Originally posted by knightmeister
And that's the question. How much information is "enough" before we make any moves? And also what the risk is in tasting the pill.

If we feel that we have little information then maybe a little taste of the pill might be appropriate. The Matrix analogy isn't a complete analogy because in the film its a complete one way ticket. We also need to cons ...[text shortened]... would suggest that the possibility of knowing the eternal living God is a pretty good pro.

So, why didn't you take the Muslim pill? Is their God not worth knowing?

After all what does one have to lose? If you ask God to reveal his Spirit to you and absolutely nothing happens then no big loss there. Do you fear that something might happen?
One has his sanity to loose. There is no doubt in my mind that you are deluded. There is also no doubt in my mind that a lot of people are equally deluded - in fact it seems to be more common than not. The risk of getting my self deluded seems pretty steep.
Even you, if you are honest, must admit that all those members of other religions are at least partially deluded. Do you not worry that you will join them?

So although, if I thought there was a possibility of learning more about the universe, I would readily study your religion, I would however never consider taking part in self delusion attempts.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
No windupmeister I Am not claiming that absolute truths do not exist, how many times are you going to ask me that. I'm simply saying they are unknowable by us. If you can show me proof of an absolute truth i.e the existence, / non existence of god and I do not mean the funny feeling you get when your god decides to get in touch. Once more it,s not about tr ...[text shortened]... express what you believe; thats why it,s called a forum as apposed to the knightmeister show.

I wasn't trying to wind you up , just wondered how you got past the paradox.

You are saying that absolute truth is unknowable , but if you think this is true then I assume that you think it is true for me and you as well as everyone who has ever lived? If you do then it is an absolute truth that you are proposing that you know.

I 'm trying to get you to examine your own thinking process and realize the inherent difficulties it presents you.

Originally posted by knightmeister
For me the major difference between Islam and Christianity is how they attempt to address the problem of bridging the gap between God's goodness and holiness and man's sin (or flawed humanity).

Christianity believes that it is God who reaches down to man via grace (the cross etc) and saves Him out of his predicament. In Islam , as far as I see , th ...[text shortened]... ism - I've got loads of respect for both of them , but there's a bit missing in my opinion.

Well I put it to you that you dont know Islam as well as you make out.
Didn't they have a guy called "Mohammed" who was their link to "God" , the same way that Jesus is the christians link to "God"?
Dont both of those religions have their own mystical traditions (Meister Eckhart, and some other saints, who wrote so eloquently about christian mysticism, and the sufi tradition that represented the Islamic mysticism so well, imo)?
Haven't both of these religions been hugely violent to others and eachother in the past and sadly, into the present? (Contradicting the seemingly way more peaceful natures of buddhists and hindus,( ie.per capita),?)

Thats just of the top of my head.

Thank you for your explanation. At least you did not stuff me around with your answer, and that is to your credit.

It seems we will have to agree to disagree unless you can see any glaring holes on my rebuttal

Originally posted by knightmeister
I wasn't trying to wind you up , just wondered how you got past the paradox.

You are saying that absolute truth is unknowable , but if you think this is true then I assume that you think it is true for me and you as well as everyone who has ever lived? If you do then it is an absolute truth that you are proposing that you know.

I 'm trying to g ...[text shortened]... ou to examine your own thinking process and realize the inherent difficulties it presents you.

If you are not winding me up then , joking apart, you should think about a brain scan I am beginning to get concerned for you, your seeing a paradox where no paradox exists. I am not like you Knightmeister I am not scared of uncertainty. there is no paradox in thinking/believing that absolute truths are unknowable but obviously I could be wrong I allow myself the luxury of not claiming anything as an absolute truth. What makes me LOL is not only do you feel things that probably do not exist but you also see a paradox where one certainly dos'nt exist. BTW I can keep this up at least as long as you (I think).

Originally posted by kevcvs57
If you are not winding me up then , joking apart, you should think about a brain scan I am beginning to get concerned for you, your seeing a paradox where no paradox exists. I am not like you Knightmeister I am not scared of uncertainty. there is no paradox in thinking/believing that absolute truths are unknowable but obviously I could be wrong I allow myse ...[text shortened]... ox where one certainly dos'nt exist. BTW I can keep this up at least as long as you (I think).

I see little value in descending into a slanging match or projecting ideas on to each other. If you knew me you would know that uncertainty is something I have embraced in my life. You probably can keep this up for a long time , longer than me , but what would that prove?

What I want to find out is whether you have understood the difference between absolute truth claims and relative truth claims. My view is that you are "allowing yourself a luxury" that you cannot afford. Everyone here on this forum is in the business of making absolute truth claims. Theist and Atheists alike.

In your last post you made the statement "absolute truths are unknowable" - now irrespective of whether you accept you might be wrong or not the statement itself is still an absolute claim of absolute truth. If you did really believe it you would believe it was true for all of us , yes? Have you considered that it may be you that hasn't seen the paradox that actually exists? Let's see whether you really are "not scared of uncertainty".


What Atheist would claim that God doesn't exist for them but does for Theists?


Let's try an experiment. Do you think that absolute truths are knowable for me , but not knowable for you?


Please just answer the question this time. Talking about brain scans and the like just distracts from the debate we are having and I will not let you take me down that particular cul-de-sac.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I see little value in descending into a slanging match or projecting ideas on to each other. If you knew me you would know that uncertainty is something I have embraced in my life. You probably can keep this up for a long time , longer than me , but what would that prove?

What I want to find out is whether you have understood the difference betwe ...[text shortened]... e debate we are having and I will not let you take me down that particular cul-de-sac.

Ok then I,ll assume that I hav'nt been explaining myself adequately. However if you cannot grasp the concept of agnosticism from this cut and paste and if you still see a paradox I will have to conclude that you are either being obtuse or that you are so dependent on the existence of knowable certainties that you cannot deal with a scenario that is not black or white i.e either atheist or theist but you have no right to decide who can and cannot debate on this forum, spirituality is much larger than you my friend. As for your question; no I do not believe that absolute truths are knowable to you and not knowable to me; I am claiming this as a belief relating to the human condition.

Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.[1][2] Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the difference between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief. In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively. In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify the belief that deities either do or do not exist. Within agnosticism there are agnostic atheists (who do not believe any deity exists, but do not deny it as a possibility) and agnostic theists (who believe a deity exists but do not claim it as personal knowledge). (courtesy of wikipedia)

Originally posted by kevcvs57
Ok then I,ll assume that I hav'nt been explaining myself adequately. However if you cannot grasp the concept of agnosticism from this cut and paste and if you still see a paradox I will have to conclude that you are either being obtuse or that you are so dependent on the existence of knowable certainties that you cannot deal with a scenario that is not blac ...[text shortened]... (who believe a deity exists but do not claim it as personal knowledge). (courtesy of wikipedia)

As for your question; no I do not believe that absolute truths are knowable to you and not knowable to me; I am claiming this as a belief relating to the human condition.

-----------------------kevcvs------------------------------

....can you not see that the premise "I do not believe absolute truths are knowable to you and not knowable to me" is an absolute premise? You may only believe it uncertainly and tentatively , but you believe it is true for ALL human beings not just some. That's what makes it an absolute claim and not a relative one. It has nothing to do with your certainty or lack of. You are making a definitive statement about the nature of reality and human beings and in that sense you are no different than me. The only difference might be the degree of confidence you have in your claim , but your claims are nonetheless absolute in nature. you need to separate out the two concepts 1) the confidence in said claim 2) the absolute nature of the claim. I think we are at cross purposes . You are talking about 1) whereas I am referring to 2)

I you cannot see this now that I have explained it clearly then what more can I say?

I can only assume that you find this idea too uncomfortable to embrace and that's why you can't see it. If so this is not a judgement on you because this is just part of being human.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Well I put it to you that you dont know Islam as well as you make out.
Didn't they have a guy called "Mohammed" who was their link to "God" , the same way that Jesus is the christians link to "God"?
Dont both of those religions have their own mystical traditions (Meister Eckhart, and some other saints, who wrote so eloquently about christian mysticis ...[text shortened]... ms we will have to agree to disagree unless you can see any glaring holes on my rebuttal

Didn't they have a guy called "Mohammed" who was their link to "God" , the same way that Jesus is the christians link to "God"?

--------------------karoly-------------------------------------------------------------------

This could be a really interesting one if you are willing to pursue it? I am prepared to spend some time on this because I feel somewhere that this might be important to you. I feel a sense of mutual respect between us. I appreciate your previous comments. Are you a Muslim? If so , please let me know if you think I may be offending in any way.

I will admit that I don't know as much about Islam as I could and I don't want to dismiss the other questions you have. Maybe take one question at a time?

I am not aware that Mohammed made claims about himself that were anywhere near what Jesus said about himself. Maybe you could enlighten me on this though?

I think the big difference is that the Jesus "link" is God linking Himself to man via grace. Whereas the Mohammed link is man trying to link himself to God.

There's a big difference. For example , Jesus claimed to be God himself in human form bringing the "bread of life" to men. He also claimed that he is the rightful judge of all humanity and that "where two or three meet in my name there will I be amongst them".

I could say much more but basically what I want to point out at this juncture is that what Jesus said about himself was simply astonishing and breath taking. Most people don't notice just what an incredible egomaniac he would be if he was just a man. Have a think about what you know of his words. Had you considered this aspect of his claims?

Originally posted by knightmeister
Didn't they have a guy called "Mohammed" who was their link to "God" , the same way that Jesus is the christians link to "God"?

--------------------karoly-------------------------------------------------------------------

This could be a really interesting one if you are willing to pursue it? I am prepared to spend some time on this because I fee bout what you know of his words. Had you considered this aspect of his claims?

No , I am not a Muslim.

I just look at the basic evidence.
I have read some amazing things attributed to some sufi poets as well as some Zen masters. As profound as Jesus's. But maybe our opinions differ here as to what we think is "astonishing and breath taking".

I cant enlighten you about Mohammed, but facts remain. Their is a huge religion called Islam which has many historical aspects similar to that of christianity, not the least of which is prophets, or 'men of god' , who graced our planet and left behind a legacy that seems just as strong on the Islam side as it is on the Christian side.

Sure , we have mutual respect for each other, why not?

I see Jesus's words as being interpreted by the reader to what they want to understand of him.
I dont see Jesus as being an incredible egomaniac. He seemed very down to Earth.
If we shine, then let us shine. Let not others bring us down.

I still see the 2000 year gap as being a major obstacle as to the real understanding of JC's words and deeds.
He died on the cross for our sins.
We are all sinners.
I just dont buy these claims, perhaps the bible writers put them in later to control the masses, who knows. Perhaps we can start here if you wish to pursue this .

edit: perhaps you should deal with kevcvs57's comments first, as they seem to be more pressing, and I wonder too why you do not seem acknowledge agnosticism the same way that he does (if I understand you 2 correctly)

Originally posted by knightmeister
As for your question; no I do not believe that absolute truths are knowable to you and not knowable to me; I am claiming this as a belief relating to the human condition.

-----------------------kevcvs------------------------------

....can you not see that the premise "I do not believe absolute truths are knowable to you and not knowable to me" is ...[text shortened]... an't see it. If so this is not a judgement on you because this is just part of being human.

Please read again my answer to your question it appears you have not noticed the prefix "no" before the statement:-

no I do not believe that absolute truths are knowable to you and not knowable to me; I am claiming this as a belief relating to the human condition.

Did you read the cut and paste. Are you seriously claiming that agnostics have been labouring under a paradox all this time and had to wait for you to come along and point it out to them, really!

Clearly we must be talking at cross purposes but remember You are challenging My world view and you have a responsibility to respond to what I am actually saying.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
Please read again my answer to your question it appears you have not noticed the prefix "no" before the statement:-

no I do not believe that absolute truths are knowable to you and not knowable to me; I am claiming this as a belief relating to the human condition.

Did you read the cut and paste. Are you seriously claiming that agnostics have been labo ...[text shortened]... allenging My world view and you have a responsibility to respond to what I am actually saying.

but remember You are challenging My world view and you have a responsibility to respond to what I am actually saying

-----------------------------kevcvs----------------------------------

But have I not used your words in order to respond. I feel I am responding to EXACTLY what you are saying. Even in the statement above you have betrayed that you a "world view". I presume that the "world view" you have applies to all of us? If so , how is it not a claim about the nature of reality and human beings?

The simple fact that you have a world view that includes me in it makes your belief an absolute claim. You may balk at this but it's the logical implication of your own words.

Originally posted by knightmeister
but remember You are challenging My world view and you have a responsibility to respond to what I am actually saying

-----------------------------kevcvs----------------------------------

But have I not used your words in order to respond. I feel I am responding to EXACTLY what you are saying. Even in the statement above you have betrayed that you ...[text shortened]... n absolute claim. You may balk at this but it's the logical implication of your own words.

kevcvs57

Joined : 22 Dec '11
Moves : 371
18 Feb '12 12:41
Originally posted by knightmeister
As for your question; no I do not believe that absolute truths are knowable to you and not knowable to me; I am claiming this as a belief relating to the human condition.

-----------------------kevcvs------------------------------

....can you not see that the premise "I do not believe absolute truths are knowable to you and not knowable to me" is ...[text shortened]... an't see it. If so this is not a judgement on you because this is just part of being human.


Please read again my answer to your question it appears you have not noticed the prefix "no" before the statement:-

no I do not believe that absolute truths are knowable to you and not knowable to me; I am claiming this as a belief relating to the human condition.

Did you read the cut and paste. Are you seriously claiming that agnostics have been labouring under a paradox all this time and had to wait for you to come along and point it out to them, really!

Clearly we must be talking at cross purposes but remember You are challenging My world view and you have a responsibility to respond to what I am actually saying.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
No , I am not a Muslim.

I just look at the basic evidence.
I have read some amazing things attributed to some sufi poets as well as some Zen masters. As profound as Jesus's. But maybe our opinions differ here as to what we think is "astonishing and breath taking".

I cant enlighten you about Mohammed, but facts remain. Their is a huge religion c ...[text shortened]... eem acknowledge agnosticism the same way that he does (if I understand you 2 correctly)

I see Jesus's words as being interpreted by the reader to what they want to understand of him.
I dont see Jesus as being an incredible egomaniac. He seemed very down to Earth.
----------------------------------karoly-----------------------------------

Yes , he was very down to earth and humble , which is why it's so surprising thinking about what he said. I think there is always room for interpretation but some interpretations can be disingenuous.

For example , I think it's disingenuous to say that he did not claim divinity for himself. There are so many things he said and did that clearly imply this.

Mohammed did not claim to be God incarnate as far as I am aware Jesus did. Maybe he didn't say those things but then again that might also be true for Mohammed.

Here's an example of the trouble he got himself into.....

John 10:30-33 - "I and the Father are one." 31The Jews took up stones again to stone Him. 32Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?" 33The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God."

Bear in mind that Jesus was very astute and wise and would have known exactly what he was saying and what reaction he might get. And yet he never retracted his words or tried to correct those who accused him of blasphemy by claiming to be God.

Some quotes..............

"In his famous book Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis makes this statement, "A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic--on the level with a man who says he is a poached egg--or he would be the devil of hell. You must take your choice. Either this was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us."

from a website--------not my words......

Jesus Christ claimed to be able to forgive sins
One of the reasons that the Jewish leaders were so angry with Jesus was his continual practice of forgiving people's sins. The religious leaders understood clearly that since sins were rebellion against God Himself, only God could forgive sins.

Luke 5:20-21 "When Jesus saw their faith, he said, 'Friend, your sins are forgiven.' The Pharisees and the teachers of the law began thinking to themselves, 'Who is this fellow who speaks blasphemy? Who can forgive sins but God alone?'"(emphasis: web author)

Luke 7:48-49 "Then Jesus said to her, 'Your sins are forgiven.' The other guests began to say among themselves, 'Who is this who even forgives sins?'"


KM------------------There's much more that he said about himself but assuming the NT is even only 50% accurate there are some issues to address here , don't you think?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
No , I am not a Muslim.

I just look at the basic evidence.
I have read some amazing things attributed to some sufi poets as well as some Zen masters. As profound as Jesus's. But maybe our opinions differ here as to what we think is "astonishing and breath taking".

I cant enlighten you about Mohammed, but facts remain. Their is a huge religion c ...[text shortened]... eem acknowledge agnosticism the same way that he does (if I understand you 2 correctly)

I dont understand it either it's like somebody is reading what i've posted putting it in a bin and responding to something else completely; maybe we would both profit from a third party looking at our posts on this matter and illuminating us, I appreciate it's a big ask so no pressure we may have to agree to differ and move on.

I think Islam circumvents the need for direct intervention by a metaphysical entity by having a much more concise set of instructions from said entity in the form of the koran; but obviously I could be wrong.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I see Jesus's words as being interpreted by the reader to what they want to understand of him.
I dont see Jesus as being an incredible egomaniac. He seemed very down to Earth.
----------------------------------karoly-----------------------------------

Yes , he was very down to earth and humble , which is why it's so surprising thinking about wh % accurate there are some issues to address here , don't you think?

As to his supposed divinity I am not opposed,(for the purposes of this conversation).

C.S. Lewis seems to have left out a few alternatives, (ie" Either this was and is the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse" ), what about just a "Good man", what about a bhoddisatva? He could've been a magician or an alien- the possibilties are endless. C.S. Lewis is really short on imagination in that quote.

I recall the Zen story of a christian going to a Zen master and telling him all about Jesus whereupon the Zen master turned around and said that JC was just a bhoddisatva and nothing more.

Jesus christ could forgive sins. He angered Jews.

Ok, , I'll level with you. I understand that some interpretations are disingenous and do not get into the spirit of who JC claimed to be, but in my world view we are all the sons and daughters of "God". No need to capitalize "son" .

It seems as if you haven't really addressed much of my post at all, so perhaps we should both take a step back and have a good think about what the other is trying to say.
It seems as if you are trying secretly to convert me. I could well be wrong, but you insist on singling out JC as being special and not like ordinary men, whereas I dont seek to convert anyone, and think that it is perfectly natural for men to become one with "God" . It may not happen very often, but that is beside the point.
We, you and I are all "God" , as I dont believe a separate being as being "God" (with a capital "G" ). There is no great bearded man in the sky or any other separatism you can come up with that will satisfy me. "God" is merely a useful word for explaining stuff a lot of the time. "God" is the "force of animation that breathes life into all living being beings and permeates all things in creation, always" . My quote.
It seems as if we are on totally different pages, and as I see a difference in you to other christians on this site, you still have not shown me that you really understand difference and diversity with your understanding of "God" and spirituality as much as say a typical hindu would.