Theology IV

[Lief Erikson]

Gwaimir, I responded to you in the last post of the previous page.

I'll just add here, thanks for the support . This is veeery time consuming .

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Lol, well, that kind of ends my interest in this discussion

I didn't notice your post 111 until just now. If you're still interested in continuing, I could respond to it. But if you're not interested in pursuing this further, I guess I won't.

Thanks for responding at length. I appreciate the thoroughness of that post .

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Gwaimir, I responded to you in the last post of the previous page.

I'll just add here, thanks for the support . This is veeery time consuming .

I didn't notice your post 111 until just now. If you're still interested in continuing, I could respond to it. But if you're not interested in pursuing this further, I guess I won't.

Thanks for responding at length. I appreciate the thoroughness of that post .

I think this quote shows my view of your arguments Lief, think about it!

"For every human problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and
wrong." - H. L. Mencken.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Yet I'd say that our correct premises can only be established through divine revelation, because of the limitations of the human mind.

People's premises for their moral systems vary widely.

Aristotle has it that we derive our premises through the process of induction, seeing many particulars which allows us to come to a universal.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Yet I'd say that our correct premises can only be established through divine revelation, because of the limitations of the human mind.

This is wishful thinking, written to further your religious belief in the supremacy of a God over us human beings. But you make an amateurish error when you presume that the human mind is incapable of dealing with the deeper challenges that science, the Earth and the Universe keeps.

I believe, a particularly self-contradictory view that you hold, is this view. Because when you color the human mind as greatly fallible you forget that the rigid views you write so certainly about are as much prone to being in error as anyone else's. If the human mind is so limited, how can you claim to convey any message by a God. You are after all, human.

Luckily, I don't hold that view. I believe the human mind is very able-bodied. And the notion that it is beyond our capabilities to truly reveal the presence of a God or Gods, for all to see, is laughable.
Everything that exists has a.. identity. There is nothing that has no properties. If it doesn't, it does not exist. However flexible the standards of measurement sometimes prove to be when we encounter fantastic properties and phenomena (mostly in outer space, far removed from the physics of our Earth), they are still that: standards of measurement. And when the human mind is grappling with the notion of infinite spaces, and infinite processes, there is no telling how complex and how deep the human mind is capable of reaching.

Aristotle called us the 'rational animal', and I agree with Gwaimir on this point: because a view of the world, and a understanding of science, and even history, that is not consistent with evidence, logical reasoning or observable facts: is basically an abuse of the mind, and throwing away not the gift that a God or Gods has given us, but something far more unique, a complexity of mind developed over millions of years in a species that took the extraordinary leap from the perceptual to the conceptual.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Aristotle has it that we derive our premises through the process of induction, seeing many particulars which allows us to come to a universal.

Which works up to a point. But it isn't altogether reliable, because of the limitations of human beings. For example, people all over the world in past millenniums thought that the world was flat. That was their observation. No matter how many people they talked to and no matter how far they travelled, that was what appeared to them to be the case. So they induced a universal.

Human perception is very limited. It's hard to know whether your mathematics have reached a point where you have enough particulars to state the universal as a constant. There's always so much more to know. So it's a tricky one.

Reason is absolutely wonderful, beautiful. Wisdom, according to Proverbs, was the first of God's creations, if I recall correctly. Human reason needs divine revelation, though, to have reliably correct conclusions.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

This is wishful thinking, written to further your religious belief in the supremacy of a God over us human beings. But you make an amateurish error when you presume that the human mind is incapable of dealing with the deeper challenges that science, the Earth and the Universe keeps.

I believe, a particularly self-contradictory view that you hold, is this view. Because when you color the human mind as greatly fallible you forget that the rigid views you write so certainly about are as much prone to being in error as anyone else's. If the human mind is so limited, how can you claim to convey any message by a God. You are after all, human.

I don't believe that any human in the world understands the full meaning of what is in the Scripture. God's words, I am convinced, are far fuller of meaning than we can comprehend. However, I also know that an intelligent software programmer talking to a bunch of students might know that they're incapable of understanding as much as he wants them to understand, so he simplifies his message to get to them the main points he wants them to understand that he feels they can understand.

I think God does the same thing with us. So he sends us simplified messages, messages that our intellects can understand. And as we grow in knowledge, we come to see more and more in those messages, just as human students of a software scientist might come to understand what he's talking about better and better as they learn the subject more thoroughly.

To say that humans have got to be so puny compared to God that he can make nothing clear to them is putting limits on God, saying he can't simplify messages in a way that enables humans to understand basics he wants them to understand. Here you're talking less about human limitations than you are about divine limitations.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Luckily, I don't hold that view. I believe the human mind is very able-bodied. And the notion that it is beyond our capabilities to truly reveal the presence of a God or Gods, for all to see, is laughable.
Everything that exists has a.. identity. There is nothing that has no properties. If it doesn't, it does not exist.

I agree with most of this. I agree that something with no properties doesn't exist. I disagree that humans must be able to perceive those properties themselves for them to exist (if that's what you're saying). We can't perceive all the properties of the universe. That doesn't mean they do not exist. If we can't understand all the properties of the universe, but accept that many exist that are beyond our knowledge, it is absurd for us to expect that current scientific development should enable us to hammer out all the properties of any God or gods.

However, science is, I believe, a very useful tool in revealing the nature of God, because, like you, I think it has come to a lot of very sophisticated conclusions. It is very useful, as are other modern intellectual disciplines- archaeology, ancient history scholarship, etc. They don't always come to correct conclusions, but they make a lot of good ones.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

However flexible the standards of measurement sometimes prove to be when we encounter fantastic properties and phenomena (mostly in outer space, far removed from the physics of our Earth), they are still that: standards of measurement.

Interesting. I'd call Earth itself a "fantastic phenomena." Would you disagree with that assessment?

And these standards often have to become more nuanced, as knowledge expands.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

And when the human mind is grappling with the notion of infinite spaces, and infinite processes, there is no telling how complex and how deep the human mind is capable of reaching.

Because we are too limited to know that .

The human mind is glorious, I agree. But no scientist will say we can be sure we have correct premises. He might say that given the available evidence, this is by far the most reasonable conclusion. That is certainly valid. He won't say that given the available evidence, there is no other conclusion possible, no matter what additional evidence might come up in future centuries.

We can't be sure of our premises. We can come up with educated opinions. Because of the strong human uncertainty element, we, as people, require faith in God. God has to show us things for us to be sure of them, and we are sure because of faith. And we have faith because we know and love God, just as I might have faith in my Dad's word if he tells me what the family plans for today are, because I know him well and we have a loving relationship.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Aristotle called us the 'rational animal', and I agree with Gwaimir on this point: because a view of the world, and a understanding of science, and even history, that is not consistent with evidence, logical reasoning or observable facts: is basically an abuse of the mind, and throwing away not the gift that a God or Gods has given us, but something far more unique, a complexity of mind developed over millions of years in a species that took the extraordinary leap from the perceptual to the conceptual.

I'm going to just allow us to suppose, for the sake of argument, that Christianity is in fact inconsistent with evidence, logical reasoning and observable facts.

Let's say your wife is accused of murder. They have lots of evidence, logical reasoning and observable facts to back the case. The evidence purporting that she is not guilty is much weaker. However, you know her. Because of your deeply intimate knowledge of her personality and of who she is, because of your relationship with her, you can feel absolutely sure that their evidence is wrong.

Is your knowledge of her from that relationship enough to justify a personal belief in her innocence (obviously it's not going to be enough for the jury- I mean just for you as a person), or are you bound by reason to lay all that extra knowledge you have of what she is like aside and draw your conclusions purely by the facts acceptable in court proceedings, and by the conclusions of their jury, based on those facts?

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Human perception is very limited. It's hard to know whether your mathematics have reached a point where you have enough particulars to state the universal as a constant. There's always so much more to know. So it's a tricky one.

You'll have to be more specific about the particulars and the constant Lief.
Your making a big, fuzzy generalization about mathematics and science, but what is it that you are arguing?

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Reason is absolutely wonderful, beautiful. Wisdom, according to Proverbs, was the first of God's creations, if I recall correctly. Human reason needs divine revelation, though, to have reliably correct conclusions.

That's demonstrably false as people who have believed in nothing and who have demonstrably reached conclusions in a process that is devoid of divinity (a clear step-by-step approach) are not reliant on a God or Gods. They reasoned it for themselves. That's the brilliance of the human mind. It can work entirely independent by conceptualizing. No magic, only reason.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I don't believe that any human in the world understands the full meaning of what is in the Scripture. God's words, I am convinced, are far fuller of meaning than we can comprehend. However, I also know that an intelligent software programmer talking to a bunch of students might know that they're incapable of understanding as much as he wants them to understand, so he simplifies his message to get to them the main points he wants them to understand that he feels they can understand.

I think God does the same thing with us. So he sends us simplified messages, messages that our intellects can understand. And as we grow in knowledge, we come to see more and more in those messages, just as human students of a software scientist might come to understand what he's talking about better and better as they learn the subject more thoroughly.

A point I have made earlier, which needs repeating.
If this were the case, that God needs tools, i.e. simplification, i.e. a book, to convey the message that he exists then your God is a really inefficient God. He gets an F for poor employee management.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

To say that humans have got to be so puny compared to God that he can make nothing clear to them is putting limits on God, saying he can't simplify messages in a way that enables humans to understand basics he wants them to understand. Here you're talking less about human limitations than you are about divine limitations.

This is a non-starter. Irrelevant as this would only be a challenge to a person who believes in a God or Gods.
The problem of divine limitations? Putting limits on God? I find it boring, uninteresting, because I don't believe in a God.
Coincidentally that is a classic contradiction in religion, and a reason to pause: That which happens in the area of religion all the time; having to make up new, more complex answers to improbabilities, which again poses new questions with even more complex and contradictory answers. Your God is simply too riddled in contradiction and improbability to be real. It's just not plausible!

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I agree with most of this. I agree that something with no properties doesn't exist. I disagree that humans must be able to perceive those properties themselves for them to exist (if that's what you're saying). We can't perceive all the properties of the universe. That doesn't mean they do not exist. If we can't understand all the properties of the universe, but accept that many exist that are beyond our knowledge, it is absurd for us to expect that current scientific development should enable us to hammer out all the properties of any God or gods.

But that is irrelevant, because if you think about the teachings that your religion promotes and the (il)logic that it teaches, finding proof of a God should be the simplest matter ever to concern a human being. This God is after all supposed to be omnipresent! There should be the equivalent of zero scientific education and development involved for a human being to fathom the existence of a God. And yet, even the most devout of Christians can't show a shred of verifiable, consistent, non-contradictory, scientific, transparent and repeatable evidence for this God. Shocking?... Yes. Am I surprised? No.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

However, science is, I believe, a very useful tool in revealing the nature of God, because, like you, I think it has come to a lot of very sophisticated conclusions. It is very useful, as are other modern intellectual disciplines- archaeology, ancient history scholarship, etc. They don't always come to correct conclusions, but they make a lot of good ones.

It's interesting that you keep repeating the term 'correct', as if your personally sitting there with the Encyclopedia of Everything, checking answers up against the Divine as you go along...

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Interesting. I'd call Earth itself a "fantastic phenomena." Would you disagree with that assessment?

You completely missed the point I was making lol.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The human mind is glorious, I agree. But no scientist will say we can be sure we have correct premises. He might say that given the available evidence, this is by far the most reasonable conclusion. That is certainly valid. He won't say that given the available evidence, there is no other conclusion possible, no matter what additional evidence might come up in future centuries.

We can't be sure of our premises. We can come up with educated opinions. Because of the strong human uncertainty element, we, as people, require faith in God. God has to show us things for us to be sure of them, and we are sure because of faith. And we have faith because we know and love God, just as I might have faith in my Dad's word if he tells me what the family plans for today are, because I know him well and we have a loving relationship.

I'm going to just allow us to suppose, for the sake of argument, that Christianity is in fact inconsistent with evidence, logical reasoning and observable facts.

Let's say your wife is accused of murder. They have lots of evidence, logical reasoning and observable facts to back the case. The evidence purporting that she is not guilty is much weaker. However, you know her. Because of your deeply intimate knowledge of her personality and of who she is, because of your relationship with her, you can feel absolutely sure that their evidence is wrong.

Is your knowledge of her from that relationship enough to justify a personal belief in her innocence (obviously it's not going to be enough for the jury- I mean just for you as a person), or are you bound by reason to lay all that extra knowledge you have of what she is like aside and draw your conclusions purely by the facts acceptable in court proceedings, and by the conclusions of their jury, based on those facts?

But you see Lief, this hypothetical wife I've mine I have in fact seen, spoken to, lived a life with, married, touched and sensed. Your equating your God with a hypothetical wife of mine?
And whatever opinions I might have about her non-guilt I'd be happy to tell the prosecuters, which they'd accordingly take into consideration.
Irrelevant example.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

You'll have to be more specific about the particulars and the constant Lief.
Your making a big, fuzzy generalization about mathematics and science, but what is it that you are arguing?

I already gave an example: The flat Earth. Observable no matter how far you walk, universally agreed on by all observors. Until you make new discoveries and the particulars from which you're coming to a universal change.

That is one example from the history of men a long time ago. More modern examples also exist . . . The contradictions between Quantum Mechanics and the Theory of Relativity, for instance. People in Quantum Mechanics and people in General Relativity have taken the particulars in their field and come to the logical conclusions, and they found the theories to reveal inconsistent results. Why? An insufficient number of particulars, as yet. More particulars, or data, often change the look of the results.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

That's demonstrably false as people who have believed in nothing and who have demonstrably reached conclusions in a process that is devoid of divinity (a clear step-by-step approach) are not reliant on a God or Gods. They reasoned it for themselves.

The conclusions they reach might be disagreed with by broad scientific consensus in a few hundred years. I was talking about, "reliably correct conclusions."

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

A point I have made earlier, which needs repeating.
If this were the case, that God needs tools, i.e. simplification, i.e. a book, to convey the message that he exists then your God is a really inefficient God. He gets an F for poor employee management.

The book is not the proof that he exists. That's the way Muslims do things- the Qur'an is their proof of Allah. The words in the book reveal the character of God. The power of the words and the truth of that book are one way in which the reality of that God becomes revealed to people. I'm not talking about their ability to make an impression on people- all kinds of documents have done that. I'm talking about the power of those words to work wonders in people's spiritual and physical lives. And to create miracles. Etc.

That's just one layer of supportive evidence among many.

I've described other layers of that evidence here many times, and I know you've seen some of them. The seismology arguments that you tried to use to refute the witness of your own eyes and all those eyewitness testimonies when I showed you the Zeitoun photographs . . . golly. That put a new definition on "bias" for me. Almost- I mean, there have been one or two other comments I've seen on Entmoot that reach that level of irrationality, but it isn't common to see. At least, that is definitely my view.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

This is a non-starter. Irrelevant as this would only be a challenge to a person who believes in a God or Gods.
The problem of divine limitations? Putting limits on God? I find it boring, uninteresting, because I don't believe in a God.

Your unbelief is beside the point. I was responding to this statement: "If the human mind is so limited, how can you claim to convey any message by a God. You are after all, human." Your statement was essentially, "supposing God existed, according to your argument you wouldn't be able to understand him, because humans are so limited." That is what I was responding to, by pointing out that here you're actually describing the limits of God, not the limits of humanity.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Coincidentally that is a classic contradiction in religion, and a reason to pause: That which happens in the area of religion all the time; having to make up new, more complex answers to improbabilities, which again poses new questions with even more complex and contradictory answers. Your God is simply too riddled in contradiction and improbability to be real. It's just not plausible!

The reason new answers come out a lot is because people keep thinking up questions that haven't been asked before . It's as simple as that. That doesn't mean the answers don't make sense.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

But that is irrelevant, because if you think about the teachings that your religion promotes and the (il)logic that it teaches, finding proof of a God should be the simplest matter ever to concern a human being. This God is after all supposed to be omnipresent! There should be the equivalent of zero scientific education and development involved for a human being to fathom the existence of a God. And yet, even the most devout of Christians can't show a shred of verifiable, consistent, non-contradictory, scientific, transparent and repeatable evidence for this God. Shocking?... Yes. Am I surprised? No.

That's a statement of blind, willful ignorance. There are reams of evidence, reams and reams. Hundreds and hundreds of millions of people have personal testimonies of experiences with the supernatural that people struggle to explain away, one by one. It's ridiculous. This is a part of the human experience that goes back to the earliest of us- religious belief was part of the Neanderthal way of life tens of thousands of years ago (assuming modern dating methods are correct), and religious supernatural experience is described from the earliest time periods of recorded history. This always has been a part of human experience, and many times the accounts are extraordinary and defy science completely.

We are talking about spiritual entities, though, and spiritual entities aren't physical entities, so you can't perform physical scientific experiments on them in the way you could on physical entities. Though physical scientific experiments have been done on many people who have these experiences, such as the visionaries from Medjugorje, with pretty stunning results, and they also have been performed on miraculously impacted objects, with likewise incredible results, such as
the tilma imprinted from Heaven with the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe, or the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano.

And those are repeatable, verifiable experiments performed in accord with the scientific method. So science does back it- I just don't think you've looked far enough to see it, and it seems that you sometimes reject it even when it has been made clear (such as the case in Zeitoun). I think you're stifling yourself when your foregone conclusions about everything religious you look at dominate your reason.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

It's interesting that you keep repeating the term 'correct', as if your personally sitting there with the Encyclopedia of Everything, checking answers up against the Divine as you go along...

I don't claim to have better answers than they do about science. I do use the word "correct," though, because I am talking about absolutes.

God hasn't given a ton of answers about science in the Bible or through the Church. He, instead, goes straight to the point: What humans most need. And that is unity with Him, which is what the Bible and Church are all about.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

You completely missed the point I was making lol.

My response to your point was in my very next sentence, which you didn't quote or respond to .

You completely missed the point I was making . You just responded to an aside. I probably should have put that second, though, with a little "incidentally" word on it. I made it too prominent by putting it first.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

But you see Lief, this hypothetical wife I've mine I have in fact seen, spoken to, lived a life with, married, touched and sensed. Your equating your God with a hypothetical wife of mine?

Absolutely. That is how closely Christians experience God, and we often love him more than spouses because of what develops in our relationships with Him. Which doesn't mean we love our spouses less. It means we love God so much because he communicates with us, is with us day after day, and is present with us in so many ways, so intimate and caring and interactive, just as a spouse is, and his reality is PROVEN to many of us through his constant, beautiful interaction.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

And whatever opinions I might have about her non-guilt I'd be happy to tell the prosecuters, which they'd accordingly take into consideration.

Right, but which would never mean anything near as much to them as it would to you, because you experienced it yourself and know the woman. The prosecutors do not.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I already gave an example: The flat Earth. Observable no matter how far you walk, universally agreed on by all observors. Until you make new discoveries and the particulars from which you're coming to a universal change.

Lief, it isn't hard to deduce that this planet isn't flat. With a good enough view of the horizon you can see the curvature. However, it wasn't because they walk for miles and miles that they decided that many peoples in the antiquity (not all! Pythagoras thought the Earth to be spherical).
It was because they could not agree on what caused everything on Earth to fall downwards. The concept of gravity isn't exactly an easy concept for starters and thus it is quite understandable that a flat-earth theory was used to explain that.
It's interesting though that, the divinely inspired Christians of antiquity were not knowledgeable about the true form of the Earth. Even more interesting for me is the total waste of time this Jesus of Nazareth was. Instead of opening the library of divine knowledge, he turned some bread and some fish into many kilos of it, made wine from water and walked a bit around on the water. Cute.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

That is one example from the history of men a long time ago. More modern examples also exist . . . The contradictions between Quantum Mechanics and the Theory of Relativity, for instance. People in Quantum Mechanics and people in General Relativity have taken the particulars in their field and come to the logical conclusions, and they found the theories to reveal inconsistent results. Why? An insufficient number of particulars, as yet. More particulars, or data, often change the look of the results.

The conclusions they reach might be disagreed with by broad scientific consensus in a few hundred years. I was talking about, "reliably correct conclusions."

Your equating the flat earth theory with the unresolved challenges faced in Quantum Physics & the ToR?!
I really want to see you approach some of these scientists and tell them face to face that the basis for their research isn't "reliably correct conclusions"
You are way over your head in generalizations.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The book is not the proof that he exists. That's the way Muslims do things- the Qur'an is their proof of Allah. The words in the book reveal the character of God. The power of the words and the truth of that book are one way in which the reality of that God becomes revealed to people. I'm not talking about their ability to make an impression on people- all kinds of documents have done that. I'm talking about the power of those words to work wonders in people's spiritual and physical lives. And to create miracles. Etc.

That's just one layer of supportive evidence among many.

Yes then it is truly amazing that modern medicine (founded by heathen Greeks) has replaced the hocus pocus spiritual healing that your God is responsible for. Again, that's a pretty ineffective guy

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I've described other layers of that evidence here many times, and I know you've seen some of them. The seismology arguments that you tried to use to refute the witness of your own eyes and all those eyewitness testimonies when I showed you the Zeitoun photographs . . . golly. That put a new definition on "bias" for me. Almost- I mean, there have been one or two other comments I've seen on Entmoot that reach that level of irrationality, but it isn't common to see. At least, that is definitely my view.

Lief I can't account for your lack of understanding of the scientific theory I put forth, neither account for your belief that lit-up flying doves were circulating over a church in Cairo.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Your unbelief is beside the point. I was responding to this statement: "If the human mind is so limited, how can you claim to convey any message by a God. You are after all, human." Your statement was essentially, "supposing God existed, according to your argument you wouldn't be able to understand him, because humans are so limited." That is what I was responding to, by pointing out that here you're actually describing the limits of God, not the limits of humanity.

Again, you didn't understand the point I was making, which was that it is a self-contradiction on your part to speak of the fallibility of the human mind in all walks of life and then at the same time speak with so absolutist certainty on so many things, solely based on your understanding of a divine revelation.
And your basing it all on the premise that your religion is the only true worldview and reality of life. Your faith contradicts the other faiths of hundreds of millions of people. Which of course I've already seen that you dismiss as untrue religions.. Which then makes it unfathomable for me that you do not understand how bloody and divisive faith is, always excluding the beliefs of so many others.
So concerning the fallibility of human beings as opposed to your dictionary of correct knowledge.. that isn't a question of the limitations of the divine, but a contradiction in your own argument.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The reason new answers come out a lot is because people keep thinking up questions that haven't been asked before . It's as simple as that. That doesn't mean the answers don't make sense.

No Lief, because for every hour, day and year that passed more and more questions challenge the realm of religion, and the lastest fad it seems in some Christians circles is Creationism, a devious pseudo-scientific phenomena I might add: Half-truths are so much more destructive than lies.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

That's a statement of blind, willful ignorance. There are reams of evidence, reams and reams. Hundreds and hundreds of millions of people have personal testimonies of experiences with the supernatural that people struggle to explain away, one by one. It's ridiculous. This is a part of the human experience that goes back to the earliest of us- religious belief was part of the Neanderthal way of life tens of thousands of years ago (assuming modern dating methods are correct), and religious supernatural experience is described from the earliest time periods of recorded history. This always has been a part of human experience, and many times the accounts are extraordinary and defy science completely.

So Lief, why am I willfully ignorant about the existence of a God or Gods?
I might add that prostitution goes back to the earliest days of human life. Does it make it right?

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

We are talking about spiritual entities, though, and spiritual entities aren't physical entities, so you can't perform physical scientific experiments on them in the way you could on physical entities. Though physical scientific experiments have been done on many people who have these experiences, such as the visionaries from Medjugorje, with pretty stunning results, and they also have been performed on miraculously impacted objects, with likewise incredible results, such as
the tilma imprinted from Heaven with the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe, or the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano.

Ah, but there are no reliable, observable particulars that make up this spiritual entity. In science, spirituality is non-existent. There is no proof of it.
It's all up there, in the noodle Lief. In fact, we're now coming to a level in neuroscience that it can already be observed that when this and this chemical reaction takes place in the brain that such and such thoughts, imagionations and fantasies take place. I just can't wait for the day when we know ten-fold more on this area of research. Not a day too soon.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I don't claim to have better answers than they do about science. I do use the word "correct," though, because I am talking about absolutes.

Yes, keyword, absolutes. Dealing in absolutes is always, and forever will be, the easy way out. Incidentally the preferred instrument of engagement that fundamentalists in all walks of life use. Fundamentalist views are reliant on a black and white, which comforts and assures, and simplifies.. and waters down the reality, obscures clarity, and replaces it with illusions.

While everything human progress in history shows that it is not in absolutes that we find answers, but in a difficult balancing act between what seems right and what seems wrong. Newton worked his ass off getting to the knowledge he obtained, and he failed many times before getting it right. He also made the most errors-in-conclusion during the times he tried to link up religion with science. He did f.ex. calculate the doomsday, sometime in the 19th century I believe. Didn't happen of course
I say, Newton, stick to the facts, stay clear of the tall tales!

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Lief, it isn't hard to deduce that this planet isn't flat. With a good enough view of the horizon you can see the curvature.

If it was easy to deduce the planet wasn't flat, people would have done it in far greater numbers from far earlier of time periods.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

However, it wasn't because they walk for miles and miles that they decided that many peoples in the antiquity (not all! Pythagoras thought the Earth to be spherical).
It was because they could not agree on what caused everything on Earth to fall downwards. The concept of gravity isn't exactly an easy concept for starters and thus it is quite understandable that a flat-earth theory was used to explain that.

There's a combination of reasons why they thought what they did, I agree. That's not important, though. Neither is the fact that a small minority thought it was round. My point was you don't know when you have enough particulars to state a universal. As you get more and more particulars, sometimes the "universal" you previously believed in changes in shape.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

It's interesting though that, the divinely inspired Christians of antiquity were not knowledgeable about the true form of the Earth. Even more interesting for me is the total waste of time this Jesus of Nazareth was. Instead of opening the library of divine knowledge, he turned some bread and some fish into many kilos of it, made wine from water and walked a bit around on the water. Cute.

He came out of love for human beings, and he expressed love for human beings. He didn't come as a scientist, to talk about science with the elite interested intellectuals. He wanted everyone to know him and experience his love, and that is what he lived, and that is what he lives still, through his Church. Most Non-Christians will agree with Christians that he sent morality a long way forward, through his teachings. His concern was bringing love to human beings. Which is both a very noble goal and a very simple one.

Jesus' miracles expressed his love for people. He didn't come as a scientist, to explain everything so we wouldn't have to figure out anything ourselves. That would be a vastly inferior goal to the one he sought to accomplish and which he achieved. It also would be less in tune with God's nature: God is Love. And that is how Jesus came .

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Your equating the flat earth theory with the unresolved challenges faced in Quantum Physics & the ToR?!

Different time periods and civilizations face different scientific challenges.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

I really want to see you approach some of these scientists and tell them face to face that the basis for their research isn't "reliably correct conclusions"

They would be as quick as I am to say their work isn't based on absolutes. And if it's not absolute, it's not a "reliably correct conclusion." It could be wrong. What we think probably will be seen as an extremely primitive viewpoint with many errors, in future generations.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Yes then it is truly amazing that modern medicine (founded by heathen Greeks) has replaced the hocus pocus spiritual healing that your God is responsible for. Again, that's a pretty ineffective guy

Actually, there is a good deal of very sound and advanced medical advice in the Old Testament. God, in the Pentateuch, told the Israelites to wash their hands under running water before tending the sick or injured. That's a piece of medical knowledge that wasn't rediscovered until the late 19th or early 20th century. He also told them to isolate, or if necessary quarantine their sick until they were better, another very sound medical procedure.

He told them to destroy contaminated objects, burn used dressings, and bury fecal waste outside the camp. He told them not to eat animals that died of natural causes, to take precautions when touching the infected or deceased, and to wash and keep clean. He also told Israelites not to have sexual relationships outside of marriage, which, if fully followed, would eliminate STDs. Very sound medical advice, especially for a time period without "safe sex" technology (not that I think our technology makes the practice valid). Also, this advice was very unusual considering the time period, in which the surrounding nations were very accepting and in some cases even demanding of promiscuous behavior.

All those pieces of advice were very advanced medical insights, unique in that time period and to remain so for hundreds, and in some cases thousands of years.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Lief I can't account for your lack of understanding of the scientific theory I put forth, neither account for your belief that lit-up flying doves were circulating over a church in Cairo.

I know you feel that way. I find that incredible.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Again, you didn't understand the point I was making, which was that it is a self-contradiction on your part to speak of the fallibility of the human mind in all walks of life and then at the same time speak with so absolutist certainty on so many things, solely based on your understanding of a divine revelation.

Not my understanding. The understanding of Christ's Church. Which is infallible, as it releases the views of the mind of Christ, not a human mind. Christ lives inside of us and acts among us. We know him personally, experientially. We humans are fallible, so if we all came to our own conclusions about what Christianity means (as Protestants do), we'd come up with thousands of different opinions and corresponding denominations (as Protestants do). That's why there's one Church, which is not carrying on fallible human knowledge but a single worldview that dates back to Jesus Christ and can be seen in his teachings and the teachings of all his earliest followers, the Early Church Fathers.

So this gospel goes right back to its origin, Jesus Christ, and that is where the mind is.

But I agree, we are fallible. That is why we rest on God in faith, faith which is not blind, which is not guesswork, but which rests upon countless solid, objective evidences that our God has given his people throughout time, and most importantly on our own personal relationships with Him, through which he proves His reality and His love for us on a daily basis . We love Him and know Him, and so we trust Him.

The faith I'm describing is faith, because we are fallible, but it's faith of the sort that a child has in his parents. He has faith that they love him because of the relationships he has with them. Which a person can't objectively prove, but which one experiences and therefore believes.

Praise be to God for the wonders and love he has expressed to me, to my family, to his Church, and to all the world .

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

And your basing it all on the premise that your religion is the only true worldview and reality of life.

I'd just change a couple words of that sentence, to get it to accurately reflect my position. I'd change the word "premise" to "conclusion," as this sentence is the result of a very, very long list of evidences, rather than a premise in and of itself, and second, I'd add the word "completely" between the words "only" and "true." Because other religions do have many things right. Where they agree with Catholicism, they are right, and many of them agree with Catholicism about a lot of things. But Catholicism is the only religion that is completely true.

It stands to reason that if any of the religions in the world is completely true, no matter what it might be, all the others that disagree with it partly must be partly false. That's just logical necessity, not something to complain about. Conservative Muslims have always acknowledged the same logic. So do many other people. It doesn't matter what is completely true, on this point- if ANY is completely true, all the others must be partly wrong. Which, if that bothers you, shows you're bothered by the idea of one religion being completely true. Which is odd, as that is actually a great grace. If no religion is completely true, we have to sift through them for the truth ourselves, through our own reasoning alone, and then what's the point of the divine revelation in the first place. It comes down to us, in that case, and our fancy that our own wisdom is preferable to God's.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Which then makes it unfathomable for me that you do not understand how bloody and divisive faith is, always excluding the beliefs of so many others.

I understand it results in bloodshed a lot. Which doesn't make it wrong, of course. Many things that are worthwhile, such as land, crops, water, and such, have been fought over too, sometimes very validly. But I don't see you saying we should all reject them simply because they've been fought over.

And I know religion is divisive. So is science- some people support one theory, others a contradictory theory. So is archaeology- people come to different conclusions. That's true of anything that's true and worth pursuing. People have different opinions. If we were to all reject divisive ideologies, we'd have to reject everything there is. For every position, there is a contrary position. Some people would disagree with you and me that man has walked on the moon (I've met one), so our belief (or his) is divisive. Does that mean we should hold no opinions on the matter?

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

No Lief, because for every hour, day and year that passed more and more questions challenge the realm of religion,

Restating this fact doesn't refute my explanation for why this is so.

This also has to do, of course, with the facts that the population is growing very rapidly, so there are more people around to think of new questions, and also there is a lot more unbelief now, so a lot more people trying to think up ways to disagree with Christianity.

A lot of the main objections that are brought up tend to trace back to to the very early days of Christianity, though. Some of the earliest heresies in Christian history tend to be paralleled in a good deal of modern thought. So there's an ancient element to what's going on, as well.

But the fact that there are so many new objections really reflects the fact that there are so many objectors, which doesn't prove anything about whether the objections are right or wrong.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

So Lief, why am I willfully ignorant about the existence of a God or Gods?

I don't know you well enough to speculate about why you appear to be so biased.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

I might add that prostitution goes back to the earliest days of human life. Does it make it right?

No. But that's a matter of opinion about ethics, not a matter of whether or not you have observed or encountered something (which is what supernatural experience frequently includes).

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Ah, but there are no reliable, observable particulars that make up this spiritual entity. In science, spirituality is non-existent. There is no proof of it.
It's all up there, in the noodle Lief.

You know, saying this is like saying we should ignore all dinosaur footprints we find until we've got a fossil dinosaur foot bone in the footprint to prove it's genuine. That's what you do when you ignore all the scientific evidence that these marvelous beings exist that comes from the marvels they've done, and focus instead on the fact that there is no spiritual entity itself that we have on to perform studies on.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

In fact, we're now coming to a level in neuroscience that it can already be observed that when this and this chemical reaction takes place in the brain that such and such thoughts, imagionations and fantasies take place. I just can't wait for the day when we know ten-fold more on this area of research. Not a day too soon.

That would be fine. Perhaps around the same time they'll start making room amongst their theories for the soul.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Yes, keyword, absolutes. Dealing in absolutes is always, and forever will be, the easy way out.

Awfully rich coming from you, after all the absolute certainty you've displayed in this thread, ruling out the divine.

It's true that the backing for Christian absolutes is very strong, so I guess you're right about it being, "the easy way out." It makes a ton of sense, so it's easy to logically support and argue. Or at least, that's how I've found it for years on these threads.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Incidentally the preferred instrument of engagement that fundamentalists in all walks of life use. Fundamentalist views are reliant on a black and white, which comforts and assures, and simplifies.. and waters down the reality, obscures clarity, and replaces it with illusions.

That's empty rhetoric, not argument.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

While everything human progress in history shows that it is not in absolutes that we find answers, but in a difficult balancing act between what seems right and what seems wrong.

You see the Enlightenment as an engine of progress rather than regress, of moving forward rather than falling behind. I know that in many material ways, it was a major advance. Yet in moral ways, it was a major disintegration. The belief that we should balance between right and wrong rather than fighting the wrong and embracing the right is part of the moral deterioration the Enlightenment produced. It's a direct denial of justice, and certainly a major reinterpretation, even a major reinvention of justice. It has proven terribly destructive. I talked in previous posts, several pages back, about what kinds of horrors the Enlightenment's rejection of Catholic truth produced. It is mindbogglingly hideous, though it was predicted hundreds of years before, during the Reformation when these things were beginning and they had the clarity of vision to see where it would end up.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Newton worked his ass off getting to the knowledge he obtained, and he failed many times before getting it right. He also made the most errors-in-conclusion during the times he tried to link up religion with science. He did f.ex. calculate the doomsday, sometime in the 19th century I believe. Didn't happen of course
I say, Newton, stick to the facts, stay clear of the tall tales!

Jesus said in the scripture that no one would know the day and the hour of his coming before he came. Nonetheless, many people have tried to interpret that statement in other ways and then sought to predict the time of Jesus' Second Coming anyway. The Catholic Church has never tried to calculate that.

[Coffeehouse]

The horizon exhibits curvature when viewing it from a high point.

If Jesus did exist then he, or God, or he/God, chose a poor place to visit. Of all the places on this Earth he chose to visit this meagre populated Roman province, instead of revealing himself to the millions of human beings residing in India or China or even Rome or Cairo. It's not plausible, but this is:
The theory that Jesus was merely a cult figure, made a legend by his followers and by people thereafter. Let's remember that there is not a single contemporary historian from the time that lived when Jesus lived that describes the awe-inspiring miracles and the lunacy that went on in Bethlehem and Jerusalem during Jesus' life. From the viewpoint of an historian, that's a pretty far-fetched tale to believe, and consequently
why so many question the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. Certainly Jesus failed in, in your words, "wanted to know everyone", he also failed in getting everyone to, in your words, "experience his love". Because only a small percentage of human beings on the planet did hear of him, and it took decades and millenias for the rest of mankind to hear of this figure and the consequent religion that he represented. Yet when the word did come to the Americas, to Africa, to Asia, it was more often than not by the sword and not by the word, destroying cultures and languages and lives dedicated to messages more humble and less violent than anything the Catholic faith can argue they stand for. I believe that if you really want to speak of who holds the moral highground, and if you want to say that the supposed teachings of Jesus represent the best of the best, then look not to the corruption of the Catholic
Church or its historical violence, or to Islam and its historical violence. No, look to Buddhism, look to many Native American earth-themed religions, look to large parts of Hinduism: There you will find the message that peace with God or Gods is not found by forcing it upon others, but by a highly personal relationship with the Creator or Creators him/her/themselves. Judaism pales in degree of violence in comparison to the way Christianity and Islam has spread out, and even Judaism is no tolerant religion but it says it all!

To be sure, Jesus' 'miracles' are the replica of legends and other religious figures that appeared years, centuries and even millenias before him. His love isn't original, and neither is it a love that embraced all mankind because
it focused on a small parcel of land on Earth. If God is love LIef, then God does not know what love is. This God knows nothing of compassion. This God is unimportant, uninteresting, uneducating, uncaring, unseeing and unhearing: All in all, if God did exist it wouldn't even matter because he intervenes not in the horrific disasters and plagues and wars of our time, where Millions upon Millions die, but in small cases, like freak recoveries from cancer or freak phenomenas of nature.
That's the God Christianity and Islam and Judaism, etc. offers, and that's why today's religion has enough problems dealing with itself than spreading any meaningful message or promoting and meaningful peace where it is
needed the most.
I mean just look at the conflict in Palestine! Would it kill the guy to intervene? It's ridiculous.
So please Lief, explain to me how you think over 1 billion Muslims in are wrong when they pray to Allah? And how are over 1 billion Hindus wrong when they pray to their plethora of Gods? That religion after all, is waaaaaaaaaaay older than yours! Actually, if I did decide to become religious (which I believe is a willy-nilly decision as there is nothing that provides evidence that there is a God/Gods, Only religious writings and religious culture provides that evidence: which means there is none) I would become Jewish, as they at least came before Christianity and can rightfully claim to have heard the message before Christianity, which is frankly the name of a human being: Jesus Christ. Really you don't get more idoltry than that.

As to Medicine Lief, not an example you listed wasn't invented by the Greeks and passed on to the Romans and to, amongst others, Christians.
And as to destroying contaminated objects, burying fecal waste, eating animals that didn't die naturally: it's such an obvious thing that this was practiced not only by the Greeks, but quite certainly by the Egyptians
before them and the Persians and the Babylonians before them again! These aren't, in your
words, "very advanced medical insights", no, but they are important guidelines. And for all the brilliance of the Catholic Church, it never understood that bleeding patients to death (as a means
of curing him) was far less insightful than using soap, which only to come about in the 19th century. You can show me (probably none) a few medical developments from Holy (pseudo)Science and I will show you the vast
array of discoveries (millions!) made by mankind not in the spirit of faith, but in the spirit of human progress, that unstoppable curiousity and want to do more, and to improve the way we live.

As to this: "And I know religion is divisive. So is science- some people support one theory, others a contradictory theory." Lief, people don't fight wars of theories in science!..They don't kill each others, burn one another
at the stake.

But what's the use argueing moral standards and the history of mankind
with a person that thinks that truth is found in the institution of moral bankruptcy that is the Catholic Church?

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Well, "hard to get happy after that", lol.

I'll point out here (as part of the medical sidelight) that if the Catholic church hadn't forbidden womwn healers and granny midwifes as healers (and permitted them to be killed as witches) germ theory wouldn't have been as important, at least in the prevention of 'childbed fever." Rounding laboring women up and putting them in hospitals exposed them to more invasive methods and contagious diseases that homebirthing didn't.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Well, "hard to get happy after that", lol.

I'll point out here (as part of the medical sidelight) that if the Catholic church hadn't forbidden womwn healers and granny midwifes as healers (and permitted them to be killed as witches) germ theory wouldn't have been as important, at least in the prevention of 'childbed fever." Rounding laboring women up and putting them in hospitals exposed them to more invasive methods and contagious diseases that homebirthing didn't.

Yeah.

And as a last remark!: Like Richard Dawkins eloquently put it:
"The trouble is that God in this sophisticated, physicist's sense bears no resemblance to the God of the Bible or any other religion. If a physicist says God is another name for Planck's constant, or God is a superstring, we should take it as a picturesque metaphorical way of saying that the nature of superstrings or the value of Planck's constant is a profound mystery. It has obviously not the smallest connection with a being capable of forgiving sins, a being who might listen to prayers, who cares about whether or not the Sabbath begins at 5pm or 6pm, whether you wear a veil or have a bit of arm showing; and no connection whatever with a being capable of imposing a death penalty on His son to expiate the sins of the world before and after he was born."

and Steven Weinberg:
"I don't need to argue here that the evil in the world proves that the universe is not designed, but only that there are no signs of benevolence that might have shown the hand of a designer. But in fact the perception that God cannot be benevolent is very old. Plays by Aeschylus and Euripides make a quite explicit statement that the gods are selfish and cruel, though they expect better behavior from humans. God in the Old Testament tells us to bash the heads of infidels and demands of us that we be willing to sacrifice our children's lives at His orders, and the God of traditional Christianity and Islam damns us for eternity if we do not worship him in the right manner. Is this a nice way to behave? I know, I know, we are not supposed to judge God according to human standards, but you see the problem here: If we are not yet convinced of His existence, and are looking for signs of His benevolence, then what other standards can we use?"

Lastly, as a conciliatory nod Lief, I understand why people believe in a God. I understand the deep relief it gives to the heart and mind.
It isn't the highly personal relationship with whatever Guidance of the Mind, be it a God, Gods, the Sun or the Moon, that I object against. We all find a point of reference in our life to create a moral guideline. In that respect I think it is absolutely fine to picture a higher being that is not like us. Perfectly okay!

But when this personal faith organizes, imposes itself: deals out its own rigid judgement on issues of Life and Death, Happiness or Grief, and sets up Peoples against Peoples: that's wrong. There's nothing right about it, and if there's good in this world it certainly isn't judgemental religion.

[Curufin]

But when this personal faith organizes, imposes itself: deals out its own rigid judgement on issues of Life and Death, Happiness or Grief, and sets up Peoples against Peoples: that's wrong. There's nothing right about it, and if there's good in this world it certainly isn't judgemental religion.

Hear, hear, Coffeehouse!

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Yet when the word did come to the Americas, to Africa, to Asia, it was more often than not by the sword and not by the word, destroying cultures and languages and lives dedicated to messages more humble and less violent than anything the Catholic faith can argue they stand for. I believe that if you really want to speak of who holds the moral highground, and if you want to say that the supposed teachings of Jesus represent the best of the best, then look not to the corruption of the Catholic
Church or its historical violence, or to Islam and its historical violence. No, look to Buddhism, look to many Native American earth-themed religions, look to large parts of Hinduism: There you will find the message that peace with God or Gods is not found by forcing it upon others, but by a highly personal relationship with the Creator or Creators him/her/themselves. Judaism pales in degree of violence in comparison to the way Christianity and Islam has spread out, and even Judaism is no tolerant religion but it says it all!

I'd be wary of referring to historical violence. True, Western monotheisms, being based on creeds, tend to be more intolerant than other religions (as are their secular offshoots, fascism and communism), but as far as Buddhism, Hinduism, or Native-American religions are concerned I think their followers can be just as violent as any Book-wielding believer in the One True God.

Many of the Mongol Hordes were devoutly Buddhist, as were the Tibetans, who, unlike the image swallowed by their starry-eyed Western sympathizers, were a pretty fierce people- and many of their internal wars were due to religious factionalism. Being Buddhist didn't stop Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia, China, Korea or Japan from happily waging war against each other, and Hindus, right up to the current day appear to be quite willing to take to arms at the cry of "Mahadeva!"

As for Native Americans, I think the idea of them as Greenpeacers living in harmony with nature has been pretty well disproven by the archeological record. It ranks up there with Lief's Chestertonian visions of a peaceful Middle Ages, with pious peasants labouring happily for thir chivalrous knightly lords, all under the benevolent gaze of Mother Church.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

I'd be wary of referring to historical violence. True, Western monotheisms, being based on creeds, tend to be more intolerant than other religions (as are their secular offshoots, fascism and communism), but as far as Buddhism, Hinduism, or Native-American religions are concerned I think their followers can be just as violent as any Book-wielding believer in the One True God.

Many of the Mongol Hordes were devoutly Buddhist, as were the Tibetans, who, unlike the image swallowed by their starry-eyed Western sympathizers, were a pretty fierce people- and many of their internal wars were due to religious factionalism. Being Buddhist didn't stop Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia, China, Korea or Japan from happily waging war against each other, and Hindus, right up to the current day appear to be quite willing to take to arms at the cry of "Mahadeva!"

As for Native Americans, I think the idea of them as Greenpeacers living in harmony with nature has been pretty well disproven by the archeological record. It ranks up there with Lief's Chestertonian visions of a peaceful Middle Ages, with pious peasants labouring happily for thir chivalrous knightly lords, all under the benevolent gaze of Mother Church.

Those would be straw-men arguments GrayMouser, as I neither argued that any of these religions are guarantees of non-violence nor that religious wars have not been fought amongst Buddhists or Hindus.
However, looking back at history it becomes obvious just how less expansionist and judgemental some of these other non-monotheist religions are. Neither the Buddhists nor the Hindus come anywhere near the us vs. them disease that seems to infest both Christianity and Islam. There is a far stronger trait of pacifism inside both these two large religions. An obvious example is the startling degree of non-violence (there is religious tensions in India, but surprise surprise, it involves Muslim pro-breakaways) the Indian nation represents. They have literally 1 billion people to choose from and yet I see no doctrines of world conversion. Likewise, Tibet, even today, is not immune to violence. But nobody expects them to. They are after all oppressed by a rigid Chinese gov't. However, looking back in history, all the way till this day, the Buddhists pale in comparison to the religious fervour and violence exhibited by Christianity and Islam. Interesting that the most celebrated religious leader in the world is the Dalai Lama, receiver of the Nobels Peace Prize and stubbornly in favour of non-violence against the Chinese; the very same Chinese that kicked him out of his own country.
This is not to take away the plethora of faults many of the Eastern religions suffer, like the in-built caste system of the Hindus. But it's curious isn't it, that it was no Christian or Muslim person, but a devout Hindu, Mr. Mahatma Gandhi, that brought about the most astounding, non-violence advocating revolution the world has ever seen. He needed no Bible, no Koran, and no Doctrinal Decrees of Supreme Religious Knowledge, to score his point. He simply took love, patience and wisdom down from the sky and made them his message: All of which I hear are long-forgotten inside the stuffed halls of the Vatican.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Those would be straw-men arguments GrayMouser, as I neither argued that any of these religions are guarantees of non-violence nor that religious wars have not been fought amongst Buddhists or Hindus.
However, looking back at history it becomes obvious just how less expansionist and judgemental some of these other non-monotheist religions are. Neither the Buddhists nor the Hindus come anywhere near the us vs. them disease that seems to infest both Christianity and Islam.

Agreed, and I said in my post that the monotheistic religions have been far less tolerant than others.

There is a far stronger trait of pacifism inside both these two large religions.

True, but has it affected the level of violence in these societies, or in these societies' relations to others? You could make an argument that these religions instead remain detached, refusing to get involved in issues of war or peace.

The most well-known of the Hindu scriptures, the Bhagavid-Gita, begins on a battlefield where Prince Arjuna realises the enemies he is going to try to kill are his friends and relatives, and is morally troubled by this. Krishna, in the guise of his charioteer, shows up to point out that this life is all illusion, and the most important thing is for Arjuna to fill his karmic role as a warrior, so get out there and slaughter away.

An obvious example is the startling degree of non-violence (there is religious tensions in India, but surprise surprise, it involves Muslim pro-breakaways) the Indian nation represents. They have literally 1 billion people to choose from and yet I see no doctrines of world conversion.

It also involves Hindu fanatics attacking Christians, Muslims, and Buddhists who gain converts among lower-caste Indians (see Bangla Desh, religious history of), but, true, Hinduism (unlike Buddhism) is not an exclusive prosletysing religion.

In the Sri Lankan civil war, the most militant Sinhalese anti-peace faction is led by Buddhist monks.

(Likewise, Tibet, even today, is not immune to violence. But nobody expects them to. They are after all oppressed by a rigid Chinese gov't. However, looking back in history, all the way till this day, the Buddhists pale in comparison to the religious fervour and violence exhibited by Christianity and Islam. Interesting that the most celebrated religious leader in the world is the Dalai Lama, receiver of the Nobels Peace Prize and stubbornly in favour of non-violence against the Chinese; the very same Chinese that kicked him out of his own country.

While the second-most celebrated religious leader in the world, Nobel Peace Prize winner Archbishop Desmond Tutu, was also stubbornly in favor of non-violence against white South Africans.

This is not to take away the plethora of faults many of the Eastern religions suffer, like the in-built caste system of the Hindus. But it's curious isn't it, that it was no Christian or Muslim person, but a devout Hindu, Mr. Mahatma Gandhi, that brought about the most astounding, non-violence advocating revolution the world has ever seen. He needed no Bible, no Koran, and no Doctrinal Decrees of Supreme Religious Knowledge, to score his point. He simply took love, patience and wisdom down from the sky and made them his message: All of which I hear are long-forgotten inside the stuffed halls of the Vatican.

Ah, the Great-Souled One:

When Gandhi was studying law in London 1894, he wrote a "Guide to London," which mentioned of Tolstoy that "few men have been more given to wine and cigarettes... a man stupefies himself with these stimulants..."14 This, Gandhi's first reference to Tolstoy, suggests that his knowledge came through vegetarian and health literature. Gandhi was not deeply moved until the publication of The Kingdom of God is Within You, a book which, he wrote, "overwhelmed me."15

The circumstances of this event are interesting. Gandhi was 24, living alone in Pretoria, South Africa. He compared Tolstoy's teaching to that of the fundamentalists who had been pressing him to accept Christ. "Before the independent thinking, profound morality, and the truthfulness of this book, all the books given me ... paled into insignificance," he wrote.16 This suggests that he did not find these qualities in his missionary friends. It also suggests that this was what he was searching for.

Gandhi later wrote of Tolstoy's book, "Its reading cured me of my skepticism and made me a firm believer in ahimsa [nonviolence]."17 It also helped him resolve the question of religious identity, for Tolstoy's Christianity was not based on special revelation, but was simply one instance of a universal law. The law of love was the mark of true religion in every tradition. Gandhi thereafter understood Christianity in Tolstoy's way. It liberated him from orthodoxy, as it had liberated Tolstoy, and provided a foundation for his identification with Hinduism.

http://www.adinballou.org/BallouTolstoyGandhi.shtml


In fact, the reteat in South Africa where Gandhi first developed his principles of non-violence was named (by Gandhi) Tolstoy Farm:
http://www.tolstoyfarm.com/the_past.htm

The Tolstoy Farm was the second of its kind of experiments established by Gandhi. The first, the Phoenix settlement in Natal, was inspired in 1904 by a single reading of John Ruskin's Unto This Last, a work that extolled the virtues of the simple life of love, labour, and the dignity of human beings. Gandhi was not as personally involved in the daily running of the Phoenix settlement as he was to become in his stay of interrupted duration at the Tolstoy Farm which lasted for about four years. In part this was because the political struggle had shifted to the Transvaal after 1906, and he controlled it from its Johannesburg headquarters.

To a large extent Gandhi's more intimate involvement at the Tolstoy Farm coincided with the heightened tempo of the passive resistance campaign, and the development of the Gandhian philosophy of the perfect individual in a perfect new order. This essay will briefly discuss the historical context within which the Tolstoy Farm was founded, and explore the activities at the farm which led Gandhi to call the experiment a "cooperative commonwealth".
......

During the final phase of the campaign when the Tolstoy Farm was established Gandhi's own growth became noticeable. During his three months of jail in 1909, first at Volksrust and then at Pretoria, he read about thirty books. He made further acquaintance of the works of Leo Tolstoy 1828-1910) and Henry D. Thoreau (1817-1862), among others, and of the Hindu religion. Gandhi had read of Thoreau when he was a student in London, and had summarised the American's essay on Civil Disobedience in an issue of Indian Opinion in 1907. Now in jail, he eagerly explored Thoreau further.

But it was Tolstoy's writings that impressed him the most. The Russian's ideas about renouncing force as a means of opposition were akin to Gandhi's own thoughts, although he did not share Tolstoy's intense dislike for organised government. The Indian had read Tolstoy's The Kingdom of God is Within You in 1894. This had stimulated his search for truth and non-violence in his own religion. It had set him upon a kind of thinking that was to mature into satyagraha later. Now in prison, he had another opportunity to read more deeply into the Russian author's works.

So the most profound influence on the development of Gandhi's philosophy was an extremely devout (if unorthodox) Christian.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Those would be straw-men arguments GrayMouser, as I neither argued that any of these religions are guarantees of non-violence nor that religious wars have not been fought amongst Buddhists or Hindus.
However, looking back at history it becomes obvious just how less expansionist and judgemental some of these other non-monotheist religions are. Neither the Buddhists nor the Hindus come anywhere near the us vs. them disease that seems to infest both Christianity and Islam.

Agreed, and I said in my post that the monotheistic religions have been far less tolerant than others.

There is a far stronger trait of pacifism inside both these two large religions.

True, but has it affected the level of violence in these societies, or in these societies' relations to others? You could make an argument that these religions instead remain detached, refusing to get involved in issues of war or peace.

The most well-known of the Hindu scriptures, the Bhagavid-Gita, begins on a battlefield where Prince Arjuna realises the enemies he is going to try to kill are his friends and relatives, and is morally troubled by this. Krishna, in the guise of his charioteer, shows up to point out that this life is all illusion, and the most important thing is for Arjuna to fill his karmic role as a warrior, so get out there and slaughter away.

An obvious example is the startling degree of non-violence (there is religious tensions in India, but surprise surprise, it involves Muslim pro-breakaways) the Indian nation represents. They have literally 1 billion people to choose from and yet I see no doctrines of world conversion.

It also involves Hindu fanatics attacking Christians, Muslims, and Buddhists who gain converts among lower-caste Indians (see Bangla Desh, religious history of), but, true, Hinduism (unlike Buddhism) is not an exclusive prosletysing religion.

In the Sri Lankan civil war, the most militant Sinhalese anti-peace faction is led by Buddhist monks.

(Likewise, Tibet, even today, is not immune to violence. But nobody expects them to. They are after all oppressed by a rigid Chinese gov't. However, looking back in history, all the way till this day, the Buddhists pale in comparison to the religious fervour and violence exhibited by Christianity and Islam. Interesting that the most celebrated religious leader in the world is the Dalai Lama, receiver of the Nobels Peace Prize and stubbornly in favour of non-violence against the Chinese; the very same Chinese that kicked him out of his own country.

While the second-most celebrated religious leader in the world, Nobel Peace Prize winner Archbishop Desmond Tutu, was also stubbornly in favor of non-violence against white South Africans.

This is not to take away the plethora of faults many of the Eastern religions suffer, like the in-built caste system of the Hindus. But it's curious isn't it, that it was no Christian or Muslim person, but a devout Hindu, Mr. Mahatma Gandhi, that brought about the most astounding, non-violence advocating revolution the world has ever seen. He needed no Bible, no Koran, and no Doctrinal Decrees of Supreme Religious Knowledge, to score his point. He simply took love, patience and wisdom down from the sky and made them his message: All of which I hear are long-forgotten inside the stuffed halls of the Vatican.

Ah, the Great-Souled One:

When Gandhi was studying law in London 1894, he wrote a "Guide to London," which mentioned of Tolstoy that "few men have been more given to wine and cigarettes... a man stupefies himself with these stimulants..."14 This, Gandhi's first reference to Tolstoy, suggests that his knowledge came through vegetarian and health literature. Gandhi was not deeply moved until the publication of The Kingdom of God is Within You, a book which, he wrote, "overwhelmed me."15

The circumstances of this event are interesting. Gandhi was 24, living alone in Pretoria, South Africa. He compared Tolstoy's teaching to that of the fundamentalists who had been pressing him to accept Christ. "Before the independent thinking, profound morality, and the truthfulness of this book, all the books given me ... paled into insignificance," he wrote.16 This suggests that he did not find these qualities in his missionary friends. It also suggests that this was what he was searching for.

Gandhi later wrote of Tolstoy's book, "Its reading cured me of my skepticism and made me a firm believer in ahimsa [nonviolence]."17 It also helped him resolve the question of religious identity, for Tolstoy's Christianity was not based on special revelation, but was simply one instance of a universal law. The law of love was the mark of true religion in every tradition. Gandhi thereafter understood Christianity in Tolstoy's way. It liberated him from orthodoxy, as it had liberated Tolstoy, and provided a foundation for his identification with Hinduism.

http://www.adinballou.org/BallouTolstoyGandhi.shtml


In fact, the reteat in South Africa where Gandhi first developed his principles of non-violence was named (by Gandhi) Tolstoy Farm:
http://www.tolstoyfarm.com/the_past.htm

The Tolstoy Farm was the second of its kind of experiments established by Gandhi. The first, the Phoenix settlement in Natal, was inspired in 1904 by a single reading of John Ruskin's Unto This Last, a work that extolled the virtues of the simple life of love, labour, and the dignity of human beings. Gandhi was not as personally involved in the daily running of the Phoenix settlement as he was to become in his stay of interrupted duration at the Tolstoy Farm which lasted for about four years. In part this was because the political struggle had shifted to the Transvaal after 1906, and he controlled it from its Johannesburg headquarters.

To a large extent Gandhi's more intimate involvement at the Tolstoy Farm coincided with the heightened tempo of the passive resistance campaign, and the development of the Gandhian philosophy of the perfect individual in a perfect new order. This essay will briefly discuss the historical context within which the Tolstoy Farm was founded, and explore the activities at the farm which led Gandhi to call the experiment a "cooperative commonwealth".
......

During the final phase of the campaign when the Tolstoy Farm was established Gandhi's own growth became noticeable. During his three months of jail in 1909, first at Volksrust and then at Pretoria, he read about thirty books. He made further acquaintance of the works of Leo Tolstoy 1828-1910) and Henry D. Thoreau (1817-1862), among others, and of the Hindu religion. Gandhi had read of Thoreau when he was a student in London, and had summarised the American's essay on Civil Disobedience in an issue of Indian Opinion in 1907. Now in jail, he eagerly explored Thoreau further.

But it was Tolstoy's writings that impressed him the most. The Russian's ideas about renouncing force as a means of opposition were akin to Gandhi's own thoughts, although he did not share Tolstoy's intense dislike for organised government. The Indian had read Tolstoy's The Kingdom of God is Within You in 1894. This had stimulated his search for truth and non-violence in his own religion. It had set him upon a kind of thinking that was to mature into satyagraha later. Now in prison, he had another opportunity to read more deeply into the Russian author's works.

So the most profound influence on the development of Gandhi's philosophy was an extremely devout (if unorthodox) Christian.

[Jonathan]

GrayMouser, I've just browsed through your posts in this thread. As I take a big interest in the "sinosphere", I find your posts highly interesting. It was a pleasure to get to know Han Dan, Matsu and the Ghost Money, learn about the Jesuits' emphasis on Mary over Jesus in China and the meaning of the words "Tianzhujiao" and "Yesujiao", and read what you said regarding Asian religious violence.

Keep it up

[Coffeehouse]

Yes, Desmond Tutu did indeed receive the Nobels Peace Prize, and he is a Catholic. The point I was making was that Mahatma Gandhi was no Catholic, no impassioned reader of the Bible, but, and I'll repeat myself, one who "took love, patience and wisdom down from the sky and made them his message". Likewise, yes Gandhi was influenced by a Christian person, but that along with your quoted passage simply underlines my point: That no religion can claim to hold monopoly on truth, or love. It's universal, thereby my metaphor for taking these items down from the sky.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

No, no, fear not, Desmond Tutu is not a Catholic; he is an Anglican.