How Much Do You Know About Christianity?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1061

[quote]THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
Jeffe wrote:

Some choose to sin and never repent, some choose to sin and to repent - there is no cause, there is just their decision. If there where a cause there would be no free will - this is called pre-determinism.

Can you list an example that would occur in the real world where someone acts without a cause thereby proving free-will?

I can’t wrap my head around this. Everything we do is towards happiness , whether instant or delayed. Everything we do is based off reason, for humans are rational beings. no? [/quote]

because you are turning influences into causes.

Yes, things can and do influence us. Burn your hand on the stove once - you know it’s going to hurt the next time too. But you still have the choice to touch the stove. Influence is not cause. Cause eliminates choice. Choice is never eliminated in morally culpable decisions.

If there was no choice that could be made - then there can be no morally culpable decision to make in that instance. if there was a choice that could be made - then no amount of influence alters the fact that a morally culpable choice must be made - I don’t know how to make that any simpler than that.

1062

[quote]ds1973 wrote:
DOA215 wrote:

The problem with that is that there is no way to really discuss whether or not there is a god because there is zero proof for either side. Sorry, it’s one of those things that we just don’t know now. Even if we did have proof there are those that would completely ignore it.

Actually, it is up to those who claim the positive to provide the proof. You don’t prove a negative. Currently, the existence of one or more gods does not hold up to sound scientific hypothesis testing. That is why I’m an aetheist.

You’re right though, people need to form their own opinions. Here’s an excellent, truncated, excerpt from a letter in the book I have “The Life and Selected writings of Thomas Jefferson”. The last sentence should be in bold, but I couldn’t figure out how to format it.

“Shake off all the fears and servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, that that of blindfolded fear. … But those facts in the Bible which contradict the laws of nature, must be examined with more care, and under a variety of faces. … Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences. If it ends in a belief that there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise, and the love of others which it will procure you. If you find reason to believe ther is a God, a consciousness that you are acting under his eye, and that he approves you, will be a vast additional incitement; … Your own reason is the only oracle given you by heaven, and you are answerable, not for the rightness, but uprightness of the decision.”

  • Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Peter Carr (8/10/1787)[/quote]

LOVE THAT QUOTE! I have in a notebook of great quotes I started some years ago. Thanks for posting it!

1063

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
forlife wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
Your definition of love is that it would not cause/create something that it knows would have to suffer - you emphasis is always the level of suffering.

I’ve talked about beneficence rather than love, but the logic really applies to both. You’re correct in a limited sense. Love is not solely defined by the level of suffering you knowingly allow for others, but the level of suffering you allow does have relevence. I’m arguing that it is NOT beneficent/loving to create something which you know in advance is going to suffer horribly for all eternity. I’m still wondering how you think that fits the definition of beneficence/love in any sense.

so you can understand that Love of a being is not negated by definite punishment, pain, suffering, death and separation - but then insist that because of a specific amount of suffering that then Love would be negated - it all revolves around the extent of the punishment.

Exactly. Loving someone is doing whatever you can to ensure that they will be happy and have a meaningful, productive life. Knowing that they will experience some difficulties and pain along the way doesn’t justify choosing not to create them in the first place, since in the long run they may experience true joy and fulfillment. However, knowing in advance that they WILL ultimately suffer horribly for centuries, millenia, eons, and all eternity yet STILL choosing to create them cannot be called love in any sense.

BUT in his great love he made a way so that NO ONE would HAVE to suffer, NO ONE would HAVE to be punished, NO ONE would HAVE to experience pain/torment, NO ONE wold HAVE to endure separation

You’re ignoring the fact that god KNOWS a given person WILL suffer, WILL be punished, WILL experience pain/torment, and WILL endure separation for all eternity, yet STILL chooses to create that person. This knowledge doesn’t imply predestination, but it does imply complicity, because god INCONTROVERTIBLY KNOWS this will happen, yet still chooses to create this person.

Given that, please explain to me how your god can be considered a truly loving god. I seriously don’t get it.

  1. If we suppose that God KNOWS a given person, once created, is going to choose evil, I can’t imagine that he’d say to himself: “well, I had better abolish this model, because he’s going to make the wrong choices. From now on, I had better only create humans that choose what I want them to choose.”

Because ^^THIS goes against free will - which, we have agreed is neccessary.

  1. If evil doesn’t exist in THIS world, how can we have free will?

  2. There may exist a larger plan that you and I and the rest of us here cannot even being to apprehend - a plan so out of our realm of human understanding that it would blow our minds if it were revealed to us; a plan that is nevertheless right and true and good, and makes any suffering here on earth but a distant dream. You cannot entirely discount this possibility.
    [/quote]

Exactly! How is that you and Push say the same things I do - but with a lot less words? :slight_smile:

1066

[quote]Oleena wrote:
pat wrote:
Oleena wrote:

Lots of people have done lots of bad things in the name of one thing or another. Obviously Christianity was not spared. It can be said unequivocally, those who persecuted others where not following Christian teaching.
Now the other link was interesting, but a bit liberal with the facts. Since muslims believe that Jesus was taken away to heaven in a chariot, it is imperative that they try to make the Christian story of Jesus as false as possible. I’d say ol’ Joommal has an axe to grind. He is loose with the facts. The Church started with Peter. Council of Nicaea (300 years later) was to get all the various churches on the same page. The leaders of the church at the time found that from place to place there were vast differences.

The fact that many of the church holidays land on pagan holidays is no accident. Since nobody knew Jesus’s actual B-day or the day he died, they placed the commemoration days in line with the pagan holidays. There are a number of reasons for it. One was to crowd out the pagan holidays with Christian holidays. Also, kept the pagan converts on there natural rhythms. There was no great conspiracy behind this, it just worked out that way and the traditions have not really changed.

You’re right, I just wanted to make sure you understood the means by which the pagans were converted.
[/quote]

The conversion by blood was used seldom, usually by a crazy sect taking matters into their own hands. Most converted willingly and enjoyed it. Those events just aren’t as interesting to read. People often demonize the church at the time and seldom know the facts. They focus on a few bad acts and generalize that, that’s the way it all was, but that is not true.

1067

[quote]Oleena wrote:
I’m still interested in an answer:

Do conjoined twins have two souls or one?[/quote]

I would say two, but who knows really? Perhaps we all share a soul. Perhaps some people share a soul and others don’t, the answer is not knowable, in reality.

1068

[quote]mbm693 wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
Just trying to keep the clutter of your insanity to a minimum - I copy in the last post by every person I am discussing with. . .

Look back, you will find my answer . . .wait better yet, let me put it here for you again . . .

IrishSteel wrote:
mbm693 wrote:

Let me get this straight… I have total free will, even after I’m drunk? Except that my soul will be all like “get up and walk out of the bar” and then I’ll walk into the bathroom and fuck some girl that I’m not married to. If that’s true, seems like the only thing my soul did wrong was have that first beer, or glass of wine if Jesus was bartending. After that one, my soul probably wanted me to quit, and my body just wouldn’t listen… it appears to have made its own decisions, independent of the soul. Is this why you think most people make it to heaven? They just aren’t responsible for a lot of what they do?

Also, and this is a question I asked you a few pages back that you’ve been all to happy to forget about, given the degree to which brain chemistry disrupts the soul’s ability to control the body, how can you reliably say the soul is ever in control? I mean, nobody’s brain chemistry is alike, and single person’s brain chemistry is the same from moment to moment. If alcohol can have that profound of effect, then surely testosterone creates short circuits too.

How can I dumb this down for you? . . . I guess it is time to break it down as simple as possible for your willing ignorance.

There are three components of the individual - A physical component (the Body), and mental component (the Mind),and a spiritual component (the Soul). You have correctly identified the physical and mental components and freely admit that science has proven them to exist. What you have no concept of, whether by choice or ignorance, is the Soul. Your soul is you, that state of self-awareness, it is that part that makes the morally culpable decisions. The concept of Free Will is the ability of the soul to make Morally Culpable decision free of cause/influence. It is an attribute of the soul, not a mechanism of the brain.

When God created man, he created a body and mind and breathes into each person the Breath of Life - the Soul. It is the soul that animates the body and creates what we see as personality and humanity. When it says that we are created in His image, we have been given attributes that reflect his attributes - the soul can create, the soul can love, the soul can choose, etc.

Your soul does not act in opposition to your brain (which is the part you’ve been trying to force all along) The soul is what animates the brain and thus the body.

I never said ingesting the alcohol was wrong - I only said that you had exercised free will by choosing to ingest the alcohol - if you then choose to commit a moral wrong under the mental impairment of the alcohol, from a spiritual perspective you are still morally guilty of the wrong that you commit. Since you chose to impair your mental faculties, you cannot blame that impairment (slow reaction time, etc) for the actions that follow because you made the first choice and then you still make another free moral decision to commit the wrong . . . the linear progression of those events is not divisible.

Again, the impairment of your mental faculties does not remove moral culpability from the moral choices you make while under the influence of that alcohol.

I never said that the soul was not in control of the mind or body, but only that the soul could choose to ingest substances that impair the functioning of the mind and body.

All of your arguments have consisted of adding words to mine or wrongly restating what I actually said.

As for your illustration at the beginning - no, your soul (you) chose to drink, and then to walk into the bathroom and fuck some girl you are not married to and then chose to try to blame it on the alcohol . . .

Go ahead and keep trying to avoid yourself . . .

Look, I know I was mean to you first and I apologize (no sarcasm here). I’m going to try to continue in a civil tone b/c I sincerely want you to consider the question I’ve asked you. This one of several lines of questioning that changed me from a devout believer, to a fairly militant atheist. I sympathize with the pain you went through to develop your beliefs, I’ve gone through my fair share developing mine.

What you’ve written above is instructive in what you actually believe, but it doesn’t answer my questions regarding the chemicals that are already in the brain. There is no free will decision on the part of a 15 year old boy to have his brain drowned in testosterone. Testosterone has significantly more influence on the mind and body of a boy, and their subsequent behavior, than 10 beers does on a grown man. I mean, test improves your spatial reasoning skills dramatically. You can literally think thoughts (or visualize objects) after puberty that you couldn’t before. All because a hormone has caused new growth in your brain. And test is just the tip of the iceberg, there are hundred of other chemicals in the brain, at all times, in constant flux, that effect nearly everything about your perception of the world around you than alcohol does.

When you consider all that, and how it must play into the level of control you’ve got some hard questions to answer. A good analogy would be judging some one with sever MS as sinful b/c he walks funny. He’s really trying his best to walk, but the signals aren’t getting through in the way he intended. The same could be said of the soul’s relationship to a brain (switchboard I believe you’ve called it) that addled with all these extra chemicals. The soul might send down the ‘walk away command’ only to have the body lurch forward and accidentally grab someones tits to steady itself.
[/quote]

Your just assigning properties to the soul that it does not have. The soul isn’t the same as personality or behavior. The brain controls that stuff. You physical and spiritual matter act upon each other, but not in the ways you are thinking they do.

1069

[quote]Makavali wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Oleena wrote:
Makavali wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Oleeme, you take off on a lot of rabbit trails, sugar. Leave this Islam - Christianity comparison thing alone or you are going to look awfully silly. This is truly the most ineffective weapon in your arsenal.

Yeah, Islam and Christianity have nothing in common.

I actually did lol.

I have no doubt you did lol. After all this thread is an emotional exercise for you rather than an intellectual/logical one - much to the chagrin of the facade you have set up.

Well, women are incapable of logic, right Push?[/quote]

Only Wives.

1070

[quote]Makavali wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
forlife wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
Fine, just for you. When God breathed into Adam the breathe of life - all subsequent human beings take part in that same eternal existence. Thus even those who suffer in hell are still recipients of the breathe of life (immortality of the soul)

So you believe all humans have the breath of life, and thus will live forever, but that no other living thing on the planet has the breath of life (animals, birds, plants, germs, etc.)?

yes

Arrogance. Humans aren’t any more speical than Cockroaches.[/quote]

Speak for yourself.

1071

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Didn’t ask anyone to prove a negative - they can prove the positive - and I am always on the lookout for just such an occurrence.[/quote]

What I meant was that it is impossible to prove beyond doubt that the five reasons you mentioned for believing what you do are invalid. For example, I could point to inconsistencies in the bible, but doing so accomplishes nothing when a person has the firm conviction that the bible is the word of god. Confirmatory bias is alive and well, although of course people never recognize it as such.

I never claimed that all hills are equally valid, only that the probability of any particular hill being valid is not so much greater than the probability of any other hill being valid, to justify planting a flag on it. One (or none) of the hills could be valid, but given the lack of objective evidence to that effect, I believe the most honest approach is to withhold judgment.

I agree with you, and in fact I think none of the hills are worth defending to the death, given what we currently know. Rather than planting a flag on a particular hill, I prefer to travel among the hills, flag in hand, and enjoy the journey :slight_smile:

People frequently say that, but many of those same people voted for Proposition 8.

Thanks, I think you are sincerely seeking the truth as well. I find it refreshing to discuss ideas openly with someone that sees the world differently, without resorting to character attacks on either side.

1072

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

  1. he could choose to not create anyone who would not repent of their sin - but then he would have created only people who would choose to repent

  2. free will is lost, because he made them to repent[/quote]

The second statement doesn’t logically follow from the first. Creating people who choose, by their own free will, to repent isn’t the same as forcing people to repent. As we’ve already agreed, foreknowledge is different from predestination.

Rather, you end up with people who choose of their own free will to make the right choice. They are still exercising free will; your knowledge that they will do so is irrelevant.

At minimum, I would say the net amount of suffering should be less than the net amount of joy in order for it to an informed loving choice.

So you suffer in the present, and live in the present forever. Different way of thinking about it, but it is the same result. Is it loving to create someone that will only suffer, and will never experience true joy?

1073

[quote]pushharder wrote:
EVERYTHING and I mean everything is all about the gay thing with you, isn’t it? [/quote]

I’ve posted probably a hundred times in this thread, yet when I mention “the gay thing” in a minor side post, you jump all over me.

My approach to objective truth, and my overall view of spirituality, have nothing to do with “the gay thing”. If I wanted to be gay and Christian, I would join the world’s largest gay church, which is 10 minutes from my house.

I mentioned “the gay thing” in the context of this discussion, because “the gay thing” is where I have personally experienced discrimination from bible thumpers who are convinced that their god has condemned me. There are other examples of human rights being violated in the name of religion (Christian, Muslim, or otherwise), but “the gay thing” happens to be something I’m personally familiar with.

Now back to our regularly scheduled program…

1074

[quote]Makavali wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
forlife wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
Fine, just for you. When God breathed into Adam the breathe of life - all subsequent human beings take part in that same eternal existence. Thus even those who suffer in hell are still recipients of the breathe of life (immortality of the soul)

So you believe all humans have the breath of life, and thus will live forever, but that no other living thing on the planet has the breath of life (animals, birds, plants, germs, etc.)?

yes

Arrogance. Humans aren’t any more speical than Cockroaches.[/quote]
This is possibly the truest thing I’ve seen written in the PWI forum.

1076

[quote]pushharder wrote:
You’ll deny this of course but I believe I just pegged you (no homo).
[/quote]

You’re welcome to believe whatever you want about my motivations. I’ve stated them for the record, but you have every right to your opinion.

1077

[quote]forlife wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
I didn’t say I chose a husband based on scientific method, I said I looked at what clues there were and then took a giant leap of faith.

Are you disagreeing that you made a choice based on the sincere belief that, given existing objective evidence, it was probable your decision to marry your husband would be in your best interest?

If not, my point stands. The scientific method is about formulating hypotheses and drawing conclusions based on the probability that those hypotheses are correct, given currently available objective evidence. It seems to me that is exactly what you did.

Furthemore, the scientific method is willing to change its hypotheses when additional objective evidence warrants doing so. If after marrying your husband, you learned that he was really a jerk and was unworthy of being married to you, I suspect you would be willing to revise your hypothesis accordingly.

That is a far cry from choosing a belief system over other belief systems based on scanty evidence, and refusing to ever change that belief system, despite objective evidence supporting the possibility of other belief systems being just as true as your own.

I don’t know what you think IS the most probable truth of the universe, but whatever it is you have no more basis for it than anyone else has for theirs.

Which is why I believe agnosticism is the most honest approach, based on what we currently know. What is so frightening about admitting that we simply don’t know?[/quote]

forlife, I am agnostic and I admit freely that I don’t know. What I don’t do is demand of others that they show me empirical proof in support of their beliefs. Particularly since we all know that empirical proof in this instance is impossible. As is empirical proof of my husband’s good behavior going forward. There simply isn’t any.

I continue to disagree with you that scientific method is used to make predictions about the examples I gave of areas in which I use evidence to support faith. Scientific method is more than merely observation. It attempts to minimize the influence of the observer’s bias through the testing of theory. I make no such attempt and have no interest in making the attempt. I’m fine with faith (again, backed by intellect and intuition). I merely picked a husband I thought was nice based on my observation of what seemed to be indicators of his character. When i observe an exceptionally precocious child and feel the kind of wonder that supports, for me, a belief in intelligent design, I am applying approximately the same degree of evidence-based logic.

You’re correct in that I would adjust my belief in response to new evidence about my husband’s character. Of course! What seems to frustrate you is the sense that other people are refusing to acknowledge that there is “objective evidence supporting the possibility of other belief systems being just as true as [their] own.” I just don’t think they see it that way. Any more than I would agree that someone else’s husband–whom I don’t love–is just as good for me as my own. What would constitute objective evidence in this case?

I’ve been reading other threads and I’m feeling the urge to go back to the thing about how you feel mothers can be trusted on the matter of chicken recipes but not about the origin of man. So, er…are you close to your fundamentalist family?

1078

[quote]pat wrote:
Makavali wrote:

Well, women are incapable of logic, right Push?

Only Wives.[/quote]

Hey. That’s not funny.

1079

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Oleena wrote:

Now - obviously, you either forgot or are choosing to ignore my explanation of the age of accountability. It is unique to each individual. If their physical development never reaches the point that their soul is able to understand/discern good from evil, then their free will could never make a morally culpable decision - they remain as innocent as the infant they really are in every sense of the emotional and mental state.

However, as they grow, learn and develop (which many have -some with extensive therapy, some with some truly incredible and loving foster/adopting parent) they will also grow in their ability to comprehend good and evil and will come to their age of accountability. At that point (whenever it comes for them) they will be held responsible for the decisions/choices that they make.

But the person who brought that pain and suffering . . . I’m gonna be on the front row to witness those judgments![/quote] And what if the person who did this to these children had the same thing happen to them as a child (which is highly likely in a lot of these cases)?

Most people who abuse children were highly abused themselves as kids. Pediphiles especially. I have worked with families were there are three generations of abuse right in my office, and half of the repetitive abuse is under the age of 18 (say one male, abused as a three year old, abuses his female 6 year old cousin. She has a good chance of growing up to do the same.)

Another topic- with some sociopaths there is almost no way to predict who they are and when they might turn into killer. I’ve seen children from every imaginable background turn into one. It’s almost like there’s something locked away deep in their DNA that just wakes up one day.

A third topic- if there really is something in their DNA, it would make sense that it’s been bred into there, as all of the major serial killers of our century have received numerous letters from women across the country asking them to impregnate them or trying to start a relationship. Scientists hypothesize that these women are trying to seek the top Alpha Male for their offspring. I can only imagine that this isn’t a new occurance and these men have been sought after by women in previous centuries as well.

[/quote]

And the people who help, love and work with these individuals - man, they are as brave as SEAL’s in my opinion and worthy of the same respect - there you go making me cry again . . .[/quote]

1080

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
forlife, I am agnostic and I admit freely that I don’t know.[/quote]

Sounds like we see things similarly, then.

I don’t generally ask people for empirical proof of their beliefs, unless they try to legislate their beliefs on me in some way. If they expect me to follow laws reflecting their beliefs, it’s only fair that they provide objective evidence for those beliefs.

You and I know that, but many (particularly fundamentalist) Christians would disagree.

In that case, I agree you’re not really using the scientific method. It’s hard to avoid bias, even with formal scientific inquiries, but when you openly embrace bias, the probability of being correct is reduced accordingly.

There’s a difference between objective and subjective reality. People can have biases, preferences, affiliations, etc. without that reflecting anything about the objective universe. When I talk about the scientific method, I’m specifically referring to statements about the nature of objective reality.

My mom was never religious, she only sent us to church. I was the most religious person in my immediate family. Once I left, my siblings followed suit. But yes, we’re all pretty close :slight_smile: