Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
well, we in science and engineering, we accepted that we die "wanting to know and won't know", and its a buzz kill to be sure. so what do some of us do? we focus on what we do get to know; compared to what our forefathers didn't know.
do you see the difference between me and you?
I am fine with you focusing your beliefs on what you know and understand in science snd engineering. However this forum is religion and spirituality.
Which is quite comfortable with and capable of addressing the larger realm beyond which includes God.
Your beliefs and stating them is fine. What is objectionable is calling beliefs about God "clearly wrong" or "they don't know"
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 02-04-2018 at 11:39 AM..
Don't be coy, Tzaph. The ONLY things science can establish is what EXISTS. In my view, everything that they establish exists about our reality is evidence of God, period. Those are the ONLY things we actually KNOW for sure about God. Everything else is human vanity, hubris, speculation, and mythos. I happen to have personal experiences that help me sort through the speculation and mythos to what is true about God based on my encounter. YMMV.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
So then JC and the baseball fable are vanity and hubris.
Glad we got that straightened out.
Interesting that of the four options I presented you chose to credit the first two despite my specifically referring to the last two. Your antipathy and bias are duly noted.
Interesting that of the four options I presented you chose to credit the first two despite my specifically referring to the last two. Your antipathy and bias are duly noted.
oh ! let me fix that then!
according to your own criteria
JC and the baseball fable are human vanity, hubris, speculation, and mythos.
and "doctrines of men" another of your oft named categories of derision, which logically and equally and fairly and rationally applies to JC and the baseball fable. What's good for the goose is good for the gander MPD. Someone as intellectual and rational as yourself would not have (gasp) a double standard would they? Or would they?
Originally Posted by MysticPhD The ONLY things science can establish is what EXISTS. In my view, everything that they establish exists about our reality is evidence of God, period. Those are the ONLY things we actually KNOW for sure about God. Everything else is human vanity, hubris, speculation, and mythos. I happen to have personal experiences that help me sort through the speculation and mythos to what is true about God based on my encounter. YMMV.
and no, it is not what is "true about God" rather more accurately stated it is "your religious beliefs about God"
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 02-04-2018 at 12:15 PM..
oh ! let me fix that then!
according to your own criteria,
JC and the baseball fable are human vanity, hubris, speculation, and mythos.
Originally Posted by MysticPhD The ONLY things science can establish is what EXISTS. In my view, everything that they establish exists about our reality is evidence of God, period. Those are the ONLY things we actually KNOW for sure about God. Everything else is human vanity, hubris, speculation, and mythos.I happen to have personal experiences that help me sort through the speculation and mythos to what is true about God based on my encounter. YMMV.
What you ignore is the fact while "WE" do not know for sure about God, "I" have a basis for knowing that is not available to you or others. My personal experience enables me to eliminate the human vanity and hubris from the speculation and mythos, but as I said YMMV.
What you ignore is the fact while "WE" do not know for sure about God, "I" have a basis for knowing that is not available to you or others. My personal experience enables me to eliminate the human vanity and hubris from the speculation and mythos, but as I said YMMV.
everyone has a basis for knowing about God and for forming their religious beliefs about God.
lots of people have personal experiences with God.
lots of people have religious beliefs.
if you claim "knowing" about God, then others too "know" about God.
everyone has their own "knowing" about God.
your "knowing about God" shapes and informs your "religious beliefs about God."
No more, no less, than everyone else's knowing informs their religious beliefs about God.
anything you claim for yourself applies equally to everyone else. rational. logical. no double standard.
all we are doing is quoting your own posts and views back to you, so you can see the problematic logic and the inconsistencies and the contradictions and the double standards. it is putting you in conversation with your own posts. the point is if you levy criticisms against others and set criteria for others, then those apply to you as well.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 02-04-2018 at 12:42 PM..
lots of people have personal experiences with God.
lots of people have religious beliefs.
if you claim "knowing" about God, then others too "know" about God.
everyone has their own "knowing" about God.
your "knowing about God" shapes and informs you "religious beliefs about God."
No more, no less than anyone else.
anything you claim for yourself applies equally to everyone else. rational. logical. no double standard.
all we are doing is quoting your own posts and views back to you, so you can see the problematic logic and the inconsistencies and the contradictions and the double standards. it is putting you in conversation with your own posts. the point is if you levy criticisms against others and set criteria for others, then those apply to you as well.
I have never sought to suggest that others do NOT have their own way of knowing God. That is why whenever I reference my BELIEFS I usually end with YMMV. My entire purpose here is to present and defend my understanding of the significance of Christ WITHOUT any resort to magical thinking or irrational claims about reality not supportable by extant science.
I have never sought to suggest that others do NOT have their own way of knowing God. That is why whenever I reference my BELIEFS I usually end with YMMV. My entire purpose here is to present and defend my understanding of the significance of Christ WITHOUT any resort to magical thinking or irrational claims about reality not supportable by extant science.
and my purpose is to point out the claims and criticisms and criteria you scathingly impose upon and level against others, also apply to you.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 02-04-2018 at 12:59 PM..
and my purpose is to point out the claims and criticisms and criteria you scathingly levy against others, also apply to you.
I can only note that your perception of what is scathing suggests a predisposition to assign negative motivations and attitudes to others. Your indefensible and inexplicable misunderstandings of Gaylen are probative.
I can only note that your perception of what is scathing suggests a predisposition to assign negative motivations and attitudes to others. Your indefensible and inexplicable misunderstandings of Gaylen are probative.
the point in applying your own statements to your own views, is that you can then see where and how and why they are problematic. where they are not rational. where they are not logical. where there is a double standard.
and if you reason yourself out of them "oh its not literal" or "oh its interpretation" or "oh its based on personal experience" "or oh its an archetype or mythos" "or oh those are my religious beliefs" then that same "explanation" or "exception" equally applies to others. do one of two things. either give people the same leeway you give yourself. or apply the same standards you apply to others, including your steady stream of invective pejorative language, to yourself as well.
nothing do do with Gaylen. nothing to do with personalities. simply about you and your posts, and applying your own posts and choice of language to your own views.
simply "do unto others" MPD if you need something rooted in both theology and psychology.
I am fine with you focusing your beliefs on what you know and understand in science snd engineering. However this forum is religion and spirituality.
Which is quite comfortable with and capable of addressing the larger realm beyond which includes God.
Your beliefs and stating them is fine. What is objectionable is calling beliefs about God "clearly wrong" or "they don't know"
I find it objectionable to teach people, especially children, how to believe without using common sense and data. This forum is not about making up beliefs without observational support.
No, most people are not comfortable making stuff up. spiritually or otherwise.
you fear being "left wanting", that is my point. It unsettles you and that really is a personal thing. My point is that you focus on unknowns and that leads to frustrations and fairytales.
Instead, I suggest focusing on the knowns and making a more robust belief.
you and trans fill in blanks with personal needs. all do to the three letters g, o, and d. I die not knowing. I die knowing more than those that went before us.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
