How Much Do You Know About Christianity?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]Jab1 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Jab1 wrote:

Science is descriptive, not presecriptive. Just because nature is “red in tooth and claw” doesn’t mean we have to be, and we can learn from nature to better ourselves. We are able to overcome nature, for example, condoms.

Better, is in the eye of the organic software package.

True, perhaps I would have been more accurate to say “try and better ourselves”. [/quote]

Still, “better” is subjective. And determined the program each person carries in his/her bio-chem soup software.

142

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Jab1 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Jab1 wrote:

Science is descriptive, not presecriptive. Just because nature is “red in tooth and claw” doesn’t mean we have to be, and we can learn from nature to better ourselves. We are able to overcome nature, for example, condoms.

Better, is in the eye of the organic software package.

True, perhaps I would have been more accurate to say “try and better ourselves”.

Still, “better” is subjective. And determined the program each person carries in his/her bio-chem soup software.[/quote]

Yes, I realised what you meant the first time; saying “try” doesn’t make it less subjective, because we can all try for different, subjective ends, can we not?

144

[quote]pushharder wrote:
You, however, remind me of some little kid spending dad’s money hand over fist at university and undeservedly full of pudding because you haven’t eaten your meat. And your petty references to guns, muscle and threats are inane. Grow up or disengage.[/quote]

I would never eat pudding instead of meat. Don’t have much of a sweet tooth.

I find it fascinating that I can never actually get a straight discussion out of you. You resort to insults with increasing rapidity as the argument wears on.

And I never endorsed Pook dismissing a book he hasn’t read, I’m against that too, but he did at least give educated reasons for dismissing it.

I also couldn’t care less whether you like me or not, because that too does not effect the veracity of your arguments, or mine.

145

[quote]pookie wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Here’s a way to think about it. “You don’t have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body.” CS Lewis

If the soul is the actual individual, and the body is simply some kind of receptacle, then why does putting chemicals in the body change the soul? I know people who, since being prescribed anti-depressors, are completely different people. To the point of straining old friendships. Even a few drinks too many will have people behaving completely out of character.

Then there is the question of how the soul controls the body. How does that work? Where does the soul “input” enter the body? Where does it get the feedback from? If the soul is interacting physically with the body, then we should be able to test for it scientifically and prove it’s existence simply from the behavior of whatever physical apparatus it interacts with (we’ll see phenomenon occuring for which there isn’t a possible natural, physical explanation).

Then again, if all a “person” (in the individual sense of the word) is, is complex chemical interactions in the brain, then we don’t need to wonder why messing with the chemicals change the person, nor do we need to ask how the spiritual whateve of the soul gets to interact with the physical body.

It also explains perfectly well why we never see a bodyless soul going around.
[/quote]

Yeah, okay dude, I’ll answer your questions as soon as you can prove - even on your own terms - the mechanisms of similar phenomena: for example, how and why self awareness, self consciousness, and sentience (and all that) emerges out of the human brain. Pretending that science has plumbed the mysteries of the brain is absolutely risible.

147

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Pretending that science has plumbed the mysteries of the brain is absolutely risible. [/quote]

Yes it is. But no one here has made that claim.

148

[quote]pookie wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Pretending that science has plumbed the mysteries of the brain is absolutely risible.

Yes it is. But no one here has made that claim.
[/quote]

Right. So according to you, the soul doesn’t exist because we cannot scientifically prove how it interacts with the body. Are you now going to argue that sentience (and it’s various interpretations) doesn’t exist because we cannot describe how that phenomena interacts with matter/brain?

150

I did it because I spent 14 years ascribing to that religion and I’ve met many people who had no idea what they were telling others to believe in. I’m not sure how cool it is to be atheist. We’re generally the butt of a lot of jokes. I think it’s more cool to be agnostic nowdays.

I just have to say I’m atheist because some of those jokes actually fit my perspective and sometimes it’s good to laugh at yourself.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Oleena wrote:
Sloth wrote:
pushharder wrote:

I’d be worried if they weren’t bashing Christianity.

Whoa there Mister! Am I bashing Christians or are the Christians bashing me?

Let’s back up a step- so far I’ve been insulted as a person having my panties in a bunch, it’s been implied that I’m ignorant and cold hearted, and that my mind is made up.

In response, I have done nothing except ask few questions. None of the questions personally insulted anyone. I also did not group all christians as a whole and ascribe them negative traites, such as people have done numerous times with regards to atheists on this thread.

So stop feeling righteously persecuted, because so far that hasn’t happened.

C’mon Olee, you got all giggity posting that atheist’s mock-a-rama questionnaire. It was full of ancient Hebrew ceremonial and civil rituals and the author tried to make it seem as those things are part and parcel of the Christian practices and faith. You thought it was cute and you did so because it’s cool to mock Christianity nowadays. Quit playing the martyr here.
[/quote]

151

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Yes, I understand your urging me to refer to writings on the subject that are current. Since so far I have failed you in your quest for truth on this subject I guess you’ll have to look elsewhere.[/quote]

I asked for no writings at all. You offered your apologetics out of brotherly love, if memory serves. You guys seem to be arguing as much with make-believe posters that are only in your head as you do with what the real ones actually write on the forums.

As far as I know, there is no state of the art on soul research. My question was prompted by the fact that if souls actually exist, and they interact with the body through the brain, then we should be able to test for that interaction and establish the soul’s existence with a fair degree of confidence. My guess - from an interested layman’s appreciation of current brain research - is that any such test will always come up negative (as testing for Santa or fairies would), and souls will remain wishful thinking. That won’t stop any credophiles from believing they have one and that it’s separate from their meat-mobile.

I was also wondering how soul-believers reconciled the question of why messing with the brain’s chemistry changes the person, if the person is actually a distinct supernatural entity and not just the brain’s chemistry.

Apparently, the preferred reconciliatory method is to throw bullshit (and soup) at the questioner until he tires and goes away.

152

[quote]Oleena wrote:
I spent 14 years as a die hard Christian. During that time I studied the Bible with mentors who majored in theology and grew up in Africa as kids of a missionary doctor.

To this day I’m still baffled by how little people understand the religion and the text of the religion that they ascribe to.

Recently I found a test that breaks it down faster than I ever could.

http://www.ffrf.org/quiz/bquiz.php

My challenge to you: take this test and post your score. If you have a Bible handy, look up the verses to assure yourself that this is for real. If you want to save time- I already did because even as an atheist, I was suprised at a few of these. It’s spot on.

Have fun. Give to friends.

[/quote]

giggle

Yes, how little some people do understand religion. In particular atheists. The assumption is that every Christian is a bible thumping moron and this quiz is made to reinforce that.

How about this: Pretty much nobody follows anything in Deuteronomy or any of the other books as laws (especially the Old Testament in the US). Many people that are Christians that I know (and no I’m not one of them, but unlike most of y’all I am actually pretty tolerant) are pretty level-headed compared to most of their detractors.

Now here is a serious question that comes out of this: you all believe in the separation of Church & State, right? But do any of you really understand the reason for it? It was not because of religion per se, but because of the fact that at the time religion was seen to have pretty much a monopoly on morality. It was trying to ban moralizing from the domain of the State that was the intent. Nothing would be more unsettling than a moralistic state “backed by supernatural terrors” to quote J.S. Mill (a bit later but a great quote). Hayek rightly points out that the most moralistic states in history have all been socialist/communist with impressively high body counts – the most recent tally is 170 million dead in the last century and accounts for about 95% of the people killed by their own government. This includes 45 million Christians directly murdered for their beliefs (e.g 2/3 of the entire Polish clergy in the late 1940’s or the Russian Orthodox from 1918 through the early 1960’.)

So let me state my strong objection to this quiz and the site it comes from: It is every bit and sniffily moralizing as the Christians it tries to criticize and in the process manages to exceed them in its perfidy.

And as always, I’m probably just full of shit…

– jj

153

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Right. So according to you, the soul doesn’t exist because we cannot scientifically prove how it interacts with the body. Are you now going to argue that sentience (and it’s various interpretations) doesn’t exist because we cannot describe how that phenomena interacts with matter/brain? [/quote]

No, what I actually said was that if souls exist and that they interact with the body, as was claimed in some of the first messages, then that interaction is physically testable. We should be able to examine the brain, and eventually, find an effect for which we can’t see a physical, natural cause. That cause would thus have to be outside of the natural world (ie, supernatural) and you can bet your bottom dollar that religious leaders across the world would go fucking bonkers over that news.

I haven’t even mentioned sentience. Why do you keep bringing it up? Does science completely understand where it comes from? No. Will it ever? Probably. The brain is complex, but not infinitely so. We’ll either understand it entirely one day, or come upon a naturally inexplicable phenomena that drives it and cannot be scientifically explained.

Why would a method enabling you to test for and confirm the existence of the soul make you so defensive? If it’s true, wouldn’t you like to be sure? If its not, wouldn’t you prefer to stop believing in bullshit? Seems win-win to me.

155

[quote]pushharder wrote:
No, but he’ll damned sure argue that somebody who has written a few books about precisely that subject should be summarily dismissed because Pook googled the guy and decided he disagrees with the guy’s religion.[/quote]

I’ve read plenty of books from people with whom’s religion I disagree. When the topic is not religion, and when their religion doesn’t inform everything they write - no problem.

But someone who’s made a career of apologetics? Please, I’ve read enough of that crap to know - in advance, without having read it - that it’s going to be ridiculous self-serving tripe that only strengthens the faith of the already indoctrinated.

Life if too short to waste it on the likes of Strobel and Lewis. Given no choice, I’d re-read Thomas Aquinas.

156

[quote]pushharder wrote:
I’ve been around a lot of young kids say oh…11 months old, and I never seen any ascribing going on.[/quote]

Toddlers are full of religion. Just check the diaper.

157

[quote]pookie wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Say we are nothing more than a short lived collection of bio-chem reactions. Each reaction setting off the next. Sort of like one of those domino constructs where you knock over the first one and the chain reaction leads to the toppling of the last. We do not choose anything, but merely play out the inevitable result of our dominos toppling due to some stimulus. Or, like nature’s accidental software. So, what is the value of human life? A software package worth?

Are we talking Oracle 11g Enterprise Edition, or Notepad here?

War isn’t wrong, nature is struggle! Resources, women to carry our seed, land to make our territory.

Now I’m confused. Are we back to discussing the Old Testament?

Let’s go Alpha Male, folks! The robber isn’t wrong, or evil. Just a predator, like the lion. And, who doesn’t like lions, hmm? The lion king was a hit, after all. And why the hell are we wasting resources on the brokendown hardware and software of the elderly? Redirect these resources to the organic human units still capable (or, will be) of reproducing.

Well, I’d say that the simple principle of reciprocity would be enough to understand, but maybe your bio-chem reactions are pccasional and far between. You could care for the elderly out of purely selfish reasons: you wish that when you’re old yourself, you’ll also be cared for.

[/quote]

Reciprocity is ok for those who value it. Not so ok for those who could care less. Doesn’t mean either side is right or wrong.

158

This is an old answer, which feels good to the person who considers themselves Christian. The thought process goes something like this “It is amazing that god has chosen to give me life and to give me an opportunity to live this amazing existance in his service. He is wonderfully compassionate. It is not his fault that some people will choose, of the free will that he gave them, to not take his offer of eternal life. But that’s just the way it is. In order for us to live, others had to be created who would die.”

It makes you feel good to think that the omnipotent and omniscent creator created all of humanity so that he could have a special relationship with you, and so that you could live forever with him. You say ‘this would not be possible if he’d done it any other way’. This is actually a one-sided, very selfish perspective when you look at several other implications of it.

God did know that many more would choose, of their own free will that he gave them, not to follow him, than would choose him. He has no problem with this. In the story of Noah, he apparently wiped out the entire planet of sinners, save about ten people and all the animals. All of those people went to hell, as they chose not to listen to him. Apparently, he also knew before he created them that they were going to do this. From the perspective above you would think “well that’s too bad. I am so thankful that God has chosen me and has amazing plans for my life.” Which is in essense saying “I am more important than those other people because I choose to be with God and he chose me from before I was born”. I can’t believe that I’m more important than anyone else, no matter what my beliefs, so this is a problem for me religiously.

People like to dismiss Revelations and parts of the Bible that do not fit into their own concept of what a compassionate God should be like. I don’t consider myself a wise enough person to readily pick and choose the parts of god’s book that he meant to be interpretted one way or another.

Do you consider yourself wise enough to pick and choose which parts meant what? Why? Can you 100% say that your cultural upbringing had less to do with the way you pick than what god has told you? How do you know?

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Oleena wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
Oleena wrote:

I cannot answer for God’s motive in allowing people to live, allowing them to choose and then treating them according to their choices - but it seems that the greater burden lies on the individual not on God - because He has done everything short of violating our free will to make it possible for everyone to go to heaven.

.

This is basically reiterating my question. God knew which way each person would choose before he even created them. He did not simply “allow them to live once they were already in existnace” he ineffect gave birth to them. Allow them to live sounds compassionate, but when you really take the entire situation into consideration, it’s like allowing a rabbid puppy to live. What does free will matter if he already knew which direction we would choose to go before he created us?

Does God know what each person will choose - yes.

So, in your thinking, this then is reason enough for Him to never have allowed them to live at all. Is that correct?

It is the interconnectedness of all lives that allows each the ability to reason and to choose - so to eliminate those who would chose incorrectly negates their influence on the lives of those who would choose correctly - if you remove those who choose to deny God, then you have to remove all of them.

All of creation then would be pointless to your understanding because God created people He knows he will have to punish? Is this your real question?

Free will matters because it is the heart of our existence. It is not the same as allowing a rabid puppy to live - the puppy did not choose his disease. It is no fault of the puppy - but our lives are entirely up to us as individuals, and as I was trying to point out - it is our whole lives lived entirely in free will that are judged in the last day.
[/quote]

160

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Reciprocity is ok for those who value it. Not so ok for those who could care less. Doesn’t mean either side is right or wrong.[/quote]

How much less caring are we talking about?