Can you tell I’m having a bad day? I won’t bore you with the details, but the last 24 hours have brought two pieces of really lousy news for me (personally). Plans have been laid to waste and everything just generally sucks.Right about now I understand the appeal of mythology a little bit more. How wonderful would it be if everything was part of some divine grand plan? How great would it be if the tough times were irrelevant, considering the eternal bliss that awaits me in Heaven. Man, that’s attractive!But alas, I am condemned to take life seriously, look on the bright sides, and try to make lemonade out of lemons. I guess that’s reality for ya.
karen:
No, people have far greater comprehension from face-to-face conversations than by written correspondence.
You could talk to my wife who?s seen the change firsthand.
Sure!…that is, only as long as you toe the party line? zee Sǒnday skooul Gestapo maintains wery tight control over vhat is sed zthere, jew know.
What do you think I?ve been trying to do for the past 3 years?
alatham:
Hey, you?re the one who asked.
I disagree. If, He turns out to be my deity, then that makes Him yours as well; and if He?s the embodiment of love as the Bible describes, then all must have equal access to His love. May I remind you I?m not talking about the god of Islam whose love, unequivocally, is conditional?
Then my heart goes out to you. If love is not selfless (i.e. unconditional?which always intends to put the good of the beloved above its own), then it ultimately isn?t true love at all, but rather a selfish obsession.
Hmm, an interestingly arrogant assumption. So that indicates that you believe I must predicate my love for my kids with the ?I?ll only love my kids if and when they?[fill in an action],? correct? Sorry, that may be true for you (which if so, indicates to me that you haven?t experienced true love), but I?ve wanted children all my life. They were conceived in love. I saw them kicking in the womb, watched them being born, gave them their first baths, changed a mountain of their diapers saw them take their first steps and helped teach them to talk?and nothing they can do or say will ever make me stop loving them. There are times when I don?t like them, but they will always be my children who changed my life in more ways than I can describe.
Who said anything about treating them equally? That could only happen if they had identical personalities. I have two with diametrically opposite personality types; one is compliant and generally tries to obey rules, while the other is the family ?free-spirit.? What?s effective in dealing with one is useless for the other but the difference in the way I treat them individually cannot in any way be construed as me placing conditions on my love for each of them.
It seems the trees are obscuring your view of the forest?
With His mercy and forgiveness?absolutely! Again, if His love isn?t available to the worst of us then Jesus was a liar and Christianity is all a sham.
Hmm? and both aren?t particularly interested in not continuing to amass more wealth?
No, no, no! I asserted that the most commonly assumed ?grand plan? people make is that complete fulfillment can be found through material wealth, or drugs or by using other people.
No. It?s only after they find that possessions and other people can?t give them what they ultimately need that they start searching for spiritual fulfillment.
No, it?s not useless; given all we know, it?s the answer that makes the most sense.
Because its widespread popularity so early on would have countered any ?evolutionary advantage? of those who weren?t victims of such a practice.
It means have you found (or, can you find) everything in this world that you need to keep you absolutely fulfilled in life?
I apologize for the personal question but, are you over 30?
I keep bringing it up because it is the foundation on which I make my arguments. It is the single common element that every Christian?s faith is contingent upon.
Uh, no? says a careful, objective examination of all religious doctrines.
Hmmm. Is it a safe assumption that you?re also not a fan of Socrates? ?An unexamined life???
Wow. Pardon my incredulity, but I find that profound as well. So, in your opinion, is what we call love merely the manifestation of brain chemicals?
I believe that if you were being completely honest with yourself, you would?ve phrased that something like, ?without seeing any evidence that I accept of this deity??
May I ask, what do you think the best explanation for love is then?
That assumes that the nature of God is subject to change.
Who said that? If that were the case then I certainly wouldn?t be at the point where I can reasonably argue for His existence here.
jcc,
I can see part of our difficulty in communicating here:
You seem to have a much different definition of “unconditional love” than I do.
I define it as Love that is constant and consistent regardless of the actions that the other party engages in and the feelings they express.
It is not merely selfless. I see evidence of selfless love all over the place. I do not see evidence of my definition of unconditional love.
You seem to be defining “unconditional love” as any amount of love above or beyond a certain threshold. In that case I have no problem believing you meet that requirement regarding your children.
I find that definition faulty because the inclusion of the word “unconditional” also makes it impossible for you to love someone more due to their actions.
Since it’s probably not possible to objectively measure love, I can’t see how you’ve concluded that you do love your children equally. I’m sure you feel that way, but I think you’ll agree that feelings don’t often measure up to the observations of a third party.
So in my mind, the jury is still out. You call that an arrogant assumption, but I call your belief that you can objectively measure your own feelings much more arrogant.
Once again I also have to point out the difference in not believing something and believing the negative of something. You accuse me of believing that you don’t love your children unconditionally but that certainly doesn’t fit the bill. This is not the first time we’ve touched on this topic.
Given that they’re both philanthropists, I doubt that’s actually true. But even if it is, so what? Your comment does nothing to address the original issue of your claim that people become dissatisfied with material wealth and turn to religion. My examples only point out that that obviously isn’t true of all people.
I was a little off, but not by much. Here’s the original quote:
Dvan: So then what you’re saying, Jcc, is that because you have a belief in the supernatural, there must be some supernatural explanation for your beliefs?
Jcc: Yes.
I also have no idea where you asserted that “the most commonly assumed ?grand plan? people make is that complete fulfillment can be found through material wealth, or drugs or by using other people.” I may have simply missed that though.
No, given what you think you know about God that’s the answer that you like best. All it tells you is the “who,” it doesn’t answer the much more important “how” or “why.”
I have a feeling that last sentence should have said “were” and not “weren’t”, but even so I’m still very confused. First of all, where are you getting your data that human sacrifice was “widespread?” That’s a pretty vague word. Also what do you mean by “early on?”
You’re really going to have to back up and explain what any of this has to do with evolution. If human sacrifice were ever a personality trait that was brought out by evolution (and I very much doubt that since it’s something that specific societies engaged in, not all humans), it’s simple to see why it hasn’t continued. Nobody wants to hang out and breed with baby killers.
On the other hand, in the event that human sacrifice was used as an excuse to reduce competition for breeders, then it would have provided them with a breeding advantage. But since it’s still a social problem brought about through superstition, it’s unclear how you’re attempting to link it up with evolution.
How should I know? I’m only 26.
In that case I see no reason to continue this conversation/debate. Until I have a personal experience that matches up, all second-hand personal experiences regarding the supernatural mean nothing to me.
You’ve examined all religions? Carefully and objectively? I hope you weren’t expecting me to believe you.
How can you examine any belief system that can’t be proven objectively? I think you have to redefine “objective” to do that.
Just curious, what’s your specific argument against The Baha’i Faith? I like that one.
There’s a big difference between “unexamined” and “examined but have come to the conclusion that the answer is currently unattainable.” Your off-the-mark prejudice is showing.
Also, I haven’t read Socrates, so no, I’m not a fan.
My opinion isn’t worth much since I’m no chemist, but I find that to currently be the most compelling explanation of love.
Since I’m the one writing this, “that I accept” goes without saying. Unless I cite a source, it’s safe to assume that what I’m writing is my opinion.
Your condescending “you’re not being completely honest with yourself” attitude remains unappreciated and unconvincing. You are one of the worst arm-chair psychologists I can think of. Stop assuming that people will eventually agree with you and maybe you’ll understand that your approach to converting people is highly ineffective.
Try questioning a little harder and being more honest with yourself.
See, it doesn’t work and it’s incredibly irritating.
jcc,
This sentence is worded poorly:
Should read “How can you objectively examine any belief system that can’t be proven?”
So, jcc’s given up on the argument about the bibble banning polygamy (pretty limp anyways).
It’s obvious that his ‘deity’ plays favorites – the rules for one don’t apply to all, & vice versa.
Yeah, real ‘unconditional’.
What tripe.
alatham:
Once again, my apologies for my tardiness in replying.
Your response here is very strange in that your above definition is precisely what I?ve been trying to describe as unconditional love. Obviously I?ve failed to indicate this in my descriptions of it. My love for all my children is unconditional because it is constant and consistent regardless of how they behave, talk, or the feelings they have toward me.
Then perhaps it is as I?ve suspected all along? your experience of true, unconditional love is lacking.
That makes no sense to me. If true, unconditional love is characterized as putting the good of the beloved above one?s own then there cannot be ?degrees? of that love?it is a Boolean state; it?s either present or it isn?t.
This is more evidence to me of your apparent incomplete comprehension or lack of experience of it. I unconditionally love my children equally because, as I?ve described, I cannot partially possess it?I either love them, or I don?t. However, this is not to say that I express my love equally to all my children. That is directly affected by each child?s personality. I cannot express the love I have for my compliant child exactly the same way as I do to my ?free-spirit? child because that simply isn?t practical. But, at the end of the day, I would give my life to protect and insure the well-being of each child equally?and that is quantifiable and definitive of my ?unconditional? love.
Superficially, that may seem to be the case. However, I wonder if they?d give the same answers today and in private.
So, how much better has science filled in the ?how? or ?why??
Perhaps you?ll be better equipped to answer that question with twenty more years of living under your belt.
It?s interesting that you?re so willing to disregard such widespread consistency in second-hand retellings of similar experiences simply because of your own lack of that experience. So, would it be fair to say that someone?s personal account of them falling off a cliff and surviving (but who was also noticeably altered by the event) is automatically suspect to you simply because you haven?t had such an experience?even if that person?s account was very similar to another person?s who also fell off the same cliff?
All mainstream religions, yes.
Yes, that was my intent. I determined that if I was to examine Christianity, then logically, I had to examine the others with the same degree of scrutiny as well.
You?re free to believe what you want. I have nothing to gain by lying to you.
One doesn?t have to objectively prove that a belief system is true in order to learn it?s tenets, doctrines, rituals and overall themes.
It?s very much like that of the ?liberation theology? of the UCC (i.e. Obama?s and spanders? religion). From what I understand, its primary focus is on the future of life in this world, not the salvation of the individual. It doesn?t deal directly with the forgiveness of sins or the efficacy of Christ?s sacrifice for such?in that regard it?s quite similar to the universalism of the UU?s. It?s inclusion of Jesus Christ with the secession of ?prophets? of the likes of Zoroaster and Mohammed indicates its fundamental lack of understanding of Christian doctrine as well as what could only be attributed to its intentional oversight of inherit contradictions to those religions by Christ?s teachings. From the Christian perspective, the Divine nature of Christ is not a ?commutative? property that also lends itself to validating Hindu or Islamic theology. The Bible is quite clear: Christ was not one of many ?avatars? or merely a prophet.
My apologies. I?m simply trying to gather information. It?s human nature to project assumptions without a complete data set.
It?s interesting to observe your satisfaction with that explanation given the paucity of data in that area, yet demand such a higher standard of proof for the existence of God.
Again, my apologies?it?s not my intention to be condescending. I?m simply attempting to apply my own personal life experiences (which is approximately twice that of yours ?and again, I mean no condescension by that) to the topics at hand.
That?s not an assumption nor is it a manifestation of my ego. There are certain objective realities in this life that exist despite individual?s perceptions of them. The longer one lives, the more evident these realities become. I seek the truth and speak the truth to the best of my abilities. While I?ll admit that there certainly is an evangelical component to my motivation for being here, my primary purpose here is to correct common misperceptions of Christianity. Unfortunately, doing so can be perceived as being presumptive.
What ?harder? questions do you assume I haven?t asked? And, may I ask, how have I appeared as being dishonest with myself?
My apologies, again, that wasn?t my intention (and for what it?s worth, I took no umbrage to that last remark).
Krys:
I have absolutely no idea how you arrived at that conclusion. This seems to be another instance of no matter how I phrase it; you simply can?t comprehend what I say. For the last time, ?Thou shalt not commit adultery? self-evidently prohibits polygamy. It amazes me to see someone with the considerable OT knowledge that you have and yet continue to be so oblivious to the overall story contained in it. Even a cursory reading of the OT reveals (without any external historical context) that the Israelites were notorious for not keeping God?s laws and commandments. This is reminiscent of you so stubbornly refusing to acknowledge the unambiguous axiom of abstinence works every time it?s tried.
jcc:
Since that?s never happened, I?d say you?re imagining things. Which is nothing new.
& for the last time, nothing in the OT prohibits polygamy. There?s even rules on how to treat your 2nd (or 3rd, or more) wife/wives.
Pretty pathetic effort.
& being punished by your alleged deity for those specific transgressions. It?s even spelled out, for crying out loud.
Because it doesn?t work @ all. It flopped so much, the government stopped funding it.
You really do live in your own little world.
Poor Krys? so steeped in liberalism that he assumes everything must somehow refer to a government program?not the individual?which is typical when one believes that government is the answer to society?s moral decay.
jcc – jeez, the NUMBERS don’t lie. Spin ‘em to your heart’s content – you’d still be wrong.
It didn’t work for Mary, apparently. Or so the story goes.
Hee-HEE! Nice 1, darlin’.
Thanks, KA, it’s so nice to be appreciated.
And on my birthday, too. Oops, no, I guess my b’day’s over now. Didn’t realize what time it was. Still valid in your time zone, though!
Oy, happy B-Day, love!
Krys:
Ok, can you possibly understand it this way?: Every time I?ve used that phrase, I?ve done so with the specific and intentional reference to the individual?s application of it, not a government sponsored educational program. Can you think about that for a minute? Abstinence, when engaged in by an individual, works every time it?s tried. That is axiomatic. Choosing to remain abstinent is like (pardon the pun) being pregnant?either you are, or you are not. If you fail, then you were not abstinent.
This isn?t rocket science.
karen:
Hope you had a happy birthday, yesterday!
KA
I think you should probably give jcc this point: If a person doesn’t have sex, they won’t get pregnant.
It is a very, very small point, which seems to have no relevance to the discussion. I think it would lower his blood pressure.
Happy happy belated b-day Karen.
Ever heard of in vitro fertilization. No “sex” involved.
jcc:
Ummm…no you haven’t. Not that I can recall, anyways. You’ve slung that catchphrase around w/o any clarification as to your actual referent. If you have, point it out, I’ll submit to the facts.
No, it’s not hard to figure out. However, here’s a little ditty where it failed, even with the government funding classes, providing resources, etc.
http://tinyurl.com/4qsf4f
Good ole jcc – if you REALLY tried, it worked, if you tried & failed, well, no REAL effort was made. Laying awake nights, wreathed in sweat, 2 weeks of cold showers – but if you GAVE IN, well, you didn’t ‘really try’.
Nice red herring, BTW, to detract from your failed ‘polygamy is adultery according to the OT’.
Herewith, I shall hence ignore every utterance of your trite little cliche.
Your ‘unconditional love’ clause needs a little more polish, because it’s muddied.
jcc,
I’ve been busy all week so far, so I missed your post.
You did a lot of talking about unconditional love and you agreed with me sometimes and disagreed with me other times. But I think we’re still talking about two different things.
So you’re saying that you agree with that definition. The upshot is that when we talk about unconditional love it’s impossible to love more and it’s impossible to love less. Under no condition will the love increase or decrease. But then you said this:
At this point I have to ask a question. Obviously you believe you love your children unconditionally (I’m not going to contest that since you said you’d die for either one), however is there a different, conditional love (above and beyond the baseline un-conditional love) that you have for them based on the quality of your relationships?
If you do, then we were simply talking about two different things. You’ve split ‘love’ into two parts, unconditional + conditional. That’s fine, I have no problem with that and I have no trouble believing that (hypothetically speaking) even if one of your kids turned bad that you would still love them at least a little bit unconditionally.
If you do not, then I have to say I have indeed never encountered love that is wholly unconditional (that is, without a conditional component).
I wonder that as well, but since there’s some doubt, I don’t think it’s a safe bet that everyone is unsatisfied with the mundane world.
Well, the “how” is loosely explainable through evolution and natural selection. But it certainly needs some work, it’s not entirely convincing.
That said, I feel that exploring those questions is part of what enriches our lives. Certainly religious people can explore them just as well as atheists can (and if I had to guess I’d say that both groups do fairly equally), but my point was that the answer “God did it” doesn’t give us any useful information that we can use to make the arts enrich our lives even more.
I never meant to suggest that science is somehow better at answering that question, just that the religious answer is equally useless. The same thing goes for most questions about emotions.
Agreed.
I’ve already explained why I believe the descriptions of religious people tend to be quite similar. They’ve been prompted by society. Can you explain why Mormons and Native Americans and Buddhists and Muslims also independently describe similar supernatural experiences?
As for the question about falling off a cliff, if they’re describing their fall in purely natural terms (even if it’s statistically highly unlikely) then I’ll be somewhat suspect. But if they invoke something supernatural I’ll be more suspect. If more than one person gives the same description then I’ll have to decide to either take the plunge myself or file it away in my giant box of ‘things I can’t explain.’
Yes, I’m a skeptic. I feel that I’ve benefited from it.
I wrote that sentence poorly. I meant to ask how you can objectively examine a belief system that can’t be proven.
It seems to me that if a belief system requires the acceptance of certain unproven statements in order to fully comprehend it might be impossible to explore it without first accepting it as fact. Granted, you can always claim to accept it for the sake of argument, but that’s not the same as real, concrete acceptance. But maybe you have a better method.
To me, just examining the tenets, etc. doesn’t feel like a full examination. In the words of several religious folk I’ve talked to “you have to feel it.”
Does that mean that you accepted the word of the Bible before you examined the Baha’i Faith? Maybe there’s more to it, but that doesn’t seem objective to me.
Back up a second. I never said I was satisfied with that explanation. It’s simply the only explanation that I can’t find any logical faults in.
I certainly agree that there are objective realities that exist despite individual’s perceptions. But I don’t agree with the last sentence (”the longer one lives…”).
Certainly we continue learning all our lives. But from what I’ve seen (obviously limited) we tend to use our past experiences to filter new information. You and I know this as Confirmation Bias. I’m willing to bet it’s something that anyone without memory problems suffers from. Confirmation Bias is something that you have to learn to recognize and eliminate, so one can definitely improve one’s perceptions with age, but I don’t think it’s a foregone conclusion as you seem to suggest.
That was a sarcastic question. I thought about noting that (since this is unemotional text), but I feel that takes something away from it.
To answer your question seriously, I don’t think you’re being dishonest with yourself (expect when you state that most atheists are trying to destroy Christianity), but I don’t know anything about how much you’ve questioned God. I would assume more than most religious people since you’re much better able to defend your belief than the average joe.
Krys:
Seems you?ve made quite a habit of thinking you?re capable of divining my intentions. But of course, you?re right. It?s clear in my 03/25/06 @ 19:48 post on http://tinyurl.com/5nfbft that I was referring to the government program?(how did you phrase it? Oh yeah, ?eyes rolling.?)
Typical liberal, can?t-be-held-responsible-for-my-own-actions, victim mentality??Oh the humanity! The urge is just too powerful, how can I possibly control myself?especially in the presence of another person???How pathetic.
Again, your divination of my intent was dead-on?I?m the artful dodger, I am, especially when trying to match wits with the Great, all-wise and never wrong (in his own mind), Krys.
Well whadda ya expect from such a dullard like me?
jcc:
Not much, actually. In fact, you’re beginning to be quite predictable, & also boring.
Like most religious folk, you count the hits & hide the misses.
The facts are these: whatever any atheist says is wrong. Even when it’s dead on. I’ve debunked bundles of your points on numerous occasions over the years, but like the yappy little chihuahua, you just won’t quit. In your mind, the atheist is always wrong. I busted you on this some time ago: you apparently haven’t forgiven me for it, as evidenced by your sloppy efforts to eviscerate my character every time I pop your fantasy balloons aka ‘talking points’.
Sheep in wolf’s clothing, you are.
Oh please: it’s all public record. I’ve done a few 180’s here on this blog. I’m more than happy to admit when I’m wrong, but only if I’m wrong, something you’ve rarely (if ever) managed to prove.
You, OTH, have only managed a rather lame apology once on a matter of import, & only that after I had to badger you into it.
I could go into a rather lengthy analysis on your ‘character’, but I’m neither that obsessed, or that interested anymore.
So, for future reference, I’ll make an effort not to slam you, but rather address your pathetic ‘philosophy’ – that’ll prove sufficient to expose the bankrupt epistemology.
Because obviously, if you attack me, it’s indicative of the weakness of your stand.
Arrivederci, Giacomo.
alatham:
No. In all honesty, I cannot differentiate what you are suggesting in my feelings towards them. Their behaviors invoke various reactions to them by me?including anger?but I would argue that that anger is the result of my unconditional love for them (i.e. me knowing what?s best for them in spite of their immature desires which are the source of our conflicts). I make every effort to express my love toward them (at this point in their lives) as authoritative, not authoritarian?which is a distinction that I must constantly be aware of?otherwise, my relationships with them could become conditional.
Really? Then how do you explain the inspiration of all the great works of art of the Renaissance (or any other time period) with indisputable Christian themes? I would argue just the opposite. The greatness of C.S. Lewis? works were derived solely from his Christian faith?works that gave tremendous insights into Apologetics and provided great insights into the nature of God.
Again, I disagree. The ?God did it? responses to questions of a spiritual nature make enormous sense when considered in the context of a loving God and His impartation of His spiritual nature to us.
Because we?re all spiritual beings with the same, discernable spiritual needs.
If you?re genuinely interested in this phenomenon, and if you have the time and opportunity, then perhaps you should question your devout Christian acquaintances (if you have any) about their individual faith journeys to see for yourself what the similarities among them are.
Feelings are fine (as I said, we all have spiritual natures and thus spiritual needs that we meet one way or another), but how we meet those needs is the heart of the issue. We can choose to either accept (and practice) a religion that will ultimately result in cognitive dissonance or one that will, when rationally examined, also withstand our intellectual scrutiny as well.
I first determined that there must be a higher power (as evidenced by the fruits of science and how well they explained my own emotional/spiritual experiences). Since I was raised in an ostensibly Christian home I then scrutinized Christianity?for which I had many questions (which were of the same nature as many atheists?). The more I learned about the doctrine and the history of the Church the more curious I became of how other major religions addressed those questions, and therefore, the more I investigated them.
From your perspective, perhaps not, but that?s the way I went about it.
Yes, and one of the benefits of having a longer life experience is being able to recognize when I?m susceptible to that bias and then consciously applying other religious philosophies to the situation to determine which yields a ?truth? that is consistent with the objective reality of the moment. So far, from my perspective, Christianity provides the most logically and emotionally satisfying answers.
I?m pleased (for Christianity?s sake) that my defense of the faith indicates that to you. And I don?t believe I haven?t asked any fewer questions about God than anyone else?particularly atheists.