Islam, Christianity, and religion prevent reconciliation

[Tom Wetmore]

This is where I respectfully disagree. The only way any person could be flawless is if they knew everything. It's the nature of being human that we make mistakes. It's how we learn. I don't see any other way around the fact that if you have limited knowledge and skills you are going to make mistakes. What purpose does it serve to beat ourselves up about it with language of unworthy and sin damaged?

I rather focus on methods of navigating the unknown as skillfully as possible and accept the fact that any being who lacks full knowledge is going to make mistakes. You can even make mistakes by doing nothing. It's a fixed game. You can't win the no mistake game. People try and end up being filled with guilt and self loathing.

It's flawed world view. It's a waste of time to try and determine who is worthy or not. Worthy of what? Worship? Does god have an ego? How does it help us to keep saying Holy Holy Holy all the time?

I think it's important to admit one's own faults, not because it achieves some value being humble, but because if I lie to myself about my faults I will continue to suffer the results of those poor practices and decisions. This simply works without being burdened down with all the shame language.

I don't disagree with much of what you have said. I think the words I used were more a point of comparison. If God is, he has to be greater than me, more perfect than me, know more than me, be stronger than me or it is simply not enough to be God, worthy of my respect - worship, if you will. I think that in the end of all things as we know them (the context of the language I quote about God alone being "worthy") we will all recognize God as such. And in comparison we are indeed humbled to know the huge difference.

For me, a God I can understand and explain would be no God at all. He would have to be less than me to be within my grasp.

[cardw]

I don't disagree with much of what you have said. I think the words I used were more a point of comparison. If God is, he has to be greater than me, more perfect than me, know more than me, be stronger than me or it is simply not enough to be God, worthy of my respect - worship, if you will. I think that in the end of all things as we know them (the context of the language I quote about God alone being "worthy") we will all recognize God as such. And in comparison we are indeed humbled to know the huge difference.

[Overaged]

You have said a lot of things like this. What then, is YOUR ideal world-view?

[cardw]

You have said a lot of things like this. What then, is YOUR ideal world-view?

Well, it's not so much about a particular world view, but the method by which we determine if that view is valid.

I certainly have no complaint with certain Christian values. Many of these values are shared among many different world views. I think the unique value that Jesus places on empathy and love are major contributions to the philosophy of ethics.

When I talk about methods I am talking about the tendency of Christians to simply quote the Bible as if that settles the issue. I think reason is a far better tool than authority.

I think it is far better to make sure that these claims actually work and are reasonable. When Christians hold on to a particular Bible verse even when it becomes clear that the verse is in error, this has created terrible problems in cultures where Christianity had to power to enforce laws based on these authoritarian interpretations.

In my experience if something is true, it becomes apparent very quickly when it is applied to real life. And equally so if it isn't true. That is the power of evidence and observation, both of which, are negated by authoritarian systems such as the Bible is the inerrant word of god.

Personally I have a lot more confidence in humanity because I have observed how people change when they are willing to be educated and are willing to face their fears. This occurs in both religious settings and secular settings.

As far as the parts I can't observe, I have to honestly say that I don't know and I haven't seen any evidence that anyone else knows either. Hence I am an agnostic on a number of issues.

[Twilight]

I think reason is a far better tool than authority.

Reason is impossible without an absolute standard from which it derives.

You cannot have reason without authority...

Reason has to be based on some type of "absolute law".

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

I think reason is a far better tool than authority.

Reason is impossible without an absolute standard from which it derives.

You cannot have reason without authority...

Reason has to be based on some type of "absolute law".

No, reason is a tool and is simply defined by a set of rules that a lot of people agree on. There are no absolutes within human thought.

[Bravus]

Edit: In response to Twilight's post above: That is a bald statement of a particular position on the issue, but it is not an argument for that position. It also doesn't recognise that other positions are possible. cardw has eloquently outlined a position that has different philosophical assumptions underpinning it. Simply restating your own position loudly isn't really responsive.

[Overaged]

Ah, who is "speaking loudly?" I don't get that comment at all. It seems like everyone is being quite civil here in exchanging opinons and views...Actually, I thought Twilight's post to be well said; and like cardw's position, there may not have been allowance for other options, but that's not the point of the differing views here. The point is to say what we believe and why. Are you making up rules as we go here?

[Overaged]

In my experience if something is true, it becomes apparent very quickly when it is applied to real life. And equally so if it isn't true. That is the power of evidence and observation, both of which, are negated by authoritarian systems such as the Bible is the inerrant word of god.

As far as the parts I can't observe, I have to honestly say that I don't know and I haven't seen any evidence that anyone else knows either. Hence I am an agnostic on a number of issues.

So you are not really an atheist then? Well I appreciate your sharing that detail. Do you believe that "the power of evidence and observation" could ever be deceptive, in some way?

[SivartM]

I think cardw has made it clear many times that he is an agnostic, not an atheist...

[Stan]

I think cardw would really enjoy the video about world religions that was done by global mission...

In fact CARDW, if you buy it from that link, and do not like it after you watch it, I will buy it off of you for what you paid for it.

[Bravus]

Sorry, Overaged, no, I didn't mean to make up rules, and I probably should have left out the 'loudly'. My point was a simple one: Twilight had simply stated his position (again). He has every right to do that, but I don't believe it moves the discussion forward at all. I have every right to be wrong about that.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

In my experience if something is true, it becomes apparent very quickly when it is applied to real life. And equally so if it isn't true. That is the power of evidence and observation, both of which, are negated by authoritarian systems such as the Bible is the inerrant word of god.

As far as the parts I can't observe, I have to honestly say that I don't know and I haven't seen any evidence that anyone else knows either. Hence I am an agnostic on a number of issues.

So you are not really an atheist then? Well I appreciate your sharing that detail. Do you believe that "the power of evidence and observation" could ever be deceptive, in some way?

I have always said that I was an agnostic. I don't believe in the god of the Bible which tends to get me labelled as an atheist, but I haven't eliminated the possibility that there might be some creator god.

All observation, reading, and other forms of gathering information are subject to deception and misinterpretation. I know of no media that is immune to that problem. That is part of the limitation of being human. This is simply another reason to be agnostic on a number of complex issues.

[fccool]

Quote:

This is where I respectfully disagree. The only way any person could be flawless is if they knew everything. It's the nature of being human that we make mistakes. It's how we learn. I don't see any other way around the fact that if you have limited knowledge and skills you are going to make mistakes. What purpose does it serve to beat ourselves up about it with language of unworthy and sin damaged?

I do agree with you on that. Our major pitfall is to automatically make the humankind "evil" unless they recognize their "evilness" and thus turn around and seek God. Personally I don't ascribe to such view. It would be idiotic to call my child "evil" unless he knows of God and recognizes his "sinful" state. I think it should be obvious to anyone that humans at any stage of life are capable of both good and evil from birth(as we define them through religious standards at least). But, instead we tend to seek evil in every possible action of people... Sort of reminds me of the cartoon:

So, likewise, I find it difficult to believe that God will torch someone for choosing to live their life with "I don't really know" in their minds, while being honest with themselves. I think Christians portray the rest of the world as "evil liars, and thieves, and idolaters"... yet most of the Christians are no better. I know from experience of mingling with some of the best ones... books of which are on the shelf and those who we flock to listen to for hours. These people make exactly same mistakes as everyone else would, while aspiring to hire standards... be it theists or atheists.

We use the idiotic comparison of walking of the cliff, while others beg us not to. We don't believe that there is a cliff, while the other people tell us that there is, and we should should believe them to live. Yet it really shows how we see our religion, and the desperation which drives us to such idiotic similies.

Usually, the parallel is that God will not do something if you don't want to. I.e. , if there's oncoming train and you are screaming at a person... get away. And the person says, "No, there's no train"... then our reaction is "Well... I've done everything I can. I won't force you to do anything you don't want." And we ascribe this idiotic attitude to God, as though a person who would be forcefully rescued against his will would not thank you for doing so if he seen the actual train passing by where he was standing. It's silly. He might have cursed you if he was attempting suicide, and was purposefully trying to jump in front of the train.

I believe that God will save everyone He can. But I don't believe that He will take those who would not want to be in Heaven given the chance to.

Quote:

I rather focus on methods of navigating the unknown as skillfully as possible and accept the fact that any being who lacks full knowledge is going to make mistakes. You can even make mistakes by doing nothing. It's a fixed game. You can't win the no mistake game. People try and end up being filled with guilt and self loathing.

I too believe that tactics of guilt and self-aggrandizement is the worst tactics that pretty much invalidate what we do. Recently I've seen a facebook pastor posting "Proud to be a part of 144,000". The mere fact that you are proud is probably should raise a flag of "144,000" will be humble (once again according to what we believe). The point is that at its core, our religious belief should concentrate on building up of those around us. Yet, I really don't see it to be the case. We have a club, and we favor people in the club. I think people know that it should not be so, yet the underlying attitude can't escape such result.

Quote:

It's flawed world view. It's a waste of time to try and determine who is worthy or not. Worthy of what? Worship? Does god have an ego? How does it help us to keep saying Holy Holy Holy all the time?

Once again, I believe such idea is due to the skewed view of who God is. We view God as megalomaniac worship-addict, who wants the sweet smell of burned flesh in the morning. It's silly. I don't view attitude of God to be such.

If you meet the president of United States or a person who you admire, then I think that the automatic attitude is that of reverence. I don't think you can't help it. If we amplify it to the level of meeting God, then I think that's where the "Holy, Holy, Holy" reciting comes in. Being who live around Him can't help but to recognize the quality. I don't believe that it's His desire for them to constantly sing it.

So, if we do accept the idea of God coming down in form of a human, and taking on the lowest form... while serving and healing people... then we likewise have to accept God who is not a megalomaniac. So, the hour of singing songs about how great the God is could really be spent doing something more productive, rather than being an entertainment highlight of the day.

Either way, if God indeed created the universe, and we are to accept that God is moved by love... then the reason behind creation is in fact expression of love. You can't express love to yourself.

Quote:

I think it's important to admit one's own faults, not because it achieves some value of being humble, but because if I lie to myself about my faults I will continue to suffer the results of those poor practices and decisions. This simply works without being burdened down with all the shame language.

That's true, until we get to the area of what is really a fault? Is it really a fault of mine if I successfully desire to have sex with married women who want it? I am simply fulfilling mine and their desire? What's so faulty about that? Who would have to convince me that it's really faulty?

Likewise, is it really faulty to lie and misrepresent certain reality for the benefit of greatest good, or to avoid punishment? Why would that be faulty?

Likewise, why would the theft be faulty on individual level, or why cannibalism be faulty considering that we do kill and eat animals? In certain cultures there's nothing really wrong with cannibalism.

I do believe that God deeply laments evil, and it's not something that he does lightly. Yes, I do say that God does evil, because I don't believe in "relativistic idea" that "evil" is not "evil" on God's level. I'll be honest with you here. Letting something transpire, knowing that it will cause harm to millions... and at the same time knowing that you have ample resources to stop it ... is "evil", if we understand it from absolutism moral perspective of the Bible. There's no way around it. I believe that God accepts full responsibility, knowing the ultimate consequences of such events will result in our collective good.

Yet, I trust that in the end our collective human experience will serve us as a historical template of wisdom and knowing the difference between moral opposites, and at the same time knowing the sure examples of consequences of each... I.E. It's not in vain. Whatever transpires, it is done deliberately for our collective learning experience. On some level, it's a test, or a game. And I believe that in the end the suffering will worth it, just like we consider our suffering of sleep deprivation worth the knowledge we receive during our life in college, or the suffering of training worth it once we are on the basketball court during regular season.

I don't believe in universal salvation, but I think that my view is pretty close. God will not reject those who know would not reject Him and the life that He offers, given a certain circumstances. I know that such view would be rather heretical and unpopular, but nevertheless I believe it's more consistent one with the God of love... rather than saying that God will resurrect people only to once again burn them for the "sin of unbelief"... with people who sinned more burning longer.

[Overaged]

I think cardw has made it clear many times that he is an agnostic, not an atheist...

Well; you could be right. I wasn't saying anything about him when I thanked him for revealing that. it was just ignorance on my part as I am not always able to keep up with what is said on the forums.

[Overaged]

Sorry, Overaged, no, I didn't mean to make up rules, and I probably should have left out the 'loudly'. My point was a simple one: Twilight had simply stated his position (again). He has every right to do that, but I don't believe it moves the discussion forward at all. I have every right to be wrong about that.

LOL, yes you do have that right - so do I...No offense was taken; I was just wondering out loud. I think we are all guilty of "not moving the discussion forward at times. I actually appreciate cardw's sharing the way he is. It is always a good thing to be able to challenge one another civilly, and he does do that...I hope he's OK with me talking behind his back like this...You know, sometimes, when we were "little" our Mom's had to repeat things to us AGAIN and it never hurt us. It usually helped us. Maybe there is something to Twilight's comment that we could move the discussion forward with? Sometimes, the way atheists and agnostics talk; I get the picture that they really dislike authority? All "authority" is not "wrong;" not even with God's authority.

[phkrause]

Say What?

Was thinking the same CoAspen. Besides doesn't God say "come lets reason together"?

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

Reason is impossible without an absolute standard from which it derives.

You cannot have reason without authority...

Reason has to be based on some type of "absolute law".

No, reason is a tool and is simply defined by a set of rules that a lot of people agree on. There are no absolutes within human thought.

So if I say black is white, (as there are no absolutes in human thought), then that must be correct?

Black must be white, because I have said so.

[Overaged]

So if I say black is white, (as there are no absolutes in human thought), then that must be correct?

Black must be white, because I have said so.

LOL; yes, of course! I once watcged a movie about Hitler, and he was very angry in the movie, and he said to a man he was torturing: Even if it's black; if I say it's white, then it's white!"

Actually, such a thing would be closer to something like "rationalization."

1/ The cognitive process of making something seem consistent with or based on reason

2/ (psychiatry) a defense mechanism by which your true motivation is concealed by explaining your actions and feelings in a way that is not threatening

- Word Web Dictionary

Calling human reasoning something that can explain our existence, say if there really is a God, is to me, a very false premise. "Reason" may be a 'tool" but it is used to explain away even the plainest facts at time, and so this would border onto rationalization, which is often based on false or non-existent premises in the religious, or, anti-religious world.

Thats one of the things I like about Christianity - no rationalization needed:

"For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:" (Philippians 3:20)

More than the temporal citizenship offered by the world, we are made inheritors of a heavenly citizenship. Paul wrote this to a church in the midst of a Roman colony who took great pride in their Roman citizenship; even to the point of killing Christians who did not go along with it. That kind of thing was taking rationalization to the next level...

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

So if I say black is white, (as there are no absolutes in human thought), then that must be correct?

Black must be white, because I have said so.

LOL; yes, of course! I once watcged a movie about Hitler, and he was very angry in the movie, and he said to a man he was torturing: Even if it's black; if I say it's white, then it's white!"

Actually, such a thing would be closer to something like "rationalization."

1/ The cognitive process of making something seem consistent with or based on reason

2/ (psychiatry) a defense mechanism by which your true motivation is concealed by explaining your actions and feelings in a way that is not threatening

- Word Web Dictionary

Calling human reasoning something that can explain our existence, say if there really is a God, is to me, a very false premise. "Reason" may be a 'tool" but it is used to explain away even the plainest facts at time, and so this would border onto rationalization, which is often based on false or non-existent premises in the religious, or, anti-religious world.

Thats one of the things I like about Christianity - no rationalization needed:

"For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:" (Philippians 3:20)

More than the temporal citizenship offered by the world, we are made inheritors of a heavenly citizenship. Paul wrote this to a church in the midst of a Roman colony who took great pride in their Roman citizenship; even to the point of killing Christians who did not go along with it. That kind of thing was taking rationalization to the next level...

For reason to be reason, there has to be basic "rules" in place. :-)

I fear that the desire to completely remove the idea of absolutes from human thought has left many with illogical structures that they do not even really live by...

So when Cardw made the point:

"I think reason is a far better tool than authority."

His need to deny authority actually reduced him to denying reason, although I do not know if he has realised this yet. :-)

The same thing is done with morality amongst our secular friends.

They have to deny an absolute morality, because you have to have an intelligent source for that, and end up promoting a relative morality that anyone can define.

If reason, logic and morality are all decided by individuals or groups of individuals, then nothing is illogical, immoral or unreasonable, if enough people agree on it.

Let us say that a group of people decide that hurting children is a good thing for them to do, if there are no absolutes, are they doing anything wrong?

No.

But if there are absolutes, then they have to decide where they have come from.

This is a gaping hole in athiesticly motivated thought, that only a few are brave enough to admit and deal with...

Mark :-)

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

No, reason is a tool and is simply defined by a set of rules that a lot of people agree on. There are no absolutes within human thought.

So if I say black is white, (as there are no absolutes in human thought), then that must be correct?

Black must be white, because I have said so.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

So if I say black is white, (as there are no absolutes in human thought), then that must be correct?

Black must be white, because I have said so.

It's black because we have agreed to name it black. There is nothing that proves that it's black. You are talking about language here.

Here is a quote from a blog on the impossibility of absolutes that states it quite well...

But I insist, it is white...

And as I determine my own absolutes, black is now white.

Upon what basis can you say that black is not white (I am talking about the colour - not the language).

[Twilight]

It's black because we have agreed to name it black. There is nothing that proves that it's black. You are talking about language here.

Here is a quote from a blog on the impossibility of absolutes that states it quite well...

Quote:

But nothing can be true before it is proven, or when no language or minds existed. Truth requires a system of proof preceding its conclusion of truth.

The author argues from the idea that he is the definer of truth...

That until "man" agrees it, it is not truth.

Ignoring no doubt that God has already decided what is truth...

[Overaged]

There cannot possibly be absolute truth because there is no system of proof that could deduce from all the possible circumstances arising from eternity, in order to prove any claim of absolute.

[phkrause]

I have seen all the proof of this I need right here on earth; and I look forward to those days of glory in heaven; where all the "foretastes" will be realized.

Overaged, thanks for that, Praise the Lord. I do agree that Heaven will be great, but at the same time I can't wait to be in the earth made new. That's also "Truth" to me.