Which truth is higher: rational truth? Or truth which both includes and transcends rational truth?

I would say a reasoned approach is just that, an approach, a way of considering information, forming logical conclusions etc. Objectivity trumps subjectivity in such circumstance when external facts contradict previous beliefs. Ironing out contradictions, being unbiased, impersonal, the hallmarks of reason I would say.

This claim I think is the important part here:

Again reducing the discourse to the dichotomy

1) an intelligent nature, which creates itself
2) an intelligent agency, above/external/supernatural to nature etc

The former excludes higher truth than rationality: man is the pinnacle of intelligence, being more intelligent than nature, nature being seen as brute instinct perhaps, and nothing of man being higher than reason/science etc.
The latter vice versa for obvious reasons.

I wonder how atheism reconciles insignificant man with the man-God necessitated by his supreme position. As a former atheist the question was never considered, being an atheist as result of mere distraction by material concern, but as a philosophical principle it does seem inherently contradictory.

Do people not use reason much more often to deny that which contradicts and to confirm bias? You don’t think that people stuck in denial and delusion are provided with reasons to protect their status quo?

Again, identifying admirable and truthful actions and then associating them with reason is just another way reason maintains its totalitarian position.

The move is rational within the context of a game of chess. Maybe playing chess is itself a ridiculous waste of time that's going to lead to a billion unnecessary deaths because some genuis with an IQ of 200 chose a chess career over a career in cancer research. That possibility doesn't mean that some chess moves aren't better than others.

Well said. You have basically asserted the inherent flaw in Pragmatism.

To the extent I understand what you're saying, I think I agree with it. Hence, why I am Fideist:

For the believer, no argument is necessary; for the unbeliever, no argument is sufficient.

Take a gander at the Evil Lives Here show on ID, Investigation Discovery ... "Blood Atonement" episode. For a look at what people will do, and won't do (hint: nothing is off limits) in the name of religion. To see what it is capable of doing to the mind. To see what function it occupies, to see what it means to the believer. It subsumes and consumes thought, reality, judgment, agency. We already know that from the world over, but it helps to have it dramatized and driven home now and again.

Indeed, exactly what I was going to add, those who claim reason are frequently those who trample on it. This is why I have been confused here, scripture is full of masterful reason, is it not?

Could you please provide a link? Thanks.

I certainly agree with you that there are have been and currently are atrocities committed in the name of religion.

Similarly, I assume that you would agree with me that there have been and currently are atrocities committed by non-religious folk.

The twentieth-century was the bloodiest in history in terms of people killing other people, and the greatest atrocities were lead by those who were clearly anti-religion.

Germans murdering folks and Russians murdering folks were being obedient to their masters (Hitler and Stalin, respectively).

On the other hand, Christians (for example) who murder are being disobedient to their master (Jesus).


THE BIBLE WAY TO HEAVEN:

There is none righteous, no not one. - Romans 3:10

For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. - Romans 3:23

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. - Romans 6:23

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved...For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. - Romans 10:9,13

Eternity is too long to be wrong!

The examples you cite of non-religious mass killers, like the religious ones, are examples of followers sacrificing agency to total obedience to the leader. So, can we agree that whether religious or non-religious, it is this sacrificing of agency and abject obedience that is the immorality??

And do you take any pause that the god you follow is among the great mass killers ... and probably the greatest?? Any problem there?

No, we cannot agree on that.

The God that I follow is not probably the greatest mass killer ever; He really is the greatest mass killer ever! All life is given by God, and all life is taken away by God. The Creator can do as he chooses with His creation. No problema.

For the wages of sin is death.... (Romans 6:23a)

God's love of justice demands that ours sin be punished.

However.....

...but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. - (Romans 6:23b)

God's love of mercy demands that He provide a way for us to escape His judgement for our sins.

On Judgement Day, all of us will be a recipient of either God's love of justice or his love of mercy.

You must choose in this short lifetime whether to receive God's free gift of salvation and spend an eternity in Heaven, or whether to accept your just wage of spending an eternity where "the fire is not quenched....and there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth."

Eternity is way too long to be wrong!

God may be the greatest mass killer, but such deaths are not evil, as genocide is evil. Evil is forcing the poor into coastal shacks in the knowledge tsunamis are predicted to happen, while the wealthy are protected inland.

Interestingly, there is a view that the earthquakes that destroyed the homes of the Egyptians during the Exodus period left Hebrew homes relatively untouched due to differences in architecture.

Yes I realize that you are capable of reciting the dogma and doctrine of the religion. This idea that the creator can do whatever he want's is one thing, but it always stops right there. Why does this god of love want to do the same thing as the other mass killers, that is, kill, and kill with a vengeance? It's right in line with Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. For some strange reason, he wants to kill. Human beings do human things ... they really don't need to be slaughtered over it ... especially by "he" who created them human. It's a fundamental doctrinal idea, apparently, that being human comes with the price tag of being judged and destroyed. Nice. Primitive. Ignorant. Superstitious. Anti-love. Anti-just. It isn't supernatural as much as unnatural. And to just continue to recite the doctrine instead of getting outside of it and thinking about it, is the very mistake of immoral abject obedience already cited.

And so we cannot agree on the sentiment that "the only thing needed for immorality to triumph is 'good' people not objecting and doing nothing." This principle applies to tyrants of this world and to religion, i.e. to claimed tyrants of the supernatural realm.

Thank you!

God doesn't want to do the "same thing as the other mass killers." God creates all life, and exercises judgement on their free-will actions. All who choose to be saved will be spared from the Lake of Fire and will instead have eternal joy in Heaven with the Father, Son, the Holy Ghost and all the saints. That doesn't sound anything like Hitler, Stalin, et.al.

Interesting that you only cited the judgement part of the "doctrinal idea." How about the grace part of the doctrinal idea: All who choose to be saved will be spared from the Lake of Fire and will instead have eternal joy in Heaven with the Father, Son, the Holy Ghost and all the saints?

None of this is accurate.

And you as well are also just continuing to recite your doctrine. And we each of us will I suspect continue to do just that. May the readers discern for themselves what is true.

The princiiple quoted certainly expresses an important sentiment. But, as stated, it is certainly literally false.

"He" created the system of "if you don't act right you deserve damnation and death," instead of, you know, a loving attitude toward human foibles. So indeed he does choose the killing. It is pure primitive morality of man, not any perfect love. You don't kill people for struggling or misbehaving because you love them so much. That sounds exactly like the possessive husband who goes nuts, kills his wife, and then says "I did it because I love her so much." That ain't love and it's nothing near it.

Amen!

God certainly does have a loving attitude toward us, to wit:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. (John 3:16,17)

Quite so! I explicitly acknowledged that earlier.

Your language in your post is noteworthy, e.g.. "human foibles", "people struggling", "people misbehaving". God doesn't punish folks for their "foibles, struggles and for misbehaving", but rather punishes us for our wickedness and rebellion against a perfect and holy God. And you seem to consistently omit the fact that God gives EVERYONE a way of escape:

For all who call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. (Romans 10:13)

It may sound like that to you, but you seem a bit tone-deaf on spiritual matters.


Eternity is way too long to be wrong!

"Escape" is a great word there. The magic man stands in for us, the scapegoat covers our butts, and we ESCAPE the existential issues of reality with a fairy tale of magic and utopia.

Of course. And it's funny how you guys can splice philosophy quite nicely until it comes to apologetics ... at which point epic misdirections, conflations, misunderstandings, fallacies, propaganda, and deception are the norm.

What is the difference between a true believer of this ilk and a Mormon come knocking on your door? Or a Moonie? Or a Jehovah's Witness? Nothing. They all are zealots lost in the doctrine of their "choosing." Is the difference that one has the one truth and way? They all have that ... just ask them, it comes right out of their mouth.

Mr. Strawman returns! (Which he usually does when you can't actually engage with the substance of a post.)

I suspect one your typical psychobabble rants will be forthcoming.

Even so, please don't forget: Eternity is way too long to be wrong!

At the risk of a perceived Whataboutism, you're pretty good at epic misdirections, conflations,misunderstandings, fallacies, propaganda and deception yourself, kiddo!

Even so, please remember: Eternity is way too long to be wrong!

You asked a very good question, but then fumbled with your answer.

The answer is, except for Christianity, all religions, philosophies, psychologies, self-help programs and the like are based on works. You have to do something in order to achieve the desired result.

Conversely, Christians rest on what has been done for them already! Jesus Christ was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, performed miracles, was crucified, died, was buried, rose again the third day, was seen by many hundreds of folks until after forty days Christ ascended to Heaven!

The only "work" is to receive by faith what Jesus Christ has done for you. Every other system is "do, do, do....", while Christianity is "it is finished.!"

Is being a "zealot" necessarily a bad thing? You're quite a zealot yourself, you know?

Even so, please remember: Eternity is way too long to be wrong!

Apparently you are not familiar with all forms of Christianity, or maybe you do not consider some of them to actually be “true” Christianity. There are some Christians who believe that in addition to faith you also must go to church, take the Eucharist, engage in acts of contrition, be baptized, go through a confirmation process, and have certain rites performed before death in order to be saved.

Let’s assume you are right, though. Christians are not actually required to do anything. Is that in line with the purported teachings of Christ? Did Jesus not teach us to love and care for each other? If someone is injured and lying on the street, is a Christian not obligated to provide assistance to the best of his ability? Is a Christian not required to prosletyze and spread the “good news”? If not, then why the heck are you spending so much effort trying to do just that on this forum?

BTW, your invocation of Pacal’s wager is unconvincing. Yes, if you are right, then I will be damned for all eternity. However, other belied systems say exact the same thing. If I should change my beliefs because I do not want to risk eternal damnation, why should I change them to match yours? I could still be wrong; it could be the Mormons, the Jehovahs Witnesses, Muslims, Hindus , Buddhists, Sikhs, or some other group that actually has it right. By your logic I should believe in ALL of them to avoid eternal punishment, even if they all contradict each other. Besides, if there really is an omnipotent God who I do not believe in, but I pretend to believe to avoid punishment, why would he be fooled by my ruse?

Except for a handful of sects like Church of Christ (who believe that baptism by immersion is required for salvation), the above rites and rituals are generally viewed as a means to sanctification, but not salvation itself.

Christians are called to do a lot of things as you indicated above. But they are the fruit of a true devotion to Christ. When a person is saved, they have a new heart, a desire to please Christ. This is called sanctification.

I don't recall mentioning Pascal's Wager. If you are referring to my frequent use of "Eternity is way too long to be wrong", it is a call to carefully consider the Christian message.

Yes that is the point of Pascal’s wager, namely that belief Carrie’s infinite reward and wrongly non believing Carrie’s infinite punishment. It is a BS argument for all the reasons I gave, namely that it is impossible to actually believe in ALL of the possible religions that promise infinite reward to believers and infinite punishment to nonbelievers. Your supposed Christian catchphrase applies equally well to many other belief systems, so if it is truly convincing to you, you should also adopt Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc. as well as Christianity, just to be on the safe side.

Obviously that leads to the other part of my argument. You would not actually believe any of those other religions any more than I would all of a sudden start believing in Christianity were I to find your “eternity is a long time to be wrong” catchphrase to be at all convincing. We would both just be feigning belief to avoid eternal punishment. I suspect an all-powerful deity would not be fooled by our insincere professions of belief.