Interpretation the Trinity is polytheistic

[Tassman]

Again we disagree but I am comforted that Shakespeare agrees with me :+}

I don’t think so, (indulgent smile)

Actually there are a number of books by scientists who use the same science to dispute other scientists about materialism, mind, consciousness, etc. (I refer you to Amazon).

IF you are referring to theist scientists then they are using their science to confirm their existing theist beliefs. But again, the majority of scientists are NOT religious compared to the rest of the population.

Of course art and poetry are creative and can each give us a glimpse of the transcendent - some artists and poets intend this and in these and other cases (even where it might not have been intended), the one who experiences the art or the poetry can glimpse 'beyond' himself, beyond the merely physical. Your position on art enslaves man to the material, painting him as incapable of seeing, of soaring, 'beyond' the mundane to experience more. Again, this is not the common experience of most of us.

No doubt, those who are so inclined can “glimpse” the transcendent in anything – including art, regardless of the intentions of the artist.

Of course religious belief is 'unevidenced' ..........that's why its belief :+}

…and the reason that so many of us reject religious notions.

Again you are at odds with most of your fellow men and women who believe the man is unique. Materialist atheism is just one depressing misstep after another at odds with most of us. Of course we're talking about our planet and the present situation (and some of hope that there are other unique beings). So you said man is not unique but he is 'unlike' trees and dogs, so he is sort of a one-off (i.e. unique:+} So close........you're almost there: man is unique, unlike dogs and trees, and, although you did say man is programmed, you added that man is only affected (i.e. influenced) - not determined by genetics/evolution........ just a bit more to say man is (relatively) free to be. And free to be means man is open-ended: his 'past' (genetics and evolution) is not (absolutely) determinative, it is not his all; man's future is open and he can transcend the mundane, the material and .........be.

How can we be “unique” if there are other “unique beings” elsewhere? Obviously, man is unlike dogs and trees etc. But no more “unique” in principle than any other primate. We have bigger brains but ALL primates have large brains relative to body size.

At least you didn't disagree that the atheist position is illusion :+} So, in spite of what you say about science, your position about the meaningfulness of life from the atheistic position is as much a belief, unknown, without evidence as any religious position.

There are good reasons to believe that God IS (see above) and simply the atheist disagrees, whereas the religious man disagrees with the atheist belief or non-belief :+{

There are NO reasons other than your say-so, to believe that “God IS”.

You retreat to a failed argument against old time theism that I have previously commented on. The serious religious thinker does not believe God IS to fulfill wishes and has no need for escape from anything.

The only thing most men and women want to escape from is the utter meaninglessness of the atheist position that confines us to the material, that limits our horizon to the physical, that does not consider us unique and is incapable of understanding that we are and can be more than our programming, more than matter, more than the limits atheism places on us.

So, in your view the theist in fact DOES want to escape from something – you say so yourself. “men and women want to escape from is the utter meaninglessness of the atheist position that confines us to the material, that limits our horizon to the physical, that does not consider us unique and is incapable of understanding that we are and can be more than our programming, more than matter, more than the limits atheism places on us”.

In other words, “ESCAPISM”.

[thormas]

You have not even attempted to explain the inherent contradiction in your position, how telling is that? You have simply made a bald assertion :+}

Once again, religious belief is not subject to scientific methodology, so of course such faith is a bald and a bold assertion. And, as such, it is incredibly reasonable and hopeful - much more so than bald, depressing atheistic assumptions.

Actually, the highest Good in Christianity is and has been Love - and this remains even when Christians fail as indeed many have done over the centuries (we have both noted).

You confuse two issues: nature does not have social structures whereas man's relationship to nature can.

As with much, we have a disagreement over the Good and whereas you said it floats in the ether, I say it doesn't.

[thormas]

When you speak of something like slavery or homosexuality (among other issues), it is rather easy to go to the 'founder of the firm' and note that Jesus does not endorse slavery or discrimination against homosexuality: God, Love, the Good, overrides such abominations. Love reigns, yet as noted, it is obvious that some, in the history of Christianity (and the larger world) have yet to see, understand and live the Good/Love as Jesus did (and others have). It is not the Good that changes, rather it is man or individual men and women (and societies) that fail to discern and live the Good.

Actually you are wrong or conveniently you do not tell the whole story about religion or philosophy succumbing to their society. Christ, Buddha, Gandhi, King (just to mention a few) did not meekly follow the society of their day. Even the present Pope moves his Christian society forward with his recognition of the Good, prodding the wider church to follow, even as some in its ranks kick and scream that their 'old way' is right. All these and more are examples of religion not merely reflecting society's values but actively distinguishing themselves from and even confronting those societies; these are religious men (and there are also women) who do not reflect the values of 'the day' or society - but discern the highest Good and present it, even at the cost of their lives. History has shown there are cracks in your assumptions and the cracks speak to the Good that is not generated by man but that unsettles man, confronts the human and calls for More. Of course we would not expect the materialistic atheist to get this since they are enslaved to the merely physical and cannot see beyond it:+}

Sure, there are those who look to their holy books to justify lesser or even evil action as good: they are wrong - in need of guidance and/or confrontation on behalf of the Good that is Love. There are no substitutes for agape. And, of course there are believers who are fundamentalists/literalist but this discussion is from the perspective of the serious religious thinkers who are not literalists........and, of course we assume that God Is - after all we are talking religion:+}



Reality isn't depressing........but what we do find depressing is the atheist belief (on non-belief) about reality - an opinion that is at odds with most human beings, at odds with everyday experience. People simply don't experience or buy what you're selling about materialism, love, art, poetry, the good, and certainly not the atheist's miserly understanding of what passes for meaning in life. As has been shown numerous times, the atheist 'preaches' in public but even they will not share their 'vision of reality' with loved ones, knowing it is depressing, knowing it will not only ruin their loved ones' day but their lives. Materialistic atheism is a failed belief without compelling, verifiable evidence (which unlike religious belief it asserts it is based on); it is not accepted by the entirety of the scientific community or the larger community.

[thormas]

No need to be jealous just cause Will favors me :+}


I love your sense of the dramatic with the CAPS........a bit melodramatic but it has flair :+}

Most - the religious man, the secular man, probably everybody - do want to ESCAPE .....from the materialistic, unverified interpretation of the universe that the atheist tries to foist on human kind. It's not about Reality, it's about the materialist colored glasses :+}

[Tassman]

You have not even attempted to explain the inherent contradiction in your position, how telling is that? You have simply made a bald assertion :+}

There is no contradiction, nor is there a bald assertion. It is supported by primatologists, anthropologists and the social sciences.

The fact is that as a social species we have evolved like other social species – particularly our fellow primates – to live in cooperative cohesive communities. This we achieve via societal rules of ‘good and bad’ behavior that vary from era to era. What does NOT vary is the need to maintain our cooperative, cohesive community in order to survive.

Once again, religious belief is not subject to scientific methodology, so of course such faith is a bald and a bold assertion.

I am NOT arguing that religious belief ought to be subject to scientific methodology. But unless it is supported to some evidence, it is purely subjective in that it has no basis in verifiable fact. Nor is it reasonable to take it seriously.

And, as such, it is incredibly reasonable and hopeful - much more so than bald, depressing atheistic assumptions.

No matter how “reasonable and hopeful” you think it to be, unless you can support it with facts it remains a faith-based assumption.

Actually, the highest Good in Christianity is and has been Love - and this remains even when Christians fail as indeed many have done over the centuries (we have both noted).

Christianity, is a creation of man, and whatever attributes it has have come from us. “Love” has always been the “highest Good” in a cooperative social community such as ours and this is reflected in the religion we create. "Love" is the glue that holds community together, but one doesn’t need religion for this. In fact Christian communities have failed spectacularly in the Christian Love department – 400 years of slavery being but one example.

You confuse two issues: nature does not have social structures whereas man's relationship to nature can.

It is human society that provides the social structures, you misunderstand me if you thought I said otherwise. And our social structures reflect our evolved nature as a social species living in community.

As with much, we have a disagreement over the Good and whereas you said it floats in the ether, I say it doesn't.

No, I asked whether YOU thought the Good “floats in the ether”, because you were arguing that the Good was somehow separate from man and had to be “discerned”. My argument is that the Good is decided by man and the community in which he lives.

[Tassman]

When you speak of something like slavery or homosexuality (among other issues), it is rather easy to go to the 'founder of the firm' and note that Jesus does not endorse slavery or discrimination against homosexuality: God, Love, the Good, overrides such abominations. Love reigns, yet as noted, it is obvious that some, in the history of Christianity (and the larger world) have yet to see, understand and live the Good/Love as Jesus did (and others have). It is not the Good that changes, rather it is man or individual men and women (and societies) that fail to discern and live the Good.

It is not at all easy to go to the 'founder of the firm' and note that Jesus does not endorse slavery or discrimination against homosexuality as Martin Luther King found out re racial discrimination and the LGBT community continues to do to this very day re homosexual rights. Established community patterns of behavior and prejudices invariably dominate.

Actually you are wrong or conveniently you do not tell the whole story about religion or philosophy succumbing to their society. Christ, Buddha, Gandhi, King (just to mention a few) did not meekly follow the society of their day. Even the present Pope moves his Christian society forward with his recognition of the Good, prodding the wider church to follow, even as some in its ranks kick and scream that their 'old way' is right. All these and more are examples of religion not merely reflecting society's values but actively distinguishing themselves from and even confronting those societies; these are religious men (and there are also women) who do not reflect the values of 'the day' or society - but discern the highest Good and present it, even at the cost of their lives.

What “the present Pope” and other ‘opinion-leaders’ throughout history – both secular and religious – have done is endeavor to change the narrative of the day. Emily Pankhurst and the Suffragettes fighting for female emancipation is a case in point. This is how and why social values have changed over time – as I’ve argued throughout. Social values evolve and vary to a degree from culture to culture over time. There is no universal, unchangeable “Good” to be discerned.

History has shown there are cracks in your assumptions and the cracks speak to the Good that is not generated by man but that unsettles man, confronts the human and calls for More. Of course we would not expect the materialistic atheist to get this since they are enslaved to the merely physical and cannot see beyond it:+}

And just what IS beyond the “merely physical” that we atheists supposedly cannot see beyond?

Sure, there are those who look to their holy books to justify lesser or even evil action as good: they are wrong - in need of guidance and/or confrontation on behalf of the Good that is Love. There are no substitutes for agape. And, of course there are believers who are fundamentalists/literalist but this discussion is from the perspective of the serious religious thinkers who are not literalists........and, of course we assume that God Is - after all we are talking religion:+}

Agape is good but your “fundamentalist/literalist” Christians rather dominate the Christian discourse in many places. And God IS what exactly, I'm still waiting for an explanation. One can equally say the the Universe IS - at least we can acknowledge that we are a part of the physical universe because it is material just as we are material.

Reality isn't depressing........but what we do find depressing is the atheist belief (on non-belief) about reality - an opinion that is at odds with most human beings, at odds with everyday experience. People simply don't experience or buy what you're selling about materialism, love, art, poetry, the good, and certainly not the atheist's miserly understanding of what passes for meaning in life. As has been shown numerous times, the atheist 'preaches' in public but even they will not share their 'vision of reality' with loved ones, knowing it is depressing, knowing it will not only ruin their loved ones' day but their lives.

Atheism is not a belief system at all – quite the reverse.

Materialistic atheism is a failed belief without compelling, verifiable evidence (which unlike religious belief it asserts it is based on); it is not accepted by the entirety of the scientific community or the larger community.

As for “materialism” science and most scientists hold the view that natural laws are the only rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural world, and that the changing universe is at every stage a product of these laws – including the physical activity of the human brain.

[Tassman]

Most - the religious man, the secular man, probably everybody - do want to ESCAPE .....from the materialistic, unverified interpretation of the universe that the atheist tries to foist on human kind. It's not about Reality, it's about the materialist colored glasses :+}

Atheists don’t try to “foist” anything onto anyone – we simply don’t think that gods exist. And the natural universe, including people, IS “material”, this is merely a fact. It’s those who want to say that the universe is more than “material” who have the burden of roof.

[thormas]

I have no issue with scientific or social science insights on man and his interactions in society (although I do not take all as gospel). However, it remains the case that when any speak about God (or no God), it is opinion or belief and is not substantiate by evidence - as you have so elegantly pointed about the religious belief : -} Therefore, I welcome opinions on God, the Good, Mind, Consciousness, etc. acknowledging that these are belief statements. Materialism is but a culturally conditioned theory that will soon lose any small appeal it presently enjoys among the few :+}

Yet again you contradict yourself: on the one hand religion is not required to be subject to scientific methodology while, on the other hand, you insist that religion offer proof or verifiable theories, like science. It is contradictory to say that what is acknowledged as faith based (i.e. belief) should have to support itself with facts (which by their very definition are not beliefs but.......facts). Such a self-contradictory argument is not reasonable and should not be taken seriously.

I have no issue with your saying that Christianity is 'created' by man - although I would say, more accurately, it is based on the life of a particular man, Jesus, and all springs from that historical life. It is interesting that you now make a claim on love, however, as previously discussed, it is philo which 'holds community together' while Christian love moves beyond philo to agape (see above).

We have spoken about salvery (above) but you seem to continually claim that all Christians supported slavery which is simply false. However, it is rather easy to show that any mistaken Christian support of slavery or justification for discrimination against LBGTQ individuals is not and cannot be based on the 'words and actions' of Jesus (i.e. the gospels). As for other parts of the OT or the NT a proper exegesis (as was discussed on this site months ago on homosexuality) are not what some think they are :+}

Certainly Gandhi, King, Buddha, Jesus, Francis and others wanted to 'change the narrative.' However, such moments are not merely the product of a society's values evolving - rather these people introduce something new, something startling, something at odds with, even upsetting, their society. Theirs was not evolutionary development, it was revolutionary change, even seen by their peers as rebellion or sedition. Again the American Revolution and your Suffragettes and the religious figures already mentioned.

What the atheist does not see or acknowledge is simply that which transcends the human, God :+} I have no problem with evolution, I have no problem with the evolution and development of man into the social being of which we have spoken (also a modern religious take on man's 'creation' as the image of God) or that we are influenced by society and culture (actually such societal influence is part of a more modern take on original sin) and that some of what we recognize today changes tomorrow, for example our worldview vs, the world view of Caesar or Jesus. However where we differ is that I do not believe that such evolution is the complete picture, nor do I accept that culture, society and genetics hold absolute sway over us. Nor do I believe that all is merely the material universe. There is 'More' that transcends the human (and all creation) but which is also immanent in creation and enables man to 'discern' Being/the Good and, in acting upon it, become more than evolution could ever accomplish. This is belief and, by definition, there is no evidence ........and there is no evidence to dispute it, there is only a belief to the negative.

You have to let go of fundamentalist/literalist Christianity, especially since I would not only agree with much of your criticisms of those beliefs/positions but would be even more critical. I have been speaking as a modern, progressive Christian, reflecting what I have referred to as serious religious thinkers.

I did say that atheism is a belief or a non-belief. However, if materialist atheism presents positions on materialism, God, the Good, Mind, Consciousness, etc., those are opinions or belief statements and there is no verifiable, conclusive evidence to support those positions. These positions/opinions/beliefs are disputed by others in and out of the scientific community. And if you say these theories will eventually be proved and accepted, then "no matter how reasonable and hopeful you believe it to be, unless you can support it with facts, it remains a faith (belief)-based assumption." And, anticipating what you will say, I answer: what you assert are facts are disputed by other scientists. and if you further assert that they are influence by religion, I answer that other scientists are influenced by their materialistic beliefs.

You have confused two issues. That natural laws are the only laws that govern and control the universe is not in dispute as I know no serious religious thinker who thinks otherwise. Our belief in God is, as I have repeatedly pointed out, not a belief in a supernatural being who 'intervenes or interferes' in the natural world or overrides its natural laws. The acceptance of natural laws is not a proof of materialism or that the mind is a product of the brain. The one is not in dispute, the other is. Atheism is a belief or non-belief (that some believe:+}



Foist does seem to fit the bill: in that materialistic atheist is imposing an unnecessary and unwelcome position on .....everyone; the atheist, unlike the religious man, insists that it is factual and scientifically verifiable and therefore is the case, beyond dispute. Not!

Let's stick with foist :+}

[Tassman]

I have no issue with scientific or social science insights on man and his interactions in society (although I do not take all as gospel). However, it remains the case that when any speak about God (or no God), it is opinion or belief and is not substantiate by evidence - as you have so elegantly pointed about the religious belief : -} Therefore, I welcome opinions on God, the Good, Mind, Consciousness, etc. acknowledging that these are belief statements. Materialism is but a culturally conditioned theory that will soon lose any small appeal it presently enjoys among the few :+}

The material world demonstrably exists, it is not a “culturally conditioned theory”. What is culturally conditioned is the unevidenced belief that there is more than the material world. This merely reflects the way of trying to make sense of the universe in a prescientific age with its gods of lightening, goddesses of love and an atoning sacrifice on a cross - none of which is relevant nowadays.

Yet again you contradict yourself: on the one hand religion is not required to be subject to scientific methodology while, on the other hand, you insist that religion offer proof or verifiable theories, like science. It is contradictory to say that what is acknowledged as faith based (i.e. belief) should have to support itself with facts (which by their very definition are not beliefs but.......facts). Such a self-contradictory argument is not reasonable and should not be taken seriously.

I insist on nothing. You can believe in Tinkerbelle’s’ fairy dust if you wish. But unless you support your beliefs with some sort of rationale other than “it seems reasonable to me” as per your previous post, such beliefs remain no more than empty faith-based assumptions.

I have no issue with your saying that Christianity is 'created' by man - although I would say, more accurately, it is based on the life of a particular man, Jesus, and all springs from that historical life.

ALL religions were created by man. There's no evidence of any of the gods having existed outside of the minds of our species. And Christianity is NOT “based upon the life of a particular man, Jesus” it is based upon the highly embellished accounts by non-eyewitnesses of a miracle-worker whom, it is claimed, bodily resurrected.

It is interesting that you now make a claim on love, however, as previously discussed, it is philo which 'holds community together' while Christian love moves beyond philo to agape (see above).

Agape is selfless, unconditional, altruistic love and not specifically Christian. It is seen in all societies.

We have spoken about salvery (above) but you seem to continually claim that all Christians supported slavery which is simply false. However, it is rather easy to show that any mistaken Christian support of slavery or justification for discrimination against LBGTQ individuals is not and cannot be based on the 'words and actions' of Jesus (i.e. the gospels). As for other parts of the OT or the NT a proper exegesis (as was discussed on this site months ago on homosexuality) are not what some think they are :+}

Slavery is one of the more egregious evils supported by Christians (with claimed scriptural support) – there are many. But the point is that socially acceptable behavior has varied greatly over time from culture to culture and religion has justified it.

Certainly Gandhi, King, Buddha, Jesus, Francis and others wanted to 'change the narrative.' However, such moments are not merely the product of a society's values evolving - rather these people introduce something new, something startling, something at odds with, even upsetting, their society. Theirs was not evolutionary development, it was revolutionary change, even seen by their peers as rebellion or sedition. Again the American Revolution and your Suffragettes and the religious figures already mentioned.

Indeed. Opinion-leaders throughout history – both secular and religious – have led to reforms from within society and of course it was “not evolutionary development". But it was entirely consistent with the evolved tendency for cooperative communal behavior to promote our survival as a social species.

What the atheist does not see or acknowledge is simply that which transcends the human, God :+} I have no problem with evolution, I have no problem with the evolution and development of man into the social being of which we have spoken (also a modern religious take on man's 'creation' as the image of God) or that we are influenced by society and culture (actually such societal influence is part of a more modern take on original sin) and that some of what we recognize today changes tomorrow, for example our worldview vs, the world view of Caesar or Jesus. However where we differ is that I do not believe that such evolution is the complete picture, nor do I accept that culture, society and genetics hold absolute sway over us. Nor do I believe that all is merely the material universe. There is 'More' that transcends the human (and all creation) but which is also immanent in creation and enables man to 'discern' Being/the Good and, in acting upon it, become more than evolution could ever accomplish. This is belief and, by definition, there is no evidence ........and there is no evidence to dispute it, there is only a belief to the negative.

So, you keep saying. BUT WHY “don’t you believe that all is merely the material universe”? Your only arguments seem to come down to not liking the concept. As for there being “only a belief to the negative” this applies to anything for which there is no evidence – from pagan gods to probing aliens.

You have to let go of fundamentalist/literalist Christianity, especially since I would not only agree with much of your criticisms of those beliefs/positions but would be even more critical. I have been speaking as a modern, progressive Christian, reflecting what I have referred to as serious religious thinkers.

A “modern, progressive Christian” is an oxymoron - like a "modern progressive" astrologer.. Both are superseded.

I did say that atheism is a belief or a non-belief. However, if materialist atheism presents positions on materialism, God, the Good, Mind, Consciousness, etc., those are opinions or belief statements and there is no verifiable, conclusive evidence to support those positions. These positions/opinions/beliefs are disputed by others in and out of the scientific community. And if you say these theories will eventually be proved and accepted, then "no matter how reasonable and hopeful you believe it to be, unless you can support it with facts, it remains a faith (belief)-based assumption."

“Atheism” merely rejects the notion of gods – the clue is in the actual word “atheism”.

The material world is not related to atheism but it demonstrably exists in that it has been extensively observed and researched by science in such areas as the study of matter and the established laws and constants of the material universe such as the speed of light.

And, anticipating what you will say, I answer: what you assert are facts are disputed by other scientists. and if you further assert that they are influence by religion, I answer that other scientists are influenced by their materialistic beliefs.

No. Scientists are influenced by the facts that are discovered and proven real via observable/replicable record, i.e., through scientific methodology. This as opposed to beliefs arising from irrelevant religious notions and unsupported subjective wishful thinking.

You have confused two issues. That natural laws are the only laws that govern and control the universe is not in dispute as I know no serious religious thinker who thinks otherwise.

In other words, “religious thinkers” are also influenced by their materialistic beliefs such as in the natural laws that govern and control the universe.

Our belief in God is, as I have repeatedly pointed out, not a belief in a supernatural being who 'intervenes or interferes' in the natural world or overrides its natural laws. The acceptance of natural laws is not a proof of materialism or that the mind is a product of the brain. The one is not in dispute, the other is.

In short, your belief is totally undefined except that is it’s not just 'natural,', 'non-natural or 'supernatural' but you just KNOW it is somehow true.

Atheism is a belief or non-belief (that some believe:+}

Again: “Atheism” merely rejects the notion of gods

Foist does seem to fit the bill: in that materialistic atheist is imposing an unnecessary and unwelcome position on .....everyone; the atheist, unlike the religious man, insists that it is factual and scientifically verifiable and therefore is the case, beyond dispute. Not!

Let's stick with foist :+}

Atheism rejects the notion of gods, that's all. Nothing is being “foisted” on anyone.

[thormas]

A swing and a miss :+} Of course the material universe exists, no one said otherwise, rather the materialist philosophy or theory is culturally conditioned, accepted by a few and is not even a singular theory but has variants - so even there, there is no agreement. And the discernment that there is 'more' to the universe, that there is 'something that transcends the humans is as old as man.......so timeless and present in all cultures and times :+}

Actually, you have insisted that belief should have to support itself with facts.........which by their very definition are not beliefs. However, my favorite new line of yours is that 'belief is no more than faith

[Tassman]

A swing and a miss :+} Of course the material universe exists, no one said otherwise, rather the materialist philosophy or theory is culturally conditioned, accepted by a few and is not even a singular theory but has variants - so even there, there is no agreement.

I’m not arguing “materialist theory”, but rather scientific methodology. The former is a philosophical argument and such arguments, unlike science, can never arrive at verifiable conclusions.

And the discernment that there is 'more' to the universe, that there is 'something that transcends the humans is as old as man.......so timeless and present in all cultures and times :+}

It is NOT a “discernment that there is 'more' to the universe” – there is no evidence of anything to “discern”. This is a desire or hope, perhaps, but no more than this.

Actually, you have insisted that belief should have to support itself with facts.........which by their very definition are not beliefs. However, my favorite new line of yours is that 'belief is no more than faith based assumptions.' That is simply precious :+}

It is reasonable to expect beliefs to be supported by something substantive otherwise they belong in the realm of creative fiction.

On religion I'm just not sure who you're arguing against, certainly not me :+} To say that religion is 'created by man' is, for me, to simply say that man discerns the Divine and speaks, writes, contemplates and acts on that discernment.

To DISCERN anything, one must have a reasonable assurance that there is something to discern – this is where your argument falls short. There IS no reasonable assurance that there is something to discern.

And, I have no problem with acknowledging that the gospels are theological and literary masterpieces that were written to announce the 'good news' of Jesus.

…and what “good news” is this exactly?

All serious biblical scholar agree on a historic gist material found in the gospels and on a recurring pattern of words and actions of the historical Jesus. So the gospels are indeed based on this particular, historical man.

Certainly, most scholars agree that that Jesus existed, was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of Pontius Pilate after a life as a peripatetic preacher. As for the magic stuff – miracles, bodily resurrections etc., not so much.

Apologies as that should have been philia and not philo (love of wisdom:+} And I certainly agree that neither philia and philo .....or agape are specifically Christian.........only that agape is more that the philia which you talk about that is necessary for our survival as a species.

I understood what you were saying. And “agape” is selfless, unconditional, altruistic love as it is seen in all societies. It is not specifically Christian, although it has been appropriated by theologians and apologists.

Christianity is not magic and as discussed, the words and actions of Jesus (like others mentioned above) are not simply evolutionary but revolutionary: 'ahead of their time, their society and their culture. Furthermore, simply because one identifies as a Christian does not mean that he, like Jesus, is able to break away from the understanding of his culture and stand against human sin and selfishness. Socially accepted behavior does sometimes (not always) condition men and women and religions have indeed been used to justify abhorrent behaviors. However, as is shown in the gospels, such behavior is not preached, practiced or condoned by Jesus - the man who did not accept barriers between or judgements of human beings; his behavior and beliefs 'transcended his culture' and he was considered a 'problem' by that society/culture which executed him. Slavery and homosexual discrimination and condemnation, and all other self-centered attitudes and behaviors are against Christ and not acceptable to Christianity - regardless of the mistaken understanding of the literalist (and other) Christians.

You are imposing your own views onto what the man Jesus thought and spoke. The Christians who used Jesus to support slavery, the subjugation of women, the burning of heretics and the destruction of entire cultures as per the Christian colonizers, did the same. Christians have a long history of reading the bible so that virtually any perspective on current issues will find some support in it.

Social activists and opinion-leaders have led to reforms from within the human society of which they were a part.– where else would they come from, Mars? And such reforms were entirely consistent with the evolved tendency for cooperative communal behavior of social species such as us.

I am not a materialist because I find the overall concept absurd.

You don’t like it so it can’t be true.

I recognize that there are various materialist positions so not even the materialists agree on what they mean (actually have you defined which material position you follow?).

There is only one material position. My position is that as studied by science, namely the natural world which includes the components of the physical universe around us, people, societies and galaxies, as well as the natural forces at work on those things. I do NOT see any good reason to accept the notion of supernatural (non-natural) forces and explanations.

Plus, it is not verifiable: even the experiments, the very same experiments are interpreted differently: one neuroscientist's (Libet?) take on his own experiments is an argument against materialism, yet materialists see his work as evidence for materialism. Scientists do not agree and are actually a bit all over the place.

Ah. “Teach the controversy” – the Discovery Institute’s notorious attempt to spread doubt about Evolution. There’s no controversy. No cognitive scientist takes Libet’s work, namely that decisions are made, unconsciously, by the brain, and only later made it into consciousness, as anything other than that the physical workings of the material brain.

Of course the universe is material or physical (or perhaps energy {mind?} that manifests as material and then their are the laws of nature, of the universe: the actually workings of the laws are physical (example an apple falling down from your roof) but the idea of the law is not physical. And, anticipating the brain/mind argument this is also all over the place but there the question of how matter which is simply and only matter can generate that which is not matter - is just as intriguing as how endless contingency can be the explanation for everything and/or something arising from nothing. I understand the dualist argument but I don't necessarily consider myself a dualist since I believe that all is of participates in Being/God which is One.

But despite this alleged controversy in science, you still haven’t given a reason WHY you “believe that all is of participates in Being/God which is One”.

Then, of course there is what I consider the fatal flaws: the full meaning of atheistic materialism is not discussed and shared among loved ones and it ends in total meaninglessness and absurdity. These I see as insurmountable. This is why it is foisted on others: it is not scientific fact, it is not agreed on in the scientific community, there are many materialism theories, many even other materials consider debunked and there are scientists who completely disagree with materialism.

It IS agreed in the scientific community, there’s no controversy. Humans are a social species that live in communities as a survival mechanism rather than segregating as isolated individuals and living alone. THIS is why we instinctively form family units and live in communities.

I'd rather my position be considered an oxymoron than absurd ......as is yours:+} The clue is in the word atheism but then we have the reality of those atheists who actually make professions of their beliefs, without fact or supporting evidence, thereby the atheist becomes a believer and not merely a non-believer. Actually I think non-believing, believing atheist is oxymoron ......and his position absurd: a twofer :+{ And thanks for telling us what we already know: the material world/universe exists. Keen sense of the obvious. Serious religious thinkers (even unserious religious thinkers) are influenced by the reality of the material universe (not the materialist concept-errant) - since they live in it - and their belief in God does not run afoul of their acceptance of natural law (their apple still drops and God still IS).

God still is WHAT? This is your mantra which is supposedly meaningful but glosses over the fact that it actually means nothing.

[thormas]

I accept that you accept, i.e. believe (one of) the materialist theories.

That there is no discernment of 'more' in the universe on your part is one thing, however it does not follow that there is nothing 'more.' Yours is your belief, as mine is mine. And we are back to the beginning:+}

All you are doing repeatedly is restating your demand that faith must be based on evidence/facts. This is a category mistake.

Good, you acknowledge some of the gist material but there is more to it (see above) and I'm not talking the 'supernatural stuff.'

I have repeatedly said that love, including agape, is not specifically Christian. I have also said it is more or different in kind than the philia (above). And no serious religious thinker has appropriated anything.

I am very careful to impose nothing on Jesus, I simply, in concert with serious biblical scholarship. tell his story as presented in the gospels. But feel free to present those word or actions of Jesus in the gospels that show he supports slavery, homosexual condemnation or the 'other bad things' that you mentioned. Christians did and do 'use' the OT and the NT (as I have said above) but they have not gotten support from the gospel Jesus. It is telling that you accept those who do impose their negative beliefs on Jesus :+{

Again, many of these 'thought leaders' were 'beyond' their societies: they discerned something 'more' - they saw new human possibilities in society and many of these thought leaders attributed their sight to........God, the One, Ultimate Being. I'll stick with them :+}

Actually, I don't typically like things, like materialism, that are not true. But you are accurate when you say, "it (materialism) is not true."

There are numerous materials positions. If, however, you are saying that the materialist position is simply that the universe is material or physical - no one is arguing that. That doesn't conflict with my belief: I have never said 'God' is part of the universe.

No one is teaching the controversy simply stating the disparate positions in the scientific community and I am not familiar with the Discovery Institute, so I refer you to them. And the discussion was materialism not evolution (but feel free to throw everything against the wall to see what might stick). And you have stated the issue, the problem: you see the same experiment differently than others, yours being the materialist belief :+}

Some reasons have already been given above. But again, I have no problem with the scientific community on evolution and our species, I simply believe there is 'more' to the human - that is beyond the scope of science (as discussed above). Again, I am talking about materialism - not that the universe is material - and the scientific community is not in agreement on materialism, mind, consciousness, etc.

A like that mantra, thanks: Emmanuel, God......with us. That it means nothing to the atheist, I accept:+}

[thormas]

Watched the first half of a debate between Dan Dennet and Keith Ward yesterday with an amazing moderator. Very calm, very respectful conversation between two guys who disagreed but did not forget their common humanity. I really liked Dennet..........he was very articulate, very good .........however I still side with Ward.

[Tassman]

I accept that you accept, i.e. believe (one of) the materialist theories.

The “material universe” demonstrably exists as opposed to a hypothetical notion of a non-material “spiritual universe”.

That there is no discernment of 'more' in the universe on your part is one thing, however it does not follow that there is nothing 'more.' Yours is your belief, as mine is mine. And we are back to the beginning:+}

But there is no good reason to think there IS something “more” than the physical, material universe.

All you are doing repeatedly is restating your demand that faith must be based on evidence/facts. This is a category mistake.

That’s not what I’m doing. I’m merely arguing that there is no good reason for believing empty faith claims. And you have not as yet provided any reasons to do so.

Good, you acknowledge some of the gist material but there is more to it (see above) and I'm not talking the 'supernatural stuff.'

The Jesus story stands or falls on the “supernatural stuff”, notably the alleged bodily resurrection.

I have repeatedly said that love, including agape, is not specifically Christian. I have also said it is more or different in kind than the philia (above). And no serious religious thinker has appropriated anything.

I have previously acknowledged the existence of various types of “love” of which agape is but one.

I am very careful to impose nothing on Jesus, I simply, in concert with serious biblical scholarship. tell his story as presented in the gospels. But feel free to present those word or actions of Jesus in the gospels that show he supports slavery, homosexual condemnation or the 'other bad things' that you mentioned. Christians did and do 'use' the OT and the NT (as I have said above) but they have not gotten support from the gospel Jesus. It is telling that you accept those who do impose their negative beliefs on Jesus :+{

The argument is not what Jesus says, which is open to interpretation anyway, but the demonstrable fact of what people of faith did in his name. The bible has been read so that virtually any perspective on current issues will find some support in it – the quotes used to defend Christian slave ownership being a case in point: Colossians 3:22. “Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh, not serving to the eye, as pleasing men, but in simplicity of heart, fearing God.”

Again, many of these 'thought leaders' were 'beyond' their societies: they discerned something 'more' - they saw new human possibilities in society and many of these thought leaders attributed their sight to........God, the One, Ultimate Being. I'll stick with them :+}

ALL of these 'thought leaders' were 'beyond' their societies – this is why they were considered “thought leaders. And whilst some no doubt attributed their ‘vision’ to the notion of God – others simply saw it as a matter of fairness and equality to grant equal rights to women and various races and minority groups. For example the 48 nations of various diverse backgrounds that signed the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Actually, I don't typically like things, like materialism, that are not true. But you are accurate when you say, "it (materialism) is not true."

No. I said that my materialist position is the universe as studied by science. Namely the natural world of the physical universe, people, societies and galaxies etc., as well as the natural forces at work on those things. I do NOT see any good reason to accept the notion of supernatural (non-natural) forces and explanations for any of these things. .

There are numerous materials positions. If, however, you are saying that the materialist position is simply that the universe is material or physical - no one is arguing that..

You continue to argue that there is “MORE” than the physical universe, including the God hypothesis. There is no good reason to believe this.

That doesn't conflict with my belief: I have never said 'God' is part of the universe

You have never said God is anything at all, merely what he is not.

No one is teaching the controversy simply stating the disparate positions in the scientific community and I am not familiar with the Discovery Institute, so I refer you to them. And the discussion was materialism not evolution (but feel free to throw everything against the wall to see what might stick). And you have stated the issue, the problem: you see the same experiment differently than others, yours being the materialist belief :+}

The Discovery Institute’s trick was not to address the scientific argument but attempt to discredit it on the basis of alleged disagreements among scientists. This became known as the “teach the controversy” argument. This I contend is what you are trying to do with your continual emphasis on “disparate positions in the scientific community”.

Some reasons have already been given above. But again, I have no problem with the scientific community on evolution and our species, I simply believe there is 'more' to the human - that is beyond the scope of science (as discussed above). Again, I am talking about materialism - not that the universe is material - and the scientific community is not in agreement on materialism, mind, consciousness, etc.

Why would you believe that there is 'more' to the human than other primates such as “lemurs, lorises, tarsiers, monkeys, apes, and humans”?

https://www.britannica.com/topic/list-of-primates-2060305

A like that mantra, thanks: Emmanuel, God......with us. That it means nothing to the atheist, I accept:+}

“God IS” means nothing. As opposed to the “natural universe IS” because (unlike god(s) it demonstrably exists.

[thormas]

No one denies the 'material universe' (as opposed to materialism) and no one is hypothesizing about a non-material, spiritual universe. This is a straw man argument.

The religious man thinks there are good reasons (see above) to believe that there is 'more.' However, even these reasons are not 'evidence/proof.' Yours is a mixing of categories: the demand that belief must provide facts.

Actually, Christianity first stands on the fact that Jesus was a historical figure in history. Plus, as discussed, progressive Christians, myself included, don't have much or any of what you call the supernatural stuff - yet we still are Christians. Thus you are wrong :+{

Regarding love, including agape, since the discussion is with me and not a fundamentalist, you should be able to acknowledge that, as I have said, Christianity has not appropriated agape.

Actually the argument has two parts: there is nothing in the gospels stories of Jesus that shows his words, actions or any kind of support for slavery or discrimination of any kind. Second is the OT and the rest of the NT.......and my argument is that in the NT (and even the OT but I am less familiar), a careful exegesis is required before one spouts off too much that Christianity supports this or makes judgements about that. Again, Jesus, on these issues, is simply not open to 'interpretation.' Actually a similar situation is at play, as we speak, in the USA: how many are saying this or that is constitutional and, in fact, given that written document, it is not. So too the Bible: just because we can (sadly) give chapter and verse of Christians who have and who continue to base their wrong beliefs and action on that written document, doesn't make it so or them right.

Still it is the case, as you have now agreed, that many of these thought leaders were beyond their societies and ...........not merely products of those societies. They 'saw' something more and, as I have been saying, both the religious and the secular man can transcend what is and move to what can or ought to be. And, many have pointed to God in this effort. Many also saw 'fairness and equality' to be the Good that transcends and to which man aspires.

If the materialist position is simply that the universe is material, I agree. However I also recognize that there are different views of that universe: for example, there are those who allow that there is Mind and all that is matter (which indeed remains the purview of science) is the creation or embodiment of mind. However, it is also the case that materialism is more than this and have further views or explanations - which are rejected by materialist in other schools of thought. Again, as discussed, I don't accept or believe in 'supernatural' or non-natural forces or explanations :+}

Again, I am not at all familiar with the Institute but it is valid to point to the fact that scientists differ and interpret the same experiments in very different ways - thus there is not definitive 'agreement' in the community on this subject. It is apparent that the disagreements are not merely alleged and to refer to the disagreements is to argue the science, by referring to one or more scientists in opposition to other scientists.

Why.........because it answers the What and the Why and because I find it eminently reasonable and............believable.