My Jesus Challenge

[AV1611VET]

Most pagans understand and use the power of myth but stories of gods are nothing more than myths to me, which is fine. Science is the best system for naturally explaining our universe.

What part of science do you specifically disagree with?

If there isn't any, can we safely say that science is paganism?

Or do you hold to the idea that paganism is science, but science isn't paganism?

(Sorta like, "All surgeons are doctors, but not all doctors are surgeons.")

 

[awitch]

What part of science do you specifically disagree with?

If there isn't any, can we safely say that science is paganism?

Or do you hold to the idea that paganism is science, but science isn't paganism?

(Sorta like, "All surgeons are doctors, but not all doctors are surgeons.")

Science describes the Universe based on evidence.
Paganism is a faith based view of the Universe.

 

[AV1611VET]

Science describes the Universe based on evidence.
Paganism is a faith based view of the Universe.

And does it ... or does it not at times ... come at odds with science?

If so, specifically where?

I can give you a whole SLEW of specifics where Christianity and science are at odds.

Can you do the same with your faith?

 

[awitch]

And does it ... or does it not at times ... come at odds with science?

That depends. Some take magic very literally; clearly that is not supported by science.
(I see it primarily as psychological exercises.)

I believe in multiple deities. Science does not support their existence.

 

[AV1611VET]

That depends. Some take magic very literally; clearly that is not supported by science.
(I see it primarily as psychological exercises.)

I believe in multiple deities. Science does not support their existence.

Thank you, sir!

 

[Zoness]

[grammar nazi] Did you mean "deference"? [/grammar nazi]

Sure did, it's why I shouldn't be allowed to post from my phone!

 

[Zoness]

What part of science do you specifically disagree with?

If there isn't any, can we safely say that science is paganism?

Or do you hold to the idea that paganism is science, but science isn't paganism?

(Sorta like, "All surgeons are doctors, but not all doctors are surgeons.")

Good question, I treat science as separate to my religion, which is fairly narrow in scope as it concerns itself more with metaphysics, philosophy and the why of us being here. I don't treat them as subsets but rather as fields that cover totally different domains.

 

[the iconoclast]

I've no idea, I'm ultimately agnostic on that question.

However, I will say that if he was truly almighty god, he could've done a much better job communicating, preserving, and authenticating his message. Therefore, I lean towards "yes", that the Jesus concept was invented by man.

Hey hey ananda.

What better job would this be? How should God communicate, preserve and authenticate His message?

Cheers

 

[the iconoclast]

Good question, I treat science as separate to my religion

Hey hey zoness

What is your religion?

Cheers

 

[ananda]

Hey hey ananda.

What better job would this be? How should God communicate, preserve and authenticate His message?

Cheers

Greetings, @the iconoclast ...

If there is an ultimate message, I do not perceive any method of communicating that message superior to the Laws governing Reality itself. These Laws are equally applicable throughout space and time, and plainly & directly self-evident to all individuals without any need for fallible intermediaries (whether written or living).

(This is my understanding of the Buddhist perspective & approach.)

 

[the iconoclast]

If there is an ultimate message, I do not perceive any method of communicating that message superior to the Laws governing Reality itself. These Laws are equally applicable throughout space and time, and plainly & directly self-evident to all individuals without any need for fallible intermediaries (whether written or living).

(This is my understanding of the Buddhist perspective & approach.)

Hey hey my friend

So God should have used the laws governing reality to authenticate, communicate and preserve His message?

What does that mean? What are these laws?

Or are you saying this message could not be communicated because the laws governing reality are superior?

Cheers you gem

 

[ananda]

Hey hey my friend

So God should have used the laws governing reality?

What does that mean?

My comment was not so much focusing on the "God" idea, but rather on discerning what methods are worthy to define the ultimate goals regarding life.

However, to answer your question: for me, any supposed deity who purports to transmit its message through fallible means cannot possibly be infallible itself, and is thus unworthy of attention.

If we surmise the existence of the Supreme (whatever it may be), it is my perception that the most infallible way it can transmit its message is through embedding them in the Laws governing Reality.

What are these laws?

Cheers you gem

I had in mind laws such as the most basic Law of Causality (Cause & Effect, aka "Kamma" in Buddhism), and its derivative laws such as the Law regarding Learning, Law of Consequences, Laws of Suffering, etc.

 

[the iconoclast]

However, to answer your question: for me, any supposed deity who purports to transmit its message through fallible means cannot possibly be infallible itself, and is thus unworthy of attention.

Hey hey and thank you for the reply.

When we consider casuality, learning, law and consequence, How should an infallible God transmit an infallible message?

Cheers

 

[ananda]

Hey hey and thank you for the reply.

When we consider casuality, learning, law and consequence, How should an infallible God transmit an infallible message?

Cheers

IMO the "message" (if it can be called that) is those laws, and can be understood in terms of our persistent reactions to them.

 

[the iconoclast]

IMO the "message" (if it can be called that) is those laws, and can be understood in terms of our persistent reactions to them.

Thank you for your reply

You cannot perceive any other method of an infallible being communicating other that that?

Why can't God speak to you/i/we/us/anyone?

Cheers

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

If you think the systematic, falsifiable, peer-reviewed, and evidence-based pursuit of knowledge and understanding is the antithesis and enemy of your world view - it probably is. And it's also revealing a whole lot of not so healthy things about your ideology, too.

Look, I'm not saying Hegelian synthesis is *always* an option. No amount of goodwill or "middle way"-ing will ever bring back and substantiate the hypothesis that there was a global flood, that the earth is no more than a few thousand (or ten thousand) years old, that languages were fractured into different families at Babylon, or that an Egyptian pharaoh (suspiciously un-named) drowned after a Hebrew god parted (and then closed) the re(e)d sea.

Regardless, I don't think that the radical, diametrically opposed ends of the world view spectrum (i.e. religious fundamentalism on the one hand, and naturalistic anti-theism on the other) are the only viable options. Quite the opposite, in fact. I'd say that the only thing such radicalism achieves is that people are put off by BOTH extremes - and this should be especially disconcerting to adherents of proselytising world views. The safest way to drive most people away from Christianity is to insist that its cosmology clashes with well-known FACTS about the observable universe, history, and biology. Oh, sure, you'll gain a few nutcases, just like the flat earth movement. There's always a market for conspiracy theories, since some people love to feel like they are a) in possession of special knowledge, b) exalted above the "ignorant masses", and c) opposed by an evil mainstream (potentially led by a shadowy cabal or clandestine group).

So, while I find theism to be a pretty silly, anthropomorphic hypothesis about the nature of reality, I do think I could get along with the saner parts of the spectrum. Religion is not the arch-enemy of mankind - at least not in all of its forms. Most people are pretty decent, sometimes in spite and sometimes because of their world views. If we stop seeing them as "them", and start embracing them as "one of us", that'd be pretty neat. And also pretty much in line with the true Christian spirit, I might add.

 

[AV1611VET]

So, while I find theism to be a pretty silly, anthropomorphic hypothesis about the nature of reality, I do think I could get along with the saner parts of the spectrum.
...

If we stop seeing them as "them", and start embracing them as "one of us", that'd be pretty neat. And also pretty much in line with the true Christian spirit, I might add.

You use terms like "pretty silly" and "saner parts of the spectrum" to describe what we believe; then you turn around and suggest we walk side-by-side with "Gaia's godchild" because that would be "pretty neat"?

I'll pass.

You don't like Jesus Christ as we like Him, that's your prerogative.

But don't expect me to embrace Gaia (probably a fallen angel) either.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Much as I'd like if we all got along, I don't operate under the illusion that I'll ever get through to the fanatical ends of the spectrum. There was a time when I thought that all it took to convince a Flat Earther of the sheer insanity of his convictions was to present facts and show them where their beliefs went off the rails, but experience shows that it doesn't work that way.
So, while I'm definitely not withdrawing the hand of friendship and mutual understanding, know that my post wasn't *specifically* addressed to literalists like yourself, AV1611VET.

And yes, believing that the world is 6,000 years old in the face of overwhelming, manifold evidence to the contrary IS silly. Just as silly as belief in a flat earth or Nazi UFOs hiding in the hollow interior of the planet.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Much as I'd like if we all got along, I don't operate under the illusion that I'll ever get through to the fanatical ends of the spectrum. There was a time when I thought that all it took to convince a Flat Earther of the sheer insanity of his convictions was to present facts and show them where their beliefs went off the rails, but experience shows that it doesn't work that way.
So, while I'm definitely not withdrawing the hand of friendship and mutual understanding, know that my post wasn't *specifically* addressed to literalists like yourself, AV1611VET.

And yes, believing that the world is 6,000 years old in the face of overwhelming, manifold evidence to the contrary IS silly. Just as silly as belief in a flat earth or Nazi UFOs

 

[AV1611VET]

So, while I'm definitely not withdrawing the hand of friendship and mutual understanding, know that my post wasn't *specifically* addressed to literalists like yourself, AV1611VET.

Fair enough.

And yes, believing that the world is 6,000 years old in the face of overwhelming, manifold evidence to the contrary IS silly. Just as silly as belief in a flat earth or Nazi UFOs hiding in the hollow interior of the planet.

For the record, I'm not a YEC.

I believe God created the earth however old He wanted it, and gave it maturity, but without a history.

 

[AV1611VET]

.

 

[awitch]

Fair enough. For the record, I'm not a YEC.

I believe God created the earth however old He wanted it, and gave it maturity, but without a history.

That sound deceptive to me and possibly even malicious on God's part.