Is science 'anti-God'? Really?

[Jorge]

Got to agree with you here Jorge. Obviously, wally hasn't a clue.

*********************************************************

Wally has never had a clue. He doesn't even have a clue that he doesn't have a clue!

And as you will find out soon enough (if you haven't already), he is far from being alone.

Jorge

[lilpixieofterror]

*********************************************************

Wally has never had a clue. He doesn't even have a clue that he doesn't have a clue!

And as you will find out soon enough (if you haven't already), he is far from being alone.

Jorge

Sort of like how you attack Rogue, Jim, or myself for 'siding with atheist', but don't bat an eye when you are siding with atheist right now (IE Phank and Richard Dawkins).

[Jorge]

Sort of like how you attack Rogue, Jim, or myself for 'siding with atheist', but don't bat an eye when you are siding with atheist right now (IE Phank and Richard Dawkins).

******************************************************

Why must I suffer you ... what have I done?

I will "side" with whomever speaks TRUTH ... get it?

Examples: If you speak Truth, I will side with you ... if Jim or R06 speak
Truth, I will side with them ... if Dawkins speaks Truth, I will side with him

Think you got it?

Mind you : when I "side" with Dawkins it will be ONLY on that particular
point of Truth being spoken. Overall, I could NEVER side with a being
that denies / opposes God in any way. So, when I see people like
Kenneth Miller "confessing" Christ with one end of the mouth, while
denying Him with the other end ... well, I trust that you can put 2 and 2
together and come up with 4.

Kind'a late / early for you, isn't it? (3:10 AM my time)

Jorge

[magellan004]

Magellan, I've long since given you up for trolling. For better or worse, I just can't find it worth my time to engage you. Nor do I find any reason to change that habit given what you've posted above.

My apologies but I will be ignoring your posts until I determine it's worthwhile to converse with you.

Don't give me that tripe. You have an emotional response to my disagreeing with you. You scratch around for a way to justify your emotional entanglement - you find a handy label - 'Troll' and you lazily think that sounds better than 'I don't like you because of your opinions.'

What's worse is that you parade your qualifications in philosophy.

Magellan

[lilpixieofterror]

Why must I suffer you ... what have I done?

Why do you speak in inconsistent terms?

I will "side" with whomever speaks TRUTH ... get it?

Yet Jorge, you have attacked myself and others for 'siding with atheist', but seem to have no problem 'siding with atheist' if they agree with you. I just find it interesting, that's all.

Examples: If you speak Truth, I will side with you ... if Jim or R06 speak
Truth, I will side with them ... if Dawkins speaks Truth, I will side with him

Think you got it?

So then explain why you attack Jim, Rogue, or myself for 'agreeing with atheist' as though that is some sort of bad mark, but when you agree with atheist, you come up with justifications like this? I am just asking you to be consistent. Is that so hard?

Mind you : when I "side" with Dawkins it will be ONLY on that particular
point of Truth being spoken. Overall, I could NEVER side with a being
that denies / opposes God in any way. So, when I see people like
Kenneth Miller "confessing" Christ with one end of the mouth, while
denying Him with the other end ... well, I trust that you can put 2 and 2
together and come up with 4.

And how is Kenneth Miller denying Christ? Have you put your YEC beliefs before Christ again Jorge?

Kind'a late / early for you, isn't it? (3:10 AM my time)

What can I say, I was up for a bit this morning and decided to check T web while I drifted back to sleep. Is that a crime?

[Wally]

I will "side" with whomever speaks TRUTH ... get it?

Does your definition of "TRUTH" involve any amount of objective reality?

[JimL]

I wouldn't say that the above criteria has to do with knowledge . . . or, perhaps, that they have to do solely with knowledge. This is a strange distinction, when one thinks about it, that knowledge and action can be so readily separated and compartmentalized. Both the Jewish and Islamic religions focus on orthopraxis, or "right action," while the Christian faith has tended to focus more on orthodoxy, or "right belief." But really, all three religions intertwine knowledge and belief in fairly inseparable terms.

So when we talk about knowing our imperfections or coming into knowledge of eternal joy, I think we run the risk of treating knowledge as separate from behavior; I know that eating 550 calories of candy will negate the 500 calories burned exercising later in the day . . . but I often (unfortunately) work against my self interest all the same. Pivoting, the Bible often tells of people "hardening their hearts" against God — and I think that not all such cases occur merely due to unbelief. My hope is for a situation that you describe, where God's grace is truly undeniable. I would lean towards Lewis' near-universalism, where a great many more people than we would traditionally think are joined with God in Heaven, having put aside selfishness and accepted the rational course.

But I think that we've all met people who routinely reject joy and healing, who remain trapped in a self-destruction routine that has the effect of diminishing their personhood, despite clear pathways out of such misery. All too often, I think that we all see such behavior in our own lives. The danger, then, seems to be clearly present — if the joys of Heaven are infinitely amplified compared to the joys of earth, so too is the temptation of selfish habit, of drawing inward into one's own psyche.

You ask what purpose this life serves if all persons can make the choice to join God once He fully reveals Himself. This returns to the start of our conversation, when I wrote that God appreciates the faithfulness of His children. I don't believe that God's intent is to merely increase Himself by accumulation — He doesn't want souls so that He may become larger. Rather, I think that God desires beings who have come to be, on some small level, like Himself; rational beings that have both the option of self-indulgence and outward-focused charity. In that sense, our present life serves the purpose of a crucible — a place where refinement can take place. It's very early in Christian theology that one encounters the idea of a stratified Heaven — a place where all therein are glorified but some are more glorified than others. It may be, then, that God unifies more perfectly with those who have dedicated their time in the crucible of earth to His will than He does to those who have resisted Him. This seems, to me, the appropriate blend of mercy and justice: all those who come to accept God's gift of unification will have it but some may have it more abundantly than others.

I really would be remiss if I didn't recommend C.S. Lewis' small fiction, "The Great Divorce." It's my favorite book and very clearly had an impact on my soteriology.

—Sam

Okay, so your understanding of Christianity is that what God created is a sort of crucible wherein his living creations go through a process of purification of sorts. But why do you think there would be a necessity for God to create in this way? Why not create them with the proper knowledge in the first place rather than having them suffer through experience and death? Why at the very least does he not let them know without doubt that he exists rather than expressing himself through the revelation of a few prophets? Sorry, have to go, I leave it at that for now.

[Jorge]

Does your definition of "TRUTH" involve any amount of objective reality?

******************************************************************

Not that I expect you to either understand or accept it, but TRUTH comes from God.
People like yourself define 'truth' in subjective, jello-like terms so that you may do
as you please instead of submitting to the Creator God. You may now cough-up
a fur ball.

Jorge

[Wally]

******************************************************************

Not that I expect you to either understand or accept it, but TRUTH comes from God.
People like yourself define 'truth' in subjective, jello-like terms so that you may do
as you please instead of submitting to the Creator God. You may now cough-up
a fur ball.

Jorge

So 1+1=2 only because God says it does?

By the way, I'm not a cat.

[Jorge]

Why do you speak in inconsistent terms?

Huh? Lost your meds again?

Yet Jorge, you have attacked myself and others for 'siding with atheist', but seem to have no problem 'siding with atheist' if they agree with you. I just find it interesting, that's all.

Do you have problems in reading comprehension? Rhetorical question, I assure you.

So then explain why you attack Jim, Rogue, or myself for 'agreeing with atheist' as though that is some sort of bad mark, but when you agree with atheist, you come up with justifications like this? I am just asking you to be consistent. Is that so hard?

How much clearer could I have made my previous post?
See, you DO have a reading comprehension problem.

And how is Kenneth Miller denying Christ?
Have you put your YEC beliefs before Christ again Jorge?

K. Miller "denies" Christ every time that he promotes his personal interpretation
of Genesis and the rest of Scripture above what Christ - the LOGOS - said and
meant. You know how Miller "denies" Christ because you the same thing.
I would have thought that for sure you'd have grasped that by now.

Pay close attention.......... it's a very simple Texas Two-Step

1. Begin by accepting some theory of man (like Evolution).
2. Then, perform whatever distortion / contortion of Scripture is required
so as to make Scripture "fit" the theory that has been accepted in step 1.

See, you don't BEGIN with Scripture ... Scripture is not the driving, authoritative
voice here. Rather, the decrees of the "scientific" establishment are Miller's
and your authoritative voice and then you do whatever you must to Scripture
so as to conform to that "authority". Don't deny it - that is exactly what you do.

What can I say, I was up for a bit this morning and decided to check
T web while I drifted back to sleep. Is that a crime?

Do you always carry a chip on your shoulder? It was just a friendly question.
Okay ... so go back to sleep -- you haven't 'slept it off' quite yet.

Jorge

[phank]

Jorge, are you saying here that your interpretations of scripture are not interpretations? Really?

Or are you saying that there is only one correct interpretation, which just happens to be yours, and all others are wrong? Really?

Must be nice to walk on water and NEVER be wrong. Must be nice to pray at your silly god incessantly, and NEVER ONCE be told your opinion is wrong. What a convenient god you must have.

K. Miller "denies" Christ every time that he promotes his personal interpretation
of Genesis and the rest of Scripture above what Christ - the LOGOS - said and
meant.

And I suppose you know what Christ meant because your god told you that your opinion is TRUTH? What's it like to be infallible? How does it feel to know that everyone else is wrong. Not just believe it or think it, but KNOW it? Feel good?

Time to trot out the old aphorism that you can be probably correct or you can be Absolutely Certain, but you can never be both.

[Jorge]

So 1+1=2 only because God says it does?

Believe it or not, you are not far from the truth.
Just leave it alone ....

By the way, I'm not a cat.

Uh -huh, but you are :

Challenged in humor .......... CHECK !
Challenged in sarcasm ..... CHECK !
Challenged in allegory ..... CHECK !
Challenged overall ............ CHECK !



Jorge

[Jorge]

Jorge, are you saying here that your interpretations of scripture are not interpretations? Really?

Or are you saying that there is only one correct interpretation, which just happens to be yours, and all others are wrong? Really?

Must be nice to walk on water and NEVER be wrong. Must be nice to pray at your silly god incessantly, and NEVER ONCE be told your opinion is wrong. What a convenient god you must have.

And I suppose you know what Christ meant because your god told you that your opinion is TRUTH? What's it like to be infallible? How does it feel to know that everyone else is wrong. Not just believe it or think it, but KNOW it? Feel good?

Time to trot out the old aphorism that you can be probably correct or you can be Absolutely Certain, but you can never be both.

***************************************************************************

Phank : I would not even attempt to reply to the above .... what the heck is it???

It's some perverted combination of : incredulity + straw man + ad hominem + nonsense + fabrication + ....

Whatever it is, it's pretty scary. You don't even know where I'm coming from and yet you are
off on some wild rant just trying to make yourself look & feel better. Uhmm - it ain't working!

Jorge

[DuraGizer]

By the way, I'm not a cat.

And that's a good thing?

[Ansgar Seraph]

Okay, so your understanding of Christianity is that what God created is a sort of crucible wherein his living creations go through a process of purification of sorts. But why do you think there would be a necessity for God to create in this way? Why not create them with the proper knowledge in the first place rather than having them suffer through experience and death? Why at the very least does he not let them know without doubt that he exists rather than expressing himself through the revelation of a few prophets? Sorry, have to go, I leave it at that for now.

Well, I'm sure that I don't have a sufficient explanation for that; life is not merely full of mysteries but indeed a mystery in itself. I don't know whether all the suffering in the world is necessary or not . . . but I do think that we cannot really conceive of unique, meaningful beings that are devoid of experience. I don't think that were God to merely fill a soul with knowledge of Himself without any accompanying experience alongside, that soul would have any distinction from God Himself. From there, I suppose that we could branch off into a number of different theories:

► God intended persons to have both knowledge and experience without suffering but the because of the Fall suffering entered the world.

► God created the angels, who were given knowledge and free will but had no experiential baseline to draw from and even some of them turned away or rebelled.

► Since God is complete and God has suffered, suffering itself is an essential part of experience. Under this heading, suffering would be seen as ultimately being holy, or at least having a potential for holiness. In Lewis' book, for example, the narrator is told that, for those who choose Heaven's glory, every suffering will become holy, as everything is perfected. Those who choose Heaven, Lewis writes, will look "back" on a life that shines with Heaven's light at every moment. Conversely, those who choose Hell will see even every joyful moment darkened by their selfishness and pride.


As for the prophets, I don't think that God has limited His revelation to only a few; I think that we find pathways to Christ across many religions and a general set of charitable laws common among men. I'm not sure why God chooses to not reveal Himself more fully . . . but it may well be the case that such fullness of knowledge would be counterproductive to His purposes, for the same reasons as listed above. We know that suffering has led many people into disbelief and despair but also that it has created many of our best examples of charity and grace. And the promise is that those who suffer the most will be among the first in Heaven. I'm a bit of an Kierkegaard-ian in this respect: to have faith is to have doubt; if a faith-experience is important for God's purposes, there cannot exist a world wherein humans have faith but no doubt.

The short answer is that I don't know. I think that any given answer will ultimately be reducible down to "We don't know — it's a mystery" or "We can't know — it's an absurdity." If reality without God is ultimately meaningless, we live an absurdity; an attempt to forge meaning out of deterministic, mostly random events on a timeline that is, at best, 0.0000000089% of the whole. If God is ultimate reality, we live a mystery; an attempt to piece together a puzzle of meaning that, perhaps by necessity, seems to be missing critical elements. I'm not sure that either answer is satisfactory but the latter is sufficient for my quasi-existentialism.

As Jung writes, "As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light of meaning in the darkness of mere being."

—Sam