Nooby struggle to get a firm grip on God.

[Ibidem]

Nooby, I'm not sure that you're using the terms "righteous"/"rightousness" correctly.
"Righteous" means more-or-less "acting in accord with an absolute moral standard".
"Self-righteous" means (again, more-or-less) "defending/promoting one's own actions as compatible with a moral standard, especially relative to the actions of others".
You seem to be using "righteous" either as a synonym for "self-righteous" or to mean "defending/promoting one's own beliefs as most closely matching absolute truth" (which is more of the meaning of fervent/vehement).

Now, to reply to a much earlier comment of yours...

I need assurance from others that I am ok as I am.

And what if you aren't?
What if nobody is?

[nooby]

Nooby, I'm not sure that you're using the terms "righteous"/"rightousness" correctly.
"Righteous" means more-or-less "acting in accord with an absolute moral standard".
"Self-righteous" means (again, more-or-less) "defending/promoting one's own actions as compatible with a moral standard, especially relative to the actions of others".
You seem to be using "righteous" either as a synonym for "self-righteous" or to mean "defending/promoting one's own beliefs as most closely matching absolute truth" (which is more of the meaning of fervent/vehement).

Now, to reply to a much earlier comment of yours...

I need assurance from others that I am ok as I am.

And what if you aren't?
What if nobody is?

You could be right and me could be very wrong.

Self righteousness sounds proper to use too.
But can it not be a combination? You feel self righteous
if you can lean on the group orms a those you can trust
and rely on?

I guess me have to think it over and come back to the choice of what
what word is the best to use? Good suggestion indeed.

What about this compromise. The individual in a group
can feel self righteous while not everybody in that group
agree with him her on it. So some would disapprove on
his abuse or exploitation seeing him as somebody who
goes beyond a kind of agreement to not run alone but wait for
the approval by the majority consensus on important issues.

What norms do the group see as the most important for all
to adopt and which norms do they see as less importance?

[Moose On The Loose]

And it gets worse, they never noticed that in the northern hemisphere the water drains counterclockwise down the sink. Let alone wondered why.

For a perfect drain this is true but the slightest dip or bump can make the water spin in the other direction. The vortex is self reenforcing in whichever direction it is going. The earths rotation just gives that initial kick.

This is one of those things about when physics meets the real world perhaps this is somehow related to the discussion about God. I haven't thought about it enough to really know but it does seem to point out a way mistakes in logic can happen by ignoring something important that seems on first brush to be a trivial matter.

[nooby]

And it gets worse, they never noticed that in the northern hemisphere the water drains counterclockwise down the sink. Let alone wondered why.

For a perfect drain this is true but the slightest dip or bump can make the water spin in the other direction. The vortex is self reenforcing in whichever direction it is going. The earths rotation just gives that initial kick.

This is one of those things about when physics meets the real world perhaps this is somehow related to the discussion about God. I haven't thought about it enough to really know but it does seem to point out a way mistakes in logic can happen by ignoring something important that seems on first brush to be a trivial matter.

That is what I've read too. Under ideal circumstances it works
like Bruce know but Moose On The Loose point out
something very important.

In reality small small disturbances makes the water flow as
easily in another direction due to these forces override the
ideal conditions so So Moose On The Loose can be right about
that religious people should be able to use logic and get same result
that the logical atheist but emotional needs may have such huge impact that it overrides the logic the atheist point out.

Emotions can be very strong motivators.

I've felt thist mysellf in my own body. My body told me
that it really wanted to believe in God and the only way to protect myself was to run out of the emotional stress that motivated me to convert
to some kind of faith.

To most atheist they just shake their heads in disbelief
over the fact that I had that small control over my own body.

They saw that as an emotional weakness to ridicule instead of
taking it seriously as one example of how it can happen.

Total BS some of them told me. None are that weak and vulnerable.

If I am then it is my own fault and that I am some weird exception
to how most people react to religious stress.

I had no choise other than to say this is how I felt from inside of me,
myself and I I've been that vulnerable all my life.

[Ibidem]

You could be right and me could be very wrong.

Self righteousness sounds proper to use too.
But can it not be a combination? You feel self righteous
if you can lean on the group orms a those you can trust
and rely on?

I guess me have to think it over and come back to the choice of what
what word is the best to use? Good suggestion indeed.

What about this compromise. The individual in a group
can feel self righteous while not everybody in that group
agree with him her on it. So some would disapprove on
his abuse or exploitation seeing him as somebody who
goes beyond a kind of agreement to not run alone but wait for
the approval by the majority consensus on important issues.

What norms do the group see as the most important for all
to adopt and which norms do they see as less importance?

"Righteousness" is a state or lifestyle of doing what is dictated by a moral standard.
"Self-righteousness" is an attitude, involving pride in (or more precisely, arrogance/boasting/smugness about) the percieved morality of one's own decisions/lifestyle and contempt for others because of the percieved lack of morality in their decisions/lifestyle.

Now, in response to your last post:
You seem to assume that atheism is the (only) logical answer, while theism is the (only?) emotional answer. (I don't know if you actually think this, but the comment you made is best explained by this position.)

There are problems with both halves of that premise.
First, for one person to validly say without qualification that a given conclusion is the only logical conclusion, that person must know all the relevant evidence available to man; to say that a person who reaches a different conclusion is necessarily being swayed by a source other than logic, one must know that the other person is aware of all the same facts and axioms.

Secondly, there are some atheists who have stated an emotional attachment to their own conclusion. This falsifies the exclusiveness of the two categories.

Thirdly, this assumes that logic and emotion are the only possible sources of decision. If the supernatural does indeed exist and interact with the natural, then this would be false.

[nooby]

Thanks for interesting suggestions.

I wish I had the know how and education and
skills to sort such things out.

That could be one reason that I refer to emotions
and feelings instead of to logic. I am bad at emotions too
but totally lost when i try logic or methodical structured expressing
thoughts that are supposed to be structured. or logical.

So I have no idea what to do next. To just give up seems to be a
way I feel embarrassed to take. But maybe that is the only way
to deal with it instead of pretend that I know what I am doing.
I get the impression that it is morally most fair to admit
that I are not on that level than to give the impression
that if I am given enough time then I grasp it.

Most likely it is way over my head. On the other hand nobody else
seems to have good suggestions either. Unless that is
my "compensation" for to save face.
I fail to grasp God and so do you

[Moose On The Loose]

Emotions can be very strong motivators.

I think it can be argued that emotions are the only motivators. Those who like to think of some of their actions as being motivated by logic are perhaps at a very deep level fooling themselves. We don't think about why we breath in. It happens automatically. The core reason is that if we don't breath we will run out of oxygen. We don't monitor the oxygen level in our blood and modulate our breathing to keep it high enough for the task at hand. Back when I swam quite a lot, I learned that the urge to breath came on well before there was any risk of the oxygen level getting too low. It really is an emotional thing. That emotion exists because those who had it in the past where more likely to survive. Thus from an evolution point of view, it makes logical sense. I, however, can't take credit for that bit of logic.

[nooby]

Thanks Moose. sounds plausibl to me ttoo

[linuxbear]

If your are not Christian, this will sound insane. If you are religious, it will somehow makes "sense"

The dogma of the Trinity

The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion — the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another.

Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God." In this Trinity of Persons the Son is begotten of the Father by an eternal generation, and the Holy Spirit proceeds by an eternal procession from the Father and the Son. Yet, notwithstanding this difference as to origin, the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent. This, the Church teaches, is the revelation regarding God's nature which Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came upon earth to deliver to the world: and which she proposes to man as the foundation of her whole dogmatic system.

In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word trias (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A.D. 180. He speaks of "the Trinity of God [the Father], His Word and His Wisdom (To Autolycus II.15). The term may, of course, have been in use before his time. Afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian (On Pudicity 21). In the next century the word is in general use. It is found in many passages of Origen ("In Ps. xvii", 15). The first creed in which it appears is that of Origen's pupil, Gregory Thaumaturgus. In his Ekthesis tes pisteos composed between 260 and 270, he writes:

There is therefore nothing created, nothing subject to another in the Trinity: nor is there anything that has been added as though it once had not existed, but had entered afterwards: therefore the Father has never been without the Son, nor the Son without the Spirit: and this same Trinity is immutable and unalterable forever (P.G., X, 986).

It is manifest that a dogma so mysterious presupposes a Divine revelation. When the fact of revelation, understood in its full sense as the speech of God to man, is no longer admitted, the rejection of the doctrine follows as a necessary consequence. For this reason it has no place in the Liberal Protestantism of today. The writers of this school contend that the doctrine of the Trinity, as professed by the Church, is not contained in the New Testament, but that it was first formulated in the second century and received final approbation in the fourth, as the result of the Arian and Macedonian controversies. In view of this assertion it is necessary to consider in some detail the evidence afforded by Holy Scripture. Attempts have been made recently to apply the more extreme theories of comparative religion to the doctrine of the Trinity, and to account for it by an imaginary law of nature compelling men to group the objects of their worship in threes. It seems needless to give more than a reference to these extravagant views, which serious thinkers of every school reject as destitute of foundation.

source: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm

[linuxbear]

Thanks Moose. sounds plausibl to me ttoo

hmmm ....

If your are not Christian, this will sound insane. If you are religious, it will somehow makes "sense"

The dogma of the Trinity

The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion — the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another.

Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God." In this Trinity of Persons the Son is begotten of the Father by an eternal generation, and the Holy Spirit proceeds by an eternal procession from the Father and the Son. Yet, notwithstanding this difference as to origin, the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent. This, the Church teaches, is the revelation regarding God's nature which Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came upon earth to deliver to the world: and which she proposes to man as the foundation of her whole dogmatic system.

In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word trias (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A.D. 180. He speaks of "the Trinity of God [the Father], His Word and His Wisdom (To Autolycus II.15). The term may, of course, have been in use before his time. Afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian (On Pudicity 21). In the next century the word is in general use. It is found in many passages of Origen ("In Ps. xvii", 15). The first creed in which it appears is that of Origen's pupil, Gregory Thaumaturgus. In his Ekthesis tes pisteos composed between 260 and 270, he writes:

There is therefore nothing created, nothing subject to another in the Trinity: nor is there anything that has been added as though it once had not existed, but had entered afterwards: therefore the Father has never been without the Son, nor the Son without the Spirit: and this same Trinity is immutable and unalterable forever (P.G., X, 986).

It is manifest that a dogma so mysterious presupposes a Divine revelation. When the fact of revelation, understood in its full sense as the speech of God to man, is no longer admitted, the rejection of the doctrine follows as a necessary consequence. For this reason it has no place in the Liberal Protestantism of today. The writers of this school contend that the doctrine of the Trinity, as professed by the Church, is not contained in the New Testament, but that it was first formulated in the second century and received final approbation in the fourth, as the result of the Arian and Macedonian controversies. In view of this assertion it is necessary to consider in some detail the evidence afforded by Holy Scripture. Attempts have been made recently to apply the more extreme theories of comparative religion to the doctrine of the Trinity, and to account for it by an imaginary law of nature compelling men to group the objects of their worship in threes. It seems needless to give more than a reference to these extravagant views, which serious thinkers of every school reject as destitute of foundation.

[nooby]

linuxbear I feel unsure of if I am smart enough to get such complex
theologic thinking but that does not mean that I reject it out of hand.

If you get motivated to share a version that is less complex
then please do. No hurry though.

[nooby]

As I get it. The Christians came with a new way of telling us
how to relate to God.

Jesus presenting him self as a solution to the different ways
that are already established Jew views on what God is about.

Christians claim that nothing are added but still the same God
only that he has a special assignment or mission that his Son
has to deal with helping old Daddy out with.

The New Testament. The Holy Ghost thrown in
for to make the logic foolproof/watertight against
counter-logic

Then came the final solution. Direct revelation from Allah
on how to know what the right way is about.
Total submission to God.

[Bruce B]

"Righteousness" is a state or lifestyle of doing what is dictated by a moral standard.
"Self-righteousness" is an attitude, involving pride in (or more precisely, arrogance/boasting/smugness about) the perceived morality of one's own decisions/lifestyle and contempt for others because of the perceived lack of morality in their decisions/lifestyle.

The way Ibidem described 'self-righteousness' is largely accurate in terms of that is how the term is generally understood.

I propose for the sake of us 'staying on the same page' we accept the term as described.

[nooby]

Yes I don't mind that at all. My suggestion was about
how some users of the word exploit it to be about
height as one factor and political considerations
as any othet another.''

To relate to a shared God is to not any kind of God
but a shred one is about individual interpretation
without drifting too far out from the shore.line

If you're drifting away from the faith, turn around
and come back before it's too late See Puppy Linux
as the Boss. Why try to fix a thing that is not broken

God I mean Puppy is as good at it need to be.
Satisfaction guaranteed. Haha stop bragging
about Puppy Nooby. Barry made it you only

I try to use Puppy Linux and you even fail with easy such thing

Signature link is somewhere I try to find it again.
So.be kind to an old fool
Is it this one I am too sleepy to find out. I almost fall
out of the chair unable to d?
http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic. ... =199474319