The guy walked on water, fed a gagillion people with a fish, cured lepers....But didn't see this coming down the turnpike? Must have used the wrong powers or just turned the blind eye, eh.
Well, in all fairness, he's up against God here. Beating God at his own game is a little tougher than curing some lepers.
It looks like I'll rue the day last weekend, when on the gabbly chat with my friends, I said something silly like "I miss the anal philosophical conversations farfromglorified and I used to have on the board, where we break everything down to an insane degree....." hippiemom, abook, I might just take that back!
Remember that in order to learn to understand agriculture, one begins with a faith that it can be done. If one believes that a lack of agriculture is all there is, they close their mind to understanding agriculture.
Hehe...the latter would require just as much "faith" as the former, angelica.
Yes, hence my use of the word "believe".
In order learn to understand agriculture, one begins with the knowledge that food grows and is produced by the earth. It continues with the understanding of how those things happen.
Of course. This is also how my "faith" healing of psychiatric conditions happened. I noticed phenomena happen empirically, and I sought to understand said phenomena. For example, I had spiritual experiences that directed me to self heal myself. Psychiatry stepped in and gave me a new psychiatric "condition" because according to them, I was delusional, and my view was "wrong". I, on the other hand knew that my view was of a higher order of human perception, and sought to understand that. Both views were based on the same empirical phenomena looked at differently. The difference between the limits of psychiatry, and my own view is that psychiatry made assumptions in their theories that were not conducive to healing. Psychiatry also minimizes some of what they do not yet understand as being "imaginary" or "not real". My healing depended on my understanding the difference, and learning to discern information beyond the limits of what psychiatry deems as plausible.
You just stated the problem -- when people put faith in science they've demonstrated a lack of understanding of science's abilities and limitations as an objective pursuit based on human knowledge, not faith-based potential. It's no different than asking your brain surgeon why he doesn't just do a brain transplant because, hey, it should work, right?
If I am correctly understanding, I agree with you. People in general seem somewhat oblivious to the limits of medical practice. I do see that it can be beneficial to have a degree of faith in one's doctor and psychiatry as well. Keep in mind, on this specific topic--psychiatry--we are talking about people whose thought/emotional processes are not operating "optimally" and who therefore will not necessarily be equipped to discern these issues for themselves, and due to the nature of such conditions, are asked to take the opinion of their doctor and his discipline over their own inner perceptions, which may include delusions, hallucinations, etc.
All good science puts evidence before understanding, whereas all good faith puts understanding before evidence. Faith is an unreasonable short-cut to knowledge.
I think you and many others misinterpret faith. If people do not resonate to the sense of a higher intelligence in the universe, they do not buy into the concept purely on faith. Faith is a belief in a different realm of experience--in one's own inherent spiritual nature and what that entails. This is also a realm where psychiatry, for example, might rather pathologize one's empirical experiences.
That said, I don't disagree with the core of your point that much faith finds its way into the world of science. My argument, however, is that faith stands contradictory to good science.
I personally see faith and science as two entirely independent variables, many times in harmonious interaction with one another. And yet, they may also be in contradiction at times, too. It all depends
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Well, in all fairness, he's up against God here. Beating God at his own game is a little tougher than curing some lepers.
But just think of how great the story really could have been. Instead of waiting to rise from the dead to go to heaven. Jesus could have rose while still living and had god chase him around the universe. As we are told that the universe is ever expanding so far. Jesus could have hid out for eternity and still had his health.
So we are told that god put it's son here to teach us a lesson and didn't tell the poor boy he was going to be smacked around? A little stretch there I think.
Matthew 20: 17-19
17.And Jesus going up to Jerusalem took the twelve disciples apart in the way, and said unto them,
18Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death,
19And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him: and the third day he shall rise again.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
Psychology as a whole is much more of a science than it used to be.
The thing about psychology is that it's about the subjective experiences of the individual, that can be studied objectively. It is through the subjective nature of our psyche that we have the control and therefore can create healing. My healing has always been directly connected to core known psychological principles. I used to not "believe" in psychology and downgraded Freud along with everyone else, until one after another these principles revealed themselves as true to me in the course of recognizing my own subjective mental/emotional causes. I've verified the "truth" of these principles, because upon discovering such causes, I was freed from the problem at hand, disorder after disorder.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
17.And Jesus going up to Jerusalem took the twelve disciples apart in the way, and said unto them,
18Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death,
19And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him: and the third day he shall rise again.
So why did he cry out on the cross. That is my whole point. He either knew and couldn't suck it up like a big boy. Or he was useless and went through life thinking his powers were a gift from who?
It looks like I'll rue the day last weekend, when on the gabbly chat with my friends, I said something silly like "I miss the anal philosophical conversations farfromglorified and I used to have on the board, where we break everything down to an insane degree....." hippiemom, abook, I might just take that back!
Yes, hence my use of the word "believe".
You're looking for an equivalency based on the action of believing, ignoring the contents of belief. That doesn't work. A belief that food comes from the earth, and can only be grown in the correct earthly conditions is different than a belief that food comes from god and can only be grown via correct worship and sacrifice. Yes, both are beliefs. But one belief is correct, the other incorrect, measured by agricultural success. Furthermore, the former belief is likely based on objective, worldly evidence whereas the other is primarily defined by the lack of objective, worldly evidence. This is an important differentiation that plays into the modus operandi of mystics and spiritual "leaders" throughout world history. The most successful religions have always been those that demand a complete and total lack of demonstrable proof. Rand says it best:
"The good, say the mystics of spirit, is God, a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man’s power to conceive – a definition that invalidates man’s consciousness and nullifies its concepts of existence… Man’s mind, say the mystics of spirit, must be subordinated to the will of God…. Man’s standard of value, says the mystics of spirit, is the pleasure of God, whose standards are beyond man’s power of comprehension and must be accepted on faith…The purpose of man’s life, say both, is to become an abject zombie who serves a purpose he does not know, for reasons he is not to question. His reward, say the mystics of spirit, will be given to him beyond the grave.
For centuries, the mystics of spirit had existed by running a protection racket - by making life on earth unbearable, then charging you for consolation and relief, by forbidding all the virtues that make existence possible, then riding on the shoulders of your guilt, by declaring production and joy to be sins, then collecting blackmail from the sinners."
Of course. This is also how my "faith" healing of psychiatric conditions happened. I noticed phenomena happen empirically, and I sought to understand said phenomena. For example, I had spiritual experiences that directed me to self heal myself. Psychiatry stepped in and gave me a new psychiatric "condition" because according to them, I was delusional, and my view was "wrong". I, on the other hand knew that my view was of a higher order of human perception, and sought to understand that. Both views were based on the same empirical phenomena looked at differently. The difference between the limits of psychiatry, and my own view is that psychiatry made assumptions in their theories that were not conducive to healing. Psychiatry also minimizes some of what they do not yet understand as being "imaginary" or "not real". My healing depended on my understanding the difference, and learning to discern information beyond the limits of what psychiatry deems as plausible.
But here's the thing: you discarded the judgments of others based on your own empirical and logical reasoning. That's science. You put "faith" above in quotes, but I don't think even that's appropriate. "Faith", quoted or not, is simply inappropriate in the situation you're describing.
You say both views fit that description, but I'd disagree. Two different conclusions were reached. Therefore, the reasoning is not the same. And in the context of psychiatry/psychology, this is no surprise. No scientific endeavor currently employs more faith than the study of man's mind. It's surprising to me that they're not using leeches there.
If I am correctly understanding, I agree with you. People in general seem somewhat oblivious to the limits of medical practice. I do see that it can be beneficial to have a degree of faith in one's doctor and psychiatry as well. Keep in mind, on this specific topic--psychiatry--we are talking about people whose thought/emotional processes are not operating "optimally" and who therefore will not necessarily be equipped to discern these issues for themselves, and due to the nature of such conditions, are asked to take the opinion of their doctor and his discipline over their own inner perceptions, which may include delusions, hallucinations, etc.
Cool.
I think you and many others misinterpret faith. If people do not resonate to the sense of a higher intelligence in the universe, they do not buy into the concept purely on faith. Faith is a belief in a different realm of experience--in one's own inherent spiritual nature and what that entails. This is also a realm where psychiatry, for example, might rather pathologize one's empirical experiences.
I totally disagree. Faith is not a "belief in a different realm of experience". Faith is a belief in a superior mode of experience. No one ever has "faith" in a worse way or in an inferior being. People desire understanding to make things better. Faith is the short-cut they use to reach that understanding, failing to see that the reasoning they should have used was truly their only hope to accomplish what they seek.
I personally see faith and science as two entirely independent variables, many times in harmonious interaction with one another. And yet, they may also be in contradiction at times, too. It all depends
Faith and science are two independent variables--I agree with that. And I'll always defend the rights of the faithful to their faith.
However, faith and reason cannot be "harmonious". The fundamentals of each precludes the other. They cannot stand together, as is evidenced by those who attempt to disprove the faith of another based on logic, or those who attempt to disprove the logic of another based on faith. They are completely incompatible concepts and ways of life. Those who attempt to hold onto both will be torn asunder.
But just think of how great the story really could have been. Instead of waiting to rise from the dead to go to heaven. Jesus could have rose while still living and had god chase him around the universe. As we are told that the universe is ever expanding so far. Jesus could have hid out for eternity and still had his health.
That doesn't work. Christianity needed to match its Original Sin with the consent of the sinner, not the refusal of the sinner. The crucifixion/resurrection story is a magnificent device to demonstrate that your sins can go punished and rewarded at the same time.
That doesn't work. Christianity needed to match its Original Sin with the consent of the sinner, not the refusal of the sinner. The crucifixion/resurrection story is a magnificent device to demonstrate that your sins can go punished and rewarded at the same time.
So if that lady would have never tempted that man. All born to the planet would have lived forever? My great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, grandfather would be about 853 right now? Somehow I don't think the animal species (us included) would need religion to know that time is limited.
So why did he cry out on the cross. That is my whole point. He either knew and couldn't suck it up like a big boy. Or he was useless and went through life thinking his powers were a gift from who?
he was also human. I'm willing to bet most people when they have nails going through them and get whipped etc... wouldn't be able to suck it up. Crucifixion is brutal. His death (and really his resurrection) was necessary to make a new covenant. If he would've ascended to heaven without dying and w/o feeling pain he wouldn't have been the messiah that was predicted the years before.
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/GillsExpositionoftheBible/gil.cgi?book=mt&chapter=027&verse=42
Let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him.
The Persic version reads, "that the people may see, and believe in him"; and the Syriac and Arabic versions, "that we may see, and believe in him", as in (Mark 15:32) . But, alas! they had seen greater things already than this, and yet had not believed. He could easily have caused the nails to have given way, and unloosed himself, and come down, who had done such mighty works among them; and if he had, there is no reason to conclude they would have believed him to be the Son of God, and the true Messiah; for though after this, he did a much greater work, raised himself from the dead, of which they had the fullest evidence, yet they remained unbelieving.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
So if that lady would have never tempted that man. All born to the planet would have lived forever?
That's how the story goes, yes. But here's the thing: Original Sin is not very potent without personal guilt. Guilt extends from the actions of self, which makes it incompatible with the sins of others. So Christianity paired it with consent by showing Jesus, as a man, rebelling against his God and then accepting it by saying, according to John, "it is finished" or "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit" along with the resurrection three days later. The story is the ultimate parable of accepting the sins of others, coupled with a rejection of your very nature the most insipid concepts to be found in any system of thought. This device has also been co-opted by modern Western liberals as well as modified into various forms by Christianity's ugly sister Islam along with such pitiful outgrowths like Buddhism.
there's nothing week about going crazy from being in isolation to long. clearly you've never been in solitary confinement or read heart of darkness. we're social creatures, humans need human contact. no man is an island. just becos you have no friends doesn't mean people who do are weak
he was also human. I'm willing to bet most people when they have nails going through them and get whipped etc... wouldn't be able to suck it up. Crucifixion is brutal. His death (and really his resurrection) was necessary to make a new covenant. If he would've ascended to heaven without dying and w/o feeling pain he wouldn't have been the messiah that was predicted the years before.
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/GillsExpositionoftheBible/gil.cgi?book=mt&chapter=027&verse=42
Let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him.
The Persic version reads, "that the people may see, and believe in him"; and the Syriac and Arabic versions, "that we may see, and believe in him", as in (Mark 15:32) . But, alas! they had seen greater things already than this, and yet had not believed. He could easily have caused the nails to have given way, and unloosed himself, and come down, who had done such mighty works among them; and if he had, there is no reason to conclude they would have believed him to be the Son of God, and the true Messiah; for though after this, he did a much greater work, raised himself from the dead, of which they had the fullest evidence, yet they remained unbelieving.
So why didn't he say "dad, why are you letting me down". Somehow I don't know too many people that would know of their death and not want to escape it. Except this one wild story.
Anyhow I remember all this stuff from school and it didn't really impress me then and still dosen't. Thus why I question all the complex cover-ups of the condradictions that is the bible and it's teachings.
Strange we all supposedly will get to heaven but Jesus' whole body was supposedly witnessed when our time comes with our rotten luck, our souls only go. Such a pity.
I see a problem in most people of faiths whole 'get to heaven' process. I think that you need to find heaven while living not wait for it your whole life and expect it at the end.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
She does have a point, because my brother, when he was taking phsyics in university, was continually downgrading the validity of the study of medicine in general--in the context of it not being a hard science.
And yet, she may be referring to psychology. In Canada, to become a psychiatrist, one must first become a medical doctor, before further specializing in psychological issues.
I have nothing against either psychiatry or psychology, they are fine pursuits, and as our knowledge increases I expect them to become more and more valuable. But I tend to agree with your brother as far as their scientific validity at present.
Physics is a hard science. You take an object and drop it, and if you have the needed data regarding the weight of the object, the length of the fall, the atmospheric conditions, etc., you can predict exactly when it will hit the ground. Psychiatry can do nothing of the sort, nothing even close, at least not now. There is no "formula" for what to do with, say, an anorexic. Go to a dozen therapists, there will be some degree of difference in the therapy you'll receive from each; some of these therapists may contradict each other in fundamental ways. Obviously, we can't access the same sort of hard data about the human psyche as we can about a falling object. No one knows exactly why a given person becomes anorexic, or why a treatment that works for one does nothing at all for another. We're putting more pieces of the puzzle together all the time, but I think we're still just working on the edge pieces.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
It looks like I'll rue the day last weekend, when on the gabbly chat with my friends, I said something silly like "I miss the anal philosophical conversations farfromglorified and I used to have on the board, where we break everything down to an insane degree....." hippiemom, abook, I might just take that back!
Hahah ... the whole "be careful what you wish for" thing
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
So why didn't he say "dad, why are you letting me down". Somehow I don't know too many people that would know of their death and not want to escape it. Except this one wild story.
Anyhow I remember all this stuff from school and it didn't really impress me then and still dosen't. Thus why I question all the complex cover-ups of the condradictions that is the bible and it's teachings.
Strange we all supposedly will get to heaven but Jesus' whole body was supposedly witnessed when our time comes with our rotten luck, our souls only go. Such a pity.
maybe he knew what his role on Earth was and w/o his death there would be no chance for redemption for all??? I'm sure he did want to escape it but my guess is he knew what he was supposed to do and had to do.
Here's an excerpt from Matt. that shows he wanted to run
And He went a little beyond them, and fell on His face and prayed, saying, 39 "My Father, if it is possible, let (AX)this cup (death) pass from Me; (AY)yet not as I will, but as You will."
42He went away again a second time and prayed, saying, "My Father, if this (BC)cannot pass away unless I drink it, (BD)Your will be done."
I don't want to get into contradictions...again. There are reasonable explanations for the supposed contradictions but if your mind and my mind are made up then it's kinda pointless...Now if there were beer involved we could have those discussions.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
he was also human. I'm willing to bet most people when they have nails going through them and get whipped etc... wouldn't be able to suck it up. Crucifixion is brutal. His death (and really his resurrection) was necessary to make a new covenant. If he would've ascended to heaven without dying and w/o feeling pain he wouldn't have been the messiah that was predicted the years before.
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/GillsExpositionoftheBible/gil.cgi?book=mt&chapter=027&verse=42
Let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him.
The Persic version reads, "that the people may see, and believe in him"; and the Syriac and Arabic versions, "that we may see, and believe in him", as in (Mark 15:32) . But, alas! they had seen greater things already than this, and yet had not believed. He could easily have caused the nails to have given way, and unloosed himself, and come down, who had done such mighty works among them; and if he had, there is no reason to conclude they would have believed him to be the Son of God, and the true Messiah; for though after this, he did a much greater work, raised himself from the dead, of which they had the fullest evidence, yet they remained unbelieving.
great story. this woulda made a fantastic sci-fi movie.
Strange we all supposedly will get to heaven but Jesus' whole body was supposedly witnessed when our time comes with our rotten luck, our souls only go. Such a pity.
speak for yourself... im honest, my body aint exactly worth holding onto forever. i have enough trouble getting laid here, im not going through the same in heaven for all eternity.
maybe he knew what his role on Earth was and w/o his death there would be no chance for redemption for all??? I'm sure he did want to escape it but my guess is he knew what he was supposed to do and had to do.
Here's an excerpt from Matt. that shows he wanted to run
And He went a little beyond them, and fell on His face and prayed, saying, 39 "My Father, if it is possible, let (AX)this cup (death) pass from Me; (AY)yet not as I will, but as You will."
42He went away again a second time and prayed, saying, "My Father, if this (BC)cannot pass away unless I drink it, (BD)Your will be done."
I don't want to get into contradictions...again. There are reasonable explanations for the supposed contradictions but if your mind and my mind are made up then it's kinda pointless...Now if there were beer involved we could have those discussions.
nice guy, that god dude. i can really see his unconditional love... assuming you satisfy the requirements of the brutal slaughter of an innocent son and a lifetime of abject worship and devotion... THEN his love is unconditional.
maybe he knew what his role on Earth was and w/o his death there would be no chance for redemption for all??? I'm sure he did want to escape it but my guess is he knew what he was supposed to do and had to do.
Here's an excerpt from Matt. that shows he wanted to run
And He went a little beyond them, and fell on His face and prayed, saying, 39 "My Father, if it is possible, let (AX)this cup (death) pass from Me; (AY)yet not as I will, but as You will."
42He went away again a second time and prayed, saying, "My Father, if this (BC)cannot pass away unless I drink it, (BD)Your will be done."
I don't want to get into contradictions...again. There are reasonable explanations for the supposed contradictions but if your mind and my mind are made up then it's kinda pointless...Now if there were beer involved we could have those discussions.
So I can safely say without pissing off anybody that god is a man according to Jesus? Or is it a figurative word, "father"?
Do you ever wonder if the world was even worse than it is now when that flood came and wiped everybody off the Earth? And if the world is worse. Which is quite possible given the more people that inhabit it. What the hell is god waiting for now? And would somebody like me who leads a good, strong, solid life have to die too? Would that put me on the same footing as Jesus?
i think it was already made...even won some awards
you're talking about the matrix right? cos i wasn't referring to the perverted snuff film called the passion. i meant the cool story of a dude with superhuman powers fighting back against the destruction of humanity with a bitchin sacrifice out of love.
So I can safely say without pissing off anybody that god is a man according to Jesus? Or is it a figurative word, "father"?
Do you ever wonder if the world was even worse than it is now when that flood came and wiped everybody off the Earth? And if the world is worse. Which is quite possible given the more people that inhabit it. What the hell is god waiting for now? And would somebody like me who leads a good, strong, solid life have to die too? Would that put me on the same footing as Jesus?
It's figurative for God...b/c jesus was the son of God.
I don't know what God's waiting for. The only way that any of us are on the same footing as Jesus is to be perfect.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
It's figurative for God...b/c jesus was the son of God.
I don't know what God's waiting for. The only way that any of us are on the same footing as Jesus is to be perfect.
Hold on a sec. Jesus tripped while carrying the cross. How perfect is that? And he didn't take his beating like a man. Just two off the top of my head.
Do we have to wait for a whole city to become fags like in Soddam and Gomorah? A clash of religions? Come on god give us all a sign. A real 21st century sign.
I guess god is a man because he impregnated a girl. Would have been too good a miracle to have it the other way. To really prove a point.
you're talking about the matrix right? cos i wasn't referring to the perverted snuff film called the passion. i meant the cool story of a dude with superhuman powers fighting back against the destruction of humanity with a bitchin sacrifice out of love.
I know what you're thinking, 'cause right now I'm thinking the same thing. Actually, I've been thinking it ever since I got here: Why oh why didn't I take the BLUE pill?
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
Comments
Well, in all fairness, he's up against God here. Beating God at his own game is a little tougher than curing some lepers.
I'm so confused
Yes, hence my use of the word "believe".
Of course. This is also how my "faith" healing of psychiatric conditions happened. I noticed phenomena happen empirically, and I sought to understand said phenomena. For example, I had spiritual experiences that directed me to self heal myself. Psychiatry stepped in and gave me a new psychiatric "condition" because according to them, I was delusional, and my view was "wrong". I, on the other hand knew that my view was of a higher order of human perception, and sought to understand that. Both views were based on the same empirical phenomena looked at differently. The difference between the limits of psychiatry, and my own view is that psychiatry made assumptions in their theories that were not conducive to healing. Psychiatry also minimizes some of what they do not yet understand as being "imaginary" or "not real". My healing depended on my understanding the difference, and learning to discern information beyond the limits of what psychiatry deems as plausible.
If I am correctly understanding, I agree with you. People in general seem somewhat oblivious to the limits of medical practice. I do see that it can be beneficial to have a degree of faith in one's doctor and psychiatry as well. Keep in mind, on this specific topic--psychiatry--we are talking about people whose thought/emotional processes are not operating "optimally" and who therefore will not necessarily be equipped to discern these issues for themselves, and due to the nature of such conditions, are asked to take the opinion of their doctor and his discipline over their own inner perceptions, which may include delusions, hallucinations, etc.
I think you and many others misinterpret faith. If people do not resonate to the sense of a higher intelligence in the universe, they do not buy into the concept purely on faith. Faith is a belief in a different realm of experience--in one's own inherent spiritual nature and what that entails. This is also a realm where psychiatry, for example, might rather pathologize one's empirical experiences.
I personally see faith and science as two entirely independent variables, many times in harmonious interaction with one another. And yet, they may also be in contradiction at times, too. It all depends
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
But just think of how great the story really could have been. Instead of waiting to rise from the dead to go to heaven. Jesus could have rose while still living and had god chase him around the universe. As we are told that the universe is ever expanding so far. Jesus could have hid out for eternity and still had his health.
Depends on who you listen to, I guess.
But the last words of Jesus are addressed to God, so there's some kind of separation there.
Matthew 20: 17-19
17.And Jesus going up to Jerusalem took the twelve disciples apart in the way, and said unto them,
18Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death,
19And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him: and the third day he shall rise again.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
So why did he cry out on the cross. That is my whole point. He either knew and couldn't suck it up like a big boy. Or he was useless and went through life thinking his powers were a gift from who?
You're looking for an equivalency based on the action of believing, ignoring the contents of belief. That doesn't work. A belief that food comes from the earth, and can only be grown in the correct earthly conditions is different than a belief that food comes from god and can only be grown via correct worship and sacrifice. Yes, both are beliefs. But one belief is correct, the other incorrect, measured by agricultural success. Furthermore, the former belief is likely based on objective, worldly evidence whereas the other is primarily defined by the lack of objective, worldly evidence. This is an important differentiation that plays into the modus operandi of mystics and spiritual "leaders" throughout world history. The most successful religions have always been those that demand a complete and total lack of demonstrable proof. Rand says it best:
"The good, say the mystics of spirit, is God, a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man’s power to conceive – a definition that invalidates man’s consciousness and nullifies its concepts of existence… Man’s mind, say the mystics of spirit, must be subordinated to the will of God…. Man’s standard of value, says the mystics of spirit, is the pleasure of God, whose standards are beyond man’s power of comprehension and must be accepted on faith…The purpose of man’s life, say both, is to become an abject zombie who serves a purpose he does not know, for reasons he is not to question. His reward, say the mystics of spirit, will be given to him beyond the grave.
For centuries, the mystics of spirit had existed by running a protection racket - by making life on earth unbearable, then charging you for consolation and relief, by forbidding all the virtues that make existence possible, then riding on the shoulders of your guilt, by declaring production and joy to be sins, then collecting blackmail from the sinners."
But here's the thing: you discarded the judgments of others based on your own empirical and logical reasoning. That's science. You put "faith" above in quotes, but I don't think even that's appropriate. "Faith", quoted or not, is simply inappropriate in the situation you're describing.
You say both views fit that description, but I'd disagree. Two different conclusions were reached. Therefore, the reasoning is not the same. And in the context of psychiatry/psychology, this is no surprise. No scientific endeavor currently employs more faith than the study of man's mind. It's surprising to me that they're not using leeches there.
Cool.
I totally disagree. Faith is not a "belief in a different realm of experience". Faith is a belief in a superior mode of experience. No one ever has "faith" in a worse way or in an inferior being. People desire understanding to make things better. Faith is the short-cut they use to reach that understanding, failing to see that the reasoning they should have used was truly their only hope to accomplish what they seek.
Faith and science are two independent variables--I agree with that. And I'll always defend the rights of the faithful to their faith.
However, faith and reason cannot be "harmonious". The fundamentals of each precludes the other. They cannot stand together, as is evidenced by those who attempt to disprove the faith of another based on logic, or those who attempt to disprove the logic of another based on faith. They are completely incompatible concepts and ways of life. Those who attempt to hold onto both will be torn asunder.
setting good precedent there wasn't he? perfect example for his faithful followers, who have perfected this practice over the subsequent 2000 years
That doesn't work. Christianity needed to match its Original Sin with the consent of the sinner, not the refusal of the sinner. The crucifixion/resurrection story is a magnificent device to demonstrate that your sins can go punished and rewarded at the same time.
So if that lady would have never tempted that man. All born to the planet would have lived forever? My great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, grandfather would be about 853 right now? Somehow I don't think the animal species (us included) would need religion to know that time is limited.
he was also human. I'm willing to bet most people when they have nails going through them and get whipped etc... wouldn't be able to suck it up. Crucifixion is brutal. His death (and really his resurrection) was necessary to make a new covenant. If he would've ascended to heaven without dying and w/o feeling pain he wouldn't have been the messiah that was predicted the years before.
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/GillsExpositionoftheBible/gil.cgi?book=mt&chapter=027&verse=42
Let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him.
The Persic version reads, "that the people may see, and believe in him"; and the Syriac and Arabic versions, "that we may see, and believe in him", as in (Mark 15:32) . But, alas! they had seen greater things already than this, and yet had not believed. He could easily have caused the nails to have given way, and unloosed himself, and come down, who had done such mighty works among them; and if he had, there is no reason to conclude they would have believed him to be the Son of God, and the true Messiah; for though after this, he did a much greater work, raised himself from the dead, of which they had the fullest evidence, yet they remained unbelieving.
That's how the story goes, yes. But here's the thing: Original Sin is not very potent without personal guilt. Guilt extends from the actions of self, which makes it incompatible with the sins of others. So Christianity paired it with consent by showing Jesus, as a man, rebelling against his God and then accepting it by saying, according to John, "it is finished" or "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit" along with the resurrection three days later. The story is the ultimate parable of accepting the sins of others, coupled with a rejection of your very nature the most insipid concepts to be found in any system of thought. This device has also been co-opted by modern Western liberals as well as modified into various forms by Christianity's ugly sister Islam along with such pitiful outgrowths like Buddhism.
LOL!
So why didn't he say "dad, why are you letting me down". Somehow I don't know too many people that would know of their death and not want to escape it. Except this one wild story.
Anyhow I remember all this stuff from school and it didn't really impress me then and still dosen't. Thus why I question all the complex cover-ups of the condradictions that is the bible and it's teachings.
Strange we all supposedly will get to heaven but Jesus' whole body was supposedly witnessed when our time comes with our rotten luck, our souls only go. Such a pity.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Physics is a hard science. You take an object and drop it, and if you have the needed data regarding the weight of the object, the length of the fall, the atmospheric conditions, etc., you can predict exactly when it will hit the ground. Psychiatry can do nothing of the sort, nothing even close, at least not now. There is no "formula" for what to do with, say, an anorexic. Go to a dozen therapists, there will be some degree of difference in the therapy you'll receive from each; some of these therapists may contradict each other in fundamental ways. Obviously, we can't access the same sort of hard data about the human psyche as we can about a falling object. No one knows exactly why a given person becomes anorexic, or why a treatment that works for one does nothing at all for another. We're putting more pieces of the puzzle together all the time, but I think we're still just working on the edge pieces.
maybe he knew what his role on Earth was and w/o his death there would be no chance for redemption for all??? I'm sure he did want to escape it but my guess is he knew what he was supposed to do and had to do.
Here's an excerpt from Matt. that shows he wanted to run
And He went a little beyond them, and fell on His face and prayed, saying, 39 "My Father, if it is possible, let (AX)this cup (death) pass from Me; (AY)yet not as I will, but as You will."
42He went away again a second time and prayed, saying, "My Father, if this (BC)cannot pass away unless I drink it, (BD)Your will be done."
46"Get up, let us be going; behold, the one who betrays Me is at hand!"
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=26&version=49
I don't want to get into contradictions...again. There are reasonable explanations for the supposed contradictions but if your mind and my mind are made up then it's kinda pointless...Now if there were beer involved we could have those discussions.
great story. this woulda made a fantastic sci-fi movie.
how do you mean? B/c on some level I agree with you about finding heaven while living...at least metaphorically.
speak for yourself... im honest, my body aint exactly worth holding onto forever. i have enough trouble getting laid here, im not going through the same in heaven for all eternity.
i think it was already made...even won some awards
nice guy, that god dude. i can really see his unconditional love... assuming you satisfy the requirements of the brutal slaughter of an innocent son and a lifetime of abject worship and devotion... THEN his love is unconditional.
So I can safely say without pissing off anybody that god is a man according to Jesus? Or is it a figurative word, "father"?
Do you ever wonder if the world was even worse than it is now when that flood came and wiped everybody off the Earth? And if the world is worse. Which is quite possible given the more people that inhabit it. What the hell is god waiting for now? And would somebody like me who leads a good, strong, solid life have to die too? Would that put me on the same footing as Jesus?
you're talking about the matrix right? cos i wasn't referring to the perverted snuff film called the passion. i meant the cool story of a dude with superhuman powers fighting back against the destruction of humanity with a bitchin sacrifice out of love.
It's figurative for God...b/c jesus was the son of God.
I don't know what God's waiting for. The only way that any of us are on the same footing as Jesus is to be perfect.
Hold on a sec. Jesus tripped while carrying the cross. How perfect is that? And he didn't take his beating like a man. Just two off the top of my head.
Do we have to wait for a whole city to become fags like in Soddam and Gomorah? A clash of religions? Come on god give us all a sign. A real 21st century sign.
I guess god is a man because he impregnated a girl. Would have been too good a miracle to have it the other way. To really prove a point.
I know what you're thinking, 'cause right now I'm thinking the same thing. Actually, I've been thinking it ever since I got here: Why oh why didn't I take the BLUE pill?