oh god...

Heather MacDonald is one smart cookie. You're right, Mark, she couldn't possibly be a Conservative. At least, the kind of Conservative that is embraced by the Religious Right. She has the ability to use her grey cells for individual thought and that is definitely frowned upon, isn't it? To be accepted as a true Conservative, one has to be part of the herd and that doesn't look like the case here.

I'm a Christian, of a Protestant denomination.

MacDonald doesn't seem particularly bright on the matters of Belief, and her question gives her ignorance away on many things. But her point about the mechanistic features of petitionary prayer is correct and worth asking.

B4B's response doesn't address the problem that petitionary prayer is, in some creeds, a way to be "showered with benefits". And it isn't only a theological business transaction in idiosyncratic versions of Christianity either.

The whole idea of petitionary prayer carries the suggestion of Divine injustice, which is that all pain is relative, and why does God answer the prayer of the toothache and reject the one of cancer.

One can believe in the intimacy of prayer and the spiritual connections achieved by it, without for a moment believing that God intervenes in our momentary and petty concerns of our lives. This is the answer to MacDonald's question.

"One can believe in the intimacy of prayer and the spiritual connections achieved by it, without for a moment believing that God intervenes in our momentary and petty concerns of our lives. This is the answer to MacDonald's question."

Thoughtful and thought-provoking post, Rhod. As another Christian (of the Roman Catholic denomination), I wonder what do you think about prayer and life concerns that aren't "momentary and petty"? Terrorist attack, plague, nuclear annihilation of major cities, for example? Are we on our own there as well, without God's excertion of influence? Or do you believe that God only responds (in His way) to prayer over major calamities / humanity-changing events, and not necessarily the little things? (This second view hauntingly captured in the great Son Volt song, "Tear-Stained Eye": "St. Genevieve will hold back the water, But the saints don't bother with a tear-stained eye.") Not that we can conclusively answer this question, but as a matter of faith I find it important.

Thinking through the prayer issue, if I actually pray for something, that means it has significance and relevance to me, or I wouldn't be praying. Can we not think of prayer as a way of reminding ourselves that there is an appearance level to life, but there is a deeper spiritual level that is more real. And if this is true, is prayer not an expression of faith in that deeper level? When prayers are answered, what we find is that what we took so seriously was truly lightened by God.

The idea of a loved one being seriously harmed is to us a great matter, but by having faith and praying we are appealing to that more profound level of existence at which such things are easily swayed. Even as our prayers are not rewarded with what we thought we wanted and prayed for, such prayers may remind us that our perspective of existence is limited, and what appears tragic to our view may to a greater way of seeing be beneficial, a reminder that existence lasts beyond mere mortal attachment.

It's very important, JCL, and has occupied the mind of every Christian and others of Faith since the onset of sentience. All humans are benighted by the facts of their existence, and to suppose that God exists but is disinterested and uninterested in human travail is Deism.

We simply don't know what His purposes are, although we have some idea of His expectations of us. The only explanation for me is that the Things of The World are isolated from the Numinous, and only by NOT paying attention to them, do we have a chance at comprehending the other thing. Petitionary prayer can express a hope, but not a request.

That's not an answer, I know. It's a deduction on my part. Only when governments and religions stop concerning themselves with the immediate welfare of humans, can they be of any value to human beings.

CO,

It is my contention that people who don't believe in God are the people who aren't thinking clearly - using one's grey matter properly, as it were, tends to bring a person to belief...it certainly brings one away from glib and sophomoric statements about prayer, and it definitely puts our technological developements in perspective.

Rhod,

Well spoken - it is our overconcentration on our immediate troubles which has led to most of our problems in the modern world. There is little thought given for how things fit with one another and how an act by one can have a whole series of effects on others.

While we’ve engaged in theological discussions before, I’d just like to point out that you go out of your way to mention the positive aspects religion has brought to mankind while also emphasizing the negative consequences of man’s contribution to mankind.

Is religion – when used properly – virtuous? Yes. Have some technological advancements been used poorly? Yes.

But all religion is man’s manifestation of spirituality and prone to fallibility, just as all technological strides solve problems.

The counter argument will of course be the example of godless Communists and the millions purged in revolutions. But religious belief has been around millennia more than communism, and your assertion that more people have died under secular humanist ideas than for the sake of this god or that, has no measurable proof.

Men have been throwing off God for nearly 300 years now, and I doubt we are any crueler than before. The use of deities has justified a host of injustices and deaths; all because of some concept of the afterlife.

It may anger you that I put Christianity in with the religions of the Inca, India, China, and all the other belief systems, but in the debate here, those are the sides; you either have faith in a higher power or you don’t.

But just look at those advancement humans have made in the face of religious belief. Our understanding of astronomy, biology, medicine, physics, democracy, and ethics have all come when people were willing to step out from underneath the specter of religious dogma and say “wait a minute, this is how it really is.”

You argue that without a “third party” to arbitrate between conflicting sides, we are lost. But this is only one way of looking at morality. Better minds than ours once came up with the Enlightenment. This movement said that there is no need for a third party to judge (the problem with humans interpreting the judgment notwithstanding) because man is can actually be quite clever and rational without a god, and if we remember that we are all equal and naturally free we can get along fine. It taught us that Jesus was right in his assertion that we ought to “love our neighbor as ourselves”, as echoed in the Golden Rule, Kant’s Categorical Imperative, and more recently in John Rawls’ Veil of Ignorance.

It is quite simple really; when faced with a difficult decision we have the responsibility as men (or women) to set aside our personal preferences and give weight to both sides equally; without taking into account how the outcome will benefit or harm us.

So it should be obvious that we can in-fact make the case for “this is the right thing to do” without God’s guidance. There is a lot stopping a person from swindling, murdering, lustfulness and all that jazz. Personal responsibility, reason, civility, compassion, love, kindness, not to mention socially agreed upon laws are all capable without being based on a god.

And further, you have the problem of defining what exactly your God holds to be ideal conduct. In your “Judeo-Christian west” model (which I’ve tried to explain is an anachronistic construct only popularized in the 1930’s) you fail to account for God’s instructions on capitalism, industry, share cropping, dress, mechanized transport, and a whole host of modern day staples which are either banned in the Bible or not mentioned.

While it says a man shouldn’t lie with another man, it also says you shouldn’t touch a pig’s skin or work on Sunday. So tell me, why isn’t the anti-gay rights lobby trying to shut down the NFL if they are so adamant about sticking to God’s word?

I am not anti-religion; but I am against religious people constantly patronizing, belittling, and insulting those of us who don’t think the same way the believers do. This by no means is meant to say all of faith are so persecuting, but many are.

I’m not trying to convince anyone there is no God; I just want us to start taking responsibility as a species for our mistakes and successes instead of continually passing the buck to the deity/deities they subscribe to.

Regarding the /Whim about conservativism and the relationship to God.
God is Triune ONLY in Three "Father Son and Holy Spirit.
Gods word is eternal and needs no backing, no compromising, whether we're affliated with one party or the not.
To get in touch with God is being connected with God. If we have been born again through the blood of Jesus Christ, then we have fellowship with God.
To be otherwise is to be in fellowship with the evil one.
It's easy to call on God when we're in great distress.
There was an airplane going through the difficultest of storms and the pilot radioed over the intercom that the plane was going down.
A man had just shared with a fellow passenger that he was Anti-God, Anti-Jesus and couldn't or wouldn't ever believe."
Guess who the athiest called on at this precise moment of time.
Who else would he call out to? Is my question.
Who can deliver, who can save, who can redeem from the power of the evil enemies?
The name is God.
Our forefathers new this and appreciated the consolation, peace, and comfort of the times of hardship which this nation faced. Our Nation was built upon the premises of Almighty God, Jehovah of Creation.
Intercessory prayer has been held many many times for this nation.
Great leaders have stood in the gap and proclaimed the Liberty, Peace, Happiness and they would tell you very quickly and responsively that it came from God above.
How did they know?
Because they had a special relationship with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Even many Christians of today count the cost of serving the Lord God Jehovah. Only He PROVIDES, and His Great Arm of Protection still exists even on the many evils that have befallen America.
There is still hope for the great intervening Power of God if the Christians in this Great Nation will humble themselves and turn from their wicked ways. Then and only then will we hear from Heaven.
And help is present for Athiest, Conservative, Democratic, Sinners ALL.. bond, free, white, black, male, female, for ALL HAVE SINNED AND COME SHORT OF THE GLORY OF GOD.
That's my message and I'll proclaim and believe this in my heart until Jesus Comes the Second Time.

i just hope god exists to save the dammed that suport this evil "holy war".

Then again that's probably the presumed saftey net they have.

As long as i belive in GOD...no worries. Kill every other religious radical out there. After all it's GOD's fault any way. She knew all this would happen.
---

i wish i could believe in a god that would take responsibility for my actions. you know i could deceive the Amercian Public, spy on them, steal their money, then go over to Iraq and do the same to them.

prasie be to god

Bill:

Something about you speaks for itself. Mark's original post tackled at least one issue held by a conservative atheist, and everything that followed, excluding yours, was rumination on prayer and the nature of God. Nothing wrong with it.

Truth is right brings a fervor to the issue which I find unobjectionable, even though I don't share all of it. Nothing he said was hateful, or twisted to reflect a political viewpoint, and in fact included all of us, whoever we are.

Then there's you. Nothing you've said even rises to the level of mockery or doubt, or even contention over valid political differences. Thanks for coming. The truth of every other post was confirmed by you.

There is overwhelming impircal evidence that prayer does not work and has not worked in the past.

I have heard countless prayers for individuals to overcome an illness only to die from it. I have heard far too many prayers for world peace and we are still waiting.

I have a very simple challenge to all you Christians:

Get two believers together in the spirit of Matthew 18:19, pray the following:

God, we pray that all humans, whether believers or non-beleivers be saved.

It's simple and clear and if God does what he promises (Matt: 17:20, 21:21) then everybody goes to Heaven and there will be no more need for evangelism or fear that some loved one is going to Hell.

Well?

Any takers?

Let me know how it works, OK?

Wade

i just hope god exists to save the dammed that suport this evil "holy war".

I suppose you first need to presume that all who support this evil "holy war" are Christian, that the war is evil and that it is a 'holy' war. If your personal level of intellect is so benighted, there isnt much opportunity for further discussion with you.

i wish i could believe in a god that would take responsibility for my actions.

You can and you do, its called the DFL. Remember, nothing is your fault, the blame will always lie with someone else. Its why the left will cry tears over the execution of Tookie Williams and excuse the actions of pedophiles and cop killers.

God is not Santa.Prayer is about opening a channel to God,not getting "presents".Aa a conservative I don't mind Atheists as long as they believe in freedom.I would rather have an Atheist not worried about taking down a cross than voting for Jimmy Carter who maybe my denomination,but no where close to where I am in politics.

Lose- i'm not that far left...Tookie can kiss my .....ok ...cookie.

or could have.

Iv'e said this before about the flyer in the USPS- "victims of violent crimes, YOU have rights too". Gee no %$*@ !!

See as a veteran seeing illegals and criminals and illegal criminals get better health care and various loans etc. than a vet is pretty f'n tragic. Pretty bad they get it better than Americans overall- but that the right won't budge on- so that's a problem on it self. But as for better rights than vets. Well that i blame the left on.

Take your pick, but in this case the left and the right have issues.

The problem here is that while personal responsibility and the rule of law are very important, they are not the fundamental conservative principles.

They are however fundamental American principles, particularly the rule of law. No rule of law, no America.

Bill:

Vet? Me too. Vietnam, 25th Div class of 66 and 67. I have one son who just returned from Iraq, another still there and a third in Afghanistan. Big deal. All combat arms. For my generation, The Dep Def treated us worse than the counterculture. Opened the gate at Oakland and kicked us out. So what?

Life choices, life dangers and life consequences.
Nobody owes you anything; unless you took some bad hits, you keep going on your own.

Illegals. The cowards in both Houses of Congress and the sympathetic Gringo in The White House aren't listening, and Arnold has just nailed California's coffin shut.

But you know what? It has nothing to do with you or the rest of us being veterans.

no- my point was that they are screwing the vets- for illegals and criminals. That was my issue as far as being a vet (disabled).

how in the world one that has taken or caused someone else's demise (rape, assault, etc.etc.) how cana criminal have vaqrious "perks" that exceed those of the VAMC system?

Add to that the illegals- HTF are they going to have so many bennies that a vet has to scream and kick for? i just don't get it. Yes both Libs, and Cons have issues on this.

Seems to me the VET's should be 1st then the illegals and criminals with ZERO.

of course i also think legit U.S. citizens sould get health care too. But i know the right disagrees. But G.D. the illegals and criminals out rank the voter as far as health care goes!

you use the term libertarian like its a bad thing neo-con...though i would of course prefer to be called a classical liberal, but as this title, along with that of conservative was hijacked as well, it gets harder to use.

Dr. Ron Paul 2008

Bill,

That is because the laws were written poorly, but every time we try to modify them to take into consideration that illegals shouldn't get benefits, we're called racists for trying. If you don't like bennies going to illegals, then take it up with Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Reid and "Reverand" Jesse Jackson.

Libertarian,

Well, being a libertarian is wrong - as is being a liberal or a leftist. The reason I'm a Catholic and a conservative is because I think that Catholicism and conservatism are correct.

And being a classic liberal just means you haven't trudged down that inevitible liberal road to statism. God - the most important thing, and the only foundation of any political rationality.

tb,

Law, however, presupposes an independent moral standard to be referred to - in other words, the foundation of law is God; no God, no law - and without law, you can't have rule of law.

Wade,
It sounds as if some folk would love to have all their prayers answered and right now.
It reminds me of the man who said, "Lord, I want patience and I want it right now."

Not all prayers ascend to the throne of grace.
Only those prayers that are sincere and from those of a contrite heart. God answers the prayers of the righteous, but of those who are out of the will of God, the only prayer He hears is that of a confessing soul.
Many have prayed to become millionaires, then why if God is who He says He is, aren't we all millionaires?
Just for the same reason, God answers those prayers that HE sees fit and those that are in HIS name.
He that cometh to the Father, must come to Him in Truth and In Spirit.
Many claim the Truth, but their lives fail to live up to their words. But my friends, Words are cheap, and if we think we can get others to believe that God is a God whom we can throw around like a Wet Wash cloth, then we have other thoughts coming.
God is a Triune God, the God of Creation and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ.
He answers those prayers HE sees fit, those that fit His Schedule, and Only Those.
Don't try to put God in a Box. It will never work.
Because the "Fool" hath said in his heart, "There is No God," And to say that God is not who His Word says He is, is damning to the soul to say the least.
God is God and there is none other, He is All Powerful, All Seeing, All Knowing and All Hearing.
And His Son came to show who the Father is.
So pray that your sins will be forgiven and that you can gain a personal relationship with the Son and then You can have access with the Lord God Jehovah-Jireh. For it is He who PROVIDES.

mark it seems you are quite confused about the meaning of libertarianism and classical liberalism...God you don't even realize that most of the founding fathers were classical liberals do you.
and are you actually saying that only the modern liberals are statists...wow, just look at your own party once and a while.

Truth writes:
"Not all prayers ascend to the throne of grace.
Only those prayers that are sincere and from those of a contrite heart. God answers the prayers of the righteous, but of those who are out of the will of God, the only prayer He hears is that of a confessing soul."

Consider if those who learn to listen to God's guidance have their prayers answered. God actually guides their lives and their prayers. God guides their lives so that the only thing they believe they should pray for will be what God provides. One thing the Muslims have going for them is their suggestion to never say anything that doesn't end in "if God (Allah, to them) wills it." When prayers are phrased in this way, there is no unanswered prayer, because every prayer puts God's will before what we human beings think is what we want, from our limited perspective.

Mark i didn't vote for the dems this year on my ballot. Realizing they were pushing illegal jumbo mumbo- at my expense as a taz payer. Ya see even us "lefties" have a tolerance level. How 'bout you guys and the war? Ante up?

---

I know Mark, as for god and the GOP. I suppose all the lefties just can't BUY into god (get it BUY). any way- why not take it another level and change the course? Call it the God Only Party. Since the heirachy puts god at the top, why not make it primary. All the othe stuff optional. Then we can really see those that beleive and those that do not. Simple, clear cut.

As for all the other matters, they could be optional:

1) Since the Dems are anti-god and anti war, they could be the party that offers hope and peace to the world rather than God and War.

2) The atheist dems could be the party of infrastructure and America, rather than Jehova and other hebrew folk. the Dems could put back into America and care for Americans rather than follow some para-arabic religion vying for the heavy weight title of middle eastern religions.

3) The dems could come of with ways to pay for the wars wagewd in the name of God by the God Party. They could tax the bjeebies out of oil that the GOP steeals from the Arabs.

Look at all the balance here Mark, gang. And W thought he was the "Divider and not a Uniter".

Yeah! The dems could offer hope and peace, and when that never actually happens they can blame someone else, just like every other program they have supported or instituted.

Just think, the left can tax the hell out of Big Oil, Big Medicine, Big Food and Big Retail in the name of hope and peace. Then when people are dying from strep throat, riding their bike through the snowdrifts, digging for mushrooms in the back yard and weaving their own pants, all that misery can be blamed on Bush and the republicans. BRILLIANT!

Bill,

Well, that is at least an attempt at humor - which does put you miles ahead of most leftists: there is hope that one day you'll wind up a conservative Catholic.

Libertarian,

I'm afraid I'm all too familiar with the absurdities of both libertarianism and liberalism. After a thorough study of both, conservative Catholicism (which is almost, but not quite, a redundancy) is the only thing which makes any sense - other than conservative Protestantism, conservative Judaism or, at least, a general conservatism which, even if it can't go in for full-blown belief, at least understands that it is the believers who actually make things work.

The freedom a libertarian claims to defend is actually a nauseating licentiousness - while the freedom a liberal claims to defend isn't freedom at all. I stand for true freedom - which is really just the freedom for me to choose to do my duty.

hahaaa

man- that was a gut buster! LOLOL

sometimes, i come here just for the laughter! man Mark, that really made me drop a tear of humor. I wonder if the neighbors heard me.

man that was funny!

thanks

...wow you can even tell the difference between classical liberalism and modern liberalism, but please go on being infatuated with your precious State and its leaders, confusing nationalism with patriotism, carrying the now empty title that is conservatism, you know, that thing that once stood for limiting the power of government and thus protecting individual freedom. meanwhile the libertarians and classical liberals will continue the proud tradition of supporting minarchism, let us know when you come to your senses alright. until then read up on the subject some more because you honestly dont know what youre talking about.

Libertarian,

My precious State? Beg pardon, but you obviously just don't know much about conservatism, especially of the Christian variety.

First and foremost, you have to remember that a Christian absolutely and without question believes that all human beings will live forever...that we'll all be thinking back to ages ago, when the world of today existed, but is now very long since gone for good. Given this fundamental worldview, the fate of a particular nation isn't the most important thing - we know that as much as we love the United States of America, it will one day be gone...and long gone, at that. Of course, so will all other nations - and, indeed, the whole world/solar system/galaxy/universe. It just won't be here - we believe there will be a new heaven and a new earth, radically different from what we've got right now.

Once you've grasped that, you'll really be on the path to understanding conservative Christianity. The whole purpose of conservatism is not individual liberty, per se, but the ability of groups and interests to pursue their own affairs with minimal interference from the State. Christians are both individuals and part of a group (we call it the Body of Christ) - but we are not, and cannot be, either individualists or totalitarians. Individuals are vitally important, but also important is how we deal with our fellows - strive, indeed, for a better life...but don't forget your brother who has less, even if the reason he has less is because of his own foolishness.

In service of this, we conservatives are always looking after what Burke (the original conservative) called the "little platoons" of society....the family, the Church, social clubs, the business, the trade organization...it is these groups which are the defense of the individual against society and the State...the individual, armed with all the rights of a Constitution, has no rights at all if there isn't a group to spring to his defense when he comes under oppression. The problem with liberalism is that it seeks to undermine all groups and leave the individual naked in the public square to government scrutiny...the problem with libertarianism is that it does it from the opposite position of demanding that no group have a say in what an individual does (libertarianism is saved from utter worthlessness by the fact that it is, at least, also determined to free a person from any domination by the State...what libertarianism fails to understand is that without being subordinated to a group, there is no way for the individual to maintain his liberty). Its a balancing act, as you can see.

"Not all prayers ascend to the throne of grace.
Only those prayers that are sincere and from those of a contrite heart. God answers the prayers of the righteous, but of those who are out of the will of God, the only prayer He hears is that of a confessing soul."

In other words, if God does not answer your prayers it's your own lousy fault.

Great religion you have there folks.

BS writes:
"Since the Dems are anti-god and anti war, they could be the party that offers hope and peace to the world rather than God and War."

Kenneth Pargament in his textbook on the psychology of religion and coping describes previous research. Spiritual support is significantly related to positive outcomes in 43 instances, compared with only 2 significant negative relationships. Support from a congregation is related to positive outcomes 16 times compared with only one significant negative relationship. Thinking about life and solving life's problems without God is significantly related to one positive outcome and and seven negative outcomes. Comparatively, thinking about God as a co-pilot in these situations relates significantly to positive outcomes 11 times compared with 2 negative outcomes; thinking about God solving problems without a person's help relates to positive outcomes 9 times compared with only 2 negative relationships. Personal religious expressions are related to positive outcomes 47 times as compared to only one time for a negative outcome. Participation in religious organizations is related to postive outcomes 52 times as compared to only 2 times for a negative outcome.

All in all, it is obvious that during a time of crisis, hope is exactly what religion does offer. You can sing "Imagine" all you want, but the truth is that "no God to kill or die for" is not something people experience as hopeful. At least, that's what the research says, but why listen to that when you can listen to the dogma of liberal science?

Anillo writes:
"You argue that without a 'third party' to arbitrate between conflicting sides, we are lost. But this is only one way of looking at morality. Better minds than ours once came up with the Enlightenment. This movement said that there is no need for a third party to judge (the problem with humans interpreting the judgment notwithstanding) because man is can actually be quite clever and rational without a god, and if we remember that we are all equal and naturally free we can get along fine."

Actually, you need to check into the conflicting research by nobel prize winner Daniel Kahneman. Human beings only appear to make rational choices according to some objective store of knowledge. In truth, we perceive the world not rationally but according to a certain frame of reference. Our conscious minds actually dismiss information that doesn't fit into our previously formed idea of things rather that include and weigh it "rationally." Better decisions in complex situations are made by focusing our conscious minds elsewhere during which time information available from beyond our awareness tends to inspire us in a more reliable way than by relying on conscious thought.

Morris:

If you're trying to convince me with Kahneman's conclusion, then how can "human beings...APPEAR to make rational choices"...on the one hand, and "in truth" you restate the proposition as if it in ways that can be interpreted as rational. The base point of rationality is what?

Kahneman's research is redundant. It's been said by every serious observer of the human thinking since, probably, Aristotle. And we're no closer to proving it now than Aris. was.

Proverbs 9:10 tells us-

"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is undertanding."

Well, with a Liberal lead congress in control right now, that verse tells us something:

It tells us that we are on the wrong road, and that, America... and the Christian people in this Nation Need to wake up, 'We' cannot allow Liberals to continue leading us down the path of destruction!

Jeremiah

"I write with freedom, because while I claim a right to believe in one god, if so my reason tells me,I yield as freely to others that of believing in three. Both religions, I find, make honest men, and that is the only point society has any right to look to."

Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Smith, 1822

"If you're trying to convince me with Kahneman's conclusion"

I think you're missing my point. I'm here to teach people capable of learning. But as I said above, people with a fixed idea tend to dismiss what doesn't fit that fixed idea, so I'm certainly not here to convince you because I doubt I could accomplish that. Your conscious mind is going to filter out what doesn't fit your preconceived idea. I'm actually here to teach the people who are truly liberal in the sense of being free thinkers, open minded.

"then how can 'human beings...APPEAR to make rational choices'...on the one hand, and 'in truth' you restate the proposition as if it in ways that can be interpreted as rational. The base point of rationality is what?"

The appearance of A implies the action B. The appearance of a bill implies I pay that bill. The appearance of someone pointing a gun at me implies I run. The trouble is of course appearance. The person who appears to be pointing a gun at me may in fact be pointing it at someone behind me who's coming after me with a knife, so if I act rationally and run away from the person with the gun I run towards the real danger that did not appear revealed, relevant. The bill that appeared is not actually from Citibank but from someone who stole my real bill and forged one that looked like it as a way of getting my bank account number. The above choices appear rational, but they're not useful; they're counterproductive because they rely on appearance.

Alternatively, people I work with spend their savings, take out mortgages on their homes, and pawn their spouses' engagement rings to provide money for their addiction. These actions have no appearance of being rational. Yet if the world included mostly those addicted to something, these actions would appear to be rational. That is, in our society the idea of pathology and health has replaced the idea of right and wrong.

What appears rational within American culture appears irrational within addicted subcultures, and vice versa. The trouble with the idea of rational behavior, that the appearance of A implies action B, is that action B is not objective, it's based on a frame of reference, ergo there's no categorical imperative. The trouble with ideas like Kant's is that they mistakenly presume the world exists as reason explains it, rather than accepting that reason exists as a way to explain the world. It is our ideas and reason that lack reliability; we find difficulty when we expect that the appearance of A implies action B and then that doesn't happen. This is a confusion of the mind that wants us to forget about its blind spots. It is what us religious folk call an encounter with the unseen, the unexplained, sometimes a miracle, for those who would believe.

Brevity, Morris, would improve your pedagogical duties. If you're here to teach those capable of learning, it would help if you were capable of teaching.

This sophomoric BS you regard as profound is the kind of thing most logic and philosphy students sweep away in the first few hours at an undergraduate level, and then go on to serious issues.

That you consider it revolutionary thought...well, maybe it IS to you, is lamentable.
Keep learning, Morris. That community college sheepskin is just hours away.

Oh yes, Morris. I take it you've stumbled on some poststructuralist screed, or someone introduced you to Foucault or Lyotard, and now you can impress the chicks at Starbucks. You don't impress me.

Rhod,
It's interesting that I don't impress you, yet you take the time to respond. Or at least you respond to the form but not the substance of my arguments. You respond with ad hominem personal attacks (that's from freshman critical thinking, about 15 years ago). Why do you think that is?

But I do believe it's illustrative that the very philosophy you appear to disdain you hold up as your defense. Yes, I do have enthusiasm for the deeper nature of the soul. Talking about it is to me like looking at a masterpiece, and I hope that you will one day appreciate my sense of wonder and awe.

It's interesting that you claim it is so sophmoric to speak in simple terms. Do you enjoy talking in a way that others won't understand? Would I for a moment fill in your personal feeling of insecurity if I talked to you with words no one else understood? Jesus was amazing in part because he talked in a way everyone can understand, and I take it as a great compliment if I do so.

Morris:

What? Your comparing you little class lecture to Jesus's dialogues. Vanity extreme.

It was you who claimed special knowledge of a special subject, and then presumed to lecture the natives about it. The subject, by the way, is one of the tap roots of relativism.

You are also not advising, you're lecturing.

Morris:

You're not advising, you're lecturing, and now comparing your special knowledge of a special subject as equal to Jesus's dialogues. What?

Your topic is one of the tap roots of relativism; do not expect me to reinforce my Belief with it.
You also presumed to lecture the natives about it.

Rhod writes:
"Your topic is one of the tap roots of relativism; do not expect me to reinforce my Belief with it."

Actually, it is only a certain kind of relativism. It is a relativism about rationalism. Beliefs have substance as they're part of our phenomena, they're real to us in that way as we experience them to be so. But their reliability is not based on anything approaching rationalism, it's based on sensory experience beyond our comprehension. That murder is a bad thing is something I know because I sense it to be true in my heart, an authentic experience.

Kant's mistake is to presume that what is true in my heart today can be expressed in a way that will always be true. But he seeks to accomplish this with tricks of language, and language is no more reliable than rationalism, than appearance. My coming to believe something is wrong then experiencing the way in which it can be right is overcoming rationalism, finding a deeper meaning that no words can forever express. This is the way I come to experience my ignorance, my limitations, and how in relation to my finite nature I come to sense the existence of the infinite, the way I experience my soul quickening as I approach the infinite. My sense of the infinite increases as my reliance on rationalism decreases. Rationalism has a place within this journey, but it is not the purpose (or telos, I'm guessing you might say).

In a way, life is like frogger. Each floating tree upon which a person jumps to get to the other side is another step closer to infinity. And the closer a person gets to infinity, the more they sense they ought to go back and guide others in that direction. The trip back requires relying on at times simple metaphors built of rationalism and language, that's how to reach people living in that place, where they are. And yes, Jesus used these metaphors as did other great teachers. But of course, since my metaphor is an 80's era video game, perhaps He is better at it than I am.

Rhod writes:
"Your topic is one of the tap roots of relativism; do not expect me to reinforce my Belief with it."

Actually, it is only a certain kind of relativism. It is a relativism about rationalism. Beliefs have substance as they're part of our phenomena, they're real to us in that way as we experience them to be so. But their reliability is not based on anything approaching rationalism, it's based on sensory experience beyond our comprehension. That murder is a bad thing is something I know because I sense it to be true in my heart, an authentic experience.

Kant's mistake is to presume that what is true in my heart today can be expressed in a way that will always be true. But he seeks to accomplish this with tricks of language, and language is no more reliable than rationalism, than appearance. My coming to believe something is wrong then experiencing the way in which it can be right is overcoming rationalism, finding a deeper meaning that no words can forever express. This is the way I come to experience my ignorance, my limitations, and how in relation to my finite nature I come to sense the existence of the infinite, the way I experience my soul quickening as I approach the infinite. My sense of the infinite increases as my reliance on rationalism decreases. Rationalism has a place within this journey, but it is not the purpose (or telos, I'm guessing you might say).

In a way, life is like frogger. Each floating tree upon which a person jumps to get to the other side is another step closer to infinity. And the closer a person gets to infinity, the more they sense they ought to go back and guide others in that direction. The trip back requires relying on at times simple metaphors built of rationalism and language, that's how to reach people living in that place, where they are. And yes, Jesus used these metaphors as did other great teachers. But of course, since my metaphor is an 80's era video game, perhaps He is better at it than I am.

Morris:

This is my last word. Only a "certain kind of relativism". Heh. Well, there's only one kind.

If this is your path to revelation, good for you. But much can be made of the simplicity of The Gospels, and they aren't burdened with the kind of maundering mataphysical boilerplate and flurry of concepts that composes your posts.

Please stop. Let your yay be yay and your nay be nay.

Whatever gets you there is probably okay.

I gave you a headache, didn't I? If you're mind isn't comfortable following the directions I would take you, perhaps you haven't been there before, after all. It's too bad that you offer only criticism. Relativism is of course an idea, a piece of language that can be applied to all language, including itself. It can be arranged in a way that speaks to the significance of nothing, or you can arrange it in a way that speaks to the significance of everything in relation to infinity. You see only one perspective ("Well, there's only one kind [of relativism]"), that A (relativism) implies action B, necessarily and without question. But of course infinity goes beyond one perspective. "With God, all things are possible."

Morris:

Good grief, and goodbye.

Oh, one more thing, Morris. Spiritual pride is to be avoided. Consider Hugh Kingsmill when you wish to lead someone in your "direction":

Roughly remembered: Those who seek the Kingdom of Heaven alone will arrive there together; those who seek it in company will perish by themselves.

I'm in no need to your "directions" Morris.

"Those who seek the Kingdom of Heaven alone will arrive there together"

I'll have to disagree with that, Rhod.

The bible tells us in Romans chapter 10:

"As it is written, ""How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!""

To do otherwise, would be selfish!

Jeremiah

Rhod,
So basically aside from disregarding all pretty much all research on quality relationships and happiness, as well as all the research on how congregational support helps bring positive outcomes to people in times of crisis, you're just saying that Jesus, Buddha, Moses, Mohammed all perished by themselves? Besides of course avoiding the obvious question of how insignificant the struggles of this life (and death) are when compared to meeting the divine?

What's more, here's the quote:
"What is divine in man is elusive and impalpable, and he is easily tempted to embody it in a collective from-a church, a country, a social system, a leader-so that he may realise it with less effort and serve it with more profit. Yet the attempt to externalise the. kingdom of heaven in a temporal shape must end in disaster It cannot be created by charters or constitutions, nor established by arms. Those who set out for it alone will reach it together and those who seek it in company will perish by themselves."

It's interesting that this work which is so profound to you that it stays with you yet save for the last sentence, it says essentially the same thing as my sophmoric screed, as you call it. To paraphrase, our thoughts are not big enough to hold God, because thoughts are not constant like the Creator is. Why did he write that down? Don't you see that the very communication of his belief (that to seek God together is disaster) is in fact his attempt to teach people the best way to seek God?

Personally, I agree that God cannot be contained or communicated in such ways as language, that for a person to understand God requires them to be ready which takes more than words. But words can be tools, stepping stones of understanding that in time will be overcome by the growing river of experience. My personal journey to God was solitary, but I do not believe it has to be that way. I got a lot of help from the words left behind by those who went before me, the path I could follow, and it is their work that I follow.

More than that, what made the journey worth it was the warmth of people in my life. In them, I saw God's capacity for love and forgiveness.

Jeremiah:

Ref the entire quote from Kingsmill at Morris's post to me. The sense of his observation does not conflict with your interpretation, even though I don't know what your scriptural reference is supposed to mean. The only way we can begin to comprehend what we need to comprehend is to deny The Self. I believe it needs to be done alone.

Morris...the concluding sentence was the point; again, you needn't instruct me in the way of your Light.

What I see in you, Morris, is spiritual pride, solipsism, and arrogance. Your principle shortcoming is rigidity, and condescension. I do not care about your forms of enlightenment in the least, and your didacticism is overbearing and presumptuous.

Something about it seems inauthentic. But if you're fervent, what does my opinion matter? You shouldn't care either. Someday one or both of us will be proved right.

The last word is yours.

Regarding the path alone to the God Almighty.
The scriptures state that there is only one way to God. This is Absolute. Why? Because His Word States that He Is Truth.
And those who come to Him must come to Him in Spirit and In Truth.
Go try and follow some person, to try going alone, friend, that will never work.
It takes the congregation of Gods people, those born again through the shed blood of His Son Jesus Christ to Communicate to God Himself.
As I stated in a previous post, "He that cometh to the Father, must come through me." Stated Jesus.
You state that All the prophets have perished.
Friend, I must tell you that All have perished, but one, and that is the One Called Jesus.
How do I know he Lives,? Because He lives within my heart and the hearts of Gods people World Wide.
He did not die in vain. The Old Rugged Cross made a difference for me and it will for you too. You can call me preachin, or whatever, but apart from Christ there is no other way through or into the Kingdom of Heaven. We don't have to go alone.
Jesus said, "I will never leave thee nor forsake thee, and I have found that true in my walk with Christ through the divine work of His Holy Spirit, since the date of 1981. What he's done for me he'll do for others, but they can only come into the Kingdom of God through His dear son.

"What I see in you, Morris, is spiritual pride, solipsism, and arrogance. Your principle shortcoming is rigidity, and condescension."

You said there was only one kind of relativism. When I show you another kind, you accuse me of rigidity, because I see another kind that you claim doesn't exist? When you come to a place where you have received a spiritual gift and you want to share it, you will not see it as condescending. But if what you believe rings hollow, inauthentic is your word, then it must appear arrogant to give what doesn't fit you to another. It is my experience I want to share.

I'm confused as to what you see in the world, if a person who knows that sharing their experience may benefit others appears arrogant and strange to you. It sounds to me like isolation has gotten the best of you, and I sincerely recommend you read Goleman's book on social intelligence since you obviously won't believe me about the research based importance of having people in your life. If you've come to a place where it's more important to not worry about others questioning you than to share your life, you're staring straight into emptiness. And I don't have to tell you what Nietzsche said about looking into an abyss, do I?

Rhod,

The basis for my quote was to show that, people who are in need of Jesus Christ (People who fail to do what His word says) need to be made aware that He is coming back again, Furthermore, seeking converts to go on the journey, and if we don't seek those folk out, then we are out of God's will!! That's why Jesus told the disciples: to go unto all the world and proclaim the good news, and they went together, keeping each other steadfast in the faith!!

That was the particular meaning of that passage: All the Evangelists and those helping them, would apply for todays era!

As to the referencing the post by Kingsmill? Well, I'm not that good at deciphering some quotes, but I'll do the best I can--

What is divine in man is elusive and impalpable, and he is easily tempted to embody it in a collective from-a church, a country, a social system, a leader-so that he may realise it with less effort and serve it with more profit.

What he's saying there is, that many people have been influenced by others to become pastors, as a means of gaining wealth, without the guidance and without the calling of the Holy Spirit as their means... And the bible speaks of those folk, Jesus said--"Many are called, but few are chosen"

So, here's the way I believe-- it takes the calling of the Holy Spirit, and becoming saved through the shed blood of Jesus Christ before one can truly be called a servant of Jesus Christ, and most of the time, that means Jesus leading others who have already accepted Jesus to us, leaving the Spirit of Conviction upon our hearts, which is the Holy Spirit!!

Yet the attempt to externalise the kingdom of heaven in a temporal shape must end in disaster It cannot be created by charters or constitutions, nor established by arms.

In explaining that part of the quote, True, It is spiritual, and yes, God's kingdom is not of this world, BUT...Any Nation or government that seperates itself from a moral foundation based on the Word of God will fall, In fact, Every Nation in biblical history was brought asunder, because of their disobedience!!

Those who set out for it alone will reach it together and those who seek it in company will perish by themselves.

Also, In explaining that part, What it pretty much says to me, is that, people must keep the faith to themselves, and if we try to bring others along that path of faith, we will be forever lost as a Nation.HOGWASH!!

It's just like I've always said, Nations without Christian leaders who will influence their own people and the other Nations, will surely crumble!!

That's why every Great Nation in the biblical times fell. It was due to their sinful disobedience, and lack of desire to go unto the world to preach the good news to the disobedient!

Well, there ya go, that's about the best I can do for now.

But you know something else, Rhod. that's why we have the Greatest President in United States History right now, a good Christian man, he cares for America, and not only that, but he cares enough, to help, and influence the belief and behavior of those who are on the wrong path (path of disobedience) beyond our own country!!

Yes, Thank God for George W. Bush, the Greatest President in United States History!!!!

Jeremiah

Morris:

I understand Kingsmill's post, and don't need your interpretation. I find your adoration of power figures and what can be called the righteous state to be a little disturbing. During the forty-and-forty, one of the temptations was the Kingdoms of The World.

You don't understand Kingsmill at all.

Sorry. I meant Jeremiah.

Rhod,

Yes, but where did his strength come from to overcome the kingdoms(temptations) of the world?

He was not alone!!

We can also overcome the kingdoms of the world, If we remain true to Him, as do many, many, others who are true born again believers!!

Only through Jesus, and those who are true believers!!

"I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee"

Have a Good day.

Jeremiah