Shopping & Style0 min ago
My God, My God, why have you forsaken me ?
179 Answers
Words from the cross by Christ. Can I add a tilt to them. They are supposed to be a fulfillment of the OT, but what if, when Christ uttered them from the cross, that they were more than that and utterly true, i.e. God the Father had momentarily forsaken his son ? Imagine for a moment that Christ in hanging there did indeed take all the badness of all time on his shoulders ? Can you imagine a pain any worse and a love any higher ? Just a thought, but by heck it sticks with me.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mfewell. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
blinky blinky, your premise there is excellent, but be careful with the conclusions. What you say about reason and knowledge may well be true (i think it possibly is true, that is my 'hope'), the vision bit is kind of true, although it doesn't matter....they're just shapes and colors. Vision actually works on a 'belief' system, looking for 'suspicious coincidences', and it only needs to build up a world in our heads to interact with, not to teach us absolute truths. However, because of the type of brains we have, we can carry out inductive and deductive reasoning that is NOT as subjective as our 'color pallette'. My vision creates subjective 'movies' of falling balls, and I put my 'subjective' ruler alongside, watch in hand. Suspiciously, all objects (mostly) of all sizes fall at the same rate. If I don't have faith that my eyes are not deceiving me here, then I may as well curl up and die.
Moving to conclusions, we can conclude from this tiny piece of visual skepticism that we are deluded and that one conclusion is as good as another? Of course not. Would you accept as a result of that that all cab drivers may as well be mutated toads from the planet Sporgo? With the odd exception, no! Science is based around this same reasonableness. It is much broader than a few guys in coats prodding stuff in their labs. It is broadly speaking the best way to look at the whole world, and is far far more exotic in its findings and scope than religion. Hawking and co. are very well aware that some of what they say cannot be demonstrated in the same way as a lab experiment can. However they also know that it is a far more credible picture than the utter crap touted as a world view by all mainstream religions.
When we say that a banana is yellow what we mean is that in the light of day we perceive the banana to be the same color as other objects which are yellow. This is language, and by agreeing upon the meaning of the words we use to communicate with each other we make communication possible. This allows us to share our knowledge and to learn from others. Science has come along way in helping us to understand the physiological means by which we perceive yellow objects as being yellow. But if scientist didn�t agree on the meanings of words no one could have arrived at this knowledge on their own. My desire is to learn from others and to share with them what I have learned. I appreciate the value of this for sustaining and enriching my life. This is why I have taken the time to carefully learn the meanings of the words I use to communicate with those who words say something I can understand.
Just to say I have had enough of this thread and will not be reading it any more. I know definitely that there are some of you that will never agree on anything which is the only conclusion I have come to. So I'm just going to get on with my life in my usual way, which is enjoyable even though there are ups and downs. Take care all of you.
-- answer removed --
I would just like to say about the whole science and proving stuff with scientific enquiry thing, that there are real things in this world that science cannot prove, but that can only be accepted 'beyond reasonable doubt' due to a whole bunch of different informations. For example, a scientist couldn't tell you if I was in love with my husband; it couldn't tell you if I really did like dogs, I might have a dog and care for it, but it couldn't prove I actually liked it; it couldn't prove if I liked my job; or if I did actually secretly want to be wealthy. There are many things that we 'know' that cannot be proved to us scientifically. Mu husband knows that I love him, bones to bones, he just does, he can't explain how because we row, get cross, get over tired, make poor choices etc, but he knows that I love him.
It is a fact that just because you don't believe something, doesn't necessarily make it untrue. You can walk away from a relationship believing someone does not love you and never see them again; and never know that they spent a lifetime of singledom grieving your loss because they loved you so much. You disbelieved it, but it WAS true.
There are many things in this world that are far beyond our understanding, sometimes a little humility goes a long way in changing the person we are inside.
soooooooooooooooo.....the guys that believed hundreds of virgins were waiting for them in paradise if they just steered a couple of jets into skyscrapers killing thousands of innocents: we shouldn't be too complacent about believing they were wrong? After all, my imagining that they were wrong is all just in my head, who can know what I am thinking except me, who can know what they were thinking except them...
Either they're right or I'm right. According to you, we can kind of all be right, just no one get convinced about anything, there's a chance we won't really know. I guess if you want to be lazy about searching for the truth, you never will know, to that extent you're right.
er...no, I don't think that was what I was saying. Maybe you jumped to that conclusion.
My point was that it is good to keep re-evaluating what one believes in order to maintain up-to-date information and convictions and not just 'fall' into a set of beliefs purely because that is what one has always believed.
I was supporting Blinky's hypothesis regarding the less than black and white nature of science and faith.
You seem very passionate about your beliefs as I am of mine, a commendable attribute. However you also come across a trifle angry. I'm sorry if I have incited you in anyway. Never did I mean to imply that I condoned criminal acts of murder. Regardless of beliefs, we still should abide by the basic law's of our world.
First off, since I'm getting in kinda late on this discussion: agnostic here(figured it would save time to mention it now).
I read the whole thread.. anyways isn't there a certain amount of faith in science?
I think what mimi was getting at are the science theories that can't be proven yet but are given credentials.
Certainly the big-bang can't be proved that it occurred only that it "could be possible" but I put a certain amount in faith that it happened.
Or try to get science to explain dark matter... yikes, but if somone were to consider science definitive, they would have to have "faith" that science will one day find an answer in the unexplainable.
And even science isn't full proof, it has its limitations, unfortunately. If two acorns fall from a tree, science will only tell us which one will fall first if all the conditions are under control. What happens if an unexpected gust of wind alters the equations, or someone simply reaches out and catches one. Science is built on sturdy supports but more often than I'd care new things are discovered to refute previous discoveries.
I find the thought of atheism just as irrational as mono- or poly-theism. There really is no proof when you get down to it, not definitive.
Anyways maybe this is beating a dead cat but I read the whole thread and wanted to put my thoughts.
I read the whole thread.. anyways isn't there a certain amount of faith in science?
I think what mimi was getting at are the science theories that can't be proven yet but are given credentials.
Certainly the big-bang can't be proved that it occurred only that it "could be possible" but I put a certain amount in faith that it happened.
Or try to get science to explain dark matter... yikes, but if somone were to consider science definitive, they would have to have "faith" that science will one day find an answer in the unexplainable.
And even science isn't full proof, it has its limitations, unfortunately. If two acorns fall from a tree, science will only tell us which one will fall first if all the conditions are under control. What happens if an unexpected gust of wind alters the equations, or someone simply reaches out and catches one. Science is built on sturdy supports but more often than I'd care new things are discovered to refute previous discoveries.
I find the thought of atheism just as irrational as mono- or poly-theism. There really is no proof when you get down to it, not definitive.
Anyways maybe this is beating a dead cat but I read the whole thread and wanted to put my thoughts.
Blinkyblinky, "If you see the sun rise on 999 mornings, and then on the thousandth morning you expect it to rise, is that expectation based on science or faith?"
You had it right the first time. Expectation is precisely the correct term for this. Your expectation was based upon observation and noticing a pattern in a recurring event. For science this is a beginning whereas for faith it is the end. Science would investigate the why and the how. Faith would attribute this to unknown and unknowable forces and leave it at that.
Mimififi, It is not my intent now to criticize or offend you. I�m just seizing an opportunity to make a point. I�m not privy to your relationships and I don�t know how much this applies to you.
If you don�t know why and you don�t know how then you don�t know. Your belief is based on faith. If you value someone�s love than you should determine the nature and extent of that love because until you understand it you risk the loss of what you believe you have to the uncertainty of taking it for granted. Love is a value and comes at a price. That price is appreciating it enough to understand it, and that is a continuous process which never ends.
Loud - (it just occurred to me, it's probably Lou isn't it - stupid boy I am) I don't think your conclusions follow.
Just because we don't know the truth, that doesn't mean that we are incapable of action or judgement.
Ants are very successful. Look at the workers building their colonies, chopping up leaves and transporting food here and there, the soldiers doing whatever the soldiers do (being bossy I guess) and the queen generally having a good time...
Do ants need to have a true picture or sense of reality to be able to get on so well in the world? Doesn't seem so. So why should our/science's success be based on knowing truths about the world? We, like the ants, can be quite successful without knowing what the world is really like, we can act, we can make judgements, we don't need to be paralysed by indecision. I'm quite capable of arguing with someone who thinks that randomly killing people will get them to heaven, but to do so I don't need to claim that I have access to objective absolute truths.
Back to my question about the sun rising. In trying to answer my own question I imagined that even sheep would be surprised if the sun didn't rise tomorrow morning. Presumably the sheep are not doing science, so presumably it's faith (or inductive reasoning - a kind of faith, right?)
Mib - I'm not sure about that. I think for most people, to say that a banana is yellow means that a banana really is yellow, that's what their words mean, and that's what they think. But language is important, it's difficult to think about these things without language and the feeling is that we are somehow trapped by our words into thinking within certain limits, not being able to escape language just like not being able to escape logic. Maybe that's where religion comes in...
Just because we don't know the truth, that doesn't mean that we are incapable of action or judgement.
Ants are very successful. Look at the workers building their colonies, chopping up leaves and transporting food here and there, the soldiers doing whatever the soldiers do (being bossy I guess) and the queen generally having a good time...
Do ants need to have a true picture or sense of reality to be able to get on so well in the world? Doesn't seem so. So why should our/science's success be based on knowing truths about the world? We, like the ants, can be quite successful without knowing what the world is really like, we can act, we can make judgements, we don't need to be paralysed by indecision. I'm quite capable of arguing with someone who thinks that randomly killing people will get them to heaven, but to do so I don't need to claim that I have access to objective absolute truths.
Back to my question about the sun rising. In trying to answer my own question I imagined that even sheep would be surprised if the sun didn't rise tomorrow morning. Presumably the sheep are not doing science, so presumably it's faith (or inductive reasoning - a kind of faith, right?)
Mib - I'm not sure about that. I think for most people, to say that a banana is yellow means that a banana really is yellow, that's what their words mean, and that's what they think. But language is important, it's difficult to think about these things without language and the feeling is that we are somehow trapped by our words into thinking within certain limits, not being able to escape language just like not being able to escape logic. Maybe that's where religion comes in...
gnosticflake, I commend you on your courage to jump in here after reading some of these posts. I would hope you�ve prepared yourself for scrutiny and criticism.
First off, I would appear you have not read aforementioned book, �Atheism: The Case against God" by George H Smith. In it you will find that agnosticism does not preclude you from atheism or theism, you are nevertheless one or the other, (as are we all).
If you choose to have �faith in science� that is your right, however it is not necessary or practical and can actually be downright dangerous; especially within the realm of science. The fact is science rejects faith as a route to knowledge and they are actually complete opposites, (as explained in previous posts).
Science, along with technology, deals with the worlds most powerful and dangerous products of human ideas and knowledge and if these are mishandled by people who aren�t so certain about what their dealing with the consequences could be catastrophic in a big way, (not a lot of room for �faith� here). I�m not trying to alarm you. The fact is most scientists are aware of this and are by far some of the most rational and responsible people on the planet.
To wallow over the fact that science is not, (or that people aren�t), perfect is pointless. If you have so little appreciation for what science has given us, (free of charge for the most part), perhaps you really don�t value your self all that much either. As for your theistic views, I recommend you not be so certain that rational people cannot prove anything.
Happy posting!
First off, I would appear you have not read aforementioned book, �Atheism: The Case against God" by George H Smith. In it you will find that agnosticism does not preclude you from atheism or theism, you are nevertheless one or the other, (as are we all).
If you choose to have �faith in science� that is your right, however it is not necessary or practical and can actually be downright dangerous; especially within the realm of science. The fact is science rejects faith as a route to knowledge and they are actually complete opposites, (as explained in previous posts).
Science, along with technology, deals with the worlds most powerful and dangerous products of human ideas and knowledge and if these are mishandled by people who aren�t so certain about what their dealing with the consequences could be catastrophic in a big way, (not a lot of room for �faith� here). I�m not trying to alarm you. The fact is most scientists are aware of this and are by far some of the most rational and responsible people on the planet.
To wallow over the fact that science is not, (or that people aren�t), perfect is pointless. If you have so little appreciation for what science has given us, (free of charge for the most part), perhaps you really don�t value your self all that much either. As for your theistic views, I recommend you not be so certain that rational people cannot prove anything.
Happy posting!
Latest Posts
ChatterBank5 mins ago
ChatterBank7 mins ago
Crosswords7 mins ago
Strands#265 Did You Hear That?
Quizzes & Puzzles12 mins ago
