Existence, the first occasion to sin

[greylorn]

Fair enough. Perhaps I misunderstood. Did you not say you were writing a book about his teachings?

To dedicate a chapter of a book to someone on whom you place no importance is rather bemusing.

Or do you write about figures of no importance? If so, does not writing about them then, by definition, make them important? At least in your own eyes?

You read but apparently the words you read cannot get past your brain’s little programs. I devoted part of one chapter (not a book) to Christ’s teachings. Let me try that again. Teachings. And again, in case you fell asleep…

The chapter I mentioned is about Christ’s teachings, not about Christ, about whom nothing reliable is known. My chapter proposes that the teachings are independent of any theology.

Please don’t query me again until you learn to read competently.

 

[tonyrey]

God as defined by the Church cannot be brought into the realm of objective reality, since that definition is of a singularity.

But objective reality can be brought into the realm of God:

“In Him we live, move and have our being…”

 

[tonyrey]

The world has known a number of valuable people who made great contributions to human understanding. Have you heard of Confucius? How about Newton, Einstein, and Max Planck, all of whom were probably more intelligent than Christ and did not claim godhood as a consequence? …

The only things important about Christ, or any other human beings, are the teachings a very few of them leave behind. IMO, of course.

It would be sad to see you banned but you are sailing very close to the wind:

Rule 5: Non-Catholics are welcome to participate but must be respectful of the faith of the Catholics participating on the board.

 

[PRmerger]

Uri Geller and a large number of psychics can perform **inexplicable **manipulations of parts of the physical universe, the kinds of things regarded as miracles by primitive Hebrews who would have worshiped a time traveler with a Zippo lighter and an Uzi.

Interesting. Did you mean “explicable”, perhaps? Or perhaps you meant to say “putatively inexplicable”? For, what you’re proposing above, as it is written, seems to indicate that you don’t know what you’re writing.

Just sayin’…

I do not put any importance on the figure. You do.

Yet you devote quite a bit of time here, (and in other venues I’m assuming?) talking about him, no? Quite peculiar!

To wit:

Forgive my choice not to requote nitwit philosophers. I invite you to take a close look at the moral teachings of **Christ. ** Then, the behavioral teachings, which seem to me to set an even higher level of standards. Stories like the Parable of the Talents, the Vineyard Workers, the turkey who sat himself at the top perch of the dinner table, Christ was not out in the world reiterating the commandments or clarifying the Torah. The teachings that stick in my mind have nothing to do with what people commonly regard as “moral standards.” How did he address prostitution/adultery? Something like, “Let he who is without blame toss out the first stone.”

IMO Christtwas trying to tell people how not to behave like mindless, rule-following, hypocritical jerks,
** Christ's **teachings were brilliantly presented and full of human sense. They stand by themselves as legitimate insights and human guidelines whether **Christ **was the Son of God (a meaningless concept, when analyzed) or another bearded hippie dressed in a robe.
I don’t know what Christ’s “moral” teachings are, meaning that no particular moral precepts come to mind when I scan my brain in hopes of finding some. I only pay attention to the first three books of the N.T, since John’s stuff is so obviously an invention of his personal socialistic mysticism. There is this absurd claim that seems to say, ‘No one gets to heaven except through me,’ I hope that the real J.C. said nothing of the kind, for it is totally inconsistent with the quality and style of his other teachings. It excludes way too many good people, and if its true, I’m not getting there and do not want to be there.

I have devoted a major section of one of my book chapters to the thesis that Christ’s teachings are wonderfully independent of any theology whatsoever, and could happily form the basis for a theology-independent religion.

I disagree absolutely with your insistence upon tying Christ’s teachings to any theology whatsoever. In fact, I can make a case that the Church betrayed Christ’s marching orders by ever getting into theology. Christ didn’t teach theology— he taught behavior. The early Church was built upon the foundation of those clear and simple teachings. The last thing it needed was theology.

The only things important about **Christ**, or any other human beings, are the teachings a very few of them leave behind.  IMO, of course.

Obama voters, IMO, are largely disenchanted Christians who were raised to believe that Jesus would take care of them, and who transferred their desire to be cared for to the federal government…

I'm inclined to accept the inherent basic truth of **Christ**'s "miracles." I have no problem accepting that the sick he healed were desperately sick, the blind really could not see, and the dead were dead. However, his work was not miraculous. **Christ** clearly knew how to heal, cure, and resurrect. Therefore, what he did was not an absolute miracle.
Christ was psychic, telepathic, telekinetic, and who knows what else. So are some humans, although many humans who maintain their profound level of ignorance by refusing to read or experiment in challenging areas, refuse to accept that.
You speak of **Christ** "bending the laws of physics."

Curiouser and curiouser indeed!

And then to devote an entire chapter to his teachings.

Why the fascination with someone you’re not fascinated with?

 

[PRmerger]

The only things important about Christ, or any other human beings, are the teachings a very few of them leave behind. IMO, of course.

Yet he taught nothing new, no?

The need to derive your opinions and beliefs from authority figures is your problem, not mine. Maybe you should try thinking for yourself.

Well, unless you check the test scores of those pilots who fly you around, greylorn, (and I’m* quite *certain that you don’t) you derive your opinions and beliefs from some authority figure, too.

Now, when I said:

Originally Posted by PRmerger
And clearly, he presented them in a manner that most people did not understand.
You responded with:

That’s about the most absurd comment I’ve read on CAF.

Really? I just did a google search for “christ” and “misunderstood” and got this:

More than 10 pages.

Have you really not heard that people misunderstood Christ? Have you read John 6?

 

[PRmerger]

Manila was exactly where people said it was. People living there, and in the jungle towns, seemed to think that it was their capitol city, but they may have been misinformed. Whatever, it had an international airport. Between the jeepnies and Gigi, I remember Manila well.

You know, I was going to put a disclaimer in my original post about it not being about Manila, but I figured you would get that.

I should have known you would go to “I’ve been to Manila, actually.”

The point is that you believe that <pick any city that you’ve never been to> is the capital of because of the authority of: an atlas, your 4th grade teacher, your father.

You live your life based on faith just like Catholics do.

Just sayin’…

(Incidentally, my reference was to it being the* capital *of the Philippines. So just being there and seeing the jeepnies and sampling the balut wouldn’t really cut it. You’d have to see the gov’t in action with your very own eyes, to be consistent with the paradigm you’re espousing, no? You can’t trust any authority except that of Your Very Own Self, so…)

There is a difference between facts, such as the location of Manila and the competency of an airline pilot, and ideas, such as the beliefs of various religions and sciences.

As a Catholic I believe that some “ideas” and “beliefs” are True and therefore consonant with facts.

Just like you put your faith in some things you’ve never seen, we put our faith in some things we’ve never seen.

See, we’re not so different, eh?

 

[PRmerger]

The chapter I mentioned is about Christ’s teachings, not about Christ, about whom nothing reliable is known.

LOL!

The only way you know *anything *about Christ’s teachings is because…

wait for it…

wait for it…

[SIGN]the Catholic Church told you he proclaimed them. [/SIGN]

So, again, my friend, we’re not too different, eh? You have accepted the authority of the Catholic Church to tell you what Jesus was like.

When you claim this:

I’d trade an entire eternity in heaven for a half-hour in a hot tub with Jesus Christ, and I’d bring both the cigars and the wine.

this Christ that you’d be chatting with is the Christ presented to you by the Church.

Unless there’s some other ancient documents that you’ve read that detail this Christ that you’re so un-fascinated with? If so, what is it that they write about him that makes you want to be in a conversation with him? Is it the story about him making clay pigeons come to life that you find enthralling? Or what?

 

[greylorn]

But objective reality can be brought into the realm of God:

Maybe so, but that leaves God as the only one knowing of it.

 

[greylorn]

LOL!

The only way you know *anything *about Christ’s teachings is because…

wait for it…

wait for it…

[SIGN]the Catholic Church told you he proclaimed them. [/SIGN]

So, again, my friend, we’re not too different, eh? You have accepted the authority of the Catholic Church to tell you what Jesus was like.

When you claim this:

this Christ that you’d be chatting with is the Christ presented to you by the Church.

Unless there’s some other ancient documents that you’ve read that detail this Christ that you’re so un-fascinated with? If so, what is it that they write about him that makes you want to be in a conversation with him? Is it the story about him making clay pigeons come to life that you find enthralling? Or what?

Magdalene’s writings showed Christ’s personally interesting side.

IMO only a determined cretin would not want to spend time with anyone who knew things which he did not.

 

[greylorn]

You know, I was going to put a disclaimer in my original post about it not being about Manila, but I figured you would get that.

I should have known you would go to “I’ve been to Manila, actually.”

The point is that you believe that <pick any city that you’ve never been to> is the capital of because of the authority of: an atlas, your 4th grade teacher, your father.

You live your life based on faith just like Catholics do.

Just sayin’…

(Incidentally, my reference was to it being the* capital *of the Philippines. So just being there and seeing the jeepnies and sampling the balut wouldn’t really cut it. You’d have to see the gov’t in action with your very own eyes, to be consistent with the paradigm you’re espousing, no? You can’t trust any authority except that of Your Very Own Self, so…)

As a Catholic I believe that some “ideas” and “beliefs” are True and therefore consonant with facts.

Just like you put your faith in some things you’ve never seen, we put our faith in some things we’ve never seen.

See, we’re not so different, eh?

We are extremely different. You freely manipulate words so as to justify the correctness of beliefs given to you by others.

I use words as a path to concepts which will help me correct the ideas I’ve developed, or express them to others.

I recognize that the truth about the fundamental beginnings of things is a mystery to mankind. This allows me to search for it, and to invite the assistance of others.

You have allowed your little brain to declare that it has found truth, which leaves you at its mercy, doomed to spend your life telling everyone how right your beliefs, the selective distillation of certain limited scriptural passages written by other men, are. Enjoy!

But don’t try to confine me to your little box.

 

[greylorn]

It would be sad to see you banned but you are sailing very close to the wind:

Point made and accepted. Thank you! I’d not intended to offend, being a particular fan of Jesus Christ, and accepting of the bulk of the teachings attributed to him. Kindly accept my apologies.

 

[PRmerger]

Magdalene’s writings showed Christ’s personally interesting side.

Fair enough.

IMO only a determined cretin would not want to spend time with anyone who knew things which he did not.

Yet he’s an unimportant character, still? That’s your story and you’re stickin’ with it, eh?

 

[PRmerger]

I recognize that the truth about the fundamental beginnings of things is a mystery to mankind.

This is quite Catholic of you to say, greylorn!

This allows me to search for it, and to invite the assistance of others.

Again, quite consonant with Catholic teaching.

You have allowed your little brain to declare that it has found truth, which leaves you at its mercy, doomed to spend your life telling everyone how right your beliefs, the selective distillation of certain limited scriptural passages written by other men, are. Enjoy!

But don’t try to confine me to your little box.

And yet, inexplicably (here’s the correct use of the word ) you allow yourself to proclaim that you have found this* truth, which leaves you at its mercy, doomed to spend your life telling everyone how right your beliefs are.

Big Bang theory is absurd on several counts.

God, as I define the concept, is an objective reality

These experiences have convinced me that there is a soul-level process going on between the ticks of conventional time

Again, we’re not so different. You have as much faith in your beliefs and profess them with as much religious vehemence as the local fundamentalist preacher.

Nothing wrong with that, of course. It’s just the intellectually honest thing to do to admit to such.

 

[greylorn]

This is quite Catholic of you to say, greylorn!
Again, quite consonant with Catholic teaching.

I was a devout Catholic for about 22 years, and am not ashamed of it. The Church taught me some things which I continue to accept, like most of Christ’s teachings, on their merits.

And yet, inexplicably (here’s the correct use of the word ) you allow yourself to proclaim that you have found this* truth, which leaves you at its mercy, doomed to spend your life telling everyone how right your beliefs are.

Nothing wrong with that, of course. It’s just the intellectually honest thing to do to admit to such.

If I didn’t know better I’d think you were angling for a job as my biographer. Just so you know, I don’t pay anything. However, I figure on being shot not too long after my next book gets published, and if they do a bloody enough job of it, during my brief moment of fame, someone like you could turn a few bucks telling lies about me.

You are correct that I generally try to present my ideas and opinions with an attitude of certainty. Nonetheless, they have changed significantly over the past and continue to develop. It turns out that if one equivocates about every sentence, readers fall asleep at a faster-than-normal rate.

I assure you that I will make mistakes, and will admit to them when suitably informed.

My book, for example, contains opinions which, with luck, will really annoy Darwinists and lots of cosmologists. I’ve already had a thread deleted from the Physics Forum for suggesting the possibility of creation. It is impossible to challenge complex ideas without making mistakes.

Again, we’re not so different. You have as much faith in your beliefs and profess them with as much religious vehemence as the local fundamentalist preacher.

It sure looks like you don’t like me much, or are unfond of my ideas, or both. Thus I have to wonder why you keep insisting that we are alike? Makes no sense.

There remain some things which you seem incapable of understanding. They are not complex. My faith is in my own ideas. I invented (most of) them, assembled the package, did the research, made the correlations, and took their presentation upon myself. You simply defend the religious beliefs invented by others, individuals who thought that the earth was flat. You appear to have zero original insights.

Accusing me of defending my ideas with anything like a religious fervor is really incompetent of you. Show me where I have supported an opinion of mine by parroting religious dogma. Else, go away. You are the kind of annoying nit who is likely to confuse references to scientific research, or the clearly quoted opinions of respected scientists, as dogma, so don’t.

I am tired of your persistent personal attacks, so this will be my final post to you.

 

[tonyrey]

Point made and accepted. Thank you! I’d not intended to offend, being a particular fan of Jesus Christ, and accepting of the bulk of the teachings attributed to him. Kindly accept my apologies.

I know you get carried away - as I do sometimes - by delight in the power of expressing your original ideas but we are liable to forget that others are sensitive to blasphemy. Having been heckled in my youth when speaking for the Catholic Evidence Guild I developed a thick sin a very long time ago but I often retaliate vigorously. Sometimes it does more harm than good to turn the other cheek!

 

[fons_vitae]

Lame? Perhaps to someone who insists upon getting his “truth” from recognized authority figures. Not to me. Christ is gone, and despite beliefs, he’s not coming back, having work to do elsewhere. What remains but his teachings?

The world has known a number of valuable people who made great contributions to human understanding. Have you heard of Confucius? How about Newton, Einstein, and Max Planck, all of whom were probably more intelligent than Christ and did not claim godhood as a consequence?

So why do you put so much stock in the teachings of a possible madman who claimed “Before Abraham was, I AM?” You could cobble together an ethical system from other great thinkers who never claimed divinity.

May I recommend that you hold the “sayin’” until you do some honest readin’ and thinkin’?

As they say in other, less reputable forums: “U MAD, BRO?”

 

[PRmerger]

It sure looks like you don’t like me much, or are unfond of my ideas, or both. Thus I have to wonder why you keep insisting that we are alike? Makes no sense.

I like you lots, greylorn.

If one could not picture discussing religion over a glass of wine or sitting in a coffee shop with a CAFs poster, then one ought not be in dialogue with said poster.

This ought to be the equivalent of sitting in someone’s garden having a great theological discussion, music playing in the background, sipping some good beverages and eating something deliciously unhealthy.

Otherwise, the dialogue devolves rather quickly.

 

[PRmerger]

I am tired of your persistent personal attacks, so this will be my final post to you.

Well, I am enjoying our dialogue immensely, so I will continue.

Last stat was that this thread had 558 views, 56 posts, so there’s lots more lurkers than posters. Lots of folks are reading this beside us!

Now, 'tis true that it’s better when you respond, but there’s lots to be said for other eyes to see besides yours.

And it’s fun for me to refute your arguments and cut them to the bone.

 

[PRmerger]

You are correct that I generally try to present my ideas and opinions with an attitude of certainty.

Indeed, I am correct.

It makes your comment here below, (emphasis on the bolded), seem peculiar and, well, rather :whacky:.
It’s like you’re allowed to “present your ideas with certainty”, but no one else can. :whacky:

You have allowed your little brain** to declare that it has found truth,** which leaves you at its mercy, doomed to spend your life telling everyone how right your beliefs, the selective distillation of certain limited scriptural passages written by other men, are. Enjoy!

But don’t try to confine me to your little box.

And greylorn continues…

My faith is in my own ideas. I invented (most of) them, assembled the package, did the research, made the correlations, and took their presentation upon myself.

LOL! Was it your “own idea” that Jesus taught in parables? (See here, and here). Or was it actually the Church that told you he did this?

:coffeeread:

Accusing me of defending my ideas with anything like a religious fervor is really incompetent of you. Show me where I have supported an opinion of mine by parroting religious dogma.

It’s a metaphor, greylorn.

Think of it like this:

Christmas tree : ornament :: earlobe : earring.

I am not saying that a Christmas tree* is *an earlobe. That would be :whacky:

Else, go away. You are the kind of annoying nit who is likely to confuse references to scientific research, or the clearly quoted opinions of respected scientists, as dogma, so don’t.

I am tired of your persistent personal attacks, so this will be my final post to you.

Unless you can provide some scientific research that declares that religious (here read “Catholic”) dogma is unsubstantiated, then it seems that your position is as faith-filled as these praying folks:



You’re not too different from them, eh?

Just sayin’…

 

[PRmerger]

My faith is in my own ideas. ** I invented (most of) them,** assembled the package, did the research, made the correlations, and took their presentation upon myself.

Truer words were never spoken by you, greylorn! ** Invent,** you do!

To wit:

How about Newton, Einstein, and Max Planck, all of whom were probably **more intelligent than Christ **and did not claim godhood as a consequence?

You must have** invented** knowledge of Jesus Christ’s IQ–'cause I’m quite certain that it’s not documented* in a single piece of scientific research*.