That reminds me of a now deceased childhood friend of mine when the subject of religion came up and someone accused him of being an atheist. His reply was, "No. I don't believe in that either." Rather ironically (in my point of view) he died while trying to level a house he and his new wife (extremely religious daughter of a minister) had just bought and the jack slipped... He was literally crushed. As far as how far can human logic take us ? Look to history. Where were we at 150 years ago ? Where are we now ? Is it really progress ?
@Katzenfreund: I wholly agree with you here. I don't honestly believe that this question of omniscience / omnipotence can be debated without creating more questions which will ultimately lead to false conclusions. By either side. The truth is, We don't know. We don't have a frame of reference in this world. Look what Chaos theory did to Newtonian physics. Look at what String Theory did to Quantum Physics. Sometimes, theories come along that knock the scientific community off of its' feet. We are forced to re-evaluate our positions on a subject and rethink it. We are all "Colored" by our experiences in this life. Often times, what we perceive is not what is actually going on. @TCM: I feel that I need to clarify my position about the Bible / Koran / Talmud. These books are -NOT- meant to be lived by as a 'hard and fast' rule book. They are all open to interpretation. And many people misinterpret them. Myself, I have taken the things from these books that made sense -To My Heart-. My head can and will lie to me. If a book tells me to love my neighbor as myself, I interpret that as meaning to show respect and give dignity to my neighbor. If a book tells me to hate you simply because you are different, I will promptly take that book, close it and pitch it into a roaring fireplace. Each and every spiritual belief system that is not taken from a fundamentalist standpoint conveys the same message: Love one another. Try to understand how the other person feels. Show mercy and compassion when you feel hatred and rage towards another. Easily said, but more times than not, it's the most difficult thing to do. Take everything in this life with a grain of salt. And question everything. This is how you come to a place of inner peace, and how you live peacefully with others. Life is not about a book. It's about your head versus your heart. "The Devil plays in the minds of Man. GOD lives in the hearts of Man."
Speak for yourself.... If you want to find out what the reality is, when it comes to the "ironic" example that you give, why don't you try a Vipassana Group? You sit for two weeks, from 5 o'clock in the morning till 11p.m., wearing a blindfold that you only tale off for three short meals and very short walks after each 45 minute session. "It's what we as humans do. We twist and pervert everything to suit our own agendas." Not all of us.... try it! Or be happy that the know-nothings applaude you, because what you wrote describes the behaviour of the believers.
You are pretty close to see the problem with human logic. Basically, what ALL our human knowledge and thinking presumes (I am not even talking about the stupidity of believing), goes somewhat like this: In the beginning God, or whatever power outside men humans believe in, created human logic! And then he or whatever, decided to create a universe according to the rules that human logic dictates... Should you dare to question this utterly stupid understanding, then you realize immediately that the result of all our reasoning is nothing but a temporary, for all eternity changing, understanding. So, when it comes to religion, the least unreasonable position is to be an agnostic, which means, you simply do not know. You are free to choose between existing spiritual answers, where the most useful is probably Zen, because it includes this awareness of not-knowing. At the very bottom of the list are those three monotheistic religions, which of course you only see, once you are "outside".
I am speaking for Myself. No thank you...I prefer cookies to torture. So, of all the posts in this thread, you didn't pick mine to make yourself feel good about your own pathetic life? It seems to me you just proved my point. Have a nice day.
In view of the turn this discussion has taken, I cite three quotes on human thinking, not directed against any post or position here. •Brain: an apparatus with which we think we think. (Ambrose Bierce) •A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. (William James) •What luck for the rulers that men do not think. (Adolf Hitler)
You of all the people here telling others to speak for themselves, when in fact you were talking, like a good old patronising conservative, in everybody's name or at least in Europeans' name. Wow! Talk about spiritual blind spot... What arrogance and ignorance of oneself!!! And you know what: you actually tried getting applause for your Trump fiasco stance!!! So, you know what to do with that now... No, it is nothing like that. And what were you teaching, once again? Agnosticism refuses to get drawn into questions which by definition one can not answer reasonably and instead turns to those one does have something to do with. And "spiritual answers" do not have to be from the existing "belief systems". We are Human, i.e. potentially creative, with vivid imagination, free to make a new option, aren't we?!? Spiritual, more precisely, does not have to be "religious" in any sense, non?
Agnosticism is a cop-out. An agnosticist doesn't even want to know and makes no effort to apply a reasonable strategy to even attempt to know. All science is just what hasn't been disproven and what produces repeatable and predictable results. Nothing of it is absolute knowledge. Agnosticism is a lazy stance that you can at best ignore completely. If an agnosticist has nothing to contribute, why even listen to anything he says. If, on the other hand, you apply statistics, knowledge about human behaviour, knowledge about the multitudes of religions that have come and gone (which contradict each other every time), knowledge about evolutionary traits, you must arrive at the conclusion that the existence of a supernatural power ist just too unlikely and therefore to be assumed false until a major proof exists. Anything else is making s**t up. Agnosticists are either closet theists or atheists without balls. Just ignore them. They don't contribute anything of substance.
@gorski: Bravo sir. Whether or not GOD exists, we still have free will to choose whatever path we walk. Even if we choose not to choose, we are still making a choice. We're still forced to choose our own destiny. That raises the question of whether or not we have free will because we are forced to choose. To me, this question is independent of whether or not GOD exists and/or is/is not omniscient. I wonder if this question is related to the phenomena in Quantum Physics where observing the experiment influences the outcome. (The double-slit experiment, and Schrödinger's cat)
Earlier you said your only reference was some college database. Here you are admitting you reference wikipedia.
Not my view. Agnostics simply leave the unanswered questions open. They don't discard them. Two thumbs up. Unless of course in your belief system thumbs up means something other than approval, in which case I mean something else entirely.
I think "Don't piss in the wind." is much more useful advice. I don't think an adult with a sound mind and an average IQ would need outside guidance in either case. Perhaps this gives us insight as to the mental prowess of Christ's followers in his time. And I'll be happy to learn you back. It (multiple foundation books/writings) is the case in a hell'a lot more than just the Orthodox deviations and that was not the point anyway. From what I've seen a very small portion of people that claim to be religious even know that the Bible is not the only document their religion uses. The message (point) is that very few people that profess to be religious even do light study, let alone apply any critical thinking. The goal is to get people to look at what they are actually following. How is what your religion is relevant? JUDGEMENT NUMBER 1 = "...a person like you." Does not matter to me. Why should I care about their false judgements, hatred, verbal assaults/aggression and anti-social behavior or about how many of their own Commandments they violated? I'd respond with "Yes. And?" while knowing that, if they are right, they just secured their tickets to that Hell they believe in. Jesus would never have said that. Jesus was Jewish and Judaism does not recognize the existence of a Devil. The Early Hebrew (Jewish Palestinian Aramaic) language Jesus spoke did not even have a word for Devil. (That came in later Hebrew.) "Devil" is not used at all in the ancient writings the Christian Bible was supposedly created from. (No word.) Judaism did recognize "*THE* Satan" at the time of Jesus but it is not interchangeable with Devil in Hebrew. (Devil interchangeable with Satan is a Christian "innovation" that did not exist prior to their Bible.) In Hebrew "Devil" means "evil one" or "demon" and "Satan" means "opposer", "opponent" or "adversary" In neither case are they a name. I stressed THE because the way THE Satan is used it identifies A JOB. It is not a name. - THE Preacher, THE Poet. THE Satan only shows up in the Jewish Bible (Tanakh) 3 times. Each time he is an Angle working FOR God, not against him. A modern analogy of the context. - God is the Judge, THE Satan is the THE District Attorney or THE Prosecuting Attorney. (The prosecution and defense "oppose" one another.) THE Satan only does God's bidding to punish the bad. (He is one of God's Law Enforcement employees.) THE Satan has no power and no authority to act on his own. (He must have God's permission to act.) - That information is easy to find and verify. - Any Christian that professes to be serious about their religion should be fully aware of it. - Almost none are. The Christian concepts of Devil/Satan were INVENTED out of thin air by the writers of the original Christian Bible. We know this because they didn't exist in Jewish/Israelite religious writings (or language) before that book. If they INVENTED that, then no doubt they INVENTED other things. The point is some of the Christian bible is clearly NOT accurate reproductions or rewordings/translations from the time of Christ, but rather, Philosophical ideas that did not come from Christ. - Further the Christian idea of God's of Good and Evil (Heaven and Hell) in conflict with each other goes back to older mythologies like Egyptian and Greek. Judaism recognizes ONE God PERIOD. No other entity has power he did not grant. - Thus the Christian Bible is a custom tailored bastardization of the Jewish writings just as the Quran is. A minor difference with the Quran is we know who was responsible and something about him. Not so with the Christian Bible. Those "divine inspirations" could have been coming from Billy-Joe-Jim-Bob the blacksmith. Why not? Christ was a fisherman and/or a carpenter before his agent got him the prophet gig. In the Christian Bibles each and every place the word "Devil" is used marks a place where the original author(s) fabricated something or altered the content and/or meaning of the Israelite's writings. JUDGEMENT NUMBER 2 = your mistrust JUDGEMENT NUMBER 3 = and disdain And you're wrong again. I think religions are a very good thing. Even when followers allow themselves to be naive and ignorant about what they are following religions are fairly effective at staying social misbehavior. That said, I would rather people put serious thought into what/who they follow rather than scratching the surface then pushing an "I believe" button. That kind of superficial thinking/analysis in other areas is inclined to give us another Adolf Hitler. If it's not happening for something as important as choosing a religion then clearly it's not happening for other things. JUDGEMENT NUMBER 4 = "I felt -EXACTLY- as you" JUDGEMENT NUMBER 5 = "and many other 'Theists'" Likewise, I'm sure. You judged me/my beliefs at least five times just in this post while professing to be nonjudgmental. I have (deliberately) said nothing whatsoever about my own religion. - That was a test/experiment. All the believers failed. Probably everyone failed. That happens every time I do it. - You readily judged, profiled and stereo-typed me and decided what I believe without sufficient information. (Another tell for for the inability to think logically. - And your wrong guesses are extremely funny BTW.) For all you know I am seriously religious with a REALIST perspective and I am criticizing noncritical thinking in my own religion along with every other religion. That could also be called a TRADITIONAL perspective because before the 1850's it was common knowledge among EDUCATED religious folk that Bible is not and was never intended to be taken literally. Further down I will post a link to a video where a religious scholar/historian explains that the idea the bible is literal is a modern invention. -- OT-ish. IMHO: ALL people are judgemental and ALL are profilers because that is part of the survival instinct package that is built into human DNA. We automatically, subconsciously and instantly judge and profile everything around us because "in the jungle" it kept us alive. Saying "you're judgemental" as a derogatory comment is pot/kettle/black and no different from using "you're human" as a derogatory comment. -- So, at me: "You're judgemental". Reply: "Yes, I am a human. And?" -- FOCUS => Not one of us knows what happens after we die, ...... Anybody who claims that they do know is delusional, The Bibles claim to know. - So by proxy you just said that anyone that takes the Bibles literally is delusional. Thank you for restating what I've said repeatedly since I got here. Right back at you. Eventually you may figure out what my criticism (that you are criticizing) is. You're counterpoints make it obvious that you still don't get it. I have presented ONE of my beliefs. I've explained, shown examples and shown how ridiculous the alternative is. - But it all goes back to the ONE belief. That belief is accepted as correct by both non-religious and seriously-religious (prominent ones) people capable of critical thought. So, that I believe it gives exactly ZERO indication of my religious persuasion. ~~~~~~~~~~~~ Video = Discussion between Bill Maher and Ross Douthat (I am not a fan-boy of either.) Focus on what Ross Douthat (a religious scholar and journalist) says approximately time 2:30 through 3:15 Below I have attempted to quote from the video but my Stenographer School money went towards server parts. [--] marks interruptions where he had to start over. ===== Vid https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJQjpG-lGY4 ===== Vid-Quote The truth is that the idea that you take Genesis literally, as like 6 literal days of creation, is pretty much a modern invention. Fundamentalism starts in the late 19th century. The idea of the rapture where everybody is lifted out of their shoes, that's an early 20th century innovation. If you go back an look at ancient christian authorities they are looking at Genesis [--] and they are saying that [--] No, I'm saying that if you actually read the bible, if you look at the first few books of Genesis, whoever wrote the bible clearly didn't mean to say this is a scientific account of creation. And actually serious Christians knew that all the way back to the first century AD. ===== Fundamentalism = Strict Literalism
Indeed I did. Unbeknownst to you I also made a prediction while writing that post. I predicted that instead of using that info as a starting point for a legitimate argument in this thread YOU would instead use that post to attempt to troll me. I win. P.S. Please show me where those books are referenced in the 1611 KJV bible or the Koran. ( Those so called college databases - You REALLY need to learn how to comprehend what you read. ) Buh bye troll.
Guess what Nostradamus, I realized what you were doing and I was trolling but that doesn't me a troll, that makes me a troller. A troll is a creature that hides in caves or under bridges that only comes out only to harm or conduct mischief upon humans or other creatures. IIRC, they eat garbage and dead rats and other ethnic foods. I don't ever recall seeing successful a troll restaurant. Perhaps they make lousy margaritas? That description is more synonymous with hiding behind an ignore button and popping out now and then to throw pot shots. About the only thing I can think of more juvenile than using an ignore button at all (a person with a mature adult mentality does not need a button to ignore select authors), is to announce multiple times you are using it (as if anyone gives a s**t) and then turn it off every few posts to see what the people you profess to ignore are saying. - I suspected that's what you were doing and I baited you to prove it. - Being as your post is clearly aimed directly at my bait it is now proved. A troller is a fisherman that drags bait behind their boat in an effort to draw out and catch fish. In this case the definition of troller could be expanded to include a hunter of trolls. While not an exclusive means, a hunter of trolls could drag bait to draw out trolls. Well, I'm fresh out of dead rats and I favor fishing over hunting anyway so I'm going with the fisherman definition. I dragged the bait. You took it hook/line/sinker. If you consider having your entrails removed and ending up on a BBQ or in a fry-pan as winning..... .... congratulations, you won. Hope you enjoy Cajun spice, butter and lemon juice. My idea of winning/losing is a bit more refined than the simple points system used by grade-school children and Pro Sports teams (who are IMHO no more mature) in games. In my view if a debate causes anyone (even silent observers) to.... ... learn something new ... take a second hard look at a held belief (regardless if the result is affirmation or nullification) ... think critically about anything. then EVERYBODY wins -- The 'winner' of a specific point, or even the whole debate, is not particularly important. What is important is that people engage their minds and learn (or learn how to learn or to think logically). So long as someone does - humanity just got a wee bit 'smarter' - everyone wins.. -- The purpose in putting forth a strong spirited argument is to make the other side WORK for it. (Has nothing to do with emotions, it's a tactic.) If I get slapped-down on some point the opponent will have had to WORK for it. They are going to tell me something I didn't know or present another way of looking at something I never considered. I learned - therefore I won. They learned - therefore they won. -- Of course of immature a-holes that hide under bridges and pop-out to throw virtual rocks need not apply. Not a lot of brain power involved there and virtual rocks, being virtual, don't hurt a bit. Frankly, they are not much of a challenge. (They are good for a little comedy relief.) Psst: Early Bibles don't generally come with bibliographies, especially those in their original form. I suspect that's because a bibliography would make it too easy to prove they are based on thin air. Newer Bibles 'might' have a bibliography added later. - Their Bible is not where you look for a belief system's canon. The Bible is part of the Canon. You're religion should have a list of what's in their canon somewhere. Each is different. Ask your clergy. - You've just shown us that you have no idea where Bibles come from and that you have no idea where to look. (At least you are looking. That's a big plus. - So long as you don't get tar and feathered for questioning the religion.) -- You have exemplified some of my points. That many self proclaimed religious people are totally clueless about where their Religion's beliefs come from. Further, clueless about what books/docs were used as source for the belief. --. In the physical here/now world people routinely question journalists and writers sources. Bible sources SHOULD be infinitely more important than random news stories or books. And analyzing a religion should happen BEFORE the religion is adopted. (It is after all, about your eternity. Not next week or year.) Question everything, ESPECIALLY your Religion. That's the most important thing, is it not? Yet, the naive gullible masses accept Bibles without question. (And take them literally, which is delusional.) I AM NOT saying everyone that follows any religion is naive and gullible, just those that put no deep or critical thought into it. Those that think the Bible is literal history. They are just nuts. ~~Question~~ (Honest question. - Aimed at no one in particular.) As per the phenomena that occurs in this party game. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_whispers (It goes by too many different names around the world, so a link.) The further one gets from the original message the less correct and more errored the message becomes. Logic dictates the oldest Bible version that has undergone the fewest rewrites and translations would be the most accurate and most true to the original message. (IOW, for Christians, the closer to Christ's time the better for the true original message and meaning.) You've brought up 1611 KJV several times. Why on Earth would you, or anyone, choose one that's had 1600+ years for humans to screw it up as the best choice? .
I saw it as implied. Perhaps you can't see it with that eye-patch and all. Not in this instance, no. I was serious.