Comments on This question is never answered adequately

Go to Religion in the Modern World - Add a comment - Go to This question is never answered adequately

ArGee – Clearly, everyone here can read this entire exchange

wherein you have accomplished absolutely “nothing” to demonstrate a lack of logic on my part, be it formal or informal. The only thing you’ve accomplished here is to reveal yourself as very rude; and also as willing to transverse the truth.

posted by telemachus on December 5, 2006 at 11:01 PM | link to this | reply

Is that "Mind In Arrears," Gome?

posted by arGee on December 3, 2006 at 4:57 PM | link to this | reply

arGee - are we using military terms now?, in that case it seems that our

protagonist is "MIA" . . .?

posted by gomedome on December 3, 2006 at 12:09 PM | link to this | reply

I did NOT say, Ody...

That the “...use of the word “logic” can just as validly mean “sound reasoning” as it can “formal equation style logic”.” I did say I understood how you were using the word. I never said nor implied that there are two kinds of logic. All along I have been saying that you are NOT being logical. You make statements, and then draw conclusions from those statements that you claim are logical, but that are entirely illogical. My resorting to formal logic and the use of equations was to demonstrate that even in the most trivial matters, your arguments are NOT logical.

There is only one kind of logic. Every time you use logic in an informal way, you still are following the rules of formal logic. If you cannot mathematically get from your proposition to your conclusion using the rules of formal logic, then your statement is NOT logical, no matter how reasonable you think it is.

Formal logic was specifically developed because it often became difficult to follow a verbal logical chain, and, as it turned out, frequently these verbal arguments turned out not to be logical (correct), following analysis. (As in your case.)

Consequently, you, Ody, are a sloppy thinker, you do not understand logical thinking, and appear unable to follow a logical trail from beginning to end. And what do you think gives you the authority to order me to stand down? Your own sloppy ineptitude has made you irrelevant on this forum...

posted by arGee on December 3, 2006 at 8:53 AM | link to this | reply

ArGee - As I’ve mentioned to you previously,

I understand and have been exposed to “formal logic” at University. This does not mean that every time the word “logic” is employed that I pull out a sheet of paper and start drawing out equations. Also, as I’ve pointed out to you previously, use of the word “logic” can just as validly mean “sound reasoning” as it can “formal equation style logic”. You’ve admitted already that your fixation solely upon “formal logic” is the only thing that stands between the resolution of our disagreement here, so stand down.

posted by telemachus on December 1, 2006 at 9:37 AM | link to this | reply

I don't limit myself to formal logic, Ody...

But if I make a claim to be logical, or that my argument is logical, then I have set the terms as a matter of logic, and am bound by the envelope that contains formal logic. You can't just slip from one to the other whenever you wish, just because it feels good.

You need to understand that formal logic exists precisely because it often becomes impossible to find a path through a set of arguments, because they become so convoluted and difficult. Formal logic enables people to get there from here.

This is the ability you seem to lack.

posted by arGee on December 1, 2006 at 9:30 AM | link to this | reply

ArGee……actually your example here clearly displays the problem

with limiting yourself to an exchange only in terms of formal logic…….you see, your statement about being a Gome Groupie clearly carries with it the suggestion that it’s not such a bad thing and when this suggestion is made in conjunction with your purposeful choice not to deny my accusation that you are indeed a Gome Groupie, we come to see that you apparently harbor some favor for that position. Formal logic would not permit you such discernment. I postulate that such a limited perspective would similarly bar ones way to God, as God’s omnipotent nature transcends such elementary mathematics. You see, it is ones insistence to perceive God in the same manner that one perceives physical sensations that limits ones perspective. Clearly, science has shown there are realms that exist that we must perceive in different ways and with different tools. Alternate dimensions may exist that we must LEARN to experience. In fact, we may even have biological sensory tools that we have not yet learned to employ. I can tell you about what its like to perceive with your spirit, but it is much more difficult for me to give you a step-by-step recipe for doing it.

posted by telemachus on December 1, 2006 at 9:18 AM | link to this | reply

Another example, Ody, of your "logical" thinking...

I didn't say I was a  Gome Groupie, I said there were worse things than being a Gome Groupie.

In formal logic:

Statement A: There are worse things than being a Gome Groupie.
Conditional: A originated by arGee
Conclusion: arGee is a Gome Groupie

I'm willing to learn, but tell me, Ody, just how do you get from A and the Conditional to the Conclusion? Are you using some kind of Warp-drive logic that travels through another universe? Face it, Ody, you just don't get it...

posted by arGee on December 1, 2006 at 8:26 AM | link to this | reply

ArGee – Your insistence that commentary of the nature shared on blogit

should operate within the context of formal logic is absurd, as is your ridiculous contention that my arguments are not logical, which you have failed to demonstrate. Further, I am absolutely appalled that you would self-admittedly confirm yourself as a “Gome Groupie”. That is simply too weird! The Gomedome is growing a Zombie following! Uuhhhhh! It makes me cringe!

posted by telemachus on December 1, 2006 at 8:15 AM | link to this | reply

That's the problem, Ody...

Your confidence in your "logical thinking" has impaired your ability to see the path on which you walk. Dictionary definitions are not always useful, and sometimes they get in the way. You have gotten the cart before the horse in this matter.

Just because you believe something is logical does not mean it is logical. Formal LOGIC was developed specifically to separate out genuinely logical arguments from those that appear logical, but – in fact – are not. This has absolutely nothing to do with "higher mathematics." Except for trivial situations, the ONLY way to determine whether or not an argument is truly logical is to reduce it to a set of logical equations, work the equations, and determine of their outcome is the same as the stated outcome of the verbal argument. If they match, the argument is logical. If they don't, it isn't.

This is neither esoteric nor an off-the-wall application of the logical process. THIS is what logic is all about. Since not one of your so-called logical arguments can be reduced to a set of formal logic equations that result in your conclusions (not one, Ody!), your arguments are NOT logical, period.

I fully realize that people (including me) use the word "logical" in a much more informal way in ordinary speech, and I believe this is what you have been doing. I have no problem with this, except when you then go out on a limb ans claim that the logic of your arguments proves their validity. At this point, your use of "logic" is no longer "informal." Now you have set up the initial conditions for a logical analysis. And this is where your arguments fail miserably.

(Incidentally, there are worse things than being a Gome Groupie...)

 

posted by arGee on December 1, 2006 at 8:04 AM | link to this | reply

Gomedome……..certainly he has the right to express his opinion,

 as I have the right to choose whether or not I wish to participate in childish banter……..his comments have nothing to do with the subject matter that I wished to discuss with you. I have complete confidence in the logic of my statements and the sound coherence of my arguments. I thus have no motive to prove anything to him. You are certainly right about one thing though, I was out of line to call him your “groupie”. I apologize for that.

posted by telemachus on November 30, 2006 at 2:47 PM | link to this | reply

Odysseus - I'm actually a little surprised at your ducking out

when confronted by another blogger.

I would have thought that you would have invited the challenge. This is after all a public forum. Where we have the freedom to express our perspectives but not without impunity. To suggest that someone is one of my "groupies" because they have taken you to task and it happens to be in my comments section, is a little childish don't you think? Let me tell you what the reality is; there are some people on this site that agree with some of my perspectives as well as some that disagree. The same could be said of you as well. You've run into an individual here whom we can assume does not agree with some of your perspectives, nor how you arrived at them. Is this your answer; a few parting remarks and you're gone?

Well . . . I'll attempt to not run out of hankies blubbering over the loss.   

 

posted by gomedome on November 30, 2006 at 1:42 PM | link to this | reply

Gome…Although you have not responded directly to the point

I raised, I do think that you’ve understood my point. Perhaps you may choose to act upon it. Anyway, it’s been a pleasure, with the one exception of the pesky flies buzzing about this place. Be good!

posted by telemachus on November 30, 2006 at 11:36 AM | link to this | reply

ArGee – My dictionary defines logic as “Sound reasoning”,

which is clearly what I have offered here. Your desire to play with abstract mathematics is your own choice, not mine.  If you like that, then, by all means, have fun with it, but that places no obligation on me to particpate!  By the way, my intention here was to comment to Gomedome; I’m not really sure how I got tangled up with his groupie sidekick. Perhaps your screen name should be changed to Renfro. LOL

posted by telemachus on November 30, 2006 at 11:29 AM | link to this | reply

arGee - I wondered what might happen if you two became involved in

an "exchange".

Would placing bets be too crass? How about selling popcorn to the other spectators?

posted by gomedome on November 30, 2006 at 10:49 AM | link to this | reply

There you go again, Ody...

Throwing around that word "logical." I would really be interested in seeing how the "...only other logical explanation that [you] can think of is that perhaps [my]browser is malfunctioning?" can be LOGICALLY derived from anything either I or you have written in this exchange.

Please – I am not patronizing you. This is a genuine, legitimate request: Please show me the logical path that leads to this conclusion from anything you and/or I wrote. Show me and I will back off with respect and humility.

Otherwise, you're either a buffoon or a fraud.

posted by arGee on November 30, 2006 at 10:00 AM | link to this | reply

Odysseus -wow, I'm tending to agree with arGee pertaining to your inability

to use logic.

Hope for mankind, which is an all encompassing term enveloping the desire for positive outcomes and the confidence that these outcomes will be attained is a byproduct of worship, not the propagator, at least not entirely. It may play a part in the motivations of those who worship a supreme being as a compelling factor but pales in comparison to self interest and fear as to why people worship God.  I agree that most people adhere to the constructed personifications of God because it is easier to comprehend but this is not the only reason that ancient irrational religious constructs have proliferated against reason into the modern world. There are many other factors; including the desire of what still comprises the majority of humans for there to be a God, expectation through environmental conditioning and societal ostracism. It is my hope that the human race will snap out of this irrational religious funk before we destroy ourselves. The confidence I hold that this will happen is derived from the trend of people to move away from organized religion and the ever increasing numbers of people that feel comfortable professing non belief. Rational thought will eventually prevail.

  

posted by gomedome on November 30, 2006 at 6:56 AM | link to this | reply

Gomedome…..and I know that you do not give credit to some “invisible guy”

and I’m not asking you to do that. But, if it is your contention that you do maintain “hope”, in what do you place your hope? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I glean from your responses that it is offensive for me to suggest that you place your hope in “nothingness”. Further, as you say that you have a “hope for humanity”, it would seem that you are placing your hope upon human beings. If this is the case, my next question would logically be, which human beings? Or, better still, what human attributes or characteristics are conducive to the enhancement of your hope? As you define these attributes, you start to condense the perception of that upon which you place your hope. To the extent this condensed perception is worthy in its stated objective to enhance the hope of humanity, it is then worthy of elevating and emulating, something that many refer to as worship. This process proves quite difficult for many and so it is not surprising that the whole concept of Jesus Christ involves an attempt to personify such attributes, to facilitate the human focus.

posted by telemachus on November 30, 2006 at 12:47 AM | link to this | reply

arGee – illogical arguments? ill considered opinions? No philosophy?

You’re obviously not reading the same page as I. Surely you would not purposefully distort the truth! The only other logical explanation that I can think of is that perhaps your browser is malfunctioning? LOL

posted by telemachus on November 30, 2006 at 12:10 AM | link to this | reply

franciscan - you're back - how'd you get past the orderlies this time?

posted by gomedome on November 29, 2006 at 7:27 PM | link to this | reply

Anyone can get into heaven. "Baptism of Desire" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  Google it, bloggerites!

posted by franciscan on November 29, 2006 at 7:24 PM | link to this | reply

You have a habit of "missing the point," Ody...

In your responses to Gome and to me. You (not I) invoked logic, and then you proceeded to argue most illogically. I simply called you on the carpet for talking the talk without walking the walk.

Gome argues his points with convincing logic – here, and in other situations. I take no significant issue with his logic. Yours, however, is not logic at all, but just a strung together list of ill considered opinions.

By the way, Formal Logic grew out of Philosophy and the inability of dedicated philosophers to get from proposition to conclusion in any but the most simple situations. Without Logic, there is no Philosophy.

(If you don't believe me, ask Gome...)

posted by arGee on November 29, 2006 at 6:40 PM | link to this | reply

Odysseus - which individual alive has such influence towards

religious belief to the extent that it can be swept away?

All one person can do is plant seeds of alternative perspective as food for thought and not much more. There is no doubt that religious belief is vitally important to some people as it defines who they are and acts as a support mechanism, a reference point in their lives, or a crutch supporting their inherent human weaknesses as each individual case may be. The unfortunate aspect of religious belief however is that while no one can refute the positives that it brings to some peoples lives, there is also no disputing the inherent problems that it causes within families, societies and especially within the world community. We do not have a case history where we can look at one example existing today, or that has ever existed, where the negatives of religious belief are not advanced in conjunction with the positives.

The word "nothingness", first off has derogatory connotations, suggesting that an indvidual is lacking or seeking self fulfillment. This is a widely proliferated and a mostly fictional misconception utilized by a believing majority to self justify their own faith in an unseen power. It is not entirely without merit however as a lack of self fulfillment and the symptomatic human conditions of despair and depression can be found in a segment of all people alive, regardless of what they believe. Where it becomes insulting is when it is used without qualification as a means of defining the existence of all persons who do not believe in God. Equally insulting is the suggestion that to have and maintain hope is the preserve of those who believe in God.  

The reality is that the the only difference between someone such as myself pertaining to advancing ideals, maintaining a hope for humanity and the future of our species, is that I do not give the credit to some invisible guy.

 

 

 

posted by gomedome on November 29, 2006 at 2:54 PM | link to this | reply

Gomedome – I like the terminology “refurbishing” and “renovating”,

but I must caution you of the dangers of seemingly sweeping popular religious beliefs away prematurely, without first completing the renovation. That would be like tearing a house down before refurbishing or decorating it, which would leave one out in the cold. Humanity has a deep need for religion, just as they need food, drink, and sex. It is an innate thirst.

This largely boils down to optimism versus pessimism. Humanity must never lose its optimism. By that, I mean the inexorable clinging to hope, no matter the odds, no matter the bleakness, and no matter the measure of despair. This is because truly, all of life is about hope. Our struggles to eat, sleep, drink, and procreate are all based upon our hope to survive, prosper, and enjoy. When we give up hope, we essentially acquiesce to death, annihilation, and darkness. Anything that we accomplish in life is preceded by a hope and faith that we will succeed. Without hope, we are inactive, submissive, indolent, and listless. With hope, we are joyful, ambitious, directive, and energetic.

A belief in God quells initially from optimistic hope. It is about the gathering together of enormous faith for the prevalence of the power of good that is about in the Universe. If someone tells me they do not believe in God, then I wonder where their hope comes from? Do you place your hope solely on humanity or have you discarded it? If you’ve discarded it, is the appropriate term not then “nothingness”? Or, better still, provide me with the term of your choice, and I’ll use that!

posted by telemachus on November 29, 2006 at 10:01 AM | link to this | reply

ArGee – Actually I’ve had more than my share of logic classes

 in college. My only point to you was that formal logic is incapable of addressing all of the problems that will confront you and that it is certainly not always adequate for formulating philosophical postulations. I would also point out that you may study Philosophy just like the other courses that you've mentioned.

posted by telemachus on November 29, 2006 at 9:35 AM | link to this | reply

Odysseus - I'm sorry but I find your last comment a little humorous

This is the funny part: "One odd thing though is that I typically always get a bitter response to my comments to you, regardless of how casual, serene, or nice I make them."  . . .I can count on one hand the number of times that you have left "a casual, serene, or nice" comment on one of my postings and if you ever bothered to check you will notice that all responses to such comments have been with similar sentiment. Without exception; any insulting or harsh comment that you have received from me has been a response to something offensive that you have left in comment. It is more than a pattern, it is my policy in treating others, one that I very seldom deviate from.  

I also make a point of carefully selecting my words when I write my posts, responding only in kind or using the antithesis of words that we have have all been subjected to. An example; take the word "nothingness", which is entirely a concept derived from your own thought processes that you are insistent on defining the lives and perceptions of others with. I find it offensive that someone would suggest that I exist in a state of "nothingness" simply because they are capable of reconciling the delusion of the illogical existence of a conscious supreme being.

If someone insists on describing non belief as living in a state of nothingness, do I not have the right to suggest that belief is living in a delusional state? Anyone who takes offence to that last italicized sentence has not considered their own words. Or at the very least think they somehow have a right to voice a negative assessment of others without impunity, simply because they believe in God. I too hope that humanity evolves, but into a state of mutual cooperation as I feel that ascendency onto some higher spiritual plain through a belief or faith in a supreme being is a naive suggestion. The impediments to higher spiritual ascendency through a faith in a supreme being should be obvious. A good portion of the world's populace do not believe in a God of any sort and never will, the rest cannot agree on what God is as there are countless different versions.

Is this confused and exclusive vehicle supposed to somehow be a path to solutions for all of mankind? Hardly, the sooner that these irrational thought processes are discarded in favor of a practical and all inclusive mentality, the better off we will all be. You refer to the process of introducing a differing religious opinion as "destroying" . . again hardly, the words "refurbishing" or "renovating" are much more appropriate. Religious institutions will never keep pace with the times, this planet will be a charred cinder before the God squad ever comes to terms with the fact that their message has never worked, will never work and is one of the largest contributing factors to our problems as a species.

Inclusion of all peoples, tolerance for our fellow citizens and respect for the rights of others are phrases that we must all come to understand as being the only possible working parameters for civilization. Yet all of these ideals have their limits and all must be devoid of religious influence. As soon as anyone attempts to influence any of these ideals with their own religious beliefs, we all have a problem. That is why if someone is insistent on hitting me over the head with their religious beliefs, I am more than willing to hit them back....

I'll hit them back so hard in fact, that their children will be born dizzy.     

 

posted by gomedome on November 29, 2006 at 8:25 AM | link to this | reply

You miss the entire point, Ody...

I was explaining to you what LOGIC is. My example was simplistic, because that is the best way to explain something to a person who does't comprehend the subject.

Ody, by definition LOGIC is a method of examining ideas, concepts, etc, within a mathematical framework. If you cannot reduce your argument to a logical equation (this means, if you cannot reduce it to terms that can be dealt with using the formal rules of LOGIC) similar to the example I gave you, but usually significantly more complex, then you are not using LOGIC. You are just talking.

Again, Ody, LOGIC is a specific, clearly defined method for analyzing ideas, concepts, etc. Just as you can study English 101 or Algebra 101 in college, you can study Logic 101. And just like English and Algebra, you can continue right up to graduate courses in Logic that you would not even begin to understand without first learning the basics in the elementary courses.

Since you obviously haven't even learned what the term means, you might want to back off for a bit, and complete your basic education before you toss the term around.

posted by arGee on November 29, 2006 at 8:15 AM | link to this | reply

Gomedome….On the contrary, I’ve actually become quite fond of your writing

and intellectual prowess. In fact, I read you quite regularly. One odd thing though is that I typically always get a bitter response to my comments to you, regardless of how casual, serene, or nice I make them. I find it quite unpleasant to be the recipient of your name slinging; and perhaps I do speculate a bit too broadly about your reasons for doing that. Nonetheless, I certainly do not deny your right to your religious opinions, which I sincerely want to hear more about, in contrast to criticisms of others.

Although I’ve written a good deal about problems in conventional Christianity, you are right that I certainly have not been as vehement in that regard. I suppose that is because I accept the flaws visible in popular religions with the hope that religious evolution will eventually address them, as opposed to embarking upon a wholesale campaign to destroy them. As problematic as they may be, they are still vastly superior to nothingness, in my mind.

I have not given up hope for the eventual success and ascendance of humanity. And admittedly, I do wish that I could somehow kindle a similar hope in you. Although I have no intention of forcing beliefs upon you, I do enjoying offering up my thoughts from time to time

posted by telemachus on November 29, 2006 at 6:50 AM | link to this | reply

Odysseus - that's a nice try but you know darned well that your constant

negative comments towards me are not based on anything so simple. 

You have predefined my character from some fictional image that you hold, all the while attempting to have me conform to what you think people should believe. The end result is that you attempt to deny my right to my religious opinion. You have never made the same effort towards someone expounding discriminative and damaging nonsense from a position of a belief in God, they somehow are exempt from your self appointed policing. This in itself demonstrates exactly what you are all about. Those that believe in God can say any stupid mindless drivel that comes into their minds and that is alright with you, according to you I am supposed to somehow respect these nonsensical beliefs, regardless of their negative effects on society as a whole. Regardless of whom those beliefs disparage or discriminate against and even if I am the target of that derision.

That's just a lousy deal that I have to say no thanks to. Here are my terms: If someone plays nice, I play nice but I have no obligation to support anyone else's delusions of the existence of invisible beings. If they are willing to acknowledge the validity of my beliefs then I will reciprocate. If they are not willing, they will get from me exactly what they give. Most people that have been conditioned their entire lives to not accept as equals those who hold a divergent religious opinion cannot handle this form of equality.

You have demonstrated countless times that you are one of these people.

posted by gomedome on November 29, 2006 at 12:06 AM | link to this | reply

Gomedome, yes, I did say that.

As you know, I harbor a hope that you might someday write to expound what you believe, as opposed to destroying that which others believe.

posted by telemachus on November 28, 2006 at 9:54 PM | link to this | reply

ArGee – actually we have not, as yet, succeeded in explaining

the universe in mathematical terms……that does not mean that the universe is illogical. There are many valid and logical postulations, especially in the philosophical realm, that cannot be reduced in such an elementary way.

posted by telemachus on November 28, 2006 at 9:44 PM | link to this | reply

Odysseus - your use of the same old tact in professing innocence while

claiming that I initiated the acrimony is typical of you.

Unfortunately, and again typically, your denials are falsified with your own words. You said this first: "You see, your perspective is to identify things about you that you dislike and destroy them."

These words will be taken by anyone as marginally offensive. In the context that you used them there is no doubt that you either intended offence or are extremely callous. I then responded in kind by sharing with you my opinion of what constitutes your perspective but you couldn't handle it.

We can do this all day if you want, you say something clueless based on your religious opinion about those who do not believe as you do, then I give you a figurative swat in the head. It matters not to me if you never comprehend that you receive from me the exact treatment that you give.   

posted by gomedome on November 28, 2006 at 10:41 AM | link to this | reply

I feel compelled to jump in, Ody...

To give you a definition of faith my minister father taught me in my early childhood: "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, and the essence of things not seen." (Or was it the other way around?)

Say what?

I've been following your discussion with Gome, and I don't see much logic in your presentation. Logic is a formalized method for examining data or ideas, and moving from A to B in a provable manner. For example given that A = B and that A + B = C, then it is logical to say that A = C/2. Here is the proof:

A = B
A + B = C
A + A = C
2A = C
A = C/2

This is an example of pure logic. These simple equations can be translated into sentences, so that information can be logically analyzed. In practice, sentences are translated into equations, the equations are "worked," and the solutions are translated back into sentences.

One cannot do this with your comments and ideas – hence they are NOT logical.

Capish?

posted by arGee on November 28, 2006 at 10:33 AM | link to this | reply

Gomedome………….Re-read what you wrote in your first paragraph

 in your last response to me, suggesting that the proliferation of “religious wars” or “divisional barriers” should have anything at all to do with the existence of God! Your disgust with the historical manifestation of religion is distorting your vision! If you can so easily believe there is microbial life below you that you cannot perceive, why is it so hard to believe there is similarly such life above you? – And again Gomedome, you accuse me of being singular in mind, but it is you that launches hostilities whenever you are confronted with an alternative opinion. My comments here have contained nothing that could logically be construed to, as you say, “chastise” you. Referring to my blog as “drivel” is indicative of your typical mechanisms for trying to dismiss that which you are incapable of rebuking with logical prose.

posted by telemachus on November 28, 2006 at 9:44 AM | link to this | reply

arGee - when you think about it, the whole issue is really a comedy

Those who should be informed of the traditions can't even agree amongst themselves. I find the "last rites" discussion particularly amusing in that what the man made rules of the tradition are really implying is that everyone had better die in a hospital bed or near a priest. Accidental death or being murdered negates the possibility of getting to heaven? Then there is the question of the protestant belief of accepting Jesus as lord before one dies. There is no time limit on this to my knowledge. Professing this belief as the last words a person gasps before expiring should be sufficient. If it is not sufficient, where is the line drawn? Must a person be compelled to do so without the motivation of their impending demise? This would mean that all persons on death row are wasting their efforts at being saved.

This type of convoluted thinking is typical of organized religions. They are armed with their man made rules and concocted traditions that inevitably lead to confusion and more unanswered questions. The "tough luck" scenario is the funniest part. These people define their omnipotent creator being as all knowing and all loving, further describing mankind as created in his image. But apparently this only applies to those fortunate enough to be born into a certain historical timeframe and have the additional good fortune of specific geographical locations. . . yet they persist with this notion.   

  

posted by gomedome on November 28, 2006 at 9:22 AM | link to this | reply

interwoven threads are difficult to follow, Gome...

But, yes, that is exactly what the three clerics said (or implied, in the case of one): either you accept when you get the chance, or you are damned, and if you never get the chance, too bad – life is tough! They did equivocate a bit when the related question of the "death-bed confession" was raised. It turns out that if you are hit by a bus, and anyone who is a Christian (read: believing conservative Roman Catholic) gives you the last rites, you'll make it. Tough luck, however, if no one's around with acceptable "credentials."

What if you are sufficiently cognizant to breathe a prayer of acceptance on your own before you croak? One of the clerics said it wasn't good enough; one equivocated; and one said it probably would work, but he really wasn't sure; and then the three started arguing among themselves about it.

Remember, these guys were top-of-the-line, respected conservative clerics who attended this party specifically to meet me and discuss these matters. Ostensibly, they were well prepared. The other thirty or so guests mostly listened, although several interjected their own questions. It was illuminating, to say the least.

posted by arGee on November 28, 2006 at 7:55 AM | link to this | reply

yes it does

posted by Xeno-x on November 28, 2006 at 7:49 AM | link to this | reply

Odysseus - typically your analogies don't quite work but carry on having

fun with them anyways.

The failing point is that the human race did not insist on the existence of the microbiotic world for 2 millenia or more prior to it being discovered and understood, as they have with the existence of a supreme being. It's also safe to say that those who speculated on the existence of the microbiotic world prior to its discovery, did not fight wars or develop divisional barriers segregating entire societies over it. Nor is it likely that there will ever be a discovery, scientific or otherwise, that demonstrates for us that God exists. Also typically, you feel comfortable defining what you think are my motivations for writing this blog when you suggest that I am wanting to "destroy".

Here is the return volley, a response in kind where I tell you what you are thinking and what compells you to be the only one who has developed this opinion from what is written in this posting and left a comment with the sentiments that you have; you are singular of mind and rigid of thought, so much so that it has completely distorted your perspective. Your inflated ego compells you to elevate your beliefs above those of everyone else, if a person is not writing posts advancing ridiculously naive ideals of being good and if they do not subscibe to the existence of your version of God, you must chastize them in any pathetic manner that you can. I really have tired of listening to it.

One man's "insight" is another man's drivel.

 

posted by gomedome on November 28, 2006 at 7:35 AM | link to this | reply

Gomedome…..First, it is clearly not, as you say, “dumbing something down”

simply because you are presently unable to perceive it. There are many things in the world that we are unable to perceive. For example, germs and bacteria could not be perceived until we developed a microscope. Can you for a moment imagine the guy that staggered around before the invention of the microscope, contending that he didn’t believe in germs?

Undoubtedly there are many more things in the Universe that we are unable to perceive in untold dimensions and arenas that we, as yet, have no inkling of. God is obviously manifest about us, as it is undeniable that so much of humanity actively seeks him. To contend that God doesn’t exist only because you cannot presently see him is, quite simply, as ludicrous as not believing in germs!

I also disagree with you about whether or not people manufacture excuses for disbelief. I think that often they do. In fact, why else would you so consistently attack and berate believers? From my perspective, it seems as if you are trying to convince yourself.

And lastly, what you ascribe as my “wishful thinking” is really not such a remote possibility. It is simply the opposite way of attacking a problem from the manner that you presently go about it. You see, your perspective is to identify things about you that you dislike and destroy them. The alternative is to identify things about you that you do like and elevate them. I’d like to see you shift gears into the latter. Is that really such a remote possibility?

posted by telemachus on November 28, 2006 at 6:56 AM | link to this | reply

Santa Claws.

posted by Jenasis on November 28, 2006 at 5:29 AM | link to this | reply

GOME

The answer to your question is a very simple one, really, and the answer is this:
the Christians are WRONG!

To adamantly insist upon the absolute infallibility of every word of the Bible (as it has been
passed on and taught to Believers) is the single most destructive cause of the poor reception
of the Bible by so many intelligent, thinking men and women of reason. This one unyielding insistence has caused my fellow Christians much pain and embarrassment many times over
("the Earth is flat; it is the Center of the Universe; women are second-class citizens and should not receive equal pay for equal work; equal accessibility to Church attendance and membership
to people of ALL Races, and on and on" are all examples of simple-minded Christians who are
simply parroting their over-protective leadership, to put it kindly as possible.

My fellow Christians, if you continue to defend the indefensible, you will also continue to bring
even more discredit to our Faith.

There were others beside Jesus who saw the injustices of the "Old Testament Church," but
Jesus had the courage and commitment to challenge those archaic views. He literally changed an entire religion!

You can do the same! Loosen up! Be reasonable! Get rid of the excess baggage!

Gome is right on this one! YOU are wrong.

posted by GEPRUITT on November 28, 2006 at 12:48 AM | link to this | reply

Odysseus - you seldom dissapoint and are usually good for a laugh

First we have the subtle plea to dumb it down with the use of the old standbye: "…….only because God presently transcends your ability to perceive him……."

Then we have a demonstration of your inability to accept the fact that no one, not one person on this planet, manufactures excuses for disbelief: "however, this is not an excuse for disbelief, but rather a catalyst for your ascendance….." Non belief is not a willful choice, repeat this to yourself a few times until it sinks in.

Then you treat us to your wishful thinking: " . . the key moment will occur for you when you, by willful choice, turn your keen intellect into a receptor, translator, and discerner, instead of a destroyer." . . while never letting up on the fact that you think that others must share your delusion. That we must all begin subscribing to unattainable goals and that we must all acknowledge the existence of some invisible being simply because you have convinced yourself of this being's existence.

Don't you ever let up?

posted by gomedome on November 27, 2006 at 10:29 PM | link to this | reply

TVBlogger - exactly, and now that we are in a time where those who ask

these questions aren't burned at the stake (at least literally), there are many people that cannot or will not make attempts to reconcile the inconsistencies.

posted by gomedome on November 27, 2006 at 10:04 PM | link to this | reply

ladychardonnay and SoloWriter - the idea does have a few holes in it

when you think about it.

posted by gomedome on November 27, 2006 at 10:01 PM | link to this | reply

arGee - by that reasoning everyone of another religion is damned as well

Do they realy think that Muslims for example, will denounce Allah in favor of the Christian version of God? I hardly think so.

posted by gomedome on November 27, 2006 at 9:59 PM | link to this | reply

babe_rocks - ultimately apologetics are apologizing for it being so absurd

They are defenders of the indefensible in the observations of ancient man. Much of which is redundant by today's knowledge as well as being irreconcilable to reason and logic.

posted by gomedome on November 27, 2006 at 9:39 PM | link to this | reply

The explanation I got as a kid

was that God knows what each person would choose if given the opportunity to have heard about Jesus... which begs the question then why this entire charade of living our lives so we can be judged?  No answer for that.  These sorts of logical gymnastics tell me they don't have a clue and are reaching for manmade answers to manmade problems. 

posted by TVBlogger on November 27, 2006 at 8:25 PM | link to this | reply

Gomedome…..If you spend much time in the study

of the various religions about in the world, you will no doubt find similar places of difficulty…….only because God presently transcends your ability to perceive him…….however, this is not an excuse for disbelief, but rather a catalyst for your ascendance…..the key moment will occur for you when you, by willful choice, turn your keen intellect into a receptor, translator, and  discerner, instead of a destroyer.  I am presently reading a most wonderful book entitled “Life of Pi” by Yann Martel and I must leave you with a quote from it: 

“That which sustains the universe beyond thought and language, and that which is at the core of us and struggles for expression, is the same thing.  The finite within the infinite, the infinite within the finite.”  -Yann Martel

Please do not rail against those who would attempt to translate that which is so difficult to express; but rather, join the effort to unveil that for which humanity is destined to perceive.  

posted by telemachus on November 27, 2006 at 8:01 PM | link to this | reply

It's like saying that the Jesus people who condemn and kill you are the one's you're supposed to look to for salvation.  It's a huge load of B.S.  Oh, and listen to this!  One fourth of the world are Christian, and I have four children.  The one fourth of my children who is being taken to church, JOSHua, was kidnapped this summer by my rapist.  Gee, O.D.

posted by Jenasis on November 27, 2006 at 7:23 PM | link to this | reply

excellent point - never thought of that

posted by ladychardonnay on November 27, 2006 at 6:17 PM | link to this | reply

In an earlier response to your blog, Gome...

I mentioned a party I had attended where I was a "guest of honor" juxtaposed to three traditional Roman Catholic Clerics. The question you raised here came up in that meeting, and all three clerics were of a mind. Their answer was simple and direct: If you do not accept, you are damned – period.

Yep – all those who never heard, all those who might have heard, everyone, everywhere, every-time: accept or die!

posted by arGee on November 27, 2006 at 6:06 PM | link to this | reply

The theological term apologetics always tickled me. It's like they are apologizing for it all being so......absurd. Btw, I am a church member in good standing.e

posted by babe_rocks on November 27, 2006 at 5:45 PM | link to this | reply