The Lamb of God

[Joe]

This is meant principally as a point of discussion among the
Christians here. Others are free of course to chime in (Hi, e_!) but
the topic here is a point of Christian theology, so I would ask all to
stay within the bounds of respect for that, and at least to
acknowledge as the tentative premise of this whole discussion, the
reality of the Person of Jesus Christ and the truth of His message.
Yes, e_, we know you "don't believe that," but if you are going to
chime in on this thread, at least consider it from the perspective
that it is possibly true; otherwise your comments will have little
relevance to the topic at hand.

Brock wrote in another thread that, "there isn't an instant during
which any persons (except Christ) are not steeped fully in sin."

Yet, Saint John the Evangelist writes of Saint John the Baptist that,

John 1:29 The next day, John saw Jesus coming to him; and he says:
Behold the Lamb of God. Behold him who takes away the sin of the
world.

There seems to be a discrepancy here. If Jesus takes away sin, then
how are we (Christians) still "steeped fully in sin?"

Whose sin does He take away? His own? He never had any in the first
place; being God, it is impossible for Him to sin.

So what is the point of this passage in Scripture, or alternatively,
where is the Scriptural warrant for the doctrine of Total Depravity?

It is not in Romans 3:23. That passage says, "all have sinned," past
tense, not, "all continue to sin."

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned and do need the glory of God. 24 Being
justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in
Christ Jesus, 25 whom God has proposed to be a propitiation, through
faith in his blood, to the showing of his justice, for the remission
of former sins,

They are called "former sins," not "current sins."

Saint John writes in his letters,

1 John 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he also is in the light, we
have fellowship one with another: And the blood of Jesus Christ his
Son cleanses us from all sin. 8 If we say that we have no sin, we
deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our
sins, he is faithful and just, to forgive us our sins and to cleanse
us from all iniquity.

Note that the blood of Jesus, according to Scripture, does not merely
cover up our sins, but actually "cleanses us from all sin."

Lest we despair, he also writes,

1 John 2:1 My little children, these things I write to you, that you
may not sin. But if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father,
Jesus Christ the just.

So there is still forgiveness, if we are unfortunate enough to commit
*more* sins after our former sins have been washed away. If we
unfortunately fall into sin again after Baptism, becoming once again
filthy, we can again be washed clean, "If we confess our sins."

But lest we presume, he also writes,

1 John 3:4 Whosoever commits sin commits also iniquity. And sin is
iniquity. 5 And you know that he appeared to take away our sins: and
in him there is no sin. 6 Whosoever abides in him sins not: and
whosoever sins has not seen him nor known him. 7 Little children, let
no man deceive you. He that does justice is just, even as he is just.
8 He that commits sin is of the devil: for the devil sins from the
beginning. For this purpose the Son of God appeared, that he might
destroy the works of the devil. 9 Whosoever is born of God commits not
sin: for his seed abides in him. And he cannot sin, because he is born
of God.

Saint John here is teaching exactly the opposite of "there isn't an
instant during which any persons (except Christ) are not steeped fully
in sin." So since Saint John was writing Scripture, and since the
doctrine of Total Depravity cannot be found in Scripture, it appears
to be an invention of the Protestants.

The true Teaching is that the Lamb of God came to take away sin, and
does take away our sins. That is why He instituted the Sacraments of
the Dead, to wit, Baptism and Penance, or Reconciliation, popularly
called Confession.

[e_space]

re: "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, to forgive us
our sins and to cleanse us from all iniquity" ... yeah, i never liked
the idea of a confession much ... a guy abuses his wife, goes to
church and confesses, and is therefore cleansed of all iniquity?
great ... now he can go home, abuse her some more, and get cleansed
again next week ... sweet deal!

btw, why does one have to confess something to an all knowing being?
do you actually think god is up in the sky somewhere listening to all
of these confessions one by one, saying, okay fred, i know you were
abusive, but since you told me about it [although i already watched
you committing the act], im going to remove you from all guilt ...
boy, he must be one busy entity! hardly much time left to enjoy
walking down the golden streets, i wouldnt think ... ;-^)

[Joe]

On May 22, 5:06 pm, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> re: "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, to forgive us
> our sins and to cleanse us from all iniquity" ... yeah, i never liked
> the idea of a confession much ... a guy abuses his wife, goes to
> church and confesses, and is therefore cleansed of all iniquity?
> great ... now he can go home, abuse her some more, and get cleansed
> again next week ... sweet deal!
>

Not the purpose of the Sacrament, nor the Command of the Gospel.

> btw, why does one have to confess something to an all knowing being?
> do you actually think god is up in the sky somewhere listening to all
> of these confessions one by one, saying, okay fred, i know you were
> abusive, but since you told me about it [although i already watched
> you committing the act], im going to remove you from all guilt ...
> boy, he must be one busy entity! hardly much time left to enjoy
> walking down the golden streets, i wouldnt think ... ;-^)
>

God as revealed in Christianity, and elsewhere, is Infinite, so no, He
would not be encumbered by "too much to do."

Also, you are not talking about the Catholic Sacrament of Confession,
which has value for conversion from sin. That requires a priest, not
merely talking to the sky.

[e_space]

re: "Not the purpose of the Sacrament, nor the Command of the
Gospel." ... maybe not, but according to the words you used, he would
still be cleansed of his iniquity ... no?

id prefer to stay away from priests personally ... of course, im not
as young as i used to be ...

this sort of ritualistic requirement is one of the main reasons why
religion seems so contrived to me ... for example, a RC'er does
something they consider a sin, but they happen to be in the middle of
nepal, and therefore cannot confess, and consequently be cleansed of,
their iniquity ... in their rush to get to a priest to attain
forgiveness, they slip and fall down a crevice, killing themselves,
and therefore die in sin, destined to spend eternity in fiery
damnation, all because a priest [who most likely has a lot of sinful
baggage himself], is not readily available ... tough luck i guess,
right?

[SM]

On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Joe <jfg...@gmail.com> wrote:

This is meant principally as a point of discussion among the
Christians here.  Others are free of course to chime in (Hi, e_!) but
the topic here is a point of Christian theology, so I would ask all to
stay within the bounds of respect for that, and at least to
acknowledge as the tentative premise of this whole discussion, the
reality of the Person of Jesus Christ and the truth of His message.
Yes, e_, we know you "don't believe that," but if you are going to
chime in on this thread, at least consider it from the perspective
that it is possibly true; otherwise your comments will have little
relevance to the topic at hand.

Joe, I appreciate what you're trying to achieve and commiserate with your frustration of having to wade through insincere distractions to get it.  I note that you're already getting some response and if that's what you're looking for, then great.  However, if you're interested in discussing this sans distractions then please know that you're always welcome to contact me privately.

[e_space]

what makes you conclude that i am not sincere, senor whimperer?
actually, i think i raise some valid points, so please quit your
incessant whining and making of false accusations ... joe is
responding to my comments, and if you werent so childish, you may want
to consider the points i am raising without crying your eyes out ...
grow up man!

[SM]

On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 11:23 AM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

what makes you conclude that i am not sincere, senor whimperer?
actually, i think i raise some valid points, so please quit your
incessant whining and making of false accusations ... joe is
responding to my comments, and if you werent so childish, you may want
to consider the points i am raising without crying your eyes out ...
grow up man!

<chuckle> 

[e_space]

nice one brock ;-^)

On May 23, 11:26 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

[SM]

On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 11:50 AM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

nice one brock  ;-^)

 

> <chuckle>

[SM]

[Joe]

As I accurately predicted, your comments have little relevance to the
topic at hand. Why not start your own thread, rather than continually
hijack those started by others?

[Joe]

On May 23, 10:16 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

While I appreciate the gesture, SM, I don't see what would be
accomplished by that. You certainly know where I stand, and if you
read my post then I made my point. I'd like to hear what Brock has to
say about it, since I was referring to something he wrote.

Actually, I am going to email you about something, not the topic of
this post, but something relevant to the group. So thank you for the
invitation!

Peace.

[SM]

Ok, cool.  My primary purpose was to 'show you some love' since you intentionally addressed your post to the specific audience for which I identify and I didn't want to leave you hanging without a response (except from a source who predictably wasn't willing to respect your specific request to stay on topic).  Hopefully, Brock will read your post and respond when he has time.

You're welcome to contact me any time.

Cheers.

[Joe]

u got mail

[e_space]

au contraire mon ami ... i think my comments have a direct
relationship to your post ... i am questioning the accuracy of
them ... i guess you dont consider this relevant because you only want
comments from those who agree with you? seems quite typical here, that
those throwing out religious "truths" like confetti at a wedding, get
soooo offended when someone questions them ...

[SM]

On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 11:09 PM, Joe <jfg...@gmail.com> wrote:

u got mail

Got it. Thanks. 

[Brock Organ]

On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Joe <jfg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> This is meant principally as a point of discussion among the
> Christians here.  Others are free of course to chime in (Hi, e_!) but
> the topic here is a point of Christian theology, so I would ask all to
> stay within the bounds of respect for that, and at least to
> acknowledge as the tentative premise of this whole discussion, the
> reality of the Person of Jesus Christ and the truth of His message.
> Yes, e_, we know you "don't believe that," but if you are going to
> chime in on this thread, at least consider it from the perspective
> that it is possibly true; otherwise your comments will have little
> relevance to the topic at hand.
>
> Brock wrote in another thread that, "there isn't an instant during
> which any persons (except Christ) are not steeped fully in sin."
>
> Yet, Saint John the Evangelist writes of Saint John the Baptist that,
>
> John 1:29 The next day, John saw Jesus coming to him; and he says:
> Behold the Lamb of God. Behold him who takes away the sin of the
> world.
>
> There seems to be a discrepancy here.  If Jesus takes away sin, then
> how are we (Christians) still "steeped fully in sin?"

Hi Joe,

Maybe this helps:

http://www.gracesermons.com/robbeeee/imputed.html

Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

Hopefully this helps:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imputed_righteousness

Regards,

Brock

[xeno]

On May 22, 12:41 pm, Joe <jfg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Whose sin does He take away?  His own?  He never had any in the first
> place; being God, it is impossible for Him to sin.

(1) Making a set of circumstances possible and actual makes one
responsible in part at least for those set of circumstances. The
problem of evil doesn't go away by defining a good god.

(2) If it's impossible for god to do any logical possible act then god
isn't omnipotent & so isn't god. If god is omnipotence or omnipotent,
(whatever game that gets played here), then god is capable of both
good & evil. [OTOH, it's arguable that all circumstances are a
combination of the two, always.] A greater good doesn't make the
lesser evil less evil in quality, so all the dodges based on that
line of thinking doesn't do away with the problem of evil either.

Given (1) & (2), it's not impossible for god to sin.

[SM]

On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 6:47 PM, xeno <69bla...@gmail.com> wrote:

(1) Making a set of circumstances possible and actual makes one

responsible in part at least for those set of circumstances. The
problem of evil doesn't go away by defining a good god.

It's clear what you mean by this: "Making a set of circumstances possible...", but it's not clear to me what you mean by "Making a set of circumstances possible and actual..."  Could you elucidate your meaning?  Thanks.

 

(2) If it's impossible for god to do any logical possible act then god
isn't omnipotent & so isn't god. If god is omnipotence or omnipotent,
(whatever game that gets played here), then god is capable of both
good & evil. [OTOH, it's arguable that all circumstances are a
combination of the two, always.] A greater good doesn't make the
lesser evil less evil in quality,  so all the dodges based on that
line of thinking doesn't do away with the problem of evil either.

Sin may be a possible act, but it is thoroughly illogical.  Suggesting that God's inability to sin somehow minimizes his omnipotence is like suggesting that his omnipotence is somehow limited by an inability to create a rock so big that he can't lift it.  Such is a non-sequitur.

How do you define 'evil'?

[xeno]

On May 24, 8:12 pm, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sin may be a possible act, but it is thoroughly illogical.  Suggesting that
> God's inability to sin somehow minimizes his omnipotence is like suggesting
> that his omnipotence is somehow limited by an inability to create a rock so
> big that he can't lift it.  Such is a non-sequitur.

You can do both and yet god supposedly can't do either. So how can god
be omnipotent?

[SM]

I'm not seeing what the "both" is that you're referring to, but certainly God has given man the 'ability' to make illogical choices.  Do you really consider that such a 'capacity' is indicative of greater power than One  who has no limitations on choice but cannot possibly choose that which is illogical?

[xeno]

On May 26, 4:16 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > God's inability to sin somehow minimizes his omnipotence is like
> > suggesting
> > > that his omnipotence is somehow limited by an inability to create a rock
> > so
> > > big that he can't lift it.  Such is a non-sequitur.

> > You can do both and yet god supposedly can't do either. So how can god
> > be omnipotent?

> I'm not seeing what the "both" is that you're referring to,

(1) sin. (2) make a rock bigger than you can lift.

How are these two "illogical" when they are logically possible? You
asked me: what is evil? That would be the opposite of good wouldn't
it? In order to create good, god had to create evil as well because
the two are inseparable. Creating creatures capable of both is both
good & evil.

> but certainly
> God has given man the 'ability' to make illogical choices.

That's irrelevant. I thought your line of reasoning here was about
logical impossibility. Given omnipotence it supposedly would be
logically impossible for god to make a rock bigger than he can lift.
Or is it? The problem really is in the notion of omnipotence without
any consideration of its opposite. Limitlessness is a limit so it's
inseparable from its opposite. To have infinite power is also to have
infinite impotence because whatever one can do there are infinite
things one can not.

>  Do you really
> consider that such a 'capacity' is indicative of greater power than One  who
> has no limitations on choice but cannot possibly choose that which is
> illogical?

But not having the capacity to make illogical choices is a limit. &
making illogical choices is logically possible, isn't it? It's only
contrary to the concept that god can make bad choices. But god not
having the ability to make bad choices is a limitation and so there's
a limit to what is called omnipotence here.

[SM]

On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 8:44 PM, xeno <69bla...@gmail.com> wrote:

(1) sin.  (2) make a rock bigger than you can lift.

How are these two "illogical" when they are logically possible? You
asked me: what is evil? That would be the opposite of good wouldn't
it? In order to create good, god had to create evil as well because
the two are inseparable. Creating creatures capable of both is both
good & evil.

Humans can't create a kind of rock from nothing (I guess I wasn't clear about that qualifier), hence (2) is not a possibility for a human, and the conclusion that God is somehow limited by not being able to create something that he is limited by is a non-sequitur.

Sin is a moral choice to rebel against God's established standard of what is good - it is not a product of creation.  It is not any more possible for God to sin than it is for an apple tree to produce bananas.  Bananas are not consistent with the 'nature' of an apple tree; sin is not consistent with God's holy and perfect innate nature.

 

>  but certainly God has given man the 'ability' to make illogical choices.

That's irrelevant.

It's not only 'relevant', it's man's most fundamental issue.  Consequently, this is also relevant to God since he desires the reconciliation of mankind to himself even more than we desire it.

 

Given omnipotence it supposedly would be logically impossible for god to make a rock bigger than he can lift.

Non-sequitur.

 

Or is it? The problem really is in the notion of omnipotence without
any consideration of its opposite.  Limitlessness is a limit so it's
inseparable from its opposite. To have infinite power is also to have
infinite impotence because whatever one can do  there are infinite
things one can not.

Maybe you can elaborate on this some more...I'm not catching the idea that 'limitlessness' is actually a limitation.

 

>  Do you really
> consider that such a 'capacity' is indicative of greater power than One  who
> has no limitations on choice but cannot possibly choose that which is
> illogical?

But not having the capacity to make illogical choices is a limit. &
making illogical choices is logically possible, isn't it? It's only
contrary to the concept that god can make bad choices. But god not
having the ability to make bad choices is a limitation and so there's
a limit to what is called omnipotence here.

Again, your conclusion is a non-sequitur.  Acting contrary to ones nature is not logical; it's an aberration, a perversion, an imperfection.

What do you consider is to be gained by convincing oneself that God is 'limited' in his 'omnipotence'?  I'm not seeing the perceived benefit of trying to prove such a thing is true.

[Joe]

Links don't help nearly as much as discussion on the point. Did you
mean to just dismiss me like that?

From what I can see, you have merely confirmed what I already wrote
about what Protestants think. But, I have refuted those points
already. Why not address, yourself, what I actually wrote, myself?
That way, we can have an interchange between us here on the forum. I
don't know what to do with a link, other than of course to read it,
but just passing off links is not discussing anything. So no, it
didn't really help.

Allow me to reiterate my pointed question to you, that you have not
answered. I'd appreciate it if you took the time to actually think of
an answer, yourself, and post it here. Your link did not answer me,
or if you think it did, then by all means copy the passage that you
actually think answers me, and post in here in the forum. Thanks in
advance!

> > Brock wrote in another thread that, "there isn't an instant during
> > which any persons (except Christ) are not steeped fully in sin."
>
> > Yet, Saint John the Evangelist writes of Saint John the Baptist that,
>
> > John 1:29 The next day, John saw Jesus coming to him; and he says:
> > Behold the Lamb of God. Behold him who takes away the sin of the
> > world.
>
> > There seems to be a discrepancy here. If Jesus takes away sin, then
> > how are we (Christians) still "steeped fully in sin?"

According to everything I read in your link, the author of what is
there agrees with you in disagreeing with Saint John the Baptist.
Both of you, in contrast to him, seem to think that God does not in
fact take away our sins, but rather leaves us in them and only
"declares" us righteous, not *makes* us righteous. So really, even if
one reads the link, it does nothing to address the point. Try again,
please, and actually try this time. Thanks again!

[xeno]

On May 26, 7:20 pm, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 8:44 PM, xeno <69black...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > (1) sin.  (2) make a rock bigger than you can lift.
>
> > How are these two "illogical" when they are logically possible? You
> > asked me: what is evil? That would be the opposite of good wouldn't
> > it? In order to create good, god had to create evil as well because
> > the two are inseparable. Creating creatures capable of both is both
> > good & evil.

> Humans can't create a kind of rock from nothing (I guess I wasn't clear
> about that qualifier)

Neither can a "god" so this "qualifier" is irrelevant. (There is no
something from nothing if a something is the cause of another thing.)

> , hence (2) is not a possibility for a human, and the
> conclusion that God is somehow limited by not being able to create something
> that he is limited by is a non-sequitur.

Really? Not being able to do something is not a limitation?! A rock
here is a red-herring. It suffices to point out that human beings can
make things that they can't lift. If god can't make something that god
can't lift then that's a limitation.

>
> Sin is a moral choice to rebel against God's established standard of what is

> good - it is *not* a product of creation.

Being able to rebel is a product of creation, & supposedly a
foreseeable one, (& if it wasn't then god lacks omniscience or
couldn't be "omniscience"). Since it is a product of creation then god
is responsible, in part, for evil, that is, the opposite of good.

>  It is not any more possible for
> God to sin than it is for an apple tree to produce bananas.

Defining sin as something as only humans can do, or what any creature
created by god can do doesn't explain why there is the oppossite of
goodness in the universe. The only reason why there can be the
oppposite of goodness in the universe is by god making it possible and
actual. It's not a matter of apples and oranges here. It's all one
tree. The root is god here.

[S M]

On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 8:37 PM, xeno <69bla...@gmail.com> wrote:

 

xeno, I'm still hoping to receive a response on the following question that was indvertantly overlooked:

 

What do you consider is to be gained by convincing oneself that God is 'limited' in his 'omnipotence'?  I'm not seeing the perceived benefit of trying to prove such a thing is true.

 

I perceive that we're quickly arriving at an impasse on the idea of God's omnipotence, so perhaps you can help me to understand why you consider it beneficial to conclude that God is not omnipotent.

[14SM.jcil]

On May 27, 2011, at 20:37, xeno <69bla...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>> the
>> conclusion that God is somehow limited by not being able to create something
>> that he is limited by is a non-sequitur.
>
> Really? Not being able to do something is not a limitation?! A rock
> here is a red-herring. It suffices to point out that human beings can
> make things that they can't lift. If god can't make something that god
> can't lift then that's a limitation.

The approach you're using is to apply logic to this hypothetical scenario. I'm pointing out that your conclusion logically fails as a non-sequitur.

>
>> Sin is a moral choice to rebel against God's established standard of what is
>> good - it is *not* a product of creation.
>
> Being able to rebel is a product of creation, & supposedly a
> foreseeable one, (& if it wasn't then god lacks omniscience or
> couldn't be "omniscience"). Since it is a product of creation then god
> is responsible, in part, for evil, that is, the opposite of good.

I've pointed out that sin is *not* a product of creation. My basis for so asserting is the Bible. You assert otherwise. What is your reliable source to so conclude?

>
>> It is not any more possible for
>> God to sin than it is for an apple tree to produce bananas.
>
> Defining sin as something as only humans can do, or what any creature
> created by god can do doesn't explain why there is the oppossite of
> goodness in the universe.

Is *that* your question then...Why does evil exist?

> The only reason why there can be the
> oppposite of goodness in the universe is by god making it possible and
> actual. It's not a matter of apples and oranges here. It's all one
> tree. The root is god here.

I agree that God has made sin possible (but not actual), and that God is the root of all that has been created.

[xeno]

On May 28, 11:33 am, S M <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 8:37 PM, xeno <69black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> xeno, I'm still hoping to receive a response on the following question that was indvertantly overlooked:
>
> What do you consider is to be gained by convincing oneself that God is 'limited' in his 'omnipotence'?  I'm not seeing the perceived benefit of trying to prove such a thing is true.

With infinite being, omnipotence & impotence becomes
indistinguishable. Signifying that god has unlimited powers is looking
at god in a one-sided way. God's limit is infinity.

[xeno]

On May 28, 11:49 am, "14SM.jcil" <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've pointed out that sin is *not* a product of creation.

If it's not a product of creation then it is nothing. But since it is
something the only way it can exist if you assume that there is a
creation is that it is a product of that creation.

[SM]

Man has no other vantage point than viewing Him from a "one-sided way".  Consequently, relative to us God's powers are nothing less than 'unlimited'.

 

What benefit do you perceive there is in viewing God any other way?

[SM]

That sounds to me like suggesting that a sealed container from which everything inside has been removed (i.e., a pefect vacuum) can be said to have 'something' inside it.

 

"This sealed container has something inside it?" 

"Yeah, it has a vacuum inside it!"

"What is a vacuum?" 

"A vacuum is nothing!"

"Nothing is something?"

"Yes!"

[xeno]

On May 31, 1:27 pm, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > With infinite being, omnipotence & impotence becomes
> > indistinguishable. Signifying that god has unlimited powers is looking
> > at god in a one-sided way. God's limit is infinity.
>
> Man has no other vantage point than viewing Him from a "one-sided way".

You're avoiding the problem here. If one has an infinite capacity to
do things then one is faced with infinite things that won't be done
even though one can go on forever.. At some point even god is
overwhelmed by infinity. At some point god can't see past a certain
horizon & infinite things aren't predictable. So there's a limit to
omnipotence & omniscience. A "vantage point" that doesn't take these
things under consideration is a self-imposed limit but that doesn't
make these problems go away.

> Consequently, relative to us God's powers are nothing less than 'unlimited'.

That's irrelevant. Relative to infinity, god's powers are limited.

[xeno]

On May 28, 11:49 am, "14SM.jcil" <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I agree that God has made sin possible (but not actual), ....

You want to have & eat your cake at the same time. No sin can be
actual unless god produced the sinner if you want to claim it's all a
creation.

[xeno]

On May 31, 1:37 pm, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "A vacuum is nothing!"

No space is absolutely devoid of matter.


If you account for existence by claiming it is a creation then
whatever happens in that creation is a product of its manufacture.
It's like you're trying to deny any connection between the engineer
and the fabrications the engineer produces.

[SM]

On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 9:35 PM, xeno <69bla...@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 31, 1:27 pm, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > With infinite being, omnipotence & impotence becomes
> > indistinguishable. Signifying that god has unlimited powers is looking
> > at god in a one-sided way. God's limit is infinity.
>
> Man has no other vantage point than viewing Him from a "one-sided way".

You're avoiding the problem here. If one has an infinite capacity to
do things then one is faced with infinite things that won't be done
even though one can go on forever.. At some point even god is
overwhelmed by infinity. At some point god can't see past a certain
horizon & infinite things aren't predictable. So there's a limit to
omnipotence & omniscience. A "vantage point" that doesn't take these
things under consideration is a self-imposed limit but that doesn't
make these problems go away.

Actually, I perceive that you're applying constraints upon God that are born from finite understanding.  You (and I) cannot comprehend infinite understanding so your insistence that God must be likewise constrained is an erroneous conclusion.  I am comfortable with divine attributes of omnipotence and omniscience that are beyond my capacity for understanding...in fact, I consider that such things should naturally be beyond my comprehension.  I think that we err to regard God as having any limits that we can comprehend.  The Bible validates this perspective.

 

> Consequently, relative to us God's powers are nothing less than 'unlimited'.

That's irrelevant. Relative to infinity, god's powers are limited.

I consider that it's relevant because you as a limited, finite being are making this assertion and thus the vantage point of your determination becomes relevant to your conclusion. 

[SM]

It's not logical to conclude that God would 'create' rebellion against himself.  The conclusion remains a logical non-sequitur.

[SM]

My sealed container illustration has nothing to do with "space" (i.e., the physical universe), so while you're characterization of "space" is correct, it doesn't help with the logical illustration.

Ok, so using the manufacturer-product metaphor, you're suggesting that the automobile manufacture is responsible for the accident which resulted when its product was steered the wrong way on a one-way street.  The manufacturer made it possible for the vehicle to be steered in accord with the choice of the driver, but would you also say that the accident was also a product of the manufacturer's engineering?

[xeno]

On Jun 1, 9:06 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Actually, I perceive that you're applying constraints upon God that are born
> from finite understanding.  You (and I) cannot comprehend infinite

> understanding ...

Neither can god. Nobody or thing can comprehend infinite things. An
infinite god couldn't even comprehend itself. It will be overwhelmed
by infinity. You can only be omniscient about a finite set of things.
& infinite power ends up being infinite impotence. If god made a rock
god couldn't lift, it would be an endless task that's impossible to
*complete* but not impossible for god to *do*. That's the
contradiction you need to address.

[xeno]

On Jun 1, 9:41 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My sealed container illustration has nothing to do with "space" ...

Inside the container is space. That space is not completely devoid of
matter. Not to mention that your container is having neutrinos pass
through it.

[xeno]

On Jun 1, 9:10 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's not logical to conclude that God would 'create' rebellion against
> himself.  

Is it? He needs the ability for his creatures to rebel in order to
establish his standard of goodness. You can't legitimately claim
rebellion is not a part of the design when the overall plan is to
play opposing capabilities against each other to achieve some effect.

[SM]

I suggest that neither you nor I even have the ability to make an accurate assessment on this; our limited ability is part and parcel of being finite.  A limitation which God does not share.

[SM]

He uses all things, including our rebellion, for his ultimate purposes.  This is very different from concluding that He 'created' that which he hates.

[SM]

The nature of analagies is that they cannot encompass every aspect of the more complex concept that they're being used to illustrate.  Usually people can accept those limitations in order to derive the benefit of understanding the broader point.  Evidently, that's not possible for you in this case?  You can't 'meet me halfway' and envision a hypothetical container that is completely devoid of particles from within and without in order to facilitate the analogy and the point?

 

What is your perceived benefit from insisting that "nothing = something"?

[xeno]

On Jun 2, 10:42 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I suggest that neither you nor I even have the ability to make an accurate
> assessment on this; our limited ability is part and parcel of being finite.
> A limitation which God does not share.

I didn't claim that "god" shares our limitations. "God" has the
limitations of an infinite being. How can such a being have self-
knowledge? How can such a being make predictions?

[xeno]

On Jun 2, 11:00 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What is your perceived benefit from insisting that "nothing = something"?

Something always comes from something else and that something else
becomes nothing when it is transformed into another thing. That is in
essence, being. & yet you may perhaps believe in an immutable being
that doesn't go through any transformation and yet you have this
alleged immutable being doing things, creating universes, iow, going
through transformations. The problem here isn't the limitations of
human beings but the limitations of ideas. There are apparent
weaknesses in logic in traditional Xtian theology. (Not to mention a
lack of any reality to connect that theology with.)

[xeno]

On Jun 2, 10:45 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> He uses all things, including our rebellion, for his ultimate purposes.

IOW, he uses evil to create good. And since god is an infinite chain
of being the result is infinite good & infinite evil.

> This is very different from concluding that He 'created' that which he
> hates.

To the contrary. In order to create what he loves he creates what he
hates as a means to create what he loves.

[SM]

I consider that such logic is again based upon the limitations of human understanding.  In our experience, we acknowledge that all things have a cause; an originating source, but the Bible teaches that God is the one exception to this.  He has always been.  He is the Source of all that we experience.  He has no beginning, and thus the fullness of His nature is beyond our comprehension.  Our insistence that God fit within the notions of reality that we can comprehend only leads to erroneous conclusions (regardless of logically satisfying we may perceive them to be).

[SM]

The inability of finite beings to find satisfying answers to your questions does not mean that an infinite God is likewise constrained.

[SM]

On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 7:35 PM, xeno <69bla...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 2, 10:45 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> He uses all things, including our rebellion, for his ultimate purposes.

IOW, he uses evil to create good.

Close.  He creates only good, and can do so even from that which is evil.

[xeno]

On Jun 3, 2:39 pm, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I consider that such logic is again based upon the limitations of human
> understanding.  In our experience, we acknowledge that all things have a
> cause; an originating source, but the Bible teaches that God is the one
> exception to this.  He has always been.  He is the Source of all that we
> experience.

& what do any of these *ideas* about an alleged god have to
necessarily do with reality? Nothing apparent. & if these ideas are
not logically consistent what then? They are not reliable to describe
any reality. Fideism, which is not unchallenged by other contrary
fideisms, is not testable. It's certitude is based applying blind
faith, not *understanding*. If these were theories rather than
professions of faith about god they would be testable and could be
objectively shown to have some credence. There is no true
understanding applying fideism. That's the real problem here.

>  He has no beginning, and thus the fullness of His nature is
> beyond our comprehension.

Then how can anyone *profess* anything about something that is beyond
comprehension? This is just double talk. On one hand, if people are
skeptical about this thing then you say it's because there's a
limitation of human understanding. OTOH, if people have faith in this
thing you're suggesting that this alleged limitation doesn't apply.

[xeno]

On Jun 3, 2:44 pm, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I didn't claim that "god" shares our limitations. "God" has the
> > limitations of an infinite being. How can such a being have self-
> > knowledge? How can such a being make predictions?

> The inability of finite beings to find satisfying answers to your questions
> does not mean that an infinite God is likewise constrained.

That's all just question-begging denial. If you have infinite
consciousness then you can't know all of it because it's endless by
definition. If reality is infinite then at some point approaching
infinity you wouldn't be able to make predictions.

[xeno]

On Jun 3, 2:49 pm, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> He creates only good...

That belies all circumstantial evidence. What are you going to
believe? Ideas are only relative to objective reality. An explanation
for things that doesn't take account of all revelant aspects of real
evidence is an inadequate explanation.

[Mardi]

But what if (1) the Christian conception of God is expanded to include
a universal conception of God gathered from all the different
religious traditions (i.e. identifying common denominators and using
each of the different approaches as a form of triangulation to gain
information (2) there were records of verifiable, replicable
experimentation (across different schools of thought, religious
traditions, and periods of time) yielding experiential evidence of a
supra-Reality which transcends and encompasses known reality (3)
rational left brain data-driven liner thought is not the exclusive or
even primary means for ascertaining truth.

Then the Christian conception of God is but one part of a larger whole
and for the whole to be disclaimed, then all the other religious and
non-religious conceptions of God must also be incorporated into the
equation. This would have to include the HIndu conception of ultimate
Reality which is beyond time and space and is the source of all
existence as it comprises Being as such. That Singular Reality then
manifests in time and space generating, through natural progressions
the known universe. That which we conceive and name as God in our many
religions are but the manifestations of ultimate Reality when
perceived through the lens of a particular time and place, a
particular religion, a particular community. It is specific and
limited to that community, but it is a manifestation of ultimate
Reality and therefore is similar to a window which provides true but
limited perception of the outside world.


And like a window, it is what people see when looking out from the
confines of the known reality of our world. But there are also doors
through which adventurers have gone out to experience that which
cannot be comprehended or explained. It can be experienced and there
are rare ones who have achieved that in each of the different
religious traditions. Their experiences cannot be expressed any more
than ultimate Reality can be expressed in terms of the known reality
of our daily experience. However, there are enough numerous consistent
accounts of the experience across different historical periods and
religious traditions to satisfy me that there is, in fact, a Reality
which transcends our known reality.

And even without this metaphysical dimension, current studies strongly
support the inadequacy of rational thought to access and encompass
even the limited reality of our lived experience. They have added EQ
(emotional quotient) to the well-known IQ (intellectual quotient) to
measure proficiency in emotional knowledge. And current scholarship
also argues that mental skills must encompass not only the left brain
verbal, linear, data focus but the right brain spatial, visual,
wholistic, non-linear capacity. Huge volumes of information are
inaccessible to the left brain when it is allowed to function in
dominance of the right brain. Our American educational system almost
exclusively trains us in left-brain skills to the exclusion of right
brain skills. It leaves us in the condition of a bicycle with only one
wheel.

Thus Christians, and those of other religions as well, probably have a
view of God which is meaningful in the context of their experienced
reality, but which is limited in scope, yet which incorporates truth
about ultimate Reality. Reliance on scripture can be seen as an
attempt of those from within the limits of the known reality to gain a
window, an access point to that Reality which both transcends and
encompasses known reality. And the justification for this is that
there have been those who have conducted experiments and have
experienced that ultimate reality. Those experiences have formed the
basis of scriptures' stumbling attempts to express that inexpressible.
And faith is not so much a belief in the unverifiable but a reliance
on right brain functions for gaining information and reaching
conclusions. Right brain thinking is still very unfamiliar in our
current culture, but is crucial to gaining a fuller more robust sense
of truth

[Ahava Diaz]

Dear Brothers:
My name is Liliana Miryam, please ask you, your prayers daily for me for liberation and family, my mother Maria, my newphew Josue (10 years) for liberation of paralytic and dumb, to straighten his back and to grow as boy of 10 years, because he's like a 2 years little boy , my father Felix , when I pray for him, there is opposition of demons in thoughts and voices. please pray for the 3 to be heal and protect by  The Lord Yahshua. My newphew was attacked since he was a baby.
 
Please I ask you to pray for  my brother felix and 2 sisters rossana and family and nataly and family , because we have spiritual attacks for 10  years, please pray for me The Lord Yahshua cure us all, and take away the bad day from us. and give us more faith, Yahshua bless you and make his face shine over you.
Shalom,
Liliana Miryam Curiñaupa Rojas
Lima Peru

Yahshua defends us from the mafia of witches that persecute me and my family with all kind of  sorcery , they attack for more than 10 years. they attack with perversity of sodom, murder, crazy, and all kind of perversity,with aggressions, mental control, demons speak day and night to me, they don't let me rest,  oppositions in all fields oppossing for my healing and the healing of my family and blessings. they don't let's rest my family either.

L. Miryam C.R.
They attack churches, my neigborhood, they don't let my family to go to church, they don't let us to read the bible, pray and praise, they pursue me and to my family too, they want to continue with it. 
Yahshua bless you and make his face shine over you.


Dear Brothers:
My name is Liliana Miryam, please ask you, your prayers daily for me for liberation and family, my mother Maria, my newphew Josue (10 years) for liberation of paralytic and dumb, to straighten his back and to grow as boy of 10 years, because he's like a 2 years little boy , my father Felix , when I pray for him, there is opposition of demons in thoughts and voices. please pray for the 3 to be heal and protect by  The Lord Yahshua. My newphew was attacked since he was a baby.
 
Please I ask you to pray for  my brother felix and 2 sisters rossana and family and nataly and family , because we have spiritual attacks for 10  years, please pray for me The Lord Yahshua cure us all, and take away the bad day from us. and give us more faith, Yahshua bless you and make his face shine over you.
Shalom,
Liliana Miryam Curiñaupa Rojas
Lima Peru

Yahshua defends us from the mafia of witches that persecute me and my family with all kind of  sorcery , they attack for more than 10 years. they attack with perversity of sodom, murder, crazy, and all kind of perversity,with aggressions, mental control, demons speak day and night to me, they don't let me rest,  oppositions in all fields oppossing for my healing and the healing of my family and blessings. they don't let's rest my family either.

L. Miryam C.R.
They attack churches, my neigborhood, they don't let my family to go to church, they don't let us to read the bible, pray and praise, they pursue me and to my family too, they want to continue with it. 
Yahshua bless you and make his face shine over you.




L. Miryam C.R.


 
> Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2011 10:14:37 -0700
> Subject: Re: The Lamb of God
> From: mardi...@gmail.com
> To: a-civil-reli...@googlegroups.com

[xeno]

On Jun 4, 10:14 am, Mardi <mardimcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> But what if (1) the Christian conception of God is expanded to include
> a universal conception of God gathered from all the different
> religious traditions (i.e. identifying common denominators and using
> each of the different approaches as a form of triangulation to gain
> information

What does a triangulation of *ideas* necessarily to do with any
reality other than ideas?
Nothing apparent.

(2) there were records of verifiable, replicable
> experimentation (across different schools of thought, religious
> traditions, and periods of time) yielding experiential evidence of a
> supra-Reality which transcends and encompasses known reality

Fideism isn't testable. & "supra-reality" "transcending" &
"encompassing" *known reality* is just a fancy way of signifying about
alleged new information about reality, not something standing outside
of reality. If your ideas about things are not logically consistent
then they are not reliable to describe any reality.

> (3)
> rational left brain data-driven liner thought is not the exclusive or
> even primary means for ascertaining truth.

It takes a whole brain to really understand things. What you're saying
is that you prefer elusive & uncertain information about things & feel
it's alright to base elaborate belief systems about them.

[Mardi]

So I take it you are pretty firmly locked into your perceptions of
reality and not prepared to explore alternative creative perspectives,
even purely as a thought exercise?

I enjoy taking apart all the various conceptions of reality and
putting them back together in different configurations and see what
holds together and what falls apart. I've found numerous ways to re-
configure our conceptions of reality! It's a lot of fun. .... fun
being the primary reason for doing it.

I see everything always evolving from what it is into something else.
The nature of life the universe and everything is change. So why hold
tenaciously to one thing when there are so many other interesting
options out there? The only criteria I've got is: don't go anywhere,
even purely in the mind, that may lead to hurt or harm to another.
Just a basic rule of the road for life in general... makes it so much
more pleasant to live here in the space-time continuum.

[14SM.jcil]

I acknowledge that the concept is beyond human comprehension.

[14SM.jcil]

I agree with your last statement. My point is that as finite beings we have to accept that many aspects of reality are beyond our comprehension. The most obvious example is God himself.

I disagree that evidence exists (whether circumstantial or otherwise) which gives us reason to conclude that God is anything other than how he has revealed himself through nature generally, and more specifically through the Bible. I just don't see it.

[14SM.jcil]

On Jun 3, 2011, at 20:10, xeno <69bla...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 3, 2:39 pm, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

I consider that such logic is again based upon the limitations of human

understanding.  In our experience, we acknowledge that all things have a

cause; an originating source, but the Bible teaches that God is the one

exception to this.  He has always been.  He is the Source of all that we

experience.

& what do any of these *ideas* about an alleged god have to
necessarily do with reality? Nothing apparent.  & if these ideas are
not logically consistent what then? They are not reliable to describe
any reality. Fideism, which is not unchallenged by other contrary
fideisms, is not testable. It's certitude is based applying blind
faith, not *understanding*. If these were theories rather than
professions of faith about god they would be testable and could be
objectively shown to have some credence. There is no true
understanding applying fideism. That's the real problem here.

If 'testability' holds some appeal, I note that all theologies are 'testable' through death.  I say this a little facetiously, but  have noted through my research into NDEs that Biblical concepts are validated with these experiences as well.

 He has no beginning, and thus the fullness of His nature is

beyond our comprehension.

Then how can anyone *profess* anything about something that is beyond
comprehension? This is just double talk. On one hand, if people are
skeptical about this thing then you say it's because there's a
limitation of human understanding. OTOH, if people have faith in this
thing you're suggesting that this alleged limitation doesn't apply.

What I mean to say is that the totality of God's nature is beyond human comprehension.  We understand in part because God has revealed something of himself to us, but we have to accept the reality that the full essence of divinity is beyond human comprehension.

I don't suggest that as created beings we will ever fully comprehend the essence of divinity.  Even once we've passed from this present dimension and see all things clearly, we still will never be God and will never experientially understand omniscience.

I personally reject the notion of 'blind faith' (and hold nothing but disdain for that approach to seeking God).  I acknowledge that some people believe some things 'blindly' (although I think this is rare), but it certainly isn't necessary (as you suggest) for belief in the God of the Bible.

[xeno]

On Jun 4, 4:01 pm, Mardi <mardimcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So I take it you are pretty firmly locked into your perceptions of
> reality and not prepared to explore alternative creative perspectives,
> even purely as a thought exercise?

No amount of "thought exercise", (which apparently is really navel
gazing and fanciful thinking here), is going to change the laws of
nature or facts about the world.

> I enjoy taking apart all the various conceptions of reality and
> putting them back together in different configurations and see what
> holds together and what falls apart.

So you assert.

[xeno]

On Jun 5, 5:57 am, "14SM.jcil" <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I acknowledge that the concept is beyond human comprehension.

Infinite information is beyond a god's comprehension as well.

[xeno]

On Jun 5, 6:09 am, "14SM.jcil" <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I disagree that evidence exists (whether circumstantial or otherwise) which gives us reason to conclude that God is anything other than how he has revealed himself through nature generally, and more specifically through the Bible.  I just don't see it.

There is no circumstantial evidence for a god. "You don't see"
anything pass statements of belief and a teleological presumption.
That all rests on pure metaphysics.

[SM]

Nature itself is circumstantial evidence for God.

[SM]

So you assert, but without an ability to accurately assess.

[SM]

On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 5:16 PM, xeno <69bla...@gmail.com> wrote:

What does a triangulation of *ideas* necessarily to do with any

reality other than ideas?
Nothing apparent.

 

Fideism isn't testable. & "supra-reality" "transcending" &

"encompassing" *known reality* is just a fancy way of signifying about
alleged new information about reality, not something standing outside
of reality. If your ideas about things are not logically consistent
then they are not reliable to describe any reality.

xeno, without intending to interrupt your dialogue with Mardi I offer the following because your comments above contribute to my understanding of your perspective in the conversation that we're already having.

The "triangulation of ideas" is one of the legitimate ways in which we learn and assimilate information, particularly for information that is not otherwise directly 'testable'.  New ideas are considered to have greater validity if they comport with other information that is considered reliable (i.e., consistent with reality).

I appreciate your appeal for the use of logic.  I too hold that all of reality must be logically consistent.  Where we appear to differ is that I think that mankind's capacity for logic is limited by his finiteness and is therefore a more subjective tool than we generally acknowledge and thus regard logic as insufficient on its own to provide answers.  In other words, just because I can't follow the logic of an idea, this alone doesn't bring me satisfaction that it must be false.

I observe that much of what modern man understands about reality was at one time viewed as 'illogical'.  Today, with our improved understanding through more capable observation we can follow the logic of these previously challenging ideas.  When we look back on man's history of advancing in knowledge and note that these ideas were true representations of reality even when we couldn't discern them as such, we should learn that our capacity for understanding is limited and expect that even in modern times we're likely to still be just as constrained in our understanding (relative to all of objective truth).

Recognizing the limitations of the tool of logic on its own, I prefer the 'weight of evidence' approach.  In such an approach, for any idea under evaluation the conclusion of logic regarding that idea is merely be one of the contributing data points.

[xeno]

On Jun 6, 4:50 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nature itself is circumstantial evidence for God.

That's a teleological presumption. A more plausible explanation is
that order & disorder are naturally occurring because that's what
there's evidence for. There's nothing pointing to some
*distinguishable* "god" phenomena. & since that's the case there's no
necessity for your god supposition to be any truer than another
because you can't test your supposition objectively. That being the
case you have to fall back on fideism and then we're stuck in
subjectivism.

[xeno]

On Jun 6, 4:46 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Infinite information is beyond a god's comprehension as well.

> So you assert, but without an ability to accurately assess.

Try assessing what infinity means. Infinity extends indefinitely.
Under those circumstances there's no difference between infinite
knowledge and infinite ignorance. Whatever anyone can know, there's
always something they don't. It's logically impossible to know
everything about what extends indefinitely. Come on. An ad hominem
argument isn't going to work here.

[xeno]

On Jun 6, 6:14 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The "triangulation of ideas" is one of the legitimate ways in which we learn
> and assimilate information,

That's incorrect. Ideas have to connect with real things, so merely
"triangulating" ideas, (& not information that does connect with real
things, (in other words, *facts*)), doesn't necessasrily lead to
anything.

>  I too hold that all of
> reality must be logically consistent.

That's incorrect. If *ideas* are logically inconsistent then they are

[xeno]

On Jun 5, 10:44 am, "14SM.jcil" <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What I mean to say is that the totality of God's nature is beyond human comprehension.

So how can you run around making **definitive** statements about "god"
when it all depends on contingencies that is allegedly beyond any
human comprehension?

[xeno]

On Jun 5, 10:44 am, "14SM.jcil" <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If 'testability' holds some appeal, I note that all theologies are 'testable' through death.  I say this a little facetiously, but  have noted through my research into NDEs that Biblical concepts are validated with these experiences as well.

Since when does death equal near-death? The body releases endorphins
under "NDE" circumstances.

[SM]

Our experience informs us that order does not naturally result from disorder.  Entropy is an observed law of physics.  Furthermore, the Anthropic Principle observes that the natural world is precisely arranged for the benefit of life.  Such precision contradicts your preferred "more plausible explanation", rendering it in fact, less plausible than the explanation that all of the physical world (i.e., universe) is the product of an intelligent Creator.

[SM]

It's not surprising that you're limited in your knowledge of the research in this area; I recognize that the scientific findings are relatively recent, dependent upon modern science, and are largely unknown except to those who have investigated the recent findings.

 

With that allowance, I'll point out that your suggestion that NDE 'experiences' are the result of a physiological cause occuring at or around the time of death has been found to have no scientific basis in fact.

 

It my intent (when I have some time) to share some of the findings that I've come across in this area of research.  I find it fascinating and suspect that others here might as well.

[SM]

I don't consider that my statements are being presented as any more 'definitive' than those you're making and I believe that there is as much evidence for validity of the statements that I make as you no doubt believe you have for those you make.

 

While we're limited both in our capacity and access to all truth, there is enough evidence about God (including his nature and character), both circumstantially and specifically, to believe in him and respond to his redemptive invitation.

[SM]

I concur with your assessment about our (mankind's) limited ability to assess infinity.  I disagree with your presumption about being able to make such an assessment about God who is by definition beyond our comprehension.

[SM]

On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 11:26 PM, xeno <69bla...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 6, 6:14 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The "triangulation of ideas" is one of the legitimate ways in which we learn
> and assimilate information,

That's incorrect. Ideas have to connect with real things, so merely
"triangulating" ideas, (& not information that does connect with real
things, (in other words, *facts*)), doesn't necessasrily lead to
anything.

 

 

Perhaps you missed my very next statement; I utilized the very same qualifier:

 

"New ideas are considered to have greater validity if they comport with other information that is considered reliable (i.e., consistent with reality)."

 

 

>  I too hold that all of

> reality must be logically consistent.

That's incorrect. If *ideas* are logically inconsistent then they are

not reliable to describe any reality.

 

 

I don't understand your response.  Are you suggesting that I've concluded incorrectly from your responses that you believe all of reality must be logically consistent?  You don't actually consider this to be the case (even though your reliance on logic as a tool for truth-seeking presupposes it)?

[ornamentalmind]

As an aside and hopefully not something that derails this discussion,
the notion of ‘order’ itself, being subjective, may confuse the issue
here. Some might consider the order of all things to be just that…
order and a natural order at that.…and not agree that an ego imposed
meaning of the term to be accurate.

On Jun 7, 5:00 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

[xeno]

On Jun 7, 5:24 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I concur with your assessment about our (mankind's) limited ability

You're not apparently assessing *infinity*. Infinity extends
indefinitely. That means infinity is a limit nothing can get around.
God's infinite knowledge isn't distinguishable from infinite ignorance
because there is no finite totality that can be referered to here.
IOW, if actuality is infinite then actuality can't be emcompassed.
That means there's a limit to omniscience & omnipotence.

[xeno]

On Jun 7, 5:09 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Since when does death equal near-death? The body releases endorphins
> > under "NDE" circumstances.

> It's not surprising that you're limited in your knowledge of the research in
> this area;

It's not surprising that you cite nothing here and make claims about
it anyway. It's a fact that the body releases endorphins when the body
is near death. That's going to have a hallucinogenic effect. & you
can't conflate NDEs with death. So you can't claim that "all

[xeno]

On Jun 7, 5:00 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Our experience informs us that order does not naturally result from
> disorder.

Order & disorder are a unity.

> Anthropic Principle observes that the natural world is precisely arranged
> for the benefit of life.

It's a big leap to say that the universe does have properties that are
conducive to life to saying the universe must have those properties.
You're just begging the question of design here.

[xeno]

On Jun 7, 5:21 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > So how can you run around making **definitive** statements about "god"
> > when it all depends on contingencies that is allegedly beyond any
> > human comprehension?
>
> I don't consider that my statements are being presented as any more
> 'definitive' than those you're making and I believe that there is as much
> evidence for validity of the statements that I make as you no doubt believe
> you have for those you make.

The difference is that what you make definitive statements you claimed
is beyond comprehension ultimately. You can't equate that view with a
view that presumes that everything is comprehensible.

[14SM.jcil]

On Jun 7, 2011, at 11:43, ornamentalmind <ornament...@gmail.com> wrote:

> As an aside and hopefully not something that derails this discussion,
> the notion of ‘order’ itself, being subjective, may confuse the issue
> here. Some might consider the order of all things to be just that…
> order and a natural order at that.…and not agree that an ego imposed
> meaning of the term to be accurate.

I have no idea what you're intending to imply by the characterization of "ego imposed meaning"; I expected that order vs. disorder would be understood since I've commonly heard the term used in the current context, but I'm happy to continue an aside discussion to define the term if such is considered necessary.

[ornamentalmind]

SM. No thank you. I'm not interested in definitions here and now.

On Jun 7, 1:23 pm, "14SM.jcil" <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

[14SM.jcil]

Regarding "assessing infinity": I thought we had reached agreement that the finite cannot comprehensively assess the infinite.

Reading further: I think I'm finally following the logic of this point. Your use of 'actuality' above implies a reference to mankind's present reality (something which I consider is entirely distinct from God, a distinct a separate entity - I note that others consider differently, and you may be one of them, but I think that separating the two is not only more accurate, but it may better facilitate our current discussion too).
What makes you think that "actuality is infinite"? I consider God to be infinite and out present reality to be finite.

[SM]

Perhaps I should have stated it differently, but I didn't intend my use of "It's not surprising..." as a 'dig' against you.  I was simply observing that your perspective is common among those who are not familiar with the more recent scientific research in this area, and that your conclusions are understandable in light of that position of ignorance.

I repeat from my position of having studied some of the recent research, that this research has incontrovertibly demonstrated that the experiences of NDEs are not attributable to physiological cause of any kind.

My 'claim' that "all theologies are testable through death" is a facetiously articulated observation that each of us will die (setting aside the concept of 'rapture' and those relative few who will not actually die before entering the next life), and as a result will know with certitude whether their theology (the term being loosely here to mean: concept of the afterlife) is accurate, since at that 'time' the afterlife will be their 'present' reality.

[SM]

On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 2:39 PM, xeno <69bla...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 7, 5:00 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Our experience informs us that order does not naturally result from
> disorder.

Order & disorder are a unity.

A "unity"...as in 'a unified pair of antonyms'?

Don't see how this 'argument' is a response to my observation that order does not naturally result from disorder and therefore we have reason to conclude that all order originated from an intelligent source.

 

> Anthropic Principle observes that the natural world is precisely arranged
> for the benefit of life.

It's a big leap to say that the universe does have properties that are
conducive to life to saying the universe must have those properties.
You're just begging the question of design here.

Atheists rely heavily on the concept of 'what is probable' when reasoning through ideas.  The Anthropic Principle observes that the abundant examples of precision which exist throughout the universe implies that an Intelligent Designer is highly probable.

[SM]

I don't hold that "everything is comprehensible" (at least not in this life).  I'm not sure what I've stated that you consider implies this because I rather think I've tried to suggest otherwise by pointing out that man is finite and therefore cannot fully comprehend God (who is infinite).  The consequence of not being able to fully comprehend an infinite God is that we arrive at erroneous conclusions about him when relying solely on our inherently limited understanding and capacity with logic to arrive at those conclusions.

[xeno]

On Jun 7, 7:14 pm, "14SM.jcil" <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Your use of 'actuality' above implies a reference to mankind's present reality

No. Actuality refers to all that exists. Whatever & whereever. It
doesn't "facilitate" the discussion by confounding it by talking about
separate realities. (Because that's just an equivocation between
points of view & actuality.)

> What makes you think that "actuality is infinite"?  I consider God to be infinite and out present reality to be finite.

If a god exists and that god is infinite then that implies that
actuality is infinite. But you're making a distinction between one
state of affairs, (the world & the universe), & something standing
outside of all of that, supposedly some ultimate reality. If you're
claiming that this is actual then "actuality is infinite".

[xeno]

On Jun 8, 4:00 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I repeat from my position of having studied some of the recent research,
> that this research has incontrovertibly demonstrated that the experiences of
> NDEs are not attributable to physiological cause of any kind.

Well, you're incontrovertibly demonstrating a lack of evidence for
your claim here and you're being patently absurd since NDEs are caused
by physiological reasons, (near death), that you're attributing as
supernatrual causes for psychological states of mind. You got to come
up with a plausible explanation here.

[xeno]

On Jun 8, 4:11 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Order & disorder are a unity.
>
> A "unity"...as in 'a unified pair of antonyms'?

Everything is a unity of oposites. Example. We're living & we're dying
at the same time. One state of affairs becomes disordered and that
state of affairs becomes a new order.

>
> Don't see how this 'argument' is a response to my observation that order
> does not naturally result from disorder and therefore we have reason to
> conclude that all order originated from an intelligent source.

But order & disorder are relative to some previous state. & what does
intelligence necessarily got to do with it?

> > It's a big leap to say that the universe does have properties that are
> > conducive to life to saying the universe must have those properties.
> > You're just begging the question of design here.

> Atheists rely heavily on the concept of 'what is probable' when reasoning
> through ideas.

You're not taking into account that life is a current state of affairs
but that hasn't always been the case nor likely always be the case.
You want to rule out probability & indulge in an anthropic fallacy
because you want to believe in some form of immutability beyond
transformation.

[xeno]

On Jun 8, 4:19 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ... man is

> finite and therefore cannot fully comprehend God (who is infinite).

Well, "god" can't fully comprehend god's self because infinity extends
indefinitely. There's no way god can fully understand something there
is no totality for.

> The
> consequence of not being able to fully comprehend an infinite God is that we
> arrive at erroneous conclusions

So how can you make definitive statements about something you make
erroneous conclusions about? Maybe that's not fair but then again you
are exhibiting an awareness of the inherent contradition here.

[SM]

Obviously 'death' is a physiological event; I wasn't intending to imply otherwise.  Instead, what I said was that the experiences reported by the relative few who have undergone the physiological event of death and then have recovered from that event have been scientifically verified to have be caused by something other than a physiological phenomenon (such as endorphins, as you suggested).

 

I acknowledge your observation that I haven't provided any support for this, and as I've said earlier I hope to do so when I have time (not only for the sake of this discussion, but for the pleasure of sharing something that I find very intriguing and which I think might interest others in this forum).  In the meantime, you're welcome to do your own research; there's no need to wait for me.

[SM]

On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 1:43 PM, xeno <69bla...@gmail.com> wrote:

Well, "god" can't fully comprehend god's self because infinity extends
indefinitely. There's no way god can fully understand something there
is no totality for.

 

I acknowledge your opinion.  My point is that your opinion is not based upon an ability to asses (since you're not God you can't comprehend what God can or can't comprehend) and is not consistent with other evidence that we have available to us.

 

 

 

> The
> consequence of not being able to fully comprehend an infinite God is that we
> arrive at erroneous conclusions

So how can you make definitive statements about something you make
erroneous conclusions about? Maybe that's not fair but then again you
are exhibiting an awareness of the inherent contradition here.

 

I'm suggesting that my conclusions are not erroneous because they are consistent with the evidence that is available to me.

[SM]

On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 1:34 PM, xeno <69bla...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 8, 4:11 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Order & disorder are a unity.
>
> A "unity"...as in 'a unified pair of antonyms'?

Everything is a unity of oposites. Example. We're living & we're dying
at the same time.  One state of affairs becomes disordered and that
state of affairs becomes a new order.

 

 

I consider that the Law of Entropy accounts for all of the simultaneous changes that you're referring to and yet connotes a unidirectional change in the aggregate of all matter.  This implies a point from which 'maximum order' existed.

 

 

 

 

> Don't see how this 'argument' is a response to my observation that order
> does not naturally result from disorder and therefore we have reason to
> conclude that all order originated from an intelligent source.

But order & disorder are relative to some previous state. & what does
intelligence necessarily got to do with it?

 

 

Order does not derive from disorder.  Disorder is the progressive devolution of order.  Order exists in the dimensions that we can observe and had to have had a beginning.  A beginning of order necessitates an intelligent source.

 

 

 

> > It's a big leap to say that the universe does have properties that are
> > conducive to life to saying the universe must have those properties.
> > You're just begging the question of design here.

> Atheists rely heavily on the concept of 'what is probable' when reasoning
> through ideas.

You're not taking into account that life is a current state of affairs
but that hasn't always been the case nor likely always be the case.
You want to rule out probability & indulge in an anthropic fallacy
because you want to believe in some form of immutability beyond
transformation.

 

 

I'm talking about concepts such as 'entropy' and 'the 'afterlife (which I've loosely defined as the experience after which this present reality has concluded).  Two concepts which specifically relate to what you say I'm not accounting for.

 

Are you familiar with the Anthropic Principle?  The very idea gains credibility through the persuasion of 'probability'.  Rather than "ruling out" probability, I'm refferring to it (which is why I expected that it should hold some appeal for an atheist).

[SM]

On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 1:01 PM, xeno <69bla...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 7, 7:14 pm, "14SM.jcil" <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Your use of 'actuality' above implies a reference to mankind's present reality

No. Actuality refers to  all that exists. Whatever & whereever. It
doesn't "facilitate" the discussion by confounding it by talking about
separate realities. (Because that's just an equivocation between
points of view & actuality.)

 

 

I acknowledge your definition for 'actuality'.  As I said, I consider it is more accurate to separate the two since you and I are part of a finite reality, whereas God is not.  I suggest that the conflation only makes the aquisition of understanding more difficult.

 

 

> What makes you think that "actuality is infinite"?  I consider God to be infinite and out present reality to be finite.

If a god exists and that god is infinite then that implies that
actuality is infinite. But you're making a distinction between one
state of affairs, (the world & the universe), & something standing
outside of all of that, supposedly some ultimate reality. If you're
claiming that this is actual then "actuality is infinite".

 

I get it.  I just consider it a less accurate definition (as noted above).

[Mardi]

SM feel free to incorporate my thoughts! Although I intended to
continue with the conversation, I find I've not got sufficient time to
keep up with constructing the careful comment and response that you
are able to maintain. By the time I have the time to put together my
thoughts, the conversation has moved on!




On Jun 6, 9:14 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 5:16 PM, xeno <69black...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > What does a triangulation of *ideas* necessarily to do with any
> > reality other than ideas?
> > Nothing apparent.
>
> > Fideism isn't testable. & "supra-reality" "transcending" &
> > "encompassing" *known reality* is just a fancy way of signifying about
> > alleged new information about reality, not something standing outside
> > of reality. If your ideas about things are not logically consistent

> > then they are not reliable to describe any reality.
>

> xeno, without intending to interrupt your dialogue with Mardi I offer the
> following because your comments above contribute to my understanding of your
> perspective in the conversation that we're already having.

>
> The "triangulation of ideas" is one of the legitimate ways in which we learn

> and assimilate information, particularly for information that is not
> otherwise directly 'testable'.  New ideas are considered to have greater

> validity if they comport with other information that is considered reliable
> (i.e., consistent with reality).
>

> I appreciate your appeal for the use of logic.  I too hold that all of
> reality must be logically consistent.  Where we appear to differ is that I
> think that mankind's capacity for logic is limited by his finiteness and is
> therefore a more subjective tool than we generally acknowledge and thus
> regard logic as insufficient on its own to provide answers.  In other words,
> just because I can't follow the logic of an idea, this alone doesn't bring
> me satisfaction that it must be false.
>
> I observe that much of what modern man understands about reality was at one
> time viewed as 'illogical'.  Today, with our improved understanding through
> more capable observation we can follow the logic of these previously
> challenging ideas.  When we look back on man's history of advancing in
> knowledge and note that these ideas were true representations of reality
> even when we couldn't discern them as such, we should learn that our
> capacity for understanding is limited and expect that even in modern times
> we're likely to still be just as constrained in our understanding (relative
> to all of objective truth).
>
> Recognizing the limitations of the tool of logic on its own, I prefer the
> 'weight of evidence' approach.  In such an approach, for any idea under
> evaluation the conclusion of logic regarding that idea is merely be one of
> the contributing data points.

[xeno]

On Jun 8, 12:29 pm, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Obviously 'death' is a physiological event; I wasn't intending to imply
> otherwise.  Instead, what I said was that the experiences reported by the
> relative few who have undergone the physiological event of death and then
> have recovered from that event have been scientifically verified to have be
> caused by something other than a physiological phenomenon (such as
> endorphins, as you suggested).

Where's your evidence? Isn't this the third time you made this claim w/
o citing?

>
> I acknowledge your observation that I haven't provided any support for this,

> and as I've said earlier I hope to do so when I have time...

Cop out.

[xeno]

On Jun 8, 12:50 pm, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Order does not derive from disorder.

Freezing water and melting is an example of that. What, you can't
refreeze the water?

>  Disorder is the progressive devolution
> of order.

& whatever leads up to your imagined absolute entropy is a completely
new state, iow, a new order. Order & disorder are relative to each
other.

> Order exists in the dimensions that we can observe and had to
> have had a beginning.  A beginning of order necessitates an intelligent
> source.

Is a slab of snow, "intelligent", when the stress of the slab exceeds
the forces supporting it? & yet this leads to an avalanche. A bigger
thing created by a little thing. That's an counter-example to what you
deem necessitates an "intelligent" source.

> I'm talking about concepts such as 'entropy' and 'the 'afterlife (which I've
> loosely defined as the experience after which this present reality has
> concluded).  Two concepts which specifically relate to what you say I'm not
> accounting for.

NDEs do not refer to experiences after life. You insist on implying
that near death is death. By "present reality" you refer to what can
actually be accounted for. "Afterlife" is a reality you can't actually
account for. You just claim it's been "scientifically verified"
without any evidence. The law of entropy doesn't prove that there's a
god. There's nothing "necessitating" that forces involved with the
singularity before the big bang were "intelligent" other than a theory
which in itself doesn't prove anything about what you want to believe
about it.

> Are you familiar with the Anthropic Principle?

It's tautological. All you're doing here, AFAICS, is morph "is" into
"must". You know, the greeks believed in gods with limits. Even the
gods had to deal with the laws of the nature that were beyond their
control. If you conjure up a god with no beginning or end then
obviously there are forces beyond the control of that god. Instead of
complaining about atheists, deal with the contradictions in your
theology.


 

[14SM.jcil]

Patience grasshopper.

(or, if you lack patience it shouldn't be very difficult for you to locate the research yourself - start with "NDE research", or something similar; there's no need to wait for me if you're truly interested)

[xeno]

On Jun 13, 5:42 am, "14SM.jcil" <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Cop out.
>
> Patience grasshopper.

This is the 4th or 5th time you've brought something up you don't
bother to cite anything for.