Mission Statement: This blog reviews the news of the day in light of 242 years of American history. "Nationalism," a modern day pejorative, has been our country's politic throughout history, until 2008. Obama changed that narrative. Trump is seeking a return to our historical roots. Midknight Review supports this return to normality.
What Islam Has In Mind For The Rest Of World: a picture, here, is really worth a thousand words.
Not sure how you would know this, since the world has never been free of "god" in some form. He has been everywhere, in all cultures and times. The fact that "god" pisses you off is no argument against his existence or beneficence. In fact, I would argue that your passion against God evidences His existence. Good talking to you, Brother Paul.
My passion has nothing to do with god but with the people who perpetuate myths and continue to spread violence in the name of God or Allah. I know this argument that arguing against god only validates his existence and it is just another circular logic black hole that is a favorite of the born again crowd. My problem has nothing to do with god. Fairy tales are for children. Its sad that so many people waste their time and money on fantasies when there is a wonderful world of reality to waste time and money on. I choose not to get in religious discussions any longer because I understand that the more you discuss the more entrenched each side becomes and the less listening actually happens.
Look, you confuse me with someone living in one of your boxes. God is your being, whether you believe in him or not. I, too, don't care about arguing for God because he exists beyond our rhetorical maneuvers. And if he doesn't exist? Chaos is the world's answer to a godless circumstance, chaos or a heavy handed tyranny .
Chaos is a direct result of believing in fairy tales. If you need to explain faith by saying that it is beyond our comprehension then maybe faith needs a little more scrutiny.
How many people have died in wars "in the name of God"?
You write: “Chaos is a direct result of believing in fairy tales.” I assume you mean “God” with the term “fairy tales.” Rather than argue the point, I simply ask for a substantive example of your claim. I don’t think you can come up with one. You write: “If you need to explain faith by saying that it is beyond our comprehension then maybe faith needs a little more scrutiny.” I don’t think I went down this road -- more of you putting me in one of your stereotypical boxes. But, I would argue your conclusion. Here is what I think: faith always comes into play when something in an equation is not in evidence. Discovery science has faith that a cure for cancer “is just around the corner.” Faith, . . . . . “believing in that which is not in evidence” . . . . . . is the very thing that drives discovery science. It, faith, is the only reason you, heir Paul, make plans for tomorrow, since there is no evidence that you will live through the night. Faith is the ONLY explanation for a mathematical postulate which means, of course, that all the conclusions of science have, as their cornerstone, this thing (faith) you want to deny. You write: “How many people have died in wars ‘in the name of God?’ “ as if this is some sort of proof against God. I know this will come off as arrogant, but, come on Paul, if you are going to keep up with this discussion, you really need to be a little more original than this. Apparently, you do not believe in “true and false” when it comes to religion. Is that the only category in which there is no “right and wrong” as far as you are concern? I mean, if climate scientists lie and cheat on their reports, does that condemn all of climate science? If not, why? You think that when a Muslim shouts, “God is great” and, then, takes 10 minutes to saw a screaming young American’s head off, that is an indictment against the truth of God and the utility of faith? Good gosh. How challenged is that argument? The god that allows a Muslim murderer to do such a thing, is no god at all . . . . just ask a Muslim who hates what she sees in the Jihadist rebellion. Finally and in a previous post, you criticized my use of a “circular argument.” Heck, the universe is circular and everything in it. I would have agreed with your criticism of circular logic, in my younger days, before I read comments made by a man named Thomas Torrance in a wonderful book entitled The Mediation of Christ. I am a big time student of Karl Barth (pronounced “Bart”). Torrance was student of Barth. Anyway, Torrance makes this point: “When we adopt this kind of approach, whether in natural science or in theology, we find that progress in understanding is necessarily circular” (p.3). What we know about God is revealed by God, himself. Circular. What we know about history is revealed by a study of history. Circular. Science is about discovering the principles of science that “work,” using science to discover science; using revealed science to discover what is previously “unknown” but ALREADTY there. We don’t invent a cure, we discover a cure and that is true because all such things are circular in nature. Its all circular, buddy.
I'm not really trying to make any points or prove anything. I just see with my own eyes that "God" is used for more bad than good and feel that the world would be a much better place without "God". I will continue turning the other cheek and ignoring "God" and all its fairy tales. I'm sorry I even started the conversation because this conversation always has a dead end.
What is truly important is that "God" is kept out of political decisions. Thankfully we live in a country with religious freedom and a separation of church and state.
Ahhhh. "I'm not really trying to make any points or prove anything." - the theme of "Occupy." But, of course, one who believes in chaos can only initiate a discussion for which there is no point. One of the several differences between conservative and liberal. It always ends this way. Like Rush says, "symbol over substance."
But thanks for letting me get my thoughts in order, seriously. Latter daze.
I am not a liberal and christianity is full of symbols and light on substance.
We can argue all day about fairy tales but I would rather discuss issues of substance rather than symbols. Fairy tales will not come true no matter how many folks believe. If it gets you through the night then I guess its alright.
The difference between faith in science and faith in "God" is that science has a result, a conclusion. Something useful, WITH SUBSTANCE! actually comes from putting faith in science. What do you get out of faith in "God"? A sense of security in a scary world full of chaos? An entitlement to eternal life? Fairy tales?
The reason that religion has been a part of every culture in the history of man is because it is a useful tool to manipulate people with fear into patterns of behavior. Answers in science may bring up more questions but "God" has no answers, only open ended fairy tales about the rapture that will never come. The brilliance of christianity is that it never has to happen for people to believe. All you need is a little faith.
Religion ruins the world. Belief in God or Allah or Buddah is a waste of time and energy. The world would be a much better place without religion.
ReplyDeleteNot sure how you would know this, since the world has never been free of "god" in some form. He has been everywhere, in all cultures and times. The fact that "god" pisses you off is no argument against his existence or beneficence. In fact, I would argue that your passion against God evidences His existence. Good talking to you, Brother Paul.
ReplyDeleteMy passion has nothing to do with god but with the people who perpetuate myths and continue to spread violence in the name of God or Allah. I know this argument that arguing against god only validates his existence and it is just another circular logic black hole that is a favorite of the born again crowd. My problem has nothing to do with god. Fairy tales are for children. Its sad that so many people waste their time and money on fantasies when there is a wonderful world of reality to waste time and money on. I choose not to get in religious discussions any longer because I understand that the more you discuss the more entrenched each side becomes and the less listening actually happens.
ReplyDeletePeace Brother John.
Look, you confuse me with someone living in one of your boxes. God is your being, whether you believe in him or not. I, too, don't care about arguing for God because he exists beyond our rhetorical maneuvers.
ReplyDeleteAnd if he doesn't exist? Chaos is the world's answer to a godless circumstance, chaos or a heavy handed tyranny .
Chaos is a direct result of believing in fairy tales. If you need to explain faith by saying that it is beyond our comprehension then maybe faith needs a little more scrutiny.
ReplyDeleteHow many people have died in wars "in the name of God"?
You write: “Chaos is a direct result of believing in fairy tales.” I assume you mean “God” with the term “fairy tales.” Rather than argue the point, I simply ask for a substantive example of your claim. I don’t think you can come up with one.
ReplyDeleteYou write: “If you need to explain faith by saying that it is beyond our comprehension then maybe faith needs a little more scrutiny.” I don’t think I went down this road -- more of you putting me in one of your stereotypical boxes. But, I would argue your conclusion. Here is what I think: faith always comes into play when something in an equation is not in evidence. Discovery science has faith that a cure for cancer “is just around the corner.” Faith, . . . . . “believing in that which is not in evidence” . . . . . . is the very thing that drives discovery science. It, faith, is the only reason you, heir Paul, make plans for tomorrow, since there is no evidence that you will live through the night. Faith is the ONLY explanation for a mathematical postulate which means, of course, that all the conclusions of science have, as their cornerstone, this thing (faith) you want to deny.
You write: “How many people have died in wars ‘in the name of God?’ “ as if this is some sort of proof against God. I know this will come off as arrogant, but, come on Paul, if you are going to keep up with this discussion, you really need to be a little more original than this. Apparently, you do not believe in “true and false” when it comes to religion. Is that the only category in which there is no “right and wrong” as far as you are concern? I mean, if climate scientists lie and cheat on their reports, does that condemn all of climate science? If not, why?
You think that when a Muslim shouts, “God is great” and, then, takes 10 minutes to saw a screaming young American’s head off, that is an indictment against the truth of God and the utility of faith? Good gosh. How challenged is that argument? The god that allows a Muslim murderer to do such a thing, is no god at all . . . . just ask a Muslim who hates what she sees in the Jihadist rebellion.
Finally and in a previous post, you criticized my use of a “circular argument.” Heck, the universe is circular and everything in it. I would have agreed with your criticism of circular logic, in my younger days, before I read comments made by a man named Thomas Torrance in a wonderful book entitled The Mediation of Christ. I am a big time student of Karl Barth (pronounced “Bart”). Torrance was student of Barth.
Anyway, Torrance makes this point: “When we adopt this kind of approach, whether in natural science or in theology, we find that progress in understanding is necessarily circular” (p.3).
What we know about God is revealed by God, himself. Circular.
What we know about history is revealed by a study of history. Circular.
Science is about discovering the principles of science that “work,” using science to discover science; using revealed science to discover what is previously “unknown” but ALREADTY there. We don’t invent a cure, we discover a cure and that is true because all such things are circular in nature.
Its all circular, buddy.
I'm not really trying to make any points or prove anything. I just see with my own eyes that "God" is used for more bad than good and feel that the world would be a much better place without "God". I will continue turning the other cheek and ignoring "God" and all its fairy tales. I'm sorry I even started the conversation because this conversation always has a dead end.
ReplyDeleteWhat is truly important is that "God" is kept out of political decisions. Thankfully we live in a country with religious freedom and a separation of church and state.
Ahhhh. "I'm not really trying to make any points or prove anything." - the theme of "Occupy." But, of course, one who believes in chaos can only initiate a discussion for which there is no point. One of the several differences between conservative and liberal. It always ends this way. Like Rush says, "symbol over substance."
ReplyDeleteBut thanks for letting me get my thoughts in order, seriously. Latter daze.
I am not a liberal and christianity is full of symbols and light on substance.
ReplyDeleteWe can argue all day about fairy tales but I would rather discuss issues of substance rather than symbols. Fairy tales will not come true no matter how many folks believe. If it gets you through the night then I guess its alright.
I cannot resist responding to your previous post.
ReplyDeleteThe difference between faith in science and faith in "God" is that science has a result, a conclusion. Something useful, WITH SUBSTANCE! actually comes from putting faith in science. What do you get out of faith in "God"? A sense of security in a scary world full of chaos? An entitlement to eternal life? Fairy tales?
The reason that religion has been a part of every culture in the history of man is because it is a useful tool to manipulate people with fear into patterns of behavior. Answers in science may bring up more questions but "God" has no answers, only open ended fairy tales about the rapture that will never come. The brilliance of christianity is that it never has to happen for people to believe. All you need is a little faith.
You say: We can argue all day about fairy tales but I would rather discuss issues of substance rather than symbols . . . .
ReplyDeleteFine, but you do remember that you started this discussion, right?
Your explanation for the existence of religion does not square with the principles of evolution, or do not not believe in that, as well?