Moderates sheltering fundamentalists

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I somewhat disagree with that. Whatever you call mainstream "ethics" or "morality" is going to be influenced by the dominant religions of the people you are talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's actually the other way around, as the morphing of religious claims to better align with current society throughout history clearly illustrates. Religion is not a leader in the area of morality it is a follower.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

I don’t agree with your post, but I do have to tell you that my Religion (Catholicism) is not static and does not profess to be.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I don’t agree with your post, but I do have to tell you that my Religion (Catholicism) is not static and does not profess to be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, that was my point. It's a matter of whether they follow society or lead when it comes to change. Historically, except in the rare case of imposed regression, religions of virtually all stripes follow trends in society, usually a generation or so behind.

luckyme

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Only atheists completely separate ethics, morality and religion and do so on dubious grounds.

[/ QUOTE ]
I am a theist who separates them (although nothing is truly separated - I expect you could show some connection between any two of my beliefs if you were so inclined). What I mean by that is that if I think doing "X" is wrong, it is not because it is written in the bible, or speaking more broadly it's not because "my religion says it's wrong". I dont think I form opinions on right and wrong any differently from an atheist - I think it is an internal, "moral faculty" which allows us to distinguish between right and wrong.

I dont mean that religions say nothing about right and wrong - they clearly do. However, I dont think they are always correct, nor do I think we should surrender our morality to religion. Anyone can express an opinion on morality and any school of thought, including a religion, can consist of various teachings about morality. Perhaps it would have been clearer if I had said that I dont think that fact means that religion is the source of morality.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
I cannot honestly claim to be familiar with the fundamental tenents of theism, although I do know of a few eminent personages from antiquity who adopted it as their view.

It seems there are axioms to Christianity, hard line beliefs without which the entire system would be invalidated. These axioms are given in the bible, and are NOT in uncertain terms. There indeed is much about the bible that at best is open to interpretation, and at worst drivel, but the basic ideas are static.

Let's take one single idea, your example of the logical fallacy in the body of the omnipotence ideal is fine. In this argument, there is no place for interpretation, God is omnipotent. If he were not, the metaphysical edifice of Christianity would be shown insolvent, invalid. Accepting him to be omnipotent, any admission or recognition of inability would invalidate existence itself.
I do not think this is too strong, if God is accepted as the reason for existence, and his very being is shown to be the causal base for existence, then any invalidation of this relationship should constitute an invalidation of existence.

Violating the parameters of this concept of omnipotency is not in the nature of any such God, and if it were, the meaning and cause of this action would be irrational, or in other words, not subject to rational analysis.

Any time my particular consultant within the church was presented with any of these contradictions, he would merely say "It is a matter of faith my son", then give me a credulous, but subduedly sly smile. It took me some time to understand what was happening. By deffering to faith, the question becomes unanswerable. Now since the question is no longer one analysable by human rationalities, it is also one not subject to invalidation by this method. Your position is logically valid, but only because supernatural causes are immediately cited as a basic tenent of your religion. Again sorry of this is not applicable to theism.

Thanks

Cam

[/ QUOTE ]
The God of theists certainly includes omnipotent. The question (as always with these sorts of things) is what does the word mean? Theists (including most christian theologians, I believe) do NOT claim it means "able to do everything". It is usual for them to limit the potence to logically possible acts (ie God cant draw a square circle).

I havent yet seen a contradiction arising from this belief, although it may be that I have just "defined my problem away".

[cambraceres]

Bunny, I am glad now I mentioned my unfamiliarity with your belief system. I cannot, in any erudite way, confront the contradiction I still see in theist terms, so I shall treat the Christian theologians you mention that share your belief concerning the restrictive parameters of God's creative power.

I, at this point, believe that you have merely obviated your problem by mutating the context and/or identification of the subject concept. As far as the bible goes, for what it is worth, it NECCESSITATES the omnipotence of God. He is all knowing, as in the alpha and omega, according to the good book. He is omnipotent as in nothing lies outside his limitless powers, again taken from the bible.

Perhaps someone may correct a weary, mislead inquirer. Does the Christian religion demand, in certain, static terms, the all powerful god ideal I speak of?

If it does, then I see no reasonable way to rationally salvage this edifice of beliefs.

This is not to say I see no way one can believe in this god, that is very different. I merely see no way to reconcile these views with reason. I must say I am quite suprised and very excited to see a person of admitted religious conviction expose themselves to this place and it's rapacious inhabitants, and even to stay involved after invective. Even more so, it is admirable that you attempt to use logical acumen in your justification of your beliefs. So long as your commitment to logic and reason holds, I believe the "right" answer will come, and although you would stand free of the security blanket of religion, your mind would more plentifully reward ideas and moods founded on solid principle.

Cam

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps someone may correct a weary, mislead inquirer. Does the Christian religion demand, in certain, static terms, the all powerful god ideal I speak of?

If it does, then I see no reasonable way to rationally salvage this edifice of beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont think christianity requires an able-to-do-everything God. It is a common theological opinion that God cant commit an evil act, for instance. The stone-so-heavy-he-cant-lift-it paradox is enough to render a belief in an unlimited God meaningless imo and I certainly agree with you that believing in that sort of a God would be irrational.

[cambraceres]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps someone may correct a weary, mislead inquirer. Does the Christian religion demand, in certain, static terms, the all powerful god ideal I speak of?

If it does, then I see no reasonable way to rationally salvage this edifice of beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont think christianity requires an able-to-do-everything God. It is a common theological opinion that God cant commit an evil act, for instance. The stone-so-heavy-he-cant-lift-it paradox is enough to render a belief in an unlimited God meaningless imo and I certainly agree with you that believing in that sort of a God would be irrational.

[/ QUOTE ]

I may be mistaken, but I think not; divine omnipotence is a requisite condition for the Christian God. This is repeatedly stated in the bible, but not in parables, and not in vague language. I think what you are saying, correct me if I am wrong, is that although the bible itself demands this condition, your theist beliefs do not require biblical support.

Is this true of theists?

I have not even nearly the time to research this on my own, but am interested in what I am missing.

Cam

[bunny]

I think it's true of almost all christian theologians (certainly augustine and aquinas). God is all-powerful or infintely powerful or whatever is taken to mean "as powerful as possible" (ie logically possible).

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's true of almost all christian theologians (certainly augustine and aquinas). God is all-powerful or infintely powerful or whatever is taken to mean "as powerful as possible" (ie logically possible).

[/ QUOTE ]

Having to deal with quantum effects has brought me to a different level of understanding when it comes to what is 'logically possible'. Taking that view on a powerful god holds him down to the level of human understanding , which in the next breath those same theologians will claim is not acceptable when contemplating god because he works at levels 'beyond human understanding'.

Either it is or isn't beyond our understanding. I'm a big girl, I can take it... but let's pick one and stick with it, I need closure,.. sniff.

luckyme

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think it's true of almost all christian theologians (certainly augustine and aquinas). God is all-powerful or infintely powerful or whatever is taken to mean "as powerful as possible" (ie logically possible).

[/ QUOTE ]

Having to deal with quantum effects has brought me to a different level of understanding when it comes to what is 'logically possible'. Taking that view on a powerful god holds him down to the level of human understanding , which in the next breath those same theologians will claim is not acceptable when contemplating god because he works at levels 'beyond human understanding'.

Either it is or isn't beyond our understanding. I'm a big girl, I can take it... but let's pick one and stick with it, I need closure,.. sniff.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, in the interests of closure, I vote for a comprehensible God.