Psycho-Babble Faith Thread 824960

Shown: posts 19 to 43 of 43. Go back in thread:

 

Re: Lou's request to SteelyDan for identification-acpt Lou Pilder

Posted by SteelyDan on April 25, 2008, at 10:17:14

In reply to Lou's request to SteelyDan for identification-acpt SteelyDan, posted by Lou Pilder on April 25, 2008, at 6:12:21

> > >
> >
> > > A. what does it mean, in your belief , as to {believe in Jesus}?
> > > B.Are the children that were murdered that did not believe in Jesus, according to what you believe, in hell?
> > > Lou
> > >
> >
> > A. To believe (accept) that he is the Messiah, the Son of God, that He died on the cross for our sins. He is The promised son of Abraham, and a descendent of King David. He is the Great IAM!
> >
> > B. I believe there is an 'age of accountability' which is different for each individual according to our just God. The murdered children i believe go to heaven.
> >
> > -Dan
>
> Dan,
> You wrote,[...to believe (accept) that he is...]
> The generally accepted meaning, IMO, of the grammatical structure of the statement in question is that {believe} is being equated with {accept}.
> If that is what you are wanting to mean, then I am unsure as to what connotation you are wanting to assign to the word {accept}.
> Some generally accepted meanings of the word {accept} are:
> A. to receive officially
> B. to receive willingly
> C. to endure without protest (this could mean IMO that the acceptance is forced, unwillingly, upon the person)
> D. to give approval
> E. to recognize as true
> F. to receive favorably
> G. others not listed
> If you could identify as to what you are wanting the word {accept} to mean in your statement in question, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
> Lou

You answered your own question...A through F are excellent examples of the word and definition of 'accept'.

 

Miracles Lou Pilder

Posted by SteelyDan on April 25, 2008, at 10:23:03

In reply to Lou's request to SteelyDan for identification-acpt SteelyDan, posted by Lou Pilder on April 25, 2008, at 6:12:21

All of the essentials of Hinduism would, i think, remain unimpaired if you subtracted the miraculous, and the same is almost true of Mohammedanism. But you cannot do that with Christianity. It is precisely the story of a great Miracle. A naturalistic Christianity leaves out all that is specifically Christian.

-Dan

 

Lou's reply to SteelyDan-inqutn SteelyDan

Posted by Lou Pilder on April 25, 2008, at 12:43:02

In reply to Re: Lou's request to SteelyDan for identification-acpt Lou Pilder, posted by SteelyDan on April 25, 2008, at 10:17:14

> > > >
> > >
> > > > A. what does it mean, in your belief , as to {believe in Jesus}?
> > > > B.Are the children that were murdered that did not believe in Jesus, according to what you believe, in hell?
> > > > Lou
> > > >
> > >
> > > A. To believe (accept) that he is the Messiah, the Son of God, that He died on the cross for our sins. He is The promised son of Abraham, and a descendent of King David. He is the Great IAM!
> > >
> > > B. I believe there is an 'age of accountability' which is different for each individual according to our just God. The murdered children i believe go to heaven.
> > >
> > > -Dan
> >
> > Dan,
> > You wrote,[...to believe (accept) that he is...]
> > The generally accepted meaning, IMO, of the grammatical structure of the statement in question is that {believe} is being equated with {accept}.
> > If that is what you are wanting to mean, then I am unsure as to what connotation you are wanting to assign to the word {accept}.
> > Some generally accepted meanings of the word {accept} are:
> > A. to receive officially
> > B. to receive willingly
> > C. to endure without protest (this could mean IMO that the acceptance is forced, unwillingly, upon the person)
> > D. to give approval
> > E. to recognize as true
> > F. to receive favorably
> > G. others not listed
> > If you could identify as to what you are wanting the word {accept} to mean in your statement in question, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
> > Lou
>
> You answered your own question...A through F are excellent examples of the word and definition of 'accept'.

Dan,
You wrote,[...You answered your own question.A through F are excellent examples...].
As I read your reply to my question, which was that I was unsure as to the connotation that you are wanting to mean for the word {accept} in your statement,[...to believe (accept) that he is...], which I think that the grammatical structure could mean that {believe} and {accept} are being equated and I listed A through F.
Your reply,[...A through F...]has the grammatical structure in my opinion to mean that {C} could be one connotation that you are wanting to mean in your statement. If that is so, then I could read your statement as [...to {believe in Jesus}...] to have the potential iMO to mean:
[... to accept Jesus...]which by replacing {accept} with {C}, then the statement could read, [...to be forced unwillingly to accept Jesus...]
I do not think that that is what you are wanting to mean here, but that is how I could IMO interpret the grammatical structure of the statemnt in question due to your reply that IMO could mean that {C} is an option in the list of choices from A through F that one could use.
If you are wanting to mean that even forced belief is included, could you clarify what means are used to force one today to {believe in Jesus}?
Lou

 

Re: Lou's reply to SteelyDan-inqutn Lou Pilder

Posted by SteelyDan on April 25, 2008, at 14:09:55

In reply to Lou's reply to SteelyDan-inqutn SteelyDan, posted by Lou Pilder on April 25, 2008, at 12:43:02

> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > A. what does it mean, in your belief , as to {believe in Jesus}?
> > > > > B.Are the children that were murdered that did not believe in Jesus, according to what you believe, in hell?
> > > > > Lou
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > A. To believe (accept) that he is the Messiah, the Son of God, that He died on the cross for our sins. He is The promised son of Abraham, and a descendent of King David. He is the Great IAM!
> > > >
> > > > B. I believe there is an 'age of accountability' which is different for each individual according to our just God. The murdered children i believe go to heaven.
> > > >
> > > > -Dan
> > >
> > > Dan,
> > > You wrote,[...to believe (accept) that he is...]
> > > The generally accepted meaning, IMO, of the grammatical structure of the statement in question is that {believe} is being equated with {accept}.
> > > If that is what you are wanting to mean, then I am unsure as to what connotation you are wanting to assign to the word {accept}.
> > > Some generally accepted meanings of the word {accept} are:
> > > A. to receive officially
> > > B. to receive willingly
> > > C. to endure without protest (this could mean IMO that the acceptance is forced, unwillingly, upon the person)
> > > D. to give approval
> > > E. to recognize as true
> > > F. to receive favorably
> > > G. others not listed
> > > If you could identify as to what you are wanting the word {accept} to mean in your statement in question, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
> > > Lou
> >
> > You answered your own question...A through F are excellent examples of the word and definition of 'accept'.
>
> Dan,
> You wrote,[...You answered your own question.A through F are excellent examples...].
> As I read your reply to my question, which was that I was unsure as to the connotation that you are wanting to mean for the word {accept} in your statement,[...to believe (accept) that he is...], which I think that the grammatical structure could mean that {believe} and {accept} are being equated and I listed A through F.
> Your reply,[...A through F...]has the grammatical structure in my opinion to mean that {C} could be one connotation that you are wanting to mean in your statement. If that is so, then I could read your statement as [...to {believe in Jesus}...] to have the potential iMO to mean:
> [... to accept Jesus...]which by replacing {accept} with {C}, then the statement could read, [...to be forced unwillingly to accept Jesus...]
> I do not think that that is what you are wanting to mean here, but that is how I could IMO interpret the grammatical structure of the statemnt in question due to your reply that IMO could mean that {C} is an option in the list of choices from A through F that one could use.
> If you are wanting to mean that even forced belief is included, could you clarify what means are used to force one today to {believe in Jesus}?
> Lou

Ha, you remind me of my College English Lit. Professor. No, you cannot be forced to believe in Jesus, or 'accept' Him for that matter. God gives all men free will, it must be a personal decision..a choice to either believe that He is who He said He is (The Messiah) or reject Him as if He is merely a crazy man making false accusations about Himself.

-Dan

 

Lou's request to SteelyDan for an authority ~mn SteelyDan

Posted by Lou Pilder on April 25, 2008, at 17:24:07

In reply to Re: Lou's reply to SteelyDan-inqutn Lou Pilder, posted by SteelyDan on April 25, 2008, at 14:09:55

> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > A. what does it mean, in your belief , as to {believe in Jesus}?
> > > > > > B.Are the children that were murdered that did not believe in Jesus, according to what you believe, in hell?
> > > > > > Lou
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > A. To believe (accept) that he is the Messiah, the Son of God, that He died on the cross for our sins. He is The promised son of Abraham, and a descendent of King David. He is the Great IAM!
> > > > >
> > > > > B. I believe there is an 'age of accountability' which is different for each individual according to our just God. The murdered children i believe go to heaven.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Dan
> > > >
> > > > Dan,
> > > > You wrote,[...to believe (accept) that he is...]
> > > > The generally accepted meaning, IMO, of the grammatical structure of the statement in question is that {believe} is being equated with {accept}.
> > > > If that is what you are wanting to mean, then I am unsure as to what connotation you are wanting to assign to the word {accept}.
> > > > Some generally accepted meanings of the word {accept} are:
> > > > A. to receive officially
> > > > B. to receive willingly
> > > > C. to endure without protest (this could mean IMO that the acceptance is forced, unwillingly, upon the person)
> > > > D. to give approval
> > > > E. to recognize as true
> > > > F. to receive favorably
> > > > G. others not listed
> > > > If you could identify as to what you are wanting the word {accept} to mean in your statement in question, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
> > > > Lou
> > >
> > > You answered your own question...A through F are excellent examples of the word and definition of 'accept'.
> >
> > Dan,
> > You wrote,[...You answered your own question.A through F are excellent examples...].
> > As I read your reply to my question, which was that I was unsure as to the connotation that you are wanting to mean for the word {accept} in your statement,[...to believe (accept) that he is...], which I think that the grammatical structure could mean that {believe} and {accept} are being equated and I listed A through F.
> > Your reply,[...A through F...]has the grammatical structure in my opinion to mean that {C} could be one connotation that you are wanting to mean in your statement. If that is so, then I could read your statement as [...to {believe in Jesus}...] to have the potential iMO to mean:
> > [... to accept Jesus...]which by replacing {accept} with {C}, then the statement could read, [...to be forced unwillingly to accept Jesus...]
> > I do not think that that is what you are wanting to mean here, but that is how I could IMO interpret the grammatical structure of the statemnt in question due to your reply that IMO could mean that {C} is an option in the list of choices from A through F that one could use.
> > If you are wanting to mean that even forced belief is included, could you clarify what means are used to force one today to {believe in Jesus}?
> > Lou
>
> Ha, you remind me of my College English Lit. Professor. No, you cannot be forced to believe in Jesus, or 'accept' Him for that matter. God gives all men free will, it must be a personal decision..a choice to either believe that He is who He said He is (The Messiah) or reject Him as if He is merely a crazy man making false accusations about Himself.
>
> -Dan

Dan,
You wrote,[...you can not be forced to believe in Jesus...all men free will...it must be...either believe..or reject...]
Could you post here your authority that you use to say that {you can not be forced}? Could you post here the authority that you use to say that all men have free will? Could you post your authority here that you use to say that it is {either}{or}? If you could, then I could have the oportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou

 

Re: Lou's request to SteelyDan for an authority ~mn Lou Pilder

Posted by SteelyDan on April 25, 2008, at 17:56:34

In reply to Lou's request to SteelyDan for an authority ~mn SteelyDan, posted by Lou Pilder on April 25, 2008, at 17:24:07

> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > A. what does it mean, in your belief , as to {believe in Jesus}?
> > > > > > > B.Are the children that were murdered that did not believe in Jesus, according to what you believe, in hell?
> > > > > > > Lou
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A. To believe (accept) that he is the Messiah, the Son of God, that He died on the cross for our sins. He is The promised son of Abraham, and a descendent of King David. He is the Great IAM!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > B. I believe there is an 'age of accountability' which is different for each individual according to our just God. The murdered children i believe go to heaven.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Dan
> > > > >
> > > > > Dan,
> > > > > You wrote,[...to believe (accept) that he is...]
> > > > > The generally accepted meaning, IMO, of the grammatical structure of the statement in question is that {believe} is being equated with {accept}.
> > > > > If that is what you are wanting to mean, then I am unsure as to what connotation you are wanting to assign to the word {accept}.
> > > > > Some generally accepted meanings of the word {accept} are:
> > > > > A. to receive officially
> > > > > B. to receive willingly
> > > > > C. to endure without protest (this could mean IMO that the acceptance is forced, unwillingly, upon the person)
> > > > > D. to give approval
> > > > > E. to recognize as true
> > > > > F. to receive favorably
> > > > > G. others not listed
> > > > > If you could identify as to what you are wanting the word {accept} to mean in your statement in question, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
> > > > > Lou
> > > >
> > > > You answered your own question...A through F are excellent examples of the word and definition of 'accept'.
> > >
> > > Dan,
> > > You wrote,[...You answered your own question.A through F are excellent examples...].
> > > As I read your reply to my question, which was that I was unsure as to the connotation that you are wanting to mean for the word {accept} in your statement,[...to believe (accept) that he is...], which I think that the grammatical structure could mean that {believe} and {accept} are being equated and I listed A through F.
> > > Your reply,[...A through F...]has the grammatical structure in my opinion to mean that {C} could be one connotation that you are wanting to mean in your statement. If that is so, then I could read your statement as [...to {believe in Jesus}...] to have the potential iMO to mean:
> > > [... to accept Jesus...]which by replacing {accept} with {C}, then the statement could read, [...to be forced unwillingly to accept Jesus...]
> > > I do not think that that is what you are wanting to mean here, but that is how I could IMO interpret the grammatical structure of the statemnt in question due to your reply that IMO could mean that {C} is an option in the list of choices from A through F that one could use.
> > > If you are wanting to mean that even forced belief is included, could you clarify what means are used to force one today to {believe in Jesus}?
> > > Lou
> >
> > Ha, you remind me of my College English Lit. Professor. No, you cannot be forced to believe in Jesus, or 'accept' Him for that matter. God gives all men free will, it must be a personal decision..a choice to either believe that He is who He said He is (The Messiah) or reject Him as if He is merely a crazy man making false accusations about Himself.
> >
> > -Dan
>
> Dan,
> You wrote,[...you can not be forced to believe in Jesus...all men free will...it must be...either believe..or reject...]
> Could you post here your authority that you use to say that {you can not be forced}? Could you post here the authority that you use to say that all men have free will? Could you post your authority here that you use to say that it is {either}{or}? If you could, then I could have the oportunity to respond accordingly.
> Lou

No Thank you.

-Dan

 

Free will

Posted by Sigismund on April 25, 2008, at 22:29:41

In reply to Lou's request to SteelyDan for an authority ~mn SteelyDan, posted by Lou Pilder on April 25, 2008, at 17:24:07

Looks like it's just you and me, Lou.

What does 'free will' mean?

Does it mean that there are no excuses? that there is no allowance made for those who make the wrong choice?

I understand that life after death will happen or not in spite of my lack of desire for it.

But there's an ethical issue here, which I can imagine lots of those in hell raising, and quite a few in the other place too.

Having created this world and set it up for judgement, God gets to condemn everone who did not make the right free choice to the Lake of Fire for eternity, and it all hinges on whether we accept Jesus as our saviour.

Humans!

But it gets better. Was it Aquinas who said that the keenest pleasures of the saved would be to watch the torments of the damned?

Fun stuff.

 

Re: Free will

Posted by Sigismund on April 26, 2008, at 15:28:11

In reply to Free will, posted by Sigismund on April 25, 2008, at 22:29:41

It reminds me of one of those war films where the nazi says...
'You have made your choice and must take the consequences'.

 

Lou's reply to Sigismund-juzdatewovuhs? Sigismund

Posted by Lou Pilder on April 26, 2008, at 20:04:21

In reply to Free will, posted by Sigismund on April 25, 2008, at 22:29:41

> Looks like it's just you and me, Lou.
>
> What does 'free will' mean?
>
> Does it mean that there are no excuses? that there is no allowance made for those who make the wrong choice?
>
> I understand that life after death will happen or not in spite of my lack of desire for it.
>
> But there's an ethical issue here, which I can imagine lots of those in hell raising, and quite a few in the other place too.
>
> Having created this world and set it up for judgement, God gets to condemn everone who did not make the right free choice to the Lake of Fire for eternity, and it all hinges on whether we accept Jesus as our saviour.
>
> Humans!
>
> But it gets better. Was it Aquinas who said that the keenest pleasures of the saved would be to watch the torments of the damned?
>
> Fun stuff.

Sigismund,
You wrote,[...just you and me, Lou...]
I used to be called the {lone dissenter}.What now?
Lou

 

Re: Lou's reply to Sigismund-continued-lstshp

Posted by Lou Pilder on April 26, 2008, at 20:27:53

In reply to Lou's reply to Sigismund-juzdatewovuhs? Sigismund, posted by Lou Pilder on April 26, 2008, at 20:04:21

> > Looks like it's just you and me, Lou.
> >
> > What does 'free will' mean?
> >
> > Does it mean that there are no excuses? that there is no allowance made for those who make the wrong choice?
> >
> > I understand that life after death will happen or not in spite of my lack of desire for it.
> >
> > But there's an ethical issue here, which I can imagine lots of those in hell raising, and quite a few in the other place too.
> >
> > Having created this world and set it up for judgement, God gets to condemn everone who did not make the right free choice to the Lake of Fire for eternity, and it all hinges on whether we accept Jesus as our saviour.
> >
> > Humans!
> >
> > But it gets better. Was it Aquinas who said that the keenest pleasures of the saved would be to watch the torments of the damned?
> >
> > Fun stuff.
>
> Sigismund,
> You wrote,[...just you and me, Lou...]
> I used to be called the {lone dissenter}.What now?
> Lou

Sigismund,
You wrote,[...what does {free will} mean...?
I would like to post here what has been revealed to me concerning the idea that is purported by the use of the term that man has free will.
My question is if a man has free will, then free will to what? To be returned to the Kingdom of God? When I talk with relgious people about that subject, I stress that the scriptures that the Jews use write that ,[...All we like sheep have gone astray...].
Then from there it becomes as to how a sheep that is lost, can return. Can a sheep return on its own?
Lou


 

Lou's reply to Sigismund-phreighwhill

Posted by Lou Pilder on April 26, 2008, at 21:46:41

In reply to Re: Lou's request to SteelyDan for clarification-, posted by SteelyDan on April 23, 2008, at 17:53:01

> > > > > He has no heart, he only wants to hurt you. He has many faces, and he's all around leaving evil traces. He hates your life. Prince of power over the air, may attack anytime, anywhere. I know greater is He, Holy Spirit living in me...Jesus Christ delivered us all from satan's power once and for all. Victory, by the Blood of the Lamb!!
> > > > > VICTORY - VICTORY!!
> > > >
> > > > SteelyDan,
> > > > You wrote,[...Jesus Christ delivered {us all} from Satan's power once and for all...].
> > > > In the set of people, {us all}, could you identify who, and to if this is your opinion or a fact, are the members in that set of people?. If you could, then I could have a better understanding of your post and be better able to respond accordingly.
> > > > Lou
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > I'll do my best. First of all i believe that He delivered 'saved' the whole human race by dying on the cross. He being Jesus Christ. He delivered (according to the Holy Bible which i believe is factual) all mankind from eternal damnation in hell where there will be weeping and knashing of teeth. Satan (a fallen Angel) hates mankind, and before Jesus' death and ressurection was taking all of mankind to hell with him. Jesus defeated Satan's power over man by His sacrifice on the cross...whoever believes in the Son of Man will not perish but will have eternal life in Heaven. Of course i believe this is the absolute truth, however technically it is my opinion.
> > >
> > > There is no nuetral ground in the universe:every square inch, every split second, is claimed by God and counterclaimed by Satan. Christianity asserts that every individual human being is going to live forever, and this must be either true or false. I believe it to be true.
> > >
> > > -Dan
> >
> > SteelyDan,
> > You wrote,[...I believe that he saved the whole human race...{whoever believes} in the Son of Man will not perish but will have eternal life...]
> > Could you clarify then if there is then the {condition} that to have eternal life one would have to believe in the Son of Man, and are you wanting to mean that the Son of Man and Jesus are one in the same?
> > If you could clarify that, then I could respond accordingly.
> > Lou
>
> Jesus is the 'Son of Man.' There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done", and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done". All that are in Hell chose it by not accepting that Jesus paid the price for sin once and for all.
>
> -Dan

Sigismund,
In regards to your post, I think that the one statement by Dan is one that you are referring to? The last statement above,[...All that are in hell choose it by not accepting...].
If hell is the end of all those that did {not accept}, then if there are those in hell that did accept, what could that mean?
You see, as a Jew, I believe the scriptures that the Jews use and what I will write here comes from a Jewish perspective. And the book called Revelation is a book written by a Jew, John, to IMO Jews and others because of the symbolism used that I think a Jew could understand that was versed in their scriptures.
That book talks about the Lake of Fire and Hell (Hades) and who is cast into it. I have not written yet as to what has been revealed to me about who is cast into the Lake of Fire, and if it is unending or not. But I have written that it has been revealed to me that he that overcomes will not be hurt by the second death. I could tie this all together with what is known as {free will}.
Lou

 

Re: Lou's reply to Sigismund-continued-lstshp

Posted by Sigismund on April 27, 2008, at 1:47:17

In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Sigismund-continued-lstshp, posted by Lou Pilder on April 26, 2008, at 20:27:53

I don't know much about free will, but I do think this....

That you cannot find the Kingdom of God by an effort of will, free or otherwise. Or for that matter, by holding some belief.

If we are like lost sheep?
I can't imagine lost sheep finding themselves, but then would lost sheep have the awareness of being lost?
And if they didn't, there'd be no reason to seek to be found?

 

Lou's reply to Sigismund-thlrdizmeighshphrd Sigismund

Posted by Lou Pilder on April 27, 2008, at 16:24:26

In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Sigismund-continued-lstshp, posted by Sigismund on April 27, 2008, at 1:47:17

> I don't know much about free will, but I do think this....
>
> That you cannot find the Kingdom of God by an effort of will, free or otherwise. Or for that matter, by holding some belief.
>
> If we are like lost sheep?
> I can't imagine lost sheep finding themselves, but then would lost sheep have the awareness of being lost?
> And if they didn't, there'd be no reason to seek to be found?

Sigismund,
You wrote,[...would lost sheep have the awarenesss of being lost?...].
I think that that is a very good question.
You see, do not sheep need a shepherd?
hummmmmmmmmmmmmmm,
Lou

 

Re: Lou's reply to Sigismund-thlrdizmeighshphrd

Posted by Sigismund on April 27, 2008, at 16:32:26

In reply to Lou's reply to Sigismund-thlrdizmeighshphrd Sigismund, posted by Lou Pilder on April 27, 2008, at 16:24:26

A shepherd will think it is in the nature of sheep to stray; he will not take it personally and/or cast them into the Lake of Fire for all eternity.

 

Lou's reply to Sigismund-slmXX111 Sigismund

Posted by Lou Pilder on April 27, 2008, at 19:31:09

In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Sigismund-thlrdizmeighshphrd, posted by Sigismund on April 27, 2008, at 16:32:26

> A shepherd will think it is in the nature of sheep to stray; he will not take it personally and/or cast them into the Lake of Fire for all eternity.

Sigismund,
You wrote the above, and I think that you have opened up a marvelous light. For in the scriptures that the Jews use that I believe, they write,[...The Lord is my shepherd...He makes me...He leads me...He restors my...He is with me...He comforts...He prepares a table... He anoints me...He has goodness and mercy follow me...and He will have me dwell in His house forever...].
Lou

 

Re: Free will Sigismund

Posted by SteelyDan on April 28, 2008, at 9:33:51

In reply to Free will, posted by Sigismund on April 25, 2008, at 22:29:41

When we have understood about free will, we shall see how silly it is to ask, as somebody once asked me: 'Why did God make a creature of such rotten stuff that it went wrong?' The better stuff a creature is made of-the cleverer and stronger and freer it is-then the better it will be if it goes right, but also the worse it will be if it goes wrong. A cow cannot be very good or very bad; a dog can be both better and worse; a child better and worse still; an ordinary man, still more so; a man of genius, still more so; a superhuman spirit-best-or worst of all.

-Dan

 

Lou's request to SteelyDan for clarification-menwe SteelyDan

Posted by Lou Pilder on April 28, 2008, at 14:26:08

In reply to Re: Free will Sigismund, posted by SteelyDan on April 28, 2008, at 9:33:51

> When we have understood about free will, we shall see how silly it is to ask, as somebody once asked me: 'Why did God make a creature of such rotten stuff that it went wrong?' The better stuff a creature is made of-the cleverer and stronger and freer it is-then the better it will be if it goes right, but also the worse it will be if it goes wrong. A cow cannot be very good or very bad; a dog can be both better and worse; a child better and worse still; an ordinary man, still more so; a man of genius, still more so; a superhuman spirit-best-or worst of all.
>
> -Dan
Dan,
You wrote,[...When we have understood about free will we shall see how ***** it is to ask,..'Why did God make a creature...that it went wrong?'...].
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean here. In order for me to have a better understanding of what you wrote, could you write answers to the following? If you could, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
A. In that you wrote,[...When we have understood...], in your use of {we}, could that include me in the {we)?
B. If so, do you know as to what I know about the doctrine of {free will} as to if I understand it or not?
Lou

 

Re: Free will

Posted by Sigismund on April 28, 2008, at 15:37:56

In reply to Re: Free will Sigismund, posted by SteelyDan on April 28, 2008, at 9:33:51

>A cow cannot be very good or very bad; a dog can be both better and worse; a child better and worse still; an ordinary man, still more so; a man of genius, still more so; a superhuman spirit-best-or worst of all.


I don't know. I'm suspicious of heirrarchies, especially self flattering ones, and I'm beyond feeling better because I'm above the other animals. We treat peoples we don't understand badly enough, and they are the same species as us. I don't hope to hear anything sensible about the remainder of the animal kingdom coming from humans, especially if there's a buck in it for them.

I'm not saying that I'd think more of the cows if the rounded us up and put us to death.

I don't know what I'm saying.

 

Re: Lou's request to SteelyDan for clarification-m

Posted by SLS on May 9, 2008, at 17:42:56

In reply to Lou's request to SteelyDan for clarification-menwe SteelyDan, posted by Lou Pilder on April 28, 2008, at 14:26:08

Interesting conversation. You guys are really sharp.

You will have to pardon my simple-mindedness when it comes to faith.

My certainty in God lies in the uncertainty of why existence is manifest at all.

I believe this is the ultimate question to which there can be no answer. Man will come to understand how and what, but not why. I guess the "why" is answered through faith. When it comes to God, it is a joy for me not to be sure of anything except that He is. It is my sighted faith that I don't need blind faith to be one of God's children. If my belief system does not reflect the nature of God, at least I tried. Will He hate me for using my brain to the best of my ability with the information available to me?

Hell is a hell of a thing to have to believe in. I think it is man's pretentiousness to believe that he can know the mind of God so as to know what is sin and what is punishment.


- Scott

 

Re: Lou's request to SteelyDan for clarification-m SLS

Posted by Sigismund on May 11, 2008, at 8:49:34

In reply to Re: Lou's request to SteelyDan for clarification-m, posted by SLS on May 9, 2008, at 17:42:56

Hi Scott

I have no faith at all.

Religions other than Islam and Christianity seem to not make such a big deal about faith.
If you were to ask a Buddhist at one of their events whether they believed, I imagine that that question would have less importance than it does in Islam and Christianity.


>My certainty in God lies in the uncertainty of why existence is manifest at all.

This is like the question
'Why is there something rather than nothing?'
is it not?

 

Re: Lou's request to SteelyDan for clarification-m

Posted by SLS on May 11, 2008, at 12:50:00

In reply to Re: Lou's request to SteelyDan for clarification-m SLS, posted by Sigismund on May 11, 2008, at 8:49:34


> > My certainty in God lies in the uncertainty of why existence is manifest at all.

> This is like the question
> 'Why is there something rather than nothing?'
> is it not?

LOL. It certainly is. Thanks.

I am most at peace when I contemplate the philosophies of the Eastern religions. They just accept what is, and extract joy out of every moment.


- Scott

 

Mindfulness SLS

Posted by Sigismund on May 13, 2008, at 1:46:39

In reply to Re: Lou's request to SteelyDan for clarification-m, posted by SLS on May 11, 2008, at 12:50:00

I like the idea that what goes through our minds can be seen to be like the weather.....just something to be accepted and let go of.

 

Re: Mindfulness

Posted by SLS on May 13, 2008, at 5:18:30

In reply to Mindfulness SLS, posted by Sigismund on May 13, 2008, at 1:46:39

> I like the idea that what goes through our minds can be seen to be like the weather.....just something to be accepted and let go of.

Well, then, I got hit by a hurricane a few weeks ago. Seeing my ex-fiance turned my world upside down. I had faith in myself that I could process the remaining feelings of loss. Luckily I am very close to acceptance.


- Scott

 

Re: Mindfulness

Posted by SLS on May 13, 2008, at 5:28:22

In reply to Re: Mindfulness, posted by SLS on May 13, 2008, at 5:18:30

I think part of mindfullness is to live in, and actualize, the moment. It is to pay attention to experiences, thoughts, and feelings as they occur and not dwell on nor be destracted by the past or the future. I think this is where some religions display a weakness. The Joy of the moment is sacrificed by constantly interpreting one's own experience by the standards of others. To concentrate on the emulation of others while forfeiting one's own thoughts and feelings is to neglect the self.


- Scott

 

Re: Mindfulness SLS

Posted by Sigismund on May 13, 2008, at 16:04:02

In reply to Re: Mindfulness, posted by SLS on May 13, 2008, at 5:28:22

We have a program on the radio that is called The Philosophers Lounge, and one day they were discussing time and the various views about what it is.

There was a view that neither past and future existed, and one (called the salami view, as I recall) that held that the past existed but the future did not.

In amongst all this there were the usual reflections on living in the moment.


This is the end of the thread.


Show another thread

URL of post in thread:


Psycho-Babble Faith | Extras | FAQ


[dr. bob] Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD, bob@dr-bob.org

Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.