Theological Opinions

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Well if hes in there somehwere we are gonna need a super computer the size of texas to find him.

ah, you're making an assumption about the character and abilities of God!

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

when it comes to defining things we can observe (i.e. your tougue), absolute is a perfectly acceptable terminology to use... eventhough there may be factors we are unaware of (i.e. the matrix)

but concepts like "good" and "evil" are another story... you can not touch "evil" like you can your tongue... the word in and of itself is defined by the person who uses it... there is no universal (i.e. absolute) definition of "evil"... sure, there are situations that most will agree on... but, like my "thou shalt not kill" example above, there are many grey areas... and even cases where people on opposite sides of a conflict will both define themselves as "good" while calling the other side "evil"

Even universal agreement among humans does not make the object of their belief an absolute. However, you are making an assumption when you say there is no absolute definition of evil. Sure, there is certainly not universal agreement about the term among humans. Humans have differing views about right and wrong. That does not mean that there is no right and no wrong. You can believe we are on a spherical planet or you can believe the world rests on the back of a giant tortoise, but your view does not make reality. In the same way, human differences of opinion about good and evil or right and wrong do not mean that there is no real or absolute law or definition of good and evil or right and wrong that is integral to the universe we live in.

The fact that people disagree about whether murder does not mean the commandment does not have a correct and absolute interpretation. To say that the fact that people disagree about morality means there is no absolute morality is blatantly absurd.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

to put it simply... no human will debate whether or not you have a tongue, thus, you can say it is absolute... but people debate good and evil all the time... and the very fact that it can be debated rationally, shows that it is not absolute

Are you saying that anything that can be debated is not absolute, but that things are absolute if everyone agrees on them?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by inked

Among His names are Infinity and Unity, is that mathematical enough.

Well its not very helpful. Neither is that alpha and omega thing. Metaphors one and all. One could make the argument that infinity doesnt exist ironically enough... But anyway infinity is not a real number; it is the name for a concept. Which I guess is quite appropriate.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

ah, you're making an assumption about the character and abilities of God!

Im just wondering if hes in there.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Even universal agreement among humans does not make the object of their belief an absolute.

exactly!

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

However, you are making an assumption when you say there is no absolute definition of evil.

there may be an absolute definition, but it is beyond human perception

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Sure, there is certainly not universal agreement about the term among humans. Humans have differing views about right and wrong. That does not mean that there is no right and no wrong.

correct! there is right and wrong... but it is relative to the individual or society, not absolute

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

You can believe we are on a spherical planet or you can believe the world rests on the back of a giant tortoise, but your view does not make reality. In the same way, human differences of opinion about good and evil or right and wrong do not mean that there is no real or absolute law or definition of good and evil or right and wrong that is integral to the universe we live in.

apples and oranges... once again, you are comparing and observable object (our planet), to a non-observable concept (evil)... a concept is an aspect of human thought... it does not exist outside of us

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The fact that people disagree about whether murder does not mean the commandment does not have a correct and absolute interpretation.

yes it does

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

To say that the fact that people disagree about morality means there is no absolute morality is blatantly absurd.

what is ubsurd to some is obvious to others

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Are you saying that anything that can be debated is not absolute, but that things are absolute if everyone agrees on them?

i'm saying we do not have the ability as humans to define anything as "absolute" (unless we define all the parameters like in mathematics or your earth example)

but, we can certainly quantify things as "absolute for all intents and purposes" if just about everyone agrees with them

conversely, if a topic is a matter of great debate (i.e. any religion out there), it is quite a leap of faith to call it absolute... you can if you want, but expect many people to disagree with you

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Im just wondering if hes in there.

If you found him in there to your complete satisfaction, what would you do?

[inked]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Well its not very helpful. Neither is that alpha and omega thing. Metaphors one and all. One could make the argument that infinity doesnt exist ironically enough... But anyway infinity is not a real number; it is the name for a concept. Which I guess is quite appropriate.

All language is metaphor, IR. You are stuck with that. And, you can make the argument that infinity doesn't exist, as well as one that it does.

What, IR, is a concept? What is appropriate?

[inked]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Im just wondering if hes in there.

The Christian claim is that HE is above infinity and contains it.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

If you found him in there to your complete satisfaction, what would you do?

Well i gotta list of questions see...

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by inked

The Christian claim is that HE is above infinity and contains it.

Well The Mathematician doesnt find that very useful.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Well i gotta list of questions see...

And he would have a bunch for you, too -

what are yours?

[Insidious Rex]

Well just the obvious for starters: whats the nature of your being? Is their a plan? How are we relevant if at all? Do we have a clue about over all spirituality or are we just spitting in the wind? Is evolution part of nature...

Of course the first thing youll need to ask is Can we even understand/comprehend answers to these questions as human beings? Will our head explode if you give us the key to the mind of god?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

there may be an absolute definition, but it is beyond human perception

That's no more than a guess. If God revealed that absolute definition, then it would be revealed to human perception. If we can be right about physical absolutes, it makes sense that we can also be right about spiritual absolutes. However, just as many have made mistakes about mathematical absolutes, people also make mistakes about spiritual absolutes. And if you assume that there are no spiritual absolutes, then I would agree with you about all of these concepts being relative.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

correct! there is right and wrong... but it is relative to the individual or society, not absolute

Humanity's perception of it differs from one individual or society to another, and is not absolute. This doesn't say anything about where right and wrong actually are absolute. It just means humans differ in their views.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

apples and oranges... once again, you are comparing and observable object (our planet), to a non-observable concept (evil)... a concept is an aspect of human thought... it does not exist outside of us

That's the same guess, the same assumption without evidence, that you made before. Your thought that all spiritual things are relative seems to be based upon the guess that there are no spiritual things.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson
The fact that people disagree about whether murder does not mean the commandment does not have a correct and absolute interpretation.



yes it does

You say that based upon your beliefs alone, rather than upon logic.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i'm saying we do not have the ability as humans to define anything as "absolute" (unless we define all the parameters like in mathematics or your earth example)

One fact is that we're not actually limited to our own perceptions of reality if we're given God's perception of reality. This is another point that comes across in the scripture, where it talks about the reading of the scripture. It says that when people read it, by nature they have their minds darkened. They're limited by their own interpretations. However, Jesus sent the Counselor, or Holy Spirit, to Earth, and the Holy Spirit opens the veil so that people can understand the truth.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

conversely, if a topic is a matter of great debate (i.e. any religion out there), it is quite a leap of faith to call it absolute... you can if you want, but expect many people to disagree with you

I think everyone should have good reason to believe what they do. Really though, I consider it to be a great leap of faith on your part to claim, based upon mere guesswork, that there are no spiritual absolutes. One of the weird facts is that while some people think of atheism as rational and religion as blind faith, religion will always have more evidence than atheism. Atheism is no more than a self-admitted guess. Some religions, though, can be supported in various ways by evidence. Even if there is only the smallest fragment of evidence to support a religion, that is more than atheism will ever have.

Your relativism is based upon assumptions about spiritual reality being non-existent. If you are right about this, then your conclusion is valid, that "spiritual reality" is relative and depends upon people. However, if spiritual reality does exist independent of people, just as the world is (you accept mathematics and things that are naturally part of the universe as absolute), then relativism begins to unfold. You can still claim that whether or not there is a spiritual reality, people have differing views, and you'd be right on that. That is why God has chosen to interact with people, that they may enter into relationships with him and be aware of the truth that otherwise would be concealed behind the shades that often are unaided human understanding.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

One of the weird facts is that while some people think of atheism as rational and religion as blind faith, religion will always have more evidence than atheism. Atheism is no more than a self-admitted guess. Some religions, though, can be supported in various ways by evidence. Even if there is only the smallest fragment of evidence to support a religion, that is more than atheism will ever have.

i not an athiest... i'm agnostic

in a nutshell this means that there simply isn't good enough evidence out there (the observable, repeatable kind) for this "spiritual reality" you speak of... i'm not saying it doesn't exist... just that any claim that it does is a huge leap of faith

i'm not "guessing" anything, rather i am withholding any conclusions about "absolutes" unless and until some better evidence comes along

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

in a nutshell this means that there simply isn't good enough evidence out there (the observable, repeatable kind) for this "spiritual reality" you speak of... i'm not saying it doesn't exist... just that any claim that it does is a huge leap of faith

It's a leap of faith to say there isn't good enough evidence out there. It makes more sense to simply say, "what evidence I have seen isn't good enough yet to convince me." To me, agnosticism is much more rational than atheism.

Lack of evidence was one of the things that used to nag my Dad, before he became a Christian. Finally though, he got rational and said to himself, "If this is God we're talking about, then he can provide the evidence." So Dad prayed to God, "if you send me an angel, I will believe in you." Then he thought about it again and realized, what if some event occurs in the future that may or may not have been an angel? So he went a step further, saying, "and I will believe if the angel shows up within 24 hours."

God answered his prayer through a piano repair man who came to the house that day. Dad was forced to hold up the piano lid for him while he worked on the inside, and he talked to Dad about nothing but Christianity, God and salvation. Dad thought about the day at its end, and he realized how his prayer had been answered. Then he became a Christian.

So God can and does provide evidence for those who need it and who have an open heart to receive him.

Also, to me, a claim that spiritual reality exists even if the claimant has no evidence is less of a leap of faith than the claim that it doesn't exist. The claim that it doesn't exist means that all that we see around us comes from random chance. There can be no way of knowing it's random chance, but all that exists in its sophistication, beauty and wonder would have to all be random and unplanned. To me, that seems . . . far fetched.

Anyway, there are various levels of evidence I could get into about Christianity. The main ones I focus on have nothing to do with the universe as a whole. That's just something that slams me in the face rather frequently, the admiration of its glory and beauty. It just seems so unlikely on a personal, instinctive level that it wasn't created by a Creator. But this is not one of the evidences I usually point to, regarding Christianity's accuracy. There are others that are much less qualitative. I only mention the universe because if I were to form a position based on blind faith regarding whether there is a God or not, taking the spectacular wonder of nature into account, I would find it easier to believe in a spiritual reality than to not believe in it.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i'm not "guessing" anything, rather i am withholding any conclusions about "absolutes" unless and until some better evidence comes along

Better than you've seen so far, I suppose you mean. That's quite a rational choice. When you make claims like, "everything is relative," though, it might be worthwhile to adjust your claim to, "everything looks relative to me." You don't know that everything is relative. As you have said, a spiritual reality may exist. Thus, there may be spiritual absolutes. You already have acknowledged the existance of physical absolutes (although some of these will probably always be beyond human reckoning, they are absolute in their reality as they are, whether humans reckon them so or not). And thus, everything may be absolute rather than relative.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i'm not "guessing" anything, rather i am withholding any conclusions about "absolutes" unless and until some better evidence comes along

If you were suddenly to have enough conclusive evidence to persuade you that Christianity was true, what would you do?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Better than you've seen so far, I suppose you mean. That's quite a rational choice. When you make claims like, "everything is relative," though, it might be worthwhile to adjust your claim to, "everything looks relative to me." You don't know that everything is relative. As you have said, a spiritual reality may exist. Thus, there may be spiritual absolutes. You already have acknowledged the existance of physical absolutes (although some of these will probably always be beyond human reckoning, they are absolute in their reality as they are, whether humans reckon them so or not). And thus, everything may be absolute rather than relative.

i actually haven't seen any evidence for a "spiritual reality" period... so yeah, better than that

i respect you father's experience, but one could easily call it coincidence... it is your father who made it a spiritual experience, because that is how he wanted to interpret it... an interpretation relative to his viewpoint

i don't litter my posts with IMOs either... it's a given that anything i post, and anything you post is purely our own opinions... i believe that there are no absolute human concepts until proven otherwise... you do not... both are opinions and it's up to each and every reader here to make their own determination

i don't think your opinion is necessarily invalid... it is just lacking objective evidence

i did not acknowledge the existance of physical absolutes either, all i said was that some things can be considered absolute as far as humans are concerned... we do not know everything about "reality", but some physical things are extremely consistant, so calling them absolute is fine 'till proven otherwise

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

If you were suddenly to have enough conclusive evidence to persuade you that Christianity was true, what would you do?

most likely that would be after i was dead, and i would most certainly be in hell... so probably performing some eternal task the devils had designed for my punishment

maybe being stuck before a computer screen for all eternity with an internet connection that could only connect to christian sites

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i actually haven't seen any evidence for a "spiritual reality" period... so yeah, better than that

Makes sense. I recommend, "The Case for Christ," by Lee Strobel. That may very well be my favorite book. Or I could write up a description of some of the many forms of evidence.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i respect you father's experience, but one could easily call it coincidence... it is your father who made it a spiritual experience, because that is how he wanted to interpret it... an interpretation relative to his viewpoint

An unlikely coincidence. On the one day that Dad prayed for such an occurrence, his prayer was answered. It's not like evangelists were coming to his house every month or year. But, of course, your stance on this is no surprise .

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i don't litter my posts with IMOs either...

Perhaps you should put a few more in there, for otherwise you are left making absolute claims without evidence.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i don't think your opinion is necessarily invalid... it is just lacking objective evidence

Lacking in evidence that I have as yet presented, I suppose you mean. It's an assumption on your part to say I have no evidence, just because I have not yet presented any. I can argue this matter based upon available evidence.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i did not acknowledge the existance of physical absolutes either, all i said was that some things can be considered absolute as far as humans are concerned... we do not know everything about "reality", but some physical things are extremely consistant, so calling them absolute is fine 'till proven otherwise

Do you believe the physical universe has laws that completely reverse themselves and turn inside out every day? That the Earth will tomorrow to turn inside out, spontaneously? That water will suddenly worldwide turn to dirt? Humans worldwide to whales? It is apparent that there are laws of nature, absolutes. Human perception of these laws changes, as we learn more.

[inked]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Well The Mathematician doesnt find that very useful.

Well, IR, it should help the mathematician see that mathematics is not the entirety of the nature of existence.

and,
Well just the obvious for starters: whats the nature of your being? Is their a plan? How are we relevant if at all? Do we have a clue about over all spirituality or are we just spitting in the wind? Is evolution part of nature...

Of course the first thing youll need to ask is Can we even understand/comprehend answers to these questions as human beings? Will our head explode if you give us the key to the mind of god?"

Christianity states that man is an amphibian of matter and spirit, regarding the former from the animal side and material; the latter from the image of God, the Creator.

Is there a plan? Yes per Christianity. The disruption of the material and spiritual by the human disobedience is beyond human capability of repair. God has a plan to repair it which is in effect. It involved the revelation of the nature of God and man, the provision for restoration, the Incarnation (from birth to Resurrection) in Jesus, and the sending of the Holy Spirit to bring those seeking it into the Divine Life of the Trinity. You don't have to wait for death to enter LIFE, you can do that now, by faith!

We are relevant because God has chosen to make us, endow us with free will, and make a way for us to recover that which was lost by our election of self over God.

We have more than a clue about spirituality. We have the redemption of the world by a loving God who has made His way known to us by becoming one of us and, by obedience, mending the rift between us.

Evolution is a part of nature. But I am not sure what you meant by that inclusion.

Can we understand or comprehend as humans? Yes. We participate in Reason. Above that we have the direct involvement of God to meet our abilities in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, God Incarnate. You can't get any more on our level than that.

The key to the mind of God is Jesus, the logos, made to share in our human nature to redeem it and restore us to God. And I agree, it is a mind-blowing reality!