How Much Do You Know About Christianity?

[spyoptic]

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Most suffering in the world, however, is due to humanity’s freely choosing to sin.
[/quote]

you sure about that? you wanna give it a minute to think??? Tell that to a jew, or those killed and wounded in Iraq by those who loved their God a little too much. No doubt people have done the craziest shit in the name of God. look at witch trials, suicide bombings, mass suicides and circumcision to name a few. According to the bible - earth is 5000 years old, there was a talking snake and a woman was made from a guys rib…

the 7 sins werent even in the original text, they were added by HUMANS. So you’re living in fear over what a couple douchebags wrote a couple thousand years ago?

[ephrem]

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
ephrem wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…if free will exists then all the believers on this board can surely decide not to believe anymore?

yes

…really? You may not want to, but can you really decide to stop believing like you do from one moment to the next? I know i can’t do the opposite, not with any sincerity at least…

Yes, you are decidedly less free. AND less sincere, at once. [/quote]

…when compared to a believer/christian or you? Now we’re getting somewhere. At the heart of blindly following a faith lies the desire to be different or special compared to others. It’s basically an inflation of ego based on fear of death…

…‘we are going to heaven, and you’re not. We are more sincere and free than you. We are more loved and capable of loving more than you.’ That’s what you’re saying, isn’t it?

[pat]

[quote]pookie wrote:
pat wrote:
It is paradoxical for sure. Taking time out of it makes it a little easier, but it is difficult to reconcile, how something can be known yet still have been freely chosen. I know that we live in a world of functional paradoxes, so based on that, it’s possible though I cannot reconcile how. According to Xeno we should not be able to move, but move we do. Perhaps I can figure out over a sifter of Whiskey and a nice cigar.

Xeno was wrong, he just didn’t know how to explain it back then.

[/quote]
Not really. Dividing by time just inverses the problem, instead of never starting, you never finish. To still cannot reach your destination in both cases.

But again, you’re just handwaving and throwing out a bunch of unrelated nonsensical sentences because you can’t reconcile free will with known outcomes. Saying “it’s a paradox” and bringing out Xeno in explains nothing. It’s not a paradox; if God already knows all of your choices, then you’re just a character in his movie.
[/quote]

Just because you have trouble understanding it doesn’t make it nonsensical there is perfect continuity.

[pat]

[quote]Oleena wrote:
I thought I already stated that this point of not being able to hold yourself to the same standards as God has already been argued, and I asked that you not bother answering it if you were just going to restate that. Instead, try looking back at my previous posts to get a better idea of what I was talking about.

I do like your point about Jesus holding himself to the same standards as his follows are supposed to hold themselves to. That’s interesting. It still doesn’t answer my big question, though.

[/quote]

I am not sure why you have a problem with that…He is not the same as we therefore He doesn’t have to play by the same rule. Parents aren’t the same as kids and not held to the same standard. Cats aren’t dogs you can’t say a dog isn’t cat like enough. You can’t say God isn’t people like enough.

If you make a sand castle and then knock it over, you are well with in your right, right? If somebody else kicks it down, that’s wrong. God can do what ever he wants with His creation, we do not have the same right to do with his creation what we want. It’s not ours to do it with.

[pat]

[quote]pookie wrote:
pat wrote:
Er, yes. The first person to do it had not prior knowledge or concept of a God, Aristotle. He lived in a society of many gods, yet by exercise of pure reason he conceived the cosmological argument.

All the cosmological arguments are flawed in one way or another. Generally in multiple ways. We had a thread where you presented that argument - you even used of of the weaker ones - and I pointed out all the various problems it had.

Ur, no. You are an empiricist. If you cannot measure it, it does not exist to you. But that is a limited view. There is much that cannot be measured and yet still exists.
The exercise will lead you to two conclusions. God could exist, but we cannot prove it. At which point you have to make a choice. He does exist, He does not exist, you don’t know and don’t care. All you have done is make a choice, but can you say you did so with all the facts?

Actually, I don’t deny his existence. I can’t know any more than anyone else can. I think it’s unlikely, highly improbable, but I could be wrong. I see no evidence to convince me otherwise.

The other problem you have - and one that was pointed out to you when you posted your cosmological argument: Even if you could show beyond a doubt that the universe has a cause, you couldn’t tell anything about that cause except that it caused the universe.

[/quote]

That is not true…If you could complete the argument in it’s various forms then by definition, the initial cause has to have certain properties. “It” could not be caused and cannot be subject to the causal chain. It would have to sit out side of that. Also, to be a “creator” it would have to create for a reason, therefore indicating some form of will.

Using the (flawed) argument to show a cause and then calling that cause God, puts the cart before the horses.

If the argument were flawed then it would have been refuted. It has not been therefore it has not been proven flawed. The only problem we have is that we are unable to verify all the premises, but it stand on firm logical ground.

The cause could be natural, like everything else we’ve encoutered in the universe. We could be in matrix-like construct created by advanced, but non-divine beings; the universe’s creator could be a flawed creature himself (the Demiurge - explaining the flawed and evil universe), etc.

If that what created us was flawed we could never know it. But again, being a first cause in itself requires that it posses certain properties. It cannot be caused, it cannot be subject to it’s creation, the only thing that could have prompted the ‘first cause’ to cause would be something inside itself, like a desire, will or something else, because nothing could have existed prior to that to influence.

There are countless explanations you don’t even consider. Why? Because you’re working backwards from the conclusion you wish to find. You’ve been taught from childhood that God exists. From personal preference - we all like to be right, to please parents and peers, etc. you look for ways to reinforce that view. You don’t look at the facts, as you say, and see to what conclusion they lead you to.

No and no. You are making assumptions that are not correct. I am not working backwards…So please enlighten me on the “other explanations” so I blow holes in them.

That’s not what I said, but I suppose it is possible. You assume you posses your own thoughts, but you cannot know that to be the case. Yes, thoughts can exist out side the mind.

More nonsensical mumbo-jumbo.

The points is that those are objects that do exist, but cannot be measured, period. Or are you contending those things do not exist? Are you saying you don’t think of things? You don’t have ideas?

So when you want a car, you think one up, get in and drive away?

If you can’t distinguish between a thing and the idea of that thing, then we’re wasting time here. I believe most toddlers master that distinction sometime before they’re 4.

You have to think of a car before you can build one right? You have to design a program before you can write it. The concept is the muse, without the initial concept you don’t have shit. The have to have the idea first. And the idea is the object, not the contents of the idea. And no, I am pretty sure a 4 year old could not figure that out. That’d be one pretty fucking smart 4 yr old. Nerdy too.

5 billion years ago, when the Earth hadn’t even formed, did Batman exist?

I would say it is possible, but not likely.

Would you like to buy this superb bridge I’m now imagining?

See? The bridge is a thought and thoughts exist, not materially but the thought itself exists. Could you build this superb bridge without having had the image in your head first?

I don’t want to buy a bridge of any kind though thanks.

I thought you were a determinist?

Didn’t you just say I was an empiricist? Do you feel that labeling people as you go along makes you seem somewhat smarter, or that it proves a point?

Wrong on both counts.

They are not mutually exclusive things you can be both. I thought you had identified yourself as that; my bad.

You don’t have to be defensive, that is fact.

It’s not fact outside your head.

What isn’t?..the post is to far back to cross check

There is nothing random about, unless by some miracle you have discovered the smallest undividable particle that makes up all matter.

You just said that such a particle couldn’t exist.
[/quote]
No I said we don’t know if the particle exists or not. It has not been found. But it could very likely exist.

Very odd that you started your cosmological argument back then by explaining that an infinite series of cause was impossible (because you needed an uncaused cause) but now you’re arguing that you can have an infinite subdivision of matter.

Your science is just as convincing as your religion. Do you worship at the Church of Contradiction?

Where is the contradiction? I never argued that infinity does not exist. An infinite regress a logical fallacy because it begs the question. That’s not the same thing. I didn’t assert it is, I just said it’s possible.

Aside from that if matter is infinitely divisible, the multiple subdivisions would lead back into the cosmological argument. It would go right back to it’s source, so I see no issues with it at all.

Try it, and you will see. The process, much like afore motioned DesCartes, will make the possibility of God’s existence seem even more reasonable then your own when you are done with it.

Descartes had the same problem you do: Non-existence of God was a non-starter. When you eliminate a possibility from the outset, then you’ll ignore anything that points to it, or twist it until it fits.

If you eliminate it as a possibility from the outset you have already made a critical logical error by eliminating something that could be part of an argument with first having deductively eliminating it according to its value to the argument. Eliminating premises that could strengthen an argument is a bad idea. Eliminating a possible conclusion from a string of premises is an even worse idea.

I have made the case many times and you have yet to refute it, that must be annoying. I am not annoyed I rather enjoy the discussions.

You can find your argument, better versions of it even, all over the internet, along with detailed refutations.

Along with detail refutations of the refutations.

[simpletbrain]

This is a waste of storage space on the T-Nation Servers… What a bunch of funny people here… Its very cool to see all of your responses… YOU ARE ALL RIGHT AND WRONG AT THE SAME TIME.

Let me say it again for all of you who just want to argue… YOU ARE ARGUING WITH YOURSELF.

WE ARE ALL GOD IN DISGUISE… YOU CANT HAVE DAY WITHOUT NIGHT AND YOU CANT EXIST WITHOUT BEING HERE NOW…
WE ARE A PRODUCT OF THE UNIVERSE AND THE UNIVERSE IS OUR CREATION.

WE ARE, WE WAS AND WE WILL ALWAYS BE… THE EGO IS TEMPORARY AND FUN.

ENJOY YOUR DAY!

[pookie]

[quote]simpletbrain wrote:
This is a waste of storage space on the T-Nation Servers… What a bunch of funny people here… Its very cool to see all of your responses… YOU ARE ALL RIGHT AND WRONG AT THE SAME TIME.

Let me say it again for all of you who just want to argue… YOU ARE ARGUING WITH YOURSELF.

WE ARE ALL GOD IN DISGUISE… YOU CANT HAVE DAY WITHOUT NIGHT AND YOU CANT EXIST WITHOUT BEING HERE NOW…
WE ARE A PRODUCT OF THE UNIVERSE AND THE UNIVERSE IS OUR CREATION.

WE ARE, WE WAS AND WE WILL ALWAYS BE… THE EGO IS TEMPORARY AND FUN.

ENJOY YOUR DAY!

[/quote]

Look at your keyboard. Middle key on the left. Press it. Thanks.

[Varqanir]

[quote]pookie wrote:
simpletbrain wrote:
This is a waste of storage space on the T-Nation Servers… What a bunch of funny people here… Its very cool to see all of your responses… YOU ARE ALL RIGHT AND WRONG AT THE SAME TIME.

Let me say it again for all of you who just want to argue… YOU ARE ARGUING WITH YOURSELF.

WE ARE ALL GOD IN DISGUISE… YOU CANT HAVE DAY WITHOUT NIGHT AND YOU CANT EXIST WITHOUT BEING HERE NOW…
WE ARE A PRODUCT OF THE UNIVERSE AND THE UNIVERSE IS OUR CREATION.

WE ARE, WE WAS AND WE WILL ALWAYS BE… THE EGO IS TEMPORARY AND FUN.

ENJOY YOUR DAY!

Look at your keyboard. Middle key on the left. Press it. Thanks.
[/quote]

Gods in disguise needn’t obey capitalization rules.

[IrishSteel]

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…yes, if you have a reason, something that superseeds the previous belief, then a belief can change, or you can stop believing. But if you have free will, you can also stop believing without a rationale, because that is what i get from christians that speak of free will: that free will is somehow independent from causality. Please understand, i’m not saying that you believe this way, it’s the impression i get from discussions on this subject…

…because in my view, nothing we do is independent from causality, e.i. every choice we make is based upon a previous experience, belief, unconscious preference and so on. Seen in that light, free will extends perhaps to the ability to make a choice, but not to the independence in making a choice free from previous influences. Am i making sense here?
[/quote]

Ahhh . . .I see what you are trying to say. Free Will is the ability to choose/not choose among any number of possible choices. Free will is not the act, but the ability to choose/not choose to do a particular. It is a moral freedom.

physical influence is not moral causality. let me try to explain that better. Let’s say you are facing a moral decision to rape a girl or not. You’ve had sex before, so you know it is enjoyable, you are really horny and need some relief, you have the opportunity, no one will ever know - those are all influences but they are NOT causes. Those influences do not FORCE or CAUSE you to make the wrong moral decision. You still have to make the free volitional choice to go ahead and commit the rape. That is free will exercised in making a volitional, morally culpable decision.

Now also keep in mind that from the moment you commit your first volitional sin (doing it your way instead of God’s way) - your soul is corrupted by that sin, you have now fallen into righteous condemnation and now your natural proclivity will be to continue to sin just as before your first sin, your natural proclivity was to not sin.

Does that makes sense to you?

[IrishSteel]

[quote]ephrem wrote:

seems to me that all they have proved is that the brain really is the switchboard for the body - not that there isn’t a soul in there operating it.

…you know you can’t prove a negative. Otoh, no-one has proven a soul does exist either, and inspite of beliefs, if we look at the evidence without prejudice, there’s nothing that suggest souls exist…
[/quote]

LOL - see, I tried to tell my algebra teachers that you couldn’t prove a negative - LMAO.

seriously, it is possible to prove a negative - for example, I can prove that I do not have green scales on my body - that is proving a negative. I can prove that I am not in Singapore right now as well . . .

One small piece of evidence to support the idea of a consciousness greater than the brain (you can call it the soul if you will) - the documented cases of true out-of-the-body experiences. If the consciousness is no more than then mind, then how do these people experience life as it is going while their body is stuck in a hospital somewhere? They hear conversation, see people interacting, etc and yet their physical brain in nowhere near the scenes they witness . . .

[IrishSteel]

[quote]Oleena wrote:

For the last fifteen pages or so I have been debating this from a Christian perspective, using only thought patterns that they could come to naturally, accepting everything that they see written in the Bible. I have not stated why I care to debate this with people. What I’m debating and the reason I’m debating it are pretty seperate.

When I first started question christianity I remained empathetic to my christian friends and family. I figured their religion was a good thing for them, and this was my issue. I didn’t want to take christianity away from them.

However, as I researched christianity (and this applies to all god-fearing religions) I came to understand that there are many social structures and beliefs that it came into existance to support which are hurting a lot of people.

My biggest problem with it is that it leaves a person with an inability to complete their thought process. An analogy describing what I mean would be a child believing in Santa Clause. He does not TRY to understand where else the presents might be coming from because he KNOWS that they come from Santa Clause. In this same way god-fearing religions have opposed scientific progress and quite a few other societal improvements, such as the acceptance of gays (we need them to be accepted just from a purely economical standpoint because they are aweseome citizens. If you ever have one as a neighbor you’ll know what I mean. Very clean yards.) and the end of slavery.
[/quote]

TOTAL 100% BS!! You’ve only been debating YOUR perceptions of Christianity based on YOUR interpretations of the bible. The rest of this post of yours is also BS, because some of the greatest scientists have been Christians - and if you add in other religions the lists goes from 1,000’s to 10’s of 1,000’s of great scientific mind.

The logic in your comments is so tortured, you may have violated the Geneva conventions . . .

[IrishSteel]

[quote]Oleena wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
Oleena wrote:

uh huh . . . thanks

It doesn’t bother you that history has proven time and again that our assumptions involving supernatural causes are false?
[/quote]

it doesn’t bother you that I answered your question about God’s jealousy and you completely ignored it?

And what, I am supposed to be bothered by the fact that some people misinterpret God and his interaction with man? The Bible even tells me that man is going to willingly screw up understanding God and assign superstitious beliefs to the natural order he created. What you see as proof that there is no supernatural causes is only validation for me of my understanding of how God interacts with man . . . . So, no. I am not bothered when people get it wrong whether on the side misinterpreting natural as supernatural or on the side of misinterpreting the spiritual as physical . . .

[IrishSteel]

[quote]spyoptic wrote:
religions so popular because any book that offers you all the answers to those that are scared shitless of life and especially death is going to be a hit. They’ll agree to drink your blood every sunday and argue to the point of mild retardation that a giant invisible guy can see everything you do.

and yet, they think people that believe in Santa Claus are nuts.[/quote]

Wow - if that is your religion - i wouldn’t want anything to do with that either . . .

Glad I’m not one of those people . . .

[IrishSteel]

[quote]Makavali wrote:

Here’s my take, there may be a soul, but science can’t explain it yet. I won’t assign a fairy tale to make myself feel better about not knowing though.[/quote]

Good -I wouldn’t either. Glad we are on the same page

[IrishSteel]

[quote]simpletbrain wrote:
This is a waste of storage space on the T-Nation Servers… What a bunch of funny people here… Its very cool to see all of your responses… YOU ARE ALL RIGHT AND WRONG AT THE SAME TIME.

Let me say it again for all of you who just want to argue… YOU ARE ARGUING WITH YOURSELF.

WE ARE ALL GOD IN DISGUISE… YOU CANT HAVE DAY WITHOUT NIGHT AND YOU CANT EXIST WITHOUT BEING HERE NOW…
WE ARE A PRODUCT OF THE UNIVERSE AND THE UNIVERSE IS OUR CREATION.

WE ARE, WE WAS AND WE WILL ALWAYS BE… THE EGO IS TEMPORARY AND FUN.

ENJOY YOUR DAY!
[/quote]

And what do you call this new religion of yours?

[IrishSteel]

[quote]pookie wrote:
simpletbrain wrote:
This is a waste of storage space on the T-Nation Servers… What a bunch of funny people here… Its very cool to see all of your responses… YOU ARE ALL RIGHT AND WRONG AT THE SAME TIME.

Let me say it again for all of you who just want to argue… YOU ARE ARGUING WITH YOURSELF.

WE ARE ALL GOD IN DISGUISE… YOU CANT HAVE DAY WITHOUT NIGHT AND YOU CANT EXIST WITHOUT BEING HERE NOW…
WE ARE A PRODUCT OF THE UNIVERSE AND THE UNIVERSE IS OUR CREATION.

WE ARE, WE WAS AND WE WILL ALWAYS BE… THE EGO IS TEMPORARY AND FUN.

ENJOY YOUR DAY!

Look at your keyboard. Middle key on the left. Press it. Thanks.
[/quote]

LOL- Pookie, you’re awesome . . . wait - POOKIE YOU"RE AWESOME!!

[IrishSteel]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Perfect user name.[/quote]

Again - you say so much in so few words . . .I need to learn how to do that . . .

[ephrem]

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
ephrem wrote:

…yes, if you have a reason, something that superseeds the previous belief, then a belief can change, or you can stop believing. But if you have free will, you can also stop believing without a rationale, because that is what i get from christians that speak of free will: that free will is somehow independent from causality. Please understand, i’m not saying that you believe this way, it’s the impression i get from discussions on this subject…

…because in my view, nothing we do is independent from causality, e.i. every choice we make is based upon a previous experience, belief, unconscious preference and so on. Seen in that light, free will extends perhaps to the ability to make a choice, but not to the independence in making a choice free from previous influences. Am i making sense here?

Ahhh . . .I see what you are trying to say. Free Will is the ability to choose/not choose among any number of possible choices. Free will is not the act, but the ability to choose/not choose to do a particular. It is a moral freedom.

physical influence is not moral causality. let me try to explain that better. Let’s say you are facing a moral decision to rape a girl or not. You’ve had sex before, so you know it is enjoyable, you are really horny and need some relief, you have the opportunity, no one will ever know - those are all influences but they are NOT causes. Those influences do not FORCE or CAUSE you to make the wrong moral decision. You still have to make the free volitional choice to go ahead and commit the rape. That is free will exercised in making a volitional, morally culpable decision.

Now also keep in mind that from the moment you commit your first volitional sin (doing it your way instead of God’s way) - your soul is corrupted by that sin, you have now fallen into righteous condemnation and now your natural proclivity will be to continue to sin just as before your first sin, your natural proclivity was to not sin.

Does that makes sense to you?[/quote]

…it does, thank you. Is there, within you, sometimes conflict between what your conscience says, and what God wants you to do? Because honestly, i find it much easier to follow my conscience onto the narrow path than to adhere to religion. A lot less guilt too…

[ephrem]

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
ephrem wrote:

seems to me that all they have proved is that the brain really is the switchboard for the body - not that there isn’t a soul in there operating it.

…you know you can’t prove a negative. Otoh, no-one has proven a soul does exist either, and inspite of beliefs, if we look at the evidence without prejudice, there’s nothing that suggest souls exist…

LOL - see, I tried to tell my algebra teachers that you couldn’t prove a negative - LMAO.

seriously, it is possible to prove a negative - for example, I can prove that I do not have green scales on my body - that is proving a negative. I can prove that I am not in Singapore right now as well . . .

One small piece of evidence to support the idea of a consciousness greater than the brain (you can call it the soul if you will) - the documented cases of true out-of-the-body experiences. If the consciousness is no more than then mind, then how do these people experience life as it is going while their body is stuck in a hospital somewhere? They hear conversation, see people interacting, etc and yet their physical brain in nowhere near the scenes they witness . . .[/quote]

…hmm, proving such negatives is easy because you can provide proof of the opposite, the notion can be falsified. As far as i’m concerned, anecdotal evidence is meager evidence. Again you are trying to use science in a way to prove something without going about it properly…

…suppose we don’t settle for the simple idea of souls, and keep on looking into the instances of extended consciousness. We may find that our brains act as receivers for consciousness, and our minds simply make sense of the enormous amount of data input. In special circumstances, the brain picks up wider or different frequency bands than it’s own and the mind experiences something that’s outside of the body…

…interestingly enough, DARPA is looking into something similar: Pentagon Preps Soldier Telepathy Push | WIRED