How Much Do You Know About Christianity?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1101

[quote]mbm693 wrote:
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.

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.
[/quote]

Yes, the analogy is apt. To extend it, a CPU is controlled by software. Software IS NOT the CPU.

1102

Irishsteel- just wondering if you saw my response to your last post and what you thought of it.

1103

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Oleena wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Oleena wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
forlife wrote:
There are many things in the Bible that are mythical, poetic, etc. You can find an utterance in the Bible to justify or cast doubt or mock just about anything.
Well I’m glad we can agree on that.

Glad to hear it. That said, it’s also the revealed truth. However, again, it can be misquoted, selectively quoted, etc… to justify virtually anything. Of course, that’s not saying much: any text can. Then again, if you approach the text with sufficient learning and in the right spirit, I don’t think it’s a particularly “perspectival” text. Indeed, it is peculiarly not so.

You can find truth in any story.

Fair enough. Now, the next thing to present for your considered judgment is the following: what do you believe the Church was founded upon?
[/quote]

Which church are you referring to? The one Paul addresses in the new testiment?

1104

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Oleena wrote:

Sunshine - you would be emotional too if you discovered that everything logical in the universe leads you to the existence and nature of the Divine and then to discover the one faith that reveals a Deity with exactly the same nature of the Divine that everything logical in the universe has revealed . . .

The eightfold path, the four noble truths, the Tao itself (a perfect descriptive of the Divine)? - why yes I do . . .[/quote]

I just saw this and I’m interested in how you reconcile Taoist philosophy with christianity?

Mainly- the idea of opposites only being able to exist because of each other. For example, life wouldn’t be able to exist without death, and in thus they are the same thing. In this same light, evil couldn’t exist without good and vice versa. Also, another strong concept is that we are all the same thing- the same as the animals, the same as the air around us- there is basically no part, physical or spiritual where YOU end and the rest of IT begins. Therefore, you can’t seperate people from the rest of the universe. It all exists as one.

Also, Taoism teaches solitude and removing oneself from situations, whereas christianity teaches that you should try to convert others to your beliefs.

1105

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
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.

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.

Yes, the analogy is apt. To extend it, a CPU is controlled by software. Software IS NOT the CPU. [/quote]

And software is COMPLETELY controlled by external stimuli, just like a person’s brain.

There are a parts of the brain that handle the collective set of behaviors we call personality, and there are other parts that handle actions like making logical decisions or emotional judgments. That one, or several, of the logical/emotional parts (I) are aware of the collective set of behaviors that we refer to as a personalty, doesn’t mean that the logical/emotional parts are outside of the brain. ‘I’ is just a flimsy bit of consciousness produced by the chemical and electrical wrestling match between different parts of the brain as they process inputs in a deterministic fashion.

I may have oversimplified my views in previous posts b/c it makes it easier to discuss the distinction between the soul and the physical body (brain included).

EDIT: I’ll be out of town till monday night so I won’t see or be able to respond to any posts until at least Tuesday after work.

1107

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
forlife wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
So you don’t believe animals have an afterlife, only humans that are given eternal life by the breath of god?

If it takes the breath of god for creatures to live forever, how do you explain the people that suffer in hell for eternity?

Have you ever read Genesis?

Yes, but I’m curious about your interpretation of Genesis, not mine. Could you just answer the questions?

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)[/quote]

Hi IrishSteel, I know you’ve got a lot of on your plate in this thread, but I’d let to get your opinion on the immortal soul doctrine described in Scripture. Here are some videos which I believe prove that the soul is not immortal. Instead, believers are given immortality only AFTER judgment day.

Your thoughts?

1109

[quote]mbm693 wrote:
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.

.

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]

While I’m not going to try and argue that any young child has ‘control’ in a traumatic situation, and that there are frequently brain-chemistry-altering substances present (also beyond their control)… I remember during one of those employee-motivating seminars (w/e), the speaker they had brought in had a ‘parable’.
Two twins were born into an inner city, abusive & alcoholic household, dad left, single mom, etc etc etc. 20 years later, they interview the two young men, One’s in jail for robbery & assault, & the other’s got his degree & is ‘Young Businessman of the Year’ or whatever. When they ask them why they think they turned out so different, both of them give the answer: “With what I’ve witnessed, how could I have turned out any different?”
The point being, relinquishing responsibility for how one RESPONDS to circumstances, environment & experiences (for anyone over the age of 16 ~ I estimate): is infantile &/or dangerous.

1110

[quote]Mad_Duck wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
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.

.

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.

While I’m not going to try and argue that any young child has ‘control’ in a traumatic situation, and that there are frequently brain-chemistry-altering substances present (also beyond their control)… I remember during one of those employee-motivating seminars (w/e), the speaker they had brought in had a ‘parable’.
Two twins were born into an inner city, abusive & alcoholic household, dad left, single mom, etc etc etc. 20 years later, they interview the two young men, One’s in jail for robbery & assault, & the other’s got his degree & is ‘Young Businessman of the Year’ or whatever. When they ask them why they think they turned out so different, both of them give the answer: “With what I’ve witnessed, how could I have turned out any different?”
The point being, relinquishing responsibility for how one RESPONDS to circumstances, environment & experiences (for anyone over the age of 16 ~ I estimate): is infantile &/or dangerous.

[/quote]

Life is not black and white in terms of these matters.

The most powerful thing that I’ve seen is that you can train people like you would an animal. This leads me to believe that free will is non-existant.

For example, I have a girlfriend who trained her husband to be interested/involved in topics such as saving the environment, which he used to hate, by giving him a blow job every time he showed any progress/openness of thought towards those topics. She also majored in animal behavior. He became an environmentalist. It was not his will to do this originally, but she conditioned him to associate the topic with pleasure (to this day, he has no idea what truly changed his mind on the topic), so now he seeks it out.

You can train anyone, quietly, and without their knowledge. They will then make decisions based on the patterns that you taught them to associate with pain or pleasure. This happens every day anyways, it’s just that some people do it on purpose.

1111

[quote]Oleena wrote:
Mad_Duck wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
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.

.

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.

While I’m not going to try and argue that any young child has ‘control’ in a traumatic situation, and that there are frequently brain-chemistry-altering substances present (also beyond their control)… I remember during one of those employee-motivating seminars (w/e), the speaker they had brought in had a ‘parable’.
Two twins were born into an inner city, abusive & alcoholic household, dad left, single mom, etc etc etc. 20 years later, they interview the two young men, One’s in jail for robbery & assault, & the other’s got his degree & is ‘Young Businessman of the Year’ or whatever. When they ask them why they think they turned out so different, both of them give the answer: “With what I’ve witnessed, how could I have turned out any different?”
The point being, relinquishing responsibility for how one RESPONDS to circumstances, environment & experiences (for anyone over the age of 16 ~ I estimate): is infantile &/or dangerous.

Life is not black and white in terms of these matters.

The most powerful thing that I’ve seen is that you can train people like you would an animal. This leads me to believe that free will is non-existant.

For example, I have a girlfriend who trained her husband to be interested/involved in topics such as saving the environment, which he used to hate, by giving him a blow job every time he showed any progress/openness of thought towards those topics. She also majored in animal behavior. He became an environmentalist. It was not his will to do this originally, but she conditioned him to associate the topic with pleasure (to this day, he has no idea what truly changed his mind on the topic), so now he seeks it out.

You can train anyone, quietly, and without their knowledge. They will then make decisions based on the patterns that you taught them to associate with pain or pleasure. This happens every day anyways, it’s just that some people do it on purpose.

[/quote]

so, she had no choice but to test her hypothesis on her husband?

1112

[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]

Awww, a cop-out. I was looking forward to the response to this one.

1113

[quote]WolBarret wrote:
Can’t we all just be Mormons?[/quote]

Been there, done that.

1114

[quote]forlife wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:

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. [/quote]

Yes, but I’m arguing that in these instances–religion vs. science and romantic love–there is no objective reality. There are only guesses, which may be educated guesses to some extent, but they are guesses nonetheless. And therefore a decision one way or the other requires faith (which is biased and subjective). Continuing with the analogy of faith in my husband, although there is evidence to support my faith in his goodness there is also evidence to support a supposition that he will NOT refrain from violence. He yells, for example, and his driving is aggressive almost to the point of being (according to my subjective reality) maniacal. He also likes fighting, and at one time was a competitive martial artist. So does he yearn to hit me? (Headhunter would say yes. lol)

When we don’t know for certain, we don’t know. So all evidence one way or the other is subjective. You say that the Christians claim to have hard (objective) evidence, but I don’t see that. I see faith. If they have faith that the evidence points to what they think it points to, that IS their reality.

[quote]So, er…are you close to your fundamentalist family?

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 :)[/quote]

Haha, okay.

1115

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
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.[/quote]

It’s not that I haven’t found anything true. I just haven’t found anything that is incontrovertibly true. It’s possible that there is a god(s), but it is at least equally possible that there is not. Given that, I can’t with integrity insist that there is or isn’t a god(s).

I like your approach of starting from ground zero, and that is in fact what I did after leaving my faith. I threw out all of my preconceptions, exposed my motivations, identified potential pitfalls, and committed myself to living according to what really was true, rather than what I wanted to be true.

It’s interesting that the same process has led us to different destinations. You may think I will ultimately land on your hill, and I wonder if you might take up hiking down the road. It’s all about the journey, right?

1116

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
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[/quote]

Yes, I think you’re understanding the point I’ve been trying to make. To address the issue you raised, how could someone have a child without a soul? If god didn’t create souls for people that choose not to repent, by definition the only people that would be born are those souls that will choose to repent.

1117

[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 would argue that the soul does not influence you at all, rather you affect it. If the soul had control over you, you would not have freewill. You soul is you in that it is what makes you alive and tethers you the the metaphysical world. It is part of the life force yet each person has an individual one.
Your going to get to animals so I’ll go ahead and address it, yes they have some form of it, that are connected to the “life force” as all living things are. It is not the same as ours, we have the freewill to deny our nature animals cannot consciously do that. All living things, plant and animal are connected to the life energy which is a single unifying force that unite all living things in that aspect. The depth of that connection is debatable, however, it is a connection of some sort. Life takes and gives energy a kind that is unique and has yet to be defined as to what exactly “it” is.
I know the terminology makes make sound like a yoga practicing crystal worshiper, I assure that’s not the case. That “level” is just a lower level of spirituality, but it’s a metaphysical step toward the source.

1118

[quote]mbm693 wrote:
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 . . .

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

You are both a product of your environment and your physical make up.

Sociopathy is actually a physical brain disorder. Environment can turn it violent, but bottom line, despite their environment, they are completely incapable of empathy or sympathy. They simply do not understand that other people think and feel. That is why a lot of serial killers really do not understand why their victims are upset. They genuinely don’t get it, because their is something wrong with their brain.

1119

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Yes, but I’m arguing that in these instances–religion vs. science and romantic love–there is no objective reality. There are only guesses, which may be educated guesses to some extent, but they are guesses nonetheless.[/quote]

Science is nothing more than a systematic tool for guessing. You can never prove something to be incontrovertibly true. Science is driven by probability estimations, based on existing objective evidence and the ability to reliably replicate that evidence.

Religious people sometimes look at this, and conclude that since science cannot determine something to be 100% probable, it is useless and should be disregarded. But that is throwing the baby out with the bath water. While it’s true that science is imperfect, it is by far the most accurate, reliable system we have for discovering objective truth.

This is bordering on the logical fallacy I mentioned above. Not knowing something to be 100% true doesn’t imply that all hypotheses are therefore 0% true. Hypotheses have various levels of objective support, ranging from 0% to 99% probability of being true. You can reject a given hypothesis based on objective evidence, but you can never completely reject the null hypothesis. You can only fail to reject it.

Christians claim their god performs miracles. They say he answers their prayers. They insist he created the universe. Most of their beliefs bear on objective reality in some way, and many of them can be empirically tested.

For example, studies have been done on the efficacy of prayer. Heart patients that were prayed over were no more likely to recover than those that were not prayed over. The prayer accounted for 0% of the variance in health outcomes, so the prayer hypothesis was rejected in this particular study.

Of course, questions like the origin of the universe are more complex and difficult to empirically assess. Which is why you can’t completely dismiss the god hypothesis…but you can still choose to withhold judgment, based on the current lack of supporting empirical evidence.

1120

[quote]Oleena wrote:
Mad_Duck wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
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.

.

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.

While I’m not going to try and argue that any young child has ‘control’ in a traumatic situation, and that there are frequently brain-chemistry-altering substances present (also beyond their control)… I remember during one of those employee-motivating seminars (w/e), the speaker they had brought in had a ‘parable’.
Two twins were born into an inner city, abusive & alcoholic household, dad left, single mom, etc etc etc. 20 years later, they interview the two young men, One’s in jail for robbery & assault, & the other’s got his degree & is ‘Young Businessman of the Year’ or whatever. When they ask them why they think they turned out so different, both of them give the answer: “With what I’ve witnessed, how could I have turned out any different?”
The point being, relinquishing responsibility for how one RESPONDS to circumstances, environment & experiences (for anyone over the age of 16 ~ I estimate): is infantile &/or dangerous.

Life is not black and white in terms of these matters.

The most powerful thing that I’ve seen is that you can train people like you would an animal. This leads me to believe that free will is non-existant.

For example, I have a girlfriend who trained her husband to be interested/involved in topics such as saving the environment, which he used to hate, by giving him a blow job every time he showed any progress/openness of thought towards those topics. She also majored in animal behavior. He became an environmentalist. It was not his will to do this originally, but she conditioned him to associate the topic with pleasure (to this day, he has no idea what truly changed his mind on the topic), so now he seeks it out.

You can train anyone, quietly, and without their knowledge. They will then make decisions based on the patterns that you taught them to associate with pain or pleasure. This happens every day anyways, it’s just that some people do it on purpose.

[/quote]

You can make good vs. evil choices despite your circumstances. You choices may be different, but the choice you make is your own.
It does not matter much what you feel, it matters what you do.