God poll

[ahinton]

Anti-theism is not a faith.

To its adherents (like yourself), it is something in which you surely have faith so, whilst it is indeed not a faith like religious faiths, it is still a faith of sorts; that's why I described it as such.

Best,

Alistair

[cmg]

I'm an agnostic . . . formerly indoctrinated with the dogma of the Christian church.  I do not disparage Christians.  I'm simply one who doubts. 

Right now, I'm listening to one of my favorite performances of the Verdi "Requiem."  It's an extraordinary piece, as you all know, written by a doubter.  An avowed Catholic, but a doubter.  Its earnestness and emotional intensity is beyond criticism. 

We all want assurances.  The prospect of death is terrifying.  As a great American lyricist once wrote:  "I'm tired of livin', but afraid of dyin'.  Is there a God?  With our conditioned intelligence, the answer to that question is beyond our intellectual reach.  I think Verdi was aware of this.

The most vocal proponent of faith on this forum has been Pianistimo.  She has been attacked for faulty logic, sophistry and delusion thinking -- by me and others.  Yet she has remained steadfast and kind, repeatedly appealing to her faith as the source of her strength.

I still don't agree with her.  But I respect her steadfastness.  And her kindness. 

This forum is quite literally a virtual world.  We all actually exist in a parallel universe commonly known as reality.  What we are here, in this forum, is not necessarily what we are out there.  For some of us, that is literally the definition of freedom.  But not all of us.  Some of us are real in both universes.  I believe that Pianistimo is one of these individuals.  She projects exactly, honestly who and what she is.

Pianistimo, you have my admiration and respect.  I don't agree with your religious sentiments, but I  admire your unflagging consistency.   I think Verdi would also give you an approving, but grudging  nod. 

[timothy42b]

Susan did not go from being an atheist to being a believer, though she might describe it as such.

What she did is go from being a lukewarm believer to a fervent believer.

There are a number of examples of this kind of thing, C.S. Lewis being the most commonly cited.

However, the number of people raised with no belief who later go on to become fervent Christians is vanishingly small, may even be zero. 

Certainly it is a common theme in more evangelistic churches to claim various scientists went from atheist to creationist fundamentalist for "scientific" reasons.  So far not a single such case has been verified. 

[wishful thinker]

They've not even replied to your last one yet...(!)

Best,

Alistair

Exactly so sir.  Here you have come to the essence of this discussion.

One can fairly well assume that there is no one here who is fluent in Latin.  The fact that no one has asked for a translation, or even made any comment (other than your good self) follows the pattern here.  The "sides" propound their theories, with varying degrees of passion, but do you ever hear either side saying "hey wait a minute, can you explain that" or "maybe you have a point, can you elaborate" ? No.  Neither "side" is really interested in the views of the other, except as something to "disprove" or mock.

Which is why this discussion is entirley futile.

There are some that are conducting themselves with rather more dignity than others though, I must say. 

[cmg]

Exactly so sir.  Here you have come to the essence of this discussion.

One can fairly well assume that there is no one here who is fluent in Latin.  The fact that no one has asked for a translation, or even made any comment (other than your good self) follows the pattern here.  The "sides" propound their theories, with varying degrees of passion, but do you ever hear either side saying "hey wait a minute, can you explain that" or "maybe you have a point, can you elaborate" ? No.  Neither "side" is really interested in the views of the other, except as something to "disprove" or mock.

Which is why this discussion is entirley futile.

There are some that are conducting themselves with rather more dignity than others though, I must say. 

Well, wishful, I studied Caesar when I was 13, Cicero when I was 14, and Virgil at 15.  Since those distant days, my grasp of Latina lingua has grown beyond rusty.  Add to that I'm not a Catholic, so the weekly ritual, professed in Latin, has even escaped my ears.  I've grown deaf to Latin, in short.

My time is limited so I couldn't attempt anything but a very shallow, cursory "translation" of your posts.  All seemed -- to my nearly completely inept grasp of Latin these days -- to be excerpts of Christ's encounters with Thomas and other disciples.  Drinking of the water of life, comments on faith and belief seemed to pop out at me.  To run for my grammar and dictionary was tempting, but my job prevented me from taking that much time.  In fact, I'm operating on an expired lunch break as it is.

However, I would appreciate, if not a translation, then a synopsis of the extracts, please.

As for no one listening to one another on this issue, well, that's been the doomed feature of all threads on religion here.  The argument -- and I thought this had been established sometime before The Flood -- is unwinnable.  Those with faith play that card when logic and scientific/historical evidence confounds them.  The opposing side gets apoplectic and the debate dribbles off into snippy comments and outright insults.

I can only plead to the Forum Gods -- non confundar in aeternum, and I can only thank my choral role in a conservatory performance of Bruckner's "Te Deum" for having retained even THAT much Latin.  And, oh yes, the Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra for making it all possible.

Excuse me, but duty calls.  Pace.

[pianistimo]

faith is not only for intellectuals.  and i appreciate that i am included in the unworthy set of 'tried and true' believers - as the working of faith includes patience.  you all have much patience, too.  in fact, i daresay - you all may be more on the inclining ledge of cmg and sliding into faith when it suits your deathbed.  my grandpa did this.  he smoked and held the flag of freedom until he had to go on an oxygen tank.  then, i told him i loved him and God did too.  i'm sure he entered the promised land. 

you see - as i see it (and i could be wrong for not reading my bible in latin) is that God's word is for everyone and not to be kept a secret or made like the priests have to explain everything to you.

freedom is figuring it out for yourself.  not going by what others tell you.  i did not follow my parents just because they said so. i wanted to know if God was real.  i felt him for the first time in my life around age 17 or 18 - speaking to me through near death experiences.  to have someone else explain this to me was useless.  i did, however, 'feel it' in my heart. 

as i see it - God wastes nothing.  not even dust.  which is what we are made of.  if He made us once - he can make us again.  for what purpose?  because He first loved us.  that's why. 

look - a person doesn't have a child (who, btw --looks just like them.  how can this be - so many different looks? - that's a miracle right there) to throw in in the trash and never care what happens to it.  God cares very much what happens to each of us.  that is why He so patiently endures our own choices for a very long time.  but, as i see it - when God gets angry - watch out.  i mean -he controls everything.  we're a little speck.  give Him some  respect while you can!

[prometheus]

Faith is not for intellectuals.

[cmg]

you all have much patience, too.  in fact, i daresay - you all may be more on the inclining ledge of cmg and sliding into faith when it suits your deathbed. 

In truth, I'm not on "the inclining ledge" at all.  As an agnostic, I don't rule out the existence of God.  I agree with Kant on this, who was a believer:  God's existence can't be proved or disproved.  Therefore, like him, I've always been open.

As an agnostic, what I reject are formalized religions and their dogmas.  These, quite factually, are man-made, despite repeated and unprovable protestations that "The Bible is the Word of God."

This is why Zen Buddhism has always appealed to me.  It posits nothing.  Is there a God?  Zen just shrugs and says, "meditate and prove it to yourself."  This is, in fact, the philosophy presented in the Gnostic Gospels that pre-date what is now the New Testament by at least 200 years.  In there, Christ, like a proper buddha, doesn't proclaim that he is the Son of God.  He's simply an inspired teacher like the Buddha.  No dogma.  In fact, he warns against the creation of a movement or "Church" in his name.

Meditation is the only "ritual" he offers for self-discovery.  Asked if one could enter the Kingdom of God, Christ of the Gnostic Gospels, says simply, "look within."  He meant meditation.  As any meditator knows, the practice is meant to still conscious thoughts and ultimately the appearance of pre-conscious and unconscious thoughts.  With that emptiness (silence) filling the mind, viewing the world becomes an entirely different experience.  Why?  Because conditioned intelligence (or received thinking, i.e. cultural and religious propaganda) no longer distorts what we actually see about us.  In that state, then, IF there is a "God," we will experience it.

I have experienced near-death experiences, pianistimo.  Twice, in fact.  It did not frighten me into believing something (religion) that I couldn't prove for myself.  I did not run to "God" or a priest for protection and salvation.  I merely accepted the fact that I will indeed die.  With that gut-level awareness (and, believe me, few people have that awareness . . . for most it's merely an intellectual awareness that they will die -- I refer you to Ernest Becker's seminal work on the matter entitled "The Denial of Death" for a convincing discussion of this issue) I began to delve deeply into Zen and meditation.  

I have found the answers I need.  And they continue to exclude any Church and any dogmas.  Gnosticism, is, after all, "knowing."  Zen hints that with hard work, one CAN know.  Zen would be right.  

[johnny-boy]

Faith is not for intellectuals.

What's an "intellectual"? Define please??? Sounds like a member of some snob club.

John

[prometheus]

It's in the dictionary.

[thalbergmad]

This is why Zen Buddhism has always appealed to me.    

It is beginning to appeal to me to.

I see Jesus as a barrier blocking the way to God. If you don't believe in him, you're buggered.

Thal

[ahinton]

It is beginning to appeal to me to.

I see Jesus as a barrier blocking the way to God. If you don't believe in him, you're buggered.

Thal

Oh, dear. Poor Jesus. I'd lay you quite a few quid to a cent that, if He were around in Gravesend right now, He'd probably say to you over a meal of good fish accompanied by a glass of wine-made-from-water that it really wasn't His fault and that He never ordained any of this barrier stuff and didn't support it...

Pianistimo will probably now charge me and have God the ultimate judge sentence me to several years at someone's displeasure for committing such heresy...

Best,

Alistair

[johnny-boy]

It's in the dictionary.

From the “Dictionary of Snobberobany”:
“Intellectual”: 1. A person who thinks they’ve been blessed with a better brain than the average Joe Schmoe. 2. One who has declared himself (herself) as having a superior opinion. One who accepts all scientific facts as fact without ever doing the research for him/herself.

Of course the average Joe Schmoe knows that opinions are a dime a dozen.

 

[ahinton]

From the “Dictionary of Snobberobany”:
“Intellectual”: 1. A person who thinks they’ve been blessed with a better brain than the average Joe Schmoe. 2. One who has declared himself (herself) as having a superior opinion. One who accepts all scientific facts as fact without ever doing the research for him/herself.

Of course the average Joe Schmoe knows that opinions are a dime a dozen.

 

From the first letter ever written to me by Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji in 1972

"I see that you are not, thank God, an intellectual - that is, someone educated above his intelligence".

Not a dictionary source, I admit, but I just thought that I'd throw it in...

Best,

Alistair

[ramseytheii]

From the “Dictionary of Snobberobany”:
“Intellectual”: 1. A person who thinks they’ve been blessed with a better brain than the average Joe Schmoe. 2. One who has declared himself (herself) as having a superior opinion. One who accepts all scientific facts as fact without ever doing the research for him/herself.

Of course the average Joe Schmoe knows that opinions are a dime a dozen.

 

Apparently Joe Schmoes also think that brains are a dime a dozen: good luck!

(Happy Birthday A.R.  )

Walter Ramsey

[johnny-boy]

From the first letter ever written to me by Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji in 1972

"I see that you are not, thank God, an intellectual - that is, someone educated above his intelligence".

Not a dictionary source, I admit, but I just thought that I'd throw it in...

Best,

Alistair

Very true Ali. An intellectual often sacrifices common sense.

John

[pianistimo]

dearest alistair,

actually i completely agree with you.  i think Jesus would do exactly that.  excepting maybe eating squid.  he was jewish , you know!  but, in any case - would probably change the water into anything thal desired.  and, i think He would show Himself a worthy master.

as i see it - people worry about freedom as though it is making choices that are ALL perfectly right. but, how do we know?  God made us.  so he gives us a sort of 'user's manual.'  if you follow it - things seem to go rightly.  they are blessed.  and, we even pray for blessings sometimes (whether over a meal or over a person - now - i dont mean eating the person, ok). 

i think that usually God is more feared than Jesus with most people.  they think they are incompatible or something.  the old God of the old testament and the new more merciful God.  but, they are intertwined.  the Father and the Son.  they work in tandem.  Jesus said - 'i came to do my Father's will...'  so they are not fighting among themselves for control - but they seem to share it by acknowledging each other's importance.  God doesn't do anything without consulting Jesus - and Jesus did not do His own will on earth - because He was an example to us of humility and seeking God's will.

if marriages were mostly like this - people would not feel neglected or unimportant to the other person.  each holds the other in very high esteem.  that's how i see it.  love is the law.  not the law. 

[pianistimo]

about the intellectual part - i think johnny-boy is right!  sometimes the 'wise' of the world are 'foolish' to God.  He  knows more.

i think what people take issue with is laziness.  there is nothing wrong with researching anything.  but, solomon - with all his wisdom (albeit way before our time) said that there are endless books to read.  they all seem to differ.  different 'facts.'  which one is right?

*please know that i really do accept the choices of everyone on this poll and i'm not saying that you are wrong and i am right.  i think in my heart i have made the right choice for myself.  i believe God exists - but i don't think He is in us until we choose to have Him dwell in us.  it is a gift.  the Holy Spirit.  Jesus could not 'send' it until He returned to the Father.  why?  because they work in union - and are of 'the same mind.'  the essence or spirit of 'God' is unity and love.

[wishful thinker]

Well, wishful, I studied Caesar when I was 13, Cicero when I was 14, and Virgil at 15.  Since those distant days, my grasp of Latina lingua has grown beyond rusty.  Add to that I'm not a Catholic, so the weekly ritual, professed in Latin, has even escaped my ears.  I've grown deaf to Latin, in short.

20:24. Now Thomas, one of the twelve, who is called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.
Thomas autem unus ex duodecim qui dicitur Didymus non erat cum eis quando venit Iesus

20:25. The other disciples therefore said to him: We have seen the Lord. But he said to them: Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails and put my finger into the place of the nails and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.
Dixerunt ergo ei alii discipuli vidimus Dominum ille autem dixit eis nisi videro in manibus eius figuram clavorum et mittam digitum meum in locum clavorum et mittam manum meam in latus eius non credam

20:26. And after eight days, again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them. Jesus cometh, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst and said: Peace be to you.
Et post dies octo iterum erant discipuli eius intus et Thomas cum eis venit Iesus ianuis clausis et stetit in medio et dixit pax vobis

20:27. Then he said to Thomas: Put in thy finger hither and see my hands. And bring hither the hand and put it into my side. And be not faithless, but believing.
Deinde dicit Thomae infer digitum tuum huc et vide manus meas et adfer manum tuam et mitte in latus meum et noli esse incredulus sed fidelis

20:28. Thomas answered and said to him: My Lord and my God.
Respondit Thomas et dixit ei Dominus meus et Deus meus

20:29. Jesus saith to him: Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen and have believed.
Dicit ei Iesus quia vidisti me credidisti beati qui non viderunt et crediderunt

20:30. Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book.
Multa quidem et alia signa fecit Iesus in conspectu discipulorum suorum quae non sunt scripta in libro hoc

20:31. But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God: and that believing, you may have life in his name.
Haec autem scripta sunt ut credatis quia Iesus est Christus Filius Dei et ut credentes vitam habeatis in nomine eius


and the point is:

Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen and have believed

Prometheus............................

[ahinton]

dearest alistair,

actually i completely agree with you.  i think Jesus would do exactly that.  excepting maybe eating squid.  he was jewish , you know!  but, in any case - would probably change the water into anything thal desired.  and, i think He would show Himself a worthy master.

I really wouldn't want to witness Jesus denying himself - or otherwise being denied - some really tasty well prepared juicy fresh calamari but, thinking of my other recent post here, I wonder what He'd have thought of Sorabji's notion of an intellectual as someone educated above his intelligence - especially if He was sitting opposite that person sharing the calamari (squid). No doubt He would have understood and appreciated the old cliché that tell us "cook a man a fish and you'll feed him for an evening; teach a man to fish and you'll feed him for life (1. Peter, verse Go-for-it)". I'm sure that I'd have been fascinated to have an opportunity to sit at the waterside somewhere and have the privilege to share fish and wine with Him and discuss things, but He died two thousand years ago, so I will never meet Him, whatever you may say to the contrary, Susan, ma chère.

i think that usually God is more feared than Jesus with most people.  they think they are incompatible or something.  the old God of the old testament and the new more merciful God.  but, they are intertwined.  the Father and the Son.  they work in tandem.  Jesus said - 'i came to do my Father's will...'  so they are not fighting among themselves for control - but they seem to share it by acknowledging each other's importance.  God doesn't do anything without consulting Jesus - and Jesus did not do His own will on earth - because He was an example to us of humility and seeking God's will.

if marriages were mostly like this - people would not feel neglected or unimportant to the other person.  each holds the other in very high esteem.  that's how i see it.

I cannot get into your remark about marriages here, as I do not fully understand what it is that you are saying and the precise context in which you are saying it.

love is the law.  not the law.

Dos that include copyright law? (I'm only saying that to wind Thal up)...

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

wishful thinker - you took the words right out of my mouth.  exactly that.  blessed are those who haven't seen.  we take comfort that we're not as stupid as people say we are - because Jesus Himself said those words. 

alistair,  do you think it is the issue of the ressurrection that people have the most problem with.  that it seems incomprehensible?  and yet, we see seeds that fall to the earth and then grow into trees.  butterflies that come out of cocoons after being mere lowly groundhugging and leaf gobbling caterpillars.  why is it so hard to imagine us being like a seed and turning into something everlasting.

the egyptians obviously thought it was important enough to bury their stuff with them.  where did they ever get the idea of 'eternal life?'  i think it was passed down generation to generation from the time of noah - which would have been 500-600 years to joseph (or so).  they changed the ideas a bit - giving RA or the sungod the power that God had originally - but their ideas of a 'river of life' (styx) and 'crossing over'  - is certainly a concept that is centered actually in the river of life spoken of in revelations and one which i think satan is well aware of.  seems that he likes to make 'replicas' for himself of God's designs.  he identifies himself well enough though, in the egyptian cobras which were placed at the center of the head (representing which 'side' they were on). 

rev 22 'and he showed me a river of the water of life, clear as crystal (this is the water Jesus was referring the samaritan woman to - and whom could not see it here on earth), coming from the throne of God and of the Lamb, in the middle of its street.  and on either side of the river was the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations...'

vs 12 'Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done.  I am the alpha and the omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.  blessed are those who wash their robes (by Jesus blood), that they may have the right to the tree of life (everlasting life), and may enter the gates into the city.'

[ahinton]

alistair,  do you think it is the issue of the ressurrection that people have the most problem with.  that it seems incomprehensible?  and yet, we see seeds that fall to the earth and then grow into trees.  butterflies that come out of cocoons after being mere lowly groundhugging and leaf gobbling caterpillars.  why is it so hard to imagine us being like a seed and turning into something everlasting.

I have no idea what "people" as a whole have problems with here. I can imagine that some people will indeed have problems with this, just as i can that they and/or others may have similar problems with the "virgin birth" legend, which strikes me as an entirely unnecessary fabrication to try to justify something that could surely justify itself more than adequately; by this I mean that Jesus and His works are surely self-sufficient and can stand on their own two feet without the trappings of this myth which comes across to me as a somewhat unsavoury blend of  cheap-thrill miracuolous legend and even cheaper PR. Seeds and growth are, of coruse, perfectly understandable and recognisable, but where many people may have a problem is in realistically parallelling this with the resurrection myth which, once again, is surely not necessary to bolster or justify the life and works of Jesus Christ.

Best,

Alistair

[mad_max2024]

god still exists...
by 8 votes...

[ahinton]

god still exists...
by 8 votes...

Lucky for Him; how many do you suppose that Mr Anthony Blair might need (and at how many pounds apiece?)...

Best,

Alistair

[timothy42b]

Very true Ali. An intellectual often sacrifices common sense.

John

"An unwarranted assertion, followed by a flat denial, followed by abuse." 

We have a need to feel superior to people obviously smarter than us, so it is easy to claim that they lack common sense.

In fact, I don't know of any evidence that is the case in general, though it is certainly consensus. 

It might be that people who are smart lack a sense of what the average person would do in a particular circumstance.  Growing up in a small town I would have to say that seemed to be the case.  If a person did anything out of the ordinary it was perceived to be evidence he lacked common sense.  For example, "everybody knows" you change your oil every six months.  If a person for some odd reason changed his based on the odometer instead, the whole town would talk about how stupid he was.  If he happened to be educated, it would be proof educated people lacked common sense.  And if common sense is defined as ability to perceive and comply with what normally stupid people did, I guess they would be correct. 

[johnny-boy]

For example, "everybody knows" you change your oil every six months.

That's an "unwarranted assertion".  I change my oil every three months/3,000 miles (not six).

[ramseytheii]

"An unwarranted assertion, followed by a flat denial, followed by abuse." 

We have a need to feel superior to people obviously smarter than us, so it is easy to claim that they lack common sense.

In fact, I don't know of any evidence that is the case in general, though it is certainly consensus. 

It might be that people who are smart lack a sense of what the average person would do in a particular circumstance.  Growing up in a small town I would have to say that seemed to be the case.  If a person did anything out of the ordinary it was perceived to be evidence he lacked common sense.  For example, "everybody knows" you change your oil every six months.  If a person for some odd reason changed his based on the odometer instead, the whole town would talk about how stupid he was.  If he happened to be educated, it would be proof educated people lacked common sense.  And if common sense is defined as ability to perceive and comply with what normally stupid people did, I guess they would be correct. 

Bravo!

Walter Ramsey

[ahinton]

OK, let's put Sorabji's remark on one side and consider the following much earlier one expressed in two lines of Alexander Pope:

"The bookful blockhead, ignorantly read,
With loads of learned lumber in his head".

The point here - if indeed it really needs to be explained in detail (which apparently it does here) - is that intellectual prowess is of itself no guarantee of the intellgence of the intellectual possessing it; in other words, intellectual ability and intelligence are not the same thing. Too much education can be just as adverse a thing as too little, especially if any part of it becomes detached from the rationale for it. Sorabji and Pope were not even from the same century, yet they drew attention in their different ways and contexts to pretty much the same issue.

I hope that this makes matters clearer.

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

a little.

say - timothy42b - what if you take a trip during one of those months and run up your odometer?  going by the odometer is what educated people would do!  i mean - just because MOST people do it the other way doesn't mean that is why their cars last so long (smile).  i've never been particular.  my husband on the other hand is inclined to the odometer.  he has three degrees.  i think he is actually the smarter of us and the one with the most common sense.

and, yet, in my defense - he takes so long in the grocery store and shopping (comparing items and making sure that everything is right price and best quality) that the trip itself is quite long.  i on the other hand save time for him everywhere.  i also comparison shop - but know that little secret (the best prices are higher up or way down low).  also, when it comes to making quick rash decisions - i can help him a lot.  i don't panic when lost.  lots of common sense there.  i really don't get upset when people go in front of me. 

i think there's a lot to be said for the 'normal average podunk.'  you think you're no better or less - but really - you might be very good at something noone else can do.  for me this is piano.  for my aunt - quilting.  you just smush it in everyone's face - and it proves that you are capable of SOMETHING.  even if everything else in your life is a complete and utter failure.  (just kidding- sort of).