|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Belief in Jesus. Easy, innit
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
I'm up to sheet 10 on page 2 (before all the exciting verbal abuse gets under way) - and for me,that's galloping. Apologies for already having duplicated posts puting some of my own points much better.
I'm not at all sure that the bible is reliable - in the way that orthodox christians claim.
But I'm pretty sure that God inspired it, and that he also, from time to time, when we are receptive enough, inspires you and me. God makes the bible more reliable by making us more reliable - and of course by being absolutely reliable himself. He gave us (fairly) reliable brains (though the maker's instructions are sometimes more incomprehensible than the ones I got with this bloody computer). So it's not too difficult to see through some, if not all, of the human errors that the bible is heir to.
He also gave us eyes to see (if you see what I mean, Curious Cucumber), and a back-up sense of wonder, to appreciate the bible's poetry, and what a marvel humanity is; what arseholes some of us are, what idiots others, and what geat men and women others; and what a thoroughly reliable, accurate, uncompromising hoot of a MIRROR it is, if we look at it straight without blinking.
We shouldn't just fiddle with it, IMO - we should blow trumpets and bang drums with it, dance with it, sing with it, have sex with it, for Christ's sake! (Come to think of it, I believe that traditional Jews do, or did, anyway - so I'll amend that to "...for God's sake!" in he interests of ecumenical harmony.
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
You might want to double check your UBB code before attempting that kind of cheap shot again.
Very good point, sir.
(sighs)I'll get round to reading and replying propoerly sometime. Why did three pages grow between the first two times I could check it?
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
Dear MrMister,
I'm not sure what the o.p. proposes. Do you mean it all, or is your tongue in your cheek? To me it appears so unconvincing as to be a case of devil's advocacy, straw man argument, or reductio ad absurdam. It is an instructively extreme description of what I'd call "solipsistic Christianity"; and the older I get, the more meaningless it becomes.
quote:
"If Christianity is true, then belief in Jesus is all that is required - which is a heart thing and to be subject neither to inquisitions nor to personal guilt or suspicions;"
But then:
quote:
And what is belief? I don't recall ever reading a definition of what belief internally actually is.
Putting these two statements together, mustn't we conclude that we don't know what, if anything, is required? You have just admitted that "belief" is an unknown. In algebra an unknown is often represented with "x", which symbol would do just as well here.
But let us assume for now that the word "belief" is unambiguous and try to define the word "Jesus" for the purpose of belief in him, her, or it. Now we're really up a creek. What makes this name the key to efficacious belief? Is it the sequence of letters in the written word? Is it the pronunciation? I doubt that these are of the essence, because the name isn't either pronounced or spelled the same throughout Christendom. Furthermore, if either of these were crucial, then the word "Jesus" would be a magic incantation (and hence an example, as the Interpreter's Bible has explained, of "praying as the heathen do" to which Jesus objected).
So I deduce that you are not proposing faith in the word "Jesus," but in some understood meaning of that word. Now let's ask where you get the meaning from. I see three possible sources or repositories of this meaning: (1) Scripture; (2) Personal experience of revelation; or (3) the Church. All of these, I think, have been proposed by various denominations or authorities. Perhaps, of course, (to the extent that "belief in Jesus" is the claimed sine qua non at all) the truth lies in some combination of these, or includes others I have overlooked. But at any rate, hasn't the plot already thickened?
I could comment on the three possible sources in turn but have probably said enough for one post.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrmister
Shipmate
# 10850
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
To me it appears so unconvincing as to be a case of devil's advocacy, straw man argument, or reductio ad absurdam. It is an instructively extreme description of what I'd call "solipsistic Christianity"; and the older I get, the more meaningless it becomes.
It's not for you to be convinced or unconvinced by the beliefs of another... that's not your role, nor do you have any inside information on the nature of truth that others are not privy to.
I would encourage you not to write off as meaningless something that is not amenable to your doctrinal or logical dissection - particularly when, with all due respect, the tools are so blunt.
quote:
Putting these two statements together, mustn't we conclude that we don't know what, if anything, is required? You have just admitted that "belief" is an unknown.
Precisely.
That's for God to judge, not us.
But I don't see God as judging us.
As Nicolas Abbagango, the philosopher, said: "Reason itself is fallible - and this fallibility must find a place in our logic."
I do not believe that belief in God is like passing an MCQ test.
I think it is a matter of the heart.
I would also quote "The Son of Man came not for the righteous but for sinners".
As Jewel sang, "What's simple is true" - what I believe is not a "reductio ad absurdum"; that is your logical blunder, not my belief.
Prove the worth of a baby, or of a rose's beauty! Some things just aren't amenable to that approach.
--------------------
Just because you believe something is true, that doesn't mean it is.
Check out this link about Carl Sagan's Dragon: http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm
Posts: 417 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
Belief in Jesus is belief in Jesus.
I don't believe that belief in any of those doctrines is necessary for salvation: faith, trust, these things are emotions, a relationship state.
What do you understand by "belief" outside the context of faith and trust? Need it extend only as far as believing that a man called Jesus existed? Or that he was divine? or that he did "good things"? Or that we ought to aspire to do similarly "good things"?
None of these beliefs individually or in aggregate have the power to change your life any more than believing (without checking) that there is cheese in the fridge, that it is tasty, that it would make a good quiche and that you ought, therefore, to make a quiche and share it with everyone.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrmister
Shipmate
# 10850
|
Posted
quote:
What do you understand by "belief" outside the context of faith and trust?
What I "understand" is immaterial.
quote:
Need it extend only as far as believing that a man called Jesus existed? Or that he was divine? or that he did "good things"? Or that we ought to aspire to do similarly "good things"?
That's for God to decide.
Personally I don't believe perception of salient "facts" is necessarily important. Take, for example, divinity. Yes, I believe in the divinity of Jesus. But "Ah!" you'll cry. "How exactly do you define divinity? Eh?" and so on.
What does it matter!
quote:
None of these beliefs individually or in aggregate have the power to change your life
I agree.
But beliefs don't do that. People (and God) do.
I believe the gospel concerns freedom from condemnation, and the promise of Heaven, not an insistence on being morally perfect - which, let's face it, the gospel presupposes us not to have achieved in the first place.
I do not believe God compels anyone to be kind, or to be moral, or whatnot.
The very concept of grace and mercy as being undeserved gifts has two elements:
1). they're undeserved - ie. we don't deserve them; and
2). they're a gift - ie. we don't pay for them.
Remember the prostitute who cleaned Jesus' feet with her tears;
and do not raise the gate to Heaven after your own entrance such that only the perfect can enter.
--------------------
Just because you believe something is true, that doesn't mean it is.
Check out this link about Carl Sagan's Dragon: http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm
Posts: 417 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
Personally I don't believe perception of salient "facts" is necessarily important. Take, for example, divinity. Yes, I believe in the divinity of Jesus. But "Ah!" you'll cry. "How exactly do you define divinity? Eh?" and so on.
What does it matter!
So, in your statement that "believing in Jesus saves" belief isn't agreement to statements of 'fact'. Which is a move in the direction of helping us to understand what it is that you mean.
Let's call it a partial answer to third of the three questions I raised on page 1. "What does it mean to believe?" in your opinion doesn't necessarily include assent to one or more propositions. Any more thoughts on what 'belief' (of the kind that is salvific) positively is?
You also here address the first of my questions, "Who is Jesus?". You believe that Jesus was divine. But what is it about the divinity of Jesus that belief in leads to salvation? Contra your assertion that it doesn't matter, the nature of the divinity (and, indeed, humanity) of Jesus makes a big difference to the nature of salvation.
Was He just a good man who gave us an example of love to try and emulate? Was He God Himself freely sacrificing Himself for our sins? Is He God experiencing every temptation we face? Or not fully human and so not really experiencing the temptations and pain of life? These are all questions that the Church wrestled with in the early centuries of our existance. Questions that were answered, and those answers summarised in Creeds.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrmister
Shipmate
# 10850
|
Posted
quote:
So, in your statement that "believing in Jesus saves" belief isn't agreement to statements of 'fact'.
Yup. It's just shorthand.
I believe it's God that saves, not doctrinal assent.
In a way the phrase "believing in Jesus saves" is too small, too limiting; I believe it's an emotional, a spiritual thing, not a pernickety one but not something requiring of the inquisition born-againers might infer from this.
quote:
Any more thoughts on what 'belief' (of the kind that is salvific) positively is?
As I just wrote, I believe it's God that saves, not doctrinal assent.
quote:
But what is it about the divinity of Jesus that belief in leads to salvation?
See, this is what I mean by saying that phrase is too tiny. This is the thin end of the wedge - I don't believe in inquisitions. I do not believe God is pernickety like that.
Standing in a garden holding apples doesn't make me an apple tree - neither does voluntary assent to a doctrine mean I really believe it.
Personally I believe God is pouring out his mercy and grace on everybody - the onus is not on us to "win" it by being and continuing to be good but on us by accepting it.
I don't believe it's a hard thing to accept; but I do believe that a lot of people get annoyed by its being easy to accept. As the field owner says in the parable of the field workers who are paid the same wage, "Are you jealous of my grace?"
quote:
Contra your assertion that it doesn't matter, the nature of the divinity (and, indeed, humanity) of Jesus makes a big difference to the nature of salvation.
No, that is YOUR belief. You ought to differentiate between personal belief and objectively demonstrable fact.
quote:
Was He just a good man who gave us an example of love to try and emulate? Was He God Himself freely sacrificing Himself for our sins? Is He God experiencing every temptation we face? Or not fully human and so not really experiencing the temptations and pain of life?
I wasn't there at the time. I have my personal faith, my personal emotional and spiritual beliefs, and that set-of-wooly-concepts-I-willingly-assent-to-about-the-life-of-Jesus, but I don't see enumeration of that set as vital. One doesn't quiz a drowning man as to his beliefs before saving him. Why would God, considering he's doing the same thing, when He's good and we're evil?
quote:
These are all questions that the Church wrestled with in the early centuries of our existance. Questions that were answered, and those answers summarised in Creeds.
Actually the Church ruthlessly suppressed dissent about those questions by burning at the stake people who didn't agree with the views they wanted - the classic example being the Nicene Creed.
Recited every Sunday in churches all over the world, it was written by murderers.
They are welcome to their beliefs but I need not share them to be granted God's mercy and grace - and I do not agree with those who believe I need to.
Forgiveness and getting to Heaven are free gifts of God.
[ 11. February 2006, 15:25: Message edited by: mrmister ]
--------------------
Just because you believe something is true, that doesn't mean it is.
Check out this link about Carl Sagan's Dragon: http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm
Posts: 417 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
I have my personal faith, my personal emotional and spiritual beliefs, and that set-of-wooly-concepts-I-willingly-assent-to-about-the-life-of-Jesus, but I don't see enumeration of that set as vital. One doesn't quiz a drowning man as to his beliefs before saving him.
No, no one would quiz a drowning man before saving him. But, you're not a drowning man needing us to save him. You're simply stating what you acknowledge to be personal beliefs. What I don't understand is why you then object to people quizzing you about those beliefs. This is a discussion board, not a blog.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrmister
Shipmate
# 10850
|
Posted
Your question is a heavily loaded one. Allow me to refresh your learned memory, Dr. Cresswell.
quote:
Contra your assertion that it doesn't matter, the nature of the divinity (and, indeed, humanity) of Jesus makes a big difference to the nature of salvation.
Who are you to say that the nature of someone's belief about Jesus' divine and human nature "makes a big difference" to their salvation?
quote:
These are all questions that the Church wrestled with in the early centuries of our existance. Questions that were answered, and those answers summarised in Creeds.
I find this more than a little condescending, and perhaps even naive. You may feel the Church creedalists who murdered those who opposed them had the inside track on truth, Dr. Cresswell, but I myself do not necessarily agree with them; nor do I believe that the presence or absence of such beliefs matters one jot.
Do you believe everything the Church tells you? If not, where do you draw the line, and why?
quote:
No, no one would quiz a drowning man before saving him. But, you're not a drowning man needing us to save him.
Actually I believe that as a race we are very much like drowning men, in the eschatological sense.
I am heartened to read, Dr. Cresswell, that you would not require a drowning man to agree with you before you saved him.
I do not believe that God would do that, either; which is one of my reasons for not sharing your stalwart faith in Church Creeds.
[ 11. February 2006, 16:18: Message edited by: mrmister ]
--------------------
Just because you believe something is true, that doesn't mean it is.
Check out this link about Carl Sagan's Dragon: http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm
Posts: 417 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
quote:
Contra your assertion that it doesn't matter, the nature of the divinity (and, indeed, humanity) of Jesus makes a big difference to the nature of salvation.
Who are you to say that the nature of someone's belief about Jesus' divine and human nature "makes a big difference" to their salvation?
Who are you to say that it doesn't?
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
Actually I believe that as a race we are very much like drowning men, in the eschatological sense.
I am heartened to read, Dr. Cresswell, that you would not require a drowning man to agree with you before you saved him.
I do not believe that God would do that, either; which is one of my reasons for not sharing your stalwart faith in Church Creeds.
You clearly don't believe in the Christian creeds, therefore I am at a bit of a loss about the basis you intend to carry on the conversation.
You're fully entitled to believe what you like. This happens in your case to be different to the Christian creeds. So?
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
He said it first - I replied.
Facts. Yours. Right. Get. Pretty please
Answer the question.
And anyway, asking me to get my facts right is asking me to believe in your creed.
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
Your question is a heavily loaded one. Allow me to refresh your learned memory, Dr. Cresswell.
quote:
Contra your assertion that it doesn't matter, the nature of the divinity (and, indeed, humanity) of Jesus makes a big difference to the nature of salvation.
Who are you to say that the nature of someone's belief about Jesus' divine and human nature "makes a big difference" to their salvation?
I'm not really interested in what other people believe per se. The objective truth of the nature of Christ makes the difference. If he was not fully God and fully man then the nature of salvation that the Church teaches is offered isn't possible (not that that rules out alternative forms of salvation).
I believe that the objective basis of our salvation is important. I probably agree with you that we don't actually need to understand that to recieve that salvation. If I can offer an analogy; if salvation is like a bridge we cross then what's important is that the bridge is well built and can bear our weight, we don't need to be a structural engineer who can independently assess the integrity of the bridge to cross it.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrmister
Shipmate
# 10850
|
Posted
quote:
The objective truth of the nature of Christ makes the difference. If he was not fully God and fully man then the nature of salvation that the Church teaches is offered isn't possible (not that that rules out alternative forms of salvation).
Objective truth? Are you mad?
You can't put Christ into a test tube.
Your idea of salvation is unnecessarily dogmatic. You are welcome to it, but as you ironically point out, it's not the only possible view.
When you refer to the Church, you omit to mention that there are 33,380 of them, or at least there were as of 2001.
Don't be quoting Church teaching as if it is divine truth, Dr Cresswell.
As I said some time ago, you have no basis for your belief other than an old church and a holy book.
Just like everybody else.
--------------------
Just because you believe something is true, that doesn't mean it is.
Check out this link about Carl Sagan's Dragon: http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm
Posts: 417 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
As I said some time ago, you have no basis for your belief other than an old church and a holy book.
Well, as far as I can tell that's a far better basis for faith than whatever it is that informs your beliefs.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jahlove
Tied to the mast
# 10290
|
Posted
Posted by mrmister
quote:
Standing in a garden holding apples doesn't make me an apple tree - neither does voluntary assent to a doctrine mean I really believe it.
Why would someone give voluntary assent to a proposition they disbelieve?
--------------------
“Sing like no one's listening, love like you've never been hurt, dance like nobody's watching, and live like its heaven on earth.” - Mark Twain
Posts: 6477 | From: Alice's Restaurant (UK Franchise) | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Golly I thought "voluntary assent meant" - um -- gee, what does that mean? Unless for some reason the phrase "voluntary assent" has some meaning beyond its component parts, which at this point I have no reason to believe, it would mean assent, i.e. agreement, that is voluntary, i.e. not forced; self-chosen.
I self-choose to agree to something I don't believe?
Huh?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrmister
Shipmate
# 10850
|
Posted
quote:
Well, as far as I can tell that's a far better basis for faith than whatever it is that informs your beliefs.
No, it isn't.
Belief is of the heart.
Perhaps you have yet to realise that.
--------------------
Just because you believe something is true, that doesn't mean it is.
Check out this link about Carl Sagan's Dragon: http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm
Posts: 417 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
quote:
Well, as far as I can tell that's a far better basis for faith than whatever it is that informs your beliefs.
No, it isn't.
Belief is of the heart.
Perhaps you have yet to realise that.
The heart can be deceived. Maybe you're just too young to have realised that yet.
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
Belief is of the heart.
Perhaps you have yet to realise that.
Well, that goes back to the "what is meant by 'belief'?" question. I'd say belief has a strong element of mind to it. I can't "just believe", I need to believe in something. For me to believe in something I need to know at least a bit about that something. And, that knowledge is a mind thing. My response to that knowledge may well, of course, be a purely heart felt emotional thing.
Unless you think that what you believe doesn't matter, that everything is subjective, and that whether what you believe has any reality is unimportant. Which is certainly waht some would say, but that doesn't actually leave any room for discussion and we're all wasting our time here.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrmister
Shipmate
# 10850
|
Posted
But Alan, belief IS subjective, that's the whole point.
You need to stop thinking of it as a competition. It's all about the heart. It's about people
--------------------
Just because you believe something is true, that doesn't mean it is.
Check out this link about Carl Sagan's Dragon: http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm
Posts: 417 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
But Alan, belief IS subjective, that's the whole point.
Belief is personal. I believe in something, you in something else. What we believe in is a different category. For a start, what we believe in may be corporate - we may believe in the same thing as other people, or we can believe in something no one else believes in. And, what we believe in may have objective reality beyond our belief - what I believe about Jesus doesn't change who Jesus is.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrmister
Shipmate
# 10850
|
Posted
You can't know truth objectively!
That's just plain epistemology.
If you think you absolutely know objective truth, then the phrase "self delusion" pops into my head.
You don't *know*: you can only believe.
You can no more prove that Jesus is God than you can prove that there is a God.
And as for proof of Jesus being exactly as your personal perception of him represents him to be... dear oh dear. Evidence?
Evidence is what you accept it to be.
Proof is what you accept it to be.
There is no knowable truth, there is only faith.
That is the heart of Pilate's cynical question to Jesus - "What is truth?"
What you seek to do is to start from the position that you are not only right, but that you can prove that you are, and also that others are wrong.
Those three things are not things you can KNOW.
All truth is axiomatic; all truth ultimately being relative. Epistemologically.
The existence of the nature of absolutes outside of individual perception or knowability is not the same as belief in their nature.
This is where each of us takes that leap into the unknown: the leap of faith.
Our leaps may differ, but we take them nonetheless.
--------------------
Just because you believe something is true, that doesn't mean it is.
Check out this link about Carl Sagan's Dragon: http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm
Posts: 417 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
You can't know truth objectively!
Who said anything about objective knowledge? I'm talking about knowing something about something that has objective reality. That knowledge may well be incomplete, and in parts incorrect. I'd accept that. But, regardless of the accuracy of our knowledge, if we say "I believe in Jesus" that can only make sense if Jesus has some objective reality apart from our beliefs.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrmister
Shipmate
# 10850
|
Posted
quote:
But, regardless of the accuracy of our knowledge, if we say "I believe in Jesus" that can only make sense if Jesus has some objective reality apart from our beliefs.
Not at all.
1). Just saying "I believe in Jesus" doesn't conjure him up!
2). Nor does it follow that belief has to make sense.
3). Belief is not founded in the rational, but the irrational.
4). Beliefs not founded with "objective reality" (which in any case is unknowable epistemologically) are not necessarily nonsensical; for example, consider any situation in which you synthesise a conceptual arrangement. That might be in the mundane sphere such as finance, or it might be something abstract such as whether you prefer this painting to that symphony; or it might be some moral code, or ethical framework.
Things do not have to actually exist to be helpful for life - and in fact, many people have suggested that God is a social construct which facilitates the existence of that society.
--------------------
Just because you believe something is true, that doesn't mean it is.
Check out this link about Carl Sagan's Dragon: http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm
Posts: 417 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrmister
Shipmate
# 10850
|
Posted
For example, consider the placebo effect.
It actually helps, but not because of the reason the patient believes.
The fact that the patient believes is enough to produce measurable effects in that patient's life.
--------------------
Just because you believe something is true, that doesn't mean it is.
Check out this link about Carl Sagan's Dragon: http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm
Posts: 417 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
1). Just saying "I believe in Jesus" doesn't conjure him up!
Which is, more or less, what I said. Our beliefs, or lack thereof, do not change who Jesus is. We can believe in things that don't exist, and things that do. Are you saying "belief in Jesus saves" even if Jesus didn't exist?
quote:
2). Nor does it follow that belief has to make sense.
Well, not has to make sense. But, I see no reason why belief can't make sense.
quote:
3). Belief is not founded in the rational, but the irrational.
Well, my belief in Jesus is founded in part on the rational, with a good dose of superrational (ie: something that goes beyond rational, contra irrational that goes against rational). Personally, if there wasn't some element of rationality in the Christian faith then I'd ditch it.
quote:
4). Beliefs not founded with "objective reality" (which in any case is unknowable epistemologically) are not necessarily nonsensical; for example, consider any situation in which you synthesise a conceptual arrangement. That might be in the mundane sphere such as finance, or it might be something abstract such as whether you prefer this painting to that symphony
Except, your examples all involve something with objective reality. Finance requires that some means of valuing things really exists (eg: that there's such a thing as money). I can't prefer a painting to a symphony if one or other hasn't been produced by an artist, and that I've seen or heard them.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrmister
Shipmate
# 10850
|
Posted
quote:
Which is, more or less, what I said.
No it isn't: you said our beliefs do not change the objective reality of Jesus.
Implicit to that is your unswerving certainty that your belief is identical to the objective reality of Jesus such that you feel able to imply that my belief that believing in Jesus saves is errant.
My point is you don't KNOW that - you only believe it, and you are welcome to. But you're not welcome to tell me my belief is wrong.
quote:
We can believe in things that don't exist, and things that do.
Absolutely, and it cuts both ways.
As the militant agnostic says, "I don't know and neither do you."
quote:
Well, not has to make sense. But, I see no reason why belief can't make sense.
It can, but doesn't have to, as you agreed with me here.
quote:
Well, my belief in Jesus is founded in part on the rational, with a good dose of superrational (ie: something that goes beyond rational, contra irrational that goes against rational).
There is nothing that is ultimately rational, since all truth is axiomatic. Everything starts with a leap of faith.
Although I certainly do agree that being consciously aware, as Darwin said, that "there is more to man than the breath in his body" is consciously irrational in that it is a leap of faith that one is aware of, and that this is inevitably going to be a vital component of spirituality since it isn't a sphere subject to the usual material, measurable physical standards one might conceive of.
Which are still epistemologically fallible. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:
Personally, if there wasn't some element of rationality in the Christian faith then I'd ditch it.
In Torah it is written that false prophets are given the ability to work miracles to test Israel, which is expected to, in the face of miracles, reject the false prophet.
Jesus is miraculous, so the story goes. The miraculous is irrational, in that it defies the historical and scientific normality of the situation.
We are asked to come to God like children.
Children don't dissect rationalistic cause and consequence.
Personally I don't set store by cartesian religious belief.
quote:
Except, your examples all involve something with objective reality.
There is no such thing as the colour purple.
It is synthesised perceptually by the brain!
Do you like purple?
It doesn't exist.
How does that affect your opinion?
[ 12. February 2006, 19:39: Message edited by: mrmister ]
--------------------
Just because you believe something is true, that doesn't mean it is.
Check out this link about Carl Sagan's Dragon: http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm
Posts: 417 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
I left this thread a few pages ago, but now I would like to say a few things to mrmister.
mrmister, the word "saved" can have two meanings. It can mean that when we will die, we will go to heaven. It seems to me that people in the West today stress that meaning a lot, as if they think that this is what matters.
I don't share their view. I think that the faith Jesus and the Apostles are talking about has to do primarily with "now", not the after life.
I think that getting to know the Son of God, getting to know God, your life changes. You have access to a wealth you didn't know you could access before. You live differently, or have the potential to live differently.
Jesus said that the Kingdom of Heavens has come. Indeed, people throughout the centuries have experienced the Glory of God. They shared in eternal life while they were alive; they didn't wait for their death to meet with their Creator.
So, this second and often forgotten meaning of salvation is crucial, and to this entrance to the Kingdom does orthodoxy help. To sum up, it is in this context that matters of right doctrine are actually matters of life or death.
This is not to say that people cannot share in God's divine energies without holding the right faith. But the best way to get access to God's transforming Grace is the orthodox one.
I hope you see more clearly now why some people insist on issues that might seem of little relevance.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
That's not belief. That's experience. "Taste and see that the Lord is good".
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
The philosopher has nothing to do with the community that incorporated from the beginning the gospel.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrmister
Shipmate
# 10850
|
Posted
The gospels you hold in your hand are not a book from the heavens.
Marcion decided there would be four gospels because there are four winds.
I'm not getting into a textual debate - the hour is late and my throat is sore.
Please, please would you try and see that I'm not denying your right to believe what you wish...
but please do not pronounce your beliefs to me expecting me to swoon and see the light and agree with you, just because YOU happen to believe your beliefs.
Just because you believe something, that doesn't mean it is true.
Nor does it necessarily make it false.
Singleminded, dogmatic religious fervour is seductive.
But it is also destructive and deceitful.
I believe in God, and I am human. Tiny, mortal - but nonetheless I believe in Him.
I need not creedalise it.
I need not ascribe to dogma.
It is not for me to judge others nor am I judged.
I accept God's grace and mercy, his free gifts of undeserved love.
But what am I, that I should say My Thoughts are Perfect?
and by extension can you call yourself the sole conduit of truth? and on what basis - because you believe you are?
If God is real then his truth, his reality, is beyond my perception of Him.
I come to Him as a child, asking for undeserved grace as one forgiven of sin not deserving to approach Him.
I do not believe in creedalism.
God is everywhere. My perception of His presence is irrelevant to that.
When God works, my perception of that is irrelevant.
I just believe.
I do not make inquisition of others' beliefs nor my own.
As Shakespeare's exiled warrior Coriolanus said, "There is a world elsewhere."
And I am happy to join it.
--------------------
Just because you believe something is true, that doesn't mean it is.
Check out this link about Carl Sagan's Dragon: http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm
Posts: 417 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
OK. However, Marcion rejected the three gospels, and kept only Luke and Paul.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
you said our beliefs do not change the objective reality of Jesus.
Implicit to that is your unswerving certainty that your belief is identical to the objective reality of Jesus such that you feel able to imply that my belief that believing in Jesus saves is errant.
Well, I guess then I'd suggest you learn to read what I said. Because I've explicitely denied what you claim I've implied. You're correct, I said that our beliefs do not change the objective reality of Jesus. I also said that quote:
I'm talking about knowing something about something that has objective reality. That knowledge may well be incomplete, and in parts incorrect.
I'm not claiming to have all the answers, perfect faith let alone any sort of "unswerving certainty" that my "belief is identical to the objective reality of Jesus". If I have any sort of certainty, it's that the reality of Jesus is much more than I can comprehend.
I'm also not claiming that your belief that "belief in Jesus" is errant. I'm just trying to figure out what you mean by that phrase. It may, or may not, turn out to be the same as my belief. Which, if I was to sum it up in such a short phrase would be "I believe that Jesus saves".
quote:
There is no such thing as the colour purple.
Electromagnetic radiation with a wavelength of approximately 0.4µm is called "purple" in English.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrmister
Shipmate
# 10850
|
Posted
quote:
If I have any sort of certainty, it's that the reality of Jesus is much more than I can comprehend.
Now you're talking.
As for purple, it's not a question of wavelengths - it's a question of the colours which produce it.
Purple does not exist.
When you see light of that wavelength, you see a colour that does not exist.
--------------------
Just because you believe something is true, that doesn't mean it is.
Check out this link about Carl Sagan's Dragon: http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm
Posts: 417 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
re: the colour purple. The electromagnetic radiation of 0.4µm wavelength exists. Our eyes react to that radiation generating a signal that our brains interpret as "purple" (assuming we're not colour blind).
Now, I can see an argument for saying that's all a mental construct. But, if so then when I look across the room and my eyes picks em radiation which the brain interprets as being my wife sitting there then does that make her a mental construct too?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mrmister
I do not believe in creedalism.
That's nice. But according to your own reasoning, you have no right to impose that on me.
Or maybe you do. After all, our beliefs aren't completely irrational. When my eyes pick up a jumble of light of different wavelengths, which my brain differentiates by showing me what I perceive to be different colours, (but which are only my brain's way of showing me which different wavelengths of light are coming in, in which different parts of my field of vision) and those wavelengths in those places show up in my memory as similar to every other picture I've seen of Mrmister (or a similar being) walking into a wall, I generally decide that I'll inform Mrmister that he's about to get hurt (as most jumbles of light that look like Mrmister do, when they walk into what look like walls). If he tells me that I have no right to inform him I believe he's about to get hurt, I shrug. He can believe what he likes, every being like him that's previously walked into a wall has acted like he's hurt, whether he believes in it or not.
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrmister
Shipmate
# 10850
|
Posted
Actually, when light reaches your retina which is not a strong stimulus to any of your three colour receptors, it's seen as purple. In other words, light at EITHER end of the visible spectrum is seen as purple - it's not as simple as saying one wavelength.
Brown is a mental construct too, based on differential stimulus to the three receptors.
These things you perceive do not in themselves exist as physical entities.
Your brain assumes them.
It is helpful for your brain to assume them;
but the reality is that purple no more exists than brown.
We just have color receptors with peaks at red, green and blue.
Perception and reality are two completely different things.
--------------------
Just because you believe something is true, that doesn't mean it is.
Check out this link about Carl Sagan's Dragon: http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm
Posts: 417 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrmister
Shipmate
# 10850
|
Posted
Just because you believe something is true - no matter how strongly you might feel about it - that does not mean that it IS true.
--------------------
Just because you believe something is true, that doesn't mean it is.
Check out this link about Carl Sagan's Dragon: http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm
Posts: 417 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
Well your receptors are faulty, then. Every signal carries some noise. And do you even want to get into Heisenberg uncertainty? That does not stop a signal carrying useful information.
And do you not get it, colours are NO MORE THAN the means of communicating to our brain what wavelengths of light are entering our eyes. It's like saying that the sine waves on your oscilloscope you've got plugged into your 0.4&mu&m detector don't exist, they're just what the oscilliscope uses to tell you that there are some light rays entering the detector . Rather a pointless exercise.
When a doctor treats someone, do they say that, "I have no reason to enforce on you my belief that, based on the reaction of most objects similar to you who've come in here, you'll probably die when I give you both these medicines together. So I'll prescribe you both, anyway."
And anyway, tell me. If you're so relativist, why do you spend all your time on here trying to convince us all of your own personal, apparently totally irrational beliefs?
[ 12. February 2006, 21:49: Message edited by: dinghy sailor ]
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrmister
Shipmate
# 10850
|
Posted
quote:
Well your receptors are faulty, then. Every signal carries some noise. And do you even want to get into Heisenberg uncertainty? That does not stop a signal carrying useful information.
But the question is, how to discern signal from noise?
What do you define as useful?
Given a pattern you've never encountered before, do you interpret it or not?
Why assume, dogmatically, that there is any signal at all?
It reminds me of Bertrand Russell saying "I can tell you that love and hate are different, and that it is better to be loved than it is to be hated; but I cannot tell you why."
There needn't necessarily be a reason - or a signal; or if it is there it isn't necessarily discernible.
quote:
And do you not get it, colours are NO MORE THAN the means of communicating to our brain what wavelengths of light are entering our eyes. It's like saying that the sine waves on your oscilloscope you've got plugged into your 0.4μ&m detector don't exist, they're just what the oscilliscope uses to tell you that there are some light rays entering the detector . Rather a pointless exercise.
No, you're wrong.
The colour purple does NOT have a specific wavelength.
Imagine the visible spectrum. Imagine that diagram.
Now. At EITHER end, light is seen as purple.
There is NO such thing as one wavelength range for purple light.
quote:
When a doctor treats someone, do they say that, "I have no reason to enforce on you my belief that, based on the reaction of most objects similar to you who've come in here, you'll probably die when I give you both these medicines together. So I'll prescribe you both, anyway."
When a doctor gives someone pills, they get better - or worse.
When a priest convinces someone of Christ, they don't come back from the dead to write a testimonial.
quote:
And anyway, tell me. If you're so relativist, why do you spend all your time on here trying to convince us all of your own personal, apparently totally irrational beliefs?
I don't try to convince anyone.
All beliefs are ultimately irrational.
[ 12. February 2006, 22:00: Message edited by: mrmister ]
--------------------
Just because you believe something is true, that doesn't mean it is.
Check out this link about Carl Sagan's Dragon: http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm
Posts: 417 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
quote:
Why assume, dogmatically, that there is any signal at all?
Because I just nodded to my friend across the lab, so he'd send me one. He's done it for the past two years.
quote:
quote:
And do you not get it, colours are NO MORE THAN the means of communicating to our brain what wavelengths of light are entering our eyes. It's like saying that the sine waves on your oscilloscope you've got plugged into your 0.4μ&m detector don't exist, they're just what the oscilliscope uses to tell you that there are some light rays entering the detector . Rather a pointless exercise.
No, you're wrong.
The colour purple does NOT have a specific wavelength.
Imagine the visible spectrum. Imagine that diagram.
Now. At EITHER end, light is seen as purple.
There is NO such thing as one wavelength range for purple light.
Yes, I get it. Let's see how I answered you last time, shall we?
quote:
Originally posted by dinghy sailor:
Well your receptors are faulty, then. Every signal carries some noise.
But just because our detectors are faulty, and every signal carries noise, doesn't mean we can't find a signal in there. I know this from experience. Every human shaped being that I have seen so far has always gone "Ow" when they've walked into a wall. I can therefore safely assume they're not illusions.
quote:
quote:
When a doctor treats someone, do they say that, "I have no reason to enforce on you my belief that, based on the reaction of most objects similar to you who've come in here, you'll probably die when I give you both these medicines together. So I'll prescribe you both, anyway."
When a doctor gives someone pills, they get better - or worse.
Do they? That's only your personal, irrational opinion. You have no right to enforce that on anyone else. And noone else has any right to force theirs on you (though since when rights were an absolute, I'm not sure. You seem to know.)Why should they have got better? You the doctor are just as welcome to assume that they're actually saying they got worse. Your assumption that they said they got better was irrational, anyway.
quote:
I don't try to convince anyone.
Pull the other one.
[ 12. February 2006, 22:18: Message edited by: dinghy sailor ]
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrmister
Shipmate
# 10850
|
Posted
quote:
Every human shaped being that I have seen so far has always gone "Ow" when they've walked into a wall. I can therefore safely assume they're not illusions.
Tell that to someone on an LSD trip, or to a positive-symptom schizophrenic suffering from florid hallucinations.
You are right to use the word "assume".
Much of the time, such assumptions may work out well for you - the assumption that a chair will not disappear when you sit on it, for example.
Chairs won't always do that; I had a chair once that broke, for example.
Assumptions about the world aren't always safe.
But how many times have you died?
How many times have you seen Jesus in the flesh and come back to tell the tale?
How much personal experience of Judgment Day have you got to inform you that your assumption is at least as safe as that?
Going back to the example of the hallucinations, can you accept that to the schizophrenic, his or her hallucinations are just as real as the wall you suggest people bump into?
And if you accept that, to them, these hallucinations are real,
then can you surely not by extension recognise that this hope based on a leap of faith produced quite possibly by your own sociological filters and not by experience (since you've not yet died and haven't talked to those who have) is, possibly, no more real outside of your own perception than the fictional colour purple?
--------------------
Just because you believe something is true, that doesn't mean it is.
Check out this link about Carl Sagan's Dragon: http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm
Posts: 417 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrmister
Shipmate
# 10850
|
Posted
For example:
quote:
Two incidents stand out in the chronicles of SETI which, at the time, suggested that signals might have been detected from an extraterrestrial intelligence. The first was in 1963 when the radio source designated CTA-102 was claimed by Soviet astronomers to be evidence of a highly advanced alien civilization. In 1967, S. Jocelyn Bell (now Bell Burnell) recorded a regular pulsating signal using a radio telescope in Cambridge, England, designed by Anthony Hewish to look for rapid variations in the radio wave emission of quasars. An early theory was that the pulses might be coming from an interstellar beacon and the source was tentatively catalogued as LGM, for "little green men." However, it quickly became clear that this, and other, similar sources which were detected soon after, could be explained naturally in terms of rotating neutron stars, or pulsars.
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/S/SETIfalse.html
Just because you think something contains a signal doesn't mean there is one.
And what is the signal to which you're referring?
Your feelings? Your hope? For this is the stuff of faith.
Because you feel something is true, you assume it is true?
If you can be wrong about something so fundamental as the colours you see with your own eyes, could you not also be wrong about things you can't see with them?
Might it not be that it's just easier, amid an evil, cruel, pointless life, to hope for something beyond death than to admit that this is all there is?
Isn't it at least possible that these feelings you hold so strongly are just that - feelings? and have no basis in reality as it actually IS as opposed to what you perceive or even perhaps wish to perceive?
It is impossible to know absolutely either way - or even with strong probability. There is only hope, feelings, such things of no substance.
--------------------
Just because you believe something is true, that doesn't mean it is.
Check out this link about Carl Sagan's Dragon: http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm
Posts: 417 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
Going back to the example of the hallucinations, can you accept that to the schizophrenic, his or her hallucinations are just as real as the wall you suggest people bump into?
Nope, because let's just say that wall is a cliff. Their life depends on whether they walk off the real cliff or not. It doesn't depend on whether they walk off the imaginary cliff or not.
And perversely, you've just brought up the perfect example for what I'm trying to say. I do have a right to impose my beliefs on other people. Because ever since I can remember, I've had a fairly good ability to judge whether something's a cliff or not. So if a schizophrenic (or a drunk, or whatever) is about to walk off one, I'll impose my belief that that is a cliff on them, as fast as I can.
quote:
And if you can be wrong about something so fundamental as the colours you see with your own eyes
Not 'wrong'. The detector has limitations. Limitations which we know about, and which have never presented a major problem to us. If you buy a detector and it has a dead spot, or a spike, you can generally expect that to be documented somewhere. I've done plenty of experiments to determine precisely that sort of information, which I've then used to work within the detector's limitations while doing something else.
[ETA: I just deleted the post to edit it, and Mrmister's post should come after this one. And Mrmister, you were the one who started arguing with my wall example.]
[ 12. February 2006, 22:56: Message edited by: dinghy sailor ]
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrmister
Shipmate
# 10850
|
Posted
Improper comparison.
You do not have any reason beyond your own irrational feelings that Jesus exists at all.
So you can't compare spreading the Gospel with saving someone from plunging to certain doom off a cliff.
In fact, suppose the person in question already agreed with you about Jesus. Shouldn't you be happy they're going to Heaven?
And before you say that's ludicrous, I know a Christian woman who was actually jealous when an old bloke we both knew in the church died. She said it quite openly in the church, and this was as soon as she found out he'd died, and she didn't change her tune either.
quote:
The detector has limitations. Limitations which we know about, and which have never presented a major problem to us.
Because you are happy perceiving a colour that doesn't exist.
Just like you're happy believing in Jesus.
It's not a question of dead spots or spikes; it's a question of the implications of the limits of knowability.
You do not, never have, and never will (until possibly Judgment Day) *know* whether or not Jesus is God.
You do not have any evidence whatsoever for that.
You've never died.
You've never met anyone who has died.
All you have is your own feelings.
You won't admit it, but it is entirely possible that your hope in God is just as much a mental construct as your perception of the colour purple.
Of course that doesn't in itself mean that there is no God.
It just means that your conviction that because you believe you're right, that you must be right, or that because you think your reasoning is so likely to be correct that it must be, is without ultimate foundation beyond anyone else's socially acceptable delusions.
[ 12. February 2006, 23:04: Message edited by: mrmister ]
--------------------
Just because you believe something is true, that doesn't mean it is.
Check out this link about Carl Sagan's Dragon: http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm
Posts: 417 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
