I am allowing for the possibility that I am one of those who are not elect.
That would explain all my agony and bewilderment.
Calvinism might be cruel, but it is consistent and irrefutable.
To monotheists: Put yourself in our shoes
- Thread starter greenberg
- Start date
I am allowing for the possibility that I am one of those who are not elect.
That would explain all my agony and bewilderment.
Calvinism might be cruel, but it is consistent and irrefutable.
Read The Prophet, by Kahlil Gibran.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5484/Gib26.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5484/Gibran.htm
Last edited:
Except that for myself, I am not sure whether rebirth from one lifetime to another truly occurs or how, nor am I sure about karma.
The notions of karma and rebirth, however, make the most sense to me and also give by far the best perspective in life.
If something leads to more and more suffering, it is wrong.
If leads to true, lasting happiness, it is right.
But - if mainstream Christian arguments are the truth, then the above does not matter.
Either that I am evil and in denial, but actually know God (but don't admit I do because of my evilness and denial).
Or that God is evil and human action is all for naught, because eventually, it is up to him to decide who gets to go to heaven and who to hell and that a person can do nothing about that.
the next question is whether discerning particular truths is inherently connected to coming to certain standards.
For instance is there a certain previously determined standard that is required to validate claims of physics?
“Greenberg
many indications are qualified in scripture
a brief eg
SB 11.2.42 Devotion, direct experience of the Supreme Lord, and detachment from other things—these three occur simultaneously for one who has taken shelter of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, in the same way that pleasure, nourishment and relief from hunger come simultaneously and increasingly, with each bite, for a person engaged in eating.
many indications are qualified in scripture
a brief eg
SB 11.2.42 Devotion, direct experience of the Supreme Lord, and detachment from other things—these three occur simultaneously for one who has taken shelter of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, in the same way that pleasure, nourishment and relief from hunger come simultaneously and increasingly, with each bite, for a person engaged in eating.
Talk about sending someone to Coventry!
If we go with the ordinary, realist/objectivist notions of truth - then when it comes to notions of God (especially in relation to various religions), we get stuck. And the only solution is then to go for even more extremist realist/objectivist notions of truth and declare everyone else who thinks otherwise to be deluded or evil. (That's what proselytizers and diehards do.)
One could, on the other hand, completely overhaul one's understanding of what makes for "truth" and arrive at a form of relativism. It would be a different kind of thinking, one that I predict wouldmake the person a lot happier than if they were to keep to the ordinary, realist/objectivist notions of truth.
But there is the fear of insanity and alienation that might come with such an overhaul, so people can be reluctant to go through with it.
Lightgigantic,
Kat
The onus still remains with the seeker to use reason to test the claims for themselves. The claims made for water can be personally and independently verified and tested, there is no such equivalent for gods. The definitions of gods do NOT have objective qualities and that is one of the main issues raised in the OP. All religions have their own specific definitions of what they think characterizes their god. These are all very SUBJECTIVE ideas and are clearly not objective in any way. The claim was made earlier that the Jews, Christians, and the Muslims worship the same Abrahamic god, but how can one religion that claims their god has three personalities be the same as another that is purely ONE god. They are simpler not talking about the same god and that further confirms that definitions of gods are not objective.
Kat
Last edited:
No these are very different approaches. The normative idea you proffered is simply an intellectually dishonest variation of stating that “one must have faith” in the statements made by predecessors who have offered no mechanism to verify that what they have stated approaches truth. Faith is a call for belief in something that cannot be confirmed as true. Compare this with physics where each development is based on a previously verified observation that can be independently tested. The approach adopted by physics and science in general is based on reason which is the direct opposite of religions which base their claims on faith (no means of verification).
Kat
Lightgigantic,
Kat
This is yet another confused and failed analogy between faith based concepts and simple real life. Eating has verifiable benefits, and if one refrains from eating the result is terminal. But the perception that one is protected by a deity and can gain aloofness from worldly desires might generate warm fuzzy feelings but then I could choose to believe that protective super intelligent aliens are looking after us and achieve the same warm-fuzziness. One side of the analogy is clearly real with benefits we can determine through reason while the other is simply a valueless faith based arbitrary emotional desire.
Kat
can they all have chunks of white chocolate?...
man i do love that white chocolate in a cookie...
Yes dragon that’s it.
If you decide that something is good and Perfections deems it to be good then you have the right spirit in embracing good.
If you decide that something is good and Perfection deems it to be evil then you have the wrong spirit in embracing evil having joy in unrighteousness.
It says in the scriptures Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
So if your desire is for evil you will go for evil and your desire will mark you out for destruction And if your desire is for good you will be open to the salvation that is with Jesus.
All Praise The Ancient Of Days
calvanisim is consistant but it is definitly not irrefutable,
And if calvanisim was true it could not possably cause you any agony and bewilderment because if you believed it then you would be one of the predestined to eternity with God and you would know it. And if you did not believe it then it would not cause you agony. Because one has to believe in a troubling report for it to cause them distress.
All Praise The Ancient Of Days
greenberg,
There is good wisdom to ponder on, regarding this matter;
A good basis for trying to understand.
Good standard. But you only answered half of the question which was,
What do you regard as "right", and how did you arrive at this position?
I suggest you start by using that mechanism.
Read the Bhagavad Gita, take it in, like you would take in a movie. Get an understanding of who and what God is. The scripture is unique in that it is a description of God, the living entity, karma..
Jan.
There is good wisdom to ponder on, regarding this matter;
A good basis for trying to understand.
Good standard. But you only answered half of the question which was,
What do you regard as "right", and how did you arrive at this position?
I suggest you start by using that mechanism.
Read the Bhagavad Gita, take it in, like you would take in a movie. Get an understanding of who and what God is. The scripture is unique in that it is a description of God, the living entity, karma..
Jan.
Katazia
for instance if I believe that food can satisfy my hunger, it may inspire me to eat food, but if I nonetheless don't eat, I remain hungry
It seems you are trying to assert that coming into contact with god bears no tangible result - to do that you will need to provide some sort of premise
persons who have or have not fulfilled the established criteria of validation/invalidation?
for instance "god as the most moral entity", "god as the most powerful entity" ,etc etc
kind of like "Newtonian physics" means physics as understood by Newton (as opposed to , say, physics as understood by Einstein)
its not clear why you bring up the issue of belief
for instance if I believe that food can satisfy my hunger, it may inspire me to eat food, but if I nonetheless don't eat, I remain hungry
It seems you are trying to assert that coming into contact with god bears no tangible result - to do that you will need to provide some sort of premise
are you trying to argue that faith (or inductive knowledge) has no part to play in the progress towards direct perception?
independently tested by persons who have or have not attained certain previously determined standards?
yes - but given that there are prescriptive or normative descriptions available in science and that the claims of science are validated/invalidated by persons who have fulfilled such requirements, why do you assert that the prescriptive/normative descriptions of religion are not essential to validating/invalidating the claims of religion?
agreed
once again, tested by who exactly?
persons who have or have not fulfilled the established criteria of validation/invalidation?
generally the only people who say statements like that are persons who have never seriously studied world religions
persons educated in the field disagree
for instance "god as the most moral entity", "god as the most powerful entity" ,etc etc
and lo and behold, some similarities crop up, despite vast differences of time, geography, culture and language
the only thing that appears subjective is your distorted comprehension of religion
try researching the word "godhead"
for a starter the word "abrahamic god" means god as understood by Abraham
kind of like "Newtonian physics" means physics as understood by Newton (as opposed to , say, physics as understood by Einstein)
calvanisim is consistant but it is definitly not irrefutable,
And if calvanisim was true it could not possably cause you any agony and bewilderment because if you believed it then you would be one of the predestined to eternity with God and you would know it. And if you did not believe it then it would not cause you agony. Because one has to believe in a troubling report for it to cause them distress.
I don't have to believe Calvinism is true to be in agony. If Calvinism is true and I am one of the non-elect, then that can explain my agony.
Similarly, I don't have to believe I have a tumor in my stomach in order for the tumor to cause me trouble. I can be unaware of the tumor or deny it, but the pains will still be there, regardless of my beliefs about what is causing them.
How I arrived at it? Because I don't want to suffer, I want to be truly happy. I take this is a primary, a given, a desire that is innate and can't really be broken down any further.
But as far as Christianity goes, my desire for true happiness doesn't matter. I might as well forget about it.
I've read some of it, I liked some of it.
But what am I supposed to do with what the Bible says ... and the Book of Mormon, and the Quran ...
I'm afraid that as long as I want to believe in God, yet maintain my integrity (that is, refuse to believe things blindly or take them for granted), I will be at the mercy of anyone and anything declaring to speak the "truth about God", and I will be obligated to listen to them and investigate their claims, and I will never have any certainty or safety.
20 years of this have shown me that this is not a good way to be.
What actually stands between me and believing in God is my own integrity, my refusal to believe things blindly or take them for granted.
To decide either for or against God is a decision that is beyond my competence to make. If I would make that decision, either way I would decide, I would compromise my integrity.
But believers all over the world and history want me to do just that - make a choice which is beyond my competence to make. These people apparently don't really care about me.
greenberg,
Does Jesus echo this Christian understanding?
I didn't know the book of Mormon was classed as scripture.
Did you form any understanding of it?
If you did, then use some of that understanding in the context of the bible and qu'ran.
Then I take it you have investigated the claims of bhagavad gita?
What are the results of your investigation?
So "believing" is not the issue here, you want to know God. Right?
Have you followed in the path of those souls (in scriptures) that have come to that position? Or do you just flat-out demand an audience?
Well there are scriptures, there are instructions, the rest is up to you.
What more can I say.
You are the one who set the limits of competance.
I really don't understand your fixation on "christianity" or "other people".
If you are attracted to christianity, then it is simple try and understand the teaching of Jesus. You will find the same essential qualities in the BG, and in the Qu'ran. It is these qualities that are of importance.
The idea that one scirpture is right and the others are wrong, are, IMO, atheistic (in the real sense, not designer), and owe their allegience to man (albeit in the name of God).
Jan.
Does Jesus echo this Christian understanding?
I didn't know the book of Mormon was classed as scripture.
Did you form any understanding of it?
If you did, then use some of that understanding in the context of the bible and qu'ran.
Then I take it you have investigated the claims of bhagavad gita?
What are the results of your investigation?
So "believing" is not the issue here, you want to know God. Right?
Have you followed in the path of those souls (in scriptures) that have come to that position? Or do you just flat-out demand an audience?
Well there are scriptures, there are instructions, the rest is up to you.
What more can I say.
You are the one who set the limits of competance.
I really don't understand your fixation on "christianity" or "other people".
If you are attracted to christianity, then it is simple try and understand the teaching of Jesus. You will find the same essential qualities in the BG, and in the Qu'ran. It is these qualities that are of importance.
The idea that one scirpture is right and the others are wrong, are, IMO, atheistic (in the real sense, not designer), and owe their allegience to man (albeit in the name of God).
Jan.
Lightgigantic,
But I see you have started to become vindictive towards me so this will be my last post in this debate.
Enjoy whatever you choose to believe.
Kat
Your scripture quotation is a religious belief and something not verifiable through reason.
IOW a verifiable cause and effect relationship determined by reason thinking.
Oh dear, you cannot be serious. There is no known verifiable record of anyone ever coming into contact with a god so I do not see any onus for me to reference a subsequent potential without the claimants establishing that basic preliminary stage first.
Religious faith is not logical induction. That is a serious error on your part and raises even more doubt with your arguments. As for direct perception: I assume you use this term to mean a way that a god can communicate with a human mind but where the normal sensory perception is bypassed. This is but another unverifiable religious faith based belief. Such ideas are worthless without reasoned support and should be dismissed by everyone until the propagators conduct due diligence in showing proof.
Reason doesn’t require commitment to a previous standard. This is true now as it was at the time of Aristotle and before. If facts are appropriately established and presented then reason can be used to reach an effective conclusion or in the event of inappropriate or the absence of facts the question would remain open. Even a school child who if appropriately instructed in the use of reasoned thought can reach conclusions on matters of advanced physics if the facts are appropriately presented.
But these are not the same thing. Scientific knowledge is built upon previously established knowledge, and continues to grow, for example, the relationship of cause and effect is an essential ingredient. Religious claims are built on previous religious claims, none of which have ever been verified. The religious claims of today are as worthless as their original baseless foundation. Your insistence that both institutions use standards as a justification for truth in religion is simply illogical.
They could of course try it on a relative and if there is a positive response then they could try it for themselves. In every case where a choice can be made reason is a determining factor for making appropriate decisions. Reason is the ultimate authority even a god would need to answer to reason. I think perhaps you are missing the distinction between methods used for the determination of knowledge and the users of knowledge. In the case of the school child earlier he/she could appreciate the detailed photographs of the lunar surface without having to understand the technology and science used to permit such knowledge to become available. The knowledge is real, and there should be no doubt. Contrast that with religious claims where such assertions of godhood existence have no history of knowledge establishment.
It is good that we are not generalizing then. You should also realize that many people who have studied world religions do indeed reach conclusions that a truthful basis for religious is in fact entirely absent.
People educated in the field of non-reasoned thinking should hardly be considered in any way credible. And those last statements/assertion are hardly objective, are they?
Funny that isn’t it? I wonder perhaps if you have noticed that humans throughout the world tend to have similar limitations for reasoned thought. It follows then that they will all tend to make un-reasoned conjectures about explanations for things that have yet to be explained. And because they were all thinking in isolation of each other the result is the thousands of religions and superstitions we now see. If of course there was only one truth and one god who directly communicated with peoples throughout the world then we would reason that we should see a significant degree of homogeneity for religious belief. The fact that we do not lends credence to the non existence of such a deity or deities.
It seems a pity that you cannot see the essential difference between an objective description and a subjective description.
I think you missed the point here regarding the Abrahamic reference: It doesn’t makes sense that different religions have very different dogma and definitions for the characteristics of their deity and then for someone to claim they are really all the same. The concept is oxymoronic.
That doesn’t support your case. Science built on and used Newtonian physics, whereas Christianity and Islam, for example, widely diverged. Either Jesus is a part of or is God or is simply a prophet as the Muslims claim. Both versions cannot be true.
But I see you have started to become vindictive towards me so this will be my last post in this debate.
Enjoy whatever you choose to believe.
Kat
There is no logic in your statement. Even the kind of logic that commited athiests worship.
All Praise The Ancient Of Days