The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    PLEASE READ: To register, turn off your VPN (iPhone users- disable iCloud); you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

The religion of scientism

My mind is telling me that it seems that secular Science seeks physical evidence in the things of a spiritual realm, and therefore, can never get the evidences required,

At least how I was raised, faith requires no evidence at all, and seeking evidence is not faith, evidence destroys that very value of faith. Faith is the mechanism by which we demonstrate to god our sincerity.

Is that not so?

So why are all of you who are religious not simply telling the rest of us that you believe because you have faith, and that faith in and of itself is the valuable thing?

I will not agree with you, I will think you are - well - silly, but that can't possibly touch your faith if you have it, and you don't need to justify your faith in terms of the world because it's between you and god. At least that's the way I was taught, maybe Catholics are different.
 
All those questions will require my full undivided attention in Prayer in order to answer them, so that you can understand what I'm saying. It may take a day or two before I get back to all here.

Mikey don't be so hard on yourself, I think you contribute to the discussion. On the other hand I think we also contribute to the discussions you start.
Just so you know, I am not trying to push Religion, and that I don't believe in coercing people.

That is a noble idea. I only hope you apply it to yourself as well, and give yourself the freedom to consider ideas beyond catholicism, even if you decide that catholicism is still the thing that makes sense to you the most.
 
I think MikeyLove is a humble guy. Nothing wrong with a little humility, it's a quality frequently lacking these days.

Perhaps it was humility, but it did not come across that way to me.

This shit is unnecessary. :mad:

I like your posts Wooffy and think you make some really good points, but this is essentially a personal attack and uncalled for.

That was not a personal attack, and I stand behind the statement. I'm also not saying it is intentional.
 
So why are all of you who are religious not simply telling the rest of us that you believe because you have faith, and that faith in and of itself is the valuable thing?

Great point.

I would also be interested in hearing from those who, like myself, have a religious/spiritual system that is not mutually exclusive an evidence-based or "scientific" worldview.
 
Now, something that has been going through my mind as I was typing current response to you..... My mind is telling me that it seems that secular Science seeks physical evidence in the things of a spiritual realm, and therefore, can never get the evidences required, and then we see that science cannot know all there is to know.

That insisting that science, which can only measure the material realm, is the proper tool for investigating something which by definition is not, is foolish in the extreme. It's no different than insisting that gravity be measured by instruments for checking pH: it's a confusion of realms.

So your conclusion that "science cannot know all there is to know" is both correct and obvious.

Does your god factually exist, or is he a metaphor in your head?

Either he exists, or he does not. which is it?

God does not 'exist', He IS. "Exist" implies the possibilty of "does not exist", which implies ontological dependency, but the God of the great religions is self-generating.

If your god is just a metaphor, I have no argument.

If you're claiming he's just as real for me as he is for you, that's not spiritual, that's claiming empirical fact, for the simple reason that you are claiming that he's as real for me who doesn't believe, as he is for you that does.

WHICH is it?

There you go again demonstrating the starting point of this thread: you insist on your position of faith, which is that your system of knowing is the only one. "Empirical" means "measurable", and the contention is that God is NOT measurable by science -- yet you insist on demanding He be able to be. It's the exact same thing as insisting that the way to discover what people in traffic are thinking can be determined by use of a traffic camera.
 
So you are not claiming a "spiritual" experience, you are claiming a secular, actual fact. A factual god presumably does not require a church, faith, or the faithful to exist.

Why should we accept that claim of secular fact without proof?

The same fallacy I started the thread about: you claim that God be measurable by science, which is BTW arguably contrary to the definition of God.

You claim that Mikey's position is a "claim of secular fact". Why should we accept that claim concerning secular fact... when it is contrary to the definition offered?

At least how I was raised, faith requires no evidence at all, and seeking evidence is not faith, evidence destroys that very value of faith. Faith is the mechanism by which we demonstrate to god our sincerity.

Is that not so?

IF that is what you were taught, and they claimed to be Christian, then those who raised you were fools. That's not the Bible's definition of faith; it's contrary to numerous passages -- such as the one I cited earlier to disprove your assertion that no one has ever seen.

Nor is faith a mechanism by which we demonstrate anything at all; that's also contrary to the Bible, because it basically means God can be bought -- which even in the Old Testament the Prophets tried to explain is not the case. No, Mikey is right; faith is a gift of God, not something we do, but something He provides/generates, "that no man may boast".

So why are all of you who are religious not simply telling the rest of us that you believe because you have faith, and that faith in and of itself is the valuable thing?

I will not agree with you, I will think you are - well - silly, but that can't possibly touch your faith if you have it, and you don't need to justify your faith in terms of the world because it's between you and god. At least that's the way I was taught, maybe Catholics are different.

As I said, those who taught you were fools, if they claimed to be Christians -- though there are a lot of such fools out there.

To say "I believe because I have faith" is a tautology: the word is essentially the same one in the Greek, one being the verb form and the other being the noun. It's very much like answering the question "Why are you naked?" by saying "Because I have no clothes on". While it may be true, it is an answer with no meaning, because it merely states the subject of the question.

Mikey posted the Apostles' Creed in his thread. It makes the point, but the Nicene does it more thoroughly:

Πιστεύω είς ενα Θεόν, Πατέρα, παντοκράτορα, ποιητήν ουρανού καί γής, ορατών τε πάντων καί αοράτων.

Καί είς ενα Κύριον, Ίησούν Χριστόν, τόν Υιόν του Θεού τόν μονογενή, τόν εκ του Πατρός γεννηθέντα πρό πάντων τών αιώνων. Φώς εκ φωτός, Θεόν αληθινόν εκ Θεού αληθινού γεννηθέντα, ού ποιηθέντα, ὁμοούσιον τώ Πατρί, δι’ ού τά πάντα εγένετο. Τόν δι’ ημάς τούς ανθρώπους καί διά τήν ημετέραν σωτηρίαν κατελθόντα εκ τών ουρανών καί σαρκωθέντα εκ Πνεύματος ‘Αγίου καί Μαρίας τής Παρθένου καί ενανθρωπήσαντα. Σταυρωθέντα τε υπέρ ημών επί Ποντίου Πιλάτου καί παθόντα καί ταφέντα.

Καί αναστάντα τή τρίτη ημέρα κατά τάς Γραφάς.

Καί ανελθόντα είς τούς ουρανούς καί καθεζόμενον εκ δεξιών τού Πατρός.

Καί πάλιν ερχόμενον μετά δόξης κρίναι ζώντας καί νεκρούς, ού τής βασιλείας ουκ εσται τέλος.

Καί είς τό Πνεύμα τό ¨Αγιον, τό Κύριον, τό ζωοποιόν, τό εκ τού Πατρός εκπορευόμενον, τό σύν Πατρί καί Υιώ συμπροσκυνούμενον καί συνδοξαζόμενον, τό λαλήσαν διά τών Προφητών.

Είς μίαν, αγίαν, καθολικήν καί αποστολικήν Έκκλησίαν. ‘Ομολογώ εν βάπτισμα είς άφεσιν αμαρτιών. Προσδοκώ ανάστασιν νεκρών. Καί ζωήν τού μέλλοντος αιώνος.

Άμήν.

(That's the way I had to memorize it.)

The English goes like this (reasonably literal translation):

I believe in one God, Father, all-powerful, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things seen or unseen;
and in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the unique Son of God who was begotten/generated from the Father before all worlds/ages; Light from Light, true God out of / from true God, begotten/generated, not made, of one substance with the Father, through Whom all things were made -- the one who for us humans (and for our salvation) came down out of the heavens and was enfleshed from (the) Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary and was 'enhumaned'. He was also crucified for us under Pontius Pilate and suffered and was buried.

And on the third day He rose again in accordance with the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven and was seated at (lit. from) the right (hand) of the Father. He is coming again with glory to judge living and dead. Of His kingdom will not be an end.

And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Life-giver, the One proceeding from / out of the Father, the One Who with the Father and Son is worshiped and glorified, the One who spoke through the prophets.

And in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I confess/declare one baptism into remission of sin. I look forward to resurrection of dead (ones) and life of the coming age/world.

Amen.

Clive Staples Lewis wrote a poem where my point is made:

No Beauty We Could Desire


Yes, you are always everywhere. But I,
Hunting in such immeasurable forests,
Could never bring the noble Hart to bay.

The scent was too perplexing for my hounds;
Nowhere sometimes, then again everywhere.
Other scents, too, seemed to them almost the same.

Therefore I turn my back on the unapproachable
Stars and horizons and all musical sounds,
Poetry itself, and the winding stair of thought.

Leaving the forests where you are pursued in vain
--Often a mere white gleam--I turn instead
To the appointed place where you pursue.

Not in Nature, not even in Man, but in one
Particular Man, with a date, so tall, weighing
So much, talking Aramaic, having learned a trade;

Not in all food, not in all bread and wine
(Not, I mean, as my littleness requires)
But this wine, this bread ... no beauty we could desire.

--C.S. Lewis

He makes the point that Christianity is grounded in history, in details pinned to mundane lives in a particular place and time. And that leads to a small theme in the Bible, expressed nicely in the invitation, "Now come, let us reason together" and "taste, and see that the Lord is good", and "test all things". I'm not saying it as well as I could (and ought), but what God says is to not jump blindly into faith, but look at the evidence and decide.

So the answer is "I believe because I considered the evidence". It may not be evidence one might test in a lab, it may be evidence one considers insufficient, but it is evidence.
 
Blah Blah Blah Kuli, you will never take anything I say seriously, you just obfuscate.

You've answered none of my questions, you've addressed none of my points. You've ignored them all - oh wait, god does not exist, HE ISSSSSSSS.

Yeah that means something, perhaps you'd actually address an argument if I said it in Aramaic? Let me know

Please.

You never will, and that has nothing to do with god, or doctrine, it's strictly personal.

There you go again.................... You sound like Reagan.

Shall I condescend upon you with some Greek?
 
Blah Blah Blah Kuli, you will never take anything I say seriously, you just obfuscate.

You've answered none of my questions, you've addressed none of my points. You've ignored them all - oh wait, god does not exist, HE ISSSSSSSS.

Yeah that means something, perhaps you'd actually address an argument if I said it in Aramaic? Let me know

I take it all seriously -- but you keep doing the same thing, which is to insist that religious folks abandon what religion is and submit to the rules you set out. You refuse to see logic, and refuse to address the issue of the first post; you have to keep trying to drag the discussion to where you want it, and stuff everything into your closed worldview.

I'm not going to answer questions that aren't to the point. I'm not going to play your game of "turn this thread into what I want it to be", because it isn't your thread, for starters, and what you want it to be isn't what it is. Address the issue, or get used to not getting responses.

And yes, the distinction between existing and being is serious; it comes from ontology, and I already explained the difference on a simple level. I don't know if your problem is that you fail to grasp the distinct categories, or just refuse to, but either way, making fun of something deeply scholarly shows you really don't care to get answers.

I don't care to hear you make an argument in Aramaic, since you haven't demonstrated anything but one of the problems I indicated to begin with. If you don't realize that you're a superb example of the problem, there isn't much I can do.


edit: just to help with responses, how much philosophy have you studied? have you read Aristotle on logic? in philosophy, did you spend time on ontology?
 
Back
Top