[quote]pushharder wrote:
pookie wrote:
…I do mind when large group of people start trying to force their fantasy answer on everyone…
Heed your own words, Budd.[/quote]
Where did I suggest that atheism be legislated on everyone?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
pookie wrote:
pushharder wrote:
pookie wrote:
…I do mind when large group of people start trying to force their fantasy answer on everyone…
Heed your own words, Budd.
Where did I suggest that atheism be legislated on everyone?
Where did I suggest that Christianity be legislated on everyone?[/quote]
As I pointed out to Pat, various Christian groups are trying to get prayer in schools, creationism taught as scientific, wish to decide who can marry who and how; outlaw abortions for any reason, shut down scientific research involving genetics; etc. all based on the Big Book of Stuff they hold as being absolutely true.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Sloth wrote:
But you said it yourself, the Israelites had been specifically addressed. The New Covenant is for all.
Not according to the Book of Jeremiah.
[i] Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.[/i]
Are you a member of the house of Judah or Israel? No?
Even if the New Covenant does apply to Gentiles, then they are obligated to follow all of the laws. After all, Jesus said:
[i]Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.[/i]
Bear in mind that Paul was a Pharisee.
So, Sloth, how’s that beard coming? Remember to not trim the edges.
OK, Varqie, me man. Hold my hand and we’ll tiptoe through the tulips together (no homo) on this one.
Christ did fulfill the law - at the cross.
However, most Bible prophecy scholars would interpret the Jeremiah passage you mentioned, “a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah,” as applying to the Jews during the Millennial Kingdom. It is commonly accepted that some practices of the law will be re-instituted for the Jew (who has accepted Jesus as his Messiah) during this time.
Just as the Hebrew law in the Old Testament symbolized a coming Christ/Messiah the Millennial law will look back at the Messiah and his work on the cross.
Bottom line is the New Covenant that you and Jeremiah are speaking of does not apply to Gentiles. Key phrase in that passage is, “After those days.” Those days referring to the troubled times of the Tribulation which ushers in the Millennium.
There. Your smugness should’ve lost a bit of its shine now. Sit back down.[/quote]
So what you are saying is that all of the modern day Christians are wasting their time because Jesus wasn’t talking to them anyway.
oh and 30 - 39: Congratulations! Better informed than most Americans
[quote]pushharder wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
…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.
Well, I’ll be sure and pound on you mercilessly while you’re gone and unable to defend your feeble self.
;-)[/quote]
There you go again, making promises you don’t keep. I noticed everyone else got plenty of pounding while I was gone though. I really thought we had something special enough that you wouldn’t forget about me in a few days.
Oh well, can we go back to just hooking up since I’ll be in town for a few days?
Push,
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Not sure what part you want to discuss . . . I’ll shoot in the dark and hopefully hit the questions you meant to ask 
“these RAD children are the way they are” - developmentally stagnated - as I said if they develop and grow and mature, they will come to an age of accountability for them. If they cannot develop - they remain basically infants - was pretty sure I addressed this in my original response - so I am not sure what new point you are trying to make.
“I can’t see how regular children are any different” - they are not, they must grow and mature - when they reach the age of moral accountability (of which God is the judge - not me or you) the choices they then make in their free will are then held against God’s standards. Even as an infant, they have free will - it is the soul’s freedom to choose between alternatives - but there is no moral accountability because there is no discernment between right and wrong. I said this many pages back - we are judged as individuals based on our choices and on our amount of revealed truth.
No, people are not just the product of their experiences - you don’t even believe this yourself- you’d have to add in DNA, mental faculty, and a myriad of other variables - but as soon as you did add in one other influence you would have proven yourself wrong. And as I have said a hundred times - influence is not cause.
Tell you what - you try define who you are as an individual apart from the choices you have made . . .[/quote]
I did omit a person’s physical makeup from my last post. So, rephrasing: people are entirely a product of their experiences and their physical makeup. I won’t parse it as far as DNA or mental faculty though. For one, mental faculty is a property of the physical matter present in the brain. For another, DNA is just part of the physical makeup of a person.
I wasn’t asking questions in this post, I was just making an observation about the available data and what it might mean. Evidence that counters my claim is more along the lines of what I was looking for.
To rephrase my point:
These RAD children are stunted emotionally because of things that happeneded to them. They all turn out pretty much the same because they are merely a product of their environment. If there were a soul at work, with free will, I wouldn’t expect this cause and effect relationship. I would actually expect reliably random results.
This lack of variability can be extended fairly easily to regular children, as most of them turn out to be regular adults. I’m using words like ‘regular’ here, and glossing over things here a bit in a effort to make the jump from RAD children to everyone else. Still, I think the analogy is apt. If the RAD children can be shaped so severely by what they’ve experienced that you would assume some of them never reach a stage where they can’t be held responsible for their own choices, how can you reliable say the same thing isn’t happening to everyone? Sure it’s a lot less obvious with a middle class child, b/c he won’t frequently turn on those closest to him, but I would argue he’s been shaped just the same.
As for your last comment, I’ve never made any decisions, it’s all deterministic. I’m pretty positive that’s not what you’re after though, can you give me a little more direction?
[quote]Mad_Duck wrote:
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]
I’m not saying people shouldn’t be punished when they commit murder, or theft, or rape, ect. Just that they didn’t have a choice in the matter. If they are a chemical reaction that has a history of violence, then they are a chemical reaction that will likely do more violence, and it is advantageous for the other chemical reactions to get rid of them.
For example, I don’t hate child molesters. They are just a group of people that lost the genetic/chemical/influence lottery to be sexually attracted to children rather than normal things (Try NOT to like boobs and you’ll get a small taste of what they’re up against). I recognize, without hating them, that they have a high incidence of recidivism and that their particular crime can absolutely ruin a potentially normal person. As such, they must be kept away from children by any means necessary.
[quote]pat wrote:
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?
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.[/quote]
I’m not real sure where you’re coming from here, ie what your particular beliefs are, so I’m going to assume you believe the soul lives on forever and is punished or rewarded for your behavior here on earth. If that’s not what you believe, feel free to correct me and ignore my question below.
If my soul has no control over me or what I do, then how is it fair to judge and punish my soul for the things I’ve done?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
In Quebec?
If you’re talking about the U.S. whatdafuk do you care? Mind your own business.[/quote]
Because your Christian groups link up with our Christian groups. For some odd reason, some of the most retarded fads that begin in the US (such as the anti-vax movement or the ID movement) soon find their way here, often starting in the “we-wish-we-were-Texas” western provinces.
Our current science minister does not buy evolution and is a creationist. 'magine that.
Guess what else happened recently? There were deep cuts made to the Canadian science research budget. Who need R&D when it’s all in the Bible, right?
[quote]creationism taught as scientific…
In Quebec?
If you’re talking about the U.S. whatdafuk do you care? Mind your own business.[/quote]
See above.
Maybe for you. Science is a well defined tool to learn about the world.
If you weren’t simply interested in subverting it to defend pre-ordained conclusions, you might even like it.
[quote]…shut down scientific research involving genetics
OK, we can talk about this one if you want.[/quote]
Finally. Pushy’s little brain manages to grab a smidgen of glucose and forms a thought. Alleluia!
[quote]all based on the Big Book of Stuff they hold as being absolutely true.
Instead we should base all of the above on YOUR Big Book of Stuff YOU hold as being absolutely true? [/quote]
Because my books of stuff can all be tested and revised if any errors are found. They also readily admit what they don’t know.
Can we amend yours so that it doesn’t support slavery or racism? Can we remove the genocidal parts? Can we get rid of all the homophobia? Can we correct it so that women aren’t considered as subservient to men or as cattle? Can we fix that “bats are birds” mistake? Can we see Heaven and Hell to make sure they exist? Can we simply confirm an afterlife? Can we verify that souls do exist and that they are attributed at conception?
Can we verify the miracles it claims? Can we meet this God character? Can we ascertain the claims of the various authors, or are we condemned to accept hearsay?
What has the Bible offered concretely? Vaccines? Nope. Modern medecine? Nope. A better understanding of Physics leading to computers? Nope. Pasteurization maybe? Nope. A better understanding of biology? Nope. Anything relevant about the world that helped improve the human condition? Nope. In fact, it was used to support slavery and is still used to harrass gays and keep women in second class roles. Not overtly of course - not anymore. But it’s all in there, and it’s God’s word, so…
Seems to me, pushy ol’chap, that our respective books are as different as day and night. I’ll let you figure out which one prefers to keep you in the dark.
Looks more to me as reasoned, verifiable and revisable claims (or laws, etc). vs. dogmatic, god-given unalterable commandments that we must defend even if they eventually make no sense, and worse, even though we have no evidence of the existence of the lawgiver, as the myriads of varying religions - all with different rules - will attest too.
Don’t like secular laws, morals and ethics? Fine, make a good case for changing a law, moral or ethical choice made by a secular society, and you might eventually see it become widely accepted. Have a similar beef in a religious society? Try getting something changed and see how far you get.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
…As such, they must be kept away from children by any means necessary.
In a world where determinism rules, WHY?
In a world where “right and wrong” are mere constructs of neurological activity, WHY?[/quote]
It is BAD for society, which in turn will be BAD for me. A society that allows pedophilia to go unchecked is not a society I want to be a part of.
Millions of ex-Catholics agree with me.
ZING!
[quote]pat wrote:
forlife wrote:
It seems people are recognizing that the brain and environment influence the choices we make. Given that, what proof do you have that anything exists beyond the brain and environment? Why is it necessary to come up with a magical construct to explain something that is already explainable? If the brain and environment can influence our choices 50% or 75% why not 100%?
I stated earlier that people are assigning all kinds of attributes to soul that it does not posses. If the soul was the main arbitrator of your behavior you would not have freewill right? We act on the soul not the other way around.
The choice is provided, often times by environment. The brain analyzes the facts and an act of will exercises the choice. “Will” is not a physical thing. It may be postulated by the brain, but in it self is something different otherwise it would not be different.[/quote]
I think you missed his point. There is ample evidence of the influence the things in this world have on our behavior. Just because we can’t build a complete enough case to show that 100% of our behavior is dictated by this world, doesn’t give us license to assume that “will” and souls are at work.
On another note, you seem to have a lot of non-physical entities in your theology. How do you believe they interact with one another and us? Also, if I’m not my soul, and I’m not entirely my physical self, what am I? Just trying to get a feel of where you’re coming from.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
As I pointed out to Pat, various atheist groups are trying to get prayer out of schools,[/quote]
As it should be. In this multicultural world we live in, to whose God should the children pray too? What purpose does it serve in school anyway, other than to ostracize whichever children find themselves in the minority?
If some of your kids should ever find themselves in a classroom where muslims are in majority, should they kneel on a carpet toward Mecca and recite the Koran?
Because it is, like it or not. Although I’m sure you’ll soon enlighten us with that other theory about which there is scientific debate - even thought no one but you seems to be aware of it.
The state should treat all citizens fairly and equally.
The state used to regulate slavery and had done so since it’s inception. That means it should stay that way? What about states who torture their citizens? Oops, forgot Uncle Sam is on board with that one now…
No, but think about the problem using available evidence and weighing everyone’s best interest. Starting the debate by claiming that a soul appears when a sperm enters an ovum is not conductive to reasonable conclusion. Especially if you can’t produce a soul for examination.
Er, what? WTF does that mean? Ran out of brain glucose again? If we’re going to outlaw some research - and some types or research definitely need strong ethical boundaries - then lets do it. Let’s not do it, though, by claiming invisible supernatural entities are getting hurt, or that we’re displeasing another invisible sky entity.
Find me a single scientist who claims that any science book, or any pamphlet, theory, whatever, is absolutely true.
You really should stop trying to claim any sort of equivalence between the scientific world and the theological one. They are based on diametrically opposed principles. Those “well your side does the same” claims are laughable.