Go to Naut's View
- Add a comment
- Go to Notes on Belief and Knowledge II
Naut...
...I don't have a problem with anything you said here.
I, too, have difficulty with an anthropomorphic god, or as I sometimes call it...a celestial Santa Claus.
And what bothers me more than the logical and historical and ideological inconsistencies throughout the bible is the
premise of the message, be it Christian, Islamic or Judaic...i.e. an offended god who needs appeasing, and who, in the end, according to a careful reading of the gospels, is the loser, because Jesus said that "
Narrow is the way and straight is the gate that leads to heaven, and few there be that enter therein." He also said that "
Broad is the way and wide is the gate that leads to destruction, and many there be that go [there]." I'm quoting from memory, hence the brackets where I know it's not verbatim.
But, the point is that in the end, the majority of "god's creation" will end up in hell, while a minority goes to paradise. So, who wins the battle for souls...certainly not God? Doesn't that make him rather impotent?
But, I'm straying afield. To keep from getting really deep here, let me just state that I believe in the probability of a realm beyond our senses. As far as an overarching creator God, I'll have to address that in segments. My perspective on it isn't exactly orthodox, and is basically philosophical...science being out of my element.
Great post Naut, and it's nice to know that you're open-minded concerning the "
more things in heaven and earth."
posted by
metalrat
on January 21, 2009 at 9:20 PM
| link to this | reply
SilverMoon,
thanks!
posted by
Nautikos
on August 20, 2006 at 6:41 AM
| link to this | reply
Nautikos...
Well spoken.
posted by
SilverMoon7
on August 8, 2006 at 8:43 PM
| link to this | reply
gomedome,
thanks for the visit and especially the comment! I think we pretty well share the same 'bias'...
posted by
Nautikos
on June 24, 2006 at 6:33 PM
| link to this | reply
Passion,
I have no problem with that at all! If you believe, you believe and, as I have said before, far be it from me to attempt to destroy another's faith...
posted by
Nautikos
on June 24, 2006 at 6:26 PM
| link to this | reply
Nautikos - I didn't get very far before I burst out laughing
But it was a good laugh .....I lasted straightfaced and contemplating until this phrase " . . . . . .alleged to inhabit the Heavens." In reference to God. They sounded like words coming out of my own mouth. This post was very well done . . Bravo. . . and if my bias shows? . . . so be it.
posted by
gomedome
on June 24, 2006 at 5:40 PM
| link to this | reply
I'm a born-again Christian too....
But I know that you can't convince non-believers of the existence of God with proofs....scientific or otherwise. The Kingdom of God works by faith.
The way you accept Jesus as your Savior is by "faith." If you do not have 'faith' to believe then all the great arguments in the world won't do any good.
I think the best course of action is to pray for those who don't believe and stop trying to 'convince' them. But alot of new converts find that they simply 'MUST' try to convince their friends and family into believing as they have.
posted by
Passionflower
on June 24, 2006 at 5:39 PM
| link to this | reply
And another thing, LeroyCoyote,
get in the habit of responding to comments on your own posts...
posted by
Nautikos
on June 24, 2006 at 4:32 PM
| link to this | reply
LeroyCoyote,
Thank you very much for your comment. As you can tell by the number of responses, this is not a terribly popular subject, which is why I find yours particularly satisfying.
I am intrigued that you are a born-again Christian who believes in evolution, since my experience with b-a C’s has been confined to those who absolutely insist on a literal reading of the Bible, and an absolutely ludicrous ‘creationist’ time-table!
Miracles? Interesting! First of all I would say that there probably is no such thing as ‘the’ definition, but several. (To de-fine things is, after all, to draw boundaries around something that is ‘larger’, not yet ‘defined’, unless we use accepted definitions. And, typically, we need to answer the question: define for what purpose? Since that will influence some of the characteristics of the definition.)
Well, it’s a challenge! I am one of those guys who rises to challenges like a trout to the fly! So I may well deal with that, and popularity and clicks be damned! (As if I were in this for the dough…) So you may see a post on ‘miradcles’, but certainly not tonight, since I need to relax and have a bit more of that vino…
posted by
Nautikos
on June 24, 2006 at 4:29 PM
| link to this | reply
Belief and Knowledge
Naut., I think your musings on this are nuanced and valuable. If it were possible for me to request a post from you I would like to see what you think the definition of a miracle is and if you think there would ever be a way for the masses of people to accept the reality of a miracle outside of a religion. By the way, I'm a born-again Christian who embraces theistic evolution.
posted by
LeRoyCoyote
on June 24, 2006 at 2:18 PM
| link to this | reply
Darrke
yes, I agree with you. And if ever we should 'prove' the existence of the God we 'know', (which we won't, of course), we would create a new one, a 'Meta-God' , to remove him from the realm of scientific certainty.
posted by
Nautikos
on June 23, 2006 at 7:01 AM
| link to this | reply
Good point about the difference between faith and science. If we can prove it then there is no need for faith. And often a lack of faith is what is behind the pursuit of "proof".
posted by
DarrkeThoughts
on June 21, 2006 at 8:59 PM
| link to this | reply
Blanche,
you're welcome, and I hope it has helped a little bit. There is an absolutely massive amount of material on all this stuff, full of sometimes conflicting views, and it's difficult to get things right within the confines of a blog such as this.
I must have been out of my mind to get into this in the first place. It was triggered by something I read on one of the blogs, but in future I am going leave it alone...
posted by
Nautikos
on June 21, 2006 at 8:57 PM
| link to this | reply
Justi,
thanks again for your comments. Just to clarify one thing, my former friend's withdrawal was his choice, I didn't push him away. He was (and is) a decent guy, and he could believe in Mother Goose, for all I care...I did, on occasion, ridicule the 'science' he trotted out to make his points, but only after trying to discourage him gently from foisting that nonsense on me...
posted by
Nautikos
on June 21, 2006 at 8:48 PM
| link to this | reply
Nautikos, thank you for going to the trouble of spelling this out for me
I am working through this to get a better understanding: falsifiable is in a sense saying it's an objective reality: quanitifiable or measurable as physical data? As opposed to philosphy, metaphysics, social sciences, things that concern themselves with the inner world of the subjective mind?
That certainly makes sense to me, as does your saying that faith can't be measured or tested in a "scientific way". I think that scientists themselves know the limits of science, it's others who want to assert their claims as the ultimate truth. Some things are only apparent to the heart, not the mind.
As for your former friend, that does get very tedious, like any defense mechanism or insecurity. I have to watch that in myself, that tendency to want everyone around me to believe as I do.
posted by
Blanche.
on June 21, 2006 at 5:51 PM
| link to this | reply
Naut
All of your work is well done. It is obviously the work of a well educated man of strong values. I didn't see anything new on the subject of faith, real or not, was presented. In using your blockbuster theory that some low grade scientific tests provable by any graduate student, were being used by born agains to meet their needs and encourage their need to prove to those of a higher academic achievement. I could not tell if it saddened you that he left the basic group or these types were to be weeded out so as not to be an irritant. Irritants are often disaster in some social situations.
posted by
Justi
on June 21, 2006 at 5:30 PM
| link to this | reply