Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Draygomb · 03-22-2002, 06:43 AM

I went to the census site and found <a href="http://www.census.gov/prod/www/religion.htm" target="_blank">This</a> but I can't read it.

HelenM · 03-22-2002, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jaliet:
Albert submits that there is a lot of subjective evidence (did I mention that it remains subjective because everyone experiences God uniquely? I should have) and we should lock out science and logic when examining such "data". You see, its fragile data, don't be too rigorous when examining it. It could break into little pieces. Or collapse into ash on the examining table.

What do you think about that huh?

I think you have a good point!

love
Helen

Draygomb · 03-22-2002, 06:52 AM

This site has some interesting information

Ted Hoffman · 03-22-2002, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Draygomb:
I went to the census site and found <a href="http://www.census.gov/prod/www/religion.htm" target="_blank">This</a> but I can't read it.

It works. Click on the link, it loads a blank page. it takes a while to download. Just refresh.
Or try this:
<a href="http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/statab/sec01.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/statab/sec01.pdf</a>

HelenM · 03-22-2002, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jaliet:
Helen

Oh, I didn't see this before...

[edited to shake off sparks - too much intensity]

Thanks for doing that...

Even so, I can't discuss it any more...sorry

love
Helen

[/QB]

[ March 22, 2002: Message edited by: HelenSL ]

03-22-2002, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jaliet:
Jaliet

Don't be shy. The truth and what you believe could be one. 

Now why would I want to be anything else than I am?
No that can't be true, because belief includes doubt and knowledge excludes doubt.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My discussion with John clearly shows that, at least by definition, saints have the mind of God
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is what you are saying:
Amos: God is omniscient
jaliet: What evidence demonstrates that God is Omniscient?
Amos: Because by definition, God is Omniscient.
This is simply circular reasoning at its best.

God is omniscient because God has the mind of God and to have the mind of God is to be omniscient. It is our mandate here upon earth to obtain the mind of God and so become omniscient. Your problem is that you do not understand omniscience nor what it means to have the mind of God. 

Saints have the mind of God by definition huh? What about human error? What about political influence?(David Yallops "In Gods Name" gives the basic idea about how the Catholic church operates)

I write "by definition" because I am not interesting in evaluating the canonization of each saint. An infallible Church is beyond human error and it matters little what David Yallops has to say. This is a philosophical argument, remember? 

From the dictionary:

A saint is a person officially recognized, especially by canonization, as being entitled to public veneration and capable of interceding for people on earth. 

So? I agree with that but you might not know how they intercede and how we can communicate with them. They intercede when we find their icons and art beautiful and we communicate with them when we invoke their messages and ideals. 

Officially recognized is the keyword. You want to tell me Catholic church officials are infallible?
Just like those Catholic fathers and bishops are officially recognized to be worthy of holding their "holy" positions and they still sodomize those put under their care.

Saints are infallible and those who canonize saints may not be saints themselves. So indeed, some saints may not be real or may have never existed. But none of that matters in the context of our argument.

Why should we consider saints above average humans and consider bishops to be ordinary humans? 

The word "above" is wrong in a relative world where things are as they are because they are meant to be as they are. Apart from, that a saint is above human because he has consolidated his own humanity in the convergence of the twain. 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saints are in heaven...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Says who? Where is the evidence that points to this claim?

Because to have the mind of God is to be in heaven. They left messages to this effect for our benefit and enjoyment. Millions of icons and Romantic writings are the evidence. 

You dont need to keep a list: you just need to give us a list.
What you say are your beliefs: what you beleieve to be true. Like that the saints have the mind og God. That is not a universally accepted truth, and that means only a few people hold it to be true: ergo, its a belief.
Your belief.

What if I only believe it for, let's say 1% and doubt it for 99%? Would that still be my belief?

Well I gave you my definition of a saint and if you thinks that sinners can be saints there is something wrong with your definition because saints and sinners are oposite to each other. 

Why don't you try. I dare you.
Bring it on.

That has nothing to do with trying because it'l be no problem for me. 

Anyway, my point was that its not a Universal truth that God made someones wife pregnant, or that God kills even innocent people, or that God loves to dwell in thick darkness, or that God makes mistakes, fumbles and tries to set things right.

The Virgin Birth is actually quite universal but has nothing to do with sex or afterbirth. Pregant and labor pains, yes, but not in the way you might know them. God kills nobody and sends noone to hell and in fact we often kill the "firstborn child that is to become the father of man" (from Intimations of Immortality.)" It is kind of like witch-craft enjoyed by organized religion, except here they kill the spiritual being. 

It does not matter if we apply the triune concept, its one and the same same God fucking up in different forms.


Of course it makes a difference because otherwise the Trinity would not exist. The Trinity is a concept for human understanding (?) but is resolved when the "dove descended." Jesus affirmed this with "the father and I one."

The "fucking up" has nothing to do with God but with the delegation of authority from Lord God to human, and because of this Lord God is often saddened (regretful) by the stupidity of the human mind (lymbic system). 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our lesser gods, power, wealth and beauty are also powerful...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So God is not enough, you have Lord God too and now you also have lesser gods.
I see. Is it possible that you simply love the idea of having a God? And can therefore create one where none exists? 

Gen.1 is "God," Gen.2 is "Lod God" and Gen.3 is "like god" who creates lesser gods as idols (ideals of power wealth and beauty).

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beads lead to contemplative instead of rational thought.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is not a fact.
I recently saw a clip on a porno site of a string of beads being inserted into someones anal orifice for sexual purposes.
Who told you beads lead to contemplation?

Did I not write that they were "aimed towards contemplation?"

This same loose thinking was applied by medieval people: some cut off their feet for the glory of God.

I am not sure about that, but mortification is essential to the glory of God or heaven could not be glorious. But there are different methods of morification or the curses of Gen. 3 would be redundant. 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Celibacy is aimed to be a presentation of heaven on earth
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is not rational because marriage is primarily for procreation. People have spiritualized it but it remains purely physical and emotional. 

Not at all, sex is for procreation and marriage is to remove the gender opposites through exhaustion. All of our emotions are human and our humanity is the only condition that separates us from our True Identity (God). In a marriage arranged in heaven (beyond annullment) the qualities of attraction become a liabilities towards unification after marriage. The realization of this is the beginning of spiritual unification.

Celibacy is a primitive concept based on the morbid medieval fear of sex and sexual desires. The early church was puritan and their phobia for sex was fuelled by ignorance.
You want links? 

I think a hardon is a hardon is a hardon and I doubt if there was much difference between now and then. Of course, there always have been "rational" people but the "sensuous" male and female will always find each other and now don't tell me that we have become less rational.

Far from it, the last thing the early Church was is Puritan and the last thing Catholics today are is Puritan. Of course the shepherd may speak against it, but that might just be to arouse sin towards the degradation of the body (the ego takes the fame and the body takes the blame). 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In case you wonder, this is why many of the early "great minds" were homosexuals.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no relationship between being a homo and being unmarried. Neither is there a relationship between being a "great mind" and being a homosexual.

At one time the argument to justify homosexuality included the evidence that many great minds in the history of mankind were in fact homosexuals. 

If there is, you need to establish these.
You are implying that what you call womanity "sucks out" of men some important ingredient that is indispensable for a clear thinking and pure mind. If this is so, please demonstrate that its so. Dont just insinuate it.

Not at all and never suggested it. In fact, I would say that our womanity is the mind of God and the heart of Christ. In the Loretta Lithany Mary represents all those desirable qualities.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alchemy can purify all basic truths.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another baseless and meaningless statement.

It means to tie down data with reality and is the purification of our perception.

[ March 22, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]

03-22-2002, 07:19 PM

Well, muse, Poetry is not a branch of philosophy. Get me Albert the philosopher. I need to talk to him.

Poetry is written with lyrical vision and noetic vision is required to rationalize it proprely. So it is never a branh of Brittish Analytic philosophy but it is a branch of philosophy.

03-22-2002, 09:15 PM

delete double post, sorry.

[ March 23, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]

Ted Hoffman · 03-23-2002, 04:40 AM

Amos
I have thought a lot about the discussions I have had with you.
Today, I was thinking of asking you for some references I could use to "get" the viewpoint you have - so that I could take time and read so that we can speak the same language when we are discussing all these catholic-related dogmas.

But I was also a Catholic once and I do not think that is very necessary.

I am frustrated by the cross-purposed nature of our exchanges. I wonder if you have any suggestions to make us discuss more meaningfully?
For example:

Quote:

Originally claimed by Amos:
Your problem is that you do not understand omniscience nor what it means to have the mind of God.

So now I do not understand what Omniscience means? It means we are not communicating at all.

And then you come up with a new meaning of intercession. When I was in High school we used to have phrases like "Holy Mary pray for us". And that is how I came to know the meaning of intercession - people praying on our behalf. Now, you wake up and write:

Quote:

They intercede when we find their icons and art beautiful

You are an intelligent person Amos. What is the point of continuing discussing if we can hardly communicate?

Personally, I don't see the point.

Quote:

Saints are infallible and those who canonize saints may not be saints themselves. So indeed, some saints may not be real or may have never existed.

A flawed process cannot produce perfect results. That was my point. You are arguing infallibility coming from a fallible process.

But then again, its a tired argument.

Then look here:

Quote:

jaliet: Where is the evidence that points to the claim that Saints are in heaven?
Amos:...Millions of icons and Romantic writings are the evidence

Do you see my point? Its a futile excersise.

I cant help feeling its a farce

I appreciate you taking your time to discuss with me.

I would be interested in knowing your viewpoint concerning this.

[edited to wipe away tears of disapointment]

[ March 23, 2002: Message edited by: jaliet ]

03-23-2002, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jaliet:
Jaliet

Today, I was thinking of asking you for some references I could use to "get" the viewpoint you have - so that I could take time and read so that we can speak the same language when we are discussing all these catholic-related dogmas.
But I was also a Catholic once and I do not think that is very necessary.

Sorry jaliet, we speak the same language but my concepts are different and difficult for you to accept because they represent the other side of the double edged sword and slash away at your concepts of Catholicism. I am lucky here because I never had many of these because I was always a poor Catholic and so I really did not have an opinion until I opened the bible and wondered what it was all about (the local fundies suggested I should). Kind of like Luther, you might say, except that I came to a different conclusion. So in the modern sense I was poor Catholic but from the old perspective I may have been a good one.

Allan Watts, "The Surpreme Identity" would be a good one, if you can handle it. Shakespeare is good and when you see a Divine Comedy in Coriolanus and a Senecan Tragedy in MacBeth you are ready to read the bible. 

I am frustrated by the cross-purposed nature of our exchanges. I wonder if you have any suggestions to make us discuss more meaningfully?


The first thing you should do is let go of preconceived ideas and just cherish opinions. Surely, if you do not believe in God why cling to your ideas of God (unless you are an impoverished believer).

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally claimed by Amos:
Your problem is that you do not understand omniscience nor what it means to have the mind of God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So now I do not understand what Omniscience means? 

Omniscience means to have a clear understanding of that which you have an opinion and is just an extension of the "falling tree" argument.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saints are infallible and those who canonize saints may not be saints themselves. So indeed, some saints may not be real or may have never existed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A flawed process cannot produce perfect results. That was my point. You are arguing infallibility coming from a fallible process.
But then again, its a tired argument. 

I am not sure if the process of canonization is classified as infallible or not. If I remember correctly my argument was the distinction between saint and sinner and the freedom from sin for saints in heaven. It is a philosophical argument finding its origen in reality and therefore sainthood is real, hence it is biblical as well. 
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

jaliet: Where is the evidence that points to the claim that Saints are in heaven?
Amos:...Millions of icons and Romantic writings are the evidence

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you see my point? Its a futile excersise.

I would be interested in knowing your viewpoint concerning this.

It is a known position that the well being of civilization in a period in history can be measured by its artistic expression. Notice the crash after the reformation which also occured in Russia after its reformation.

In Shakespearean criticism it is argued that the spiritual well being of a nation can be measured by the popularity of his plays. This has been studied around the world for a period of time, because, it is argued, it is in our identifying with the sublime message of the play that we express our harmony with reality (God). Examples of this are the decline of Romeo and Juliet and the fact that Coriolanus was never popular in America but it was in France, while Macbeth was never popular in France but was always popular in N.America. If the message of these plays are sublime, the rationalization of them must be possible and that is what our discussion is all about.

Some/all(?) of the simplest Icons have profound messages and each one has a story behind it, not just in its origen, but also in its unfolding over time in history.

Take the example of the Immaculate Conception by Bernadette Soubirous. The concept is old but it was not until this became manifest in humanity that it became dogmatic. Such is the unfolding of the word of God in history . . . wherefore sola scriptura must be stale and not for the living. It's just pure reason that should tell you this.

Another one is a painting of a slaughtered hog by Rembrandt called "The Crucifixion," and no, it is not revolting like some modern art in which the profane is sublimized.

03-22-2002, 07:19 PM	#277
Amos Guest Posts: n/a	<strong>Well, muse, Poetry is not a branch of philosophy. Get me Albert the philosopher. I need to talk to him.</strong> Poetry is written with lyrical vision and noetic vision is required to rationalize it proprely. So it is never a branh of Brittish Analytic philosophy but it is a branch of philosophy.

03-22-2002, 09:15 PM	#278
Amos Guest Posts: n/a	delete double post, sorry. [ March 23, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>

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

03-22-2002, 06:43 AM	#271
Draygomb Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Harrisburg, Pa Posts: 3,251	I went to the census site and found <a href="http://www.census.gov/prod/www/religion.htm" target="_blank">This</a> but I can't read it.

03-22-2002, 06:52 AM	#273
Draygomb Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Harrisburg, Pa Posts: 3,251	This site has some interesting information

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.