Do u beleave in God

[77r 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Jesus loves you but shriveled up the little baby tree that couldn't produce fruit before it's time when he outstretched his hand at lunchtime. Explain that one.

To illustrate a point maybe? You shouldn't advertise what you don't have.

Why is there smoke coming out of my irony-o-meter?

How can a fruit tree advertise what it dosn't have when it's just trying to grow?

All I come away with is that whoever wrote that story to illustrate a point didn't take into account that Jesus came off looking like he had a temper problem.

[steveorino 7]

Quote

"Can you provide the names of any secular historians who lived during the first century in that area?"

From the MIT library ...

Tacitus (A.D. c.55-A.D. c.117, Roman historian) mentions "christus" who is Jesus - Annals

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."

steveOrino

[steveorino 7]

Quote

How can a fruit tree advertise what it dosn't have when it's just trying to grow?

All I come away with is that whoever wrote that story to illustrate a point didn't take into account that Jesus came off looking like he had a temper problem.

Fig trees in the Spring produce leaves first, then a small fig called a tagsh, later that tagsh becomes what we know as a fig. The tagsh were often eaten by hungry travellers.

The season was time for the fig tree to be with leaves, but not yet time for figs. However, what should have appeared was the tagsh ((young fig). A fig tree w/o tagsh will grow to be a fig tree w/o fruit. People often ate the tagsh. This tree with leaves and in the spring before passover should have been with tagsh (but not figs)

JC often used agricultural illustration as this was an agricultural/pastoral society. At least most of his initial followers were of that economic status. This would parallel a story about remaining with him (in the vine) and producing fruit. Those outside the vine (who do not remain with him) would not bear fruit and be cut off.

steveOrino

[steveorino 7]

Quote

So what standards is religion held to? Is there any subject you can think of that is held to a similar standard?

I had to think on this one a bit. While I believe theology is a study that is unique in many ways it is similar to pyschology (maybe this is why I enjoy both)

Both pyschology & theology work with different theories that are at times complimentary and at times conflicting. In the field of psyschology we have psychotheories like Alderian, Jungian, Existential, Person-Centered, Gestalt, behavior, cognitive, reality, feminist, family and other theories. In Christian theology you have, Calvinst, Armenian, then Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Protestant, and then they offshoot even farther.

steveOrino

[JackC 0]

Quote

Quote

So what standards is religion held to? Is there any subject you can think of that is held to a similar standard?

I had to think on this one a bit. While I believe theology is a study that is unique in many ways it is similar to pyschology

I thought we'd already decided that theology was different from psychology because psychology is held to scientific standards (such as they are) whereas theology isn't?

The basis of pshycology isn't revealed in the pages of one 2000 year old book, it's based on what we can deduce from empirical observations. Any theory that a psychologist comes up with is subject to the scrutiny of their peers and can be shot down if it fails the test. For theology to be similar to psychology you would need to say Freud is the untouchable, unquestionable father of psychology and his original works are inerrant in all respects, they my be reinterpreted but never rewritten and all phycological knowledge flows from them.

The bottom line is that theology isn't held to any rational standards at all. There is no theological equivalent to peer review, double blind, six sigma, golf handicap, michelin star ratings or any other measure of performance. All other subjects, all of them, have some method for self improvement or performance measurement except theology. There is no way to tell if your theology is correct in any way shape or form. You can't even tell if your theology is improving.

Quite obviously, theology gets a special pass and I cannot for the life of me fathom out why it deserves one. Can you?

[philh 0]

Who says I accpet his(Photius or Justus) word? I dont, Im just saying theres no mention of jesus in it. Thast a whole different ball game.

[philh 0]

Tacitus did not live at the time of Christ.

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So what standards is religion held to? Is there any subject you can think of that is held to a similar standard?

I had to think on this one a bit. While I believe theology is a study that is unique in many ways it is similar to pyschology

I thought we'd already decided that theology was different from psychology because psychology is held to scientific standards (such as they are) whereas theology isn't?

The basis of pshycology isn't revealed in the pages of one 2000 year old book, it's based on what we can deduce from empirical observations. Any theory that a psychologist comes up with is subject to the scrutiny of their peers and can be shot down if it fails the test. For theology to be similar to psychology you would need to say Freud is the untouchable, unquestionable father of psychology and his original works are inerrant in all respects, they my be reinterpreted but never rewritten and all phycological knowledge flows from them.

The bottom line is that theology isn't held to any rational standards at all. There is no theological equivalent to peer review, double blind, six sigma, golf handicap, michelin star ratings or any other measure of performance. All other subjects, all of them, have some method for self improvement or performance measurement except theology. There is no way to tell if your theology is correct in any way shape or form. You can't even tell if your theology is improving.

Quite obviously, theology gets a special pass and I cannot for the life of me fathom out why it deserves one. Can you?

I thought I answered it already as well in the thread you quoted. It is unigue. However, it is similar in that it has competing theories that are only valid to those who follow the theory.

steveOrino

[philh 0]

"In the field of psyschology we have psychotheories like Alderian, Jungian, Existential, Person-Centered, Gestalt, behavior"
Again these seem to be more pyschotherapies than real psychology. The two are not the same, psychology is a genuine science whose ideas are subject to emperical verification. Pyschotherapy ecompasses many form of counselling to aid people through life, it is not a science but a treatment whose effectiveness is widely debated. Pyschologists do experiments and subject the data to peer review, theology is nothing like this.

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Pyschologists do experiments and subject the data to peer review, theology is nothing like this.

Perhaps in England they all do, but in the USA many/most? pyschologist practice therapy. They do zero study.

steveOrino

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Tacitus did not live at the time of Christ.

He lived in the generation that followed Christ. He would have been an adult around the time "Q" and Luke were written. That's like saying I cannot write about FDR's influence on social democracy of the 60s because FDR died 10 years before I was born.

He wrote about Nero persecuting the Christians who were followers of Christ.

steveOrino

[philh 0]

Are you sure you are not confusing psychology with psycho therapy?
Wikipedia definitions:

Psychology is an academic or applied discipline involving the scientific study of mental processes such as perception, cognition, emotion, personality, behavior, and interpersonal relationships.


Psychotherapy is an interpersonal, relational intervention used by trained psychotherapists to aid clients in problems of living. This usually includes increasing individual sense of well-being and reducing subjective discomforting experience.

On a psychotherapy web site
http://www.psychotherapy.org.uk/faqs.html

"Psychotherapy is the provision by qualified practitioners of a formal and professional relationship within which patients/clients can profitably explore difficult, and often painful, emotions and experiences......Psychologists are scientists and base their diagnoses and treatments on statistical evidence. "

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Are you sure you are not confusing psychology with psycho therapy?
Wikipedia definitions:

Psychology is an academic or applied discipline involving the scientific study of mental processes such as perception, cognition, emotion, personality, behavior, and interpersonal relationships.


Psychotherapy is an interpersonal, relational intervention used by trained psychotherapists to aid clients in problems of living. This usually includes increasing individual sense of well-being and reducing subjective discomforting experience.

On a psychotherapy web site
http://www.psychotherapy.org.uk/faqs.html

"Psychotherapy is the provision by qualified practitioners of a formal and professional relationship within which patients/clients can profitably explore difficult, and often painful, emotions and experiences......Psychologists are scientists and base their diagnoses and treatments on statistical evidence. "

I do not use wikipedia, it is very unreliable. Of the 20 professors I have in my Masters of Professional Counseling degree program, 1 has only a MLPC, 1 pyschologist does research (she taught the research methods class) and 18 are pyschologist who practice pychotherpay. They have PhDs and are listed as pyschologist in the course catalog and on their respective name plates. All Master level therapist cannot list themselves as pyschologist with the exception of a school pyschologist who does do testing, but must list their title as "School Pyschologist" not simply "Pyschologist"

As I said, perhaps it is different in Europe, but in Oklahoma, USA that is the way it is.

My son's pyschologist (he has Asperger's Syndrome) performs therapy as well as testing, but does ZERO research.

steveOrino

[JackC 0]

Quote

I thought I answered it already as well in the thread you quoted. It is unigue. However, it is similar in that it has competing theories that are only valid to those who follow the theory.

If that is the only similarity you can think of then theology is similar to any number of subject that have differing theories. Physics, Cooking, medieval golf course management...

But even your similarity is bogus. Psychologists don't regards any theory other than their pet one as invalid. They may prefer one theory over another and practice accordingly, but they don't say "Freud is the way, the truth and the light. No one comes to psychology except through Sigmund".

But the question still remains, how do you measure your improvement in the field of theology?

[steveorino 7]

The word similar doesn't equate the same. That aside, I have thought of this a lot this past day. How does one study God? Should we use the scientific method? Or another method from academia?

I remembered a book by Martin Buber (1878-1965) an active Zionist and Hasidic Jew who taught philosophy from 1938-1951 at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. In his book, (Ich und Du) I and Thou, he explains that human beings may try to convert the subject-to-subject relation to a subject-to-object relation, or vice versa. However, the being of a subject is a unity which cannot be analyzed as an object. When a subject is analyzed as an object, the subject is no longer a subject, but becomes an object. When a subject is analyzed as an object, the subject is no longer a Thou, but becomes an It. The being which is analyzed as an object is the It in an I-It relation.

Therefore when we try to analyze the relationship between man and God (I and Thou) we change God from a subject and reduce him to an object, thus depriving him of his status as divine. Buber states the eternal “Thou” (God) is not an object of experience, and is not an object of thought. The eternal “Thou” is not something which can be investigated or examined. While he is a Hasidic Jew and certainly not a Christian, I think he is on to something and I agree with 99% of what he writes in this book.

steveOrino

[JackC 0]

Quote

The word similar doesn't equate the same. That aside, I have thought of this a lot this past day. How does one study God? Should we use the scientific method? Or another method from academia?

Well at least I got you thinking which was my main objective so I'm happy with that.

Quote

I remembered a book by Martin Buber (1878-1965) an active Zionist and Hasidic Jew who taught philosophy from 1938-1951 at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. In his book, (Ich und Du) I and Thou, he explains that human beings may try to convert the subject-to-subject relation to a subject-to-object relation, or vice versa. However, the being of a subject is a unity which cannot be analyzed as an object. When a subject is analyzed as an object, the subject is no longer a subject, but becomes an object. When a subject is analyzed as an object, the subject is no longer a Thou, but becomes an It. The being which is analyzed as an object is the It in an I-It relation.

Buber has a point but he misses a big one. An example: if I try to learn to play the guitar, I can pick up a guitar and start stumming (subject). Or I can read about music theory, playing technique, other guitarist etc (object). Or I can do both which is where the best learning is to be found.

If I wanted to analyse Oscar Wilde for instance, I could treat him as a subject (whatever Buber means by that) and talk to the guy, but that doesn't get me very far on account of him being dead. Or I can treat him as an object (?) and work with his writings and such like which will get me a whole lot futher.

Just because Buber thinks subjects and objects can't be mixed up, doesn't mean they can't or that you wont learn anything by trying.

Quote

Therefore when we try to analyze the relationship between man and God (I and Thou) we change God from a subject and reduce him to an object, thus depriving him of his status as divine. Buber states the eternal "Thou" (God) is not an object of experience, and is not an object of thought. The eternal "Thou" is not something which can be investigated or examined.

If God is not an object of experience or thought and is not something that can be examined, then theology is a big fat non-subject. Biblical interpretation is a waste of time because you're turning God into an object and that's a no no. I think you've shot yourself in the foot with this argument.

Besides, I dispute the idea that God has a divine nature to be robbed of. After all, if he is who he says he is I can't rob him of anything. This IMHO is the special pleading that I was talking of earlier. The notion of the divine is put there just so people don't question it, like a big mental road block. "Gods divine nature cannot be questioned or challenged". Well Why not? I'm challenging it right now and God isn't looking too healthy. God's power lies in the unwillingness of people to question him. Take that away and God quickly dissolves to nothing.

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Buber has a point but he misses a big one. An example: if I try to learn to play the guitar, I can pick up a guitar and start stumming (subject). Or I can read about music theory, playing technique, other guitarist etc (object). Or I can do both which is where the best learning is to be found.

Not that he is right and you are wrong but Buber doesn't have the same equation as you do. He uses the example of a 'tree' in his book, but for similarity sake I will use "guitar".

You can contemplate a guitar, accept it's form, density, sound, structure. You can feel it's vibration when strummed, and hear it's melody when played. Throughout all of this the guitar remains an object

He goes on to say, "if will and grace are joined, that as I contemplate the 'guitar' I am drawn into a relation, and the 'guitar' ceases to be an
'it'."

Okay, he's 'out there' but I do understand when he refers to our relationship with God.

Quote

Just because Buber thinks subjects and objects can't be mixed up, doesn't mean they can't or that you wont learn anything by trying.

I agree with you but I think he is on to something.

Quote

Besides, I dispute the idea that God has a divine nature to be robbed of. After all, if he is who he says he is I can't rob him of anything. This IMHO is the special pleading that I was talking of earlier. The notion of the divine is put there just so people don't question it, like a big mental road block. "Gods divine nature cannot be questioned or challenged". Well Why not? I'm challenging it right now and God isn't looking to healthy. God's power is only in the unwillingness of people to question him. Take away that and god doesn't look half as scary.

So to you thou or God is a non-entity. You most likely never be in a relationship to him because of that worldview. I'm okay with your choices even though I think you are most likely wrong.


more to follow

EDITED TO ADD:

I think he is indicating you can take God from an object to be observed and enter into a relationship with him. So, God can be merely an object observed (Ich-Es) or a subject to be in unity with (Ich-Du) but not both at the same time. With that I agree.

Quote

Biblical interpretation is a waste of time because you're turning God into an object and that's a no no. I think you've shot yourself in the foot with this argument.

I have a respose, but I'll write some more on this and post later after I proof what I write. It gets messy when I write and don't think it all through.

steveOrino

[JackC 0]

Quote

He goes on to say, "if will and grace are joined, that as I contemplate the 'guitar' I am drawn into a relation, and the 'guitar' ceases to be an
'it'."

Dude, that's just weird. I'm not having "relations" with my guitar for anyone.

Although she is pretty

Quote

I think he is indicating you can take God from an object to be observed and enter into a relationship with him. So, God can be merely an object observed (Ich-Es) or a subject to be in unity with (Ich-Du) but not both at the same time. With that I agree.

That is probably possible, I mean you can enter into a relationship with god just like you can enter into a relationship with Harry Potter or your horse if you so desire. But that's not what you said earlier. You said "the being of a subject is a unity which cannot be analyzed as an object". There is also no reason why you can't flip between subject and object and back again. Even so, that doesn't make god any more special (or real) than any other obsession. But to be honest I'm a little out of my depth and the only way this would really make sense to me is if I'd spent the day chewing pyote.

Quote

So to you thou or God is a non-entity. You most likely never be in a relationship to him because of that worldview

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. ~ Phillip K. Dick

You've asked me stuff like this before and I get the impression that you are having a hard time grasping the idea that atheists really don't believe in god. You perhaps think that somewhere deep down they really know that he exists and they're just in a state of denial? Sorry but this atheist is pretty damn sure that god is a non-entity, a mental fabrication, a trick of the mind, a delusional episode, a fake, a fraud, a fictional character, a complete and utter nothing. So why would it concern me if I never had a relationship with him?

I think that's sort of why we are both here. You are perplexed by the weirdo atheists who are so dumb they can't see the blindingly obvious and I'm bamboozled by the zany theists who live in happy land with the fairys. I'm sure it's not a healthy situation.

[steveorino 7]

Quote

But that's not what you said earlier. You said "the being of a subject is a unity which cannot be analyzed as an object".

I misstated. When one enters into that Ich-Du relationship it is an encounter without any qualification or objectification of one another. In an "Ich-Es" encounter is where the "I" or "Ich" qualifies the "it" Es as a conception and treats it as an object. Essentially this type of relationship, Ich-Es, with God or anyone else for that matter, is really (in his words) a monologue not a dialogue.

Quote

But to be honest I'm a little out of my depth and the only way this would really make sense to me is if I'd spent the day chewing pyote.

Buber can do that to you.

Quote

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. ~ Phillip K. Dick

GREAT quote!

Quote

You've asked me stuff like this before and I get the impression that you are having a hard time grasping the idea that atheists really don't believe in god. You perhaps think that somewhere deep down they really know that he exists and they're just in a state of denial? Sorry but this atheist is pretty damn sure that god is a non-entity, a mental fabrication, a trick of the mind, a delusional episode, a fake, a fraud, a fictional character, a complete and utter nothing. So why would it concern me if I never had a relationship with him?

I think that's sort of why we are both here. You are perplexed by the weirdo atheists who are so dumb they can't see the blindingly obvious and I'm bamboozled by the zany theists who live in happy land with the fairys.

On the contrary, I'm a theist who really understands you are not living in denial, nor looking for a way to keep doing your thing w/o judgment. I have simply come to a different conclusion than you and I enjoy exchanging ideas with those who will debate as intellectually as they can and not stoop to name calling and insults. I think for the most part, you and I have tried to remain above the fray.

Quote

I'm sure it's not a healthy situation.

I'm sorry to hear that. I enjoy the discussion MOST of the time.


Many Christians wil not read Buber or acknowledge his contribution in the God/man relationship. His writing is seen to imply that man can get to God without a regimented structure imposed by external institutions. You can see why many churches and church leaders are not happy with that hypothesis.

IMHO religous faith does not result from the mindless recitations of religous formulas or to the adherence to unintelligible liturgical routines, but it comes from genuinely seeking the Ich-Du realtionship with man and with God.

steveOrino

[JackC 0]

Quote

On the contrary, I'm a theist who really understands you are not living in denial, nor looking for a way to keep doing your thing w/o judgment. I have simply come to a different conclusion than you and I enjoy exchanging ideas with those who will debate as intellectually as they can and not stoop to name calling and insults. I think for the most part, you and I have tried to remain above the fray.

Oh give me time, I can fling poo with the best of them.

Quote

I'm sorry to hear that. I enjoy the discussion MOST of the time.

That was a bit of a joke. I mostly enjoy the discussion and all I ever want to acheive is to get people to think outside the box once in a while.

Actually, that's not the whole truth. Mostly I get this irresistable compulsion to bash people over the head with rationality and logic until I realise that no matter what I do, the world will still be just as dumb in the morning. Like that Whack-a-mole game.

Quote

Many Christians wil not read Buber or acknowledge his contribution in the God/man relationship. His writing is seen to imply that man can get to God without a regimented structure imposed by external institutions. You can see why many churches and church leaders are not happy with that hypothesis.

It is a bit "new age" for most conservative congregations I guess. It seems to me that a lot of the church "structure" isn't necessary and would just get in the way anyway. That is, if the underlying principles had any merit whatsoever.

Quote

IMHO religous faith does not result from the mindless recitations of religous formulas or to the adherence to unintelligible liturgical routines, but it comes from genuinely seeking the Ich-Du realtionship with man and with God.

Maybe you're right but before I could even contemplate the best way of having a dialogue with God, I'd have to convince myself that I wasn't just having a monologue with my own head.

[Mockingbird 0]

Quote

Actually, that's not the whole truth. Mostly I get this irresistable compulsion to bash people over the head with rationality and logic until I realise that no matter what I do, the world will still be just as dumb in the morning. Like that Whack-a-mole game.

How do you know when your logic leads to truth?

Quote

Oh give me time, I can fling poo with the best of them.

yeah, you got some on me once.

Quote

It seems to me that a lot of the church "structure" isn't necessary and would just get in the way anyway. That is, if the underlying principles had any merit whatsoever.

I can personally attest to this.

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[JackC 0]

Quote

How do you know when your logic leads to truth?

It fits with reality. Empiricism, rationality and a willingness to change your views when the evidence dictates might not give you everything all at once, but it wins out over anything else I've ever tried.

Quote

yeah, you got some on me once.

Oops, sorry.

[Mockingbird 0]

Quote

It fits with reality. Empiricism, rationality and a willingness to change your views when the evidence dictates might not give you everything all at once, but it wins out over anything else I've ever tried.

I believe you.

What is reality?

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[bigtexan 0]

Sorry Mock .. just your the last poster...

There is absolutely no possible winner in this conversation/debate/exploration of the other sides mentality etc....

Religion and science simply do not mix and to try to find some common ground is simply un tennable. It will not happen.

I reguard your disposition as unrational - you the same.. it cannot be reconciled.

However.. I can enjoy your compaionship as though you were a brother... challenge you on your ideas... you on mine... etc... This is my belief ... the nature of man is inheirantly good.

cheers and blues..

(my spelling is inheirantly bad -- can't we have a better spell check - like google mail? :( :))

[Mockingbird 0]

Hey BigT, no prob. I was glad to be the recipient of your "olive-branch."
It's OK if we don't agree on such a heavy topic; after all, it's jumping that brings us to this forum, and we've all got that in common! Woohoooo!

Peace, Mockingbird (Cannie)

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"