blastc wrote:
And of course, anyone can also observe the goodness of humans. You might be focusing too much on the evils... you wouldn't want to have a one sided view of reality.
squint wrote:Never said otherwise. Scripture is based largely on the internal observations of what man consists of, good and evil, and the interactions of same.
blastc wrote:
Read carefully. I never said that YOU SAID otherwise. I said that you were focusing TOO MUCH on one side, the evil side.
squint wrote:I happen to enjoy the theodicy equations (the study of evil and a Perfect God) of theology MUCH more than the bland one sided "bless me or Lord" equations for many theologically sound reasons.
Don't have a clue what you mean theodicy equations here... So.. are you focusing on good and evil in humans, both, or are you focusing more on the evil in humans?
Because, if we are talking about original sin... that means we are all evil from the get go.. until we .. do what we are told to do by the preachers.
And not only just any old preachers, but only by the RIGHT kinds of preachers, who have the RIGHT kind of salvation on display.
And that means that humans are .. more evil than good. Or are we mostly good.. I have no idea where you stand now.
blastc wrote:
So, you agree that humans, are by nature capable of good and evil?...
squint wrote:Entirely capable, but as to nature, that is one of the deeper formats to examine.
So, do you agree that humans aren't "good" or "evil" in nature.. but simply have the capacity to DO both?... and that good and evil are bogus GENERAL terms for people.. since nobody is PERFECTLY evil or PERFECTLY good?
squint wrote:It's not as simple as saying the mere term "human." In theology there are 3 wills at work in the world. The Will of God, the will of the resistance parties/powers-Satan and his messengers, and the will of the children of God-the children who see some and the children who don't see as much, if any.
We KNOW there are humans.. we can agree that there are humans.. as to the rest... no.. we can't agree that there are Gods and Satans and so on...
You make a statement about these "3 wills" as if I could ever agree with such a statement. ALL I CAN VERIFY is that there is ONE kind of will.. and that's the human will.
the rest... well, that's your belief. I don't have to take that into consideration until you prove that what you believe in is also TRUE.
I'm not at all concerned about falsehoods.. Sorry.
squint wrote:It's a fascinating and complex dynamic when all the players are on the board to examine, engage and unfold in their respective components and mixes.
Not to me... not to an unbeliever. To an unbeliever.. it's not at all fascinating because we only know of ONE kind of thinking beings here.. The supernatural kind are...purely speculative.
I'd much rather talk about what is KNOWN to be real.. not just hoped for and dreamed about. I mean.. speculation is a bit of fun.. but it's not serious talk.
blastc wrote:
If so, I have to wonder why Christians usually go out of their way to focus on the fact that they are sinners.. and not the other way around?
squint wrote:That's just a surface game for the most part, and entirely predictable. Religious spirits were the most abhorred and hated by Jesus. Let's call them the great pretenders. If believers were honest about the scriptural sin equations, and really had to dig into the matters, there would be dramatically fewer of them. Honesty would weed out the majority of them.
What are you talking about? Religious SPIRITS?.... The great pretenders?
I think that theists are pretending greatly.. but I have NO idea who you are referring to here...
And now, you mentioned this "sin equation" a few times.. what IS THAT?... or what is your take on this "sin equation"?
Remember in your explanation that
1. I don't believe in any god
2. Don't believe in sin
3. Think the idea of sin is incoherent.. and that your perfectly good god is completely incoherent..
3. Pretty much think that you've been incoherent for the most part so far... and that this new thing isn't helping me understand you.
So...
4. PLEASE try to clear something up.Don't make things LESS understandable by introducing YET ANOTHER undefined and vague concept to prove undefined and vague concepts.
You leave me BAFFLED.
Is this your intention? I'd like to stay on topic, if possible.. and NOT follow red herrings around and around ....
blastc wrote:
First off, it's a particularly NEGATIVE view of humanity, and secondly, it's not a balanced one at all. That was my point. That you focus too much on what is negative.. and it's as if the positive aspects of humanity don't count as much.
squint wrote:It appears you might make a good surface christian. For the record "I" firmly believe that all people are Gods children and as such, already essentially Perfect. So there is no more positive available in "my" sight than that.
OH.. BUT I would not make a TRUE CHRISTIAN... please.. the No True Scotsman argument is getting old.. very old ...
And your point?
IF, as you say, that humans are PERFECT.. then why do we need to be redeemed of any IMPERFECTIONS?
You live where logic doesn't matter?
IF we humans are perfect ALREADY, then attempting to PERFECT us is a ridiculous waste of time. But then again, you've already stated that you believe something can be perfect and imperfect at the very same time for the very same reasons.
I shouldn't EXPECT you to be logical.. maybe that's my expectation.. that you actually give a logical account for your thinking.
Too much to hope for, I guess?
squint wrote:That leaves me more interested in theodicy, which is really a study of our mutual internal adversary/enemy.
And all this time I thought theodicy meant something altogether different.
I have literally NEVER heard of this definition for theodicy.. which by most dictionaries means the attempt to answer the question of why a good God permits the manifestation of evil. You know, answering the PROBLEM OF EVIL?
Why is there evil if god is perfectly good?.....
Mutual internal adversary/enemy?
Could I have that in English please?.. this... vagueness means absolutely nothing to me.
squint wrote:In theodicy, even though all people/humans are Perfect but that is not "all" they consist of. They also contain the deepest darkest evil there is in the form of the Tempter, the devil, Satan. So it's an interesting dichotomy/conundrum to engage.
Wait, first, maybe this is YOUR theodicy.. theodicy is a body of thinking.. and there are MANY theodicies.. You seem to have adopted or conceived of ONE such theodicy. Please don't portray this as ALL of the theodicies out there.
Well, if I say someone is PERFECT.. he can't HAVE any faults of any kind.. that's what the word "perfect" means. It means absolutely good and without any logical contradictions of any kind. You seem to want someone to be perfectly good and perfectly evil at the very same time for the very same reasons.
This is not rational.. So I have to discount it AGAIN.
You make the very same error that I pointed out to you.. so... I won't point it out to you anymore. You don't seem to be able to comprehend what I wrote ...
Perfect means imperfect to you.. so.. yah.. end of using THOSE words in a meaningful way.
Black means white when you talk.. I have NO idea what you may mean at any time. SORRY.
blastc wrote:
Humans can be both GOOD and EVIL...
It seems that Christians like to DWELL on the evil part... That's what I have read in YOUR posts as well.. a focus on evil.
squint wrote:I'd suggest your reality engagement with them is different than mine. Christians in my observations LOVE to dwell on the evil portions of others, but certainly NOT for themselves, which in scriptural terms would be hypocrisy, and the antithesis of christianity.
MY REALITY ENGAGEMENT?.. what does that mean?
Yes, many Christians LOVE to dwell in the evil aspects of humanity.. That was my POINT.. and I am telling you that YOU do it also.
I've seen it in YOUR posts.. YOU accuse them of not being TRUE Christians.. the no true Scotsman fallacy again... AND THEN you seem to be oblivious of YOUR OWN FOCUS ON EVIL in humans.. that I was CAUTIONING YOU AGAINST in my first reply to you.
When I caught you out.. you distance yourself from THESE OTHER BAD KINDS of Christians.. and you talk of HYPOCRISY.....It's always JUST the other guys.. isn't it?
Those are the guys who make all kinds of thinking errors.. right?
Not you though.. you are a true Scotsman. YOU have the only correct theodicy possible?.. It's YOURS that is the only correct one? All the rest are wrong.. but YOU aren't wrong?
I think they would say that you are wrong.. and that they are right.
So.. I am impartial to BOTH groups.. and their group is bigger and meaner.. so why don't I just go ahead and believe them. They offer JUST AS MUCH EVIDENCE anyway...How do you know that yours is the only true kind of Christianity?
I think that kind of bluster sends me a signal.... HE knows the only true truth out there?... hmmmmm
AND he makes so many logical errors?... double hmmmmm
blastc wrote:
Original sin is a focus on evil. And I am all too familiar with Christians telling me about sin.. and how I should repent from sin, because I'm such a sinner.. and so on.
squint wrote:Whether you or I or anyone else "repents" there is no escape from the scriptural conclusions of being a sinner, of having sin and of sin being of the devil regardless of how much "repentance" is applied.
AND THIS IS what you call perfection?
You said that humans were perfect.. and now this... Sorry, I can't understand what you mean.. it's one or the other.. and not both.
And you prove my point that your FOCUS is on evil, sin, sin, sin, and the devil. I can see this focus. That's why I pointed it out to you. You are obsessed with sin and evil and the devil which is sin and evil personified.
So much for talk of LOVE. Humans MIGHT love.. but you don't focus on the GOOD we do.. your focus is on the EVIL we do... I can SEE YOUR FOCUS.
YOU ARE VERY ONE SIDED..
Sorry again.
squint wrote:Selling anyone on the notion of being a sinner in the hope that they would then not be upon belief is a very unsound false sales pitch that was concocted somewhere along the lines of many sects. While I don't discount any methodology that brings people into a relationship experience with God, even if it can be somewhat social or imaginary in many cases, I think it's generally good to depart from evil for anyone.
It's a very unsound sales pitch?
You do it yourself.. that's what I'm trying to point out to you.. Read your PREVIOUS QUOTE.. it was in the VERY SAME paragraph where you want to DISTANCE yourself from such ugly beliefs.
We have to accept that we are sinners, and YET.. people who want us to accept that we are sinners are ... bad salesmen?
Then YOU are a bad salesman, because YOU do the exact same thing.
I'm VERY confused now.
blastc wrote:
Well, I'm not such a sinner, and I do a lot of good. So... How about we talk about THAT side of the dichotomy for a while?
squint wrote:Scripture actually says that anyone who loves knows God and is born of God.
I don't "know" any god.. I'm not "born" of any "god"... come on.
You think that atheists are secret Christians?...
Please say that you don't think that.
squint wrote:And I consider everyone loves or has loved, even if it is loving themselves. So I have no sales pitch to deliver you. Sorry.
So, if I LOVE.. I prove your point?.. Ridiculous. If YOU LOVE you prove MY point.. so there.. just as ridiculous.
But you SELL to me all the time. you want me to believe in your god right? You want to CONVINCE me of something here, right?
You are trying to make a case that what you say is TRUE.. right?
Or.. are you simply preaching... and don't really care WHAT I THINK?
Well, if you AREN'T making an argument here. or you AREN'T trying to convince me in any way.. or anyone else that what you say makes sense and is also TRUE.. then I have to wonder what all of these words of yours are FOR.
You just like to.. what?
Babble?
squint wrote:Anyone who tastes love knows it by their nature as being "good." And a lot of people if not most of them will naturally follow that course.
The fact that LOVE is seen as a good thing says NOTHING AT ALL about your god.. if it's real, or if it's just a delusion you happen to really like.
You haven't at all established any connection between LOVE and your god concept. You've made a lot of statements.. and that's nice.. but you don't offer any SUPPORT for those statements.
It looks like I just have to take your word for ALL OF IT.
The problem is that I don't just take your word for all of it.. and most of it.. is perfectly meaningless to me. So I wouldn't have a clue what I would be agreeing ON.
blastc wrote:
Well, then, we agree. You embrace a contradiction. This will not make logical sense. No matter how much you try.. defying one of the three basic rules of logic MEANS that you aren't making sense.
squint wrote:I attempted an explanation on the grounds of simultaneous truths existing from a scriptural perspective, and gave the simplest answer (among many) that God uplifts the good and resists the evil simultaneously. These are two truths that might appear contradictory to some, but they really aren't.
Yes, I noted your attempt. HOWEVER, simultaneous beliefs or truths are NOT NECESSARILY CONTRADICTORY ONES.
We ONLY have a problem when there are CONTRADICTIONS.
I can say something is RED and then say it's TASTY and then say that it's SOFT.. and have NO CONTRADICTIONS.
And if someone loves GOOD things and despises BAD things, this is NOT a contradiction. So you weren't ADDRESSING contradictions.
You simply MISUNDERSTAND what a contradiction is.
Maybe if you understood what a contradiction is and how you can't HAVE ONE IN LOGIC.. you might tend to agree with me a bit more.
What you are describing is things that are DIFFERENT in nature.. but NOT necessarily CONTRADICTORY in nature.
BUT YOU CANNOT say that it is day right here right now and NIGHT TIME right here and right now in the same way. THAT is not only DIFFERENT STATES OF AFFAIRS but CONTRADICTORY STATES.
And of course, you can look up what "contradiction" means on the internet, if you DO have an interest..
blastc wrote:
Yes, sometimes, I think ironically. Once given a concept, one of the first things that occurs to me is it's exact opposite. That's child's play. It's a word game. I like to play it sometimes.. But I am not BOUND to think in two contradictory ways at the same time for the same exact reasons.
squint wrote:The law contains two dynamics. #1, it's nature is spiritual or internal. It is not validated by external observation. It is always violated "internally." So any surface construct view of legality from a scriptural perspective is a lie. The law is meant to point us to the fact that we DO have the impetus of adverse/illegal thoughts, and that these violate our internals and make us technically all sinners.
WHAT LAW are you talking about?
Why do you use the word "legality"?....
In order for me to understand ANYTHING in that paragraph.. and how it might relate to my quote just above .. you would have to WRITE IT again. Right now, I have NO clue what you mean.
I'm not exaggerating.. I literally have NO CLUE what you mean. I think YOU know what you mean.. but your words here just aren't working. And I can't be bothered to guess WRONG... so let me know what you meant by the above.
If you really care...
squint wrote:Scripture presents those thoughts are not yours as Gods child, but those of the internal adversary, the spirit of disobedience that "all" mankind are presently bound with internally. This internal binding can NOT be eliminated and in fact will get much worse after belief. The law is meant to make us question our thoughts and to not allow the evil side of the quotients to control us, even though it is unavoidable to have them.
OHhhh SCRIPTURE SAYS that whatever I say is wrong.. Great. well then.
So much for debating me.. you can just refer to the Bible and know what my points are, and how they work logically or not.
blastc wrote:
If you embrace contradictions.. you make NO sense whatsoever.
So, saying that, somehow, perfection is the same as imperfection, you make no sense whatsoever.
squint wrote:We are directed to love our neighbors as ourselves. So in this direction I see the fact (in my understanding) that all people are Gods children and essentially Perfect. That leaves the other side of the internal equations to examine. One can both love their neighbor AND understand that they all (and myself) are also bound with the spirit of disobedience, whom we do NOT have to love a'tall.
IF , as you repeatedly say, that we are PERFECT.. then why should we seek to PERFECT ourselves?
YOU CAN'T GET MORE PERFECT THAN PERFECT... otherwise, you'd' be IMPERFECT.
So what is it.. are we perfect or imperfect? IT CAN'T BE logically both.
Remember.. I quoted you the explanation for the rule of non contradiction?
Right now.. I'd have to flip a coin to know your actual position.
squint wrote:If a child molester (Gods totally blinded child in the flesh) has been overwhelmed with/by the spirit of disobedience, I know there is one to love and one to hate. And it would not bother me to see the child of God moved out of the flesh by death and returned to God.
Let me TRY to understand that.. it almost makes sense after reading it twice. You seem to want to write in poetic terms.. and that's so nice.. but also so VAGUE....
And since you believe in contradictions... well.. you can mean LITERALLY ANYTHING... so.. yeah.. makes it a tough challenge for me to KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN....
I'll give a stab at it.. and let me know if I even GET CLOSE.. because I'm thinking I WILL NOT BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND YOU ... so far.. it's been a failure of communication.
I can tell. I can't understand you very much at all. Is that a problem for you in any way?
OK.. my stab at understanding what you just wrote here....
A BAD PERSON.. ( child molester in your example.. not to confuse me with emotionally laden words at all )
is a totally ( morally ?) BLINDED person ... BECAUSE HE DOES A BAD THING?
and that is due to some SPIRIT that has invaded him... ( let's forget asking how you know that to be true in any way shape or form )
YOU LOVE... the bad man.. i guess... and HATE the evil nasty spirit...
OK.. is that what you're trying to say here?
AND THEN
It would not bother you at all if this person died.
Because when BAD people who TORTURE children die.. they go to GOD?
BAD PEOPLE ( including the child molesters ) GO TO HEAVEN?
I don't get it..
Looks like heaven has .. bad people in it. So.. DOING EVIL .. has LITERALLY no consequence. You blame the evil spirit and NOT the human?
And the HUMAN goes to HEAVEN?
Well then.. the HUMAN could have done LITERALLY ANY EVIL ACTS IMAGINABLE.. and still go to Heaven
This makes moral sense to you?
Not to me.. not if you say GOD is just .. NOT if you say that only with GOD can you have morality and so forth.. accountability?
WHAT ACCOUNTABILITY.. you said the child abuser goes to HEAVEN
AND NOT to the punishment of hell.. so WHY believe this stuff.. to give child abusers a GOOD FEELING ?
WOW .. YOU have completely LOST me .. again.
blastc wrote:
This is how logic works.. the rule of non-contradiction helps us remain MEANINGFUL to one another. Otherwise, we are simply babbling. I prefer to do more than babble meaninglessly.
squint wrote:I've given sufficient examples of how the conundrum works. If you don't understand it I don't have to "blame you" as Gods child. Dig? I don't control your body/mind/temple and it's really not my business to do so, other than I enjoy sharing observations for my own benefits.
I get that. You really like to share your observations for your own benefit. As to really engaging in the ideas of OTHERS.. or try to get to any understanding.. no.
But you like to share. Well I hope you enjoyed your sharing.
Let's not try to make sense out of it.. right?
blastc wrote:
So, if the concept you want to USE had no description... then it is meaningless. It's no USE to say that something has the properties of this CONCEPT more or less if you can't describe the concept in the first place.
squint wrote:The undefined unbound Objective Position is not a foreign concept in philosophy or christianity or buddhism for that matter. Most understand that to place a definition is to merely place a limited view of same, so such sights of Perfect are all basic fouls of understandings.
Right.. and they aren't understandable, either. Join the club. You like not being understood.
Tell me about my "blablablah" concept.. go ahead. It's just as "meaningful" and rich to me as anything you said so far.
Do you have an overwhelming urge to discuss Blablablah with me?...
squint wrote:Sorry if you're not familiar with the territory.
I understand when people use vague, meaningless terms as IF they had any meaning. I am QUITE familiar with that kind of flim-flam.. and remember.. it's all about blablablah.
But what IS this territory? It's.. NOT DEFINED territory.. it might be completely BOGUS territory.. after all.. we can't DISCUSS it meaningfully... logic doesn't apply.. we can't actually restrict it's meaning in any way.. This territory could literally mean ANYTHING AT ALL... and that would INCLUDE contradictions.. which you have no problem with.
So, yes means no to you... and evil is good... and so when you talk of EVIL.. you might as well be talking about the good. And I would HAVE no idea which one you meant at any time.
This is what I call babbling.. saying things that can mean ANYTHING AT ALL.. and consequently.. NOTHING at all... nothing of value, in any case.
Because it's all BLABLABLAH.. right? You agree with me, right? Blablablah explains it all?
squint wrote:It is this same unbound undefined arena that many people contemplate in meditation or enhanced consciousness/sensory enlightenment. Alan Watts for example had some excellent lectures on this matter. The essence of the understanding is that all contemplations of the Perfect Objective are by nature, individually subjective. This same principle applies to christianity.
So, TO YOU, everything is the same.
TO YOU, black is white and yes means no.
TO YOU God is evil and Satan is good, AND vice versa.. to you, contradictions are true.
You are wrong and you are also right.. and all of these WORDS are completely meaningless. SO WHY BOTHER with the words?
squint wrote:So when you speak of logic, please understand logic as really being "subjective" in nature.
ALL of it. It is all 'limited' by subjectivity.
So, it's MY INSISTENCE that logic is subjective, is it? NO.. you seem to be projecting YOUR insistence. I do not hold that view at all.. And I have noted that you don't CARE about logic at all. Logic to you is .. merely subjective.. so yes again...
White is black
up is down
you are right
and you are wrong
Babble.. this is silly babble.
If you don't CARE about logic.. then whatever you might say is perfectly MEANINGLESS.
So.. babble all you like.
squint wrote:Since you put up a long post, which I appreciate, I'm going to cut it short at this point because the remainder is your personal insistence that subjectivity is all there is and that is your personal opinion and preference.
The reason my posts are so long is that VIRTUALLY ALL OF YOUR WORDS MAKE NO SENSE.. and I try to help you in that regard, ask for clarification, and attempt to break down what you MEAN possibly.
this is not easy and it's not short. You pack a WHALLOP of weirdness into each sentence.. So, my attempt to unpack all of that gobbledy gook takes a lot of WORDS.
My own personal insistence that subjectivity is all there IS?
Where did you GET THAT FROM WHAT I SAID?
squint wrote:I'd suggest that science is moving closer to religion than you may think, understanding that "all" our views are in fact quite subjective and incapable of making subjective logic/formulas fit in their goals of strict material understandings. They all eventually bang their heads against the unknown undefined unbound Objective->because they themselves are 'subjective' at their core just like everyone else.
You DO make a lot of suggestions. It would be nice if you had any support for any of them.. sorry. I have to OBJECT and REJECT most if not all of your suggestions.
You just PUT THEM OUT THERE.. and you offer NO evidence at all.. just TAKE MY WORD FOR IT... and what.. I'm supposed to agree with all of this?
It's as if you think that scientists don't agree that REALITY happens. Reality happens. Our ability to know reality PERFECTLY isn't even a question. We can't be perfect.. so .. great.
THAT DOES NOT MEAN WE DON'T know things with a great degree of certainty.
WOW man.. do you think you can walk through walls?
Again, all I see is a weird non sequitur from you that.. I can't really understand.
Do you CARE to be understood at all?.. because it REALLY looks like you don't care about being understood whatsoever.
DO you LIKE to just babble?
I don't get it.
squint wrote:Religion has contemplated Greater matters for quite some time.
Yes, and they've been wrong most of the time. So what?
Seems like a HUGE ( if not the hugest ) waste of time imaginable.
All that thinking?.... all that human resource?
all those MILLIONS OF MAN HOURS?... lost
and for what?
So that we can feel good about sharing our opinions?
OHHHH we can do so much better than that.