Is God willing but not able?

[Myles]

This is not a joke:
you were rude, presumably misread my post, and referred to 'people like you', a nice bigoted phrase if I ever heard one.
Now you are talking about the Inquisition and bigotry. If this relates to my posts somehow please make it clear.

How could you nisunderstand my meaning. Do you honestly believe I could be serious in writing to you as I did ?
You talked about white men and their big books and the Injuns. M W said something like " thats my people you are talking about:" You talked about te white man's psyche, etc , whch I understood to mean their arrogance in attempting to push their views.

An earlier post of yours said something to the effect that M W was a closet pantheist. I had a go at you by saying that the remarks M W made would have equally been said by an atheist or a deist. I also said that the word closet suggested a degree of insincerity,,, Ring a bell ? You replied that it was not meant seriously; it was a joke. I missed the point.

As to the rest, I believed I was elaborating on te sentiments you had expressed concerning white men and Injuns. I assume you know what the Spaniards did to the Incas was motivated bt greed rather than a desire to convert them to Christianity. There were of course some Jesuits bearing crosses, but that didn't help the Incas very much becaus said Jesuits stood by while they were being slaughtered. That was the whole point of what I was getting at. I was talking tongue in cheek, believing you would understand my meaning.

As far as the Inquisition is concerned, the Jesuits were heavily involved Remember Savonarola. Again, people were put to deatrh for all sorts of reasons but the motives were based on greed and religious bigotry. Are you aware that if someone was declared a heretic . his estate was forfeit to the Holy Roman Catholic Church. There was also a payoff for whover might have betrayed him. So. business as usual.

The story I told you about the poor wretch being burned at the stake because he believed God's love was so great that he would forgive Satan is, I believe, an historical fact. I read it in a book on the Inquisition many years ago. And, yes , it did make me cry when I pictured what was done to that man. His concept of God was far greater than than that of the bigots who put him to death.

I have visited Pastor Phelps site and also seen a documentary on him. Can you imagine what he woud do to the people he calls fags or faggots ifhe had his way.

To me all these things are one of a piece.

It grieves me that you could possibly think that I regard you as a biggot.

Best bet I think is no more jokes, no more misunderstandings

PS the post of yours I am referring to is no. 101, Injuns etc.

 

[Grantywanty]

Originally Posted by Myles

As to the rest, I believed I was elaborating on te sentiments you had expressed concerning white men and Injuns. I assume you know what the Spaniards did to the Incas was motivated bt greed rather than a desire to convert them to Christianity. There were of course some Jesuits bearing crosses, but that didn't help the Incas very much becaus said Jesuits stood by while they were being slaughtered. That was the whole point of what I was getting at. I was talking tongue in cheek, believing you would understand my meaning.

Yes, I thought your post showed an exceptional, for you, ignorance of what happened between the Spanish and the Incas, but given that it seemed like I was being called an apologist for Christianity, I thought to mention any of the issues would only lead to more accusations. I was glad when Skinwalker opened the door.

I recently read 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus by Charles C. Mann 2005 which is an excellent book that gathers much of the most recent research into the cultures that existed in the Americas before Columbus's arrival. Most of this research has significantly increased estimates of population levels. It also points to vastly more complex and sweeping alteration of the Americas by the natives. They seem to have been landscape artists at a level unknown perhaps even back in the Old World. Further the larger civilizations seem to have been developing a learned class with its own philosophers, for example, who had different dominant metaphors then their Old World counterparts. In other words, a open and respectful interchange might have been incredibly fruitful. The research is also tending to estimate the deaths due to smallpox and other diseases to be much higher even than similar estimates in the late 20th century. This also crippled any potential cultural exchange not already prevented by bigotry and violence.

There was one lovely section where the Incan - I believe - and Spanish priests meet to negotiate conversion. I will leave this as a teaser.

As far as conversion as a motivation, I also think that land and resources were the primary motivation for how Europeans interacted with NAs. Just as the last couple of Gulf Wars are hardly about spreading democracy or whatever the latest justification is.

I do think it is an interesting phenomenon: the conversion urge. I am sure there are some softer Christians out there whose really are fearful about the heathens' eternal souls. But much of it seems to have about as much concern behind it as the nuns had about me in the various punishments they devised to help me understand authority or to be a 'good little person'.

The split in the psyche that allows obvious hate and disrespect to have a higher motive.

Not that any of this is restricted to the religious, but given the incredibly noble claims being made the contrast is stark there.

To proselytize almost guarantees a hypocritical stance.

I am glad you turned out not to have thought I was a bigot.

 

[lightgigantic]

You are quite right. If only you had told me that I would recognize a saint when I saw someone walking on water. How simple it all is , now that you have explained normative, existential relativism.

not sure where you got the whole walking on water bit from (particularly since there are indications of personalities in other scriptures who possessed mystic perfections - such as walking on water - but who were thoroughly atheistic ... certainly doesn't appear to rally as a normative description to say the least)
:shrug:

You have also made me aware of how wise my little dog is when he eats his dinner. I wrongly thought he was just a greedy little bastard.

even greed operates out of a particular philosophy - albeit not a high grade one

I have changed his name from Fido to Saint Phideau. I shall be in your debt for ever.

if you want to make low grade philosophy a regal affair, that's your business
:shrug:

You have a wonderul way with words, for anyone who understands you.

I guess comprehension arises after one displays even a small ability to listen
:shrug:

 

[Arsalan]

So tell us how a person who is horribly deformed learn and move on ? My daughter suffered from a ghastly disease( MND) from age 23 to 33 when she moved on...to a hole in the ground. The only love she experienced was that of the dedicated medical staff who looked after her during her last four years when she was almost totally paralyzed.
Looking at the state of the world, if I believed in a creator, it would be a malevolent, sadistic one who got a perverse kick out of watching us suffer
One thing puzzles me. As I understand it. the purpose of a dyke is to prevent floods. It follows that if god sent no floods there would be no need for us to build dykes. This would give us more time to spend in worship.This explains two things about god.
1 He is humble and does not want to be excessively worshipped.
2. He has a senseof humour of a kind. I can see him sitting on his throne thinking what he can do next. How about a plague of locusts ? That would teach people to eat less; more obeisance less obesity.

First of all, my condoleances.

As most people know by now I am a Muslim. And let me post here a piece which I agree with and which can better put into words what I mean:

Moderator Edit: Approximately 4500 words deleted for two reasons: 1) it is plagiarism and the original source wasn't cited; 2) it was preaching. The original text is found here: http://www.alislam.org/library/books/revelation/part_2_section_6.html
If interested in what our Muslim preacher has to say, please click there and read it in its original context. To our Muslim preacher, future such posts will be simply deleted and consideration will be given for banning should you continue to post large tracts of material copy/pasted from elsewhere in a manner that is clearly preaching. Consider this an official warning

And to mods: I am not preaching, I am merely clarifiying my stance with the help of a short piece.

 

[Myles]

not sure where you got the whole walking on water bit from (particularly since there are indications of personalities in other scriptures who possessed mystic perfections - such as walking on water - but who were thoroughly atheistic ... certainly doesn't appear to rally as a normative description to say the least)
:shrug:



even greed operates out of a particular philosophy - albeit not a high grade one


if you want to make low grade philosophy a regal affair, that's your business
:shrug:


I guess comprehension arises after one displays even a small ability to listen
:shrug:

I

I agree with everything you say. I guess a sense of humour comes from realizing that the world is full of "experts" arguing with other " experts " over what each KNOWS to be true.

I'm having problems with my little dog. He just won't believe he is a philosopher,but he likes his new name.He may have ben a mule in a previous existence. We all know how stubborn they can be.

 

[Myles]

I cannot understand the urge to convert though I can guess at what might lie behind it. If you think the nuns were bad , you should have tried the Christian Brothers at my primary school. I will not dwell on my experience but, I wrote the following couplet which came to me in my twenties as I was musing on my experiences. I will leave it as a teaser for you.

Though preaching Paul, they made us keep our toys ;
The Christian Brothers cultivate OLD BOYS.

Because I'm an atheist, people tend to assume I believe the world would be a better place without religion. I believe no such thing. We would just have what I regard as another form of tribalism. "A rose by any other name ....."

Have you heard the story of the old tribal chief talking to a tourist on his tropical island. The chied said: " Once upon a time we caught enough fish to eat every day. We collected a few coconuts and so on.So we had lots of time to talk, play games or simply enjoy the sunshine. Then the missionaries came , told us about their god and explained that he put us here to labour and to pray. Now my people work 12 hours a day in the fish -canning factory while the missionaries sit on the beach. "

I'm sure you would get on like a house on fire if you were to met my younger son. He is a practising Buddhist who has a less jaundiced view of society than I have. He spends most wekends at a monastery in Wales. The monastery is run by Tibetans but they are happyto allow my son's group to share their premises, although his group practises a Chinese version of Zen. If we can put aside the cynical view that the Tibetans allow this because they receive a contribution to the cost of running their centre, we are looking at true religious tolerance.

I sometimes wonder under what circumstances this tolerance would break down. The arrangement has held good for the past eight years.

 

[Myles]

The question is still worth struggling with because I feel it gives a better insight into the nature of certain theists.

And no, we didn't get around to discussing God's existence. I'm sure you can understand why.

Welcome to the club. What do you hope to gain from an insight into the nature of certain theists ? Can I suggest that you read an introductory book on the philosophy of religion. You will find the pros and cons of religious belief discussed in an even-handed manner. You will be asked to take nothing on trust. All you need do is to use your reason, a faculty with which you were born. You will enjoy the pleasure of meeting with minds who have thought about things and that will stimulate your own thinking. If you wish , you can take things to another level by reading one or more of the books mentioned in the bibliography.

I can suggest some books that you might find useful. Just ask, if you want some information.

You probably have some idea by now of the futility of debating such matters with theists. They have made their minds up, so whatever you say, you will make no impression. They will not reason with you because reason is the enemy of blind faith. They will argue but that is not the same thing as reasoning.

So why not follow the course I am suggesting, listen to all sides and make your own mind up.Whatever you end up believing is irrelevant. You can at least claim that you have studied all sides of the debate and come to your own conclusions. Compare that with believing something because one preacher sounds more convincing than another or because it is what the people around you believe.

Don't be afraid to be free; I won't say it's easy but I will say that you will retain your dignity and integrity.

I wish you well whatever you decide

 

[lightgigantic]

I agree with everything you say. I guess a sense of humour comes from realizing that the world is full of "experts" arguing with other " experts " over what each KNOWS to be true.

its no coincidence that such arguments are held between similarly qualified persons - IOW its quite uncommon to find say a physicist defending string theory to an audience of garbage truck drivers, or even geologists or anthropologists for that matter

I'm having problems with my little dog. He just won't believe he is a philosopher,but he likes his new name.He may have ben a mule in a previous existence. We all know how stubborn they can be.

just wave a piece of food in front of him to help him come to grips with his epistemological foundations

 

[Myles]

its no coincidence that such arguments are held between similarly qualified persons - IOW its quite uncommon to find say a physicist defending string theory to an audience of garbage truck drivers, or even geologists or anthropologists for that matter


just wave a piece of food in front of him to help him come to grips with his epistemological foundations

I take it you realize that your analogy of a physicist and garbage truck drivers also works in reverse. There are people like you trying to explain your philosophy, and I use thay word loosely, to those who may be better informed on such matters. Your garbage consists of metaphors amd similes which you somehow imagine make your case for you. If only life were that simple .

My impression is that you have picked up a few philosophical terms without studying philosophy because you confuse making a statement with making a a point.

Your talk of higher and lower philosopy is nonsense. Don't take my word for it. Ask any professioal philosopher. You may care to submit a paper to The J Royal Institue of Philosophy , whose journal I subscribe to ,or a US equivalent .

My little dog wants to know what you mean by epistemology. The best I can do is to tell him it's from the Greek episteme, meaning knowledge as opposed to doxa, meaning opinion. I'm sure you can do better.

 

[lightgigantic]

I take it you realize that your analogy of a physicist and garbage truck drivers also works in reverse. There are people like you trying to explain your philosophy, and I use thay word loosely, to those who may be better informed on such matters. Your garbage consists of metaphors amd similes which you somehow imagine make your case for you. If only life were that simple .

My impression is that you have picked up a few philosophical terms without studying philosophy because you confuse making a statement with making a a point.

Your talk of higher and lower philosopy is nonsense. Don't take my word for it. Ask any professioal philosopher. You may care to submit a paper to The J Royal Institue of Philosophy , whose journal I subscribe to ,or a US equivalent .

My little dog wants to know what you mean by epistemology. The best I can do is to tell him it's from the Greek episteme, meaning knowledge as opposed to doxa, meaning opinion. I'm sure you can do better.

seems like your imagination is getting away on you
I haven't even mentioned anything about my personal philosophical ideas
I have explained a few elementary aspects of knowledge and how it does (and doesn't) work
anyway good luck with those subscriptions ....
:shrug:

 

[Myles]

You have made my point for me. You have explained NOTHING. You have made a number of statements which you confuse with explanation.

 

[lightgigantic]

You have made my point for me. You have explained NOTHING.

the feeling is mutual
:shrug:

 

[Myles]

the feeling is mutual

:shrug:

What can I say ? I am devestated by your wit.

One suggestion: Why not spend your time testing soil which. on your own admission , is something you would rather be doing anyway

 

[lightgigantic]

What can I say ? I am devestated by your wit.

One suggestion: Why not spend your time testing soil which. on your own admission , is something you would rather be doing anyway

:shrug:

 

[Myles]

Your eloquence puts me to shame

 

[ashura]

Welcome to the club. What do you hope to gain from an insight into the nature of certain theists ? Can I suggest that you read an introductory book on the philosophy of religion. You will find the pros and cons of religious belief discussed in an even-handed manner. You will be asked to take nothing on trust. All you need do is to use your reason, a faculty with which you were born. You will enjoy the pleasure of meeting with minds who have thought about things and that will stimulate your own thinking. If you wish , you can take things to another level by reading one or more of the books mentioned in the bibliography.

I can suggest some books that you might find useful. Just ask, if you want some information.

You probably have some idea by now of the futility of debating such matters with theists. They have made their minds up, so whatever you say, you will make no impression. They will not reason with you because reason is the enemy of blind faith. They will argue but that is not the same thing as reasoning.

So why not follow the course I am suggesting, listen to all sides and make your own mind up.Whatever you end up believing is irrelevant. You can at least claim that you have studied all sides of the debate and come to your own conclusions. Compare that with believing something because one preacher sounds more convincing than another or because it is what the people around you believe.

Don't be afraid to be free; I won't say it's easy but I will say that you will retain your dignity and integrity.

I wish you well whatever you decide

Myles, thanks for the suggestion although I'm afraid they were wasted on me. I wasn't claiming that I personally struggle with the question on a day to day basis, as the truth is I've already made up my mind. Not believing in god kind of makes it hard to sit down and seriously critique's god's personal thoughts and shenanigans.

Rather, I think it's an interesting question for someone who's never thought about it, whether they're an atheist or not. In fact, God doesn't even have to be involved in the initial line of discussion. Rather, the simple philosophical question of what are good and evil, and are they absolute.

That's the insight I was able to gleam from the discussion. Certain theists view god as the absolute good. God does good things not because they're good, but because god does them. I wasn't aware of this and knowing it now puts these theists in a different light. I realize that you can't simply throw an argument of "torture is wrong!" at them because god can do no wrong. When god tortures, it's right. It's 100% justified. And so, you can't approach a theist that way. It's a foolish attempt that will undeniable result with you meeting a brick wall.

That's why I feel that everyone should, at one point in their lives, ponder the idea of absolute good/evil.

 

[Myles]

[QUOTE=ashura;1642558



Certain theists view god as the absolute good. God does good things not because they're good, but because god does them.


I realize that you can't simply throw an argument of "torture is wrong!" at them because god can do no wrong. When god tortures, it's right. It's 100% justified. And so, you can't approach a theist that way.

That's why I feel that everyone should, at one point in their lives, ponder the idea of absolute good/evil.




Most theists have no need to ponder because they know. Each denomination believes it knows the TRUTH, from which it follows that all others are wrong. This situation has not come about as a result of pondering; rather it is the result of believing what one's parents believe and/or unwillingness or inability to think for oneself.

 

[ashura]

Most theists have no need to ponder because they know.

Most have no reason to ponder because none was given to them. In a culture where religion and the idea of god is so ingrained, I can't really say I blame them. The blame only comes when one refuses to at least think about the idea once it's brought up. Most theists I know aren't like that and some have even had their mind's changed.

 

[Photizo]

Most theists have no need to ponder because they know.

LOL...What irony. What illogical nonsense...anyway, We ponder...we just ponder different things. We know about certain aspects of existence only because of/according to what has been revealed to man through the Word of God. Yet despite God's revelation, Paul says Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known. Certainly this promise provides lots for an individual to ponder...for instance, the degree of ones knowing "then"...i.e. I shall know just as I am known by God:

O Lord, You have searched me and known me. You know my sitting down and my rising up; You understand my thought afar off. You comprehend my path and my lying down, And are acquainted with all my ways. For there is not a word on my tongue, But behold, O Lord, You know it altogether. You have hedged me behind and before, And laid Your hand upon me. Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; It is high, I cannot attain it.


I know that He knows this about me, though I do not know what this entails precisely. I only have a general understanding of myself like Paul says "Now we see through a glass darkly"...Pondering God's knowledge of oneself, one derives comfort (unless of course you are standing 'naked' before Him) along with experiencing anticipation (very fertile ground for pondering) as to what it will be like exactly to know as I am known i.e. totally and completely--and not just with respect to myself but totally and completely with respect to all that is knowable. This only comes by pondering--pondering the Word of God.

Each denomination believes it knows the TRUTH, from which it follows that all others are wrong. This situation has not come about as a result of pondering; rather it is the result of believing what one's parents believe and/or unwillingness or inability to think for oneself.

You display the the very same rudimentary understanding as some of those you lament. The result of much pondering no doubt.

 

[SkinWalker]

Please do not preach sermons in this forum. This is a warning.