Posted on 05/01/2011 7:24:18 AM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode
I never said that, nor would I. The *tribals* aren't being asked to "decide," in the sense of making a rational analysis of the pros and cons of a proposition, etc. Rather, they would be offered the opportunity to participate in the Love and Life of God in His New Creation, under the sovereignty of Jesus Christ, Son of God, commencing after Judgment Day. There are only two possible responses to such an invitation: Yes or No. This is not rocket science; nor does it involve the rational weighting of pros and cons....
You wrote:
I take it, then, that you believe it really doesn't matter what one believes as long as one "approves" and "accept[s]" Jesus as the Savior?How you torture the language to make your "point!" It very much matters what one believes. Yet in order to be saved, one must believe directly in Christ — ultimately, there is no salvation outside of Christ, period. Religion per se will not do it; dogma will not do it; doctrines will not do it. In the end, it all boils down to Love, not a "rational" decision.
And that is hardly an argument for universal salvation — for man has no way to salvation but through Christ — "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but through Me." Christ's appeal to man is universal; but man's response to it is particular. If the image of God has died in his soul, if there is no loving response to Christ's appeal, then his particular goose is cooked.
The Father's Will will be done in all things, on earth as it is in heaven, in and through Christ alone. Christ knows his own ... and they know Him.
JMHO, FWIW.
It isn't a matter of "approval," dear kosta. It is a matter of recognizing God's Truth.
You are so silly!
Plus metmom never argued that "doctrine doesn't matter." If it helps us "come to Jesus," then it is a help to us, a great blessing. But doctrine doesn't save us — only Christ does.
In your "flatland" world, you evidently miss distinctions of this type.
Sources? No. nononononooooo
kosta stumbles on, asking: "You mean like what is God?"
Matchett-PI wrote in #2114: "This is one of the unavoidable problems of atheism, in that they define God in an intrinsically inadequate way."
kosta stumbling on asks: "I have yet to see an 'intrinsically adequate' definition of what God is. Do you, Matchett-PI, know exactly (i.e. intrisically adeqautely) what God is? Or have you just convinced yourself (i.e. believe) that you do?"
Needless to say, I am not impressed with the cognitive firepower of the militant atheist crowd, who strike me as being a few nails shy of a Palestinian ghetto blaster.
Nor am I moved by their arguments, which are necessarily "beneath" the level of that which they are discussing.
In other words, we are dealing with the question of "adequation," since the basis of all knowledge is conformity between subject and object (or subject and subject). There are empirical questions for which adequation is not particularly problematic, although there are obviously areas where our senses do deceive us -- for example, the sun does not circle the earth.
Oh, really? True, our naked sense impressions suggest that the earth is the center of the universe and that the sun does indeed circle it. And it is equally true that rational scientific knowledge tells us that the earth actually revolves around the sun.
However, if we adopt a post-Einsteinian view, it would be equally accurate to say that both views are correct -- just as it is equally correct to say that the earth "falls" to the apple, or that when we drive someplace, our destination arrives at us.
Thus, the rational (perhaps I should say "rationalistic") view insists that man cannot be not the center of the universe. However, if we transcend 19th century scientific rationalism and consider the "post-rational" metaphysics of quantum cosmology, then we understand that the mystics are correct in their unanimous view that the center of the cosmos is both everywhere and nowhere -- or that the cosmos is a circle whose center is everywhere and circumference nowhere.
Philosophically, this is an instance of "returning to the beginning and knowing the joint for the first time," for this premodern view is perfectly in accord with postmodern quantum theory (not that we should ever require science to confirm what amounts to metaphysical common sense, for in the vertical sense, man cannot not be the central axis of manifest existence).
If we wish to approach God -- or, let us just say the Absolute, to avoid saturation -- we can just as well "cut out the middle man" of all of the intervening "-isms" down through the centuries -- empiricism, rationalism, positivism, materialism, Darwinism, what have you -- and use pure metaphysics to arrive at universal theological truths __that cannot not__ be.
This is why no discovery of science will ever disprove the existence of God.
To the contrary, to the extent that science converges on truth, then it is converging on Truth, which is to say, God. God does not embrace falsehood, whether scientific or religious.
(A point of order: while I believe metaphysics adequately proves the existence of the Absolute, only revelation discloses its nature, which surely makes sense; for example, I can prove that you exist, but I cannot say "what you're like" unless you tell me, or unless I have highly advanced c nvision -- in which case you are merely "telling things" of which you are not consciously aware. In short, it takes two to Tongan.)
Therefore, whether they care to hear it or not, the scientist's passionate quest for truth is an explicitly religious one, so in any honest debate on the existence of God, God always wins.
Matchett-PI wrote in #2114: "Either you are a horizontal egomaniac or a vertical logomaniac"
kosta responds: "Or you could be a narcissistic blogomanic, and a BS philosopher with too much time on your hands... :)"
I gather this is the part that JCB and kosta don't get. Or perhaps I should say, this is what they uniformly, stubbornly deny.
They say: There is no Spirit; there is no Truth. In their own minds, this gets them "off the hook." :^)
They say in their hearts: There is no God. They will brook no challenge to this opinion of theirs....
Thanks so much for writing, dear brother in Christ!
Yes. "We hold [recognize] these truths to be self-evident...". Who other than a refugee of the "Cukoos' Nest" would trot out to announce that he doesn't "approve" of them?
"Metaphysical truths are by no means accepted because they are merely logically clear, but because they are ontologically clear, and their logical clarity is only a trace of this imprinted on the mind." Here again, this kind of higher truth is "not held to be true -- by those who understand it -- because it is expressed in a logical manner, but it can be expressed in a logical manner because it is true, without -- obviously -- its truth ever being compromised by the possible shortcomings of human reason."
...metaphysical truth "has nothing to do with personal opinion, originality, or creativity -- quite the contrary. It is directed towards those realities which lie outside mental perimeters and which are unchanging. The most a metaphysician will ever want to do is reformulate some timeless truth so that it becomes more intelligible in the prevailing climate." ...
Thus, when the Founders said, "we hold these truths to be self-evident," they were not appealing to mere logic, but to something much higher -- something eternal, axial, and principial, in this or any other cosmos. They were not conveying to King George what they "thought" about reality, but they were disclosing and imparting this transcendent reality to the monarch.
These principles would still be true if not a single human being were aware of them -- which, strictly speaking, is impossible, being that the human, qua human, is the being that is by definition conformed or "proportioned" to the absolute. Humans and humans alone are the cosmic mediators between time and eternity, God and creation, vertical and horizontal -- which is why we may know eternal Truth and conform ourselves to it. Or not.
In short, because we possess free will (freedom being one of the Divine attributes reflected in the human being) we may incarnate Truth or uncarnate the Lie. It's all up -- or down -- to you.
Living in fear and guilt is so intolerable that a way (even if its incoherent) must be found around it in order to "get off the hook" and "feel good" about oneself. :)
In an article entitled Are You Certain About That?, Jonah Goldberg discusses one of the latest leftist memes. However, it is not so much a meme as the central core of leftism, which in the end embodies an assault on truth and a rejection of the Absolute -- which is impossible both in principle and in fact, which is why leftism is fundamentally and irretrievably incoherent.
Goldberg writes, "Have you heard the news? Belief is bad. Pick up an eggheady book review, an essay in Time magazine, or listen to a thumb-suck session on National Public Radio for very long and you’ll soon hear someone explain that real conviction -- dogmatism! -- is dangerous." ...
Imagine if this country were actually founded upon a wimpy rejection of metaphysical certainty and the leftist embrace of relativism?
We hold these preliminary findings to be more or less accurate, at least for now, that all cultures have equal validity, and that each culture has its own ideas about rights and duties and so forth and so on and blah blah blah. In our case, we have hit upon this idea -- no offense, but we have this tentative idea -- subject to further studies, of course -- that we would like the government -- that would be your government -- to cut us some slack so that we can do what we want to do -- basically acquire property and be happy, but not limiting ourselves to that. Anyhoo, it is our culturally conditioned idea that Governments -- not all of them, of course, but ours -- should actually derive their power from the people, although we have respect and tolerance for the contrary view that you folks hold. Nevertheless, some of our more headstrong citizens think that we should be able to form a government based upon these vague hunches of ours, which, after all, are as good as your hunches. No, that was rude -- let's just say that our hunches are different than yours, and leave it at that.... No one can presume to be a judge of whose hunches are best.... At any rate, since, as the saying goes, "different strokes for different folks"....
Another brilliant insight from Gagdad Bob!
Plus in his article, he cites a beloved teacher of mine, Eric Voegelin:
...the whole point of the left is that — in the turgid but accurate phrase of Eric Voegelin — it "immamentizes the eschaton," meaning, in plain Raccoon lingo, that it collapses the vertical into the horizontal, which dispenses with the "permanent things" of the transcendent realm altogether. As a result, all that is left for the bereft left is a horizontal, temporal, and material struggle "below," which necessarily pits one group against another, based solely upon the lust for power. Any cynical "humanist" will tell you that this is simply the way of the world.I doubt that either kosta50 or JCB would admit to being leftists, or left "progressives."
But they sure do reason like leftist ideologues: They're glad to "'collapse the vertical into the horizontal." It seems they know that the vertical ever points to the Absolute (God) "beyond" — i.e., transcending — the merely natural world accessible to "horizontal" experience. They simply will not have any vertical direction/dimension at all.
Thus the fool says in his heart, There is no God.
Problem with that is, there is no "adequation" between leftist ideology and the world as it is. Leftist ideology ever seeks to supplant the First Reality in which human beings actually live, in which humans have always lived, with a preferred "second reality" of their own making. The "adequation" problem will always defeat them on this score. But they aren't honest enough to admit it.
They really don't care about reason, in the end. Bottom line, if anything, they have contempt for reason — if it points to conclusions about the world which they do not like. And so, they prefer to deal in wrecking balls....
Thanks so very much for the excellent essay/post, dear brother in Christ!
LOL, it would now seem that if we understand metaphysics, we can accept that donkeys can talk, snakes can charm and humans can stay alive inside fishes.
Indeed, and that diseases are cured by casting out evil spirits...(by those who have been given special powers)! I wonder what evil spirit causes the flu...? :)
I think what is being said is "If you believe in God, then all of these things are possible."
MaPI or BB quoted, "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." and it dawned on me that there's no necessity for either of you to believe in the rights of humans.
For example, can you prove a right to life without reference to God? I'd be interested in hearing it.
Do not do unto others what you don't want done unto you.
Zi gong (a disciple of Confucius) asked:
"Is there any one word that could guide a person throughout life?"
The Master replied:
"How about 'shu' [reciprocity]: never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself?"
Analects XV.24, tr. David Hinton
Now let me ask you a question in return:
Since belief in your deity’s dogma allows for the forgiving of sins, however grave they may be, what is to stop you from committing the worst of atrocities, and then begging forgiveness after the fact? To know you will be forgiven, allows you to do whatever you want, and then beg forgiveness.
Also, how is the purpose of justice served when an unbeliever is murdered by a believer who later seeks forgiveness?
Exactly...and I chance saying that most Christians can look back after their conversion and see where God’s hand steered the course to the place they committed to Him. How be it some of us got off track many times in our search..but only so far as to identify that road was going in the wrong direction.
Interesting that in all the religions and faiths I investigated it wasn’t until I had the scriptures in my lap, alone and without distraction, the journey to God really began to shape up and I met Him in the most unexpected time and place! Thank God for His people He has in the field...and the discernment, He gives us, to identify truth when it’s spoken.
Love of and for Him. Something like when you get married...you want to remain faithful to your beloved. You wouldn't want to disappoint or hurt them...because you love them so.
The Bible has a long discription of Love that pretty much says it all. You might want to look it up though I tend to think you have. But a refresher would be worth the read.
( Ist Corinthians chapter 13 beginning with verse 4) Just so you don't have to locate it.
LOL!!! Brilliantly done. Thank you. I have no doubt that our current crop of politicos wouldn't write it EXACTLY this way.
So would I, dear Padre! So would I!
C'mon, pipe up, kosta, JCB! Inform us.
Look above.
But love lapses. And forgiveness can be asked repeatedly. So, you’re back where you started: You can kill, and ask for forgiveness.
Also, you didn’t answer the second part of what I asked earlier.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.