All religions end up as "organised" - its inevitable.
I can't imagine not believing in God.
by MsGrowingGirl20 643 Replies latest members private
-
-
Pams girl
I cant debate, I cant spell well, and I hate confrontation, even in a in virtual world like JWN. But, I want to say this, because its the only way I can describe it.
When I was training to be a nurse, one of the most important lessons I learned was about pain. A 2 hour lecture, and ultimately the outcome was, despite multiple examples from top-of-the-field neurosurgeons from all over the world......
"Pain is.........what the patient says it is...."
And so for me, its like this with God/god/godessess....or other..........it IS what the person says it is.
Thats all.
Goodnight all, Paula x
-
cyberjesus
SOME posters dont admit they dont care what SOME posters post.
There is wisdom in this forum.
-
-
AGuest
Excellent analogy, dear PG (peace to you!). Even more, while pain CAN be imagined it can also be very real. That my leg feels pain when I bump it... and another's doesn't... doesn't make my pain unreal. Even if I say, "This is how I bumped MY leg - you should feel a similar pain if you bump yours the same way"... doesn't mean you will (and even more so if you didn't bump it the same way). Or that I didn't. That you don't/can't feel pain doesn't mean I can't.
That one person feels pain and others don't doesn't make the one's pain unreal (it just makes the others unfeeling, numb, masochi... J/K! LOLOLOL! Seriously, just kidding! Please excuse my poor humor).
It doesn't make either anything... except one who does feel pain... and one who doesn't... perhaps under the same circumstances.
Peace!
A slave of Christ,
SA
-
NewChapter
Well that would make gods/goddesses/etc completely subjective---like pain. Which is what I argued along. That's why people's gods reflect their own cultures and upbringing---very different---very subjective---not from a common source but from many minds and interpetations.
-
AGuest
Pain is currently considered subjective because there is no way to accurately measure it other than how each who experience it say THEY "feel" it. Will that always be the case, though? What if the day comes where a tool is designed/invented that can measure pain... one that, say, "registers" pain by number based on, say brain waves/nerve reactions: 0-2 low (tolerable, so I'm cool) pain; 3-5 great (Mmmmm... better gimme an aspirin/ibu tab) pain; 6-8 great (I think I need a vicodin/norco) pain; 9-10 excruiating (okay, hit me with some demerol/oxycontin/morphine) pain; 10+ unbearable (what pain, I'm out!) pain?
We consider pain subjective... NOW. Because we don't have the tools to accurately MEASURE pain. Should we really say we never will? And when we do, should we say that pain did not exist until we had the tools to accurately measure it?
As a woman, such thinking is disturbing to me. It's like the women of previous generations who KNEW "something" was "wrong" with their bodies, could FEEL "lumps" and such... but since machines to DETECT these didn't exist... well, the lumps didn't exist. And the woman's claim of their existence was... subjective: indeed, they were imagining things. NOW we know it wasn't... and they most probably weren't at all.
Like God... truth doesn't change: only our knowledge/understanding of both does. It is what it is... regardless of lack of tools... and/or capabilities... to measure them.
Peace!
A slave of Christ,
SA
-
Etude
tec: " You must be able to see what I am referring to? " – when you say "false evidence". The reason I pointed out the difference between your terminology about "evidence" and what is defined logically is because your definition brings confusion regarding what you mean. So, while I can guess at what you mean, I thought that it would be wise to be more precise. Now, taking a stab at what you might mean, my guess is that at one point you stated that Cofty had no evidence to prove God exists, they you said he had evidence, then you said his evidence is false. In any case, you did not demonstrate any of that here.
" I am using the dictionary... as well as the various 'types' of evidence... not limited to scientific evidence. I bumped a thread I did a while ago for you and Punk; I will bump it again. "Evidence for God" It is nothing that you will accept as conclusive to you or others, but hopefully, it will give you a better idea as to me. " There you go again with the "evidence". When you say you use evidence "not limited to scientific evidence" you are saying you use non-scientific evidence. What is that? Supernatural evidence? Intangible evidence? It can't be anything on which we can reason because that which we can reason adheres to scientific scrutiny. And so, you end up being guilty of precisely what you accused Cofty of: not having concrete or conclusive evidence. Well, no wonder what you offer is unacceptable to most reasonable people. It only makes sense to you. That is why it's so easy for you to justify what you believe by saying: " I only know by the Spirit. " And unfortunately, not by much else.
" This is the traditional explanation, but that does not make this true. " – that John was the writer of "John". Well, it doesn't make it UNTRUE. You see how you force yourself to make a conclusion? When something is not conclusive, that's when you use other evidence to tip it to one side or another. If there is no evidence it remains inconclusive. It's becoming obvious to me why you don't mention or try to explain away the meaning of Acts 4:13. You've had plenty of opportunity already. According to your logic, you would have us think that because one disciple was a biblical writer that Acts 4:13 is clearly wrong and they were not illiterate at all. Acts must mean something else. Well, dig away into that hole if you want to, but I can't see how you can logically defend the point, unless you use your own particular supernatural logic.
" the author was humbly referring to another disciple " Here's another example of how you force an answer in order for your argument not to crumble. I searched about 10 different links when I googled "the disciple Jesus loved" and found none to disagree that it was John, even though he is clearly not mentioned. You choose instead to think that it was some other disciple. It's not the number of links that agree that makes the difference; it is the commonality of reasoning they use for arriving at the same conclusion. But, it's easy for you to ignore that because it may not support your argument.
Here's the argument one link presents:
First, only the Gospel of John mentions the "disciple whom Jesus loved." Second, John 21:2 lets us know who was fishing with Peter: "Simon Peter, Thomas (called Didymus), Nathanael from Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zebedee, and two other disciples were together..." The apostle John was a son of Zebedee ( Matthew 4:21 ). Third, there were three disciples who were especially close to Jesus: Peter, James, and John ( Matthew 17:1 ; Mark 5:37 ; 14:33 ; Luke 8:51 ). The “disciple whom Jesus loved” could not be Peter, as Peter asks Jesus a question in regards to this disciple ( John 21:20-21 ). That leaves us with James or John. Jesus made a statement about the possible "longevity" of the life of the disciple whom He loved in John 21:22 . James was the first of the apostles to die ( Acts 12:2 ). While Jesus did not promise the disciple whom He loved long life, it would be highly unusual for Jesus to say, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?" if the disciple whom He loved was going to be the first disciple to die. http://www.gotquestions.org/disciple-whom-Jesus-loved.html
It is done logically by a process of elimination. But I imagine you don't really need that kind of logic.
I read about an estimate suggesting a 3% literacy rate in Jewish Palestine at the time of Christ, with various levels of literacy:
1. Total illiteracy
2. Signature literacy, able to read and sign one's name
3. Craft literacy, being able to read simple instructions relating to one's craft
4. Administrative literacy, being able to write documents such as lists, accounts, leases, wills, marriage agreements
5. Full literacy, being able to compose and read complex literary texts.
According to Catherine Hezser and William V Harris (Ancient Literacy, Cambridge, 1989), number 5 from the list probably existed only in the highest echelons of society at the top 1% of the population. (Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine [Tubingen, 2001])
So, even though the evidence derived from that time indicates the likelihood that only a small percent of the people of the population had the ability to write in the way the gospels and letters were written, you would have us believe that Acts 4:13 means that some disciples and apostles were of that top 1% instead of being just able to read and sign their names and follow simple instructions. Even though the NT writings are not high caliber Greek, the language and style of the writings show a significant level of education. Besides, the fact remains that if the disciples and apostles wrote the NT, it was not their native language. That would further indicate some side tracking from their humble jobs for the writers, something that would be a glaring omission from the canon if it had actually occurred.
I have found scholarly studies suggesting Peter as having been the writer of his works. One contains some reference showing "Peter" using typical terms for someone writing with his own hand. And, all of that may be true. But that would ONLY be true if it could be established that the Peter who writes in his letters IS the Peter that followed Jesus and not some other Greek Peter who took on the job.
" When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus." Right. They had something interesting to say and being illiterate was not the same thing as being stupid. Throughout history, there have been significant figures that were illiterate. Many Popes were illiterate. Do you care to guess how many illiterate individuals in this country have faked their way into successful careers? They were not dumb and had acquired plenty of skills. But one thing they could not do is write a letter or a book or complete a form. Yet they managed. If Jesus disciples had any level of literacy, it was not the kind that would have afforded them the opportunity to write anything in the NT.
" I did not side-step. I disagreed. " Yes you did, which has prompted me to research for you and provide the level of detail I just discussed about what it meant to be illiterate at that time.
" I am not NOW relying on that document. " Why not? Did it cease to be meaningful? If it still counts, then you should rely on it. If you don't rely on it, what is the source of information for details about what Christ's intentions were and what his words meant? If it's that Spirit that now talks to you, we're back inside your head and impossibly far away from anything anybody else can confirm.
" Other sources... meaning other testimony about Christ and God... meaning other people testifying to their experience... Christ being One who testified to God (and who still does) ". Let's break that down: You have 1) what other people say as evidence (sources) and you have 2) what Christ and God say (not the Bible) as sources. OK. I have the testimony of many individuals who say they have been abducted by ETs and have had experiments performed on them. Not only have I heard it from their mouths, but I've encountered dozens of books in which they delineate their experiences. The problem is that just like you and the people you use as sources, none of that can be corroborated and must be accepted at face value. As far as the "testimony" you get via your spiritual antennae, it is quickly corralled into the same category of unverifiable testimony. I know that being verified by the world is not important to you, only that you know you are in the right. But that is almost certainly proof that you live in a self-contained idealized realm.
" [Christ] Unneccesary altogether? No." OK. But from the rest of your comments I think we can agree that is the case for at least some people. It also means that Christ, in that context of goodness and love, becomes completely irrelevant for those people who can express such goodness without him. So, it appears to me that having the same aims and results in life (love, kindness and all that good stuff) can be achieved via different and mutually exclusive foundations. Aside from this "extra" knowledge that you achieve, which only you achieve, and which apparently gives you no external advantage, we are not different in practice only in choosing common logic over internal explanations.
" And one day, everyone will know this concerning God, His Son, and the spiritual. " What? That God is unexplainable? Yeah, I already know that. That's why I've decided to seek that which makes sense. If you mean that God is instead natural (meaning explainable), it would seem that would not come from you, as it presently doesn't. Your "evidence" for that cannot be natural because it only lives in you and can't be explored, tested, poked, examined or probed by any natural means.
" This...'I don't know' [stance] does not contradict anything I know about Christ and God. " Of course it doesn't. That's because what you know goes by different rules, rules that only make sense to you. Whereas, an examination of the universe as we know it, is evidence enough to put the idea of God into question. At least it's enough for me to say: "I don't know."
-
Etude
wolfman85: " Let me make it easy for you. SOME so-called atheist or agnostic are not REAL atheist, SOME, only are angry with God. "
How would you tell? What does it mean to be a "real" atheist or agnostic? I guess saying it is not enough? It's not that "there are no atheists in a foxhole" thing, is it? My guess is that you are taking a guess as to how people feel. But I really fail to see the point at being angry at someone who seems completely uninvolved with the world.
cantleave: "Some religious people would never admit in public that they do not believe in god....." Could it be because they fear retaliation? Could it be because they feel they would not be respected and left alone to not worship anything? There is at least one state in the USA where an atheist will not be hired by the Department of Homeland Security, just for being an atheist (Tennessee?)
-