Jump to content

McKenna

Members
  • Posts

    421
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

McKenna last won the day on June 2 2012

McKenna had the most liked content!

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Location
    USA
  • Interests
    God, love, compassion, faith, Jesus Christ, humanity, nature, reading, writing, walking, thinking... :)

McKenna's Achievements

Experienced Member

Experienced Member (6/9)

1

Reputation

  1. Hey Bill, Following your suggestion here I went onto amazon.com and bought a copy of this Bible. It arrived today and I started reading it; I have to say I like it quite a bit! Thanks for the suggestion! Of course I love the NRSV, and the notes are very nice. Sometimes I wish they were a little more in-depth, but as it's my first study bible, I think it's a good start. Thanks again! Warmly, McKenna
  2. I like it, it's catchy I'd like to see the lyrics!
  3. Even though I'm responding here I think you still might be better off re-posting this somewhere above...some people may not be seeing that this thread is active again If there's no note it means I agree
  4. I've been wondering that as well! He was the one who recommended TCPC to me...we met over at Religious Forums. Come back Des!
  5. Haha of course I am! But I think you're simplifying the matter too much when you conclude that God's existence is undoubtedly certain based on the fact that in your judgment (as a theist) soma is asking the right questions. Now, I liked soma's questions too, so I don't want to argue about that, and I also don't want to argue about God's existence since we both believe in God anyway so...what's the point. I just am not comfortable saying things like "God's existence is undoubtedly certain" even if in my heart I believe that God does indeed exist, because that is my personal experience and isn't really relevant to anyone else. Just try going on an atheist forum and saying "God's existence is undoubtedly certain." Or a multireligion forum like ReligiousForums.com. See what kind of responses you'll get. And if I'd said that in my philosophy class...I think I would have had the vast majority of the class on me in two seconds, asking for proof I couldn't possibly offer. But oh well. I don't really want to argue about this. Like I said above, believe it if it makes you happy. *shrug*
  6. Believe that if it makes you happy.
  7. What on earth are you talking about? I didn't say Descartes was a good philosopher. In fact my point was that he wasn't all that great, hence my reference to his pineal gland argument. What I was trying to say is that the only thing we can really be certain of is our own existence, and that doesn't get us very far, as Descartes showed when he tried to take his Cogito proof farther and wound up with some ridiculous philosophical ideas such as that of the pineal gland. But I already said all that in post #102. It's also true that no one has yet to prove that God doesn't exist, but that doesn't mean they've proved God's existence! I know you didn't necessarily say that word for word, but since that was my point and you chose to disagree with me, it sounds like you're trying to say that we've proven God. Which we haven't. It hasn't been proven either way. I don't even remember why I'm arguing about this... Well, scientifically speaking, we can't assert that God did create them, but in any case, no, I'm not saying that. Dear God. Do you really find it necessary to keep an argument going for absolutely no reason? I think you know what I'm referring to as being factually incorrect in Genesis. Why did you choose to nitpick a piece of my post that really was unrelated to my point? Honestly, davidk, I've tried to be respectful, but I feel like you rarely read my posts well enough to understand what I'm trying to say - maybe I really am unclear, but sometimes you return my posts with questions that seem to pick at the most random comment I made and take it out of context. I rarely feel that you are responding to my ideas, rather my word choices. Maybe this is an unfair assessment, but from my perspective, much of our conversation has been this way. I'm not really inclined to continue a conversation that really seems to be going nowhere. Good luck and God bless.
  8. Er...maybe. Philosophically speaking, I'm not sure what we can actually be certain is true. We can only, perhaps, be certain of our own existence, but that doesn't get us very far as Descartes demonstrated when he tried to take his Cogito proof farther and ended up arguing that the pineal gland was the meeting point between the material and immaterial realms...but I digress. Anyway, I'm not sure how God fits into that equation, because as far as I know nobody has yet been able to "prove" God's existence, and so I don't know how we could possibly be certain of that. So I really am not sure what your point is. Sorry, I'm not really sure what's so confusing. I said they don't have to be factual if they can be read in a metaphorical light. That's the whole point of myth, or fiction. Did a guy named Gatsby ever live? Well, probably, but not the same guy who was described in the novel, but that's not the point, and that doesn't mean the story is meaningless. Obviously. Certain stories in the Bible I view as "religious fiction" a.k.a. myth. Like the story of Creation presented in Genesis. Factually, it's simply wrong, so far as we can tell logically from the evidence given to us by Creation itself, but metaphorically it is a great story that can be interpreted many ways. Which is why I love it.
  9. (It was post #23 if anyone wants to look.) You took that out of context. I meant that from my perspective, the Mormon faith (or at least the historical aspects of it) is not "true" because I don't believe it matches up with factual history - which is why I'm not a Mormon and could never be one. But from my perspective looking at my friend's faith, it doesn't matter, because she believes they're true and that belief isn't harming anyone. Please don't try to twist my words by taking them out of context. In fact earlier in that post I had said: --- In other cases, events don't have to be factual because they can be read in a metaphorical light anyway. That's why I still absolutely adore the first few chapters of Genesis even though I can't rationally believe it to be a factual account of the Creation.
  10. Hahaha oops! Guess that's what I get for never watching Star Trek... I love that book! I should reread it sometime... I never said facts don't matter. I'm a fairly rationally-minded person, which is why I do think facts matter (and why, for example, in the evolution debate, I come down decidedly on the side of evolution). And the only religious fact I've been able to come up with in my time of studying religion, using my rationality (as you've urged me to do), is that there really is no religious fact. Or, well, there is, but it's unprovable from a finite, human perspective. Of course uncertainty leads to confusion; believe me, I know. I'm just not so sure that's such a terrible thing and from my POV it's the most honest perspective. In terms of rationality, I've heard persuasive arguments from people of practically every religion, in addition to atheists and agnostics. Furthermore I've heard (in person or via forums) of conversions of people from practically every religion to practically every religion, and these are smart people who often had searched for a long time, so it's not like one religion holds the key to rationality. So really rationality can only get us so far and that's why I think everyone just needs to follow their own heart, be honest with themselves, and be respectful, and I try to trust people that they believe what they do for good reason (although I may still argue with them, I hope I do so respectfully).
  11. Completely off topic for where this thread is right now, but going back to the topic of ecumenism, I thought this was interesting. I download the Emergent Podcast on my iTunes account, and last fall there was a great series put out by them in five parts - the "2007 Theological-Philosophical Conversation." (If you get a chance to download and listen to it, it was really quite interesting.) In the last section, which I listened to today, the topic kept coming up of the uniqueness of Christianity, and how that was important to affirm at the same time that it was also important to affirm the unique traits of other religions. The main players in the discussion - Jack Caputo and Richard Kearney - seemed to agree that as Christians it is very important for us to affirm the truths of Christianity, its uniqueness, etc. but at the same time to really listen with an open heart and mind to other religions. Caputo at least (maybe Kearney too, I can't remember) seemed to express the same sentiment that many here have expressed, that all religions ultimately point to the same ultimate God (although there are of course some false religions put out there by people who are looking for personal gain or for other reasons). Thus they were essentially saying that it is essential for Christians to affirm what is unique about Christianity, to live our Christian faith, to let it consume us entirely, but at the same time to remember the inclusive call of Jesus, and to remember that God and Truth lie at the heart of every great religion. One point made by...I think it was Kearney...was that he truly believed that if Jesus and Buddha were to meet today, they wouldn't try to convert each other or say "you're wrong" - they'd listen to each other. He said he thought Jesus might say "come follow me," but that Buddha would say the same thing, and there would be a sort of mutual respect, because they wouldn't need to convert each other - they'd understand each other. Anyway, the conversation as a whole was really interesting, check it out if you can
  12. Who are you addressing this to (and why on this thread)? 2b as a philosophy is probably most clearly seen in Sartre's works (or at least he contradicted everything said in 2c, as I'm sure you know). Borg is nothing like Sartre. I have no clue why you put him there?
  13. This has been my experience as well, and I think this idea is the essence of the Rilke quote above, at least as I read it - not that we should literally cease to try to think rationally about these things, but that we should remember to experience and trust that answers will come to us as we live. If that makes any sense Personally speaking - for the last few years, I have been very interested in religion, but for the majority of that time I have spent a lot of time intellectually seeking the truth. It kind of wore me out. I think in the past few months I have managed to find a good balance between seeking the truth while at the same time knowing that I'm still young and have much to experience, and therefore trusting God to lead me to my answers if I follow my heart as well as my brain. I've found I've learned a lot about God by just living with Him day to day. So, anyway, I agree with what Cynthia said (much more concisely ) about "taking a season for experience" being helpful, at least for me
  14. Aw, now I feel bad, because I was beginning to get frustrated as well. Thank you for the kind words. I apologize for getting exasperated (it's something I need to work on) and I wish you the best. God bless! I apologize for leaping to conclusions and reading you incorrectly! This made me laugh! Having spent a lot of time with liberals (and cats!) and being one myself (a liberal, not a cat ) I definitely know what you mean I think this made my day
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service