How Much Do You Know About Christianity?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1081

[quote]pushharder wrote:
forlife wrote:

…Just my 2 cents. As I said earlier, if your belief system gives you comfort and provides meaning to your life, that is great. Unfortunately, such beliefs tend to spill over into judgments against others (as seen by your anti-gay stance), but I do understand it and can’t really blame you for it.

EVERYTHING and I mean everything is all about the gay thing with you, isn’t it? This entire discussion as far you’re concerned revolves around the gay thing. I would say most of what you post on PWI has to do with it. It eats you up, doesn’t it?

Relax for a bit, step away from the gay agenda for awhile and enjoy the discussion for crying out loud.[/quote]

This from the guy who contributes nothing to the discussion except instigation for his own amusement and “we can’t question god”. In addition, you’re being quite sexist with the statemtn here, as you clearly have nothing wrong with women acting gay.

1083

Can’t we all just be Mormons?

1084

[quote]forlife wrote:
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.

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.

Truth exists - if you are on the hunt for truth (as we all should be), then you have to make judgments - claiming that all points are equally valid - is claiming that none of them are valid.

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.

Thus there are many hills that are not worth defending.

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:

The fact is that it is listed as a sin in the Bible - ok, so does that mean I am judgmental against gays - nope. You do not have to live by my standards and I would never try to force someone to live by my beliefs.

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

I think you are a pretty fair guy

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.
[/quote]

Those are not five reason - remember I said I’d give you the easy stuff - those are five areas of investigations, each one containing many individual inquiries - I hope that is clear now.

I see your perspective on the “hills” - you’ve not yet found anything true . . . perhaps you should start at absolute zero and build up from there - very few people I know actually have the honesty/character to undertake it - but I think you could do it.

If you would insert a personal pronoun for the collective - you’d be right on track - I’ll keep waving from my hill so you can have some sense of direction - lol

1085

[quote]forlife wrote:
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

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.

by negating the possibility of not choosing to repent, you negate the free will of the individual and end up with robots made with the ability to make one choice

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.

Well if it is the level of torment that a soul must endure for the sins that it has chosen, what would be an appropriate level of suffering? You do agree (accpeting the basic premises of Christianity for argument’s sake) that a soul that sins should be punished for the sins it freely commits, right? So what level of suffering would be appropriate?

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.

He plainly said: “And time shall be no more”.

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?[/quote]

Let me restate what you are saying - God in foreknowledge knows who would choose to not repent and who would choose to repent - so he only creates those who would choose to repent . . . fundamental flaw though - those would be parents of those who would repent who were not created - you would have completely undone human existence. . . just a small problem there

1086

[quote]Jab1 wrote:
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.
This is possibly the truest thing I’ve seen written in the PWI forum.

[/quote]

you’ve got a weird definition of truth then . . . like I told Mak, just go around telling this to the people you care about - Hi sweetie -you’re a special as a cockroach to me. . . Hi mom - saw a cockroach that reminded me of you . . . Hi Suzie -threw all your stuff into the basement - we’re gonna let the cockroaches have your room now . . . .

1087

[quote]pat wrote:

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.[/quote]

If the brain, which I’m arguing is a purely physical entity, controls my actions and personality in their entirety, what’s left over for the soul to do and be judged by?

1089

[quote]IrishSteel 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.

.[/quote]

What stands out to me in this situation is that these RAD children are the way they are solely because of their past experience. What I can’t see is how regular children are any different. They get different experiences, which may or may not prepare them for life as well adjusted adults, but I don’t see where they get any choice in how they behave. Even as adults, people are sill just products of the totality of their experience. Either they had traumatizing experiences that left them sociopaths, or they had good ones that made them a saint. But they are the way they are b/c of events beyond their control.

1090

[quote]pushharder wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
pat wrote:

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.

If the brain, which I’m arguing is a purely physical entity, controls my actions and personality in their entirety, what’s left over for the soul to do and be judged by?

Would you entertain the idea that the soul and the brain work together in some yet to be explained fashion?[/quote]

I’m looking for one to be spelled out for me. I haven’t been able to generate a model of interaction that allows the soul to judged for what the body does here on earth and still be considered ‘fair’ by anyone. As I said in a previous post, I used to be a pretty hardcore Christian, and not being able to come up with a reasonable theory for this interaction is part of what drove me away.

But to answer your question directly, and undefined system won’t cut it for me. From where I sit, it takes faith to accept that a soul exists at all, and I can’t justify taking still another leap to say “It must interact with the boy in a way that makes it fair come Judgement Day.”

1091

[quote]mbm693 wrote:

If the brain, which I’m arguing is a purely physical entity, controls my actions and personality in their entirety[/quote]

So you’re 1. unambiguously asserting that your “actions and personality” are distinctly separate from your brain. And, 2. that “you” are not in control of “[your] actions and personality” - rather, your brain is?

1092

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
mbm693 wrote:

If the brain, which I’m arguing is a purely physical entity, controls my actions and personality in their entirety

So you’re 1. unambiguously asserting that your “actions and personality” are distinctly separate from your brain. And, 2. that “you” are not in control of “[your] actions and personality” - rather, your brain is?

[/quote]

  1. I’m not asserting that. Pat suggested the brain controls actions and personality, and I was asking what role that left for the soul.

I think my actions and personality are entirely controlled by my brain. For that matter, I don’t see actions and personality as fundamentally different. They are all just physical actions on one scale or another (electrons zipping around my brain, or me dead lifting). They are both entirely physically controlled.

  1. I agree with this. ‘I’ am not in control of anything. At best, I’m merely some hardware/software that prefers to grant itself the illusion of control. ‘I’ is a just a placeholder for the english language. I am just a chemical reaction with a small amount of self awareness.
1093

[quote]mbm693 wrote:

What stands out to me in this situation is that these RAD children are the way they are solely because of their past experience. What I can’t see is how regular children are any different. They get different experiences, which may or may not prepare them for life as well adjusted adults, but I don’t see where they get any choice in how they behave. Even as adults, people are sill just products of the totality of their experience. Either they had traumatizing experiences that left them sociopaths, or they had good ones that made them a saint. But they are the way they are b/c of events beyond their control. [/quote]

Good for you -you have some beliefs of your own.

1094

[quote]mbm693 wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
mbm693 wrote:

If the brain, which I’m arguing is a purely physical entity, controls my actions and personality in their entirety

So you’re 1. unambiguously asserting that your “actions and personality” are distinctly separate from your brain. And, 2. that “you” are not in control of “[your] actions and personality” - rather, your brain is?

  1. I’m not asserting that. [/quote]

But you are. Look at the underlined portion below. Since you are putting forth a theory of causation: brain controls my personality, you are in fact asserting this.

When you say “I think my actions and personality are entirely controlled by my brain” you are implicitly asserting that you possess a thinking process that is separate from your brain.

1095

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
mbm693 wrote:

What stands out to me in this situation is that these RAD children are the way they are solely because of their past experience. What I can’t see is how regular children are any different. They get different experiences, which may or may not prepare them for life as well adjusted adults, but I don’t see where they get any choice in how they behave. Even as adults, people are sill just products of the totality of their experience. Either they had traumatizing experiences that left them sociopaths, or they had good ones that made them a saint. But they are the way they are b/c of events beyond their control.

Good for you -you have some beliefs of your own.[/quote]

I have a theory based on the available data.

1096

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
mbm693 wrote:

If the brain, which I’m arguing is a purely physical entity, controls my actions and personality in their entirety

So you’re 1. unambiguously asserting that your “actions and personality” are distinctly separate from your brain. And, 2. that “you” are not in control of “[your] actions and personality” - rather, your brain is?

  1. I’m not asserting that.

But you are. Look at the underlined portion below. Since you are putting forth a theory of causation: brain controls my personality, you are in fact asserting this.

I think my actions and personality are entirely controlled by my brain.

  1. I agree with this. ‘I’ am not in control of anything. At best, I’m merely some hardware/software that prefers to grant itself the illusion of control. ‘I’ is a just a placeholder for the english language. I am just a chemical reaction with a small amount of self awareness.

When you say “I think my actions and personality are entirely controlled by my brain” you are implicitly asserting that you possess a thinking process that is separate from your brain.
[/quote]

  1. Perhaps there was a typo, but I was responding to the following statement:
    '…unambiguously asserting that your “actions and personality” are distinctly separate from your brain

I’m stating they are not separate, one is controlled by the other, which is in turn controlled by the physical laws governing this universe.

  1. No I’m not, I believe I’ve made it clear I consider myself a chemical reaction that is forced (by the physical laws that govern this universe and thereby my brain chemistry) to perform limited self examination.
1097

[quote]mbm693 wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
mbm693 wrote:

If the brain, which I’m arguing is a purely physical entity, controls my actions and personality in their entirety

So you’re 1. unambiguously asserting that your “actions and personality” are distinctly separate from your brain. And, 2. that “you” are not in control of “[your] actions and personality” - rather, your brain is?

  1. I’m not asserting that.

But you are. Look at the underlined portion below. Since you are putting forth a theory of causation: brain controls my personality, you are in fact asserting this.

I think my actions and personality are entirely controlled by my brain.

  1. I agree with this. ‘I’ am not in control of anything. At best, I’m merely some hardware/software that prefers to grant itself the illusion of control. ‘I’ is a just a placeholder for the english language. I am just a chemical reaction with a small amount of self awareness.

When you say “I think my actions and personality are entirely controlled by my brain” you are implicitly asserting that you possess a thinking process that is separate from your brain.

  1. Perhaps there was a typo, but I was responding to the following statement:
    '…unambiguously asserting that your “actions and personality” are distinctly separate from your brain

I’m stating they are not separate, one is controlled by the other, which is in turn controlled by the physical laws governing this universe.

  1. No I’m not, I believe I’ve made it clear I consider myself a chemical reaction that is forced (by the physical laws that govern this universe and thereby my brain chemistry) to perform limited self examination.
    [/quote]

When you put forth a theory of causation - that your personality is controlled by your brain - you are in fact asserting that they are separate. If they are not, they would be the same. In which case there would be nothing for the brain to control.

I know what you BELIEVE - I’m merely trying to show you why it’s incoherent. To repeat, when you say “I think my actions and personality are entirely controlled by my brain” you are implicitly asserting that you possess a thinking process that is separate from your brain.

1098

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

When you put forth a theory of causation - that your personality is controlled by your brain - you are in fact asserting that they are separate. If they are not, they would be the same. In which case there would be nothing for the brain to control.

I know what you BELIEVE - I’m merely trying to show you why it’s incoherent. To repeat, when you say “I think my actions and personality are entirely controlled by my brain” you are implicitly asserting that you possess a thinking process that is separate from your brain.
[/quote]

No. I’m asserting that my brain is capable of self examination. This is no different than a computer being able to report what kind of operating system and processor speed it has. That doesn’t mean the computer has a thinking process that is separate from the computer.

1099

[quote]mbm693 wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
mbm693 wrote:

What stands out to me in this situation is that these RAD children are the way they are solely because of their past experience. What I can’t see is how regular children are any different. They get different experiences, which may or may not prepare them for life as well adjusted adults, but I don’t see where they get any choice in how they behave. Even as adults, people are sill just products of the totality of their experience. Either they had traumatizing experiences that left them sociopaths, or they had good ones that made them a saint. But they are the way they are b/c of events beyond their control.

Good for you -you have some beliefs of your own.

I have a theory based on the available data.
[/quote]

Like I said - congratulations on having your own beliefs . . .

1100

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
mbm693 wrote:

What stands out to me in this situation is that these RAD children are the way they are solely because of their past experience. What I can’t see is how regular children are any different. They get different experiences, which may or may not prepare them for life as well adjusted adults, but I don’t see where they get any choice in how they behave. Even as adults, people are sill just products of the totality of their experience. Either they had traumatizing experiences that left them sociopaths, or they had good ones that made them a saint. But they are the way they are b/c of events beyond their control.

Good for you -you have some beliefs of your own.

I have a theory based on the available data.

Like I said - congratulations on having your own beliefs . . .[/quote]

You’re not willing to consider or discuss the questions this raises? You’d rather needle me with statements like the one above?