seebs

Look, for instance, at the whirlwind speech at the end of Job. It basically says "Look, God's bigger'n you, right, and you don't know enough to form an opinion here".

I always cringe at "happiness", because I'm not sure it's the right word; I'm more joyful than happy. I am sometimes not happy, but there's a layer *under* that which stays ... Joyful is the closest I can come.

I interpret it about the way I interpret the difference between a little kid's ideas about parents and a teenager's ideas about parents.

I do not believe I will ever actually comprehend infinity; if I do, it would probably happen during some kind of afterlife. I can't wrap my head around the idea. I mean, yeah, I can do transfinite math, I can talk about "the cardinality of the set of functions on the reals producing reals"... but I don't *get* it.

Anyway, I think the point is that what little snippets one can come to comprehend are pretty good. Think of it as philosopher crack.

Yeah, I'm not convinced they're right. I don't think anyone "believes in God" at age 6 months, therefore, there must be a time at which they *come* to believe in God.

I know my conversion took place over years. I could not point to a single crossing point at which I was definitely converted.

Could be. I just think it's anomalous.

Hmm. You have a point; this would explain the vast number of people who think that the "love" message means they're loved, but fuck those other people.

I have to say, if you look at Christianity's ideal as "self-sacrifcing love", most believers seem to be politely ignoring it and hoping it'll go away. However, I think that's because the people who aren't ignoring it don't *stand out* as much; they go about their lives being decent folks, and we forget them.

It's exceptionally easy to turn that into a cop-out. However, in their defense, I will point out that it's *hard*.

Amos

Interesting but true. What follows from this is that protestants are not re-deem-able because only if our prior nature was good should it be redeemed. Very keen observation.

Amos

Absolutly wrong. God has nothing to do with the imagination but with beauty and truth and if anybody ever latches on to some truth it will drag him/her to Rome because that is where beauty and truth are crowned as the bride of God incarnate.

Thor Q. Mada

Amos,

That is sooo beautiful that I could not have imagined such a reply. The bride (I guess the church not the old idiot in the vatican) should not be allowed to wear white clothes though.

Amos

Man is basically good or he would not be redeemable (note that man is the neuter form and includes both sexes).

God's mercy has nothing to do with the dogmatic constitution of the Church. We are either created good or not.

Basically good means that only in our (second) fallen nature are we sinners and therefore we are redeemable. Yes, Catholic Baptism is required for the fulness of salvation. Baptism of fire? Maybe, maybe not.

The Church is an inspired institution and is difficult to understand, especially from a distance.

Amos

Correct. She is slightly blue! The pope is OK and we always get another one. They are all OK because the truth will stand on its own. We just saw this with Lafebre, did we not? (don't get into this because I am not up to snuff on this but watched the movement from a distance) .

beyelzu

amos,

protestants did not lead the inquisitions, that was done by catholics according to catholic doctrine. and the conquistadors were catholics from spain. so how in the hell would either group be protestant. (also protestantism wasnt even around for this)? was it some sort of secret cult of protestants that i have never heard about? i think not.

seebs

It may have been done by people who were members of the Catholic church, but their adherence to Catholic doctrine is questionable.

Perchance

Good morning, seebs.

I've never heard it put quite that way .

I suppose the difference is between three possible formulations of this: "You don't know enough to form an opinion now, but you might someday," which is the path that I see human knowledge offering; "You don't know enough to form an opinion and you never will," which is an argument I have heard from several Christians (and I have to wonder how they know that); and "You will never know enough to form an opinion and you have no right to form an opinion other than the 'right' one," which was last tried on me by a fundy.

I have logical problems with the second, and both logical and emotional problems with the third. It probably depends on who is saying what at the moment.

Hmmm. I might have said "joy" if I was thinking about it, though I've heard some people say they've never experienced joy, and so I was going for the general answer.

I would say that I've also experienced joy, but then I've experienced despair, too. Perhaps "intensity of emotion."

Will there ever be a time when Christian thinkers arrive at an adult's ideas about parents, do you think? (This isn't meant to imply that Christians are inferior thinkers to atheists, or childish; I was just wondering if the progression is going to continue).

Again, I see it as the difference between someone saying we might someday, someone saying we never will, and someone saying we never will and should not/cannot try. I'm inclined to think that I won't comprehend infinity, either, simply because the concepts are newer and I've been raised with culture patterns tuned to comprehend finity. Maybe someone in the future when it's better understood would "get" it.

I like that phrase . And probably no one will ever come up with exactly the same snippets as everyone else, which is fine. It's when a person sets himself up as the Ultimate Authority and says, "Your snippets are wrong, my snippets are right," that I have a problem with it.

I would say the same about losing any ideas I had about God. I was just wondering about 'apatheist' people- for example, many of the college students I have known, who say they believe in God and would be horrified if anyone were to think they were atheist/agnostic, but who don't talk about God, don't think through the consequences of some of their beliefs, and probably would have been just as happy with any other religion their parents taught them.

It depends on what interpretation one follows, I suppose. I think the more liberal varieties have changed to follow the ideals of their times (such as not defending slavery when it became morally questionable even though there are passages exhorting slaves to obey in the Bible, and so on). I also think there are some parts of the Bible that bear the stamp of personal idiosyncrasy very strongly, especially Paul's tirades against homosexuals. Why pick on that one part of all the ancient laws?

But then, I think all religions are ultimately the product of humanity, and humanity can have good ideas as well as bad or ridiculous ones.

Yes, unfortunately, I've met people like that . Christian and nonChristian (one was a pagan convinced that the earth was going to wake up soon and embrace the 'people who loved Her,' but all the others would die of terminal diseases).

And one can argue, of course, about how much of that is their religion, and how much of it is them being good people anyway...

I don't think we'll ever know the answer.

Hard to "hate the sin, love the sinner?" I'm not sure what you're saying here.

-Perchance.

seebs

I admit that it's a somewhat nontraditional translation, but I feel the substance comes through clearly.

I think I know enough to form an opinion, but not enough to have any particular confidence in it. As time has gone on, I have gotten to what seems to me to be a better understanding, and my opinion is correspondingly more certain, but it's far from certain. So, I think we're on that first path... As to "never will", that's intended as a logical deduction, however, I have no idea whether or not death changes your capacity for knowledge. I assume it does in some way, so perhaps after we die we can know God. (Curiously, this may be true even within metaphysical naturalism, if one is willing to abuse words a little.)

I'm not sure. Joy isn't intense happiness; it's something else, better than happiness.

Well, 1 Cor 13:11-12

"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then I shall know even as also I am known."

That sort of answers things. Elsewhere in the Bible, we are told that we mature, but I think at this point it's an individual thing, not a species thing. I could always be wrong.

Perhaps. I think it's unlikely; I think the brain bogs down on certain classes of thought. But it's possible.

I definitely reject the idea that we cannot or should not try. I think we should try. I don't think we should be too confident that we've succeeded.

Exactly. In my case, they call me a "so-called Christian" and suchlike. It would offend me a lot more, except that my faith is judged by God, not Man, and He's been pretty clear on His opinions on the matter.

Dunno about them. Many people go through life treating lots of things that way. A lot of my beliefs about physics are like that, frankly. I have known a lot of peoplel ike that, and some of them are quite dogmatic in their opposition to "atheism", while having, so far as I can tell, no personal opinions or experiences other than "I've been told that...".

On the former subject: "Obey your master" is fairly good advice for a slave in a culture that won't free him. Curiously, Paul was the first one to say "neither slave nor free in Christ", which people didn't, IMHO, *understand* for quite some time.

As to homosexuality, I have studied and studied and prayed and read a half-dozen translations, and I am *totally* unconvinced. Paul says things in three places that are generally considered to be anti-gay. Two of them use a word used nowhere else, which is *probably* a back-reference to Leviticus 18 and 20 references... but which was translated in the past as "male prostitutes". Romans 1 talks about Romans who converted to Christianity, then converted back, began worshipping idols, and then had sex. I don't think they were gays.

I think the Bible is *almost* silent on the matter; in Matthew 19:11-12, Jesus talks about "eunuchs", and in context, and comparing with historical usages, it's pretty likely that gays were included in this category. And He's not very condemning.

I personally don't care. It seems to me dimly possible that there is some way in which gay sex is "sinful" - but I can't think of one, and don't care. On the other hand, I do have a problem with the casual promiscuity that some gay people seem to think is perfectly reasonable - and empirically, it's a pretty damn stupid idea.

I think a great part of the "religion" is always a product of humanity. I'm not sure this means that we made up the stuff we built the religion around.

Well, aren't you glad she's wrong? :P

In my case, I was starting to think there was something in this morality stuff when I started converting. I think God has helped me a lot on some issues. People always think I'm kidding when I say I'm impatient, short-tempered, and generally angry, but I am. I just get a *lot* of help these days.

Yeah, it's very hard. I mean, people like to use examples like "I don't beat up on the gay guys down the street, I just remind them they're going to hell". That doesn't look to me like a successful application of the principle.

Think about someone like Benny Hinn. Try, if you will, to be mad at what he does, but not think he's a "bad person", not wish him harm, feel sorry for him, and try to find ways in which maybe you could help him get out of the sin in which he's trapped himself.

That's *hard*. My initial response when people do bad things is to want them to be punished for it. It is very hard to think about the grace I get, and remember that they probably need it too, and are just as deserving as I was/am.