NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay - that's what I was looking for. The problem is, when you ask a question three times before you get an answer, it looks like avoiding the issue.

I'm not sure if the contratemps took place in this thread, or is a reference to something elsewhere... so I just wanted to make sure the thing being referenced was being understood (mainly, by me) in context.

All I can say about it at this point is that as limited a form of communication as forum posting is, people who are honestly looking to understand each other have no difficulty doing so. It's when somebody has an axe to grind that we start getting into endless and repetitive arguments over the minutia of each and every little word or phrase, and the debate goes from a discussion of issues to a syntax argument.

Which I find boring. That's why I quit replying to Jhahannam.

Nah he ain't new, he's a classmate ;)
But ofcourse it's worth to watch because every option is worth checking out, but heck what they say about the cross and where that came from simply does not make any sense: back in those days, crucifiction was a completly normal way of capital punishment, no need for that wierd explanation. Ever heard from Occam's Razor? It's not high-minded, sometimes it's just obvious. For other things, it might not be that way, but it is for the example I gave. Another class-mate (Razsin knows who I mean) did simply brush it all away as complete rubbish, without even looking at it properly.

Crucifixion was not a 'completely normal way of capital punishment' - indeed, it is entirely inappropriate in the context that the Christian myth claims it. The punishment for the 'crimes' Jesus committed would have been stoning - so Occam immediately suggests problems to us with the crucifixion. Of equal importance, perhaps, is the fact that Jesus' body was allowed to be removed from the Cross, in the stories. It's a piece of the story that fits well with a myth involvong a bodily rezurrection, but it doesn't match the usual tradition of leaving the body to be picked apart by carrion-eaters. Occam has several reasons to make us doubt a literal 'crucifixion' story.

As for the idea that it was 'common' in 'those days'... there's actually relatively little evidence for crucifixion.... only one piece of archeological physical evidence. Lots of anecdote... it's hard to separate the myth from the matter.

Of course - none of that 'proves' any alternate explanation of the crucifixion story... but then, any such ideas are basically 'optional'. All you need to see is that the Biblical account is worth doubting.

I just did the poll and it surprised me that the majority of us who have voted are Atheist.

Nah he ain't new, he's a classmate ;)
But ofcourse it's worth to watch because every option is worth checking out, but heck what they say about the cross and where that came from simply does not make any sense: back in those days, crucifiction was a completly normal way of capital punishment, no need for that wierd explanation. Ever heard from Occam's Razor? It's not high-minded, sometimes it's just obvious. For other things, it might not be that way, but it is for the example I gave. Another class-mate (Razsin knows who I mean) did simply brush it all away as complete rubbish, without even looking at it properly.

Okay - having just watched the first... however many... minutes of it, it looks like their suggestion is that the crucifixion symbolism is based on the zodiac being traditionally divided into quarters...

Possible, I guess... but there are much more likely explanations for a symbolic 'cross' - like de-feminising the Egyptian 'symbol for life/rebirth', for example. Occam doesn't favour their explanation but - as I said - the really important factor is to question the assumptions.

Incidentally, people keep attacking the provenance of the movie... how badly sourced it is, the presence/absence of corroboration... but (in this section, at least) the movie is being attacked for lack of adequate evidence... in questioning an allegedly historical event for which there is NO real evidence. Why the double standard?

There are enough non-Christian accounts of crucifiction like the crucifictions after the Third Servile War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Servile_War#Aftermath). And ofcourse the discovery of a (very likely) crucified body, that body was most likely preserved because it was taken off the cross, so that as allowed as well (at least once before).
I don't know about the stoning though, there are records though that Jews were crucified more often, and ofcourse Jesus was still a Jew.
What I just wanted to say, is that crucifiction was another form of capital punishment (and not just in the Roman Empire), so that's it's a likely option where the christians got that symbol from, one that doesn't require elaborate myths. That's what Occam's Razor prefers: the option wich requires the least amount of assumptions and other hypothesis. I think that the option that the Roman capital punishment form of crucifiction is the one that Occam would prefer on those grounds.

Depending on the forum of discussion, Christians (or any religious persons for that matter) either make me laugh, or incite in me a sort of dumbfounded anger. I place religious folks in my book of crazy people somewhere between Randle Patrick McMurphy and Matthew Lesko. To quote Marc Maron, "It's 2008, isn't it sad that people still believe in God? Grow up!" HaHaHaHa Hah!

Depending on the forum of discussion, Christians (or any religious persons for that matter) either make me laugh, or incite in me a sort of dumbfounded anger. I place religious folks in my book of crazy people somewhere between Randle Patrick McMurphy and Matthew Lesko. To quote Marc Maron, "It's 2008, isn't it sad that people still believe in God? Grow up!" HaHaHaHa Hah!

I find it even sadder that it's 2008 and people still haven't learned to stop making character judgments against each other over what they believe.

I find it even sadder that it's 2008 and people still haven't learned to stop making character judgments against each other over what they believe.

between that and how they act, what's left to make character judgments on?

a fascist that doesn't put his fascism into practice is still a fascist and still worthy of contempt. a person that believes in silly nonsense, even if they are a nice person, still believes in silly nonsense and thus is demonstrating a rather glaring character flaw of one sort or another.

All I can say about it at this point is that as limited a form of communication as forum posting is, people who are honestly looking to understand each other have no difficulty doing so. It's when somebody has an axe to grind that we start getting into endless and repetitive arguments over the minutia of each and every little word or phrase, and the debate goes from a discussion of issues to a syntax argument.

Which I find boring. That's why I quit replying to Jhahannam.

Actually you told me in your post you were willing to discuss it, that's why I continued. If too much attention to precision of language bores you, I'll try to generalize my questions.

May we agree that your assumption about only Mormons and select Christians having a spiritual aspect to their conversion process was incorrect?

May we agree that your line of reasoning clearly implied, by its full context rather than any particular term, that this assumption of "spiritual" conversion was important to your conversion?

May we agree that conversion, the process of choosing a religion, is central to the nature and character of one's religious experience?

These are fair and reasonable questions, presented as softly as possible, with no excessive rigor of syntax.

NB, if you want to drop it, that answers my questions in its own way, but if you're going to drop it, please don't blame the vagaries of language. I ask these kinds of questions of many people, and part of "wanting to understand" is occasionally asking the hard questions. If you don't want to answer, that's a valuable data point in and of itself.

I find it even sadder that it's 2008 and people still haven't learned to stop making character judgments against each other over what they believe.
"People", pretty vague hmm?

I find it even sadder that it's 2008 and people still haven't learned to stop making character judgments against each other over what they believe.

While I don't agree with Lazy Zombie's implication that all theists need to "grow up", I do think that beliefs, because they are so defining of a person (moreso than physical attributes, profession, social strata, etc.), are a very valid criteria with which to make character judgements.

A persons beliefs are one of the things they really choose, and so are most reflective of their mentality and character.

For example, if a person believed that black people were cowardly, would that not allow you to judge part of their character?

While I don't agree with Lazy Zombie's implication that all theists need to "grow up", I do think that beliefs, because they are so defining of a person (moreso than physical attributes, profession, social strata, etc.), are a very valid criteria with which to make character judgements.

A persons beliefs are one of the things they really choose, and so are most reflective of their mentality and character.

For example, if a person believed that black people were cowardly, would that not allow you to judge part of their character?
A part, yes, but not the whole ofcourse. I know some people who are awesome folk, nice people, friendly etc, but still think some prétty wierd and sometimes retarted things ranging from a diety to all kinds of conspiracies. It doesn't make them less nice, but the fact that there nice doesn't make those things less dumb/retarted/odd as well.

A part, yes, but not the whole ofcourse. I know some people who are awesome folk, nice people, friendly etc, but still think some prétty wierd and sometimes retarted things ranging from a diety to all kinds of conspiracies. It doesn't make them less nice, but the fact that there nice doesn't make those things less dumb/retarted/odd as well.

So then, if part of a person's character can be judged by some beliefs, and other parts judged by their other beliefs, then beliefs as a whole are a reasonable criteria for evaluating character.

I know a fellow who believes he was engineered by space aliens, but is also quite kind. But its still tells much about his character.

Depending on the forum of discussion, Christians (or any religious persons for that matter) either make me laugh, or incite in me a sort of dumbfounded anger. I place religious folks in my book of crazy people somewhere between Randle Patrick McMurphy and Matthew Lesko. To quote Marc Maron, "It's 2008, isn't it sad that people still believe in God? Grow up!" HaHaHaHa Hah!

You keep a book of crazy people? Sounds obsessive...almost enough to be clinically so...I'm going to put you in the book, but carefully form each letter, and if I make a mistake, I'm going to erase three times with three different erasers.

Okay, I'm clearly tired. Sleepy time.

So then, if part of a person's character can be judged by some beliefs, and other parts judged by their other beliefs, then beliefs as a whole are a reasonable criteria for evaluating character.

yeah, i'm getting the feeling that some people are thinking of character as a two value thing; on or off. which is...weird.

So then, if part of a person's character can be judged by some beliefs, and other parts judged by their other beliefs, then beliefs as a whole are a reasonable criteria for evaluating character.

I know a fellow who believes he was engineered by space aliens, but is also quite kind. But its still tells much about his character.
Is that so? Does it really tell so much about his whole character? Why?

Is that so? Does it really tell so much about his whole character? Why?

Certain key beliefs, particularly those addressing ontology, cosmology, and various other abstract but pervasive aspects of the world, are extremely telling about a person's character because they reveal their thoughts on how and why people exist. This naturally extrapolates into and reverberates throughout their entire world view, which in turn impacts their actions.

From one's daily life to important life choices, these central beliefs are an enormous if not majorative factor in their decision algorithms.

So from conception to practice, these beliefs tell a great deal.

Actually you told me in your post you were willing to discuss it, that's why I continued. If too much attention to precision of language bores you, I'll try to generalize my questions.

The tone of your continuing posts was no different. Why should I reverse myself?


May we agree that your assumption about only Mormons and select Christians claiming having a spiritual aspect to their conversion process was incorrect?


*Bolded word added by me for the sake of clarity.

As I've already left that option open, yes.


May we agree that your line of reasoning clearly implied, by its full context rather than any particular term, that this assumption of "spiritual" conversion was important to your conversion?


We may, with the understanding that while the claim is not exclusive, I believe the reality of it to be.


May we agree that conversion, the process of choosing a religion, is central to the nature and character of one's religious experience?


Of course. This was never in contention.


These are fair and reasonable questions, presented as softly as possible, with no excessive rigor of syntax.


There are your answers.


NB, if you want to drop it, that answers my questions in its own way, but if you're going to drop it, please don't blame the vagaries of language. I ask these kinds of questions of many people, and part of "wanting to understand" is occasionally asking the hard questions. If you don't want to answer, that's a valuable data point in and of itself.

Please, don't try to sit there and pretend that the only possible motivation for my refusal to waste my time in a stupid debate over syntax is that on some level I don't have confidence in my argument or belief. Whether you realize it or not, your responses were needlessly rude and about as reasonable as Jack Thompson after a drinking binge. I don't come here to play word games. If I can't find an honest and sensible conversation then I'm under no obligation to continue.

You asked me reasonable questions. I gave honest answers. That's how it works.

"People", pretty vague hmm?

Of course, as it must be.

Of course, as it must be.
Rather not, because now it's impossible to respond ;) Yea, some people generalise, see that people label themselfs with something or say they do/think something, then immidiatly extrapolate that without any foundation for that extrapolation. Ok, so that happens, and now?

between that and how they act, what's left to make character judgments on?

a fascist that doesn't put his fascism into practice is still a fascist and still worthy of contempt. a person that believes in silly nonsense, even if they are a nice person, still believes in silly nonsense and thus is demonstrating a rather glaring character flaw of one sort or another.

And the thing with silly nonsense is to some it is not silly nor nonsenseical. What governse what is objectivly silly, rather than your own subjective POV?

And the thing with silly nonsense is to some it is not silly nor nonsenseical. What governse what is objectivly silly, rather than your own subjective POV?

reason and evidence

As I've already left that option open, yes.

We may, with the understanding that while the claim is not exclusive, I believe the reality of it to be.

You edited some stuff, which is fine of course, but I was crafting a response to your pre-edit, now I see that won't be necessary.

So, you acknowledge that the claim is not exclusive, but you believe the reality to be, that is to say, that you believe that only your religion has the REAL spiritual conversion.

May we agree that most other religions believe exactly the same thing of their own, that only their claim is the reality, and yours is just the claim?

The reason I stress this is that you originally raised the issue of claim to spiritual conversion as "the difference" between your religion and the others. You've acknowledged that the claim is made by others, and while you feel that only your religions claims are accurate, all the religions claim that. Thus, its not really a difference.

Honestly, I'm not nitpicking at language but rather addressing the point. You raised this as the difference, a vitally important distinction, and as you can see, your religions take on this is identical to most others.



Please, don't try to sit there and pretend that the only possible motivation for my refusal to waste my time in a stupid debate over syntax is that on some level I don't have confidence in my argument or belief.

Neo Bretonnia, you were the one who said that you could neither explain nor prove your side of this, which is fine, but an argument, when done cogently, should include explanation. Thus, even taking your statement purely at face value, your honest admission of not being able to explain or prove it still shows that your argument is not, by definition, a confident one. A confident one can be explained.


Whether you realize it or not, your responses were needlessly rude and about as reasonable as Jack Thompson after a drinking binge.

NB, the rudest thing I said to you was "How diligent were you" regarding checking your own assumptions. (You'll recall, at the time, you were dumping on me about making assumptions, now we find you made some faulty ones of your own). If that sounds like the ravings of a drunk to you, you should know that actual alcoholics get a lot worse. Exaggerated personal comparisons don't make you sound very reasonable.


I don't come here to play word games. If I can't find an honest and sensible conversation then I'm under no obligation to continue.

I'm not playing word games, and your continued assumption of my "axe to grind" with your religion doesn't withstand the facts. I have a number of friends that are LDS, including many that I dearly love.

But none of them make broad, baseless claims about other religions, and then imply I am not "sensible" for daring to correct them.

There are enough non-Christian accounts of crucifiction like the crucifictions after the Third Servile War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Servile_War#Aftermath). And ofcourse the discovery of a (very likely) crucified body, that body was most likely preserved because it was taken off the cross, so that as allowed as well (at least once before).
I don't know about the stoning though, there are records though that Jews were crucified more often, and ofcourse Jesus was still a Jew.
What I just wanted to say, is that crucifiction was another form of capital punishment (and not just in the Roman Empire), so that's it's a likely option where the christians got that symbol from, one that doesn't require elaborate myths. That's what Occam's Razor prefers: the option wich requires the least amount of assumptions and other hypothesis. I think that the option that the Roman capital punishment form of crucifiction is the one that Occam would prefer on those grounds.

Crucifixion as a punishment for slaves and pirates... prisoners of war, maybe? For religious heretics? For religious heretics against an alien religion?

I'm not denying crucifixion as a punishment. I'm denying that it was necessarily 'common', or that it would have necessarily have been employed in the situation claimed. As I said - there is almost no physical evidence, a grand total of one set of remains - a fact with which you seem to be arguing by agreeing?

And yes - there is a record of one body being removed from the crucifixion cross/spike, but that's an exception, not the rule. Occam suggests that exceptions are the less likely results, doesn't it? And - as I'm sure you know - the reason that the body was left to be picked to pieces was to humiliate the victim. The reason signs were supposed to have been posted at the crucifixion of 'Jesus' was for humiliation... again, Occam favours the idea that Jesus' body would not have been removed.

Regarding the idea that "Jews were crucified more often"... more often than what? Than Roman citizens? Absolutely. But that's because Roman citizens were largely exempt. But, where is the evidence they were crucified by Rome, for being apostate in the Judaic faith? The whole story relies on too many assumptions, most of them very unlikely to say the least. Example: Jesus was guilty of being a false prophet - and the Jewish elders would have known well that the punishment for that crime is stoning. There are only four death sentences allowable under Jewish law, and hanging isn't there... that discludes them declaring a crucifixion death sentence for a crime against religious law.

As for the idea that a symbolic death requires more assumptions than assuming that the crucifixion is mentioned because it records a real event.... well, how many assumptions are implicit in that scenario? That Jesus was real? Was found a criminal? Was sentenced in disobedience to Jewish law?

How many assumptions does it take to get to the point of the Crucifixion as symbolic? We know the 'cross' symbol is older than, and not exclusive to, Christianity. We know similar cross symbols have been used as a symbol of life/rebirth (the Ankh, for example). It doesn't take much assumption to get to the point of an established resurrection symbol being adapted by yet one more cult.

We may, with the understanding that while the claim is not exclusive, I believe the reality of it to be.


So - all those other faiths/denominations that believe some form of divine interventionism is involved in their conversions... are lying? Only your denomination knows this one all-important truth?

My statement still stands. I don't think any religion is an institution worth respecting.

I find it even sadder that it's 2008 and people still haven't learned to stop making character judgments against each other over what they believe.

Personally, I don't care what people believe - so long as they don't try to tell me it carries any real meaning outside the scope of their own heads, and they don't let it fuck with my life.

Anyone who uses their religion to tell me what I'm not allowed to do, is an asshole. You could argue that's a "character judgment" based on "what they believe", I guess.

My statement still stands. I don't think any religion is an institution worth respecting.

As an institution? I'd agree. There are few evils as omnipresent and implicitly threatening as that of organised religion.

On the other hand, if people want to believe in some big space spook, I say go them.

So - all those other faiths/denominations that believe some form of divine interventionism is involved in their conversions... are lying? Only your denomination knows this one all-important truth?

And what's more, from previous posts, that's the reason for conversion.

Because the Mormons believe that only their claim is the reality.

Even though this regard is no different, whatsoever, from almost every other religion.

Rather not, because now it's impossible to respond ;) Yea, some people generalise, see that people label themselfs with something or say they do/think something, then immidiatly extrapolate that without any foundation for that extrapolation. Ok, so that happens, and now?

So, you disagree with my assertion that it's not good to make character judgements of people over their beliefs?

You edited some stuff, which is fine of course, but I was crafting a response to your pre-edit, now I see that won't be necessary.

So, you acknowledge that the claim is not exclusive, but you believe the reality to be, that is to say, that you believe that only your religion has the REAL spiritual conversion.

May we agree that most other religions believe exactly the same thing of their own, that only their claim is the reality, and yours is just the claim?


Of course they do.


The reason I stress this is that you originally raised the issue of claim to spiritual conversion as "the difference" between your religion and the others. You've acknowledged that the claim is made by others, and while you feel that only your religions claims are accurate, all the religions claim that. Thus, its not really a difference.

Honestly, I'm not nitpicking at language but rather addressing the point. You raised this as the difference, a vitally important distinction, and as you can see, your religions take on this is identical to most others.


Naturally. But I can only make decisions by what I can experience personally. Just like everybody else.


Neo Bretonnia, you were the one who said that you could neither explain nor prove your side of this, which is fine, but an argument, when done cogently, should include explanation. Thus, even taking your statement purely at face value, your honest admission of not being able to explain or prove it still shows that your argument is not, by definition, a confident one. A confident one can be explained.


Actually, that's not quite it. When I say I can't prove it or explain it, it's because I don't have the language to do so. I can't possibly prove, to your satisfaction (or anyone else's) anything that goes on in my own heart and mind. To try would be a waste of time and to claim to be able to do so would be foolish.

It's not a lack of confidence, it's an acknowledgment of the limitations of human communication.


NB, the rudest thing I said to you was "How diligent were you" regarding checking your own assumptions. (You'll recall, at the time, you were dumping on me about making assumptions, now we find you made some faulty ones of your own). If that sounds like the ravings of a drunk to you, you should know that actual alcoholics get a lot worse. Exaggerated personal comparisons don't make you sound very reasonable.

I'm not playing word games, and your continued assumption of my "axe to grind" with your religion doesn't withstand the facts. I have a number of friends that are LDS, including many that I dearly love.

But none of them make broad, baseless claims about other religions, and then imply I am not "sensible" for daring to correct them.

Let's clear away the banter for a second and go for the core. Here's what I took exception to (and please, please let's either clear this up or agree to drop it because I have no desire to keep going in circles.):

I said that my religion had this unique aspect to it BUT I included a (correct me if I'm wrong).

You then proceeded to rake me over the coals for daring to make an assumption about all religions, universally. My issue is that by asking to be corrected if wrong, I CLEARLY indicated the possibility that I was mistaken. Yet you continued to hammer me over it even after I elaborated repeatedly on the point.

Then, despite my explanations to the contrary, you kept tying my belief in my religion to the assumption that it and only it makes the claim of spiritual conversion. I never made that statement, yet you demanded that I answer for it.

This is NOT what I would call reasonable. If you think it's reasonable then let's agree to disagree and drop it.

My statement still stands. I don't think any religion is an institution worth respecting.

Have you checked every religion? Will we limit this statement to major religions?

Also, to clarify your term of respect, is it in the sense of "Such and so has really earned/not earned my respect"?

That is to say, do you respect their right to exist and peaceably practice, even if you don't really respect them in the sense that includes admiration?

I don't respect religion at all. It doesn't matter what flavor of crazy theists choose to align themselves with. I do respect the life of the crazy people because there is always the chance that one of these crazy people may become born again sensible people. As for their rights to practice their own religion peacefully...I wouldn't infringe on those rights or suggest that crazy people shouldn't have the right to do whatever crazy things they choose to do in their own homes. But, respect those rights, Hah! No! They are crazy people! silly, silly, silly

Of course they do.

So then if "of course they do" the same as you, then when you described that aspect as "the difference", it really isn't a difference. That's all I'm saying.


Naturally. But I can only make decisions by what I can experience personally. Just like everybody else.

But if that decision is based on the premise that an experience is unique when it may not be, that can lead people astray.

If I experience something as being great, I can make a decision based on that, but I can't say that its the only great thing, or the One True Thing based on that experience.

You presented the "experience" associated with your conversion as being important; I hope we've at least touched on the idea that going by those "experiences" has limitations.


Actually, that's not quite it. When I say I can't prove it or explain it, it's because I don't have the language to do so. I can't possibly prove, to your satisfaction (or anyone else's) anything that goes on in my own heart and mind. To try would be a waste of time and to claim to be able to do so would be foolish.

It's not a lack of confidence, it's an acknowledgment of the limitations of human communication.

Well, its those "unexplainable" things in our hearts and minds that often are a reflection of the things we unconsciously want or need to believe.


Let's clear away the banter for a second and go for the core. Here's what I took exception to (and please, please let's either clear this up or agree to drop it because I have no desire to keep going in circles.):

I said that my religion had this unique aspect to it BUT I included a (correct me if I'm wrong).

You then proceeded to rake me over the coals for daring to make an assumption about all religions, universally. My issue is that by asking to be corrected if wrong, I CLEARLY indicated the possibility that I was mistaken. Yet you continued to hammer me over it even after I elaborated repeatedly on the point.

I corrected you, but bear in mind that since you were emphasizing this as "the difference" between your religions and others, if you were aware of the possibility of being mistaken, wouldn't it be compelling to find out for sure instead of laboring under the assumption? If you've admitted you're wrong, fine, but thats a heck of a thing to be wrong about, and if you knew you might be, it could've been easily checked. Your religion is important to you, the impetus to do so has always been there.



Then, despite my explanations to the contrary, you kept tying my belief in my religion to the assumption that it and only it makes the claim of spiritual conversion. I never made that statement, yet you demanded that I answer for it.

To be fair, I've reviewed your posts, and again, you presented your assumption as "THE difference". It played a critical role in your reasoning as to why all the other religions claims and conversions were somehow not the same.

Your belief in your religion must surely relate closely to your conversion; conversion is the choice of which religion you want, and bears directly and entirely on your religion as whole, precisely from its start as being your religion.


This is NOT what I would call reasonable. If you think it's reasonable then let's agree to disagree and drop it.

Is comparing someone to a drunkard reasonable? I'll tell you what. I'm going to review this thread with some LDS friends of mine and ask them honestly whether my side of the argument is as unreasonable as you claim, and ask them how your own comments responses reflect on Latter Day Saints.

EDIT: Me go sleepy now. If I don't respond, I'm not ignoring, just tired.

So - all those other faiths/denominations that believe some form of divine interventionism is involved in their conversions... are lying? Only your denomination knows this one all-important truth?

Why does it have to be about lying? All I'm asserting is that truth is not subjective, that there's only one path back to God, and that the LDS Church is it. It's not a statement about anybody else's honesty.

So then if "of course they do" the same as you, then when you described that aspect as "the difference", it really isn't a difference. That's all I'm saying.


From the point of view of somebody who isn't a member of the Church, of course it's not any different. The idea is for such a person to explore it and find out where the difference is.


But if that decision is based on the premise that an experience is unique when it may not be, that can lead people astray.

If I experience something as being great, I can make a decision based on that, but I can't say that its the only great thing, or the One True Thing based on that experience.

You presented the "experience" associated with your conversion as being important; I hope we've at least touched on the idea that going by those "experiences" has limitations.


We have, but there's something important here that needs to be addressed. This isn't about comparing experimental data and drawing a scientific conclusion that can be replicated and repeated by others. There are some things in life where that approach won't work and isn't the way to go. I'm asserting something that IS unique but, like I said, I can't give you a way to prove my own experience, only offer a way to find it for yourself.


Well, its those "unexplainable" things in our hearts and minds that often are a reflection of the things we unconsciously want or need to believe.


They can be, but it is not necessarily so for all cases.


I corrected you, but bear in mind that since you were emphasizing this as "the difference" between your religions and others, if you were aware of the possibility of being mistaken, wouldn't it be compelling to find out for sure instead of laboring under the assumption? If you've admitted you're wrong, fine, but thats a heck of a thing to be wrong about, and if you knew you might be, it could've been easily checked. Your religion is important to you, the impetus to do so has always been there.


Sure, which is why I approached it with an open enough mind to be corrected if I was wrong. Nowhere is it necessary to be sarcastic or unpleasant about it.


To be fair, I've reviewed your posts, and again, you presented your assumption as "THE difference". It played a critical role in your reasoning as to why all the other religions claims and conversions were somehow not the same.


Not exactly what I'm getting at. There are a LOT of differences. The spiritual truth of the experience is only THE difference within the context of this subject.


Your belief in your religion must surely relate closely to your conversion; conversion is the choice of which religion you want, and bears directly and entirely on your religion as whole, precisely from its start as being your religion.


And it's a very detailed and in-depth subject that hasn't even had its surface scratched in this thread.


Is comparing someone to a drunkard reasonable? I'll tell you what. I'm going to review this thread with some LDS friends of mine and ask them honestly whether my side of the argument is as unreasonable as you claim, and ask them how your own comments responses reflect on Latter Day Saints.

EDIT: Me go sleepy now. If I don't respond, I'm not ignoring, just tired.

It's a metaphor, nothing more.

And show it to whomever you want but remember that Mormons are not a homogeneous group of people. They may love what I said or they may hate it. It won't change my point a bit. (Bear in mind also that anybody who's been subjected to some of the syntax mongering in NSG in general is likely to have a short fuse in a thread like this.)

Sleep well.

In the words of Thoreau,

"Without something to believe in, humans are as uncivilized as primates"

Humans ARE primates. (see wiki: primates)

ORDER PRIMATES
-Superfamily Hominoidea
--Family Hominidae: humans and other great apes (7 species)

Thoreau fails. By the way, since when humans are "civilized" as racial trait?

"A man without religion is like a fish without a bycicle". Bertie Russell iirc.

reason and evidence

Ahhhh so then you would agree that 'love' is such sillyness? Or that supporting one football team above any other is sillyness, or hate, or closed borders, or fear of spiders, or countless other parts of normal human behaviour?

Why does it have to be about lying? All I'm asserting is that truth is not subjective, that there's only one path back to God, and that the LDS Church is it. It's not a statement about anybody else's honesty.


How does that even add up in your head?

Pretty much every christian denomination (at least) claims spirit intervention in the process of conversion. If you are saying that is not true, then you are saying their claims are not true.

How is "they are lying" not being suggested? I don't understand how you can think (or just be arguing?) that saying that someone else is being dishonest, isn't "about... honesty".

I don't respect religion at all. It doesn't matter what flavor of crazy theists choose to align themselves with. I do respect the life of the crazy people because there is always the chance that one of these crazy people may become born again sensible people. As for their rights to practice their own religion peacefully...I wouldn't infringe on those rights or suggest that crazy people shouldn't have the right to do whatever crazy things they choose to do in their own homes. But, respect those rights, Hah! No! They are crazy people! silly, silly, silly

Thats a big ball of contradiction well wrapped in the tape of contradicition. How can you respect their rights, but not respect their rights?

As to crazy, then you are very clear of the normal working parameters of the normal human brain? So much so that what you say is crazy is undoubtedly so?

Actually you told me in your post you were willing to discuss it, that's why I continued. If too much attention to precision of language bores you, I'll try to generalize my questions.

May we agree that your assumption about only Mormons and select Christians having a spiritual aspect to their conversion process was incorrect?

May we agree that your line of reasoning clearly implied, by its full context rather than any particular term, that this assumption of "spiritual" conversion was important to your conversion?

May we agree that conversion, the process of choosing a religion, is central to the nature and character of one's religious experience?

These are fair and reasonable questions, presented as softly as possible, with no excessive rigor of syntax.

NB, if you want to drop it, that answers my questions in its own way, but if you're going to drop it, please don't blame the vagaries of language. I ask these kinds of questions of many people, and part of "wanting to understand" is occasionally asking the hard questions. If you don't want to answer, that's a valuable data point in and of itself.

Jhah's posts are made of win!!

I must become your personal cheerleader. I must!!!
http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc220/diezelpower/cheer.gifhttp://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc220/diezelpower/cheer.gif

Ahhhh so then you would agree that 'love' is such sillyness? Or that supporting one football team above any other is sillyness, or hate, or closed borders, or fear of spiders, or countless other parts of normal human behaviour?

wtf? how does that even begin to follow?

wtf? how does that even begin to follow?

What is rational about love, or supporting a footie team?

Thats a big ball of contradiction well wrapped in the tape of contradicition. How can you respect their rights, but not respect their rights?

As to crazy, then you are very clear of the normal working parameters of the normal human brain? So much so that what you say is crazy is undoubtedly so?

I respect life. I don't respect religion.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that a religious person is any more crazy (in a literal sense) then an atheist. BUT...if a person chooses to pile a religious belief system onto their stockpile of perception, then (although I don't think we should be going around executing these people, [I also don't believe we should execute disabled persons either] or infringe on their constitutional rights in any way) my respect for that individual as an intelligent human being decreases [I]so dramatically it may as well be nonexistent. Nonexistent...like Jesus! Hahah Ha!

I respect life. I don't respect religion.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that a religious person is any more crazy (in a literal sense) then an atheist. BUT...if a person chooses to pile a religious belief system onto their stockpile of perception, then (although I don't think we should be going around executing these people, [I also don't believe we should execute disabled persons either] or infringe on their constitutional rights in any way) my respect for that individual as an intelligent human being decreases [I]so dramatically it may as well be nonexistent. Nonexistent...like Jesus! Hahah Ha!

So then because a person may have faith that such a thing as God exists, this somehow is an indication to you that they are not intelegent?

Umm then I wonder if you feel the same for those who proclaim a favourite colour?

Jhah's posts are made of win!!

I must become your personal cheerleader. I must!!!


Wow! Nanatsu's posts are made of wi.... pagebreak. :(

Jhah's posts are made of win!!

I must become your personal cheerleader. I must!!!


I am gratified, honored in fact, that you would take rest from your daily chore of evading a horde of young Xavier Bardem looking fellows chasing you about, begging for the briefest moment of your time, courting with great Spanish urgency the merest hint of your smile, plying you with that sweet, thick wine of theirs, and yet you command them to fetch you flowers of a species not native to the Iberian fields, to buy time to pull upon yourself a cheerleading outfit...

Those poor boys, they won't be men until they've kissed you...

What is rational about love, or supporting a footie team?

oh, i get it. you think that the indisputable fact that reason and evidence are objective means to determine if some belief is wrong or nonsensical implies that our reasons for feeling a certain way must be 'rational'. though my "wtf? how does that even begin to follow?" remains completely unanswered. it is actually even more direly in need of answer under these new circumstances.

So then because a person may have faith that such a thing as God exists, this somehow is an indication to you that they are not intelegent?

Umm then I wonder if you feel the same for those who proclaim a favourite colour?

I didn't post anything about considering religious persons unintelligent. BUT, now that you mention it, I guess yeah! I do consider religious people to be less intelligent then atheists. At least in that respect.

Also, I promise I won't judge you based on your favorite colour. You may like any colour you choose Peepelonia, without compromising my opinion of you. :)

So then because a person may have faith that such a thing as God exists, this somehow is an indication to you that they are not intelegent?

Umm then I wonder if you feel the same for those who proclaim a favourite colour?

plenty of intelligent people are wrong about something, sometimes.

are you really intending to claim that there is some objective fact of the matter about what the favorite color is? that a particular being and a subjective evaluation have the same sort of ontology?

I'm still trying to sleep...


From the point of view of somebody who isn't a member of the Church, of course it's not any different. The idea is for such a person to explore it and find out where the difference is.

Ah, but I was a member of your Church, and it still really isn't any different. Almost every church and religion says "Oh, if you aren't a member, you won't understand". Its no different. They also say "Oh, explore our religion, and you'll see the different". Just like you.

We have, but there's something important here that needs to be addressed. This isn't about comparing experimental data and drawing a scientific conclusion that can be replicated and repeated by others. There are some things in life where that approach won't work and isn't the way to go. I'm asserting something that IS unique but, like I said, I can't give you a way to prove my own experience, only offer a way to find it for yourself.

Again, I've had that experience. I just realized that this kind of"experience", especially that kind that can't be explained, is just what you wanted to believe making you believe it.


Not exactly what I'm getting at. There are a LOT of differences. The spiritual truth of the experience is only THE difference within the context of this subject.

And it's a very detailed and in-depth subject that hasn't even had its surface scratched in this thread.

Ah, something like the old "meat before milk" bit. I've had both. And the claim of spiritual truth is not a difference, almost every religion claims, and almost every religion claims theirs is the only one thats real. You're not different at all in that sense.

To say "We are different because we have the truth" is merely to say that you claim to have the truth, and in that you are no different.


It's a metaphor, nothing more.

Ah, so having it be a metaphor makes it okay? If those are the rules then, I hope they apply to me as much as they apply to you. If you can use the metaphor of my argument as that of a drunk, and I should not object, then I will hold you to the same standard if I should draw a metaphor of my own.

I didn't post anything about considering religious persons unintelligent. BUT, now that you mention it, I guess yeah! I do consider religious people to be less intelligent then atheists. At least in that respect.

Also, I promise I won't judge you based on your favorite colour. You may like any colour you choose Peepelonia, without compromising my opinion of you. :)

Really?

'my respect for that individual as an intelligent human being decreases [i]so dramatically it may as well be nonexistent.'

So this then means what?

The thing is of course a belife in God is not rational, some may even call it unreasonable and delusional. I can live with that, but I do wonder why all of those people that feel the need to denigrate those who hold such belifes, do not choose to do so for other unresonable choices?

Such as having a favorite colour, isn't this in itself a show of unresanable thought? If you belittle a man for one unreasonable thought(that is a thought with no rational reason) then should you not do the same for all such thoughts, otherwise what is the rational behind this kind of attitude?

Considering theists to be less inteligent than atheists shows a modicum of delusional thought wouldn't you say? Unless of course you can show me the data that led you to this conclusion?

oh, i get it. you think that the indisputable fact that reason and evidence are objective means to determine if some belief is wrong or nonsensical implies that our reasons for feeling a certain way must be 'rational'. though my "wtf? how does that even begin to follow?" remains completely unanswered. it is actually even more direly in need of answer under these new circumstances.

No my reply was to highlight that we all have these kinds of belifes based not on reason and evidane, but other things, that it is entirly human to do so, and that to look down upon a person for a professed belife in God is denying one sphere of the human condition.

plenty of intelligent people are wrong about something, sometimes.

are you really intending to claim that there is some objective fact of the matter about what the favorite color is? that a particular being and a subjective evaluation have the same sort of ontology?

I'm saying that to proclaim 'I have a favourtite colour' is one example of a normal human thought that is not based on objective evidance, or reason.

In that respect it is the same a proclaimed belife in a God

I am gratified, honored in fact, that you would take rest from your daily chore of evading a horde of young Xavier Bardem looking fellows chasing you about, begging for the briefest moment of your time, courting with great Spanish urgency the merest hint of your smile, plying you with that sweet, thick wine of theirs, and yet you command them to fetch you flowers of a species not native to the Iberian fields, to buy time to pull upon yourself a cheerleading outfit...

Those poor boys, they won't be men until they've kissed you...

NOTE: I do these things to coax Jhahannam into writing these awesome epitets that amuse me to no end, not because he flatters me, that's a plus, but because his dominion of language is hilarious. (I'm sure he knows.)

Well, which outfit do you like best, Jhah?

This,
http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/4477787/2/istockphoto_4477787_cheerleader_orange.jpg

This,
http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/4513335/2/istockphoto_4513335_cheerleader_black.jpg

Or this?
http://www.nadja-art.com/foto/images/cheerleader.jpg

Really?

'my respect for that individual as an intelligent human being decreases [i]so dramatically it may as well be nonexistent.'

So this then means what?

The thing is of course a belife in God is not rational, some may even call it unreasonable and delusional. I can live with that, but I do wonder why all of those people that feel the need to denigrate those who hold such belifes, do not choose to do so for other unresonable choices?

Such as having a favorite colour, isn't this in itself a show of unresanable thought? If you belittle a man for one unreasonable thought(that is a thought with no rational reason) then should you not do the same for all such thoughts, otherwise what is the rational behind this kind of attitude?

Considering theists to be less inteligent than atheists shows a modicum of delusional thought wouldn't you say? Unless of course you can show me the data that led you to this conclusion?

My attempt to use plain and straightforward language has somehow failed you. The posts that I write are in no way intended to be as cryptic or ambiguous as the bible.

I absolutely DO find a person who can rationalize religion as intelligent to be a little crazy (but not crazy in the litteral sense for the love of science!).

How does that even add up in your head?

Pretty much every christian denomination (at least) claims spirit intervention in the process of conversion. If you are saying that is not true, then you are saying their claims are not true.

How is "they are lying" not being suggested? I don't understand how you can think (or just be arguing?) that saying that someone else is being dishonest, isn't "about... honesty".

Please indicate to me where you see any statement on anyone else's honesty.


I'm still trying to sleep...


At your computer desk? ;)

(kidding)


Ah, but I was a member of your Church, and it still really isn't any different. Almost every church and religion says "Oh, if you aren't a member, you won't understand". Its no different. They also say "Oh, explore our religion, and you'll see the different". Just like you.


Now I see where this is coming from. For whatever reason your own experiences have led you to move away form the Church and now you've decided that because it didn't work for you, it can't truly work for anyone else. We're all just kidding ourselves, right?


Again, I've had that experience. I just realized that this kind of"experience", especially that kind that can't be explained, is just what you wanted to believe making you believe it.


In your case. Now prove that it's the same in mine.


Ah, something like the old "meat before milk" bit. I've had both. And the claim of spiritual truth is not a difference, almost every religion claims, and almost every religion claims theirs is the only one thats real. You're not different at all in that sense.


No... just saying there's more to it than that. It's not a milk before meat thing.

Please don't put word in my mouth.


To say "We are different because we have the truth" is merely to say that you claim to have the truth, and in that you are no different.


Except that it doesn't stop there.


Ah, so having it be a metaphor makes it okay? If those are the rules then, I hope they apply to me as much as they apply to you. If you can use the metaphor of my argument as that of a drunk, and I should not object, then I will hold you to the same standard if I should draw a metaphor of my own.

Actually it provides a context for the statement, which appears to gave been missed. Shall we argue syntax and usage now?

NOTE: I do these things to coax Jhahannam into writing these awesome epitets that amuse me to no end, not because he flatters me, that's a plus, but because his dominion of language is hilarious. (I'm sure he knows.)

Well, which outfit do you like best, Jhah?

The orange clad blonde has the heraldry of a Bronco's cheerleader, perhaps from the seventies...she is of the breed to enjoy Coor's beer while hanging one leg out of the T-tops of a 1974 Corvette on the way to a topless film festival being held in the basement of Robert Evan's Aspen vacation home. She is beneath you.

The brunette, like many brunettes, is smart, often boasting a double major in history and mechanical engineering, but she will defer grad school to marry some bulked out twit from the second string football squad, hoping in her heart that she can redeem him of his womanizing and real estate fraud with which he earns enough to soothe his lost dreams of NFL glory. Her garb is of too little glory for you.

The last looks like somebody I used to work with at White Wolf, her pallid sensuality meant to be both lure and warning, somehow all at once. She can never really love, perhaps save as predator loves prey, for she consumes and drains, offering only consolation that you will throb and thrust, contort and cling, howl and gasp as you die in her arms. She is a fucked up drama magnet that will take all your Concrete Blonde CD's.

Rather, wear whatever the girls wear in Spain, and I'll only have to look for the prettiest to find you.

Shall we argue syntax and usage now?

Sure, why not?

Now I see where this is coming from. For whatever reason your own experiences have led you to move away form the Church and now you've decided that because it didn't work for you, it can't truly work for anyone else. We're all just kidding ourselves, right?

Ah, but you claimed truth isn't subjective, so this whole "it works for me" theme doesn't really work.


In your case. Now prove that it's the same in mine.

Ah, but you were one that reasoned that having the "experience" would lead people to believe the church is true. Now you're seeing that that isn't the case for everyone, so your premise that the "experience" is the vital ingredient shows that the experience doesn't really prove anything in every case, and thus can't be used as a standard of truth.


No... just saying there's more to it than that. It's not a milk before meat thing.

The term "milk before meat" is used to present the idea "there's more to it than that" when the "more" hasn't come yet.


Except that it doesn't stop there.

Almost every religion says that exact same thing. There's always "more" to their religion than everybody else's.


Actually it provides a context for the statement, which appears to gave been missed. Shall we argue syntax and usage now?

You've been the most emphatic on the civility of this debate, and if the context was metaphorically comparing my arguments to those of a drunk, you should know that couching something in metaphor doesn't change its tone. But again, if those are the rules, I'll provide my own context for statements, and by your own reasoning, you won't be in a position to complain.

I want to go to bed, but I have a cheerleader now, evidently, and her vigor is most...invigorating.

Please indicate to me where you see any statement on anyone else's honesty.


You said:

"...truth is not subjective..."

You said:

"...there's only one path back to God, and that the LDS Church is it..."


It's not a big leap of logic. If your statement is true, then any other group that claims a different 'truth' must be lying.

You say:

"...with the understanding that while the claim is not exclusive, I believe the reality of it to be..."


Thus, you are saying other denominations are making a claim which the 'reality' of the matter does not agree with. You are calling them liars, you just aren't using that word.

Sure, why not?

Quiet, you!

Ah, but you claimed truth isn't subjective, so this whole "it works for me" theme doesn't really work.


I'm not the one professing to follow subjective truth. Just trying to ask from your point of view.


Ah, but you were one that reasoned that having the "experience" would lead people to believe the church is true. Now you're seeing that that isn't the case for everyone, so your premise that the "experience" is the vital ingredient shows that the experience doesn't really prove anything in every case, and thus can't be used as a standard of truth.


Assuming the experiences are interpreted correctly.


The term "milk before meat" is used to present the idea "there's more to it than that" when the "more" hasn't come yet.


No, the term "milk before meat" explains why you don't teach someone Calculus before they've learned Algebra.


Almost every religion says that exact same thing. There's always "more" to their religion than everybody else's.


And?


You've been the most emphatic on the civility of this debate, and if the context was metaphorically comparing my arguments to those of a drunk, you should know that couching something in metaphor doesn't change its tone. But again, if those are the rules, I'll provide my own context for statements, and by your own reasoning, you won't be in a position to complain.


Whatever it takes to keep beating the dead horse, I suppose.


I want to go to bed, but I have a cheerleader now, evidently, and her vigor is most...invigorating.

I have one, too. (She's just not posting in the thread) I know how it is ;)

You said:

"...truth is not subjective..."

You said:

"...there's only one path back to God, and that the LDS Church is it..."


It's not a big leap of logic. If your statement is true, then any other group that claims a different 'truth' must be lying.

You say:

"...with the understanding that while the claim is not exclusive, I believe the reality of it to be..."


Thus, you are saying other denominations are making a claim which the 'reality' of the matter does not agree with. You are calling them liars, you just aren't using that word.

Is that really the only conceivable interpretation you can imagine?

Kinda disappointing. :(

I was a Raelian for a month, so maybe I could beef up our "other" numbers for a while.
Was it fun? I see Raelians downtown from time to time.

Is that really the only conceivable interpretation you can imagine?

Kinda disappointing. :(

For real?

You say that people aren't telling the truth, but you are 'disappointed' when someone interprets that to mean they aren't telling the truth?

For real?

You say that people aren't telling the truth, but you are 'disappointed' when someone interprets that to mean they aren't telling the truth?

I guess it's possible he meant that they were wrong but honest, rather than dishonest and claiming to be right.

It still makes them out to be fools, rather than liars.

For real?

You say that people aren't telling the truth, but you are 'disappointed' when someone interprets that to mean they aren't telling the truth?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. :rolleyes:

You guys, this is getting real tiring. Are you even trying to have a 2-way communication or is this just a way to play goofy games? 'cause it's not like I have nothing better to do.

I guess it's possible he meant that they were wrong but honest, rather than dishonest and claiming to be right.

It still makes them out to be fools, rather than liars.

I could kiss you.

...not gay though. :D

Although I wouldn't call anyone a fool over it. A fool is someone who has no good reason for believing something. People all over the world have perfectly valid reasons for believing what they do. Nothing foolish about it.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. :rolleyes:

You guys, this is getting real tiring. Are you even trying to have a 2-way communication or is this just a way to play goofy games? 'cause it's not like I have nothing better to do.

You are getting tired of people taking your comments at face value? I'm committing some kind of crime by assuming you mean what you write?

I guess it's possible he meant that they were wrong but honest, rather than dishonest and claiming to be right.

It still makes them out to be fools, rather than liars.

Doesn't work.

If they spread a lie, they are liars... Neo says there is an objective truth. He further says that ONLY his cult/denomination knows/does it. Thus, any other cult that claims to know/do it, must be lying.

It's not a matter of belief. If they believed something different, they might be fools. But they claim that god operates in a way that Neo and his objective truth say is untrue.

Thus - a lie.

Why does it have to be about lying? All I'm asserting is that truth is not subjective, that there's only one path back to God, and that the LDS Church is it.
Bret, I will happily sit here and defend Mormonism as the most interesting thing to come out of western Mysticism since the end of the Old Norse belief system, I will stand up for it as an institution on your behalf, talk about the nature of prophecy and back up the family values and practices of the LDS church until the end of time, but I can't let this one go untouched.

Whether or not "truth" is subjective, the truth of the statement "XYZ is the only true way..." is, because "unity" of spiritual endeavour is at least partially an arbitrary construct. How do you determine whether someone is sticking to the credo and spirit of a given religious organisation? All texts, constitutions, mission statements and whatnot have their ambiguities that result in subjective interpretation, and all are subject to alteration depending on the decisions of their governing bodies. To say that something is "the only way" is to assert that there is "only one way", and adherence to this "one way" is a matter of interpretation on the part of the individual, not of divine authority.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. :rolleyes:

You guys, this is getting real tiring. Are you even trying to have a 2-way communication or is this just a way to play goofy games? 'cause it's not like I have nothing better to do.

I notice here that you are correct GnI, using sarcasm.

On this very thread, have you not said that is not correct to do? In fact, you became quit upset when you thought I was being sarcastic, saying that you can correct others without, saying it was "just that simple".

Now of course, there will be some reason why its okay for you to do it...

I notice here that you are correct GnI, using sarcasm.

On this very thread, have you not said that is not correct to do? In fact, you became quit upset when you thought I was being sarcastic, saying that you can correct others without, saying it was "just that simple".

Now of course, there will be some reason why its okay for you to do it...

I don't think he was being sarcastic. I think he was admitting that it was, indeed, 'exactly what he was saying'.

See - no sarcasm. Apparent conflict solved.

I'm not the one professing to follow subjective truth. Just trying to ask from your point of view.

You weren't asking, you said this:

Now I see where this is coming from. For whatever reason your own experiences have led you to move away form the Church and now you've decided that because it didn't work for you, it can't truly work for anyone else. We're all just kidding ourselves, right?

This isn't a question, its putting words into my mouth, even as you criticize others for doing so.


Assuming the experiences are interpreted correctly.

Now, we're getting to the absolutely clear point. "Assuming the experiences are interpreted correctly".

Thus, by definition and your own words, it is interpretive.

I honestly ask you, isn't interpretive experience so subjective, as to be a working definition thereof?

Especially when every other religion will say that the "correct" interpretation is theirs, just like you do?


And?

So, we continue to establish that in everything from its claims, to the belief that the interpretation of their religions experiences is the "correct one", your religion is not different, not even different in your insistence that is different. They all insist that, too.

In your opinion, what does that then show us?

I don't think he was being sarcastic. I think he was admitting that it was, indeed, 'exactly what he was saying'.

See - no sarcasm. Apparent conflict solved.

Wow, what a dilemma.

Either he was being sarcastic after pointing the finger at others for exactly that, or...

No, he was being sarcastic.

EDIT: Okay, I really have to go to bed now...

You are getting tired of people taking your comments at face value? I'm committing some kind of crime by assuming you mean what you write?

So it's word games now. How cute.

Doesn't work.

If they spread a lie, they are liars... Neo says there is an objective truth. He further says that ONLY his cult/denomination knows/does it. Thus, any other cult that claims to know/do it, must be lying.

It's not a matter of belief. If they believed something different, they might be fools. But they claim that god operates in a way that Neo and his objective truth say is untrue.

Thus - a lie.

Your logic sucks. You let me know when you want to have an honest dialogue.

Bret, I will happily sit here and defend Mormonism as the most interesting thing to come out of western Mysticism since the end of the Old Norse belief system, I will stand up for it as an institution on your behalf, talk about the nature of prophecy and back up the family values and practices of the LDS church until the end of time, but I can't let this one go untouched.

Whether or not "truth" is subjective, the truth of the statement "XYZ is the only true way..." is, because "unity" of spiritual endeavour is at least partially an arbitrary construct. How do you determine whether someone is sticking to the credo and spirit of a given religious organisation? All texts, constitutions, mission statements and whatnot have their ambiguities that result in subjective interpretation, and all are subject to alteration depending on the decisions of their governing bodies. To say that something is "the only way" is to assert that there is "only one way", and adherence to this "one way" is a matter of interpretation on the part of the individual, not of divine authority.

Then we can agree to disagree.

I notice here that you are correct GnI, using sarcasm.

On this very thread, have you not said that is not correct to do? In fact, you became quit upset when you thought I was being sarcastic, saying that you can correct others without, saying it was "just that simple".

Now of course, there will be some reason why its okay for you to do it...

If you don't see the difference on your own I sure can't make you see it.

Seriously. J and GnI, I've respected both of you in the past for your posts but this is silly. I think you both know perfectly well what I'm getting at yet you continue to play dodgy word games to try to make it sound like I'm saying all sorts of things that I'm not.

If you were HONESTLY looking to have a dialogue, then if you see an apparent conflict in something I've said you'd ask me about it, I could respond, and we could continue.

Instead it's just these juvenile gotcha games. You want me to sit here and answer for things I'm not saying? You want me to take seriously your efforts to make it sound like I've said or implied things I haven't? Nope.

Unless somebody has an intelligent comment or question directed at me, I think we're done here.

I guess it's possible he meant that they were wrong but honest, rather than dishonest and claiming to be right.

It still makes them out to be fools, rather than liars.
I'm with G-n-I on this one. "Liar" doesn't require intent.

I think people with addictive personalities can do a number of things. Take drugs/alcohol to excess, engage in lots of promiscuous sex, or become extremely religious.

None of which is particularly healthy.

I'm with G-n-I on this one. "Liar" doesn't require intent.

unless you have the inability to control your speech, yes, it does.

A lie can be considered two things, how you choose to define it, either:

1) a knowing falsehood with intent to deceive (here is intent)

or

2) a knowing falsehood

So if you utter a knowing falsehood, unless you truly have no ability to control your actions, what you say is what you intended to say, and if you say a knowing falsehood, then you intended to say that.

A lie is not merely "a falsehood", it is a knowing falsehood.

So it's word games now. How cute.


Pointing out that you are (now, apparently) claiming that your own words don't mean what they say... is a word game?


Your logic sucks. You let me know when you want to have an honest dialogue.


Now this is a dishonest response.

If my logic sucks, where is the flawed step in the logic.

You claim there's an objective truth. You claim there's one route to it. There are clearly other people claiming routes to it (even the SAME route to it, there's the rub). So - either you are lying, or they are.

That's the beauty of the claim of objective truth... there's no room for interpretation. Either you are telling the truth... or you are not.


Seriously. J and GnI, I've respected both of you in the past for your posts but this is silly. I think you both know perfectly well what I'm getting at yet you continue to play dodgy word games to try to make it sound like I'm saying all sorts of things that I'm not.


Yes. What you are getting at is that you made a claim that can be shown to be false. You then made another claim - that there's no conflict because the other people aren't telling the truth... but refuse to commit to that argument when pressed.

If you're going to be that dishonest, your absence won't be a loss.

I think people with addictive personalities can do a number of things. Take drugs/alcohol to excess, engage in lots of promiscuous sex, or become extremely religious.

None of which is particularly healthy.

Dependency issues. *nod*

Doesn't work.

If they spread a lie, they are liars... Neo says there is an objective truth. He further says that ONLY his cult/denomination knows/does it. Thus, any other cult that claims to know/do it, must be lying.

It's not a matter of belief. If they believed something different, they might be fools. But they claim that god operates in a way that Neo and his objective truth say is untrue.

Thus - a lie.

I'm with G-n-I on this one. "Liar" doesn't require intent.

Ok, I see what you two are saying.

Pointing out that you are (now, apparently) claiming that your own words don't mean what they say... is a word game?
Now this is a dishonest response.
If my logic sucks, where is the flawed step in the logic.
You claim there's an objective truth. You claim there's one route to it. There are clearly other people claiming routes to it (even the SAME route to it, there's the rub). So - either you are lying, or they are.
That's the beauty of the claim of objective truth... there's no room for interpretation. Either you are telling the truth... or you are not.
Yes. What you are getting at is that you made a claim that can be shown to be false. You then made another claim - that there's no conflict because the other people aren't telling the truth... but refuse to commit to that argument when pressed.
If you're going to be that dishonest, your absence won't be a loss.

Feel better? There's about half a dozen false assumptions and misunderstandings in there but they seem to make you happy so who am I to question them?

I tried my ass off to clarify each and every one of those points but you wouldn't meet me halfway. And you call ME a liar? Good gawd.

unless you have the inability to control your speech, yes, it does.

A lie can be considered two things, how you choose to define it, either:

1) a knowing falsehood with intent to deceive (here is intent)

or

2) a knowing falsehood

So if you utter a knowing falsehood, unless you truly have no ability to control your actions, what you say is what you intended to say, and if you say a knowing falsehood, then you intended to say that.

A lie is not merely "a falsehood", it is a knowing falsehood.

A quick casual search throws:

2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3. an inaccurate or false statement.
6. to express what is false; convey a false impression.

(dictionary.com)

Intent isn't always necessary?

No my reply was to highlight that we all have these kinds of belifes based not on reason and evidane, but other things, that it is entirly human to do so, and that to look down upon a person for a professed belife in God is denying one sphere of the human condition.

do you agree that there are different sorts of things in the world at all - that there is more than one ontological category that stuff belongs to? because if you do, it is really hard to understand where you are coming from. it's like you are making a category error.

the truth of the statement "i love this band" is determined by the fact of you so loving, and is demonstrable by various sorts of evidence - your owning their albums, wearing their t-shirts, going to their concerts, and refusing to shut up about them anytime it is even vaguely on-topic to bring them up, etc.

the truth of the statement "the gods exist" is determined by the actual existence or nonexistence of said gods. the fact that one believes "the gods exist" to be true has no bearing whatsoever on the truth of the statement.

Feel better? There's about half a dozen false assumptions and misunderstandings in there but they seem to make you happy so who am I to question them?

I tried my ass off to clarify each and every one of those points but you wouldn't meet me halfway. And you call ME a liar? Good gawd.

Heh. SO, when I say you aren't representing the truth... that's calling you a liar?

But... when you say someone else isn't representing the truth... that isn't?

The wordgames here are all being played that side of the fence, my friend.

You say I make false assumptions. You say I've followed misunderstandings. You said my logic was flawed.

You've said a lot of things, and shown not a one of them.

Thus, I'm forced to take you at face value.

A quick casual search throws:

2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3. an inaccurate or false statement.
6. to express what is false; convey a false impression.

(dictionary.com)

Intent isn't always necessary?

is there such a thing as a mistake that is distinct from a lie?

A quick casual search throws:

2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3. an inaccurate or false statement.
6. to express what is false; convey a false impression.

(dictionary.com)

Intent isn't always necessary?

I'm with Neo Art on this one. "Lie" as it was used here implied to me deliberate and knowing attempt to deceive.

That said, I notice that when something you say doesn't jibe, your "logic sucks", but when he gets caught in a contradiction, Neo Bretonnia calls it our "gotcha games".

I've made arrangements to see a good Mormon friend tonight, I'm interested in her view of how NB is representing the LDS.

I'm with Neo Art on this one. "Lie" as it was used here implied to me deliberate and knowing attempt to deceive.

That said, I notice that when something you say doesn't jibe, your "logic sucks", but when he gets caught in a contradiction, Neo Bretonnia calls it our "gotcha games".

I've made arrangements to see a good Mormon friend tonight, I'm interested in her view of how NB is representing the LDS.

Make sure you get her good and primed to see it from your point of view first.

is there such a thing as a mistake that is distinct from a lie?

Apparently not if it vindicates anything I've said.

is there such a thing as a mistake that is distinct from a lie?

I would say, when you are just wrong, it's not a lie. It would only be a lie if you proceded to tell someone else.

So, coming to the conclusion that there is one scripture that is somehow beyond reproach - just a mistake. Telling someone else? It becomes a lie once you present it as a fact.

Heh. SO, when I say you aren't representing the truth... that's calling you a liar?

But... when you say someone else isn't representing the truth... that isn't?

The wordgames here are all being played that side of the fence, my friend.

You say I make false assumptions. You say I've followed misunderstandings. You said my logic was flawed.

You've said a lot of things, and shown not a one of them.

Thus, I'm forced to take you at face value.

Are you willing to take each item one at a time and clarify them with me, or would you rather keep it the way it is?

That said, I notice that when something you say doesn't jibe, your "logic sucks", but when he gets caught in a contradiction, Neo Bretonnia calls it our "gotcha games".

that's just ne-bre's style

If you were HONESTLY looking to have a dialogue, then if you see an apparent conflict in something I've said you'd ask me about it, I could respond, and we could continue.

Well, let's clarify then. Can we agree on the following:

You are not saying other religions are lying, just that they are incorrect in their interpretation of the experience of their spiritual conversion. Is that your view? I'm asking, not telling.

That is to say, these other religions, even with all the experiences, all the things going on in their heart and mind, changes in their life, thinking they are feeling the spirit, that despite all that, their religions are not the One True Religion?

Its not so much that they are lying, just that they, through experiences, have convinced themselves of something that they believe to be true, but isn't. Is that what the other religions have done?

Make sure you get her good and primed to see it from your point of view first.

Ah, a needlessly snotty comment from the prime preacher of putting things nicely. Yes, I guess it is your style.

For the record, I won't say a thing, just let her read it while I cook. Then we'll see what she thinks.

@J---- E---- Hey, I'm waving at you from the past in the internet!!

Well, let's clarify then. Can we agree on the following:

You are not saying other religions are lying, just that they are incorrect in their interpretation of the experience of their spiritual conversion. Is that your view? I'm asking, not telling.

That is to say, these other religions, even with all the experiences, all the things going on in their heart and mind, changes in their life, thinking they are feeling the spirit, that despite all that, their religions are not the One True Religion?

Its not so much that they are lying, just that they, through experiences, have convinced themselves of something that they believe to be true, but isn't. Is that what the other religions have done?

The short answer:

That is my assertion, yes.

The longer reply: (Placed second to avoid accusations of dodging the question)

If you're serious about having an actual, honest, friendly conversation then I'm up for it. I can let the past go if you can, but I'm not going to be drawn into a gotcha game. You and I believe different things. That's fine. You're not gonna turn me to your way of thinking, I'm not gonna turn you to mine. If we can agree on that, then by all means let's continue. Otherwise, I'm not interested.

Fair?

I would say, when you are just wrong, it's not a lie. It would only be a lie if you proceded to tell someone else.

even though you honestly believe it to be true? really? that seems like a weird use of the term.

The short answer:

That is my assertion, yes.

The longer reply: (Placed second to avoid accusations of dodging the question)

If you're serious about having an actual, honest, friendly conversation then I'm up for it. I can let the past go if you can, but I'm not going to be drawn into a gotcha game. You and I believe different things. That's fine. You're not gonna turn me to your way of thinking, I'm not gonna turn you to mine. If we can agree on that, then by all means let's continue. Otherwise, I'm not interested.

Fair?

Well, again, I've noticed that when someone else says something you find a problem with, you say their "logic sucks", but when someone illustrates a flaw in your line of reasoning, its dismissed as "gotcha games". Much like you feel other's use of sarcasm is wrong but yours isn't, but can't explain why. But, you've talked about letting go of the past, so I will not bring these things up again.

So, you've replied yes, those are your assertions.

Now, to refine my question, these other religions aren't really lying, they really believe what they say. They just can't figure out why their religion is the false one. They can't really explain it, they can't prove they're right, they just really believe. They've had experiences that others haven't had, and based on those experiences, they truly believe they are correct.

It would only be lying if they could see that they are wrong, but still preached their religion. In this case, they don't see that they are following a false religion, whether its Islam or whatever. Is this fair?

EDIT: Monkey Dutch, I need to go to bed.

Well, again, I've noticed that when someone else says something you find a problem with, you say their "logic sucks", but when someone illustrates a flaw in your line of reasoning, its dismissed as "gotcha games". Much like you feel other's use of sarcasm is wrong but yours isn't, but can't explain why. But, you've talked about letting go of the past, so I will not bring these things up again.

Done. (And I won't even answer that last dig.)


So, you've replied yes, those are your assertions.

Now, to refine my question, these other religions aren't really lying, they really believe what they say. They just can't figure out why their religion is the false one. They can't really explain it, they can't prove they're right, they just really believe. They've had experiences that others haven't had, and based on those experiences, they truly believe they are correct.


Yes, with the caveat that the bolded part, IMHO, implies that they're aware there's a problem, which is generally not the case.


It would only be lying if they could see that they are wrong, but still preached their religion. In this case, they don't see that they are following a false religion, whether its Islam or whatever. Is this fair?


Yes.


EDIT: Monkey Dutch, I need to go to bed.

Suuuure. ;)

Yes, with the caveat that the bolded part, IMHO, implies that they're aware there's a problem, which is generally not the case.

Yes.


Ah, quite true, you make an excellent point. They are not and would not be aware that there was a problem, they would think their religion is the correct one, fervently so, even if it was the false one. You are right to point that out.

This is going to have to be a breaking point, for me at least. If I don't sleep now, I'm going to have those weird dreams where Lunatic Goofballs appears dressed like the robot from Red Dwarf, but with no pants on.

Ah, quite true, you make an excellent point. They are not and would not be aware that there was a problem, they would think their religion is the correct one, fervently so, even if it was the false one. You are right to point that out.

This is going to have to be a breaking point, for me at least. If I don't sleep now, I'm going to have those weird dreams where Lunatic Goofballs appears dressed like the robot from Red Dwarf, but with no pants on.

Yes yes... Please do get some rest. A dream like that can drive a person insane.

I didn't think the robot wore pants in Red Dwarf, did he?
I know he ironed Bras on his head but that's slightly different.
I've never had a dream about NSG, at least not one i remember.
does this mean you two are going to stop debating? i was quite enjoying watching the show.

I think (thankfully) it's finally turning into a reasonable conversation. Now I'm hoping GnI will get on board with it too.

Ah, quite true, you make an excellent point. They are not and would not be aware that there was a problem, they would think their religion is the correct one, fervently so, even if it was the false one. You are right to point that out.

This is going to have to be a breaking point, for me at least. If I don't sleep now, I'm going to have those weird dreams where Lunatic Goofballs appears dressed like the robot from Red Dwarf, but with no pants on.

I didn't think the robot wore pants in Red Dwarf, did he?
I know he ironed Bras on his head but that's slightly different.
I've never had a dream about NSG, at least not one i remember.
does this mean you two are going to stop debating? i was quite enjoying watching the show.

I didn't think the robot wore pants in Red Dwarf, did he?
I know he ironed Bras on his head but that's slightly different.
I've never had a dream about NSG, at least not one i remember.
does this mean you two are going to stop debating? i was quite enjoying watching the show.

Heh, we're still debating. We're just agreeing on several points that might be important later.

I think (thankfully) it's finally turning into a reasonable conversation. Now I'm hoping GnI will get on board with it too.

I'll have more questions later. I can already here LG approach...the trained seal honker horn band carried on the shoulders of all the great dead clowns of history is a bit much...

I'll have more questions later. I can already here LG approach...the trained seal honker horn band carried on the shoulders of all the great dead clowns of history is a bit much...

I'll keep an eye out.

Other denominations that are calling themselves Christians (e.g. protestants) have all at one point stepped out of this community.
no, they haven't. Catholics and Protestants, and everything inbetween, are still Christian. The name comes from what the person/group believes, not who their leader(s) is/are. (Pretty much) Everybody who calls themself a Christain believes the same things, they just have different leaders, and slightly different practices.

p.s. I am not saying to deffend a title of my own. I am glad to not count myself as a Christian of any kind.

Just because you're the oldest surviving Church does not make you the 'original Christians'.

I'm pretty sure not even that's true. unless it somehow survived in some orthodox church, somewhere, the original church died when Emporer Constantine converted Rome, and rewrote the Bible.

The word you meant is spelled without the middle m.

Just for that you get a :upyours:

Just for that you get a :upyours:

Don't worry about it. The mods gave him a week off to ponder that.

Just for that you get a :upyours:

Don't worry about it. The mods gave him a week off to ponder that.

Yeah, its not true of all of them...
:p

Yeah, its not true of all of them...
:p

All of what? trolls or mods?

(Pretty much) Everybody who calls themself a Christain believes the same things

not really, no.

All of what? trolls or mods?

Mormons, some of should it be spelled without the second "m". But then being a moron is certainly not limited to religious people.

Mormons, some of should it be spelled without the second "m". But then being a moron is certainly not limited to religious people.

Gotcha.

Then we can agree to disagree.
In a sense. I'm not happy to leave it there (why would I pipe up in the first place?), but since everyone seems to be laying into you at the minute, it wouldn't exactly spark any kind of free thought if I was to keep pressing it.

Just when you've got a minute, take a look at the objectivity of your claims. 's all.

In a sense. I'm not happy to leave it there (why would I pipe up in the first place?), but since everyone seems to be laying into you at the minute, it wouldn't exactly spark any kind of free thought if I was to keep pressing it.

Just when you've got a minute, take a look at the objectivity of your claims. 's all.

But your assertion, if I understand it correctly, is based on the premise that a given religion is originated an/or governed merely by people with an arbitrary set of values.

My assertion is that this church is ultimately guided by God, so I'm not sure where to go with it since in order to have a common frame of reference either you would have to agree with my baseline or I'd have to agree with yours.

Unless I am misunderstanding what you're getting at.

I'm pretty sure not even that's true. unless it somehow survived in some orthodox church, somewhere, the original church died when Emporer Constantine converted Rome, and rewrote the Bible.

there was no "original church". there were many different christian communities in various places around the mediterranean area that, by and large, each had its own set of scriptures that it followed.

when the church was...oh lets say SOLIDIFIED under constantine, the council selected what it thought was the best 33 books and created the new testament. they decided just what "official" christianity would believe.

then they worked at crushing anyone and everyone who disagreed, burning their scriptures and killing any followers who wouldnt convert to the new official line.

there are few sects in existence today that pre-date this official christianity. there are some that have broken away from it, some that try to recreate a belief that predates constantine, and some that reworked christianity from scratch with their own prophets and new scriptures.

But your assertion, if I understand it correctly, is based on the premise that a given religion is originated an/or governed merely by people with an arbitrary set of values.

My assertion is that this church is ultimately guided by God, so I'm not sure where to go with it since in order to have a common frame of reference either you would have to agree with my baseline or I'd have to agree with yours.

Unless I am misunderstanding what you're getting at.
You're half right. However much the guidance received is, indeed, God's, this guidance is interpreted by human agents (which serve as a filter, of sorts). This interpretation is always subjective. Consequently, whether or not you are actually following the "one path" as laid down by a particular church, including yours, is a matter of whether or not you're adhereing to a subjective structure more than it does to God's guidance.

Crucifixion as a punishment for slaves and pirates... prisoners of war, maybe? For religious heretics? For religious heretics against an alien religion?

I'm not denying crucifixion as a punishment. I'm denying that it was necessarily 'common', or that it would have necessarily have been employed in the situation claimed. As I said - there is almost no physical evidence, a grand total of one set of remains - a fact with which you seem to be arguing by agreeing?

And yes - there is a record of one body being removed from the crucifixion cross/spike, but that's an exception, not the rule. Occam suggests that exceptions are the less likely results, doesn't it? And - as I'm sure you know - the reason that the body was left to be picked to pieces was to humiliate the victim. The reason signs were supposed to have been posted at the crucifixion of 'Jesus' was for humiliation... again, Occam favours the idea that Jesus' body would not have been removed.

Regarding the idea that "Jews were crucified more often"... more often than what? Than Roman citizens? Absolutely. But that's because Roman citizens were largely exempt. But, where is the evidence they were crucified by Rome, for being apostate in the Judaic faith? The whole story relies on too many assumptions, most of them very unlikely to say the least. Example: Jesus was guilty of being a false prophet - and the Jewish elders would have known well that the punishment for that crime is stoning. There are only four death sentences allowable under Jewish law, and hanging isn't there... that discludes them declaring a crucifixion death sentence for a crime against religious law.

As for the idea that a symbolic death requires more assumptions than assuming that the crucifixion is mentioned because it records a real event.... well, how many assumptions are implicit in that scenario? That Jesus was real? Was found a criminal? Was sentenced in disobedience to Jewish law?

How many assumptions does it take to get to the point of the Crucifixion as symbolic? We know the 'cross' symbol is older than, and not exclusive to, Christianity. We know similar cross symbols have been used as a symbol of life/rebirth (the Ankh, for example). It doesn't take much assumption to get to the point of an established resurrection symbol being adapted by yet one more cult.

The scripture doesn't say that Jesus was crucified by the Romans because he was a religious heretic. The scripture says he was accused of calling himself a King and Pilate was threatened that if he didn't execute him the Jews said Pilate would be no friend of Caesar.

Perhaps you should spend more time with the basic issue parameters before you create an entire tinfoil hat conspiracy rebuttal against it, because your position is quickly debunked if you make such basic errors so early in your analysis the rest it moot.

FYI: Josephus, as well as other sources, refer to the crucifixion of thousands of people by the Romans in Palestine and Judea. Other sources than scripture support crucifixion, your little theory stands outside of evidences to the contrary.

I'm UU

there was no "original church". there were many different christian communities in various places around the mediterranean area that, by and large, each had its own set of scriptures that it followed.

The original church would be the one the Apostles formed in Jerusalem, 33AD-40AD, see the book of Acts.

when the church was...oh lets say SOLIDIFIED under constantine, the council selected what it thought was the best 33 books and created the new testament. they decided just what "official" christianity would believe.

Nonsense about the books being picked then. The official theology was canonized at that time but it wasn't created then though.

then they worked at crushing anyone and everyone who disagreed, burning their scriptures and killing any followers who wouldnt convert to the new official line.

Can't argue about that, but Christianity was several hundred years old by then, it was well established and already old. Think of all the churches in America for example, they can't keep their denominations together either. No big surprise and nothing inherently 'evil' or wrong with it. A center unifying oversight would be required for any global enterprise to keep the overall movement focused on what is important.

I am a strong agnostic atheist. That means that my position is that I don't believe in God, but I don't know shit, and you don't know shit either.

then they worked at crushing anyone and everyone who disagreed, burning their scriptures and killing any followers who wouldnt convert to the new official line.


The 'crushing' didn't even have to wait till later. Only those that already largely agreed, or it was thought could be bullied into agreeing were even invited... and (of those attending) those that wouldn't agree were not given representation in the final outcome, and were attacked during the council.

The scripture doesn't say that Jesus was crucified by the Romans because he was a religious heretic. The scripture says he was accused of calling himself a King and Pilate was threatened that if he didn't execute him the Jews said Pilate would be no friend of Caesar.


Missing th epoint. Being a king isn't illegal. Calling yourself king isn't illegal. There WERE Jewish kings concurrent with Roman rule - so that's not the real problem, now it is.

Why was Jesus arrested? Are you arguing that the Jews were concerned that he was an enemy of Rome?

Over and over in the Greek scripture, we are given text where the Jews argue against Jesus' religious teachings. The crime he committed was that of being a false prophet, regardless of what leverage we are supposed to believe that they used to get Pilate onboard.


Perhaps you should spend more time with the basic issue parameters before you create an entire tinfoil hat conspiracy rebuttal against it, because your position is quickly debunked if you make such basic errors so early in your analysis the rest it moot.


The difference seems to be that you believe the Biblical account to be 100% literal truth even where it contradicts itself and/or reality.

The Jews did not turn on Jesus because they thought he was inimical to the rule of Rome.


FYI: Josephus, as well as other sources, refer to the crucifixion of thousands of people by the Romans in Palestine and Judea. Other sources than scripture support crucifixion, your little theory stands outside of evidences to the contrary.

Jospehus - who wasn't even alive at the time you mean?

I'm not sure what you think 'my little theory' is. I'm not saying there were never any crucifixions - we have records of crucifixions thousands of years before the Roman Empire, and for at least as far afterwards as Constantine. I'm not denying anyone was ever crucified. On the other hand - just because it says in a book that person x was crucified, it isn't automatically true, either.

...The crime he committed was that of being a false prophet, regardless of what leverage we are supposed to believe that they used to get Pilate onboard....

Pilate is the one that had him crucified. He was punished under Roman rules, not religious rules, thus, the reason he was crucified and not stoned is because it was the Roman punishment, not the Jewish punishment. Clearly you answered your own question then, why do you pretend that Jesus should have been stoned? Disingenuous a bit?

...
The difference seems to be that you believe the Biblical account to be 100% literal truth even where it contradicts itself and/or reality.

Irrelevant. Why do you mention it?

...The Jews did not turn on Jesus because they thought he was inimical to the rule of Rome.

No one said they did.

...
Jospehus - who wasn't even alive at the time you mean?
Exactly right. I didn't say he was talking about Jesus Crucifixion.

...I'm not sure what you think 'my little theory' is.
Only the one you've written in this thread.

Pilate is the one that had him crucified. He was punished under Roman rules, not religious rules, thus, the reason he was crucified and not stoned is because it was the Roman punishment, not the Jewish punishment. Clearly you answered your own question then, why do you pretend that Jesus should have been stoned? Disingenuous a bit?


You might want to read your bible.

Pilate said "I find no fault".

The Jews said: "And they were the more fierce, saying, He stirreth up the people, teaching throughout all Jewry, beginning from Galilee to this place."

(False prophet, not inimical to Rome).

Pilate said: "Said unto them, Ye have brought this man unto me, as one that perverteth the people... I... have found no fault in this man touching those things whereof ye accuse him:"

(False prophet, not inimical to Rome).

Then, allegedly, the Jews called for the ssentence of crucifixion: "But they cried, saying, Crucify [him], crucify him".


Pilate did not determine the sentence of crucifixion, the 'multitude' did. And that multitude, we were told in other chapters, were those that had tried Jesus at the Jewish council.

The Jews may have claimed that Jesus preached sedition - but that wasn't why they wanted him arrested. They wanted him arrested because he was a false prophet. By their law, the punishment should, therefore, have been stoning.

It's just another of the examples of the Bible not adding up.


Irrelevant. Why do you mention it?


Because the story conflicts with established Roman protocol. Therefore, either the story is wrong, entirely fictional, or all the evidence that makes it wrong is false.

Personaklly, I think it's bad form to assume one source must be correct, and that it invalidates any wealth of evidence that fails to corroborate it.


No one said they did.


If you are arguing that the Jews wanted Jesus executed because he wasn't a friend to Rome...


Exactly right. I didn't say he was talking about Jesus Crucifixion.


Or any other contemporary crucifixion. That's the point. Jospehus knew fuck all about crucifixion in the time of Jesus.


Only the one you've written in this thread.

Which would be what? I've written several things...

...
The Jews may have claimed that Jesus preached sedition - but that wasn't why they wanted him arrested. They wanted him arrested because he was a false prophet. By their law, the punishment should, therefore, have been stoning.

I didn't say Jesus was guilty of sedition, I said Jesus was punished by the Romans, not the Jews. You stated as much yourself, over and over again. I never said the Priests wanted him punished for sedition, they wanted him dead, period. As you yourself said, they couldn't get Pilate to punish him for that charge though, so they took what they could get. Much like Al Capone, should have been punished for lots of things, but they could only get him for tax fraud, so they took what they could get to lock him up. Likewise, the Priests took what they could get from Pilate.

Like Capone was sentenced for Tax Fraud, Jesus was punished for sedition and because they said he called himself king... In fact, thats what the Romans hung on the cross. Jesus, King of the Jews, and that too pissed off the Priests. If the Priests had killed Jesus they would have stoned him, they tried to previously, but in the end, they got the Romans to do it, so it was Crucifixion, not stoning.

...It's just another of the examples of the Bible not adding up.

Twist and turn all you want, just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it doesn't add up.

...
Because the story conflicts with established Roman protocol. Therefore, either the story is wrong, entirely fictional, or all the evidence that makes it wrong is false.

It doesn't contradict Roman protocol one bit.

...Personaklly, I think it's bad form to assume one source must be correct, and that it invalidates any wealth of evidence that fails to corroborate it.

And the way you try to interpret the scripture, you assume its wrong regardless of any evidence that does corroborate it.

...If you are arguing that the Jews wanted Jesus executed because he wasn't a friend to Rome...

See above about Al Capone stuff... They took what they could get to get the Romans to kill Jesus.

...
Or any other contemporary crucifixion. That's the point. Jospehus knew fuck all about crucifixion in the time of Jesus.
That's so funny, you think you know more than he did.

I didn't say Jesus was guilty of sedition, I said Jesus was punished by the Romans, not the Jews. You stated as much yourself, over and over again. I never said the Priests wanted him punished for sedition, they wanted him dead, period. As you yourself said, they couldn't get Pilate to punish him for that charge though, so they took what they could get. Much like Al Capone, should have been punished for lots of things, but they could only get him for tax fraud, so they took what they could get to lock him up. Likewise, the Priests took what they could get from Pilate.

Like Capone was sentenced for Tax Fraud, Jesus was punished for sedition and because they said he called himself king... In fact, thats what the Romans hung on the cross. Jesus, King of the Jews, and that too pissed off the Priests. If the Priests had killed Jesus they would have stoned him, they tried to previously, but in the end, they got the Romans to do it, so it was Crucifixion, not stoning.


What you said was "Pilate is the one that had him crucified. He was punished under Roman rules, not religious rules, thus, the reason he was crucified and not stoned is because it was the Roman punishment, not the Jewish punishment."

Under 'Roman rules", Jesus was innocent - Pilate said as much.

Thus, the punishment was only 'punished by the Romans' in as much as the uniforms worn by the cops were roman uniforms. The verdict and the sentence were according to Jewish law - which is how we know they are bullshit, and that the story was contrived in a desperate attempt to pretend to match (alleged) Messianic prophecy.

You twist and turn, but you won't admit what we both know. The Jews didn't just pick on Jesus for no reason. The specific cause was his apparent identity as false prophet.

I think you're being disingenuous.


Twist and turn all you want, just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it doesn't add up.


Just because you want it to be true, doesn't make any argument against it a lack of understanding.


It doesn't contradict Roman protocol one bit.


Yes, it does.


And the way you try to interpret the scripture, you assume its wrong regardless of any evidence that does corroborate it.


Utter rubbish. I differ from you, though... in that I don't assume it is true.


See above about Al Capone stuff... They took what they could get to get the Romans to kill Jesus.


Why would they?


That's so funny, you think you know more than he did.

I do. You should. Your apparent lack of knowledge is unforgivable - at least Josephus had the excuse that he couldn't have had access to better information. He wasn't just choosing to blindly ignore the evidence.

You're half right. However much the guidance received is, indeed, God's, this guidance is interpreted by human agents (which serve as a filter, of sorts). This interpretation is always subjective. Consequently, whether or not you are actually following the "one path" as laid down by a particular church, including yours, is a matter of whether or not you're adhereing to a subjective structure more than it does to God's guidance.

I have more faith in the system than that. Sure, the information comes through a human filter, but the Prophet is selected by God to be someone who can handle the job without distortion.

There have been cases where Prophets have strayed a bit from their instructions, and have been chastised by the Lord for it. Even Joseph Smith needed an adjustment here and there. I trust the system.

I have more faith in the system than that. Sure, the information comes through a human filter, but the Prophet is selected by God to be someone who can handle the job without distortion.

There have been cases where Prophets have strayed a bit from their instructions, and have been chastised by the Lord for it. Even Joseph Smith needed an adjustment here and there. I trust the system.

How does god select a prophet? or a pope for that matter? he/she/it/multidimensional being doesn't actually every physically manifest as Far as I am aware and I've always been more than a little weary of somebody who says "Worship me ! for I am chosen by GOD!!!!!"

What you said was "Pilate is the one that had him crucified. He was punished under Roman rules, not religious rules, thus, the reason he was crucified and not stoned is because it was the Roman punishment, not the Jewish punishment."

Under 'Roman rules", Jesus was innocent - Pilate said as much.

Thus, the punishment was only 'punished by the Romans' in as much as the uniforms worn by the cops were roman uniforms. The verdict and the sentence were according to Jewish law - which is how we know they are bullshit, and that the story was contrived in a desperate attempt to pretend to match (alleged) Messianic prophecy.

You twist and turn, but you won't admit what we both know. The Jews didn't just pick on Jesus for no reason. The specific cause was his apparent identity as false prophet.

I think you're being disingenuous.

Romans didn't stone people, they crucified them. Pilate was threatened that it he would be called no friend of Caesar if he let a person like Jesus be called a King in a Roman territory (a king not ordained by Rome).

You keep getting your 'motivations' mixed up with the verdict. The Priests had motivation to kill Jesus because they thought him a false prophet. Pilate found him innocent of that. The priests said Jesus was calling himself a king and threatened Pilate with it, thus, Jesus was punished for that.

If there is any disingenuousness going on around here it's coming from your end.


Just because you want it to be true, doesn't make any argument against it a lack of understanding.

Just because you don't want it to be true doesn't make it false.


Why would they?

Who? The Priests or the Romans? The priest because they wanted Jesus dead... Pilate, because he didn't care enough to not kill Jesus, but he did care that the word might get around that he was no friend of Caesars.


I do. You should. Your apparent lack of knowledge is unforgivable - at least Josephus had the excuse that he couldn't have had access to better information. He wasn't just choosing to blindly ignore the evidence.

That's really, really funny that you think you know more. Perhaps you could cite some judean/palestine first century information about Roman crucifixions that is superior to Josephus please.

Romans didn't stone people, they crucified them. Pilate was threatened that it he would be called no friend of Caesar if he let a person like Jesus be called a King in a Roman territory (a king not ordained by Rome).


Which isn't a crime.

You'd have to really want to ignore reality to accept an excuse like that.


You keep getting your 'motivations' mixed up with the verdict. The Priests had motivation to kill Jesus because they thought him a false prophet. Pilate found him innocent of that. The priests said Jesus was calling himself a king and threatened Pilate with it, thus, Jesus was punished for that.


The Priests wouldn't want Jesus dead, that's not the point. Him ending up dead is entirely missing the point. As a false prophet, the Jewish priests would be disobeying their god by NOT stoning Jesus. Hence, the fiction about crucifixion is clearly untrue. And even casual thought about it shows why.

And again - read your bible - Pilate says he finds no fault. He asks Jesus about his kingdom, and finds no crime. He then broadcasts his verdict, but agrees to accept the will of the multitude.

Jesus. Why don't Christians read their bibles?


Just because you don't want it to be true doesn't make it false.


I don't want it to be true OR false. I just want evidence before I accept it.

If the evidence fails to corroborate, the internal material is self-contradictory... that doesn't "make it false"... but it hurts it's claim to truth.


Who? The Priests or the Romans? The priest because they wanted Jesus dead... Pilate, because he didn't care enough to not kill Jesus, but he did care that the word might get around that he was no friend of Caesars.


Nah, I don't buy it. The priests would have wanted Jesus punished according to God's will, and Pilate doesn't achieve a position of power by kowtowing to childish blackmail threats by the natives.

The whole story is less believable than Harry Potter.


That's really, really funny that you think you know more. Perhaps you could cite some judean/palestine first century information about Roman crucifixions that is superior to Josephus please.

Let's start from what we know, shall we? How much knowledge would Josephus actually have of things that existed before him? Hearsay, at best?


Wait, wait, wait... are you the guy who thinks the Gospels are eyewitness accounts?

Which isn't a crime.

You'd have to really want to ignore reality to accept an excuse like that.



The Priests wouldn't want Jesus dead, that's not the point. Him ending up dead is entirely missing the point. As a false prophet, the Jewish priests would be disobeying their god by NOT stoning Jesus. Hence, the fiction about crucifixion is clearly untrue. And even casual thought about it shows why.

And again - read your bible - Pilate says he finds no fault. He asks Jesus about his kingdom, and finds no crime. He then broadcasts his verdict, but agrees to accept the will of the multitude.

Jesus. Why don't Christians read their bibles?



I don't want it to be true OR false. I just want evidence before I accept it.

If the evidence fails to corroborate, the internal material is self-contradictory... that doesn't "make it false"... but it hurts it's claim to truth.



Nah, I don't buy it. The priests would have wanted Jesus punished according to God's will, and Pilate doesn't achieve a position of power by kowtowing to childish blackmail threats by the natives.

The whole story is less believable than Harry Potter.



Let's start from what we know, shall we? How much knowledge would Josephus actually have of things that existed before him? Hearsay, at best?


Wait, wait, wait... are you the guy who thinks the Gospels are eyewitness accounts?
1)Maybe though losing the favor of Cesar couldn't be a good thing in any way

2)Ya isn't that where the term "to wash your hands of something" comes from?

3)Agreed

4)Ya no kidding

5)At best ., . .the other point there is that in order to Even be able to write and or afford a scribe as well as a ton of people to copy things out for him Josephus must have a bunch of power. Which means he had a vested interest in keeping the Christian religion alive and well so he could profit from it. Therefore Josephus' accounts are both biased AND Hearsay at best . . . .funnnnn

Which isn't a crime.

You'd have to really want to ignore reality to accept an excuse like that. Pilate doesn't need Jesus to be guilty of a crime to have him crucified.

The Priests wouldn't want Jesus dead, that's not the point. Him ending up dead is entirely missing the point.
Not missing the point at all, the priest tried and failed to stone Jesus. They resorted to the next best thing when they took it to Caesar's representative. Reading the story any other way is to ignore the parts you don't want to think about. The four gospels make it clear that the Priests wanted Jesus done away with and they failed to be able to do it themselves for different reasons.

As a false prophet, the Jewish priests would be disobeying their god by NOT stoning Jesus. Hence, the fiction about crucifixion is clearly untrue. And even casual thought about it shows why.
Utter nonsense. Who appointed the priests to power? Where did they get the 'permission' to remain priests from? [answer=Pilate] Where did they get their theological dogma from? [who knows] There was more than one group of Jews at the time, they didn't all agree with each other. You claiming that your interpretation is their interpretation is arrogance or naivety, I'm not sure which.

And again - read your bible - Pilate says he finds no fault. He asks Jesus about his kingdom, and finds no crime. He then broadcasts his verdict, but agrees to accept the will of the multitude.

Why did he agree to accept the will of the multitude? Because they threatened that he would be no friend of Caesar if he didn't do it.
John 19:12
Then Pilate tried to release him, but the Jewish leaders shouted, “If you release this man, you are no ‘friend of Caesar.’ Anyone who declares himself a king is a rebel against Caesar.”

That is a threat. That tells Pilate that they will tell Caesar that he isn't protecting Caesars interests... Motivation for Pilate to do what they want, what does he care, kill Jesus and be done with it.


Jesus. Why don't Christians read their bibles?
I read it, I'll read it more.


Nah, I don't buy it. The priests would have wanted Jesus punished according to God's will, and Pilate doesn't achieve a position of power by kowtowing to childish blackmail threats by the natives.

And you know Pilate's position and relationship with Caesar Tiberius how?

Let's start from what we know, shall we? How much knowledge would Josephus actually have of things that existed before him? Hearsay, at best?

In other words, when I asked you to cite some information about actual evidence, you've got nothing huh...


Wait, wait, wait... are you the guy who thinks the Gospels are eyewitness accounts?
Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, by Richard Bauckham
http://www.bib-arch.org/reviews/revieweyewitness.asp

I hate obnoxious Christians and obnoxious atheists pretty much equally.

How does god select a prophet? or a pope for that matter? he/she/it/multidimensional being doesn't actually every physically manifest as Far as I am aware

Forming a strong impression in the mind of the Prophet himself.

See how that works? "I speak for God" "Prove it!" "God doesn't have to prove anything." Neato. :p

Some nutters are more persuasive than others is about what it comes down to.

I hate obnoxious Christians and obnoxious atheists pretty much equally.

Absolutely. There's no need at all for any lions to get hurt.

Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, by Richard Bauckham
http://www.bib-arch.org/reviews/revieweyewitness.asp

It's okay.

You win. Whatever you said, was right.

Now I know who you are, there's no point trying to debate with you.

I'll keep an eye out.

So, I'm back for a sec.

We've agreed to the following, from previous posts:

Spiritual experience is not unique to any one religion.

The spiritual experience is not unique to any one religion, and every religion claims theirs is the authentic one, and only their interpretation is correct.

You are not accusing the other religions of lying, just that their prayers, spiritual experiences, belief, etc, have led them to the wrong conclusion. You also emphasized that they would not be aware that anything was wrong. They would be firmly convinced, based on their experiences, some of which they won't be able to explain or prove, even though their religion isn't really the correct one.

You've said that the experience needs to be interpreted correctly.

To these, may we add the following:

1. Interpretation is, by definition, subjective.

and to be considered separately:

2. Interpretation, is defined, in the dictionary, as follows (if you have another common definition, I'm also happy to include that with proper source):

To explain the meaning of: interpreted the ambassador's remarks. See synonyms at explain.
To conceive the significance of; construe: interpreted his smile to be an agreement; interpreted the open door as an invitation.
To present or conceptualize the meaning of by means of art or criticism.
To translate orally.

May we agree to add these to the above list?

I have more faith in the system than that. Sure, the information comes through a human filter, but the Prophet is selected by God to be someone who can handle the job without distortion.

There have been cases where Prophets have strayed a bit from their instructions, and have been chastised by the Lord for it. Even Joseph Smith needed an adjustment here and there. I trust the system.
Interesting. In my mind, you're making a leap far greater than the simple act of believing in God here; you're actually trusting people with God's will rather than trusting God himself. It is the leap that greatest interferes with your claim to exclusive truth, I think. Anyway, that's where I'm happy to leave it as an agreement to disagree for now.

Well I am looking into Buddhism recently. And although I am unable to bring myself to believe in reincarnation at the moment, I enjoy the concept in it's lack of an omnipotent God. If anything the study into Buddhism will at least expose me to in depth insights about the human psyche, even if I decided that I am in fact too skeptical of a person to believe in it's supernatural beliefs.

How does god select a prophet? or a pope for that matter? he/she/it/multidimensional being doesn't actually every physically manifest as Far as I am aware and I've always been more than a little weary of somebody who says "Worship me ! for I am chosen by GOD!!!!!"

I don't know how He decides whom He will choose. I suppose we can ask Him when we see Him.

Interesting. In my mind, you're making a leap far greater than the simple act of believing in God here; you're actually trusting people with God's will rather than trusting God himself. It is the leap that greatest interferes with your claim to exclusive truth, I think. Anyway, that's where I'm happy to leave it as an agreement to disagree for now.

There is one element though that makes it more than simply trusting people with God's will. That is a testimony from the Spirit of the veracity of it. In other words, one can consult the Spirit to be assured that the Prophet is leading the Church in accordance with God's will.

So, I'm back for a sec.

We've agreed to the following, from previous posts:

Spiritual experience is not unique to any one religion.

The spiritual experience is not unique to any one religion, and every religion claims theirs is the authentic one, and only their interpretation is correct.

You are not accusing the other religions of lying, just that their prayers, spiritual experiences, belief, etc, have led them to the wrong conclusion. You also emphasized that they would not be aware that anything was wrong. They would be firmly convinced, based on their experiences, some of which they won't be able to explain or prove, even though their religion isn't really the correct one.

You've said that the experience needs to be interpreted correctly.

To these, may we add the following:

1. Interpretation is, by definition, subjective.

and to be considered separately:

2. Interpretation, is defined, in the dictionary, as follows (if you have another common definition, I'm also happy to include that with proper source):

To explain the meaning of: interpreted the ambassador's remarks. See synonyms at explain.
To conceive the significance of; construe: interpreted his smile to be an agreement; interpreted the open door as an invitation.
To present or conceptualize the meaning of by means of art or criticism.
To translate orally.

May we agree to add these to the above list?

I don't think I'd fully agree with the first of the two items. If you've been a member of the Church then at some point you were probably advised to pray and feel the Spirit when reading Scripture. The reason for that is that (and this is quoted somewhere but I don't have my quad with me) Scripture isn't for private interpretation. In other words, we don't have the ability, on our own as individuals, to properly interpret Scripture reliably. In order to properly understand the meaning of the Scriptures it's necessary to have that extra bit of light and wisdom from the Holy Spirit to be certain our understanding is sound.

That said, I'd like to begin my own list of items to establish between us for the purpose of the discussion.

1)May we assume that, IF the Spirit does, in fact, have the ability and the intent to guide us as individuals, then there must be some mechanism for the Spirit to communicate with us and manifest what it is we are to know/understand/accomplish?

2)If such a mechanism exists, then it must be objectively reliable in such a way that we are free to ignore or accept it for what it is, but by its nature if it is to be understood at all it must be understood correctly?

Because this is something of a leap of faith here, but it is a logical one. If the Spirit is to communicate with us individually then there must necessarily be a 'clear channel' to reach us that is reliable and free from interference from others.

Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, by Richard Bauckham
http://www.bib-arch.org/reviews/revieweyewitness.aspWell, I was following along pretty well before this. Just lost all credibility for me.

when the church was...oh lets say SOLIDIFIED under constantine, the council selected what it thought was the best 33 books and created the new testament. they decided just what "official" christianity would believe.

There was a core of texts before Constantine which were accepted by most Christians. The four Gospels were probably broadly agreed upon by the end of the second century (being mentioned in Irenaeus's Against Heresies although, unlike Irenaeus, most early Christians were open to the idea of there being other authoritative Gospels). Some of the letters of Paul were likewise accepted by most Christians long before Constantine.

There was a core of texts before Constantine which were accepted by most Christians. The four Gospels were probably broadly agreed upon by the end of the second century (being mentioned in Irenaeus's Against Heresies although, unlike Irenaeus, most early Christians were open to the idea of there being other authoritative Gospels). Some of the letters of Paul were likewise accepted by most Christians long before Constantine.

do we know how many "other" christians there were who used other primary scriptures before the council decided just which ones were to be included in the new testament?

Well, I was following along pretty well before this. Just lost all credibility for me.

And why is that? Are you saying that Richard Bauckham, M.A., Ph.D. Cambridge; F.B.A.; Professor of New Testament Studies and Bishop Wardlaw Professor, University of St Andrews, somehow isn't credible or isn't qualified to write about the topic itself? Or are you saying the book's conclusions simply disagree with your considerable scholastic understanding of New Testament textural criticism and thus you reject it out of hand?

do we know how many "other" christians there were who used other primary scriptures before the council decided just which ones were to be included in the new testament?

The first part I'll leave to Agenda07, the bolded part is the assumption you keep making, in error.

While the Council of Nicea had important consequences, its significance has been exaggerated into legend by a few conspiracy theorists, documentaries and books such as Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code," historians say.

Contrary to popular belief, the council had nothing to do with selecting which verses and gospels would be included in the Bible, nor whether Christianity agreed or disagreed with the concept of reincarnation. Bishops did not burn books they deemed heretical there either, historians say.
http://www.livescience.com/history/080331-hs-nicea.html

And why is that? Are you saying that Richard Bauckham, M.A., Ph.D. Cambridge; F.B.A.; Professor of New Testament Studies and Bishop Wardlaw Professor, University of St Andrews, somehow isn't credible or isn't qualified to write about the topic itself?


Yes.


Or are you saying the book's conclusions simply disagree with your considerable scholastic understanding of New Testament textural criticism and thus you reject it out of hand?

No.

The first part I'll leave to Agenda07, the bolded part is the assumption you keep making, in error.

While the Council of Nicea had important consequences, its significance has been exaggerated into legend by a few conspiracy theorists, documentaries and books such as Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code," historians say.

Contrary to popular belief, the council had nothing to do with selecting which verses and gospels would be included in the Bible, nor whether Christianity agreed or disagreed with the concept of reincarnation. Bishops did not burn books they deemed heretical there either, historians say.
http://www.livescience.com/history/080331-hs-nicea.html


well someone decided that the book of thomas and the gospel of judas, and the apocalypse of peter didnt have what it takes to get into the NT. too bad your article didnt say.

i didnt say that the bishops burned the other books. i dont know who attended or what they did after they left. i said that the formal religion set up by that council burned the other gospels and those who refused to give up their now-heretical beliefs.

And why is that? Are you saying that Richard Bauckham, M.A., Ph.D. Cambridge;
In a few years' time, I'll have an MA from Cambridge too. That doesn't make my subjective opinion any more factual.

well someone decided that the book of thomas and the gospel of judas, and the apocalypse of peter didnt have what it takes to get into the NT. too bad your article didnt say.

i didnt say that the bishops burned the other books. i dont know who attended or what they did after they left. i said that the formal religion set up by that council burned the other gospels and those who refused to give up their now-heretical beliefs.

I think that what truly concerned Constantine and the bishops and prelates assisting to the I Nicea Council was the divinity of Christ. Up until then, Christ was considered a mortal.

I think that what truly concerned Constantine and the bishops and prelates assisting to the I Nicea Council was the divinity of Christ. Up until then, Christ was considered a mortal.

i dont think they invented divinity at that council. it was a hotly debated notion with many many different possibilities. i dont know how widespread the whole "fully human, fully divine" option was before then though.

All religion threads inevitably devolve into an argument about Christianity.

I think that what truly concerned Constantine and the bishops and prelates assisting to the I Nicea Council was the divinity of Christ. Up until then, Christ was considered a mortal.

Oh really? Perhaps you would like to cite your sources for that deduction of yours?

Because the way I read it the New Testament makes it clear otherwise, and in addition to what it says, Ignatius of Antioch called Jesus God more than a dozen times (ca. 110AD), Justin Martyr said Christ was the word of God incarnate and divine (ca 155AD), Irenaeus said "He (Jesus) is the holy Lord, the Wonderful, the Counselor, the Beautiful in appearance, and the Mighty God, coming on the clouds as the Judge of all men; --all these things did the Scriptures prophesy of Him." (ca 185AD)... I fail to see how the council was suppose to be arguing about Jesus being mortal or not. They argued over what type of divinity, created or begotten, not divine or not.

More here:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Divinity_of_Chirst.asp

Oh really? Perhaps you would like to cite your sources for that deduction of yours?

Because the way I read it the New Testament makes it clear otherwise, and in addition to what it says, Ignatius of Antioch called Jesus God more than a dozen times (ca. 110AD), Justin Martyr said Christ was the word of God incarnate and divine (ca 155AD), Irenaeus said "He (Jesus) is the holy Lord, the Wonderful, the Counselor, the Beautiful in appearance, and the Mighty God, coming on the clouds as the Judge of all men; --all these things did the Scriptures prophesy of Him." (ca 185AD)... I fail to see how the council was suppose to be arguing about Jesus being mortal or not. They argued over what type of divinity, created or begotten, not divine or not.

More here:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Divinity_of_Chirst.asp

since you know more bible stuff than i do, didnt st paul refer to him as divine?

All religion threads inevitably devolve into an argument about Christianity.

yeah, shame that.

Oh really? Perhaps you would like to cite your sources for that deduction of yours?

Because the way I read it the New Testament makes it clear otherwise, and in addition to what it says, Ignatius of Antioch called Jesus God more than a dozen times (ca. 110AD), Justin Martyr said Christ was the word of God incarnate and divine (ca 155AD), Irenaeus said "He (Jesus) is the holy Lord, the Wonderful, the Counselor, the Beautiful in appearance, and the Mighty God, coming on the clouds as the Judge of all men; --all these things did the Scriptures prophesy of Him." (ca 185AD)... I fail to see how the council was suppose to be arguing about Jesus being mortal or not. They argued over what type of divinity, created or begotten, not divine or not.

More here:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Divinity_of_Chirst.asp

These are the pseudo-Christians that give true Christians a bad name.

Read, dear, before thinking yourself too high up the pedestal to even consider what others have to say.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

And I quote:
The purpose of the council was to resolve disagreements in the Church of Alexandria over the nature of Jesus in relationship to the Father; in particular, whether Jesus was of the same substance as God the Father or merely of similar substance. St. Alexander of Alexandria and Athanasius took the first position; the popular presbyter Arius, from whom the term Arian controversy comes, took the second. The council decided against the Arians overwhelmingly (of the estimated 250-318 attendees, all but 2 voted against Arius[2]). Another result of the council was an agreement on when to celebrate the Resurrection, the most important feast of the ecclesiastical calendar. The council decided in favour of celebrating the resurrection on the first Sunday after the first full moon following the vernal equinox, independently of the Hebrew Calendar (see also Quartodecimanism). It authorized the Bishop of Alexandria (presumably using the Alexandrian calendar) to announce annually the exact date to his fellow bishops.

Up until the IV century AD, many people didn´t consider Christ the same substance as God on account of the myriad of texts that were used among the Paleo-christians. For that reason, the I Nicea and II Nicea Councils were held.

As for the Bible, and you would´ve known that have you truly read my post and who I was quoting or answering to, wasn´t part of my discussion. It was about the Nicea councils.

since you know more bible stuff than i do, didnt st paul refer to him as divine?

I’m not sure what exactly you have in mind, but in my mind Paul equates God’s Love with Jesus’ Love, and Jesus’ example as God’s example.

Here we are to have Christ dwell in our hearts…
Ephesians 3:14-19
For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named, that according to the riches of his glory he may grant you to be strengthened with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith—that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may have strength to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.

Or, here, we are told to imitate God, how are we to be imitators of God if he hasn’t been seen?

Ephesians 5:1
Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.

God has been seen, if you want to see God, look at Jesus.

If that's not what you had in mind, please give me more details of what you are thinking about (topic of discussion around the statement, etc.,) and maybe I'll figure it out...

These are the pseudo-Christians that give true Christians a bad name.

Aww, that's sad. Which theology have you been subjected to that made you think the second century Christian fathers aren't real Christians? People taught by the Apostles themselves and their first students, and you think they've gotten it wrong already?

Read, dear, before thinking yourself too high up the pedestal to even consider what others have to say.

Rest assured, I'm reading what you write and I'm considering what you say...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

And I quote:
The purpose of the council was to resolve disagreements in the Church of Alexandria over the nature of Jesus in relationship to the Father; in particular, whether Jesus was of the same substance as God the Father or merely of similar substance. St. Alexander of Alexandria and Athanasius took the first position; the popular presbyter Arius, from whom the term Arian controversy comes, took the second. The council decided against the Arians overwhelmingly (of the estimated 250-318 attendees, all but 2 voted against Arius[2]). Another result of the council was an agreement on when to celebrate the Resurrection, the most important feast of the ecclesiastical calendar. The council decided in favour of celebrating the resurrection on the first Sunday after the first full moon following the vernal equinox, independently of the Hebrew Calendar (see also Quartodecimanism). It authorized the Bishop of Alexandria (presumably using the Alexandrian calendar) to announce annually the exact date to his fellow bishops.

Up until the IV century AD, many people didn´t consider Christ the same substance as God on account of the myriad of texts that were used among the Paleo-christians. For that reason, the I Nicea and II Nicea Councils were held.

As for the Bible, and you would´ve known that have you truly read my post and who I was quoting or answering to, wasn´t part of my discussion. It was about the Nicea councils.

Did you really read your own wiki quote? The quote says what I said, using different descriptive words for the same argument, which was of what type of divinity was Jesus, not IF he was divine or not. Begotten or created, that was the question, but even if created, it would be a special creation, a first creation, a divine creation. They argued if Jesus was made of God stuff directly, or was he similar but different Son stuff? They decided that it was God stuff, a vote of hundreds against 2 (I've seen it as 3, but the wiki says 2 there so I'm using that instead of my own recollection).

You say that up until the 4th century people did not consider Jesus as the same substance of God, but actually, the reason they denounced Arius' interpretations (about this and other interpretations of the scripture) is because his interpretations were new. And being new, they/it could not be something the Apostles taught since the beginning.

I’m not sure what exactly you have in mind, but in my mind Paul equates God’s Love with Jesus’ Love, and Jesus’ example as God’s example.

Here we are to have Christ dwell in our hearts…
Ephesians 3:14-19
For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named, that according to the riches of his glory he may grant you to be strengthened with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith—that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may have strength to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.

Or, here, we are told to imitate God, how are we to be imitators of God if he hasn’t been seen?

Ephesians 5:1
Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.

God has been seen, if you want to see God, look at Jesus.

If that's not what you had in mind, please give me more details of what you are thinking about (topic of discussion around the statement, etc.,) and maybe I'll figure it out...

i dont know what im looking for. i dont know the epistles well and i seldom understand them without help.

but, looking at the passage you quote, while he doesnt call jesus god, its not like a fully human MAN can come to dwell in your heart so he has to mean something else.

Aww, that's sad. Which theology have you been subjected to that made you think the second century Christian fathers aren't real Christians? People taught by the Apostles themselves and their first students, and you think they've gotten it wrong already?



Rest assured, I'm reading what you write and I'm considering what you say...



Did you really read your own wiki quote? The quote says what I said, using different descriptive words for the same argument, which was of what type of divinity was Jesus, not IF he was divine or not. Begotten or created, that was the question, but even if created, it would be a special creation, a first creation, a divine creation. They argued if Jesus was made of God stuff directly, or was he similar but different Son stuff? They decided that it was God stuff, a vote of hundreds against 2 (I've seen it as 3, but the wiki says 2 there so I'm using that instead of my own recollection).

You say that up until the 4th century people did not consider Jesus as the same substance of God, but actually, the reason they denounced Arius' interpretations (about this and other interpretations of the scripture) is because his interpretations were new. And being new, they/it could not be something the Apostles taught since the beginning.

I don´t know who got it wrong but you did in your assumption that I do not consider the Church Fathers Christians. Anyone who follows the teachings of Jesus, is a Christian. Christian theology isn´t something vital to me. My sole problem is your haughtiness. It makes me wonder if you do understand what I wrote or you just read what you wanted to read. You weren´t really considering anything.

As for those who were thought by the Apostles... I want you to tell me, in your mighty knowledge of Scripture, when was the actual Bible that you so vehemently follow, compiled?

300 years or so after the death of Christ. Those who were taught by the original Apostles were long gone. All that was left were interpretations of interpretations of the ¨original¨. Would you consider those sources, 300 years after the death of Jesus, truly reliable? I wouldn´t, but it was all the Paleo-Christians had. It´s all we have too.

And yes, I read my own quote. I´m not criticizing Christian dogma, I was merely responding to another poster´s post about the I and II Nicea Councils. And since you seem to know a lot about scripture, you must be aware of the purpose of those councils. Right?

Also, if you read my last post correctly, you would´ve seen that in those first centuries of the Church, there were a lot of texts or codexes used by the various Christian sects that thought the followers contradicting things. Hence, the Nicea Councils. But once again, you seem to be all knowing in this aspect so there´s no need for me to mentor you. Is there?

If you felt offended by my posts, believe me, that wasn´t my intention. In matters of religion I like to stay on the sidelines. This is a touchy subject and I don´t plan on uselessly arguing. Everyone has a belief of some kind and I find it disrespectful to question those set of beliefs.

As for those who were thought by the Apostles... I want you to tell me, in your mighty knowledge of Scripture, when was the actual Bible that you so vehemently follow, compiled?

It was compiled at different times, by different people.

300 years or so after the death of Christ. Those who were taught by the original Apostles were long gone. All that was left were interpretations of interpretations of the ¨original¨. Would you consider those sources, 300 years after the death of Jesus, truly reliable? I wouldn´t, but it was all the Paleo-Christians had. It´s all we have too.

There is no reason to think they weren't reliable. They had been quoted and copied individually during the years. It's not like they suddenly 'appeared' three hundred years later.

Matthew 50's-60's
Mark 50's early 60's (65 if Irenaeus' statement about it being written after the death of Peter is correct)
Luke 60-70
John 65 to early 90's
Acts 61-71
Romans 55
1 Corinthians 54
2 Corinthians 55
Galatians 49
Ephesians 60
Philippians 61
Colossians 60
1 Thessalonians 50 - 51
2 Thessalonians 50 - 51
1 Timothy 62
2 Timothy 63
Titus 62
Philemon 60
Hebrews 60's
James 40's or 50's
1 Peter 63
2 Peter 63 - 64
1 John 65 - early 90's
2 John 65 - early 90's
3 John 65 - early 90's
Jude 60's or 70's
Revelation late 70's early 90's

Also, if you read my last post correctly, you would´ve seen that in those first centuries of the Church, there were a lot of texts or codexes used by the various Christian sects that thought the followers contradicting things. Hence, the Nicea Councils. But once again, you seem to be all knowing in this aspect so there´s no need for me to mentor you. Is there?

The council of Nicea did not deal with the books of what we call the New Testament. They very much delved in theology and canonizing of acceptable and not acceptable interpretation of scripture, but they did not deal with deciding which books would be in and which would be out.

The agenda of the synod were:

The Arian question;
The date of celebration of the Paschal Feast;
The Meletian schism;
The Father and Son one in purpose or in person;
The validity of baptism by heretics;
The status of the lapsed in the persecution under Licinius.
The council was formally opened May 20, in the central structure of the imperial palace, with preliminary discussions on the Arian question. In these discussions, some dominant figures were Arius, with several adherents. “Some 22 of the bishops at the council, led by Eusebius of Nicomedia, came as supporters of Arius. But when some of the more shocking passages from his writings were read, they were almost universally seen as blasphemous.”[5] Bishops Theognis of Nicea and Maris of Chalcedon were among the initial supporters of Arius.

Eusebius of Caesarea called to mind the baptismal creed (symbol) of his own diocese at Caesarea in Palestine, as a form of reconciliation. The majority of the bishops agreed. For some time, scholars thought that the original Nicene Creed was based on this statement of Eusebius. Today, most scholars think that this Creed is derived from the baptismal creed of Jerusalem, as Hans Lietzmann proposed. Another possibility is the Apostle's Creed.

In any case, as the council went on, the orthodox bishops won approval of every one of their proposals. After being in session for an entire month, the council promulgated on June 19 the original Nicene Creed. This profession of faith was adopted by all the bishops “but two from Libya who had been closely associated with Arius from the beginning.”[6] No historical record of their dissent actually exists; the signatures of these bishops are simply absent from the creed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

I
There is one element though that makes it more than simply trusting people with God's will. That is a testimony from the Spirit of the veracity of it. In other words, one can consult the Spirit to be assured that the Prophet is leading the Church in accordance with God's will.

But this is precisely this issue: Almost EVERY religion claims exactly the same thing, that they can consult the "Spirit" and that assures them THEIR religion is the correct one.

And as you yourself pointed out, they aren't lying, they really believe it, they wouldn't know that anything was wrong...and their religion would still be false.

And they also think that THEIRS is the real one, just like you do, and with exactly the same kind of "assurance" from the spirit. Yet you easily say that their religion is the false one, and yours is real. They say exactly the same thing.

Per your next part, you don't agree to the subjectivity of interpretation, but you agree to the definition of interpretation as including explanation and/or oral translation, yes?


I don't think I'd fully agree with the first of the two items. If you've been a member of the Church then at some point you were probably advised to pray and feel the Spirit when reading Scripture. The reason for that is that (and this is quoted somewhere but I don't have my quad with me) Scripture isn't for private interpretation. In other words, we don't have the ability, on our own as individuals, to properly interpret Scripture reliably. In order to properly understand the meaning of the Scriptures it's necessary to have that extra bit of light and wisdom from the Holy Spirit to be certain our understanding is sound.

That said, I'd like to begin my own list of items to establish between us for the purpose of the discussion.

1)May we assume that, IF the Spirit does, in fact, have the ability and the intent to guide us as individuals, then there must be some mechanism for the Spirit to communicate with us and manifest what it is we are to know/understand/accomplish?

I don't agree to this, as its just repetition of the same claims and assumptions that almost every other religions makes. They all think THEIR "mechanism" is the "clear" one, and everybody else's is false. Its just a claim, and not an original one. You're doing exactly as they do.

I also wonder, if you claim that interpretation is not subjective, is it just YOUR interpretation that is Objective? All the other religions that interpret differently, are their interpretations equally valid as yours, equally as objective?


2)If such a mechanism exists, then it must be objectively reliable in such a way that we are free to ignore or accept it for what it is, but by its nature if it is to be understood at all it must be understood correctly?

Is it equally "objectively reliable" when that "Spirit" assures the Muslims that Islam is the correct faith? Or is it only "objective" and "reliable" when it agrees with what you want to believe?

Why is it that when the "Spirit" talks to other religions, the Spirit is wrong or misinterpreted, but when it talks to you, it is "objective" and "reliable"? Again, you are stating exactly what is stated by religions you claim are false.

This thing you "hear" or "feel" inside that you can't prove or explain really, really doesn't meet the definition of objective or reliable.


Because this is something of a leap of faith here, but it is a logical one. If the Spirit is to communicate with us individually then there must necessarily be a 'clear channel' to reach us that is reliable and free from interference from others.

Explain the logical reasoning to your leap of faith if you want to label it as logical.

If there is this 'clear channel', than the leaders of the church have no excuse if a mistake is made, after all, you've claimed they have a "clear channel", free of distortion.

So, God wanted blacks kept out of the priesthood until the 1970's?

NB, for something to be logical, it needs to be proven. You've stated you can't prove your faith (you said this in an earlier post).

For something to be "interpreted correctly" (as you've described the need to do so with the "spirit"), it needs to be explained (as per the definition of interpretation). You've said you can't explain it.

So far, the only thing you've presented is the claim that the "spirit" assures your communication with your God, yet very early on, it was established to you that this claim is hardly unique among religions.

Like you yourself said, they aren't lying, they really believe the spirit is talking to them, and they wouldn't know that they were wrong....

More later.

EDIT: Oops, maybe not more later. I'm might be out of time on the forum, so I'll squeeze this in:

If the way you know you're interpreting the Spirit correctly is that you have the Spirit to help you make sure you're interpreting the Spirit correctly, isn't that reasoning a bit like the locus of coplanar points that are also equadistant from a given point? Or, the intersection of a sphere with a plane?

If there is an omniscient god, it knows everything, including what its like to give a slow, sloppy rim job to the Numa Numa guy.

So, yeah, we don't want to know.Again, sigworthy. *bows*

But this is precisely this issue: Almost EVERY religion claims exactly the same thing,
<snip>
And they also think that THEIRS is the real one, just like you do, and with exactly the same kind of "assurance" from the spirit.


But there is one important element that's got to be included here: There is -no- way for two separate individuals to quantitatively compare their spiritual experiences in order to try and determine their relative value. We can describe it, we can write volumes about it, but at the end of the day it can only be expressed qualitatively.

This is why I keep saying to people that I can't prove or describe, to their satisfaction, my experience. Of course that opens me up to criticism over the issue of not being able to prove it, but it remains the truth and so I hold to it.

But here's the rub: While it can only be described subjectively, that doesn't eliminate the possibility of an objective truth behind it. If I have a conversion experience given to me by the Holy Spirit, then that's an objective truth even if I can only describe it to others in a subjective way.

That being the case, each individual has to decide for him/herself the meaning and interpretation of any spiritual experiences they have. It's not for anyone else to criticize or question it precisely because there's no clear objective way to do so outside the individual who experiences it.

By that logic, I can reasonably evaluate my OWN spiritual experience as objectively true, but you can't evaluate mine in the same way because we're separate individuals.


Per your next part, you don't agree to the subjectivity of interpretation, but you agree to the definition of interpretation as including explanation and/or oral translation, yes?


I'm not 100% sure I understand what you mean, but I'll answer to th ebest of my understanding.

If we're interpreting our own experiences, then translating it for ot hers is not a necessary component. When I pray to God for assurance and I have a resulting spiritual experience that verifies to me that the Book of Mormon is true, my ability to describe it to someone else is incidental. I don't need to posses the ability to describe it to others for it to be valid to me.

Which is, perhaps, the strength of the process. It would be impossible to convert someone truly simply by sharing their own conversion experience. It's necessary, then, for each individual to have their own. As it should be.


I don't agree to this, as its just repetition of the same claims and assumptions that almost every other religions makes. They all think THEIR "mechanism" is the "clear" one, and everybody else's is false. Its just a claim, and not an original one. You're doing exactly as they do.

I also wonder, if you claim that interpretation is not subjective, is it just YOUR interpretation that is Objective? All the other religions that interpret differently, are their interpretations equally valid as yours, equally as objective?


Since communicating it between separate individuals objectively is impossible because we'd lack a common frame of reference and the language to describe it, then I can't rationally make that evaluation outside of how my own experience, which I CAN evaluate objectively fits into it.


Is it equally "objectively reliable" when that "Spirit" assures the Muslims that Islam is the correct faith? Or is it only "objective" and "reliable" when it agrees with what you want to believe?


How do I know what the Spirit assures a Muslim? Again, there's no objective way for a Muslim to describe his/her experience to me any more than I can describe mine to them.


Why is it that when the "Spirit" talks to other religions, the Spirit is wrong or misinterpreted, but when it talks to you, it is "objective" and "reliable"? Again, you are stating exactly what is stated by religions you claim are false.


How can I know it talks to them at all? Again, no objective basis for comparison


This thing you "hear" or "feel" inside that you can't prove or explain really, really doesn't meet the definition of objective or reliable.


I never said it did, outside of my own consciousness. In fact, I've repeatedly asserted the opposite.


Explain the logical reasoning to your leap of faith if you want to label it as logical.


Without it, the entire subject becomes moot and one may as well worship a blade of grass.


If there is this 'clear channel', than the leaders of the church have no excuse if a mistake is made, after all, you've claimed they have a "clear channel", free of distortion.


That's right. There is no excuse. Incompetence and selfishness, perhaps emotionalism are all causes for an error that have nothing to do wi th the clarity of that channel and are all inexcusable.


So, God wanted blacks kept out of the priesthood until the 1970's?


I dunno. I wasn't privy to any of the communication between Prophets and God either before or after that date.


NB, for something to be logical, it needs to be proven. You've stated you can't prove your faith (you said this in an earlier post).


Logic needn't be limited to what I can prove to someone else. I can have a plethora of personal experiences and still consider them logically and draw logical conclusions from them for myself without having to include anyone else.


For something to be "interpreted correctly" (as you've described the need to do so with the "spirit"), it needs to be explained (as per the definition of interpretation). You've said you can't explain it.


IF it's to be interpreted by a 3rd party.


So far, the only thing you've presented is the claim that the "spirit" assures your communication with your God, yet very early on, it was established to you that this claim is hardly unique among religions.


I don't agree that the Spirit assures other religions of anything. I only agreed that it's their claim. How can I know for sure? By your own arguments they're no more able to prove it to me than I'd be able to prove mine to them.

The same logic that tells you to reject the veracity of my claims tells me to reject the veracity of theirs. The only difference is that I do trust the veracity of my own experiences where your thought process leads you to reject your own on the basis that it's not provable to others.

(If I understand you correctly)


Like you yourself said, they aren't lying, they really believe the spirit is talking to them, and they wouldn't know that they were wrong....

More later.

EDIT: Oops, maybe not more later. I'm might be out of time on the forum, so I'll squeeze this in:

Need some Crisco? ;)


If the way you know you're interpreting the Spirit correctly is that you have the Spirit to help you make sure you're interpreting the Spirit correctly, isn't that reasoning a bit like the locus of coplanar points that are also equadistant from a given point? Or, the intersection of a sphere with a plane?

It could be, but suppose the axes are situated such that one point is in the positive X and Y while the other is in negative X and Y, where we can take the absolute value and return the same point in any case ;)

And a sphere can intersect a plane only at one single point :D

yeah, shame that.

Indeed. It's been done to death, and is hardly the only religion.

The same logic that tells you to reject the veracity of my claims tells me to reject the veracity of theirs. The only difference is that I do trust the veracity of my own experiences where your thought process leads you to reject your own on the basis that it's not provable to others.
Ahh, shades of Stephen Roberts' wonderful quote, "I contend we are both atheists— I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you reject all other gods, you will understand why I reject yours"

a sphere can intersect a plane only at one single point :D
The intersect between a plane and a sphere is an infinite set of points. For example, a plane that bisects a sphere will be intersecting at every coordinate point within a circle of the same radius as the sphere, oriented parallel with the plane.

Indeed. It's been done to death, and is hardly the only religion.

Nor the last, provided Christianity were to fall down someday and a new religion were to rise. (And I'm not being apocalyptic or sci-fi-ish.)

Nor the last, provided Christianity were to fall down someday and a new religion were to rise. (And I'm not being apocalyptic or sci-fi-ish.)

There were religions before Christianity and there will be after it is gone.

There were religions before Christianity and there will be after it is gone.

Yup. One God always replaces the other. It's like survival of the fittest, but the Holy edition or something.

Yup. One God always replaces the other. It's like survival of the fittest, but the Holy edition or something.

And sometimes a god that you think is out for the count makes a surprise comeback. Take Norse and Celtic paganism for example.

But here's the rub: While it can only be described subjectively, that doesn't eliminate the possibility of an objective truth behind it. If I have a conversion experience given to me by the Holy Spirit, then that's an objective truth even if I can only describe it to others in a subjective way.
This is it, right here. It's not the case that that specific experience, exactly as you describe it, is an objective truth. All that you, personally, can acknowledge to be objectively true is that something was perceived. Establishing a model of that event, even if it's an entirely internal one, creates subjectivity, and thus even to you, the "conversion experience", complete with your own responses to it and the interpretation you personally put on it, is subjective, no matter how concrete and real the fact that "something was perceived that day" may be.

Jhahannam is right on the button. Where you disagree with others is not in the experience, because you can't even engage in dialog with others on the experience if you can't put it into words. That about which we cannot speak, we must be silent. Where your conflict with other spiritual experiences occur is the internal model of understanding you and they have independently established subjectively in relation to this objective experience. And this discourse is entirely subjective in nature, with neither of you being capable of holding any more objective truth than the other, yet with both of you being convinced that the objective basis for your systems validates your systems in their entirity.

Yes, I have had an experience of sorts too. My catch-all attempt to explain it is like standing on an island of order surrounded by a sea of chaos; where one knows that they are safe, and yet is surrounded by infinite possibility, with all fact, fiction and nonsense being perceived in one sudden and only partially interpretable jolt. But obviously this, too, is only artistic interpretation. There is no way, whether in memory or at the time, where I could possibly objectively know what it was, except in as much as it is subject to my own spin and speculation. Where you disagree with me in whether this is "true experience of what I believe in" or not is whether my explanation coincides with yours, not anything to do with the actual experience itself, which I know I remember but which is only objectively verifiable in the sense that I definitely have a memory of it.

So maybe I did see "the Holy Spirit", and maybe it did give me information. But having seen it, I interpreted it the way I did. The seeing doesn't validate my interpretation any more than it does yours, and therein is the key to the problem - You cannot use the event as justification for the correctness of its understanding, because it's me, not it, that does the interpretation.

And sometimes a god that you think is out for the count makes a surprise comeback. Take Norse and Celtic paganism for example.

Righto. Norse and Celtic paganism has had a huge come back on the past decades.

I even heard there has been a comeback of the Mithraic cult. Of course, this can always be a bogus tale.

Ahh, shades of Stephen Roberts' wonderful quote, "I contend we are both atheists— I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you reject all other gods, you will understand why I reject yours"


The intersect between a plane and a sphere is an infinite set of points. For example, a plane that bisects a sphere will be intersecting at every coordinate point within a circle of the same radius as the sphere, oriented parallel with the plane.

Usually, yes. But a sphere CAN intersect a plane at only one point. Imagine the plane as tangential to the sphere :)

This is it, right here. It's not the case that that specific experience, exactly as you describe it, is an objective truth. All that you, personally, can acknowledge to be objectively true is that something was perceived. Establishing a model of that event, even if it's an entirely internal one, creates subjectivity, and thus even to you, the "conversion experience", complete with your own responses to it and the interpretation you personally put on it, is subjective, no matter how concrete and real the fact that "something was perceived that day" may be.


And you cannot objectively prove the bolded statement. That's exactly the flaw in the argument. You can't prove my assertion is incorrect any more than I can prove to you that it IS correct. The difference is that I am perfectly comfortable with that.


Jhahannam is right on the button. Where you disagree with others is not in the experience, because you can't even engage in dialog with others on the experience if you can't put it into words. That about which we cannot speak, we must be silent. Where your conflict with other spiritual experiences occur is the internal model of understanding you and they have independently established subjectively in relation to this objective experience. And this discourse is entirely subjective in nature, with neither of you being capable of holding any more objective truth than the other, yet with both of you being convinced that the objective basis for your systems validates your systems in their entirity.


Which is precisely why religious freedom is so important, and religious bigotry so destructive and pointless.


Yes, I have had an experience of sorts too. My catch-all attempt to explain it is like standing on an island of order surrounded by a sea of chaos; where one knows that they are safe, and yet is surrounded by infinite possibility, with all fact, fiction and nonsense being perceived in one sudden and only partially interpretable jolt. But obviously this, too, is only artistic interpretation. There is no way, whether in memory or at the time, where I could possibly objectively know what it was, except in as much as it is subject to my own spin and speculation. Where you disagree with me in whether this is "true experience of what I believe in" or not is whether my explanation coincides with yours, not anything to do with the actual experience itself, which I know I remember but which is only objectively verifiable in the sense that I definitely have a memory of it.


It's also possible that the experience you had carried greater meaning than you're giving it credit for. (I don't know this, I'm only putting it out there.)


So maybe I did see "the Holy Spirit", and maybe it did give me information. But having seen it, I interpreted it the way I did. The seeing doesn't validate my interpretation any more than it does yours, and therein is the key to the problem - You cannot use the event as justification for the correctness of its understanding, because it's me, not it, that does the interpretation.

I think that your effort to interpret it is an effort to explain it to yourself in a way that could be applied to expressing it to someone else. You'd be better served by not trying so hard to interpret it in an external way, and simply allowing yourself to 'go with it.'

It's just like one of my own experiences. I used to accept a lot of individual things about the Mormon Church as being true without actually having had a personal testimony of them. I regarded the Book of Mormon as a useful source of Scripture but not much more than that. It wasn't until I had another spiritual 'download' (as I like to call it) where suddenly I looked at the book not so much as simply a collection of writings, but as an actual source of spiritual and historical knowledge, and that the facts contained within were the truth. My description of this event is only a shadow of what it truly was, but I didn't try to interpret it for myself using language. I first just accepted this 'download' for what it was and didn't worry about describing it in an external way until much later.

That being the case, each individual has to decide for him/herself the meaning and interpretation of any spiritual experiences they have. It's not for anyone else to criticize or question it precisely because there's no clear objective way to do so outside the individual who experiences it.

By that logic, I can reasonably evaluate my OWN spiritual experience as objectively true, but you can't evaluate mine in the same way because we're separate individuals.

Subjective (from the dictionary):
adj.
Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision.
Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.


If we're interpreting our own experiences, then translating it for ot hers is not a necessary component. When I pray to God for assurance and I have a resulting spiritual experience that verifies to me that the Book of Mormon is true, my ability to describe it to someone else is incidental. I don't need to posses the ability to describe it to others for it to be valid to me.

Interpretation (from the dictionary):

To explain the meaning of: interpreted the ambassador's remarks. See synonyms at explain.
To conceive the significance of; construe: interpreted his smile to be an agreement; interpreted the open door as an invitation.
To present or conceptualize the meaning of by means of art or criticism.
To translate orally.


Which is, perhaps, the strength of the process. It would be impossible to convert someone truly simply by sharing their own conversion experience. It's necessary, then, for each individual to have their own. As it should be.

Since communicating it between separate individuals objectively is impossible because we'd lack a common frame of reference and the language to describe it, then I can't rationally make that evaluation outside of how my own experience, which I CAN evaluate objectively fits into it.

Again, if its only within your own experience, it fits precisely, utterly, and definitely within the term "subjective", not objective.


How do I know what the Spirit assures a Muslim? Again, there's no objective way for a Muslim to describe his/her experience to me any more than I can describe mine to them.

Yet you somehow know their experience leading them to Islam as the true Religion is false (and you have stated they wouldn't know it is false). So, even by your own reasoning, someone whose experience is very real to them, who truly believes it, has received the same "assurances" from the Spirit, could still be led to a false religion. And like you said, they wouldn't even know it...


How can I know it talks to them at all? Again, no objective basis for comparison

I never said it did, outside of my own consciousness. In fact, I've repeatedly asserted the opposite.

"Objective" and "reliable" were your words, not mine. And again, if you are claiming they are objective only within your "own consciousness", see the very meaning of subjective given above.


Without it, the entire subject becomes moot and one may as well worship a blade of grass.

Your logical basis for a leap of faith is that "without, one may as well worship a blade of grass"? False dichotomy is, by definition, not logical. There is a middle ground of worshipping nothing, or something more meaningful, or any number of other things.


That's right. There is no excuse. Incompetence and selfishness, perhaps emotionalism are all causes for an error that have nothing to do wi th the clarity of that channel and are all inexcusable.

I dunno. I wasn't privy to any of the communication between Prophets and God either before or after that date.

Ah, but if you've paid attention to your Church's teachings, you are very privy. The church has openly claimed the matter. Many prophets have maintained that blacks wouldn't be allowed in the priesthood, then when it was politically expedient, "revelation" was that God had changed his mind about the blacks.

If the Prophets really do commune with God, why should any of that be not made public? Why should you not be privy to it? Isn't a prophet's job to make God's will a known matter?


Logic needn't be limited to what I can prove to someone else. I can have a plethora of personal experiences and still consider them logically and draw logical conclusions from them for myself without having to include anyone else.

Then they are, by definition, subjective.

As to them being logical,

Logic:
The study of the properties of propositions and deductive reasoning by abstraction and analysis of the form rather than the content of propositions under consideration.

You've admitted you can't present your reasoning (to anyone but yourself). Logic that can't be demonstrated to anyone but yourself doesn't fit the definition.


I don't agree that the Spirit assures other religions of anything. I only agreed that it's their claim. How can I know for sure? By your own arguments they're no more able to prove it to me than I'd be able to prove mine to them.

Thus, you fit precisely the criteria you ascribe to the false religions.


The same logic that tells you to reject the veracity of my claims tells me to reject the veracity of theirs. The only difference is that I do trust the veracity of my own experiences where your thought process leads you to reject your own on the basis that it's not provable to others.

Another of your false assumptions. I learned to detect and reject those experiences that were self-deceptive, those things that were more about what I wanted to believe, needed to believe. When I realized that the thing I believed so badly was exactly the same thing being done by a bunch of other groups that were taught to be false. Yet the church was doing exactly the same things....


It could be, but suppose the axes are situated such that one point is in the positive X and Y while the other is in negative X and Y, where we can take the absolute value and return the same point in any case ;)

Still circular logic.


And a sphere can intersect a plane only at one single point :D

A point which then has no volume, no area, no length, and no substance. Something that seems like the center of everything you want to believe in, but actually contains nothing.

And you cannot objectively prove the bolded statement. That's exactly the flaw in the argument. You can't prove my assertion is incorrect any more than I can prove to you that it IS correct. The difference is that I am perfectly comfortable with that.


Actually, she can prove it. She never said it was necessarily incorrect, only that it wasn't objective.

You have admitted repeatedly that its only within your own mind (that is to say, your own experience), and is thus, by definition, subjective.

I first just accepted this 'download' for what it was and didn't worry about describing it in an external way until much later.

You just accepted it for what you thought it was. The key phrase being, just accepted. Once you "just accept" something, of course you're going to buy into it. Religion profits greatly from this act.

Okay, I need to hit the sack again.

@Kamsaki: You've definitely illustrated the dynamic here nicely, in a way that is demonstrable, explainable, and not merely limited to what one has convinced themselves of, but rather that is strong enough as an idea to withstand the full light of explanation. I'm impressed. *bows*

And you cannot objectively prove the bolded statement.
You do not directly know "The Holy Spirit" - you know only what you immediately perceive in terms of raw sensory data. All interpretation, even "I see what I understand to be a block of white, black and various colours, the boundaries of which lead me to map this data to the perceptual model I have of a laptop computer", is subjective, as per Jhahannam's definition, because you're relying on internal models of colour, boundary and identity. To say that your perception directly maps to an experience is an interpretation, and consequently, it is not objective.

There's no such thing as objective proof, because we don't know the systems of the way the world actually works, but we do have proof systems established to deal with the process of ideological discourse, and that was one such proof. Okay, so there's no objectivity, I'm comfortable with that too, but we have to acknowledge protocol in order to coexist, and if you're going to operate outside the bounds of that protocol, you have to accept that you're going to lose data. It may be a waste of time for us to try to communicate at all. Which seems like a waste, to me.

EDIT: Sorry, I'm being a little harsh 'cause I'm getting kinda worked up about the whole "What does Objectivity mean" thing. I'll try to calm down.

Subjective (from the dictionary):
adj.
Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision.
Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.


Do me a favor? Don't toss dictionary definitions at me. I find it irritating because in this case, it's not applicable but it's as if I'm now being expected to accept your understanding of my point in order to continue. Not being shitty, just a request.

Here's why that doesn't apply. Like I've said it takes place within my own mind, but it's not me alone involved. Remember, it also involves the Spirit, which is external to me.


Interpretation (from the dictionary):

To explain the meaning of: interpreted the ambassador's remarks. See synonyms at explain.
To conceive the significance of; construe: interpreted his smile to be an agreement; interpreted the open door as an invitation.
To present or conceptualize the meaning of by means of art or criticism.
To translate orally.


Again, this definition isn't useful because it's talking about communication between entities. (Necessary because of imperfect human communication methods.)


Again, if its only within your own experience, it fits precisely, utterly, and definitely within the term "subjective", not objective.


See above


Yet you somehow know their experience leading them to Islam as the true Religion is false (and you have stated they wouldn't know it is false). So, even by your own reasoning, someone whose experience is very real to them, who truly believes it, has received the same "assurances" from the Spirit, could still be led to a false religion. And like you said, they wouldn't even know it...


All I know is what they SAY they've received.


"Objective" and "reliable" were your words, not mine. And again, if you are claiming they are objective only within your "own consciousness", see the very meaning of subjective given above.


See above


Your logical basis for a leap of faith is that "without, one may as well worship a blade of grass"? False dichotomy is, by definition, not logical. There is a middle ground of worshipping nothing, or something more meaningful, or any number of other things.


I don't see the dichotomy you're perceiving here. What I'm saying is that without that leap of faith that it is possible to know an objective truth, then it does make all religions equivalent whether you believe Jesus Christ is the Savior or Ronald MacDonald is.


Ah, but if you've paid attention to your Church's teachings, you are very privy. The church has openly claimed the matter. Many prophets have maintained that blacks wouldn't be allowed in the priesthood, then when it was politically expedient, "revelation" was that God had changed his mind about the blacks.

If the Prophets really do commune with God, why should any of that be not made public? Why should you not be privy to it? Isn't a prophet's job to make God's will a known matter?


How would any of that put me in the room, somehow able to overhear the discourse between the Prophet and the voice of God himself? It wouldn't. On some level it is necessary to trust the Prophet to share that knowledge accurately. It's precisely because of this that the Spirit can testify of the truth to individuals.


Then they are, by definition, subjective.


See above


As to them being logical,

Logic:
The study of the properties of propositions and deductive reasoning by abstraction and analysis of the form rather than the content of propositions under consideration.

You've admitted you can't present your reasoning (to anyone but yourself). Logic that can't be demonstrated to anyone but yourself doesn't fit the definition.


Where in your definition does it talk about demonstrating it to another?


Thus, you fit precisely the criteria you ascribe to the false religions.


See above


Another of your false assumptions. I learned to detect and reject those experiences that were self-deceptive, those things that were more about what I wanted to believe, needed to believe. When I realized that the thing I believed so badly was exactly the same thing being done by a bunch of other groups that were taught to be false. Yet the church was doing exactly the same things....


What assumption?


Still circular logic.


?


A point which then has no volume, no area, no length, and no substance. Something that seems like the center of everything you want to believe in, but actually contains nothing.

That was your analogy, not mine ;)

You do not directly know "The Holy Spirit" - you know only what you immediately perceive in terms of raw sensory data. All interpretation, even "I see what I understand to be a block of white, black and various colours, the boundaries of which lead me to map this data to the perceptual model I have of a laptop computer", is subjective, as per Jhahannam's definition, because you're relying on internal models of colour, boundary and identity. To say that your perception directly maps to an experience is an interpretation, and consequently, it is not objective.

Please describe for me, in detail how you can assert the bolded part. If you can do that, then you will have discovered a way to objectively analyze something you have no direct observational data on.

Although your next paragraph seems to agree that you can't do so.


There's no such thing as objective proof, because we don't know the systems of the way the world actually works, but we do have proof systems established to deal with the process of ideological discourse, and that was one such proof. Okay, so there's no objectivity, I'm comfortable with that too, but we have to acknowledge protocol in order to coexist, and if you're going to operate outside the bounds of that protocol, you have to accept that you're going to lose data. It may be a waste of time for us to try to communicate at all. Which seems like a waste, to me.

On this subject, are you suggesting that the only communication of any value is that which puts us both in the same frame of reference? because if so, that suggests that people of different ideologies or religions can't discuss them. I've never asserted this.

EDIT: Sorry, I'm being a little harsh 'cause I'm getting kinda worked up about the whole "What does Objectivity mean" thing. I'll try to calm down.

I hadn't really detected any harshness so you must be handling it well. I appreciate your being aware though. :)

Do me a favor? Don't toss dictionary definitions at me. I find it irritating because in this case, it's not applicable but it's as if I'm now being expected to accept your understanding of my point in order to continue. Not being shitty, just a request.

So, you find me "irritating"? Meaning you wish to kill my family? After all, I could just decide that's what "irritating" means, and you wouldn't be able to just toss a dictionary definition at me, right? And for the record, it is quite shitty to use a word, then get upset if somebody actually holds you to it.


Here's why that doesn't apply. Like I've said it takes place within my own mind, but it's not me alone involved. Remember, it also involves the Spirit, which is external to me.

So, the reason the dictionary definition of the word subjective doesn't apply is that its "within your own mind" (which is exactly what the word means) but there is a "spirit" involved, so you can make the word mean something different.

Even though, when all the other religions have a "spirit" involved that tells them their religion is true, its false, they just don't know it, according to you. So, that Spirit makes your situation special, but everybody else's spirit is fake, and of course thats not subjective, even though it is within your own mind, which is what subjective means...great.


Again, this definition isn't useful because it's talking about communication between entities. (Necessary because of imperfect human communication methods.)

When you only acknowledge definitions that are "useful" to what you want to believe, as opposed to say, the ones the language actually uses, it says a lot about your position.



All I know is what they SAY they've received.

Oh, Neo Bretonnia. I very much hope GnI sees what you've said here.

You were VERY emphatic before that they weren't just saying it, that they really believed it, they were just wrong without knowing it. Now, all of a sudden, they're just SAYING it. Nice.

Of course, if you meant here to say that they say it and believe it, and if they're wrong, they wouldn't know it...then you fit exactly the same criteria.


I don't see the dichotomy you're perceiving here. What I'm saying is that without that leap of faith that it is possible to know an objective truth, then it does make all religions equivalent whether you believe Jesus Christ is the Savior or Ronald MacDonald is.

Another false dichotomy. There doesn't have to be a saviour, there could be the middle ground of no saviour. Again, more assumptions.


How would any of that put me in the room, somehow able to overhear the discourse between the Prophet and the voice of God himself? It wouldn't. On some level it is necessary to trust the Prophet to share that knowledge accurately. It's precisely because of this that the Spirit can testify of the truth to individuals.

You don't have to be in the same room, the Prophets made public statements. And even if you were in the same room, you've claimed the Spirit is external, but it would still be invisible, yes?

And now, of course, you continue to the full circular logic of claiming "I know that the Spirit talks to the prophets because the spirit told me, the same spirit that tells me that the spirit is true, and the same spirit that tells me that I'm interpreting the spirit correctly".


Where in your definition does it talk about demonstrating it to another?

A proposition and deduction that can't withstand even basic examination by anybody other than yourself is, by definition, subjective.


What assumption?

That its just the issue of not being explainable to others that is the problem. The fact that many, many others can produce exactly the same proof and explanations (or lack thereof) as you can, yet you can call them false because "I've verified it for myself" with your circular spirit logic, yet they can all do exactly the same thing.


That was your analogy, not mine ;)

And it illustrates nicely the circle. If you draw the circle to a point, you are left with nothing of substance.

Neo Bretonnia, you talk about "honest" conversation, yet when the definitions of the words you use don't fit your claims, you simply decide they don't apply because they don't fit what you want to be true.

People here have warned me about your double standards and disingenuous debate style, but I wanted to see for myself. I have, and they were correct. There is little opportunity for productive discourse with someone like you.

I've disagreed with LDS in the past, but I've respected most of the ones I've known. My best friend is one.

But you've represented them very poorly here.

I respect your right to a reply, but if its the same equivocating and circular material, I'm going to just let you have the last word.

So, you find me "irritating"? Meaning you wish to kill my family? After all, I could just decide that's what "irritating" means, and you wouldn't be able to just toss a dictionary definition at me, right? And for the record, it is quite shitty to use a word, then get upset if somebody actually holds you to it.


wth? I didn't say YOU were irritating I said I find it irritating when people just paste a dictionary entry instead of just writing their point. Where did you come up with all that stuff?


People here have warned me about your double standards and disingenuous debate style, but I wanted to see for myself. I have, and they were correct. There is little opportunity for productive discourse with someone like you.

So now we're back to getting personal.



I've disagreed with LDS in the past, but I've respected most of the ones I've known. My best friend is one.

But you've represented them very poorly here.

I respect your right to a reply, but if its the same equivocating and circular material, I'm going to just let you have the last word.

Actually as I read through your responses I can see why you're frustrated... You're missing what I've been trying to get at, but rather than point it out for clarification it seems your way of dealing with it is to start tossing accusations at me and getting personal... I see no value in going any further. (Need an example? Just look at the first item in this very post. Good gawd.)

Please describe for me, in detail how you can assert the bolded part. If you can do that, then you will have discovered a way to objectively analyze something you have no direct observational data on.
To assert the contrapositive - namely, that you can directly know an entity by virtue of your interaction with it - is to assert that the nature of a thing is the perception of that thing. Or, as it's commonly stated, "Esse Est Percipi". Would you be prepared to accept the fact that God is purely what you see and hear of it? Because, if I understand the sense of it, you don't just mean "a sequence of perceptions" - you mean "the entity behind such perceptions".

On this subject, are you suggesting that the only communication of any value is that which puts us both in the same frame of reference? because if so, that suggests that people of different ideologies or religions can't discuss them. I've never asserted this.
What I'm suggesting is that only communication systems that we can both either understand or be prepared to accept for the purpose of dialogue are meaningful. This might involve placing ourselves in an artificial belief structure in order to communicate, which is largely what I've had to do in order to effectively interact with Christians on a level we can all understand.

If I don't do this, my statements about whether something is objective or not, given my understanding of objectivity, are lost when they are transmitted to you, where a completely different understanding of the phrase might be applied. Similarly, as is typically the case in Religious discourse, my saying "God" might be referring to either a particular historical (or literary) character or a construct underlying the cause of religious experience, whereas you might necessarily interpret it as referring to both concepts simultaneously (and a different literary/historical one at that), which was not my intention.

We need to agree on the references we use before disagreement between our ideas has merit.

To assert the contrapositive - namely, that you can directly know an entity by virtue of your interaction with it - is to assert that the nature of a thing is the perception of that thing. Or, as it's commonly stated, "Esse Est Percipi". Would you be prepared to accept the fact that God is purely what you see and hear of it? Because, if I understand the sense of it, you don't just mean "a sequence of perceptions" - you mean "the entity behind such perceptions".

That's a little like saying that the blind men gathered around an elephant will each perceive it to be something different. The difference here is that in my analogy, the elephant is saying to them "I'm an elephant." And going on to explain what that means.


What I'm suggesting is that only communication systems that we can both either understand or be prepared to accept for the purpose of dialogue are meaningful. This might involve placing ourselves in an artificial belief structure in order to communicate, which is largely what I've had to do in order to effectively interact with Christians on a level we can all understand.

If I don't do this, my statements about whether something is objective or not, given my understanding of objectivity, are lost when they are transmitted to you, where a completely different understanding of the phrase might be applied. Similarly, as is typically the case in Religious discourse, my saying "God" might be referring to either a particular historical (or literary) character or a construct underlying the cause of religious experience, whereas you might necessarily interpret it as referring to both concepts simultaneously (and a different literary/historical one at that), which was not my intention.


Good point. Would you mind elaborating a little on the details of the artificial belief structure you're talking about? I'm not sure I completely understand.



We need to agree on the references we use before disagreement between our ideas has merit.

Agreed.

That's a little like saying that the blind men gathered around an elephant will each perceive it to be something different. The difference here is that in my analogy, the elephant is saying to them "I'm an elephant." And going on to explain what that means.
Yeah, but you still don't directly know the elephant. You've established a mental model of the elephant, but you don't quite experience the full elephant, do you? You don't know what it looks like, except as a series of explanations. You haven't lived its history - it's just told you what it can remembers (which, being an elephant, will probably be a lot, but you still just get an explanation). You can't hear through the elephant's ears, or see what the elephant sees, or feel what the elephant feels. All you have is an approximation to elephantness acquired from your own sensation, and even if this comes directly from the elephant's mouth, that's still all you've got.

Plus, I imagine it's not easy to understand an elephant trying to tell you what its feelings are on contemporary ethics. If everybody spoke elephant, it would be a lot easier to have discussions like that, but establishing meaningful contact with them is immensely difficult and prone to error (at least, it was with the last one I talked to. They might have come on a bit since then). I imagine the same would apply between us and any source of experience, whether spiritual or otherwise.

Good point. Would you mind elaborating a little on the details of the artificial belief structure you're talking about? I'm not sure I completely understand.
It's an abstract concept, and the actual belief structure in question will vary depending on the context of discussion and the participants. The idea of the artificial belief structure is to establish a protocol system that gives you a way to talk about ideas in your beliefs using constructs in theirs. For example, whether I think that God's historicity is important or not, or if I disagree with certain beliefs in redemption theory, I can still talk about God with regards to the Greater Good in morality, or about the parables of Christ, or about the role of the "spirit" (as I could call whatever it was I alluded to earlier) in the individual's life.

It doesn't matter if I agree with everything, or even anything, you believe; it is to my benefit to have a synthetic representation of your beliefs as you believe them that I can accept for reference purposes, if not as fact. If you do the same to me, then it's doubly so, because the system we collectively use can then be refined to deal with the issues we want to explore in a precise and concise way.

Yeah, but you still don't directly know the elephant. You've established a mental model of the elephant, but you don't quite experience the full elephant, do you? You don't know what it looks like, except as a series of explanations. You haven't lived its history - it's just told you what it can remembers (which, being an elephant, will probably be a lot, but you still just get an explanation). You can't hear through the elephant's ears, or see what the elephant sees, or feel what the elephant feels. All you have is an approximation to elephantness acquired from your own sensation, and even if this comes directly from the elephant's mouth, that's still all you've got.


True, but why would that all be necessary? Knowing the diameter of the elephant's leg is incidental if the role of the elephant is merely the objective source of whatever information is being shared.


Plus, I imagine it's not easy to understand an elephant trying to tell you what its feelings are on contemporary ethics. If everybody spoke elephant, it would be a lot easier to have discussions like that, but establishing meaningful contact with them is immensely difficult and prone to error (at least, it was with the last one I talked to. They might have come on a bit since then). I imagine the same would apply between us and any source of experience, whether spiritual or otherwise.


LOL. I've had little success with elephants, myself :)

To continue using the elephant to the blind men as out analogy for the Spirit to us people, we are assuming that either the Elephant speaks English or the blind men are fluent in Elephant. (That's conversational Elephant, mind you, not formal, technical Elephant.) The flaw in the analogy is that it doesn't allow for the fact that the Holy Spirit is associated with our Creator, and it seems reasonable to me to expect that this mechanism for communication would exist.


It's an abstract concept, and the actual belief structure in question will vary depending on the context of discussion and the participants. The idea of the artificial belief structure is to establish a protocol system that gives you a way to talk about ideas in your beliefs using constructs in theirs. For example, whether I think that God's historicity is important or not, or if I disagree with certain beliefs in redemption theory, I can still talk about God with regards to the Greater Good in morality, or about the parables of Christ, or about the role of the "spirit" (as I could call whatever it was I alluded to earlier) in the individual's life.

It doesn't matter if I agree with everything, or even anything, you believe; it is to my benefit to have a synthetic representation of your beliefs as you believe them that I can accept for reference purposes, if not as fact. If you do the same to me, then it's doubly so, because the system we collectively use can then be refined to deal with the issues we want to explore in a precise and concise way.

So if I understand correctly, you're talking about putting yourself in the other person's shoes in order to view the subject from their point of view?

J! nice to see you again . . . .tho I see your up too your same old Ad hominem style of argument . . . . .have u been reported for that yet?

J! nice to see you again . . . .tho I see your up too your same old Ad hominem style of argument . . . . .have u been reported for that yet?Reported to whom? Sympathetic eyes?

Reported to whom? Sympathetic eyes?

no idea mods maybe lol

oh, yay! there are other Jews here!
why isnt there an option for Judaism in the poll?

It seems that just about half the people on these forums are atheist. One quarter believe in the 'standard' religions, the other 1/4th take faith in crazy voodoo-pagan-interprative literature kind of stuff.

I'd love to stay and receive the flame mail, but I've got to sleep (unlike most of the people on here, it seems). If anyone wants to curse/hex/be generally angry, just send me a telegram.

It seems that just about half the people on these forums are atheist. One quarter believe in the 'standard' religions, the other 1/4th take faith in crazy voodoo-pagan-interprative literature kind of stuff.

I'd love to stay and receive the flame mail, but I've got to sleep (unlike most of the people on here, it seems). If anyone wants to curse/hex/be generally angry, just send me a telegram.

Paganism's no more crazy than any other religion.