Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ender · 03-18-2002, 11:39 PM

This is awfully big of you Jailet.

Quote:

Jailet: I read your assesment of phenomenology. Pretty heavy stuff. I must say I was impressed. I will get a printout and read it in the quiet of my room. I notice you are drawing me to a kind of brawl "jaliet fumbles, blunders, flounders etc" and you are making this a battle between loyalty and intellectual honesty. About the brawl, I wont go there.

Yes, I will be the first to admit i wasn't helping things with my goading and mocking. I need to learn how to tone it down and adopt a true scholar attitude, but my passion is hard to quench, and sometimes i let it run amok.

Quote:

Jailet: About intellectual honesty, I think this part is sufficient:

jaliet, earlier: Emotions are not concrete and they are not discrete. I say they are abstract because an emotion cannot be measured (quantified), touched or seen. Just like Justice. I say emotions are abstract solely on that basis.
Ender: I don�t have an argument with that assessment, given you are laboring with a methodology that rules out the subjective experience a priori.
If you agree with my assesment, I think that is adequate for the purposes of the point I was trying to make.

Yes, i was trying to proffer an alternative viewpoint not encumbered by the assumptions of the scientific method. But when you scoffed mightily, i felt justified in my derision.

Quote:

Jailet: Its totally besides the point whether or not my methodology is inclusive of all viewpoints. About phenomenology, I have a lot to read. Thanks.

Not a problem, glad to be of service! Phenomenology is an underutilized field of inquiry, but not necessarily one that should replace the scientific method.

~WiGGiN~
(((UBB gremlins)))

[ March 19, 2002: Message edited by: Ender the Theothanatologist ]

John Page · 03-19-2002, 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Albert Cipriani:
Dear John,
The link is revelation. God Himself gave Himself only one name, Yahweh, which means I Am Who Am. So profound a concept is this that the Jews would not utter that name. They wrote down only its consonants, leaving the vowels out. Over time, since no one dared to pronounce it, the Jews forgot how to pronounce it. This precisely symbolizes how their "chosen people" status was lost.

Albert:

Thank you. (I am trying not to make any comment about upper and lower case gods, I don't see that the word one uses and how exactly its spelt makes any difference in your prior implication that other gods do exist.)

Can you tell me how the revelation you refer to above is different than, say, the revelations of the Salem witch trials? My point remains that the the catholic church is self appointed - unless you can provide evidence of the church's direct line to god its like in New York when they say "Trust me!".

Cheers, John

[ March 19, 2002: Message edited by: John Page ]

Albert Cipriani · 03-19-2002, 07:51 AM

Dear Adrian,

Quote:

I'm glad you think these questions are bullshit, I would not be so impolite as to return the favour.

Ouch! What we have here is my failure to communicate. When I said, "you're too busy being distracted by bullshit to know yourself much," I meant that rhetorically as a statement of fact regarding all of us. In no way did I mean to imply that your questions were bull shit.

I'm on record here for believing that all questions qualify as prayer. I�d never say such a thing about your questions, especially your questions which have always been fair and honest and smart. But now that I re-read my words, I can see how you took them as a slam. Sorry.

I think I said what I said also because I am genuinely frustrated by the amount of bullshit I see myself needing to shovel on a daily basis.

If you don't believe me, believe my subconscious. Truth be told, just last night I dreamed I was in that shit-hole scene in the film "Shindler�s List." That's where two kids in a WWII concentration camp tried to hide from the Germans by jumping neck deep into a latrine. The variation on that theme for me last night was that the authorities were coming and they would be able to see our heads if we didn't submerge. The kid next to me gulped some air and took the plunge. I hesitated and mercifully woke up.

I think this illustrates what a low opinion I have for how well we exercise our free will. The world is set up for smoke and mirrors and camouflage, not for us to stand up and be counted as who we are. So we sing arias while shoveling bullshit and immersing ourselves in bullshit in order to get by. Sorry to wax depressing.

Quote:

I take it I can't completely exist because I don't completely know myself? Whatever that means

To know something is to actually become that thing. For example, the first flower your daughter experiences will form an image in her memory. In that sense, your daughter has become remade in the image of the flower. She literally incorporates the flower template within her as we incorporate the image of God within us.

The better she knows that flower, the more her brain is etched precisely in the same manner of beauty. But the best she'll ever be able to do with the flower is know it in terms of its geometry, color, and botany, not in how it would be to be the flower. Not even the flower is capable of that. Ditto for herself.

To the degree she knows herself, she exists to herself. But being ourselves, experiencing in total who we are, is an order of magnitude beyond our abilities. That's where the need for an Infinite Being steps in. -- Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Bullshit Smeared Catholic

Ted Hoffman · 03-19-2002, 08:23 AM

Amos

Quote:

If nothing at all exist "God is not" and the remains of a lost civilization are evidence that at one time God was there in the image of man.

And now God is not here in the image of man?

Quote:

I can add here that God is still there but not in the image of man but in the image seen through its remains

And how do you know this Amos?
What could have compelled God to choose not to be in the image of man anymore.

Quote:

We, as consumers, agree with him (existence precedes essence) but as creators (seniors) we must be innovators (essence precedes existence)

So essence does not precede existence - but varies depending on whether one is a creator or innovator?
And how does one acguire this God-perspective without being God?
And how can one know for sure that its a God perspective and not merely a deeply thinking man or an imaginative man?
And Oh, Amos, you still need to demonstrate that essence is eternal. AFAIK, that essence needs to exist - First. Even in a mind. Then it can be considered an essence. If its the mind of a creator, fine, the essence will precede the existence of something to be created. But that is a narrow and exclusive way of looking at the dilemma - don't you think so? Don't the innovators matter? I mean, dont innovators have something (an essence) in mind?

And in a way, I think the precedence order of essence and existence is a chicken and egg problem - a problem without any definite answer...

Quote:

Eternal means without the conscious awareness of time and exist because our essence is incarnate upon us (our essence is intergenerational and actually is the "Thousand Year Reign" once we have have come to understand the depth, width and breadth of the lord our God = the mind of God).

Dont you think it will take TIME for us to understand what you call "the depth, width and breadth of the lord our God"? If out essence is intergenerational, doesnt that mean its also time-dependent (like growth)?
And if that is so, doesnt that contradict your idea of our essence being eternal(unaware of time/ time independent)?

Quote:

Methuselah was old because he could recall his past from his own soul

Please tell us how one can recall his past from his own soul and provide evidence that Methuselah did that.

Quote:

Our intuition is the memory of our soul and if we can consciously recall our intuit knowledge we are back in Eden and paradise has been restored on earth.

Is this a scientific view? (that our intuition is the memory of our soul?)
Where is the evidence for this? Is it your unsupported opinion or an objective truth?

Quote:

Our soul wants to be in charge of our destiny...*slash*

What is destiny? What is our destiny?
How do we know we have a destiny?

Quote:

Of course the Prime Mover is masculine because a pair of opposites is needed in every rout of creation or the TOL would not need the TOK to gain wisdom (Gen.3:6 and hence the emnity between these two).
Evidence of this is that the subconscious mind needs the conscious mind to gain wisdom.

False analogy. Besides, the subconscious mind has not been established to be in need of wisdom form the conscious mind. Which psychologists share this view?

Using this reasoning, one would sat that hermaphrodite animals do not exist because male and female sexes must exist to ensure procreation.

Quote:

The virgins make it more fun because they are original and that is where the destiny of our future is born out of

More fun? Fun for who?
They are original?
What do you mean original? What biological or material quality do women lose when they lose their virginity that makes them less original? Original in terms of their essence?
Are male virgins also original?
How is this originality important as the destiny of our future is concerned?
AFAIK, loss of virginity only affects a few tissues. The womb remains the same.

Quote:

You will have to admid that mankind is truly to be commended for its accomplishments while you can also recognize its destructive side on all levels.

How is this relevant?

Albert

Quote:

You ask for a philosophical book that collaborates with my definition of God as Being. I quote from the first philosophical book of all time, the Bible, and you upbraid me, insisting that the Good Book isn't the kind of book you had in mind.

There is a huge difference between a book for a sect and a philosophical book.
The bible contains dogmatic teachings, Jewish myths, falsities, Jewish history and false-wisdom NOT philosophical teachings.
At no section does the bible encourage intellectual means of gaining knowledge, logic or rogorous enquiry.
Unless you want us to discuss ecclesiastes. Which is full of logical fallacies and myths.

Quote:

1) Experience is our indirect relationship between existent things.

I disagree. Touch is a direct relationship. Prove that experience is indirect and not direct. I define experience as follows:
Active participation in events or activities, leading to the accumulation of knowledge or skill.

I can experience pain when I get burnt. That, my friend, is very direct.

Quote:

2) We call what we experience information and process it as knowledge.

We can experience confusion. The amount of information we get from being confused can be zero or negative information, thats why you need a clear meaning of the word information before your model can stand up.
So I disagree when you say we gain more knowledge even when we experience confusion. In fact confusion can lead to the knowldge so far acquired being eroded or lost. Acquisition of knowledge requires some form of consistency with the existing knowledge.

SO, so far, premise (1 and (2 are invalid. Need I go to (3 and (4 ?

Quote:

3) Ergo, information (and consequently knowledge), is indirect and relational, not direct and substantive

Relational is a new word not adressed in premise 1) and 2) you need to explain what it means in this context.

I disagree with the second assertion. For the reasons stated above. Besides, 1) was talking about experience being indirect. Now you are concluding that information is indirect. You are equivocating. Besides information cannot be said to be "direct". The sources of information can be said to be "original" or information can be said to be "first-hand". The means of acquisition can be indirect, but not the information itself.
So evidently, you are confusing information and the channel of information: two distinct things.

You dont seem to have given much thought to that statement. Even the introduction of that new word "Relational" seems to have been a lazy attempt to seal any loopholes extant in premises 1) and 2). Otherwise, what is its relevance in premise 3)?
Thus , the following conclusion fails because of the above reasons, besides, I don't believe it needed premise 1) 2) and 3).
It can stand as a statement on its own without the support of premises. What it needs is an explanation, not a premise.
It seems you just wanted to create the illusion that your conclusion has been arrived at through some premises. Because I will ask the same questions about the premises as the conclusion.

What your logic boils down to is this:
1. Experience is indirect.
2. We get knowledge of existing things through experience.
3. Therefore existing things are not substantive.

The conclusion is false. It should be : "Ergo, Our knowledge is not substantive". Whether or not existing things are substantive is NOT dependent on our manner/ method of acquiring knowledge.
You need to explain how these two isolated facts: existing things being substantive or otherwise is related to the manner in which we acquire knowledge (direct or indirect).

Besides, you need to explain exactly what constitutes "direct" and "indirect" as far as information is concerned.

Are you also asserting that we are incapable of having direct relationships with other things?

Quote:

Beyond our existential limits of experiencing relationships between existent things, is the experience of being the existent thing.

What is the comparative distinction between "our existential limits of experiencing relationships between existent things" and "the experience of being the existent thing."? Isn't the former inclusive of the latter?
If not, please explain.

Quote:

So we make one of two choices: atheists suppose that nothing experiences being

This is not true and YOU Albert knows that it is not true. There are weak Atheists (those who hold that God does not exist) and weak atheists (those who disbelieve Gods existence).
This blanket statements dont assist your argument at all.
Personally, I suppose that there is no evidence that something experiences "being" (if "being" has some metaphysical, supernatural bearing).
NOT "nothing experiences being". I hope the difference is clear.

Quote:

5) If existent things are not completely experienced they cannot be completely known.

This I could agree with.
BUT, as much as I could agree with it, it depends on what needs to be known. For example, lets say, for arguments sake, that I agree that we experience Hydrogen indirectly. What doesnt mankind know of hydrogen that shows we don't know Hydrogen completely?
Is there a reason to believe there is something else about hydrogen that we dont know completely?
If there is no reason to believe that, then its an irrational belief.
There is what we call encapsulation (information hiding) and abstraction (a way of reducing complexity) in programming and they "help" us to live comfortably. For example, I know everything there is to know about how to use a toilet. But if my toilet breaks down, I call a plumber. What I need to know is not how to fix the flushing mechanism etc, because its not relevant to me. The plumber OTOH MUST know HOW the system. So a plumber can tell you he knows everything about the toilet system. So Ok, you may ask the plumber why the water comes out wheh x is pulled, and he may not know the physics behind it. Then an engineer comes in (say, a water engineer) and he explains to you WHY it works the way it does. It will be plainly irrational to assert the the Engineer that "there is a lot he does not know about the toilet". Why? Because He knows, ALL THERE IS TO KNOW about a toilet. What he might not know will be whether toilets have souls - which is silly.
So I disagree when you say that we can never know anything completely. Unless you say specifically what we don't know about a tin for example.

Quote:

6) Being a thing is how a thing is completely experienced and completely known substantively.

Completely known Substantively?
You said knowledge is indirect and therefore NOT substantive - Now you are saying things can be known substantively?
According to your earlier premises, this is a contradiction in terms.
You have contradicted yourself and I believe at this point that you are confused.
This point does not follow from 1) 2) 3) 4) and 5). You have introduced the phrase "being a thing"
and are equating it to "completely known substantively". You have created no middle ground for allowing me to jump from 1) 2) 3) 4) and 5) and statement 6 appears as a contradiction in terms, or simply independent of 1) 2) 3) 4) and 5).
Because 1) 2) 3) 4) and 5) assert that its not possible to "completely know something substantively" because things DO NOT exist substantively (which I refuted). So what is this thing that breaks the rules in 1) 2) 3) 4) and 5)?
No, don't tell me - its God?
lets see...*quickly moving on*

Quote:

6) Being a thing is how a thing is completely experienced and completely known substantively.

So there is no such thing as "being a cow"?
Isn't a cow a thing ?(a living thing for that matter)
If so, (and it is so), is a 6) is a cow completely experienced and completely known substantively?
If not, please explain.

At this point I am confident that its totally unnecessary to further debunk your argument. Because it has totally collapsed. Premises 7) to 9) don't follow from the earlier ones, or even from common knowledge.
The rest of your post are irrelevant rhetorical questions, what you admit is "infinite exaggeration" (a clue that I should not bother),..then

Quote:

3) When experienced in space time, the experience is a miracle.

And when experienced outside space time what are the experiences called? This statement implies its possible to experience things outside space time. Please provide examples.

then..claims that I am unconscious all my life and insinuating that I am unwell and should make an appointment with the doctor.

Which is not worthy of my time because its totally irrelevant.

Thank you for your responses so far Albert.

03-19-2002, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by John Page:
[QB]

Can you tell me how the revelation you refer to above is different than, say, the revelations of the Salem witch trials? My point remains that the the catholic church is self appointed - unless you can provide evidence of the church's direct line to god its like in New York when they say "Trust me!".

[QB]

Hi John

Infallibility means "in charge of destiny" and to be in charge of your own destiny you must be "one with God" ("of one mind"). Remember here that free will only exist if we are one with God (in heaven) and so any church that is not infallible obviously is not in chagre of its own destiny but is moved by its members instead of omniscience. The reason the Catholic Church can be infallible is because of the many saints it has in heaven (in the strict interpretation saints have the mind of God and are omniscient).

A direct line to God exist only from oblivion because if you 'are' God you won't need another one. No, this is not arrogance but just a philosopical truth in plain English.

Albert Cipriani · 03-19-2002, 09:52 AM

Dear John,

Quote:

Can you tell me how the revelation you refer to above (Exodus 3:14) is different than, say, the revelations of the Salem witch trials?

The Salem witch executions were perpetrated upon women via the hearsay testimony of pre-pubescent girls that was contradictory and without foundation. It was a case of "I said she said" and grotesque visions.

At its worse, Exodus 3:14 can be construed as an auditory hallucination powerful enough to cause the victim of it (Moses) to risk his own life, not the lives of others, in seeking freedom, not capital punishment. As an auditory hallucination, it was sensible enough to be remembered for generations before being committed to paper and thought about by thoughtful people ever after around the world as an intellectually profound statement, that if true, stands our nascent ontology on its head.

So the scrap of Revelation you question differs in kind and effect and purpose and result from the depraved hearsay of the little girls testifying at the Salem witch trials. Next! -- Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

03-19-2002, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jaliet:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If nothing at all exist "God is not" and the remains of a lost civilization are evidence that at one time God was there in the image of man.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And now God is not here in the image of man?

I don't follow the question because I wrote that "at one time God was *there* in the mage of man." 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can add here that God is still there but not in the image of man but in the image seen through its remains
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And how do you know this Amos?
What could have compelled God to choose not to be in the image of man anymore. 

In observing the essence of its past existence now being transformed (decay) into the essence of a different state of existence. Evolution is contingent upon the process of creation and so all that exists must have been created. This takes us back to step one: Evolution is based on existence precedes essence while creation is based on essence precedes existence.

Failing to compete in a compettitive environment is why God is now absent if the form of man in a lost civilization. Remember here that God is creator but we are co-creator with God in our conscious mind and indirectly in charge of God. . . and so we're back into the free will argument in which we are estranged from God in our 'like god' identity of the conscious mind. This also means that just because we do not have a free will does not mean that we cannot influence our will and do what we think is best for us at the time.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We, as consumers, agree with him (existence precedes essence) but as creators (seniors) we must be innovators (essence precedes existence)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So essence does not precede existence - but varies depending on whether one is a creator or innovator?

While in existence (things as they are) essense is one with existence. If one is a creator (innovator) essence must precede existence and if we are a casual observer (consumer) existence precedes essense.

And how does one acguire this God-perspective without being God? 

In Purgatory. No, this is not a joke but is why and how Jesus-the-mystic became Christ-the Gnostic and it was not until then that he became fully God in "My Lord AND my God." This was after the removal of doubt and faith as I showed earlier with the conviction of Thomas and the nakedness of Peter. 

And how can one know for sure that its a God perspective and not merely a deeply thinking man or an imaginative man? 

Deep thinkers? Deep thinking is the ambition of a shallow mind and the imaginative mind just creates an absurd image of reality. For example, both pink and elephants must exist before the image can be formed.

And Oh, Amos, you still need to demonstrate that essence is eternal. AFAIK, that essence needs to exist - First. Even in a mind. Then it can be considered an essence. If its the mind of a creator, fine, the essence will precede the existence of something to be created. But that is a narrow and exclusive way of looking at the dilemma - don't you think so? Don't the innovators matter? I mean, dont innovators have something (an essence) in mind?

Be careful because I never said that essense is eternal in its present form of existence because that would prevent change to occur. The essense of existence is eternal and precedes existence to make change possible. Therefore, the essence of existence is eternal but not static. It is the leading edge of evolution.

I believe that it was my idea to call innovators equal to creators. Maybe you read that wrong.

And in a way, I think the precedence order of essence and existence is a chicken and egg problem - a problem without any definite answer...


Except that if you are an egg you can just become a chicken as predestined in the egg and if you are the chicken you can lay your egg after the "song you sing" as a chicken.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eternal means without the conscious awareness of time and exist because our essence is incarnate upon us (our essence is intergenerational and actually is the "Thousand Year Reign" once we have have come to understand the depth, width and breadth of the lord our God = the mind of God).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dont you think it will take TIME for us to understand what you call "the depth, width and breadth of the lord our God"? If out essence is intergenerational, doesnt that mean its also time-dependent (like growth)?
And if that is so, doesnt that contradict your idea of our essence being eternal(unaware of time/ time independent)?

Yes, it takes time to learn and we must learn while we are conscious of time (learning is left brain ambition and inspiration is a right brain supplement). Both are needed as two stands in the rout of learning. Opposite this is the no-thirst concept of heaven after our senses have been pierced (circumcision by natural law) where "we will find rest from our labors for our good works will accompany us" (Rev.14:13). Consequently, without a left or right brain there no longer is a rout to be formed and hence no creation possible ("no marriage in heaven").

Our essense is indeed time dependent even if it comprises up to One Thousand Years within our soul. Good point you made because even our essense, as you suggest, moves throught the ages. This is true and is precisely the reason why eternity is the continuity of infinity and thus we are the continuity of God. This is expressed with the words "my lord and my God" where "my Lord" as essense of existence becomes one with "my God" as essence of infinity. Note here that infinity has 'no beginning and no end' while eternity 'has a beginning but no end' when it (we) becomes one with infinity. If this was not true eternity could not be known to us and the concept God could have never been formed.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Methuselah was old because he could recall his past from his own soul
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please tell us how one can recall his past from his own soul and provide evidence that Methuselah did that.

I don't know but it sounds right to me. Maybe that is why the lineage is given.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our intuition is the memory of our soul and if we can consciously recall our intuit knowledge we are back in Eden and paradise has been restored on earth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is this a scientific view? (that our intuition is the memory of our soul?)
Where is the evidence for this? Is it your unsupported opinion or an objective truth?

I am not a scientist but the best example I can give is how one generation of Monarch butterflies knows how to fly hither and the next generation fly thither and arrive exactly from where the previous generation started.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our soul wants to be in charge of our destiny...*slash*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is destiny? What is our destiny?
How do we know we have a destiny?

Our destiny is to arrive at the place we first started and know it as if for the first time.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course the Prime Mover is masculine because a pair of opposites is needed in every rout of creation or the TOL would not need the TOK to gain wisdom (Gen.3:6 and hence the emnity between these two).
Evidence of this is that the subconscious mind needs the conscious mind to gain wisdom.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
False analogy. Besides, the subconscious mind has not been established to be in need of wisdom form the conscious mind. Which psychologists share this view?
Using this reasoning, one would sat that hermaphrodite animals do not exist because male and female sexes must exist to ensure procreation.


Hermaphrodite animals are both male and female and in any event have a way of communicating with their essence of existence, just as even in this discussion a positive and negative stand must be formed for intercourse to to be had.

Sorry, I am not a psychologist either but if there is such a thing as "learning something after we know everything" maybe that is what that means.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The virgins make it more fun because they are original and that is where the destiny of our future is born out of
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More fun? Fun for who?
They are original?

snip/


My virgin model was a play on words that points towards the leading edge of creation wherein the human mind explores virgin territory. Science is fun and a different lunch is nice to have or we'll soon leave the old bag home or look for a different job.
[/QB]

John Page · 03-19-2002, 01:37 PM

Albert:

You are misquoting me, this is a sin for you.

Let's go through this again. In response to my question about the special link you say the catholic church has with god you replied:

Quote:

Originally posted by Albert Cipriani:
Dear John,
The link is revelation. God Himself gave Himself only one name, Yahweh, which means I Am Who Am. So profound a concept is this that the Jews would not utter that name. They wrote down only its consonants, leaving the vowels out. Over time, since no one dared to pronounce it, the Jews forgot how to pronounce it. This precisely symbolizes how their "chosen people" status was lost.

Here's what I said:

Quote:

Originally posted by John Page:

Can you tell me how the revelation you refer to above is different than, say, the revelations of the Salem witch trials? My point remains that the the catholic church is self appointed - unless you can provide evidence of the church's direct line to god its like in New York when they say "Trust me!".

Here's how you replied:

Quote:

Originally posted by Albert Cipriani:
Dear John,
The Salem witch executions were perpetrated upon women via the hearsay testimony of pre-pubescent girls that was contradictory and without foundation. It was a case of "I said she said" and grotesque visions.

At its worse, Exodus 3:14 can be construed as an auditory hallucination powerful enough to cause the victim of it (Moses) to risk his own life, not the lives of others, in seeking freedom, not capital punishment. As an auditory hallucination, it was sensible enough to be remembered for generations before being committed to paper and thought about by thoughtful people ever after around the world as an intellectually profound statement, that if true, stands our nascent ontology on its head.

So the scrap of Revelation you question differs in kind and effect and purpose and result from the depraved hearsay of the little girls testifying at the Salem witch trials. Next! -- Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

So, having established that you agree "revelation" as such doesn't mean squat, you still haven't told me:

a) why you believe the catholic church has a supposed special link with god other than saying "revelation". By the way, moses wasn't a catholic and neither was jesus so try again.

b) how such a revelation is different from the kind of revelation displayed during the Salem witch trials.

By the way, what were you refering to when you said "our nascent ontology"?

Finally, the "I am who I am" Yaweh stuff doesn't work. Not unless you're a cartoon character called Popeye.

Cheers, John

[ March 19, 2002: Message edited by: John Page ]

John Page · 03-19-2002, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amos:


Hi John

Infallibility means "in charge of destiny" and to be in charge of your own destiny you must be "one with God" ("of one mind"). Remember here that free will only exist if we are one with God (in heaven) and so any church that is not infallible obviously is not in chagre of its own destiny but is moved by its members instead of omniscience. The reason the Catholic Church can be infallible is because of the many saints it has in heaven (in the strict interpretation saints have the mind of God and are omniscient).

A direct line to God exist only from oblivion because if you 'are' God you won't need another one. No, this is not arrogance but just a philosopical truth in plain English.

Amos:

I just don't follow your reasoning here, what it seems to boil down to is that the catholic church has a special connection to god because the catholic church says so and they have lot of saints.

Please provide me the plain truth in English, if you will.

Cheers.

dostf · 03-19-2002, 02:59 PM

Albert:

Firstly i congradulate you on your efforts to reason and examine your belief system to the best of your ability.
Also I'm sure participating in such a forum as this must be difficult, so again your effort is commendable.
This makes it all the more unfortunate that you still "believe".
Without going into long examples in attempts to dissuade you from your convictions as you seem to no longer be a "seeker", I suggest you read the bible as you might any other book-take the "holy" out of it. Try not to justify or explain away anything you might discover. Take it as is written. If what is written there still seems reasonable to you, well best wishes and good luck

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-19-2002, 02:59 PM	#230
dostf Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: toronto canada Posts: 498	Albert: Firstly i congradulate you on your efforts to reason and examine your belief system to the best of your ability. Also I'm sure participating in such a forum as this must be difficult, so again your effort is commendable. This makes it all the more unfortunate that you still "believe". Without going into long examples in attempts to dissuade you from your convictions as you seem to no longer be a "seeker", I suggest you read the bible as you might any other book-take the "holy" out of it. Try not to justify or explain away anything you might discover. Take it as is written. If what is written there still seems reasonable to you, well best wishes and good luck

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.