Is there such a thing as a Christian?

I see the function of your argument and I see that it functions only if you ignore certain things whether you consider them to be trivial or not.

And the point I am making is that our understanding is never complete. there is reason for faith to exist.

To use your own example: You wouldn't stop at a stop sign if you didn't
understand what a stop sign was.

I stop at stop signs because i understand what a stop sign is.[/QUOTE]
And you feel today is not your day to die even though you have no reason to have faith that this is so. Faith has reason to exist.

Exactly, that is why your, "it's a trivial distinction", argument doesn't hold water.

You know what you recognize.

Judgment is not a method of recognition, judgment is a determination. You do not need judgment to organize your life. You do not need judgment to recognize your spouse.

There is no way of determining the hour or day you will die nor of what cause. You may diagnose a terminal illness and then that person with the illness can just as well die of another cause called accident.

Actually I don't see it that way, we don't die of things, mortality is 100%. If we die of things then everything kills us. We die because it is programed into biological process, it is part of life.

The measure of validity is directly proportional to the measure of faith. If it is only a measure of validity it is also only a measure of faith.

No I am not taking what you said out of context. The words mean the same thing, no matter what the context. There is reason to believe is a synonymous statement to faith has reason to exist. The reason is the same.

Yeah you should know that faith has a reason to exist.

You are not allowing for all the conjugations of the word faith. It is your narrow definition that is causing the difficulty. You come off as a right wing nut job in your assessment of this situation.

If you thought I was saying the mind is not of the brain why did you say, "the brain responds to the mind". It looks like simply the failure to consider adequately what you claimed, that you misspoke. If you had said that it would have been acceptable to me. But now that you try to defend this statement as purposeful reaction to something I said, you are doubly mistaken.

 

Reviso:

lol

To extingish definite subjects by delivery is presently a pound to the grain.

When the doctors and grease monkeys terraform their ties, the moment's restored so that nobody dies.

 

I was going to ask if he had ever been facing the wind on a mobile beach.

It always boils down to an authority problem. Always the same problem, how do you tease apart knowledge from belief. The question sometimes asked, "don't you just believe you know". It is more to the point to say we know but we choose to ignore instead, and in our ignorance we are left to seeking what we already have.

Knowledge is being shared. Being shared, is knowledge. Shared being is knowledge. Shared knowledge is being. Being knowledge it is shared.
There are no discrete systems.

 

What about quantum physics. The experts in the field say that no one understands it. Yet it can be used as the basis of remarkably accurate scientific predictions. It works. Isn't that what's important?
















[/QUOTE]

 

Understanding only ever consists of what can be understood.

So its unreasonable to desire information beyond what we can understand.

Information within what we can understand is, understandable, and even doubt can exceed that boundary.

In your own mind, you are stepping outside of the "limit" of understanding
and saying it is never complete.

you are overstepping the "limits" of your own understanding...

I just explained I have plenty of reason to believe i wont die of this and that.

There are infinite possibilities, but the number is more particular if your talking about real things. The fact that we MIGHT not know them all doesnt
mean that there are things beyond what we understand already.

You're holding it the wrong way

So then what is judgement of.

Determination can produce foresight. If all was determined, the accident would have been recognized.

Why cant we determine all?

So why cant we look at the code and produce foresight?

And confidence and trust has no measure of validity?

How can you even say reason and call it a suspension of judgement?

are we just going to copy and paste the same thing back and forth?

"It works" is all that has ever been important in recognizing the truth.

Something can be incomprehensibly inefficient and still "work", unless your
goal is efficiency.

 

I think if a person, A.) believes himself to be a follower of Jesus, and B.) treats others either as they would treat themselves or better, may be called a true Christian. I've met a couple that fit this description, but they are rare.

 

A thing can be recognized by one and not recognized by another. A single understanding does not represent all that can be understood.

Understanding grows.

This statement is not understandable by me the way it is written. It seems to contain diametrically opposed premises.

This is utter nonsense. I cannot step outside of myself. I have reason for faith that there is more to discover. I am not violating any real principle.

Again what is not real does not exist. I cannot be what I am not. I am not violating any real principle. You are claiming I break the law by saying I overstep the limits of my own understanding.

Again, faith has reason to exist.

Death of the body is certain, the hour of death is not. You have plenty of reason to believe that today is not your day to die.

You mean what is good for the goose is not good for the gander? I am not holding it the wrong way, you are making a subjective value judgment by saying I make a "trivial" point.

judg·ment [jújmənt]

1. legal verdict: the decision arrived at and pronounced by a court of law
2. obligation resulting from verdict: an obligation, e.g. a debt, that arises as a result of a court's verdict, or a document setting out an obligation of this kind
3. decision of judge: the decision reached by one or more judges in a contest
The judgment of the panel must be regarded as final.
4. decision on disputed matter: an opinion formed or a decision reached in the case of a disputed, controversial, or doubtful matter
5. discernment or good sense: the ability to form sound opinions and make sensible decisions or reliable guesses
someone with shrewd commercial judgment
6. opinion: an opinion formed or given after consideration
a snap judgment
7. estimate based on observation: an estimate of something such as speed or distance, made with the help of the eye or some other sense
8. judging of something: the judging of a case or a contest
9. divine punishment: a misfortune regarded as a divine punishment for folly or sin (archaic or humorous)
The defeat was regarded as a judgment from God on the leader's pride.
10. act of making statement: in logic, the mental act of making or understanding a positive or negative proposition about something, e.g. in "a chihuahua is a dog" or "a lobster is not an insect"
[13th century. < Old French jugement < jugier "to judge" < Latin judicare (see judicature)]

Are you suggesting that all is predetermined. Don't you see that reality is emergent?

Why can't we reanimate dead creatures? Why can't we turn rocks into rabbits?

So you don't have plenty of reason to believe?

Suspension is not cessation. If judgment is to make a determination or distinction among things, we may suspend classification until all of the possible data has been collected and analyzed.

Are you going to continue and try to legitimize your mistake by saying that I am the cause?

.
What functions in one environment may not function in another. What is your definition of "works"

 

why cant it?

It grows until it reaches the limits of what can be understood.

You are using faith in a superfluous manner here. Confidence and truth
are already affirmations, as is reason. Reason is not a suspension of judgement and neither is your definition of faith.

"understanding is never complete" sounds like a complete proposition to me. But, like affirmations that are simultaneously the suspension of judgement, it is a self defeating proposition.

It takes a complete understanding OF understanding to claim that it is
never complete.

is that reason subjective or objective?

Why can we not be certain of the hour?

Your not making any points though, you are repeating mine after drawing
distinctions that i already recognize without even speculating on the
function of the argument.

Well, yes and no.

If you see a baseball coming at you, you can avoid getting hit by ducking.

But the the act of choosing to duck or not duck presupposes some form of influence.

Is it true that these things aren't possible?

?

So then what is classification if not showing a distinction among things?

You have my explanation, what about it doesn't sound reasonable? Doesn't
what you think i asserted directly contradict the two statements prior to it?

Work would be "Perform as expected"

 

Damn, Religion debates. luckily i live in the UK where most people see sense. If you're born in the USA you're probably gonna be Christian, Iraq - Muslim, India - Hindu, Israel - Jew. So it's just luck that you were born into the correct religion, HOW LUCKY YOU ARE!! but did you get the right Christianity? do you have to hate gay people even though it says don't hate. It doesn't make sense to me.

One thing though the first bible says do not take any strange Gods in the ten commandments, i would have to be a Jew over a Christian not for the fact that i think Judaism is better (it really isn't) but because i see Jesus and the second bible as a strange God.

A question though for believers, could you honestly spend an eternity in heaven happy knowing that loads of your friends and family are in a burning pit of flames for eternity because to me that is SICK! i don't want to bow down to a person who burns good people for not worshipping (basically saying lick my ass, look at this beautiful world, trees, water, animals, rape, starvation, torture, abuse etc WOW great results for a supreme being)

 

Reality is emergent, new in every moment. Nutrient levels rise and fall. The planets are in motion.

Can you demonstrate a limit of what can be understood?

You are not using a reliable metric. You are evaluating my comments using your own subjective model. I am using the term meaningfully and demonstrating that you have a hysterical view of the word faith.

You are making up rules where none exist. My definition of faith is a common definition, as synonym of confidence or trust. I have demonstrated how we may suspend judgment on the hope of improved understanding.

un·der·stand·ing [ùndər stánding]

1. ability to grasp meaning: the ability to perceive and explain the meaning or the nature of somebody or something.
In this example the ability to perceive the nature of something may be compromised by physical distance and contravening elements, rendering understanding incomplete.
2. knowledge of something: knowledge of a particular subject, area, or situation . Our understanding of particular processes is attained incrementally. We can for instance gain a better understanding of industrial processes thereby improving our understanding.
3. interpretation of something: somebody's interpretation of something, or a belief or opinion based on an interpretation of or inference from something
It was my understanding that the costs would be shared equally, but I didn't know the bill was due immediately, my understanding of the whole situation was incomplete.
4. mutual comprehension: an agreement, often an unofficial or unspoken one
We didn't let Fred know what time to expect us even though he knows we're coming.
5. knowledge of another's nature: a sympathetic, empathetic, or tolerant recognition of somebody else's nature or situation
I don't know you that well my understanding of you is incomplete.

No, it doesn't, all it takes is some understanding. Please try to understand the mind is abstract.

Well there is reason as the ability to engage in orderly thought which is objective only to the extent that the quality of "orderly" is shared.
Then there is reason that is motive or justification for an action which is subjective.
Or there is cause that explains something such as why plants are green which is objective to the extent that it is accurate.

Because each and every moment creates a new set of variables.

The function of your argument is to attempt to uphold the verity of your statements regardless of the facts.

Is this statement supposed to mean something?

Yes.

You say on the one hand you have plenty of reason to believe, then you say confidence and trust have no measure of validity. These are diametrically opposed statements.

If judgment is to make a determination or distinction among things, we may suspend classification until all of the possible data has been collected and analyzed.

So work is as subjective as expectation?

 

I don't buy that, more to give credit where it does not appear to be deserved.

 

Hypothetically speaking, of course, say that you were in heaven - why do you think you would necessarily be aware that your "friends and family" were
burning...." ? Why would you think you would retain the desires, thoughts of this world, if you were present - in another form than flesh - in another place?

 

i don't know the laws of what would happen but then you can be ignorant in Heaven instead, still sounding wrong to my brain, not what I'd class as a Heaven.

 

I remember hearing (a long time ago) a revival preacher say that there would be prostitutes in heaven and preachers in hell...I don't think we'll be ignorant at all...we'll just see justice for what it is and be fine with it. jmo

 

If this is what you said before I didn't get it. I agree that we do not create our own parents.

 

thedope:

How is the death of the body certain?

I am getting beyond the eternal recurrence! Through it. It is only the thought of dying that persuades us that we must affirm death as a means to our own life. We don't pass with our thoughts, eternity is a feeling.

I don't want to be buried in a pet sematary! lol

 

Unless I'm missing something, death happens to all of us--even J.C.

 

So far.

I am the demonstrator of times end in mind.

There's more than meets the eye to transformation!

 

what does it emerge from?

Yes, with your "understanding is never complete" proposal. How can you postulate what understanding is if you didn't understand it?

Well don't be afraid to spell it out. I usually notice things much quicker than this.

If its hope you are affirming then we have no quarrel.

At what point do you know enough to postulate what understanding is? And why is this point seen as a partial understanding and not a complete one?

How can you know that understanding is never complete when your understanding isn't complete?

And what is the boundary between subjective and objective?

Variation is already in variables. Why would you need new ones?

I cannot see that reality is emergent because we are here talking about it.

That we exist indicates a measure of probability.

I never said that, I asked it.

So suspension is implying there is more data.

It can be, unless your speculating about a particular function.

 

If you can tell me what was before the theoretical big bang then we will both know.

I have a measure of understanding.
There is always something more to understand. Even things we think we had understood in time may need to be amended or discarded altogether, as new information presents itself.

You have a prejudicial view of the word "faith"

The word I'm using is faith, which is appropriately synonymous with the word hope. Synonyms for the word hope are:
confidence, expectation, optimism, anticipation, courage, hopefulness, and faith.

There is understanding the noun, and understanding the adjective, and understanding the verb. Further understanding is a function of the mind, related to living tissue immersed in a space time continuum.