The insanity of religion

I like this line in your post, seaoat...

but because reality must conform to the human mind's active concepts to be conceivable and this is your limitation.

Not sure exactly what you mean when using the term "active concepts", but aside from that, you've got it. And very few do.

It must be something to do with both of us being attracted to verses in that book of matthew. Dunno.

Cutting through the razzle dazzle bullshit all you actually said Oatie was "there are universal truths and perfection which can be seen in nature,math and science" but you haven't found that perfection so you believe in Matthhew 6. Correcto mondo?

Again you have managed to just about miss every point that has been made. I do believe it is razzle dazzle in your inability to comprehend. So I will just say NOWHERE have I said that I have not found truth and perfection. A simple math problem of two plus two is four.....is truth......it is perfection, and the same exists throughout nature and science, so man certainly must be able to experience the same to extrapolate that more truth and perfection is beyond what Kant argues is the limitations of our own minds, or Plato argues in his allegory of the cave what the shadows represent. From these inherent limitations you argue with certainty that I am a fool, and show me God, which obviously great minds have argued the same for Aristotle would certainly say....you know what Dreams gets my razzle dazzle and creation had to come from something, so I will ask you and Aristotle, if you believe the current limits of scientific truth(fully realizing that it may not be the truth), what came before the big bang and the Universe?

but because reality must conform to the human mind's active concepts to be conceivable and this is your limitation.


Bob, that is what is so funny about Board's response to my beliefs. Like I have created some new branch of Christianity, or Philosophy......those words are Kant's and are the essence of his concept that we mold reality by the limitations of our perceptions. I give Dreams crap. She is intelligent, yet for whatever reason she never was exposed to higher level conceptual thought either with exposure to University courses or reading. This does not make her any less intelligent, and with the experiential defined truth she is usually flawless. Few can do a better job, by she has great difficulty with the conceptual apriori world which cannot be touched or smelled and would simply tell Einstein that is his theory of relativity is razzle dazzle BS........So understand that none of these arguments are unique, and those words are Kant's. I find it a bit amusing that you would think those are my words, like I find it amusing that Boards was clueless about the protestant reformation and the importance of Matthew 6. Yea, I am a dick. Req and I would have hours of fun in long meandering threads which would make PK go running off his dock in his back yard. Sometimes those who criticize religion are just as limited as the hypocrites who pray the loudest.

2seaoat wrote:Cutting through the razzle dazzle bullshit all you actually said Oatie was "there are universal truths and perfection which can be seen in nature,math and science" but you haven't found that perfection so you believe in Matthhew 6. Correcto mondo?

Again you have managed to just about miss every point that has been made.  I do believe it is razzle dazzle in your inability to comprehend.  So I will just say NOWHERE have I said that I have not found truth and perfection.  A simple math problem of two plus two is four.....is truth......it is perfection, and the same exists throughout nature and science, so man certainly must be able to experience the same to extrapolate that more truth and perfection is beyond what Kant argues is the limitations of our own minds, or Plato argues in his allegory of the cave what the shadows represent.   From these inherent limitations you argue with certainty that I am a fool, and show me God, which obviously great minds have argued the same for Aristotle would certainly say....you know what Dreams gets my razzle dazzle and creation had to come from something, so I will ask you and Aristotle, if you believe the current limits of scientific truth(fully realizing that it may not be the truth), what came before the big bang and the Universe?

Nowhere have you said you have not found truth and perfection? WTH does this mean then? Doesn't make any sense?

"for I have found that there are universal truths and perfection which can be seen in nature, math, and science and to the extent that I have not found the same, I find my faith in Matthew 6 to guide me, and I am at peace."

2seaoat wrote: but because reality must conform to the human mind's active concepts to be conceivable and this is your limitation.


Bob, that is what is so funny about Board's response to my beliefs.  Like I have created some new branch of Christianity, or Philosophy......those words are Kant's and are the essence of his concept that we mold reality by the limitations of our perceptions.  I give Dreams crap.  She is intelligent, yet for whatever reason she never was exposed to higher level conceptual thought either with exposure to University courses or reading.   This does not make her any less intelligent, and with the experiential defined truth she is usually flawless. Few can do a better job, by she has great difficulty with the conceptual apriori world which cannot be touched or smelled and would simply tell Einstein that is his theory of relativity is razzle dazzle BS........So understand that none of these arguments are unique, and those words are Kant's.  I find it a bit amusing that you would think those are my words, like I find it amusing that Boards was clueless about the protestant reformation and the importance of Matthew 6.   Yea, I am a dick.  Req and I would have hours of fun in long meandering threads which would make PK go running off his dock in his back yard.  Sometimes those who criticize religion are just as limited as the hypocrites who pray the loudest.

I thought those words were copied but Oatie you've managed to circumvent the questions asked of you and reverted to this philosophical diarrhea. I avoided philosophy and took Greek Mythology instead. Requeim was outstanding but then again he had a doctorate in Philosophy. Unless your going to teach it, it is a pretty useless degree. You're very good at meandering off the subject and throwing in a lot of BS, I'll have to give you that.

Bob wrote:I like this line in your post,  seaoat...

but because reality must conform to the human mind's active concepts to be conceivable and this is your limitation.

Not sure exactly what you mean when using the term "active concepts",  but aside from that,  you've got it.   And very few do.

It must be something to do with both of us being attracted to verses in that book of matthew.  Dunno.  

He sucked you in,didn't he? Not even his words.

2seaoat wrote:Cutting through the razzle dazzle bullshit all you actually said Oatie was "there are universal truths and perfection which can be seen in nature,math and science" but you haven't found that perfection so you believe in Matthhew 6. Correcto mondo?

Again you have managed to just about miss every point that has been made.  I do believe it is razzle dazzle in your inability to comprehend.  So I will just say NOWHERE have I said that I have not found truth and perfection.  A simple math problem of two plus two is four.....is truth......it is perfection, and the same exists throughout nature and science, so man certainly must be able to experience the same to extrapolate that more truth and perfection is beyond what Kant argues is the limitations of our own minds, or Plato argues in his allegory of the cave what the shadows represent.   From these inherent limitations you argue with certainty that I am a fool, and show me God, which obviously great minds have argued the same for Aristotle would certainly say....you know what Dreams gets my razzle dazzle and creation had to come from something, so I will ask you and Aristotle, if you believe the current limits of scientific truth(fully realizing that it may not be the truth), what came before the big bang and the Universe?

Other universes.

He sucked you in,didn't he? Not even his words.


Nothing......and I mean nothing in my Christian belief in Matthew 6 is unique or without hundreds of years of great minds discussing the universe, the nature of our world, and God. You see your and Boards belief system is a religion. It has faith. Your belief system has been discussed by great minds who agree and disagree, but your positions are no less religious that they depend on the central tenet that God does not exist. God is truth and perfection and is the Apex of the same in the Universe, the natural world, in math, and science. Just because we have not seen that which creates all the shadows or know the limitations of our experience and its limitation on our concepts, does not mean that truth does not exist. It does. Can there be more than one way to find the truth. Yes. So if Matthew six is but one portal, and it is wrong, I have always been all ears from drinking beer in graduate school discussing these matters with great minds, talking to Req on the PNJ, or discussing the same here. I am at total peace, not with some eighth grade revelation that God does not exist, rather that he exists and I share in this glorious world each and every day with the presence of truth.

See, I don't believe in all the God stuff because I believe we are not the only civilizations. When we discover that we will then know about our creation and beginnings.

If I got sucked in it's because when someone writes something here, unless it's put in quotation marks and attributed to another author, I assume the person is not plagiarizing. Now I guess I'll have to google every line of writing to see if it's been written by someone else before.

Vikingwoman wrote:See, I don't believe in all the God stuff because I believe we are not the only civilizations. When we discover that we will then know about our creation and beginnings.

That is a possible scenario. That the scuba diver would try to communicate what he knows to the minnow.
But since the minnow is not capable of understanding ANY form of communication the scuba diver would be attempting to use, it could well be that communication between the scuba diver and the minnow is not even possible.
That's the sticky point in the whole thing.

This is from the wikipedia page on Kant...

"Kant in his critical phase likewise sought to 'reverse' the orientation of pre-critical philosophy by showing how the traditional problems of metaphysics can be overcome by supposing that the agreement between reality and the concepts we use to conceive it arises not because our mental concepts have come to passively mirror reality, but because reality must conform to the human mind's active concepts to be conceivable and at all possible for us to experience."

I don't even get the point of all that.  But it's this line seaoat used that got my attention...

"reality must conform to the human mind's active concepts to be conceivable and at all possible for us to experience. "

I don't know what is meant by the term "active concepts" so I would write that line a little differently.  
"Reality must conform to the human thought processes to be conceivable and at all possible for us to experience.".

So for me here's what that means.  That unless the scuba diver can speak the language of the minnow,  there will be no communication between the two.

The point being,  that if an understanding of the nature of existence is not "conceivable" to the human mind,  then it will remain "unknowable" to us.

seaoat,

I've been studying a little on Matthew 5-7.

Here's some of the stuff found in it.  And this is Jesus speaking...

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[h] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

So if someone wants to take my shirt from me,  I shouldn't resist.  Instead I should hand over my coat to him too?

Screw that.   I don't care if it's a man or a god telling us that.  It's wrong,  regardless of who or what is telling us that.  And it's especially wrong if a god is telling us that because it goes against human nature.  And any god who creates us and then tells us to ignore our nature has to be a lunatic. And worshipping lunacy is not a good thing.

Here's another one from Matthew 5-7. Again Jesus speaking...

31 “It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’[f] 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

So when a divorce occurs due to anything other than "sexual immorality" (and who knows what that is since it's not defined);  if a man then marries the divorced woman,  that man is committing adultery.

What hogwash.

I doubt this character had enough sense to create a ham sandwich,  let alone create a universe and everything which exists.

His gibberish is about as sensible as the gibberish coming out of the mouths of some of today's political celebrities.

The point being, that if an understanding of the nature of existence is not "conceivable" to the human mind, then it will remain "unknowable" to us.


Very good Bob, you get Kant.

You quote Matthew 7. Have I said anything about any other verse in the Bible? I have simply said that Matthew six gives me a direct portal to God. If you find anything in Matthew 6 which is nonsense, please point it out to me. My Christian faith is just that.......faith that I can connect with truth and perfection, not some certainty that I can get up and tell others which verses to follow or like Dreams and Boards with certainty having faith that the absence of God is certain. These arguments and concepts are nothing new, but I am curious why you think folks who divorce are a good thing?

2seaoat wrote:The point being,  that if an understanding of the nature of existence is not "conceivable" to the human mind,  then it will remain "unknowable" to us.


Very good Bob, you get Kant.

You quote Matthew 7.  Have I said anything about any other verse in the Bible?  I have simply said that Matthew six gives me a direct portal to God.  If you find anything in Matthew 6 which is nonsense, please point it out to me.  My Christian faith is just that.......faith that I can connect with truth and perfection, not some certainty that I can get up and tell others which verses to follow or like Dreams and Boards with certainty having faith that the absence of God is certain.  These arguments and concepts are nothing new, but I am curious why you think folks who divorce are a good thing?

Firstly,  the verses in Matthew I quoted.

You ignored the one which has Jesus saying if someone takes your shirt away from you,  that instead of resisting that person,  you should give him your coat too.
The reason you ignored that one is because it's impossible for you or anyone else to defend.  No one holds to that belief.  And there is no reason anyone should.  It's preposterous with a capital P.

The verse about divorce has Jesus clearly saying that any man who marries a divorced woman,  is guilty of adultery.
No I don't "like" divorce because it's not a pleasant thing for anyone to have to experience.  But once a divorce occurs,  the last thing I would ever do is tell a man he's committing adultery if he marries the divorced woman.  That is as preposterous as the other verse.

This answers the question markle asked me:  "why don't you like book religion?".  Well this is a good example of why I don't like book religion,  Markle.  Unfortunately,  there are hundreds more examples like this in the book.  All equally preposterous.  

Now about Matthew 6, seaoat.  There are 34 verses in Matthew 6.  Below is a summary of all that's found in Matthew 6.
So if you can tell me what amongst this you find to be so profound that it forms the basis of your belief system,  that will help me understand all this better.  

The first part, in Matthew 6:1-18,  deals with the outward and inward expression of piety, referring to almsgiving, private prayer and fasting.[2] This part of the chapter goes over the three most important outward expressions of Jewish piety, alms giving, prayer, and fasting. Jesus endorses the standard teachings that these acts are important. Throughout this section he stresses that worship and piety should not be ostentatious, and ideally should be done in secret. He strongly condemns those who make public displays of their piety, stating that those who are pious to impress others will only impress people, and will do nothing to impress God.

Matthew 6:19-34 deals with possessions and the issues of priorities and trust.[2] The first part in Matthew 6:19-24 has three elements about two treasures, two eyes and two masters. The second part in Matthew 6:25-34 deals with trust in God and also has three elements and provides reasons for not being anxious.[2]

As I already said, one of the verses in the book of Matthew is also at the core of my own personal belief system. That would be Matthew 7:12.

“So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets"

However, that concept is found in every religion and philosophy known to us, including secular philosophy. That concept was around even before the Bible was ever written. So whoever the anonymous author of the Book of Matthew was, all he was doing was repeating something humankind had already settled on.

Seagoat has already admitted living a life of greed in pursuit of possessions... self-serving in nature.

Except for taking in refugees after katrina... which we hear about ad nauseam (ostentatious). I'm not impressed.

PkrBum wrote:Seagoat has already admitted living a life of greed in pursuit of possessions... self-serving in nature.

If that's the case, then maybe it's verses 19 and 20 in Matthew 6 which seaoat is focused on...


19: “Don’t lay up treasures for yourselves on the earth, where moth
and rust consume, and where thieves break through and steal;
20: but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor
rust consume, and where thieves don’t break through and steal;

Seaoat talks of faith he can connect w/ truth and perfection in Matthew 6. My question is what is the truth and perfection? These are merely thoughts and observations of that time. No more significant than the beliefs of the Amish that wearing certain clothing shows vanity. It is indoctrination at it's best and precludes all we have learned about the workings of the mind and the psyche of our thoughts.

Vikingwoman wrote:Seaoat talks of faith he can connect w/ truth and perfection in Matthew 6. My question is what is the truth and perfection?

Hopefully he'll explain what it is about Matthew 6 that grabs him. Because right now it's a mystery to me too.

Is there any conservative/republican/evangelical/fundamentalist Christian reading this who can explain something to me?

Being a conservative, how on earth can you sanction something which is teaching us to not resist when another is stealing from us, and teaching us to give the thief even more of our belongings instead?
That is in total conflict with what any conservative believes.

Who needs to impress, it is what it is.  Bob may not want to turn the other cheek and shack up with a divorced person, but none of that is the essence of Matthew 6.  It is that you do not need and operator to connect a call with God, and that he is always a part of us independent of those who try to convince us their way is God's way, or those who try to convince us that he cannot exist.

My question is what is the truth and perfection?

God

It is indoctrination at it's best and precludes all we have learned about the workings of the mind and the psyche of our thoughts.

A priori knowledge.....you lack the conceptual aptitude and are most certainly the poster child for Kant. You would be the proudest occupant in the allegory of the cave where you would claim speaking about how indoctrinated one must be to believe that the shadows are truth. My faith is simple. God is truth and perfection which our universe, nature, math and science confirm each and every day that there is an apex of the same which unifies it all. You think that your limited knowledge can define truths undiscovered, and that my faith in God somehow cannot be logically verified, because after all your posteriori knowledge exist only in shadows and to suggest otherwise is beyond your experience. Like I told Boards.....I have made my bet, and I feel at peace with my selection, you are welcome to believe that everyday the truths, beauty, and perfection of this world is a random roll of the dice, and that there is no portal to enlightenment, it must be a sad world of limitation you face each and every day. For me Matthew 6 has guided me for almost fifty years, criticized by the devout as limited, and criticized by those limited to their experience as believing in the sky fairy.......and finding peace in scripture which guides my life.

That is in total conflict with what any conservative believes.


If there is a higher truth, why would everything which will turn to dust hold such interest with you Bob......Money in a bank.....money hidden in your house behind the burglar bars and the fake security sign, of course the ancillary concepts of the futility to seek the material as if to collect the same is truth, would not appeal to your paradigm, because you believe that there is no unitary truth and that in the absence of what you cannot confirm with your experience, you understand that you have found security with material things.....and in that paradigm you have damn yourself to limitation, and in the end certainty that none of your life has mattered for you will turn to dust and all your possession shall do the same, as you strongly believe that in fact this is just a random throw of the dice, and you will make the best of your time and collect as much stuff as possible..........and that is the Republican Platform hidden by hypocrites who stand and pray the loudest.