| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/17/2010 09:12:15 PM · #251 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Nullix: In reality, people have faith because they have an encounter with the living God.
Shannon: Sumerians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Norse, Inca, Mayans, Apache... ? |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think most religions are mutually exclusive at least at some level. |
DING DING DING! Faith cannot require an encounter with the living God if the many disparate faiths are mutually exclusive. Nullix' statement assumes only one God and that ALL people of faith agree on the same one. The claim is invalidated by deductive reasoning. |
|
|
|
06/17/2010 09:26:35 PM · #252 |
| Wait... there is no Santa Claus? |
|
|
|
06/17/2010 09:32:43 PM · #253 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
People of faith don't ignore reality, they are a product of it. In reality, people have faith because they have an encounter with the living God. |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
How does one know this? I ask out of genuine curiosity. |
Originally posted by Nullix:
How does one know this? I'm not certain except when it happens you know it. I'm sure every encounter is different.
I don't want to sound like I didn't put much thought into this, but I came up with many responses to this and they all came off wrong. |
That actually makes sense to a certain degree, just like the way that sometimes things work out in a way that is so right, and amazing, yet you have no reasonable explanation for how it could possibly have occurred. It's decidedly anti-climatic, and to a certain degree disappointing to think that it may have been completely random.
I'm not sure that you can explain why, or what it is that happened, occurred, or caused true belief if one feels that he/she has received validation of God in his/her own life. The thing that troubles me so much is that I can accept the idea of Divine Intervention, but it just so much seems to me that the structure that we as humans have devised to make order of it is simply too far out there for someone who hasn't grown up being indoctrinated to swallow. And I'm not sure that it's relevant, or destined to be that way. It just seems to darn self0-indulgent to think that it's all about us, and that we're to do this little dance in order to receive favor in the eyes of a supreme being.
I'm not just talking Christianity, either......pretty much all of the world's old guard and structured religions all have these bizarre set of strictures that seem designed to make us prove ourselves. That just seems so odd! If we're here under the auspices of omnipotence, then why isn't our behavior governed, or at least guided so as not to create chaos? The whole concept of instilling free will, designing us to be hedonistic and self-serving by nature, and then setting us loose to see if we figure out that we have a grand purpose in worship just seems ridiculous.
Am I making sense to you with this?
|
|
|
|
06/17/2010 09:35:17 PM · #254 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...Some people can be presented with evidence that is convincing to many other people and reject it as conspiracy. |
You are absolutely right in your analogy Doc, but the sad fact rests in the reality that what is being advocated by religious types falls woefully short of what general would be considered as evidence. There are a great number of suppositions relating to a god... but evidence it most certainly not at the forefront.
Ray |
|
|
|
06/17/2010 10:55:21 PM · #255 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Wait... there is no Santa Claus? |
Not in June, silly. |
|
|
|
06/17/2010 11:00:22 PM · #256 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Nullix: In reality, people have faith because they have an encounter with the living God.
Shannon: Sumerians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Norse, Inca, Mayans, Apache... ? |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think most religions are mutually exclusive at least at some level. |
DING DING DING! Faith cannot require an encounter with the living God if the many disparate faiths are mutually exclusive. Nullix' statement assumes only one God and that ALL people of faith agree on the same one. The claim is invalidated by deductive reasoning. |
I was waiting for someone to point this out. That the world's religions conflict and cannot all be true is not inductive reasoning. It's fact. |
|
|
|
06/18/2010 12:19:23 PM · #257 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Nullix:
How does one know this? I'm not certain except when it happens you know it. I'm sure every encounter is different.
I don't want to sound like I didn't put much thought into this, but I came up with many responses to this and they all came off wrong. |
That actually makes sense to a certain degree, just like the way that sometimes things work out in a way that is so right, and amazing, yet you have no reasonable explanation for how it could possibly have occurred. It's decidedly anti-climatic, and to a certain degree disappointing to think that it may have been completely random.
I'm not sure that you can explain why, or what it is that happened, occurred, or caused true belief if one feels that he/she has received validation of God in his/her own life. The thing that troubles me so much is that I can accept the idea of Divine Intervention, but it just so much seems to me that the structure that we as humans have devised to make order of it is simply too far out there for someone who hasn't grown up being indoctrinated to swallow. And I'm not sure that it's relevant, or destined to be that way. It just seems to darn self0-indulgent to think that it's all about us, and that we're to do this little dance in order to receive favor in the eyes of a supreme being.
I'm not just talking Christianity, either......pretty much all of the world's old guard and structured religions all have these bizarre set of strictures that seem designed to make us prove ourselves. That just seems so odd! If we're here under the auspices of omnipotence, then why isn't our behavior governed, or at least guided so as not to create chaos? The whole concept of instilling free will, designing us to be hedonistic and self-serving by nature, and then setting us loose to see if we figure out that we have a grand purpose in worship just seems ridiculous.
Am I making sense to you with this? |
It is making sense, but I'd like to read again a few times and let it sink in. What I'm getting from all of this is:
It just seems to darn self-indulgent to think that it's all about us, and that we're to do this little dance in order to receive favor in the eyes of a supreme being.
I don't think the little dance we do is to entertain the supreme being. I believe we do the little dance to live better with our neighbors and improve ourselves.
It is self-indulgent to better ourselves, but it's selfless when it improves those around ourselves.
But, when it comes down to it, I am dancing to entertain a supreme being. I believe dancing improves myself and those around me. I'm not dancing because I'm afraid I'll get thrown out, I'm dancing because I've come to enjoy it.
I tried coming up with an analogy for those who don't like to dance, but I'm sure this supreme being will be entertained by many talents.
I know I contradicted myself. I'll have to sit more with this and let it sink in and see what happens. |
|
|
|
06/18/2010 12:58:18 PM · #258 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
It is making sense, but I'd like to read again a few times and let it sink in. What I'm getting from all of this is:
It just seems to darn self-indulgent to think that it's all about us, and that we're to do this little dance in order to receive favor in the eyes of a supreme being.
I don't think the little dance we do is to entertain the supreme being. I believe we do the little dance to live better with our neighbors and improve ourselves.
It is self-indulgent to better ourselves, but it's selfless when it improves those around ourselves.
But, when it comes down to it, I am dancing to entertain a supreme being. I believe dancing improves myself and those around me. I'm not dancing because I'm afraid I'll get thrown out, I'm dancing because I've come to enjoy it.
I tried coming up with an analogy for those who don't like to dance, but I'm sure this supreme being will be entertained by many talents.
I know I contradicted myself. I'll have to sit more with this and let it sink in and see what happens. |
It frightens me a little that we may not be as far off as I had initially thought. ....8>)
I know I'm certainly grappling with trying to express myself coherently as well, not that this is something terribly new, but I also wish I could explain my view well.
The dance analogy is possibly not accurate. What I meant by that is that the aforementioned dance seems to be what man has gleaned from their experiences with God as they understood him, or her, and therefore recorded it. I'm not so sure that the way God meant for someone to see his grace and guidance is the same today as it was back when the Bible was written, the pyramids were built, the great wall constructed, or the great sailing ships of the Vikings plied the seas. I honestly do not profess to know, or understand what the heck it is that I'm supposed to do as it pertains to me other than the basic idea as it's been handed down over the centuries as to being good to, loving, and helping each other, which seem to be tenets that transcend the specifics of religions that otherwise cannot agree. My suspicion is that it's man's take on those specifics that gets us all into the armories with the intent on killing the other guy 'cause his system is screwed up, and a threat to our very way of life. Somehow that seems so wrong.
As has been discussed in great length, ideas change, and we grow and learn, and what we think and believe is certainly a lot different than it was 2000 years ago......as evidenced by us communicating through this box for one. We know more, we're more skeptical, and we need more from our lives than we did all that time ago. Yet we need more strength of character than ever, and the guidance and good examples seem to be further out of reach than ever to a certain extent.
It sure makes me work hard to be a better person just because I want to be, and I have to depend on my own perception of what's righht to guide me to be that person as I interact with anyone I may encounter, regardless of their beliefs.....or lack of belief.
So I wander around wondering what it is that I'm supposed to be accomplishing, and every now and then things happen that allow me the privilege, and luxury of feeling that I'm doing it okay.
I like to think that could be Grace.
|
|
|
|
06/18/2010 02:21:37 PM · #259 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I like to think that could be Grace. |
Why must it be an external force? What's wrong with human spirit?
|
|
|
|
06/18/2010 02:25:58 PM · #260 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I like to think that could be Grace. |
Why must it be an external force? What's wrong with human spirit? |
That's kind of the issue, isn't it? Where does the human spirit acquire its Grace?
R.
|
|
|
|
06/18/2010 03:19:43 PM · #261 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I like to think that could be Grace. |
Why must it be an external force? What's wrong with human spirit? |
By your past comments, I thought you were anti-spiritual., |
|
|
|
06/18/2010 03:21:08 PM · #262 |
Originally posted by Intelli:
Every war that ever happened had something to do with religion. |
I hope that was hyperbole Intelli. I'll tell myself you meant it that way which keeps you from looking very foolish in my eyes. |
|
|
|
06/18/2010 03:25:46 PM · #263 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Nullix: In reality, people have faith because they have an encounter with the living God.
Shannon: Sumerians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Norse, Inca, Mayans, Apache... ? |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think most religions are mutually exclusive at least at some level. |
DING DING DING! Faith cannot require an encounter with the living God if the many disparate faiths are mutually exclusive. Nullix' statement assumes only one God and that ALL people of faith agree on the same one. The claim is invalidated by deductive reasoning. |
Oh, I actually agree with you. I was reading Nullix' statement differently. Faith does not require an encounter with the living God. At least not in the manner I'm guessing you are interpreting "encounter" as encompassing. His statement also doesn't negate the possibility people have an "encounter" that is misinterpreted and thus leads to an incorrect belief. That could easily happen as well and I fully understand that you would consider ALL the encounters to be misinterpretations. I would not. |
|
|
|
06/18/2010 04:04:54 PM · #264 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I like to think that could be Grace. |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Why must it be an external force? What's wrong with human spirit? |
Well.....if you would consider the rest of what that comment applied to, it makes more sense. What I was referring to was this: So I wander around wondering what it is that I'm supposed to be accomplishing, and every now and then things happen that allow me the privilege, and luxury of feeling that I'm doing it okay.
I'd like to think that perhaps this is an indication perhaps of Grace rather than just random events or coincidence.
Just a hope, maybe naive, but I'm like that sometimes.
|
|
|
|
06/18/2010 04:20:53 PM · #265 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I fully understand that you would consider ALL the encounters to be misinterpretations. I would not. |
Of course you wouldn't. Amusing then that such encounters just *happen* to follow the preconceived notions of whatever god a person was indoctrinated into. People in Kentucky don't generally encounter Buddha or see Allah's image on a potato chip. The territorial nature of world religions does not support the idea of interpretation, but follows a pattern of personal imagination exactly. If it were merely interpretation, then at least some New World natives would have arrived at the "correct" god before conquistadors showed up to spread the good news with guns and disease.
Put another way, people do not have faith because of an encounter with God. Rather, I strongly suspect the perceived phenomenon is an example of the humans' well documented tendency to see what they want or expect to see. The more fervently you believe, the more likely you'll experience SOMETHING to support that belief. The same premise yields amazing results for people who believe in astrology, psychics, fortune cookies, healing crystals and so on. Scour the shores of Loch Ness long enough, and I guarantee you'll see Nessie... and you can be equally assured that someone will disagree with your interpretation because what you really saw was a UFO or government experiment.
I've mentioned this before, although I don't remember which thread, but someone once dragged me to a multi-level marketing meeting where they were touting the wonders of magnetic shoe inserts and other gizmos. Upon learning that I was a doubter, the presenter offered a demonstration. He called for a volunteer from the group and explained an amazing (mylar) solar blanket. This miracle of modern technology supposedly harnessed the rays of the sun and focused that energy into the wearer for all sorts of purported health benefits. So he put it on one of my wife's cousins and asked her if she could feel it working. Surprise, surprise, she said that it was very noticeable. So the guy turns triumphantly to me and asked what I thought now that a volunteer had actually experienced this channeling of the sun's rays right before my eyes. I said, "It's 11:00 at night. What sun?" There's your personal encounter. |
|
|
|
06/18/2010 04:38:59 PM · #266 |
| Wow. Your wife's cousin experienced god energising a mylar blanket at a sales conference? I think perhaps I'll have to be a believer after all. |
|
|
|
06/18/2010 05:22:40 PM · #267 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Faith does not require an encounter with the living God. |
I beg to differ. I don't know of anyone who has faith and doesn't rely on some encounters with God whether they experienced it themselves or by proxy. If nobody claimed to have encountered God, faith would have died out long ago.
Message edited by author 2010-06-18 17:23:34. |
|
|
|
06/18/2010 05:30:54 PM · #268 |
Shannon used the word "indoctrination" and I've wondered for a while what kind of education is NOT indoctrination? Is math indoctrination? Spelling? Grammar? Science? Are atheists with atheist parents indoctrinated? It gets used, like he did, as a denigrating word to call into question the entire system. It MUST be false because it's indoctrination. Why is it indoctrination? Because it's false! A totally circular argument.
Since Shannon knows nothing of my upbringing, I'm not sure how he knows I've been "indoctrinated" in any definition of the word other than a purely insulting one. |
|
|
|
06/18/2010 05:39:57 PM · #269 |
| You could probably look up 'indoctrination', maybe 'doctrine' while you're at it, and check out whatever diverse semantic fields are considered to be common usage and what etymology lies at the root of the words. You could ask Shannon to help and/or discuss a working definition for the sakeof this thread. Or you could say 'he used it to insult me'. Sounds like pistols at dawn. Say a prayer. |
|
|
|
06/18/2010 05:48:59 PM · #270 |
Originally posted by raish:
You could probably look up 'indoctrination', maybe 'doctrine' while you're at it, and check out whatever diverse semantic fields are considered to be common usage and what etymology lies at the root of the words. You could ask Shannon to help and/or discuss a working definition for the sakeof this thread. Or you could say 'he used it to insult me'. Sounds like pistols at dawn. Say a prayer. |
It's merely the latest time the word is used. Since it frequently gets used, I'd like some clarification. English words have a wide range of interpretation and me just looking up a definition (which I already know) does no good to understand how it is being used by the party at hand.
I do think it gets used as a backhand to religion as if a) religion is the only system of teaching which falls to the level of "indoctrination" and b) no worthy body of information uses "indoctrination" to be passed down and c) if "indoctrination" is used, the information is automatically suspect.
So I ask the questions.
Message edited by author 2010-06-18 17:49:17. |
|
|
|
06/18/2010 05:52:37 PM · #271 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by raish:
You could probably look up 'indoctrination', maybe 'doctrine' while you're at it, and check out whatever diverse semantic fields are considered to be common usage and what etymology lies at the root of the words. You could ask Shannon to help and/or discuss a working definition for the sakeof this thread. Or you could say 'he used it to insult me'. Sounds like pistols at dawn. Say a prayer. |
It's merely the latest time the word is used. Since it frequently gets used, I'd like some clarification. English words have a wide range of interpretation and me just looking up a definition (which I already know) does no good to understand how it is being used by the party at hand.
I do think it gets used as a backhand to religion as if a) religion is the only system of teaching which falls to the level of "indoctrination" and b) no worthy body of information uses "indoctrination" to be passed down and c) if "indoctrination" is used, the information is automatically suspect.
So I ask the questions. |
So what's your definition of the word? The word as I've seen it used in these threads are pretty consistent with the definitions found here.
Message edited by author 2010-06-18 17:56:49. |
|
|
|
06/18/2010 06:00:01 PM · #272 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by raish:
You could probably look up 'indoctrination', maybe 'doctrine' while you're at it, and check out whatever diverse semantic fields are considered to be common usage and what etymology lies at the root of the words. You could ask Shannon to help and/or discuss a working definition for the sakeof this thread. Or you could say 'he used it to insult me'. Sounds like pistols at dawn. Say a prayer. |
It's merely the latest time the word is used. Since it frequently gets used, I'd like some clarification. English words have a wide range of interpretation and me just looking up a definition (which I already know) does no good to understand how it is being used by the party at hand.
I do think it gets used as a backhand to religion as if a) religion is the only system of teaching which falls to the level of "indoctrination" and b) no worthy body of information uses "indoctrination" to be passed down and c) if "indoctrination" is used, the information is automatically suspect.
So I ask the questions. |
So what's your definition of the word? The word as I've seen it used in these threads are pretty consistent with the definitions found here. |
Yup. That's my understanding. So my question. Since nobody has grown up with me or knows my education, why the assumption I've been indoctrinated? And if an atheist has atheist parents, should one assume they have been likewise indoctrinated?
EDIT to add: This is why I bristle at the word. Does anybody who talks to me with any regularity on these threads truly think I do not critically evaluate things? I would be highly offended if someone answered yes.
Message edited by author 2010-06-18 18:08:29. |
|
|
|
06/18/2010 06:13:57 PM · #273 |
| I'd have to say you don't evaluate outside of your comfort zone. All your conclusions are predictable. |
|
|
|
06/18/2010 06:46:47 PM · #274 |
Originally posted by Louis:
I'd have to say you don't evaluate outside of your comfort zone. All your conclusions are predictable. |
Pfft. Are anybody else's conclusions not predictable? Come on.
We've talked on IM a lot, but I have to say your last two posts about me seem to reveal you don't have a very high opinion of who I am. |
|
|
|
06/18/2010 06:58:26 PM · #275 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by raish:
You could probably look up 'indoctrination', maybe 'doctrine' while you're at it, and check out whatever diverse semantic fields are considered to be common usage and what etymology lies at the root of the words. You could ask Shannon to help and/or discuss a working definition for the sakeof this thread. Or you could say 'he used it to insult me'. Sounds like pistols at dawn. Say a prayer. |
It's merely the latest time the word is used. Since it frequently gets used, I'd like some clarification. English words have a wide range of interpretation and me just looking up a definition (which I already know) does no good to understand how it is being used by the party at hand.
I do think it gets used as a backhand to religion as if a) religion is the only system of teaching which falls to the level of "indoctrination" and b) no worthy body of information uses "indoctrination" to be passed down and c) if "indoctrination" is used, the information is automatically suspect.
So I ask the questions. |
So what's your definition of the word? The word as I've seen it used in these threads are pretty consistent with the definitions found here. |
Yup. That's my understanding. So my question. Since nobody has grown up with me or knows my education, why the assumption I've been indoctrinated? And if an atheist has atheist parents, should one assume they have been likewise indoctrinated?
EDIT to add: This is why I bristle at the word. Does anybody who talks to me with any regularity on these threads truly think I do not critically evaluate things? I would be highly offended if someone answered yes. |
I can't speak for Shannon but I thought you admitted at some point either to me privately or in these threads that you were raised christian growing up. If that's the case are you saying it wasn't indoctrination?
I'd agree if atheist parents raised their child to be atheist it would also be indoctrination. Fact of the matter, unless you're born in a vaccumn you can't escape indoctrination. Those raised in western societies will have a leaning toward western ideals and so on and so forth. Ultimately it's up to the individual to realize this and then start questioning everything.
There was a thread a short while ago about how something was done (photographically) and I asked why is it that we get so many threads asking how but not why something is done. I got jumped on pretty quick for even asking why because why is apparently so obvious it shouldn't be asked. Of course nobody actually said what the why was or even bothered to ask me what I meant by why. They were far too down the paths they had taken in their photographic journeys that to look back now and inspect the why would be risking too much. While I feel you do think critically and need things to make logical sense, ultimately you fail like most of us do when the risk becomes too great to our world views. Ultimately it takes a free thinker, one who isn't weighed down by a reliance on authorities (ex. God, CS Lewis, Richard Dawkins, etc), who is willing to consider anything and everything as possible. It's only then when your reach is at your longest and the truth, attainable. Of course just IMO.
Message edited by author 2010-06-18 19:00:10. |
|
