P
- Status
P
PRmerger
Guest
Look, poca. In order to continue to dialogue about theological matters, you are going to need to be able to think in the abstract.
If you can’t understand analogies, then I must, sadly, demur from any further discussion with you.
I suspect that you really do have this ability to think in the abstract, but for some weird reason are being so-very-literal right now.
Not sure why this is.
But unless you can demonstrate in the future that you actually wish to apply some abstract thinking to this discussion, I’m out of here.
Well, at least, out of discussions with you.
P
PRmerger
Guest
B
Bradski
Guest
Hey, that’s a win-win for me! Calls for a beer, I’d say…
B
Bradski
Guest
Reincarnations being one of the most popular. Dionysus, Osiris, Ganesha, Krishna, Quetzacoatl, Aristeas, lots in the Tanakh. Seems you can’t have a genuine religion withoutt someone coming back from the dead.There are many similarities in religions.
If you are going to want someone to believe in your god and you offer an afterlife (they ALL offer an afterlife), then surely, I mean SURELY, He is going to be able to conquer death. And it is ALWAYS a good idea to emphasise your connection with mortals: ‘Hey, I’m just like you! I love. I hurt. And so help me, I am prepared to die for you! So are you prepared to die for me?’ So they do (just to prove that last point).
But someone has to be there to greet you into the happy-ever-after. And cheating death is child’s play for a god. So…how do you think the narrative is going to run…
As I’ve said before, if there were only one religion and only one God, then there would be a lot less atheists. But not only are there very many, the similarities are not, how shall I say, subtle. It’s like one of those charts you get with ticked boxes to show who offers what.
After life? Tick
Creator of everything? Tick
Resurection? Tick
Virgin birth? Tick
Interaction with mortals? Tick
It’s The Religion Blueprint. Strongly recommended that you add a few details to make it specifically yours (and trust no-one notices the commonalities).
Many similarities you say? Would you want to take a shot at why that is so?
P
pocaracas
Guest
You are accusing me of an inability to think in abstract?!
You, who compared time to counting marbles?!
Time… ask any physicist to define TIME… you’ll see them squirming and no answer will be satisfactory.
“Time is that which is measured by clocks” is the layman “definition”… It’s comparable to your analogy. It sucks! It’s a stupid definition.
It’s like saying temperature is that which is measured by a thermometer; or pressure is that which is measured by a barometer, or space is that which is measured by a ruler.
Here’s a silly, yet logical conversation from a famous movie, which sort of mirrors our own:
“”
KIRK: Why does V’Ger travel to the third planet of the solar system directly ahead?
ILIA PROBE: To find the Creator.
KIRK: To find the Creator? Whose? …What does V’Ger want with the Creator?
ILIA PROBE: To join with him.
SPOCK: Join with the Creator? …How?
ILIA PROBE: V’Ger and the Creator will become one.
SPOCK: And who is the Creator?
ILIA PROBE: The Creator is that which created V’Ger.
KIRK: Who is V’Ger?
ILIA PROBE: V’Ger is that which seeks the Creator.
“”
Can you tell what is V’Ger and what is the Creator? No. Neither did the Ilia Probe.
Luckily, we have something, the mathematical construct… it’s not a definition, but it’s not as stupid.
Minkowsky space is what is usually referred to as “space-time”, a 4 dimensional space where one of the dimensions isn’t exactly like the others, but it’s mostly a scale problem.
In this space, standard time and space can both be thought as infinite.
Like the standard cartesian space can be thought of as infinite.
Your analogy of there being no way for time to be infinite then reduces to there being no way for space to be infinite, too. According to that view, if space was infinite, then we could be in no one location of space, for it is infinite and we should rather be some infinity away from where we are… huh? We could never get to anywhere, for there is an infinity of space in between…
See? I can understand analogies… but I can also see them as mostly faulty. Very few analogies pan out. Analogies about the nature of time will always fail!.. except for the layman: “time is that which is measured by a clock”.
Up until now, I’ve given you the possibility of a creator god.
You then automatically assigned a few features or qualities to this creator. I asked for clarification… agreed with a few, and forced you to write some more about the others…
Thus far, the all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing is still a huge leap in reasoning that requires bridging. I cannot see how that leap is made.
Surely you can do it without requiring any more layman thinking about precise matters, can’t you?
Or is this the time we agree to disagree and go our separate ways?
B
Bradski
Guest
A classic episode. The idea of which they pinched to make Star Trek IV and hope nobody noticed. Ah well, I guess there are only so many variations on technology-coming-back-to-bite-you-on-the-arse…
Roddenberry came across as a humanist if you just went by what he wrote. But something on a deist, apparently.
P
pocaracas
Guest
Deist? why… he was hinting at a human creator
I’m always amazed at how Star Trek V is generally considered the worse, but it’s the one from which we can draw the most quotes.
- What does god need with a starship?
- Damn it, Bones, you’re a doctor. You know that pain and guilt can’t be taken away with a wave of a magic wand. They’re the things we carry with us, the things that make us who we are. If we lose them, we lose ourselves. I don’t want my pain taken away! I need my pain!
- I doubt any God who inflicts pain for his own pleasure.
J’Onn: Where did you get this power?
Sybok: The power was within you.
J’Onn: I feel… as if a weight has been lifted from my heart. How can I repay you for this miracle?
Spock: Join my quest.
McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he’s not out there, Bones. Maybe he’s right here.
[points to his heart]
Kirk: Human heart.
Kirk: You told me you could get this ship operational in two weeks, I gave you three, what happened?
Scotty: I think you gave me too much time, Captain.
[after Sybok relinquishes command of the Enterprise, Kirk decides to take Sybok, Spock and McCoy to the planet]
Kirk: Well, don’t just stand there. God’s a busy man!
McCoy: [McCoy is watching Kirk climb a mountain] “You’ll have a great time, Bones. You’ll enjoy your shore leave. You’ll relax.” You call this relaxing? I’m a nervous wreck. I’m not careful, I’ll end up talking to myself.
Sybok: Sha-Ka-Ree… the source… Heaven… Eden… call it what you will. The Klingons call it “Qui-Tu”. For the Romulans it’s “Vorta Vor”. The Andorian word is… is unpronouncable. Still, every culture in this galaxy shares this common dream of a place from which creation sprang. For us, that place will soon be reality.
Kirk: The only reality I see is that I’m a prisoner on my own ship. What is this power you have to control the minds of my crew?
Sybok: I don’t control minds. I free them.
B
Bradski
Guest
Holy Toledo, a Trekkie. I hope to hell you cut and pasted those lines rather than quoted them from memory.
I wonder how many kids were influenced by it. The morality was always a bit hokey and simplistic (Frank Gorshin in Let That Be Your Last Battlefield was a classic - and I swear I had to look up the title, although I remember the episode), but it had an influence.
I wonder how many kids were influenced by it. The morality was always a bit hokey and simplistic (Frank Gorshin in Let That Be Your Last Battlefield was a classic - and I swear I had to look up the title, although I remember the episode), but it had an influence.
P
PRmerger
Guest
And all religions have some sort of ritual. Some sort of creed. Some sort of leader. Some sort of moral assertions
What’s your point?
Ok.
It sounds as if you’re saying because all religions offer this, it necessarily means that it’s…false?
Surely you can’t be saying that because that’s a nonsequitur, right?
It doesn’t necessarily follow that if all religions, some false, posit something, that something is false.
P
pocaracas
Guest
LOL, no… not from memory. well… the first few were.
You can tell when the non-memory part starts by seeing where they start having the actual characters before the line.
Too many kids.
The prime directive was great… but way too often ignored or bent so our heroes could get away and live for the next episode.
Had to look up that episode (memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Let_That_Be_Your_Last_Battlefield_%28episode%29)… indeed classic Star Trek, exploring the human strife with itself… in space.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Wait – you’re claiming that gravity works outside the natural universe???
Yes, but what the exercise showed was that your request was either unreasonable or applied equally well to statements about God.
Perhaps they do. Why, then, do you present yourself as understanding what the Church teaches, when – as you put it – you don’t know what she teaches? After all, you could have said “wait – that’s not what the Church teaches about suicide, is it?” rather than “[Christianity is forced to] impose special cases such that suicide is a sin and you wouldn’t be welcomed on the other side”. I’m all about helping educate you as to what the Church teaches – just let us know that you’re unaware of the teachings, rather than sarcastically blasting them!
So, here’s what the Church teaches: for a sin to be mortal, it must be a sin of ‘grave matter’ (i.e., a serious sin); the person must know it’s a serious sin; and the person must deliberately consent to the sin. In the past, many had presumed that there was ‘deliberate intent’ in suicide; however, as our knowledge of mental illness increases, we are learning that it is not the case that a mentally ill person who commits suicide might be thought to have done so in the full and normal operation of their rationality. Therefore, it would be highly difficult to make the case that a person who commits suicide has committed a mortal sin such that, as you so cleverly put it, they “wouldn’t be welcomed on the other side.” Hope that helps…
Nope. Let me help you understand what an ‘ad hominem’ attack is, since we’re in teaching mode. If I said “this argument is wrong because Bart Ehrman proposed it”, then it would be an ad hominem attack. When I say “Bart Ehrman doesn’t follow principles of good scholarship (that is, since he – in effect – said “the principles with which I approached the Bible as a young man are wrong; therefore, the Bible must be wrong”), and therefore his conclusions are flawed”, then that’s a discussion of his argument, and not an ‘ad hominem’ attack. Glad I could help.
I’m not following your argument. Are you really suggesting that, since there are natural evils, there is no free will? That doesn’t make sense. Can you point me to the argument you made?
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
One concession does not an argument make, Bradski.
The “blueprint” you speak of is only viewed as a blueprint by those who accept “vague statements” or generalities as specific and, therefore, true. We have all learned a lesson here about your penchant to get carried away by what you take as success.
No one would notice the “commmonalities?” That is almost as ludicrous as, “No one would try to make a silk purse from a sow’s ear.”
The danger, Bradski, is not that no one would notice the commonalities, but that many would take the most innocuous and alleged “commonality,” any vaguely related general statement, and attempt to make the whole case upon it. It is “human nature,” Bradski, to take an inch and try to make miles of it, or to weave straw into gold, or silk purses from porcine pinnae. You have shown yourself to be no different than the most ordinary of men in that respect.
Try…
tektonics.org/copycat/apollonius.php
armariummagnus.blogspot.ca/2014/01/did-jesus-exist-jesus-myth-theory-again.html
jonsorensen.net/2012/10/25/horus-manure-debunking-the-jesushorus-connection/
youtu.be/s0-EgjUhRqA
youtu.be/0Gb8o1_eeFY
Funny, I never had you pegged as a mythicist. To each his own, I guess. Any port in a storm, and all that.
P
pocaracas
Guest
Gravity? Perhaps it does work outside the Universe… I can’t tell…
But where did you get the idea that I said any such thing about gravity?
I merely said I consider Nature to, maybe, go beyond the Universe.
If there is a space-time beyond the Universe, one which behaves like that described by QCD, with all the virtual particles popping in and out of existence, that would be Nature, too… would it not?
As far as I remember, I didn’t request anything on this… I merely commented that some religious “rules” sound man-made… like the one about suicide (as I was aware of it… keep reading)Yes, but what the exercise showed was that your request was either unreasonable or applied equally well to statements about God.
Perhaps I was educated once… and my memory distorted the teachings… or the teachings changed in the meantime…Perhaps they do. Why, then, do you present yourself as understanding what the Church teaches, when – as you put it – you don’t know what she teaches? After all, you could have said “wait – that’s not what the Church teaches about suicide, is it?” rather than “[Christianity is forced to] impose special cases such that suicide is a sin and you wouldn’t be welcomed on the other side”. I’m all about helping educate you as to what the Church teaches – just let us know that you’re unaware of the teachings, rather than sarcastically blasting them!
Or I learned about some other branch of christianity and made a mess when applying it to catholicism…
It’s the assumption that I was operating with some bad intent that’s not so nice. But hey, it’s understandable… it’s not like you guys get a lot of pocaracas’s around here!
Ah, see… I was merely outdated. Damn!So, here’s what the Church teaches: for a sin to be mortal, it must be a sin of ‘grave matter’ (i.e., a serious sin); the person must know it’s a serious sin; and the person must deliberately consent to the sin. In the past, many had presumed that there was ‘deliberate intent’ in suicide; however, as our knowledge of mental illness increases, we are learning that it is not the case that a mentally ill person who commits suicide might be thought to have done so in the full and normal operation of their rationality. Therefore, it would be highly difficult to make the case that a person who commits suicide has committed a mortal sin such that, as you so cleverly put it, they “wouldn’t be welcomed on the other side.” Hope that helps…
Yeah… but when I mentioned Ehrman, I wasn’t talking about the bible, was I?Nope. Let me help you understand what an ‘ad hominem’ attack is, since we’re in teaching mode. If I said “this argument is wrong because Bart Ehrman proposed it”, then it would be an ad hominem attack. When I say “Bart Ehrman doesn’t follow principles of good scholarship (that is, since he – in effect – said “the principles with which I approached the Bible as a young man are wrong; therefore, the Bible must be wrong”), and therefore his conclusions are flawed”, then that’s a discussion of his argument, and not an ‘ad hominem’ attack. Glad I could help.
You neglected to address the point, just because Ehrman was brought on as an expert in the field of first to fourth century texts… That he also has some knowledge about the bible was, for this case, incidental.
Oh… no, none of that.
I’m saying there are natural evils… and these are independent of free will, yes? One may even go as far as saying they are independent of any human, right?
So they cannot be attributed to the existence of free will.
The existence of natural evils must then be attributed to something else…
Under the supposition of an all-powerful, all-good, all-loving being, how can you justify these natural evils?
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
They are morally inconsequential?
The “evil” done to a moral agent by another or as a result of natural events does not, on its own, compromise the moral integrity of the agent to whom it occurs.
Christ was crucified. He did not permit the evil done to him to compromise his moral goodness.
When someone commits an evil act, they have compromised their moral standing. When evil, whether moral or natural, is inflicted on someone that need not effect any moral degradation in them.
What is there to justify, morally speaking?
Why there is unnecessary or gratuitous suffering?
Well, you’d have to show that in the grand scheme of things, the entire course of the unfolding of the universe from the perspective of God’s ends and plan, that some of the suffering of humans or beasts has been gratuitous – i.e., not commensurate with or necessary for the final good attained.
It isn’t clear that that argument has or even can be made by us from the limited perspective which is ours.
P
pocaracas
Guest
Indeed it doesn’t seem possible…
But is it possible to show the opposite?
That, in the grand scheme of things, the entire course of the unfolding of the universe from the perspective of God’s ends and plan, that some of the suffering of humans or beasts has been necessary?
G
Gorgias
Guest
Hang on a second – are you talking about infinite extension or infinite duration? Big difference…Your analogy of there being no way for time to be infinite then reduces to there being no way for space to be infinite, too. According to that view, if space was infinite, then we could be in no one location of space, for it is infinite and we should rather be some infinity away from where we are… huh? We could never get to anywhere, for there is an infinity of space in between…
Are you asking whether God can reveal himself as “all-good, all-powerful, and all-knowing”, or whether it can be deduced a priori?
P
pocaracas
Guest
Whatever it is that you guys talk about, when you talk about time.
Now that you ask that… I’d like both, please!
G
Gorgias
Guest
Because the ‘rule’ you cited was Newton’s law of universal gravitation. C’mon, man… keep up…!
OK – so, you’re still not hearing what we’re saying. I’ll try again:
We’re not talking about some subset of Creation, we’re talking about all of Creation. And, in that context, God is the Creator of all of creation. If you want to talk about some subset of Creation – for instance, “the observable Universe”, or maybe “the Universe”, or even “a space-time beyond the Universe” – then you’re still talking about part of ‘all of Creation’, and therefore, you’re still talking about something God created. Therefore, you haven’t “outrun” the argument; you’ve just pointed to a different part of Creation. Therefore, you haven’t gotten “outside” the handiwork of God.
That’s right – and, therefore, you asked for a rule that wasn’t “man-made”, and subsequently gave the example of Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation. And so, now we’ve come full circle. Just as Newton’s Law is a “man-made” rule which reflects something found in the Universe, Church rules are “man-made” rules which reflect something found in Creation and in God’s self-revelation. Just as Newton’s law isn’t invalid because its expression is “man-made”, neither does your assertion hold up that Church rules sound “man-made” (and are, in some way, invalid). QED. Thanks for playing. Please come again.
No problems. BTW – it’s not that the teachings have changed: the definition of mortal sin remains the same. However, our understanding of mental states (which, to be fair, isn’t a dogmatic teaching of the Church, right?) has grown, and with it, our understanding of how this applies to Church teachings has grown.
Fair enough. To tell the truth, it was the way you expressed yourself – as if you knew Christianity better than we do, and only your take on it was valid – that garnered the tone in the responses you got. Like I said, if your tone had been, “are you sure about that? My understanding of the teachings of the Church is X, Y, Z”… then I think your responses would have been more charitable. It’s all good, though – at the end of the day, we’re still on speaking terms, and we’ve all learned a bit about each other and about the teachings of the Church, right?
:nope: Actually, you’d be surprised…But hey, it’s understandable… it’s not like you guys get a lot of pocaracas’s around here!
No, but IIRC, the context of his point is that the Bible is unreliable since there were a variety of ‘Christian’ sects, all of which interpreted the Bible in mutually-exclusive ways…
The Bible is a “first to fourth century text”.
And, of course, unless I’m misremembering, the context of his discussion was the reliability of the Scriptural text…Aah. Ok – gotcha. Well, that’s a topic for theological debate. Some would hold that they’re a consequence of the Sin of Adam (and therefore, is something that is indirectly attributable to a particular exercise of free will. Others might mention that the current debate over anthropogenic global warming is precisely applicable to this notion: that is, that the actions of humans is causing ‘natural evils’ of a global and catastrophic scope.
Aquinas, on the other hand, argues that natural evils are an unavoidable consequence of material bodies – that is, that they proceed from the nature of physicality itself. Therefore, by his analysis, they neither attach to free will nor cast aspersions on God’s omnipotence or omnibenevolence.
P
pocaracas
Guest
LOL.Because the ‘rule’ you cited was Newton’s law of universal gravitation. C’mon, man… keep up…!
The rule had nothing to do with that… but ok
I get that… but we can’t get to that part through the arguments that PR presented.OK – so, you’re still not hearing what we’re saying. I’ll try again:
We’re not talking about some subset of Creation, we’re talking about all of Creation. And, in that context, God is the Creator of all of creation. If you want to talk about some subset of Creation – for instance, “the observable Universe”, or maybe “the Universe”, or even “a space-time beyond the Universe” – then you’re still talking about part of ‘all of Creation’, and therefore, you’re still talking about something God created. Therefore, you haven’t “outrun” the argument; you’ve just pointed to a different part of Creation. Therefore, you haven’t gotten “outside” the handiwork of God.
At some point, we sort of get stuck at whatever lies beyond this Universe… we cannot tell what it is, nor how it behaves, nor how causality applies… hopefully, it would be similar to within the Universe (that would certainly simplify things), but we can’t be certain of that.
So, unless that Ultimate Creator is postulated, I see no way to get to it… even granting a creator of this Universe (which need not be that Ultimate Creator).
Am I making sense?
Fair enough… I may have a beef with that “self revelation” part, though…
How nice of the church to keep up with the times.
Makes one wonder about the accuracy of that revelation detail…
Haha… ok, makes sense. It’s not the first time my tone gets me in trouble around here…
Not that the thought crossed my mind, at the time, but that would render the flow of the text weird
Thanks for sticking with me… I think PR gave up…then I think your responses would have been more charitable. It’s all good, though – at the end of the day, we’re still on speaking terms, and we’ve all learned a bit about each other and about the teachings of the Church, right?
What?! Has anyone else used my name?:nope: Actually, you’d be surprised…
[cont…]
- Status