Biff the unclean

All men created equal means that we have no nobility here. No one is considered better than everyone else because they were born in a family that ruled the land by the will of God. Unlike you Brits and that old bat Liz, we don't pay people fortunes so that they can say they are better than we are.

danielius

dog·ma ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dôgm, dg-)
n. pl. dog·mas or dog·ma·ta (-m-t)
1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.
2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. See Synonyms at doctrine.
3. A principle or belief or a group of them: “The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present” (Abraham Lincoln).

(Reference: dictionary.com, American Heritage Dictionary)

Let me go over this yet once more. This is the entire definition as set out in the American Heritage Dictionary. It's the first complete definition on dictionary.com for 'dogma', so I've not picked it for any other reason than that it was the first given for the word.

Now, language rests on context as an indicator of meaning. Vocabulary will vary in meaning depending on the context in which the word is used. The first definition given above, dogma as religious doctrine set forth by a church, does not relate to this debate/dialogue and is not what I mean when I use the word 'dogma' in this context. The second definition, that of a reliable/authoritative idea or principle or belief, is the one I am using. This definition is unique and properly referenced. The third definition is vague, but references the second more comprehensive definition.

Now my assertion remains: every thought/idea/opinion/belief we have is based on at least one (and more often a series) of other more fundamental thoughts/ideas/opinions/beliefs we hold to be basically true and reliable. I do not agree, and the above - full - dictionary definition does not support it either, that dogma means unquestioning. It means reliable. We rely on certain fundamental premises for our subsequent ideas or opinions.

You may be right. I am trying to get across some basic principles, but even these cover a lot of ground.

I was simply tackling the allegation that the Bible is unrealistic. It may be in some places to some people, though there is a superficial contradiction in arguing that something is both too realistic and also too unrealistic. I was simply establishing that there was such a contradiction.

The point holds. I am not arguing about the insanity itself (which is very difficult to reliably speak on), but on the basis/process leading up to the breakdown, which can be more reliably spoken on. Mathematicians study things using pure logic, such as sequence and equations. Poets do not use pure logic in their writing. They will compose lines such as:

"The castle falls, across the ocean a young woman's heart breaks..."

There is nothing logical about a building falling down causing a young woman's cardiac arrest. It is pure imagination, pure fantasy. But it is healthy, not insane. Fantasy is not bad for the mind, nor might it be bad for our world-view, on which our minds so often ruminate.

Whether you find it easy or hard to believe is neither here nor there. I was an atheist for many years. My conversion to Christianity is quite recent.

Yes, it is just your opinion.

No false dichotomy, other than the one you artificially put up to knock down. Clearly, we do find ourselves talking about things being 'more real' or 'less real' than other things. I wasn't ever suggesting that the photo is not real or less real. I specifically asked about the sunflower in the photo. Is a sunflower in a photograph as real as a sunflower in a garden?

Good to see the 'freethinkers' are free from bias and assumption.

Apologies accepted. No problem.

I never put quotation marks round the adjective. I simply follow standard Christian teaching, though I'm pleased that debates over issues such as homosexuality are in the Church ongoing, and progress (such as the enthronement of Rowan Williams as Archbishop of Canterbury - Williams is anything but anti-gay) is being made.

Humans are not born equal. Some are born strong, some weak. Some are born with disorders, sometimes incurable. Some humans are born blind, some are born deaf, some are born paralysed, some are born mentally handicapped. Some are born preconditioned to live a long life, some preconditioned to live a much shorter life.

Christians believe God is Love, and love by its nature is relational, therefore God in His nature is made up of relationship. Jesus is the 'Son of God', or God incarnate. God so loved the world that he gave His unique Son. Jesus reconciled man with God. Jesus was God's self-revelation in the form most understandable to men, that of Man. He taught by example and parable and was crucified and resurrected to atone for us all.

Christianity is not a religion like any other - it has no systematised ritual, unlike the other major faiths. In Islam, for example, there are the five pillars. These - with the exception of the Meccan pilgrimage which is conditional - are compulsory for each Muslim, and include such things as praying five times a day. Christians believe that Jesus relieved us of the need for any systematised ritual, which though not to difficult to do, is easy enough to break. Islam has the concept of a 'good muslim' and a 'bad muslim', based on adherence to compulsory ritual. Christians, especially in view of the doctrine of Original sin, have no such concepts - all are truly equal. As Christians, we are each freed up from the burden of compulsory ritual to explore and express our unique nature, infusing our world with meaning and purpose through love and relationship.

God does not expect anything from us other than that we be true to ourselves - something we each find very hard to do. We live in an inter-connected world. There are so many things wrong in society, and we all must share in our responsibility for them. Rather than impose 'an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth', Christ made it clear (and possible) for us to learn to forgive, and to see others as equal to ourselves, including in their and our faults, which often helps make forgiveness and rehabilitation possible.

There's so much more I could say, but I hope this will suffice for now. It's very late here, and I'm off to bed.

Take care,

Daniel

Bumble Bee Tuna

TheGreatInfidel

B states:
Well said!

If Dan. mentions subsisting and/or existence being a first order property, ......

Charlie

Good day!

Just wanted to let you know that Atheism is not a belief! Atheist do not believe. Only believers, ie., christians, believe! If something has to be "believed" then that is your first clue that it may not be true. A christian has to "believe" in god, in order to be a christian. If there was proof of a god, then you would no longer have to "believe" because you would then "know" that there is a god. If there was proof, then we would all know! However, there is no proof of a god, and this is why christians must "believe". Atheist do not have a belief of nonbelief. Atheists simply "know" there is no god.

Also, atheists do not worship nonbelief. Nonbelief is simply the fact that there is nothing to believe, there is no god. How could someone worship something that isn't there.

As for the rest of your opinions, they are way out there! Hope you find what it is that you are looking for?
Charlie

emotional

Thus much I believe also. The accounts of near-death experiences all tell of a Being of Light who is Love.



That's pagan mythology. If you read the Hebrew Scriptures (the Old Testament as the Christians call it) there is no trace of the doctrine of God having a son, God incarnating Himself. The whole idea (of the Trinity) comes from pagan sources (the myths of Osiris, Dionysus, Horus, Attis etc all talk about a Saviour-God, born of a virgin, died and risen from the dead).



Why was mankind to be reconciled with God? Why was atonement for us all needed - for what sin? If the Original Sin, then consider the previous problems I have outlined (Adam did not exist). And if you need a Man in order to grasp God, how are you any different from a pagan who makes a statue of his god in order to better grasp him?



It does have, but Protestants have given up those sacraments.



I agree with the Christian mindset that rituals are meaningless and achieve nothing. But I disagree also with the Christian idea that faith in Jesus counts for anything. Christian doctrine says that a man may have sinned all his life and then secured his eternal heaven by accepting Jesus on his deathbed; this is not so: cleaning one's sins is a lifetime's work, and one's faith is irrelevant to it.



That's a good idea, but it doesn't quite square with Paul's exhortation to bring every thought in captivity to obedience of Christ.



Exactly. Personal responsibility - you reap what you sow, and no Jesus is going to act as scapegoat for your undoings. The whole idea of vicarious atonement is immature, a shaking off of one's personal responsibility.



Jesus' standard of "turn the other cheek" I regard as impracticable, and bordering on the suicidal. And even he doesn't adhere to his own standard: the NT talks about "avenging those who pierced Him", the lake of fire prepared for enemies of God, bringing his enemies and slaying them before him, etc. As one of the posters here said, God commands to love your enemies, but He gets to burn His.

I have nothing personal against Jesus. I regard him as a failed revolutionary leader who, after his execution, was deified by his followers. There's nothing novel about that. It happens all the time.

danielius

I want to say a few things before I reply to the past points made:

1. Readers of this thread, and posters to it for that matter, need to remind themselves that this is a loaded forum - one Christian versus thirty or more non-Christians (atheists/'freethinkers' etc.) Thirty against one is a bit rough. Remember this before you post comments such as: 'He's not answering every single point raised here' or, 'He's clearly struggling'. In truth, I'm not struggling at all, but one mind will find it tough against thirty minds.

2. I try always to speak to the argument, and not indulge in personal criticism. I would appreciate if the 'freethinkers' here would attempt the same. If you have nothing useful to say, well, you know the rest.

3. Please bear in mind that I'm not perfect, not above error. If I go wrong someway, just say so. That's it - just say so. Explain yourself patiently, thoughtfully, sincerely. Stick to the points. This ought to be about a testing of ideas. If an idea doesn't work for you, explain your own approach and basis for not agreeing, rather than just heaping disdain and jargon on it. Let's try and talk fallible human being to fallible human being.

Ok, now to the few points recently raised...

Fine. But you have to realise then that it's your problem, not mine. You simply must start any train of thought with some sort of basic premise or assumption that, outside of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you hold to be reliable and true. Even if, as some here have suggested, they hold that for them no premise is absolutely true, that very premise (an absolute one after all) is a contradiction. We all have different premises, different dogmas, but it doesn't take away from the fact that we all start out with what we each consider to be a true premise, on which to base our ideas and opinions on, and with which we have a yardstick to measure the relative truth or untruth of new ideas and opinions.

As tempting as it must be for you to, how can I put this politely, 're-phrase' what I actually write, please yourself refrain from doing so. I never even used the word 'picture'. I asked about a photo. And to suggest that photos are no different as things to a sunflower (which is indeed a thing) is fallacious. Photos are most certainly different to flowers. Say to someone, 'I'm giving you a flower', and they will thank you. Say to someone, 'I'm giving you a photo', and they will immediately ask: 'A photo of what?' Photos are representations of things.

Let's suppose for a moment that technology is not an issue. That a man wanting to take a photo of the Statue of Liberty already had a postcard with a photo of the statue. Would it be the same thing to go and photograph the statue (the 'real' thing), as to simply photograph the photograph?

Descriptions are relative, or else they are meaningless. My partner is six feet in height. Is he 'tall'? What does it mean to be 'tall'? I am not quite six feet (five feet, eight inches). He is tall, because he is taller. His height is relative to others. In the same way, to call something 'real' is only meaningful if it is real compared to things that aren't. So the argument: 'Can't you get it, everything is real' just doesn't do it. And if we can agree that some men are tall and some men are untall, then we can agree that some men are more tall and some men are less tall. We might even, finally, agree that as some things are real and some things are unreal, so some things are more real and some things are less real.

Best wishes,

Daniel

Amaranth

And they will say "Of what color?", thus making the flower no longer as real as it was before.

DMB

Danielius: I think you are getting sidetracked here. FWIW a judgement of whether something is tall or not is essentially arbitrary. We have no definition of "tall" that includes a cut-off point above which you count as tall and below which you don't. "Tall" is essentially comparative; I may not know whether A is objectively tall, but I know whether he is taller than B.

OTOH, as long as we can agree on the meaning of "real", it is an absolute, like "perfect". A can't be "more perfect" than B, although it can be "more nearly perfect" or "closer to perfection". With reality, either something is real or it is not. One can of course judge a representation of something to be closer to the reality of the object than another representation. You just have to be careful to use precise language to make it clear whether you are judging the accuracy of the representation or its reality as an entity in its own right.

Bumble Bee Tuna

Edit: to add to DMB's point: Yes, real is a word like perfect.If you are intending to use the concept of "more closely resembles reality" as DMB mentioned, there is a word for you: realistic. Things CAN be more or less realistic. They cannot be more or less real.