U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-23-2018, 09:34 AM
 
Location: Southern Oregon
14,409 posts, read 6,481,973 times
Reputation: 1485

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER View Post
I can't comprehend what wasn't clearly explained. Do you see a problem with this judge asking a jury to acquit on supposed orders from God or not? A simple yes or no will satisfy me.



It doesn't clarify Nate's position . Asking what actual harm is not the issue. The problem is the one I put. In fact it looks like an evasion of the issue with an irrelevance. That the Jury refused to play ball and prevented the harm does not mean there is not a problem.

I ask for a simple yes or no; is there a problem with a Judge who entertained supposed directives from above. Browsers will recognize further evasion as easily as I do, but not you, Mystic, so it seems.
It DOES clarify Nate's position if you actually THINK about what was said instead of REacting from your prejudice. Read through Mystic's explanation again and try to realize how stupidly you are acting.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-24-2018, 01:18 PM
Status: "...We are closing in..." (set 7 days ago)
 
32,440 posts, read 7,760,122 times
Reputation: 4575
I suggest YOU go back and read through the posts again. Right now, the ball is in Mystic's court, not mine.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2018, 01:32 PM
Status: "...We are closing in..." (set 7 days ago)
 
32,440 posts, read 7,760,122 times
Reputation: 4575
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
I have to agree that the harm or benefit of an action rooted in religious faith is irrelevant to whether or not something is a product of imagination or divine insight / revelation / instruction / guidance.

The basic reason being that we can (and do) apply this to ANY action to determine if it should be considered moral or ethical in a given context. The effects of actions by ANYONE, believer or unbeliever, is either good, neutral, or harmful.

The question here is how you'd tell the difference between divine influence and one's own imagination. Unless you're willing to assert that all good, including good done by atheists, is divinely inspired, then this is a completely non-sequitur measure for what I was actually getting at.

Let's make it more concrete. Let's say a Christian walks up to a woman and says, "God told me that you are to be my wife". How would the (un)lucky lass in this scenario tell the difference between this being god's will and nothing more than the over-eager libido of her suitor?

I mean, this is consequential. Maybe the woman isn't attracted to the guy at all. Maybe she's not currently seeking marriage. Heck, maybe SHE thinks god has already called her to be a nun. Yet -- IF this guy is truly conveying a message from god -- it would be incumbent upon her to ignore her own goals and desires and submit to god's will. So just because she's resistant or uninterested, she can't reject it out of hand -- not in ReligionLand(tm). So what does she do? How does she sort it out?
Well, we seem to have three different subjects all trying to occupy the same seat.

(1) Universal constants - evidence for Creator/Designer? (That was what I was debating)

(2) Consciousness as some kind of evidence for God (Mystic's argument)

(3) Morality as evidence of a god or not (your argument). That may relate back to the Judge who was going to acquit a "Trafficker" because he believed God wanted him to. Was that this thread?

All valid questions, though Mystics has been dealt with, I'd say, Morality is done and dusted as Not evidence for a god, and the Universal Constants must be planned by a god or we wouldn't be here was the argument I was involved in, and that takes a bit more work.

The answer is along the lines of what I said - whatever constants 'worked' those would be the ones we had. It is the usual Theist Skewed logic that comes from assuming a god and a Plan.

Statistically for natural unplanned processes to arrive at what had been previously planned (us) is astronomical. But you can already see the flaw. If we don't assume an intended outcome, then whatever we get is a 1/1 probable outcome.

And, as I always argue, the universe and indeed the evolutionary process does not look as though it was all planned to produce us.

There's more, but that essentially is the answer to the 'Constants' apologetic.

p.s And I do need to take a break I was on the wrong thread. Sorry folks ..totally screwed up here.

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-24-2018 at 01:55 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2018, 01:52 PM
Status: "...We are closing in..." (set 7 days ago)
 
32,440 posts, read 7,760,122 times
Reputation: 4575
Quote:
Originally Posted by nateswift View Post
It DOES clarify Nate's position if you actually THINK about what was said instead of REacting from your prejudice. Read through Mystic's explanation again and try to realize how stupidly you are acting.
Ah, yes, sorry I was misreading your post and had it as a question not a suggestion. I put my hands up to that. I misread you and kept doing so.

There remains of course Mordant's point that your suggestion doesn't actually provide an answer to telling beliefs from imagination. Both can be mistaken, and both could be right (though imagination doesn't have such a good record here) and actual harm depends of whether it impacts the public (or threatens to) or doesn't.

I suppose in a way (given that unsound beliefs tend towards what is bad for everyone, and given that Imagination has the poorer track record for sound beliefs) there is a difference. But that isn't really the way to tell the difference. You have to explain the sources of your beliefs. Of course if you can't recall where you got your information, there may be no way of telling belief from imagination. Except that (as I said with the track record) the beliefs might tend to be more sound.

Well, that seems to cover it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2018, 02:39 PM
 
Location: Booth Texas
11,259 posts, read 3,642,048 times
Reputation: 1104
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensaguy View Post
I'm really glad to know that you are opposed to the death penalty.




Can you point me to the Bible verse that refers to baking cakes? I've looked, but I can't find it.

BTW, I, like you, dislike making exceptions to the law. Anti-discrimination laws apply to everybody. No exceptions.
There was just baking cakes for the queen of heaven that was done on Easter.


Jeremiah 7
17"Do you not see what they are doing in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem? 18"The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead dough to make cakes for the queen of heaven; and they pour out drink offerings to other gods in order to spite Me. 19"Do they spite Me?" declares the LORD. "Is it not themselves they spite, to their own shame?"


Jeremiah 10 goes into Christmas trees.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2018, 10:03 PM
 
Location: Southern Oregon
14,409 posts, read 6,481,973 times
Reputation: 1485
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
I have to agree that the harm or benefit of an action rooted in religious faith is irrelevant to whether or not something is a product of imagination or divine insight / revelation / instruction / guidance.

The basic reason being that we can (and do) apply this to ANY action to determine if it should be considered moral or ethical in a given context. The effects of actions by ANYONE, believer or unbeliever, is either good, neutral, or harmful.

The question here is how you'd tell the difference between divine influence and one's own imagination. Unless you're willing to assert that all good, including good done by atheists, is divinely inspired, then this is a completely non-sequitur measure for what I was actually getting at.

Let's make it more concrete. Let's say a Christian walks up to a woman and says, "God told me that you are to be my wife". How would the (un)lucky lass in this scenario tell the difference between this being god's will and nothing more than the over-eager libido of her suitor?

I mean, this is consequential. Maybe the woman isn't attracted to the guy at all. Maybe she's not currently seeking marriage. Heck, maybe SHE thinks god has already called her to be a nun. Yet -- IF this guy is truly conveying a message from god -- it would be incumbent upon her to ignore her own goals and desires and submit to god's will. So just because she's resistant or uninterested, she can't reject it out of hand -- not in ReligionLand(tm). So what does she do? How does she sort it out?
Seriously? I don't mind where the credit goes, but if actual harm comes or is likely to come from an action or attitude, the chance of it being inspired is greatly reduced, but I will grant that the totality of action and consequence needs to be part of the account, as harm to a person attempting harm to another has to be measured in terms of what needs to be done to prevent the intended harm. I'd venture to say that the woman in the scenario should be capable of measuring any effect on her of the ideas of anyone who includes her in his plans. Clearness committees are a great help in deciding what is the best course of action for a Quaker with a questionable leading.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2018, 05:47 PM
 
Location: Northeastern US
14,046 posts, read 8,211,681 times
Reputation: 5974
Quote:
Originally Posted by nateswift View Post
Clearness committees are a great help in deciding what is the best course of action for a Quaker with a questionable leading.
Thanks for mentioning this; I had never heard of this concept. Offhand, it sounds like at least in concept, it could be a good way for someone to make improved decisions with input from trusted others in a standardized and controlled manner. Although the guidelines published about it are full of Friends jargon such that I wouldn't presume to be able to adequately evaluate it.

Still, it ends up simply helping a person make their own life decisions.

What I was trying to get at is that if a person really thinks that god guides or even speaks to them -- apart from how you take that on board as part of some decision-making process, how would you distinguish god's alleged guidance from your own imagination?

A "clearness committee", despite what might be officially said about the process, seems to just treat god's guidance no differently than a person's own proclivities. You have a decision to make, you have various desires and fears and needs and constraints that feed into it, and whether some of those come from your own mind or god's mind is probably of secondary concern in practical terms so long as the proposed course of action doesn't violate any rules of the belief system or harm the larger group. Unless the committee deploys some methodology to separate out and treat god's guidance differently from your own "inner teacher" as they put it, then it's a moot point. If they DO have a methodology for supposedly discerning what god is saying vs what the "person of focus" is thinking, then I'd be curious to know more about it.

I would bet that this "inner teacher" they're talking about IS god so far as they're concerned or at least some god-given part of your mental process that he supposedly influences. But then we're back to the problem of how you substantiate that -- how you would be sure you weren't simply talking about the person's own intuition and/or subconscious that basically any human would possess.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2018, 06:34 PM
Status: "...We are closing in..." (set 7 days ago)
 
32,440 posts, read 7,760,122 times
Reputation: 4575
That seems likely, and I would suspect the usual method of a mi of humanist morality, mixed in with religious doctrines, would be the template for deciding whether it was Of God or not. Not too unlike a committee of cardinals arging for a day or two about who shall be Pope and, when they finally decide, putting it down as a decision from God.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2018, 07:02 PM
 
Location: Booth Texas
11,259 posts, read 3,642,048 times
Reputation: 1104
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER View Post
That seems likely, and I would suspect the usual method of a mi of humanist morality, mixed in with religious doctrines, would be the template for deciding whether it was Of God or not. Not too unlike a committee of cardinals arging for a day or two about who shall be Pope and, when they finally decide, putting it down as a decision from God.
Actually, All the Popes were chosen by God, all the presidents, and every wicked and evil person who ever came to power was supposed to come to power. As Humanity stands, Jeffery Dahmer is a member OF US, one seems no better than the other, we stand guilty because we are wicked and greedy. King Nebuchadnezzar was amongst the worst and the greatest what a man could be, what a man could fall to, and rise above. Even He was an author of the word of God. Alexander the great said he had a dream about the Jewish priests, and wherever you look in history whether to the Mongols or the Danes, God had chosen men out from every country, and in every place there was always a type of overcoming and birth where there is always two people split a part where they should be brothers, one will rule over the other.


There IS ALWAYS an EVIL KINGDOM fighting against a righteous kingdom.


The Destruction of Israel
6The One who builds His upper chambers in the heavens And has founded His vaulted dome over the earth, He who calls for the waters of the sea And pours them out on the face of the earth, The LORD is His name. 7"Are you not as the sons of Ethiopia to Me, O sons of Israel?" declares the LORD. "Have I not brought up Israel from the land of Egypt, And the Philistines from Caphtor and the Arameans from Kir? 8"Behold, the eyes of the Lord GOD are on the sinful kingdom, And I will destroy it from the face of the earth; Nevertheless, I will not totally destroy the house of Jacob," Declares the LORD.


Before Moses came, others had come like him, and others had came after him wherever the people bend their knee to God because of their oppressors, God will send a mighty savior.


Blessing to Egypt, Assyria, Israel
19In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar to the LORD near its border. 20It will become a sign and a witness to the LORD of hosts in the land of Egypt; for they will cry to the LORD because of oppressors, and He will send them a Savior and a Champion, and He will deliver them. 21Thus the LORD will make Himself known to Egypt, and the Egyptians will know the LORD in that day. They will even worship with sacrifice and offering, and will make a vow to the LORD and perform it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2018, 09:09 PM
 
Location: Dallas,Texas
1,329 posts, read 1,348,376 times
Reputation: 1445
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
Yet if I were a judge and told the jury that an invisible leprechaun and told me the jury must find a defendant innocent of sex trafficking ... the trial would halt and they'd haul me away in a straight jacket.

At least he was rational enough to recuse himself and let another judge step in. And at least the jury was rational enough to "disobey god" and convict the woman for pimping her own daughter. Based on, you know, the evidence.

And people wonder why we have a "moral bankruptcy of Christianity" thread going!

I'm sure that some Christians will say, this judge was not a Real Christian (tm) because Real Christians aren't delusional. And yet I'll bet no one can give me a coherent, objective way to tell the difference between their beliefs and their imagination.
Essentially, the no true Scotsman fallacy. Christians are notorious for using this excuse when somebody expresses or does something that doesn't conform to their particular brand of Christianity or sect. Good post.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top