Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

It's an interesting line of discussion.  Obviously his background and experiences lend themselves to a much more profound inquiry into the nature of dreams.  Are they, on some level, perhaps deity-imbued to us as a way of reaching our souls indirectly?  Like most topics, it's not binary to me---scientific versus non-secular. 

It can slide into more into another "Well, if I can sometimes control my dreams (lucid) either right before sleep or during the dream itself...then I have free will.  Well, dream free will which means I can't control everything...but the counterpoint---I can also control things in my dreams that I couldn't possibly do in my waking life."  That is to say, it has to be some modicum of independent existence from 'the Dreamer.'  Granted, I did not choose the color themes of the buildings in my dream.  And yet, I was able to in a somewhat lucid state, decide to enter one of them and take a box with an electric pencil sharpener in it and put it in my bag.  This is because earlier in the day in my waking life, I got frustrated with a hand-use one, and wished for an electric pencil sharpener.  Or did 'the Dreamer' know this and gently sweep my mind, and as a result my dream self's hand? 

If I say they are random neurological events, and sometimes I can even control them consciously to the point I remember making the decisions/choices upon my awake, is the religious retort simply, "That was God, or the Dreamer, or the Ancient Egyptian God Ren-the Director?"  If I admit they are completely visited upon me by a higher being, then don't I remember them more vividly?  If it's all a plan to incept me with feelings, ideas, and deeds...why the mystery?  Why the blackouts?  Why the nightmares?  Why can almost all primates dream, not just humans?  

Anyway, this is a fascinating topic of suggestion.  I'll hang back.  But I want just write this here to remember to come back to it because it is quite related to Axiom's discussion topic.  Another psychologist-theologian by trade.  Plenty of evidence to suggest why we remember truly bad events (death of a loved one) and truly wonderful events (birth of a first child).  Why so many random innocuous events from decades ago?  Why these seemingly benign 10-second clips from 3rd grade of just me waiting for my teacher to spell check my essay?  Are they, in aggregate, markers on a trail that we will need after we die?  The big memories, good or bad, we can recall them anytime.  Are the throw-away ones actually the ones we'll use to find our way later on?  Who is behind that?  

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
  On 12/26/2022 at 9:00 PM, axiom of foundation said:

For centuries there has been both the use of icons and the resistance to icons.  The 2nd council of Nicaea in the 8th century decided against the iconoclasts and that “it is proper to accord to [icons] a fervent and reverent veneration, not, however, the veritable adoration which, according to our faith, belongs to the Divine Being alone – for the honor accorded to the image passes over to its prototype, and whoever venerate the image venerate in it the reality of what is there represented.”

So the line here that is drawn is between veneration, which is acceptable and proper, and adoration, which is for God alone.  I understand the argument, but in practice it is not familiar for me. 

 

Expand  

There are a lot of angles that you can take that discussion.  Theological, historical, theogeopolitical, or just pragmatic.  ATM I prefer the latter. Shit there is even a monetary policy angle if you want to go there (don't xristo-crypto me bro!). I don't see much difference between having images (eikons) of my grandmother around the house and having images of Saints or the Feasts. They each represent things that are important to me and that I would like to surround myself with. Why wouldn't one have those images surrounding them and through those images have an outlet to express their connections and affinity. I understand why that might a foreign practice in a certain context for a protestant, but it seems totally natural with a broader perspective.   

Edited by Anastasis
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
  On 1/6/2023 at 3:05 AM, axiom of foundation said:

 

So what do the Christ followers of surly horns believe regarding dreams?  Are they simply the result of neurons firing when we sleep, or is there sometimes a supernatural element to them?  Do you pay any attention to your dreams or assign any significance to them? 

 

Expand  

I think for most it's as you suggest-- nonsense and chaos and brain repair, etc.

I think for some, like your maths friend, there could very well be a spiritual gift of interpretation / dream interpretation under the realm of prophesy. 

1 Cor. 12:10 says: "to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues."

I think more interesting than your question actually is the idea that an infinite, all-powerful and knowing God Creator created everything except the laws of maths. As if maths alone stand outside of any other natural laws of the universe.

Posted
  On 1/6/2023 at 3:05 AM, axiom of foundation said:

For me, my dreams are mostly nonsense and chaos, and I have difficulty ever deriving any meaning from them.  But maybe I am just not paying enough attention to them.  

So what do the Christ followers of surly horns believe regarding dreams?  Are they simply the result of neurons firing when we sleep, or is there sometimes a supernatural element to them?  Do you pay any attention to your dreams or assign any significance to them? 

 

Expand  

 

i'm 40, for the first 38 years of my life i didn't really consider dreams to be an area God worked in.  there are certainly evidences of the divine working through dreams throughout scripture but i wrote those cases off the same way i wrote off apostolic miracles-  they don't happen anymore in this era.  

 

but in the past couple years we've had missionary friends tell compelling stories of conversions occurring through dreams in people groups who believe dreams are a medium which God uses to interact with us.  different people, different places, but lots of similar stories.  it's hard to write them off completely and i would say i probably fall now in the camp who are still skeptical but probably believe God works through them.  

 

  On 1/6/2023 at 8:21 PM, HamsterHookah said:

I think more interesting than your question actually is the idea that an infinite, all-powerful and knowing God Creator created everything except the laws of maths. As if maths alone stand outside of any other natural laws of the universe.

Expand  

ain't no one 100% right all the time.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
  On 1/6/2023 at 8:21 PM, HamsterHookah said:

I think for most it's as you suggest-- nonsense and chaos and brain repair, etc.

I think for some, like your maths friend, there could very well be a spiritual gift of interpretation / dream interpretation under the realm of prophesy. 

1 Cor. 12:10 says: "to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues."

I think more interesting than your question actually is the idea that an infinite, all-powerful and knowing God Creator created everything except the laws of maths. As if maths alone stand outside of any other natural laws of the universe.

Expand  

The idea that mathematical facts and "objects" (numbers, shapes, etc) are in the category of the uncreated and thus fundamentally different than physical facts and objects, which are created, has been around at least since the ancient Greeks.   Leibniz wrote at length on this topic and listed mathematical facts as necessary, meaning that they must be so as their negation is not logically possible, and considered physical facts as contingent, meaning their negation is possible and therefore they must be made to be so by something external (i.e. created).  I don't believe God created mathematics, nor do I believe that God created Himself.  These are the uncreated, eternal things.  I think the realm of mathematics (shapes, numbers, abstract dimensional space, logical necessity, etc) is either some aspect of God, or the eternal "place" where God resides (i.e. heaven). 

        

  On 1/6/2023 at 8:29 PM, gsoda3 said:

 

i'm 40, for the first 38 years of my life i didn't really consider dreams to be an area God worked in.  there are certainly evidences of the divine working through dreams throughout scripture but i wrote those cases off the same way i wrote off apostolic miracles-  they don't happen anymore in this era.  

 

but in the past couple years we've had missionary friends tell compelling stories of conversions occurring through dreams in people groups who believe dreams are a medium which God uses to interact with us.  different people, different places, but lots of similar stories.  it's hard to write them off completely and i would say i probably fall now in the camp who are still skeptical but probably believe God works through them.  

 

ain't no one 100% right all the time.

Expand  

I've heard similar.  I have a friend who recently had a dream that lead to his religious conversion.  He is a very dry, analytical type and was raised in nonreligious home.  I'm a bit envious of these folks; I wish I had some powerful dream that I was certain had significant meaning and purpose.    

Posted

Sometimes we project shit onto our dreams because it's the most interesting thing that happened to us that day.  ;)  

I wanna pick this up again this weekend.  Anybody got any drugs?  

  • Like 1
Posted
  On 1/6/2023 at 3:33 AM, Anastasis said:

I understand why that might a foreign practice in a certain context for a protestant, but it seems totally natural with a broader perspective.   

Expand  

Yeah, blasphemy might be considered a foreign practice for a protestant. Given that the protestant church considers both saints and icon veneration to be unchristian.  And then there is Mary’s role in all this. See 500 years of religious wars. 

Whatever makes people happy is fine with me and I’m good with it.  The problem arises when anyone group says that my interpretation is the only one.  And even that is not a problem so long as they don’t try to insert any of that belief system into nonbelievers secular lives.     

 

Posted
  On 1/6/2023 at 9:34 PM, Gatorubet said:

Yeah, blasphemy might be considered a foreign practice for a protestant. Given that the protestant church considers both saints and icon veneration to be unchristian.  And then there is Mary’s role in all this. See 500 years of religious wars. 

Whatever makes people happy is fine with me and I’m good with it.

Expand  

 

Cool cool. 

Everybody should be certainly free to do themselves. 

500 years is a really cute measure. 

Posted
  On 1/7/2023 at 2:07 AM, Anastasis said:

 

Cool cool. 

Everybody should be certainly free to do themselves. 

500 years is a really cute measure. 

Expand  

Talk to Luther. He’s the antisemitic cutie.   My reply might’ve been snarkier than I had intended, but your comment seem to ignore the central tenets of Protestantism.  They tell me it was a big thing back in the day.

Posted

I'm curious also if the non Christians of surly ever assign any significance or meaning to dreams, or any other signs or omens.  An interesting phenomenon in the US over the last few decades is that the massive drop in church participation has coincided with the U.S. psychic industry growing 52% since 2005. I have a number of nonreligious friends who believe in signs and omens of various types.  They typically assign the message sender to nature or the universe, so it's not necessarily tied to belief in the supernatural.  But functionally it's indistinguishable - an important message or sign from a power greater than themselves that they should heed.

 

 

Posted
  On 1/7/2023 at 10:46 PM, axiom of foundation said:
I'm curious also if the non Christians of surly ever assign any significance or meaning to dreams, or any other signs or omens.  An interesting phenomenon in the US over the last few decades is that the massive drop in church participation has coincided with the U.S. psychic industry growing 52% since 2005. I have a number of nonreligious friends who believe in signs and omens of various types.  They typically assign the message sender to nature or the universe, so it's not necessarily tied to belief in the supernatural.  But functionally it's indistinguishable - an important message or sign from a power greater than themselves that they should heed.
 
 

Non Christian (I suppose agnostic with an atheist twist) checking in.

No, I don’t assign much significance to dreams. I suppose they might give a glimpse of the subconscious without one’s conscious filters being applied. But in general, no. I also think ghosts, psychics and astrology are a bunch of bullshit geared towards people who are dumb enough to believe such things.
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
  On 1/7/2023 at 10:52 PM, Patricio Swayze said:


Non Christian (I suppose agnostic with an atheist twist) checking in.

No, I don’t assign much significance to dreams. I suppose they might give a glimpse of the subconscious without one’s conscious filters being applied. But in general, no. I also think ghosts, psychics and astrology are a bunch of bullshit geared towards people who are dumb enough to believe such things.

Expand  

Same here. Although I'm more of the atheist with an agnostic twist. 

  • Like 1
  • 2 weeks later...
Posted
  On 1/20/2023 at 3:13 PM, HamsterHookah said:

I don't think it was ever explicitly stated, but what do you Christ followers think the thorn in Paul's side was that he talks a lot about? 

Expand  

I believe Paul was haunted by his conscience, by the guilt he felt for violently persecuting Christians. His conversion ended the persecution but, like all of us, he forever had to endure the memory of past wrongdoings.

I believe that is what tormented Paul.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted
  On 1/20/2023 at 10:55 PM, Cacti said:

I believe Paul was haunted by his conscience, by the guilt he felt for violently persecuting Christians. His conversion ended the persecution but, like all of us, he forever had to endure the memory of past wrongdoings.

I believe that is what tormented Paul.

Expand  

My pastor believes this as well. Thanks for the response.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • 4 weeks later...
Posted
  On 1/20/2023 at 3:13 PM, HamsterHookah said:

I don't think it was ever explicitly stated, but what do you Christ followers think the thorn in Paul's side was that he talks a lot about? 

Expand  

I do not know.  I think God chose not to reveal what it was so all of his followers could relate to it. Every one of us has a thorn in our flesh.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)

If God is the word for what is all-powerful and rules the universe then it sure as fuck is math. God is math/math is God. What makes math even more God like is that a majority of people are ignorant to its workings the same way ancient humans were ignorant to truth of the sun, moon, and stars.

Of all of these only God is the construct of man.

Edited by MissingInAction
Posted
  On 2/15/2023 at 2:40 PM, MissingInAction said:

If God is the word for what is all-powerful and rules the universe then it sure as fuck is math. God is math/math is God. Whay makes math even more God like is that a majority of people are ignorance to its workings the same way ancient humans were ignorant to truth of the sun, moon, and stars.

Of all of these only God is the construct of man.

Expand  

There was a poster I think on this thread positing that math is outside of God, so maybe a peer?

Posted
  On 2/15/2023 at 2:40 PM, MissingInAction said:

If God is the word for what is all-powerful and rules the universe then it sure as fuck is math. God is math/math is God. Whay makes math even more God like is that a majority of people are ignorance to its workings the same way ancient humans were ignorant to truth of the sun, moon, and stars.

Of all of these only God is the construct of man.

Expand  

 

  On 2/15/2023 at 5:09 PM, MissingInAction said:

The idea of a literal singular God entity is just silly IMO. As likely as breaking a mirror brings seven years bad luck. 

God as a metaphor for math is something I can work on accepting.

Expand  

I can't remember the last time I had a conversation on the relationship between God and math on the internet, but it has been too long.  I remember your username, MissinginAction, because it is a good, distinctive user name and not one like "longhorn_texas86" that used to be common, but I don't remember your views or ideological positions on theological topics.  In any case, we can start with the "God as a metaphor for math" view expressed here.

My position is that math is the unbounded realm of possibilities, meaning whatever is possible can be described by math and whatever is not possible is outside of math.  I believe that either A) God "lives" and can choose options in the realm of possibilities, and He cannot choose things outside what is possible because that is nonsense, or B) the realm of what is possible (i.e. math) is actually some aspect of God.  But I don't think that math is synonymous or interchangeable with God.  The reason I think that is because God has knowledge of choices and He makes choices between possibilities, and math itself cannot do that.  An analogy here is that math is the ultimate game, i.e. fundamental set of rules, and God is the supreme player of the game of games.    

      

Posted
  On 2/15/2023 at 5:09 PM, MissingInAction said:

The idea of a literal singular God entity is just silly IMO.

Expand  

Now that I got a bit more time I wanted to comment on this as it relates to option B that I mentioned in my previous post (that the realm of what is possible is some aspect of God).  I think the existence of a singular God is a metaphysical necessity.  Here is why:

In the realm of what is possible, there possibly exists entities that are capable of choosing/selecting some possibilities and moving them from possibility to actuality.  We know such entities are possible because you and I are such entities, and also because some possibilities are actualities while others are not.  However, it is possible that you and I, or any other non-omnipotent entity doesn't exist.  Maybe the very world we live in is not even selected for actual existence, preventing our existence.  So some other more powerful possible entity, defined as one capable of making more fundamental choices regarding reality & actualities, could deny lesser entities their existence. 

But for an omnipotent entity, defined as an entity that can choose any possibility and convert it into a reality, no other entity could possibly deny its existence.  Since it is a possibility that cannot be denied, then it exists as an actuality.  Now for why there are not multiple omnipotent entities, this is because multiple omnipotent entities could not possibly exist in the unbounded realm of possibilities - unless they were perfectly united in will and were homoousios - because otherwise they could disagree and select contradictory things, and contradictions are not possible in the realm of the possible.  Thus the realm of the possible demands a Supreme Monarch.  

Posted
  On 2/16/2023 at 2:59 AM, axiom of foundation said:

Now that I got a bit more time I wanted to comment on this as it relates to option B that I mentioned in my previous post (that the realm of what is possible is some aspect of God).  I think the existence of a singular God is a metaphysical necessity.  Here is why:

In the realm of what is possible, there possibly exists entities that are capable of choosing/selecting some possibilities and moving them from possibility to actuality.  We know such entities are possible because you and I are such entities, and also because some possibilities are actualities while others are not.  However, it is possible that you and I, or any other non-omnipotent entity doesn't exist.  Maybe the very world we live in is not even selected for actual existence, preventing our existence.  So some other more powerful possible entity, defined as one capable of making more fundamental choices regarding reality & actualities, could deny lesser entities their existence. 

But for an omnipotent entity, defined as an entity that can choose any possibility and convert it into a reality, no other entity could possibly deny its existence.  Since it is a possibility that cannot be denied, then it exists as an actuality.  Now for why there are not multiple omnipotent entities, this is because multiple omnipotent entities could not possibly exist in the unbounded realm of possibilities - unless they were perfectly united in will and were homoousios - because otherwise they could disagree and select contradictory things, and contradictions are not possible in the realm of the possible.  Thus the realm of the possible demands a Supreme Monarch.  

Expand  

I’ve been watching some cosmological shorts on RightNow media, so this hits close to home.

Posted
  On 2/16/2023 at 2:59 AM, axiom of foundation said:

Now that I got a bit more time I wanted to comment on this as it relates to option B that I mentioned in my previous post (that the realm of what is possible is some aspect of God).  I think the existence of a singular God is a metaphysical necessity.  Here is why:

In the realm of what is possible, there possibly exists entities that are capable of choosing/selecting some possibilities and moving them from possibility to actuality.  We know such entities are possible because you and I are such entities, and also because some possibilities are actualities while others are not.  However, it is possible that you and I, or any other non-omnipotent entity doesn't exist.  Maybe the very world we live in is not even selected for actual existence, preventing our existence.  So some other more powerful possible entity, defined as one capable of making more fundamental choices regarding reality & actualities, could deny lesser entities their existence. 

But for an omnipotent entity, defined as an entity that can choose any possibility and convert it into a reality, no other entity could possibly deny its existence.  Since it is a possibility that cannot be denied, then it exists as an actuality.  Now for why there are not multiple omnipotent entities, this is because multiple omnipotent entities could not possibly exist in the unbounded realm of possibilities - unless they were perfectly united in will and were homoousios - because otherwise they could disagree and select contradictory things, and contradictions are not possible in the realm of the possible.  Thus the realm of the possible demands a Supreme Monarch.  

Expand  

There is a classic episode of The Twilight Zone which expounds on this very idea. A couple of "spacemen" land on a planet and discover a tiny alien race. One of the space dudes starts to fuck with them, and the aliens begin to worship him as a god.

Futurama as well as probably several other scifi shows have offered their creative interpretations. 

That really is the only option other than total fucking luck.

  • Like 2
Posted
  On 2/16/2023 at 3:37 AM, Patricio Swayze said:
  On 2/16/2023 at 3:33 AM, axiom of foundation said:
2010 championship at the Rose Bowl is the standard by which we measure our pain 
Expand  
Expand  

Somehow they both work.  We can measure it by seeing how far we are from paradise, and also by how close we are to absolute despair.   

  On 2/16/2023 at 3:59 AM, HamsterHookah said:

I’ve been watching some cosmological shorts on RightNow media, so this hits close to home.

Expand  

Any ones in particular you would recommend? 

  On 2/16/2023 at 5:07 AM, Anastasis said:

oh you stop it kristen bell GIF

Expand  

I thought you would appreciate that part.  That overview is a basic outline of an ontological argument I put together some years ago. It has similarities to other OAs, which is the nature of such arguments.  I developed several over the years and would send them to sidis for consideration and review.  They were not very well articulated when I first put them together, and also filled with superfluous technical details, but sidis is a true agnostic gentleman philosopher and would always take the time to provide comment. 

For me, it's inescapable that actuality requires experience and choice, and that only actuality can produce other actualities.  It follows that there must be Actus Purus.  It's either that or the acceptance of mere brute facts, which I think is absurd.  

 

 

  • 3 weeks later...
Posted
  On 2/16/2023 at 5:07 AM, Anastasis said:

oh you stop it kristen bell GIF

Expand  

 

On the topic of ousios, I read about the use of this word in the Lord's Prayer some time ago and thought some here might find it interesting.  

The word that is translated to "daily" in the English version of the Lord's Prayer is epiousion - "Give us today our epiousion bread." This word is difficult word to translate because it only appears in the Lord’s Prayer and nowhere else in the Bible nor anywhere else in all of ancient Greek literature.  The Koine Greek word for day/daily is hemera and it is used throughout the new testament – in fact, all other instances of "day” or “daily" in the English New Testament are hemera, including the word for “day” in the same verse in the Lord’s Prayer “give us this day…”  – so Jesus did not likely say a word or phrase in Aramaic that meant daily in the literal sense as there would be no need for the gospel writers to develop the new word epiousion for that.  The term epiousion seems to be a neologism from combing epi, which means “above,” “over,” or “super,” and ousia, which means “essence,” “being,” “substance,” or “nature.”   Early Christian writers on the subject viewed the term as meaning “super-substantial,” “super-essential,” “supernatural,” or essential/necessary/needed, and also as spiritual or non-material.  They also saw it as a direct reference to the Body of Christ, being the bread of heaven and the bread of life for the mind and soul.  

Here is a long passage on the topic from the early Christian scholar Origen, written sometime in the early third century (bold is mine for emphasis):

  Reveal hidden contents

 

  • 4 weeks later...
Posted (edited)
  On 2/15/2023 at 2:30 PM, Frank Drebin said:

I do not know.  I think God chose not to reveal what it was so all of his followers could relate to it. Every one of us has a thorn in our flesh.

Expand  

This may be more accurate than we can imagine. I know it makes me very introspective, and consider my thorn(s).

And yes, Happy Easter, or just Happy Sunday to you all.

Edited by SHOOTER12
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
  • 1 year later...
Posted (edited)

Bumping because empires once changed hands over stuff like this.  @Kyrie Eleison @Anastasis would love takes from both of you here, both on the amusing “porcine” metaphor and what this being an apparently lively topic says, if anything, about the state of the SBC.
 

 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)

BTW, hard to reply substantively without understanding what his particular "couple of issues" are. Could be like core christological shit, or just basic rhetorical anti-creedal southern baptist stuff. Or probably both. If their convention feels the need to relitigate something that was debated and largely resolved like 1700 years ago, for whatever reason, have at it. Time is a flat circle. 

Edited by Anastasis
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
  On 6/11/2024 at 7:47 PM, Bozo_Casanova said:

Bumping because empires once changed hands over stuff like this.  @Kyrie Eleison @Anastasis would love takes from both of you here, both on the amusing “porcine” metaphor and what this being an apparently lively topic says, if anything, about the state of the SBC.
 

 

Expand  

Interesting.  I didn’t think there was a Christian religion that hadn’t adopted the Nicene Creed.  Learn something new every day. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
  On 6/12/2024 at 2:44 AM, HouTex said:

Interesting.  I didn’t think there was a Christian religion that hadn’t adopted the Nicene Creed.  Learn something new every day. 

Expand  

Its like basically Jehovah's witnesses, the LDS, and apparently the SBC. 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...