Doomsday Church: Still Open For Business

[jillio]

This is a good point. I generic terms, I'd guess that "church" at best is used here to describe his radio station which he uses as a pulpit to preach from. Not the same though.

The last time I checked, "church" does not refer to a building with pews and alters exclusively.

 

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

I am not surprised the rapture didn't happen. It's an American-based theology. Well, I have a less friendly word for it, but I don't want to incite flames. Anyway, the idea of a rapture was first recorded with the Puritans, and was first written about in the late 1700s and was embraced by Baptists.

I am not saying one shouldn't believe in a rapture, but... why the recent revelations? Why only in the last 300 years this was introduced as a doctrine? One would think the rapture is important enough to be the core education of all Christian branches from the beginning. So, like I said... I am not surprised the rapture haven't occurred.

 

[Berry]

3) Of course I view certain worldviews as superior to others. If I meet two people, and one of them says "1 + 1 = 2" and the other says "1 + 1 = 3", then the first person's view of mathematics is clearly superior to the second person's. Refusal to accept that any opinions can be superior to others is the ultimate form of moral relativism, which is nice on paper but doesn't really "work". Using this sort of basis is how I decide whether a worldview is "superior" to another or not - if one starts with a premise that, to the best of my knowledge, is faulty or flat-out incorrect, then I'll tend to accept that one whose premises seem far more likely to be correct (all other things being equal between the two) as superior to the other.

I have a relative who is fond of saying, "Opinions are like anuses. Everybody has one."

Typical remark of that person's culture.

But many have the attitude of "That is just your opinion." As though an opinion has no weight and cannot be evaluated for quality.

Yet in truth everything a person says or believes is their opinion, whether it can be supported by demonstrable fact or not. A person can choose to believe only in those facts that have been demonstrated by science, and may believe their opinions are superior simply because of this -- But in the end it is their opinion, nothing more, nothing less.

There are in fact other ways to evaluate the quality of an opinion. One of the best ways I know of is to evaluate by the effects, or to put it Biblically "By their fruits you shall know them."

For instance if one believes only that which has already been proven then anything that has yet to be proven will be scoffed at -- Until it is "proven." These people make excellent technicians. They keep the world running as it is. Valuable to society but not encouraging to those who disagree.

On the other hand if one chooses to believe in everything whether it is proven or not, then a person will believe in things that are not now, never have been, and never will be. One the other hand they will be proven right often enough to keep them encouraged. These people have a value to society as well. They keep the curious curious and keep people wondering if there might be something more than what we know.

But if someone chooses to believe those things that are not proven should be questioned and tested. These are the people who become scientists and help society move forward. They also perform a service to society.

Now let us look at a different type of opinion.

Scientists and technicians often tend to believe the 'ignorance' of the 'Believers in anything" should be stomped out, by force if necessary.

If you take that view, rather than the social view listed above, what happens?

Certain people are marked as "stupid" socially "wrong" and certain social conflict will result.

If you take the "social view" that each group contributes to the social dynamic, what happens?

People are accepted for their differences and respected as individuals and social conflict will be minimized.

So do you really believe an opinion is an opinion is an opinion?

Or do you recognize that an opinion can be objectively evaluated whether it can be proven or not?

 

[Reba]

The last time I checked, "church" does not refer to a building with pews and alters exclusively.

No, it doesn't always. But Camping's organization would be considered a para-church organization, especially since he doesn't even claim it to be a church. I don't think Family Radio is chartered as a church.

Definitions of church:

1. a building (ex.: the church on the corner)

2. a local congregation (ex.: a member of our church)

3. the body of all believers in Jesus Christ (ex.: rapture of the church)

4. religion in general (ex.: separation of church and state)

5. a specific denomination (ex.: the Catholic Church)

 

[StSapphire]

I have a relative who is fond of saying, "Opinions are like anuses. Everybody has one."

Typical remark of that person's culture.

But many have the attitude of "That is just your opinion." As though an opinion has no weight and cannot be evaluated for quality.

Yet in truth everything a person says or believes is their opinion, whether it can be supported by demonstrable fact or not. A person can choose to believe only in those facts that have been demonstrated by science, and may believe their opinions are superior simply because of this -- But in the end it is their opinion, nothing more, nothing less.

There are in fact other ways to evaluate the quality of an opinion. One of the best ways I know of is to evaluate by the effects, or to put it Biblically "By their fruits you shall know them."

For instance if one believes only that which has already been proven then anything that has yet to be proven will be scoffed at -- Until it is "proven." These people make excellent technicians. They keep the world running as it is. Valuable to society but not encouraging to those who disagree.

On the other hand if one chooses to believe in everything whether it is proven or not, then a person will believe in things that are not now, never have been, and never will be. One the other hand they will be proven right often enough to keep them encouraged. These people have a value to society as well. They keep the curious curious and keep people wondering if there might be something more than what we know.

But if someone chooses to believe those things that are not proven should be questioned and tested. These are the people who become scientists and help society move forward. They also perform a service to society.

Now let us look at a different type of opinion.

Scientists and technicians often tend to believe the 'ignorance' of the 'Believers in anything" should be stomped out, by force if necessary.

If you take that view, rather than the social view listed above, what happens?

Certain people are marked as "stupid" socially "wrong" and certain social conflict will result.

If you take the "social view" that each group contributes to the social dynamic, what happens?

People are accepted for their differences and respected as individuals and social conflict will be minimized.

So do you really believe an opinion is an opinion is an opinion?

Or do you recognize that an opinion can be objectively evaluated whether it can be proven or not?

There's a slight issue with this that you've missed, though. (And I agree with a lot of your points, above).

The issue isn't with "only that which is proven". My issue is with opinions that have been disproven. I'm well aware that limiting yourself to merely what has been proven is silly (after all, how could you ever prove that vanilla is a superior ice cream flavor to chocolate, regardless of how true I think it is? ). What I have a problem with would be if someone said that arsenic flavored ice cream (with real lead paint chips in it!) was a superior flavor to vanilla or even to chocolate. They can certainly have that opinion... but I see nothing wrong with very strongly pointing out how having paint chips in your ice cream can cut your throat from the inside, and that lead paint can poison you, and if all of that fails, the arsenic will almost definitely kill you.

And to that end, no, I honestly don't have a problem with trying to persuade everyone who thinks that arsenic and lead paint chip ice cream is the best that they're not only wrong, but dangerously wrong, too.

I do agree that you can objectively evaluate someone's opinion, even when it can't be "proven" (or "disproven", either).

 

[Reba]

I am not surprised the rapture didn't happen. It's an American-based theology. Well, I have a less friendly word for it, but I don't want to incite flames. Anyway, the idea of a rapture was first recorded with the Puritans, and was first written about in the late 1700s and was embraced by Baptists.

I am not saying one shouldn't believe in a rapture, but... why the recent revelations? Why only in the last 300 years this was introduced as a doctrine? One would think the rapture is important enough to be the core education of all Christian branches from the beginning. So, like I said... I am not surprised the rapture haven't occurred.

The concept but not the term "rapture" has been in the Scriptures ever since they were written.

Maybe emphasis is increasing because the time is getting closer. I'm not naming a date; closer could still mean another hundred years. Yet, closer than ever.

 

[deafskeptic]

A friend of mine (a Christian) tried to convert me and one of his tactics was "But, don't you want to go to Heaven? Why don't you just believe in God and you have a surefire way to get into Heaven, if there is one? Sort of like "just in case"?"

I thought it was a really bad reason to be a Christian.... simply believe in God "just in case"....

I actually would feel like I'm somewhat offending God if I converted to Christianity just because I want some form of death insurance. But that's just me.

Sounds like Pascal's wager.

 

[StSapphire]

Sounds like Pascal's wager.

And we all know that's the most convincing argument...

 

[Berry]

There's a slight issue with this that you've missed, though. (And I agree with a lot of your points, above).

The issue isn't with "only that which is proven". My issue is with opinions that have been disproven. I'm well aware that limiting yourself to merely what has been proven is silly (after all, how could you ever prove that vanilla is a superior ice cream flavor to chocolate, regardless of how true I think it is? ).

.

I know that.

It was not directed "too" you. It was merely the best way to say what I had to say.

There ARE people who believe ONLY that which is proven. In school I had a hard time with teachers who insisted there was no such thing as "Ball Lightening" or "Hailstones bigger than golf balls". My mother told me she had seen them both. I chose to believe her and suffer the consequences. Now both of these things are accepted facts.

The concept but not the term "rapture" has been in the Scriptures ever since they were written.

.

This has always bothered me. I have never had anyone explain to me what the word "rapture" means in a way that I can understand and I could not find it in the Bible. (Yes I have read it twice, thank you.)

I'm not interested on arguing, and Im not going to be converted by knowing, but I would like to understand.

 

[StSapphire]

I know that.

It was not directed "too" you. It was merely the best way to say what I had to say.

There ARE people who believe ONLY that which is proven. In school I had a hard time with teachers who insisted there was no such thing as "Ball Lightening" or "Hailstones bigger than golf balls". My mother told me she had seen them both. I chose to believe her and suffer the consequences. Now both of these things are accepted facts.

Ah, okay, sorry for misunderstanding.

And yeah, I understand skepticism and generally favor it in increasing amounts the more extreme a claim is (so if you claim to have an invisible pet dragon in your 1-car garage, I'll be far more skeptical than if you claim to have an uncle who has six fingers on his left hand, though I'll still be at least somewhat skeptical). Refusing to accept anything you've not personally witnessed or seen documented is certainly just as bad as accepting anything without a shred of evidence or even in face of contradictory evidence.

 

[Berry]

Ah, okay, sorry for misunderstanding.

And yeah, I understand skepticism and generally favor it in increasing amounts the more extreme a claim is (so if you claim to have an invisible pet dragon in your 1-car garage, I'll be far more skeptical than if you claim to have an uncle who has six fingers on his left hand, though I'll still be at least somewhat skeptical). Refusing to accept anything you've not personally witnessed or seen documented is certainly just as bad as accepting anything without a shred of evidence or even in face of contradictory evidence.

I have an interesting theory on my uncle's invisible pet dragon.

Yet as a child I did just this in choosing to believe what my mother told me, and refusing to accept, the "documented facts" the teachers had. Yet in the end, far too late to do my childhood (or my resulting personality) any good, she was scientifically validated and so was in in my contention that "Knowing the source and knowing "How the source knows the information" is more important than simply "Sticking to the facts."

I follow a couple of maxims:

How you know a thing is as important as what you know.

Why you know a thing is as important as what you know.

I choose to be skeptical of all things, true or false.

Grass is green.

It is an obvious truth but I know it is false.

 

[StSapphire]

I have an interesting theory on my uncle's invisible pet dragon.

Yet as a child I did just this in choosing to believe what my mother told me, and refusing to accept, the "documented facts" the teachers had. Yet in the end, far too late to do my childhood (or my resulting personality) any good, she was scientifically validated and so was in in my contention that "Knowing the source and knowing "How the source knows the information" is more important than simply "Sticking to the facts."

I follow a couple of maxims:

How you know a thing is as important as what you know.

Why you know a thing is as important as what you know.

I choose to be skeptical of all things, true or false.

Grass is green.

It is an obvious truth but I know it is false.

Well, for all of your talk of how logic isn't (necessarily) all it's cracked up to be, you've got the perfect mental foundation for a rationalist. We'd be happy to have you if you're interested, and if you like learning about new things and reading, I can point you in the direction of some readings online which I've found both extremely interesting and useful in my life.

Who knows? Maybe I could point you in the direction of being someone who could start to save the world.

 

[Berry]

I would be interested in the links and the reading. I actually find rationalism interesting but I was raised in a Native American Religion that has always been deemed preposterous to the average person -- But then lo and behold -- Along comes quantum physics, and its coconspirator quantum mathematics to give it scientific substance.

So I am now more, not less, entrenched in the belief of a spiritual foundation of the universe, or maxiverse if you choose.

Interestingly this belief does not render either your belief system or Reba's belief system invalid. To me they are equally valid. The problem comes when one side or the other maintains they have "The Right Rnswer."

None of us has "The Right Answer" but most of us have tools that help us get through life without too much damage to ourselves or to others.

 

[jillio]

I would be interested in the links and the reading. I actually find rationalism interesting but I was raised in a Native American Religion that has always been deemed preposterous to the average person -- But then lo and behold -- Along comes quantum physics, and its coconspirator quantum mathematics to give it scientific substance.

So I am now more, not less, entrenched in the belief of a spiritual foundation of the universe, or maxiverse if you choose.

Interestingly this belief does not render either your belief system or Reba's belief system invalid. To me they are equally valid. The problem comes when one side or the other maintains they have "The Right Rnswer."

None of us has "The Right Answer" but most of us have tools that help us get through life without too much damage to ourselves or to others.

The only "right answer" we are capable of determining is the "right answer" for ourselves. When we attempt to apply our "right answer" universally is when we have problems.

 

[Babyblue]

Too many right answers... Just got to choose what is right for you.

 

[Berry]

The only "right answer" we are capable of determining is the "right answer" for ourselves. When we attempt to apply our "right answer" universally is when we have problems.

Too many right answers... Just got to choose what is right for you.

Bingo, or what is it somebody replied to one of my posts?

Yahtzee!

 

[Babyblue]

Bingo, or what is it somebody replied to one of my posts?

Yahtzee!

 

[StSapphire]

I would be interested in the links and the reading. I actually find rationalism interesting but I was raised in a Native American Religion that has always been deemed preposterous to the average person -- But then lo and behold -- Along comes quantum physics, and its coconspirator quantum mathematics to give it scientific substance.

So I am now more, not less, entrenched in the belief of a spiritual foundation of the universe, or maxiverse if you choose.

Interestingly this belief does not render either your belief system or Reba's belief system invalid. To me they are equally valid. The problem comes when one side or the other maintains they have "The Right Rnswer."

None of us has "The Right Answer" but most of us have tools that help us get through life without too much damage to ourselves or to others.

Check your inbox, I wrote you a message with a reading suggestion. Hopefully you'll enjoy it! (Beware - this may end up obliterating your "spiritual universe" worldview, depending on how you define "spiritual". But if that's not how reality really is, then that's okay!)

The only "right answer" we are capable of determining is the "right answer" for ourselves. When we attempt to apply our "right answer" universally is when we have problems.

Oh, pft. This just sounds like moral relativism run amok. Obviously there are circumstantial caveats with anything, but you can still accurately say "In general, this is the right answer" to something, and applying that to others isn't a problem. If I say that "it is better to not harm someone than it is to harm them", I'm sure I can get 10 people instantly warning that I'm trying to be a radical pacifist and prevent retribution against criminals and all sorts of other things.

What you (normally) won't see, except in certain hyper-relativistic-liberal circles, is someone saying "You can't say that, cultures in the Middle East don't agree that not harming someone is better than harming them, so you're being insensitive and trying to steamroll their society with your own selfish notion of right and wrong!" The fact of the matter is that anyone claiming that is simply wrong. With moral relativism of that sort, the only "sin" that can any further exist is one - hypocrisy. And when you come to the conclusion that professing one thing and doing another is the only moral truth, then you've already retreated from relativism, because you've used relativism to espouse a moral absolute.

 

[jillio]

Check your inbox, I wrote you a message with a reading suggestion. Hopefully you'll enjoy it! (Beware - this may end up obliterating your "spiritual universe" worldview, depending on how you define "spiritual". But if that's not how reality really is, then that's okay!)



Oh, pft. This just sounds like moral relativism run amok. Obviously there are circumstantial caveats with anything, but you can still accurately say "In general, this is the right answer" to something, and applying that to others isn't a problem. If I say that "it is better to not harm someone than it is to harm them", I'm sure I can get 10 people instantly warning that I'm trying to be a radical pacifist and prevent retribution against criminals and all sorts of other things.

What you (normally) won't see, except in certain hyper-relativistic-liberal circles, is someone saying "You can't say that, cultures in the Middle East don't agree that not harming someone is better than harming them, so you're being insensitive and trying to steamroll their society with your own selfish notion of right and wrong!" The fact of the matter is that anyone claiming that is simply wrong. With moral relativism of that sort, the only "sin" that can any further exist is one - hypocrisy. And when you come to the conclusion that professing one thing and doing another is the only moral truth, then you've already retreated from relativism, because you've used relativism to espouse a moral absolute.

Live and learn, young man, live and learn.

 

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

I doubt you will shatter his world.

I means... Hinduism and Native American belief systems are pretty flexible.