Originally Posted by Huntster
And I don't need to rely on faith in many respects, but spirituality and God require either faith or doubt. I have chosen faith.
According to the Bible, Jesus loved doubters. Remember Thomas?
Yup. No "doubt" about it. Thomas doubted.
And Christ knew his heart:
"Peace be with you." Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here and see my hands, and bring your hand and put it into my side, and do not be unbelieving, but believe." Thomas answered and said to him, "My Lord and my God!" Jesus said to him, "Have you come to believe because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed."
It’s not an either/or question as regards faith and doubting. You have faith in some things. You doubt others.
My faith is weak. I am human, but
I'm in good company:
Peter said to him in reply, "Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water." He said, "Come." Peter got out of the boat and began to walk on the water toward Jesus. But when he saw how (strong) the wind was he became frightened; and, beginning to sink, he cried out, "Lord, save me!" Immediately Jesus stretched out his hand and caught him, and said to him, "O you of little faith, why did you doubt?"
Originally Posted by Huntster
Correct, but the old knowledge is already here, packaged, catalogued, and available. All one has to do is consume it, remember it, and reflect on it.
Originally Posted by Huntster
New knowledge requires discovery. That can be difficult and expensive stuff.
I'll leave that to the discoverers.
You don’t have to be a discoverer to learn from discoveries. Buy a copy of Scientific American, ya’ lazy cheapskate.
Oh, I scan Scientific American occasionally when I find a copy on top of the commode, or if I'm specifically looking for information.
Hey, I'm way behind on my reading already. There's no room on my nightstand anymore.
Originally Posted by Huntster
All of the knowledge of the last century doesn't interest me.
But a good deal of it does. And even if it doesn’t “interest” you, it affects you, much more so than, say, the Talmud. Even if you don’t admit it, new knowledge is more important to your life than ancient scripture.
New knowledge is much more important to my physical life than ancient scripture, but my physical life is absolutely wonderful right now. I'm healthy, strong, live in Alaska, have plenty of money, no legal troubles, no family problems, etc.
Scripture is critical to my spiritual life. It, too, is absolutely wonderful, and I want to keep it that way.
Originally Posted by Huntster
And it wasn't "speech" that is "heard."
An independent observer? He/she couldn't possibly participate, at least I can't imagine how.
Well, not really. The revelation came at a certain, significant point in prayer, and was directly related to the focus of that prayer. It was too powerful to require faith. There was an aura of certainty, both in my prayer, and in the revelation. And my life changed significantly afterwards. The matter of faith regarding that incident wasn't necessary. The power of the event combined with the change afterward negated the need for belief.
But you see, your description of this epiphany in no way indicates that God had anything to do with it. Indeed, it could be said that it was “all in your mind”. If it made you a better person (and I’m not sure I would have wanted to meet you before this event, ) then I’m happy for you, but I still don’t see this as a reason to believe in your God or His son.
I agree. My experience cannot be scientifically quantified, and is unlikely to sway you. I'm sorry. That's just the way it goes.
Oh, BTW, I'm a pretty good feller. I used to be a real SOB, but that was a long time ago. God, Mrs. Huntster, and John Law fixed that. The struggle I was referring to was purely spiritual, and was a disciplinary gift from God. When I finally relented, and admitted in prayer what God wanted to hear, BANG! It happened. It could actually be felt physically.
Originally Posted by Huntster
Actually, I'm not sure whether atheism is a religion or an anti-religion.
It is neither. Atheism is absence of religion. Of course, some atheists are also anti-religious, but that is a separate issue.
Okay. In most cases, I can agree with that.
Originally Posted by Huntster
At any rate, yes; I reject it out of hand for me. I'm not open to the possibility that there is no God. Others are free to choose as they wish.
Your attitude is a common one. It is one of the struggles we atheists must face in our society. You are fully open to learning from religions other than Christianity, but completely closed to learning anything from atheism.
Different God is okay for you, but no god is not.
Correct. No God isn't an option, because my faith has been rewarded with experiences which strengthened the original faith. The possibility of no God simply isn't realistic. Thomas didn't doubt the existence of God, he doubted the words of his friends.
Originally Posted by Huntster
I don't insist you do anything, although I hope the atheists honor your order to shut the **** up (at least those who like to belittle my faith).
They won’t. I’m not even sure that you are sincere about wishing they would, otherwise, why would you bait them as you do? You don’t fool me. You like arguing.
Yeah. I was being a smart ass.
Ossai would say I was lying. I'm almost wishing his silly ass would come back with more BS for me to play with.
Originally Posted by Huntster
I don't "know." Why is that so difficult for so many to understand? To "know" is to establish as fact. It's like the difference between "evidence" and "proof" (which you actually deny even exists).
So, then, you agree that you are agnostic. I’m happy to see that.
Cute.
BTW, I don’t say that “proof” doesn’t exist, but only that it doesn’t have real meaning in science. Mathematical “proofs” do exist, though I have been told by mathematicians that the proofs are actually just circular definitions.
What do you have against circles? Do you deny they exist, too?
I'm of the leaning that circular is the predominant cycle we are tied to.
Originally Posted by Huntster
I cannot know a matter which requires faith. And double-blind tests simply won't work. This is a field which, by definition, is super-natural, because it is not of the physical world.
Yes I know. You simply “choose to believe”. This is the problem I have with religion. It is not a tool for establishing truth, yet most religious people insist that it is. If you are not among them, then you are indeed a rarity.
I
am among them. Faith is rewarded with greater faith. As faith strengthens, it becomes similar to knowledge, but it doesn't truly fit the definition of knowledge. I'm coming to the realization that words aren't adequate to describe it.
Faith itself appears to be tied intrinsically to this supernatural phenomenon that physical science has not yet been able to penetrate.
Originally Posted by Huntster
They're not so much different as they are not as limited as the beliefs of many Christians.
I know lots of Christians. Trust me, you’re much different. Most Christians I know are of the “Kurious Kathy” variety. They never bother to examine their beliefs and don’t even know what the Bible says other than what they’ve been told by their priest or minister.
Well, that indicates to me again that Alaskans are a real different breed of people, cause Catholics like me are all over the place up here. But I know similar Christians even down in the states. Not as predominately, perhaps, but there.
Middle American/Carribean Catholics are a different breed. So are lots of African Catholics, especially in Ethiopia.
Originally Posted by Huntster
I don't. Nor do I care. Nor do I know or care if the Yahwist tried or not to create a following.
I mention the Yahwist because it was cited by you in a response to the question, “how do we know what happened before man was created?” The answer from educated theologians was essentially, “some person or persons sorted through the myths of the time and chose and rewrote the parts they liked.”
What I see is that you do the same thing.
Evolution. It's great stuff.
Originally Posted by Huntster
What I care about is my faith, my spiritual growth, my relationship with the Almighty God, and I don't have to worry about anything else. It's all taken care of.
To borrow (inexactly) from Inherit the Wind, “I weep for the fate of mankind if everyone had your burning curiosity”.
From the same movie (exactly):
"Wake up, Copernicus. The law is still on the side of the lawmakers, and everything revolves around their terra firma."
Originally Posted by Huntster
Nope. Not only do I not deny it, I'll openly state that I won't knowingly vote for an atheist for any public office.
I’m sure that is true. You wouldn’t vote for an atheist if his only opponent was Jesse Jackson.
In that case, I wouldn't vote. I've done that before. There are other issues/candidates on the ballot.
But we atheists don’t have such options. We cannot vote for an “atheists only” slate, because there are none, or at least none who are “outed”.
Sorry. Like somebody above noted: Reality is a tough thing.
I would have to say that your position on this make it appear that you care less about morality or good government than you do about labels. It does you no credit.
The golden arches is the symbol of a lousy hamburger.
Sorry. I'm headed for O'Brady's Burgers and Brew.
Originally Posted by Huntster
Oh, please; you know: (1) That the "science is a religion" tack isn't universal, and I don't imply that all atheists treat it as such.
Well, you’ve used “atheism is a religion” or “science is a religion” several times, as well as calling my beliefs “dogma”.
Your "beliefs" are dogma if shared by others just like my beliefs (shared by other Christians) are dogma.
It's a two way street, partner.
Originally Posted by Huntster
(2) your warnings, any weakness others perceive in my "position", and "gentle" atheists aren't considerations to me. I'll write what I see, know, and/or believe. I don't give much of a damn what others think of me or anything else.
LOL. Don’t even try that. If you didn’t care what people thought of you, then you wouldn’t bother to post, and you certainly wouldn’t spend so much effort crafting your posts. This is time consuming stuff, as you well know, so don’t even pretend that you don’t care.
Sorry. It's true. I don't care if people here think I'm a sinner, saint, fool, or SOB. That isn't so in my community, but it sure is here.
Originally Posted by Hunster
Still trying to turn my faith against me somehow? Hate religion so much you just can't stand the idea of someone who is enjoying it?
Personal attack? Those are a couple of frikken questions!!
LOL. Just questions, eh? Tell me, are you still beating your wife?
Never did. I'm not man enough. She'd shoot me, cut me to ribbons, or whip my ass. When we first started dating, that was one of the specific rules she layed down, and I had to verbally agree to. I did so, and never even came close. Even if I'd wanted to, I'm not brave enough to try. I've seen her shoot. She's good.
It’s not a personal attack, it’s just a question.
And there was my answer. True, accurate, and clear.
Originally Posted by Huntster
I have no problem with the joys and pleasures of the flesh, and nor does the RCC doctrine. There is a big difference between the joys of the flesh, the sins of the flesh, and the flesh as an enemy of the spirit.
The Song of Songs? Why do you think it was included in the Bible? It is a beautiful celebration of love. There is no prohibition of lovers' joy in Catholicism. It is encouraged.
Ah, but the line between “joys of the flesh” and “sins of the flesh” is rather fuzzy. Sometimes you need a priest to know whether or not you’ve “sinned.” Frankly, I decline to hand over my choice of what is moral to another person.
I can't believe I just read that!
"Fuzzy?" Need a priest to know whether or not you've sinned?
Where did you get that?
Originally Posted by Huntster
I don't see how, if they differ from those set forth by Christ.
You don’t? How then do you explain that people who follow the same Christ as you, wind up with vastly different moral codes? Did they misunderstand Christ? Did you?
Which Christians have vastly different moral codes than I do?
Originally Posted by Huntster
When I'm hunting or fishing in the woods, I don't eat amanita mushrooms, either.
Ah, so the “sampling the fruits” metaphor meant you are not looking for new knowledge, only “sampling” that which you are familiar with.
No, I'm just not going to eat "fruits" that I know are poisonous. Again, I'm not stupid.
Originally Posted by Huntster
I'm not stupid.
(Tricky bites his lip. “Too easy”, he thinks to himself.)
Cute. But go ahead; I at least
think you're only funning.
Originally Posted by Huntster
Not really. Like I've repeatedly written, I don't watch much TV. Who knows? These idiots might be parroting some silly TV thing.
It’s not from TV as far as I am aware, but it is true that popular phrases tend to get repeated. (Hey, are we almost getting back to the topic of “Bumper Stickers”?) No, Huntsy, the “sky daddy” stuff is an example of that thing you love so much called “sarcasm”. I’m sorry you didn’t understand it, but the gap between sarcasm made and sarcasm understood is called “
sarchasm”.
I like that one, too.
Originally Posted by Huntster
Great tools, too. And fun!
Even more so if the intended target understands it.
Actually, I like it when the target doesn't, too. It's still fun.
Originally Posted by Huntster
Because He absolutely requires faith. Christ stressed it repeatedly, past the point of obviousness.
Originally Posted by Huntster
Evidence destroys faith, and enables knowledge.
Then it sounds like Christ, as you describe Him,
would be against evidence. Somehow, He didn’t strike me as a Luddite.
Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, render unto science that which is science's, and render unto God that which is God's.
Originally Posted by Huntster
I wonder if, in the next life, obviously not physical, if knowledge has no utility, and faith is absolutely essential, and that's why it's important to instill and grow here?
And I wonder if there really are talking lions in Narnia. (There’s those fun tools again. )
I never wondered much about talking animals. At least talking a human language.
But they communicate to me all the time. My domestic animals as well as wild ones. In fact, I have better two way communication with animals than I do with people. Animals almost never lie, especially wild ones.
Originally Posted by Huntster
How many miles do you allow before religiously changing oil and filter?
(This is a test of faith. The number of miles will reveal your faith).
3,000 (or 3 months). The filter is a given and accepted part of the ritual, just like you don’t mention the string on your rosary.
Fundy. I go 7,500 miles. Strictly by the factory manuals (scripture). My 1985 Audi just turned 233,000 miles. Never had the head off.
As a hypothetical question (and non-sequitur), what would you do if Mrs. Huntster became an atheist?
Never crossed my mind. It still doesn't. It ain't happening.
Hypothetically (that science crap again)?
I wouldn't do a damned thing. It's not my problem.
Originally Posted by Huntster
Computers have come about through evolution.
Good answer. However, the term “evolution” has come to mean “biological evolution” for many. So much so that it is almost necessary to state if you are using it otherwise.
Yup.
Damned fundys.
But my point was that some knowledge doesn’t interfere with your spirituality, and some (apparently) does. The dividing line seems to be that the knowledge must not directly contradict the Bible. Certainly that is the case for fundamentalists. I know you are not one of those, but you still appear to have your own litmus tests.
No litmus test. It's a general thing. Knowledge kills faith, but that's okay with my religion, because my religion's foundation, makeup, exercise, etc is made up completely about faith. As long as I don't demand "evidence" or "proof" (which are "knowledge") of the tenets of my religion, I'm fine. In fact, I'm smart, because
there is no evidence or proof.
You must have faith, or it doesn't work.
Originally Posted by Huntster
I don't reject evolution at all. I accept it, including human evolution.
Good, good. Is there any knowledge you reject?
Yup, at least what some folks call knowledge.
For example, the temptation of legalizing prostitution or some currently controlled drugs. Using "facts", "knowledge", "evidence", etc, folks try to sway opinions and morals to change laws. I think it's BS. It's propaganda. Temptation. Stupid. Mistaken. Gonna hurt later. Etc.
Originally Posted by Huntster
I just don't accept it as it is widely recognized. In fact, I find the "Scopes" culture war foolish, and hold science and pseudo-scientists to blame for that along with fundamental Christians. Many of the Christians have a decent excuse for their foolishness (a lack of education), but science (holding itself as so intelligent in it's "evidence" and even "proof") isn't so easy to excuse, especially when the pseudo-scientists try to use it to attack my religious faith.
To which pseudo-scientists do you refer?
For example, those people (especially those who aren't even in the industry)who try to use the discoveries associated with human evolution against Christianity.
What makes them a “pseudo-scientist”?
They don't know what the **** they're talking about. They're parroting rather weak theories and speculations as "evidence" and "proof" as weapons against Christian fundamentalists.
They're all fools, on both sides.
Originally Posted by Huntster
The physical is just another part of my own "trinity". There is good and bad with it, just like everything else.
Originally Posted by Tricky
Okay, just like everything else, what do you consider bad about your God?
Originally Posted by huntster
Absolutely nothing.
Then you misspoke yourself. Also you fall back on dogma, a development which I regret seeing in you.
No, I didn't, and no, I didn't.
The spiritual world, as the RCC has theorized,
is divided into good and evil. God is good, and Satan is evil.
Originally Posted by Tricky
Your religion exists apart from all worldly things and is not subject to the same rules or the same scrutiny.
It transcends the physical universe, and is not subject to physical law.
I have not seen, in my experience, anything that transcends the physical universe. You and other religious people use this as a way to escape logic, evidence and inspection. It is the ultimate cop-out.
I haven't personally seen it, either. I've read the accounts of others who claim to have, and I believe some of them.
It's not that I'm trying to escape logic. I didn't set this thing up, nor do I understand it. I'm trying to figure it out like many others, and fit into it as described by Christ.
It's not a cop-out. It's a lame explanation of what we don't understand.
But that being said, I do understand why such “faith mechanisms” are important to you and to most humans. Ms. Tricky sums it up well. “I couldn’t go on if I didn’t believe that there was something after death,” she says. Maybe she couldn’t (though I think she is stronger than she imagines), and maybe you can’t. Some people can.
Oh, I sure can. I've got plenty I'd like to do, and I've been at the edge of death more times than I'd like to remember. I got shot in the head several years ago. Not a big medical problem, but I had a hell of a headache. The investigating Trooper was quoted in the newspaper saying, "Mr. Huntster is a very lucky man." And that wasn't even an extraordinary event for me. It was another of those things where Mrs. Huntster shakes her head and asks me, "What's next?" All I can tell her is that I don't know, but hang on; it's likely to be interesting.
But those things get me thinking of death. I'm certainly not afraid of it. I used to be afraid of a long lingering death, but then my Daddy recently died of cancer. Like he was so good at doing all my life, he showed me how to do it well. Now I'm not even afraid of that.
But I'm not impatient for death to come, either. I just don't care. When it gets here, I'll deal with it. Until then, I've got things to do.
Originally Posted by Tricky
Such is the nature of religion. I don’t agree with it, but I know the rules of the game. I used to play it myself.
You still do, whether you like it or not.
Back to the old “your beliefs are a religion” tack Hunny?
Well, no, that wasn't what I meant, but yeah, I think that's true. What I meant was that other people's religion play a role in your life. You're still playing. You're playing with me and my religion right now.
Well, since you like religion so much, that should cause you to have more respect for my beliefs. Sadly, you’re very inconsistent in applying this standard.
Oh, I respect your beliefs. As long as you admit they're beliefs like I admit my beliefs, we're square.
Originally Posted by Huntster
You may not have control.
Oh please please please don’t turn this into another of the endless discussions of free will.
Again, that wasn't what I meant. I meant that sometimes we don't have control over our lives, despite our American political freedoms as well as the free will God has given us.
