quote:

---

An immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.

---

quote:

---

SusanDoris: I would be most interested to hear people's views on definitions and implications of the words sin and salvation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
mousethief
Thank you. One of the advantages of the word 'sin' is that it is one, strong syllable! All other words lack its impact. Can you elaborate on how God fixes things, I wonder?

---

By changing the human heart so we're not such self-serving bastards. Ideally.
 

---

Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on :
 
As I see it, sin is a state of being, rather than a specific action (or actions). actions shape our being, so yes, they matter, and certain actions are highly likely to cause our state of being to shift more to sin (a state of being away from the ideal), and they also often are caused by our state of being, so we call those actions "sins", but in fact I don't believe it's about individual actions.

Salvation is the ability to reunite with God. and it's done. we've all been "saved". but it's more complicated than that. we are all still in the process of being "saved" (our actions/state of being is constantly shifting). in the end, it is our state of being (shaped over a lifetime by actions and beliefs and other influences) which determines how we perceive Gods love. (contrary to most christian teaching, I happen to believe that if there is any sort of "time" after death, then we also continue to be shaped during that time. death does not mark the end our our salvation.. we will continue to be in the process even then. How? I don't know. I guess I'll find out eventually.

"the kingdom of God is within us".
 

---

Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :
 
For extremely brief descriptions, I'd line up behind mousethief.

I do think it's going to be hard to have a discussion about "sin" and "salvation" independent of any particular religious or theological worldview, however, as they're kind of intrinsically intertwined and don't really have any meaning outside of that framework (although there's obviously a whole lot of room for discussions of different frameworks and the nuances within and between those).

If you're hoping to isolate them for examination, though, I think your opening premise has somewhat guillotined discussion
 

---

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
Sin harms in one of two ways - either things that are things God hates, or things that hurt others. However due to the Incarnation, one will affect the other, eg harming others is wrong because they are a person made in the image of God, as well as any immediate harm to that person. Salvation is a way for God to absolve us of our sins, and to dwell within us via the gift of the Holy Spirit.
 

---

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
mousethief
Thank you. One of the advantages of the word 'sin' is that it is one, strong syllable! All other words lack its impact. Can you elaborate on how God fixes things, I wonder?

---

By changing the human heart so we're not such self-serving bastards. Ideally.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anyuta:
As I see it, sin is a state of being, rather than a specific action (or actions). actions shape our being, so yes, they matter, and certain actions are highly likely to cause our state of being to shift more to sin (a state of being away from the ideal), and they also often are caused by our state of being, so we call those actions "sins", but in fact I don't believe it's about individual actions.

Salvation is the ability to reunite with God. and it's done. we've all been "saved". but it's more complicated than that. we are all still in the process of being "saved" (our actions/state of being is constantly shifting). in the end, it is our state of being (shaped over a lifetime by actions and beliefs and other influences) which determines how we perceive Gods love. (contrary to most christian teaching, I happen to believe that if there is any sort of "time" after death, then we also continue to be shaped during that time. death does not mark the end our our salvation.. we will continue to be in the process even then. How? I don't know. I guess I'll find out eventually.

"the kingdom of God is within us".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snags:
For extremely brief descriptions, I'd line up behind mousethief.

I do think it's going to be hard to have a discussion about "sin" and "salvation" independent of any particular religious or theological worldview, however, as they're kind of intrinsically intertwined and don't really have any meaning outside of that framework (although there's obviously a whole lot of room for discussions of different frameworks and the nuances within and between those).

If you're hoping to isolate them for examination, though, I think your opening premise has somewhat guillotined discussion

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
Sin harms in one of two ways - either things that are things God hates, or things that hurt others. However due to the Incarnation, one will affect the other, eg harming others is wrong because they are a person made in the image of God, as well as any immediate harm to that person. Salvation is a way for God to absolve us of our sins, and to dwell within us via the gift of the Holy Spirit.

---

quote:

---

That is a really lovely post. Thank you. I ascribe all that we think and do to our evolved humanity not God, but very much like the feelings and sentiments you have expressed.

---

Well, thanks for saying so. The thing is, I ascribe our evolved humanity to God... but in the end, it doesn't really matter. I certainly don't think that belief is what "saves" us, although since belief can shape actions and hearts, it's not irrelevant either.:-)
 

---

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
SD - there's obviously no objective way to tell, but God promises absolution and forgiveness if we confess and repent of our sins. I do think that God can absolve and forgive sins we can't remember!
 

---

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
Let me make an attempt also. (Most of these things I've said before on the Ship).

For starters, I don't always find 'sin' a very useful concept. It is very one-dimensional; of all the — sometimes difficult — decisions I need to make in my life, only a very small portion involves a choice between good and evil. So, 'sin' isn't very helpful here.

But okay, about good and evil for a moment. For starters (this is the second time I've started ), I don't believe in Evil. I believe that we can do evil things, but I don't believe in 'evil' as a concept. Once again, not very helpful.

But why can we do good and evil things? As I said in the other thread, this is related to the structure of our Universe. We need things, we need to eat every day, we need other things too. And the laws of the universe dictate that some of these things are scarce. It is very hard not to be egoistic under these circumstances.

Yet, this is what I believe God asks us to do. To put others before ourselves. In a sense this requires us to transcend the limits set upon us by evolution. Sure, it may be an evolutionary advantage for groups of humans to work together, but that's very limited. Most of the time, it only applies to the own tribe, and still in a rather selfish way. I don't think evolution has wired us to act unselfishly towards the whole human race.

So, what does 'salvation' mean in this context? To me, 'salvation' doesn't mean "my sins are forgiven; I'll go to Heaven". Rather, being set free from my egoism can be a benefit in itself. Difficult to achieve sure, impossible perhaps, but it is this that the Holy Spirit wants to help us with.
 

---

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
Susan, in your OP you spoke of 'mistakes'. Nowadays that word has come to cover two different kinds of situation. If someone puts on a shirt wrong-side-out, that is a mistake pure and simple.

If someone takes out their bad mood on someone else, I wouldn't call that a mistake, since the person almost certainly knows better.

Moo
 

---

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Sin=inevitable abuse of privilege, freedom, power. Always. If it isn't, it isn't sin.

Salvation=we get to learn from that. No matter what. I.e. Jesus does what He says on the tin.
 

---

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Is there a way you think you can tell if you have been absolved of your sins by God?

---

Yes. There are nail prints in his palms.
 

---

Posted by Morgan (# 15372) on :
 
To me sin is both trespass and separation. We trespass on and violate the good - God's plan for peace, justice, kindness, decency, integrity, love and respect for others etc. As a consequence we initiate separation from God and from others.

We know we are absolved when we repent because that is God's promise. Forgiveness is always God's plan and God's response when we genuinely repent and seek forgiveness.

Salvation is as much about salving as saving. Salvation is ongoing as we are healed and made whole in our relationship with God and our relationships with others. It is both a present process and a future promise of further fulfilment.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Hi Susan --

These days, I tend to think in terms of mistakes, healing, growth, and wholeness. (Unless, of course, I'm very angry! )

I think everyone messes up, in various ways and to varying degrees, and with various levels of responsibility. CS Lewis used this illustration (paraphrased):

Factory A is old and crumbling. Its workings are 100 years out of date, it can't get the proper supplies, and it can fall apart at any moment. It manages to occasionally put out some shoddy goods. Considering what it has to work with, though, it's doing an amazing job.

Factory B is new and shiny, state of the art. People drive by it in awe. It puts out truckloads of goods, every day. But...the goods aren't as nice as they first appear, and they don't last. Considering what it has to work with, it should be doing much better.

That story helps me get some perspective. I also heard a sermon, years ago, wherein the RC priest said that for a person to sin, three things have to be true: they have to know the thing is wrong; they have to want to do something wrong; and they have to have another option.

IMHO, someone might be sinned against, but the person who did it might not be guilty of sin, based on the criteria I mentioned.

ISTM that, whatever we believe, we need to focus on treating people well, not treating people badly, learning, growing, loving, and all that. If God exists, etc., I think She helps us with that. My hope and belief (in the sense of a chosen place to stand) is that She won't rest until everyone and everything is safe, and well, and Home.

{Copies of this universalist infomercial are available for $5.95 in the church hall, during coffee hour, along with t-shirts, mugs, and mouse pads. Patent pending. }
 

---

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :
 
I relate sin and salvation to what I read in the beginning of Genesis. Our animal nature (the serpent) tells us that knowing what's good, what's bad and how to be happy (the tree of knowledge of good and evil) is something we are capable of doing for ourselves, without reference to moral laws that we are taught (God's rules about not eating or touching the tree). We sin when we believe that kind of thinking and incorporate it into our decisions and actions (eating the fruit of the forbidden tree), which leads us to put our self interest above that of our neighbor.

Salvation is God leading us away from believing and acting that way, and healing us from the damage we do to ourselves when we do. God's goal is to get us to accept a heart of flesh to replace the heart of stone that we acquire from heeding the serpent. To the extent that we do accept God's gift of a replacement heart, we open ourselves up to receiving the joy and happiness that God shares with us when we commit ourselves to service to our neighbor for its own sake. To the extent that we don't accept God's gift, we condemn ourselves to living a life dedicated only to ourselves.
 

---

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
Many thanks for new posts. Back later to respond!
 

---

Posted by beatmenace (# 16955) on :
 
Here is another take on it from Tom Wright.

http://hellochristian.com/2262-what-it-actually-means-to-be-saved-according-to-nt-wright
 

---

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Aye, that points toward the simplicity of Christ.
 

---

Posted by AndyHB (# 18580) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I would be most interested to hear people's views on definitions and implications of the words sin and salvation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anyuta:
I ascribe our evolved humanity to God... but in the end, it doesn't really matter. I certainly don't think that belief is what "saves" us, although since belief can shape actions and hearts, it's not irrelevant either.:-)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:?
SD - there's obviously no objective way to tell, but God promises absolution and forgiveness if we confess and repent of our sins. I do think that God can absolve and forgive sins we can't remember!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
Let me make an attempt also. (Most of these things I've said before on the Ship).

For starters, I don't always find 'sin' a very useful concept. It is very one-dimensional; of all the — sometimes difficult — decisions I need to make in my life, only a very small portion involves a choice between good and evil. So, 'sin' isn't very helpful here.

---

quote:

---

But okay, about good and evil for a moment. For starters (this is the second time I've started ), I don't believe in Evil. I believe that we can do evil things, but I don't believe in 'evil' as a concept. Once again, not very helpful.

---

quote:

---

But why can we do good and evil things?

---

quote:

---

Yet, this is what I believe God asks us to do. To put others before ourselves.

---

quote:

---

So, what does 'salvation' mean in this context? To me, 'salvation' doesn't mean "my sins are forgiven; I'll go to Heaven". Rather, being set free from my egoism can be a benefit in itself. Difficult to achieve sure, impossible perhaps, but it is this that the Holy Spirit wants to help us with.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
Susan, in your OP you spoke of 'mistakes'. Nowadays that word has come to cover two different kinds of situation. If someone puts on a shirt wrong-side-out, that is a mistake pure and simple.

If someone takes out their bad mood on someone else, I wouldn't call that a mistake, since the person almost certainly knows better.

Moo

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Sin=inevitable abuse of privilege, freedom, power. Always. If it isn't, it isn't sin.

Salvation=we get to learn from that. No matter what. I.e. Jesus does what He says on the tin.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Hi Susan --

These days, I tend to think in terms of mistakes, healing, growth, and wholeness. (Unless, of course, I'm very angry! )

I think everyone messes up, in various ways and to varying degrees, and with various levels of responsibility.

<snip>
IMHO, someone might be sinned against, but the person who did it might not be guilty of sin, based on the criteria I mentioned.

ISTM that, whatever we believe, we need to focus on treating people well, not treating people badly, learning, growing, loving, and all that. If God exists, etc., I think She helps us with that. My hope and belief (in the sense of a chosen place to stand) is that She won't rest until everyone and everything is safe, and well, and Home.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by W Hyatt:
To the extent that we don't accept God's gift, we condemn ourselves to living a life dedicated only to ourselves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
How do you account for the atheists who, lacking belief in any gods, still behave in a way that is as unselfish and good as they can make it because it is morally the right thing to do, with no reference to any god?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anyuta:
As I see it, sin is a state of being, rather than a specific action (or actions). actions shape our being, so yes, they matter, and certain actions are highly likely to cause our state of being to shift more to sin (a state of being away from the ideal), and they also often are caused by our state of being, so we call those actions "sins", but in fact I don't believe it's about individual actions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Morgan:
Salvation is as much about salving as saving. Salvation is ongoing as we are healed and made whole in our relationship with God and our relationships with others. It is both a present process and a future promise of further fulfilment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Morgan:
Salvation is as much about salving as saving. Salvation is ongoing as we are healed and made whole in our relationship with God and our relationships with others. It is both a present process and a future promise of further fulfilment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
How do you account for the atheists who, lacking belief in any gods, still behave in a way that is as unselfish and good as they can make it because it is morally the right thing to do, with no reference to any god?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by beatmenace:
Here is another take on it from Tom Wright.

http://hellochristian.com/2262-what-it-actually-means-to-be-saved-according-to-nt-wright

---

Thank you for the link.I do not have much time for what Paul said - I prefer today's scientists' views!
There is no question that at the end of my life I shall be dead!! but will be living every minute until then to the best of my ability.
 

---

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by AndyHB:
Whilst I'm not sure that I fully agree with the premise behind this article, it makes some interesting points.

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160401-how-did-evil-evolve-and-why-did-it-persist

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by A Feminine Force:
This is one of my favorite topics. I'll try to keep it short.

Sin - the Greeks called it "hamartia" which means "missing the mark". What does this mean? Not just having good intentions and unintended consequences. That's not sin.

"Missing the mark" means to take aim at something with an intent to harm, but not hit your intended target.

---

quote:

---

I see the mechanics of this operating at the sub-conscious level. When you are aiming harmful thoughts and actions at others, you are unintentionally wounding yourself.

---

quote:

---

Salvation. The root of the word is the Greek word for "to heal" - soter. The natural remedy for a self-inflicted wound is to seek the help of a healer.

This is what I feel is Christ's role as the Great Physician - to heal the world of its self inflicted wounds.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I think the definition of sin in the OP is severely limited. You don't have to believe in God to notice that the human race is broken at a profound level. We learned to make tools, and we use them as weapons. We learned language, and we use it to lie. We learned to trade, and we use it to enrich ourselves and impoverish others.

If you don't believe in the Christian idea of salvation (in which we have the archetypal myth of Christ battering down the doors of Hell with his Cross, in order to release those imprisoned in the darkness of their sin) you can at least believe in the message given by the prophets and the example given by the saints, that there is nothing ultimately necessary about sin. It does not have to have the last word. There is a better way, and they point to it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:

---

Originally posted by beatmenace:
Here is another take on it from Tom Wright.

http://hellochristian.com/2262-what-it-actually-means-to-be-saved-according-to-nt-wright

---

Thank you for the link.I do not have much time for what Paul said - I prefer today's scientists' views!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
It will be us humans though, with the acquired knowledge and skills who will be muddling through and, mostly, doing as well as can be expected, won’t it?!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
OK, but see, that's why many of us were reluctant to respond to your thread-- you asked for our pov, but then are dismissive when we give it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
So He magics them good?

---

quote:

---

SusanDoris: Perhaps what we need most is a single syllable, powerful word with no religious overtones to take the place of the word sin.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:

---

LeRoc: I don't believe in Evil. I believe that we can do evil things, but I don't believe in 'evil' as a concept. Once again, not very helpful.

---

Again, agreed, but I think the word evil is increasingly losing its association with religious ideas.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:

---

LeRoc: But why can we do good and evil things?

---

That is an easy one to answer. We have evolved into the species of human animal we are and have, very successfully, survived, together with and perhaps also in spite of the huge variation of behaviours we manifest.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:

---

LeRoc: Yet, this is what I believe God asks us to do. To put others before ourselves.

---

Do you think you would completely fail to do this if you did not believe in God?

---

quote:

---

SusanDoris: Do you think our species would have survived as successfully as it has done if altruistic behaviour had not been an important part of our evolution?

---

quote:

---

Curiosity killed ...: Sorry, LeRoc, someone posted a link to a BBC article synthesising research that shows animals demonstrating all of the Dark Tetrad of evil. (I posted the same article to the Fall thread.)

---

quote:

---

SusanDoris: I have never 'sinned' because for me there is no divine!

---

quote:

---

SusanDoris: I prefer today's scientists' views!

---

quote:

---

SusanDoris: I really am interested in, and learn from, the views and experiences of members of SofF.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
LeRoc--

What, specifically, do you want from her, then? How would you prefer your posted sample conversation to go?

Thx.

---

Ah, thank you!! Having read through Le Roc’s posts and made some notes, I read this neatly focused post of yours.
 

---

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
Suppose that I as a Christian would have a discussion with Hindus that went like this.

LeRoc: Why do Hindus do X?
Several Hindus: We do X because …
LeRoc: That's not valid because your gods don't exist.

Do you think that a meaningful inter-religious dialogue has taken place here?

Wouldn't it be better if I answered something of the form "I don't believe in your gods of course, but I think that elements xyz in your answer are insightful because … / I believe that elements xyz are positive because … / I learned xyz from your answer".

To me, it would make sense to take the fact that Hindus believe in their gods as a hypothetical given for a while, to see what else I could learn from them, instead of only being interested in pushing my agenda "I want to assert that your gods don't exist".

I'd even say that this is a rather scientific approach.
 

---

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
Le Roc
I made notes while reading through your posts, as follows:
As far as logic is concerned, I am not here to win any prizes for logic,  but to enjoy interesting discussion, at the end of which we can all look forward to the next one.
Re the word 'evil' - the possibility of new words to replace 'sin' and 'evil' is remote - we are stuck with the language we have.
Yes, animals do what they have evolved to do, as do all species of apes, their common ancestor did and all previous ancestors. Our human species was lucky enough to evolve with language which enables us to consider our actions and label them according to which were evidently for the good of the group or not..
No, I did not say I 'believe in Science’, I said I prefer the scientific views or words to that effect. Can you cite a post where I have said I 'believe in Science'?
, and whatever Theory is put forward is always open to challenge, isn't it. I agree that
Animal natural, evolved behaviours are not labelled moral or immoral, and if we, as a human species, were being obvserved by some other, more intellectually advanced species, then our behaviour would be
Similarly categorised. With language, though, we can consider its morality.

I'm afraid I cannot do anything about whether you consider my posts and opinions to be just not good enough!! However, if you can suggest another hobby/activity I could take up instead ... ... well, I'd probably still post here anyway! 
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
IMHO the question is whether you are interested in our answers for any other reason than that it gives you a platform for telling us all how unscientific we are.
 

---

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by A Feminine Force:
Hello Miss SusanDoris!

Thank you for the polite response to my thoughts.

<snkp>
So that's just me, and I just wanted to share this, for what it's worth.

Cheers!
AFF

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
IMHO the question is whether you are interested in our answers for any other reason than that it gives you a platform for telling us all how unscientific we are.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
IMHO the question is whether you are interested in our answers for any other reason than that it gives you a platform for telling us all how unscientific we are.

---

FWIW: ISTM, she asks about our views, often comments on them, and mentions her own--which happen to be atheistic, humanistic, and non-supernatural(istic). How is that different than someone who's Lutheran, RC, Orthodoxen, Baptist, etc. saying what their views are? (And you, LC, have sometimes been very upset when you felt Shipmates weren't respecting you and your views--so upset you vented in Hell. You might remember our conversation there.)

We've had Shipmates, particularly some Christians, who've been rampantly and loudly antagonistic to anyone else's beliefs, and gone on at length, over and over, and...thoroughly annoyed and dismayed a good many of us.

Susan doesn't dump all that on us. She asks questions, mentions her beliefs (sometimes in a detailed way, sometimes not), and displays wit. IMHO, she's a breath of fresh air.

It seems there's a double standard. Is it because she's an atheist and humanist, and not at all interested in taking up religion of any kind?

And it's not just Susan who gets this reaction. I've seen other atheist Shipmates asked why in the world they hung out here--sometimes, none too nicely.

If you somehow hope she's going to find Jesus, I respectfully submit that the approaches people have been using, on this thread and elsewhere, would drive a lot of people away and be very counter-productive.

Susan's got a path that works very well for her, and she's explained that in the past. Lots of Shipmates just post their comments and beliefs, and then back away. They usually don't meet this kind of resistance, IME. Why not just consider her one of them, and scroll on by?


 

---

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
You've won, SusanDoris.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
Suppose that I as a Christian would have a discussion with Hindus that went like this.

LeRoc: Why do Hindus do X?
Several Hindus: We do X because …
LeRoc: That's not valid because your gods don't exist.

---

quote:

---

Do you think that a meaningful inter-religious dialogue has taken place here?

---

quote:

---

Wouldn't it be better if I answered something of the form "I don't believe in your gods of course, but I think that elements xyz in your answer are insightful because … / I believe that elements xyz are positive because … / I learned xyz from your answer".

---

ISTM that *could* be said in a very condescending manner ("Of course, I don't believe in your little superstitions, but...."); earnestly, as in trying to find an entry for witnessing; or in a respectful way. I don't know which way you intend it.

IIRC, many of your posts aren't like what you suggested. I like a good many of your posts, LeRoc, especially moments of humor and info on how things are in various places you live. But I don't generally think of you as doing that kind of religious inquiry. Have I missed it??

quote:

---

To me, it would make sense to take the fact that Hindus believe in their gods as a hypothetical given for a while, to see what else I could learn from them, instead of only being interested in pushing my agenda "I want to assert that your gods don't exist".

---

quote:

---

I'd even say that this is a rather scientific approach.

---

quote:

---

SusanDoris: As far as logic is concerned, I am not here to win any prizes for logic,  but to enjoy interesting discussion, at the end of which we can all look forward to the next one.

---

quote:

---

SusanDoris: Re the word 'evil' - the possibility of new words to replace 'sin' and 'evil' is remote - we are stuck with the language we have.

---

quote:

---

SusanDoris: Yes, animals do what they have evolved to do, as do all species of apes, their common ancestor did and all previous ancestors. Our human species was lucky enough to evolve with language which enables us to consider our actions and label them according to which were evidently for the good of the group or not..

---

quote:

---

SusanDoris: and whatever Theory is put forward is always open to challenge, isn't it.

---

quote:

---

Golden Key: We've had plenty of those conversations on the Ship, though generally between people of varying Christian traditions.

---

quote:

---

SusanDoris: When I wrote the OP, I was thinking only in fairly restricted terms of definitions of sin and salvation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
Alright, let me try to reconstruct what you're trying to do on this topic then.

---

quote:

---

SusanDoris: I notice something that makes me think, 'I wonder what the SoF members would say about this,' and write an OP.

---

• You said that when it comes to questions of morality, you prefer scientists' views. I challenged that, saying that Science cannot give us moral answers.
• As an explanation for morality, you gave the human evolutionary capacity for language. I challenged that, saying that language cannot explain morality.

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Golden Key: We've had plenty of those conversations on the Ship, though generally between people of varying Christian traditions.

---

First of all, you're using what I call the Classic Schoolyard Defence™ here. "Miss, they are doing it too!" I don't think that is going to work very well with me.

Secondly, I'm reacting to a very specific pattern here. Sure, there have been rather harsh and sometimes stupid discussions between 'conservatives' and 'liberals' on the Ship, but what I am talking about is this:

Conservative Shipmate: Why do liberals do/believe X?
LeRoc: Well, I do/believe X because …
Conservative Shipmate: That's not valid because it's not conservative.

I'm not sure if I've been involved in this particular pattern before. And I would certainly call this Shipmate out on this.

But basically, what you're saying is that this pattern is fine, and that this is a meaningful way of discussing things?

---

quote:

---

SusanDoris: and whatever Theory is put forward is always open to challenge, isn't it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

SusanDoris: and whatever Theory is put forward is always open to challenge, isn't it.

---

Rote dismissal is not challenge.

---

quote:

---

Golden Key: You've repeatedly called Susan out for things other Shipmates do all the time, but you sound as if she's the only one. TBH, your attitude toward her seems obsessive. So why the obsession?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
You've repeatedly called Susan out for things other Shipmates do all the time, but you sound as if she's the only one. TBH, your attitude toward her seems obsessive. So why the obsession?

---

quote:

---

They pick and choose the person and the post to which they'll respond.

---

quote:

---

I've fallen asleep several times while writing this, so I'm going to sign off. But ISTM that your Purg posts demand things from Susan that you don't demand from other posters.

---

Ah, yes! I blame it on my age!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
fwiw, I'm with LeRoc here, and don't think he's singling out SusanDoris unfairly. I think LeRoc fairly characterized her style of posting-- seemingly setting up an honest question but then slamming down/dismissing when her question is answered honestly.

---

quote:

---

That really is different than what we see/expect from other Shippies when debating folks with different pov.

---

quote:

---

So I don't think SusanDoris is being held to any different standard than the rest of us.

otoh, as we've gotten to know SusanDoris better, I think what appears to be a bait-and-switch rhetorical trap is probably not that at all.

---

quote:

---

I suspect SusanDoris is going into these conversations with the best of intentions, really wanting to understand better-- but is at time overwhelmed or stymied by what appears to her to be an illogical conclusion she's struggling to comprehend.

---

quote:

---

That comes across as dismissive and disingenuous but may in fact be just the difficulties of communicating across two very different worldviews. And of course SusanDoris is outnumbered here (tho certainly not alone in her disbelief) which can't help matters.

---

quote:

---

Add to that the logistic difficulties managing her visual impairment and I'm starting to soften in the way I'm reading/hearing her comments that can seem abrasive.

---

quote:

---

SusanDoris, I'm speaking for you here, when obviously you can speak for yourself, so please feel free (not that you need my permission) to correct the above. Does it sound to you like I'm fairly assessing the situation? Can you see why we sometimes feel tricked or set up by your questions? And/or is there something I/we are missing from your side of the conversation that would help us understand why these missteps keep happening?

---

quote:

---

This is becoming personal, so the hosts may come along soon to move this to hell, but my hope is we can resolve this amicably and graciously without having to venture down to the nether-regions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
Fish With A Seal is an excellent name for this particular pattern, and all credit for it goes to Lamb Chopped.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
But I haven't quite given up on SusanDoris, because she has a lot of interesting stuff to contribute IMHO, if she will only do so, and not keep repeating the fish-with-a-seal pattern again and again.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I suspect SusanDoris is going into these conversations with the best of intentions, really wanting to understand better-- but is at time overwhelmed or stymied by what appears to her to be an illogical conclusion she's struggling to comprehend.

---

No, I don't think that is so exactly; I do comprehend because I know how and why I believed when young. Also, I hope I am a realist - I am well aware that when cultures and world views change, and when such changes affect whole continents and the world, not just countries, these take time and have to happen gradually, otherwise they will be insecure changes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
mousethief
Thank you. One of the advantages of the word 'sin' is that it is one, strong syllable! All other words lack its impact. Can you elaborate on how God fixes things, I wonder?

---

By changing the human heart so we're not such self-serving bastards. Ideally.

---

That has certainly happened to me. My God story has improved and that has improved me in how I feel about others and myself. And vice versa. But it feels mainly the former. I'm still the same revolting, broken creature but I'm cool with that
 

---

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
(This will possibly feel like I'm flattering someone who agrees with me, but may I commend cliffdweller for her use of the English language? It's a delight to read.)
 

---

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
(This will possibly feel like I'm flattering someone who agrees with me, but may I commend cliffdweller for her use of the English language? It's a delight to read.)

---

That of course made me (sunglasses cuz, hey, I'm a Californian...) and then reread my post to see what I said that sounded so delightful... only to discover all sorts of typos, grammatical and spelling errors...

...keepin' it real...
 

---

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
So, does anyone think that the word 'evil' is religious? To what extent? (The BBC article also says it is.)
 

---

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
So, does anyone think that the word 'evil' is religious? To what extent? (The BBC article also says it is.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Words mean what we decide they mean.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
I'm still the same revolting, broken creature but I'm cool with that

---

Years ago, in one of his best posts ever, Ingo posted in Hell something to the effect that "we're all falling-apart zombies, stumbling towards God".

(I just tried to find it, both via the Ship and Google, but couldn't. Does anyone have a copy, or know the thread? Thx.)
 

---

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
I might be using evil to mean a kind of ketchup but I can't take that decision on my own and expect that to be what the word actually means.

What it means is determined by my audience and they will be informed by standard use in their context, and their knowledge of what the word might mean in other contexts, and what it might mean to me.

So for instance if they know I have religious leanings they might imagine religious connotations when I talk about evil, but not if a colleague without similar leaning uses the word.
 

---

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
I must say that this quest, as also evidenced in the BBC article, to (re-)claim the word 'evil' from religion is rather new to me. They may have it! I'll give them this word for free

Unless this means something like: "atheists / humanists should build their own moral systems instead of the religious ones", in which case yes, of course.
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
I'm still the same revolting, broken creature but I'm cool with that

---

Years ago, in one of his best posts ever, Ingo posted in Hell something to the effect that "we're all falling-apart zombies, stumbling towards God".

(I just tried to find it, both via the Ship and Google, but couldn't. Does anyone have a copy, or know the thread? Thx.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by A Feminine Force:
Is that twice I've read the expression "cock-up"in this thread? Or have I just drunk one too many sour apple martinis on the terrazo?

Shall we award a prize to the next poster who uses it?

Never mind. I have definitely drunk one too many sour apple martinis, which is bound to be a sin in somebody's book.

AFF

---

quote:

---

A Feminine Force: Is that twice I've read the expression "cock-up"in this thread?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doone:
What is a sour apple martini?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
It's here. (I don't think I agree with it though.)

[un-cocked-up link]

---

Thanks to both you and Lamb Chopped!
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
LeRoc--

I think we should probably start winding down this tangent. But a couple of things first:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Golden Key: You've repeatedly called Susan out for things other Shipmates do all the time, but you sound as if she's the only one. TBH, your attitude toward her seems obsessive. So why the obsession?

---

You're repeatedly saying that other Shipmates show this particular discussion pattern all the time. I don't believe you. You'll need to show proof of this.

FWIW, I'm not obsessed with SusanDoris, but I am obsessed with discussion patterns. I don't know; I just find those interesting. I have analysed other Shipmates' discussion patterns before, I've particularly done this rather extensively with IngoB.

(BTW, one thing I'm doing is trying invent names for discussion patterns. I've tried to look it up; there is an established body of names for logical fallacies, but there doesn't seem to be a similar one for these more subtle patterns. So I try to come up with names of my own. Fish With A Seal is an excellent name for this particular pattern, and all credit for it goes to Lamb Chopped.)

---

FWIW: I'm not obsessed with discussion patterns. My assessment tends to be more "Oh, good grief, they're fighting about THAT again, and it will go on for 20 pages, and it will all end in rage and tears", or "This person/view and that person view? Could be interesting, if they don't kill each other!", or "Oooo, that should be good!", etc.

I honestly don’t want to call anyone out. I’m not out to blame anyone. I just don’t want Susan or anyone else blamed for a) something they didn’t do; and b) if they did do it, something that lots of other Shipmates do, too.

I was going to select and paraphrase assorted current and vintage posts, so I could give examples without calling anyone out. But that would take hours, and be inappropriate on this thread. So some theoretical examples:

--“You aren’t a true (Christian, Tory, American, fan of…, environmentalist, Scotsman).”

--“You know nothing about (space, Aquinas, irony, roller derby, homelessness, the European Union, soccer/football).”

--“You/they are really (racists, uneducated gits, secret believers in Y, sheltered, turds).”

--“You’re not worth talking to. I’m going to ignore you. Fingers in my ears. La la la la la la la!”

--“Your tradition isn’t Tradition ™.”

--“How/why/do you (not) do X?” “How DARE you say we (don’t) do X?”

--“Only (tea cups, Christians, oyster crackers, homemade soup, Harry Potter, the Green Party, LOLcats) have the truth. Anything else is a knock-off.

--“That’s silly. Clearly, (42, evolution, the Bible, my political party, my cat) is the answer to this.”

--“Works!” “Grace!” “Apple sauce!”

--“God (is/isn’t a meanie, loves/hates us, is beyond/within us, does/doesn’t answer prayer, cares what we believe/do, exists/doesn’t exist/ can’t exist/ I don’t know/I don’t care, is chocolate/peanut butter/chocolate & peanut butter.”

Just food for thought.

[ 08. April 2016, 05:54: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
 

---

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
One of the things that I wondered about was posting style.

Something SusanDoris often does is answer every post in a thread she's started. In a real life conversation we just answer the points that interest us, or keep chatting where the conversation at that moment is going. Answering every post on a thread feels as if it's controlling the conversation, particularly when the comment is "Good post".

Now, when I see someone doing that, I hear echoes of another Shipmate leading threads he started. His comments often felt as if he was a particularly irritating teacher, trying to help us to produce the "right" (atheist) answer, which I found so patronising that I stopped reading threads he started in Purgatory.
 

---

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
Golden Key

I love your latest post!! I'm feling particularly cheerful today too, as I heard from the solicitor yesterday that today, after two years and a month, a reasonably large-sized cheque is to be paid into my bank account = settlement of the compensation claim (after being knocked down by that car).

[ 08. April 2016, 06:08: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]
 

---

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
One of the things that I wondered about was posting style.

Something SusanDoris often does is answer every post in a thread she's started.

---

There are two simple reasons for this - I do not want anyone to think that, on a topic I have started, I have not read what they have to say, and if I do not respond, or highlight, copy and paste onto, say, a doc and use that area to type into, I find it difficult to find posts again. I have to scroll through listening to good ol' Synthetic Dave reading me the names of the posters and text of posts! Thank goodness for clever IT people and assistive technology.
 

---

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 

quote:

---

Golden Key: So some theoretical examples:

---

quote:

---

Curiosity killed ...: Something SusanDoris often does is answer every post in a thread she's started.

---

I'm not sure if I find that a bad thing. I often do the same (but maybe people find that annoying too )

quote:

---

Curiosity killed ...: particularly when the comment is "Good post".

---

Yes, I find saying "Good post! " to anyone who vaguely agrees with her irritating, but I can't very well put my finger on why.

I need to think a bit about the things you said here.


BTW Good post
 

---

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
the problem with saying "Good post" to someone you meet occasionally is that they can act when being patronised! (BTW I laughed, but in a work conversation we'd be miming punches or slaps and rolling eyes.)
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
LC--

As I said to LeRoc, I think we should probably start winding down this tangent. But a couple things, first:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Golden Key, I'm afraid you've got hold of the wrong end of the stick as far as what's bugging me. It's not her atheism, her happiness in that position, her unwillingness to change (aren't we all?) or any of that stuff. In fact, I'm fairly sure you missed my defense of SusanDoris on another thread a while back on just those grounds. I want a varied Ship to delight in, and SusanDoris is a definite part of that variety.

---

quote:

---

No, what's bugging me is one very specific posting pattern that leads me to feel like a performing seal whose trainer is holding a fish out. This is the pattern.

SusanDoris posts a great subject for discussion, waits politely while everyone offers thoughtful positions, and then blows the whole thing off en masse as unscientific. End of discussion.

At that point either the thread degenerates into a frustration patch, as this one is doing, or various posters attempt to dig in to what precisely is meant by "scientific", which she evades, and the whole thing goes kaput. Another wasted thread.

Here is what I would LIKE to see happen. SusanDoris makes her OP as she always does, waits politely to gather in opinions as usual, but then responds by picking out at least one interesting point out of at least one post in the lot and replies to it in detail--whether that's to say "That sounds like raving lunacy, and here's why..." or perhaps "Would you tell me more about X, that sounds interesting. In particular I'm wondering about Y..." or even "Poster So-and-so, how do you reconcile your position A with B or C?"

Any of those responses would allow the discussion to keep going and develop, instead of it suddenly hitting a block wall at speed.

Or to use my metaphor above, the seal leaps out of the water, the trainer hastily snatches the fish away, and the seal thinks, "Why in hell did I even bother to try, I knew it would end that way just as it usually does."

---

quote:

---

You suggest I just scroll on by. In truth, that's what I usually do with a poster who repeats the same rhetorical trick again and again and again. But I haven't quite given up on SusanDoris, because she has a lot of interesting stuff to contribute IMHO, if she will only do so, and not keep repeating the fish-with-a-seal pattern again and again.

---

quote:

---

Golden Key: FWIW: the seal can swim away...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:

quote:

---

No, what's bugging me is one very specific posting pattern that leads me to feel like a performing seal whose trainer is holding a fish out. This is the pattern.

SusanDoris posts a great subject for discussion, waits politely while everyone offers thoughtful positions, and then blows the whole thing off en masse as unscientific. End of discussion.

At that point either the thread degenerates into a frustration patch, as this one is doing, or various posters attempt to dig in to what precisely is meant by "scientific", which she evades, and the whole thing goes kaput. Another wasted thread.

Here is what I would LIKE to see happen. SusanDoris makes her OP as she always does, waits politely to gather in opinions as usual, but then responds by picking out at least one interesting point out of at least one post in the lot and replies to it in detail--whether that's to say "That sounds like raving lunacy, and here's why..." or perhaps "Would you tell me more about X, that sounds interesting. In particular I'm wondering about Y..." or even "Poster So-and-so, how do you reconcile your position A with B or C?"

Any of those responses would allow the discussion to keep going and develop, instead of it suddenly hitting a block wall at speed.

Or to use my metaphor above, the seal leaps out of the water, the trainer hastily snatches the fish away, and the seal thinks, "Why in hell did I even bother to try, I knew it would end that way just as it usually does."

---

Hmmmm...I just went back and skimmed her posts on the first page of this thread. I saw her doing just what you say you want: asking questions and commenting. Seriously. Even though the first response on the thread (from LeRoc) basically said she was playing games, and why bother.

Reading Susan's comments on this thread about why she posts here and what she's looking for, ISTM she's looking for fascinating conversation, rather than detailed, logical debates. She doesn't want to stir up any bad feelings. I think it's more "And what do you think, and why? Don't see it that way at all, myself. And would you like some more tea?" (Susan: hope that's ok!)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by A Feminine Force:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doone:
What is a sour apple martini?

---

Ah let me lead you down the primrose path of intoxication.

When my daughter was 16 I let her taste mine and said "This is what date rape tastes like. If a boy ever buys you an alcoholic beverage that tastes like a Jolly Rancher sour apple or watermelon candy, then you will know what he has in mind."

Because these little babies go down one two three and before you know it and you are lying under a coffee table (or bar) somewhere.

Risking eternal damnation for leading you astray, here is the recipe:

2 parts frozen vodka (of COURSE you keep it in the freezer)

2 parts frozen sour apple liqueur (the sourer and greener the better)

2 parts granny smith apple juice (or any other).

Stir. Pour into martini glasses. Garnish with Granny Smith apple wedge for maximum pucker effect.

AFF

---

Wow, thank you. I've never come across this before - might give it a try when I've at least a week with nothing to do to spare
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But I do think having a helpful shorthand to explain the pattern helps. It might help alert SusanDoris but also help us shrug it off if we can just say "seal with a fish" rather than having to stomp off (swim off?) in frustration. Because really, that's our goal-- not to swim away but to stay and continue the conversation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doone:
Wow, thank you. I've never come across this before - might give it a try when I've at least a week with nothing to do to spare

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But I do think having a helpful shorthand to explain the pattern helps. It might help alert SusanDoris but also help us shrug it off if we can just say "seal with a fish" rather than having to stomp off (swim off?) in frustration. Because really, that's our goal-- not to swim away but to stay and continue the conversation.

---

Yes it's gonna be a cold, lonely summer
Knowing the love we'll miss,
Let us make a plan to meet in September
Sealed with a fish.

---

 

---

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Is it sin to lose faith? And therefore salvation?
 

---

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Because in last night's 'God slot' someone was worrying very much about SCIS making them recant, not one of our needy guests, but a stalwart Christian volunteer. Although you can't really tell the difference: they all have crazed 'theologies'. I was compelled to say that it won't happen to 99.999% of us and that I had never experienced 'persecution' and never would (apart from by Christians of course) and that it was no big deal as Jesus lost His faith. Holy hand grenade Batman!

And the most broken guy there, a big rambling paranoid schizophrene Roman Catholic, knew EXACTLY what I meant and loved it.

But the 'leader' and the 'faithful' were horrified and did everything to deny that Jesus simply quoted as He felt; they had to come up with all the desperate stories others have made up before to make Jesus exceptional in His humanity.

In which to doubt is human.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Martin--

"SCIS"? What is that, please? I looked it up, but couldn't find any hits that seemed relevant.

Is it ISIS/Daesh, or whatever moniker it's got this week?

Thx. And thanks for sharing that.
 

---

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
So Called Islamic State x
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Thanks.
 

---

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
I should copyright it! This meme started here!!

Along with the apology of God.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Martin's meme!

"Apology of God"? To? From? And what about, please?
 

---

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
It still frightens me to say it. But it's out there. And I was the first to say it. The zeitgeist being what it is and all.

In Christ we have the apology of God for the developmentally contingent, incidental, collateral meaninglessness of suffering.

I go further for the FIRST time. He asks us, NEEDS us, to forgive Him.

That takes even MY breath away.

I don't recall even Peter Rollins saying it.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Ah. But then, in the H2G2 books by Douglas Adams, God's Final Message To His Creation is "We apologize for the inconvenience".

But yours is good, too!
 

---

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Dear me. When heresy spreads from one to two, that's a MOVEMENT!
 

---

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc: First, you keep treating 'evil' as a religious word. You're right in saying that 'sin' is a religious word, but I'm not convinced that it is the case with 'evil'. Christians and atheists both agree that what Hitler did was evil.

---

quote:

---

LeRoc: this poses the question "so, where do you think morality comes from?" In this post, you've tried to answer this...

Basically, your answer comes down to "morality exists because humans evolved with language, and language has words that describe morality".

I'm sorry, but that won't do. That's not even an explanation. Science won't accept "X exists because humans evolved with language, and language has words that describe X" as an explanation for any other subject X, so I don't see why we should accept it as an explanation here.

---

quote:

---

Russ: If "evil" as an adjective meaning something like "very morally bad" can be used by theists and atheists alike, why can't "sin" as a noun meaning "morally bad act" ?

---

quote:

---

Russ: I may have it wrong, but it seems like what you're rightly rejecting here is the argument that the word "unicorn" exists therefore unicorns exist.

---

quote:

---

Russ: Whereas I thought SusanDoris was making a valid point that we don't use the word "sin" for the actions of the lower animals (bad dog! ) because sin requires moral choice requires self-consciousness requires language.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Curiositykilled, Golden Key, Lambchopped cliffdweller and Leroc

Thank you for the above posts which, as always on SoF,, I have found a most interesting read!
If I was good at using emoticons, I'd find a 'thumbse-up' one! I would be interested to hear suggestions for a reply which means:

I have read your post thought it was an interesting one, would like to acknowledge this fact, but do not have a direct reply at the moment

instead of 'Good post.'


In my life, message boards are the only place where topics with religious connections and contrasting opinions can be discussed. At the gym and tap dancing, we're all busy getting on with the activiti involved. We go for coffee afterwards, but talk about families, gardens (for quite a few of them!) and othe ordinary, everyday things.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evangeline:
How about, that's a really good point, I hadn't thought of that before. I don't have an answer to that.

To me that's honest & not patronising or evasive which is how something like "good post" might sound in certain circumstances

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Personally, I don't see a problem with "good post". Others say that, or "excellent post", or use the "not worthy" emoticon. I certainly have.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
cliffdweller

Thank you for saying.

The thing I can absolutely assure you is that I
dislike, and do not employ sarcasm, either in posts or real life.

---

Sadly, the same cannot be said of me... although I do try to give you a heads up with an appropriately snarky emoticon

 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Yeah, yeah--but what bugs me is when someone (yes, SusanDoris, I'm thinking of you) says "good post" or "interesting post, I'll get back to you" and never does--repeatedly, over a long series of interactions. It starts looking like a dodge to get out of engaging with the discussion. And it makes me feel like a puppy being patted condescendingly on the head.
 

---

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Sadly, the same cannot be said of me... although I do try to give you a heads up with an appropriately snarky emoticon

---

Your posts are always interesting ... ... ... and, you know, when I come to think of it, one of the reasons SofF is somewhere to read daily is the absence of bland/boring posts.
 

---

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
Yes. I don't post as often as I used to.
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Yeah, yeah--but what bugs me is when someone (yes, SusanDoris, I'm thinking of you) says "good post" or "interesting post, I'll get back to you" and never does--repeatedly, over a long series of interactions. It starts looking like a dodge to get out of engaging with the discussion. And it makes me feel like a puppy being patted condescendingly on the head.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
She's cool. Being patronized by her is a privilege.

---

quote:

---

She's lost her faith and is looking for a shadow of doubt.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Slight quibble here: I did not 'lose' faith; I
found that what I had been learning, hearing reading about i.e. scientific facts backed up by evidence - easily prevailed over any remaining religious beliefs which relied entirely on faith. So I erased that minute fraction of belief from my brain.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by agingjb:
And yet I still don't understand how scientific observations enable us even to prove that we are not living in a simulation, even if that simulation is remarkably consistent and coherent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by agingjb:
Atheists do say, with emphatic certainty, that "science" in some way proves the non-existence of God. It's not a argument I find persuasive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by agingjb:
Atheists do say, with emphatic certainty, that "science" in some way proves the non-existence of God. It's not a argument I find persuasive.

I know too much to be certain of anything.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by agingjb:
Clearly I meet different atheists from shipmates, both in person and on the net.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by agingjb:
Atheists do say, with emphatic certainty, that "science" in some way proves the non-existence of God. It's not a argument I find persuasive.

I know too much to be certain of anything.

---

I've never met an atheist who says that. Most of the ones that I know, say that a 3-omnis God is possible but highly implausible.

To say that it's impossible seems to assume perfect knowledge, and no scientist would claim that.

---

Slightly more nuanced version is that since science tells us all we need to know abut reality we don't have to look for other explanations. If I meet another atheist who thinks like that I'll refer 'em to you to help them come up with a more credible atheistic position

 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Truman White wrote:

quote:

---

Slightly more nuanced version is that since science tells us all we need to know abut reality we don't have to look for other explanations. If I meet another atheist who thinks like that I'll refer 'em to you to help them come up with a more credible atheistic position

---

quote:

---

And when my body lies in the ruins
of the lies that nearly ruined me,
will You pick up the pieces that were pure and true,
and breathe your life into them, and set them free?

And when You start this world over again from scratch,
Will You make me anew out of the stuff that lasts?
Stuff that's purer than gold is,
and clearer than glass could ever be?

---

And again in "Peace" he sings so beautifully of our brokeness, our inability to see into each other and trust and appreciate and love each other, and His ability to bring us into communion with each other.

And that, to me, is salvation. Having an eternity to get to know you, love you, spend time enjoying the presence of so many that I've met and haven't met, free of the baggage and lostness we falter around with, sometime hurting unintentionally, sometime wickedly and selfishly, always with mixed motivations, never quite "measuring up" no matter what - but justified freely by His grace. Basking in the presence of Christ, and hopefully, ripping off a fiery tap dance with our longtime friend, SusanDoris. C'mon, what do you have to lose?
 

---

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
TomOfTarsus
Thank you for the reference to my favourite activity! I have listened through your post once and will do so again later.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Good to see you, Tom.
 

---

Posted by Doone (# 18470) on :
 
Thank you, Tom - lots to reflect on there.
 

---

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Truman, Q. God explains nowt, apart from Jesus. We know God through Him. Absolutely nothing else. His are stories that I find are impossible to explain - and I don't mean the supernatural - unless He was incarnate God.
 

---

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :
 
Thanks all. I do tend to blather on. It's a struggle to explain it. We are so used to performing for approval. From the earliest we can remember, we are tested, graded, spanked if we're bad, praised if we're good. We take our parents' love for granted, and even think they don't love us.

And against all evidence of a cold, pain-filled, tragic and dying universe, vast and unimaginably empty, we find a God Who loves us. It makes no sense.

But what is love without Him? We speak of numbers with ludicrous numbers of zeros either before or after them as we describe time, the expansion of the cosmos, the density of black holes, the duration and magnitude of the sudden expansion of the universe some 13.8 billion years ago - Sagan's Pale Blue Dot is just the beginning of the nothingness of this old earth in the universe, and on the other end we can detect sub-atomic particles that we can only describe, and never see. We've found the Higg's Boson, detected gravitational waves, and as Dave Ross said, Now we've seen all the way back.

And so what. We're all going to die. Unless... unless He really is there,and he really does love us, and has given us Himself, has made us Persons, unique, eternal, and even in our fallenness retaining something of His image. And all He asks is come...

This is dangerously close to where the thread had wandered off to before. An it's late, and I have to go to bed. Don't know when I might get back, but I sure appreciated the warmth of the greetings. So here it is again, a wall of text, a TL;DR!

I may be crazy, but I sure hope to "kick back with y'all" in the eternal communion and have a good chuckle about the nutty things we believed before we could "see Him as He is." - the One who loves us, really loves us, deeply, completely, furiously loves us.
 

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0