Does this sum up Christian doctrine?

[Quagmire]

I woud agree with your analogy but for the fact that, in this case, the majority of barnyard animals actually propose "The Three Little Pigs" as evidence of them being great architects and it's only an elite few who reject this view in favor of a particular interpretation of "The Three Little Pigs." which is to be the exclusive "truth" they adhere to. You see, it seems that it's only "the interpretation" that can be assosiated with this small group of barnyard animals, who have taken it upon themselves to be the sole legitimate representatives of all barnyard animals, but not the actual text on which that interpretation it is largely based.

So my mistake, which I admit, is that of form, not of content nor context. Your mistake of falling prey to the red herring of theology seems a much greater misstep to me.

"Falling prey to the red herring of theology" in what sense? (or is there supposed to be any?)

 

[Commoner]

Have you ever sought whether God is real?

I have. When I was first confronted with the ideas of Christianity and later on a multitude of other religions, I did indeed attempt to find evidence for the proposition.

Or you just treat God as a belief?

I do now. Until convinced otherwise...

If God were a belief, there would be no difference between religious experiences and seeing a flying elephant.

How do you know there is? There are many, many types of experiences that do not correspond to reality, ask a schizophrenic... And by the way, whether or not there is a god, it's possible to recreate a religious experience by anything but the divine - so that's not really a great argument. ([youtube]8YPOTaUyvA0[/youtube]
see here, for instance)

 

[Commoner]

"Falling prey to the red herring of theology" in what sense? (or is there supposed to be any?)

That the critique of Dawkins' qoute has anything to do with Christian theology and that that's the relevant point that should be made here. It's not "official", so it's not Christianity?

 

[Quagmire]

That the critique of Dawkins' qoute has anything to do with the narrow sense of theology and that that's the relevant point that should be made here. It's not "official", so it's not Christianity?

What the hell are you talking about?

Or are you just regurgitating Dawkins at this point?

 

[Commoner]

What the hell are you talking about?

Or are you just regurgitating Dawkins at this point?

I think it's perfectly clear what my point is - and has been throughout this thread. I don't find it a compelling argument that because something is not necessarily considered "doctrine" by the "top" 2% of Christians, who are in a lot of ways almost indestinguishable from deists, it's not what "Christianity" is.

And what exactly are you doing? What's the purpose of this conversation? Is there anything in particular that you would like to achieve here?

 

[Tonymai]

How do you know there is? There are many, many types of experiences that do not correspond to reality, ask a schizophrenic... And by the way, whether or not there is a god, it's possible to recreate a religious experience by anything but the divine - so that's not really a great argument.
[youtube]8YPOTaUyvA0[/youtube]
see here, for instance)

Since you have limited the scope on what are real, you effectively put yourself in the scientific materialism box. Scientific facts require repeated experimental demonstrations, and religious truth demands progressive growth of experiences. They are in different realms of realities.

 

[Quagmire]

I think it's perfectly clear what my point is

Maybe on some planets, but I'm afraid we earthlings may need a little extra clarification.

- and has been throughout this thread. I don't find it a compelling argument that because something is not necessarily considered "doctrine" by the "top" 2% of Christians, who are in a lot of ways almost indestinguishable from deists, it's not what "Christianity" is.

That's good because so far I don't see anybody making that argument. The examples you gave don't qualify as "doctrine" either. It isn't a matter of belief, it's matter of speaking English.

And what exactly are you doing? What's the purpose of this conversation? Is there anything in particular that you would like to achieve here?

Sure, lots of things:

1. I would like to see if I can get you to stop playing musical chairs with connotations.

2. I'd like a straight answer to this question: ""Falling prey to the red herring of theology" in what sense? (or is there supposed to be any?)"

3. I'd like to see if there's any chance at all to get you to see that mythology and theology are two seperate, although in some ways related things.

4. I'm hoping to annoy the hell out of an amateurish propagandist.

 

[Commoner]

Since you have limited the scope on what are real, you effectively put yourself in the scientific materialism box. Scientific facts require repeated experimental demonstrations, and religious truth demands progressive growth of experiences. They are in different realms of realities.

You could say exactly the same thing about schizophrenic truth.

I've just said that the experience you claimed to be significantly different to any other experience and therefore indicative of some unexplained phenomenon which you attribute to god, is in fact not something unexplicable or indicative of anything else but the structure and functioning of the human brain. I've not restricted myself to any one philosophical position, but neither do I accept anything proposed as truth, no matter how weak the case fo it might be.

 

[Commoner]

Maybe on some planets, but I'm afraid we earthlings may need a little extra clarification.

That's good because so far I don't see anybody making that argument. The examples you gave don't qualify as "doctrine" either. It isn't a matter of belief, it's matter of speaking English.

Sure, lots of things:

1. I would like to see if I can get you to stop playing musical chairs with connotations.

2. I'd like a straight answer to this question: ""Falling prey to the red herring of theology" in what sense? (or is there supposed to be any?)"

3. I'd like to see if there's any chance at all to get you to see that mythology and theology are two seperate, although in some ways related things.

4. I'm hoping to annoy the hell out of an amateurish propagandist.

I think from now on this is going to be a fairly one-sided conversation though, I hope you enjoy it.

Bye!

 

[Quagmire]

I think from now on this is going to be a fairly one-sided conversation though, I hope you enjoy it.

Bye!

In other words, you didn't come into this thread to debate (doesn't look like you're up to anything like actual debate), you came in here to spew a lot of nonsense.

Don't start something you can't finish, makes you look bad.

 

[Tonymai]

You could say exactly the same thing about schizophrenic truth.

I've just said that the experience you claimed to be significantly different to any other experience and therefore indicative of some unexplained phenomenon which you attribute to god, is in fact not something unexplicable or indicative of anything else but the structure and functioning of the human brain. I've not restricted myself to any one philosophical position, but neither do I accept anything proposed as truth, no matter how weak the case fo it might be.

You simply refuse to believer personal experiences with Deity are a reality to the persons who experience them. Religion is about Truth of Deity. The experiences of such Truth are progressively growing for a true religionist. Such growth is a soul phenomenon happening between mind reality and spirit reality. No material instrument can detect such reality. Such soul reality can only be real to the person's mind just like you know you have grown to know more facts of the material world since you were young. However, no material instrument can detect how many material facts you know in your mind.

Your brain is a material manifestation of your mind. Stimulating brain can only give you experiences of senses, not experiences of mind. Mind itself is real. Mindal experiences are also real. It is too bad many who are experiencing mindal reality are mistreated as having brain problems.

 

[Commoner]

You simply refuse to believer personal experiences with Deity are a reality to the persons who experience them.

I have no reason to disbelieve anyone's religious experience. I'm sure they're every bit as real to them as the black hole in the middle of the room is to a schizophrenic. I do, however, question the nature of such an experience - and with good reason.

Religion is about Truth of Deity. The experiences of such Truth are progressively growing for a true religionist. Such growth is a soul phenomenon happening between mind reality and spirit reality. No material instrument can detect such reality. Such soul reality can only be real to the person's mind just like you know you have grown to know more facts of the material world since you were young. However, no material instrument can detect how many material facts you know in your mind.

Your brain is a material manifestation of your mind. Stimulating brain can only give you experiences of senses, not experiences of mind.

The people in the experiment would likely disagree with you. And you say I refuse to believe other people's experience?

Mind itself is real. Mindal experiences are also real. It is too bad many who are experiencing mindal reality are mistreated as having brain problems.

What's a "mindal experience"? :thud:

Is it anything like the Jimi Hendrix Experience?

 

[Tonymai]

Not matter how others stimulate your brain with probs, they can not make you post your atheist beliefs on this forum. What you are expressing is an experience of mind, or mindal experience.

Those who participate in those so called divine experience experiment with brain stimulators mistakes experiences of sense with experiences with Deity.

 

[waitasec]

You simply refuse to believer personal experiences with Deity are a reality to the persons who experience them. Religion is about Truth of Deity. The experiences of such Truth are progressively growing for a true religionist. Such growth is a soul phenomenon happening between mind reality and spirit reality. No material instrument can detect such reality. Such soul reality can only be real to the person's mind just like you know you have grown to know more facts of the material world since you were young. However, no material instrument can detect how many material facts you know in your mind.

Your brain is a material manifestation of your mind. Stimulating brain can only give you experiences of senses, not experiences of mind. Mind itself is real. Mindal experiences are also real. It is too bad many who are experiencing mindal reality are mistreated as having brain problems.

iow,
the purpose of this truth of a deity is to buffer the realization of the harshness of life's indifference...

 

[Commoner]

Not matter how others stimulate your brain with probs, they can not make you post your atheist beliefs on this forum. What you are expressing is an experience of mind, or mindal experience.

Those who participate in those so called divine experience experiment with brain stimulators mistakes experiences of sense with experiences with Deity.

How do you know you're not doing the same?

 

[blackout]

I heard a pastor say once that it's the strict sexual requirements that keep most non-believers away from church. I notice the OP's focus on the sexual stuff as some of the main objections to the faith: "Yet when he really cares about is "sin," abortion, how often you go to church and whether gay people should marry."

Literalized christianity is enough to keep one away from it
regardless, and before one even gets to all the allowances and non-allowances.

 

[Tonymai]

You are the only person who can experiment with your own mind by making choices between beliefs, living them as true and examining the resulting experiences. As one objectively experiments with different beliefs, he will experience the reality of spiritual realm. It takes courage to fool around with one's own belief system. Most people will choose what are most comfortable for themselves. A true religionist uses himself as a religious guinea pig.

 

[waitasec]

You are the only person who can experiment with your own mind by making choices between beliefs, living them as true and examining the resulting experiences. As one objectively experiments with different beliefs, he will experience the reality of spiritual realm. It takes courage to fool around with one's own belief system. Most people will choose what are most comfortable for themselves. A true religionist uses himself as a religious guinea pig.

you mean subjectively....
if these are objective experiments different individuals would come to the same objective realization...and that has yet to happen, hence the many differences in the understanding of the spiritual realm

 

[waitasec]

Is it anything like the Jimi Hendrix Experience?

are you experienced?

 

[Tonymai]

you mean subjectively....
if these are objective experiments different individuals would come to the same objective realization...and that has yet to happen, hence the many differences in the understanding of the spiritual realm

Each person is absolutely unique, if the personal experimentation of each person's mind came out with the same objective realization, the spiritual realm would be no different from material realm. The reality of Deity would be easily taught mechanically as we teach science. Human life would be totally scientifically predicable. Who wants to live such mechanical life eternally?