Sign In

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda

User Group
Trusted Members
Join date
20-Sep-2006
Last activity
14-Dec-2018
Posts
3737
Web Site
http://www.hardbat.com/puggo

Post History

Post
#1258434
Topic
Religion
Time

RicOlie_2 said:
… ultimately, in order to enter into a loving relationship with him, we have to have faith. If God is God, and he gave us empirical evidence directly demonstrating his existence, we would not have faith and would simply know in a more absolute sense that God will always keep his promises. But that’s not how human relationships work. Because we are not gods, we can fail to keep our promises, and every human relationship therefore requires trust and faith that the other person will not turn their backs on us. God wants us to have that same trust and faith, otherwise there will be a certain coercion involved in following him.

Right, but again, that’s what pretty much every religion says. How do I pick? How do I know which one is right?

Post
#1258006
Topic
Religion
Time

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. 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. 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?

Regarding your second paragraph, I agree with you. However, I don’t think that has anything to do with scientific study of prayer. Studies haven’t shown that the effects of prayer are inconsistent. Rather, science has yet to find any effect whatsoever.

Post
#1257887
Topic
Religion
Time

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.

Post
#1257739
Topic
Religion
Time

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.

Post
#1257670
Topic
Religion
Time

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).

Post
#1257636
Topic
Religion
Time

RicOlie_2 said:

screams in the void said:

unless of course you are a Bhuddist , or myriad other religions or belief systems who have a different point of view

In which case you don’t believe in eternal salvation, so it’s a moot point. I happen to believe in it, and so by definition, I reject the alternative point of view as false.

Basically, you think it is ok to endanger people because your religion is better than their’s. YOU are the vessel of ultimate truth.

Post
#1252897
Topic
Doctor Who
Time

Just got around to watching the 2nd episode. These are great little stories - I hope they keep up like this! This one was much easier to watch than the first one because it wasn’t flooded with ads and cutaways. Love the theme music and visuals that go along with it.

Nitpicking… I wish there was less emphasis on the Sonic screwdriver. But then, that is a carryover from all of the modern-era episodes.

I still dislike the color palette - or lack thereof. All that orange is driving me crazy. The lack of natural color, especially whites and blues (and actual greens and reds) makes everything look small and scrunched. Hard for me to imagine how multiple people can look at this and not immediately see that the colors are worse than on the 1970s episodes on VHS. There is no discernible reason for this, because most of the other modern-era Who episodes had great, rich color.

I still have no idea what the Tardis looks like, but I’m assuming that will become more clear in the next episode. Well, other than that it is almost entirely orange (like the rest of the show).

Post
#1249239
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

My college puts out a Faculty reference guide every year, so that community and media can find an expert from the University on whatever timely topic they want to report on and need an expert opinion. Apparently she was listed in a similar reference at her university, as being specifically a native american minority. It sounds like I would have as much claim to this as she (as would probably half of us on this forum), and I’d be embarrassed if I were listed as such.

Post
#1248977
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

TV’s Frink said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

TV’s Frink said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

TV’s Frink said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

The fact that she is digging in her heels over this has caused her to lose my vote. And seeing left-leaning media outlets still defending her on this is equally disturbing. Actual native Americans must be rolling their eyes.

Which vote of yours did she lose?

Assuming she runs for president, that one.

So the primary? Or the general?

I am hopeful that the dems will come up with some decent alternatives, so I was thinking of the primary. As for the general - if it’s her versus the Donald, then I guess I’d have to admit that I’d have to vote for her. But wouldn’t it be nice if the dems could find someone that people didn’t have to reluctantly vote for - as was the case for many people who voted for Hillary Clinton?

We can only vote for the choices we are given. Forget Trump, would you really vote for someone like Paul Ryan over her?

Hmm, you’re not making this easy. Time might temper my views. We’ll see what plays out going forwards, and whether this is an isolated thing. At this moment I find it embarrassing and wrong.

Not that they are necessarily related, but in Rachel Dolezal’s case, it appears to have been a part of a much larger pattern of fraudulent behaviors.

On the flip side, there was a famous singer for Duke Ellington named Herb Jeffries who was white, but passed as black and claimed to be one-half black. He even accepted movie roles in westerns as the “bronze buckaroo”. I played in a backup band for him in one festival about 25 years ago - really nice guy, and later in life he admitted that he was 100% white.