clear as to what what staying the course in Viet Nam would have accomplished in hindsight. It certainly would not have prevented the Cambodian genocide, and Republicans such as Nixon and Kissinger at that time were adament that their policy had nothing to do with what happned in Cambodia.
But, who cares, right? Leave them alone and let them deal with it. They'll work it out. So what if the Shiites go on a massive ethnic cleansing campaign and al-Quaeda sets up their new world headquarters in Iraq? As long as our soldiers can come home and we can save some money, who cares, right?
That is right. The prevention of ethnic cleansing has never been our goal. If it was, we would be in Dafur. It's not our business to umpire civil wars with hatreds that go back a thousand years and to nation build. We need to get out now.
Tomorrow, the president will announce troop cuts but qualified to "conditions on the ground." I predict that the conditions will be such that the troop levels will be pretty much where they are now.
Who will it hurt? Not the Democrats, who are counting on the president to maintain his policy so that they can get control of all branches of the government. Not the president who wants the vindication of history by ensuring that presidents that follow him are tied to his interventionist neo-con policies. Not his supporters who continue to place support for the president above love for this country. The only people who will be hurt will be the troops and their families. They will continue to bleed. Only about 4,000 American have died thus far in Iraq. My guess is that the numbers have to increase by a factor of ten-- 40,000 or more perhaps due to an expanded war into Iran and Syria-- before America comes to its senses.
If I was an Iraqi with any intelligence, I wouldn't be taking up arms against the force that deposed Saddam Hussein.
But why? They may not be fighting for bin laden but they might be fighting for things that we don't understand-- the temples of their gods and the graves of their fathers.
We're not there trying to shove Christianity down anyone's throat, nor are we trying to take over. We're cleaning up after our ass kicking of Saddam and trying to re-establish a central government. As soon as things are calm, we're outta there.
But do they understand that? I was going to say that I understand that, but as a matter of fact, I'm not sure that's true. I think the model for Bush is permanent occupation along the same lines as we have in South Korea, Germany, and Cuba. It's not for nothing that we are building the biggest embassy in the world and are signing multi-decade contracts. In fact, in Bush's speech, he suggested as much-- that this may be a multi-generation effort in Iraq.
I served in the Army during the first gulf war. I don't have any kids but if I did, I would proudly support their decision to serve the country and go to Iraq to fight. Because it's the RIGHT thing to do.
I salute your service, but not your judgment.
Petraeus has been given a job to go to Iraq and gain success. The stuffed suits give him an objective and he decides how to accomplish it. The suits can't tell him what to do and HOW to do it, period.
Sorry, that isn't how the consitution works, as MacArthur found out.
These are your words. "Only" 4,000. So then if "only" 4,000 have died, then what's the big deal? What's wrong with sticking around awhile and kicking some more insurgent, Islamic jihadi ass?
I'm being ironic. Someone asked Petraeus, to paraphrase, will your actions make us safer? He said in effect "huh, I dunno".
He didn't exactly leave me with a warm and fuzzy feeling of confidence. Seems to me that this is a key question. If it cannot be clearly be answered in the affirmative, then what in the heck are we doing there?
Hey butt-face tell us all what and who neo-cons are.....genius!!
I had no idea that my brother posted here. OK, settle down, and I'll clue you in. neo-con has several meanings, all applicable only to Republicans. 1. neo comes from the Latin 'new'. con means convict. So, neo-con is a new Republican convict. There are many of these. Tom Delay is a good example.
2. con also means confidence as in shuster or scam artist, which, essentially is the entire Republican administration.
3. Finally, neo also comes from the Albanian "not" and con means conservative. Thus, neo cons are Republicans that give us non-conservative policies such as unfunded educational mandates, premptive wars and nation building, and the termination of irrelvancies such as Social Security and balanced budgets. Again, the entire Republican administration.
Thanks!
You're welcome.
Why would they think we want anything to do with their temples and graves?
I'm speaking metaphorically. In the war of hearts and minds, we are losing. Most Iraqis want the Americans out of their country for the same reason that most Americans would want foreign troops out of America if we were so occupied. We may see ourselves as acting with nobility to bring Jefferson democracy to Iraq. But the vast majority of those who live in Iraq see us as Christian crusaders, plunderers of their wealth, imperalists in the tradition of Rome and trhe the British, killers of their children, despoilers of their women. The scandals at Abu Garub and Haditha certainly didn't help to dispel that widespread perception, and it is no accident that more people in Iraq and Pakistan revere bin Laden their the current state leaders.
We will always have some kind of presence there at the pleasure of the Iraqi government, which was elected by the Iraqi people.
At the pleasure of the Iraqi government or the pleasure of our government? Some of the distrust in the Middle East comes from our involvement in trying to overthrow governments that we believe have policies contrary to our interests. Iran's hatred to America can in part be traced back to the coup d'etat in 1953 by the CIA and MI6 under Operation AJAX of Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh, the Prime Minister of Iran. And today Iran's hatred is fueled by a more recent policy of regime change-- a truely idiotic policy as it forces Iran to assume the very worse about America as it views its own existence is at stake reducing any incentive for moderation or diplomacy. Under the circumstances, Iran has considerable motivation in fomenting civil war in Iraq as a way to entrap the US in a quagmire while they build a nuclear arsenal. We ae forcing Iran into radicalism because our own policies are radical.
Congress does not run wars; that is the job of the President. Congress is trying to micro-manage something outside their scope of responsibility. If they don't like what's going on, then they can stop funding it. Why haven't they stopped the funding if this war is so terrible??
They haven't stopped funding it for the simple reason that they don't have the votes to sustain a veto. However, that is slowly changing. Congress will continue to assert itself to the point of micro-managing because it is so distrustful of the administration in its serial lies and also in its incompetence under Rumsfeld and Casey. None of this would have happened during WWII or during the Afghanistan invasion when there was a broad US consensus. Most congressman now believe that the administration's policies do not reflect the will of the people. And so they will seek to constrain its military policies more and more. However, just as a good fisherman will play out the line before snagging the trout, so too will they give the president what he wants as an expedient to achieving what they ultimately want-- Democratic control of government. It's a cynical rope-a-dope policy that is costing our troopers their lives, but it is a plan that accords with both what the president wants and the Democratic leadership want, and so it will continue.
The so-called "majority" of Americans who are against the war is a fallacy. With the help of the Defeatocrat party the Leftist media has propagandized the Iraq War, only reporting the most negative aspects of it.
It was the liberal media, such as Judith Miller of the New York Times, who propaganderized the Iraq war from the start.
Were America truly against the war there would be violence in the streets and massive demonstrations weekly.
Why? With only a few thousand dead and no draft, this war has touched few Americans. Most Americans simply don't care if your kids live or die in Iraq.
Right now all we have are some malcontent anarchists and fringe whackos, numbering in the hundreds, not the thousands meeting every 6 months or so in DC.
I seem to remember this echo from the 60s-- that somehow a bunch of scruffy hippies on the corner of Height and Asbury forced the 101 Airborne to surrender in Viet Nam.
The "majority" is wrong on the war. The right thing to do is continue the surge, defeat the enemy of America, within and without and then we will have peace.
Even General Petreaus states that he isn't sure that this will bring America greater security whereas former Fed Chief Greenspan is sure that this war is all about oil. Yep, it seems the right thing to do and it will definitely bring peace. (snort)
How many of you Defeatocrats have served in the military like I have?
Gee, I don't know how many fools want to fight them over there so they don't have to fight them here. You may want to ask some of your chicken-hawk young Republicans the same question.
That is because if it cannot be falsified, then it means nothing for it to be true. If a proposition is unfalsifiable, then there is no difference between a universe in which it is true and a universe in which it is not true.
You give more credence to falsifiability, arrived logically via modus tollens (U --> ^O. where U = universal statement and O = observation; If O; Thus ^U, than I do in demarking between science and non or pseudo-science, or, as you say, "a universe in which it is true and a universe in which it is not true." First, the principle of falsifiability is just that-- a principle which cannot in itself be falsified as is also true with the logical positivist's verifiability principle. Secondly, the rejection of a hypnotheis due to an example of falsifiability can itself be irrational, as in the 1925 Michelson-Morely experiment relative to Einstein's Theory of Relativity. (This concept can only be challenged when applied to other theories. You might be hard pressed to falsify the Theory of Natural Selection, for example.) Thirdly, as the article also points out, there is the problem of perceived as opposed to real verifiability-- gets to the crux of what we really mean by "true" as used in your sentence. http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/16478
Finally, as I stated earlier, Popper's view is that there can be no inference that given the lack of falsifiability, a theory is false, meaningless, or trivial-- only that it cannot be tested. "I thus felt that if a theory is found to be non-scientific, or "metaphysical" (as we might say), it is not thereby found to be unimportant, or insignificant, or "meaningless," or "nonsensical." But it cannot claim to be backed by empirical evidence in the scientific sense—although it may easily be, in some genetic sense, the "result of observation.""
A key means of undoing brainwashing and other mental conditioning, it is to promote doubts. That is, to give some sort of affirmation to those who are in doubt of their fundamentalist dogma. I'm looking for materials that are powerful, and yet not brutally so.
As much as I admire your ambition in this project, I think ultimately you will be preaching to the choir.
I just came back from a Bar Mitvah of a family friend. Although I ddn't understand the Hebrew, I did understand the impressive mix and power of what I saw during that hour of love for family, tradition going back thousands of years, community, moral strength, and intellect of the rabbi, cantor, and the 13 year old. That's what you are up against.
In this thread, there I see there are a few intellectual rabbit trails that in my opinion will go no where. For example, I wouldn't spend much time on Biblical contradictions as religion is essentially a zone of contradictory thought that believers relish and embrace. For example, most believers I suspect will shrug their shoulders should I point out that according to Ezra 2:15, 454 of Adin’s offspring returned from Babylon; according to Nehemiah 7:20, 655 of Adin’s children returned from Babylon or that Ahaziah began to reign in the 12th year of Joram, according to 2 Kings 8:28 and in the 11th year of Joram, according to 2 Kings 9:29. The same is true when I highlight the pre-Darwinian and pre-Copernican language of Genesis. All of that is irrelevant, as semantical errors to the believers do not equate to spiritual falsehoods. They paradoxically may add to the Bible's credability as they put its language into a realm outside of the transient and the mundane-- history, geography, empercisim, and the like. Religion is at its core a paradox. “Its passion mounts, like a surge of music, insubstantial and sustaining, between two great cries of the spirit—the paradoxical sadness of ‘Lord, I believe; help Thou mine unbelief’ and the paradoxical triumph of Tertullian’s ‘Credo quia impossibile’ (I believe because it is impossible.),” Whittaker Chambers wrote in an essay on Reinhold Niebuhr. “Religiously, its logic, human beyond rationality, is the expression of a need epitomized in the paradox of Solon weeping for his dead son.
“Why do you weep,’ asked a friend, ‘since it cannot help? Said Solon: “That is why I weep—because it cannot help.”
If you fight this battle in the realm of logic and science, you will always win-- but it will be a Pyrrhic victory because you are fighting phantoms. This isn't where the real battle is and perhaps never was. The same is true when you turn a spot light on religious hypocrisy or scientific obsurantism . This isn't where the battle should be fought in my view, for the simple fact that some believers are not hypocritical and are scientific whereas some doubters are hypocritical and are not scientific. In fact, I question your premise: that the cultivation of doubt is somehow an antidote to faith as if to say that faith and doubt cannot co-exist. They not only can co-exist but they can reinforce each other, as the recent letters of Mother Thereas attest.
The transition to religious skepticism and the transition to atheism are too very different roads. The road most traveled are what you interlocutors have already for the msot part suggested-- non-convincing (at least to me) discussions about the origin and credability fo the Bible or the history of Christianity. The road least traveled would probably require a solid course in classic Aristotelian logic and perhaps something from writers such Bertrand Russell.
But the deeper question is why do people make the jump either one way to another-- from faithlessness to faith, from faith to faith, or from faith to faithlessness? It rarely has much to do with logic or argument although logic and argument can inform the desire to take a new intellectual journey. I believe it has more to do with personal experimentation. You experience one history and that leads to misery so you root around for another opportunity to reinvent yourself in kind of a self-administered therapy. If that reinvention works for you-- if it brings pleasure and bliss-- you stick with it. If it doesn't, you discard it and you try something else. It is a life journey that is both psychological and pragmatic and which has little to do with reasonality or skepticism as such.
Those skeptics who are not yet atheists are still compartmentalizing.
However, in a sense, doctrinal investigation of any kind requires a floor of doubt, whether you are digging into the Atharva Veda or the Gospel According to Luke. It is all a process of questioning, analysis, and discovery. You may argue that the premises are false, but skeptical rigor can still be present.
Whereas you view skepticism as basically the culmination of skepticism, I view it more as a milestone in one's intellectual pilgramage, and for some people, a sophomoric milestone-- cheap jabs at the "xtian myth", say. Russell's essay on why he isn't a Christian is a sophisticated example of this-- interesting to read but persuasive only to his atheistic partisans.
The other essay I posted from him is also flawed. Take, for example, Russell's credo of skepticism: “The skepticism that I advocate amounts only to this: (1) that when the experts are agreed, the opposite opinion cannot be held to be certain; (2) that when they are not agreed, no opinion can be regarded as certain; (3) that when they all hold that no sufficient grounds for a positive opinion exist, the ordinary man would do well to suspend judgment.” The rarest kind of skepticism is skepticism that turns on iself-- scientists that are skeptical of science, atheists that are skeptical of atheism, religionists who are skeptical of religion. Let's apply this meta-skepticism, if you will, to Russell's statement. First, I’m not impressed with appeals to authority and the condescending phrase “ordinary people” juxtaposed to “experts.” I’m a lot less trusting in experts than Russell is. I won’t say that experts are always wrong, but I will say that they can be wrong, especially when they are dealing with life and death issues such as birth and terminal sickness—or really any ethical issue. Secondly, on what grounds do we need to rely on either a consensus of opinion or even any opinion to establish any kind of truth? Thirdly, why exactly would we “do well to suspend judgment” in the absence of certitude? The entire statement, actually, is replete with fuzziness to make it worthless as a guide. But Lord Russell’s broad point is valid-- that we must test what we know in the fires of doubt, constantly doubting what we read, hear, and see.
However, what I also see are skeptics that make doubt an end in itself-- always asking questions or attacking but positing no answers or even hynotheses or defending. I'm not sure I'm willing to embrace this kind intellectual nihilism, what amounts to a philosophical shrug of one's shoulders. At some point, I believe, doubt must resolve into knowledge-- justified true belief.
Thinking is hard work, especially when you think for yourself, and for you it may indeed resolve itself into atheism. But, as T.S. Eliot wrote, we may return to where we started-- what we find through years of study might indeed be what we lisped as children in Sunday school, but it must be up to us to start that exploration.
We shall not cease from exploration And the end of all our exploring Will be to arrive where we started And know the place for the first time.
For those who attend church, are there any circumstances in which you would excommunicate a person who attends your church?
Would you ask someone to leave for any of these reasons, for example:
1. Expousal of heresy. 2. Dishonesty, for example, conviction of embezzlement. 3. Bad influence on your children, for example, out-of-wedlock pregnancy or a child molestation conviction. 4. Bad example, as in a church member convicted of a felony.
There was a time when I thought that disenfranchisement was on its face a contradiction to Christian teachings, a glaring example of intolerance and hypocrisy. There are a lot of sick souls who go to church, and what better place for them to be than to be in this spiritual hospital. But I've since come to realize that this position is naive. To use the medical example again, there are people who are spiritual Typhoid Mary's, who by their mere existence in church pose a mortal threat to others in the congregation. They may even have the self-awareness that what they did is wrong, they may be consumed with remorse, and they may be under the grip of something that they cannot change or don't understand. Nevertheless, they may need to move on.
For me, a first principle of ethics is: how could it impact my children? In the case of pediophilia, out-of-wedlock birthing and spousal cheating, what you could have is a disconnect of messages that could negatively influence others, especially children. Thus, if such people still hold a position of leadership or admiration in the church, the message that an impressionable 14 year hears from the person or leaders in the church is:
don't do this don't do don't do this
But what they see, sense, and construe especially by the way other people treat the person in question is:
DO THIS!!! DO THIS!!! DO THIS!!!
The latter has much more of a force in influencing behavior than the former. We certainly have a moral obligation to protect our kids, and there may be times when the only way to do this is to purge from the church those who could harm our kids by their example that comes from their presence.
Much depends on the personality and charisma of the person in question. And this is certainly an example where rules are less important than discernment.
An elementary teacher starts a new job at a school in Milwaukee and trying to make a good impression on her first day, explains to her class that she's a Brewers fan. She asks the class to raise their hands if they too are Brewers fans. Everyone in the class raises their hand except one girl. The teacher looks at the girl with surprise and says: "Mary, why didn't you raise your hand?" Because I'm not a Brewers fan," she replied. The teacher, still shocked, asked: "Well, if you're not a Brewers fan, then who do you support?" "I'm a Cubs fan, and proud of it," Mary replied. The teacher could not believe her ears. "Well Mary, might you explain why are you a Cubs fan?" "Because my Mom and Dad are from Chicago and my Mom is a Cubs fan and my dad is a Cubs fan, so I'm a Cubs fan too!" "Well," said the teacher, in an obviously annoyed tone, "that's no reason for you to be a Cubs fan. You don't have to be just like your parents all of the time. What if your Mom was a white trash prostitute and your dad was a drug addict and a car thief, what would you be then?" Mary said, "I'd be a White Sox fan."
On Thu Sep 6 3:47 , ACCULOTTO INTERNATIONAL sent: FROM:ACCULOTTO.COM INTERNATIONALOFFICIAL SPONSOR:MERCEDES BENZ COPERATION(UK)C/ CRYDON 28089,LONDON.FROM: THE PROMOTIONS DIRECTORINTERNATIONAL PROMOTIONS DEPT.www.acculotto.comRef No: MELI-T/ 17-F044262312 Batch No:901/00319/HLP Zonal Draw No: GMLA2-003 Grand Draw No: 12099
We are happy to announce to you our online sweepstakes draws held on 20th April,2007 when 15,000 email were drawn from the web and six emails were the finalists from the random selection which was due to commemorate the launching of our new computer balloting system.Your email address attached to the winning refernce number MELI-T/ 17-F044262312 and draw number 12099 has made you a winner of the sum of
£500.000.00(G.B.P).
In other to claim your prize,you are required to fill in the form below for the procession of your claim.
From: "henksmith4" <henksmith4@libero.it>>Subject: Award Notice>Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 22:20:01 +0200>>Award Notice,>
Following official publication of results of the Email electronic online>Sweepstakes organized by the(KRASLOTEN LOTTERY AGENCY) corporation,the >Slide>circuit award>
Contact Mr. James Peterson by phone or email>Tel:+31-623-494-970,>Email:krasloten5050@yahoo.de>For Claim and Clarification of
1000.000.00(One Million Dollars)
From>KRASLOTEN LOTTERY AGENCY database internet email users.
Your email address >was>randomly balloted which came out attached to(Ref.No 99868) >Regards,>Mrs.Henk Smith.
Thanks for your email regarding your ad targeting. We've provided some information below which we hope will address your question. As you know,you can also find instant answers to some of our top questions in theAdSense Help Centre at http://www.google.com/adsense/support.
If you still have unresolved issues after looking through this material, please replyto this email and we'll be happy to help you further.-
How does Google target ads to my page?
The ads we display on a webpage are determined automatically by our systembased on a number of factors such as the page content, linguistics,keyword analysis, word frequency, font size, and the overall linkstructure of the web.
Can I choose which ads to display on my site, using keywords? I'd liketo display ads which are complementary to my site.
Please keep in mind that the ads displayed on a web page are determinedautomatically by our system based on the overall content of that page, notkeywords or categories. At this time, we cannot manually alter thetargeting of the ads displayed on your site.If you'd like to display ads related to a specific topic on your website,we recommend including more text-based content about these topics,including complete sentences and paragraphs, to assist our crawlers ingathering information about your pages and determining relevant ads todisplay. Please note that it may take up to 1 or 2 weeks before anychanges you make have an effect on your ad targeting.
Why am I seeing ads not related to my site content?
Your ads may not be targeted to your content for a number of reasons:
1. Your web page may not contain enough text-based content.There may not be enough information on your site for our crawlers toidentify relevant ads to show on your pages. We recommend including morecomplete sentences and paragraphs on your site, and also implementingsection targeting - instructions are available athttps://www.google.com/adsense/support/bin/answer.py\?answer=23168 .
2. Our system may not have crawled your pages yet.When you update a page, it may take up to 2 weeks before the changes arereflected in our index. You may wish to use the Site Diagnostics page inyour account, which provides details about whether our crawler was able toaccess your site. If the table on your Site Diagnostics page says "Youcurrently have no blocked URLs" and you'd still like to improve therelevance of your ads, please visit:http://www.google.com/adsense/support/bin/answer.py\?answer=43998 . Ifyou're seeing "Robots.txt file" or "URL not found" errors in the table,please visit:http://www.google.com/adsense/support/bin/answer.py\?answer=37091 .
3. Your site may be primarily in an unsupported language.We're currently only able to provide ad targeting for the languages listed at http://www.google.com/adsense/support/bin/answer.py\?answer=9727 ,Placing your ad code on pages in an unsupported language usually results in untargeted ads or PSAs.
4. Your site may contain non-family safe content.We currently have certain filters in place, and our system does not targetcontent which it determines to be potentially sensitive, negative, ormature. Although we cannot manually alter the targeting of the adsdisplayed on your site, please know that our system may be able to delivermore relevant ads as your page content changes,You may wish to use our Troubleshooting Wizards, located herehttps://www.google.com/adsense/support/bin/answer.py\?answer=27564. Inaddition, you might find the information at https://www.google.com/adsense/support/bin/answer.py\?answer=43998 useful.
Senator (or about to be former Senator) Larry Craig of Idaho, a family-values, anti-gay crusader who got caught in a men's bathroom in Minneapolis, MN soliciting sex under the bottom of a stall from an undercover policeman. He pled guilty to a lesser crime two months later and announced today that he is quitting the Senate because he embarrassed himself.
And let me guess.....the guy is a Christian?
In my time as a Born Again, I lost track of the number of hypocritical Church leaders who were caught doing the exact opposite of what they preached. They have a penchant for it.
There certainly are a lot of hypocritical Republican perverts.
As to why there are so many, I think it has little to do with their religious background. The Democrats have also had their scandals, most notably, Bill Clinton. However, I think the reason why so many Republicans are now coming out of the woodwork is because they have enjoyed six years of power with little accountability-- control of all branches of government and most of the press as well. Power is now sliding away from them, and wth that you will see even more scandals. Power corrupts, and power has corrupted the Republicans. A moral Christian Republican is becoming an oxymoron for our times.
