What makes you right?

[Guest Br Cornelius]

I would. Against the advice of of the military he woefully underestimated the troop levels necessary to occupy and pacify Iraq, and we went in with no plan to win the peace after we won the war. The brutal treatment of Saddam, a head-of-state, was shocking and we would have been better served to have negotiated a cessation of hostilities on our terms rather than spurn the overtures of his regime, driving him underground and completely dismembering the country. Thousand of American lives and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives were lost because of Rumsfeld's obstinate stupidity.

There was a plan to divy up the spoils of war/rebuilding Iraq before they went in. It was a stupid plan but really doesn't fit the description of Rumsfeld obstinate stupidity. It was a belief in free enterprises ability to both make your friends rich and perform miracles. At least he got one part right.

Br Cornelius

Edited August 24, 2015 by Br Cornelius

[+Hammerclaw]

There was a plan to divy up the spoils of war/rebuilding Ira

Alas, you give them far too much credit. That was just the circling vultures in a feeding frenzy. Even the French who did not participate demanded a piece of the action. Beyond the military adventurism, they had no plan at all.

[back to earth]

... To me it is a bit like humans. We are trinitarian in form. We have a body a mind/spirit/consciousness and an energy which make us one God has these three elements also; the spirit (or energy form) the physical body form and the controlling mind spirit of god the father. ...

Ohhh, I see - to solve the problem of how 3 can be one, you postulate a third force that 'makes it one' .

Thanks for the great explanation

[+Hammerclaw]

Ohhh, I see - to solve the problem of how 3 can be one, you postulate a third force that 'makes it one' .

Thanks for the great explanation

It would simpler to say one thing with many facets.

[+Liquid Gardens]

I think you are perhaps misunderstanding what I am saying with rightness, I'm not saying everyone who says "I believe I am right and therefore I am right" is actually right. I'm saying I am right, others are wrong, and my justification of being right is that I believe it to be so. You can believe yourself to be right as much as you like, but since you are wrong (because I am right) you are simply wrong. But since most of the world thinks that they are right in their decision towards religion they are all saying the exact same thing about me.

Does that clarify?

A little. Like I said, except for when you use the phrase 'actually right', indicating that you know what 'right' really means, the 'right' you use in the other instances doesn't really say much. What 'right' 'actually' means is not justified by what you believe to be so, ergo my confusion and this conversation. 'What makes you right' in those other instances has nothing to do with correctness or factuality and is not justified by using evidence, argument, or reason; it is instead just answered by appealing to other atypical definitions for 'right' and noting our psychology, that we believe things to be right.

The thing is, you are thinking the exact same thing about my beliefs - "PA, no matter how sincerely you believe Jesus died for your sins and rose from the dead, you are simply wrong on the matter - humans cannot resurrect after three days in the ground".

As 8 touched on already, no, that is not what I am thinking. I don't know that Jesus didn't rise from the dead, I just know that no one has any evidence nor good argument for it so there is literally no rational reason to believe it to be true, nor apparently for others to believe it to be true. I definitely don't think that what I believe about Jesus' resurrection 'makes me right', which is why I was confused why you think the fact that you believe it does make you right. But I don't want to belabor a semantic conversation.

The alternative is to say "you have your path, I have my path, there are many roads that lead to the top of the mountain".

This may also be where we are diverging. I'm not talking about any path, I'm talking about what appears to be objectively true, that's what I think 'makes you right' would usually refer to, and with no 'to me personally' appended to it.

For one, it is highly unlikely (actually, virtually impossible) that any alien in this universe (if aliens do indeed exist) evolved to look exactly like us except that they have gone a step further and are not killed by methods that would traditionally kill one of us. Thus if Jesus was an alien he would need to have altered his physical appearance so as to look like us. Then came down and interfered with humanity, teaching us how to be nicer to each other and promising to die and rise from the dead.

Again, I think this idea of 'likelihood' is being tainted by your pre-existing religious beliefs, almost none of which are established. I just mentioned that a handful of people today time travelling could easily fool people from 1 AD, so I don't think shapeshifting or surgical alteration is out of the realm of likelihood for aliens who have mastered interstellar travel. To switch it around, how likely is it that there is a spirit anything, a heaven, a God? How have you estimated that these are more likely?

I think a more reasonable alternative, presuming these events did happen and Jesus did teach and say what is ascribed to him in the gospels, that we should take him at his word when he said he died for us.

I think that's like saying that because some people feel better after having acupuncture that it's reasonable to think that this is because the flow of chi through the body's meridians is being altered by the needles.

[Mr Walker]

Yep, you can say that God is composed of three entities (father, the Son and the Holy Spirit), and that these elements complement each other.

The problem is that this statement is only a personal interpretation, since the sources are too vague to establish a consensus.

As I said, it's a matter of faith and interpretation. Even with your analogy about humans, since there is no objective evidence to support the existence of the soul.

OH the souls part is easy. The existence of a soul in humans and any other self aware beings is self evident. Whether it is existent only while supported by an organic host is more problematic but our self awareness, the nature of our cognition and our evolved consciousness demonstrates the existence of our souls. Its how we can write poetry, fall in love, or draw art, its why we know the difference between good and evil and have a conscience.

[Stubbly_Dooright]

I would. Against the advice of of the military he woefully underestimated the troop levels necessary to occupy and pacify Iraq, and we went in with no plan to win the peace after we won the war. The brutal treatment of Saddam, a head-of-state, was shocking and we would have been better served to have negotiated a cessation of hostilities on our terms rather than spurn the overtures of his regime, driving him underground and completely dismembering the country. Thousand of American lives and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives were lost because of Rumsfeld's obstinate stupidity.

I understand your feelings here. And I wouldn't blame you one bit. I do not disagree with you. It looks like you know more than I do on this. I have a feeling my husband would agree with you as well.

My apologies on not totally understanding Rumsfield as much as I have.

[Mr Walker]

Ohhh, I see - to solve the problem of how 3 can be one, you postulate a third force that 'makes it one' .

Thanks for the great explanation

Did you misunderstand ? A human is a trinitarian being, with matter energy and mind making up the whole being, but each having a "separate nature", So is god such a being. No third force but three elements of one being. You might better be able to understand this sometime later this century, when humans learn how to separate and then reintegrate those three elements of humanity Eg by transferring our "mind" or spirit from one host to another, or transmitting our body as energy, across a long disatance and then restoring it as matter. Perhaps when humans described god many thousands of years ago they were observing a being with that sort of technology.

Edited August 25, 2015 by Mr Walker

[+Paranoid Android]

Did you misunderstand ? A human is a trinitarian being, with matter energy and mind making up the whole being, but each having a "separate nature", So is god such a being. No third force but three elements of one being. You might better be able to understand this sometime later this century, when humans learn how to separate and then reintegrate those three elements of humanity Eg by transferring our "mind" or spirit from one host to another, or transmitting our body as energy, across a long disatance and then restoring it as matter. Perhaps when humans described god many thousands of years ago they were observing a being with that sort of technology.

From an Orthodox Christian/Protestant point of view, this explanation is heresy. The doctrine of the Trinity is ineffable (just like God happens to be ineffable). I see how you are trying to mesh ancient theology with modern logic, but from an actual Christian point of view it doesn't translate.

Just thought I'd say that

[StarMountainKid]

I remember as a youngster the famous pro wrestling tag team of the late '50s - early '60s, "The Fabulous Kangaroos". Their manager was Wild Red Berry, whearing a jacket with the phrase "I Am Right" printed on the back of it. To me at the time the words seemed funny and rediculously arrogant at the same time.

"I am right" still seems funny and rediculously arrogant to me today.

[+Hammerclaw]

In 1820 Felix Walker, who represented Buncombe County, North Carolina, in the U.S. House of Representatives, unintentionally added a word to the English Language, when he rose to address the question of admitting Missouri as a free or slave state. This was his first attempt to speak on this subject after nearly a month of solid debate and right before the vote was to be called. Allegedly, to the exasperation of his colleagues, Walker insisted on delivering a long and wearisome "speech for Buncombe." He was shouted down by his colleagues. His persistent effort made "buncombe" (later respelled "bunkum", then just "bunk" hence the origin of "debunk".) a synonym for meaningless political claptrap and later for any kind of nonsense ("a load of bunk"). Although he was unable to finish the speech in front of congress it was still published in a Washington newspaper and is in the congressional record. When ask by an exasperated colleague during the session why he wasted Congress's time. He, replied, "Sir, I am not speaking to Congress, I am speaking to Buncombe County", a habit some continue to this day.

Edited August 25, 2015 by Hammerclaw

[Stubbly_Dooright]

I remember as a youngster the famous pro wrestling tag team of the late '50s - early '60s, "The Fabulous Kangaroos". Their manager was Wild Red Berry, whearing a jacket with the phrase "I Am Right" printed on the back of it. To me at the time the words seemed funny and rediculously arrogant at the same time.

"I am right" still seems funny and rediculously arrogant to me today.

Was it that hair stylist Coffey lady from Australia, who has that show, like Gordon Ramsey's but about hair salons? Well, anyways I have seen quite a few of those episodes, and everytime I hear the theme and hear her introduction, if I remember it correctly, she goes on to say who she is, what she does, and that she's good. I'm thinking, ok, you probably are, but saying it turns me off and already has me lacking respect for her character.

[XenoFish]

100 pages that are 95% off topic.

[Arbenol]

100 pages that are 95% off topic.

You've made a great effort, but keeping threads like this on track is like herding cats.

Edited August 25, 2015 by Arbenol

[XenoFish]

I have learned a valuable lesson. That no matter what thread I start it will never finish with it's original intent.

[Stubbly_Dooright]

Well, you know, Xeno. if needed, just raise your head, look us straight in the eyes and go:

[XenoFish]

[Stubbly_Dooright]

Exactly!

1000 points for it being David Tennant!!

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. I think I saw the show that gif is from.

Edited August 26, 2015 by Stubbly_Dooright

[Mr Walker]

From an Orthodox Christian/Protestant point of view, this explanation is heresy. The doctrine of the Trinity is ineffable (just like God happens to be ineffable). I see how you are trying to mesh ancient theology with modern logic, but from an actual Christian point of view it doesn't translate.

Just thought I'd say that

I appreciate your POV PA but it isn't how I have found the christian denominations I have studied with I have added the analogy to a human being, being Trinitarian which isn't 'orthodox" But the Trinitarian image of god in Christianity is quite clear and understandable. It isn't ineffable if you are familiar with it, only to those new to it. For example at Christ's baptism by john the three elements of god were present together. Christ (god the son) god the father and the spirit which communicated between the two. You make the correct point that Christ is the word in genesis and was a part of god from the beginning. Revelation describes how Christ will ride into battle as a physical being in the final battle. . For 30 years the nature of christ was altered from its nature in heaven, because he became human as well as a part of god Christ probably never had a human appearance in heaven, because of his creative spirit nature, but some biblical texts in the old and new testament suggest he took the form of an angel(Michael) to visit earth outside the period of his human residence here. My first contact with the trinity was from visits to the Anglican church as a child with some relatives, but I have talked about it to theologians from half a dozen different Christian denominations.

[XenoFish]

It has been an interesting ride so far. Not everyone holds the same religious truth, parenting truth, belief in ghost, etc. So really no one is right, unless they can back it up with facts. Since religion is a subjective experience there is 'truth' in the individual experience. While it's not universal (all people experiencing the same thing). We little creature all clamor for the illusion of control. To have power over our reality, our lives. Because of this we create constructs to live by, those things that give our life a meaning and purpose. Doesn't matter what they are there ours. When the greatest power we have is over ourselves.

[Mr Walker]

I have learned a valuable lesson. That no matter what thread I start it will never finish with it's original intent.

That is as it should be. Posts evolve as posters comment and respond to comments with new ideas The author doesn't have control of the thread it is a discussion forum in itself. Real life conversations do exactly the same thing. At least you have attracted 100 pages of interesting comment.

[Stubbly_Dooright]

It has been an interesting ride so far. Not everyone holds the same religious truth, parenting truth, belief in ghost, etc. So really no one is right, unless they can back it up with facts. Since religion is a subjective experience there is 'truth' in the individual experience. While it's not universal (all people experiencing the same thing). We little creature all clamor for the illusion of control. To have power over our reality, our lives. Because of this we create constructs to live by, those things that give our life a meaning and purpose. Doesn't matter what they are there ours. When the greatest power we have is over ourselves.

Well said, Xeno! Well said! If anything, this post would make a very good summarization to this thread, if it ended up the last post. I think we all would be in a peaceful world, if we all felt this way. And if indeed, we all are intact in our beliefs, and our non-beliefs, and had faith in them, we wouldn't worry about ourselves or others and the world around us. I think we are capable of all living in harmony.

[+Paranoid Android]

I appreciate your POV PA but it isn't how I have found the christian denominations I have studied with I have added the analogy to a human being, being Trinitarian which isn't 'orthodox" But the Trinitarian image of god in Christianity is quite clear and understandable. It isn't ineffable if you are familiar with it, only to those new to it. For example at Christ's baptism by john the three elements of god were present together. Christ (god the son) god the father and the spirit which communicated between the two. You make the correct point that Christ is the word in genesis and was a part of god from the beginning. Revelation describes how Christ will ride into battle as a physical being in the final battle. . For 30 years the nature of christ was altered from its nature in heaven, because he became human as well as a part of god Christ probably never had a human appearance in heaven, because of his creative spirit nature, but some biblical texts in the old and new testament suggest he took the form of an angel(Michael) to visit earth outside the period of his human residence here. My first contact with the trinity was from visits to the Anglican church as a child with some relatives, but I have talked about it to theologians from half a dozen different Christian denominations.

According to JI Packer in this article (I own the book, this is just an excerpt - JI Packer, btw, is one of the most respected theologians of this generation) declares the trinity to be a "mystery" and that it is "beyond us" to properly and fully explain (paragraph 1). Furthermore, towards the end of the article he correctly identifies your interpretation of the Trinity to be "Modalism". Modalism is heresy in protestant Christianity. Granted, you have somewhat attempted to soften the blow of Modalism a little with the exact description of your point of view, but the essential idea behind it - that it is one God, but is performing three different roles - is classic Modalism, which I already pointed out is heretical to orthodox Protestantism (I'm not sure what the Roman Catholic view of it is, they may or may not be different, I haven't studied it). The Trinity requires us to accept that yes, there is one God, and yes, it is in three distinct and specific individual beings and that each of the three beings plays a different role, but they are not three separate gods (polytheism/tritheism) but one single solitary God. Humans are not triune beings, we are one being, one person.

This is standard Anglican (low Anglican, as espoused by the Sydney diocese) doctrine, so I don't know if the Anglicans in your part of the world are different (either High Anglican, or perhaps taking more from the Church of England, I don't know the specific CoE stance). Anglicanism in Sydney is VERY different to the rest of Australia in many ways, ask any Anglican who has visited Sydney and they will happily expand on how different it is. But whatever it is, your views are not in line with Protestant theology.

But hey, don't argue with me, argue with JI Packer! His article is far more detailed than any personal post I could make on the topic here on UM.

[Stubbly_Dooright]

I had to do this for you Xeno. Remember, even if this gif showed the horror of whose what is better than the other, I thought these two actors had great chemistry and worked awesome together.

(I had to put in a little Matt Smith in there too )

And now a little Christmas wish:

Edited August 26, 2015 by Stubbly_Dooright

[+Hammerclaw]

I have learned a valuable lesson. That no matter what thread I start it will never finish with it's original intent.

You're the Dr Frankenstein of posters. You create threads that turn into monsters.