An Intellectual's Christian Narrative: A Non-Magical Alternative (salvation, atheist, Holy Spirit)

[Arach Angle]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

I would be more than happy to debate the specifics of the version of Buddhism founded by Gautama with you, Tzaph. I practiced it for decades prior to my encounter in deep meditation. There is no God because Gautama did not trust ANY permanent entity for fear that Karma would continue. He also denied any retention of self-identity which is supposed to merge and lose all separate characteristics.

yeah, budda, christian, muslim, in fact all of them are easy peazy. I think that's why some fundy's get defensive. They spend their entire lives learning and not understanding, for obvious reasons, and we come along and understand the claim in seconds. that doesn't mean we know more, it means they don't know what they don't know.

I think I might see if they printed jefferson's bible, or whoever it was. the christian narrative, without the magic and some leftover iron aged rules is fine.

[pneuma]

Originally Posted by pneuma

You are a atheist fundamentalist trans, or if you prefer a new atheist for they are one and the same. You take everything literally and to hell with trying to understand things outside of literalism. I is as though you can't see the forest because you are focused on one tree. Wake up my friend there are a lot more trees in the forest then one.

And being a new atheist you cherry pick what is compatible with religion and what is not.

Tomorrow when I have time I am going to change gears a little and show you from a couple of your post exactly where you have done this.

Until then my friend.

Oh and the arguments of the nativity we spoke about, which one of us use the sciences to back up their stance. That would be me as you only used your own apologetic of the two stories and relied solely on Josephus, cherry picking which historical writings were historically accurate and which were not.

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

You can't have read my posts. I have been involving with Mystic on the coherence of HIS claims, not mine. I only refer to the gospels as literal when he quotes them as though they are.

.

So by that statement you are one of those guys who would destroy someone else house without supplying them with somewhere else to live.

The ad homs about atheist fundamentalism are unworthy, but not unexpected.

Fundamentalist in any field whether it be in religion or the scientific field or atheism all have in common one thing. To the Christian fundamentalist the bible is the only standard of all truth, to the fundamentalist sciences, science is the only standard of truth and the fundamental atheist only follows the fundamentalist sciences as the only standard of truth and each camp take everything in the bible literally.

Within each camps there are those that would be considered militant. Touch their sacred cow and watch out.

Now I do not know whether or not you are of the militant type or not, I hope not as they are the ones who are the cause of many of the wars fought throughout history, as they are the ones who hold all truth and woe be to those who dare challenge them.

Statements like religion is the cause of all the problems of our world; it is the source of absolute evil and poisons everything; and I will destroy all religions at all costs, show pretty much the heart of the individuals making those statement.

Not only are statements like this very troubling as they sound just like something that would have come out of the mouth of Hitler; they are also a very simplistic view as many wars were caused by an imbalance of political power, secular nationalism and the struggle for world domination.

In short militant fundamentalism, I and only I hold the truth, of any kind is a very dangerous road to take as for one to annihilate the other a war must be fought, which as we all know is not a good place for the world to be in.

Robert N Bellah points out " those who feel they are most fully objective in their assessment of reality are most in the power of deep, unconscious fantasies."


Gianni Vattimo states "when someone wants to tell me the absolute truth it is because he wants to put me under his control"

Both theism and atheism make such claims, but there is no absolute truth anymore only interpretations.

What seems typical of the fundamental mind set is the belief that there is only one way to interpret reality.

For myself I believe more along the lines of Stephen Jay Gould who states" a magisterium is a domain where one form of teaching holds the appropriate tools for meaningful discourse and resolution' " religion and science were separate magisteria and should not encroach on each other's domain. Gould goes on to say religion and science are two distinct magistaria that hold equal worth and necessary status for any complete human life; and remain logically distinct and fully separated in lines of inquiry.

Because of Gould stance here Dawkens calls Gould a traitor.

Dawkins like many of his supporters wants to get rid of all religion; yet Dawkens states that atheism is a necessary consequence of evolution and has argued that the religious impulse is simply an evolutionary mistake, a misfiring of something useful, it is a kind of virus, parasitic on cognitive systems naturally selected because they had enabled a species to survive.

Did you get that? Dawkens wants to get rid of religion yet maintains religion enabled mankind to survive. So logically if religion enabled mankind to survive if religion was to be taken out of the equation mankind would simply die.

Dawkens seems to want to kill off the whole human race, not just the religious sects.


So yes Trans you have a fundamental mind set, what I don't know is whether you are of the militant fundamental mindset or not.

[pneuma]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

Splendid, Mike, splendid. You are absolutely right. I have always said the Literalists have a sort of Integrity in that they don't re-write the Bible to suit themselves (only when it comes to countering Bible -critics) and cafeteria Christians who bring their own wine if the place doesn't sell it may be easier for unbelievers to get along with (it's always easier to be friendly with someone who isn't damning you to hell). But you people do us a great service when you say that the Gospels are either true or they are not and thus the Believers are obliged to accept what Jesus said as true whether they like it or not.

All we have to do is provide some evidence that he didn't say it.

This all or nothing also shows you fundamental mind set.

[pneuma]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

No. I believe something to be true because the authorities in this or that field of science have verified it. Even then, it's always open to revision.

.

HUH? How can something be the absolute truth if it can be revised?
So obviously if it can be revised it cannot be the absolute truth.

You may not see it but humanist creep is visible here. Of course i cannot prove there is no god behind the evolution of human morality no more that I can prove that there is no god behin evolution.

So you can't prove something with science yet you believe there is no God; that is called faith without evidence.(Dawkens interpretation of faith)

Did you not just finish saying I believe something to be true because the authorities in this or that field of science have verified it. Even then, it's always open to revision.

Yup you did and here you are believing something not verified by science. I guess we will have to wait for the revision.

You may feel you have secured your position by saying it is "inspiration' rather than dictation, but in fact you have weakened it, because what sounds like stuff that real recipients of Divine inspiration wrote and stuff that others just wrote out of their own heads, is decided by you on the basis of the true spirit telling you which bits are true and which are not.

But this cunning plan puts you on a tightwire, old son, not because you find yourself in the position of telling others who disagree with you that they have not got the Holy Spirit or they would agree with you, though that is bad enough, but because of the basic glass -house danger of relying on Faith; the first time you get something demonstrably wrong, the whole claim collapses.

*

You simply do not get it Trans. The mind of Christ is not something you can explain via science it is something one must live.

(2) though Pneuma went in to bat for you and seems to have limped off with the broken leg*you*should be rubbing.

Nah some of us still have to work for a living.

[pneuma]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

It may sound "Wise after the event' but I rather thought you might say that. It is after all the obvious thing to do. But, rather hilariously, the learning curve does come in- the evolutionary, not the divine one. It is the problem of why it looks like morality is developing and changing all the time and why it now has to trump religion? You now have to cherry pick the NT to leave out the bits that are not up to par with human morality.

.

Here we go with the cherry picking crap again. Again showing your fundamental mind set. Just like the Christian fundamentals you fail to realize that cherries are good and it is a bible principal to pick them. You have read the NT yet have failed to see how the gospel writers cherry picked their way through.

The better explanation is that the "comforter" is not from a cosmic consciousness but from evolutionary instinct - just as we see in animals. And because of the ability to reason and the emergence of complex societies (which I rather trace to the invention of farming) led to the urgent need to apply moral codes to complex societies.*

Would this be the same instinct Dawkens says enables mankind to survive?

[pneuma]

Now back to your nativity claim of using the sciences in support of your debunking the gospel narratives. This is your post of debunking the narrative. Post 479

//www.city-data.com/forum/relig...edible-48.html


Can you point out where in all this post that you used any science at all to support your apologetic? Now I don't mind a good apologetic but for someone who claims they do not believe anything unless it is supported by scientific facts I expected a little more.

Here is my rebuttal to your post. Post 1-5 I even explained the magic star for you via the sciences.

//www.city-data.com/forum/relig...-nativity.html


Now do you still want to boast about using more of the science then me in those 2 rebuttals?

[Tzaphkiel]

Originally Posted by pneuma

....

Statements like religion is the cause of all the problems of our world; it is the source of absolute evil and poisons everything; and I will destroy all religions at all costs, show pretty much the heart of the individuals making those statement.

Not only are statements like this very troubling as they sound just like something that would have come out of the mouth of Hitler;

More examples! Let's add these statements that fall in the same category:

Originally Posted by pneuma

....Religion sucks in my opinion also, why would I even try to defend it?

Originally Posted by nateswift

...It does "suck", but it doesn't necessarily kill.

Oh! And look who said them!
And yes I totally agree .... Very troubled mindset indeed

[Tzaphkiel]

Originally Posted by pneuma

Here is your biggest problem Trans. We are not followers of the bible ( let that sink in, because you obviously don't get it) as can be seen by this post.

Then why do you and Mystic keep quoting it?

[Tzaphkiel]

Originally Posted by pneuma

HUH? How can something be the absolute truth if it can be revised?
So obviously if it can be revised it cannot be the absolute truth.

That's not what mystic says.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

What is this preoccupation with a static reality when there is nothing remotely static in our reality???? As long as life IS change and our reality is life, what is truth will change with it.

Readers would be interested in hearing how you two work through that. Thank you.

Wait there's more! Then again it looks like trurh can change after all..

Originally Posted by pneuma

I get that guys, however the point I was making was that knowledge in every field is advancing, so why is it that everyone seems to think the knowledge of God was stagnated in a book written 2000+ years ago?

to me that is like taking Newtons work and saying that is as far as man can advance.

Stagnant or advancing? Changing or static? Which is it?

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

Your posts are showing up your lack of ability to respond in any worthwhile manner.
As always I leave it for others to decide whether or not I set out some serious objections to your beliefs - because that is all they are - and whether or not you responded fairly or just brushed them aside.

I am explaining and defending my understanding of God and the beliefs that cause me to associate with Christ. Read your posts, Arq. They reveal that your actual objections are to ME, not my understanding of God. You discuss me and my motives and my knowledge and my state of mind, etc. Your knowledge and understanding of the provenance of Christian scripture are why you reject my association with the Christ narrative as proof of anything. But what you seem unable to understand is that none of that is WHY I believe as I do. I have repeatedly said my experiences are the reason for my certainty about God and His characteristics. I have presented plausible scientific hypotheses for how that would work within our reality. I associate with my corrected Christian narrative not as proof but because the consciousness I encountered matches the descriptions of the "mind of Christ" and the actions of Jesus (whatever their provenance).

And your theistic liking for wriggling and evasion is seen in tinkering about with the meaning of 'salvation. Whether or not you (or indeed I) agree that that the extinction of Nirvana (or indeed being reborn as the spoiled brat of of a billionaire) is Salvation as much as an eternity grovelling to a divine Donald Trump, the point is that it is in one's own hands (1), not some gods, and anyone with the ability to read can see that was the point and you are wriggling so as to try to make some cheap point.

Let's not quibble over the term salvation, Arq, it is problematic to associate the extinction of self-identity with any kind of salvation. What is saved if the self is gone?

Mystic, it is a fact that I saw your 'science' demolished while you tried to deny it, and then wriggled just as you do here and shifted your argument to it not being science as we know it which is only an 'analogy' of the unknown science of Dark-matter-god that you postulate.

What is fact is that you did not understand the analogies and you did not understand the actual science behind them, but someone SEEMED to oppose my views and you believed that they were demolished. I doubt you could follow the actual discussions we had on the deeper issues so you have no basis for continuing to assail my knowledge of the science or my hypotheses extrapolated from them. Please stop. It is ludicrous for you to try to discredit what you haven't a clue about.

And I suppose you have nothing to lose by smeary hints that I am cracking up. If anyone has not now sussed you, with our without my help here, as peddling a very ingenious theory but as crackpot as Noah's ark or the cloud -cover theory (but not as bad as volcanoes blowing Koalas to Australia) then it can only be because they are as determined to cherry pick and invert evidence, reason and even intellectual honesty in the cause of maintaining Faith as you.
No. I am not cracking up, and neither are you, but faith -based adherence to whacky beliefs just makes it look like it.

Your continued unflattering focus on me just prompts me to make unflattering responses taking the thread off topic, which I do not want to do. Your lengthy post responding to me that was actually pneuma's is just one of the things prompting my GENUINE concern about you, old friend. Forgive me if it seemed too personal in the context of our repartee. Your quick edit of the other post does indicate that you seem as sharp as ever otherwise. Please trust me when I say you do NOT understand enough of my views to be so completely dismissive and disparaging of them (Noah'sArk indeed). I will not bother to address your remaining discussion of ME because it is off topic.