One Eyed Jack
New member
Ok.
In which of these ways have I been uncharitable, in your opinion?
Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Ok.
In which of these ways have I been uncharitable, in your opinion?
SOTKForEver
New member
Re: Re: Re: Re: Atheism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Atheism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Atheism
One Eyed Jack
New member
Originally posted by ZroKewl
Perhaps you just have a different defintion of love and kindess and humility than I do.
--ZK
Perhaps. How have I been unloving or unkind, or shown a lack of humility?
IMO, when you told me: "That reference obviously flew right over your head", you were not being kind nor loving nor humble. You have made similar comments before, and some rather "unloving" ones to heusden - infering that you didn't care if you offended him or hurt his feelings.
Regardless, the point was that you were implying that some people are "blinded to the truth" that you and others have tried to tell them -- to which I countered with an equally applicable Scripture reference stating that your sharing of the "truth" is worthless since it is not motivated by love. If you think it is, you deceive yourself. In the end, I don't care; I'd much rather you try to shove your truth down people's throats all the while offending them and not treating them with love -- than for you to treat them with dignity, respect, and love and have them somehow falsely believe that this is because you have Jesus in your life.
--ZK
One Eyed Jack
New member
And your comment that precipitated that remark was?
Well that's where you're wrong. It's not my intention to hurt anyone's feelings -- I hold back on a lot of things I could say for just that reason. However, if the truth offends someone, it's going to offend them regardless of who tells them.
Then what is it motivated by?
So you say. Fact of the matter is, you don't know me or my motivations.
Ah, so now we get to the root of your problem -- Jesus Christ. Like I said, some people are just offended by the truth, and apparently you're one of them.
irrelevant.
You got it buddy. Keep shoving Jesus down people's throats, implying that they are morons not to believe, belittling their English speaking abilities, and nitpicking every little detail in attempts to catch errors in people's logic. That way, if they are offended and don't accept the truth that the love of Jesus is in your life, then it's not your fault.
With love,
--ZK
One Eyed Jack
New member
Where have I implied such a thing? A quote would be nice, if you could provide one.
First of all, my comment towards heusdens that maybe he could learn English a little better (to which he readily agreed) had nothing to do with Jesus, and everything to do with the comment he made about my communication skills. Secondly, it was not intended to be belittling, as I think he speaks English quite well for a non-native speaker.
That's where the errors usually lie -- in the details.
If you find the truth offensive, whose fault is that?
SOTKForEver
New member
Re: Re: Re: Re: Atheism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Atheism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Atheism
After the show is all and done with, if Cristians are correct I will be eating my shoes. If I am wrong, does that mean I am not allowed to change my mind in eyes of God after the fact? Does it mean that I am to live eternity in Hell for being a good person but being wrong about one thing? I have no problems with your concept of God, sounds like a nice guy to tell you the truth. I was just pointing out that because of my belief, according to Jesus (who I don't believe ever lived) I will rot for eternity even though I am a good person. Just wondering what the thoughts on that are.
This one goes to Jack. I applaud your faith. The only thing that bothers me about you is your lack of empathy. You can't even bother to look at the other persons issue with an open mind. You give curt answers to what everyone says that is contrary to what you believe. Instead of giving the one liners, why not elaborate your position. If they don't agree fine. At least you added to the discussion in a way that can be built upon.
Spartin
One Eyed Jack
New member
Thank you.
That's not true. What most people are referring to when they speak of having an open mind is actually a willingness to believe anything they hear. I'm far too skeptical for that.
I'm a man of few words. I don't need to make long speeches to get my point across.
Come on, the atheists on this forum aren't looking to build on anything I have to say -- they'd much rather tear it down.
Flake
New member
Thankyou for responding SOTKForEver. I see people as ready, willing and eager to understand "why" they exist on the earth. There are many explanations. The pure fact of the matter is that it all happened a long time ago and we may never know the absolute truth of it. We have a choice of what to believe, this I see as a freedom.
The difference between you and I is that I recognise that my choice, that of no design or plan on behalf of a supernatural intelligence, does not lead to anything but information. It does not improve the world, make me happy, reassure me about death, give me any comfort whatsoever or give me a reason or purpose for being here, athough it does explain why I am here, but not "why" in the sense of "purpose", a reason, why in the sense of causality. I accept that I have no ultimate purpose other than, if I choose to follow my evolutionary programming, to pro-create. We are no more important than a stone, other than to other humans, because importance is a human perception. If all humans where to be wiped out, the world and the universe would continue quite happily, and probably slightly relieved, any natural unbalance would be absorbed. We are not needed! The theist belief on the other hand satisfies desire. It creates comfort, provides reason, a purpose, satisfaction, a feeling of doing something right with potention of it being recognised and rewarded, a sense of being needed. These demands are part of human nature and can be observed most easily in a child which is where we must look to see the innocent uncorrupted essense of who we are.
Now, I do not have absolute faith in science. Science is not a thing or a god or an intelligence unto itself. It is the process that humans use to explain things, that is all. The human mind, I would expect, is limited in what it can understand and so science is ultimatley limited, but that is now. Science has proved itself to be capable of expanding and discoveries are made all the time and it would not be such a huge leap of faith to expect science to explain more in the future. By the same token, evolution is in operation continually and it too will affect us and maybe we will grow enough to be able to understand and discover more. We simply do not know. Science is not perfected, it is an ongoing process, the same can be said for evolution.
The god of gaps argument is simply that we recognise that we do not know everything. The bits we dont know may or may not be eventualy explained by science. In the mean time science theorises, makes educated guesses, based on current scientific knowledge, and attempts to understand. These are not leaps of faith but logical projections, but not guaranteed to be absolute truths, thats why they are called theories. The willingness of the theist to simply and glibly state that god did it is not good enough as it could be equally simply and glibly stated that aliens did it.
The bible is a book, that is all. I read profound material everyday and what I have learned is that it doesnt need to change your life to be appreciated. If a book tells me that I must pray four times a day I would want a bit more justification for these commands on my free will before I do any of it. Threats I will disregard as further infringement on my liberty. Thats not to say the book should be totally disregarded, it is a good read and yes I have read it.
Morality is understandable in terms of evolution. We are animals, and just as physical characteristics evolve and are selected, so are personal and brain characteristics. Thought and cognitive function, behavour, all are subject to evolution. The essence of who-we-are evolved. I respect and admire the natural world and am proud to be a member. A "god background" does not give theists the moral high ground because we can freely admit we have morality to, by virtue of evolution and unlimately society, everybody has it. But, it is your own. Remember that the Crusaders and Inquisitors thought they held the moral high ground as they slashed and tortured thier amoral victims. Morality does not exist outside of the mind, but it does exist, in various forms. Nobody has a valid claim to having the "best" morals because it is all opinion, stuctured by evolution and everything else that has the slightest effect on the psyche.
Knowledge is subject to some belief and faith. If I stand at my door and see a car knocking down a pedestrian, I know that it happened. I may be hallucinating and it did not happen, but I am sure enough that I can say I know, but could still be wrong. So, knowledge is not concrete as we can only know what our brains record and they are apt to be mistaken. We have faith enough in our brains to "know", otherwise we couldnt function. Evidence reinforces knowledge and holds the questions at bay. The question is, how much evidence is required to say that you "know" something? Science appoaches this with experimentation and the ability to control enviroment, testing the theory and gathering evidence and proving hypothesis by repetition. We tend to believe our eyes and the words of those we regard as authorititive who we respect. Information that is appealing is tended to be believed more than that which isnt appealing. So we see that even knowledge itself is not an absolute unquestionable reality. We dont question all our knowledge all the time because some things we have to just accept or we would not even get out of bed each day, so, we live on faith. Can we truly know anything?
Sorry for not resonding to all your points but my post was getting rather large and dare I say it, preachy, hope not.
I still believe that you overcame your personal problems by your own volition. I know about the mental state of addiction. Dependance and tolerance are seperate issues. Not all addicts recover via god, though many do, I know some personally. This reinforces my belief in the strength of faith because, as I have already stated, it is faith that is the root of our being, it is how we think. What we have faith in is another matter.
The difference between you and I is that I recognise that my choice, that of no design or plan on behalf of a supernatural intelligence, does not lead to anything but information. It does not improve the world, make me happy, reassure me about death, give me any comfort whatsoever or give me a reason or purpose for being here, athough it does explain why I am here, but not "why" in the sense of "purpose", a reason, why in the sense of causality. I accept that I have no ultimate purpose other than, if I choose to follow my evolutionary programming, to pro-create. We are no more important than a stone, other than to other humans, because importance is a human perception. If all humans where to be wiped out, the world and the universe would continue quite happily, and probably slightly relieved, any natural unbalance would be absorbed. We are not needed! The theist belief on the other hand satisfies desire. It creates comfort, provides reason, a purpose, satisfaction, a feeling of doing something right with potention of it being recognised and rewarded, a sense of being needed. These demands are part of human nature and can be observed most easily in a child which is where we must look to see the innocent uncorrupted essense of who we are.
Now, I do not have absolute faith in science. Science is not a thing or a god or an intelligence unto itself. It is the process that humans use to explain things, that is all. The human mind, I would expect, is limited in what it can understand and so science is ultimatley limited, but that is now. Science has proved itself to be capable of expanding and discoveries are made all the time and it would not be such a huge leap of faith to expect science to explain more in the future. By the same token, evolution is in operation continually and it too will affect us and maybe we will grow enough to be able to understand and discover more. We simply do not know. Science is not perfected, it is an ongoing process, the same can be said for evolution.
The god of gaps argument is simply that we recognise that we do not know everything. The bits we dont know may or may not be eventualy explained by science. In the mean time science theorises, makes educated guesses, based on current scientific knowledge, and attempts to understand. These are not leaps of faith but logical projections, but not guaranteed to be absolute truths, thats why they are called theories. The willingness of the theist to simply and glibly state that god did it is not good enough as it could be equally simply and glibly stated that aliens did it.
The bible is a book, that is all. I read profound material everyday and what I have learned is that it doesnt need to change your life to be appreciated. If a book tells me that I must pray four times a day I would want a bit more justification for these commands on my free will before I do any of it. Threats I will disregard as further infringement on my liberty. Thats not to say the book should be totally disregarded, it is a good read and yes I have read it.
Morality is understandable in terms of evolution. We are animals, and just as physical characteristics evolve and are selected, so are personal and brain characteristics. Thought and cognitive function, behavour, all are subject to evolution. The essence of who-we-are evolved. I respect and admire the natural world and am proud to be a member. A "god background" does not give theists the moral high ground because we can freely admit we have morality to, by virtue of evolution and unlimately society, everybody has it. But, it is your own. Remember that the Crusaders and Inquisitors thought they held the moral high ground as they slashed and tortured thier amoral victims. Morality does not exist outside of the mind, but it does exist, in various forms. Nobody has a valid claim to having the "best" morals because it is all opinion, stuctured by evolution and everything else that has the slightest effect on the psyche.
Knowledge is subject to some belief and faith. If I stand at my door and see a car knocking down a pedestrian, I know that it happened. I may be hallucinating and it did not happen, but I am sure enough that I can say I know, but could still be wrong. So, knowledge is not concrete as we can only know what our brains record and they are apt to be mistaken. We have faith enough in our brains to "know", otherwise we couldnt function. Evidence reinforces knowledge and holds the questions at bay. The question is, how much evidence is required to say that you "know" something? Science appoaches this with experimentation and the ability to control enviroment, testing the theory and gathering evidence and proving hypothesis by repetition. We tend to believe our eyes and the words of those we regard as authorititive who we respect. Information that is appealing is tended to be believed more than that which isnt appealing. So we see that even knowledge itself is not an absolute unquestionable reality. We dont question all our knowledge all the time because some things we have to just accept or we would not even get out of bed each day, so, we live on faith. Can we truly know anything?
Sorry for not resonding to all your points but my post was getting rather large and dare I say it, preachy, hope not.
I still believe that you overcame your personal problems by your own volition. I know about the mental state of addiction. Dependance and tolerance are seperate issues. Not all addicts recover via god, though many do, I know some personally. This reinforces my belief in the strength of faith because, as I have already stated, it is faith that is the root of our being, it is how we think. What we have faith in is another matter.
Last edited:
Phil. 4:8
Finally brethren,
whatsoever things are true
whatsoever things are honest
whatsoever things are just
whatsoever things are pure
whatsoever things are lovely
whatsoever things are of good report;
if there be any virtue
and
if there be any praise,
think on these things.
Finally brethren,
whatsoever things are true
whatsoever things are honest
whatsoever things are just
whatsoever things are pure
whatsoever things are lovely
whatsoever things are of good report;
if there be any virtue
and
if there be any praise,
think on these things.
Nineveh
Merely Christian
Spartin,
From an earlier post, you claim you (basically) have never sinned. That you are a "good" guy. You do not (yet) recognize your need for a Savior. Jesus, whom you do not even believe existed, walked among His people, they too did not believe He existed. Christians 2000 years later stake their entire eternity on the very fact. What is the difference? A repentant, contrite, submissive, humble heart. But to answer your question, yes, if you die in your sin, you will go to hell. God has given you a free gift, it is up to you to decide to accept or reject it.
I do not know if this will give you any understanding or not, but you say "being wrong about one thing". I can not begin to express the gravity of that one statement. According to Scripture, Jesus is what holds the universe together, He is the One whom through all things were made in the beginning. If you stop to think about that for a second, "what if" this guy is who He says He is. This eternal omnipotent being, who created a universe so big modern day astronomy can only glimps it's outer reaches in tiny "keyhole" bits at a time, came down to His creation (earth) for the sole purpose of dying at the hands of His creatures. The level of submission *that* took is way greater than what it took for me to read His Word and investigate His claims. Even on the outside chance it could be true, doesn't such an act deserve a little time and effort to investigate?
May I ask you, have you ever sat down with Scripture with no other intention than to understand or try to grasp what these Christians are going on about?
*About Jack*
I think I understand his curt replies. Sometimes nothing more need be said. It may *sound* rude, but the statements are clear. I don't see most of his replies as being anything other than the necessary. Why try to distract from the main point with many unecessary words? I like his style, personally.To built one own's fundaments of thought is a mental excercise each and everyone has to do for him/her self. This does not mean there are already constucts of the mind availabe to us, we can reflect on, work on and compare our own notions with that of others.
To built own's own fundament of thought, we can not go lightly, in fact it urges us to doubt everything we think we know, even the most trivial conclusions and thoughts we have about the world.
In this sense, to construct one's own fundaments of thought and mental outlook on the world as a whole, what we have to do in first instance is to deconstruct (or: tearing it down) any mental constructions we have, to analyze it fundamentally, and from there re-built/re-construct and re-create our own vision on the world.
As a matter of excercise, I have put a post in which I discuss this very fundament of thought, which is in the philosophy & religion subforum under the name: The Fundamental Question.
I welcome anyone to discuss this.
Last edited:
As to the little quarral between me and Jack, I see no reason for anyone to blame something on Jack, since in the 'offense' thing, this is of course something of subjective nature. I stated myself I should not take it as offensive, and probably should not even have started a debate about it. Something worth mentioning: I was a bit tired yesterday. In such case people tend to be easier irritated.
As to the matter of truth, and weather it is offensive or not, this is of course a matter of interpretation (in more or less the same way as the 'offense' and how it is taken or interpreted), and there is no way to escape that conclusion. As a matter of fact I do not know of any truth, which is offensive in nature itself, cause they are statements about reality. The offense can only be seen as the situation in which a particular truth is declared, whom it concerns, and how it is taken. That is, those things, circumstances and interpretations exist seperate and independend of that particular truth itself.
Even so it might be that the truth, which is stated as being offensive, is offensive in a way that the offense could as well be offensive for the person defending that particular truth (the statement about reality that truth is offensive). We do not conceive of truths that a matter of speach, "declare themselves' but always involves a consciouss discovery of and declaration of that truth and revelation of that truth to others, which depending on the circumstances, might be taken as offensive of not.
For that reason I regard the statement about reality, in which it is said that truth itself is offensive in nature, as an untruthfull declaration about reality, cause the beholder of that truth already has mixed up the objectivity of that particular truth with the subjective conditions in the declaration and reaction to that truth.
Truths themselves are objective, but their declarations and interpretations are subjective. If one declares the truth to be that "it rains outside" this truth is not gonna be more or less subjective depending on who this says, or how it is said or stated, even if this is said to be a statement coming from the mouth of God directly, and which is said in a way that anyone who does not believe that to be the truth, is cursed and damned for eternity, the truth being is that wether or not it rains, is not depending on that statement of truth, but only on the fact wether or not it actually rains outside. For that to discover, one just has to go outside and look at the sky, and see if any cloudy skies are visible, if any signs of rain and wet roads can be seen, and conclude from that what that particular truth is. Even if it is the case that the sky showns no signs of clouds, but instead a brilliant sun is shining in your face, and no signs of recent water or rain is to be discovered, one should not take any offense in the former speaker, who has made such an inaccurate statement about reality. In contrast, we should inprint in our minds the fact that we discovered one can find truth which is not in any way dependend on any subjective interpretation or declaration of reality.
Last edited:
LightSon
New member
Flake,
I enjoyed reading your post. I have no idea what I'm going to say to you, so I'll just begin and see where I go.
Scripture provides for the purpose to life. You can realize that purpose, but you need to, at a bare minimum, open your mind to the possibility that God is “out there” and deeply desires to commune with you. The Bible has some simply amazing things in it. If you let conventional atheistic skepticism derail your query before it starts, faith will never get a chance to grow.
I would encourage you to look to the Bible with an open mindset. What if it is true? The Bible is about Christ coming to make a way of reconciliation. The dynamics of His coming were foretold hundreds of years prior. We were created to commune with God and will suffer until that purpose is realized.
Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."
Jesus statement was one of the following:
- Extreme arrogance and falsehood,
- Extreme delusion,
- Extreme truth.
Jesus was willing to die for His position. Many have taken similar stands for His honor. What if He really was who He claimed to be?
I enjoyed reading your post. I have no idea what I'm going to say to you, so I'll just begin and see where I go.
I like the way you put thoughts together. You subtly keep the door open that we just might know absolute truth someday somewhere.
I appreciate your honesty. Does not this observation cause you despondency at times? As a person of faith, I find life to be hard at times. I can’t imagine what my motivational structure would be like without God.
Well said. I love science. It is a great tool, but it has its limitations. There are questions that science is ill suited to answer. Reality continues despite science’s inability to answer all puzzles.
I submit that the Bible is more than a book. It is actually a compilation of 66 books written by 40 different men over 2000 years. There are common themes running throughout which tend to indicate a common intelligence. I will hedge my assertions out of respect for your fact finding processes, although I will say that my conviction has moved to accepting the Bible’s common inspiration from God. I don’t expect you to accept that on my account.
Scripture provides for the purpose to life. You can realize that purpose, but you need to, at a bare minimum, open your mind to the possibility that God is “out there” and deeply desires to commune with you. The Bible has some simply amazing things in it. If you let conventional atheistic skepticism derail your query before it starts, faith will never get a chance to grow.
This is true UNLESS, there is a God who has communicated the veracity of our high ground. If God is not there, our morality is no better or worse than any other. If God has articulated moral boundaries, then claim can be made thereto.
These actions are indefensible. But consider that if the Bible is from God, then no amount of misbehavior or misinterpretation can alter the truthfulness of the original message. Messengers corrupt the message more often than not. Look to the souce of the message, not to the corrupt messengers.
Yes. To the extent that my faith is weak, my trust in God is impinged. I believe that all people of faith, struggle from time to time with the quality and strength of their faith. I actively seek to build up my faith. I can also dismantle my faith by acting badly and ignoring scriptural precepts. In short, when we act as if we have faith, often our faith will increase thereby. I remember doing the Marine Corps confidence course in boot camp, a series of high-above-the-ground obstacles to negotiate. One may not believe they can do it, but the act of getting up there and going through the paces, leave you with the faith that you can.
I would encourage you to look to the Bible with an open mindset. What if it is true? The Bible is about Christ coming to make a way of reconciliation. The dynamics of His coming were foretold hundreds of years prior. We were created to commune with God and will suffer until that purpose is realized.
Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."
Jesus statement was one of the following:
- Extreme arrogance and falsehood,
- Extreme delusion,
- Extreme truth.
Jesus was willing to die for His position. Many have taken similar stands for His honor. What if He really was who He claimed to be?
The truth of that particular declared truth is like any other declared truths dependend solely on facts, wether known or unknown, which are independend of that or any other particular declared truth, in the same way as in a declared truth statement that "it rains outside" the truth of that is solely dependend on facts that are not dependend on that or any other particular declared truth, but solely on the fact wether or not it in fact rains.
- Status