How Much Do You Know About Christianity?

[THE_CLAMP_DOWN]

DO WE HAVE FREEDOM OF BELIEF?

[Sentoguy]

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:

Well, you’re right that there have been some great scientists who were Christians (and other religions), but come on, you’ve got to admit that (in the past anyhow) there were definitely cases where the church vehemently opposed new scientific ideas/data and did their best to oppress these new ideas which threatened their authority.

You’re absolutely right.

And it worked so well for awhile that secularists/evolutionists now employ the same tactic with great flair and expertise.

Wait, so are you saying that secularists/evolutionists oppose new scientific ideas/data?

Absolutely. Without a doubt.

Take a look at how difficult it can be for a creationist to get a peer-reviewed article published. Or even get it peer-reviewed within the secularist community. Almost impossible.
[/quote]

Huh, interesting. I didn’t realize that creationists were being denied the ability to have their articles peer-reviewed/published. You’re right, that’s not right either.

Also, notice I said “in the past anyhow”. The church (at least the Vatican) has actually become increasingly open to new scientific ideas since Pope John Paul 11 came into power. I was simply speaking from a historical standpoint, so don’t go getting all hot headed before it’s called for.

Deal.

For example Galileo was tried by the Roman Inquisition for heresy (a crime punishable by torturous death) for suggesting that the world was round and not the center of the universe. Luckily for him, he repented his ideas and got to live the rest of his life under house arrest (escaping torture). You’ve definitely gotta admit that there was some hardcore repressing of new scientific data going on there.

And you have the opposite going on now. Kinda like reverse discrimination. Don’t deny it or I’ll laugh you off the stage.

Again, if there are legitimate christian scientists trying to get articles published/peer-reviewed and being denied the opportunity that is just as discriminatory and wrong.

Like a lot of atrocities that have been committed throughout history it comes down to power and control. Church leaders are not immune to corruption and several times since Jesus’s death the leaders of the church have transformed it into one of the (if not THE) most evil institutions on the planet (the inquisition(s), the crusades, the witch hunts/trials in the states) in the name of power and control.

Absolutely. Now would you call that kind of Christianity “pseudo-Christianity” or “true Christianity”? I’m sure you can make a valued, objective evaluation regardless of your spiritual persuasion.

IMO it’s not in keeping with the values that Jesus himself demonstrated during his life and therefore not “true” Christianity. But, there are a lot of behaviors/policies that many church leaders today subscribe to that I don’t think Jesus would have been in favor of either (none anywhere near as severe of course).

That also again brings into the question of what makes someone Christian. If it’s behavior/how one lives their life, then there have been individuals who were very much Christian, yet not “Christian”. If it’s simply taking Jesus as your lord and savior and believing that he died on the cross to pay for the sins of mankind, then yeah those inquisitions sons of bitches were Christian. Which brings up a whole new can of worms IMO.

No doubt. So let’s throw the baby out with the bathwater?

Where did I say anything about that? My point was about the corruptibility of human beings and the fact that the church persecuted and oppressed ideas that challenged their authority in the past due to this corruptibility, not that Christianity is inherently corrupt or there isn’t a lot of good to be found in it’s teachings.

I can appreciate that.

Now, whether you blame Christianity for this somewhat depends on your definition of Christianity, which is where things get a little tricky. Is Christianity the church (building) itself? No, I don’t think many would say that it is. Is it the people that make up the church? If so, then yes Christianity is to blame. Is it the bible itself? If yes, then which version of the bible (there are numerous sects and inconsistencies between them, which one is “right”), if no then why do people take the actual words written in it so seriously (there is a lot of wisdom, but like has been pointed out, a lot of what is written is culturally based or metaphorical IMO)?

Another “bible” spelling rebel. How lame.

BTW, there are not “numerous inconsistencies” between Bible versions. You are ignorant. You would do well to stay out of debates where your ignorance jumps out like a jack-in-the-box.

There a whole books included/missing depending on what sect you are talking about, there is the Apocrypha, how about the Gnostic texts, what about the Mormon bible? And that’s just what is actually written. There are many conflicting beliefs/doctrines held by different sects as well about what is written.

Gnostic texts are not really considered Christian. I thought you were referring to Christianity in general. You bring up a good point in the Apocrypha but there is little to nothing in there that changes Christian doctrine and makes it inconsistent or conflicting.

“What about the Mormon Bible?” The Mormons use the same Bible as Protestants. You needed a pinch hitter on that one.

Well, they do have another “gospel” which the Protestants don’t use (at least to the best of my understanding, I haven’t actually read the Mormon Bible). They also don’t believe in a true “trinity” but instead that Jesus was “a God” and they don’t believe in original sin. I’d say that’s pretty different than what I know of the Protestant faith.

During those times in history Christianity basically meant torturing people to death for following different belief systems. Their bible likely was written in such a way that supported these acts (or at least they placed a lot of emphasis on some of the more barbaric verses in the old testament) and it was considered being a good Christian to engage in such acts (it was mandatory to attend burnings at the stake and decapitations at points in Christian history).

And if anyone will burn in hell it will be those who propagated those crimes.

I agree, but don’t overlook my point that the christian doctrine has changed over the centuries and what was considered “right” at one point in history might be looked upon with disgust and disbelief by others at another point in history.

Tell me what you’re talking about here. Now there can be a difference between church doctrine and Christian or Bible doctrine, I’ll grant you that.

Well, I’m talking about “Christian” doctrine, which I guess encompasses both. The church writes the bible and controls the doctrine. I have no idea of course whether the church leaders actually changed the text in the bible of not (and I honestly don’t think anyone else truly does know either) I personally suspect that it has but of course have no way of proving either way so I’ll just remain curiously open minded, but yeah, the doctrine definitely has changed.

Again, my point is about perspective and realizing that Christianity’s concept of “right” has changed over the years, and is likely continuing to change.

Give examples. I’m not saying you’re wrong but give me one or two.

Ok, since you asked. Let’s take your “swinging” open marriage (hope this isn’t too close to the heart). Now, you and your wife both love each other and are both willfully engaged in this open marriage. During the inquisition you two would have been punished for adultery (even though you’re both ok with the situation), today (depending on what sect you belong to) that behavior would be seen as anywhere from only mildly “sinful” to even encouraged.

Or how about anal sex. That would have likely gotten you punished severely during Puritan time (who felt that any type of sex that wasn’t for procreation was a sin) whereas nowadays most priests feel that anything that a man and woman do once they’re married (assuming they’re both game) is acceptable.

These days I can’t think of a single Christian denomination that would support nor reproduce these horrible acts (though, the people who bomb abortion clinics because they’re against murder are pretty freakin stupid if you ask me).

As they may think of the ones who vacuum innocent babies out of wombs. Glad that you brought up “horrible acts”, you hypocrite.

Did I say anything about my views on that subject? All I said was that killing people because you’re supposedly against killing people is a pretty stupid thing to do. You really need to work on not getting all worked up when someone hasn’t even disagreed with you, it makes you seem much less intelligent than I think you deserve.

Implicitly yes. You failed to distinguish the torture of innocent humans in the past with the with the bombings of facilities that torture and kill innocent humans in the present. Think about what you did.

I guess I wasn’t all that clear then, my mistake. I meant to draw the correlation between killing people because you don’t believe in killing people. I also did imply that churches who encourage such behavior are wrong. I didn’t mean to trivialize the suffering of innocents in the present.

But that’s kind of the point. Anyone who tells you that the bible (and Christianity) hasn’t been rewritten and revised to reflect the changing culture and beliefs of the time is just plain lying to you/themselves. So why people get so hung up on the exact wordings and phrases I just don’t understand.

I do not believe the Bible has been rewritten. It hasn’t. Church practices and teachings and rituals have. The difference is not as subtle as you might think upon first reflection.

Oh, there’s no question that it’s been rewritten, revised on the other hand is open to debate. It has (and we know this pretty much as fact) been condensed at least once in it’s history, which resulted in quite a few texts being ommitted.

Neither of us knows for certain though beyond that, but with some of the scumbags who have been at the head of the church throughout history I really wouldn’t be surprised if it had been (not the entire thing of course, just little tweaks and additions/subtractions here or there), hence my hesitation to accept every word written therein as infallible.

You don’t know your Bible so who are you to make this accusation? You are a fool spouting foolishness from a vat of folly.

ooooookkkkkkkk… so are you really suggesting that the bible hasn’t been rewritten and revised througout it’s history?

See above.

The bible may have been inspired by God, but it’s been written through the filter of human hands, which have already proven to be capable of error (like saying that the world is flat) thus bringing the possibility of human fallibility to the rest of the words written therein as well.

Tell us all about the “errors.” I mean load up and let me have it. Go!

How about that the universe was fully formed in 6 days? How about the numerous metaphors used that describe the earth as being flat (yes I know they’re just metaphors, but they still reflect a flat earth conceptual model that was held by the author)?

I really couldn’t tell you every possible error though, I simply know that the scriptures (in both the New and Old testaments) were written by human beings, who are capable of making mistakes and incapable of not filtering inspiration through their cultural/socioeconomical/and metaphysical conceptual models. And that’s just the ones who were honestly trying to convey the inspiration without any thought of agenda.

Another scholar who wants to repeat the falsehood that the Bible teaches a flat earth. SentoLostGuy, you simply don’t know what you’re talking about. Disengage, brother. Step back and wipe the egg off your face.

Your little insults and name calling don’t bother me, so save them for someone who might be affected by that kind of thing. Any intelligent rebuttals to my points I would be interested in hearing though.

You are correct, the bible doesn’t explicitly state that the earth is flat

Explicitly or implicitly. Let’s face it, it doesn’t say it all.

but there are numerous references to the people who wrote it’s beliefs that the earth was flat. Which again was my point, the bible may have been inspired by God, but it was written by man, and the men who wrote it would have filtered that inspiration through their already existing beliefs/concepts of the world (and even possibly in some cases to serve their agendas).

You are willing to concede that He created the universe and inspired His Word but he wasn’t capable of preserving it through the ages?

Which brings up the whole concept of free will and supernatural intervention.

Are you suggesting that he would force men to preserve his word and thus violate their free will? And if he could do this, why then wouldn’t he intervene when atrocities like the inquisition, crusades, holocaust, genocide in Darfur or other atrocities are going on?

However, yes, there was a filter if that’s what you want to call it. Sure. A filter does not mean corruption.

The two are not mutually inclusive no, but they’re also not mutually exclusive.

TBH I think that the majority of christian scholars throughout history have been honest, generally trust worthy people. But you can’t deny that there have also been some real monsters at the helm and to deny that these people might not have altered the writings to serve their agendas just wouldn’t be congruent with their general mode of operations.

[quote]
My point is simply to take that into consideration and not get so hung up on the exact wording, or taking every single verse literally, or not realizing the cultural and/or metaphorical nature of many of the verses.

It does take study. Lots of study. Not lots of dismissal.

Thanks for your time here and forgive me for smacking you too hard here and there.[/quote]

Oh no, not dismissal, but a healthy degree of skepticism and perspective can be useful while studying.

[THE_CLAMP_DOWN]

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:

Which brings up the whole concept of free will and supernatural intervention.

Are you suggesting that he would force men to preserve his word and thus violate their free will? And if he could do this, why then wouldn’t he intervene when atrocities like the inquisition, crusades, holocaust, genocide in Darfur or other atrocities are going on?

[/quote]

God’s plan overrides our free will; those that do good do the specific good that God predestined them to do, and all others are ruled by Satan because God sends “powerful delusions” to them. The Bible frequently states that God creates our future and decides our fates, no matter what our own will is.

(see Exodus, Ecclesiastes 7, Ephesians 1, Ephesians 2, Romans 8, Romans 9, 2 Timothy, 2 Thessalonians and Revelations)

[pat]

[quote]Oleena wrote:
Another question:

If god cannot exist before something because he exists outside of time, isn’t that something he’s incapable of and therefore wouldn’t he lack omnipotence? That’s essentially saying “He COULDN’T forsee the outcome because he is the outcome.”[/quote]

Well if I am making sense of what your asking the answer lies in time. What is time? Time is he measure of movement or/and change. If nothing moved and nothing changed there is no time.
If we are measuring movement and change it requires 2 elements physical matter and relativity (not Einstein’s theory just the word itself). We measure time by pitting the motion of one physical object against another. We measure our calender by the Earth’s rotation around the sun, for instance. If we were not matter we would not be subject to time.
Any part of God that is material is is subject to the laws he put forth, the part of him that is not material is not subject. Therefore, God is not subject to time so long as he is not made of matter.

[Sentoguy]

[quote]THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:

Which brings up the whole concept of free will and supernatural intervention.

Are you suggesting that he would force men to preserve his word and thus violate their free will? And if he could do this, why then wouldn’t he intervene when atrocities like the inquisition, crusades, holocaust, genocide in Darfur or other atrocities are going on?

God’s plan overrides our free will; those that do good do the specific good that God predestined them to do, and all others are ruled by Satan because God sends “powerful delusions” to them. The Bible frequently states that God creates our future and decides our fates, no matter what our own will is.

(see Exodus, Ecclesiastes 7, Ephesians 1, Ephesians 2, Romans 8, Romans 9, 2 Timothy, 2 Thessalonians and Revelations)
[/quote]

Well then you’re talking about pre-destination and suggesting that we don’t in fact have “free will” but are destined to make choices according to God’s plan. If that’s the case, then how can God punish those who “disobey” him, seeing as how they are actually doing what he planned them to do, and thus in effect they are obeying him?

[IrishSteel]

[quote]THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
DO WE HAVE FREEDOM OF BELIEF?[/quote]

YES

[IrishSteel]

[quote]THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:

God’s plan overrides our free will; those that do good do the specific good that God predestined them to do, and all others are ruled by Satan because God sends “powerful delusions” to them. The Bible frequently states that God creates our future and decides our fates, no matter what our own will is.

(see Exodus, Ecclesiastes 7, Ephesians 1, Ephesians 2, Romans 8, Romans 9, 2 Timothy, 2 Thessalonians and Revelations)
[/quote]

100% BS - Pre-destination is too overstated in your view. The Bible simply says that those he knew would choose salvation by exercise of free will, for them he designed a way that they could be conformed to be like Christ. It is not a forcing of belief, but a creation of a method of sanctification.

[IrishSteel]

Sento . . . I’ll get back on track with the manuscript questions tomorrow - don’t have enough time to type it out today . . . thanks again for the good questions . .

[Jeffe]

An unhealthy degree of skepticism is the kind of skepticism that keeps maniacs from finally admitting that the church is in fact wrong, and the world is billions of years old.

Edit: As I was clicking “post” I caught a glimpse of the above post asking for someone to point out a single error in church doctrine. I think I just did that.

The fact is that the concept of the bible being “the word of God” is illogical right on the face of it. Even if the entire book, EVERYTHING in it in fact happened…it’s still nothing more than a history lesson. It was written by humans, and almost all of it is simply a story being told. Fact of fiction is irrelevant in this particular case. The “word of God” is not what some people decided to jot down thousands of years ago. That’s the word of those people, and more importantly, the word of the people who translated the book through the centuries. Unless there’s a “God’s Publishing House” somewhere pumping out translated versions with absolutely 0% variation in syntax and meaning.

On top of that, the Genesis story claims that the whole Universe is a few thousand years old. A story written something like 5,000 years ago. Today we have accurate measurements of distance through our Galaxy using known constants (the speed of light) and some other factors that I am simply not familiar with.
These calculations let us look up into the sky and say, “Yup, that star is 20 million light years away.” Knowing that the calculations and distances are accurate (this has been experimented and confirmed to the point of scientific fact) Then one must admit that the star has been emitting visible light for 20 million years.

If one has to admit that something existed in our Universe 20 million years ago then they must admit that the Genesis story did not happen in the time-frame it claimed. If one admits that there is an error in Genesis, then they must admit there is an error in the Bible, in the church doctrine. And if one must admit that there is an error in one story in the Bible, then they MUST admit that the stories and therefore storytellers of the bible are not infallible, and the chances of more errors, perhaps far more meaningful than a matter of time frame, is rather high.

[Jeffe]

That’s how it’s an error to say the universe was created in 6 days.

[mbm693]

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
Oh wait -you were just being a petulant little brat . . . did you strain your brain with all of that heavy thinking?

Cant address my metaphor so you’ve resorted to petty insults? That’s sad.

. . . saying that you have a book that doesn’t exist is a metaphor? Really . . .

You’ve got an old book that says you have a soul. I’ve got an old book that says you have green scales. Evidence wise, the green scales and the soul are on equal footing. You didn’t pick up on this… really? You’re dumber than I thought.

Um . … no, you’re just a bigger idiot than your ego can admit to . . . I actually do have an old book that says I have a soul and you don’t have a book that says I have spiritual green scales - so there can be no “equal footing” no matter how clever you thought your little semantic dance was - - it’s adolescent logic at its worst for you to try to form any type of metaphor on a falsehood . . . at least form a metaphor that has some rational basis to it . . . You are as dumb as I thought . . .[/quote]

I do have an old book that says you have green scales. I wrote it myself, but it was revealed to me from on high. Bet you didn’t know I’m a profit did you? That’s right, the flying spaghetti monster himself revealed to me that the dumbest man on the internet has green scales. Your inability to form coherent arguments and correctly apply logical fallacies has been foretold.

By the way, I’m STILL waiting for you to explain to me the finer points of how alcohol affects free will. I know you said that alcohol interferes with the souls ability to exercise its free will, but that’s pretty rudimentary. Seems like an answer for a question so important should get a more thorough answer, especially form an expert like yourself.

It also over looks the fact that while the soul isn’t in control, you’ve got a drunken body running around acting of it’s own volition. Since you refuse to acknowledge the fact that the human brain is completely capable of running the human body without help from an imaginary soul, who’s calling the shots in this case? When you respond, please try to include answer that addresses the question I have just asked. Seriously, this has been pretty hard for you in the past.

You’re not going to have a coherent answer, but whatever does eventually come tumbling out of your head, please try to back it up with EVIDENCE. Some research on the spiritual properties of alcohol (like the ones that allow it to interfere with the souls control of the brain) would really make my day. The might even put me on the path to ‘enlightenment’. Oh, and be sure to insult my maturity too, irony makes me smile.

[IrishSteel]

[quote]Jeffe wrote:
That’s how it’s an error to say the universe was created in 6 days.

[/quote]

So you can conceive of a deity that can create time, the universe and all living life, but can’t create the appearance of age in all things? He can create a mature man, but not a mature universe? LOL - that was as far as you thought that one out?

[IrishSteel]

[quote]mbm693 wrote:

I do have an old book that says you have green scales. I wrote it myself, but it was revealed to me from on high. Bet you didn’t know I’m a profit did you? That’s right, the flying spaghetti monster himself revealed to me that the dumbest man on the internet has green scales. Your inability to form coherent arguments and correctly apply logical fallacies has been foretold.

By the way, I’m STILL waiting for you to explain to me the finer points of how alcohol affects free will. I know you said that alcohol interferes with the souls ability to exercise its free will, but that’s pretty rudimentary. Seems like an answer for a question so important should get a more thorough answer, especially form an expert like yourself.

It also over looks the fact that while the soul isn’t in control, you’ve got a drunken body running around acting of it’s own volition. Since you refuse to acknowledge the fact that the human brain is completely capable of running the human body without help from an imaginary soul, who’s calling the shots in this case? When you respond, please try to include answer that addresses the question I have just asked. Seriously, this has been pretty hard for you in the past.

You’re not going to have a coherent answer, but whatever does eventually come tumbling out of your head, please try to back it up with EVIDENCE. Some research on the spiritual properties of alcohol (like the ones that allow it to interfere with the souls control of the brain) would really make my day. The might even put me on the path to ‘enlightenment’. Oh, and be sure to insult my maturity too, irony makes me smile. [/quote]

Wow - you can create post after post about nothing - congratulations . . . but apparently you have no choice - after all, you are merely a pre-programmed set of biological chain reactions with no will, soul or true identity. A random conglomeration of biological pieces . . .

And, since you have no soul and no true self, your are merely nothing more than a bio-chemical/electrical process running itself to its demise with no purpose and no existence beyond this temporal plane. Good luck with that - you don’t even really have the ability to choose what you profess to be your beliefs even right now - it is all the result of processes and causes beyond your control or influence. What you say you believe is nothing more than random sparks, reactions and cellular decay beyond your control or input . . .there is no you. You are not a thinking individual with a self-identity, you are merely a random set of parts acting in a pre-determined way.

I guess I will just have to keep putting up with your random un-chosen outbursts as your random brain chemistry produces nonsensical comment after nonsensical comment in a micro-biological loop . . . after all, can’t expect a chemical reaction to understand a spiritual concept or to have any sense of self-control . . . .

No point in giving you any evidence of anything, even your “reason” is just an illusion created by the bio-electrical neural network of your brain. Amazing that that natural process can actually create and use words - however poorly it may be in your case . . . shouldn’t be surprised, some birds can mimic speech as well . . .

Well, my soul-less friend, thanks for the momentarily entertaining interaction, glad your neurons forced you to interact with me.

[mbm693]

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
mbm693 wrote:

I do have an old book that says you have green scales. I wrote it myself, but it was revealed to me from on high. Bet you didn’t know I’m a profit did you? That’s right, the flying spaghetti monster himself revealed to me that the dumbest man on the internet has green scales. Your inability to form coherent arguments and correctly apply logical fallacies has been foretold.

By the way, I’m STILL waiting for you to explain to me the finer points of how alcohol affects free will. I know you said that alcohol interferes with the souls ability to exercise its free will, but that’s pretty rudimentary. Seems like an answer for a question so important should get a more thorough answer, especially form an expert like yourself.

It also over looks the fact that while the soul isn’t in control, you’ve got a drunken body running around acting of it’s own volition. Since you refuse to acknowledge the fact that the human brain is completely capable of running the human body without help from an imaginary soul, who’s calling the shots in this case? When you respond, please try to include answer that addresses the question I have just asked. Seriously, this has been pretty hard for you in the past.

You’re not going to have a coherent answer, but whatever does eventually come tumbling out of your head, please try to back it up with EVIDENCE. Some research on the spiritual properties of alcohol (like the ones that allow it to interfere with the souls control of the brain) would really make my day. The might even put me on the path to ‘enlightenment’. Oh, and be sure to insult my maturity too, irony makes me smile.

Wow - you can create post after post about nothing - congratulations . . . but apparently you have no choice - after all, you are merely a pre-programmed set of biological chain reactions with no will, soul or true identity. A random conglomeration of biological pieces . . .

And, since you have no soul and no true self, your are merely nothing more than a bio-chemical/electrical process running itself to its demise with no purpose and no existence beyond this temporal plane. Good luck with that - you don’t even really have the ability to choose what you profess to be your beliefs even right now - it is all the result of processes and causes beyond your control or influence. What you say you believe is nothing more than random sparks, reactions and cellular decay beyond your control or input . . .there is no you. You are not a thinking individual with a self-identity, you are merely a random set of parts acting in a pre-determined way.

I guess I will just have to keep putting up with your random un-chosen outbursts as your random brain chemistry produces nonsensical comment after nonsensical comment in a micro-biological loop . . . after all, can’t expect a chemical reaction to understand a spiritual concept or to have any sense of self-control . . . .

No point in giving you any evidence of anything, even your “reason” is just an illusion created by the bio-electrical neural network of your brain. Amazing that that natural process can actually create and use words - however poorly it may be in your case . . . shouldn’t be surprised, some birds can mimic speech as well . . .

Well, my soul-less friend, thanks for the momentarily entertaining interaction, glad your neurons forced you to interact with me. [/quote]

So… not even going to attempt to address my arguments? You’re sad.

Still, I’m going to give another shot.

1. What are the spiritual properties of alcohol that allow it to interfere with the souls control of the brain?

2. Who is running the show when I’m drunk. If my soul isn’t in control of my body anymore, then who is responsible for what it does? God does demand accountability right?

Look, I won’t even make you admit that I’m right. You’re ego is far too large for that. Just admit that you don’t have any idea how to answer my questions and I’ll count that as good enough.

PS. I’m not sure why you think you’re insulting me, or demeaning my arguments, by saying things like ‘You are not a thinking individual with a self-identity, you are merely a random set of parts acting in a pre-determined way.’ That is actually what I think, and it’s what the evidence supports. I’m so proud that you’re able to charterize it somewhat accurately. But, what part telling me what I think with a sarcastic tone supports your position? All you’re actually doing is repeating me… is this some misguided bid to make people think you have half a brain?

[katzenjammer]

[quote]mbm693 wrote:
PS. I’m not sure why you think you’re insulting me, or demeaning my arguments, by saying things like ‘You are not a thinking individual with a self-identity, you are merely a random set of parts acting in a pre-determined way.’ That is actually what I think, [/quote]

Sorry to barge in like this, but who is it then who’s doing the thinking?

[IrishSteel]

[quote]mbm693 wrote:

So… not even going to attempt to address my arguments? You’re sad.

Still, I’m going to give another shot.

1. What are the spiritual properties of alcohol that allow it to interfere with the souls control of the brain?

2. Who is running the show when I’m drunk. If my soul isn’t in control of my body anymore, then who is responsible for what it does? God does demand accountability right?

Look, I won’t even make you admit that I’m right. You’re ego is far too large for that. Just admit that you don’t have any idea how to answer my questions and I’ll count that as good enough.

PS. I’m not sure why you think you’re insulting me, or demeaning my arguments, by saying things like ‘You are not a thinking individual with a self-identity, you are merely a random set of parts acting in a pre-determined way.’ That is actually what I think, and it’s what the evidence supports. I’m so proud that you’re able to charterize it somewhat accurately. But, what part telling me what I think with a sarcastic tone supports your position? All you’re actually doing is repeating me… is this some misguided bid to make people think you have half a brain?[/quote]

No - that’s not what you “think” - you’ve just admitted that you don’t actually have the ability to think - Thinking, believing, choosing are all just an illusion for you because you’re just chemical/electrical processes . . .

and your argument is only a straw-man since it is based on something I did not state.

1. You’ve completely mis-characterized my point - my point was that free will allows you to choice to drink alcohol, alcohol then interferes with your brain (the switchboard) functions. Three parts, three roles, three separate functions - spiritual, mental, physical - was that simple enough for you? I can’t answer your question, because it wasn’t something that I stated . . . what I stated was choice leads to actions leads to consequences . . .

2. You are still running your body when your are drunk, just not as well as before you impaired your functionality . . . again, you’re stating things I did not state . .

I have plenty of answers for you, but waiting for some real questions based on what I actually say, rather than all of this nonsense and reinterpretation you keep using.

Now, I hope that was enough to put your straw man argument to bed now . . .

Any chance you could ingest something to improve your chemical process and come up with something substantive to discuss or must we run in these silly childish circles?