Balancing The Two

[water]

The observer and the observed are two different positions.

Yes. Also, regarding observation, this general consideration is useful:

Observation demands a subject that observes -- the observer, and an object that that is the observed. As long as there is observation, there is a subject and an object. Observation also means that the object *is not* the subject, there is the observational distance between them.

It is this *observational distance* that makes it possible to observe -- observational distance makes us aware of the observation; it makes us say "I see an apple."
By definition, we cannot observe das Ding an sich, the thing itself. It is because of this observational distance.

Observational distance is what shows us that things are always in context, and that within this context, we can take different POV's -- and that will make the observed thing look different. Let's say that we see the things through different hazes, but always through some.

In society, some hazes are regarded as normal, and as we grow up, we tune in to the kind of haze preferred by the society we are born into.

The "normal hazes" are then regarded as "objectivity", the not so normal/not so accepted/not so frequent hazes are regarded as "subjecitivity".

These "normal hazes" have great social value (they ensure social stability in the end) and are so common -- that we often aren't aware of them anymore. Not being aware of them easily leads to thinking that they are not there.

Hence the loud cries for "objectivity" -- that also imply that observation is possible without observational distance.


(Of course we can observe ourselves, but then it is still the duality of subject vs. object, as we do see ourselves as objects of observation.)

 

[Pete]

Then what you describe would not be Christianity in accordance with its name. If you love or have deep respect for someone, their birth and death would not be the cause of such affection, it would be the very person, themself.
His birth and death were consistent with a person of his magnitude.
His whole life was spent teaching people how to get to his level.

No. You are describing what I call Christo-Buddhism, not Christianity.
You appear to be considering Christ in the same way that Buddhists treat Buddha - as an enlightened human. According to Christians, Christ is more than human. He is God; a monotheistic God.
Christ did not teach people how to "get to his level". If the Gospels are accepted as true, Christ clearly considered himself to be the leader, judge, and Son of God. To aspire to be at Jesus' level is to aspire to be Divine, or consider Christ to be less that what He said He was.
If Christ was not Divine, than Christianity is a mistake. Christo-Buddhism is still an option, but it's not Christianity.

You would have to be conscious to be omniscient and omnipotent.
Why don't you regard consciousness as (at least) part of the everything?

Perhaps I should have said Eternal consciousness.

What do you mean by untestable?
Has anybody tried?

It's only testable if God cooperates. When the test fails, there's no way of telling if it's because God is being capricious, or if He doesn't exist.
I've tried.
Right now, I seriously asked God (out loud) if He would please turn a lemon on my table into an apple, as a simple test of His omniscience and omnipotence. It's still a lemon. If it changes later, I'll post an update.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Pete,

No. You are describing what I call Christo-Buddhism, not Christianity.

Christianity means to follow in the footsteps of Christ Jesus.

You appear to be considering Christ in the same way that Buddhists treat Buddha - as an enlightened human.

One only has to develop a little understanding of Jesus to realise that he was an enlightened being.

According to Christians, Christ is more than human. He is God; a monotheistic God.

Some Christians believe this, some don't. Jesus being one with God is not the same as him being God, try and understand.

Christ did not teach people how to "get to his level". If the Gospels are accepted as true, Christ clearly considered himself to be the leader, judge, and Son of God.

Please demonstrate.

To aspire to be at Jesus' level is to aspire to be Divine, or consider Christ to be less that what He said He was.

Jesus was divine in that he served the Divine, unconditionally with love and devotion.

If Christ was not Divine, than Christianity is a mistake. Christo-Buddhism is still an option, but it's not Christianity.

It appears you don't fully understand the point of Christ Jesus' life.

Perhaps I should have said Eternal consciousness.

Can consciousness itself be observed why you discriminate between "consciousness" and "eternal consciousness?"

It's only testable if God cooperates.

How do you know God doesn't cooperate?
Maybe we aren't cooperating.

When the test fails, there's no way of telling if it's because God is being capricious, or if He doesn't exist.

If God exists, then God is everything and if God is everything then there is no need to set up any type of test, just think about it for a moment.
At least try and understand who and what God is, because if God exists then it is in your interest.

I've tried.
Right now, I seriously asked God (out loud) if He would please turn a lemon on my table into an apple, as a simple test of His omniscience and omnipotence. It's still a lemon. If it changes later, I'll post an update.

This type of test is ignorant of who/what God is.
It is actually a test to try and prove the non-existence of God.

Jan Ardena.

 

[Pete]

Christianity means to follow in the footsteps of Christ Jesus.

You're repeating yourself, which means we've reached an impasse.
I continue to maintain that when other people use the term 'Christianity', they mean something different to what you think; specifically that to be Christian means to believe Christ is God.

You are entitled to your own language, of course... but it makes communication difficult.

One only has to develop a little understanding of Jesus to realise that he was an enlightened being.

Enlightened or not is irrelevant to me. The important word was 'human'.
Buddhists (in general) acknowledge that Buddha was human, Christians (in general) acknowledge that Jesus is God.

Some Christians believe this, some don't. Jesus being one with God is not the same as him being God, try and understand.

The vast majority of Christians believe that Jesus _is_ God. Try and understand.

Christ did not teach people how to "get to his level". If the Gospels are accepted as true, Christ clearly considered himself to be the leader, judge, and Son of God.

Please demonstrate.

Matthew 25:31-33

To aspire to be at Jesus' level is to aspire to be Divine, or consider Christ to be less that what He said He was.

Jesus was divine in that he served the Divine, unconditionally with love and devotion.

How do you resolve that point of view with John 8:58?
Here's some further online reading for you regarding Christ's divinity lots of resources here, and even more here.

It appears you don't fully understand the point of Christ Jesus' life.

I doubt the factual reality of the Gospel story.
I do, however, hold a reasonable understanding of what it says.
As to the 'point' of it... well, you are welcome to make up whatever point you see fit.

How do you know God doesn't cooperate?
Maybe we aren't cooperating.

Please state what you mean.
I know that God doesn't cooperate, because an omniscient and omnipotent being has the power to provide unambiguous proof of their existence. If no proof is forthcoming on request, then obviously God is not cooperating with said request.

If God exists, then God is everything and if God is everything then there is no need to set up any type of test, just think about it for a moment.
At least try and understand who and what God is, because if God exists then it is in your interest.

Now you're being Hindu (pantheist). If you want to argue that God is everything, great! But again, that's not Christianity (monotheist).

This type of test is ignorant of who/what God is.

Pleas explain.
You appear to have a very different notion of who/what God is to Christian scholars. I really think you'd be more at home with Hinduism.

It is actually a test to try and prove the non-existence of God.

Please don't insult my intelligence.
For a positive result, the test requires both the existence and cooperation of God.
A negative result does not prove that God doesn't exist; it proves only that if God exists, He chose not to cooperate in that particular instance.
It's a shame, since cooperation would seem to cost an omnipotent being nothing.

A more general version is to simply say "God, please show me that you are."
I've tried this test repeatedly. I assume that the (omniscient) God knows how to show me (any unambiguous repeatable evidence would be sufficient), and that the (omnipotent) God has the power to show me... so why doesn't He? Obviously, He wants me to remain unsure, and continue to behave as I am. I'm happy to do what He wants.

 

[Godless]

I am preparing to attend law school. My career ambition is to play a role in bioethics for the United States. I have both some formal religious training and a background in biology.

It sounds like a contradiction

I often envy people who are one side or the other.

Why eny just choose one side.

Also, it would be easy to disregard God altogether.

Well then if it's so easy why not do it? I think they contradict your chosen profession unless you can keep from your religious influence determining the outcome of your profession.

I do believe in God and have evidence that is appropriate to support my beliefs. (supernatural evidence for supernatural claims)

Oh!! then that's great what are the evidence you speak off? and please don't quote the bible, It's just full of discrepancies.

Okinrus;

Religion and science are completely compatible provided what you believe in religion is consistent with physical observation

This is the first time I've ever heard of this. Most religiousnist just invent there own pseoudo science theories to have them rediculed by real scientists.

B;

I believe that trees are an important part of our global ecosystem.
I understand the truth that marine phytoplankton are much more important.

Ok! this is why I answer your thread; How can marine plankton be more important then the oxygen that trees provide for us to breath?.

BTW I'm not a scientist, nor a lawyer just a simple atheist.

Godless.

 

[b0urgeoisie]

Ok! this is why I answer your thread; How can marine plankton be more important then the oxygen that trees provide for us to breath?.Godless.

Because, if you take the total biomass of all the trees on earth you cannot come close to the total biomass of all of the phytoplankton. If they are both photo-autotrophs then the amount of oxygen produced by phytoplankton is greater than that produced by trees. If you include endosymbiotic phytoplanktons than the difference increases. That is no indication that trees are not important. It is only a mandate to protect our coral reefs.

 

[b0urgeoisie]

@MacM
Who wrote the conclusion. The paper you indicate as Dr. Tyron's work only lists some of his work. The rest is commentary on what it means. I find the commentary to be so full of holes that I do not care to list them all yet. I will, however, write a response after I do a little more research. I am convinced that the author of the paper is intelligent. But, it seems clear, to me, that they are wrong on every count except for where they have posted the work of others. It looks like solid bricks held together with hopes and wishes for mortar.

 

[Godless]

Well thanks Bourgeoisie!

I like learning even at my old age.
So in a sense good luck with your career choice. And remember to keep your beliefs from influencing your decissions on your job. That's all you really got to do.

Godless.

 

[Leo Volont]

Because, if you take the total biomass of all the trees on earth you cannot come close to the total biomass of all of the phytoplankton. If they are both photo-autotrophs then the amount of oxygen produced by phytoplankton is greater than that produced by trees. If you include endosymbiotic phytoplanktons than the difference increases. That is no indication that trees are not important. It is only a mandate to protect our coral reefs.

Then we must be seriously screwed! If the health of the Coral in the Tropical Zones is any indication, then it appears that the Oceans are getting toxic. I don't suppose that what is dying in the Tropics is being proportionally replaced in the Northern (and Southern) Waters which might be getting warmer.

But so far the ratio of Oxygen to the other gases is still holding at a nice level 19%. How can this be explained in the face of the drastically changing Environment? It has to be coming from somewhere.

Because oxygen so readily combines, being stored in rust and other oxides, the atmospheric Oxygen must always be in the process of renewal. I'm surprised that the level can sustain itself so evenly while we are all convinced that the sky is falling.

 

[b0urgeoisie]

Then we must be seriously screwed! If the health of the Coral in the Tropical Zones is any indication, then it appears that the Oceans are getting toxic. I don't suppose that what is dying in the Tropics is being proportionally replaced in the Northern (and Southern) Waters which might be getting warmer.

But so far the ratio of Oxygen to the other gases is still holding at a nice level 19%. How can this be explained in the face of the drastically changing Environment? It has to be coming from somewhere.

Because oxygen so readily combines, being stored in rust and other oxides, the atmospheric Oxygen must always be in the process of renewal. I'm surprised that the level can sustain itself so evenly while we are all convinced that the sky is falling.

The reefs are only a small part of the phytoplankton. You can expect to find the surface of the entire ocean to be saturated. Phytoplankton, at least how I am applying the term, is a huge group. Including both algal and protist organisms. Deep sea chemo-autotrophs play a role as well.
It is true that some experts are convinced that our reefs will be gone in twenty years. We will still have oxygen but our oceans will never be the same. But, the autotrophs, that created the gaseous oxygen, that changed our atmosphere to aerobic, were around long before the reefs.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Pete,

You're repeating yourself, which means we've reached an impasse.
I continue to maintain that when other people use the term 'Christianity', they mean something different to what you think; specifically that to be Christian means to believe Christ is God.

If i am repeating myself, it is only to get into your skull that a Christian is a person who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ and Christianity is the name given to a society of Christians.
That Jesus is the Almighty God, is debatable and therefore cannot really be a sole reason for becoming a Christian. If however this does occur, then it is just one aspect of the whole thing.

You are entitled to your own language, of course... but it makes communication difficult.

My own language?

The vast majority of Christians believe that Jesus _is_ God. Try and understand.

People can and do believe what they like, but the meaning of "Christian" is one who follows in the footsteps of Jesus Christ by way of his teachings and example.

How do you resolve that point of view with John 8:58?

There is nothing to resolve, it is straight-foreward;

58"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"

"I am" meaning that he has always been.
His statement is clearly related to time as he claims; "before Abraham was born..."

"14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,[4] who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

I do, however, hold a reasonable understanding of what it says.

I don't think you do. You're problem seems to be that you think it is simple, and you see it from a superficial point of view i.e. the cat sat on the mat. You have not displayed any real understanding of the meaning of the words in its proper context.

As to the 'point' of it... well, you are welcome to make up whatever point you see fit.

This is your mistake.

Please state what you mean.
I know that God doesn't cooperate, because an omniscient and omnipotent being has the power to provide unambiguous proof of their existence.

If you know that God does not cooperate, then you have proven His existence (if only to yourself). If you think there is no God becuse there seems to be no cooperation, then maybe you need to find out if the tests are applicable to the subject.

If no proof is forthcoming on request, then obviously God is not cooperating with said request.

As i said, understand what God is and how he works, by giving serious attention to the scriptures and asscotiating with people who are themselves serious in God-consciousness. It doesn't matter which religious title they come under.

Now you're being Hindu (pantheist). If you want to argue that God is everything, great! But again, that's not Christianity (monotheist).

I'm not being anything, my point is relevant in all bona-fide religions.

Pleas explain.

You think God is some kind of order supplier.
You think He is separate to yourself and everything you observe. Of course you're entitled to think and believe that, but it doesn't help you, it only affirms a belief based on nothing but your own desire to live in a world where God does not exist.

You appear to have a very different notion of who/what God is to Christian scholars. I really think you'd be more at home with Hinduism.

Don't worry about that, lets just talk about God.
God has to be the same no matter the religious title, it is only our lack of understanding that creates the idea of different Gods. With a good source, the understanding becomes easier.

Please don't insult my intelligence.

I was merely hilighting it.
The fact that you are so quick to believe God doesn't exist after putting your order in, shows your total lack of sincerity.

For a positive result, the test requires both the existence and cooperation of God.

If God exists, then it only remains for you to understand that He exists, not to try and turn apples in mangos. Seriously try and think about that, it may sound simple, but it is very deep and worthy of contemplation.

A more general version is to simply say "God, please show me that you are."
I've tried this test repeatedly. I assume that the (omniscient) God knows how to show me (any unambiguous repeatable evidence would be sufficient), and that the (omnipotent)

Ask yourself this; What could God show you that would make you know He is ominpotent and omniscient and therefore God Himself?
Bearing in mind that whatever you decide must have those characteristics which has to be over and beyond anything you have ever experienced in order for it to undoubtedly valid.

Obviously, He wants me to remain unsure, and continue to behave as I am. I'm happy to do what He wants.

Why obviously?
This is part of your insincerity, you simply cannot make those claims unless you understand God and know that to be the case, or in your heart/mind you are trying to convince yourself that God does not exist. Always keep in the back of your mind that you may be at fault.

Jan Ardena.

 

[thefountainhed]

Jan:

thefountainhed,

The overiding principle in Christianity is to come to the understanding that you and every living entity is a son of God. This primarily requires faith in accepting Jesus as the son of God. Having accepted that, one accepts Jesus as the role model for life and starts to live accordingly. During this period one begins to understand the truth of Jesus' teachings, as all his teaching are enfused within the experience of life itself, not that it is separate knowledge.
Science is a part of day to day living, likewise art, and philosophy. Each life enrichening, but not life itself.

The most important aspect being the belief of a God. This being is supernatural, and thus the religion is seeped in the supernatural.

Are scientists trying to find out if God exists?

Some undoubtedly are, but I gather the vast majority realize it is a futile search and thus do not.

If it is circular, therefore illogical, then it has to be.
Because it is illogical to us, it does not mean that it is universally illogical, to c laim that would be nothing short of arrogance.
We can live our lives as logical as we can, then there comes a point where logic does or can not apply.

What is possible outside our ability to understand as humans is quite frankly irrelevant. We are attempting to understand this so called being within our capacity as humans, and to therefore claim that since the possibility of the being's existence is a reachable conclusion, it therefore can be used as a possible explanation is not practical. I could be a left handed superman capable of flight and time reversal, but logic and this reality says I am not. Thus for all practical purposes within this reality, I will choose to believe that I am indeed not this superman.

Music is both logical and illogical and it works best when the two are in connection. If it was purely logic it would lack variety resulting in dull boring notes. It it was performed without logic, it would be an unintelligable noise with no end in sight. You put the two together you get great music, which can communicate on different levels and manifesting itself in the physical reality. This is art, which is also knowledge.

You cannot make this analogy. Your cannot make this silloqy: Music is to noise(for lack of a better term) as Religion is to science. Music is indeed art, and our experience of music can be both logical and emotional. A logical peace of music does not mean it is repetitive. In fact, I am at odds to understand what you mean by a logical piece of music.

Religion and science contradict because the very basis of science is conclusions reached through experimentation. Religion asks that you forgo the experimentation and accept a belief. They are incompatible.

It really doesn't if you concur or not, it is what it is, just as science is what it is, art and philosophy also. The point of religion is not what he or she thinks, it is how it is described in the scripture.

You miss my point. Every religion has it;s own sets of beiefs, and different people believe or accept religion for different reasons. There is no universal reason for the religion. This was my point.

It doesn't matter whether or not it can be accepted, nor does it matter that no current evidence shows His presence. If God exists then He exists. Just by accepting He doesn't, or not finding evidence is not enough to claim He doesn't exist.

Of course it matters that no evidence shows that he exists. And noone is claiming that he does not exist. I accept the possibility of the being's existence, but this is not a logical step.

What i don't understand is, why do atheist scientists think that there should be physical evidence of God other than the universe itself?
Would they expect to find?

Because the universe does not behave as what the "scriptures" claim God to be.

The observer and the observed are two different positions.

Jan Ardena.

I do not see how this is relevant to your position. I accept other people's rights to believe whatever the hell they want to believe. I would be the last person to claim that religion or God have no valuable purpose. I am saying however that the two-- science and religion, are two paradigm that are incompatible. They are able to coexist in a forced manner because man seems to seek more than the logical.

 

[Pete]

Jan,
Do you understand that you are using the word "Christian" in a different way to most people who identify themselves as "Christian"? That's what I mean by your own language. The concept to which you attach the term "Christian" is different to the concept which other people attach to the term. This means you are not speaking the same language.

Do you understand that when Jesus spoke the word I am He was unambiguously claiming to be God?

You appear to think that I believe God doesn't exist. Why?
I believe that if God exists, he doesn't want to prove it. I make no statement on God's existence. I am sincere in this, whether or not you understand it or believe it, and I ask that you cease to question it.

What could God show you that would make you know He is ominpotent and omniscient and therefore God Himself?

I've already answered that question - a lemon becoming an apple before my eyes, on invocation.

More generally, begin with a null hypothesis of the form:
"There is no relationship between a specified invocation to God and the occurence of a specified event."
Then test the hypothesis. I would accept a significant result showing that the null hypothesis should be rejected as reasonable proof of God.

For example, the null hypothesis might be "There is no relationship between this faith healer invoking God to heal a sick or injured person, and that person recovering within a (day/week/month/year -choose one)".
This could be tested by taking a pool of sick people, dividing them into (matched) experimental and control groups, performing the invocation on each person int he experimental group, then comparing the health of the two groups.

I don't know if that particular example is a good one, but it doesn't matter. Any invocation with testable outcome would do. Also in this example, some tricky experiment design would be necessary to allow for any placebo effect.


Note that other general tests may also be sufficient. The causal part of the relationship does not necessarily need to be an explicit invocation.


Finally, I really suggest you do some wider reading to see what other religious philosphers have said on what Christianity is and isn't. I also suggest you examine Hinduism - if you don't believe that Christ is necessarily supernatural, if you don't believe He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life (John 14 is very relevant to this discussion, by the way. Meditate on Jesus' conversation with His disciples), if you don't 'confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead', then you can still be what you call "Christian" while embracing the pantheist principles of Hindu or Buddhism.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Pete,

Do you understand that you are using the word "Christian" in a different way to most people who identify themselves as "Christian"?

It doesn't matter what people identitfy themselves as, a Christian is someone who follows in the footsteps of Jesus Christ;

Webster,

christian; 1 a : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ

Its plain and simple, any deviation from that, is not Christianity in its pure form.

Do you understand that when Jesus spoke the word I am He was unambiguously claiming to be God?

Did you not read my reply to that?

You appear to think that I believe God doesn't exist. Why?

I am merely responding to you, if it seems that way, maybe it is the impression you give.

I believe that if God exists, he doesn't want to prove it. I make no statement on God's existence. I am sincere in this, whether or not you understand it or believe it, and I ask that you cease to question it.

Not a problem.

I've already answered that question - a lemon becoming an apple before my eyes, on invocation.

1) What aspect of this demonstration would you regard as omnipotent, and how would you recognise that omniscience would be characteristic of the performer?

2) Do you think that this performance would lead you to accept the divine characteristics mentioned above, without question, or would you try and prove that it was or was not a trick of your mind or some other way?

3) If you decided to seek some logical/rational explanation for the event, then how could your request have had any real value or sincerity despite what you may have thought?

More generally, begin with a null hypothesis of the form:
"There is no relationship between a specified invocation to God and the occurence of a specified event."
Then test the hypothesis. I would accept a significant result showing that the null hypothesis should be rejected as reasonable proof of God.

Again you are displaying a real lack of understanding as to what/who God is.
If God exists, and from Him comes the universe and every thing/one therin, then He is connected to everything in a most essential way. So to conduct an experiment using Gods potencies, which includes your own ability, to find if God exists, is to deny His existence as a Supreme Being before you've even started.
It is something like trying to find yourself, and asking people if they have seen you.

Finally, I really suggest you do some wider reading to see what other religious philosphers have said on what Christianity is and isn't.

My description of "Christianity" is correct. How we view Christianity does not alter the basic meaning. If that changes, then it is no longer Christianity in its pure form.

I also suggest you examine Hinduism - if you don't believe that Christ is necessarily supernatural, if you don't believe He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life (John 14 is very relevant to this discussion, by the way.

Him being "the truth, the way and the life" (i thought it was light not life), does not mean he is proclaiming that he is God. He is proclaiming that through him (his example and teaching), we too can become favoured sons of God.

Meditate on Jesus' conversation with His disciples), if you don't 'confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead', then you can still be what you call "Christian" while embracing the pantheist principles of Hindu or Buddhism.

They are different aspects of the same God.

Do you know the story about the 10 blind men all touching one elephant, a phenomenon they had no previous knowledge about, all giving different description?

Jan Ardena.

 

[b0urgeoisie]

Pete is correct to say fundamentalist Christianity is outside of logic. Logical arguments can be made for it. But, if you didn't know about God you wouldn't logically guess he exists. You have to learn first then decide.
Jan is correct to say the message of Christianity is about more than just the supernatural. It is about being a good person as exemplified by Jesus.

 

[Jan Ardena]

b0urgeoisie,

But if you didn't know about God you wouldn't logically guess he exists.

Why not? It is the most logical position.
What other conclusion could one come to when considering ones origin?

You have to learn first then decide.

In the same way one learns that he is a product of his parents.

Jan Ardena.

 

[Jan Ardena]

thefountainhed,

The most important aspect being the belief of a God.

If you love someone unconditionally there is no question of "most important aspect," if there is sincerity.
In spiritual life, the relationship one has with his spiritual master is one of unconditional love from both the preceptor and the student, the only difference being their positions. The importance of such a relationship is the affection you hold for someone.

This being is supernatural, and thus the religion is seeped in the supernatural.

God, is not described as "natural" in any way by Jesus. Adding "super" to natural does not separate it from being a natural occurance, it only draws attention to the fact that it is not understood by the known laws of nature.

What is possible outside our ability to understand as humans is quite frankly irrelevant.

Are you implying that human logic is the length and breadth of human understanding?

I could be a left handed superman capable of flight and time reversal, but logic and this reality says I am not.

No, the fact that you're not, says your not.

Thus for all practical purposes within this reality, I will choose to believe that I am indeed not this superman.

And for all practical purposes within this reality, some people choose to believe that Jesus is the way, the truth and the light to salvaion. They choose to believe that there is more to life than what they physically observe with their natural senses. This can be understood more clearly with art and philosophy, not science.

In fact, I am at odds to understand what you mean by a logical piece of music.

I mean the execution of music purely as a logical and mathematical process with no applied emotion.

Religion and science contradict because the very basis of science is conclusions reached through experimentation. Religion asks that you forgo the experimentation and accept a belief. They are incompatible.

Religion is a way of life, and the requirements of this method has nothing to do with conclusions reached through experimentation. The instruction "Thou shalt not kill" in no way require scientific analasys.
Science is what we do to learn about the universe that we live in, by making experiments and observations.

Fire and water conflict if the mixture is not right, but when they are mixed properly they are capable of enormous power, it is the same with religion and science.

You miss my point. Every religion has it;s own sets of beiefs, and different people believe or accept religion for different reasons. There is no universal reason for the religion. This was my point.

Religion appeals to a broad spectrum of peoples with varied cultures and mentalities and though all the beliefs appear different, they have one ultimate aim, to love, respect and serve, mankind, all living beings, and God. So there is a definate reason for religion, without it we will be no better than the lower animals. This can easily be observed in modern society.

Of course it matters that no evidence shows that he exists. And noone is claiming that he does not exist. I accept the possibility of the being's existence, but this is not a logical step.

Of course you're claiming He doesn't exist, otherwise why should it matter that no current evidence suggests the He exists.
If you accept the possibility of God's existence, then how can you say it is not a logical step?

Because the universe does not behave as what the "scriptures" claim God to be.

Huh??

I am saying however that the two-- science and religion, are two paradigm that are incompatible. They are able to coexist in a forced manner because man seems to seek more than the logical.

Perhaps you should give serious attention to the quotes made by Albert Einstein.

Jan Ardena.

 

[Pete]

It doesn't matter what people identitfy themselves as, a Christian is someone who follows in the footsteps of Jesus Christ;

Webster,

christian; 1 a : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ

Its plain and simple, any deviation from that, is not Christianity in its pure form.

It appears to be your opinion that "the teachings of Jesus Christ" were essentially invitations or instructions to "get to His level". Can you support that point of view?
It is my assertion that "the teachings of Jesus Christ" include that He was God, above the level of other humans.
You might want to re-read John 1:1-34. I think you've also not responded to Matthew 25:31-36 (the preceding two parables are similar, but not as explicit).
After reading those two passages, how can you maintain that "the teachings of Jesus Christ" imply that it is possible to "get to His level"?
Strive to be like Christ, yes... follow Him, yes, but be the Son of God in the way it is applied to Christ? That's not biblical.

You might also wish to look further into your dictionary definitions of Christian... particularly the belief in Jesus as Christ. Do you know what that means?

Like I said, I believe we've reached an impasse. I do not expect you to change your mind. You are entitled to your own opinion, misguided or not. But I do wish you would acknolwedge that yours is not the only opinion on the matter, and not the majority. Certainly not among those who label themselves as Christian, nor among those who have spent most of their lives pondering scriptural issues.

Did you not read my reply to that?

To verbalise "I Am" was to claim to be God, plain and simple. It is not a simple statement that "I always existed", but rather that "I AM - eternally and self-essentially". By saying these words, Christ was making it plain that He considered himself more than human, and equal to God. That is why the story goes that He had to make Himself absent to avoid stoning.

You appear to think that I believe God doesn't exist. Why?
I am merely responding to you, if it seems that way, maybe it is the impression you give.

Maybe. Maybe it's a comprehension problem.

1) What aspect of this demonstration would you regard as omnipotent, and how would you recognise that omniscience would be characteristic of the performer?

Strictly speaking, it's not a demonstration of omnipotence, but a demonstration of the ability to turn lemons to apples. For a good test, the particular demonstration should be a randomly chosen event that is logically possible, but is unimaginably unlikely. My understanding of "omnipotence" is something like "able to directly cause any event, regardless of physical or statistical constraints". So to test it, one must choose some event or events that are normally constrained by physics, statistics, or both.
Omniscience is evidenced by God's awareness of the invocation. You could test it more directly if required, but it is enough for me that an omniscient entity would be aware of the invocation, where a non-omniscient entity probably would not.

Do you think that this performance would lead you to accept the divine characteristics mentioned above, without question, or would you try and prove that it was or was not a trick of your mind or some other way?

I think that perhaps I would seek repeatability and independent confirmation.
Let's say that the lemon did become an apple - what would I do next? I'd be pretty overwhelmed, so it's hard to say...
Maybe I'd confirm that it was an apple by touch and taste. Then perhaps I'd drop to my knees in prayer. Then perhaps I'd find my wife, and invoke something else -"God, please heal my wife's eyesight". This has several purposes - repeatability, independent confirmation, evangelism, and a real human good. Next, I'd make my way to the hospital emergency room.

If repeatability failed, I'd be in trouble. It would be natural for me to begin to doubt myself. If I didn't, it would be natural for me to hold some frustration - God would be proven to me, but I would be unable to credibly spread that proof to others...

Of course, all this is speculation until that first evidence occurs - I regularly seek that first level, and just as regularly fail to find it.

If you decided to seek some logical/rational explanation for the event, then how could your request have had any real value or sincerity despite what you may have thought?

The event was specifically chosen to have no logical/rational explanation, other than the "escape clause" that my senses have no relation to reality. That, however, is the path to madness.

Again you are displaying a real lack of understanding as to what/who God is.
If God exists, and from Him comes the universe and every thing/one therin, then He is connected to everything in a most essential way. So to conduct an experiment using Gods potencies, which includes your own ability, to find if God exists, is to deny His existence as a Supreme Being before you've even started.
It is something like trying to find yourself, and asking people if they have seen you.

Sorry, I don't buy it.
The test is not so much a test for the existence of God (as defined by yourself) as a test for the existence of omnipotence and omniscience. Everything exists (obviously). The test is whether anything is omniscient and omnipotent.

Him being "the truth, the way and the life" (i thought it was light not life), does not mean he is proclaiming that he is God. He is proclaiming that through him (his example and teaching), we too can become favoured sons of God.

Read John 14 (the source of the quote). Pay particular attention to verses 8 and 9. Combine this with John 1 and Matthew 25, and I fail to see how you can maintain that Jesus did not claim to be above other humans. But like I said before, I think we're at an impasse on this point.

They are different aspects of the same God.

Do you know the story about the 10 blind men all touching one elephant, a phenomenon they had no previous knowledge about, all giving different description?

Are you aware that that is a Hindu parable?

All roads lead to the top of the mountain, also according to Hinduism.

But do they really? How do you know all roads are climbing the same mountain? How do we know if we're touching the same beast or not?

You have indicated that you believe the truth of these parables, and you are welcome to do so. But be aware that it is originally a Hindu belief, not a Christian one.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Pete,

Part 1.

It appears to be your opinion that "the teachings of Jesus Christ" were essentially invitations or instructions to "get to His level". Can you support that point of view?

Read Matthew chapter 5.

It is my assertion that "the teachings of Jesus Christ" include that He was God, above the level of other humans.
You might want to re-read John 1:1-34. I think you've also not responded to Matthew 25:31-36 (the preceding two parables are similar, but not as explicit).

1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
1:2
The same was in the beginning with God. (the preceding two parables are similar, but not as explicit).

1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
1:2
The same was in the beginning with God.

Here a little glimpse into the omnipotency of God. He is the word and separate from the word. The word being the begining of creation.

1:3
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
1:4
In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

Here is an example of God's energies, He creates everything, and in Him is life, which is described as "light" This clearly indicates that life (light or soul) is not created like the created things i.e. universe. But has its source in God.

1:6
There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
1:7
The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.

John was sent from God who came for a witness (Jesus), so that Jesus could bear witness of the Light (life, light, soul) that dwells in God. (John 1.4) It is confirmed in the following verses;

1:8
He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

1:9
That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

The "true light" meaning the Almighty God, from whom everything emanates.


1:12
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

1:13
Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

1:14
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

The word was made flesh. If we go back to the begining of this chapter it states;

1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
1:2
The same was in the beginning with God.

God is simultaneosly one, and different to the "word" which was made flesh. Do you see my point now? Whatever relationship God has with the "word" is non different from the relationship with Jesus.

1:15
John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.

We can use this verse to clear up the "I am" claim. If we go back to verses 1.12 to 1.14, we get an idea of Jesus' make up, and he is clearly not an ordinary human being. HE is God's energy (the word) made flesh by Himself. (1.13)
The first verse says "In the beginging was the word," what is that "begining?" It is the begining of the material manifestation, the creation. So the "word" is endowed with all knowledge, but it is simultaneosly one and different to God.

Jan Ardena.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Pete,

Part 2

After reading those two passages, how can you maintain that "the teachings of Jesus Christ" imply that it is possible to "get to His level"?

This is with regard to Matthew 25:31-36, which talks of the "son of man" coming into his glory. Jesus is not the "son of man," not by any definition. The son of man is he that is born of blood, will of the flesh or will of man. (John 1.13)

something else;

Luke 22:70 Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am.

Strive to be like Christ, yes... follow Him, yes, but be the Son of God in the way it is applied to Christ? That's not biblical.

In John 1:12 it says;
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
This is very biblical, but you must develop some understanding of what God is otherwise we are in darkness, no understanding of the reality of everything.

John 1:5
And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
1:10
He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
1:11
He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
QUOTE]

You might also wish to look further into your dictionary definitions of Christian... particularly the belief in Jesus as Christ. Do you know what that means?

Please enlighten me with sources.

To verbalise "I Am" was to claim to be God, plain and simple. It is not a simple statement that "I always existed", but rather that "I AM - eternally and self-essentially".

Why plain and simple? There would be no sense in "...before Abrahman I am God Almighty"...... it simply doesn't fit.

"I am" is saying there is no "was." Abraham was a man born of a woman, he came and went. Jesus is more or less saying, i have not changed, and i will not change, so there is only the present, hence the perfect term, "I am."

By saying these words, Christ was making it plain that He considered himself more than human, and equal to God. That is why the story goes that He had to make Himself absent to avoid stoning.

In actual fact he is more than human, and is qualitively equal to God. He just isn't as great as God, and he never claimed to be.

My understanding of "omnipotence" is something like "able to directly cause any event, regardless of physical or statistical constraints".

When we talk of an omnipotent god, we mean an all-powerful being. This doesn't mean He is more powerfull than something, it means He is all-powerfull, the Supreme Power, the greatest.

So to test it, one must choose some event or events that are normally constrained by physics, statistics, or both.

How can you test something whose energies are the very source of power that is in control of everything, including you, your mind, your ability and all the physical implements you may use?
If you are not aware of that, then how can you hope to recognise the source itself?

I think that perhaps I would seek repeatability and independent confirmation.
Let's say that the lemon did become an apple - what would I do next? I'd be pretty overwhelmed, so it's hard to say...

I'm really sorry, but i think this is just idle specualation. Try and get grasp of how great God is.

Read John 14 (the source of the quote). Pay particular attention to verses 8 and 9. Combine this with John 1 and Matthew 25, and I fail to see how you can maintain that Jesus did not claim to be above other humans. But like I said before, I think we're at an impasse on this point.

He goes on to say...."no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."
Just by that alone you can see he doesn't proclaim himself God.

Are you aware that that is a Hindu parable?

Yes.
So?

All roads lead to the top of the mountain, also according to Hinduism.

Where did you learn this?

How do we know if we're touching the same beast or not?

We have to use our human resources, the chief of which is intelligence. We must develop our intelligence so we can make the right choices.

You have indicated that you believe the truth of these parables, and you are welcome to do so. But be aware that it is originally a Hindu belief, not a Christian one.

Here lies your biggest obstacle, sectarianism.
What is Hindu belief? As far as i know Hindus have many beliefs including atheism.
Some Christians believe Jesus is God, some don't. Some believe homosexuality is a gift from God, some don't.
My advise to you is, don't get caught up in names and sects, and alway seek the essence in all religions, then you will see that they are all part of the same one God.

Seeing as you are hell bent on pointing out to me the difference between Hindu and Christian, answer this;

What is the difference between Yarweh in the bible and Vishnu in the Bhagavad Gita.

Jan Ardena.