Is it important to know what is really real?

[sandandfoam]

You know your "mind". Same deal.

I agree, my thoughts are Gods thoughts.

 

[Storm]

What is meant by "plus what God knows" is that man can reason with God and participate in His vast knowledge.

How?

One can never expect to know all that God knows but we who believe in Him can expect to know what we need to know.

OK, good.

Even those who believe not in God nevertheless use His wisdom to grow. For example science and math are universal and eternal entities and do not depend on man. If man is not then these entities still exist. Math, science, and logic are properties of the Eternal One and do not change because these are the properties of God's omniscients.

I disagree. Science, math, and logic are human developments, tools for evaluating the world we are in. They are not properties of God.

Even atheist depend on God for their actual existence and experiences.

Unless, of course, they're right and God does not exist.

The Communist killing fields in Cambodia were only possible because the powers that were reasoned that it was the right thing to do to kill innocent and helpless people. Godly logic would never allow such a reasoned process of evil.

Untrue. There are many accounts of "Godly logic" produing evil in the OT.

Man left free to establish his own rules of reasoning will always result in man's inhumanity to man.

Also untrue. Secular ethics are at least equal to religious.

No premise of thinking is more reliable than God. To deny this fact is to replace God's omniscients with man's wisdom.

I disgree.

Man does not make a reliable supreme being. I don't want man to control things nor do I seek man to watch over me. I choose God and His eternal rules and reject moral relativity on these premises.

What you want is irrelevant to what is.

 

[Spiritman]

How?
OK, good.

I disagree. Science, math, and logic are human developments, tools for evaluating the world we are in. They are not properties of God.

Unless, of course, they're right and God does not exist.

Untrue. There are many accounts of "Godly logic" produing evil in the OT.

Also untrue. Secular ethics are at least equal to religious.

I disgree.

What you want is irrelevant to what is.

When evil is produced in the OT it is recorded as evil but the source of evil is never godly logic.

I fail to see how secular ethics are equal to those ethical standards given to us by God but you did not refer to godly standards, only religious standards. That being the case I agree with you. Religious ethics (all religions) might not be based on godly, eternal, and self evident standards as found in the Constitution of the USA. What the secular minority wants is actually out of step with the moral code of the majority who have overwhelmingly chosen godly standards over humanism.

Grant it, the liberals in our society have done a tremendous job in picturing our society as more secular or liberal than what it really is. Close to 90% of citizens believe in God while the other 10% are left to portray a different picture than what "really is."As to "what is" you do not see what is as I see it. What is a fact is that Americans have rejected moral relativity in adopting the USA Constitution and the various fifty state constitutions. Western Civilization.

Spiritman

 

[Storm]

When evil is produced in the OT it is recorded as evil but the source of evil is never godly logic.

No true Scotsman...

I fail to see how secular ethics are equal to those ethical standards given to us by God but you did not refer to godly standards, only religious standards.

How do you tell the difference between "Godly" and "religious" standards?

What are some examples of "Godly" standards?

That being the case I agree with you. Religious ethics (all religions) might not be based on godly, eternal, and self evident standards as found in the Constitution of the USA.

The Constitution is secular, and humanist as well.

What the secular minority wants is actually out of step with the moral code of the majority who have overwhelmingly chosen godly standards over humanism.

Asserting it doesn't make it true.

Grant it, the liberals in our society have done a tremendous job in picturing our society as more secular or liberal than what it really is. Close to 90% of citizens believe in God while the other 10% are left to portray a different picture than what "really is."As to "what is" you do not see what is as I see it. What is a fact is that Americans have rejected moral relativity in adopting the USA Constitution and the various fifty state constitutions. Western Civilization.

Prove it.

 

[Sunstone]

The difference is found in the old argument that many philosophers believe true real things do not change while that changing things are not real but are only "appearances" and not really real. I allude to this concept as taught in philosophy. On what side do you favor in this argument?
Spiritman

The notion that "true real things do not change" is mere unfounded prejudice.

 

[Spiritman]

The notion that "true real things do not change" is mere unfounded prejudice.

How so?
Spiritman

 

[Spiritman]

No true Scotsman...

How do you tell the difference between "Godly" and "religious" standards?

As stated, godly standards are based on premises that do not change.

What are some examples of "Godly" standards?

Love, unalienable rights, self evident rights, etc.

The Constitution is secular, and humanist as well.

I see no support for this assertion whatsoever.

Asserting it doesn't make it true.

If one can say it based on evidence, which we have, then it is more true than that which is not said.

Prove it.

We have prove it. It's your turn to disprove it if you disagree.
Spiritman

 

[Sunstone]

How so?
Spiritman

Is there a rational basis for asserting that things which never change are more real than things which change? If so, can you give an example of something that doesn't change?

 

[Storm]

As stated, godly standards are based on premises that do not change.

No such animal.

Love, unalienable rights, self evident rights, etc.

All secular values. Aren't "Godly" values supposed to be different somehow?

I see no support for this assertion whatsoever.

Then you understand neither secularism nor humanism, and therefore should not be trying to argue against either.

If one can say it based on evidence, which we have, then it is more true than that which is not said.

You have provided no such evidence.

We have prove it. It's your turn to disprove it if you disagree.

No, you haven't. And who is "we"?

EDIT: BTW, please don't reply inside the quote bracket like that. It makes replying in turn annoying.

 

[Willamena]

Is there a rational basis for asserting that things which never change are more real than things which change? If so, can you give an example of something that doesn't change?

Let me ask you this: Is the assertion "The notion that 'true real things do not change' is mere unfounded prejudice" a true real thing that will never change?

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

For one that philosophically believes in God. it appears to me that both destination and the search for Truth are one and the same.I know very little about Zen. Perhaps you have a thought about Zen and the search for Truth? One of my problems in reasoning is that I do not know enough about other people's ideas. Does Zen have a God(s)?

Humanism I know about. If I were a humanist, I would be confessing that there was not a God or a giver of moral codes. All these would have to originate with man's reasoning without God. God for me serves mankind as an ultimate premise to all reasoning; therefore, the belief is that to eliminate humans {who are full of error, mistake, due to the lack of non static premises in reasoning**, is a good thing.This type of reasoning is called "Premise theology." Without adequate premises for reasoning or changing premises of logical concepts, premise theology says that reasoning leads to philosophies of darkness. Existentialism might fall into this category, for as you point out, "that this moment is what matters" and background and prior premises are not important.

I tend to believe that a strong belief in God is an asset to reasoning and to logic. What do you think about this? Do I miss something in thinking that atheistic philosophies and existentialism lack a system of logic?

Spiritman

For your first question, no Zen does not have a god. The word zen is used to describe meditative practices in Buddhism normally according to the dharma. I don't follow the dharma but rather follow the overarching ideal of zen, which is mindfulness and meditative living.

Buddhism may be considered pantheistic in a sense, though I would never say that in normal conversation. Buddhism is largely an atheistic philosophy. The question of god is simply irrelevent, an unnecessary question.

I've been searching for truth for what seems like almost a straight decade. The only thing the search lead me to was a cliff and extreme nihilism. It only occurred to me recently that the only truth we can know is what is right in front of our faces right now.

 

[Spiritman]

Is there a rational basis for asserting that things which never change are more real than things which change? If so, can you give an example of something that doesn't change?

Absolute truth does not change. Science discovers truth which does not change. If truth changed than science would never really know when something was discovered. Can you or will you provide absolute knowledge of something whose premises for existence always changes? Morality rules which come from God do not change but moral relativity rules change to make the Cambodian killing fields appear to be morally justified. We do not need that type of humanistic morality that changes to meet the needs of capricious men. In modern society can you name instances where killing the innocent was the high moral thing to do?

 

[Storm]

Absolute truth does not change. Science discovers truth which does not change. If truth changed than science would never really know when something was discovered. Can you or will you provide absolute knowledge of something whose premises for existence always changes? Morality rules which come from God do not change but moral relativity rules change to make the Cambodian killing fields appear to be morally justified. We do not need that type of humanistic morality that changes to meet the needs of capricious men. In modern society can you name instances where killing the innocent was the high moral thing to do?

Please demonstrate how humanism justifies atrocity.

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

Please demonstrate how humanism justifies atrocity.

I'd like to hear that as well. I personally don't condone any form of violence.

Also, god-based morality is highly sporadic. Some people interpret it one way, others interpret it another way. There's no doubt people's interpretation of "God's word" (the Bible, Koran etc...) is under constant flux. Morals from a "divine" source are just as volatile, if not more so, than secular humanist morals and they are just as likely to be corrupted to promote one's own agenda.

 

[Spiritman]

Please demonstrate how humanism justifies atrocity.

To the Communist in Cambodia the killing fields was not an atrocity but a needful thing. That was the atrocity and is not this the atrocity of humanism that it has no provisions to combat the theory that might makes right? Adopting the moral relativity theory of humanism paved the way for the mass murder of millions of Jews in Germany. I think that was an atrocity, don't you?

When war criminals are tried for mass murder, they are not tried by humanistic standards and moral relativity. The criminal attempts to justify his crime by referring to doing what was best for the state or following orders given by the state. But when he is tried by the moral rules of Western Civilization, the war criminal is tried by the absolute and unchanging rule of thou shalt not murder even when you are following orders.

War criminals are not generally tried by humanistic standards because these standards change, especially when people are unwilling to take responsibility for their crimes. This is the atrocity of humanism and we would be interested in hearing an explanation of why this is not true about humanism, if you have one. Keep in mind that humanism is a minority opinion in the Western Civilization. Experiments in society of adopting humanism as the moral code have been great failures at protecting minorities from atrocities.

It should be an awakening experience to here humanistic war criminals and other offenders of the law to declare that they have rights when they are called before the courts. Humanist do not believe in universal rights until they are called to accountability; then, the humanist have all kinds of rights such as freedom of speech, of address, and the presumption of innocents.The humanist never wants to be tried by his own standards.

Spiritman

 

[Storm]

You have no idea what humanism is. "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt."

Do some research.

 

[Storm]

Here, I'll get you started. From the great Wiki:

Humanism is a broad category of ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on the ability to determine right and wrong by appeal to universal human qualities — particularly rationality.[1][2] It is a component of a variety of more specific philosophical systems and is incorporated into several religious schools of thought. Humanism can be considered the process by which truth and morality is sought through human investigation. In focusing on the capacity for self-determination, humanism rejects the validity of transcendental justifications, such as a dependence on belief without reason, the supernatural, or texts of allegedly divine origin. Humanists endorse universal morality based on the commonality of the human condition, suggesting that solutions to human social and cultural problems cannot be parochial.[3]
​

 

[Spiritman]

The purpose of this thread was for the op to make friends through intellectual discourse and mutual respect for the ideas of others. Being new to the RF, it may take some experience to learn how to present a different point of view in a manner not to attract intellectual hostility. We'll keep trying until we get it right.

Just how important it is to know what is really real is a question that we do not think has completely been explored as yet. To us it is important that we recognize appearances of reality from being different from actually real things. In our last response it was pointed out that the humanist liked his code of ethics as long as it satisfied his own lust for power that made him right; but, if called to accountability for fulfilling his humanistic philosophy, he often cried out for protection by rights that were self evident that all men should have.

Self evident rights are premised by God and can not be taken away from man whereas humanism is based on the ever changing conditions of society and work to serve the baser lust of humans. We understand that many of you will strongly disagree but you have not yet explained why you disagree to any intellectual satisfaction. If what has been said about humanism and changing premises is not true, this thread is open for this discussion. Being new to the RF, we do not know how to handle hostility properly so let's keep the discussion on higher ground, please.
Spiritman

 

[Storm]

It is not intellectual hostility to ask you to support your arguments, nor to point out that you are misrepresenting the views of others.

 

[Spiritman]

I am new to RF. My purpose for being here is to make friends and to increase my understanding of what is really important to the meaning of life. My belief is that right reasoning and logic are the main tools for understanding what is really real. This being the case, one must be very selective in choosing premises to substantiate his reasoning. For example, theist believe that God is the most basic premise for rational thought. It must follow that to eliminate a belief in God would be to eliminate the most basic reason for reasoning. Does it now follow that a person with the strongest belief in God has the most reliable premise on which to build a quality life and an understandable world view? Or, is this too much of a stretch :run:to believe that it is possible and necessary to believe that one must believe in God to understand the real meaning to life?

Humanism as a moral philosophy that recreates itself continually. It is a good philosophy to justify deviant behavior because it adopts pseudo premises of behavior to justify actions that otherwise might be condemned by moral codes that are based on premises that do not change. For example, it is self evident to most Christians that marriage is intended by God to be between a man and a woman. With these two verses, the scriptures support and confirm this position.

Gen:2:24-25:Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Based on the above premise, orthodox Jews and Christians reject life styles that deviate from the norm of marriage that demands a man and woman is a family. If two men want to marry, this is deviant behavior which must abandon the old norm of one man and one woman in a marriage. The two men choose their own moral code to justify their marriage: that is how humanism works. It justifies behavior by changing the premises of what a marriage is whereas under the Christian code of ethics marriage between two men is a sin, under humanism such a marriage is acceptable.

There are not major differences between humanism and Christian ethics until humanism departs from normal behavior of society such as a person adopting a homosexual life style or kills a million people in Cambodia. To us it has always appeared that humanism raises its evil head when men depart on a path to fulfill the lust and pride of life in search of power and rejection of normal society.

We have honestly looked to find something good to say about humanism but have yet been able to find anything good about it. The reason is that the rules and premises of correct living in humanism keep changing. Instead of challenging our criticism about humanism and attacking us personally, we would appreciate your efforts to point out advantages of humanism and why such a philosophy should be accepted by normal society.
Spiritman