One thing about fideism is that it ALSO should stop people from doing what Lori is doing, which is explaining why what God does is really OK. This is as much a claim to knowledge as someone saying it is not OK for this or that reason. But there is a cake and eat it too by many theists where they claim it makes sense and even can explain it, but when non-theists or other theists are critical, they then receive the response that it is beyond understanding.
Does God make mistakes?
- Thread starter Alan McDougall
- Start date
Belief/faith is a generic, inherent trait in all life - those who insist one must have faith with no form of factuality or logic - should be seen as suspicious. This applies most to religions, especially new, non-original religions based on a foundation of negation of others, gross villifications and assumptions of a take-over. Belief is the easiest thing to exploit, and atheism in most cases represents a backlash of it. A better way is to respond as a stiff-neck and ask for proof - because atheism is not a scientific premise.
In all life?
What do dandelions believe in?
Cats?
Don't tell me, you're guessing again.
i don't think that sin is just an action or a thought, but a genetic condition causing the propensity of those acts. it's like a birth defect. before sin entered the body there wasn't any fear, shame, greed, lust, hunger, pain, isolation, or discomfort of any kind. and now babies cry because of it.
This perplexing question has tortured humanity from ancient times, specially in the story of Abraham who rejected the mass murder of an entire city [Sodom]. He asked how it was just to kill off the innocent along with the guilty. The surprising result was that he was blessed for this genuine rejection - yet the entire city of Sodom was destroyed.
Seen as a metaphoric story, it does allign with deaths of innocent people everywhere we look - in plane crashes and tsunamies, thereby there is no merit in leaving this to chance - because the universe works on majestic laws of engineering, physics and math, and is not functioning randomly.
One answer is that the universe is made up of a positive/negative duality - and critical mass applies. Where the negative is critically greater than the positive - the neutral entities go with the negative. This also works the reverse mode - a bad person can be saved. When we contemplate this, it appears correct, even when it makes the personal rights of one disregarded - because a community's rights overides an individual - this is also the premise in a Judiciary system. But this does not mean there is no sense of justice - only that the justice occurs in a mode not seen at the time, but eventually does occur in a mode which does not parallel our small thoughts.
I see each life form performing in equal merit of any other - based on the criteria of their own realm. If you were suddenly made into a dandelion - how would you function - any different?
Its not guessing, but a contemplated view - there is no definitive, evidential answer here - nor any alternative mode of assessing it.
What does that have to do with belief?
So you don't think that belief, defined as
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/belief
requires thought and a (self-aware) mind?
Of course there's an alternative mode of assessing it - you're talking crap.
well, the holy spirit's used the bible to teach me a few things, and in a way identify itself, and to prophecize. i think that the bible has encouraged me in a lot of ways.
and god has had a huge impact on my life so of course i like talking about that. i listen to people talk about experiences that i haven't had and i'm interested. that doesn't mean however that i know what their experience is like or even understand it. but it makes me ask more questions, and that's good right? if there's a god to go for answers it is.
Some feedback: you are wandering all over the place and not really responding to things in context. You take my questions and responses out of the context and answer in a way that does not fit the discussion.
Frankly, I don't want to discuss this with you precisely because this is disrespectful on your part and I just realized I have been wasting my time. I am not saying you are doing this consciously, but my experience is the same either way.
Perhaps you will get this same feedback from others or have in the past. If so, take it seriously, because this is not communication.
If our thoughts are small, perhaps what you just wrote is a perfect example of small thoughts. I do appreciate your pointing out Abraham's rejection and how this was seen as good in him. However, I actually think theists - and I am a theist by the way with a very different take on the problem of evil - need to say they don't know more often, rather than act as apologists for God, as say Lori has been, and really as is implicit in your post.
As far as the bad person being saved, in context this seems to imply that the babies who are raped and killed are all bad people or would become them.
Imagine if the parent of one of these children reads this.
So babies crying is because they are sinners. I sincerely hope you do not have children before you change this way of looking at things. If you have two kids, for example, and one cries more than the other, you will think it has those sinner genes.
What a great blame the victim philosophy you have.
Yes and no. The fact is we don't know the origins of anything whatsoever, not even of a pineapple - thereby we can only make calculated conclusions based on accetable proofs and logic. Since not knowing the ultimate questions is a generic condition, we equally cannot deny everything. But I agree with the premise: THE FIRST PROOF OF KNOWLEDGE IS THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT WHAT WE DON'T KNOW.
That is a commonly wrong held notion - better, we have no credible apologist 'against' a Creator, and the best, or one of the best, premises of a Creator is based on majestic laws [not 'belief'], and that the Creator is indefinable, indivisable, invisible and unknowable. This is manifest and not a lie or error.
Can any parent refute that bad things happen to good people? I am not agreeing with it as a good premise from my POV - only saying there is manifest truth in it. Here, you have equally not contributed any answer to this phenomenon.
The premise of critical mass applying appears the only one applicable. Reduced to an everyday example, even poison is not poison unless its component reaches a critical % level. This applies to perceptions of good and bad, and positive and negative. Both apply.
The notion of a 'sick society' does not mean every single person is sick - yet the term applies. A baby crying - or not crying - can equally be effected by a natural impacting which does not involve good and bad or right and wrong. This is where we are at in our existence on this planet.
Knock-knock! How about laws accepted by humanity in its institutions? Like THOU SHALT NOT STEAL? There are 613 of these in the Hebrew bible - and every single one of them is accepted today. I call that a majestic premise.
No, because it is based on a scientific premise of CAUSE AND EFFECT. We cannot legitimately SUPPOSE that the universe just happened - it is not based on any scientific premise. We accept a CAUSE for an EFFECT because there is no alternative to it.
You mean man-made laws. Right. What about the laws in the bible that aren't accepted any more? Or are you ignoring (or lying) about those?
Wrong.
As this thread will show.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=92761
Still doesn't make a creator "manifest".
Oh wait, if there's no alternative to cause and effect what caused the creator?
Can you be clear about this? You are coming into a dialogue between me and Lori. Do you really think the above clarifies anything?
Are babies who cry sinners? Is it a sign of their having sinner genes as Lori asserted?
it seems like you're spin doctoring. like i said, we're all born with the same defect, and it inhibits all of us equally. we're individuals so, we don't behave the same way but we all do suffer.
So you see knowing God and knowing pineapples as equivalent. I mean, I am a theist and I think that's ridiculous.
No it isn't. I do not think it is a commonly held notion that you and Lori are acting as apologists for God here. Very few people believe this. Most know nothing at all about your posts.
This is unrelated. If you stole a baseball, my having stolen a different baseball or not having stolen it has no effect on your actions.
You have a premise based on laws.
If this is true then Lori needs to stop explaining why it is OK for God to allow babies to be raped and tortured because she somehow knows that they have sinner genes. She should say she does not know why God allows this to happen. And so should you.
Which does detract from the weakness of your and Lori's positions. Not a bit.
i think my what i said was entirely relevant to what you asked. you questioned the obsolescence of the bible, and i told you that god's used it to teach me things. the holy spirit has used the bible, and a lot of other means.
you questioned why i post out here and i told you...because i like to share. imo, communion is the meaning of life.