Gyroscopic Investing

[deleted]

1NV35T0R (Greg) wrote: I still think you're looking at love incorrectly for God, and that God has plans that we can't comprehend. It'd be like explaining living in the 3rd dimension to Pac-Man (2D-Pac-Man that is). It'd just be too much to process. Did God need to sacrifice his son to save his creation?

In my eyes, I wouldn't think he would have to and could have made an easier way, but that'd be to question God's plans, and he's infinity more intelligent than me.

If we can't comprehend it, that's fine. But then it's inappropriate to use human terms to try to describe it. If Pac-Man claimed that his player loved him, wouldn't that be weird? The player neither loves nor hates Pac-Man; the player briefly uses Pac-Man for his own entertainment purposes. Pac-Man could never understand it; he lives in a world of hunger and survival. Similarly, it makes no sense to me to read the Bible and say, "Oh hey, this God loves me!" The God spelled out on the pages clearly has some plans for me and my kind and my species, that much is obvious. And the motives behind that plan are hidden, yes. So why not admit the uncertainty? If God has plans that we can't comprehend, why pretend we're 100% positive that he loves us, or about any other aspect of his nature? A God of mystery is incompatible with a God so comprehensible that we can understand what he wants from us. It's one or there other.

InsuranceGuy wrote: Another first time poster here, so bear with me.  I can't believe I have read most of this thread over the last week or so...

Anyways, Mountaineer why do you feel the need to logically convince yourself or others of the truthfullness of Christianity?  Why not just encourage prayer to ask God?

I'll admit I am also Christian, but my own intuition takes me so far.  No amount of logic could convince me that religion is true.  It takes God answering my prayers and personal revelation to fully convert me by unveiling facts beyond my own abilities.

Welcome, InsuranceGuy! What you say makes so much sense to me. I can totally wrap my mind around it. You have had personal, revelatory experiences that bypass logic and exceed reason. You understand that is is inappropriate to try to apply these things to something as personal and emotional as spirituality. If I may be so bold, I suspect you may even, if pressed, admit that the glaring, obvious contradictions in the Bible are the result of man's failing to correctly communicate God's grace and glory. All that would make perfect sense to me! Because yeah, I'm with you: you can't try to convince people logically of something that makes no logical sense.

[deleted]

InsuranceGuy wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: I'm still waiting for a "better case" than Christianity to be presented that will explain past and current events, why man is the way he is, the source of all, and give a hopeful view of where the "better case" adherents go after death... people have been trying for 2000 years to pick Christianity apart and yet it has indisputably survived...

Another first time poster here, so bear with me.  I can't believe I have read most of this thread over the last week or so...

Anyways, Mountaineer why do you feel the need to logically convince yourself or others of the truthfullness of Christianity?  Why not just encourage prayer to ask God?

I'll admit I am also Christian, but my own intuition takes me so far.  No amount of logic could convince me that religion is true.  It takes God answering my prayers and personal revelation to fully convert me by unveiling facts beyond my own abilities.

InsuranceGuy, welcome to the forum - WARNING - it can be a time consuming activity.   

Re. your comments:

If you would care to share, I think you may have an interesting and fresh perspective - you said you just read through this entire thread recently (impressive!), what other key learnings or observations do you have? 

Need to logically convince:  I guess I've not been clear (very possible).  I do not feel that need, I support your view of the value of revealed knowledge and prayer.

No amount of logic:  I agree.  I do think the "evidence" for Christianity is helpful and that evidence is very substantial if one is reasonably objective, but logical proof, in my opinion, has rarely been successful in opening ones ears to hear God's call.  The revealed Word is important (baptism, Lord's Supper, proclaimed Word, Scripture).  Faith comes by hearing - Romans 10 - it is all God's work, it is all God's gift.  The realm of God and his methods are beyond rational understanding.  It is that hidden side of God that we sinful creatures want to understand (or avoid and then desire to become our own God) - and every time we try, God reminds us that he is the Creator, we are the creatures.

Again, a very warm welcome.

... Mountaineer

Sad indeed.  An illustration that EVERY one of us is a sinner in need of a Savior.

... Mountaineer

https://medium.com/@levinunnink/a-luthe ... f215695f63

The news broke yesterday that Tullian Tchividjian was resigning as pastor of Coral Ridge because of adultery. I’m very sad to hear this. The repercussions will be far-reaching and long lasting for him, his family, and his flock. Now is not the time to gloat or point fingers. We are all equally condemned in sin and but for the grace of God, we would all be lost. The small silver lining to this sad story is that everyone appears to be doing the proper thing at the moment: the elders notifying the congregation, Tullian resigning from ministry, etc. It’s not my place to comment much further on that. However, I do have a few tangental thoughts on this.........

TennPaGa wrote: Sorry for the delay in getting back to this.

I admit my own ignorance at Christian doctrine.  While I was raised Catholic (church and Sunday school every week until I went away to college), I've never actually read the Bible.  But what I bolded from your response jives with the general message of Jesus as I understand it.

However, I was referring more to the flavor of the discussion in this thread.  The thing I get from this thread, and particularly Mountaineer, is how much people have read and studied and studied and read and made connections from this book to that book and understand exactly how everything works.  My interpretation of the Christian-centric posts in this thread is that it takes a high degree of intelligence to really understand.  I see in the post just above mine that Mountaineer says he has no need to be logically convinced.  Yet, I would claim that, at least to non-believers (and even to believers... see InsuranceGuy's post), that this (i.e. the need to be logically convinced) is exactly how it comes across (sorry Mountaineer).

So, again, my sister-in-law is simply not capable of understanding any of this on such a level.  She probably really likes Joel Osteen, for all I know.  But as I said, her faith is important to her, and I just can't see what good any of the conversations here would do her.  It just seems to me that you all would say that she just isn't doing it right.  Maybe you guys wouldn't say this to her were you to actually meet her.  But then I wonder why not.

I think there needs to be a degree of being logically convinced of the religion you believe. Without it for an emotionally convinced person of their religion, as soon as you start trying to poke the bear/poke holes in it, that's when they can recoil in anger or have their spiritual selves be damaged. The good olde' building your house on sand. Once that sand washes away at the slightest amount of rain, your house crumbles and that's no good.

You want at least some logic/rocks in your foundation, rather than just saying it feels right to you.

Pointedstick wrote: By presupposing that these questions even have answers, you are setting yourself up to discount all points of view and even religions that do not purport to answer them. If these questions are unanswerable, then people who claim to have answered them are fooling themselves.

Riffing on Desert, +1.3141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816406286.

InsuranceGuy wrote: Sometimes I wish it were easy to logically prove God's existence and that He has a plan for us, but that would deny us of a learning opportunity in faith.  It would be like giving us a test with the answer key, we would do better on the test but learn nothing in the process.

Faith is anathema to reason.  All that faith requires is to suspend disbelief.  But doing so doesn't make the faith any more objectively real than it was before the suspension.  After all, a new belief of suspended disbelief is merely a new meme in your mind.

MachineGhost wrote:

InsuranceGuy wrote: Sometimes I wish it were easy to logically prove God's existence and that He has a plan for us, but that would deny us of a learning opportunity in faith.  It would be like giving us a test with the answer key, we would do better on the test but learn nothing in the process.

Faith is anathema to reason.  All that faith requires is to suspend disbelief.  But doing so doesn't make the faith any more objectively real than it was before the suspension.  After all, a new belief of disbelief is merely a new meme in your mind.

Yes.  The mere fact that we are being asked to have faith makes the "test" analogy null and void.  I take tests, and based on evidence I've acquired and tried to remember, I answer the questions.  If I have to answer the questions on pure faith, I'm not learning anything.  I'm just guessing.  To the degree that I have an inkling or knowledge with which to answer the questions, that is not faith, but instead evidence or knowledge.

Further, even if we could maybe work our way through religious knowledge via faith, it sure is an unreliable method considering the massive consequences of getting it wrong.  Pick Allah instead of Jesus, or vice versa?  You're spending an eternity in hell.  It'd be one thing figuring out the "mystery" via faith landed you in heaven, but getting it wrong made your soul simply disappear, but that's not how it works.

1NV35T0R (Greg) wrote: I think there needs to be a degree of being logically convinced of the religion you believe. Without it for an emotionally convinced person of their religion, as soon as you start trying to poke the bear/poke holes in it, that's when they can recoil in anger or have their spiritual selves be damaged. The good olde' building your house on sand. Once that sand washes away at the slightest amount of rain, your house crumbles and that's no good.

You want at least some logic/rocks in your foundation, rather than just saying it feels right to you.

"I think there needs to be a degree of being logically convinced of the religion you believe."

You are assuming that is how "people of faith" or spiritual or whatever you want to call it people feel because you are not one and can't imagine them being any other way.

You can't damage their "spiritual self" and they may or may not get annoyed/angry. 

What if there are other possibilities (not in your philosophy to paraphrase Shakespeare) other than intellectually and emotionally convinced? 

TennPaGa wrote:

MachineGhost wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: By presupposing that these questions even have answers, you are setting yourself up to discount all points of view and even religions that do not purport to answer them. If these questions are unanswerable, then people who claim to have answered them are fooling themselves.

Riffing on Desert, +1.3141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816406286.

That's irrational.

That seems to be quite a derivative statement.

... Mountaineer

TennPaGa wrote:

Desert wrote:

TennPaGa wrote: Jumping in here as well with a number of scattered comments...

* I place myself in the exact camp as PS and barrett and probably many others here: I simply don't know why I'm here, or why people are the way they are.  These are, to me, questions that are impossible to answer using logic.
* I am troubled on some level by the implicit requirement that a person need to be of high intelligence to be a good Christian.  My 39 y/o sister-in-law has an IQ of probably 60 at best, and simply lacks the capacity to understand much of life beyond a very basic level.  That said, she goes to church every week, and it seems to me that her faith is extremely important to her.  However, she is simply incapable of reading and understanding the Bible to the level that you have done.  So she might very well be going to hell by your standards.  I also think she would simply be crushed if she were told this.  And I think it would be cruel for someone to try to convince her that she needs to change her beliefs to avoid going to hell.

TN, the portion of your post I highlighted in blue above was very troubling to me.  Sorry if someone else has already answered this sufficiently ... but I see NO requirement in Christianity for a high intelligence level.  In fact, from what I've read and learned about the Bible, I think the real obstacles are quite the opposite. Jesus said it is very difficult for the rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. God came to save people who need a savior; the ones in danger, as I understand it, are the ones that have it all figured out, like the rich young ruler in the NT.  Jesus made it a point to reach out to the needy, the children, the lame, the sick, the women (including prostitutes), the tax collectors; the folks the rest of society would rather not be bothered with.  Your Sister in law's faith is likely more perfect than any of us posting on this board, in my opinion.

Sorry for the delay in getting back to this.

I admit my own ignorance at Christian doctrine.  While I was raised Catholic (church and Sunday school every week until I went away to college), I've never actually read the Bible.  But what I bolded from your response jives with the general message of Jesus as I understand it.

However, I was referring more to the flavor of the discussion in this thread.  The thing I get from this thread, and particularly Mountaineer, is how much people have read and studied and studied and read and made connections from this book to that book and understand exactly how everything works.  My interpretation of the Christian-centric posts in this thread is that it takes a high degree of intelligence to really understand.  I see in the post just above mine that Mountaineer says he has no need to be logically convinced.  Yet, I would claim that, at least to non-believers (and even to believers... see InsuranceGuy's post), that this (i.e. the need to be logically convinced) is exactly how it comes across (sorry Mountaineer).

So, again, my sister-in-law is simply not capable of understanding any of this on such a level.  She probably really likes Joel Osteen, for all I know.  But as I said, her faith is important to her, and I just can't see what good any of the conversations here would do her.  It just seems to me that you all would say that she just isn't doing it right.  Maybe you guys wouldn't say this to her were you to actually meet her.  But then I wonder why not.

I certainly cannot speak for anyone else, but I would NEVER say that (but I am a sinner and not perfect so on second thought, I guess I could, even if unintentionally).  Who am I to say what God can do?  I am the creature and he is the Creator.  I would say that I believe Christianity is simple enough for a child to understand, and complex enough for one to spend an entire lifetime studying and still not completely understand all the nuances.  The good news is that a high level of understanding is not required for salvation - only belief in the promises.  Kids get it, it is the intellengensia that have the most difficulty.

... Mountaineer 

Mountaineer wrote: Kids get it, it is the intellengensia that have the most difficulty.

Kids also believe in fairy tales, goblins, monsters, fairies, elves, Santa Claus, aliens, etc.  Does the act of believing make them real?  Rhetorical question.

Mountaineer,

You keep saying, "I'm a sinner and I'm not perfect," or often something like that.  But insofar as you believe that you KNOW you are a sinner, because you KNOW there is a God and KNOW that he thinks you have done wrong, you are PERFECT in your ability to interpret the reality of God's presence if not his will.

It's in this ability that I think you are perhaps guilty of what you accuse non-believers of... having un-stated axioms that you are operating on that you might not even be consciously aware of.

And that axiom, for you, is that you are senses are PERFECT in their ability to interpret God's presence and certain pretty profound realities of our existence, history, what he wants from us, etc.  You are stating that there is ZERO chance of error on your part in that sense.

So perhaps you aren't "not perfect" because you are a sinner... perhaps you are not perfect because, like all of us, you can only rely on your senses, including some sense of revelation, to determine reality, and those senses could be wrong, including whether there is a God, whether Jesus was his son, and what he wants from us.  And to the degree you are imperfect in that area, and believe yourself to be perfect, perhaps that's a sign of an even deeper imperfection in your ability to understand reality.

Does that make any sense?  It does to me, but also sounds kind of funny as I type it.

MachineGhost wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: Kids get it, it is the intellengensia that have the most difficulty.

Kids also believe in fairy tales, goblins, monsters, fairies, elves, Santa Claus, aliens, etc.  Does the act of believing make them real?  Rhetorical question.

Woah.  I didn't even see that statement.  I think we can close this thread on the "kid's get it, it's people who are trained to think who are screwing it up" argument.

And not ALL kids "get it."  Millions of Muslim kids don't "get it."  Millions of little Chinese kids don't "get it." 

moda0306 wrote: Mountaineer,

You keep saying, "I'm a sinner and I'm not perfect," or often something like that.  But insofar as you believe that you KNOW you are a sinner, because you KNOW there is a God and KNOW that he thinks you have done wrong, you are PERFECT in your ability to interpret the reality of God's presence if not his will.

It's in this ability that I think you are perhaps guilty of what you accuse non-believers of... having un-stated axioms that you are operating on that you might not even be consciously aware of.

And that axiom, for you, is that you are senses are PERFECT in their ability to interpret God's presence and certain pretty profound realities of our existence, history, what he wants from us, etc.  You are stating that there is ZERO chance of error on your part in that sense.

So perhaps you aren't "not perfect" because you are a sinner... perhaps you are not perfect because, like all of us, you can only rely on your senses, including some sense of revelation, to determine reality, and those senses could be wrong, including whether there is a God, whether Jesus was his son, and what he wants from us.  And to the degree you are imperfect in that area, and believe yourself to be perfect, perhaps that's a sign of an even deeper imperfection in your ability to understand reality.

Does that make any sense?  It does to me, but also sounds kind of funny as I type it.

It does, actually make sense.  I hear you saying that I have faith .... and I do .... and it is a gift from God, the perfect one.  Prove me worng (that is on porpoise).  QED. 

... Mountaineer

moda0306 wrote:

MachineGhost wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: Kids get it, it is the intellengensia that have the most difficulty.

Kids also believe in fairy tales, goblins, monsters, fairies, elves, Santa Claus, aliens, etc.  Does the act of believing make them real?  Rhetorical question.

Woah.  I didn't even see that statement.  I think we can close this thread on the "kid's get it, it's people who are trained to think who are screwing it up" argument.

And not ALL kids "get it."  Millions of Muslim kids don't "get it."  Millions of little Chinese kids don't "get it."

Just the ones who have ears to hear, and have heard.  But I might be wrong.  This whole thread and you guys keep recyling to the same old, same old, taking things out of context and bending statements to fit your "presuppositions", just like me.  Only my presuppositions are the correct ones. 

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer wrote: It does, actually make sense.  I hear you saying that I have faith .... and I do .... and it is a gift from God, the perfect one.  Prove me worng (that is on porpoise).  QED. 

Should we start a "Moda Deprograms Mountaineer of Christianity" thread? 

MachineGhost wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: It does, actually make sense.  I hear you saying that I have faith .... and I do .... and it is a gift from God, the perfect one.  Prove me worng (that is on porpoise).  QED. 

Should we start a "Moda Deprograms Mountaineer of Christianity" thread? 

That actually gave me a belly laugh!  I love this forum. 

... Mountaineer

MachineGhost wrote: Should we start a "Moda Deprograms Mountaineer of Christianity" thread? 

Haven't you all figured out by now that Mountaineer's brain is an impenetrable fortress and you might as well beat your head against a wall?

Mountaineer wrote:

moda0306 wrote: Mountaineer,

You keep saying, "I'm a sinner and I'm not perfect," or often something like that.  But insofar as you believe that you KNOW you are a sinner, because you KNOW there is a God and KNOW that he thinks you have done wrong, you are PERFECT in your ability to interpret the reality of God's presence if not his will.

It's in this ability that I think you are perhaps guilty of what you accuse non-believers of... having un-stated axioms that you are operating on that you might not even be consciously aware of.

And that axiom, for you, is that you are senses are PERFECT in their ability to interpret God's presence and certain pretty profound realities of our existence, history, what he wants from us, etc.  You are stating that there is ZERO chance of error on your part in that sense.

So perhaps you aren't "not perfect" because you are a sinner... perhaps you are not perfect because, like all of us, you can only rely on your senses, including some sense of revelation, to determine reality, and those senses could be wrong, including whether there is a God, whether Jesus was his son, and what he wants from us.  And to the degree you are imperfect in that area, and believe yourself to be perfect, perhaps that's a sign of an even deeper imperfection in your ability to understand reality.

Does that make any sense?  It does to me, but also sounds kind of funny as I type it.

It does, actually make sense.  I hear you saying that I have faith .... and I do .... and it is a gift from God, the perfect one.  Prove me worng (that is on porpoise).  QED. 

... Mountaineer

I can't prove you wrong.  You could be right.  It's the fact that you seem to KNOW that you're right with no evidence that makes me even more skeptical than I normally would be about Christianity and faith.

moda0306 wrote: I can't prove you wrong.  You could be right.  It's the fact that you seem to KNOW that you're right with no evidence that makes me even more skeptical than I normally would be about Christianity and faith.

Christian apologists have ALL the answers, don't you know? Their beliefs are perfectly logical and beyond any possibility of doubt. If you don't believe it is only because you don't understand or else you refuse to believe because you are a stubborn sinner who resists the truth because your very heart is evil and rejects the light of true understanding.

No other explanation is possible.

madbean2 wrote:

moda0306 wrote: I can't prove you wrong.  You could be right.  It's the fact that you seem to KNOW that you're right with no evidence that makes me even more skeptical than I normally would be about Christianity and faith.

Christian apologists have ALL the answers, don't you know? Their beliefs are perfectly logical and beyond any possibility of doubt. If you don't believe it is only because you don't understand or else you refuse to believe because you are a stubborn sinner who resists the truth because his very heart is evil.

I told you there was always hope!  I knew you would see the light.  You are being assimilated and don't even know it.  Just ask me.  I'm right, ...... except when I'm not.    But on a more serious note, the heart IS evil and naturally resists God, even mine.  You don't need to worry about whether or not I'm telling the truth, that is irrevelant for you and your fate, if I'm wrong in what I portray to you from Scripture, that only has consequences for me ... just worry about the Word of the one who counts.

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer wrote:

moda0306 wrote:

MachineGhost wrote: Kids also believe in fairy tales, goblins, monsters, fairies, elves, Santa Claus, aliens, etc.  Does the act of believing make them real?  Rhetorical question.

Woah.  I didn't even see that statement.  I think we can close this thread on the "kid's get it, it's people who are trained to think who are screwing it up" argument.

And not ALL kids "get it."  Millions of Muslim kids don't "get it."  Millions of little Chinese kids don't "get it."

Just the ones who have ears to hear, and have heard.  But I might be wrong.  This whole thread and you guys keep recyling to the same old, same old, taking things out of context and bending statements to fit your "presuppositions", just like me.  Only my presuppositions are the correct ones. 

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer,

Perhaps I'm taking something out of context with regards to your presuppositions that God is real due to your experience of revelation.  Please clarify that for me. 

With regards to kids who "have ears to hear and have heard," are you saying that if the Gospel were read to every Muslim child at one point in their lives, all of them, or some majority of them would convert?  If not, your assertion is false.  Unless there's some defining we have yet to do, effectively.

What do you think my presuppositions are?  As far as I can tell, I tend to sense what I deem to be reality, and only trust other people's statements about reality when they have either deductively proven or inductively lent heavy weight towards.  There are a few presuppositions in there, but these are almost impossible to not observe, including in any religion to some degree.  Anything that hasn't been lent high probability, or even modest probability, I tend to file under "not very likely to be true."

I don't know if it got reconciled, but you said that your FAITH comes from objective evidence, which is a contradiction in and of itself, but even if it wasn't, you've failed to provide any so-called objective evidence that anyone here seems to have accepted, and then followed that up with the fact that "you don't expect people to be persuaded by that evidence" on this forum, or something like that, which makes no sense if you really think you have "objective evidence."

So I think someone is recycle some stuff, but I really don't think it's me.

Please clarify where I'm missing the boat on this stuff.