1. Standard memberblack beetle
    Black Beastie
    Scheveningen
    Joined
    12 Jun '08
    Moves
    14606
    09 Jun '09 16:27
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    Actually I believe God is valided daily with respect to how He setup the
    universe and how He asks/tells us to act. When we don't, we see what
    it is that occurs over and over and in the end I do believe God will be
    validated throughout the course of time in our world and the spiritual
    one as well.
    Kelly
    But this is just a personal belief of yours, backed up from miscellaneous doctrines of your religion which we are supposed to accept them in full "as is" -and I am not yet ready to start living accepting religious beliefs blindly; furthermore, I think that you cannot attribute to this belief of yours the essense of validity due to the fact that, for starters, we are free to dismiss quite easily the existence of the entity you call "god".

    However your way of thinking is clear to me😵
  2. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    09 Jun '09 19:57
    Originally posted by black beetle
    But this is just a personal belief of yours, backed up from miscellaneous doctrines of your religion which we are supposed to accept them in full "as is" -and I am not yet ready to start living accepting religious beliefs blindly;
    To be fair, I am not aware of Kelly ever asking anyone to accept his beliefs blindly.
  3. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    09 Jun '09 20:36
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    To be fair, I am not aware of Kelly ever asking anyone to accept his beliefs blindly.
    Didn't he introduce "Thinking ouside the box" equating "thinking like him"? Well, I think so.
  4. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    157652
    10 Jun '09 01:05
    Originally posted by black beetle
    But this is just a personal belief of yours, backed up from miscellaneous doctrines of your religion which we are supposed to accept them in full "as is" -and I am not yet ready to start living accepting religious beliefs blindly; furthermore, I think that you cannot attribute to this belief of yours the essense of validity due to the fact that, for sta ...[text shortened]... the existence of the entity you call "god".

    However your way of thinking is clear to me😵
    You are suggesting everyone here is not bringing what they think is
    true to the table for discussion? Oh course my personal beliefs will
    be brought in as yours will be and everyone else's. My point is that
    validation is required and truth will win out in the end. I did not give
    you anything to hang your hat on as far as beliefs are concern out
    side of I agreed that validation is part of the process of life and ours
    will be put to the test in the end.

    I agree you may without a doubt dismiss quite easily the existence
    of the entity I call God, I know I dismiss quite easily the existence of
    the entities others bring to my attention. The topc is God just begs a
    few points to be accepted up front, first being there is one and the
    second what type of God is S/He too.

    My point in the just God, is that God has to act one way or another
    and our abilities to discern justice will come into play. If we are an
    unjust people, will we be able to stand in judgment of God if God is
    just, and get it right? Going back to another tread where someone was
    talking about why God hid Himself, would we or could we see Him if
    our vision for God is blinded by our unjustness?
    Kelly
  5. Standard memberblack beetle
    Black Beastie
    Scheveningen
    Joined
    12 Jun '08
    Moves
    14606
    10 Jun '09 08:41
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    To be fair, I am not aware of Kelly ever asking anyone to accept his beliefs blindly.
    rgr that twhitehead and we agree, but with KellyJay we were talking about the essense of validation, and I just pointed out that in my opinion the validation comes solely when we are able to confirm our theory with scientific facts and evidence; everything else is just a complex of speculations, miscellaneous theories and beliefs, therefore a simple projection of a theological belief as the one he offered it has nothing to do with validation as I understand it. This is why I told him that I am not yet ready to accept a non-validated theory as validated;
  6. Standard memberblack beetle
    Black Beastie
    Scheveningen
    Joined
    12 Jun '08
    Moves
    14606
    10 Jun '09 08:58
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    You are suggesting everyone here is not bringing what they think is
    true to the table for discussion? Oh course my personal beliefs will
    be brought in as yours will be and everyone else's. My point is that
    validation is required and truth will win out in the end. I did not give
    you anything to hang your hat on as far as beliefs are concern out
    side of ...[text shortened]... mself, would we or could we see Him if
    our vision for God is blinded by our unjustness?
    Kelly
    Everybody is free to offer his personal truth, but in case this thesis is not backed up with scientific facts and evidence just a theory it remains; so I cannot start a conversation regarding a specific property of "god" since I dismiss the existense of that entity as it is expressed as a whole by your theology.

    In my opinion "justice" is merely a human invention, designed to serve the humanity and to help the people prosper under specific social circumstances. Any attempt to extrapolate this human invention as a property of the fictional existence described by the Abrahamic religions amongst else as "god", is in my opinion non validated. Of course it would be validated in case we had scientific facts and evidence regarding the existence of that so called "god".
  7. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    10 Jun '09 09:53
    Originally posted by black beetle
    Everybody is free to offer his personal truth, but in case this thesis is not backed up with scientific facts and evidence just a theory it remains; so I cannot start a conversation regarding a specific property of "god" since I dismiss the existense of that entity as it is expressed as a whole by your theology.

    In my opinion "justice" is merely a hu ...[text shortened]... se we had scientific facts and evidence regarding the existence of that so called "god".
    ah beetle my illustrious friend, is it possible to subject something that is in essence, 'spiritual ', to the same rigours of analysis as one would a scientific theory? for it seems to me my friend that that is what you would seek to establish. If this is indeed the case, 'then the proof of the pudding should be in the eating', in that, if one is determined to collect scientific data, to validate the existence of God, then how does one practically go about doing it? all we theologians have are our sacred texts from which we can deduce a kind of personality, and principles that we believe, if applied, are a kind of affirmation of the truth that we seek to establish. thus we have a simple principle, 'there is more happiness in giving than receiving'. now how is it possible to validate the truth of such a matter, other than through its application? and even if we can achieve it on a personal level, how can we validate 'happiness', or even define it, because it is something that belongs to the spiritual realm. in essence what I am trying to say my friend is that you are asking almost the impossible, from a purely logistical point of view 🙂
  8. Standard memberblack beetle
    Black Beastie
    Scheveningen
    Joined
    12 Jun '08
    Moves
    14606
    10 Jun '09 10:40
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    ah beetle my illustrious friend, is it possible to subject something that is in essence, 'spiritual ', to the same rigours of analysis as one would a scientific theory? for it seems to me my friend that that is what you would seek to establish. If this is indeed the case, 'then the proof of the pudding should be in the eating', in that, if one is d ...[text shortened]... is that you are asking almost the impossible, from a purely logistical point of view 🙂
    The balance inside me -in my opinion this agent as posed previously by Bosse de Nage is related also to the non conceptual awareness- is indeed the factor that drives me by means of my intuition to several philosopical hypothesies, which they may work within all of them World 1, World 2 and World 3 -or they may work not partly or as a whole; I have no way to show this balance of mine to you although I 'm able to make a notion/ projection, for this agent is transmitted solely from mind to mind with known techniques. Therefore I simply act by means of promoting this feeling of balance inside me until my ego dissapears, and then with my pure nature I remain -I remain with the Void, and there I see no footprints of the so called "god" as mentioned in general by KellyJay and our other theist friends at this thread.
    Now, of course I understand that, since you follow your theological doctrines, with the conceptual awareness of your God you remain -but still without any chance for validation as I pose it; in my opinion, this happens simply because you have become the sum of your thoughts.

    Back to my non conceptual awareness: I need not to validate this approach of mine, which anyway it cannot be validated by scientific facts and evidence. I just have to be genuine during my non conceptual awareness and beyond, aware of the fact that I am neither a part nor the sum of my thoughts although my conceptual awareness and my existence are both related to my thoughts and to my feelings too, my trusty feer Rabbie😵
  9. Unknown Territories
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    10 Jun '09 11:32
    Originally posted by vistesd
    There has been more than one thread recently on the question of the “justness” of eternal torment (or any eternal unpleasant consequence) for either behavior (sins) or thinking (beliefs) during this finite lifetime.

    Now, to conclude that something or someone is “just”, one has to be able to define in practical terms what “just” behavior entails. If I say ...[text shortened]... __________

    This question is not just for Christians, but for anybody who wants to venture in.
    Better late than never?

    Just, when referenced to God, speaks of His actions being in line and agreement with His perfect righteousness. Whatever His righteousness accepts, His justice blesses. Whatever His righteousness rejects, His justice condemns.
  10. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    157652
    10 Jun '09 12:11
    Originally posted by black beetle
    Everybody is free to offer his personal truth, but in case this thesis is not backed up with scientific facts and evidence just a theory it remains; so I cannot start a conversation regarding a specific property of "god" since I dismiss the existense of that entity as it is expressed as a whole by your theology.

    In my opinion "justice" is merely a hu ...[text shortened]... se we had scientific facts and evidence regarding the existence of that so called "god".
    So if I understand your point and please correct me if I'm wrong!
    You don't believe in God, you believe justice to be a made up human
    invention so the whole discussion is for you is like:

    Rooplies are Plolizormers!

    Nothing about either word "God and justice" really carry and true
    meaning except that which we give both.

    Am I reading you right?
    Kelly
  11. Standard memberblack beetle
    Black Beastie
    Scheveningen
    Joined
    12 Jun '08
    Moves
    14606
    10 Jun '09 13:35
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    So if I understand your point and please correct me if I'm wrong!
    You don't believe in God, you believe justice to be a made up human
    invention so the whole discussion is for you is like:

    Rooplies are Plolizormers!

    Nothing about either word "God and justice" really carry and true
    meaning except that which we give both.

    Am I reading you right?
    Kelly
    The first paragraph of yours is accurate, however I ignore the meaning of the expression "Rooplies and Plolizormers".

    As justice I perceive two branches: the first is the plexus of miscellaneous laws that are invented and implied by the Hyman to the societies, which is not fixed but mutable and in addition different at every nation/ country. This kind of justice was considered either a product of wise lawsetters, or the product of the will of the rulling class, or a product of a social consensus between all the people regardless their class, and also either a product of the so called divine will or the product of the reflection of a transcendental idealistic status that was the glance of an eternal supernatural status. However these two last interpretations are metaphysic and they have nothing to do with the science of justice as it is perceived by our society in our everyday life.

    The second branch of justice is the physical one as we saw it taking place within the Nature. The Greek Sophists (Hippias, Lycophron, Kallikles, Antiphon, Alkidamas) claimed that the physical justice opposes the Human justice: Kallikles stated that the Nature teaches the right of the stronger, whilst the Human justice is disigned in order to enable the people to establish the will of the weakers, which they are more than the strongers and they cannot tolerate the ruling of the stronger minority. However the rest Sophists I mentioned they believed that the Nature teaches that in fact all the beings are equilized, whilst the Human justice promotes unsufferable discriminations.

    Now we come closer to your very theistic opinion, KellyJay, which is similar to the beliefs promoted by some Christian philosophers who were known as "Thomists": these philosophers they conceived a quality of Natural Justice that in their opinion it could become the stepping stone that should enable the Human to reach the realm of an eternal divine order designed by "god". Therefore they claimed that within the Human society flows a kind of justice that is expressed by means of physical laws, and furthermore they considered that the social class/ order is an extension of the natural class/ order. It is strange, but the Thomists were sure that the Natural justice is not opposed by the Human justice because they estimated that the first branch is extrapolated by the second. This is also the reason why the Thomists were not conducting critisicm whilst the Sophists were very severe.
    Antway, the Natural justice as a whole it has just theoritical value due to the fact that it is just a plexus of miscellaneous theories. All in all, the most we expect from this branch of justice is some criticism over social and political theses.

    Finally, the words "god" and "justice" they do have the meaning that we attribute to them, as it happens with the meaning of every word I reckon;
  12. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    10 Jun '09 21:364 edits
    Originally posted by black beetle
    The first paragraph of yours is accurate, however I ignore the meaning of the expression "Rooplies and Plolizormers".

    As justice I perceive two branches: the first is the plexus of miscellaneous laws that are invented and implied by the Hyman to the societies, which is not fixed but mutable and in addition different at every nation/ country. This kin ning that we attribute to them, as it happens with the meaning of every word I reckon;
    i really like the idea of "natural justice", as you state it beetle, for it fits in well with my theology (no surprise there), for to be sure, if someone sees an innocent lady being struck to the ground by some dastardly person, who will not venture to help her? thus the question that the theologian of necessity must ask, is firstly why we have a sense of justice, for this would seem to contradict the ideas of the evolutionary hypothesis which states that the fittest should survive, therefore if we see someone being accosted, we do not say, oh, he is fitter than her, he has a greater right therefore to survive, no our innate sense of justice is incensed, is it not? (please do not let this degenerate in to a discussion about evolution verse theocracy, please people i beg of you,), now there have been several theories proposed in an attempt to explain this phenomena in evolutionary terms, that is fine, although i myself do not find them convincing, but how are we therefore to explain this innate sense of justice? or "natural justice", as beetle terms it?

    is it the product of a social consensus as beetle terms it (any more and he will do me for copyright), or the product of innate divine qualities (which i advocate, no surprise there), or the product of a transcendental ideology?

    why do i advocate the innate divine qualities theory? for it appears to me, that regardless of the social consensus, each and every day, people are in violation of this social consensus, and therefore commit crimes. what has happened? has their sense of justice diminished? no for if you struck them on the side of the head for no reason, they would very quickly form a sense of justice as a consequence of this injustice? is it not the case? therefore what seems to have happened is that their conscience, or their innate sense of justice has somehow been diverted by some other governing factor, or is perhaps desensitised to the extent that it ceases to function properly, is it not so?
  13. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    12857
    11 Jun '09 02:30
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Thats an interesting comment. Isn't that an admission that God got it wrong in OT times?
    I wouldn't say he was "wrong", rather, I would say that mankind was a work in progress. God works through the faith of other men and as men place their faith in God subsequent generations are blessed accordingly to the point of the Messiah coming.
  14. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    12857
    11 Jun '09 02:32
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    Perhaps I have to explain that part...:

    He is described in different part of the bible different qualities of his character. He is revengeful, jalous, loving, caring, missmurdering, bloodthirsty, caring, non-caring, etc etc. If a human being is described in every way god is described he would be catagorized as whimsy, schitzo, or even psycotic. That i ...[text shortened]... riginal question: Is god just? And I say: Does a god have to be just? Who are you to judge god?
    Bloodthirsty, non-caring? Do realize that not everyone interprets this from the God of the Bible even though from your prespective he is just that. If this is your assessment, perhaps this is why you reject him?
  15. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    11 Jun '09 03:44
    Originally posted by whodey
    Bloodthirsty, non-caring? Do realize that not everyone interprets this from the God of the Bible even though from your prespective he is just that. If this is your assessment, perhaps this is why you reject him?
    Yes, I realize that christian people read the sections they like from the bible, and rejects scetions they don't like. Whatever you think, you can find places where the bible support your beliefs. Like the pentecostals who talks strange languages, like the snake worshipper, like the pro-slavery, like the anti-evolutionaries, like the homophobes, like the suicide cults, like the... and so on and so on. I say there are as many branches of the christian religion as there are worshippers.

    If I chose places from the bible, yes, then god is bloodthirsty, non-caring. Even if there are other places where god is loving and caring, the fact remains.

    And yes, that's one of the reasons that I cannot believe in the christian god.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree