Any Christians out there?

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by ckweb


#2 and #3 are different. #2 is second-hand; #3 is first-hand. I don't see that they go together.

They are only different to YOU. They are both second had to me. I explained that. The point being your personal experiences are identical in a discussion with anyone else to any other second hand experience.

2 and 3 are identical as soon as you discuss it with someone else. They can only be seperated within your own head and that has no meaning for anyone else.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by ckweb




It was mono-block because I was only responding to one aspect of that post. The other parts I responded to in other posts.

Nevertheless if you look at it you will notice that you actually had multiple concepts and ideas merged into the mono-block. Seperating them into paragraphs makes it easier to read.

Also it saves you from looking like


A - a newbie

B - a standard hit and run Fundamentlist poster

- which you aren't but it IS what they do. Of course you missed out on the semi-random capitilization, out of context Biblical quotes, and bizzare non-sequitors that often accompany the hit and run Fundamenatlist post.

I did not realize mono-blocks have a deeper significance on this board.

Its not the board. Its the nature of religious discusions on any forum I have looked at. We have been lucky about the hit and runners. Maybe its the moderation or the fact that this a game site and connected to more general forums.

I wish I had a copy of the satire I did of that sort of post. Its somewhere on the Maximum PC forum but last time I looked I couldn't track it down. Its hard to do right because it needs a stream of semi-consciousness that is difficult for a rational person to achieve. I think I was very tired when I wrote it. I know my second attempt just wasn't anywhere near as good as the first was.

I think I will make another try to find that thing. I want a copy for future use.

I know your opinion on this point. . . and you should know that my goal is not proving Christianity but demonstrating its reasonableness.

Hard to do as long as you insist that faith and not reason is needed.

I've already admitted in previous threads that I can not prove the God of Christianity. And you've already admitted that you can not disprove a generic god.

That is because I am reasonable. I know that its hard to prove a negative. It can be done on occasion though.

I persist, however, in my discussions with you because of your enduring commitment to the idea that Christianity and the Bible is nonsense. I have the outlandish hope that perhaps you might eventually accept the notion that Christianity and the Bible, whether right or wrong, is not nonsense. Pragmatism tells me though that it will only happen over your dead body.

Over my dead body would not constitute proof of the Bible. For Christianity to not be nonsense the Bible would have to not be nonsense. Large parts of the Bible ARE nonsense in that they talk about events that never happened. They have an allegedly just god commiting unjust acts. They have events that even you cannot accept as written and you must call them mere stories. Even though they are treated as true events by people within the Bible.

It's precisely in the failures that have often felt the providence of God.

Oh bloody hell next you be using fake logic like The Exception that Proves the Rule. All that happens is the when people have a disaster they want to comfort themselves with the idea that there will be a better existence in some sort of after-life. Its wishfull thinking.

That explanation just does not suffice for me because there appears to me to be a consciousness behind this force you call luck. There is a rhyme and reason to the coincidences, probabilities, contingencies, lucky breaks, unlucky breaks, etc. etc. It seems intelligible.

The consciousness is your own. There is no rhyme or reason except those of your invention. People are remarkably good at inventing reasons for things that are just random chance. You seem to be an excellent example of the sort that does it. So is every Mormon that creates reasons for the BOM being full of crap even worse than Genesis. They are just better as denial then you are. I don't see that as a desirable acomplishment myself.

I think you are missing the boat on what I meant. I'm not talking about good and bad things happening. I'm talking about how my life is led in directions I never would have expected and the unique ways in which needs are met in timely ways. There is a peculiarity to it all that the concept of "luck" and "chance" just do not cover in my opinion.

Luck and chance are real. Its not just a concept. Randomness is part of the universe right to its core in the form of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. That you can't anticipate all future events is not in the least a remarkable thing. Even if you were the smartest person on earth you would still not be able to anticipate everything. HOWEVER you do have sufficient intellect to invent reasons for thinking that your god was acting. Which by the way tends to go against the Free Will concept. Doesn't completely negate it but you have to jump through a lot of hoops to convince yourself that free will and a meddling god are compatible.

I'm not talking about trances like TM and stuff. I am talking about unexpected moments where time seems to stop and you see the world in a wholly other way (not an outer body experience).

I covered that right off, you seem to passed over it to get to something you could ignore.
To repeat the part you ignored.

Its been called the Ah Ha phenomana. Its just your mind adapting to a new path of thought. Like when I figured out that electrons don't really orbit the nucleus or why reducio ad absurdum works in formal logic.

A trance is induced; my experiences have been unexpected. I had such an experience driving downtown. Luckily I remained immanent enough to drive my car and the moment lasted only for a few seconds even though it felt like more. In that moment, I felt a sense of God's presence and a sense of God speaking to me.

The man that came up with the Polymerase Chain Reaction had a similar experience. He didn't attribute to a mystical experience just a thought rising to consciousness. Made him a lot of money too. Its the Ah Ha phenomana at work.

I just don't find the Ah ha syndrome to be a satisfactory explanation; it does not adequately account for causation of the event or consequence.

Sure does. The human mind does most of its work below the conscious level. Thats why people wake up at night with new ideas.

It can be but it also serves a different function.

Yes but you get in a snit every time I use the more descriptive phrase, self-brainwashing.

Regardless of what you think of the truthfulness (or lack thereof) of my experience, how is it not logical to presume that if I am briefly endowed with a capability above my normal intellectual capacity that its source must be of a higher state of being than my own? The explanation you give does not cut it, except to prove that some religious experiences are mutually exclusive.

It not logical because if it came from a deity it would be right instead of different people coming up with contradictory ideas. It comes from human minds which have different backgrounds so different ideas pop into conscousness. There is no reason to think a deity is involved except that YOUR brain thinks in terms of deities so it ascribes a deity to things that have or at least could have other causes. Like the way the human mind function mostly on a subconscous level.

Also, I have no doubt that people have real religious experiences in faiths other than my own. My only claim would be that ultimately that real experience, whether they understood it at the time or not, was authored by the God of Christianity.

Then there would be more similarity since the source would be the same. However what we get it very different ideas as could be expected when the source is not the same. The source is different human minds in different cultures. You have no doubt after all about a lot things that are highly doubtful.

I do not deny that I believe the Book is sacred as a result of the testimony of others. I also added that I believe it is sacred because it comports with my experience of reality and spirituality as well. An additional reason is that I believe it is a truly outstanding and unique historio-cultural artifact of the ANE.

The Gilgamesh epic is an outstanding and unique hisorical/culture artifact of the Middle East as well. Being such is in no way a sign of sacredness. Nor is popularity considering what is popular in Utah.

I don't have fits except perhaps in your imagined actualization of our discussions. I have used the examples myself too.

Want me to quote some of your responses to my comparison of your religion to others you don't believe in. You pitch fits as in your frequent denial of relevance without cause. You simply make a bald statement of irrelevance and then avoid the issue.

There are no events that I feel must be real that can be SCIENTIFICALLY tested given the presently available archaeological record. The problem is a paucity of scientific evidence left behind by God's supernatural interventions in history.

I didn't ask about present archeology as I know you will deny any such items in the Bible were thought by the authors to be real despite the clear evidence that the people IN the Bible did think the Flood was real. I ASKED you for something in the Bible that you think MUST be a real event. Something that should have left evidence even if we haven't found such evidence. Surely there must be some devine action in the Bible that you are willing to admit should have left evidence. After that we can look for the evidence. If not today then in the future.

However, you are clearly borne out of an Enlightenment, rationalistic positivism. You require scientific standards of proof.

Mea culp mea culpa mea maxima culpa.

Oops thats not true if Jehovah created mankind.

I, on the other hand, am borne out of post-modern humanities and am content with the relative merits in a position.

Post-modern in a sentence that isn't about art is not a good sign. Its not even a good sign in a discussion about art. There is literly no such as post-modern.

As I've indicated in other posts, I believe and have studied the sociological, anthropological, and ethnographic issues surrounding the Sinai event and the Resurrection, the core issue necessary for the existence of an historical and orthodox Christianity, and I find these events to be likely historical events.

I find your efforts to portray it that way has always had a large dollop of wishfull thinking and frequent denial of reality. I have yet to see one convincing arguement from you on this. I have seen some remarkably silly ones however, such as your claim that in a period of bad communication, rumour, and superstition that the lack of good communication somehow magicaly made claims of devine events more likely real than in a time where communication is good and documentation is easy.

No convincing model has been offered to account for the complex dynamics in Christian and Judaic self-understanding and growth if these events did not occur. That is sufficient evidence for me; not for you obviously; but it is for me.

Sure they have. You just pitch a fit every time I mention other beliefs just as you did on this thread. I don't see a period of profound ignorance, bad communication, poor documentation, superstition, and radical religious views as being a good source of reliable information. People chose to believe all kinds of rubbish. One stuck better than others which is not in the least unlikely. Indeed it is almost certain that one would do better than the rest due to social pressure and bandwagon effects. The real key is that Constantine chose to reinforce Christianity by making it the official religion of the Empire.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Ethelred
They are only different to YOU. They are both second had to me. I explained that. The point being your personal experiences are identical in a discussion with anyone else to any other second hand experience.

2 and 3 are identical as soon as you discuss it with someone else. They can only be seperated within your own head and that has no meaning for anyone else.

Fair enough, although, it does have merit in proving that MY faith is reasonable which was my objective . . . now, whether you accept the validity of my claims to personal experience or not, at least MY faith is not based only on #2 but also on #3. Do you get what I mean or did this come out garbled?

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Ethelred
Nevertheless if you look at it you will notice that you actually had multiple concepts and ideas merged into the mono-block. Seperating them into paragraphs makes it easier to read.

Perhaps, but I still think they only really pertained to that one aspect of your post.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Also it saves you from looking like


A - a newbie

B - a standard hit and run Fundamentlist poster

- which you aren't but it IS what they do. Of course you missed out on the semi-random capitilization, out of context Biblical quotes, and bizzare non-sequitors that often accompany the hit and run Fundamenatlist post.

Fair enough.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Hard to do as long as you insist that faith and not reason is needed.

I suppose there is somewhat of a tension there. However, I think faith can be reasonable; reason does not preclude faith. Reason helps one to determine whether or not something is reasonable to do or to think. I think Christianity is a reasonable belief system. On the other hand, I think other religious movements are not reasonable to believe because of the nature of the claims they make and the proofs against them (i.e. Mormonism as an extreme example).

Originally posted by Ethelred Over my dead body would not constitute proof of the Bible.

I think you misunderstood my reference here. It was joke hinting at my belief in the afterlife in which you would know that the Bible was true (which I know you don't believe in but I thought you would catch on anyways). It was joke, though. That's why I added the similie face.

Originally posted by Ethelred
For Christianity to not be nonsense the Bible would have to not be nonsense. Large parts of the Bible ARE nonsense in that they talk about events that never happened. They have an allegedly just god commiting unjust acts. They have events that even you cannot accept as written and you must call them mere stories. Even though they are treated as true events by people within the Bible.

The Bible includes historiography (such as the DtrH and ChrH) and fiction (in the form of novellas such as Ruth and Esther, legends such as Judges and the Elijah-Elisha cycle, and myths such as large portions of Gen 1-11). Fiction is not nonsense simply because it is fiction; it just serves a different purpose.

About a just God committing unjust acts . . . there are certainly difficult passages in the biblical texts and I won't gloss over them. However, I will also not set myself up to judge that which I do not know enough about. Have you ever watched the movie "Breaking the Waves"? If you have, I can illustrate my point more effectively but making reference to it.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Oh bloody hell next you be using fake logic like The Exception that Proves the Rule. All that happens is the when people have a disaster they want to comfort themselves with the idea that there will be a better existence in some sort of after-life. Its wishfull thinking.

No. That's not my experience. God is not some sort of crutch and heaven is not my pie in the sky to escape failures and disappointments here on earth. What I meant is that in my failures, God's providence is present in other ways -- he teaches me lessons, he turns the negative consequences into positive experiences, he provides help in times of crisis through uncanny yet timely encounters with other Christians and non-Christians who are strangely cognizant of my difficulty/struggle/problem, and there are many other ways in which God works in times of failure.

Originally posted by Ethelred
The consciousness is your own. There is no rhyme or reason except those of your invention. People are remarkably good at inventing reasons for things that are just random chance. You seem to be an excellent example of the sort that does it. So is every Mormon that creates reasons for the BOM being full of crap even worse than Genesis. They are just better as denial then you are. I don't see that as a desirable acomplishment myself.

People are also remarkably good at denying the rhyme and reason that genuinely exists. So-called "random chance" is often too timely and too unexpected and too improbable to be "random" -- at least that is my experience.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Luck and chance are real. Its not just a concept. Randomness is part of the universe right to its core in the form of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. That you can't anticipate all future events is not in the least a remarkable thing. Even if you were the smartest person on earth you would still not be able to anticipate everything. HOWEVER you do have sufficient intellect to invent reasons for thinking that your god was acting. Which by the way tends to go against the Free Will concept. Doesn't completely negate it but you have to jump through a lot of hoops to convince yourself that free will and a meddling god are compatible.

Several points here:

(1) I do not deny the existence of luck and chance. I am loosely familiar with the Heisenberg Uncertainity Principle.

(2) Of course, I can't anticipate future events; I'm not really suggesting that I can. What I am saying, however, is that certain significant changes in the course of my life are too peculiar to simply dismiss under the rubric of luck or chance. There is a convergence of changes and APPARENT "coincidences" intelligently leading me in certain directions. And these changes are often unexpected and these "coincidences" are often too timely.

(3) I don't believe that humans have free will; they have contingent will and free choice.

Originally posted by Ethelred
I covered that right off, you seem to passed over it to get to something you could ignore.
To repeat the part you ignored.

Its been called the Ah Ha phenomana. Its just your mind adapting to a new path of thought. Like when I figured out that electrons don't really orbit the nucleus or why reducio ad absurdum works in formal logic.

The man that came up with the Polymerase Chain Reaction had a similar experience. He didn't attribute to a mystical experience just a thought rising to consciousness. Made him a lot of money too. Its the Ah Ha phenomana at work.

Sure does. The human mind does most of its work below the conscious level. Thats why people wake up at night with new ideas.

I still have to reiterate what I wrote initially: "I just don't find the Ah ha syndrome to be a satisfactory explanation; it does not adequately account for causation of the event or consequence."

Originally posted by Ethelred
Yes but you get in a snit every time I use the more descriptive phrase, self-brainwashing.

Yeah, I admit it does bother me somewhat that you perceive prayer as self-brainwashing because my experience has been that prayer is often challenging to my faith. God does not answer prayer as a human being might answer a question (at least not in my experience); and that is frustrating and does little to reinforce my previously held convictions. So, it is not self-brainwashing to me.

Originally posted by Ethelred
It not logical because if it came from a deity it would be right instead of different people coming up with contradictory ideas.

I don't understand this sentence; please reword for me.
Sorry.

Originally posted by Ethelred
It comes from human minds which have different backgrounds so different ideas pop into conscousness. There is no reason to think a deity is involved except that YOUR brain thinks in terms of deities so it ascribes a deity to things that have or at least could have other causes. Like the way the human mind function mostly on a subconscous level.

I appreciate the "at least could have other causes." That's enough for me.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Then there would be more similarity since the source would be the same. However what we get it very different ideas as could be expected when the source is not the same. The source is different human minds in different cultures.

I think there is a similarity in those experiences. Their religions may be extremely different but their genuine religious/ecstatic/spiritual experiences would be similar.

Originally posted by Ethelred
You have no doubt after all about a lot things that are highly doubtful.

I don't think I express certainity that often. And, besides, all I was saying is that I don't deny religious experiences of other people simply because they practice a different religion than my own. I think spirituality is a significant part of the human experience.

Originally posted by Ethelred
The Gilgamesh epic is an outstanding and unique hisorical/culture artifact of the Middle East as well. Being such is in no way a sign of sacredness. Nor is popularity considering what is popular in Utah.

Maybe so, although the Gilgamesh Epic never achieved a long-term continuity within culture and religion. Remember, the Gilgamesh Epic was rediscovered rather than preserved. This is part of what separates certain mythical religions from the biblical religion; namely, the societies and cultures outgrew, so to speak, their faith in Zeus, Thor, Marduk, Baal, because in the end there was no compelling reason to continue in faith. Yet, with Judaism and Christianity, the faith persists and even grows stronger (often times most noticeably in the face of persecution). It seems to me that there must be some inherent value in Judaism and Christianity that did not exist in other European, Mediterranean, and ANE religions.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Want me to quote some of your responses to my comparison of your religion to others you don't believe in. You pitch fits as in your frequent denial of relevance without cause. You simply make a bald statement of irrelevance and then avoid the issue.

I may dismiss certain evidence because I have neither time nor the energy to deal with it. And I may especially do so if ultimately I feel your argument is one filled with too much misinformation and misconception to correct. That does not mean, however, that I am throwing a fit.

Originally posted by Ethelred
I didn't ask about present archeology as I know you will deny any such items in the Bible were thought by the authors to be real despite the clear evidence that the people IN the Bible did think the Flood was real.

You still have not proved the relevance or even complete accuracy of your claim that all the people you quote really conceived of the Flood as real.

Originally posted by Ethelred
I ASKED you for something in the Bible that you think MUST be a real event. Something that should have left evidence even if we haven't found such evidence. Surely there must be some devine action in the Bible that you are willing to admit should have left evidence. After that we can look for the evidence. If not today then in the future.

As you know, I met your request in the paragraph that came after the one you are post this response to.

Originally posted by Ethelred Post-modern in a sentence that isn't about art is not a good sign. Its not even a good sign in a discussion about art. There is literly no such as post-modern.

You're not up-to-date with contemporary literary theory and philosophy, are you? Post-modern is a philosophical system of thought that includes such theories as Derrida's Deconstruction, Foucalt on New Historicism, Post-Structuralism, Post-colonialism (the theory not the historical reality), etc. etc. etc.

Originally posted by Ethelred
I find your efforts to portray it that way has always had a large dollop of wishfull thinking and frequent denial of reality. I have yet to see one convincing arguement from you on this. I have seen some remarkably silly ones however, such as your claim that in a period of bad communication, rumour, and superstition that the lack of good communication somehow magicaly made claims of devine events more likely real than in a time where communication is good and documentation is easy.

I have certainly raised some compelling issues that have been unsuitably answered by you. Moreover, I was beginning to lay the framework for setting out my support in the "Summoning Ethelred" thread when you stopped responding. The problem, I have, is that in order to present my support, I need (quite frankly) to settle some semantic rules and establish some guidelines and objectives. I also need to present you with a great deal of information that you do not presently seem to possess. Humanities is not a science. I can not simply give you a set of instructions to conduct an experiment. I must build an argument through a progression of knowledge, inference, and evidence.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Sure they have. You just pitch a fit every time I mention other beliefs just as you did on this thread. I don't see a period of profound ignorance, bad communication, poor documentation, superstition, and radical religious views as being a good source of reliable information. People chose to believe all kinds of rubbish. One stuck better than others which is not in the least unlikely. Indeed it is almost certain that one would do better than the rest due to social pressure and bandwagon effects. The real key is that Constantine chose to reinforce Christianity by making it the official religion of the Empire.

It does not explain the emergence of Christianity amidst heavy persecution (especially during Nero and Domitian) and ideas of the resurrection emerging in the context of Judaism. It also does not explain the emergence and growth of Christianity in Africa and Asia. It also does not explain the totality of religious phenomenon experienced, documented, reported, to which you give little or no creedence. ETc. ETc. (and all sorts of issues and questions I have raised before in this thread and other threads).

As for profound ignorance . . . sometimes ages past have had superior understanding . . . take for instance mysteries such as how medievalists were able to to accomplish and install some of the intricate and large stain glass fixtures you find in churches. Although we can replicate the process with modern tools, we have little to no idea how they did it in their era. Similar mysteries of amazing engineering feats are found throughout the ancient world. Similarly the knowledge of ancient Egyptian mathematicians and Classical rhetoricists and philosophers is surprisingly erudite. I'll certainly admit that education wasn't a forte back then but at the same time, I caution you against drawing any connection between ignorance and intelligent or rational thought (which I know you didn't make but seems nonetheless implicit in your argument).

[Alexander's Horse]

[Sava]

AH...

[SKILORD]

I'm here. I'm Luthran and a Creationist!

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse

I assume you are insulting this thread topic so why do you post and read it?

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by ckweb


I assume you are insulting this thread topic so why do you post and read it?

[Gangerolf]

Why is it, in some countries, that if you believe in Little People you're a nutter, but if you believe in Jesus Christ you're a good citizen?

[Ethelred]

AH seems to be having an identity crisis. Zylka is banned again so my guess is that AH feels the need to replace him in the meantime.

[Jack the Bodiless]

I think he's keeing us focused on which issues are truly important in life.

Like, who is that woman in the picture, dammit???