There is so much irony in this world. I've begun to think that only a deity could create so much irony for man, a random universe just couldn't produce it. The only question that remains to me is what kind of morality such gods would have. I think God might be a manifestation of a sense of humor......what do you think?
Hardly. Christ himself was probably hysterical, just think about some of the things he said. "Don't pull the speck out of your neighbors eye, when you got a freaking log in your own!" Paraphrased of course, but imagine that without all of our modern day amenities. It would be even funnier if he did pull a log out of someone's eye! I find God to be quite humorous, he did allow France to come into being after all....
JEB_Stuart wrote:Hardly. Christ himself was probably hysterical, just think about some of the things he said. "Don't pull the speck out of your neighbors eye, when you got a freaking log in your own!" Paraphrased of course, but imagine that without all of our modern day amenities. It would be even funnier if he did pull a log out of someone's eye! I find God to be quite humorous, he did allow France to come into being after all....
It was a revolutionary idea actually, being nice to people. I'm not sure it is right or not. Sometimes that turn the other cheek thing doesn't work for me
Anyway, if this was all a joke then this is my understanding.
Spoiler:
God:Check this out, I'll make people wonder whether or not I even exist! (If you do things right, people won't be sure if you've done anything at all.) Me: Heh, yeah. That's kinda funny.
God: And then, I'm gonna make DIFFERENT religeons so that all these silly fethers think everyone else is wrong, but they're all right! Me: LOL yeah that's funny, man.
God: And then they'll have all these religeous wars and genocides and crap for no reason at all! HA HA HA!!! Me: Heh...wait, what?
God: And guess what? You see those little kids there in Africa! Watch this! It's gonna be a laugh! They're gonna get kiddnapped, forced to kill thier own parents and then forced into war or sexual slavery by the Lords Army! Isn't that hilarious? Me: ...
Yeah, that sounds about right. If you're God, he cares for us as much as we care for ants. He enjoys pouring hot water on us, and watching us try and get out of the way. And the more interresting ways we die, the more amusing it is.
LunaHound wrote:I believe in a superior being thats all.
It can be called / named w/e people feel like
God , Deity , Aliens , no difference to me.
I still think that the real God is a god of amusement. For instance, I think it funny that many atheists are attached to empirical models that they believe explain the universe, when nature stubbornly resists empiricism.
If there is a god with the power to make everything better than he has one sick sense of humour. What sick person could get such a kick out of so much pain and sufferering?
If celestial being exist then it makes sense that they are in conflict with each other. Acting as a balancing force to one another. The idea of an omnipotent god has some very severe holes in it, as he could do everything, make it all better, but chooses NOT to.
Emperors Faithful wrote:If there is a god with the power to make everything better than he has one sick sense of humour. What sick person could get such a kick out of so much pain and sufferering?
If celestial being exist then it makes sense that they are in conflict with each other. Acting as a balancing force to one another. The idea of an omnipotent god has some very severe holes in it, as he could do everything, make it all better, but chooses NOT to.
Maybe the God just has different beliefs than you or I.
Emperors Faithful wrote:If there is a god with the power to make everything better than he has one sick sense of humour. What sick person could get such a kick out of so much pain and sufferering?
If celestial being exist then it makes sense that they are in conflict with each other. Acting as a balancing force to one another. The idea of an omnipotent god has some very severe holes in it, as he could do everything, make it all better, but chooses NOT to.
I disagree , i think the condition us human beings are in are perfectly fine. Our lives are what we make out of it ourselves.
Human beings are ungrateful and always take things for granted , how do we know to appreciate our current happiness if we never experienced sadness at all?
For someone , losing their limbs can mean their life is over and they wont feel like going on anymore ,
yet someone that is born without limbs or perhaps without eye sight can bravely go on living , possibly accomplishing more than what "normal" people do.
Happy moments are in abundance and soon we assume its just part of our normal daily life.
Have we ever questioned whether we deserved all those happiness , or whether if we earned it at all?
Then the moment one bad thing happens , its the end of the world.
Because we already took it for granted that we are supposed to have everything going our way.
Good incidents , bad incidents , we cant take either for granted . They need to be both taken seriously.
I belive in a creator, but not some overlord. Humans have freewill. most everything wrong in the world anc be backtracked to man at one point or another or just dumb luck. Who ever got the ball rolling just takes a hands off aproach
We are our own gods, what we will to happen, happens. We can create life, and end it. Look around you everyday and realize that everything you do has consequences and affects the world to a lesser or greater extent.
We make our own destiny and do not need the assistance of some higher power to help us in fething things up royally.
All I know is that death is not the end of the voyage; some part of me will continue forever or at least until Slanesh decides to eat me. But until that time, let's party!
LunaHound wrote:
Human beings are ungrateful and always take things for granted , how do we know to appreciate our current happiness if we never experienced sadness at all?
For someone , losing their limbs can mean their life is over and they wont feel like going on anymore ,
yet someone that is born without limbs or perhaps without eye sight can bravely go on living , possibly accomplishing more than what "normal" people do.
So i guess... its the spice of life?
Good for you Luna. (if there was a sarcastic Orkmoticon I'd be using it)
You can go tell that to all those child prostitutes, orphans and boy-soldiers.
"For evil to prevail, all that is required is that good men do nothing."
Surely the same prinicple must apply to an omnipotent, omniniscent being? He COULD intervene in these matters, but CHOOSES not to. Why? If the answer if 'For a laugh' then he is truly a despicable character.
LunaHound wrote:
Human beings are ungrateful and always take things for granted , how do we know to appreciate our current happiness if we never experienced sadness at all?
For someone , losing their limbs can mean their life is over and they wont feel like going on anymore ,
yet someone that is born without limbs or perhaps without eye sight can bravely go on living , possibly accomplishing more than what "normal" people do.
So i guess... its the spice of life?
Good for you Luna. (if there was a sarcastic Orkmoticon I'd be using it)
You can go tell that to all those child prostitutes, orphans and boy-soldiers.
"For evil to prevail, all that is required is that good men do nothing."
Surely the same prinicple must apply to an omnipotent, omniniscent being? He COULD intervene in these matters, but CHOOSES not to. Why? If the answer if 'For a laugh' then he is truly a despicable character.
if that's so I'm being a Satanist just to spite him!
LunaHound wrote:
Human beings are ungrateful and always take things for granted , how do we know to appreciate our current happiness if we never experienced sadness at all?
For someone , losing their limbs can mean their life is over and they wont feel like going on anymore ,
yet someone that is born without limbs or perhaps without eye sight can bravely go on living , possibly accomplishing more than what "normal" people do.
So i guess... its the spice of life?
The spice of life... really?
The veteran that lost all his limbs in a war is ungrateful, and not a severely damaged person? I mean seriously... how the feth does that work?
Emperors Faithful wrote:You can go tell that to all those child prostitutes, orphans and boy-soldiers.
"For evil to prevail, all that is required is that good men do nothing."
Surely the same principle must apply to an omnipotent, omniscient being? He COULD intervene in these matters, but CHOOSES not to. Why? If the answer if 'For a laugh' then he is truly a despicable character.
Why do your human principles have to apply to God? That would mean that because humanity thought of something, and we find it acceptable and emulate it, and that God should therefore follow said principle would put you on equal footing with Him. I don't think that makes much sense...
@JEB_Stuart: C'mon, you have to admit that deriving humour from the prostitution of little children would have to be just a little bit 'out there' from the image of a powerful and loving god that we're told about.
On the other hand, if God views us as playthings, why should we feel any respect or affection for him?
A powerful, non-intervening being, that may or may not be taking action to help or harm us. I will call this being an alien to make this an even field. A 'superior' being in generals.
This alien who has the power to help, but chooses not to, is hardly an icon I would be keen to worship. If this alien happened to reign hellfire down upon us, and the only way to stop it from doing so was to worship it, then so be it. The problem with that, is the being is no longer a caring figure that I have respect for, it is an icon that represents oppression and fear mongering.
Remember, this is not talking about 'god', it is talking about a 'superior' being that is above us in every way, and has within it's grasp, immeasurable power.
Wrexasaur wrote:I sense a certain intolerance in you Luna...
Ooooooook ... guess i'll give another example? Im surprised you take the paragraph that way.
There will be some people that face hardship ( like ok someone broke up with me i'll go jump off the bridge later today )
and there will be some people that face hardship of incredible magnitude yet they'll pick themself up and bravely walk forward.
So what im saying is , how bad their life is , how much they suffer , and how much they can
endure , continue on with a smile on their face , a fire in their heart , a spark in their soul ,
can also be changed within.
@Emperor's faithful , i dont think you understood what i meant.
#1 If you see a war vet returning with arms and legs blown off , and he is depressed , you'll sympathize with him and think " cant blame him for been depressed"
yet
#2 If you see a war vet returning with arms and legs blown off , yet he greets you + he tells you he have no regret , he'll gladly shield all the innocent people with his own body .
Im sure you'll be feeling a different emotion compared with the first example.
We cant change our destiny , but we can accept our fate with different feelings.
How ever we can laugh against our sad fate and destiny and proudly be strong even if we suffered , like example vet #2
Luna wrote:So what im saying is , how bad their life is , how much they suffer , and how much they can
endure , continue on with a smile on their face , a fire in their heart , a spark in their soul ,
can also be changed within.
Or you are simply expecting to much from most people. Just because one person can do a spiritual backflip after being mauled by an ape or something, has very little to do with how someone else would be able to cope with it.
Also, smiling is overrated... unless you do it with a smile.
Luna wrote:So what im saying is , how bad their life is , how much they suffer , and how much they can
endure , continue on with a smile on their face , a fire in their heart , a spark in their soul ,
can also be changed within.
Or you are simply expecting to much from most people. Just because one person can do a spiritual backflip after being mauled by an ape or something, has very little to do with how someone else would be able to cope with it.
Also, smiling is overrated... unless you do it with a smile.
No , of coures if injustice is done , we need to do our best to make sure it results fairly.
However what im saying is , there are things BEYOND our control.
And when there are events that are absolutely impossible to be changed , we can either
accept it via crying + peeing on the floor , or try to be strong , and atleast use the hate / anger to make ourself stronger.
SO wrex and EF , let me ask you this then.
If something bad out of your control happens , will you
a) cry and feel sorry for yourself till the day your life ends
or
b) try to be strong and go on?
Which do you deem more positive?
Like i have said before you 2 went rabied on me ,
we can change how we look at our fate , i just never said its easy.
Emperors Faithful wrote:@JEB_Stuart: C'mon, you have to admit that deriving humour from the prostitution of little children would have to be just a little bit 'out there' from the image of a powerful and loving god that we're told about.
On the other hand, if God views us as playthings, why should we feel any respect or affection for him?
I was referring to your demand that God could and should intervene because you think it is the right thing to do. I highly doubt God finds much humour in any of the cruel and awful things we do to each other, but I do think He finds joy and happiness with our compassion and love for our fellow man.
Wrexasaur wrote:Also, smiling is overrated... unless you do it with a smile.
Sure, if you say so.
Personally i think our faces and our expression are a mirror .
When you show happy face and smile , people that see your face will most likely respond the same way , a warm smile back ( and no they dont know why you are
happy , but if they see you are happy , they might be like "aww! good for you! " )
And just like if you make an awful mean face , people will probably not look at you anymore
or give you a dirty look
or beat you up.
LunaHound wrote:
SO wrex and EF , let me ask you this then.
If something bad out of your control happens , will you
a) cry and feel sorry for yourself till the day your life ends
or
b) try to be strong and go on?
Which do you deem more positive?
Or option three, get fed up and give up. You don't have to go out crying, in fact, I would bet most go out quite empty inside.
If I were to look at this from a zen perspective, it really doesn't matter either way. The fact that one may cry, while another is simply empty, and another is full of rage and hatred, means absolutely nothing. It is nice to think about, but all in all, life sucks quite a lot, most of the time. Perspective is much more powerful than simply 'succeeding' over an obstacle, it is a personal experience, that all of us struggle to maintain.
I find humor to provide myself with a bit of positive perspective, but denying the fact that I cannot ignore my emotions, is simply not part of the game plan.
LunaHound wrote:
Sure, if you say so.
Personally i think our faces and our expression are a mirror .
When you show happy face and smile , people that see your face will most likely respond the same way , a warm smile back ( and no they dont know why you are
happy , but if they see you are happy , they might be like "aww! good for you! " )
And just like if you make an awful mean face , people will probably not look at you anymore
or give you a dirty look
or beat you up.
Not sure why you quoted that twice...
Expressions are basically meaningless. I can lie just as good as I can tell the truth with my face. I can do the same with my body language. In fact, I can lie to myself, and tell the truth to myself; as you can and do. If I really believed in a smile meaning anything besides a warm feeling inside, used by many to manipulate others into doing something, I would be in dire straights to this day. Just because you know a handful of people that are honest with their faces (and how many of them are truly...) doesn't effect that most of the time, people are lying with their faces. In fact, emotions are a lie, even though they are inexplicably real.
I can change my mood a bit, as well as see my mood differently; and not as I would see the outside world. More along the lines of how I would see a thought. The only thing that is real in that scenario, is what I think about it; thinking about thinking, yeah?
Your opinions, they always seem to be based on respect.
I could easily think that you are have been insinuating that people who are not able to 'be happy', or whatever that really means, are just weak. Or people that are able to 'be happy', are strong, or some such nonsense.
Most people I know that have succeeded through hard times, had support, whether they liked it or not. No one person is an island, though many would love for life to actually work that way.
Wrexasaur wrote:Your opinions, they always seem to be based on respect.
I could easily think that you are have been insinuating that people who are not able to 'be happy', or whatever that really means, are just weak. Or people that are able to 'be happy', are strong, or some such nonsense.
Most people I know that have succeeded through hard times, had support, whether they liked it or not. No one person is an island, though many would love for life to actually work that way.
For gods sake , why does my sentence HAVE to be insinuating anything?
IT IS WHAT IT IS . I just wanted to say not everything is always grim and hopeless , we can try to change our perspective to make it
more positive , which is especially important when dealing with something that is already done / in the past.
We cant change whats done , we cant change what happened in the past .
But we can change how we feel about it
we can change how we deal with it
and we can change how the past incident effects us.
"Edit"
The [can] i keep saying is not a measurement if someone CAN do it or not.
The CAN i used is meant to show an alternate possibility , a CHOICE.
What is the worst thing that has ever happened to you?
You are just assuming that you can change how you feel, deal, and cope with trauma. Some cannot, that is just a fact of life. Others are practically in the same boat, just barely being able to work their way into a positive mindset.
Some things are just too much to bear, and that can vary in many different ways, for all sorts of people. Maybe the fact that being sad all the time is possible, is the reason that people fight so hard to be happy. Maybe happiness is just a reason to do better, not the reason to do better.
Luna wrote:The CAN i used is meant to show an alternate possibility , a CHOICE.
Assumption.
I can choose to do a backflip... and? I can also choose to attempt to fly... either one is firmly out of my true potential. I could spend weeks, or months training to do a backflip, or jump through a hoop, but why? What purpose would that serve? Is this about making yourself, or others feel good? It sure as heck sounds like a recipe to help other people cope with your pain... and that is their problem, not yours.
Is it so hard to imagine a person being truthfully compassionate even with him or herself, Wrex? Lunahound speaks of "strength" to go on and that seems to be your stumbling block. But why not focus on another word she uses--acceptance. This is not about "controlling" oneself like a machine but rather about letting go of guilt and blame.
Wrexasaur wrote:What is the worst thing that has ever happened to you?
You are just assuming that you can change how you feel, deal, and cope with trauma. Some cannot, that is just a fact of life. Others are practically in the same boat, just barely being able to work their way into a positive mindset.
Some things are just too much to bear, and that can vary in many different ways, for all sorts of people. Maybe the fact that being sad all the time is possible, is the reason that people fight so hard to be happy. Maybe happiness is just a reason to do better, not the reason to do better.
Luna wrote:The CAN i used is meant to show an alternate possibility , a CHOICE.
Assumption.
I can choose to do a backflip... and? I can also choose to attempt to fly... either one is firmly out of my true potential. I could spend weeks, or months training to do a backflip, or jump through a hoop, but why? What purpose would that serve? Is this about making yourself, or others feel good? It sure as heck sounds like a recipe to help other people cope with your pain... and that is their problem, not yours.
As i 'll say again , the "can" is a choice , a possibility / option that is available . Did i ever say it'll be easy? no did i ever say people will always take it? no.
people can choose to try and pick themself up and go on living instead of living with sorrow for the rest of their life.
As i said many times. Life is often out of our control. Very often WHATS DONE IS DONE . How we deal with the after effects CAN be chosen by us ,
as the paths DO exist . Whether people TAKE THE PATH OR NOT again is their CHOICE.
Manchu wrote:Is it so hard to imagine a person being truthfully compassionate even with him or herself, Wrex?
No, of course not, I know an awful lot of pretty good people. If you read through what I have said, I was never making a blanket statement like that at all.
Lunahound speaks of "strength" to go on and that seems to be your stumbling block. But why not focus on another word she uses--acceptance. This is not about "controlling" oneself like a machine but rather about letting go of guilt and blame.
Guilt and blame for being hit by a train? I don't get it... that is not what I got from her posts at all. Try depression, rage, hatred, and pain; skip the nonsensical psychosis. I enjoy being painted with the wall though, please continue.
Luna wrote:As i 'll say again , the "can" is a choice , a possibility / option that is available . Did i ever say it'll be easy? no did i ever say people will always take it? no.
people can choose to try and pick themself up and go on living instead of living with sorrow for the rest of their life.
By assuming that everyone can actually make that choice, or even has that choice sets a standard that a lot of people simply cannot live up to. I can make the choice to try and fly, but it doesn't mean anything.
Keeping in mind the beginning of this thread and giving Lunahound the benefit of the doubt, isn't it true that when terrible harm befalls a person or his/her loved ones that the person often questions the existence/nature of God? The seemingly random event of pain and suffering lead to questions like those posed by EF earlier. When you talk about depression, rage, and hatred, I think these are the symptoms of such questioning. Perhaps it's not tied explicitly to a religious notion but there seems to be some cosmological connotation to the question "why must I suffer?" And, again whether or not the answer is explicit, the answer is often given in terms of guilt and blame. Faith, not just in God but in the self and the other and humanity at large, is lost when those categories are used to assess the situation. I think Lunahound is saying that one does not have to settle for those categories. She expresses it in terms of stoicism: taking responsibility for yourself and your destiny. I express it in terms of Christianity: being merciful to yourself and your neighbor and finding justice, where the heart can rest, in that mercy.
Emperors Faithful wrote:If there is a god with the power to make everything better than he has one sick sense of humour. What sick person could get such a kick out of so much pain and sufferering?
The human race has a long tradition of bloodsport. Hell, many wars have been fought simply because one nation or another desires catharsis. Pain and suffering mean absolutely nothing if the observer isn't subjectively connected to the experience. That's why dehumanization is so dangerous. Its also why a necessary nonhuman observer would struggle to connect with the desires of the species he was observing. Sure, it might love the object of it's observation, but that doesn't mean it fully understands what is going on.
Knowing is not the same as understanding, and one has to understand something in order to really connect with it. Any conceivable being would have its own tendencies, desires, and predilections. These, in concert with knowledge of the thing to be acted upon, will serve to inform it's actions in the same way that they do for us.
Wrexasaur wrote:By assuming that everyone can actually make that choice, or even has that choice sets a standard that a lot of people simply cannot live up to. I can make the choice to try and fly, but it doesn't mean anything.
Lunahound's assumption seems to be that people have a dignity that is deeper than the chance misfortunes that befall them or the willful trouble the wreak upon themselves. It is the assumption of a compassionate mind not, as I think you take it, a cruel and cold one.
JEB_Stuart wrote:Hardly. Christ himself was probably hysterical, just think about some of the things he said. "Don't pull the speck out of your neighbors eye, when you got a freaking log in your own!" Paraphrased of course, but imagine that without all of our modern day amenities. It would be even funnier if he did pull a log out of someone's eye! I find God to be quite humorous, he did allow France to come into being after all....
It was a revolutionary idea actually, being nice to people. I'm not sure it is right or not. Sometimes that turn the other cheek thing doesn't work for me
The Turn the other cheek thing is a holy injunction against side-hugging.
Manchu wrote:Lunahound's assumption seems to be that people have a dignity that is deeper than the chance misfortunes that befall them or the willful trouble the wreak upon themselves. It is the assumption of a compassionate mind not, as I think you take it, a cruel and cold one.
I never accused her of being cruel, possibly a bit cold though. One word: intolerant. That was all it took... I did not even mean to offend, it was just an observation.
As to compassion, it is clear that she is not, as being compassionate would involve having an amount of understanding for most situations. Just by her opinions expressed in multiple threads about different types of crimes, etc... I would say she is caring, but clearly not actually compassionate. If I have compassion for someone close to me, or someone I identify with, that only makes me compassionate towards them; not compassionate in general.
I wasn't even trying to go all goodie/baddie, just having a conversation about how people are all different in my eyes, and logically so at any rate.
Wrex, isn't it a bit unfair to read insinuations into other people's posts but feign ignorance when that person reads some insinuation into yours?
I agree that people are different. But at the same time, it seems obvious to me that there is a great unity in human identity and experience. The details of what is valid for one person may not be valid for the next. But we are speaking about themes rather than details.
Wrexasaur wrote:If I have compassion for someone close to me, or someone I identify with, that only makes me compassionate towards them; not compassionate in general.
Manchu wrote:Wrex, isn't it a bit unfair to read insinuations into other people's posts but feign ignorance when that person reads some insinuation into yours?
What? Explain in detail how I am feigning ignorance.
I agree that people are different. But at the same time, it seems obvious to me that there is a great unity in human identity and experience. The details of what is valid for one person may not be valid for the next. But we are speaking about themes rather than details.
That is nice and all I guess, but I was trying to make this conversation a bit more lively than that. All snails are small... we could have a conversation about that too, .
Manchu wrote:
Wrexasaur wrote:If I have compassion for someone close to me, or someone I identify with, that only makes me compassionate towards them; not compassionate in general.
Now you are setting high standards for peopel!
I am sure that was just a joke, but to be clear, I would not be inclined to call someone an angry person after seeing them get angry once. Same thing.
Wrexasaur wrote:I could easily think that you are have been insinuating that people who are not able to 'be happy', or whatever that really means, are just weak. Or people that are able to 'be happy', are strong, or some such nonsense.
For gods sake , why does my sentence HAVE to be insinuating anything? IT IS WHAT IT IS.
v.
Wrexasaur wrote:I never accused her of being cruel, possibly a bit cold though. One word: intolerant. That was all it took... I did not even mean to offend, it was just an observation.
See what I mean about Insinuation Street? It's two ways.
I seemed to me like this was becoming a battle of . . . nothing. Just trading insistent posts and going nowhere. Don't let me get in your way, I guess.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wrexasaur wrote:I am sure that was just a joke, but to be clear, I would not be inclined to call someone an angry person after seeing them get angry once. Same thing.
I get what you mean but good example. The difference is that getting angry is a response to something external. It is passive. Being compassionate is a response to something internal. It is active, it requires a conscious decision. Mustering the moral courage to be compassionate toward your loved ones can be more difficult than simply going through the motions with strangers. For example, being considerate of your wife's feelings all Saturday when she has you doing chores instead of playing the Warhamms is much, much harder than being adequately polite and helpful to coworkers.
Manchu wrote:See what I mean about Insinuation Street? It's two ways.
That would be nice if I had done anything besides state how I feel personally... I never 'feigned ignorance', but nice one... I guess.
I seemed to me like this was becoming a battle of . . . nothing. Just trading insistent posts and going nowhere. Don't let me get in your way, I guess.
A battle? What? You have officially lost me mate. I actually had a conversation offline earlier with a very similar tone. Bananas? WHAT? Okay...
Mustering the moral courage to be compassionate toward your loved ones can be more difficult than simply going through the motions with strangers. For example, being considerate of your wife's feelings all Saturday when she has you doing chores instead of playing the Warhamms is much, much harder than being adequately polite and helpful to coworkers.
What exactly is a conscious decision? Did I make a conscious decision to buy a Coca-Cola, or was that decision partially made for me? Do people really make a conscious decision to be compassionate? I would guess that it is not the case at all.
State how you "feel personally"? How has anyone else done anything else but that in this thread or any other? But, okay, I'm fine with agreeing that no one knows what you really meant but you. Carry on. ::puts hands up, backs away slowly::
Manchu wrote:State how you "feel personally"? How has anyone else done anything else but that in this thread or any other? But, okay, I'm fine with agreeing that no one knows what you really meant but you.
Wrex wrote:That would be nice if I had done anything besides state how I feel personally...
Yet again, what? At no point did I say that was not the case, but now it seems we are simply in circles on it.
You are assuming that I am working with an underlying goal, when I am not, and at no point did I not try and make that clear. Is all of this about Luna?
Wrexasaur wrote:What exactly is a conscious decision? Did I make a conscious decision to buy a Coca-Cola, or was that decision partially made for me? Do people really make a conscious decision to be compassionate? I would guess that it is not the case at all.
The tendency to reduce things into absolutes is misleading. Absolute freedom is a delusion. Even abstractly, the concept is nonsensical. As you pointed out yourself, am I free to flap my arms and fly? No, but that hardly means that I am not free at all. There are lots of factors that play into a person's ultimate willingness to act compassionately. But none of those factors impede or reduce to absurdity the universally human capacity for compassion -OR- the manner in which compassion is exercised in the world, that is, through the reality (not the theoretical fantasy) of free will. If you cannot concede that you have chosen to drink a Coca Cola, then I do not know how you expect me to carry on a discussion with you. You might as well say something like "but how do I know you actually exist beyond this text"?
Manchu wrote:If you cannot concede that you have chosen to drink a Coca Cola, then I do not know how you expect me to carry on a discussion with you. You might as well say something like "but how do I know you actually exist beyond this text"?
I did not say 'soda' mate, I said Coca-Cola, which is a brand, and I even included a picture of that brand in a rather iconic form. I happiness is Coca-Cola, and sadness is Shasta, and all I can get is Shasta, then I must be sad... right? That is all I am trying to point out in that example.
Happiness and Sadness, are both brands, they are both ideals of what people expect from different situations. As soon as Happiness is no longer so happy, I can also think that Sadness is no longer sad. Now, clearly people do convey 'true' emotion through their expression, but limiting how you percieve a persons emotions through how you percieve your own, is a fool's errand dressed in the devils details.
It's a bit like this:
I actually take offense to your comparison there. With the many different examples available to you, why was it so compelling to place me in the shoes of a wingnut? I am crazy, don't get me wrong, but seriously mate; I have not asserted anything of that sort.
I cannot understand what you mean, at least when you put it this way. How can "happiness," the abstract quality of being happy, ever become less happy? Further, I don't know what connection you're making between this and the limitation of self-perception to limit one's perceptions of others, if I'm even stating that correctly. And how is this related to whether optimism is possible for all people, medical conditions aside, even those who have suffered greatly?
Wrexasaur wrote: but limiting how you percieve a persons emotions through how you percieve your own, is a fool's errand dressed in the devils details.
I don't see how you see that as negative. If I compare your sensation of stress, to my sensation of stress, it only matters that we both have an understanding of stress about which to communicate. I think you're confusing the thing to which any given emotion might be attached with the emotion itself.
Its certainly true that any any given person can have any given emotional response to any given event. However, the emotions themselves are comparable in nature, if not in degree.
Edit: I also think you're conflating nature, and degree.
Wrexasaur wrote:I actually take offense to your comparison there. With the many different examples available to you, why was it so compelling to place me in the shoes of a wingnut? I am crazy, don't get me wrong, but seriously mate; I have not asserted anything of that sort.
Whoops, now you're misquoting me. I said that conversation in the video is a bit like dealing with someone who will not admit things of common agreement for the sake of puffery in argument. I never said that 's what you were doing. (Insinuations, insinuations )
Manchu wrote:I cannot understand what you mean, at least when you put it this way. How can "happiness," the abstract quality of being happy, ever become less happy? Further, I don't know what connection you're making between this and the limitation of self-perception to limit one's perceptions of others, if I'm even stating that correctly. And how is this related to whether optimism is possible for all people, medical conditions aside, even those who have suffered greatly?
I can understand how we could express similar emotions, given the same stimuli, but in general I feel that the degree of that happiness varies greatly from person to person. The fact that we have a general way of showing each other how we are 'feeling' doesn't have a direct connection to how it is understood.
All I can do is assume that someone is actually what they appear to be. This is not accusatory statement, I am simply pointing out that people are generally layered quite intricately in their psyche. Ever felt two different emotions at the same time? Four emotions? At what point do I have to clearly express my thoughts, rather than package them in pre-conceived patterns that are generally accepted to be true.
Your happiness and my happiness, are two entirely different things, even though they may be similar in general. It is not as if we are talking about fingers and toes here.
Wrexasaur wrote:Your happiness and my happiness, are two entirely different things, even though they may be similar in general.
I disagree with you deeply on this matter. I don't think there is really anything I can say to convince you, however, that my way of thinking more accurately represents reality. I have perceived in my own experience that happiness is something that is shared between individuals. I guess that's why we're on this toy soldier thread right now. Well, I don't have to guess for myself.
Just because two things are different, does not mean they cannot be shared. On that note, I would just add that it can be shared, not always shared. A lot of happiness can't be shared in my experience. I see a lot of people that find joy in things that absolutely bore me to death, and vice-versa for that matter. Not to say that they would not be sharing that with people besides myself.
I guess I mispoke with the word "share" and instead meant to communicate that it is my belief that happiness proceeds not from the individual but from the closing of the distance between individuals in community and intimacy.
Wrexasaur wrote:I can understand how we could express similar emotions, given the same stimuli, but in general I feel that the degree of that happiness varies greatly from person to person.
From stimuli to stimuli perhaps. Going to philosophy lectures makes me pretty happy. I find them really entertaining. I imagine you don't feel the same way. However, through observation I could probably find something that you enjoy as much as I enjoy philosophy lectures, and thereby compare the sensation through analogy. The sensation itself is unlikely to have changed, only the things we associate with it. In terms of both stimuli, and relevant descriptors.
People don't differ all that much, rather it is the things that they associate to, and use to describe, their emotions which vary wildly. That isn't to say that people are all exactly the same, only that the actual difference in terms of chemical sensation doesn't seem as great as the variance of descriptive terms. Granted that's simply a guess based on my experience, we've only just started to scratch the surface of neuroscience.
Wrexasaur wrote:
All I can do is assume that someone is actually what they appear to be. This is not accusatory statement, I am simply pointing out that people are generally layered quite intricately in their psyche. Ever felt two different emotions at the same time? Four emotions? At what point do I have to clearly express my thoughts, rather than package them in pre-conceived patterns that are generally accepted to be true.
Really they're the same thing. Words have accepted meanings so that we can understand what you're talking about. If what you're feeling is not consistent with your understanding of the word, then you need to learn more about the word, or find a way to create a new one (which is much harder).
Wrexasaur wrote:
Your happiness and my happiness, are two entirely different things, even though they may be similar in general. It is not as if we are talking about fingers and toes here.
It seems to me that we are. After all, toes can vary quite a bit in size, or shape while still clearly remaining toes. They can also be deformed to the point that they are only toes in terms of expectation, which would be analogous to insanity.
Manchu wrote:I guess I mispoke with the word "share" and instead meant to communicate that it is my belief that happiness proceeds not from the individual but from the closing of the distance between individuals in community and intimacy.
I suppose I see emotion as a bit more faceted then. Perhaps the degree of the emotion is the important part, but I do feel that this changes the meaning/purpose of (the) emotion in a few different ways. Mainly, how that emotion plays a role in my life, and others.
I have also had some of the happiest times of my life, all by myself. (and Manchu says: "Oh, I am sure you have ")
dogma wrote:
From stimuli to stimuli perhaps. Going to philosophy lectures makes me pretty happy. I find them really entertaining. I imagine you don't feel the same way. However, through observation I could probably find something that you enjoy as much as I enjoy philosophy lectures, and thereby compare the sensation through analogy. The sensation itself is unlikely to have changed, only the things we associate with it. In terms of both stimuli, and relevant descriptors.
I am generally not a fan of lectures, but I have been to a few rather interesting ones. If we are simply talking about general enjoyment, then I completely agree with you; it is just when people start using words like 'happiness', and 'sadness'. Not words like 'mania', and 'depression', which have a very solid meaning. I am pretty sure I just contradicted at least one sentence of what I have said in this thread, with that last sentence...
People don't differ all that much, rather it is the things that they associate to, and use to describe, their emotions which vary wildly. That isn't to say that people are all exactly the same, only that the actual difference in terms of chemical sensation doesn't seem as great as the variance of descriptive terms. Granted that's simply a guess based on my experience, we've only just started to scratch the surface of neuroscience.
People can be astoundingly similar, and I can state that just from experience with watching marketing campaigns. There is a whole lot of psychology going on there.
It seems to me that we are. After all, toes can vary quite a bit in size, or shape while still clearly remaining toes. They can also be deformed to the point that they are only toes in terms of expectation, which would be analogous to insanity.
If anything, we are talking about hands, and feet; if not arms and legs. It does make a good amount of sense just to approach the topic with a standard, I must admit. My opinions on these kinds of things are usually very open. I would consider 'deformed toes', to me more along the lines of emotional imbalance, or madness in general. Depending on how you approach it, the way that we learn to express our emotions is most likely ingrained from a young age. Whether or not those toes are deformed through the process, or were deformed to begin with, is always a pretty tricky question.
This reminds me of a conversation I had with one of those really, really really religious types once.
Him: So, what church do you go to?
Me: I don't go to church.
Him: You should.
Me: Why?
Him: To praise God.
Me: There is no God.
Him: ........................How can you say such a thing?
Me: Because I just don't think there is.
Him: But why?
Me: Because I am turned off by religion.
Him: I don't understand.
Me: Really religious people like you, church, the bible, it just creeps me out, like the bad guy in a really well-made horror movie.
Him: You should come to my church, we'll make sure you have a personally relationship with God in no time.
Me: I already have a personal relationship with God. It's sort of like the relationship some kids have with that weird Uncle who secretly touches them where grown-ups shouldn't touch kids.
Him: (Stomps away, tears freely flowing.)
There you go. You should be glad that I don't believe in God, because if I did, I would be at war with him and all of his followers. As it stands, I just pity the fools.
Wrexasaur wrote:A powerful, non-intervening being, that may or may not be taking action to help or harm us. I will call this being an alien to make this an even field. A 'superior' being in generals.
This alien who has the power to help, but chooses not to, is hardly an icon I would be keen to worship. If this alien happened to reign hellfire down upon us, and the only way to stop it from doing so was to worship it, then so be it. The problem with that, is the being is no longer a caring figure that I have respect for, it is an icon that represents oppression and fear mongering.
Remember, this is not talking about 'god', it is talking about a 'superior' being that is above us in every way, and has within it's grasp, immeasurable power.
Wrex, mate, I could not (and clearly have not ) said this better myself. If this higher being is able to intervene and prevent horrible things happening and CHOOSES not to, then he is not really one to be respected or loved.
@Luna: Yes, ones attidue does have a lot to do with how they come out of a situation. But in regards to your 'sad wounded vet' vs your 'happy wounded vet' in both situations I would call getting your legs blown off (then maybe getting abandoned by the government) as a crap situation. Their outlook can make the best of it, but it still sucks.
Look at it this way:
You see a woman being attacked in a rape attempt on the street corner. You could easily intervene, run out and stop this vile act. Not even that, the phone is right next to you, so you could call the police. No one else can hear this womans sceams. (Aside from the offender) you alone hold power over what this situation turns into.
1: You do the honourable thing. Why wouldn't you? This woman is clearly in danger, and about to be taken advantage of. You stop this madness, or at least call for help from others.
2: You don't do anything. You watch. Maybe you got a sick luagh out of it. Maybe you take pictures. Maybe you tell yourself 'It's all how she mentally recieves the rape'. Doesn't change the fact that you could have helped this person, at no cost to yourself, but you didn't.
I say again. "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing."
Emperors Faithful wrote:If this higher being is able to intervene and prevent horrible things happening and CHOOSES not to, then he is not really one to be respected or loved.
And if this kind of God intervenes to undue all the bad that people freely choose to inflict upon the world and each other, what happens to our freedom? The same question could be asked of a theoretical perfect government. If the government could make all the right choices about how you should live, would accept being its slave? If so, then you are not what I would call a morally responsible person.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:I think it is fun to apply human attributes and morals to non-human, omnipotent concepts.
Whoops, you just missed the point of Judaism and Christianity. Oh, and Islam.
Emperors Faithful wrote:
1: You do the honourable thing. Why wouldn't you? This woman is clearly in danger, and about to be taken advantage of. You stop this madness, or at least call for help from others.
Risk. In either case you risk discovery by the perpetrator who is in process of proving himself to be comfortable with violence. Taking it to another level, if this rape is already in process, calling immediately will not change the fact that the woman is going to be raped. No matter how quickly the police can arrive they will not be in time to stop her assailant. By calling the cops you are effectively acting only to assuage your own conscience, rather than working to save the woman.
Emperors Faithful wrote:
2: You don't do anything. You watch. Maybe you got a sick luagh out of it. Maybe you take pictures. Maybe you tell yourself 'It's all how she mentally recieves the rape'. Doesn't change the fact that you could have helped this person, at no cost to yourself, but you didn't.
You could also attempt to save the woman at massive cost to yourself. Say you move to stop the man only to discover that he's armed. This leads to you being shot, and killed. The woman may or not be raped in the aftermath, she may be killed as a witness, or the perpetrator may flee immediately; leaving her alive and relatively unscathed. You've just sacrificed your life, to prevent psychological traumatization, and possible murder, of this unknown woman. Is that worth it? Will your family believe that it was worth it? Even if you were their only source of income? The list of variables is nearly endless.
Now, I'm not telling you that rape isn't wrong, or that its right to stand aside as it happens. I'm simply telling you that the issues is infinitely more complicated than you've made it out to be. That is the nature of ethics, and by extension faith. There are no easy answers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote:
Whoops, you just missed the point of Judaism and Christianity. Oh, and Islam.
No, you've got it backwards. Those religions apply heavenly morals to earthly concepts. The believers serve as God's instruments, and means of interacting with the world. In a broad sense anyway, Judaism doesn't work exactly that way. But Christianity and Islam certainly do.
@dogma: I would disagree with your "nature of ethic and by extension faith" comment (the logic of the phrase "be extension" utterly baffles me) but agree otherwise.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:No, you've got it backwards. Those religions apply heavenly morals to earthly concepts. The believers serve as God's instruments, and means of interacting with the world. In a broad sense anyway, Judaism doesn't work exactly that way. But Christianity and Islam certainly do.
Well, I can only tentatively disagree with what you are saying because I'm not exactly sure what you are saying. But here's what I meant: the God of the three monotheistic world religions reveals Himself to His people in a way that is on their terms. All three, moreover, place special significance on the idea that man was made in God's image. In other words, God is not totally unlike us and we not totally unlike Him--nevermind whatever Kierkegaard might have said. I believe this idea is most compellingly taught by Christianity. for Christians, God does not reveal Himself in law (Judaism) or the written word (Islam) but rather through a person, a fully human being, Himself.
Manchu wrote:@dogma: I would disagree with your "nature of ethic and by extension faith" comment (the logic of the phrase "be extension" utterly baffles me) but agree otherwise.
That's just me being an existential nihilist. A proper theist would probably phrase it in reverse, but I tend to speak from a discipline, and to a practical concept.
Take it to mean: ethics and faith are deeply intertwined as one tends to feed into the other.
Manchu wrote:
Well, I can only tentatively disagree with what you are saying because I'm not exactly sure what you are saying. But here's what I meant: the God of the three monotheistic world religions reveals Himself to His people in a way that is on their terms. All three, moreover, place special significance on the idea that man was made in God's image. In other words, God is not totally unlike us and we not totally unlike Him--nevermind whatever Kierkegaard might have said. I believe this idea is most compellingly taught by Christianity. for Christians, God does not reveal Himself in law (Judaism) or the written word (Islam) but rather through a person, a fully human being, Himself.
All I'm saying is that the monotheistic religions claim to derive their moral codes from God. They aren't applying their morals to God, God is expressing his morals to us by using a convenient vehicle for communication. Even if 'hearing' that expression occurs only when the believer is listening, it is still the 'voice' of God doing the speaking; telling the listener what God would if he happened to be human. Of course, God is not human (even if humans are like God), so it makes little sense for man to postulate what he would if he were God (I like this bit from Islam). Why would the inferior being tell the superior being how to be superior?
@Manchu: Ah, this reminds me of another thread a long time ago, in a forum far, far away...
Basically it went along the lines of "Would you prefer a society where the society was unfiar and most lived in poverty but there were lots of rights, or a society where everyone lived decently enough, but there was more restriction on peoples rights?"
I chose the 'greater good' option. I found it surprising that by far people would want a society where poverty ruled, but there were lots of rights. (Funnily though, someone pointed out that, when posting, none of these people thought that THEY would be the poor ones)
In a more direct approach to your question, God doesn't have to do anything. He could take away our free will, I suppose, but why would he? According to the OP he's getting too much of a luagh out of our failing. It's not really what would happen if he did, it's more WHY DIDN'T he? Does he think it's for our own good?
Another question that may boggle your mind.
Could God make a stone so heavy even he could not lift it?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:
1: You do the honourable thing. Why wouldn't you? This woman is clearly in danger, and about to be taken advantage of. You stop this madness, or at least call for help from others.
Risk. In either case you risk discovery by the perpetrator who is in process of proving himself to be comfortable with violence. Taking it to another level, if this rape is already in process, calling immediately will not change the fact that the woman is going to be raped. No matter how quickly the police can arrive they will not be in time to stop her assailant. By calling the cops you are effectively acting only to assuage your own conscience, rather than working to save the woman.
Emperors Faithful wrote:
2: You don't do anything. You watch. Maybe you got a sick luagh out of it. Maybe you take pictures. Maybe you tell yourself 'It's all how she mentally recieves the rape'. Doesn't change the fact that you could have helped this person, at no cost to yourself, but you didn't.
You could also attempt to save the woman at massive cost to yourself. Say you move to stop the man only to discover that he's armed. This leads to you being shot, and killed. The woman may or not be raped in the aftermath, she may be killed as a witness, or the perpetrator may flee immediately; leaving her alive and relatively unscathed. You've just sacrificed your life, to prevent psychological traumatization, and possible murder, of this unknown woman. Is that worth it? Will your family believe that it was worth it? Even if you were their only source of income? The list of variables is nearly endless.
Now, I'm not telling you that rape isn't wrong, or that its right to stand aside as it happens. I'm simply telling you that the issues is infinitely more complicated than you've made it out to be. That is the nature of ethics, and by extension faith. There are no easy answers.
Ah, the joys of debate. Really quite a well formated response, and I wouldn't really have thought of it that way, but I was using as broad an example as possible. You must remember that this is an omniniscent, omni-potent being that we would be talknig about here. He would be facing zero-risk from this aggresor. So, having nothing to lose, why would he not act? Does he believe that there is something to be gained from the rape of this woman? (assume that she is, all-in-all a good person and by no means deserves to be raped)
Manchu wrote:for certain sects of Christians, God does not reveal Himself in law (Judaism) or the written word (Islam) but rather through a person, a fully human being, Himself.
Fixed that for you. Should avoid speaking of Christians as if they all think the same and act the same. It is an extremely varied group with radically different beliefs and approaches to the faith between groups.
@EF: You also have to remember that Christianity teaches that the struggle, suffering, and deprivation of this life do not have the "final word" over a person's destiny. Think of Christ's death--he was told that he must obey the authority of the state under pain of death. Basically, the state said to him what it says to us today: "You must do what I command or I will hurt you." And Jesus responded by letting the state do its worst. Now did the authorities really torture and murder him? Yes. And was that all real suffering not alleviated by any kind of divine intervention? No, there was no intervention. And did Jesus die? Yes, he did. So the state made its point? No. Because that is not the end of the story. Three days later, the tomb is empty. What can happen to you/be done to you here in this temporal existence is not the final expression of justice or absurdity. Pain and sorrow--and ultimately death--are not the destiny of human beings. Our dignity does not simply crumble against the irresistible unfairness or indifference of a brutish and insensible universe. In freedom, the essential expression of our very own identities, we trace out the paths of our own destiny.
The person who says they would be a slave as long as they are a well-fed slave has abandoned responsibility for himself. He can no longer talk about right and wrong because he has abdicated that capacity to someone else as a premise for his content living. In other words, he is pretty much an animal. Thank goodness this kind of situation is only an illusion that people convince themselves of in order to escape dealing with hard questions. The truth is that you cannot escape from your freedom.
As for paradoxes, they are not mind-blowing. You must keep them in their proper contexts. For example, if I told you that Zeno's paradox about the infinite amount of numbers between any two numbers actually meant that an arrow would never reach its target in real life, you think it was absurd. Clearly the arrow reaches its target and the paradox simply illustrates the point that concept and reality are not the same thing. This is the ultimate lesson about the paradox you mentioned, as well.
I suppose that I believe that functionally, our 'universe' really only consists of the thoughts within our heads. It all comes down to whether we believe we are master of them, or they are the master of us.
Ahtman wrote:Fixed that for you. Should avoid speaking of Christians as if they all think the same and act the same. It is an extremely varied group with radically different beliefs and approaches to the faith between groups.
Not so much as people like to claim who have not bothered to take a serious look at theology. (It's no use trying to claim that you have. If it was the case, you would not have made that statement with regard to the revelation of God in the person of Jesus.) I think you'll find that the the Doctrine of the Trinity is one of the definitive elements of Christianity. Those who speak of Jesus but not the Trinity, like Mormons, do not consider themselves "Christians" as such and are not considered to be so by Christians.
Albatross wrote:I suppose that I believe that functionally, our 'universe' really only consists of the thoughts within our heads. It all comes down to whether we believe we are master of them, or they are the master of us.
Ceci n'est pas une pipe.
Or, as you are getting hit by an asteroid, your last few thoughts represent the rest of eternity to you, while being little more than a speck, in a field of specks; long since lost in the fabric of time.
Albatross wrote:I suppose that I believe that functionally, our 'universe' really only consists of the thoughts within our heads. It all comes down to whether we believe we are master of them, or they are the master of us.
Ceci n'est pas une pipe.
You read Camus! And then looked at some Magritte. Those things aren't British!
Emperors Faithful wrote:
You must remember that this is an omniniscent, omni-potent being that we would be talknig about here. He would be facing zero-risk from this aggresor. So, having nothing to lose, why would he not act? Does he believe that there is something to be gained from the rape of this woman? (assume that she is, all-in-all a good person and by no means deserves to be raped)
He might. At this point we're essentially debating priorities, and intent. I suppose we should assume that God is benevolent (not omni-benevolent, that term doesn't really mean anything). We can also assume that we need a reason to worship God, which can be established by the fact that he must be benevolent towards us (at least part of the time). From here we can presume that God would want to create a world which can be described as good, or whatever near equivalent 'word' God would use.
That's where the problem comes in. What constitutes 'good'? No one can answer that question objectively. You could say something about granting all subjective desires, but that just takes us back down into the dirt of humanity where subjective desire includes the desire to kill and main. You could then claim that God could have never implanted those desires into us, but at that point it starts to get awfully hard to imagine what sort of 'us' is being discussed. From there we get to "Why create the universe at all?", to which the answer is simply anthropic (we're here, so we must have been the best choice).
Ultimately, if you believe that God is omniscient and omnipotent there will be a way to justify any possible 'choice' it makes by dearth of perfect knowledge, or absolute power. We don't know what its like to be God, but God knows what its like to be us. That's the leap of faith.
Manchu wrote: I think you'll find that the the Doctrine of the Trinity is one of the definitive elements of Christianity. Those who speak of Jesus but not the Trinity, like Mormons, do not consider themselves "Christians" as such and are not considered to be so by Christians.
My father is a Christian minister and theologist who considers Mormonism to be a component of the larger Church. I know of many other theologists with similar positions. While the Trinity may be widespread, it certainly isn't something which is discussed explicitly within the Bible.
Ahtman wrote:Fixed that for you. Should avoid speaking of Christians as if they all think the same and act the same. It is an extremely varied group with radically different beliefs and approaches to the faith between groups.
Not so much as people like to claim who have not bothered to take a serious look at theology. (It's no use trying to claim that you have. If it was the case, you would not have made that statement with regard to the revelation of God in the person of Jesus.) I think you'll find that the the Doctrine of the Trinity is one of the definitive elements of Christianity. Those who speak of Jesus but not the Trinity, like Mormons, do not consider themselves "Christians" as such and are not considered to be so by Christians.
You have trouble understanding things outside your own narrow views don't you?
Mormons are a branch of christianity. They're just a little 'off the beaten track'.
@Manchu: Unfortunately, not everyone can pull off that stunt of rising from the dead. After the point about Jesus...well to be honest you kina lost me. What did that have to do with God choosing not to stop evil-doers?
Also, I think you were being a bit too extreme their with the whole 'well-fed' slave thing. Was it not your choice in the first place to willingly become a slave? (aka productive member of society ) Rights and your freethinking will are two different things.
Nevermind the paradox, that was only a cheeky attempt to boggled some minds. (which I notice you didn't answer )
dogma wrote:My father is a Christian minister and theologist who considers Mormonism to be a component of the larger Church. I know of many other theologists with similar positions. While the Trinity may be widespread, it certainly isn't something which is discussed explicitly within the Bible.
In certain circles the church as Body of Christ is considered to include Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc, but not as Christians. Either you are not stating your father's position with adequate clarity or your father needs to look over the Nicene Creed again. Also, Christianity is not derived from the Bible. It's a simple point that is often overlooked but the Christian faith existed for quite sometime before the bishops got around to deciding what would make up the canon.
Emperors Faithful wrote:@Manchu:
Unfortunately, not everyone can pull off that stunt of rising from the dead. After the point about Jesus...well to be honest you kina lost me. What did that have to do with God choosing not to stop evil-doers?
Remember the story of Jesus in the desert being tempted by Satan? (I assume you've heard the Gospel at some point or at least are generally familiar with it.) One of the things that Satan says is "if you're really the Son of God, throw yourself off this high place and surely God will save you." Now the idea is not that this literally happened (maybe it did, who knows, that's beside the point) but rather that Satan's temptation represents the idea that God's existence should be premised on our ability to "test" it by having no bad things happen to people in general but especially not to the faithful. But this is a misunderstanding of faith, of God's relationship to humanity, and of humanity itself. As I said, human beings are free. If God went around "stopping" evil-doers we would no longer be free. And then what would it mean to do good? Good that is not chosen is not good. Not moral good anyway. It can still be a practical good, like having food. But this isn't the same thing as morality.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Emperors Faithful wrote:So wait? What IS christianity?
Is it whatever the Nicean Council declared? Or is it about Jesus? (the two may overlap, but meh)
At the time, there were many churches that recognised Jesus as the Messiah, but not his divinity. (which I don't remember in any prophecies either)
At the Council of Nicea, all the leaders of the Christian communities in the world gathered together and had a great debate on the subject of "what is Christianity"? The result was the Nicene Creed, which is a comprehensive statement of what Christians believe. The ideas of the Arians, to whom you refer, were basically thrown out and never fully recovered thereafter (although there were plenty of powerful Arians for a long time after). The idea that the creed defined by the Nicene Council is not about Jesus is totally laughable.
There are a lot of posts on here, and indeed many people I have talked to IRL, that indicate "what I believe God to be", without any context to refer to, except their own feelings. At it's heart this is true rebelliousness, in that I won't accept Gods word or plan so I'll just make up whatever makes me feel good based on my own understanding and experience. A true absence of faith. This is why a lot of people turn to the "eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow we may die" philosophy.
We forget that our lives on earth are incredibly short. It's amazing that I'll turn 39 next year. It seems like just yesterday I was 16 and playing D&D/star fleet battles etc.etc. with not a care in the world. The reason I mention our short lives, is that our limited understanding of life and God needs to be looked at in context of how short our existance really is. Can we really fully understand the motives and desires and intents of an All Powerfull God?
God has intentionally left things murky so that we would have to use faith. Christianity teaches that the earth is under a curse, this is why things are the way they are when it comes to human suffering. God chose to do this as part of his ultimate plan. I don't fully understand why. An ant doesn't understand why the lawn mower knocks down their hill every once in a while either. To them it just happens and they deal with it.
You read Camus! And then looked at some Magritte. Those things aren't British!
I've never read Camus. He smells like garlic. But Magritte, yeah big fat deal.
I've never claimed to be a British Supremacist! I happen to like a great many things that aren't British - like hugging, and brushing my teeth.
I believe that everything, everywhere is interconnected - nothing is 'truly' superior to anthing else. The cup of Tea I'm drinking (at any given moment) could conceivably contain atoms from Hitler's moustache. Atomically speaking, in the grand scheme of things my trousers could just as easily be a dinosaur.
generalgrog wrote: Christianity teaches that the earth is under a curse, this is why things are the way they are when it comes to human suffering.
I agree with most of what you said (especially the distinction between obedience to Tradition and "whatever I feel like" religion) but it's not the case that Earth is under a curse. The "fallen" state of the humanity (not the world at large) indicates its incompleteness. But that, in the context of the Gospel, is not a "curse." Rather it emphasizes man's yearning for salvation in Christ. That is why people used to refer to the fall by saying "oh happy fault!"
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, the idea is not that we need to be content with ignorance but that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus provide us with knowledge (perceived with faith) of the destiny for which we were created and our ability to achieve it.
Emperors Faithful wrote:So wait? What IS christianity?
Wiser heads than ours have written tomes on this topic. Personally, I think the best explanation I've seen was presented in the book "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis. It is an excellent read for anyone trying to choose between Christian denominations, or anyone that finds themselves turning against a particular sect.
generalgrog wrote: Christianity teaches that the earth is under a curse, this is why things are the way they are when it comes to human suffering.
I agree with most of what you said (especially the distinction between obedience to Tradition and "whatever I feel like" religion) but it's not the case that Earth is under a curse.
Gen3:17(KJV)And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
But the fall of man is also a curse, and more specifically the "Law of sin and death", Paul talks about in the book of Romans.
Since the thread seems to have jumped from "is there a god" to something to do with religion; I'll provide you all with Agnosto's views of major world religions.
Judaism:
Our way or the highway. An elite club that your mom had to be a member of if you want to legitimately join. Sons of Abraham.
Motto: Hey we were all kicked out of eden so let's make everyone's life hell because of it.
Christianity:
A guy, 2000 years ago, thought he would preach peace and try to break the stranglehold that the Jewish clergy had on the populace. He thought of himself as a teacher and unfortunately some of his words were misinterpreted like "son of god" because really, if humans were made in god's image, wouldn't we all be children of god? People loved him and took it a little too literally.
Motto: Someone somewhere is having fun, let's go stamp it out.
Islam:
Pretty much a mish-mash of Christianity and Judaism with the exception that they believe that Mohammed was the last profit of God, not Christ or Abraham, or whoever.
Motto: We're right, you're wrong; we'll kill you because we don't agree. Oh yeah, lock up your women.
Buddhism:
Based upon a rich guy that got sick of his wife and kids and decided to walk the earth. He picked up some things along the way and tried to convince everyone that there's not just one way to do things.
Motto: Life sucks but you can always upgrade if you try not to kill each other.
Honestly, if you're going to be religious there're better religions out there, religions that don't espouse murder and genocide because you don't agree with each other. I recommend giving Shinto a try; gotta love a religion that honors the family and personel cleanliness.
Manchu wrote:
In certain circles the church as Body of Christ is considered to include Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc, but not as Christians.
Obviously, as they do not accept Jesus as the Messiah.
Manchu wrote:
Either you are not stating your father's position with adequate clarity or your father needs to look over the Nicene Creed again. Also, Christianity is not derived from the Bible. It's a simple point that is often overlooked but the Christian faith existed for quite sometime before the bishops got around to deciding what would make up the canon.
But apparently it is decided by the Nicene Creed, which was created much later. Would you like me to bring pre-Biblical gnosticism into the conversation? Or perhaps Unitarianism?
You're confusing your own testament of faith with history, and reality. All that's required to be Christian is the acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah. Everything else is ancillary theological posturing.
Manchu wrote:
In certain circles the church as Body of Christ is considered to include Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc, but not as Christians.
Obviously, as they do not accept Jesus as the Messiah.
Manchu wrote:
Either you are not stating your father's position with adequate clarity or your father needs to look over the Nicene Creed again. Also, Christianity is not derived from the Bible. It's a simple point that is often overlooked but the Christian faith existed for quite sometime before the bishops got around to deciding what would make up the canon.
But apparently it is decided by the Nicene Creed, which was created much later. Would you like me to bring pre-Biblical gnosticism into the conversation? Or perhaps Unitarianism?
You're confusing your own testament of faith with history, and reality. All that's required to be Christian is the acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah. Everything else is ancillary theological posturing.
You also have to accept his teachings. It depends on the denomination.
I'm just looking for the kind of minimal definition used to set up a category. If there were no people in the who professed Christianity, but did not profess belief in the Trinity I might agree with Manchu. However, there are people in the world that do so. So I don't.
For me its a matter of all or nothing. We can either reject all the various scripture as illegitimate to the determination of one's Christianity, or we can accept it all as legitimate. Either way we end up in the same place.
Herohammernostalgia wrote:To return to the OP, someone who is essentially Atheist and believes there might be a god is an Agnostic: "There MIGHT be a God, but we don't know".
i.e. Not an atheist (there is no God at all)
IMO either of these ideas is to be prefered to (organised) religion.
dogma wrote:
You're confusing your own testament of faith with history, and reality. All that's required to be Christian is the acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah. Everything else is ancillary theological posturing.
Dogma, how come you understand christianity better than 90% of those who belong to the religion?
@Dogma: While I agree that many people subscribe to the idea of a lowest common denominator in terms of acceptance as a Christian, that LCD is the Nicene Creed. Religions such as: LDS, RLDS, Jehovah's Witness, etc. are definitively not Christian. Take a closer look at their faith and you will understand why. Just because some has the same name for something, that doesn't mean it is the same thing. Almost all the churches I have ever been to, and trust me that is plenty all over the world, acknowledge the authority and wisdom of the first 7 ecumenical councils. Those council's took place because of things like gnosticism, which you pointed out, arianism, nestorianism, etc. as they were heretical, and ultimately unhealthy for the Body of Christ. That is why the creeds were introduced as the basic requirements of the Faith. They give the terms and definitions that are prerequisite to membership in the Body of Christ.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
youngblood wrote:Dogma, how come you understand christianity better than 90% of those who belong to the religion?
While I find this to be a bit cynical, I am hard pressed to disprove it. To my undying shame and embarrassment, many Christians do not comprehend Scripture, Tradition and Theology very well. Much of it is based on emotion. Truly saddening.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Can we avoid the long random-ass-structure posts tblock, one is enough...
Ahtman wrote:Fixed that for you. Should avoid speaking of Christians as if they all think the same and act the same. It is an extremely varied group with radically different beliefs and approaches to the faith between groups.
Not so much as people like to claim who have not bothered to take a serious look at theology. (It's no use trying to claim that you have. If it was the case, you would not have made that statement with regard to the revelation of God in the person of Jesus.) I think you'll find that the the Doctrine of the Trinity is one of the definitive elements of Christianity. Those who speak of Jesus but not the Trinity, like Mormons, do not consider themselves "Christians" as such and are not considered to be so by Christians.
WTF DAKKA!!! WTF!?!?!?!?!?!?!
Excuse me for a moment... FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU...
Some here in forum know that I am spiritually ambiguous. I follow no religion but I try to study and understand all... When I see people twisting facts or misinterpreting doctrine in general, I like to step in and set the record strait.
Now, I happened to be raised Mormon, so blanket statements like that strike a chord on a personal, family level...
Now, can we all please stop posting ignorant things like blanket statements that have no actually credibility, so others will not become offended? Is fact checking too hard before you post? Your honest mistake of not verifying accuracy in your statement can lead to someone calling you intolerant, or visa versa, eventually leading to a similar episode between Wrex and Luna, not saying that was based on ignorance. Here, let me repeat this, in case some readers didn't read my long, ranty post in the Church Dogs thread:
The moral of the story:
Be careful, the debate you want so badly is not going to be fun if there IS NO SOLUTION!!!
When it comes to debates about religion, there IS NO SOLUTION!!! Agree to disagree or STFU!!!
The person you just unknowing insulted is probably just as bi-polar or damaged as you are. The debate will end in tears... An there is a 50-50 chance they will be yours...
Understanding and tolerance are two different things. Do not assume either you or your debate partner know the difference. Those concepts ave VERY SUBJECTIVE!!!
And in case you are wondering, yes I am a little pissed... When some one who actually knows what the feth he is talking about states Mormon doctrine, I am flamed as intolerant... But when some one who posts an ACTUAL offensive blanket statement, Dakka hops on board the flame train...
Unlike Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant Christianity, Mormonism does not include belief in a Trinity, in which the one God consists of three persons. Instead, Mormons believe that the "Godhead" is made up of three distinct beings who are "one in purpose" but not in being. These beings are:
* God the Heavenly Father;
* Jesus Christ; and
* the Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost).
I guess that is either ignorance on my part, of the brainwashing when I was eight... When the statement about the trinity was made earlier in the tread, I had flashbacks to my baptism and confirmation, as well as my Aaronic Priesthood ordaining... SORRY DAKKA!!!
My rant above still applies... And I think I just proved my point...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
youngblood wrote:Oh tblock, you're just being intolerant. *snicker snicker*
Hurr durr hurr...
May the flames of these posts cleanse my soul...
Naw, seriously, I just wanted to say that the "I" word can be just as damaging as some of the other offensive words in our vernacular.
JEB_Stuart wrote:@Dogma: While I agree that many people subscribe to the idea of a lowest common denominator in terms of acceptance as a Christian, that LCD is the Nicene Creed.
Sure, that's the lowest common denominator if the category being discussed is Nicene Christianity, but that's not what we're discussing. We're discussing Christianity as a whole. Its very similar to discussing the category of Abrahamic Religions as requiring the belief in Abraham as a significant figure.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
Religions such as: LDS, RLDS, Jehovah's Witness, etc. are definitively not Christian. Take a closer look at their faith and you will understand why. Just because some has the same name for something, that doesn't mean it is the same thing.
But its not simply the same name. The Mormon Church for example specifically acknowledges that the Jesus figure in the Book of Mormon is the same one spoken of in the New Testament. That is sufficient to categorize their beliefs as Christian. Just as the acknowledgment given to Abraham in any canonical mention of the OT in a Christian Bible is sufficient to consider that Bible, and the denomination which holds it sacred, as being a component of the Abrahamic category.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
Almost all the churches I have ever been to, and trust me that is plenty all over the world, acknowledge the authority and wisdom of the first 7 ecumenical councils.
That's fine. Most Christians the world over are Nicene Christians. That doesn't mean that there aren't other kinds of Christians.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
Those council's took place because of things like gnosticism, which you pointed out, arianism, nestorianism, etc. as they were heretical, and ultimately unhealthy for the Body of Christ. That is why the creeds were introduced as the basic requirements of the Faith. They give the terms and definitions that are prerequisite to membership in the Body of Christ.
@Dogma: While I respect your ability to write very impressive looking sentences, I am a little disappointed in their content.
"Nicene" Chrrsitianity is not "one kind of Christianity" it is Christianity. You claim this is theological posturing. You compare it to the Reformation claims of sola scriptura and the modern American tendency to believe that "my personal interpretation, based on my feelings, is the right one" that GenerealGrok wisely warned against earlier in the thread. The difference that you're missing is history. (JEB tried to point this out, but you ignored him.) The Nicene Creed wasn't invented at Nicea. It represents what orthodox Christian communities had believed since the earthly ministry of Christ. Were their other Christians who believed otherwise? Yes, of course. In the case of Nicea, the most powerful group were called Arians. But after a long debate, it was "settled" (as dogma at least) that the teachings of the orthodox Christians rather than the Arians represented the authentic teaching of Jesus.
Acknowledging the religious significance of the historical human being Jesus, as the groups that JEB mentioned do, does not make one a Christian. Just ask Muslims, who see Jesus as a prophet second only to Mohammed in importance, whether they are Christians.
JEB is 100% correct. The doctrine of the Trinity is the lowest common denominator of Christianity. If a groups claims to be Christian but does not accept this, they are not Christian. It's quite simple: one cannot claim to be something that one does not meet the definition of and it does not matter how much one cries "but that's not my definition!"
dogma wrote:Sure, that's the lowest common denominator if the category being discussed is Nicene Christianity, but that's not what we're discussing. We're discussing Christianity as a whole. Its very similar to discussing the category of Abrahamic Religions as requiring the belief in Abraham as a significant figure.
Except for the major point of the nature of Christ and of God. The Church established what is necessary to be a Christian, and that is the standard that is agreed upon. Whether or not you claim the title of "Christian" is pure semantics, the reality is the beliefs one must adhere to in order to be included as a Christian has already been established.
dogma wrote:But its not simply the same name. The Mormon Church for example specifically acknowledges that the Jesus figure in the Book of Mormon is the same one spoken of in the New Testament. That is sufficient to categorize their beliefs as Christian. Just as the acknowledgment given to Abraham in any canonical mention of the OT in a Christian Bible is sufficient to consider that Bible, and the denomination which holds it sacred, as being a component of the Abrahamic category.
Sure they do, and they also say that Christ is the brother of Lucifer, not God in the flesh - but rather his first born, etc. That is definitively not the Christ of the New Testament, and therefore not Christian. It is a religion, but one outside the realm of Christendom.
dogma wrote:That's fine. Most Christians the world over are Nicene Christians. That doesn't mean that there aren't other kinds of Christians.
By my definition, and that of the Church fathers, the modern church, most Christians, etc, it sure does. You can claim that they are because of the things they say, but because the Creeds are defined as the definition of the faith, they are not included as being Christians. Just as if one hailed the Emperor of Japan as his leader, practiced Zen, and ate sushi, but was a Spaniard. It doesn't make him any more Japanese then his neighbors. He claimed all the things that many would consider Japanese, but definitely was not.
dogma wrote:Which is just ancillary theological posturing.
If you consider the nature of God, Grace, Salvation, etc. to be nothing but ancillary theological posturing. I sure don't, and no real Christian does either...
Emperors Faithful wrote:
@Luna: Yes, ones attidue does have a lot to do with how they come out of a situation. But in regards to your 'sad wounded vet' vs your 'happy wounded vet' in both situations I would call getting your legs blown off (then maybe getting abandoned by the government) as a crap situation. Their outlook can make the best of it, but it still sucks.
Look at it this way:
You see a woman being attacked in a rape attempt on the street corner. You could easily intervene, run out and stop this vile act. Not even that, the phone is right next to you, so you could call the police. No one else can hear this womans sceams. (Aside from the offender) you alone hold power over what this situation turns into.
1: You do the honourable thing. Why wouldn't you? This woman is clearly in danger, and about to be taken advantage of. You stop this madness, or at least call for help from others.
2: You don't do anything. You watch. Maybe you got a sick luagh out of it. Maybe you take pictures. Maybe you tell yourself 'It's all how she mentally recieves the rape'. Doesn't change the fact that you could have helped this person, at no cost to yourself, but you didn't.
I say again. "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing."
Again EF , you are misunderstanding my sentence. NOWHERE did i mention about what God "should do" or " not do "
Infact i wasnt even discussing about that .
All i was saying is , humans have the choice when they are faced with an irreversible event ,
to either face it positively , or negatively.
Because positive outlook brings a possibility of a future , while same negativeness will get nowhere always sad , all the time.
Are you understanding me now? yes im mad because you are sort of calling me to be inhumane because
i wasnt even talking about the samething you thought i was.
Emperors Faithful wrote:
@Luna: Yes, ones attidue does have a lot to do with how they come out of a situation. But in regards to your 'sad wounded vet' vs your 'happy wounded vet' in both situations I would call getting your legs blown off (then maybe getting abandoned by the government) as a crap situation. Their outlook can make the best of it, but it still sucks.
Look at it this way:
You see a woman being attacked in a rape attempt on the street corner. You could easily intervene, run out and stop this vile act. Not even that, the phone is right next to you, so you could call the police. No one else can hear this womans sceams. (Aside from the offender) you alone hold power over what this situation turns into.
1: You do the honourable thing. Why wouldn't you? This woman is clearly in danger, and about to be taken advantage of. You stop this madness, or at least call for help from others.
2: You don't do anything. You watch. Maybe you got a sick luagh out of it. Maybe you take pictures. Maybe you tell yourself 'It's all how she mentally recieves the rape'. Doesn't change the fact that you could have helped this person, at no cost to yourself, but you didn't.
I say again. "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing."
Again EF , you are misunderstanding my sentence. NOWHERE did i mention about what God "should do" or " not do "
Infact i wasnt even discussing about that .
All i was saying is , humans have the choice when they are faced with an irreversible event ,
to either face it positively , or negatively.
Because positive outlook brings a possibility of a future , while same negativeness will get nowhere always sad , all the time.
Are you understanding me now? yes im mad because you are sort of calling me to be inhumane because
i wasnt even talking about the samething you thought i was.
Someone wise once told me there are always 2 type of people in Dakka's Off Topic Forum:
Type A) They are interested in what you want to discuss, and would discuss it with you.
Type B) They care not for what you want to say nor do they care for what you want to discuss. They only care what you have said. And will hammer you over and over again ignoring the purpose and intention of the thread provided if your original statement isn't solid and allows the possibility for them to re twist the words. They pride themselves in arguing this way as "winning an debate".
Sometimes in the heat of a debate, we forget this... Now, I am going to try to interpret Luna again... Every body duck!
I think Luna is the optimist
I think Wrex, EF, et al share the pessimists point of view.
tblock1984 wrote:
Someone wise once told me there are always 2 type of people in Dakka's Off Topic Forum:
Type A) They are interested in what you want to discuss, and would discuss it with you.
Type B) They care not for what you want to say nor do they care for what you want to discuss. They only care what you have said. And will hammer you over and over again ignoring the purpose and intention of the thread provided if your original statement isn't solid and allows the possibility for them to re twist the words. They pride themselves in arguing this way as "winning an debate".
JEB_Stuart wrote:Except for the major point of the nature of Christ and of God. The Church established what is necessary to be a Christian, and that is the standard that is agreed upon. Whether or not you claim the title of "Christian" is pure semantics, the reality is the beliefs one must adhere to in order to be included as a Christian has already been established.
So I take it none of Arians can be considered Christian, then? None of the Unitarians, or the Gnostics? Even if they existed before the Creed was laid down? If, at any point, a person could be considered Christian without subscribing to the Nicene Creed, then the Nicene Creed is not the defining element of the Christian faith. Unless you're going to claim that God's true revelation is found within the Nicene Creed, in which case you should really call yourself Nicene Disciples and avoid the confusion.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
Sure they do, and they also say that Christ is the brother of Lucifer, not God in the flesh - but rather his first born, etc. That is definitively not the Christ of the New Testament, and therefore not Christian. It is a religion, but one outside the realm of Christendom.
Yes, because the notion of contradiction within scripture is simply ridiculous.
The trinity is a nonsensical doctrine, which is fine as it doesn't have to make sense in order to be believable. However, it does have to make sense in order to be the only possible answer. Its no more than a clever piece of theology designed to answer a question of faith posed by many believers as the direct result of contradictory passages in the New Testament. To pretend that it somehow makes earthly sense, in anyway beyond "He can be three things at once, He's omnipotent", is disingenuous.
While it makes sense to refuse to believe something because it contradicts something else you previously believes, it does not make sense to put them in the same category if that is what the nature of the thing requires. Mormonism is clearly a Christian faith. Simply because one strand of Christianity has been historically dominant it does not follow that it can dictate what it is to be Christian.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
By my definition, and that of the Church fathers, the modern church, most Christians, etc, it sure does. You can claim that they are because of the things they say, but because the Creeds are defined as the definition of the faith, they are not included as being Christians.
That's absolutely circular, and therefore irrelevant.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
Just as if one hailed the Emperor of Japan as his leader, practiced Zen, and ate sushi, but was a Spaniard. It doesn't make him any more Japanese then his neighbors. He claimed all the things that many would consider Japanese, but definitely was not.
That's more supportive of my position than yours as the point turns on the necessity of being of Japanese descent to be considered Japanese. A person who was born in Japan, to Japanese parents, but lacks any value for the traditions of his people is still Japanese in the sense of heritage if not culture.
You're essentially arguing that, in order to be Japanese, one would have to be born in Japan, to Japanese parents, and profess adherence to Japanese cultural norms. Which is all well and good if you're discussing your feelings about what a Japanese person is, but it isn't particularly useful if you're trying to reach a category of people that are, in some sense, Japanese.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
If you consider the nature of God, Grace, Salvation, etc. to be nothing but ancillary theological posturing. I sure don't, and no real Christian does either...
It might not be ancillary to you, as a Christian, but is is ancillary to determining whether or not you actually are a Christian. Remember, the vast majority of people that claim "He isn't a true Christian" really mean "I don't like what he believes". That's the whole point of the No True Scotsman fallacy.
Emperors Faithful wrote:@Manchu:
Unfortunately, not everyone can pull off that stunt of rising from the dead. After the point about Jesus...well to be honest you kina lost me. What did that have to do with God choosing not to stop evil-doers?
Remember the story of Jesus in the desert being tempted by Satan? (I assume you've heard the Gospel at some point or at least are generally familiar with it.) One of the things that Satan says is "if you're really the Son of God, throw yourself off this high place and surely God will save you." Now the idea is not that this literally happened (maybe it did, who knows, that's beside the point) but rather that Satan's temptation represents the idea that God's existence should be premised on our ability to "test" it by having no bad things happen to people in general but especially not to the faithful. But this is a misunderstanding of faith, of God's relationship to humanity, and of humanity itself. As I said, human beings are free. If God went around "stopping" evil-doers we would no longer be free. And then what would it mean to do good? Good that is not chosen is not good. Not moral good anyway. It can still be a practical good, like having food. But this isn't the same thing as morality.
I see your agrument here, and it does have it points. But if that is the case, and God does not wish to take away our free will, why then does he not at least give out justice to the evil-doers? I'm sure you believe that they will be punished in the afterlife (If they don't repent), but forgive me if I take that theory with a grain of salt.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Emperors Faithful wrote:So wait? What IS christianity?
Is it whatever the Nicean Council declared? Or is it about Jesus? (the two may overlap, but meh)
At the time, there were many churches that recognised Jesus as the Messiah, but not his divinity. (which I don't remember in any prophecies either)
At the Council of Nicea, all the leaders of the Christian communities in the world gathered together and had a great debate on the subject of "what is Christianity"? The result was the Nicene Creed, which is a comprehensive statement of what Christians believe. The ideas of the Arians, to whom you refer, were basically thrown out and never fully recovered thereafter (although there were plenty of powerful Arians for a long time after). The idea that the creed defined by the Nicene Council is not about Jesus is totally laughable.
Now that, in all honesty, is naive. The Nicene Council was not about Jesus, it was about thier 'interpertation' of Jesus, and what they deemed to be orthodox. Anyone who had a slightly different view, like tha Arians, were cast out.
And there are th issues of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Why did the council refuse to acknowledge THEM?
@Luna: Sorry, I do suppose I get carried away. The 'rape' scenario was not aimed at you specifically, but at the thread in general. I see your point now, how being a pessimist or an optimist has a great affect on your fate. But that doesn't change the fact that horrible things happen regardless. My argument was that regardless on peoples attidute, good people should have these things happen to them. In a 'just' universe.
I don't know why this thread is eating away at me so much. I don't ussually care a great deal for threads like these.
Oh, yeah. That's right. There was a storm and the surfs crap here. I've got nothing better to do.
dogma wrote:So I take it none of Arians can be considered Christian, then? None of the Unitarians, or the Gnostics?
Exactly, they are not Christians. They do not believe a the definitive teaching of Christianity. So they are not Christian.
Unless you're going to claim that God's true revelation is found within the Nicene Creed, in which case you should really call yourself Nicene Disciples and avoid the confusion.
We believe that God' revelation is a person, Jesus Christ. The creed is not that person but the summary of our belief in Him.
The trinity is a nonsensical doctrine, which is fine as it doesn't have to make sense in order to be believable. However, it does have to make sense in order to be the only possible answer.
More smoke and mirrors, dogma. The only possible "logical" answer? You acknowledged in the preceding sentence that was impossible. Besides the validity of the doctrine of the Trinity in purely logical terms is ANCILLARY to to this discussion (I know you like that word)
Its no more than a clever piece of theology designed to answer a question of faith posed by many believers as the direct result of contradictory passages in the New Testament.
A-historical an incorrect yet again. The doctrine of the Trinity did not come from readings of scripture.
Mormonism is clearly a Christian faith.
No it isn't and this isn't an argument. Mormons do not believe what Christians believe. They talk about Jesus and somewhat incorporate the New Testament--heavily modified through the lens of their own revealed text--and that's where the similarities end.
Remember, the vast majority of people that claim "He isn't a true Christian" really mean "I don't like what he believes".
But that's not what JEB or I am saying. We're saying that there is a definition of Christian and some people do not meet it. You're saying that the word "Christian" basically means whatever anyone who uses it wants it to mean. That might sound convincing here on Dakka but it does not reflect any serious consideration of religion (which is exactly why it works on OT).
Manchu wrote:
The difference that you're missing is history. (JEB tried to point this out, but you ignored him.) The Nicene Creed wasn't invented at Nicea. It represents what orthodox Christian communities had believed since the earthly ministry of Christ.
There was no such thing as an orthodox Christian community prior to the council at Nicaea. You're painting history retroactively. Many people understood the relationship between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in a manner similar to that which is described in the Trinity (though we have no way of knowing how many). The most definitive thing you can say is that the Nicene Creed was written as it is because it was the dominant opinion. However, that does not mean it was the only opinion. You can claim that anyone who didn't accept the consensus was a heretic, but even heretics are Christians.
Manchu wrote:
Acknowledging the religious significance of the historical human being Jesus, as the groups that JEB mentioned do, does not make one a Christian. Just ask Muslims, who see Jesus as a prophet second only to Mohammed in importance, whether they are Christians.
I didn't state that one must acknowledge that Jesus was 'historically significant' in order to be a Christian. I stated that you had to accept him as the Messiah. Muslims accept him as a significant prophet, not as the Messiah.
Manchu wrote:
It's quite simple: one cannot claim to be something that one does not meet the definition of and it does not matter how much one cries "but that's not my definition!"
Interesting...
Manchu wrote:
Yes, of course. In the case of Nicea, the most powerful group were called Arians. But after a long debate, it was "settled" (as dogma at least) that the teachings of the orthodox Christians rather than the Arians represented the authentic teaching of Jesus.
You've already labeled Christians who did not agree with the doctrine of the Trinity as Christians. Therefore that cannot be the basic standard for the definition of the term. You can add more if you want, but it doesn't change the fundamental meaning of the term. This is logic 101.
No it isn't and this isn't an argument. Mormons do not believe what Nicean Disciples believe. They talk about Jesus and somewhat incorporate the New Testament--heavily modified through the lens of their own revealed text--and that's where the similarities end.
Emperors Faithful wrote:Now that, in all honesty, is naive. The Nicene Council was not about Jesus, it was about thier 'interpertation' of Jesus, and what they deemed to be orthodox. Anyone who had a slightly different view, like tha Arians, were cast out.
And there are th issues of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Why did the council refuse to acknowledge THEM?
EF, I like you, but this discussion is pretty much at a stand-still until you learn more about the things you want to discuss.
No it isn't and this isn't an argument. Mormons do not believe what Nicean Disciples believe. They talk about Jesus and somewhat incorporate the New Testament--heavily modified through the lens of their own revealed text--and that's where the similarities end.
Fixed it for you.
Who are you quoting? Did I miss something?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orkeosaurus wrote:Mormonism is technically a form of Islam.
They worship Jesus but they also worship other gods, just like Islamics worship Allah and Muhammad (which is like their trinity).
That deserves an Orkish Facepalm!!!
Are you referring to Heavenly Mother? She is not part of the Godhead. This isn't like Bill and Hillary... Elohim's wives haven't been worshiped since early in the 20th century...
@Orkeo: Woah, mate. You are WAAAAY off there. I lived in Dubai for most of my childhood, and none of my Arab friends ever viewed Mohammed as a god. They viewed him as a great man, a prophet, but not a divine being.
Just like I look at Mother Teresa as a great women, a wonderful person, but not as a god.
Muslims respect and revere Mohammed, but they do not worship him as God like they do Allah.
@tblock1984: I was qouting Manchu, who was qouting JEB. I kinda fethed it up.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tblock1984 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orkeosaurus wrote:Mormonism is technically a form of Islam.
They worship Jesus but they also worship other gods, just like Islamics worship Allah and Muhammad (which is like their trinity).
That deserves an Orkish Facepalm!!!
+1
Also, where did you get that Orkish facepalm? That's so cool!
dogma wrote:There was no such thing as an orthodox Christian community prior to the council at Nicaea.
*sigh* Yes there was. Like EF, you need to learn a little more about the things you want to discuss. You have a good sense of method in argumen (i.e., logic) but your premises are pretty faulty. Example:
dogma wrote: I stated that you had to accept him as the Messiah.
And what pray tell do you think this means apart from a Trinitarian understanding of God? Whatever it is, it's not Christianity.
dogma wrote:You've already labeled Christians who did not agree with the doctrine of the Trinity as Christians. Therefore that cannot be the basic standard for the definition of the term. You can add more if you want, but it doesn't change the fundamental meaning of the term. This is logic 101.
I believe you could teach logic 101. But you're in desperate need of introductory courses on history and theology. The point that I was trying to make is that Arians believed themselves to be Christians not that they actually were in a doctrinal sense. For example, there are many people in the parishes who hold Arian opinions quite unconsciously. Does this effect whether or not they are Christians? You are mixing categories. With regard to dogmatic definitions heretics are not Christians. When we talk about doctrine we are in the realm of "you must believe X in order to profess Christianity." If one does not, one is not Christian.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orkeosaurus wrote:Mormonism is technically a form of Islam.
They worship Jesus but they also worship other gods, just like Islamics worship Allah and Muhammad (which is like their trinity).
Epic. I love you Orkeo.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Emperors Faithful wrote:@tblock1984: I was qouting Manchu, who was qouting JEB. I kinda fethed it up.
Actually, I think I was quoting dogma. JEB would not have stated that Mormonism is a type of Christianity.
Manchu wrote:
More smoke and mirrors, dogma. The only possible "logical" answer? You acknowledged in the preceding sentence that was impossible.
And? The trinity is logically impossible, therefore it cannot be the only answer to the question of "How do the Father, Son, and Spirit relate?"
Besides the validity of the doctrine of the Trinity in purely logical terms is ANCILLARY to to this discussion (I know you like that word)
Manchu wrote:
A-historical an incorrect yet again. The doctrine of the Trinity did not come from readings of scripture.
No one who theorized about the Trinity actually spoke to Jesus, or even one of his immediate disciples. Literally the only possible source would be scriptural, or considered scriptural in modern times.
Manchu wrote:
But that's not what JEB or I am saying. We're saying that there is a definition of Christian and some people do not meet it.
No, that's exactly what you're doing by claiming that 2 separate clauses constitute the minimal definition of a word despite clear examples that contradict the point.
Manchu wrote:
You're saying that the word "Christian" basically means whatever anyone who uses it wants it to mean.
That's not at all what I'm doing. I've repeatedly stated what the minimal definition of 'Christian' is, and why that is the minimal deinition.
Emperors Faithful wrote:Now that, in all honesty, is naive. The Nicene Council was not about Jesus, it was about thier 'interpertation' of Jesus, and what they deemed to be orthodox. Anyone who had a slightly different view, like tha Arians, were cast out.
And there are th issues of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Why did the council refuse to acknowledge THEM?
EF, I like you, but this discussion is pretty much at a stand-still until you learn more about the things you want to discuss.
You're right. I don't know enough about the Dead Sea Scrolls or the Nicean (spelling?) Council to talk about them in any depth. But I have been born and raised in a Christian family. I go to Church every sunday, even though I would rather be surfing, out of respect of my parent belief. My brothers are (in my eyes) also firmly indoctrinated.
I know what it is to be a christian, it is a relationship with God and Jesus Christ, and at one point in my life was very close to being born again. I turned away from it though, for a number of reasons. None of which I really want to discuss publicly on this thread.
You must look at it this way. Who decided what it is to be a 'Proper Christian'? The Nicean council.
Who SHOULD have decided, and laid it out in the bible? (of which there are many different versions ) Jesus.
That is why I ironically agreed with JEB in calling your sect of Christianity the Nicean Disciples. I was being a little cheeky there. >_>
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:@tblock1984: I was qouting Manchu, who was qouting JEB. I kinda fethed it up.
Actually, I think I was quoting dogma. JEB would not have stated that Mormonism is a type of Christianity.
dogma wrote:I've repeatedly stated what the minimal definition of 'Christian' is, and why that is the minimal deinition.
Ahh, the fun times we have had on Dakka labeling things, which leads to us unintentionally labeling each other, that results in shenanigans. The crazy thing is I have only been a member for three months! EPIC WTFLOL!?!
Reminds me of atheism vs. Christmas debate... Which reminds me of the definition of atheism debate... Which reminds me of the definition of theism debate... Which reminds me of this:
Orthodox is a term which refers to correct, or accepted belief. If there is no standard against which to consider a belief correct, then there is no such thing as orthodoxy. You can refer to a community which existed prior to the adoption of such a standard as 'orthodox' but you're simply making a statement of convenience, not commenting on the propriety of the beliefs held by those communities.
Manchu wrote:
And what pray tell do you think this means apart from a Trinitarian understanding of God? Whatever it is, it's not Christianity.
Unitarianism. Arianism. Any other valid Christological solution to the question posed. Messiah does not mean son of God, or God the son. That's what it is often equated with in the Nicene tradition, but that is not its meaning.
Manchu wrote:
The point that I was trying to make is that Arians believed themselves to be Christians not that they actually were in a doctrinal sense.
As I've said, repeatedly, doctrine does not determine one's nature as Christian. It can affect what kind of Christian is being discussed, but it cannot exclude them from Christianity. This is why the concept of heresy exists. The heretic is still Christian, even if his beliefs do not align with orthodoxy.
Manchu wrote:
With regard to dogmatic definitions heretics are not Christians.
That's true if you're a member of an orthodox denomination. However, not all Christians are orthodox.
Manchu wrote:
For example, there are many people in the parishes who hold Arian opinions quite unconsciously. Does this effect whether or not they are Christians? You are mixing categories.
No. But that has nothing to do with the claim I'm making.
Manchu wrote:
When we talk about doctrine we are in the realm of "you must believe X in order to profess Christianity." If one does not, one is not Christian.
You can hold that as a belief, and many people do, but it has not relevance to categorical consideration.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JEB_Stuart wrote:And unfortunately for you, it is dead wrong...
And now I'm reminded why I've always detested orthodoxy.
dogma wrote:And now I'm reminded why I've always detested Orthodoxy.
Oh come now, there is no reason to bash on GK Chesterton! Its ok, this conversation reminds me why I detest heresy! On a serious note though, you are completely disregarding a basic tenet of Christian faith as you make some of your assertions. You say the doctrine of the Trinity is illogical, but you forget that that doesn't matter. To any Christian, God, in all of his forms, is beyond human comprehension and understanding. So just because it doesn't make sense to you, to me, to any people doesn't mean it can't be true. To dictate otherwise is in fact very poor logic. More realistically it suggests our own ineptitude in describing and understanding said phenomena. Just a thought.
I can't believe it, but I agree with JEB! LOL, just kidding...
JEB, you were the first person whom I exploded in nerdrage, er, umm... The first person to debate with me on Dakka, so you have a special place in my jaded heart...
Emperors Faithful wrote:...I'm starting to think that dogma and JEB_Stuart are the same person. Like Two-Face from Batman.
Except they're BOTH mentally scarred and ugly... (just joking guys)
I can live with that. Thankfully we aren't identical twins. I am definitely the better looking of the two, I mean take a look at Dogma's baby picture!
Truly horrifying...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tblock1984 wrote:I can't believe it, but I agree with JEB! LOL, just kidding...
JEB, you were the first person whom I exploded in nerdrage, er, umm... The first person to debate with me on Dakka, so you have a special place in my jaded heart...
JEB_Stuart wrote: You say the doctrine of the Trinity is illogical, but you forget that that doesn't matter. To any Christian, God, in all of his forms, is beyond human comprehension and understanding. So just because it doesn't make sense to you, to me, to any people doesn't mean it can't be true. To dictate otherwise is in fact very poor logic. More realistically it suggests our own ineptitude in describing and understanding said phenomena. Just a thought.
Maybe I should have written more clearly. The Trinity is illogical (where logic is an earthly concept). However, that doesn't mean it isn't believable. Because the Trinity is illogical, it isn't the only possible solution to the question it is meant to answer. If it were logical, it would be the only possible answer and otherwise contradictory additions could not be made consistent with it. Since it isn't the only possible answer, otherwise contradictory additions can be made, as the only barrier is coming up with a believable answer, rather than a logical one.
In short, when considering an omnipotent being, logic isn't necessarily relevant. Only belief is. Of course we can categorize those earthly beliefs using earthly logic, as they emanate from the same realm.
Lion Because in the next life I don't want to do gak but sit around the Savannah mauling stuff all day, then wait for my lionesses to bring me my dinner
dogma wrote:In short, when considering an omnipotent being, logic isn't necessarily relevant. Only belief is. Of course we can categorize those earthly beliefs using earthly logic, as they emanate from the same realm.
And that is why we Trinitarians see such things as the nature of the Trinity, the nature of Christ's humanity, etc. as being completely relevant to those who wish to call themselves Christians. I will be more then happy to acknowledge the beliefs of other religions in Jesus Christ, but I am a dogmatic person by nature so I won't acknowledge them as members of the Body of Christ. That being said I can only make judgments based on what I feel has been revealed to us, but God is the ultimate judge when it comes to who is found in the Book of Life, and who isn't. I like to think that I will be very surprised at who is and who isn't in Heaven. For what its worth I think Dante had a pretty good interpretation....
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tblock1984 wrote:Lion Because in the next life I don't want to do gak but sit around the Savannah mauling stuff all day, then wait for my lionesses to bring me my dinner
tblock1984 wrote:Lion Because in the next life I don't want to do gak but sit around the Savannah mauling stuff all day, then wait for my lionesses to bring me my dinner
OOOPS, wrong thread... TEHE
Bwahahahah Thread post +1 for tblock!
Damn, today alone I am up to, what.. +3 now? I think I just leveled up
@ dogma- The bottom line. The teaching of the Trinity is Biblical, and is a fundamental aspect of orthodox Christianity. This fundamentality says that this is the God of the Bible and that God is a triune being. If someone teaches a different teaching then they worship a different god than the God of the Bible. Therefore if they worship a different god than the God of the Bible they are not Christians. They would be classified as a cult.
Cults use flowery words to hide what they really believe, like the Mormon GodHead that tblock referenced for example. The term GodHead is a Christian term for the trinity, that they have twisted into their own form. Or that Jehovas witnesses believe Jesus, is Michael the archangel(a created being). They don't worship the same God I do.
dogma wrote:There was no such thing as an orthodox Christian community prior to the council at Nicaea.
*sigh* Yes there was. Like EF, you need to learn a little more about the things you want to discuss. You have a good sense of method in argumen (i.e., logic) but your premises are pretty faulty. Example:
I'm not sure what you can be referencing prior to Nicaea. There were 'Church Orders' in the form of The Didache but that could hardly be considered canon. The only other argument prior to Nicaea that may be made is Marcion....but his rejection of the Old Testament simply led to the formation of the canon at the date Dogma cited. Early Christian communities were a hodgepodge of differing standards, each blending parts of the gospels within the Jewish scriptures.
Regardless, it is moot. To believe that anyone can discern canon from texts that originated in the oral tradition, which were then transcribed under candlelight by one of the few members of the communities that had the ability to write (Whom might have selfish motivation to alter the text), which were then copied by hand/candle light for several hundred years after the fact (By those whom might have selfish motivation to alter the text)....well is a pretty big stretch.
generalgrog wrote:@ dogma- The bottom line. The teaching of the Trinity is Biblical, and is a fundamental aspect of orthodox Christianity.
Since When? The Nicean Council?
This fundamentality says that this is the God of the Bible and that God is a triune being. If someone teaches a different teaching then they worship a different god than the God of the Bible. Therefore if they worship a different god than the God of the Bible they are not Christians. They would be classified as a cult.
So whoever does not conform to YOUR branch of Christianity is a cult?
Cults use flowery words to hide what they really believe, like the Mormon GodHead that tblock referenced for example. The term GodHead is a Christian term for the trinity, that they have twisted into their own form. Or that Jehovas witnesses believe Jesus, is Michael the archangel(a created being). They don't worship the same God I do.
GG
On the other hand. They do. In fact it's entirely arguable to say that Judaism, Christianity and Islam all worship the same god becuase he is the Abrahamic God. (Note, it's an argument not my personal belief)
AgeOfEgos wrote:Regardless, it is moot. To believe that anyone can discern canon from texts that originated in the oral tradition, which were then transcribed under candlelight by one of the few members of the communities that had the ability to write (Whom might have selfish motivation to alter the text), which were then copied by hand/candle light for several hundred years after the fact (By those whom might have selfish motivation to alter the text)....well is a pretty big stretch.
Well at least it took 6 pages before this old argument was brought up.
eneralgrog wrote:If someone teaches a different teaching then they worship a different god than the God of the Bible
Agreed, except I would replace "God of the Bible" with Jesus Christ for complete accuracy.
@AgeofEgos: It's not as complicated as that. Christianity did not originate at Nicea. Christians brought it to Nicea, because it had been transmitted faithfully by the apostles of Jesus to their communities and so on right down to the bishops who went to Nicea (and right down to us). Nicea was held because some people, namely the Arian bishops of the east, started saying something else and that "something else" (Arianism) was gaining currency in the Byzantine court so needed to be dealt with authoritatively.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
generalgrog wrote:The thread death spiral has started.
No need for tears. This is usually the fun part. Orkeo has already gotten a particularly clever barb of trollery off.
moot /mut/ –adjective 1. open to discussion or debate; debatable; doubtful: a moot point.
Second:
@GG: Be nice... Technically you are in a cult, too...
cult -noun 1. a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies. 2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult. 3. the object of such devotion. 4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc. 5. Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols. 6. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader. 7. the members of such a religion or sect. 8. any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific. –adjective 9. of or pertaining to a cult. 10. of, for, or attracting a small group of devotees: a cult movie. Origin: 1610–20; < L cultus habitation, tilling, refinement, worship, equiv. to cul-, var. s. of colere to inhabit, till, worship + -tus suffix of v. action
Emperors Faithful wrote:So whoever does not conform to YOUR branch of Christianity is a cult?
NO I agree to disagree with many orthodox Christians of different denominations. For example I disagree strongly with some of the Catholic teachings I have read about, however they are still orthodox and thus "in the club".
But yeah.. saying Jesus was Michael the Archangel, and or the trinity is made up of 3 seperate gods kind of rules them out of my branch of Christianity.
AgeOfEgos wrote:Regardless, it is moot. To believe that anyone can discern canon from texts that originated in the oral tradition, which were then transcribed under candlelight by one of the few members of the communities that had the ability to write (Whom might have selfish motivation to alter the text), which were then copied by hand/candle light for several hundred years after the fact (By those whom might have selfish motivation to alter the text)....well is a pretty big stretch.
So are the historical implications that you mention, but that neither here nor there. The Roman Empire, and particularly its successor in the Byzantine Empire, were not the babbling fools that made up most of Western Europe in the Dark Ages. They were very educated and masters of art literature, music, philosophy, science, etc. And Christians from the beginning had wealthy, influential and powerful men in their number. Besides the only oral tradition that is agreed upon in the NT is the four gospels, the Epistles were all written by the Apostles and early disciple themselves.
generalgrog wrote:@ dogma- The bottom line. The teaching of the Trinity is Biblical, and is a fundamental aspect of orthodox Christianity.
Careful, you should read up on the origins of the trinity in verse before declaring it canon. The original Greek manuscripts didn't contain the Trinity (By Erasmus), therefore he left them out of his original texts. He was publicly defamed but challenged anyone to present a manuscript showing proof of the Trinity. One was produced but has been shown to be a forgery.
The original was "Spirit, blood and water as one". The Trinity was used as by the Christian apologies in defense of pagan attacks. The concept of a triune deity was common in philosophy and history, so the blending of monotheistic teachings with modern day philosophy became a natural defense.
The Dictionary wrote:Chris⋅tian /ˈkrɪstʃən/ –adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings: a Christian faith.
2. of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ: Spain is a Christian country.
3. of or pertaining to Christians: many Christian deaths in the Crusades.
4. exhibiting a spirit proper to a follower of Jesus Christ; Christlike: She displayed true Christian charity.
5. decent; respectable: They gave him a good Christian burial.
6. human; not brutal; humane: Such behavior isn't Christian.
–noun
7. a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity.
8. a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ: He died like a true Christian.
9. a member of any of certain Protestant churches, as the Disciples of Christ and the Plymouth Brethren.
10. the hero of Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress.
11. a male given name.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) identify the Trinity (or Godhead) as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, but with a different intention than the Nicene faith. They regard these three as individual members of a heavenly triumvirate, completely united with one another in purpose—each member of the Godhead being a distinct being of physical form (God the Father, Jesus Christ) or spiritual form (The Holy Ghost.)[100] Mormons draw their understanding of the Godhead primarily from the First Vision of Joseph Smith, Jr., who claimed to have actually seen God the Father and Jesus Christ and recounted seeing "two personages," one of which referred to the other as His "Beloved Son." Mormons also cite Biblical script to support their position that God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are actually three distinct beings. See Matt 3, Mark 1, Luke 3, John 17, John 20:17, Acts 7:55-56. In this respect Mormon theology is actually more closely related to John Ascunages' early Tritheistic sect than to Orthodox Christianity. The primary author of this Monophysite group was John Philoponus. He taught that there are three partial substances and one comon substance in the trinity.[101]
@Everybody:
Trinity is a subjective term that means different things to different people. It is also not an original Christian concept:
AgeOfEgos wrote:Regardless, it is moot. To believe that anyone can discern canon from texts that originated in the oral tradition, which were then transcribed under candlelight by one of the few members of the communities that had the ability to write (Whom might have selfish motivation to alter the text), which were then copied by hand/candle light for several hundred years after the fact (By those whom might have selfish motivation to alter the text)....well is a pretty big stretch.
So are the historical implications that you mention, but that neither here nor there. The Roman Empire, and particularly its successor in the Byzantine Empire, were not the babbling fools that made up most of Western Europe in the Dark Ages. They were very educated and masters of art literature, music, philosophy, science, etc. And Christians from the beginning had wealthy, influential and powerful men in their number. Besides the only oral tradition that is agreed upon in the NT is the four gospels, the Epistles were all written by the Apostles and early disciple themselves.
I'm honestly confused on why you are using the canon of the NT and professional Roman scribes, both used and developed centuries after, as an argument against oral tradition in the early years of Christianity. There were numerous gospels in early Christianity, as well as numerous church orders/doctrines. This proliferation of conflicting dogma, along with Marcion is what led to the development of canon.
Even after the canon, there are blatant errors and additions from earlier texts. Errors and additions even theologians acknowledge. This of course does not disprove God but it certainly challenges Biblical literalism.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
generalgrog wrote:
AgeOfEgos wrote:Regardless, it is moot. To believe that anyone can discern canon from texts that originated in the oral tradition, which were then transcribed under candlelight by one of the few members of the communities that had the ability to write (Whom might have selfish motivation to alter the text), which were then copied by hand/candle light for several hundred years after the fact (By those whom might have selfish motivation to alter the text)....well is a pretty big stretch.
Well at least it took 6 pages before this old argument was brought up.
I'm surprised it didn't come from frigs.
The thread death spiral has started.
That's rather combative. The argument may be old but it is solid and borne out by evidence.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
And that is why we Trinitarians see such things as the nature of the Trinity, the nature of Christ's humanity, etc. as being completely relevant to those who wish to call themselves Christians.
You'll find I won't disagree with respect to their relevance from a standpoint of precise classification. Where I've said that doctrine is irrelevant, I've mean it in the sense that additional doctrine is irrelevant. The belief in Jesus as the Messiah is certainly a component of doctrine, and one that we can use to categorize individual belief sets.
Now, I suppose one resolution to this exchange is the development of a new term which links non-Trinitarian belief sets to Trinitarian ones (Christological?). That strikes me as needlessly obtuse given that we have a perfectly legitimate set of terms available, but I have no attachment to word 'Christian', so it doesn't really matter to me.
I find your statement oddly timed. Two posts prior I said:
I wrote:Trinity is a subjective term that means different things to different people. It is also not an original Christian concept.
If I jumped to an epic conclusion, forgive me. I am a QA tester... I notice odd patterns... Sometimes, it's all in my head... Speculation until verification... Wow, what an odd statement to put in a religion thread...
My speculation, BTW, is that the tread is worthless now because I am trying to make it non-denominational...
Automatically Appended Next Post: I see what I did there... Raptor Jesus, er, AgeOfEgos ninja'd my pagan statement... Is the redundant duplication of statements what you think is making this thread worthless?
generalgrog wrote:@ dogma- The bottom line. The teaching of the Trinity is Biblical, and is a fundamental aspect of orthodox Christianity.
It isn't biblical. Neither the word trinity, nor a near analogue, ever appears in the Bible. It is a tenet of those denominations conventionally referred to as orthodox, but not all denominations of Christianity are orthodox.
generalgrog wrote:
Cults use flowery words to hide what they really believe, like the Mormon GodHead that tblock referenced for example. The term GodHead is a Christian term for the trinity, that they have twisted into their own form. Or that Jehovas witnesses believe Jesus, is Michael the archangel(a created being). They don't worship the same God I do.
Godhead isn't really a reference to the Trinity. Rather, its a reference to the nature of God. In a Trinitarian Church that nature will be described as the Trinity, but that doesn't indicate that Godhead only references the Trinity.
Manchu wrote:All I meant is, we've reached the end of dialog in good will and are just grinding our wheels.
Meh... That may be true... I personally don't think so, but I seem to remember Frazz saying he will not be closing religion threads any more... Now, don't get me wrong, I know he is lying. I can upload some stuff from my /b/ folder that will get this thread shut down with the quickness... All I am saying is let's keep the good will going...
@ Everyone: I think we are missing the larger issue here... This thread is making a lot of absolute blanket statements. Let this thread be an experiment in communication and nerdrage management. Remember, attack the post, not the poster. Be polite, and if you get pissed, go paint some mini's, or have a smoke, get laid, I dunno... Be creative. Try to calm yourself down.
Prove to yourself and this community that you are INDEED as tolerant and open minded as you say you are...
Automatically Appended Next Post: Food for thought:
Gamespot OT Forum Rules wrote:After numerous requests we have updated the religious guidelines to explain how to create a religious topic in this forum.
We expect users creating religion threads to be open to other opinions and beliefs (religious, atheist, agnostic, mayonnaise) and we expect users creating a new topic to reflect that in their opening post. Simply stating "I believe X and that proves everyone who believes Y is wrong" or simply creating a thread for the purpose of spouting your own beliefs as fact will result in the thread being closed and repeated violations severely moderated.
We expect all such threads to be opened in a civil manner promoting and accepting discussion on all sides of the issue. We appreciate those who take extra steps to encourage open, respectful, and inclusive discussions. If you're here to tell everyone you're right and they're all wrong and / or that there is no disputing that such threads will be closed. The Off-topic forum is about discussion not declarations about religion or god that you consider indisputable, use your blog for that.
Since the topic of religion comes up frequently and they tend to be notably active threads we ask that users check how many religion threads are active before posting your thread. If there are a couple active religion threads already active we ask you hold off on your topic for a while. We'd like there to be room for many topics in the OT forum. We also ask that users focus on the beliefs (or lack of belief) of any given group, and not the believers themselves. We've found that when the focus turns to the individual(s) it just gets nasty.
Note that while the above rules apply to creating a thread flaming, trolling and all the other rules still apply to the posts inside.
NOTE: These guidelines are subject to alteration as necessary and do not preclude the exercise of moderator discretion to lock threads as deemed necessary for reasons that these guidelines may not contemplate.
@Manchu-I'm not sure what the point of that video was.
@dogma-of course the actual word "trinity" doesn't appear in the bible. but that doesn't make it "unbiblical". The fact is, there are many places in the Bible that show that God is both one God, yet also made up of more than one person. Your just playing semantics now.
generalgrog wrote:@Manchu-I'm not sure what the point of that video was.
Then watch it again. (Or do you mean that it is not related to the dying third or fourth current topic of this thread? That, I concede. I thought it was more interesting than the semantics game we'd gotten into.)
generalgrog wrote:
@dogma-of course the actual word "trinity" doesn't appear in the bible. but that doesn't make it "unbiblical". The fact is, there are many places in the Bible that show that God is both one God, yet also made up of more than one person. Your just playing semantics now.
No, I'm making a point about drawing a conclusion by filling in missing information. The Trinity is one of the valid interpretations of Biblical text regarding the nature of God. It is not the only one. Pretending that it is, and that any other conclusion is therefore non-Biblical is dishonest.
generalgrog wrote:@Manchu-I'm not sure what the point of that video was.
Dear Dr. Laura,
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.
a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?
i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.
generalgrog wrote:@dogma- Your just playing semantics now.
So is John...
Sorry, best funny pic of semantics I could find...
I never said that I disagreed with what the guy on the video was saying. Of course, you can't take a RAW approach to every jot and tittle of the Bible. You have to look at the context, and let scripture interpret scripture. Some things are literal and others are not.
For example:Mark-16:18(KJV)They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
There are certain sects that claim Christianity that take this literally, and incorporate live poisonous snakes and the drinking of poison into their Church services. That is a prime example of taking a scripture out of context and reading into the Bible something that isn't there.
They correct context is that "they" did take up serpents, they did drink poison, and they did lay hands on the sick. These incidents were covered in the book of acts. It's certainly possible that these miracles happened since those incidents in the books of acts, but no where does it say that Christians are supposed to make it a normative practice during Church.
The Roman Catholics do the same type of thing with the Eucharist, in saying that the bread "transforms" into the "actual body of Christ". Most(if not all) protestents believe the bread to be a symbol of the body of Christ, not the "actual" body.
My point in asking "what the point of the video was" was that it didn't seem to have anything to do with a discussion of the trinity.
Anyway, I think I'll be unsubscribing from this thread now.