05 Oct 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerSomething like that, yeah. Except I might leave off 'ignorant' in your case. For a christian you seem to exhibit a fair amount of intelligence. But why you would want to squander that intellect in the way you do is a mystery.
Because I am an "ignorant, dogmatic, superstitious, christian freak" who wouldn't say anything worth reading?
05 Oct 06
2 edits
Originally posted by rwingettNot that you asked me, but, I’ve been examining myself on this score recently (of course, maybe I am simply ignorant...)—
Something like that, yeah. Except I might leave off 'ignorant' in your case. For a christian you seem to exhibit a fair amount of intelligence. But why you would want to squander that intellect in the way you do is a mystery.
For me, it’s basically aesthetic—similar to listening to Beethoven—or Ravi Shankar’s ragas, or Hasidic niggun, or Sufi quwalli, for that matter—(and I’m speaking of something more that “entertainment,” though I might not have the right words thus far). Actually, it was you that got me, some time back, to think of the aesthetic dimensions of religious expression—and, with a bow to LemonJello, the aesthetic “justification” of such expression in the face of the Absurd (and trying to do that without making what Camus sees—and I see—as an unjustified “leap” ). (Although one cannot just submit to a given expression, but has to approach it creatively—as the rabbis say, you need to bring your own torah to the Torah—or one ends up abrogating her/his moral sensibilities and intellectual responsibilities).
But, I admit, it’s difficult for me not to get caught in the undergrowth when delving into, say, Torah—even as I travel fairly freely from expression to expression (finding the so-called “perennial philosophy” in each of them). There really can be a kind of seductiveness that whispers, “If only I could really believe that ‘Frodo lives!’.” I have to back off sometimes, to get some clarity back (one has to remember that there is a world outside of Beethoven’s Ninth).
As I move in and out, back and forth, I probably end up offending (or at least confusing) a lot of people. It’s funny, in a way, how many times I find myself reccing rwingett, while in the meantime engaging myself in some arduous and time-consuming exegesis of some religious text—and not just for the purpose of disputing theism. Consistency, I guess, is not my particular “hobgoblin”...
05 Oct 06
Originally posted by nemo46Who knows?! Does that necessarily mean it was God? If so, why the christian God? Why not Allah? Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
No! Just stating a fact that we all exist so how did we get here if no one started the whole process off? Even evolution needed a start!
06 Oct 06
Originally posted by vistesdI'm glad that someone appreciates my posts. Lord knows* I've spent enough time in this forum over the last 5 years**. I must say that your posts are among the more rec worthy ones around here. Your depth of knowledge on the relevant topics is most impressive. At the risk of sounding maudlin***, I think you are a true candle in the darkness.
Not that you asked me, but, I’ve been examining myself on this score recently (of course, maybe I am simply ignorant...)—
For me, it’s basically aesthetic—similar to listening to Beethoven—or Ravi Shankar’s ragas, or Hasidic niggun, or Sufi quwalli, for that matter—(and I’m speaking of something more that “entertainment,” though I might not have t ...[text shortened]... for the purpose of disputing theism. Consistency, I guess, is not my particular “hobgoblin”...
*Figuratively speaking.
**Five years already? Where does the time go?
***Must take care not to undermine my carefully crafted curmudgeonly persona.
06 Oct 06
Originally posted by nemo46That arguement has been covered here:
If nothing existed then why are you on this planet? You exist don't you? If God did not exist, then how come we are all in this here world? How does the world exist?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument
as was mentioned earlier in this thread.
You however go further and imply that nothing can exist without God, but do not explain why you think that.
I have witnessed some things that cannot be explained but are not super natural. 😕
Do you mean:
1. You could not explain them.
or
2. They cannot be explained (ie it would be impossible to explain them)
If 2. then how do you know they are not supernatural? One definition of 'supernatural' is "The unexplainable"
06 Oct 06
Originally posted by rwingettHow sweet.
I think you are a true candle in the darkness.
@Scribbles: I wonder how we could test the hypothesis that there is some sort of causal relationship between your failure to accept my Debates challenge and your wasting your life in here.