[quote]Oleena wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Oleena wrote:
Am I shaking my fist at god, or at a definition written in a book that has dictated how many people believe/act for thousands of years?
Both?
How can I shake my fist at something which I don’t think exists?
[/quote]
Well your pissed off at It. How can you be pissed off at something that does not exist.
[quote]THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
If you care to posit your question(s) again - I will fairly and honestly respond to them.
I’ll keep this extremely simple. (you can re-read my earlier posts if you like)
Try to believe 2+2=5.
Now try to believe Jesus Christ didn’t die on the cross for your sins and he isn’t your personal savior.
If you could not believe in these with all your “will”, then you DONT have freedom of belief.
refute this.
[/quote]
Lots of people believe things that aren’t true…What’s your point?
[quote]THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
If you care to posit your question(s) again - I will fairly and honestly respond to them.
I’ll keep this extremely simple. (you can re-read my earlier posts if you like)
Try to believe 2+2=5.
Now try to believe Jesus Christ didn’t die on the cross for your sins and he isn’t your personal savior.
If you could not believe in these with all your “will”, then you DONT have freedom of belief.
refute this.
Nothing to refute - I agree with you 100%
the clamp down for the win.
By agreeing to this post, you have agreed to all my posts and what my main point has been:
which means:
An institution like religion is bunk
Unless:
The Christian God or Muslim God (or whoever) is behind our deterministic world.
which means:
The idea of heaven and hell is doubly absurd.
Do you really think your the cause of all your actions? Have you EVER did something that lacked a cause or a reason? Be truthful.[/quote]
Determinism is an illusion.
[quote]THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
If you care to posit your question(s) again - I will fairly and honestly respond to them.
I’ll keep this extremely simple. (you can re-read my earlier posts if you like)
Try to believe 2+2=5.
Now try to believe Jesus Christ didn’t die on the cross for your sins and he isn’t your personal savior.
If you could not believe in these with all your “will”, then you DONT have freedom of belief.
refute this.
Nothing to refute - I agree with you 100%
the clamp down for the win.
By agreeing to this post, you have agreed to all my posts and what my main point has been:
which means:
An institution like religion is bunk
Unless:
The Christian God or Muslim God (or whoever) is behind our deterministic world.
which means:
The idea of heaven and hell is doubly absurd.
Do you really think your the cause of all your actions? Have you EVER did something that lacked a cause or a reason? Be truthful.[/quote]
oh TCD, and just when I was ready to believe you had some honesty and intelligence . . .
WHY did you cut out my full answer? You dishonest little twerp - my point was that I had started from a point of total disbelief and moved forward from there. By having believed what you had asked if I could believe, I proved (according to your standard) that free will exists . . .
You didn’t win except to provide a verification of free will . . .
[quote]Oleena wrote:
I have a friend who insists that some people are stuck at a level of reasoning where they are unable to objectively look at similarities and questions between religions and when addressing existential questions. I posted the link because it shows how two religions, which both attest to uphold women as very valuable, have also been used to justify abusing women. Here’s the Christian part. Even if you can’t see it, I’m sure other’s will note the similarity to the Islamic part:
[/quote]
As I understood it (and as Christians have practiced for millennium) a husband is commanded to love his wife and and spousal abuse has been consistently treated as a sin. The Biblical examples were of how sinful man treated woman- not a standard for Christians to follow. The silliness pervading English societies about the proper role of a woman in the home were just that silly and stupid - and even a cursory reading of Proverbs 31 illustrates.
MY POINT was that abuse of wives in Islam and the role of women in Islam is nothing similar to what Christianity teaches on these subjects, just as Allah is nothing like God, and on an on.
So your whole argument based on a single source - is that you think all religions approve of or enable mistreatment of women - and that point I disagree with based directly on the actual teachings of the Bible and the Quran. Women are priceless and precious in Christianity and are worthless and common in Islam.
What you are doing is a bit twisted - you are blaming the societal rules of supposed Christian nations on the Christian faith, and then in the same breath blaming the teachings of the Islamic faith on the Laws of Nations which allow the abuse of women - nations which have based their laws on the teachings of Islam.
anyway . . . once again all you are doing is looking for a new avenue to express your hatred of God regardless of the truth of Christianity - so what will be your next topic?
I think you are referring to dichotomy and trichotomy. I also think that your comments concerning agnosticism are right on.
jpb
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Oleena wrote:
Where did I ask what the difference was between man and animal? All I asked was how some of these higher-intelligence species are able to do their basic reasoning and move around without a soul to drive them. It shouldn’t really matter what I think of your answer, you should just be able to answer it with reasonable proof.
Just something to toss out here and I’d like Mr. Steel’s take too. Some thinkers throw out the idea of a triune man (made in the image of a triune God) - body, soul and spirit.
Animals lack the spirit but have the soul and that is what makes man different from the animals in that regard.
Yes, dualism is what we have been talking about here but what about tri-ism (Is that a word? Can we make it one?)?[/quote]
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Oleena wrote:
Where did I ask what the difference was between man and animal? All I asked was how some of these higher-intelligence species are able to do their basic reasoning and move around without a soul to drive them. It shouldn’t really matter what I think of your answer, you should just be able to answer it with reasonable proof.
Just something to toss out here and I’d like Mr. Steel’s take too. Some thinkers throw out the idea of a triune man (made in the image of a triune God) - body, soul and spirit.
Animals lack the spirit but have the soul and that is what makes man different from the animals in that regard.
Yes, dualism is what we have been talking about here but what about tri-ism (Is that a word? Can we make it one?)?[/quote]
Sorry Push, missed this one along the way until JPB answered you.
wow - another can of worms . . . i’ll leave the trinity question alone for now. . .
I believe that animals are like people (Oleena should enjoy this - she finally gets her answer indirectly) in that they have a body, mind and soul - However, they do not possess an immortal soul (the holy breathe of life given only to men) that humans possess (in this, I agree a lot with Descartes who explains it much better than I). It is that immortality, I believe, that many people mean when they say spirit - and also that this is often what the Scripture refer to as well. So, yes, animals are body and soul- no spirit.
In my estimation of what scripture teaches, the spirit is a quality/attribute of the human soul
So, in that sense I could be for a four-part design (body, mind, soul and spirit) or a three-part design (body, mind and soul/spirit or body/mind, soul and spirit) without any difficulty at all.
Oh, and the distinction of mind versus brain for me is interchangeable as well - the only reason I distinguish them is due to ability of the brain to grow in function, knowledge, memory, etc (ie great minds versus little minds). The interplay between the spiritual soul and the physical body affect the brain/mind uniquely in each person so I try to acknowledge that by the use of the term mind for the brain.
Hope that made sense - and thanks JPB for bringing this question back into play.
…so that’s the bottom line, eh? It’s not the desire to be a good person, but the fear of some kind of retribution after death, that fuels your religious zeal?
[quote]ephrem wrote:
pushharder wrote:You’ll be the one in need of some luck. My faith has me covered.
…so that’s the bottom line, eh? It’s not the desire to be a good person, but the fear of some kind of retribution after death, that fuels your religious zeal?[/quote]
I wouldn’t call push zealous. He seems quite normal to me. I’ll let him answer the rest.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
If you care to posit your question(s) again - I will fairly and honestly respond to them.
I’ll keep this extremely simple. (you can re-read my earlier posts if you like)
Try to believe 2+2=5.
Now try to believe Jesus Christ didn’t die on the cross for your sins and he isn’t your personal savior.
If you could not believe in these with all your “will”, then you DONT have freedom of belief.
refute this.
Nothing to refute - I agree with you 100%
the clamp down for the win.
By agreeing to this post, you have agreed to all my posts and what my main point has been:
which means:
An institution like religion is bunk
Unless:
The Christian God or Muslim God (or whoever) is behind our deterministic world.
which means:
The idea of heaven and hell is doubly absurd.
Do you really think your the cause of all your actions? Have you EVER did something that lacked a cause or a reason? Be truthful.
oh TCD, and just when I was ready to believe you had some honesty and intelligence . . .
WHY did you cut out my full answer? You dishonest little twerp - my point was that I had started from a point of total disbelief and moved forward from there. By having believed what you had asked if I could believe, I proved (according to your standard) that free will exists . . .
You didn’t win except to provide a verification of free will . . .[/quote]
The problem with determinism is two fold, you have to be able to prove everything was, is and will be determined. And it requires time.
IrishSteel, for what it’s worth I have very much enjoyed reading through your posts about your faith.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Oleena wrote:
I have a friend who insists that some people are stuck at a level of reasoning where they are unable to objectively look at similarities and questions between religions and when addressing existential questions. I posted the link because it shows how two religions, which both attest to uphold women as very valuable, have also been used to justify abusing women. Here’s the Christian part. Even if you can’t see it, I’m sure other’s will note the similarity to the Islamic part:
As I understood it (and as Christians have practiced for millennium) a husband is commanded to love his wife and and spousal abuse has been consistently treated as a sin. The Biblical examples were of how sinful man treated woman- not a standard for Christians to follow. The silliness pervading English societies about the proper role of a woman in the home were just that silly and stupid - and even a cursory reading of Proverbs 31 illustrates.
MY POINT was that abuse of wives in Islam and the role of women in Islam is nothing similar to what Christianity teaches on these subjects, just as Allah is nothing like God, and on an on.
So your whole argument based on a single source - is that you think all religions approve of or enable mistreatment of women - and that point I disagree with based directly on the actual teachings of the Bible and the Quran. Women are priceless and precious in Christianity and are worthless and common in Islam.[/quote]I give up. I’ve pointed out numerous times that in BOTH Islam religious teachings and christian religious teachings woman are described as precious, and I have also pointed out that at different points in time different societies have “twisted” the words of both religions to support the abuse of women. If you can’t understand the difference between muslim society and Islam religion that is not my fault. You seem very capable of understanding the difference between different societies that have accepted christianity as their faith and the actual christian religion.
[quote]What you are doing is a bit twisted - you are blaming the societal rules of supposed Christian nations on the Christian faith, and then in the same breath blaming the teachings of the Islamic faith on the Laws of Nations which allow the abuse of women - nations which have based their laws on the teachings of Islam.[/quote] As I said, you are unable to see the similarities. Do you even know who Martin Luther was or why that article mentioned him? Do you have any knowlege of what previous christian societies were like, say, 500+ years ago? You claim to have a basic understanding of christianity, but in failing understand that current muslim culture is similar to older christian cultures you display a clear lack of either mental ability or simply historic knowledge. BTW, if you choose to answer this, make sure to mention who Martin Luther is and why he’s important. Note, I’m not referring to Martin Luther King. Think several 1000 years before that.
[quote]anyway . . . once again all you are doing is looking for a new avenue to express your hatred of God regardless of the truth of Christianity - so what will be your next topic?[/quote] Two issues with this- when have I expressed a hatred towards god? I have spent an entire thread expressing dismay towards a definition of a god in a book that no one to this point in the thread has been able to prove the validity of because, honestly, you haven’t died, so you just don’t know.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Oleena wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Oleena wrote:
Actually, agnosticism would be an utter lack of faith in anything.
Like I said, it is inverted but it is a faith. An agnostic has a faith that his so-called lack of faith is “the ticket.”
Again, as I said earlier, an agnostic is a copout. A fence rider. A pussy. So you are going along with some actual belief so as to help define yourself as “not an indecisive pussy”? when you admit that you really don’t know, and therefore don’t have 100% faith?
I admitted no such thing but it must humor you greatly to think so.
That we will. Good luck all of us 
You’ll be the one in need of some luck. My faith has me covered.
[/quote]
Not if it turns out that you picked the wrong religion. It could be that the Muslims have it right, or the mormons know best, or the goddesss is still pissed that everyone forgot about her with these stupid monotheistic male religions, or the buddhists have it going on with reincarnation. <<If that’s true you’ll have nothing to worry about. You’ll probably come back as a male chicken that gets to live in a nice farmer’s backyard and breed with all the hens.
This is such an interesting take on the world. I feel like I’m exploring an ancient myth.
Okay, so where do the animal’s souls go when they die? Also, at what point do we say that an animal doesn’t have a soul because it’s too much like a plant? Does an amoeba have a soul? Or maybe plants have souls? What’s the cut for getting a soul?
[quote]jpb wrote:
I think you are referring to dichotomy and trichotomy. I also think that your comments concerning agnosticism are right on.
jpb
pushharder wrote:
Oleena wrote:
Where did I ask what the difference was between man and animal? All I asked was how some of these higher-intelligence species are able to do their basic reasoning and move around without a soul to drive them. It shouldn’t really matter what I think of your answer, you should just be able to answer it with reasonable proof.
Just something to toss out here and I’d like Mr. Steel’s take too. Some thinkers throw out the idea of a triune man (made in the image of a triune God) - body, soul and spirit.
Animals lack the spirit but have the soul and that is what makes man different from the animals in that regard.
Yes, dualism is what we have been talking about here but what about tri-ism (Is that a word? Can we make it one?)?
[/quote]
[quote]Oleena wrote:
Pushme and IrishSteel, I am going to give you a chance to convert me back to Christianity right now. I swear to you that I am being serious, and if there is a good answer to this that does not involve the following, I will return to Christianity (when I was a Christian, I loved being a Christian) 1. Saying God is anything less than all knowing, because that’s been clearly stated in the Bible or 2. You cannot hold God to the same standards as men, because in this case the grievance is enormous and I would not want to follow someone who was this petty/selfish/unethical according to the most basic parenting standards. In other words, as a parent, it is your responsibility to look out for the well being of your offspring. Not 1% or less of them, but all of them.
First of all, as I mentioned, it’s stated that God is all knowing (Psalm 139:2-6; Isaiah 40:13-14)
In Revelations it states that most of the earth will be destroyed in the endtime, and only a very small percentage of all of humanity that ever existed will make it into the kingdom of Heaven.
Now I ask you- if you were going to have 10 children, and you knew from far before the moment that you conceived them that 9 of them were going to CHOOSE TO BURN IN HELL, would you have 10 children?
Think carefully on this answer as not to be hypocritical. If you support or use birthcontrol in any manner, you are choosing in the opposite direction that God did.
I cannot ethically follow a God who plays games with his children, the end result of which is far more than 99% burning in hell.[/quote]
I find it almost impossible to believe that you spent that much time around anything even vaguely resembling historic Christianity, Catholic or Protestant, and missed the most foundational doctrines contained in any children’s catechism. Once again, I’m more convinced than ever, if that’s possible, that epistemology is the only meaningful arena for ultimate questions.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
If you care to posit your question(s) again - I will fairly and honestly respond to them.
I’ll keep this extremely simple. (you can re-read my earlier posts if you like)
Try to believe 2+2=5.
Now try to believe Jesus Christ didn’t die on the cross for your sins and he isn’t your personal savior.
If you could not believe in these with all your “will”, then you DONT have freedom of belief.
refute this.
Nothing to refute - I agree with you 100%
the clamp down for the win.
By agreeing to this post, you have agreed to all my posts and what my main point has been:
which means:
An institution like religion is bunk
Unless:
The Christian God or Muslim God (or whoever) is behind our deterministic world.
which means:
The idea of heaven and hell is doubly absurd.
Do you really think your the cause of all your actions? Have you EVER did something that lacked a cause or a reason? Be truthful.
oh TCD, and just when I was ready to believe you had some honesty and intelligence . . .
WHY did you cut out my full answer? You dishonest little twerp - my point was that I had started from a point of total disbelief and moved forward from there. By having believed what you had asked if I could believe, I proved (according to your standard) that free will exists . . .
You didn’t win except to provide a verification of free will . . .[/quote]
you honestly think this added anything:
“Oh but I have done exactly what you asked - I rejected all belief systems and started over from the very beginning/basics (accepting NO presuppositions) to build my world-view and to come to the point where I can rationally accept my beliefs about God and Christianity (along with input from Buddhism, Taoism and a few other belief systems)”
-For one, my questions were set in the present moment.
-For two, it is possible to reprogram a programmable creature. ie- believing 2+2=5. Think 1984. But it takes time.
-For three, anyone who doesn’t see our free-will is severly limited is only doing so because their “knowledge bank” will not allow them to believe which further proves my point. THINK!
-For four, even in a state of “total disbelief”-- you will retain beliefs. Thats just silly.
-For five, my standard was never “Have you ever in all your life believed Jesus Christ wasnt your savior”. Of course you will have different conditioning and a different brain at different stages in your life which would produce different beliefs. Nothing is static.
Im done. You have misconstrued every post I have written either because you felt that was the only way to win the debate or because you are simply retarded. Add some psychology,philosophy, biology, etc. books to your library (now you will say “I have blah blah blah already” To which I say " READ them"). Peace.
[quote]pat wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
If you care to posit your question(s) again - I will fairly and honestly respond to them.
I’ll keep this extremely simple. (you can re-read my earlier posts if you like)
Try to believe 2+2=5.
Now try to believe Jesus Christ didn’t die on the cross for your sins and he isn’t your personal savior.
If you could not believe in these with all your “will”, then you DONT have freedom of belief.
refute this.
Nothing to refute - I agree with you 100%
the clamp down for the win.
By agreeing to this post, you have agreed to all my posts and what my main point has been:
which means:
An institution like religion is bunk
Unless:
The Christian God or Muslim God (or whoever) is behind our deterministic world.
which means:
The idea of heaven and hell is doubly absurd.
Do you really think your the cause of all your actions? Have you EVER did something that lacked a cause or a reason? Be truthful.
oh TCD, and just when I was ready to believe you had some honesty and intelligence . . .
WHY did you cut out my full answer? You dishonest little twerp - my point was that I had started from a point of total disbelief and moved forward from there. By having believed what you had asked if I could believe, I proved (according to your standard) that free will exists . . .
You didn’t win except to provide a verification of free will . . .
The problem with determinism is two fold, you have to be able to prove everything was, is and will be determined. And it requires time. [/quote]
Can’t we all just have faith?