The Next Bubble?

If you believe it, it's real to you.

SFCraig wrote:But you're still Christian. You were born and raised in a predominantly Christian nation. Do you think you would have "found Jesus" in China?

Faith aside, it's a difficult thing to rationally believe.

Naturally if no one ever told me about Jesus, it would be unlikely that I would believe in Him. This is why Christian missionaries exist.

But that's quite different that me inheriting faith from my parents in the same way that I have inherited hair loss, green eyes, height, and nearsightedness.

shermangeneral wrote:If you believe it, it's real to you.

Sherm,

I have never cared for "real" to you theology. God is God. We may be closer or further away from right concepts of Him, but God is not a "to me" in the sense that my perceptions affect His reality.

TerryRC will tell you of the Catholic church's insistence of a geocentric universe. That was real "to them" but it was not real.

SFCraig wrote:

Aaron wrote:There's a difference in oversite and control and involvement, don't you agree!!!!!!!!!!

But you say "Government should stay out and let the markets correct themselves"; apparently by the Government gaining oversight? Stay out or get in?

It's one thing when the government fails by not properly overseeing the banking industry. It's another when they actually contribute to the mess.

A very interesting read. You might actually learn something.

Federal officials heap much of the blame for the subprime mortgage mess on lenders, claiming they recklessly made too many high-cost home loans to borrowers who couldn't afford them.

It turns out that the U.S. government itself was one of the lenders giving out high-interest, subprime mortgages, some of them predatory, according to government documents filed in federal court.

source

I found this quote particularly interesting. Tell me what you think.

In 2004, the FDIC hired an outside expert, Silver Spring, Md., consultant Ronald L. Freudenheim, to assess the loans sold to Beal Bank. A version of the consultant's report, recently filed in court by Beal, said that 13% of the loans showed no evidence that the borrowers' incomes were verified, while in 16% of loans the borrowers had too little income for the debt they were taking on. Overall, he said, 56% of the loans violated Superior's guidelines and "should not have been issued." The assessment didn't differentiate between Old Superior and New Superior mortgages.

But this doesn't bother you?

Who says it didn't, Sam?

I have spoken before of the obscene greed of CEO's and other corporate management.

I can put my own words in my own mouth, thanks.

I have never cared for "real" to you theology. God is God. We may be closer or further away from right concepts of Him, but God is not a "to me" in the sense that my perceptions affect His reality.

TerryRC will tell you of the Catholic church's insistence of a geocentric universe. That was real "to them" but it was not real.

Comparing the supernatural (god) to the natural (the solar system and universe) is like comparing apples... and rocks (but more extreme).

Terry,

My point is that reality is not subject to the will of the believer. You of all people I would have imagined to agree with that, which is why I gave the example of the geocentric universe.

I think you have a knee-jerk reaction to anything a Christian says. Did you have a bad experience with Christians early in life like Ziggy's?

I think you have a knee-jerk reaction to anything a Christian says. Did you have a bad experience with Christians early in life like Ziggy's?

I don't think that pointing out that one can't compare the supernatural to the natural is a "knee-jerk" reaction, Sheik.

God means different things to different people. Photosynthesis is always the same, no matter who is watching the reaction.

But Terry, photosynthesis is the same whether or not someone is correct about photosynthesis. A million 8th graders get it wrong, but it doesn't mean that photosynthesis changes.

Now of course we can empirically study photosynthesis in a way that we can't empirically study God. Sure. But that does not preclude the idea that there are right and wrong beliefs about God. We may well be right and we may well be wrong, but I don't see how God changes due to our own lack of ability to comprehend Him or faith.

One can perhaps be a relativist as far as religion goes, but with so many contradictory beliefs about God, someone is going to be right and someone is going to be wrong. If indeed there is no god, then the atheists are right and I am wrong. It wouldn't matter at all what I thought.

Conversely, as I expect will happen, when God shows Himself plainly, some will be right and others will be wrong. I do not expect to be wrong about His Incarnation and the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. I fully expect to be wrong about the priorities that I have made and the ways in which I have interpreted much of the Scriptures.

But my believing in something does not make it so, and neither does it make it not so.

SheikBen wrote:Terry,

My point is that reality is not subject to the will of the believer.

Then is supernaturalism subject to the will of the believer?

One can perhaps be a relativist as far as religion goes, but with so many contradictory beliefs about God, someone is going to be right and someone is going to be wrong. If indeed there is no god, then the atheists are right and I am wrong. It wouldn't matter at all what I thought.

OK so if the atheists are right what you think won't matter. Are you like hedging your bets? Should all of us non-believers pick a team in an effort to improve our odds? LOL

Hey, I want to know if the Jews are god's chosen people, but they die without believing in Christ, are they going to hell? What sense does that make? Why did he choose them only to let them all wind up on the other team?

So much of this just makes absolutely no sense to me.

Wanna know what's worse? How about reincarnation? You know, you have to keep coming back over and over again trying to get it right? I don't want to come back. I'll believe in whatever I have to in order to avoid that.

Many pagans believe in reincarnation. I once had a pagan tell me we could come back as anything......not even be a person. She said she thought I might come back as a dove. OMG I don't want to come back as a rat with wings. Doves are kinda cute and all but they're closely related to pigeons and that's just too eww. Isn't being a person nasty enough?

I'd better get some sleep. I'll never be able to read all the things you guys posted over the course of two weeks.

Aaron wrote:

SFCraig wrote:

Aaron wrote:There's a difference in oversite and control and involvement, don't you agree!!!!!!!!!!

But you say "Government should stay out and let the markets correct themselves"; apparently by the Government gaining oversight? Stay out or get in?

It's one thing when the government fails by not properly overseeing the banking industry. It's another when they actually contribute to the mess.

A very interesting read. You might actually learn something.

Federal officials heap much of the blame for the subprime mortgage mess on lenders, claiming they recklessly made too many high-cost home loans to borrowers who couldn't afford them.

It turns out that the U.S. government itself was one of the lenders giving out high-interest, subprime mortgages, some of them predatory, according to government documents filed in federal court.

source

I found this quote particularly interesting. Tell me what you think.

In 2004, the FDIC hired an outside expert, Silver Spring, Md., consultant Ronald L. Freudenheim, to assess the loans sold to Beal Bank. A version of the consultant's report, recently filed in court by Beal, said that 13% of the loans showed no evidence that the borrowers' incomes were verified, while in 16% of loans the borrowers had too little income for the debt they were taking on. Overall, he said, 56% of the loans violated Superior's guidelines and "should not have been issued." The assessment didn't differentiate between Old Superior and New Superior mortgages.

Just out of curiousity Craig, did you not learn anything or did you not read the article?

Now of course we can empirically study photosynthesis in a way that we can't empirically study God. Sure. But that does not preclude the idea that there are right and wrong beliefs about God. We may well be right and we may well be wrong, but I don't see how God changes due to our own lack of ability to comprehend Him or faith.

So then you agree that comparing the supernatural and the natural is not really valid?

That the natural can be empirically measured or defined and the supernatural cannot?

Glad to know I wasn't knee-jerking.

You may have noticed that photosynthesis and the supernatural were only compared in the sense that one can be correct or incorrect about either.

I never suggested otherwise.

Incidentally, Terry, I did not mean to insult you when I said that you had a knee jerk reaction. I think you are being a bit defensive here.

I have a knee jerk reaction to most anything my mom says, even when we agree.

TerryRC wrote:
God means different things to different people. Photosynthesis is always the same, no matter who is watching the reaction.

You think so, ..... huh?

Scientists have discovered the first organism known to rely on photosynthesis in a place where the sun never shines.

The creature lives well more than a mile under the sea and captures dim radiation coming from hydrothermal vents.

http://www.livescience.com/animals/050622_extreme_creature.html

You may have noticed that photosynthesis and the supernatural were only compared in the sense that one can be correct or incorrect about either.

Except theories about photosynthesis can be disproven or supported by emperical evidence. Theories about god cannot - not in this life, at least.

You can't KNOW if you are correct or incorrect when it comes to god.

Thus my comment of comparing apples to rocks. It was not meant to be anti-religion [although I notice you used "Christian", instead - you do realize that non-christian religions have god(s) also].

You think so, ..... huh?

I know you are "anti-anything Terry says", Sammy.

What you have cited is STILL the photosynthetic dark and light reactions. They are just in an odd place.

Keep tryin'. You may someday be rewarded with something other than FAIL!

Nice comeback, Sammy.

You tried to poke at my argument and were had.

Shoulda just kept your mouth shut.

SheikBen wrote:Terry,

My point is that reality is not subject to the will of the believer.

Then is supernaturalism subject to the will of the believer?

It depends on what you mean. Individual supernatural realities (or lack thereof) are not dependent on the will of the believer.

SheikBen wrote:Individual supernatural realities (or lack thereof) are not dependent on the will of the believer.

Then what are they dependent upon? If "supernatural realities" are actually real, they are not supernatural at all.

"Supernatural reality"? Now there's an oxymoron if ever there was ......................

Ziggy,

You've playing word games.

Look, I don't know whether or not there is a god and don't particular care. I think it is very unlikely, but possible. Anything is possible.

If Michael is correct and the god he believes in actually exists and what happens to us when we die is what Mike expects, then that is reality. He can't prove it, that doesn't mean it isn't possible. You and I refer to it as supernatural because it goes against all that we can prove through science. If he turns out to be correct, we've been incorrectly labeling his god and his beliefs in the holy trinity etc. by using that term.

I do not deny playing word games. That is what we do here- all of us.

But those who claim "supernatural realities" are certainly igniting word games of their own.

As to Mike's God, I do not deny it- though I deny particular characterizations and alledged manifestations of it- including assigning a gender and other human likenesses to it.

But the primary difference between Mike and me is that he insists that God is part of a "supernatural reality", while I am honest enough to agree not only that God exists, but that, to the degree it does exists, it is of a most natural character.