LinuxQuestions.org
Welcome to the most active Linux Forum on the web.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 08-05-2013, 03:59 PM   #16
bluegospel
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2010
Distribution: centOS
Posts: 404

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 53

Human life has 2 primary parts--material and immaterial. Your body is material. But what about the part that's immaterial--the aware, sensing part. Everything physical can be tested over and again. But regarding that immaterial you, you have one test.

If you arrive at which you've never seen prepared only by which you've seen, rest assured you will fall. But if you arrive having tested by faith those things you could never see, rest assured you will stand. Don't be blinded by what you see.
 
Old 08-05-2013, 07:03 PM   #17
ntubski
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Distribution: Debian, Arch
Posts: 3,317

Rep: Reputation: 1485Reputation: 1485Reputation: 1485Reputation: 1485Reputation: 1485Reputation: 1485Reputation: 1485Reputation: 1485Reputation: 1485Reputation: 1485
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluegospel View Post
If you arrive at which you've never seen prepared only by which you've seen, rest assured you will fall. But if you arrive having tested by faith those things you could never see, rest assured you will stand.
This just seems needlessly obfuscated. I think it decodes as "if you don't believe then you won't believe, if you do then you will". I guess that's logical...
 
Old 08-05-2013, 07:20 PM   #18
k3lt01
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2011
Location: Australia
Distribution: Debian Wheezy, Jessie, Sid/Experimental, playing with LFS.
Posts: 2,900

Rep: Reputation: 636Reputation: 636Reputation: 636Reputation: 636Reputation: 636Reputation: 636
The problem, as I keep saying, is one side is trying to argue something based on faith (their particular logic if you want to call it that) while the other is trying to argue something based on "scientific evidence" (their particular logic). Unless both sides are willing to consider the othr POV never the twain shall meet because both positions are mutually exclusive. Until both sides start to be inclusive of other opinions threads like this will always go the same way.

I, personally, don't believe every thread that has "religion" in it should be bumped to the megathread. I also don't believe these threads should be started willy nilly either.
 
Old 08-05-2013, 07:33 PM   #19
Philip Lacroix
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2012
Distribution: Slackware, *BSD
Posts: 399

Rep: Reputation: 476Reputation: 476Reputation: 476Reputation: 476Reputation: 476
@bluegospel - Just putting some thoughts together.

I understand your point of view, which is based on the assumption that we - human beings - are made of those two distinct parts. While such a dualistic view might help explaining many aspects of our experience, in my opinion it is an outdated view which can lead very easily to simplistic conclusions and unjustified misconceptions. It is outdated because it was conceived at a time when our knowledge about ourselves and nature in general was much more limited than nowadays, while religious superstition was very strong. It can lead to simplistic conclusions and misconceptions because many people want to be relieved from the pressure of everyday's life, and they're glad when someone tells them that their soul will survive and live forever. I might be OK with that, and tell you that everyone is free to believe in what he feels comfortable with. However, many people are prevented from learning and making full use of their own intelligence, because they fear that something bad might occur to them if they lack faith.

Fear and freedom are not good friends, and the former will easily suppress the latter, especially when someone is exposed to such an out-out early, during childhood. I'm not against religion, I'm just aware that religious beliefs can be a powerful tool available to anyone willing to exploit them for power purposes, and the forma mentis created by a strict religious education can materialize itself into individuals who are intellectually more vulnerable and more prone to be fooled by anything willing to fool them (politicians, marketing, any form of power, any kind of extremism). Returning on-topic, that's why several centuries ago the study of logic was associated with a devilish entity: because it teaches people how to think, something that power often perceives as threatening.

Respectfully,
Philip

Last edited by Philip Lacroix; 08-05-2013 at 08:02 PM.
 
Old 08-06-2013, 05:11 AM   #20
cascade9
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2011
Location: Brisneyland
Distribution: Debian, aptosid
Posts: 3,753

Rep: Reputation: 934Reputation: 934Reputation: 934Reputation: 934Reputation: 934Reputation: 934Reputation: 934Reputation: 934
Quote:
Originally Posted by unSpawn View Post
Maybe this particular thread doesn't warrant it, we'll evaluate that later on, but I'd like to see if LQ members are capable of discussing this showing mutual respect for each others points of view and without playing word games or attacking each other.
*Note contributing beyond this point should mean you are [I]willing to make an effort to understand what the other is trying to say and vice versa.
I believe that it does warrant moving in the the religion mega-thread.

Thees new threads are created by Bluegospel in an effort to evangelise and create exposure to his ideas, as is made clear by various posts on this thread-

http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...r-team-923267/

Maybe another option to rolling into the religion megathread is to let Bluegospel have his own (single) 'Bluegospel evangelises' thread.
 
Old 08-06-2013, 06:03 AM   #21
druuna
LQ Veteran
 
Registered: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,532
Blog Entries: 7

Rep: Reputation: 2390Reputation: 2390Reputation: 2390Reputation: 2390Reputation: 2390Reputation: 2390Reputation: 2390Reputation: 2390Reputation: 2390Reputation: 2390Reputation: 2390
Like cascade9 did, I also reported this thread for merging into the religion mega-thread The Faith & Religion mega Thread not too long after it was created.

Besides cascades9's previous reply (post #20), which seems to be true, bluegospel himself has told us that he posts partially to inflame (his words, not mine: yes, quite often my intent in part is to inflame, but never to sow discord.).

I do wonder how close that is to starting a flame war (which is against the LQ rules). On the other hand: Discussing (lack off) religion seems to go hand in hand with angry, excited and aroused replies on both sides. And most of the times these discussions end in personal attacks and shouting matches.

I'm still holding the opinion that certain topics (religion being one of the top contenders) shouldn't be posted here at LQ at all. But even if I put that opinion aside for the moment I would still advocate to put all religious oriented threads to be merged (not limited to bluegospel's threads). At least this way all the bickering is confined to one place.
 
Old 08-06-2013, 06:48 AM   #22
Arcane
Member
 
Registered: May 2006
Location: Latvia, Europe
Distribution: random
Posts: 303

Rep: Reputation: 250Reputation: 250Reputation: 250
@OP(original poster): How do you know that your 'bible' is superior to other "holy books"? Some time ago there was some islam poster who said 'quran' is superior to 'bible'. What if other religions are true? What if we don't have soul? But i do agree that all this life came from some force above our 'mortal' understanding and this video(see below link) is fake because we messed up world(Earth) not invisible force(s) but WE DID IT OURSELVES - WE created diseases, WE allow nature to suffer, WE don't care about world - WE are at fault we are not living in paradise on Earth not God(s)!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6v83X9-oJ-w
Quote:
Originally Posted by unSpawn View Post
Maybe this particular thread doesn't warrant it, we'll evaluate that later on, but I'd like to see if LQ members are capable of discussing this showing mutual respect for each others points of view and without playing word games or attacking each other.{...}
No it should be merged..at least we would have all this religion vs science warfare in one handy place(thread) to read..but i also suggest that that thread should be sticky so that everyone notices it!

Last edited by Arcane; 08-06-2013 at 06:50 AM. Reason: fixed
 
Old 08-06-2013, 09:33 AM   #23
TB0ne
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: Birmingham, Alabama
Distribution: SuSE, RedHat, Slack,CentOS
Posts: 19,889

Rep: Reputation: 4694Reputation: 4694Reputation: 4694Reputation: 4694Reputation: 4694Reputation: 4694Reputation: 4694Reputation: 4694Reputation: 4694Reputation: 4694Reputation: 4694
Quote:
Originally Posted by druuna View Post
Besides cascades9's previous reply (post #20), which seems to be true, bluegospel himself has told us that he posts partially to inflame (his words, not mine: yes, quite often my intent in part is to inflame, but never to sow discord.).

I do wonder how close that is to starting a flame war (which is against the LQ rules). On the other hand: Discussing (lack off) religion seems to go hand in hand with angry, excited and aroused replies on both sides. And most of the times these discussions end in personal attacks and shouting matches.

I'm still holding the opinion that certain topics (religion being one of the top contenders) shouldn't be posted here at LQ at all. But even if I put that opinion aside for the moment I would still advocate to put all religious oriented threads to be merged (not limited to bluegospel's threads). At least this way all the bickering is confined to one place.
While the topic itself can be one that provokes intense debate, it is the way the OP 'debates' things that makes the threads bad for everyone. When someone tries to debate something, and ignores what everyone else says (no matter the evidence), it's very clear that they're not interested in discussion, but just want to 'testify'...and this isn't the place for it.

But I agree...bluegospel has flat out said he wants to inflame folks. The previous thread he started where he was pointed to the definition of a troll, and his subsequent comments, would lead one to believe that this is one of his main goals. Trolling/flame-wars are against the rules, and despite folks telling him this over and over, he's still here and able to post such things.

By way of small example, you can look at this post from two years ago, where bluegospel asks for someone to tell him what a troll is (because, apparently, he couldn't look it up...and really, isn't asking for a definition of what a troll is pretty troll-like??)
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...ml#post4405014

...and jump forward to a short time ago, where he fakes ignorance ("whatever that is")
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...ml#post4979327

...then ignores part of the definition that he was spoon fed (twice). From the Wikipedia entry:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia Troll Entry
a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
...so he can claim he's NOT a troll, since he only wants to 'inflame'. Of course, he ignores the word OR in the definition, and focuses on the "inflammatory" word alone.

The vast majority of his posts are things like this...they are the rule, rather than the exception. Add that with his behavior and the fact he admits to trolling, and he'd be banned from any other site.

Last edited by TB0ne; 08-06-2013 at 09:35 AM.
 
Old 08-06-2013, 10:07 AM   #24
sundialsvcs
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: SE Tennessee, USA
Distribution: Gentoo, LFS
Posts: 9,064
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 3163Reputation: 3163Reputation: 3163Reputation: 3163Reputation: 3163Reputation: 3163Reputation: 3163Reputation: 3163Reputation: 3163Reputation: 3163Reputation: 3163
Yeah, "a preacher standing on the street-corner, howling words of fire and brimstone." You generally can't succeed in shutting such people up, and I don't mind their talking i-f they have something to say and are willing to listen to other points of view. Trouble is, that's not what such people are ever about.

I personally enjoy "a religious discussion around the water-cooler." But, not a preacher who isn't listening, who is merely a PITA.

I always come back to the latter chapters of the Book of Job (which is not only, probably, the oldest book in the collection, but also a helluva good story). As you know, God calls Job to task for being the smartest kid in school: "Where were you when the foundations of the world were laid?" "Sit down, now, you who have all the answers, and teach Me." (The book has a happy ending; God did not give Job the pillar-of-salt treatment... although I daresay Job spent a full year cleaning his pantaloons.)

And other things: "My thoughts are not your thoughts, My ways are not your ways." (That says a lot: "I'm God, you're Not." He is not human.)

And: "You can't understand The Father. Instead, look at Me in my present form."

"The wisdom of Man is the foolishness of God." (Another very-loaded thought.)

And then, Paul's ever-so pragmatic comments about "causing your brother to stumble" ... that even if you are 'right,' you may be 'wrong.'

This last bit, to me, is what always holds me in check when I think about proselytizing and getting on my hobby-horse. God needs no cheering-section. If He wants to say something, any rock will do if a donkey's not available. He didn't appoint me to beat someone's opinions over the head with a stick. He Himself speaks "with a still small voice" and "a voice of many waters," and if there's something that He wishes to say to His child, He will do so Himself.

I have, in my entire lifetime, only once been impressed with the clear notion that I had a message that I was to convey to someone else. I questioned it, and the impression remained firm. So, I did so in private, and it remains private forever. I first asked, "will you receive it?" and he replied, "yes." It had one slightly-curious element that I really didn't understand, but I could see his eyes widen with recognition at the words. It felt very good to have been asked. I hope that I did the message justice.

Last edited by sundialsvcs; 08-06-2013 at 10:09 AM.
 
Old 08-06-2013, 10:54 AM   #25
TB0ne
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: Birmingham, Alabama
Distribution: SuSE, RedHat, Slack,CentOS
Posts: 19,889

Rep: Reputation: 4694Reputation: 4694Reputation: 4694Reputation: 4694Reputation: 4694Reputation: 4694Reputation: 4694Reputation: 4694Reputation: 4694Reputation: 4694Reputation: 4694
Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs View Post
Yeah, "a preacher standing on the street-corner, howling words of fire and brimstone." You generally can't succeed in shutting such people up, and I don't mind their talking i-f they have something to say and are willing to listen to other points of view. Trouble is, that's not what such people are ever about.

I personally enjoy "a religious discussion around the water-cooler." But, not a preacher who isn't listening, who is merely a PITA.

I always come back to the latter chapters of the Book of Job (which is not only, probably, the oldest book in the collection, but also a helluva good story). As you know, God calls Job to task for being the smartest kid in school: "Where were you when the foundations of the world were laid?" "Sit down, now, you who have all the answers, and teach Me." (The book has a happy ending; God did not give Job the pillar-of-salt treatment... although I daresay Job spent a full year cleaning his pantaloons.)

And other things: "My thoughts are not your thoughts, My ways are not your ways." (That says a lot: "I'm God, you're Not." He is not human.)

And: "You can't understand The Father. Instead, look at Me in my present form."

"The wisdom of Man is the foolishness of God." (Another very-loaded thought.)

And then, Paul's ever-so pragmatic comments about "causing your brother to stumble" ... that even if you are 'right,' you may be 'wrong.'

This last bit, to me, is what always holds me in check when I think about proselytizing and getting on my hobby-horse. God needs no cheering-section. If He wants to say something, any rock will do if a donkey's not available. He didn't appoint me to beat someone's opinions over the head with a stick. He Himself speaks "with a still small voice" and "a voice of many waters," and if there's something that He wishes to say to His child, He will do so Himself.

I have, in my entire lifetime, only once been impressed with the clear notion that I had a message that I was to convey to someone else. I questioned it, and the impression remained firm. So, I did so in private, and it remains private forever. I first asked, "will you receive it?" and he replied, "yes." It had one slightly-curious element that I really didn't understand, but I could see his eyes widen with recognition at the words. It felt very good to have been asked. I hope that I did the message justice.
You did, and summed things up nicely. I agree with what you said totally, but posts like this are in stark contrast to what the OP posts, which are tantamount to troll/flame bait.

Discussions and intelligent debate are always good.
 
Old 08-06-2013, 11:50 AM   #26
DavidMcCann
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2006
Location: London
Distribution: CentOS, Xubuntu
Posts: 4,858

Rep: Reputation: 1597Reputation: 1597Reputation: 1597Reputation: 1597Reputation: 1597Reputation: 1597Reputation: 1597Reputation: 1597Reputation: 1597Reputation: 1597Reputation: 1597
Some random thoughts.

1. The Bible. Which one? Samaritan, Jewish, Protestant, or Catholic/Orthodox? And are the two halves, Jewish and Christian, compatible? How do you square Jesus telling us to love our enemies with Jahweh telling the Israelites to commit genocide?

2. Revelation. As Thomas Reid, a cleric as well as a fine philosopher, said, revelation is meant to supplement reason, not replace it. If God didn't want us to use logic, why do we have it?

3. Multiple revelations. God is infinite, Man is finite. Any revelation is going to exceed the capacity of the recipient. Look for what's common, not for what's peculiar.

4. The scientific method. The essence of the natural sciences is controlled experiment. But one can only experiment on that which may be controlled, hence science can only study what is inferior to man. As another philosopher (Wittgenstein) observed, if all the questions which interest scientists were answered tonight, all those which concern normal people would be unanswered tomorrow.

5. "Many people don't believe in God." Yes, and a minority of the same order of magnitude can't see green, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Truth is not decided by having a vote. My favourite definition of an atheist is "one who cannot conceive that the universe could contain anything superior to themselves." At least that's kinder than Sallust's speculation that inability to perceive God is the consequence of unspeakable wickedness in ones last incarnation!

Last edited by DavidMcCann; 08-07-2013 at 02:52 PM.
 
Old 08-06-2013, 12:08 PM   #27
bluegospel
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2010
Distribution: centOS
Posts: 404

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 53
It's been said here often that I ignore contrary arguments. Yet how often do those folks completely ignore the original post? I think it was Michael Jackson who said, "take a look at yourself," if you want to change something.
 
Old 08-06-2013, 12:20 PM   #28
TB0ne
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: Birmingham, Alabama
Distribution: SuSE, RedHat, Slack,CentOS
Posts: 19,889

Rep: Reputation: 4694Reputation: 4694Reputation: 4694Reputation: 4694Reputation: 4694Reputation: 4694Reputation: 4694Reputation: 4694Reputation: 4694Reputation: 4694Reputation: 4694
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluegospel View Post
It's been said here often that I ignore contrary arguments. Yet how often do those folks completely ignore the original post?
...and this is a PERFECT example right here. To break it down simply, here's how a discussion/debate works:
  • Person one says "Hey, this is what I think, and here's why"
  • Person two (or more) says "Well, I see your point about X, but what about Y?"
  • Person one responds with "Y is proven by Z", OR "Good point...Y can't be proven"
  • ...repeat with more points...
You post things and expect people to just agree with you. When you're questioned, you resort to ignoring questions/points, or using circular logic. You don't participate in a discussion, and your statement here proves that. Go re-read any of the troll-bait threads you've started, and think about how you've answered/ignored things. And here's another tip: responding with a verbatim bible quote is NOT an answer when you can't think of anything else to say.
Quote:
I think it was Michael Jackson who said, "take a look at yourself," if you want to change something.
Michael Jackson really isn't a good role model for anything.

Last edited by TB0ne; 08-06-2013 at 12:21 PM.
 
Old 08-06-2013, 03:17 PM   #29
ntubski
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Distribution: Debian, Arch
Posts: 3,317

Rep: Reputation: 1485Reputation: 1485Reputation: 1485Reputation: 1485Reputation: 1485Reputation: 1485Reputation: 1485Reputation: 1485Reputation: 1485Reputation: 1485
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluegospel View Post
It's been said here often that I ignore contrary arguments. Yet how often do those folks completely ignore the original post?
Your original post was mostly vague generalizations and lacking in specifics (no examples): there isn't much to respond to. Unfortunately, people are filling in the blanks with general thoughts on religion and/or meta-discussion.
 
Old 08-06-2013, 04:59 PM   #30
bluegospel
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2010
Distribution: centOS
Posts: 404

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 53
No two human beings will ever come up with the same answer to every question, even using the best logic. So the human mind cannot be the absolute standard. If there is such a thing as natural law then there has to be a source of absolute standard. The best lesson learned from logic is that mind is the standard, but not human mind because it is prone to error--without exception. So when claims are made that Scripture conveys the mind of God perfectly, and those Scriptures testify a coming judgment of eternal consequence, it would be foolish to take them lightly.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
logic question ShaqDiesel Programming 3 09-12-2012 10:30 AM
LSI Logic / Symbios Logic 53c875 (rev 14) -> HP Storageworks 1/8 G2 gileravxr Linux - Hardware 0 07-21-2009 04:45 AM
org.apache.jasper.JasperException: File "/tags/struts-logic" raghuveervellanki Linux - Newbie 0 10-16-2008 11:58 PM
OpenOffice.org "logic error 2" on startup Eredeath Linux - General 3 08-05-2008 06:50 AM
logic h/w Programming 8 01-02-2004 04:44 PM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:05 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration