# Just wondering.



## SemperFiDawg

This question occurred to me after I posted on Strings previous thread and I was interested in you guys feedback.  It's NOT a spin on Pascal's wager, so if you get that from my question then I've worded it inappropriately.  Just let me know and I will try to clarify.  OK.  Here goes.

Given Mans paradox:  One must have faith that God exists in order to experience him, but we form faith in something AFTER an experience.

What is keeping you personally from, making the commitment of faith?

Personally.  I felt like I would be viewed as a fool for making the leap.  It was so counter-intuitive to every instinct and premonition I ever had.  But, I thought, "What the heck.  I've made a fool out of myself many a time.  What's one more?  If it's not true and doesn't work out I'm not the only one who's fell for it.  There's literally billions of others who have too. ".   I'm glad I did.   Now I sit here marveling at the simplicity of it.   Note I said simplicity, not "ease of it".  It wasn't easy to make that commitment to truly believe.   At least for me it wasn't.


----------



## bullethead

I found it absurd to believe a god could create everything except it's own bible. When I was able to look at religion, faith, belief objectively without any bias I was convinced that if a god exists I do not know it by or through the writings of man. Because of my upbringing, location in the world and culture I was raised under one religion. I later realized that what I was taught was incorrect and there was so more to learn about "my" religion and then I had another couple thousand religions to research before I could narrow some choices.
What I've gathered so far is that if a god exists it may be nothing like the versions that mankind has conjured up.
Why just pick one and hope it is the correct one?


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> I found it absurd to believe a god could create everything except it's own bible. When I was able to look at religion, faith, belief objectively without any bias I was convinced that if a god exists I do not know it by or through the writings of man. Because of my upbringing, location in the world and culture I was raised under one religion. I later realized that what I was taught was incorrect and there was so more to learn about "my" religion and then I had another couple thousand religions to research before I could narrow some choices.
> What I've gathered so far is that if a god exists it may be nothing like the versions that mankind has conjured up.
> Why just pick one and hope it is the correct one?




True.
Being raised "under" religion means nothing of itself.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> True.
> Being raised "under" religion means nothing of itself.



Glad you agree with the rest of it.
And if I were able to have worded the sentence you disagree with in a shakespearian manner you would have agreed with it too. I figured if the word/ meaning was good enough to be included in the Pledge of Allegiance it would fit here too.  In all honesty though I try to communicate to the majority on here in layman's terms because that is where I fit myself. 
If I have to adjust my writing style like I am writing a 15th century theatrical play then I know it is for an audience I would rather not have.


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> Glad you agree with the rest of it.
> And if I were able to have worded the sentence you disagree with in a shakespearian manner you would have agreed with it too. I figured if the word/ meaning was good enough to be included in the Pledge of Allegiance it would fit here too.  In all honesty though I try to communicate to the majority on here in layman's terms because that is where I fit myself.
> If I have to adjust my writing style like I am writing a 15th century theatrical play then I know it is for an audience I would rather not have.



Where you might easily find equality with "under God" (as I take your pledge of allegiance reference) with under religion, I trust you would find few who understand themselves to be disciples of Jesus Christ in agreement.

Religion is easily definable by man, Jesus Christ is not subject to such. He defines man. You, and me, both.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Where you might easily find equality with "under God" (as I take your pledge of allegiance reference) with under religion, I trust you would find few who understand themselves to be disciples of Jesus Christ in agreement.
> 
> Religion is easily definable by man, Jesus Christ is not subject to such. He defines man. You, and me, both.


Anything to back up your thoughts?


----------



## 660griz

SemperFiDawg said:


> What is keeping you personally from, making the commitment of faith?



Common sense.


----------



## East River Guide

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.


----------



## ambush80

East River Guide said:


> We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.



But they all have proof that theirs and theirs alone is real.  

Many of the discussions around here have been about proof.  Many of the most reasonable posters will admit that their proof is very personal and subjective, we have to take their word for it.  They claim that either one is chosen for revelation or that revelation can be had for the asking. It's hard to square those two things up.  For those who have sought revelation and failed, it's their fault because they didn't do it right.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

East River Guide said:


> We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.



Oh plueeeeese.  Spare use all the agony of having to discuss for the gazzilionth time the sassy, but ill-thought- out memes of the shallow athietism.   It's a personal question.  The least you could do is give a personal answer.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

ambush80 said:


> For those who have sought revelation and failed, it's their fault because they didn't do it right.



I don't know that to be true, and in all honesty I can't recall ( I reserve the right to be corrected) any of the believers 'here' making that statement to any of you AAs to that effect though I CAN see that happening public ally given the views  with which each side views the other as a whole.

Otherwise, well said.


----------



## Artfuldodger

SemperFiDawg said:


> I don't know that to be true, and in all honesty I can't recall ( I reserve the right to be corrected) any of the believers 'here' making that statement to any of you AAs to that effect though I CAN see that happening public ally given the views  with which each side views the other as a whole.
> 
> Otherwise, well said.



I don't recall it being the individuals fault for not "getting" the revelation. I have heard on this forum that one has to receive this "ability" to receive the revelations from God.

It is said that God must open their eyes. Scripture says that one must go through Jesus to get to God. Scripture also says that to get to Jesus, it has to come from God.

So maybe the above path to salvation is true. It does sound a bit circular. 

I think most Christians believe each individual has the ability to "get" the revelation without God's help. So in that sense, it is the individuals fault if he doesn't act on it.


----------



## ambush80

SemperFiDawg said:


> I don't know that to be true, and in all honesty I can't recall ( I reserve the right to be corrected) any of the believers 'here' making that statement to any of you AAs to that effect though I CAN see that happening public ally given the views  with which each side views the other as a whole.
> 
> Otherwise, well said.



Many de-conversion stories have been countered with either "You didn't do it right so you never really had it" or "It didn't take because you weren't chosen to receive it".


----------



## ambush80

Artfuldodger said:


> I don't recall it being the individuals fault for not "getting" the revelation. I have heard on this forum that one has to receive this "ability" to receive the revelations from God.
> 
> It is said that God must open their eyes. Scripture says that one must go through Jesus to get to God. Scripture also says that to get to Jesus, it has to come from God.
> 
> So maybe the above path to salvation is true. It does sound a bit circular.



This^is Predestination.



Artfuldodger said:


> I think most Christians believe each individual has the ability to "get" the revelation without God's help. So in that sense, it is the individuals fault if he doesn't act on it.



This^is Freewill.

From what I recall, you were leaning towards the logically consistent position of Predestination (given omniscience).  How's that working out?


----------



## SemperFiDawg

ambush80 said:


> Many de-conversion stories have been countered with either "You didn't do it right so you never really had it" or "It didn't take because you weren't chosen to receive it".



I think that maybe you're painting with too broad of a brush.  JMHO


----------



## ambush80

SemperFiDawg said:


> I think that maybe you're painting with too broad of a brush.  JMHO



All of the Predestination believers will tell non-believers that they don't believe because they're not supposed to.  Most Freewill believers will tell the non-believer that they aren't doing it right.  I won't go through the threads but I'm certain both instances have happened here many times to various people.  Find Bullethead's and Isreal's go around.  Find anything said by Gemcgrew or Welder guy on the subject.

If "many" is too broad a brush, what word is the appropriate sized brush?


----------



## bullethead

ambush80 said:


> All of the Predestination believers will tell non-believers that they don't believe because they're not supposed to.  Most Freewill believers will tell the non-believer that they aren't doing it right.  I won't go through the threads but I'm certain both instances have happened here many times to various people.  Find Bullethead's and Isreal's go around.  Find anything said by Gemcgrew or Welder guy on the subject.
> 
> If "many" is too broad a brush, what word is the appropriate sized brush?



^^^^^^!


----------



## Artfuldodger

ambush80 said:


> From what I recall, you were leaning towards the logically consistent position of Predestination (given omniscience).  How's that working out?



John 6:44
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day.

Luke 24:45
Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.

Romans 9:17
For Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."

Romans 11:8
as it is written: "God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that could not see and ears that could not hear, to this very day."

If God controlled my beginning and will control my end, then I can only assume he's controlling everything in between as he did from Adam to Jesus' resurrection.

Answer; predestination

Now I can skip that Colonoscopy!


----------



## Israel

“For it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted to them his property.  To one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away.  He who had received the five talents went at once and traded with them, and he made five talents more. So also he who had the two talents made two talents more.  But he who had received the one talent went and dug in the ground and hid his master's money.  

Now after a long time the master of those servants came and settled accounts with them.  And he who had received the five talents came forward, bringing five talents more, saying, ‘Master, you delivered to me five talents; here, I have made five talents more.’  His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.’  And he also who had the two talents came forward, saying, ‘Master, you delivered to me two talents; here, I have made two talents more.’  His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.’  He also who had received the one talent came forward, saying, ‘Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you scattered no seed,  so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here, you have what is yours.’  But his master answered him, ‘You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sown and gather where I scattered no seed?  Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest.  So take the talent from him and give it to him who has the ten talents.  For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.  And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Israel said:


> “For it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted to them his property.  To one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away.  He who had received the five talents went at once and traded with them, and he made five talents more. So also he who had the two talents made two talents more.  But he who had received the one talent went and dug in the ground and hid his master's money.
> 
> Now after a long time the master of those servants came and settled accounts with them.  And he who had received the five talents came forward, bringing five talents more, saying, ‘Master, you delivered to me five talents; here, I have made five talents more.’  His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.’  And he also who had the two talents came forward, saying, ‘Master, you delivered to me two talents; here, I have made two talents more.’  His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.’  He also who had received the one talent came forward, saying, ‘Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you scattered no seed,  so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here, you have what is yours.’  But his master answered him, ‘You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sown and gather where I scattered no seed?  Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest.  So take the talent from him and give it to him who has the ten talents.  For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.  And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’





> “For it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted to them his property.



We're talking about the one's who didn't get 'the call', but it really goes back to my original question which is a personal question.  Was hoping for personal answers and not a long painful slide into beating a dead horse conversation of free will vs. predestination.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

ambush80 said:


> Many of the most reasonable posters will admit that their proof is very personal and subjective, we have to take their word for it.  They claim that either one is chosen for revelation or that revelation can be had for the asking. *It's hard to square those two things up.*



This is the heart of the matter.


----------



## ambush80

Artfuldodger said:


> John 6:44
> "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day.
> 
> Luke 24:45
> Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.
> 
> Romans 9:17
> For Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."
> 
> Romans 11:8
> as it is written: "God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that could not see and ears that could not hear, to this very day."
> 
> If God controlled my beginning and will control my end, then I can only assume he's controlling everything in between as he did from Adam to Jesus' resurrection.
> 
> Answer; predestination
> 
> Now I can skip that Colonoscopy!



That's right.  You can skip the colonoscopy.  If you die, His will be done.  If you live, His will be done.

"Live today.....like you get a do-over."


----------



## ambush80

To the OP,

I want to know what's true.  I realized that I couldn't trust my feelings and I came to the conclusion that the best way to know what's true is through empirical evidence. 

When you said:

_"Given Mans paradox: One must have faith that God exists in order to experience him, but we form faith in something AFTER an experience.

Personally. I felt like I would be viewed as a fool for making the leap. It was so counter-intuitive to every instinct and premonition I ever had. But, I thought, "What the heck. I've made a fool out of myself many a time. What's one more? If it's not true and doesn't work out I'm not the only one who's fell for it"_

This is a scientific experiment.  You started with a hypothesis, tested it, examined the data and came to a conclusion.  I've always argued against your methodology, data and conclusions using logic.   I believe it's the best tool I have at my disposal.  I know that ultimately that faith is a feeling and as I said before, I don't trust my feelings.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Even though the OP say's his suggested "way" is not related to Pascal's wager, the way he presents it is somewhat the same.

That one should try and believe and see if God grants him the faith to believe after the individual tries it himself first.

It's like asking someone to believe "just in case." 

I feel that this is not the correct approach to drive someone to believing. The person is doing it for the wrong reason. They aren't doing it for love. They are doing out of fear. They are in fact doing it as a gamble. 

I'm not sure on is capable of believing first and receiving the faith to believe later from God. I think the faith to believe must come first. I think it has to be for real and based on love, not for some other reason based on fear or to just see if God calls me.

It's like saying; God, I don't really believe in you but I'm going to try. I'm going to say I do and then God if you could give me the faith to believe you I will. 

Doing it as suggested makes it sound like one is playing a game with God.


----------



## Israel

SemperFiDawg said:


> We're talking about the one's who didn't get 'the call', but it really goes back to my original question which is a personal question.  Was hoping for personal answers and not a long painful slide into beating a dead horse conversation of free will vs. predestination.


I didn't see a horse being beaten.

God knows whom He has called, it matters little, in a very real sense...who "else"...knows.

Heed the call. Resist the call. Find out, either way with whom one has had his dealings in that secret place.

God is relentless in seeing that the name of Jesus be glorified.

It is hard to kick against the pricks.


----------



## Israel

Artfuldodger said:


> Even though the OP say's his suggested "way" is not related to Pascal's wager, the way he presents it is somewhat the same.
> 
> That one should try and believe and see if God grants him the faith to believe after the individual tries it himself first.
> 
> It's like asking someone to believe "just in case."
> 
> I feel that this is not the correct approach to drive someone to believing. The person is doing it for the wrong reason. They aren't doing it for love. They are doing out of fear. They are in fact doing it as a gamble.
> 
> I'm not sure on is capable of believing first and receiving the faith to believe later from God. I think the faith to believe must come first. I think it has to be for real and based on love, not for some other reason based on fear or to just see if God calls me.
> 
> It's like saying; God, I don't really believe in you but I'm going to try. I'm going to say I do and then God if you could give me the faith to believe you I will.
> 
> Doing it as suggested makes it sound like one is playing a game with God.



God is not the One on trial.

Everyone will be salted with fire. And every sacrifice will be salted with salt.


----------



## Artfuldodger

How many Christians have the faith to be an Atheist?


----------



## Israel

ambush80 said:


> That's right.  You can skip the colonoscopy.  If you die, His will be done.  If you live, His will be done.
> 
> "Live today.....like you get a do-over."



For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's.


----------



## gemcgrew

Artfuldodger said:


> How many Christians have the faith to be an Atheist?





Your question draws attention to your confusion. An Atheist does not possess any amount of faith at all. If he did, he would already be a Christian.


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> God is not the One on trial.
> 
> Everyone will be salted with fire. And every sacrifice will be salted with salt.



You roll in your self loathing like a dog on a dead bird.


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's.




Prove it.


----------



## ambush80

gemcgrew said:


> Your question draws attention to your confusion. An Atheist does not possess any amount of faith at all. If he did, he would already be a Christian.



...or a Wiccan, Buddhist, Muslim, general Deist, etc.


----------



## Israel

ambush80 said:


> You roll in your self loathing like a dog on a dead bird.



And I will yet be more vile than thus, and will be base in mine own sight: 

That's the easy part.

This, not so much:

Behold, I will rebuke your offspring, and spread dung on your faces, the dung of your offerings, and you shall be taken away with it.


Everyone has an odor.


----------



## gemcgrew

ambush80 said:


> ...or a Wiccan, Buddhist, Muslim, general Deist, etc.


We were talking about the faith that a Christian possesses. All non-Christians(Atheist, Wiccan, Buddhist, Muslim, general Deist, etc.) are devoid of it.


----------



## ambush80

gemcgrew said:


> We were talking about the faith that a Christian possesses. All non-Christians(Atheist, Wiccan, Buddhist, Muslim, general Deist, etc.) are devoid of it.



I disagree.  I think that the mechanism that drives belief is the same.  Different dog, same fleas.  When we talk about religious belief, the same factors contribute to it across the board.


----------



## Artfuldodger

gemcgrew said:


> Your question draws attention to your confusion. An Atheist does not possess any amount of faith at all. If he did, he would already be a Christian.



I was answering the OP's question with the same question. Basically the OP is asking the Atheist to come up with enough faith to believe in God. Then after this fact. After they start believing. After they have received salvation. Somewhere down the road, God will give them the faith to believe 100%.

If they could just start off with a measure of faith, just enough to start the process, then God will later give them the real, true faith they will need to keep their salvation.
They can use their faith to receive salvation and then use the faith God will give them later to keep their salvation.

This is my take on what the Op is asking, not exactly his view. He did say he was having a hard time in asking this or presenting it.

To me it's saying that we can start the process for salvation without God if we have enough faith. That man should just start the process without God. That then and only then will God finish by giving them the faith they need to believe.
I used to believe it worked that way but not any more. I think the process starts with God.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Let's start over. You see an Atheist and you are trying to convince him to believe in getting to God through believing in Jesus.

Where do you start? What reasons do you give any non-believer?

What is this salvation from? Now once you convince him that it's from death or eternal punishment, how does that individual come up with enough faith to believe? How can that lost person save himself?

How did Saul do it?

To get to God, you must have Jesus. To get to Jesus you must have God. If it takes man then there are already thousands of individuals dead in the ground that never heard.


----------



## gemcgrew

Artfuldodger said:


> Let's start over. You see an Atheist and you are trying to convince him to believe in getting to God through believing in Jesus.
> 
> Where do you start?


Wedgie?


----------



## ambush80

Artfuldodger said:


> Let's start over. You see an Atheist and you are trying to convince him to believe in getting to God through believing in Jesus.
> 
> Where do you start? What reasons do you give any non-believer?
> 
> What is this salvation from? Now once you convince him that it's from death or eternal punishment, how does that individual come up with enough faith to believe? How can that lost person save himself?
> 
> How did Saul do it?
> 
> To get to God, you must have Jesus. To get to Jesus you must have God. If it takes man then there are already thousands of individuals dead in the ground that never heard.



You have to establish the inherent evilness of man (without any goodness).  Then you establish the fear of death, then the fear of He11, then you have to offer the solution.


----------



## hummerpoo

I'm just throwing this in.  It is one man's opinion concerning desire and fear as an element of faith and love.



> "...who kept God's commandments with the desire of gaining and with the fear of losing those promises—certainly did not observe them, but only seemed to themselves to observe. For there was no faith in them that worked by love, but earthly cupidity and carnal fear. But he who thus fulfils the commandments beyond a doubt fulfils them unwillingly, and then does not do them in his heart; for he would rather not do them at all, if in respect of those things which he desires and fears he might be allowed to neglect them with impunity. And thus, in the will itself within him, he is guilty; and it is here that God, who gives the command, looks."


Augustine, Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, Bk3, Ch. 9


----------



## Israel

hummerpoo said:


> I'm just throwing this in.  It is one man's opinion concerning desire and fear as an element of faith and love.
> 
> 
> Augustine, Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, Bk3, Ch. 9



Or do you think that I cannot call upon my Father, and he would put at my disposal at once more than twelve legions of angels?

It is good that the love of Christ is made manifest.


This is the work of God, that you believe upon Him whom He has sent.


----------



## bullethead

More than 12 legions that could fit on the point of a needle is not much back up at all.


----------



## Madman

ambush80 said:


> You have to establish the inherent evilness of man (without any goodness).  Then you establish the fear of death, then the fear of He11, then you have to offer the solution.



Some excellent points in there ambush.  What need is there for a Gospel if one does not believe they need the good news?  What need is there for salvation if one believes they are "good enough"?  

"What need do the well have for a doctor"?

I don't, nor did I ever, fear death, I was brought to the realization that "I am a great sinner, in need of a mighty savior".


----------



## ambush80

Madman said:


> Some excellent points in there ambush.  What need is there for a Gospel if one does not believe they need the good news?  What need is there for salvation if one believes they are "good enough"?
> 
> "What need do the well have for a doctor"?
> 
> I don't, nor did I ever, fear death, I was brought to the realization that "I am a great sinner, in need of a mighty savior".



Good to see you again, friend.  

Have you ever heard the term therapism?  Probably not because it's not a real word yet.  Here's a synopsis of it:

http://www.albertmohler.com/2005/07/03/therapism-the-new-american-religion/

The book _One Nation Under Therapy _ was fantastic, by the way.  I see many similarities between the sale of Therapism and religion. In the end, the authors suggest an alternative to wallowing in self pity and self loathing, obsession with iniquity and victimhood: 

"Toughen up, Buttercup."

We're bad and we're good.  I've examined and pursued the absolute limits of my evil, if only as thought experiments, and was truly frightened of what I am capable of.  Indeed there were places that I found I couldn't go with my thoughts, they were just that fearful, but I never felt that I was not in control.  

I don't know what other people are dealing with inside their own heads and hearts.


----------



## drippin' rock

ambush80 said:


> Good to see you again, friend.
> 
> Have you ever heard the term therapism?  Probably not because it's not a real word yet.  Here's a synopsis of it:
> 
> http://www.albertmohler.com/2005/07/03/therapism-the-new-american-religion/
> 
> The book _One Nation Under Therapy _ was fantastic, by the way.  I see many similarities between the sale of Therapism and religion. In the end, the authors suggest an alternative to wallowing in self pity and self loathing, obsession with iniquity and victimhood:
> 
> "Toughen up, Buttercup."
> 
> We're bad and we're good.  I've examined and pursued the absolute limits of my evil, if only as thought experiments, and was truly frightened of what I am capable of.  Indeed there were places that I found I couldn't go with my thoughts, they were just that fearful, but I never felt that I was not in control.
> 
> I don't know what other people are dealing with inside their own heads and hearts.



Why do your perceived capabilities freighten you?  What makes you classify them as evil?


----------



## ambush80

drippin' rock said:


> Why do your perceived capabilities freighten you?  What makes you classify them as evil?



It's frightening what I'm capable of and thus, what others are capable of. 

Sam Harris establishes the base line for 'Bad' as "The worst possible suffering for everyone".  I like that as an objective measure.  Anything going away from that could be thought of as moving toward 'good'.  I imagined being the agent of the worst possible suffering for everyone and found that it wouldn't be that hard to do.  I found that shutting off the various safety measures that have evolved in our consciousness that help us to live together was easy.  

You can, through force of will, turn off empathy, compassion, love and  increase malice, envy, hate.  It's incremental.  You can start by pulling a fish around by it's mouth for fun.  Next, imagine hooking a horse in the mouth and pull it around for fun, then a chimpanzee and on up the chain of species.  You can pull the skin off a catfish while it's still alive and revel in its suffering then mentally do the same thing with other animals.  I'm not saying that I'm gonna stop peeling catfish alive or dead.  It's not the peeling but how I feel about it that moves the act up and down the spectrum of good and bad, and I'm in complete control of how I feel.  

You can, through force of will, move the other direction on the spectrum towards the 'good', away from the 'worst possible suffering for everyone' all on your own.

As an aside:  Though I agree with Harris' starting point that 'bad' is 'the worst possible suffering for everyone' as an overly simplistic but useful metric, it doesn't catch all the outliers like masochists, sadists and the mentally ill. (He's started saying 'all conscious creatures' instead of 'everyone'.  I haven't been able to make the same leap because I'm a speciest for what believe to be good reasons).

Also, in the case of a conscious creature existing in a state of perpetual suffering from the beginning of its life that doesn't know that there's a better alternative, I can't see how to use Harris' metric of good and bad.


----------



## 660griz

ambush80 said:


> It's frightening what I'm capable of and thus, what others are capable of.



War is chocked full of examples of this.


----------



## ambush80

660griz said:


> War is chocked full of examples of this.




It's easy to turn good people into monsters.


----------



## Israel

660griz said:


> War is chocked full of examples of this.



So is this:




But this, at best, still remains us...studying us.


----------



## Madman

ambush80 said:


> Good to see you again, friend.
> 
> Have you ever heard the term therapism?  Probably not because it's not a real word yet.  Here's a synopsis of it:
> 
> http://www.albertmohler.com/2005/07/03/therapism-the-new-american-religion/
> 
> The book _One Nation Under Therapy _ was fantastic, by the way.  I see many similarities between the sale of Therapism and religion. In the end, the authors suggest an alternative to wallowing in self pity and self loathing, obsession with iniquity and victimhood:
> 
> "Toughen up, Buttercup."
> 
> We're bad and we're good.  I've examined and pursued the absolute limits of my evil, if only as thought experiments, and was truly frightened of what I am capable of.  Indeed there were places that I found I couldn't go with my thoughts, they were just that fearful, but I never felt that I was not in control.
> 
> I don't know what other people are dealing with inside their own heads and hearts.



I don't have much time these days, been busy with an elderly mom, work and family.

Good link, toughen up buttercup is a good axiom too.

Mohler makes some good points, Americans have had it so good for so long, we are getting too soft and expect too much.  If we don't get it we whine.

I miss the connection between Therapism and religion, there certainly are "religions" that offer a "name it and claim it" sales pitch, etc. but I believe Biblical Christianity calls it adherents to a life that is considerably deeper. 

Have a Merry Christmas!  I hope to drop in more often.


----------



## ambush80

Madman said:


> I don't have much time these days, been busy with an elderly mom, work and family.
> 
> Good link, toughen up buttercup is a good axiom too.
> 
> Mohler makes some good points, Americans have had it so good for so long, we are getting too soft and expect too much.  If we don't get it we whine.
> 
> I miss the connection between Therapism and religion, there certainly are "religions" that offer a "name it and claim it" sales pitch, etc. but I believe Biblical Christianity calls it adherents to a life that is considerably deeper.
> 
> Have a Merry Christmas!  I hope to drop in more often.




Merry Christmas to you too.


----------



## ambush80

Madman said:


> I don't have much time these days, been busy with an elderly mom, work and family.
> 
> Good link, toughen up buttercup is a good axiom too.
> 
> Mohler makes some good points, Americans have had it so good for so long, we are getting too soft and expect too much.  If we don't get it we whine.
> 
> I miss the connection between Therapism and religion, there certainly are "religions" that offer a "name it and claim it" sales pitch, etc. but I believe Biblical Christianity calls it adherents to a life that is considerably deeper.
> 
> Have a Merry Christmas!  I hope to drop in more often.



I see a similarity between therapism which overstates and overfocuses on the victimhood and iniquity of a person and some religions that focus on the sin, evil and helplessness of a person.  In some religions, like therapism, there's constant reinforcement of the undesirable nature of being human and the edict that people are incapable of helping themselves.  

I just don't get it.

To me, a more accurate model of human nature is the Yin Yang symbol; the duality.  Ideally, bad and good work in harmony.  They're inextricably intertwined and necessary to each other.  This is where Eastern philosophy got it right over Western.


----------



## Israel

ambush80 said:


> I see a similarity between therapism which overstates and overfocuses on the victimhood and iniquity of a person and some religions that focus on the sin, evil and helplessness of a person.  In some religions, like therapism, there's constant reinforcement of the undesirable nature of being human and the edict that people are incapable of helping themselves.
> 
> I just don't get it.
> 
> To me, a more accurate model of human nature is the Yin Yang symbol; the duality.  Ideally, bad and good work in harmony.  They're inextricably intertwined and necessary to each other.  This is where Eastern philosophy got it right over Western.



If I understand you, it is all the difference between a created thing and an autonomous being?



> Ideally, bad and good work in harmony.



But then isn't "bad and good" a superimposition of a notion upon this being? Who gets to impose it...you/and or...me? 

Yet you seem to eschew what you call 



> religions focus on the sin, evil and helplessness of a person.


(to which you might find I may not disagree)

What is your "ideal" then, that works so well in harmony? What drawing of such an ideal is most representational?
Is it this? (see below)

If so, and if as you imagine your resistance is against those whom (am I surmising too much?) you perceive would seek to impose upon you some notion of sin...deficiency...defect...lack...to some nefarious end, I have for you an experiment, if only of mind.

As best you can, imagine the "real world"...and go out with your ideal, (even as you may imagine some are striving to present a truth to you, here.) Approach men...really on the street, or at least on the streets of your mind...with your ideal and see who will accept that they are every bit as "bad" as they might imagine themselves good. 

Obviously, any resistance to this would imply the black is somewhat exceeding the white of them...and they are actually...more evil...(bad) than good...no? For they resist the "ideal"...the balance...

Obviously for them, then, what hope is there...they are already "behind the eight ball". Do they have power at all in their smaller "white" to overcome their greater black (to gain back some territory)? Or, do you imagine it is somewhere "in the black" to diminish its size...to make way for the "white"? (Oh...but you may say..."Don't worry, life will work upon them to, in time, show them the truth of it"...but then...you would have to ascribe to "Life" both a conscious will _and power_ toward bringing about a balance...) And yes, I know I am accused of fabricating my own questions in order to fabricate my own answers...but regardless...is that surmise evil?



And if...as you go with _your_ ideal...you discover that to say man is equally (and let us know of your success in having a man agree he is every bit as dark...as he appears light to himself) "good and bad"...it is no less than saying man is neither good...nor bad. Nothing of (can we say?) a moral ability to understand good and evil...for, _in the ideal_...they are negating of each other.
What would the man "in the ideal" have to determine such? (this is not even approaching the obvious conundrum that apart from being acted upon from _outside_ such a perfect simultaneous negation in self must leave a man not even caring about good...or evil (bad).
But, even were he able to momentarily "step outside himself" and observe might he not wonder "is that my good showing me good...or my evil saying something evil...is good?" And since they are perfectly equal in weight...what possibility might one have in discernment?

(Might you agree evil would surely be a liar...in a man?)

Now, if your ideal, is not such as is drawn below, then you already know "your ideal" is not true yin and yang at all, but some fabrication of yourself merely adopting a seemingly familiar convenience, not for exposition...but in fact, for misleading. (and that might make you a bit darker...than light)


----------



## SemperFiDawg

ambush80 said:


> ...or a Wiccan, Buddhist, Muslim, general Deist, etc.



Just a variant of an old thoughtless tired meme.  "Atheist only believe in one less God than Christians."  Makes as much sense as saying regarding 2+2=?,  that "atheist believe in one less answer than anyone who thinks the answer is 4.   Or put another way;  Given x exists, there is no explanation for its existence.


----------



## 660griz

SemperFiDawg said:


> Given x exists, there is no explanation for its existence.



Uh...No. 
You saying X exists doesn't make it so. We are just saying prove it. The burden of proof is on the one that makes the claim.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

660griz said:


> Uh...No.
> You saying X exists doesn't make it so. We are just saying prove it. The burden of proof is on the one that makes the claim.



X exists;  Be it you, the universe, meaning, information, love, morality, laws governing the universe.   X exists.  As far as burden of proof is concerned, Christianity's  explanation for all these Xs is infinitely more cohesive, comprehensive, coherent and corresponding than anything Atheism can offer.


----------



## 660griz

SemperFiDawg said:


> X exists;  Be it you, the universe, meaning, information, love, morality, laws governing the universe.   X exists.  As far as burden of proof is concerned, Christianity's  explanation for all these Xs is infinitely more cohesive, comprehensive, coherent and corresponding than anything Atheism can offer.



I was referring to your post where you mentioned God 


> "Atheist only believe in one less God than Christians." Makes as much sense as saying regarding 2+2=?, that "atheist believe in one less answer than anyone who thinks the answer is 4. Or put another way; Given x exists, there is no explanation for its existence.



Then your next post, X has no mention of God.  X being one of the many Gods.


> Christianity's explanation for all these Xs is infinitely more cohesive, comprehensive, coherent and corresponding than anything Atheism can offer.


That is just your opinion. I think science and, 'we don't know', is lot more credible than just making up stuff.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

660griz said:


> I was referring to your post where you mentioned God
> 
> 
> Then your next post, X has no mention of God.  X being one of the many Gods.



You ASSUMED wrong.



660griz said:


> That is just your opinion. I think science and, 'we don't know', is lot more credible than just making up stuff.



Should stick with "we don't know" 2+2=4 instead of voicing 4 isn't the answer when so many others find it is.  If WE-DON'T-KNOW then YOU DON'T KNOW so stop there because your anything you add past that is wild unsupported speculation.


----------



## 660griz

SemperFiDawg said:


> You ASSUMED wrong.


 O.k. 



> Should stick with "we don't know" 2+2=Unicorn instead of voicing Unicorn isn't the answer when so many others find it is.



Fixed it for you.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

660griz said:


> O.k.
> 
> 
> 
> Fixed it for you.



Thank you for that example.  It exemplifies the incoherence and duplicity  of many who hold to the atheistic philosophy: a philosophy that out of one side of it's mouth says "WE-DONT-KNOW" and out of the other side issues bold declarative statements that it does.  I could not have thought of a better example than you have just provided.    If I ascribed to a view that at the very most, only allowed me to say I DONT KNOW, I would hope I would have enough common sense and dignity not to contradict myself with my words and actions.  I guess we Christians don't exactly hold a monopoly on the hypocrisy business after all


----------



## ambush80

SemperFiDawg said:


> Thank you for that example.  It exemplifies the incoherence and duplicity  of many who hold to the atheistic philosophy: a philosophy that out of one side of it's mouth says "WE-DONT-KNOW" and out of the other side issues bold declarative statements that it does.  I could not have thought of a better example than you have just provided.    If I ascribed to a view that at the very most, only allowed me to say I DONT KNOW, I would hope I would have enough common sense and dignity not to contradict myself with my words and actions.  I guess we Christians don't exactly hold a monopoly on the hypocrisy business after all



I agree wholeheartedly with you that 2+2=4.  

Making a claim about a resurrection will be much harder to prove and the reasons should be obvious.  

I was joking with my brother in law and said "This Multiverse stuff.....you might as well believe in God."  Then we discussed how the first people to describe addition must have felt, which led to a discussion about how math allowed a fellow to calculate the circumference of the Earth many, many years before it could actually be measured.  Then we discussed how simple math and simple experimentation could produce a Theory of Relativity leading to Special Relativity, neither of which we can absolutely prove, yet applying them allows us to create tangible and useful technology:

http://physicscentral.com/explore/writers/will.cfm .  

http://www.livescience.com/48922-theory-of-relativity-in-real-life.html

Then, using the same math that has it's basis in 2+2=4, Quantum Mechanics and the Multiverse Theory were theorized.   Here are some practical uses for Quantum Mechanics:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/five-practical-uses-spooky-quantum-mechanics-180953494/ 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/everyday-quantum-physics/

So is basing a theory like Multiverse _really_ like believing in God?  You tell me.  What are the steps that get you to a God Theory?


----------



## ambush80

660griz said:


> That doesn't shock me.   Thought is against your religion.
> 
> 
> One thing we do manage is to have a conversation without personal attacks.
> I'll make an exception for you since you seem to have a major problem with civil conversation.
> Was there a lot of violence and substance abuse in your past before you found the holy book of how to act?
> WWJD?



That seems a little low, Brah.

I think you're interpreting a tone from him that's not intended.

He said he doesn't KNOW if God exists.  That's as truthful and honest a claim as any I've ever heard.


----------



## 660griz

ambush80 said:


> That seems a little low, Brah.
> 
> I think you're interpreting a tone from him that's not intended.
> 
> He said he doesn't KNOW if God exists.  That's as truthful and honest a claim as any I've ever heard.



I removed it. I don't think I have misinterpreted the tone. There is a pattern but, I shouldn't have stooped.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

ambush80 said:


> I agree wholeheartedly with you that 2+2=4.
> 
> Making a claim about a resurrection will be much harder to prove and the reasons should be obvious.
> 
> I was joking with my brother in law and said "This Multiverse stuff.....you might as well believe in God."  Then we discussed how the first people to describe addition must have felt, which led to a discussion about how math allowed a fellow to calculate the circumference of the Earth many, many years before it could actually be measured.  Then we discussed how simple math and simple experimentation could produce a Theory of Relativity leading to Special Relativity, neither of which we can absolutely prove, yet applying them allows us to create tangible and useful technology:
> 
> http://physicscentral.com/explore/writers/will.cfm .
> 
> http://www.livescience.com/48922-theory-of-relativity-in-real-life.html
> 
> Then, using the same math that has it's basis in 2+2=4, Quantum Mechanics and the Multiverse Theory were theorized.   Here are some practical uses for Quantum Mechanics:
> 
> http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/five-practical-uses-spooky-quantum-mechanics-180953494/
> 
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/everyday-quantum-physics/
> 
> So is basing a theory like Multiverse _really_ like believing in God?  You tell me.  What are the steps that get you to a God Theory?



A multiverse, even if TRUE, only kicks the can down the road.  Even from an Atheistic standpoint I have never seen the point.  What's more difficult for God, to speak a Multiverse into existence or forgive sins?


----------



## ambush80

660griz said:


> I removed it. I don't think I have misinterpreted the tone. There is a pattern but, I shouldn't have stooped.



Oops.  I quoted it into perpetuity.  

Let's move on.


----------



## ambush80

SemperFiDawg said:


> A multiverse, even if TRUE, only kicks the can down the road.  Even from an Atheistic standpoint I have never seen the point.  What's more difficult for God, to speak a Multiverse into existence or forgive sins?



Yep.  It kicks the can down the road.  Are you capable of accepting that there are probably things we will never understand?  The point is the search.  There are many people, the majority of the world in fact, that are happy to believe that the Earth was formed in just the way that their particular religious text tells them it was, even though their beliefs are clearly in conflict with science.  They then apply their belief system to 'how to treat dogs' or 'women' or 'slaves' or 'Saturday'.  There might be practical, utilitarian reasons for those things but if you stop at "because God said so" you're doing a disservice to yourself and anyone whose upbringing you are in charge of.  It's my opinion but I'd be willing to discuss why I think it's valid.

Let's examine an edict like "Thou shalt make no Graven images.....".  Why not?  Because it says so?  That kind of kills the inquiry, doesn't it?

If God IS, then nothing could possibly be difficult for him.  That's kind of a weird concept, isn't it?


----------



## SemperFiDawg

ambush80 said:


> Yep.  It kicks the can down the road.  Are you capable of accepting that there are probably things we will never understand?



Obviously the answer is a self evident Yes.  I assume you feel the same.  We both must extend a belief toward a not completely understood concept.  The difference is my concept is a Being whom I can know on a personal basis although not completely and who makes your concept irrelevant.  Your belief is in a concept that even if true doesn't affect my concept nor does it bolster your belief in 
absence of God.  It just kicks the can down the road


----------



## SemperFiDawg

ambush80 said:


> Yep.  It kicks the can down the road.  Are you capable of accepting that there are probably things we will never understand?  The point is the search.  There are many people, the majority of the world in fact, that are happy to believe that the Earth was formed in just the way that their particular religious text tells them it was, even though their beliefs are clearly in conflict with science.  They then apply their belief system to 'how to treat dogs' or 'women' or 'slaves' or 'Saturday'.  There might be practical, utilitarian reasons for those things but if you stop at "because God said so" you're doing a disservice to yourself and anyone whose upbringing you are in charge of.  It's my opinion but I'd be willing to discuss why I think it's valid.
> 
> Let's examine an edict like "Thou shalt make no Graven images.....".  Why not?  Because it says so?  That kind of kills the inquiry, doesn't it?
> 
> If God IS, then nothing could possibly be difficult for him.  That's kind of a weird concept, isn't it?



Let's do the edict question in another thread.  It's ramifications are broad enough to warrant one.


----------



## ambush80

SemperFiDawg said:


> Let's do the edict question in another thread.  It's ramifications are broad enough to warrant one.




Sounds good.  You start.  I'll catch up later.


----------



## ambush80

SemperFiDawg said:


> Obviously the answer is a self evident Yes.  I assume you feel the same.  We both must extend a belief toward a not completely understood concept.  The difference is my concept is a Being whom I can know on a personal basis although not completely and who makes your concept irrelevant.  Your belief is in a concept that even if true doesn't affect my concept nor does it bolster your belief in
> absence of God.  It just kicks the can down the road



By "my concept" do you mean my position that I don't find enough evidence to believe in God?  

If you assert something that seems nonsensical (the Word is foolishness to those who don't believe, etc.....) you'll have to support it's validity with more than your "personal basis".

I think it's also important to examine how much we are effected by our "extension of a belief towards an incompletely understood concept".  Some beliefs have graver consequences than others.  Even if I accept Multiverse wholeheartedly based on theory, it doesn't change how I move through the world and my relationships to other people.  A belief in Unicorns might actually have more effect on my state of mind and my ability to examine reality than a belief in Multiverse.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

ambush80 said:


> Sounds good.  You start.  I'll catch up later.



You start.  That way you can frame it to the angle you want it addressed.  I'm busy too but will reply as time allows.  No rush.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

ambush80 said:


> By "my concept" do you mean my position that I don't find enough evidence to believe in God?
> 
> If you assert something that seems nonsensical (the Word is foolishness to those who don't believe, etc.....) you'll have to support it's validity with more than your "personal basis".
> 
> I think it's also important to examine how much we are effected by our "extension of a belief towards an incompletely understood concept".  Some beliefs have graver consequences than others.  Even if I accept Multiverse wholeheartedly based on theory, it doesn't change how I move through the world and my relationships to other people.  A belief in Unicorns might actually have more effect on my state of mind and my ability to examine reality than a belief in Multiverse.



Sorry for the ambiguity.  No, meant multiverse.


----------



## ambush80

SemperFiDawg said:


> You start.  That way you can frame it to the angle you want it addressed.  I'm busy too but will reply as time allows.  No rush.



I thought about this today and I realized that the discussion was unnecessary.  You follow the edict because you believe in the validity of the rest of the text. 

Rather than trying to examine the validity of the text (heel, Bullethead), let's discuss the ramifications of NOT examining the validity of the text.  That way there won't be any armchair History Channel link war.


----------



## jmharris23

This is an interesting thread


----------



## ambush80

jmharris23 said:


> This is an interesting thread



Happy  new Year, Mark.


----------



## jmharris23

ambush80 said:


> Happy  new Year, Mark.



Sorry....I've been MIA for a while! Happy New Year to you. I hope all is well!


----------

