Biblical Covenants in Christianity
Christians routinely speak of the OC† and the NC (old and new covenants, respectively) when equivocating from the harshness of the Mosaic laws in the Old Testament such as Leviticus 20:13 which calls for the death penalty for homosexual acts or the various rules on how to properly enslave another human being, etc. In particular, moral, ritual and ceremonial laws such as those found in Leviticus and Deuteronomy which are directly attributed to God ("The LORD said ...") are deemed to be obsolete by some Christians due to Jesus' death and the NC which was brought forth. Other Christians believe that only some of the OC is replaced and the rest intact. (Note those who deem homosexuality an abomination in the eyes of God.) Others even claim the entire OC is part of the NC.
The problem, of course, is that unlike the OC where one can list 613 laws, there is nothing definitive about the NC. This ambiguity (and, indeed, absence of definition) allows Christians to make any vague claim they wish about the NC.
In short, the claim 'that was the OC, we are now operating under the NC' is meaningless because nobody has a specific definition of the NC. The New Covenant is a concept devoid of defined content. It is a contract with an opening paragraph but no details. Christians fill in the blanks however they wish and thus the specific meaning for the New Covenant is all over the map.
† the OC in Judaism has a very different meaning than how Christians use the term.
Tags
Who is online
329 visitors
This stems from a discussion I had with CB. Here are CB's opening questions:
The books of the New Testament (NT) are the 27 books on record. The New Covenant is defined in various ways within Christianity. Some consider the NT as a whole to be the NC. Others are more particular. Some include all or portions of the rules in the Old Testament in the NC.
Best to discuss this with Enoch. Here, however, is a brief description of the first covenant per Judaism:
The covenant between God and Jews is the basis for the idea of the Jews as the chosen people. The first covenant was between God and Abraham. Jewish men are circumcised as a symbol of this covenant.
[ "You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you." Genesis 17 ]
God promised to make Abraham the father of a great people and said that Abraham and his descendants must obey God. In return God would guide them and protect them and give them the land of Israel. But it wasn’t simply a matter of obeying rules - God didn't just want the Jews to follow a particular set of laws, but to live their lives in such a way as to show the world that God actually was the one and only all-powerful God, whom people should follow and worship.
They would not. I mentioned this solely in my footnote. It was clarifying information to note that the word 'covenant' means something very different in Christianity than the original meaning in Judaism.
Now on to discussion. . . .
Although I very much enjoyed watching every episode of the West Wing TV series, this is one of my favourite scenes, which I think is somewhat relevant to the conversation here:
If you're unable to open it, it is the episode where POTUS Jed Bartlet (Martin Sheen) is addressing a small gathering, which included Dr. Jenna Jacobs, a woman who has a TV talk show, and who said that the bible calls homosexuality an abomination.
(I can't seem to make links stick now and then - the link is in my reply comment.
That speech was adapted from a letter to Dr. Laura Schlessinger, conservative talk show/advice giver who acted like a family therapist, but whose PhD at the time was in physiology.
There are actually multiple covenants recorded in the Bible.
There is the "original" or Noahic Covenant, where God promises not to destroy the world by flood again.
There is the Abrahamic Covenant, where God promises to make the children of Abraham a great nation and bless the rest of the world through him.
The Mosaic Covenant (with Moses) promises the Israelites certain lands and protection in exchange for their obedience to God's laws.
The Davidic Covenant promises to make the House of David great, enable them to conquer enemies, blesses his descendants and declares David's name will be great forever, provided they follow God's laws.
The New Covenant offers the blood of Jesus as a permanent sacrifice for the sins of any who accept the gift. It is generally seen as the culmination of the progression established by the previous three covenants.
And the authoritative, specific definition of 'the' NC (where 'the' —as in singular and definitive— is a claim by select Christians) is a perpetual item of debate within Christianity. There is no authoritative, specific 'the NC' defined.
The finer points have been debated and fought over for a couple thousand years now.
My point was actually about the "old covenant" and CB's references to it. There isn't really an "old covenant".
Understood. I was adding on my bit about the NC since that is the key point of this article. There are also the 1st and 2nd covenants of Judaism (to add to the confusion).
Quite frankly, Jack I have not been able to make sense out of what it is Tig is seeking. And I will not even try asking him for a clear explanation of what he is seeking anymore. So can you make sense of what he wants? For example: Regarding the New Testament: 1. A set of rules? 2. Laws? What?
I feel as though I can not find the "jumping off" point for the discussion to take off . . . .
Please elaborate. Let me 'catch up' to your thinking here.
There isn't an "old covenant", because there are several of them.
God keeps having to start over because people let him down.
Hmm. Interesting. Share more?
@1.3
Some believe that Mary Magdalene was the true leader of what became known as Christianity.
Jesus was just a front man to assuage the cultural norms.
In the 6th century Pope Gregory decided that the disciple Mary Magdalene and two other Marys (one the sister of Lazurus) were all the same and proceeded to slut shame the Marys into subservience and second class Christianship.
Naturally the Gospel of Mary Magdalene was also buried by the emerging Catholic Church and not included in the NT
The various stories and beliefs on the NT might fill a book that could dwarf the NT itself.
Well, it is not as if you would believe a thimble full of it anyway. So, why float it? The "stories" and "beliefs" comment is just fodder used as a pretext to complain.
Of course I am not going to believe something significant simply because some other human being claimed it is true.
See if you told me that you were in your 50s I would accept that without evidence. It is a reasonable answer based on other factors, you have nothing that I can see to gain by lying about your age, and really your age does not make much of a difference in world matters.
Now contrast a claim of age with a claim of direct knowledge of God — the grandest possible entity — the omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, perfect arbiter of objective morality. For that claim I would need evidence. Indeed, I would expect any rational individual to seek supporting evidence for such a grand claim.
That established, in context of this article, if one were to claim knowledge of a definitive new covenant then I would not take that on trust. I would require evidence. The evidence, in this case, is delivery of the definitive content of the NC. Nobody, of course, can do that because it does not exist. No reason for you to get all emotional about the fact that you cannot do this either. It would be better to simply acknowledge the fact that the NC is not definitive and that nobody can really state, with biblical authority, what (if anything) of the OC is retained in the NC.
That is, just accept reality and deal with it. Getting pissy with me will not change reality.
As I stated above. You can't teach what you won't learn. Bang up job you are doing of steering clear of a deeper discussion. Keep rehearsing the same message to yourself it will make you at the least, "well-practiced."
Write an article to discuss what you wish to discuss.
I am still puzzled why you started this article and choose not to go deeper. Surely, you simply can't imagine centuries of great writers on Christology fail to hold a candle to a reductive "withering" statement like, "There is nothing definitive about the NC"!
What a summation.
The purpose of the article was to note that the NC is merely a concept that has no authoritative definition specific enough for a Christian to claim which parts (if any) of the OC (which is itself under Christian debate) continues into the NC and which parts are replaced.
Those who disagree with the posit of the article can rebut it by delivering the authoritative, definitive, specific NC. If anyone could do that (and of course nobody can because the authoritative details do not exist) then we could go deeper. As it stands, there is no content on which to do a deeper dive.
One cannot rebut the posit by declaring one's own personal opinion on what the NC details 'must be'. Everyone has an opinion (one of the reason the debate continues in Christianity). Here we are not talking about opinion but rather the authoritative, definitive, specific content of the NC so that one can state, with authority, if Leviticus 20:13 (for example) is no longer applicable due to the NC. HA, if you recall, holds that this particular Mosaic law continues even with the NC. He asserts that God still considers homosexual acts to be an abomination. Others disagree. This is unresolvable because there is no authoritative, definitive, specific NC. Just opinion ...
Not sure I can be clearer.
That's too bad actually--
it would've been interesting to hear Mary express hers views here on NT!
To me (my opinion only) the only covenant in the NT (which I have read) is the new commandment that Jesus gave to his disciples "love one another" John 13:30.
I think that is a wonderful idea - if only humans could do that.
But I guess that isn't a covenant, more like a suggestion.
It's a commandment, actually.
As in "not optional" for believers/followers of Christ.
Someone should tell them that-- apparently many of them are not aware of it.
They're all aware.
Some of them just aren't very good at it.
The real problem Christianity faces is that it's carried out by people wholly incapable of demonstrating it. It's a bit like judging Mozart based on the ability of a 7 year old to play his music after a week's worth of lessons.
To some (hopefully many) that is the key message of Christianity.
The new covenant to most Christians refers to the new rules / promises that apply as a result of Jesus' blood sacrifice. That is the concept. The details of the covenant remain a topic of debate (nobody knows).
70,000 years of war says we can't.
But that should not stop us from trying...
So if I may kick into this discussion.
We have go on the premise that god is all-knowing, past, present, future.
That as a given, the OC stated that anyone who believed in god (remember, there are no Mosaic laws at the time) is circumcision.
Then Jesus comes and preaches the gospel. Jesus is circumcised as are all his followers. That makes sense since that is the OC. You need to be covered by the OC, even if there is a NC to be followed.
But in discussions between Peter and Paul, this becomes an issue. Paul decides to get rid of the OC (although never talked about by Jesus specifically) to get more conversions.
This left two kinds of Christians. The Jewish Christians who were circumcised and the Greek ones who were not. This left a rift in the two communities.
Well, all knowing god, would want everyone who followed Jesus to still be covered by this very basic of rules. There is nothing in the NC, that says otherwise, nor did Jesus advocate against it or not live his life as a Jew.
The Mosaic laws came much later, and although they spell out how to live your life, they are not the OC. They are the laws of the Israelites.
So the OC should still stand if it wasn't for Paul.
Christianity has a different concept of the OC than Judaism. In Christianity, the OC is a reference to the Mosaic laws, not to the chosen people covenant and the mark of same via circumcision. So add that to the confusion.
Hi Tig, my opening.
Actually, in Christianity, the Old Covenant (Old Testament, Old Contract) is a reference to everything that is not by faith (in God) - faith , which came first .
The New Covenant has no "mandate" for circumcision of new believers , or adherence to Old Testament Jewish civil laws, ceremonial laws, or holy days.
Then this is an interesting reading. It shows the confusion within the early church, including Christians needing to stay kosher, something not done by most sects.
But that is not what is said in the OT, and definitely not taken to be the OC. god commanded that Abraham be circumcised as a sign of the convent and that all members of his household be circumcised, too. There was never a time when it would have been revoked.
This verse is upper-cased because it refers back to an earlier scripture. In this case in Genesis 15.
@:The above discussion takes place before Abraham has Ishmael bore to him at 86 years of age. (See: Genesis 16:16.)
@: The Abrahamic Covenant is entered into when Abraham is 99 years of age. (See: Genesis 17:1 - 14)
- Gentiles, non-Jewish people, are not of the household of Abraham. We are under Abraham as our Father of Faith .
I submit there is no 'actually' but rather multiple 'actually'ies. Christians do not agree and there is no governing authority present to state the definitive Christian position. A position, by the way, that would simply be man-made for obvious reasons.
I would be surprised, assuming someone could produce a specific, definitive New Covenant, if circumcision was required given that is more tied to Judaism.
Again, no agreement on this. Christians disagree with each other.
And if there was a specific, definitive New Covenant, wouldn't it be hilarious if it stated the circumcisions had to be performed per the traditional Metzitzah B'Peh, the ancient method of circumcision where the mohel (the person trained in the "covenant of circumcision") places his mouth directly on the circumcision wound to draw blood away from the cut. I'm pretty sure about half of evangelicals would abandon their faith...
I am sorry? What are you 'speaking' about? Are you going to 'dodge' discussion on a flight of fancy about what books matter? Or some other 'escape'?
Why are you accusing me of dodging? Dodge what? Not only do I not dodge (not my style), this is a crappy way for you to begin a discussion.
In effect, the operative questions asked by this article are:
From there we would compare the NC (if delivered) to the OC (if we can narrow down a specific Christian interpretation of same) in pursuit of answering the big question which is:
What part, specifically, of the OC has been replaced by the NC?
My posit is that the NC is not specifically defined. Do you disagree?
Dismayed,
I hope you realize that most Jews do not do Metzitzah B'Peh. In fact, blood is supposed to be avoided at all times as part of Kosher laws but a small faction of Haredi Jews use it. But that would scare off almost anyone.
You and DP might be offering TMI for this context.
I do, I do realize that! Of course it's not very common and the few still using it have created much controversy. I just thought it would be rather humorous if the often extremely homophobic evangelical Christians were all of a sudden being told they had to perform some additional oral ritual during circumcision if some established "New Covenant" rules were imposed on the thousands of disparate Christian denominations.
LOL, see you even had me fooled!
LOL Tig. Didn't mean to gross you out.
I am an old frat boy; nothing grosses me out anymore.
I do not agree or disagree. What I have in front of me is the Holy Bible with its accompanying Old Testament and New Testament partitions. This other nuance discussion you are having with yourself (or with somebody unknown to me) about what books (fill in the blank) is lost on me. Moreover, if it is about you wanting to have an AUTHENTICATION discussion. I am not inclined to do that with you. It would be a big disappointment to me.
That translates into 'I do not know' or 'I know but I am not telling'. Either way, it does not advance the discussion.
You do not understand what I laid out in this article and then later qualified in terms of three questions? In effect, if there is a definitive NC I would like to see the line items it contains. For example, the 10 commandments have line items: ten of them. The OC (as some define it) has 613 line items. The NC, if defined, would also have line items. If it does not then it is simply a vague idea.
I do not blame you. As I noted before I wrote this article, I do not believe the NC is defined except in the most abstract terms. It is a vague concept that is under continued debate within Christianity.
So, sure, I get why you would not want to have this conversation. Nobody can deliver the NC content so why put yourself in the position of the person who implies it is possible to do so?
No. Sometimes I do not agree or disagree means what it says. I am not here to have a discussion (short or long) about books of the Bible process. So what are we doing?
We have the Old Testament and New Testament in front of us. Do we use it to determine if the Old Testament laws are for Christians today or what?
I have explained this to you already. Based on your answer, we are not doing anything.
Do you have a definitive list of NT laws? If so, do you consider these to be the NC? If so, give me a link to the list.
Oh don't pack up and go home just yet, Tig. I am not sure what this tack in conversation has to do with the 'tea' in the Bible, but the NT content is right there in front of you to engage—you simply have to get in the stream of it. Christian's are under liberty. The Old Testament was formerly the Tutor. Then, the "children" graduated and serve through faith.
This other non-descript "case" you are making is lacking and hard to compute. Therefore, I really hope you will reply with something useful and not more of 'I can't see it - so nobody else can either' material.
No again. It means in the New Testament one has to read the books and letters for comprehension.
There is no list. And who are you really to demand one? What is your question or concern. So far, you appear to want to neutralize 27 books as of no consequence despite that you are 'holding' the books right there in front of you?
For what are we convened here on this article at this time, Tig? I am here to 'eat'!
I am not going anywhere. My article is here and the questions are defined. If you want to pursue some other discussion then write an article.
So you consider the New Covenant to be the entire New Testament?
Oh people do that all the time. That is why the New Covenant is still under debate. Christian scholars are still today debating what the NC actual is. And you clearly realize this because I am sure you tried to deliver the definitive NC and having failed are trying to change the question.
The NC is not defined CB. You cannot produce it. You have just admitted that the closest you can get to the NC is the entire 27 books of the NT. And, on top of that, you would be delivering your personal interpretation — nothing authoritative, just how you read things. Not what I have asked for.
I know. That is the point of this article.
The one who challenges those who claim the NC is something that is defined.
This is the last time I am going to repeat myself. I am not going to play your game of repeatedly asking questions already answered:
This article is ill-conceived.
And, I felt this was a 'nothing-burger' from the start. And, here it is in all it "nothing burger-ness."
This article is a pointless waste of time, then. You WISH to pretend the NC does not exist based on some arbitrary 'no list' rule you float.
Would this be the scholars who confirm your bias? Confirming why you drugged me over to a pointless waste of energy?
As if the Christian faith can not exist because a fake display of logic has invalidated it. It has not and is not going to happen.
This article is misleading. Bogus questions signifying nothing! When you are ready to move on to something worthy of the digits used to create this space - let me know. Otherwise, I am off to another article, any other article at that! One that is not misleading
A bit too emotional.
Well we agree that the New Covenant is not defined (there is no list, no defined content). Good to see you at least realize this.
The fact is, Christianity is based on liberty for believers' comprehended through 'studying to show oneself approved." 2 Timothy 2:15. What is telling is this novel 'shoe on the other foot.' Here you are pleading a case for OT laws and rules to rule over the Christian nations, just so in order to have a pretext of tearing down a straw-man you create.
Not. Good. Not. Going. To. Get. Traction.
Moreover, for the record, Gentiles, non-Jewish people of old, not being Jewish, never came under the Law and becoming Christian did not make the "People of the Way" Jewish in any way. More needs to be added. But look at who is not asking.
There were Jews in the early churches, of course. The children of Abraham kept their perpetual laws and 'rites' to God, and where they could they did combine their new Faith with Judaism.
I believe many Christians see the "New Covenant" talked about in Jeremiah 31 was enacted at the last supper when Jesus told the disciples he had a "new commandment" for them, "to love one another as I have loved you" (John 13). They believe Jesus was the ransom sacrifice that washed our sins away so now we don't have to follow the old laws but only the "new" ones which are just two laws, love your God with your whole strength and love your neighbor as yourself.
The problems with this belief are firstly, that the Jews themselves are still waiting for the Messiah, the one to fulfill the Mosaic law. Second, the God of the Hebrews, if "perfect" as they claim, supposedly gave them "perfect laws" but then later decided that all those people who had been killed for not obeying the laws had died in vain because the laws were now changed and Jews could do anything they wanted as long as they loved God and their neighbor. The supposed static "perfection" of God seems to be at odds with both creating the Mosaic law and then later abandoning it.
But, as anyone is welcome to do and millions have done throughout history, Christians are welcome to cherry pick what they want from Constantine's cobbled together OT and NT scriptures and what they feel is applicable for "their time" as if the era should have something to do with what makes something good or evil, a sinner or a saint.
This is one of the reasons our discussions degrade. Here you are making up a ridiculous accusation. This article has nothing to do with arguing that OT laws should be ruling over Christian nations. Anyone who pays even the slightest attention to what I write knows that I routinely argue that the Bible (including the OT) represents the views of ancient men and should not be used in modern times. And certainly to not consider the OT (or the NT) divine.
Yet, in spite of that and and in spite of the fact that this article exists to note that the OC is not defined, here you are spewing the absurd at me.
Which is all that they do when speaking of the New Covenant (and even the Old Covenant). Christians do not have a definitive New Covenant yet some speak as though they do. For example, when Leviticus 20:13 (or most anything from Leviticus and Deuteronomy) is raised to illustrate this cannot be divine morality, a common retort is that those are the Old Covenant and they no longer apply because with Jesus' death we have a New Covenant. Yet the New Covenant is not defined so they really are just blowing smoke. It is another 'roll your own meaning to fit the situation' practice.
Are you ready to discuss the deeper things, the "meat" of the New Testament? How long do you intend to toil away at the surface, elementary things, of the Christian faith?
Tig, it does not make it truer because you keep repeating it to yourself and among friends. It simply does not work this way.
That is not the purpose of this article. If you want to discuss the NT then write an article. (How many times must I repeat this?)
This article is about locating the extant, authoritative content of the NC. I am not interested in your opinion of the NC because you are one of countless varying opinions. So I am not interested in walking through the NT with you to learn what you, an individual believer, thinks is a reasonable definition for the NC. And it is not just you, it is irrelevant what any single person thinks because the interpretations and hypotheses of individuals are all over the map.
Lots of wording signifying nothing. You want to discuss the NT but not the NT! Go figure. A show and no performance. Ask to go deeper: you spin. Hold up a stop sign.
Time to stop trolling me CB.
Well Perrie, this discussion seems to be petering out too.
Just remember. You INVITED ME TO THIS DISCUSSION AHEAD OF ANYBODY ELSE ATTENDING.
I will stop addressing you. I saw this "trolling" accusation coming too—just so you know. Good luck in your 'chamber.'
I invited you to this discussion. Not to a Bible study where you provide your individual opinions. Write your own article and you can do a deep dive on the NT.
This article is about delivering the authoritative, specific content of the NC. Since that does not exist, I suggest you accept that fact and move on.
Well, since you addressed this comment to me. . . . This is not a bible study, because you will see that it is not. So I never expected that to be the case. Your so-called attempt to have an "authoritative, specific content of the NC" was never going to occur, for as you dictate the terms of the discussion—this does not exist. So this started out as a fabrication from the beginning launched by you.
Going forward, I will treat your request to follow you to a new article for "further discussion" with a grain of salt and a likely set up for a contentious outing.
Correct, this article was not meant to be a Bible study. It was meant to assert that an authoritative, specific NC does not exist and that anyone who declares they know what the NC covers in terms of Mosaic laws does not know what they are talking about.
You pretend as though this is some surprise. Read the operative quote:
How clearer can I be? The content of the article is also brief and easy to read. Here is the content:
So stop pretending that this is a bait and switch. I am looking for the actual authoritative content of the NC. I even later provided you with three questions:
You cannot, of course, deliver this because there is no authoritative, specific content for the NC. That is a fact. Deal with reality. Case closed.
You now want to engage in a Bible study so that you can offer your opinion of what the NC means. I have told you that I am not interested in any individual opinion but rather the authoritative, specific content of the NC. Discussing your opinion ( any opinion) is not what this article is about. I am not interested in the many varied opinions on what the NC might be; I want the authoritative, specific content of what the NC actually is.
So ... as I have suggested multiple times, if you want to discuss your personal opinions then write an article . You are free to do so. Incessant whining that this article is not what you want is obnoxious; write your own.
PETER-ing out?
Some would find that a-PAUL-ing!
That is a terrible translation of the original source material, the Torah. And words matter.
But let's go on to the nuts and bolts of this, which is the actually covenant.
Please note: All-knowing god makes this pact as an " everlasting covenant." and anyone who doesn't follow has broken "My (god) covenant".
Which means that the NT has it all wrong. It was not revokable. Hence why Muslims who took from both faiths, circumcise. They too, saw this as unrevokable. That is the convenient, and Paul decided to drop it out of convenience and not because of Jesus.
Cute dog?
Hello Perrie, do confirm that you are reading Genesis 15 if you are looking at what I have written out of the OT in my comment @4.1.4.
Genesis 17 is NOT displayed there. It IS a 'line item' here:
Thank you kindly.
I am not CB. The reason I am going on to 17 is because that is where the OC came from.I don't see the relevancy of 15. It is what god told him in 17 that counts.
Perrie, as an aside - are you aware a covenant is made in Genesis 15 between God and Abraham long before the covenant of circumcision?
Forgive me, but why would you dismiss my statements about Genesis 15 (as if it was not there)? It is where we are told Abraham expressed belief (faith) in God and God 'counted it for something.' It has value. It is the foundational basis for the Christian faith in God.
Faith expressed apart from Works. Faith alone. The Christian way.
Moving on: Of course, I see and respect the Abrahamic covenant. For me, that is recognized and goes without stating. (Smile.)
I realize that this may be a difference in the way that Jews read the OT and non-Jews, but these text are read in their entirety. The story is built upon, and then pulled apart. So 15 is viewed as the promise, but 17 is what is needed to fulfill that promise. I think you are missing why Jews can't get on board with the NC. It's because they view 17 as eternal from an all-knowing god. In fact, faith alone, won't buy you anything, if you don't treat your fellow man with respect and love and follow the laws, even if some of those laws are in conflict (that happens a lot and that is why there is further discussion in the Jewish belief). 15 has value to Jews to because it is the promise, but not until 17 is done is it real.
Perrie, again, I am sorry, but. . . I was/am NOT coming at this from a uniquely Jewish perspective at this time . My major focus in this moment is on the Christian faith in God.
Paul was expressing this in:
by REACHING BACK into Genesis: 15.
Consequently, Romans 4:9 “ FAITH WAS CREDITED TO ABRAHAM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.” is Paul's reference back to Genesis 15:6
Belief = faith. Faith = belief.
THEREFORE, faith in God was established before the Covenant of Circumcision. This is why the New Testament churches do not place themselves under the Abrahamic covenant of circumcision. It was strictly ordered of the blood children of Abraham. Not the gentiles coming in under the auspice of Abraham, Father of Faith.
I fully GET why Jews can not get on board with the NC—nor do Jews need to. God has provided for the Jewish people. I have a NT verse about it even.
Although, "scattered" Jews (see Acts 1) of the Christ persuasion were performing both their Jewish rites, ceremonies, holy days, rituals, and early Christology. (But, but, . . . that is too much to get into right this instance).
I get the Jewish rationale. Really, I do. That is NOT my focus in talki—well, when I was discussing it with Tig, however.
You are kind of missing my point. You can't cherry-pick one sentence and have that ah-ha moment for another passage from a new book. You have to accept the whole and its parts or it just doesn't work. Faith is important, but so are deeds. I would argue deeds are equally important to believe since that is the whole purpose of religion. To make us better versions of ourselves. If deeds were not important than none of the laws are. This is what was discussed even within early Christianity and never truly resolved.
Hence why this whole discussion about what is the NC. I hope I didn't mess up Tig's original topic.
"Cherry-pick" is a loaded word, Perrie. I wished you had not used it.
Paul used this Genesis 15:6 argument for faith in the first century—not me! I simply provided scriptural context of it twice now.
We, I, am reading the whole book and as you can or will see. Paul has done (and he does this often in his letters) "connective tissuing" of the Old Testament and New Testament where it does apply.
On Faith. Of course, I agree with James faith without works is dead. But works are not a requirement of believing. Remember the thief on the cross - the operative principle he had no time left for works.
Jesus explained belief (faith) is the way to God in Christology. Works will follow after as a natural outgrowth of believing in God ('Believe in God with all your heart, mind, and body will result in action.)
Feel free to discuss this as you wish Perrie. I am okay with tangents. My objection with CB's tangents is that I personally was not interested in exploring CB's personal opinions on the NC; my interest was with the topic of this article.
But that does not change my position on tangents; I fully support this thread with you and CB. And I will not be involved because CB has impassed the author.
Hi Perrie, I only want to go deeper into the meat of discussion and not simply skim along the surface of these matters. As you surely know yourself all these writers had rationale for doing so. Perhaps we can all understand each other some more if we try harder. (Smile.)
What were these people doing every day?
How often did a man have to lift his skirt or whatever to show by his penis how devout he was to a religion?
Circumcision is one of the dumbest ideas ever.
Consider the impact it had during Nazi raids.
Well I was actually thinking about the Romans & Greeks and those Jews.
But the Nazis did order people to show themselves and there were no exceptions, circumcised men were sent to the death camps regardless of what religion they claimed to be.
Quite the understatement. At least from a religious context.
It was done for cleanliness. But like most "laws" it was the fear of god that was being used. Also, it would set aside a people. It would be a mark, to remind men of an obligation daily.
I can enhance your comment:
I know that was one of the reasons. Although, that is also a weak reason too. It's not all that difficult to stay clean. But I digress.
Hence, the dumb reason.
Reading these last two comment lines reminded me of an old joke...
A Mohel well into his 70's who had been performing circumcisions for over half a century admitted one night to a friend that he'd been collecting the snipped foreskins in a jar of formaldehyde but now he had too many and he didn't have room in his basement for the several large jars. His friend suggested taking the skins to a tailor to see if they could dry and use the skins, not wanting to waste anything. So the Mohel went to the local tailor who said he'd take on the project but it would be a few weeks before any item would be ready. After about two weeks the Mohel stopped by and the tailor said his item was ready and handed the Mohel a smooth leather wallet. The Mohel, perplexed, asked "Well, this seems awfully small for the number of skins I gave you..." to which the tailor replied, "Just rub it and it turns into a suitcase...".
Nothing left but disrespect. Will it lead to a decrease or desist in your writing and responding on this subject now? That is the question.
To me it seems that the Old Covenant is based upon trust while the New Covenant based upon faith. The distinction may be subtle but, to me, seems to be a major difference.
The First or Old Covenant is about earning God's grace by following God's commandments and laws. Mosaic laws delineate acts and deeds. An individual's conformance to the covenant is proven by their acts and deeds. Mosaic law is the proof of God and an individual's acts and deeds are proof of their belief in God. The Old Testament presents evidence (consistent within Biblical context) as stories of acts and deeds based upon a trust in God and Mosaic law.
The creation story in the Old Testament begins with the void and God transformed that void through acts and deeds of creation. The acts and deeds of creation are proof of God. God is presented as a builder who commands and controls nature through acts and deeds. And conforming to God's commandments and laws requires acts and deeds. Simply believing in God is not sufficient; acts and deeds are necessary to prove one's belief in God.
The Second or New Covenant is about earning God's grace through faith alone without proof or evidence. Jesus of Nazareth presented moral truths and used parables to show that those moral truths were part and parcel of nature. The New Testament does not describe moral behavior in terms of conforming to commandments and laws. New Testament morality is objective because those moral principles are embedded in God's creation and are present in the same manner as any other natural force of nature. God's creation is proof of God and acts and deeds cannot alter or refute that proof.
The creation story in the New Testament begins with the Word (as presented in John 1). The New Testament creation story describes God as a fundamental part of nature who governs nature as a fundamental force embedded within nature. In the New Testament God's laws are described in a manner similar to the laws of gravity; God's laws are natural laws. Attempting to defy God's natural laws results in self punishment; commandments and Mosaic laws are not needed.
What are these "natural laws" exactly? Gravity and such are "laws of physics" which are defined and explain the workings of the universe. But I doubt many people think of gravity or the like when referring to god's "natural laws."
By the time the NT was written, god got a makeover and switched from action to faith based. Of course, a significant change like that (and that's just one example) should raise a red flag to anyone that the bible is merely the literary work of ancient men and certainly not divine or "the word of god," as some like to believe.
Morality is a social construct. Nature is generally not concerned with such notions like morality.
What "principles" would those be? Where are they found in nature (presumably "god's creation")? Be specific! Morality itself is subjective.
Circular logic.
Many cultures and religions throughout history had their own versions of creation stories. The OT/NT version is no different in that regard, and no more valid or true than any other version out there.
Do you believe in magnetism? Magnetism cannot be seen, smelled, heard, or felt. Magnetism is an intrinsic property of nature. The laws of physics are a description of nature and not a definition of nature. The intrinsic properties of nature are not subjective; however, the description of those intrinsic properties can be subjective. One purpose of the laws of physics is to explain that the intrinsic properties of nature cannot be defied. No matter how subjective is the description of nature that description will not alter the consequences of attempting to defy the intrinsic properties of nature.
The laws of physics describe what can be done and also describe what cannot be done. That's why they are called laws. But the intrinsic properties of nature are universal and not subjective; the laws of physics are natural laws that are objective.
Life is an intrinsic property of nature; life is not a subjective construct. Nature regulates what life can do and what life cannot do, just as with the laws of physics. Morality is another description of intrinsic properties of nature, just as are the laws of physics. While morality may appear to be a social construct; attempting to defy the intrinsic properties of nature will result in definite consequences.
Morality, like magnetism, cannot be seen, smelled, heard, or felt. Morality is an intrinsic property of nature. Moral laws can be a subjective description of intrinsic properties just as can the laws of physics. But a subjective description of intrinsic properties does not define those intrinsic properties. Nature defines itself; that applies to morality just as with physics.
Did physics create itself? If physics created all the intrinsic properties of nature then what created physics?
And physics has its own version of a creation story.
Nerm, the ultimate existential question is unresolvable. We know that there is something rather than nothing; that is a truth that is beyond denial. So the ultimate existential question is: why is there something rather than nothing?
Intrinsic nature exists. Why it exists is unanswerable. But if one states that God is the reason nature exists, then an objectively honest person must also ask: why then is there God rather than nothing?
There is no resolution. This is a dead end both theologically and scientifically.
Existence is a fact, we likely will not get any further than that.
I don't need to "believe" in magnetism. Electromagnetism is a fundamental force and one which can be observed and quantifiably measured. Belief is neither necessary or required.
This is correct.
The fundamental forces of nature and how they interact are quite well understood and objective. They cannot be changed or broken. However, once you get to the quantum level, things start to get a little murky.
That depends on how you want to describe "nature." Life is a "consequence" (for lack of a better term) of nature. But it's not a guarantee.
Actually, that would be evolution that "regulates" life, in response to changes in "nature."
Explain how morality is intrinsic to nature. Define morality in that context.
As Tig points out, that is an unanswerable question. Physics is how we understand the properties and workings of the universe.
Do tell.
The better example is something like dark matter.
Agreed. Magnetism has many properties that we can evidence. Dark matter, however, is currently a placeholder for something that is unknown but certainly exists based on unexplained effects.
I agree with that.
Which leads inevitably to the question:
Why do so many people spend so much time debating these things? Don't they have anything better to do with their lives?
We can observe effects that has no identifiable cause, which is deemed "dark matter."
I do not find people debating 'why is there something other than nothing?'. But I do see people arguing that God must exist because something had to create existence without even stopping to think that God's existence is unexplained. He was always there is a dodge because one could also posit that the substance of existence has always been.
Yes. The ultimate existential question always resolves to a circular argument that requires an assumption as a starting point. Altering the question to "why is there something rather than nothing" doesn't avoid the necessity of asking "can something come from nothing?"
Stating that God is the reason nature exists isn't any different than stating that physics is the reason nature exists. The assumed cause answers the question "can something come from nothing?"
Yes, existence is a fact. Which brings us back to the original question concerning the First or Old Covenant and the Second or New Covenant.
The First Covenant is based upon commandments and laws; very much like the laws of physics. If one trusts the Mosaic laws, then conforming to those laws will result in a predictable outcome. Defying those laws will also result in predictable consequences. That's how the laws of physics work, as well. Trust in the validity of God's laws require evidence just as trust in the laws of physics does. That's why the Old Testament presents evidence (within Biblical context).
The Second Covenant is based upon faith rather than evidence. The ultimate existential question cannot be resolved by evidence; faith is required. We can live according to laws but what follows life? Where is the evidence that conforming to Mosaic laws will provide a predictable outcome beyond existence? Death and nonexistence is an objective truth. The fulfillment of prophecy described in the New Testament is not about the birth or death of Jesus but, rather, the resurrection of Jesus to become Christ.
The Second Covenant directly addresses the question "can something come from nothing?" If something comes from nothing to exist then that something would also return to nothing when it ceases to exist. What is the purpose of Mosaic law? The resurrection of Jesus to become Christ provides evidence that upon death we will continue, we will not become nothing. Resurrection validates laws, morality, and the belief that how we live will allow us to continue after death. But there can be no evidence of nonexistence; that belief requires faith.
Good to see an agreement on something.
But there is a presumption that 'nothing' was the initial condition. That, by definition of the word 'nothing', is impossible. There is an eternal 'something' that has always existed otherwise nothing would exist.
Many scientists believe dark matter exists. Without proof. Or even real evidence. But they know something must exist that produces these as yet inexplicable results.
Which is exactly how many people view God.
If only that were true.
Per your description, God would be defined as something like: the sentient creator of everything. No additional attributes. No stories. No grand plan. No promises. No rules. Just a belief that behind what we observe there is a sentient power.
That is a rational belief as long as the believer realizes that the belief is based on a presumption of sentience with intent. Such a God is possible and may indeed be true.
The problem comes when people layer in additional details. The more people have piled on (via religions) the further away they got from a grounded belief and into complete fantasy. As this continues, the fantastic details invariably do not hold together and result in contradictions which expose the beliefs as false.
So, as I said, if only people could stop at 'sentient creator' we would not have people killing themselves and as many infidels as possible because they believe they are doing the work of Allah who will reward them in Heaven as martyrs. We will not have people justifying bigotry against homosexuals as a divine edict. We would, instead, likely have more people who are keen to objectively explore our reality in an attempt to better understand God through his creations.
Believing in an eternal 'something' doesn't avoid the circular logic of the belief. Theists call an eternal 'something' a God which is the first assumption for religious belief. Replacing a theist God with another concept of an eternal 'something' is still a fundamental belief that is the basis for religion.
A belief that an eternal 'something' is the source of intrinsic properties of nature leads to enumeration of laws that describe what can and cannot be done. The laws of physics serve the same function as Mosaic laws. Trust in those laws still requires evidence to justify trust.
But evidence and laws cannot answer questions about the objective truth of death. A belief that we return to an eternal 'something' after death still requires faith without evidence. If we become nothing after death then how is it possible to validate laws, morality, or belief in anything?
The eternal 'something' cannot be a result of a cause. It is necessarily the eternal 'first cause' (so to speak). That resolves the infinite regress. It is awkward, so say the least, to presume this first cause was the most complex sentient entity possible. If the eternal 'something' was a an undirected substance which over time evolved into forms (and complexity) we have gradual simple to complex rather than 'poof' uber complexity.
So if there is a sentient creator, it is more logical to be an emergent property of a much simpler substance of existence and it is this substance (not the creator) that is eternal.
I would hope not. Scientists don't go by belief. But rather by where the evidence takes them.
The results is the evidence. They know there is something there which has gravitational effects. Its the astrophysical observations of these effects that gives empirical evidence to something present, such as dark matter. We know some extrasolar planets exist because of their gravitational effect on their parent star. It's finding more information and detail about such things that's problematic. No doubt, the discovery of actual "dark matter" will be a significant event in science, and a Nobel Prize to whomever does discover it.
No, people only believe or assume there's a god. They do not have nor have ever produced and empirical evidence for any god/s. Then they dig that particular hole deeper when they give attributes to god or claim they know what god wants, is, or that it talkes to people, ect.. Some also use god as an explanation for anything and everything, i.e. "god did it," which doesn't actually explain anything and is a cop out as well as intellectually lazy.
To use life on Earth as a comparison or as a means to better understand your point, life here started out as very simple bacteria (to use that as a "starting point") and over time evolved and diversified into the abundant biodiversity we see today. This includes more intelligent life like mammals, including humans. Simple to complex. Invoking god or a sentient creator or whatever one wants to call it, as a first cause, implies a process of starting complex and progressing to simple.
Spot on.
Excuse me, but complexity is in the make up of everything for which you see it spranging forth! That is, the EXPRESSION goes:
"There is more in the Unseen than in the Seen."
Carry on. I just had to speak up.
How does that description of an eternal 'something' fundamentally differ from an eternal God? Both resolve the infinite regress in the same manner.
How an eternal 'something' or eternal God behaves to create everything is still a matter of faith that is unsupported by evidence. Faith that does not require evidence is still a basis for religion.
But that only replaces the original first assumption as a means of avoiding the circular logic of the unresolvable existential question. Different window dressing does not alter the necessity of a first assumption which is the basis for religious faith.
As far as I know, the only way to avoid the need for a first assumption is to accept that something can come from nothing.
As we call it, nothing can come from nothing. At such points one has to come to grips with we do not have enough "input."
AKA: Somethings are too 'fantastic' for us at this stage of our development
AKA: God has not deigned to inform us of how God came to be. (We are on the "NEED TO KNOW" Basis.)
Now, we can all go have a mint Julep.
Eternal God = sentience, complex form, directed action
Something = no requirement for sentience, no requirement for a complex form, no requirement for directed action
Not in the same manner. God is quite different from non-sentient substance (think of raw energy or something below that).
We have lots of those people.
Not if they hold the Bible / Qur'an / etc. divine. I am talking about deism (or pantheism / panentheism, etc.) and a quest for contemporary knowledge about reality.
I'm referring to the progression of complexity. Multicellular organisms are clearly more complex than single celled organisms.
Isn't the essence of that argument religious in nature? Which god is the true God?
The point is that resolving the circular logic required to accept that "something came from something" requires a first assumption. Did an eternal 'something' create itself? The description of that eternal 'something', as first assumption. is the bedrock of whatever religion is built upon that first assumption. Accepting any first assumption requires faith without evidence. Any claimed evidence following that first assumption justifies faith in the first assumption.
Assuming an eternal 'something' that is consistent with descriptions of nature may avoid theism but is still, fundamentally, a religious belief. Science based upon a first assumption that "something must come from something" still requires faith in that first assumption just as with any religion. Evidence serves to justify faith in that first assumption and supports the idea that the first assumption represents a true God. But belief and faith without evidence is prerequisite to accepting the first assumption.
That really was not an argument but rather a statement. I am using 'God' as a generic reference to 'sentient creator'. I thought that was obvious.
Yes, the assumption is that there is a first cause. I noted that. The first cause is either sentient or not-sentient.
I enumerated possibilities. You are trying to find flaws in my logic yet you are not paying close attention to what I am writing. Thus I wind up repeating myself.
Drop the 'faith' word because that is an old semantic trick. There is a religious connotation for 'faith' and a secular one. The religious connotation is 'belief in God'. The secular connotation is 'trust'. And even then, science does not trust that there is a non-sentient first cause. At best it is the default assumption. Sentience is a more evolved form than non-sentience. Given that, the natural assumption (parsimony) is that non-sentience is the first cause until there is evidence to the contrary.
From available examples, sentient creation also progresses from simple to more sophisticated.
Multicellular organisms are simple life forms gathered together into a type of social organization, a social construct, regulated by intrinsic properties of nature. The simple cells in a multicellular organism cannot behave subjectively or arbitrarily or the social construct fails.
Evolution in complex life forms is really about how to organize simple forms into a complex form. That suggests social organization is an intrinsic property of nature.
No, I am pointing out that it is an debate over whose faith is stronger and which god is the true God. I am not ignoring your points, I am saying that the debate is unresolvable. The beginning of the debate requires faith and no amount of evidence will alter that.
As far as I know, the only way to avoid a circular debate over which first assumption is the true God is to accept that "something can come from nothing".
Secular faith still requires a belief (or trust) without evidence. Even in secular discussion, faith and trust are not equivalent.
Hi Gordy! I understood a planet evolution is simple to complex - beginning to maturity aspect of your comment. Emphatically.
My comment: God does not have to initiate the birth of planets or even creatures at the highest degree of complexity. God need simply construct a master plan, a master design for creation, which drives it from start >to> finish.
Carry on.
But I made no comment about various gods. I used God in the most generic sense.
The debate is unresolvable. But the initial assumption of a first cause is logical. Since we have no evidence that determines whether the first cause is sentient or not the best we can do is apply logic. The logic typically yields that non-sentience is the most likely based on parsimony.
Science-oriented individuals typically do not believe without convincing evidence; even then the more appropriate word is 'accept' which indicates that the theory is held as the best explanation thus far and that a better theory might emerge in the future. I do not believe, for example, that the first cause is non-sentient. To me it is a logical hypothesis. Holding one thing more likely than another is not belief, it is an assumption based on reason.
The use of the word 'faith' in a secular discussion invariably is a semantic game. There are plenty of other words to use other than the pregnant 'faith' word.
That is the position of Dr. Francis Collins.
Of course if God is using evolution as His method for creation then that very hands-off approach is inconsistent with His very hands-on approach that biblical authors suggest took place. Also, from a scientific perspective, evolution is a wild and whacky process that produces far more failures than successes. It is extremely inefficient and produces sub-optimal creatures (good enough for survival is all that is required).
But, hey, it is possible. To me, however, I usually go with the most reasonable explanation. In this case, I see evolution as an undirected process with no intent. That matches with what we observe. So when strange things occur such as birth defects, the famous laryngeal nerve, etc. it all makes perfect sense. Much the same way it makes sense that the Bible is errant and contradictory when one assumes it is nothing more than the default — the work of mere ancient men with no help from a divine entity.
Well, the issue here if God is in charge is that God for whatever reason unbeknown to us (Need to Know) allows a master-plan with all of what we would and do call flaws and problems in the world.
All I know is that once upon a time I was an unbeliever -in the world- doing my thing. And now I am a twenty plus year believer. Drawn to making connections to a set of books about people who underwent similar and direct changes as me.
Speaking of Dr. Frances Collins. He speaks similarly about departing from atheism to theism.
Bottom line: We all speak to our convictions, situations, and circumstances.
By the way, WHAT happened to the Impasse? It seems to have "miraculously" disappeared from the process.
As did I.
But the logic is circular. The existential question is "can something come from nothing?" It's like trying to use logic to determine which point on a circle is the starting point.
That statement isn't any different than a expository justification for a priesthood whose authority is self-anointed and sustained by liturgical constraints. A priesthood always affirms itself using its own dogmatic logic.
There really are examples of something coming from nothing but the liturgy of science separates those examples into the metaphysical and spiritual. Science uses its own logic to claim that a physical manifestation of an existing metaphysical characteristic must originate from a physical cause. But the logical conclusion that an existing metaphysical characteristic comes from a intrinsic metaphysical property in nature is also appropriate.
Science is adept at describing the inanimate, non-sentient intrinsic properties of nature using physical laws. But there are metaphysical characteristics (such as sentience) existing in nature that are also observed. While concluding that observed metaphysical characteristics are regulated by intrinsic metaphysical properties of nature may be unscientific, that conclusion is not illogical.
So, you see, science is all about belief. Science believes that everything we observe can be explained by physical laws in spite of evidence to the contrary. Science answers questions about metaphysical characteristics with 'we don't know' but that answer is still based upon belief without evidence that the question will be answered with an explanation of a physical cause.
But the presumption is it already starts from the most complex thing possible, a sentient creator. So by definition, anything created must be simpler. So it's actually progressing from complex to simple.
That's only true for some organisms, like mammals for example. But not so for organisms like plants, algae, and the like.
Not quite. Evolution is how an organism changes to adapt to its environment. Evolving into more complex forms can be a part of that process. Social organization "evolves" if there is an evolutionary benefit to the species.
Religion refers to that as "god/s," depending on the religion. But some religions clearly mean god to be a sentient deity of some kind. There is no reason to assume such a thing though, nor is there any evidence for it.
Science doesn't go by faith. It goes by evidence. Science doesn't make assumptions based on faith, like religion does with the idea of god/s.
First you have to define god. And there is no evidence for any god/s, based on the current or most common descriptions.
If religion assumes the "first assumption" or cause, or whatever you want to call it is god, then that begs the question, Who or what created god?
Dogmatic logic seems to be an oxymoron and is probably based more on emotion than actual logic.
What metaphysical or spiritual are you referring to? Science doesn't deal with those things or what may be considered supernatural.
Such as? Be specific. Sentience exists because of our neuroanatomy and neurological complexity. But I suspect you are trying to explain supernatural sentience, such as gods, for which there is no evidence.
Wrong! Science doesn't go be belief. It goes by evidence. "belief" in science is more of an educated guess about a particular matter.
Wrong again. Science says "we don't know" because that is an honest answer to a question for which there is not enough information to answer. Religion makes the assumption along the lines of "god did it" to such questions.
There are those who believe that. Of course, that raises a logical contradiction regarding god, which TiG explains in his post.
"Not a great Plan!" --- Tony Stark, The Avengers.
That reasoning also negates the possibility of free will, which also logically contradicts beliefs in that regard.
Yeah: ' the Lord works in mysterious ways ' ...
My answer is 'no' due to the definition of 'nothing'. My answers have been that there has always been something. The question, of course, is what that 'something' is.
Impossible. One must redefine 'nothing' to make that a true statement.
I am not going to bother explaining this to you anymore Nerm. You are going to continue to play games with the word 'belief' and 'faith' and I am not interested in silly games.
Is it logical that God should explain every thang about the universe to a clutch of mere mortals? Impressed or not, only a fool would bear its "uttermost greatness" to a bunch of organic losers, who at times can barely hold fair elections on a single stage of the universe!
Best keep the "Uttermost and majestically fabulous" private, and 'critics' on a Need To Know basis. /s
HA!
The excuse 'the Lord works in mysterious ways' is used when dealing with contradictions in beliefs. It is a weak method to avoid facing a logical contradiction that would challenge one's faith. Just another trick in the bag ... and one that I am sure most everyone sees through.
Would it be logical, if you invented a new board game, to include instructions?
Would it be logical for an artist to indicate which direction their splatter painting should be hung?
I'm not saying that the lack of instructions proves God doesn't exist. I'm just pointing out that from a logical perspective, if some Gods intent was to create mankind and have them act is accordance with his will, follow his rules, well logic would conclude that some form of irrefutable instructions would be included.
I rather doubt that any artist would consider their own creations "organic losers" even if the fruit it bore was rotten. Where exactly would the blame lie in that case? Would the artist blame its creation for being so miserably imperfect? Would it assign it to the trash bin for not living up to the artists standards? Perhaps, but would the artist really blame the creation for his own reaction and decision to smash his creation for not meeting his own standards?
Tig, then, why don't you know the answer to all the universe's and eternity's questions already - in fact - and not mere theory? Actually, its because you are a "mere" human sitting here waiting for the "uttermost" to be revealed. A thing which may not happen in our lifetimes—if ever. So miss me with the arrogant diss. Even logic has to have some 'material' to work with! Or, it is mere sputtering. . . .
I am not sure, but I'd imagine even Stephen Hawkings knew when to 'let it alone' for the present. And your indirect platitude about science solving all the 'god-mysteries' of the universe -simply can't materialize. For not every area of being is approachable by the five senses you possess.
I did use the phrase, "Need to Know basis."
It would be really nice if God, who changes the heart and mind of men, women, boys and girls according to some unexplained outline, would have provided all the answers to life's problems, dilemmas, situations, confusions, spites, catastrophes, and in addition nailed a "CONTROL KNOB FOR THE WORLD'S ILLS" to the planet. Alas! I'd imagine evil humanity would want to stop good humanity from ever pressing it -No doubt.—If our history is any guide to the present.
Well, if you end up with 'trash' and 'stubborn stains' - what do you do?
Because reality is very complex and we have very limited tools even today with our (relatively) awesome sensory and computing technology.
Well if human beings literally waited for the 'uttermost' to be revealed we would never make progress. We would continue to fester in our own imaginations and invent 'truths' rather than discover same (at least get closer) through analysis of reality. Religion is like being stuck in a tar pit. Indeed, Arabs were originally leading scientific pursuits (before it was called science) until they got bogged down with Islam which then took over and pretty much killed advancement.
I have never suggested that science will solve all the 'god-mysteries' of the universe. You are again inventing your own facts. I will say that religion will demonstrably NOT solve these mysteries. Religion provides answers but not necessarily truth — as evidenced by the contradictions among and within religions.
Correct. Science moves us well past the limitations of our five senses. But it remains grounded by reality. Religion simply makes claims that it cannot and thus never does back up.
The epitome of arrogance is to claim certainty on that which cannot be proved true (or even evidenced for that matter). The better approach is to offer the best explanation one can that is backed up by solid evidence. And for the areas where the explanations currently escape us, the best answer is 'We do not know'. The arrogant answer is: 'I know .... God ....'.
And, I thought we were philosophizing about the essential nature and essence of the greatest possible entity and creation. Oops!
And you KNOW this how? I thought you were clear that the greatest possible entity can possibly exist, but you need confirming evidence. Have you been informed about something the rest of us have not? Do yo want to break news right now and deliver confirmation that the greatest possible entity is not and has no probability of being the God of the Bible?
We have faith in God and we live by it. It makes some of us better people - and, you like some of us because we are better people. There is a high probability you would not like some of us if we were godless. Now, I am sure you will ascribe all the best characteristics to the man with logic and reason, but sometimes logic and reason can be heartless, passionless, and compassion-less. At a moment such as that a myriad of unsavory possibilities come to the fore for selection.
Better to take changed individuals at their word, sometimes it is for the good of everybody. Rather than delude oneself into thinking that given logic and reason, all people would end up with near similar conclusions about life and their realities. I have seen and heard the accounts of plenty of persons who apart from spiritual realities now, have confessed to be heinous individuals. Their logic and reasoning 'world' was why the heaven not be dangerous, contemptible, and murderous, if you can get away with it. None of this matters if you can get away with it or are gone out of the world. Better to seek the good spirited and approachable in people while they are alive and able to be around you. For as we all can attest to, one person's logic and reason is another person's reason to act without any redeemable value.
So what? Do you need any more 'will' than you got at hand? Are you making maximum use of the will you possess now? What exactly would you do with more 'will' in your life? Please describe Gordy wielding ultimate free-will to us? What will your free will look like 'banked' by the rest of us? And if Gordy answered to no one or entity as ultimately 'loose' in the universe, then where would be order?
What mysteries has religion actually solved, and not made up baseless assumptions about?
I'd say that says a lot about one's innate character if they need a god to keep them in line.
People do have emotions and are capable of being passionate or compassionate, ect., even without god/religion. The problem is, some people reject logic and reason in favor of religious dogma and/or emotion.
The same can be said for people into religion/god. We see examples of this everyday too.
See previous statement.
Why? That just opens one up to being gullible.
Are you suggesting areligious people are dangerous in some way?
The same can be said of peoples religion too.
You missed the point. If there's a omniscient god or one with a "master plan" set in motion, then there is no such thing as free will at all. Only the illusion of free will.
Who said I don't answer to anyone? Are you suggesting we can't have "order" without a god?
Speculation. Also ignores the fact that there are some pretty nasty religious folks out there whose religion supports them in their nastiness.
Don't 'build' on a question before answering it for Tig! Thank you very much.
So, you write that to establish what? The implication being you find that only 'god people' have a problem with doing good? Really, Gordy? You have never seen an outlaw outside of religious venue? Never? Are you sure?
So just be rude to church people and assume they are liars and cheats, and that demonstrable actions don't effectively establish the truth of their words?
Yes, I am stating that many people who were bad folks, evil folks, murderous folks outside of walking with God will tell you from their own lips they needed and wanted to change their form of living. And are grateful for that change arriving in the form of church and new associations.
Gordy never said such a thing, and to arrive at this conclusion about his statement takes a good deal of dishonest and ill-willed twisting of his words.
Okay, then you should have stated that plainly at the first! Because I agree. We exist not in control of ourselves. And, we more or less have control only of the tinest amount of space beneath and inside of our bodies (if that). Still, it is more free will than any other captured form of life on this planet.
Actually, you missed the point. That being, someone has to be take charge and spell out what free-will consist of in usage and quantity, because if we all had ultimate free-will, one or several of us might just use it to erase the rest of us out of existence. Such an act or set of acts would be chaos.
Yeah but, most of those really demonstrably proven to be bad people claiming that Jesus somehow changed them all for the better are telling that story to parole boards consisting primarily of Christians...
Somehow in America Jesus turns our rapists, child molesters, murderers and robbers into innocent again and forgiven little lambs once they find Jesus in our prisons and jails.
Right...
Uh, I did. Was my statement "That reasoning also negates the possibility of free will, which also logically contradicts beliefs in that regard" not clear enough?
What do you base that claim on?
Don't play games and just answer the question.
You either have no idea what I said or intentionally misinterpreted what I said. Especially since that is not what I said at all.
No, it means don't take anybody's word, no questions asked or not without demonstrable action to support their words. Neither did I say anything about being rude to people. That's an invention on your part. But you didn't say anything about actions. Here is what you said: "Better to take changed individuals at their word, sometimes it is for the good of everybody."
Those are your words, not mine. I'm not sure why you're replying to yourself here.
Do you not understand the concept of free will? It seems you're saying we don't have free will at all. Is that correct? The rest of that statement seems like paranoid nonsense.
I wasn't necessarily asking for a panacea to all our problems, just some general instructions for mankind from an irrefutable source so we didn't have to fight among ourselves as to who should decide between good and bad.
JBB what is this you are sharing? Even in jail people change and come out of jail EARLY because of spiritual change and NEVER go back again. Surely, you have seen some accounts of this?! Please tell me you have and are informed. Moreover, there are people changed in prison who help others suffering through their "crises" of prison life through smoother transitioning in and out of prison. All through the love of God they credit from their lips. Finally, there are people suffering form a multiplicity of ailments and mental disorders in our prison system who get better in prison, because of revelatory changes in their hearts which is attributed to God. ("If someone has done something good for you say so.") And so they testify to the changemaker in their captured lives, even going on to death in prison, 'comfortable' and at peace because they have repented and done what all or little they could inside the joint to evidence they ended up well.
Their spoken spiritual confessions are in their mouths. Only a cynic would sneer at truth when it is looking him or her right in the face. Yes, anybody in or out of prison can produce and output "major league" lies and personal distortions of the truth, but that is what experience and discernment is all about. One learns to detect 'hook' from 'crook.'
You have not established that this is truth.
You believe, and state that some others believe, that it is truth. Belief does not create truth.
No its not clear enough, particularly near the end. If others have to figure it out - it does not come across well enough. Just saying. You can do better at communication. That said, I reckon we all can work on our pithy comments and improve their sharing values.
Did you even bother to read my posts? Because I offered a clarified statement in my post 6.1.49, "If there's a omniscient god or one with a "master plan" set in motion, then there is no such thing as free will at all. Only the illusion of free will."
Is that clear enough for you?
Ditto.
Good grief! Let's pretend you have never taken anybody at their word. What make believe. Furthermore, it is childish to pretend you are not old enough to understand what I meant. This is an internet comment board, we do not have to be so formal with everything. Live a little.
When I discuss matters with certain people holding the BS together across threads is draining and taxing on the brain. So. . . .just do the best you can with it. I will not waste my time on any lost comment today or tonight.
Okay for lips and giggles: Explain free will to me, Gordy. Please help me understand. I really need your smarts.
Because religions have no objective method for determining if what they profess has any bearing on truth. This is why religions contradict each other.
A sentient creator might exist. And yes, there has been zero evidence thus far.
Sure. I have explained this many times. The God of the Bible is defined by the Bible. The definition, per the Bible, is self-contradicting. Anything defined as a contradiction cannot possibly exist (as defined). So while a sentient creator might exist, the God of the Bible absolutely does not.
Yep. A panacea, it is. Because so-called "free-thinkers" could not possible want the Creator to park it in the public square and give out any "general" instructions that must at once be obeyed. That would destroy all hope of not understanding and 'wilding it.' Irrefutable sources have irrefutable demands that can not be ignored. Not sure any of us are 'built' for that kind of tasking. Because performing undeniable good can involve a multiplicity of excruciating scenarios in a world like ours.
I agree that religion does seem to provide an anchor which is net beneficial to the believer. That does not make the religion true, but certainly a comforting belief, even if false, can be beneficial. For example, I would never suggest to a dying man that his lifelong belief in Heaven is very likely just stories invented by ordinary human beings. His religion comforts him and that is a good thing.
If someone says that their religion makes them a better person I have no reason to doubt them. Again, that does not mean anything regarding the truth of their beliefs.
Who thinks that?? Do you think this is how atheists think?? People will always have different perspectives on life because all the answers are not available. Logic and reason cannot fill in for all missing information.
No doubt. (see above) This is actually a strawman, but I have been answering you nonetheless.
Yeah. I've full. Thanks. (Smile.)
Yeah. Thanks! (Smile.)
Yes! Yes! Yes! I'm good.
I'll take someone at their word if I have reason to trust them. Otherwise, I'm going to need more than just their word.
I could say the same about you. Especially when I need to explain free will to you.
Spare me the rhetoric.
I see you can't or won't answer the question.
Here's a hint: free will requires a non-omniscient god or one without any "plan."
Spare me your rhetoric.
If it is possible to know what one will do before they do it then free will is simply an illusion. The ability to know a choice before it is made means that reality is deterministic (one big causal chain). Like a movie. One can repeatedly play a movie but the actors will always make the same choices and all of reality is always the same — every individual drop of rain falls exactly the same way as it did before. In a deterministic reality, free will is an illusion (no matter how real it feels).
True free will requires that one be able to choose in real time and that means reality is not deterministic but rather forged incrementally in the present. The future for a non-deterministic reality cannot be knowable.
Interesting. If something challenges a belief, that something is deemed 'BS'. That is how such beliefs persist in spite of the obvious hints (from reality itself) that they should be reconsidered. The trap of confirmation bias coupled with the religious master-stroke that gets believers to believe that even questioning their beliefs is a failing ... Satan working his evil.
Or "pseudoscience conspiracy by godless scientists," right? How often have we seen that?
Indeed. That, or the threats of Hell or the promise of Heaven if people challenge or conform to religious belief respectively.
So? Let's have some fun:
Or, is there a chance that none of us know what we will in the *snap instance* where the decisions are many, equally good, but few timely?
Nice "academic" exercise. Freewill at the God level is for God. Humans are not entirely free or we would not be 'trapped' by gravity on this planet! Slowly evolving truth and understanding about an "infinitely" old universe. No one is arguing that our limited choices and freewill is equal to "universal" choice. Or some such word as that. So let's move off of that. Humanity has limited choice based on many factors in the world.
I'm distracted. I have to run.
You're one to speak at me about confirmation bias, I can't even put you on [fill in the blank] and make it hold. See, there are always means and tools available for the shoe to never quite fit everybody, even when it is the same size. It's called: a stacked deck. Feels a lot like what the Senate is setting up to do in the Trump trial. Rig it.
It's more likely your arguments themselves are weak and don't hold up to logical scrutiny. This is made quite evident with your word games, invention of facts, ect..
Speaking of "the other shoe. . . ." Here it is! No room left in the toe of it! Thanks Gordy, I see you had no freewill, it was deemed by outside forces that you would chime in at this exact moment.
Don't get mad at us or personal just because your arguments are weak and flawed. That's your fault, not ours.
There has been no rigging of the system. It was an error in the programming. Our CoC clearly states that the author of the seed owns the seed, and therefore can not be cut off from any part of the discussion. It is something to keep in mind when entering a discussion.
The above depends upon whether or not we really have free will. Note, I have not argued that we do not have free will. I have noted the consequences of having free will (or not).
Also, you seem to think that the absence of free will means that something is deciding ahead of time. That is not at all the concept. Reality could be deterministic (meaning we would not have free will) even if there is no sentient entity at play. A deterministic reality simply means that everything is connected in a causal chain. Cause and effect operating at below the particle level. Even if nobody can understand this causal chain, its presence means the future is knowable and thus all choices are knowable before they occur. Free will, in this case, is an illusion.
I am discussing free will out of the context of God. The concept is fully defined whether or not God exists. It is just that free will has a direct correlation with a knowable future (deterministic reality). Thus if free will exists, the future is not knowable. If the future is not knowable, omniscience is not possible. Ergo one of many contradictions in the definition of the biblical God. And, of course, this is why you refuse to even attempt to comprehend what we are explaining. If you understood you would have to face the contradiction. Confirmation bias filters this out.
This is the critical problem with religion: holding that one's faith is infallible — that it cannot be wrong. What does not match the faith-based belief is categorically dismissed as wrong. Learning is hobbled; confirmation bias reigns supreme. This is what leads people to distort reality to fit their preconceived faith-based notions. They are operating in a fantasy. On one extreme, it is just a little, harmless fantasy. On the other extreme (e.g. Islamic terrorists) the fantasy is deadly.
Science, for example, never declares its theories to be truth; the presumption of being wrong exists in every theory of science. Religion, however, holds the presumption of truth and the presumption of infallibility. How someone cannot see the flaw in that system of reasoning is rather fascinating.
You are clearly not understanding. Free will does not mean there are no constraints.
Free will does not mean unlimited choice. No wonder you do not understand this concept, you keep tossing in notions that have not been suggested. It is as though you are trying your best to not understand.
The definition of nothing is 'no thing'. The absence of something describes nonexistence. The presence of something describes existence. We can observe that specific things are absent and then present and then absent again. That is the cycle of individual birth, life, and death. A specific individual does not exist, exists for a time, and then no longer exists.
Can something come from nothing? Can existence come from nonexistence? A first assumption that everything emerges from matter and energy which must have always existed in some form constrains the logic to physical reality. But we also observe non-physical (or metaphysical) characteristics and properties in nature. Sentience, as an example, cannot be described in the same manner as matter and energy. Sentience is an observed non-physical characteristic rather than a physical characteristic of nature.
Did subjectivity create itself? Physical reality described by the laws of physics is not subjective. Where did subjectivity come from if not from nothing?
Science accepts inductive assumptions without evidence all the time. Science quite often applies general knowledge to specific conditions through inductive analogy rather than by direct evidence. Science is not always guided by evidence; particularly theoretical science.
You seek to claim that absence of something is different than nothing? That the following are not effectively equivalent?:
Semantic games are pointless.
Assumptions and hypotheses. Not theories. A bona-fide theory of science must be falsifiable.
Based on a foundation of evidence. String theory, for example, is not strictly a theory of science because it is not falsifiable. It is an hypothesis based largely on mathematical models. However, string theory is rooted in our modern understanding of physics which is based on empirical observation and verification.
You will not succeed in relaxing the discipline of science so that it becomes a religion.
If I was mad at you. . . you would know it, Gordy. And this is not personal. If you think it is personal, maybe your logic is flawed.
I don't want to talk about it, for it would only bring more of the same. Thank you for your answer. I am sure it helps in this situation.
Of course, our reality is connected to the forces in, around, and governing us. The question is by whom or what if you prefer? Do you know all the circumstances that will be provided to you in say the next half hour? Can you rattle off how you plan to respond to each individual circumstance? Will you state whatever course of action you decide is the 'right' course in the causal chain as predetermined? Is the future knowable - if you are surprised by attitudes, circumstanced, and your attitudes when they appear?
We live in a 'captive' world. Our very existence depends on breathing oxygen and even then we need the ability to have working lungs. We are captives. However, all things being equal, we are not robotic captives. We have measurable freewill being captives afford us as temporal beings. (Yes, I threw in the 'spiritual' reference extra.)
Indeed.
Nobody knows.
The fact that we are surprised (that we learn things) has nothing to do with whether or not the future is knowable. We are surprised because we are not omniscient. None of us, for example, can know the future even if the future is knowable.
How do you know this?
How do you know that we have free will?
No, that is an incorrect and false interpretation of what I wrote. Nothing is defined as 'no thing'; nothing is defined as the absence of something. 'No thing' or the absence of something is nonexistence.
None of us were a 'thing' until we were conceived. None of us existed before conception. Our sentience did not exist, our personalities did not exist, and our subjectivity did not exist before conception. Each of us possess a unique subjectivity that did not exist before we were conceived.
Did that subjectivity create itself? Physical reality described by the laws of physics is not subjective. Where did subjectivity come from if not from nothing?
And I am accused of pointless semantics? Yes, the liturgy of science, as with any other religious liturgy, affirms a priesthood with its own dogmatic circular logic.
A theory describes nature; a theory does not define nature. By the same measure, a Bible describes God; a Bible does not define God. The Bible is as much a theory as is evolution or string theory.
Science accepts inductive assumptions without evidence in the same manner as does religion. And science either ignores what cannot be quantified or attempts to explain what cannot be quantified by analogy in the same manner as does religion. The significant distinction between science and religion is that science attempts to explain physical reality and religion attempts to explain spiritual reality.
Science is not a religion only because science is grounded in physical reality while denying the possibility of a spiritual reality. But science utilizes liturgy, dogma, and circular logic to affirm a priesthood in the same manner as religion. The functional distinction between science and religion is really about semantic differences rather than how either are practiced.
I did not say anything about "learning." We are surprised because you, me, others add something to the future's "ingredients" through our actions and other dynamics.
The tone of your reply seemed rather defensive.
Well, that is a good question. Do you feel manipulated, steered, guided solely by the causal chain? My replies to you are not compelled, maybe even not intuited, because reason (and statements by some others, suggest that I should have given up on this with you some time ago. (Probably, vice-versa.)
Your tone seems rather routinely dismissive.
Depends on the claims made and how well they are backed up.
Maybe I should ask you to connect and compare your @6.1.79 "I have not argued that we do not have free will. I have noted the consequences of having free will (or not). "
Next, that which you quoted was not the finished result of my comment:
We have sufficient enough freewill similar to our needs as mortal beings. BTW, with our discoveries in other disciplines (including religion), we give ourselves and other humans more freewill choices. It is evidenced, for example, by medicines which had another 'lifetime of choices,' and spirituality which affects behaviors.
Now, you're being defensive. If I can only interact with you by entering your matrix or matrices, then you are not sufficiently diversified.
Seemed like you were trying to distinguish 'nothing' from 'nonexistence'.
You assert that science is not a religion and then argue that science is functionally the same as religion.
I am really tired of comments that offer rebuttals for claims not made. Yes, Nerm, a theory of science does not define nature. Thanks.
You do not realize that 'surprise' is a resulting of learning something that you did not know? I am not going to limit my responses to the specific words you use. Your rebuttal does not seem to be different in meaning than what I claimed.
Did you miss my point about 'illusion'? How does an agent not realizing the she has no free will (that her actions are part of a grand causal chain) mean that she has free will?
How do you know you have free will? All you are saying is that it feels as though you have free will.
My statement is clear. I have made no claim that we have free will or that we lack free will.
How do you know we have any free will?
How is that evidence of free will?
Think of the movie 'The Matrix'. The reality of the humans attached to the matrix machinery seems perfectly normal to them yet it is all an illusion. They are 'within the movie' so to speak. If we lack free will, we would not be able to detect it.
Then Tig, do not be surprised (learn something) when I ask you not to continuously pick at my words. Dig Tig?
Surprise (startle; amazement; dumbfounded) is what I was after. You did'nt connect to any of those attributes for the word.
Still, thank you. To be square with you, you did your "definition" next to the word, "surprise."
I have limited/measurable freewill. It is that which we are experiencing in this exchange. That is how I know I have it
Nothing is compelling you to stick with this. Exception: You want to. You choose to. Whatever governing your want is based on your character makeup. Those characteristics being inseparable (and not you apart from you) from the you that I experience.
Tig, do you feel manipulated, steered, guided solely by the causal chain?
Did you write this: "Free will, in this case, is an illusion."
How should I interpret it so as to speak about it? Please share. Free will the illusion, a distorted reality? Free will or lacking free will depending on the case?
How is it clear?
Any? You mean separate from your "free will illusion" above? Is distorted reality yet reality?
How is that evidence of free will? Simple. We are around to continue making limited choices within this 'container' we are sentient in.
If we lack free will, we would not be able to detect it. Good question and you should answer it, after all you are the one who points out - "Free will, in this case, is an illusion."
You know you have free will because you deem this exchange free will. That is circular. How do you know we are exercising free will right now?
How do you know this?
Where do you get the idea that the lack of free will would be noticeable?
You do not understand what the phrase 'in this case' means?
Yeah, it means I can read it as so: 'Freewill is an illusion - in one or more cases.'
Incidentally, you really should let the timer clock out on editing; you may be missing 'components' (words, phrases, concepts) to the trains of thought happening in your rush to comment.
Circular my butt. I am experiencing limited free will, you can label it anything you might wish. A rose by a different name. . .
Furthermore, you can not tell me free will is an illusion and not involve free will as the subject.
That is way too abstract and does not represent what I wrote:
Look what I colored in blue. Those two thoughts are connected together. In short, the operative thought is this:
Reality could be deterministic ... free will, in this case, is an illusion.
How do you know you have any level of free will? (I am done asking this now since clearly you will not answer but just repeat your claim of (in effect) you 'just know'.)
Well good. Because you are not quite answering any thing asked of you! This really is not as complex a sharing as you are "pretzeling: it into.
Incidentally, I am 'turning blue in the face over here' because I have repeated given away all my oxygen telling you that we exercise limited free will as in a captured being in the universe's container or words to that effect. My examples and word illustrations are above.
Here have one more. Consider that God is independent from creation. God has 'evolved' us in our own corner of the universe that God has placed us in. God in the role as creator-parent checks in every so often in "God-time" to see how we are coming along in our "room." In our room, we, humanity are in charge, we have the ability to open, close, explode, implode, loose, tigthen, and any other sets of laws of opposites are available to us to deploy at our discretion.
As long as we are given a measure of control, then a measure of control we have over our environment to learn about it and to move it even. Is it total unrestricted control - of course not! No way no how. But, it is the control God supplies to us in our 'corner of the universe' on a very bluish planet.
But since my answers translate into something that you simply cannot face, nothing is getting through.
Well that would depend on who is doing the reading now wouldn't it. You have your opinions and you are not shy about sharing them that is certainly true. I do too. However, let's get one thing clear there are no know it all's in here. So the responsible thing is to share ideas, not try to stifle other people's ideas that are equally valid and worthy of consideration.
Moreover, it would be a helpful practice to not try to drill down on a point too soo hard and long. As time lapses, half the time, what initiated the 'point' in the first place is lost in 'transit.' And, for my part, I am going like, "what were we talking 'bout originally?" Holding several 'topics' in our heads is really tasking us, in my opinion.
Don't take any of this personal. Because I mean it generally-speaking. (Smile. 'Big toothy.')
Making the claim without backing it up accomplishes nothing. You seem to think that by noting that free will is NECESSARILY limited that you have in some odd way argued that free will exists. Your logic is not working.
How do you think that supports your claim that we necessarily have free will?
You again simply assert that we have free will (a measure of control). No argument, just a claim.
Then take you advice and do not simply claim truths. Nobody cares about what one claims. What matters is your ability to back up your claim.
Your claim that we have free will because, in effect, 'you just know' is ridiculous.
Not at all.
That makes no sense.
How do you know this exchange wasn't pre-meditated?
That is just what I am writing about at @6.1.109. You imply my examples an illustrations are not valid, effective, passable or words to that effect, but you write words like this:
Your "free will illusion" is a claim about free will. Moreover if you can not detect free will or the lack of free will-how are you detecting its illusionary form?
No it is not. More proof that you have no clue what I have written. I do not claim that free will is an illusion. Spend more time reading and less time inventing strawman arguments.
I have not claimed that free will exists or that it does not exist. I have been explaining the concept of free will as it relates to determinism — to a knowable future. It is all in my comments. But you have to read them to understand what I actually wrote.
Assuming you mean this as nobody understands the causal chain; then, how are you understanding it to be knowable?
see @ 6.1.114
@6.1.7 Reality could be deterministic ... free will, in this case, is an illusion.
You can parse this 'salad' all day and night long. If you want to. However, don't take readers for fools. You are stating it. If you don't like that you are stating it change the construction and admit to the change. However, I resent your attempts to telling me that I have gotten old and grey and can't comprehend words and their meaning in a sentence.
Don't like what you say: chance what or how you write it. Be clear.
@ 6.1.117
And at what point does your insistence become a weak claim of some kind? I mean you drop in several weak qualifiers and then start pounding them down often, hard, and heavy: you think I don't notice you are not projecting confident over the top ? Don't be ridiculous.
Not by moi!
Well let me break it down: You could listen to other people's points of view, consider the points, and if at long last you reject it - at least end it without the long drawn out histrionics which play out here all to often.
Operative words. No claim is being made.
Perhaps you should follow your own advice.
Can you believe this guy?
He takes this from me (arguing that I claimed that free will is an illusion):
I then show him how these thoughts are actually connected in terms a high school student could understand:
And he cherry-picks to get this:
Trying to claim that I stated that free will is an illusion . Too bad I already wrote my article on Intellectual (dis)Honesty. This would have been a great example.
Exactly. Cherry-picking. Poorly at that.
Perhaps you should too, Gordy.
Yeah, just wordy enough to convey enough meaning to be mealy-mouthed. Intellectual dishonesty - you are not the only one who thinks he has an example to put on display. For all the good it will accomplish, that is.
See ya! This has been another episodic routine 'chore' and it went about like 'regular.' Well, SOMEBODY has to do it - why NOT me?
I see only one person engaging in histrionics. It's not Gordy or TiG. To accuse them of such is one of the more blatant instances of projection I've ever come across.
Unfortunately, it is par for the course.
Like peas in a pod, confirming one another . . .
So special.
Point out where I offered any!
"It is a contract with an opening paragraph but no details ."
Sounds just like a "Political" thingy to me !
Besides...."Belief" is supposed to be a "Personal" thingy. Waaaaaay too many people make it "Everyone's Business"..... for "Points" !
If you like it....it's your business.... Keep it that way !
If you don't like it....Your business......Keep it that way !
I ams what I ams …... I Believe …..And I really don't care if ya wannna make "Hay of it" or not !
This "God" thing about how he/she is or isn't ....has gotten to the point of "Passing" the Stupid meters limits !
Tell that to those who think it's their "mission" to present or push their beliefs on to others. There are those here on NT alone who fit that description.
That's good advice. But again, there are those who want to make it their business to intrude into other peoples business.
Like you do ?
When did you become ......… different ?
"Intellectually" speaking that is.
What "beliefs" have I pushed onto anyone exactly? I respond and challenge claims based on belief when someone wants to tout their beliefs as truth or fact, especially when it is contradicted by actual evidence and science.
Don't forget.... there is NO PROOF WHAT-SO-EVER, one way or another on this matter.
Sooooo You "Challenge".....Based on …. what now ?
Could it be a Simple ….Belief..... on your part ?
There's also not a shred of empirical evidence either. And yet, some people still make affirmative claims and/or declare them as truth when they have no proof/evidence to support those claims.
If you are familiar with my posts, then you know I challenge the claims made, especially when there is no proof/evidence offered to support those claims. Or when such claims flies in the face of established facts or science.
Not even a little.
And yet, some people still make affirmative claims and/or declare them as truth when they have no proof/evidence to support those claims.
Actually that sort of thing (making claims without having anything to support them) is pretty much the norm on social media sites such as NT.....(but then anyone who's been online for any length of times already knows that, eh?
)
Unfortunately true.
That's blasphemy!
If you don't stop there's always the possibility that you will roast in HellFire for all Eternity!
(Or not. I dunno-- after all it seems pretty obvious that that's impossible to prove either way....)