"Is everything just a logical and rational reality and devoid of spirit?"

[ahimsaman72]

dennisknapp:

I have a problem with premises 2 and 3, for it cannot be established that either had an actual “experience” of the divine.

But what can be established is that both could not have “experienced” the same deity, for the essential nature of each deity contradicts the other.

Premise 6 is a little foggy, but I would say that 6C nullifies 6A and 6B.

Peace

Let’s assume that the Divine Being did visit both the men.

The DB didn’t change at all. Its essence was the same. Why couldn’t the DB be the same in essence (in chemical makeup, for example)? Even if DB was dressed differently or looked differently doesn’t matter.

You seem to posit that essential natures are different based on physical characteristics or other characteristics. In the human realm, both of us are human (unless one of us is an alien in human form ) but I would bet we dress differently, speak differently, behave differently. That doesn’t make either of us less human or more human. We’re all human.

Of course, this is simplistic thinking and we can add thousands of variables and distinctions. The further we go, the more apparent contradictions we would come up with. What I see is that the more we define X, the more that X becomes less like Y.

I don’t mean to say that Jesus Christ is identical to Allah. We could come up with many characteristics that show us that our idea of Jesus cannot be the same idea of Allah. We’ve made distinctions and the distinctions truly exist. Islam is not Christianity and Christianity is not Islam. They are separate.

I’m saying that we make too many distinctions and miss the big picture. You split hairs and more hairs are on the table. When I sit down to study I find that after an hour of hard reading, I have more questions than answers. There is a danger in such things.

Peace…

 

[JamesD]

dennisknapp:

I have a problem with premises 2 and 3, for it cannot be established that either had an actual “experience” of the divine.

But what can be established is that both could not have “experienced” the same deity, for the essential nature of each deity contradicts the other.

Premise 6 is a little foggy, but I would say that 6C nullifies 6A and 6B.

Peace

With regards to premises 2 & 3, I am assuming that they both experienced the presence of God. If we do not make this assumtion the question becomes moot. (There is no contradiction because one of the two did not experience the presence of God). However, if it still troubles you perhaps we could change it to A Muslim experienced the presence of God. Was it Allah or Jesus?
The rest can still be more or less left as is.
You are correct that once the complete lists af attributes of Jesus and of Allah are completed it can be only 6A, 6B or 6C. So I think we would agree that the result would be 6C. Therefor lets forget about 6A & 6B.
To eliminate the apparent contradiction we have to find the errors in the list/s only. (The definition of Allah is wrong or the definition ot Jesus is wrong.

dennisknapp:

But what can be established is that both could not have “experienced” the same deity, for the essential nature of each deity contradicts the other.

The only way this could be true is if they each experienced not only the diety but also the aspect of the essential nature of the 2 definitions that contradict each other.
For example, one is visited by Jesus in the flesh (as Thomas did after the resurection) the other is visited by Allah and he says “I cannot be human”. Now we have a contradiction. And the only solution is that 1 of them did not actualy percieve the deity.
This now would limit our individuals to the apostles and to Mohamud.

Peace,
Jim

 

[dennisknapp]

ahimsaman72:

Let’s assume that the Divine Being did visit both the men.

The DB didn’t change at all. Its essence was the same. Why couldn’t the DB be the same in essence (in chemical makeup, for example)? Even if DB was dressed differently or looked differently doesn’t matter.

You seem to posit that essential natures are different based on physical characteristics or other characteristics. In the human realm, both of us are human (unless one of us is an alien in human form ) but I would bet we dress differently, speak differently, behave differently. That doesn’t make either of us less human or more human. We’re all human.

Of course, this is simplistic thinking and we can add thousands of variables and distinctions. The further we go, the more apparent contradictions we would come up with. What I see is that the more we define X, the more that X becomes less like Y.

I don’t mean to say that Jesus Christ is identical to Allah. We could come up with many characteristics that show us that our idea of Jesus cannot be the same idea of Allah. We’ve made distinctions and the distinctions truly exist. Islam is not Christianity and Christianity is not Islam. They are separate.

I’m saying that we make too many distinctions and miss the big picture. You split hairs and more hairs are on the table. When I sit down to study I find that after an hour of hard reading, I have more questions than answers. There is a danger in such things.

Peace…

How do you know what the big picture is unless you make distinctions? I would argue that by not making distinction we lose sight of the big picture because there are so many other picture blocking our way.

And I don’t believe God goes around in different cloth as we do. He does not wear His Krishna cloths for the Hindhus or His Allah cloths for Muslims. He is who He is. We are charged to know Him as truely as He is, within our abilties that is.

Peace

 

[Tlaloc]

dennisknapp:

Tlaloc does a lot of question begging.

Wherefor I abhor myself and repent in dust and ashes.

If he can define something is a certain way and be consistant, he wins. This does not make it true but true to him. All he can truly do is spread skepticism.

Skepticism is a good thing. I think you mean to accuse me of spreading cynicism.

 

[Tlaloc]

Lisa4Catholics:

Oh I would never (with God’s grace) away from Jesus.

Even if it turned out you were wrong? If it turns out I’m wrong about things (and yes it does happen from time to time) I find it better to adjust my beliefs than to cling to something no matter what.

I guess what I am saying is if logical and rational thinking processes are turning out atheists and Tlalocs,I will be illogical and irrational

Think about what you are saying here.

For someone who is suppose to be an anthrapologist and put all his time in higher learning the result seems disasterous to me.God Bless

I’m not an anthropologist, I’m a physicist. I have studied some anthropology though. I’ve studied a lot of things.

oh and you can be relieved as there’s a wide variety of views amongst the highly educated.

 

[john_doran]

Tlaloc:

Think about what you are saying here.

i think she is saying that she prefers to be right more than to be logical; that, assuming catholicism is correct, if it also turned out that “logic” and “rationality” led one ineluctably into error (e.g. atheism), then she would abandon the putatively “logical” belief in favor of the true belief.

 

[ahimsaman72]

john doran:

i think she is saying that she prefers to be right more than to be logical; that, assuming catholicism is correct, if it also turned out that “logic” and “rationality” led one ineluctably into error (e.g. atheism), then she would abandon the putatively “logical” belief in favor of the true belief.

What if she were part of a death cult that was going to commit mass suicide next year based on the vision their leader had while eating pot brownies? So, you would support being illogical and irrational??

Peace…

 

[JamesD]

Pure blind faith is dangerous. Reason must play a part in what we believe.

However, reason alone will never lead a person to God. And I suspect will easily lead a person further from God (instead, closer to himself).

Faith, reason and grace are all required.

As GK Chesterton said:

“Its not that when people stop believing in God that they believe in nothing, its that they believe in anything.”

“You can only find truth with logic if you have already found truth without it.”

I think what Lisa is saying is: Having found strong faith thru grace I now longer need logic to find God.

I also think that this is the message of St Threse of Lisieux. To become as a small child. To become simpler and simpler as one get closer to God.

Peace,
Jim

 

[Tlaloc]

JamesD:

Pure blind faith is dangerous. Reason must play a part in what we believe.

However, reason alone will never lead a person to God. And I suspect will easily lead a person further from God (instead, closer to himself).

Faith, reason and grace are all required.

As GK Chesterton said:

“Its not that when people stop believing in God that they believe in nothing, its that they believe in anything.”

“You can only find truth with logic if you have already found truth without it.”

I think what Lisa is saying is: Having found strong faith thru grace I now longer need logic to find God.

I also think that this is the message of St Threse of Lisieux. To become as a small child. To become simpler and simpler as one get closer to God.

If it works for you, personally I have a hard time accepting a god that gives us a sense of reason but carefully makes it lead away from the truth. Seems somehow juvenile, the deific version of ringing a doorbell and running away. I can’t understand worshipping a “gotcha God”. But like I said if it works for you, enjoy.

 

[dennisknapp]

Tlaloc:

If it works for you, personally I have a hard time accepting a god that gives us a sense of reason but carefully makes it lead away from the truth. Seems somehow juvenile, the deific version of ringing a doorbell and running away. I can’t understand worshipping a “gotcha God”. But like I said if it works for you, enjoy.

Funny, I always thought God gave us sense and reason to lead to the truth.

Peace

 

[JamesD]

Tlaloc:

If it works for you, personally I have a hard time accepting a god that gives us a sense of reason but carefully makes it lead away from the truth. Seems somehow juvenile, the deific version of ringing a doorbell and running away. I can’t understand worshipping a “gotcha God”. But like I said if it works for you, enjoy.

What I mean is reason alone without God and his graces will not lead to God.

It is just like everything else. Trust in God not in __________ (in this case our human intellect).

Remember, God has given us everything we have. Our money, our knowledge, our health and our intellegnce. We must use thiese things always in cooperation with God.

Peace,
Jim

 

[RobedWithLight]

JamesD:

What I mean is reason alone without God and his graces will not lead to God.

It is just like everything else. Trust in God not in __________ (in this case our human intellect).

Pure rationalism devoid of God leads inevitably to agnosticism or atheism. This is precisely why reason must never be the master of faith, but its handmaiden.

Gerry

 

[dennisknapp]

RobedWithLight:

Pure rationalism devoid of God leads inevitably to agnosticism or atheism. This is precisely why reason must never be the master of faith, but its handmaiden.

Gerry

Well put!

Amen!

Peace

 

[ahimsaman72]

RobedWithLight:

Pure rationalism devoid of God leads inevitably to agnosticism or atheism. This is precisely why reason must never be the master of faith, but its handmaiden.

Gerry

I can agree with this. But, I wouldn’t be comfortable with putting each at 50% value. I would put rationalism at 90% value. Of course, this is just arbitrary, but I just use that to give some idea of where I place them.

Peace…

 

[Tlaloc]

dennisknapp:

Funny, I always thought God gave us sense and reason to lead to the truth.

Peace

I would have thought so too, but people keep claiming reason leads you astray…

 

[Tlaloc]

RobedWithLight:

Pure rationalism devoid of God leads inevitably to agnosticism or atheism.

Okay take some time to really think about what you just said here.

 

[john_doran]

ahimsaman72:

What if she were part of a death cult that was going to commit mass suicide next year based on the vision their leader had while eating pot brownies? So, you would support being illogical and irrational??

Peace…

A) i didn’t say i supported illogic or irrationaliy - i was just clarifying what i believed her to be saying.

B) even so, i would say that were she to commit suicide at the behest of her narcotized cult leader, she would wrong, as well as being arguably illogical and irrational.

 

[john_doran]

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobedWithLight
*Pure rationalism devoid of God leads inevitably to agnosticism or atheism. *

Tlaloc:

Okay take some time to really think about what you just said here.

i don’t think he’s saying what you think he’s saying: notice that he is talking about rationalism and not rationality; rationalism is a philosophy with an incredibly narrow definition of what counts as rationality, and with an (unreasonably, in my opinion) anemic epistemology.

if that’s what he means, then i’d say he was right.

if, however, he really does mean that you can’t come to know god - even in some limited sense - through reason, then i would disagree, just as you do, tlaloc.

i would suggest, though, as a happy medium, that he may simply be observing that, in fact, though not necessarily in principle, people are led away from god by “pure reason” more often than not simply by virtue of (A) not being very good at reasoning purely, and (B) having their reason clouded by things like pride and lust and personal preferences and…

 

[john_doran]

bump