Good and Evil Span Both Belief and Non-Belief.

[kallipolis]

It doesn't matter until you try and insist it's something it isn't, or well, when someone's divine mystery leads them to a concert hall in Paris with a gun and a bomb.

The only posters insisting are the anti theist brigade who daily demonstrate here their hyperbole with the zeal of a religous fanatic.

 

[TX-Beau]

The only posters insisting are the anti theist brigade who daily demonstrate here their hyperbole with the zeal of a religous fanatic.

How interesting, hyperbole bombed Paris, have you phoned the French, 'Cause they're pretty sure it was ISIS.

Just give it up, it'f FUCKING OBVIOUS that a lot of religious people have, and will spend huge amounts of time trying to push their religions on everyone else because their God told them to.

Trying to dispute that this involves the rest of us is just massive intellectual dishonestly.

 

[Spensed]

Why does it matter to you what another experiences in the realm of the divine mystery?

For the same reasons it seems to matter to you what others experience or, in your view, fail to experience with respect to "the divine mystery." Intellectual curiosity, the challenge to one's own perceptions and beliefs and so on.

I think the point currently being made to you is that closed minded and self-convinced religious dogma is dangerous. So is dogma that seeks to ban religious belief for those who want to make that choice. Those are hardly controversial observations.

 

[vidarr]

Just give it up, it's FUCKING OBVIOUS that a lot of religious people have, and will spend huge amounts of time trying to push their religions on everyone else because their God told them to.

Trying to dispute that this involves the rest of us is just massive intellectual dishonestly.

Very true. If religion got along fine with non-believers we wouldn't have so many problems in the world today.

Even as a devout follower yourself, can you say that the good outweighs the evil that religion causes? Maybe religions should be a little pickier who they let into their flocks.

 

[Kulindahr]

Very true. If religion got along fine with non-believers we wouldn't have so many problems in the world today.

Even as a devout follower yourself, can you say that the good outweighs the evil that religion causes? Maybe religions should be a little pickier who they let into their flocks.

Humans cause evil -- religions are just a tool.

That's kind of obvious when you compare Jesus' statement "Turn the other cheek" with the religiofascists' "Lock and load".

 

[Telstra]

Most believers I know believe on the basis of evidence, not on a lack of it.

Evidence to me mean proof.
Where is the proof ?

 

[ludolfo]

where is the evidence? where is the proof? Is that a fact?

And the one who follows trad religion here talks about consubstantiation:

Metaphor is not the issue here...it is the experience of living with the understanding there are is another conscious reality, living at one with who I am.....this is the language that best illustrates my experiences....in theological language this reality is called consubstantiation.

that term is defined:

noun Christian Theology
noun: consubstantiation

the doctrine, especially in Lutheran belief, that the substance of the bread and wine coexists with the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist.

That is the belief that when the priests do their ritual at their altar they some how -with the grace of God-change the bread and wine into the body of christ

OK, I will say straight away I think that is BS. I think that is the mythical dilution of a more ancient factual ritual-if you will-where people would eat NOT the placebo bread and wine which the priests TELL them is the 'body and blood of christ', and they must have faith and believe it is, but that the suppressed religious ritual was far rather a real psychedelic sacrament that really does change consciousness and the recipient really does have a spiritual experience!

The evidence would be the person taking the leap to eat the strange fruit, and experience

Question: do you need evidence and fact to know love or do you need to experience it?

 

[Kulindahr]

And the one who follows trad religion here talks about consubstantiation:


that term is defined:

noun Christian Theology
noun: consubstantiation

the doctrine, especially in Lutheran belief, that the substance of the bread and wine coexists with the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist.

That is the belief that when the priests do their ritual at their altar they some how -with the grace of God-change the bread and wine into the body of christ

Um, you just contradicted the definition you posted -- your statement describes transubstantiation.

BTW, regardless of what their church teaches, the majority of Roman Catholics actually believe consubstantiation because it fits the plain reading of the Bible, which calls the elements both bread and the Body of Christ and wine and the Blood of Christ.

OK, I will say straight away I think that is BS. I think that is the mythical dilution of a more ancient factual ritual-if you will-where people would eat NOT the placebo bread and wine which the priests TELL them is the 'body and blood of christ', and they must have faith and believe it is, but that the suppressed religious ritual was far rather a real psychedelic sacrament that really does change consciousness and the recipient really does have a spiritual experience!

Numerous Roman Catholics, Orthodox, Anglican/Episcopalians, and Lutherans will tell you that the Sacrament you dismiss as unreal does in fact "change consciousness" and give a very real "spiritual experience".

 

[otters]

Um, you just contradicted the definition you posted -- your statement describes transubstantiation.

BTW, regardless of what their church teaches, the majority of Roman Catholics actually believe consubstantiation because it fits the plain reading of the Bible, which calls the elements both bread and the Body of Christ and wine and the Blood of Christ.



Numerous Roman Catholics, Orthodox, Anglican/Episcopalians, and Lutherans will tell you that the Sacrament you dismiss as unreal does in fact "change consciousness" and give a very real "spiritual experience".

Agreed.

Transubstantiation

vs.

Consubstantiation

 

[kallipolis]

where is the evidence? where is the proof? Is that a fact?

And the one who follows trad religion here talks about consubstantiation:


that term is defined:

That is the belief that when the priests do their ritual at their altar they some how -with the grace of God-change the bread and wine into the body of christ

OK, I will say straight away I think that is BS. I think that is the mythical dilution of a more ancient factual ritual-if you will-where people would eat NOT the placebo bread and wine which the priests TELL them is the 'body and blood of christ', and they must have faith and believe it is, but that the suppressed religious ritual was far rather a real psychedelic sacrament that really does change consciousness and the recipient really does have a spiritual experience!

The evidence would be the person taking the leap to eat the strange fruit, and experience

Question: do you need evidence and fact to know love or do you need to experience it?

I am not referring to the mystery/sacrament that is the Eucharist.

The Greek word is: ὁμοούσιος, or consubstantialis in Latin.

Jesus relates to this reality in clear terms:

29"My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. 30"I and the Father are one."~ John 10

Jesus is conscious of his own personality, as a human being distinct from that of the Father, yet he asserts a oneness in being with The Father. This is the ὁμοούσιος, or consubstantialis that I am relating too, when speaking to my own experiences living with the understanding that all human life is one in being, with The Father. In simpler secular language the Spirit of The Creator resides in every human person. This is The Logos that I referenced earlier in this thread. Logos is a term that can be traced back to ancient Greece when wise men understood that the divine presence is the causation of the life affirming decisions that human beings make. When I refer to the divine presence, I am in Nicean Creed language referring to the Holy Spirit, as Christian doctrine understands The Logos.

The Christmas season is the ideal period to reference The Logos (The Word), as John the Apostle understood the presence of the divine mystery, in human life:

John 1

The Word Became Flesh

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

 

[kallipolis]

Here's the Greek language version of John 1 where you will note the reference to The Logos (ὁ λόγος.)


1 ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

2 οὖτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν.

3 πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν. ὃ γέγονεν

4 ἐν αὐτῶ ζωὴ ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων·

5 καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει, καὶ ἡ σκοτία αὐτὸ οὐ κατέλαβεν.

14 καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός, πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας.

end

 

[otters]

1 ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

2 οὖτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν.

3 πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν. ὃ γέγονεν

4 ἐν αὐτῶ ζωὴ ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων·

5 καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει, καὶ ἡ σκοτία αὐτὸ οὐ κατέλαβεν.

14 καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός, πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας.

Do you agree that "Word" is an insufficient translation?

As far as I remember, e.g. (Goethe's) Faust tries different translations

 

[kallipolis]

Do you agree that "Word" is an insufficient translation?

As far as I remember, e.g. (Goethe's) Faust tries different translations

Our experiences with the divine mystery are limited, when we attempt to use words that cannot adequately express those experiences. In this sense, I agree with you. From an academic viewpoint the transliteration presents some problems in that logos patently means much more than a word, when attempting to understand the presence of the divine mystery in human life.

Rather like the demands here for proof; proof that satisfies those who are unwilling to embrace the idea that personal experience trumps any thought that a word, or words can adequately express ones experiences. Particularly when speaking of that divine mystery, speaking within the being of the human person living at one, with the divine mystery.

Many people demand simplistic black, and white answers to their questions, on matters that are complex, and not easily understood by those who have not shared in the experience that I am referencing here.

 

[TX-Beau]

...Question: do you need evidence and fact to know love or do you need to experience it?

Actually there is quite a bit of scientific, empirical evidence that human emotions exist, these days we can even observe them in the chemistry of the brain.

So much for fact, to "know" in your statement is undefined, so who the hell knows? "Love" has a bunch of differing context dependent definitions, so does "to know" in the context you're using it. Part of my peeve with the religious/spiritual gets triggered when someone says something like this, which has no specificity and then attempts to draw specious parallels about fact with that exact lack of detail, when in fact you can't HAVE "fact" without the pesky details, and there will never be evidence about things that purposely self-define themselves as beyond nature.

 

[kallipolis]

Actually there is quite a bit of scientific, empirical evidence that human emotions exist, these days we can even observe them in the chemistry of the brain.

So much for fact, to "know" in your statement is undefined, so who the hell knows? "Love" has a bunch of differing context dependent definitions, so does "to know" in the context you're using it. Part of my peeve with the religious/spiritual gets triggered when someone says something like this, which has no specificity and then attempts to draw specious parallels about fact with that exact lack of detail, when in fact you can't HAVE "fact" without the pesky details, and there will never be evidence about things that purposely self-define themselves as beyond nature.

Ah! but there are those obsessive, compulsive personalities who live their life, thriving on the petty details of life... demanding that their every whim should be addressed, enabling them to sleep at night knowing that their contributions to scientific research will one day reward them with a Noble prize...in their dreams

 

[lambdaboy]

I was baptised a Catholic and went to Church and followed all the thing a good Catholic is supposed to do. Then when I came out I had to listen to there lies and garbage about homosexuality and of course what has been done to millions of young children by priests. Not to mention every horrible thing Christianity has done. I am proud to be an Atheist my partner raised to manhood two straight sons. As far as people who have religion I use the new phrase . " Religion is like a penis you can be proud about it you can do what you want with it, but do not shove it down my throat or anywhere else. In all religions we have seen sexual abuse of the young rape if you can live with that and put it aside. I will not but we will see the day that you can have your religion but it will not affect my life or anyone else's life. I live now in England where out of 60 odd million people only 1 million go to Church regularly. Thats says it all.!

 

[Spensed]

Ah! but there are those obsessive, compulsive personalities who live their life, thriving on the petty details of life... demanding that their every whim should be addressed, enabling them to sleep at night knowing that their contributions to scientific research will one day reward them with a Noble prize...in their dreams

The alternative to a subjective experience (such as faith) is not necessarily a loss in "the petty details of life", etc., etc.

Many non-believers have over-arching concepts or philosophies of life, to which they hold and which are every bit as meaningful to them as subjective faith is to others. One doesn't need to be religious or mystical to appreciate both the eternal value of the moment and of time.

I am not sure that subjective faith has much value, if one is aware that it does not, or may not, have any objective truth or any relationship to objective truth. If faith (without objective evidence of the subject matter believed in) works for some people, or they think it does, so be it. However, I do think it needs to be couched in humility and self-questioning.

Obviously, a life based purely on scientific method may miss some dimensions of metaphysics, poetry or vision or whatever one wants to call it. But, likewise a life defined by religious belief is also self-limited. Historically, many sincerely held religious beliefs have proved false.

 

[kallipolis]

The alternative to a subjective experience (such as faith) is not necessarily a loss in "the petty details of life", etc., etc.

Many non-believers have over-arching concepts or philosophies of life, to which they hold and which are every bit as meaningful to them as subjective faith is to others. One doesn't need to be religious or mystical to appreciate both the eternal value of the moment and of time.

I am not sure that subjective faith has much value, if one is aware that it does not, or may not, have any objective truth or any relationship to objective truth. If faith (without objective evidence of the subject matter believed in) works for some people, or they think it does, so be it. However, I do think it needs to be couched in humility and self-questioning.

Obviously, a life based purely on scientific method may miss some dimensions of metaphysics, poetry or vision or whatever one wants to call it. But, likewise a life defined by religious belief is also self-limited. Historically, many sincerely held religious beliefs have proved false.

None of the theists posting here are suggesting that one should ignore the input of science, and its relevance to the well being of human life; nor that ones relationship with the divine mystery should be self limiting. It is worth noting that over the centuries some of the great scientists, and progressive thinkers were also theists, leading me to understand that science, and belief in the divine mystery are compatible with rational thinking.

 

[Kulindahr]

Do you agree that "Word" is an insufficient translation?

Given that John was using it with a whole load of philosophical baggage, most certainly!

Word/Message/Logic/fundamental-organizing-principle-of-existence....

 

[TX-Beau]

Ah! but there are those obsessive, compulsive personalities who live their life, thriving on the petty details of life... demanding that their every whim should be addressed, enabling them to sleep at night knowing that their contributions to scientific research will one day reward them with a Noble prize...in their dreams

That's pretty much an invention for yourself about people who won't join in your semantic fantasizing. The only thing obsessive compulsive in here is your massive reluctance to face the fact that you don't have any, you have "numinous experience."

It's really quite amusing that you insist that your every fantastical whim be addressed when you won't even admit that you're dealing in things utterly intangible.

It's even more amusing that you've been told several times that no one cares if you can prove a damn thing - and yet that's exactly what you keep insisting people are demanding of you. Nope, people are demanding that you refrain from using terms like "evidence" if you're just going to get butt hurt when someone asks you where that evidence might be.