A question about Jesus.

catefrances · September 2007

angelica wrote:

For me, I have no desire to talk about free-will, because spiritual/religious people apparently have a different conception for it than non-believers, and therefore much needless misunderstanding happens in such discussions.

i get you angelica. but i would still like to know your opinion. just cause i'm atheist doesn't mean im not spiritual.

angelica wrote:

As for free choice, even if my choices conflict with others, I still make them, freely, whether unconsciously or consciously. To me, freedom is not related to lack to resistance or conflict. If everything were easy and there were no problems or conflict to rise above, the word "freedom" would have no meaning.

To me, freedom has nothing to do with controlling external or life factors. It's the exact opposite. It's about fully surrendering to one's life. It is only by accepting all aspects of one's life unconditionally, including conflicts and resistance, and including others that one chooses to interact with, that one can find the way to rise above such conflicts. By doing so, the drop of water can also experience being the ocean. The cell can also be the body. It's the short-sighted cancer cell that tries to overtake the cell next to it at the expense of the whole system.

There is nothing to be gained by fighting/denying/separating from one's very own life--unless one seeks separation, pain and struggle.

yes but in making those choices, external factors come into play. that's what i'm saying. the decisions i make are therefore subject to others' free will, which surely must negate mine.
actually now that i think about it, the initial action i choose to take is an act of free will. i just have to learn that after that, if others are involved, everything else is out of my control and just go with the flow and accept it.

soulsinging · September 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Exactly, argumentum ad ignoratiam.

"since it is entirely possible .... it has no more practical value or benefit"

You are using something that you are ignorant about as evidence. You are using an indefinite statement to support a definite statement. You are unsure if it will have good effects, therefor is won't have good effects. Do you see the fallacy?

no, i am rather certain it will have no more positive effects. you believe it will. just like deadnothing believes if everyone followed jesus, thing would be better. you and he are on equal footing in my eyes. and i've not read anything from you that convinces me determinism is any more compelling than christianity. your argument is equally fallacious. you are telling me that i should subscribe to something with no proof of its superiority just becos the alternative is not perfect. you point out religion has caused problems and then say we should all accept determinism for no apparent reason just becos it hasn't fucked up like religion (and that only becos it hasnt had a chance yet). that's like a creationist argument that just becos evolution has holes we should all accept genesis. you're making the same case... religion has fucked people up... so why should we subscribe to determinism? it's not better. and i KNOW that... my evidence, as i mentioned, is the entirety of human history. maybe determinism has some limited scientific veracity, but in terms of a social movement, it is worthless. this is not using a negative to prove a positive, just the opposite. this is me asking you to give me evidence supporting your contention that determinism will have any sort of impact on society outside of the same reasoning christians use to justify their beliefs (ie. "if everyone just accepted x, we could all love and accept each other").

Ahnimus · September 2007

soulsinging wrote:

no, i am rather certain it will have no more positive effects.

Then you haven't read Clarence Darrow's book.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/12027/12027-h/12027-h.htm

You might find it an interesting read, since Darrow was a lawyer as well.

soulsinging · September 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

You may want to check out http://www.beyondbelief2006.org for actual research on the pyschological affects of religion. At some point, I hope it will become clear that determinism is superior.

this is not logical fallacy? becos x is bad, therefore y is inherently superior? you can't simply state that and make it fact. you have to show proof that y is actually superior. you haven't done so. you've provided no compelling evidence to support your belief that determinism would create a better society than religion has aside from a david hume book grounded in abstract philosophical arguments... NOT scientific or even sociological research.

Ahnimus · September 2007

soulsinging wrote:

no, i am rather certain it will have no more positive effects. you believe it will. just like deadnothing believes if everyone followed jesus, thing would be better. you and he are on equal footing in my eyes. and i've not read anything from you that convinces me determinism is any more compelling than christianity. your argument is equally fallacious. you are telling me that i should subscribe to something with no proof of its superiority just becos the alternative is not perfect. you point out religion has caused problems and then say we should all accept determinism for no apparent reason just becos it hasn't fucked up like religion (and that only becos it hasnt had a chance yet). that's like a creationist argument that just becos evolution has holes we should all accept genesis. you're making the same case... religion has fucked people up... so why should we subscribe to determinism? it's not better. and i KNOW that... my evidence, as i mentioned, is the entirety of human history. maybe determinism has some limited scientific veracity, but in terms of a social movement, it is worthless. this is not using a negative to prove a positive, just the opposite. this is me asking you to give me evidence supporting your contention that determinism will have any sort of impact on society outside of the same reasoning christians use to justify their beliefs (ie. "if everyone just accepted x, we could all love and accept each other").

Christianity by it's doctrine spins it's wheels. It doesn't make progress. Deterministic thought constantly seeks progress by identifying causes. You should read some material on it, the link above is an excellent one that's been ignored by enlarge for the greater part of the last century.

soulsinging · September 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Then you haven't read Clarence Darrow's book.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/12027/12027-h/12027-h.htm

You might find it an interesting read, since Darrow was a lawyer as well.

no, i haven't. i just took an entire semester's worth of classes on criminal law, social justice, and our current system of doing things.

soulsinging · September 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Christianity by it's doctrine spins it's wheels. It doesn't make progress. Deterministic thought constantly seeks progress by identifying causes. You should read some material on it, the link above is an excellent one that's been ignored by enlarge for the greater part of the last century.

"by and large."

i've read some david hume. this is still all as abstract and hypothetical as the bible. no evidence, just "well maybe it would go like this..." but then again, it probably would not.

Ahnimus · September 2007

soulsinging wrote:

this is not logical fallacy? becos x is bad, therefore y is inherently superior? you can't simply state that and make it fact. you have to show proof that y is actually superior. you haven't done so. you've provided no compelling evidence to support your belief that determinism would create a better society than religion has aside from a david hume book grounded in abstract philosophical arguments... NOT scientific or even sociological research.

It's about epistemology. Christianity is an a priori way of obtaining knowledge about human behaviour. That is what makes it inferior.

I can only provide you with few examples of determinists in history.

Spinoza, Einstein, Freud, Baron d'Holbach, Darwin, Darrow, Voltaire, Skinner, Hawking, Russel, Minsky, Hume and Schopenhauer.

As it turns out, the only determinists are deep thinking individuals who tend not to concern themselves much with the fruits of life. None of these people started nor fought in wars, they were all positive contributors to our modern way of life. I'm sorry the sample size isn't very large, but that's just the fact of the matter. I can't give you examples of determinist inquisitions, because they never happened. There has never been a case study like you are asking for, there is no data. And it certainly is non sequitur that determinism will create a utopia, but on the other hand we know that Christianity does not and determinism is a much more accurate theory of reality. For me, a more accurate theory is enough to suspect good things will come from it. Maybe it's not true, but Christianity is a pile of shit, that much is true. Maybe you'd rather stay in the comfort zone because you are used to the smell, but not me. I want something real, I want a more accurate theory of reality that is based on empirical experiment, not a priori archaic rhetoric.

Ahnimus · September 2007

soulsinging wrote:

no, i haven't. i just took an entire semester's worth of classes on criminal law, social justice, and our current system of doing things.

And you assume that it's the best?

soulsinging · September 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

It's about epistemology. Christianity is an a priori way of obtaining knowledge about human behaviour. That is what makes it inferior.

I can only provide you with few examples of determinists in history.

Spinoza, Einstein, Freud, Baron d'Holbach, Darwin, Darrow, Voltaire, Skinner, Hawking, Russel, Minsky, Hume and Schopenhauer.

As it turns out, the only determinists are deep thinking individuals who tend not to concern themselves much with the fruits of life. None of these people started nor fought in wars, they were all positive contributors to our modern way of life. I'm sorry the sample size isn't very large, but that's just the fact of the matter. I can't give you examples of determinist inquisitions, because they never happened. There has never been a case study like you are asking for, there is no data. And it certainly is non sequitur that determinism will create a utopia, but on the other hand we know that Christianity does not and determinism is a much more accurate theory of reality. For me, a more accurate theory is enough to suspect good things will come from it. Maybe it's not true, but Christianity is a pile of shit, that much is true. Maybe you'd rather stay in the comfort zone because you are used to the smell, but not me. I want something real, I want a more accurate theory of reality that is based on empirical experiment, not a priori archaic rhetoric.

those people were all wealthy, respected, intelligent men. you're just as likely to find links between them with respect to levels of education and respect accorded to them by peers.

i never said christianity isn't a pile of shit. i don't subscribe to it. im just wondering why i should discard one pile of shit just so i can adopt another pile of shit. the fact that you suspect greater accuracy will produce better results is hardly reason enough for me to start drinking the koolaid. i don't need determinism or christianity to handle my affairs just fine. nor does society need one of the other to get sicker or better.

soulsinging · September 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

And you assume that it's the best?

assume what's the best?

Ahnimus · September 2007

soulsinging wrote:

those people were all wealthy, respected, intelligent men. you're just as likely to find links between them with respect to levels of education and respect accorded to them by peers.

i never said christianity isn't a pile of shit. i don't subscribe to it. im just wondering why i should discard one pile of shit just so i can adopt another pile of shit. the fact that you suspect greater accuracy will produce better results is hardly reason enough for me to start drinking the koolaid. i don't need determinism or christianity to handle my affairs just fine. nor does society need one of the other to get sicker or better.

All I'm saying is that we wouldn't be hanging homosexuals if we knew why they were homosexuals. We wouldn't be burning witches if we knew what schizophrenia was. There would be less highschool shootings if students were aware of autism and other social disorders. Instead of this bullshit of blaming each other all the time for everything that happens.

mxaaron · September 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

It's about epistemology. Christianity is an a priori way of obtaining knowledge about human behaviour. That is what makes it inferior..

What do you mean? In what way does Christianity obtain knowledge of human behavior a priori?

Ahnimus wrote:

Maybe it's not true, but Christianity is a pile of shit, that much is true. Maybe you'd rather stay in the comfort zone because you are used to the smell, but not me..

Come on, Ahnimus. I've read several of your posts and it's clear you are an intelligent person, but there is no need for comments like this. They do nothing in terms of advancing the discussion.

Ahnimus wrote:

I want something real, I want a more accurate theory of reality that is based on empirical experiment, not a priori archaic rhetoric.

Why trust empirical over a priori?

Ahnimus · September 2007

mxaaron wrote:

What do you mean? In what way does Christianity obtain knowledge of human behavior a priori?

The basic method of obtaining religious knowledge is to read the bible, then use introspection to "speak with God".

Come on, Ahnimus. I've read several of your posts and it's clear you are an intelligent person, but there is no need for comments like this. They do nothing in terms of advancing the discussion.

Consider who I'm talking to.

Why trust empirical over a priori?

The history of epistemology. Emprics is basically the only way we've ever made progress.

mxaaron · September 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

The basic method of obtaining religious knowledge is to read the bible, then use introspection to "speak with God"..

Maybe I'm not exactly clear on what you're saying (standard disclaimer lest I say something silly...) but I don't know how that constitutes as a priori knowledge (maybe the "introspection" part?).

Ahnimus wrote:

Consider who I'm talking to..

Uh, Christians like myself?

Ahnimus wrote:

The history of epistemology. Emprics is basically the only way we've ever made progress.

Like Berekley? He was an empiricist, who believed that the physical world was all mind-dependent. Or like Hume, one of the greatest skeptics of modern philosophy, who brought into question the principle "the future will be like the past" (hmm, does science rely on that principle?)

I cannot through a priori means find a cure for cancer, but my question was why trust empirical knowledge over a priori knowledge.

soulsinging · September 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

All I'm saying is that we wouldn't be hanging homosexuals if we knew why they were homosexuals. We wouldn't be burning witches if we knew what schizophrenia was. There would be less highschool shootings if students were aware of autism and other social disorders. Instead of this bullshit of blaming each other all the time for everything that happens.

you don't know that. i think it is just as likely that we would be practicing clinical eugenics instead. people do know what autism, schizophrenia, and so forth are. it hasn't stopped anything.

angelica · September 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

You can't redefine free-will

"The question of free will is whether, and in what sense, rational agents exercise control over their actions and decisions. ...

The principle of free will has religious, ethical, and scientific implications. For example, in the religious realm, free will may imply that an omnipotent divinity does not assert its power over individual will and choices. In ethics, it may imply that individuals can be held morally accountable for their actions." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

angelica · September 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

We wouldn't be burning witches if we knew what schizophrenia was.

You continue to burn people at a metaphorical stake by pathologizing people and normal human capabilities (for example, ones related to feminine intelligence, characterized by the evolutionary valid brain functions of emotional and intuitive intelligence), just as the church did with the witch label back in the day. You are the modern day witch-hunter, and you don't recognize what you do. Rather than burn people at the stake for their types of awareness and brain processing, you slap a highly socially stigmatized label on them that denotes serious illness.

Witch-hunting, whether from the past or as it exists metaphorically today, comes from people wanting to persecute those who don't share their beliefs, or beliefs that are considered "good". People decide their way is the best way and look to eliminate the view of others, rather than practice tolerance.

'The first major witch hunts began in many western European countries....Historians have speculated that this religiously inspired genocide was motivated by a desire by the Church to attain a complete religious monopoly, or was "a tool of repression, a form of reining-in deviant behavior, a backlash against women, or a tool of the common people to name scapegoats for spoiled crops, dead livestock or the death of babies and children." ' http://www.religioustolerance.org/wic_burn2.htm

'Burning at the stake in public was used in Britain to punish heresy...' http://www.richard.clark32.btinternet.co.uk/burning.html 'The idea of burning witches, one of the cruelest forms of execution, is said to have originated with Saint Augustine (354-430), who said "that pagans, Jews, and heretics would burn forever in eternal fire with the Devil unless saved by the Catholic Church." '

Ahnimus, it looks like you, yourself, might have been burned at the stake back in the day for your ongoing "heresy" against the church and its doctrines. What kind of disorder would we now be able to label you with to explain your disobedience to the church or to social norms? Schizophrenia is known as a broad 'catch-all' term. Maybe heretics look schizophrenic* today as well.

her·e·tic (hěr'ĭ-tĭk) Pronunciation Key
n. A person who holds controversial opinions, especially one who publicly dissents from the officially accepted dogma of the Roman Catholic Church.
(American Heritage Dictionary)

*Note: I am well aware of what schizophrenia actually is and therefore any comparisons with schizophrenia and ideologies that conflict with "norms" is entirely used to illustrate a point. Mental illness labels are far too often abused, and mental health stigmas are far-reaching and painfully socially ostracizing for sufferers. When "deviant" behaviour, or behaviour that is a minority in our society, is pathologized inaccurately as illness it perpetuates the dark side and dark ages of our current understanding of mental health.

imagine66 · September 2007

binger wrote:

Was he the son of God, or a man? The Bible contradicts itself claiming both things. An apple is never an orange and an orange is never an apple. So which is right?

Christ's claim to divinity is usually attributed to being born of the stock of David. Joseph being descended from David. Not Mary.

or

Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, having never known any man. Which defies the laws of the universe.

My belief, he was a man who was schooled by a lost arcaine order in metaphysics and had learned how to master the body's energies. Using those energies for the purpose of good, he was before his time, and the people living during those times were still not ready for his word. His message that we all, being lesser parts of a greater divine being, had the capacity to talk to "God" individually and tap into that source personally, not through the church. By deciding to be crucified, for it was the people who named him king if the Jews, not him, he did not do anything other than fulfill a prophecy, which in essence borught his teachings to light. Hence Christianity. Otherwise he would not have been any different than other crucified of the day.

Saved through Christ, but really through the teachings of Christ you find salvation. No one should expect to be forgiven just because they believe in Jesus. If saving is what we are all looking for, we should be looking towards bettering our own lives, righting our own wrongs, making amends when we are able to and looking at every moment as a moral test. We are the makers and deciders of our own fate. Jesus cannot save you anymore than he could save himself. But in dying on the cross, he lived in his word...

We turned him into the solar diety of the age. No different than the Greek's Dyonisis, or Egypt's Osiris and many others. Great leaders of the past, many having 12 followers, performing miracles, walking on water, turning water into wine, healing the sick, resurrection on the 3rd day.

There is only one small place in the entire Bible that mentions the trinity. And the word trinity is never used.

1 John 5:7-8
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

When you compare older translations of the Bible, there is no mention of "son"

There is the original Greek text, then the Latin trascrription after many years to satisfy the needs of the Catholic church, where in translation, punctuation and words were changed.

I do believe in the concept of the trinity, though admittedly my viewpoint is not the mainstream veiw. I have been researching many books on metaphysics and have found many references to the trinity. None having to do with a "son" who by praying for forgiveness in his name, will save me.

Peace

My apologies if this was posted before. I'm curious how deeply religious people who follow the Bible can rectify this one in their heads? And am interested in amy answers.

you mentioned that the verse referring to the trinity has no mention of the word "son"...you can look up the verse John 1:1 that states that the word became flesh (Jesus) By this the Bible states that Jesus and the word are one in the same, which would take care of the problem that the son is not mention in the verse you quoted.

gue_barium · September 2007

imagine66 wrote:

you mentioned that the verse referring to the trinity has no mention of the word "son"...you can look up the verse John 1:1 that states that the word became flesh (Jesus) By this the Bible states that Jesus and the word are one in the same, which would take care of the problem that the son is not mention in the verse you quoted.

Must have been an eclipse.

A question about Jesus.

Comments

Categories