Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> All faiths and none
gone

deleted

deleted
Shaker

The standard non-answer, Floo, is that it's a mystery too holy for our comprehension  
gone

Shaker wrote:
The standard non-answer, Floo, is that it's a mystery too holy for our comprehension  


No doubt!
cymrudynnion

Re: What was the point?

Floo wrote:
However unlikely, just supposing the deity featured in the Bible was responsible for creating the universe and us humans, what was the point of it all? Was the deity having a boring week in heaven, all on its own, so decided to ensure it would never be bored again? Certainly giving humans their nature, and free will as the wild card, the deity would have endless entertainment for all eternity!
When Floo accepts the Deity, according to the King James Bible DID create the universe, Floo will get the answer to her question by consulting a member of the Clergy.

***Edited by Moderator (TV) - please do not disclose personal details without the expressed permission of the poster involved.***
Ketty

Re: What was the point?

cymrudynnion wrote:
... according to the King James Bible ...


Interesting, and rather telling, choice there.  
Ketty

Re: What was the point?

Floo wrote:
... what was the point of it all?


The answer is: love.  However, it's a mystery our puny human brains are incapable of fully comprehending.  

Floo wrote:
... Certainly giving humans their nature, and free will as the wild card, the deity would have endless entertainment for all eternity!


"Endless entertainment": That would be the view of somebody who cannot accept there are some mysteries our puny human brains cannot comprehend.

 
Jim

Re: What was the point?

Ketty wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
... according to the King James Bible ...


Interesting, and rather telling, choice there.  
 

-
Indeed.
Jim

The theology speak would say something like
Since God is infinitely more than we, and we are made in His image, His capacity to love is infinatly more than we can grasp or comprehend.
Since that same God is creator of all - including time, He is both outside time and involved in history - again, a situation beyond our capacity to explain.
Therefore any meaningful definition of eternity would be limited by our capacity to grasp it, but unlimited due to the infinite nature of the Creator.


Howzat?
I'll eat my porridge now.
Shaker

Re: What was the point?

Ketty wrote:
Floo wrote:
... what was the point of it all?


The answer is: love.


Rectal cancer, epidermolysis bullosa, Alzheimer's, cholera, infant leukaemia ... hmmmm ... you know the more religionists bang on about "love," the more strongly I'm impressed with the sense of its being the same sort of love manifested by abusive/alcoholic spouses as they swing a fist at their partner for the umpteenth time. "I hate being like this ... you know I'm only doing this because I love you ...", the stuff of a thousand soap opera storylines.

Quote:
However, it's a mystery our puny human brains are incapable of fully comprehending.
 

I should have had a score on it being just that
Ketty

Re: What was the point?

Shaker wrote:


I should have had a score on it being just that


Mais bien sūr, mon petit pain de choux.      

As for the sicknesses you mention, well, our puny brains from what little we're capable of understanding have tried to give an explanation for all of that.  But in awful techno-jargon, it's all down to the fall of man and allowing satan to get a foot-hold in this world.  Until Christ returns, there are many who will continue to be be blinded by satan's lie: Goddidit.
gone

Re: What was the point?

deleted
Ketty

Jim wrote:
The theology speak would say something like
Since God is infinitely more than we, and we are made in His image, His capacity to love is infinatly more than we can grasp or comprehend.
Since that same God is creator of all - including time, He is both outside time and involved in history - again, a situation beyond our capacity to explain.
Therefore any meaningful definition of eternity would be limited by our capacity to grasp it, but unlimited due to the infinite nature of the Creator.


Howzat?
I'll eat my porridge now.




I'm about to indulge in my porridge now, made with Alpro almond milk, sliced banana, a few blueberries and a squirt of Sweet Freedom.  Yum!
Ketty

Re: What was the point?

Jim wrote:
Ketty wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
... according to the King James Bible ...


Interesting, and rather telling, choice there.  
 

-
Indeed.


Aye Jim.  It's in the little things that people give themselves away.  
Shaker

Re: What was the point?

Ketty wrote:
As for the sicknesses you mention, well, our puny brains from what little we're capable of understanding have tried to give an explanation for all of that.  But in awful techno-jargon, it's all down to the fall of man


Didn't happen. Never happened.

Quote:
and allowing satan

No such thing.

These are just very ancient pseudo-explanations from primitive, let's go ahead and use the word ignorant groups of people trying to make sense of the world with the only conceptual tools they had available to them at that point in time.

This is not that time any more. You'll have to try again.

Since you make so much of our puny litle human brains and how imperfect our understanding of the universe (something that nobody of sense would deny - although I do notice that very often those who make so much of how little we know leap nimbly from knowing little to knowing nothing), why is it that you implicitly at least purport to understand exactly why these things happen (i.e. this twaddle about a fall and the poor old eternal whipping boy, Satan)?
Ketty

I understand enough for me to make sense of it sufficient for my peace.  We look at the same "evidence" and yet we come up with opposing answers.  My answer is: God is love; Satan is love's antithesis.  If somebody does not believe in God, or does not believe in Satan or wants to believe Goddidit in relation to all that is evil in the world, then really it's a waste of our time to play word ping pong over it all.  My sadness is that I'm incapable of illuminating Christ's Gospel message sufficiently for others to have their own God's Holy Spirit 'Eureka!' moment.
Shaker

Ketty wrote:
I understand enough for me to make sense of it sufficient for my peace.  We look at the same "evidence" and yet we come up with opposing answers.


That's not at all true and is in fact a prime example of exactly the kind of relativism upon which religionists usually pour all their loathing and execration. There aren't answers which are equally true for Tom and true for Dick and true for Harry save in the most wishy-wishy, limp, subjective sense; there are only actual answers (i.e. ones based in fact) and pseudo-answers. Science deals in the former and religion in the latter.

For any observed phenomenon there are any number - perhaps an infinity, or almost - of pseudo-explanations and at least one (often just one) real explanation. A real explanation is one that actually explains something, not just purports to do so. When the Sun disappears during the daytime it's not, as the ancient Chinese attempted to explain it, because a giant dragon had swallowed it; it's because the Sun is 400 times further away fom Earth than the Moon and at present - though not for ever - the Moon is almost exactly 400 times smaller than the Sun as it appears in the sky so the Moon covers the Sun's disk almost exactly; it's a totally random occurrence that every so often Sun, Moon and Earth are in alignment and cause an eclipse. The Moon is gradually wandering away from its orbit around the Earth at a rate of about 3 - 4cm per year. One day, long long after we're all dead and buried, eclipses won't look as they do today; they look as they do now because coincidentally we occupy this tiny eyeblink of history.

The Chinese idea of the Sun being swallowed by a dragon is an 'explanation'; it's a wrong one. 'Brigitte Bardot' in response to the question 'What's the capital of Vietnam?' is an answer, insofar as it's a response to a query; it's a wrong one. The scientific explanation is the real one, the one that actually explains the observed phenomenon. Everything else is just irrelevant noise.
gone

deleted
Jim

I had my own deity eureka moment when I accepted Christ as the lodestone of my existance.
That was such a relief.
gone

deleted
Ketty

Shaker wrote:
Ketty wrote:
I understand enough for me to make sense of it sufficient for my peace.  We look at the same "evidence" and yet we come up with opposing answers.


That's not at all true


It's entirely true.

I understand enough for me to make sense of it - is a true statement.

'The same "evidence"'  (insofar as we're able to both read the same words), is a true statement.

'We come up with opposing answers', is self-evidently, true.

Shaker wrote:
, and is in fact a prime example of exactly the kind of relativism upon which religionists usually pour all their loathing and execration.


Subjective, and the same could be said of anti-religionists.  (Actually, I'm also anti-religion, but that's a whole new discussion).

Shaker wrote:
There aren't answers which are equally true for Tom and true for Dick and true for Harry save in the most wishy-wishy, limp, subjective sense; there are only actual answers (i.e. ones based in fact) and pseudo-answers. Science deals in the former and religion in the latter.


There are answers that are true, and there are the answers we want to believe.  God's Truth is not one that many want to believe.  That, for me, is the top and bottom of it.

Shaker wrote:
For any observed phenomenon there are any number - perhaps an infinity, or almost - of pseudo-explanations and at least one (often just one) real explanation. A real explanation is one that actually explains something, not just purports to do so. When the Sun disappears during the daytime it's not, as the ancient Chinese attempted to explain it, because a giant dragon had swallowed it; it's because the Sun is 400 times further away fom Earth than the Moon and at present - though not for ever - the Moon is almost exactly 400 times smaller than the Sun as it appears in the sky so the Moon covers the Sun's disk almost exactly; it's a totally random occurrence that every so often Sun, Moon and Earth are in alignment and cause an eclipse. The Moon is gradually wandering away from its orbit around the Earth at a rate of about 3 - 4cm per year. One day, long long after we're all dead and buried, eclipses won't look as they do today; they look as they do now because coincidentally we occupy this tiny eyeblink of history.

The Chinese idea of the Sun being swallowed by a dragon is an 'explanation'; it's a wrong one. 'Brigitte Bardot' in response to the question 'What's the capital of Vietnam?' is an answer, insofar as it's a response to a query; it's a wrong one. The scientific explanation is the real one, the one that actually explains the observed phenomenon. Everything else is just irrelevant noise.


And that's when, for me, the circular debate returns to matters of faith and a Scripture that is very personal to me and my own Holy Spirit eureka moment: Hebrews 11.  

We look at the same things and yet see them differently.  C'est la vie.
Shaker

Ketty wrote:
'We come up with opposing answers', is self-evidently, true.

Yes, but as I pointed out there are actual answers - true explanations - and pseudo-answers, purported explanations. Giant cosmic dragons don't eat the Sun; three celestial bodies line up sometimes in what's known as a syzygy (great word!) to create an eclipse from the viewpoint of one of those bodies. That's the real explanation; anything else is meaningless waffle. Perhaps useful and interesting if you're interested in the history of human thought, but that's all. Pseudo-explanations may tell us some things about the mental habits of ancient pre-scientific cultures, useful to anthropologists and psychologists and so forth, but they have precisely zero to add to our understanding of the way things really are and what really goes on.

There needs to be a means of accurately, reliably and consistently sorting one from the other and thank goodness there is: it's called the scientific method.

Quote:
There are answers that are true, and there are the answers we want to believe.

I couldn't have put it better myself. Science and religion respectively.

Quote:
God's Truth is not one that many want to believe. That, for me, is the top and bottom of it.

The top and bottom of it is that it isn't true.
gone

deleted
Shaker

Floo wrote:
I just don't know how it is possible to believe the Bible to be factually true. There is no evidence to support the veracity of the less than credible scenarios depicted therein.

Quite. But some people feel a need to turn off all their intellectual, rational and critical faculties if doing so leads them to accept as true things that they find emotionally appealing.
trentvoyager

Floo wrote:
I just don't know how it is possible to believe the Bible to be factually true. There is no evidence to support the veracity of the less than credible scenarios depicted therein.


Come now Floo you know better than that.

Some parts of the Bible are true and some are allegorical.

However not every Christian agrees on what is true and what is allegorical, but one thing is for sure you have to be Christian to claim to understand it - if you're not you are automatically disqualified because you haven't let the Holy spirit into your life. Or something like that.

It's a bit like watching Star Trek but not being a trekkie - you can't hold a view that is valid because you are not a trekkie.
gone

deleted
Shaker

trentvoyager wrote:
Floo wrote:
I just don't know how it is possible to believe the Bible to be factually true. There is no evidence to support the veracity of the less than credible scenarios depicted therein.


Come now Floo you know better than that.

Some parts of the Bible are true and some are allegorical.

However not every Christian agrees on what is true and what is allegorical, but one thing is for sure you have to be Christian to claim to understand it - if you're not you are automatically disqualified because you haven't let the Holy spirit into your life. Or something like that.

It's a bit like watching Star Trek but not being a trekkie - you can't hold a view that is valid because you are not a trekkie.




Interesting point about the literally true/allegorical thing. Sometimes this thing was/is literally the case and sometimes this is just symbolic (says who? On what basis?), but it's funny how the resurrection, for example, is never allegorical for all but the most ultra-liberal Christians, isn't it?
Ketty

trentvoyager wrote:
However not every Christian agrees on what is true and what is allegorical, but one thing is for sure you have to be Christian to claim to understand it - if you're not you are automatically disqualified because you haven't let the Holy spirit into your life. Or something like that.


Quite a lot like that, TV.  

But then, we open a whole new can of worms like, when is a "Christian" not a Christian*?  Only the Holy-Spirit-filled-Christians can even start to discern that.

* You know, good folks like LDS, JWs and the like who claim the label, but who do not recognise Christ to be God, preach a false Gospel, and therefore are definitely not Christian.
Shaker

Ketty wrote:
But then, we open a whole new can of worms like, when is a "Christian" not a Christian*?


Invariably when somebody else who has Christians beliefs every bit as strong as your own believes something slightly different to you.  

Quote:
Only the Holy-Spirit-filled-Christians can even start to discern that.

Yeah, just like that.
gone

deleted
Shaker

Floo wrote:
As there isn't the slightest verifiable proof to back anyof it up, there is no such thing as a 'true' Christian. It is all based on pretty meaningless assumptions.

Have to pull you up there, Floo - true Christians are the ones who believe in all the right and true things; false Christians are the ones who believe in all the other, wrong things.

It's easy, see?

Quote:
Goodness knows what 'spirit filled' actually means, a state of one-upmanship on the part of those who claim to be under the mythical HS's influence, imo!

Yup!
gone

deleted
Shaker

Floo wrote:
But it depends on your definition of right and true things, doesn't it?

No - it depends upon the Holy Spirit guiding you into all truth, and that's because the Holy Spirit is truth and therefore whatever the Holy Spirit says must be true because if it wasn't true the Holy Spirit would be a liar and because the Holy Spirit can't be a liar whatever the Holy Spirit says has to be true or else it would be a liar and therefore not the Holy Spirit in the first place. We know this to be the case because the Holy Spirit says so, and that's because the Holy Spirit is truth and therefore whatever the Holy Spirit says must be true because if it wasn't true the Holy Spirit would be a liar and because the Holy Spirit can't be a liar whatever the Holy Spirit says has to be true or else it would be a liar and therefore not the Holy Spirit in the first place

I trust that we're all straight with this now that it's been explained clearly.
gone

deleted
Ketty

Shaker wrote:
true Christians are the ones who believe in all the right and true things; false Christians are the ones who believe in all the other, wrong things.

It's easy, see?




Right and true things = Biblical.
All the other wrong things = extra-Biblical add-ons, man-made religious legalism, book of mormon, watchtower, new-agey-touchy-feely-it's-all-about-me-ism, etc.

Shaker wrote:
Quote:
Goodness knows what 'spirit filled' actually means, a state of one-upmanship on the part of those who claim to be under the mythical HS's influence, imo!


Yup!


Nope!  The idea of one-upmanship comes only from those who do not know the Holy Spirit.  A sort of spiritual jealousy maybe?  Erroneously perceiving a superiority on behalf of others.

Do you think you're superior because you may have something that others do not?  Does it make you feel better than your neighbour and with a sense of one-upmanship?   No, the Holy Spirit does not work like that, nor do those who are baptised in Him.  

https://carm.org/questions/other-...-we-know-when-we-hear-holy-spirit

http://www.godsoutreachministryint.org/VoiceHolySpirit.htm

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> All faiths and none
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum