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 04-03-2010, 09:57 PM
 
3,448 posts, read 2,600,900 times
Reputation: 478

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by allen antrim View Post
This is a good example of an over simplistic logic that does not "gaze" at the full structure of the "thing" one is simplifying. "'My god exists, but it's incomprehensible" (therefore it) does not work for any religion'". Anyone here know why this is simplistic? Well first it has worked for Christianity for 2000 years-that god is incomprehensible, and in fact that is this religion's basis (more brilliant people than posts here, have worked with this issue for centuries and it is not a very big "devastating contradiction"), that is the social physical evidence. Why else? Well, the theology of this religion has a "revelation doctrine". The very idea that god is incomprehensible requires that it be revealed in a simpler form (this is a rational idea, as in order to have a high developed concept of g-o-d, one would not be able to fully comprehend g-o-d, because if one could it would not be g-o-d, but m-a-n-so a structure has to be formed up to keep the two distinct and protect the god concept) or in this case, because this religion is obsessed with language, revealed into the language of men, and finally into a person itself. The scriptures then are not incoherent speculations but doctrine to be worked through (just like nature is a "text" with "doctrine", as well the mind, law, etc, and at first glance incomprehensible-and still is, that needs to be worked through to "reveal" it to mind), and theology is the speculative element, and as the speculative element, it is the rational element (or science in the old philosophical sense {at Hegel's time, and Hegel knew something about logic; read his logic and let me know how you made out, and remember, this man believed in the trinity}-to philosophize is to speculate, not dogmatize as one reads plenty here at the data bar in these "philosophy" threads). If one cares to inform oneself and learn about the world around oneself rather than being an ignorant "know it all machine", one will find good theology that works with the idea that its theological structures are just "images" of what it is working on and this understanding is reflected upon by the theology itself (like science, economics, law, politics etc, there are good speculations {images} and bad speculations, and most are probably, at least the bad, not reflected upon, but assumed to be correct-especially with the common people or uneducated in the ways of other systems other than the one that dominates a particular person's unreflected world view-a Cyclops if you will), just as good science is merely images of what it is working on, as it will never be "reality" as "reality" is itself: it all takes place in the mind not in "reality", as reality has no meaning apart from the mind.

When religion meets skeptics it does not crack-the skeptic cracks in his religious point of view (this happens in all points of view; I don't like our government to well and think it is flawed, some legal issues are absurd to me, same with science, etc). Religion, as genus, survives social change and reorganizes itself. A look at the situation during the enlightenment, the great atheistic experiments in Russia and China and elsewhere, will show a low point of belief but religion survived, and will continue to do so because it is a system of communication and information that can only describe the topic that it concerns itself with. Socially, it is a communication structure and mentally it is a category (not reducible to other components). Just posting about it here engages one in religion and one's negative thoughts about it places one into the mental category, whether one believes in it or not, and that all continues its communications or systemic existence.
There is much here. No where in my postings can it be found, & I cannot speak for others .........." I know God Exists".........
The reason I refer to above , is to call attention to previous Stargazzer
post suggesting that due to totality of evidence it would be unlikely wise
to assert either of.........
1) I know God exists 2) I know God does not exist.

Now Christianity is being introduced . I am unclear as to any rebuttal
on above suggestion. I don't see any.

One could argue the Divinity Doctrine and create a huge discussion with
those who believe in Christianity as it is one of the highlights of its faith.
Whats unfortunate though is that the above possible discussion evolves
into a screen , eliminating and ignoring the faiths purpose. The formation
and evolution of Christianity is what it is. Dismay with observed intentional manipulation to gather its momentum cannot possibly be in
selected areas untrue. The grounds for belonging to
a spiritual movement is a choice to "govern with virtue" in keeping with the
Religions purpose for its followers.

Allen Antrim says....
When religion meets skeptics it does not crack-the skeptic cracks in his religious point of view (this happens in all points of view; I don't like our government to well and think it is flawed, some legal issues are absurd to me, same with science, etc). Religion, as genus, survives social change and reorganizes itself. A look at the situation during the enlightenment, the great atheistic experiments in Russia and China and elsewhere, will show a low point of belief but religion survived, and will continue to do so because it is a system of communication and information that can only describe the topic that it concerns itself with. Socially, it is a communication structure and mentally it is a category (not reducible to other components). Just posting about it here engages one in religion and one's negative thoughts about it places one into the mental category, whether one believes in it or not, and that all continues its communications or systemic existence.[/quote]

Stargazzer says.......
The skeptic, always wins. For it not for the skeptic society would be in
chaos. There is no such living soul who in self honesty and intelligence has not recognized the inescapable necessity of the skeptic
and the atheist mode within himself . The good skeptic draws out truth. Without the skeptic a Deity would collapse in short order.
For different reasons, in different times, and for varying durations
the skeptic as well the atheist lives in all.
All who value honesty.
Honesty Wins







...

Last edited by stargazzer; 04-03-2010 at 10:09 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-03-2010, 10:48 PM
 
3,448 posts, read 2,600,900 times
Reputation: 478
Part 2 reply to Allen Antrim

Allen Antrim says:
Well, the theology of this religion has a "revelation doctrine". The very idea that god is incomprehensible requires that it be revealed in a simpler form (this is a rational idea, as in order to have a high developed concept of g-o-d, one would not be able to fully comprehend g-o-d, because if one could it would not be g-o-d, but m-a-n-so a structure has to be formed up to keep the two distinct and protect the god concept) or in this case, because this religion is obsessed with language, revealed into the language of men, and finally into a person itself. The scriptures then are not incoherent speculations but doctrine to be worked through (just like nature is a "text" with "doctrine", as well the mind, law, etc, and at first glance incomprehensible-and still is, that needs to be worked through to "reveal" it to mind), and theology is the speculative element, and as the speculative element, it is the rational element (or science in the old philosophical sense.

Stargazzer says...
The theology of this religion unfolded the structure before the religion
came to be. The Son of Man was suggested "before" Christianity
became a religion. Therefore the religion did not "have to keep the two distinct to protect the God concept" The distinction was in place for
hundreds of years. Religion is obsessed with language ?
In doctrine to be worked through opposed to speculations the movement
by its deception is not "speculative" It was and is specific in its faith.
The "application" of speculation is invited as it enhances & enables choice .
Individuality in part is .." born " .. out of speculative thought.

Thankyou I enjoyed the thoughts and will have dinner after long day

Last edited by stargazzer; 04-03-2010 at 11:02 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2010, 11:54 PM
 
Location: missouri
1,179 posts, read 1,182,536 times
Reputation: 151
In the beginning god said..... In the fullness of time the "word" became.......go into all the world and tell.....shout from house tops......I am the "word"-its god is the "word"; that sounds like an obsession to me.

Nice bit on skeptics, now if we could get people to become skeptics of their own opinions rather than only focusing on others; what a wonderful world this would be and how progressive!

In this discussion, when the son of man was suggested doesn't seem to be the issue, but what is done with the concept-is a rational structure built with it-is christian theology rational-not whether you like it or not, not whether the Sumerians had one as well, etc? This whole mess of a thread is built on the idea that only one type of thought can only be rational, and everything else is leading the herd into chaos. One could use the Dali in Tibet, as the incarnation of the god, does Lamaism also build their idea rationally? Christianity is not the point, but are its, or other religions', rational structures or irrational?

The actual existence of a god would not be the point either, but are the structures supporting the concept rational or irrational? For this discussion, who cares if there is a god-can anyone be objective here?

Individuality is a social construction as a means to manage individuals, as soon as men speak or communicate, the social comes into being and a distinction has to be drawn between it and something else where the communication comes from: its called or signified as the individual. Like all things, we fabricate this stuff up from the mind-but I would think, from you perspective, a partial non-individual speculates first (philosophizes) and then suddenly becomes a full individual, or perhaps later on, after coffee and some soul searching?

I don't believe I was implying a novelty from the christian view point of a distinction between god and man-each word is distinct from the other; otherwise, we would not be able to construct sentences or have categories of ideas-that would seem to be common sense; evidently I meant something else!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2010, 12:53 AM
 
3,448 posts, read 2,600,900 times
Reputation: 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic235 View Post
Well, God is a human-lie.

Theists always have a hard time round such lie (they called it incomprehensible).
Incomprehensible only means " Websters : That which cannot be contained within limits " "That, which cannot be understood"

The only significance this condition has is the ability to know, grasp & understand Gods thoughts.

It wouldn't be reasonable for an ant to
know and grasp and understand Vic 235's thoughts would it.

Yet, the ant highly suspects that Vic 235 is on the porch and
possibly getting that spray can out.

For some the word "God" has an entirely different meaning than for others

Here is an example of an extreme possibility to effect significance or evidence of above statement

In an example of extremes an individual is exposed to another (with no exposure to religion) and convinces him, religion is admirable and neccesary as well he is a model religeous, and then goes about damaging and manipulating.

The end result is a good healthy disdain for God. The word God unfolds
a meaning relative to the experience.

My opinion is that its good to be mindful of the significance of life
experience, relative to the use of the word God by everyone.
Also...it follows that the "Story of God can be told by many people .
Many people of which you point out are capable of deception and lies.

Thanks for post...trying to keep eyes open...long day

Last edited by stargazzer; 04-04-2010 at 01:19 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2010, 01:08 AM
 
3,448 posts, read 2,600,900 times
Reputation: 478
Allen Antrim says :

Nice bit on skeptics, now if we could get people to become skeptics of their own opinions rather than only focusing on others; what a wonderful world this would be and how progressive!

Stargazzer says :

I will look forward to the balance of another thought provoking posting
tomorrow as its time to turn in.

Leaving with above quote in place as I shall there bye sleep like a log.

Thanks for reading and reply as well have a super day tomorrow .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2010, 07:38 PM
 
3,448 posts, read 2,600,900 times
Reputation: 478
Allen Antrim says:

In this discussion, when the son of man was suggested doesn't seem to be the issue, but what is done with the concept-is a rational structure built with it-is Christian theology rational-not whether you like it or not, not whether the Sumerians had one as well, etc? This whole mess of a thread is built on the idea that only one type of thought can only be rational, and everything else is leading the herd into chaos. One could use the Dali in Tibet, as the incarnation of the god, does Lamaism also build their idea rationally? Christianity is not the point, but are its, or other religions', rational structures or irrational?

The actual existence of a god would not be the point either, but are the structures supporting the concept rational or irrational? For this discussion, who cares if there is a god-can anyone be objective here?

Stargazzer says: The incarnation of God , in my opinion cannot possibly together
with all the science man has uncovered be rational, relative to logical application
to date of the ....."behavior of matter" .
However, it is also my opinion that above statement is incomplete in attaching
absolute certainty as the evidence required to determine a rational or irrational
certainty is incomplete.
Science, relativity, irrational behaviour in quantum particles,(beam-barrior behaviour in quantum particles of light) time relativity, all
novel relative to the birth of science , convince the unavailability to determine
absolute certainty in the behavior of matter. Without question.
Obviously , above reference is not in any means conclusive to un-puzzling
the ..."to be absolutely grasped physical explanation to the subject of the Divinity of Christ although "exposes station in observation" to be evidence limited. I have further opinion on

this overview regarding the God Incarnation , applying an alternate reference other than , exactly how its put forward...that being the Son of God.

Perhaps the association between God and Christ is "more" than God and Son ....
and the science is simply not here yet. This would be in keeping with the availability
for its religion to evolve in time . Our solar keeper has much fuel to burn. Maybe theres a
rational reason in "time allocation" for that interesting , and physical reality .

Allen Antrim says

Individuality is a social construction as a means to manage individuals, as soon as men speak or communicate, the social comes into being and a distinction has to be drawn between it and something else where the communication comes from: its called or signified as the individual. Like all things, we fabricate this stuff up from the mind-but I would think, from you perspective, a partial non-individual speculates first (philosophizes) and then suddenly becomes a full individual, or perhaps later on, after coffee and some soul searching?

Stargazzer says:

Individuality is a social construction as a means to manage individuals is relative
only to the social, not relative to the individual.
No, I don't believe any one can be described as a.... partial individual. Not at all.
Why did you have to say coffee.....I'm out of coffee, let me go check

Last edited by stargazzer; 04-04-2010 at 08:29 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2010, 08:29 PM
 
433 posts, read 516,959 times
Reputation: 91
Here's how incomprehensible came about:

Atheist: "Explain how God created a woman out of a rib of a man"
Theist: "God is incomprehensible"

See what that theist was doing? He was still trying to round that silly lie.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2010, 09:06 PM
 
3,448 posts, read 2,600,900 times
Reputation: 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic235 View Post
Here's how incomprehensible came about:

Atheist: "Explain how God created a woman out of a rib of a man"
Theist: "God is incomprehensible"

See what that theist was doing? He was still trying to round that silly lie.
Doesn't seem to be a good answer does it. For me, history is what it is
in the time and people that play out their lives.
Theres so much to theology's history that focusing on the " idea or
reason" for one or the other religion, eliminates the confusion that could
come out of all kinds of interpetations.

Thats just what I think. I really think that .

The bulk of people, over so much time , good leaders, poor leaders and people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2010, 09:33 PM
 
3,448 posts, read 2,600,900 times
Reputation: 478
I would like to say that I have enjoyed this thread immensely.

Also it was referred to in a post as to the availability of other religions.
Its sincerely understood by myself that any religion that has its idea of purpose
to be grounded in the comfort of ... "Govern with Virtue" to be greatly
substantial as well enlightening , to be sure.

Am receiving a thought provoking work the Japanese wrote discussing a new
outlook involving sound frequencies which elude to interesting new concepts.

Thanks again and will drop back in a week or so.

Last edited by stargazzer; 04-04-2010 at 10:08 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2010, 09:14 PM
 
433 posts, read 516,959 times
Reputation: 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by stargazzer View Post
Doesn't seem to be a good answer does it. For me, history is what it is
in the time and people that play out their lives.
Theres so much to theology's history that focusing on the " idea or
reason" for one or the other religion, eliminates the confusion that could
come out of all kinds of interpetations.

Thats just what I think. I really think that .

The bulk of people, over so much time , good leaders, poor leaders and people.
Theist's answers about God are never good (called "irrational") because they realized the irrationality of their beliefs -- and that's why they always say "God is incomprehensible -- need faith"
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
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, 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, 33, 34, 35 - Top