Sign In

DuracellEnergizer

User Group
Trusted Members
Join date
30-May-2010
Last activity
13-Dec-2018
Posts
23492

Post History

Post
#1258455
Topic
Episode IX - Discussion * <strong><em>SPOILER THREAD</em></strong> *
Time

dgraham414 said:

https://www.starwarsnewsnet.com/2018/12/episode-ix-rumors-timeline.html

I hope this isn’t true. Specifically the idea that Rey would just put the Skywalker lightsaber back together… it just seems like a cop out to the toxic side of the fandom.

Also Kylo just reconstructing his helmet. It’s just moving the story backwards instead of forwards…

Thoughts?

Needs more nerfbell.

Post
#1258361
Topic
Religion
Time

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Thanks - I have two questions about “process theology”

  1. is it a religion? (the Wikipedia page isn’t clear)
  2. how does a Christian-based God lure someone towards a relationship when the person comes from a place or culture for which they are not exposed to anything about Christ?
  1. No. It’s a theology inspired by Alfred North Whitehead’s process philosophy. It appears to be mainly held by a minority of Christians (mostly of the liberal and progressive persuasion), but I think it can be compatible with any religion.
  2. Thing is, I don’t believe God is exclusively Christian. I identify as Christian because the imagery and language resonate with me, but I believe God is pluralistic.
Post
#1258331
Topic
Religion
Time

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

I would count as tangible something that is measurable and repeatable under controlled conditions. I cannot understand why a benevolent god would be so cruel as to deny that, while requiring our belief, as a prerequisite to salvation.

Personally, I subscribe to process theology. At the heart of process thought is the belief that God is love; not merely loving, but love itself. Love entails freedom — freedom of thought, freedom of choice, freedom of action; God cannot — not “will not”, but “CANnot” — do anything that would limit or deny us that freedom. God can lure us towards a relationship with Them, lure us to follow Their will, but cannot coerce us. IMO, for God to provide us with measurable, repeatable evidence for Their existence would be a form of coercion; with such evidence, we would have no choice but to believe.

Also, because I believe God is love, our belief in Them isn’t required; the only prerequisite to salvation is good thoughts, good words, and good deeds. It’s not a doctrine found in mainstream Christianity, but I’m not a mainstream Christian.

Post
#1258182
Topic
Religion
Time

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Ok, thanks for pointing out the clarification, and sorry for directing my comment specifically to you. I’ll change my “YOU” to point towards a larger swath of zealous missionaries, you specifically not necessarily included. (although some of your other posts do seem to fit the 2nd sentence - that is, being the lucky bearer of ultimate truth).

Thanks, and apologies, as I realize some of my posts were unclear. And I do in fact believe I am the (very) fortunate bearer of ultimate truth…I wouldn’t be Christian if I didn’t.

BTW, this is exactly why science is not a religion. Scientists do not claim to know the truth; they only argue what they believe to be the current best explanations for things, given the limitations of available measurement technology. Being proven wrong is how science advances. By contrast, religion claims absolutely to know the truth (sometimes in spite of measurements and scientific reasoning), and those truths are immutable - like axioms in a mathematical system.

Certainly, but we don’t claim to know the truth about absolutely everything either. Out of curiosity, what scientific reasoning and measurements do you think contradict Christianity (and specifically Catholicism)?

Well, for one, the power of prayer. Scientific studies have repeatedly failed to find any evidence that prayer has any effect whatsoever, while Christianity (and other religions) insist that it does.

I’m curious to know what they looked at specifically in those studies. In Catholicism, we believe a number of things about prayer that may not have been taken into account: (1) prayer is primarily about conforming one’s will to God’s will, not about obtaining favours, (2) intercessory prayer is more effective when one has conformed oneself to God’s will (because one is not praying for something that contradicts God’s will), and (3) that means that if someone decides to pray to God all of a sudden because they need help, God might not answer that prayer because they aren’t really asking because they have faith in a friend, but because they want to avoid pain and suffering.

That being said, I’m not sure I can refute that argument. I will say, however, that if we think of the way a human parent might seem inconsistent to a child, it can be easy to see why God might seem inconsistent from a limited human perspective. For instance, a kid might ask their mom if they can have a friend over on a certain day, and the mother might say no (for example, because she won’t be home and doesn’t feel comfortable leaving another person’s kid with their babysitter), despite having encouraged the kid to be more social and invite friends over more often. It seems inconsistent to the child, but perfectly reasonable from the point of view of the mother.

Regarding your first paragraph, I don’t think that any of that is measurable, so science would have nothing to say about it. That’s convenient – by always couching things in ways that aren’t measurable, religion is thus able to demand faith.

There you go again, painting religion with a broad brush. My personal religion doesn’t “demand” faith; it suggests it as a useful framework through which view the world.

And what do you mean by “faith”, anyway? I define faith as “hope for/trust in something in the face of incomplete (or even imperfect) evidence”. We all practice that to some extent or another. Or are you going with the reductive irreligious definition — “belief without evidence”? In my experience, non-fundamentalist religion outright dismisses such blind faith as valid.

And this is why I have a hard time understanding how anyone would go about choosing from amongst the hundreds of religions – all of them require faith, and none of them offer anything tangible on which to give confidence in that faith.

What counts as “tangible”? Subjective experience? Plenty of believers in whatever religion have those, and I’m certain they’re tangible to whomever experiences them, but I’m sure you don’t find their reports credible. Something objective, then? Hard, physical, scientific/historical evidence for the existence of certain supernatural/religious figures/events? You wouldn’t have need for faith, then; you’d have certainty.

FWIW, I don’t believe hard evidence for God/gods/higher power is forthcoming or will ever be forthcoming. All we’ll ever have is subjective experience and faith, and we’ll have to weigh them in tandem with logic/reason to come to our own individual conclusions.

Thus most people follow the religion in which their parents raised them, or whichever religion they happen to be exposed to. Isn’t that odd, given that God is supposedly everywhere, one of the religions is supposed to be correct, and yet religions are so localized?

All the more reason to finally ditch exclusivism/absolutism and seriously entertain omnism as a valid metaphysical worldview.

Post
#1258175
Topic
your thoughts: Did Disney kill star wars because it sounds like they did with the last jedi solo and resistance.
Time

DominicCobb said:

This thread is consistently the worst so I don’t really want to muck it up more but I have to say RogueLeader is maybe the only reasonable person to have ever posted on this site.

Either RogueLeader is DominicCobb sock confirmed or you’re practicing self-deprecation. Either way, I approve.

Post
#1258003
Topic
your thoughts: Did Disney kill star wars because it sounds like they did with the last jedi solo and resistance.
Time

Shopping Maul said:

You know how folks say we should never have put man on the moon, because that’s the bar that everything gets judged against? Well it’s the the same with Star Wars because we had The Empire Strikes Back. If not for Empire we might find Ewoks and Midichlorians and ‘Greedo shot first’ and the conga-line of cantinas/Death Stars much easier to bear.

Probably. SW '77 on its own is essentially a live-action version of an animated Disney classic — impressive on a technical level, with likable characters, but there’s not much substance to it. All the non-TESB spinoffs are equivalent to the direct-to-video sequels — mediocre-to-poor, but easily ignorable.

Post
#1257747
Topic
Religion
Time

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

religion claims absolutely to know the truth (sometimes in spite of measurements and scientific reasoning), and those truths are immutable - like axioms in a mathematical system.

The Abrahamic religions’ conservative/fundamentalist strains, perhaps, but not their liberal/progressive/reform strains. And I don’t believe this has ever been true for the eastern religions. I mean, would the parable of the blind men and the elephant ever find its way into belief systems claiming absolute truth?

Post
#1257709
Topic
Religion
Time

RicOlie_2 said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

RicOlie_2 said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Because eternal salvation is a lot more important than 80-or-so years on earth.

This mindset is why traditional Christianity is distasteful to me. It places evangelism over compassion for your fellow man, and it paints God as an asshole; the former is dehumanizing, the latter frankly blasphemous.

I understand where you’re coming from, but why is life more important than knowing truth? Not that all possible precautions shouldn’t be taken to prevent the loss of life before spreading the truth. Christianity rejects the modern premise that truth is either unknowable or unimportant, and because Christians believe truth to be inextricably tied to eternal life, knowing and living (or dying) according to the truth is the greatest good. And consequently, a short life with knowledge of the truth is better than a long life in ignorance of it.

I also reject the premise that truth is unknowable/unimportant. Difference between our perspectives, though, is that I believe spiritual truth can be discerned intuitively, and one doesn’t need to belong to any particular religion to discern it.

I believe that to some extent (natural law, and all that), but I don’t know if I would call it “spiritual truth.” What exactly do you mean by that, if I may ask?

It’s an umbrella term I use to encompass attributes of the divine, existence’s relationship with the divine, existence’s relationship with itself, moral values, etc.

Post
#1257496
Topic
Religion
Time

RicOlie_2 said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Because eternal salvation is a lot more important than 80-or-so years on earth.

This mindset is why traditional Christianity is distasteful to me. It places evangelism over compassion for your fellow man, and it paints God as an asshole; the former is dehumanizing, the latter frankly blasphemous.

I understand where you’re coming from, but why is life more important than knowing truth? Not that all possible precautions shouldn’t be taken to prevent the loss of life before spreading the truth. Christianity rejects the modern premise that truth is either unknowable or unimportant, and because Christians believe truth to be inextricably tied to eternal life, knowing and living (or dying) according to the truth is the greatest good. And consequently, a short life with knowledge of the truth is better than a long life in ignorance of it.

I also reject the premise that truth is unknowable/unimportant. Difference between our perspectives, though, is that I believe spiritual truth can be discerned intuitively, and one doesn’t need to belong to any particular religion to discern it.

It is quite possible, however, that because these people have never known about God, they could never reject him, and wouldn’t condemn themselves to hell because of it, but that’s a risk that many Christians wouldn’t want to take. Not to mention that one’s capacity for happiness in heaven is dependent on the way one increases that capacity by growing in one’s relationship with God on earth.

I believe in universal reconciliation, so this perspective just comes off as deficient to me.