Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 81 to 120 of 154

Thread: Heaven, Hell and Purgatory

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    FreelancePoliceman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    5,942
    Mentioned
    558 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by End View Post
    Damn, I don't much like Voltaire but his one prayer is being answered here. "Lord, make my enemies ridiculous" and he stated that God granted it. In his eyes, his enemies were indeed ridiculous somehow.

    You need to read more Catholic theologians/bone up on our dogma. I'd start with Aquinas as he bitch slaps your Atheism so thoroughly that none of your alleged kind has managed to successfully refute all of his points such that you'd convert the average theist to atheism who hadn't already turned their back on God beforehand somehow. After all, if some Chad-tier Atheist had done so oh you bet your ass that essay/book/tome would have been crammed down the throat of everyone who lived because it'd be "The Imperial Truth" made manifest as it were. If you get that reference without resorting to Google than congrats, you're a nerd .
    See, in an online debate or discussion, it's pretty useless to say "Aquinas would bitch slap your atheism so thoroughly" when you can't replicate the arguments he'd supposedly use for that purpose, given that Aquinas is in the public domain, you can freely copy-paste, and you can respond in as much time and as many words as you like. If you think something Aquinas wrote could disprove SubT, you have every means of proving that! But you can't seriously expect anyone to go read the entire Summa Theologica any more than I could expect you to watch a thirty-hour video series on how our oligarchs are secretly lizards in people-suits. If no atheist has gone to the trouble of going through, point-by-point, every argument Aquinas ever made, and writing a systematic response, it's because they just don't care, not because they're struck dumb by his brilliance. It would be an extraordinary amount of effort to go through, and for little purpose; nobody's minds would be changed by doing that. As with people who watch lizard-people videos, the only people swayed by Aquinas are people who already believe.

    It's interesting that you apparently recognize this, and try to turn this around: "such that you'd convert the average theist to atheism who hadn't already turned their back on God beforehand somehow". Of course you can't prove this except by tautology: anyone convinced by rational debate to become an atheist must have already "turned their back on God." But I'm curious how you'd explain the fact that debates of this sort far more frequently convince people to leave religion rather than the other way about, and, with a few rare exceptions, people only become religious because they were born into the faith.
    Last edited by FreelancePoliceman; 11-03-2020 at 04:43 AM.

  2. #2
    Subthigh Socionics Is A Cult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beijing
    TIM
    TMI
    Posts
    19,276
    Mentioned
    514 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by End View Post
    Damn, I don't much like Voltaire but his one prayer is being answered here. "Lord, make my enemies ridiculous" and he stated that God granted it. In his eyes, his enemies were indeed ridiculous somehow.

    You need to read more Catholic theologians/bone up on our dogma. I'd start with Aquinas as he bitch slaps your Atheism so thoroughly that none of your alleged kind has managed to successfully refute all of his points such that you'd convert the average theist to atheism who hadn't already turned their back on God beforehand somehow. After all, if some Chad-tier Atheist had done so oh you bet your ass that essay/book/tome would have been crammed down the throat of everyone who lived because it'd be "The Imperial Truth" made manifest as it were. If you get that reference without resorting to Google than congrats, you're a nerd .
    I don't see how dogma can prove the existence of something. Maybe you could refer me to a scientific paper instead?

    Thomas Aquinas' argument - his version of the cosmological argument doesn't prove "God", as it does not explain anything. The universe no more needs a cause than the uncreated God Aquinas was trying to prove. But we can actually observe the universe.

  3. #3
    Subthigh Socionics Is A Cult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beijing
    TIM
    TMI
    Posts
    19,276
    Mentioned
    514 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    The New Testament is ambiguous about "Hell".

    One Jesus version written by one writer has this story:
    “There was a certain rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and [h]fared sumptuously every day. 20 But there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, full of sores, who was laid at his gate, 21 desiring to be fed with [i]the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table. Moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

    24 “Then he cried and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.’ 25 But Abraham said, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted and you are tormented. 26 And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.’

    27 “Then he said, ‘I beg you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father’s house, 28 for I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, lest they also come to this place of torment.’ 29 Abraham said to him, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.’ 30 And he said, ‘No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ 31 But he said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.’ ”
    - "Luke" 16:19-31

    But another Jesus version written by another writer has this:
    12And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before [c]God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books. 13The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works. 14Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second [d]death. 15And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.
    - Revelation 20:12-15

    Note that it says that Death and Hades (Hell) themselves were cast into the fire and destroyed. This is described as the "second death", in contrast with (eternal) life) - i.e. that those who are not cronies of Jesus suffer a second death after being resurrected. They are not tortured.

    "Hades" in Greek theology was the abode of the dead:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gehenna
    Gehenna or Gehinnom (literally translated as "Valley of Hinnom") is thought to be a small valley in Jerusalem. In the Hebrew Bible, Gehenna was initially where some of the kings of Judah sacrificed their children by fire.[1] Thereafter, it was deemed to be cursed (Book of Jeremiah 7:31, 19:2–6).[2]

    In rabbinic literature, Gehenna is also a destination of the wicked.[3] Gehinnom is not Hell, but originally a grave and in later times a sort of purgatory where one is judged based on one's life's deeds, or rather, where one becomes fully aware of one's own shortcomings and negative actions during one's life. The Kabbalah explains it as a "waiting room" (commonly translated as an "entry way") for all souls (not just the wicked). The overwhelming majority of rabbinic thought maintains that people are not in Gehinnom forever; the longest that a Jew can be there is said to be 11 months (unless he is a fully wicked person, in which case 12 months), however there has been the occasional noted exception.

    This is different from the more neutral Sheol/Hades, the abode of the dead, although the King James Version of the Bible translates both with the Anglo-Saxon word hell.

    In the King James Version of the Bible, the term appears 13 times in 11 different verses as Valley of Hinnom, Valley of the son of Hinnom or Valley of the children of Hinnom. The Valley of Hinnom is the modern name for the valley surrounding Jerusalem's Old City, including Mount Zion, from the west and south. It meets and merges with the Kidron Valley, the other principal valley around the Old City, near the southeastern corner of the city.
    The notion of eternal torture in the dogma of some prominent Christian sects is a deviation from historic Jewish dogma, where no person was in the fire for more than 12 months, excepting a few rare exceptions.

  4. #4
    Subthigh Socionics Is A Cult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beijing
    TIM
    TMI
    Posts
    19,276
    Mentioned
    514 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

  5. #5
    Haikus Computer Loser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,430
    Mentioned
    96 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    Or Romulus? Or Zalmoxis? As mentioned by Richard Carrier in this pdf document (direct link): https://www.richardcarrier.info/Hist...y_of_Jesus.pdf
    Skeptics highlight similarities between Jesus and Horus, Mithras, Osiris or other ancient examples of “dying and rising” saviors. https://coldcasechristianity.com/wri...esemble-jesus/

    Consider the following reasonable conclusions one might draw when thinking about the possible existence of God:

    A Creator God would be incredibly strong and likely emerge in our world in a way that defies the natural order of things.

    A Creator God would have the power to perform miracles and control the forces of the natural environment.

    A Creator God, if He wanted us to know Him, would likely provide us with some form of mediator.

    A Creator God, if He was to come to earth, would certainly draw attention to Himself, gathering disciples.

    A Creator God would be powerful enough to defeat death.

    A Creator God would want to save his children and come to their rescue, particularly if they are facing an eternal threat.

    A Creator God, if He loves us, would likely make it possible for us to join Him in his eternal life.

    A Creator God would likely have infinite wisdom and be the master of our lives.
    All of these expectations are reasonable. If there is a God, we could sensibly expect him to possess these characteristics. So it really shouldn’t surprise us when we find ancient mythological descriptions of pre-Christian gods who emerge into the natural world in some unnatural way, perform miraculous deeds, intervene as mediators, gather disciples, defeat death, rescue believers, provide a path to eternal life and serve as the source of all wisdom.

    Claims of similarities are extremely exaggerated and based on the selective promotion of the common expectations of cultures contemplating the nature of God. The ancient Jewish audience of the Gospel authors would never have accepted such claims, and the reliable nature of the Gospels can be established beyond reasonable doubt.
    Last edited by Computer Loser; 11-01-2020 at 08:23 PM.

  6. #6
    Subthigh Socionics Is A Cult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beijing
    TIM
    TMI
    Posts
    19,276
    Mentioned
    514 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by peteronfireee View Post
    Skeptics highlight similarities between Jesus and Horus, Mithras, Osiris or other ancient examples of “dying and rising” saviors. https://coldcasechristianity.com/wri...esemble-jesus/

    Consider the following reasonable conclusions one might draw when thinking about the possible existence of God:



    All of these expectations are reasonable. If there is a God, we could sensibly expect him to possess these characteristics. So it really shouldn’t surprise us when we find ancient mythological descriptions of pre-Christian gods who emerge into the natural world in some unnatural way, perform miraculous deeds, intervene as mediators, gather disciples, defeat death, rescue believers, provide a path to eternal life and serve as the source of all wisdom.

    Claims of similarities are extremely exaggerated and based on the selective promotion of the common expectations of cultures contemplating the nature of God. The ancient Jewish audience of the Gospel authors would never have accepted such claims, and the reliable nature of the Gospels can be established beyond reasonable doubt.
    You must start with observations first, not conclusions...your error comes from your blind faith.

  7. #7
    Haikus Computer Loser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,430
    Mentioned
    96 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    ...your error comes from your blind faith.

    Actually, no, accusing Christians for “blind faith” is a common misconception.

    Christians actually embrace the biblical definition of faith. This definition of faith is faith preceded by knowledge;

    One cannot possess faith in God until he/she comes to knowledge of God. Thus, faith is not accepting what one cannot prove:

    --Faith cannot outrun knowledge, for it is dependent upon knowledge (Romans 10:17).
    --Abraham came to faith only after he came to knowledge of God’s promises and was persuaded (Romans 4:20-21)
    --The Apostle Peter says to give a reason for the hope you believe in (1 Peter 3:15)

    People are called upon to have faith only after receiving adequate knowledge. In fact, the Bible demands that the thinker be:

    --rational in gathering information
    --examining the evidence, and
    --reasoning properly about the evidence, thereby drawing only warranted conclusions.

    Paul articulated this when he wrote "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good" (1 Thess 5:21), John too echoed the same thoughts when he said to "test the spirits" (1 John 4:1).

    All this in fact, is essentially the law of rationality in philosophical circles: one should draw conclusions which are justified by the evidence.

    "Blind faith" is an exaggeration

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    Except we are told that Jesus was arrested immediately after:

    - Mark 14:32-50

    Except if God exists, miracles are not a crazy thing ---> That is a reasonable statement

    If an omniscient, omnipotent, supernatural being does exist, he could work a number of supernatural miracles:

    --If there was no universe, and he chose to create one, he could speak it into existence (Psalm 33:6-9)
    --He could ensure what writer of His choosing penned what He wanted mankind to know
    --If He wanted to let mankind to know that He created the world and everything in it, He could tell them through his divinely inspired writers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    You must start with observations first, not conclusions...your error comes from your blind faith.
    Naturalistic atheism contends that:

    --Matter came from nothing, yet no such thing has ever been observed to happen (Observation first??).
    --Biological life came from non-life, yet science has known for many decades that, in nature, life only comes from pre-existing life.
    --Water evolved on earth from dust and dirt over millions of years
    --Donkeys evolved from fish
    etc etc

    How is it that all of that does not require faith either??

    Same thing for you. Faith is (not blind faith) preceded by some sort of knowledge.
    Last edited by Computer Loser; 11-02-2020 at 05:10 PM.

  8. #8
    Subthigh Socionics Is A Cult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beijing
    TIM
    TMI
    Posts
    19,276
    Mentioned
    514 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by peteronfireee View Post
    Actually, no, accusing Christians for “blind faith” is a common misconception.

    Christians actually embrace the biblical definition of faith. This definition of faith is faith preceded by knowledge;

    One cannot possess faith in God until he/she comes to knowledge of God. Thus, faith is not accepting what one cannot prove:

    --Faith cannot outrun knowledge, for it is dependent upon knowledge (Romans 10:17).
    --Abraham came to faith only after he came to knowledge of God’s promises and was persuaded (Romans 4:20-21)
    --The Apostle Peter says to give a reason for the hope you believe in (1 Peter 3:15)

    People are called upon to have faith only after receiving adequate knowledge. In fact, the Bible demands that the thinker be:

    --rational in gathering information
    --examining the evidence, and
    --reasoning properly about the evidence, thereby drawing only warranted conclusions.

    Paul articulated this when he wrote "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good" (1 Thess 5:21), John too echoed the same thoughts when he said to "test the spirits" (1 John 4:1).

    All this in fact, is essentially the law of rationality in philosophical circles: one should draw conclusions which are justified by the evidence.

    "Blind faith" is an exaggeration
    Jesus blessed those who believed without evidence, while notably did not bless Thomas who only believed in the resurrection after he had touched Jesus' body. That is notably in the bible. If Thomas in the gospels was not even able to believe in the resurrection despite allegedly having seen all the miracles that Jesus had done...including resurrect someone from the dead...I can only conclude that these stories were passion plays designed to sway those to convert to Christianity in its early history. If even Thomas did not believe without evidence, then I have good read to believe the miracles were all made up.

    Quote Originally Posted by peteronfireee View Post
    Except if God exists, miracles are not a crazy thing ---> That is a reasonable statement

    If an omniscient, omnipotent, supernatural being does exist, he could work a number of supernatural miracles:

    --If there was no universe, and he chose to create one, he could speak it into existence (Psalm 33:6-9)
    --He could ensure what writer of His choosing penned what He wanted mankind to know
    --If He wanted to let mankind to know that He created the world and everything in it, He could tell them through his divinely inspired writers.
    A miracle as I understand it is something supernatural - i.e. not natural, contrary to the laws of nature. But by that definition, it necessarily follows that a miracle cannot happen, because every phenomenon is necessarily natural, within the laws of nature. If you point at a miracle, I merely see a natural event.

    Quote Originally Posted by peteronfireee View Post
    Naturalistic atheism contends that:

    --Matter came from nothing, yet no such thing has ever been observed to happen (Observation first??).
    --Biological life came from non-life, yet science has known for many decades that, in nature, life only comes from pre-existing life.
    --Water evolved on earth from dust and dirt over millions of years
    --Donkeys evolved from fish
    etc etc

    How is it that all of that does not require faith either??

    Same thing for you. Faith is (not blind faith) preceded by some sort of knowledge.
    "Atheism" is simply defined as a lack of belief in the existence of gods. It does not require any belief, and is not an ideology tied with the baggage you try to pack in with it.

    Again...the only person who says that Something came from Nothing is you. I don't believe that. For all I know, matter is indestructible.

    Define what you mean by "life". That is a very loaded term. We know that in nature, that long-chain molecules such as RNA are able to form - these are normally considered inanimate, lifeless. But the distinction between what is life and what is not life is arbitrary.

    "science has known for many decades that, in nature, life only comes from pre-existing life." - What? "Science" makes no such claim. It is bad science to claim as knowledge something that is unfalsifiable - "you can't prove a negative." - I could well say that by that standard, that completely destroys your argument for "God" - we have not observed this supposedly all-powerful, ever-present being ANYWHERE, at ANY SCALE. Scientists don't make observations such as "We have not observed God" in scientific journals - they start from observations first - no Yahweh "God" being has been observed and defined in a way that could qualify as a hypothesis which could be tested.

    The evidence shows that donkeys did in fact evolve from fish.

  9. #9
    Subthigh Socionics Is A Cult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beijing
    TIM
    TMI
    Posts
    19,276
    Mentioned
    514 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by peteronfireee View Post
    One would not expect the Romans to document this fact since they were not permitted access to the inner precincts of the temple. Only priests could enter that part of the temple.
    The Romans did not abide by such rules.

    Quote Originally Posted by peteronfireee View Post
    And one would not anticipate reliable testimony from the Jews (of the period) when one looks at the behaviour of the hierarchy - lying in order to murder Jesus of Nazareth, bribery in recruiting Judas to betray Jesus of Nazareth and coercion in forcing Pilate's hand to execute Jesus of Nazareth by Roman authority.
    You said that only priests could have observed the torn curtain and yet it was recorded in the New Testament...

    You are engaging in a long history of libel against the Jews.

    The historical accounts of the period show that Pontius Pilate was a ruthless bastard, and not someone prone to dithering about killing some non-Roman. He was more of an ask questions later kind of guy. The authors of the New Testament did not do their research when they made their fiction.

  10. #10
    Subthigh Socionics Is A Cult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beijing
    TIM
    TMI
    Posts
    19,276
    Mentioned
    514 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cargo_cult#John_Frum

    Cargo Cult

    A cargo cult is a religious movement usually emerging in tribal or isolated societies after they have had an encounter with an external and technologically advanced society. Usually cargo cults focus on magical thinking and a variety of intricate rituals designed to obtain the material wealth of the advanced culture they encountered.

    The term "cargo cult" has caught the imagination of the public and is now used to describe a wide variety of phenomena that involve imitating external properties without the substance. In commerce, for example, successful products often result in "copycat" products that imitate the form but are usually of inferior quality.

    Cargo cults exemplify the third law of Arthur C. Clarke: that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

    History

    The earliest known cargo cult was the Tuka Movement in Fiji from 1885.[2]

    During World War II, the Allies set up many temporary military bases in the Pacific, introducing isolated peoples to Western manufactured goods, or "cargo". While military personnel were stationed there, many islanders noticed these newcomers engaging in ritualized behaviors, like marching around with rifles on their shoulders in formations.

    After the Allies left, the source of cargo was removed and the people were nearly as isolated as before. In their desire to keep getting more goods, various peoples throughout the Pacific introduced new religious rituals mimicking what they had seen the strangers do.

    Melanesia

    In one instance well-studied by anthropologists, the Tanna Islanders of what is now Vanuatu interpreted the US military drill as religious rituals, leading them to conclude that these behaviors brought cargo to the islands. Hoping that the cargo would return by duplicating these behaviors, they continued to maintain airstrips and replaced their facilities using native materials. These included remarkably detailed full-size replicas of airplanes made of wood, bark, and vines, a hut-like radio shack complete with headphones made of coconut halves, and attempts at recreating military uniforms and flags.[1]

    Many Melanesians believed that Western manufactured goods were created by ancestral spirits, but the occupiers had unfairly gained control of them (as the occupiers in question had no visible means of producing said goods themselves). The islanders expected that a messianic Western figure, John Frum, would return to deliver the cargo. No one knows who Frum is, nor is there physical evidence he existed,[note 1] but the islanders continue to ceremoniously honor him. After the war the US Navy attempted to talk the people out of it, but by that point it was too late and the religious movement had taken hold.

    Subsequently the people of Tanna have been waiting over sixty years for the cargo to return. Then again, as mentioned in the quote above, Christians have been waiting more than two thousand years for their guy to come back.

    Modern cargo cult believers do exist, although most see John Frum and the like merely as manifestations of the same divinity worshiped in other parts of the world, and treat the trappings of the belief as a worship service rather than a magical collection of talismans.

    John Frum

    According to the cult today, John Frum was a literate white US serviceman that appeared to the village elders in a vision in the late 1930s.[1] However, as early as 1949 there were people saying the "origin of the movement or the cause started more than thirty years ago", putting "John Frum" in the 1910s.[3] Interestingly, until the 1950s John Frum's identity varied from Melanesian native, to black serviceman, to white navy serviceman before more or less settling into the literate white US serviceman identity, though some belief in the older variants can still be found.

    However, the closest thing actual recorded history shows is that from 1940 to 1947 not only were there three illiterate natives who took up the name John Frum (Manehevi (1940-41), Neloaig (1943, inspired people to build an airstrip) and Iokaeye (1947, preached a new color symbolism)) and were exiled or thrown into jail for the trouble they stirred up, but there were also three people saying they were the "sons" of John Frum in 1942.[4] To further complicate matters, "Tom Navy" is thought by some to be based in part on Tom Beatty of Mississippi, who served in the New Hebrides both as a missionary, and as a Navy Seabee during the war.

    The John Frum cult caused so many problems that in 1957 there was an effort made to prove John Frum didn't exist. It totally failed.[5]

    By the 1960s, the natives were carrying around pictures of men they believed to be John Frum. In 2006, when asked why they still believed in his coming after some 60 years of waiting, the Chief said, "You Christians have been waiting 2,000 years for Jesus to return to earth, and you haven’t given up hope."[1]

    Prince Phillip

    Not all Melanesian cargo cults have philosophical myths as founders. Some, such as the Rusefel (Roosevelt) Cargo Cult,[6] latched on to the name of a real person as their founder… even if that person could not have been their cult's founder. The Johnson Cult of New Hanover Island in current-day Papua New Guinea was formerly thought to be a cargo cult but the current thinking is that it was just political theater,[7] which just goes to show Poe's Law.

    The most notable of these (in part because he was alive to learn about it) is Prince Phillip, who is revered by a village in Vanuatu after they identified him with a legendary mountain spirit that was said to have "married a powerful woman from across the sea". The prince appears to have taken the news of his divinity in stride and remains on good terms with his worshippers
    Christ myth theory

    Discounting the idea that docetism is part of the Christ myth, the concept goes back to the 1790s with the ideas of Constantin-François VolneyWikipedia and of Charles-François DupuisWikipedia.

    However, Volney and Dupuis did not agree on a definition of the Christ myth. Dupuis held that there was no human being involved in the New Testament account, which he saw as an intentional extended allegory of solar myths. Volney, on the other hand, allowed for confused memories of an obscure historical figure to be integrated in a mythology that compiled organically.[2] So from nearly the get-go the modern Christ Myth theory had two parallel lines of thought:

    There was no human being behind the person portrayed in the New Testament.
    Confused memories of an obscure historical figure became woven into the mythology.

    For the most part, the no human being behind the New Testament version is presented as the Christ myth theory, ignoring Volney's confused memories of an obscure historical figure version.

    In fact, as the John Frum cargo cult shows, even in as short a time as some 11 years after a message starts being noticed by unbelievers, the question of the founder being an actual person or a renamed existing deity is already unclear[3] and in a few more years the oral tradition has forgotten the possible human founder (illiterate native named Manehivi who caused trouble using that name from 1940 to 1941 and was exiled from his island as a result) and replaced him with a version (literate white US serviceman who appeared to the village elders in a vision on February 15, late 1930s) better suited to the cult.
    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory

    Eyewitnesses

    If there were any records of actual eyewitnesses to Jesus's life and deeds then that would be evidence. However the only person known to have been in the right place and right time was Paul...and he repeatedly states that everything he is relaying about Jesus is coming though visions. [...]

    Paul

    When talking about Paul we need to remember there are four Pauls in the New Testament[146]:

    Authentic or Early Paul: 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans, Philippians, and Philemon (50s-60s A.D.)
    Disputed Paul or Deutero-Pauline: 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians, Colossians (80-100 A.D.)
    Pseudo-Paul or the Pastorals: 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus (80-100 A.D.)
    Tendentious or Legendary Paul: Acts of the Apostles (90-130 A.D.)

    When looking for evidence from Paul regarding a possible historical Jesus it makes sense to only look at the Authentic or Early Paul as "[t]he remaining letters do indeed deviate too greatly from Pauline style to be his hand or even his dictation" as, being forgeries and therefore of even more dubious provenance with no obvious link to anyone connected to Jesus, they cannot provide any information for the historicity of Jesus.[147] Simply put: We don't know who wrote the "non-Pauline" epistles, when they were penned, or whether their authors knew the first thing about any historical Jesus. Just assuming that they give useful information about the historical Jesus would be taking their content and accuracy on, well, faith.

    The earliest (genuine) Pauline writings about Jesus — traditionally dated[148] 52-67 CE, earlier than any gospels, canonical or not — were composed by Paul of Tarsus, a man who never met a physical Jesus but who claimed to have seen a light and heard a voice.[149] This depiction and the conversion experience is taken at face value by Christian doctrine as proof that Jesus not only existed but was risen as the Messiah. (The same Christians do not accept other religions' similar visions as fact.) No witnesses to this conversion event are mentioned by Paul or anyone else.

    Paul had no knowledge of Jesus' early life, just his claimed ultimate activities, and his teachings sometimes seem at variance with those of Jesus in the Gospels. He also does not mention the handful of churches that arose in Jesus' name, but having nothing to do with his own Christianity. Although Paul writes about numerous other people seeing Jesus, he provides no corroborating evidence or means by which they could be identified. He does (e.g. in Galatians) speak of meeting some of the Disciples, but, as the John Frum cult shows, even the mention of James (the Just) as Jesus' brother doesn't mean much as John Frum got Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh (who has only sisters) as a brother only 17 years after the first record of his movement.

    This is assuming that the James who Paul is referencing is in any way connected to any of the Jameses in the Gospels or Acts.
    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Eviden...f_Jesus_Christ

  11. #11
    Serious Left-Static Negativist Eliza Thomason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    eastern U.S.
    TIM
    ENFp, IEE
    Posts
    3,673
    Mentioned
    378 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default St. Thomas Aquinas

    @Subteigh when my husband and saw me on 16T he asked if I was "throwing pearls to swine again". He meant you, because he sees my stress when you insult my deeply held beliefs; he knows the time I put into sincere replies to the questions you like to put out there for me to answer for you. After which, you have never offered any positive acknowledgement of any point I ever made. So it doesn't feel like a conversation. It is something else.

    I told him I wasn't writing you and if did it would be after quite some time. So he quoted St. Thomas Aquinas, which I will share now. I know you have spent a great deal of time studying and extolling the works of the most most depraved and existential philosophers you can find, but now hear words of a good man in a whole different class from your favored friends, renowned and unmatched in all of history not only for his extremely superior mind and logic but also his great virtue and faith.

    ................................

    .....“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.”


    Faith is a virtue. I want to learn from the greatest, wisest persons who lived in great virtue, not people who lived depraved lives of sin like many of those you extol. Sin compromises intelligence. Why do you waste your time with the confused drivel of renowned sinners? To impress other ignorant people? To leave them confused and thinking they missed something, and that you must be smarter than them? How trite. What a waste of your mind and life.

    My husband continued by citing the final quote in the parable of the rich man and the beggar Lazarus:

    ..............."31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

    To this my husband added, "For someone with a stubborn resistance to God or anything supernatural, there is NO kind of event they will not dismiss."

    That often looks like it is your "cause". To hold a stubborn resistance to God or anything supernatural. Am I right? Then what a useless exercise for me to to answer your questions, when you don't really want ANY answers, you just want to play your "cause", and oppose anything I say. In a true civil conversation of good will, one seeks and expresses points of agreement, even if one must politely express a view to the contrary.

    And this story reminds me of the Pharisees and another good man named Lazarus, the wealthy, prominent friend of Jesus, brother of Mary Magdalen and of Martha. The Pharisees had said they would not believe unless they saw a man rise from the dead, and Jesus let his good friend Lazarus die a horrible slow death, and then rot in the tomb for three days, grieving Mary and Martha greatly, before He resurrected him, shouting, "Lazarus, Come out!" in the presence of large crowd that included the prideful, mocking and scoffing Pharisees. The great miracle only infuriated the Pharisees. And of course, they did not believe. Nothing would make them believe, because they did not want.

    But Subteigh, even though your Bible favorite is Judas Iscariot, your favored philosophers are depraved, and you like to play the part of the wicked Pharisees, God has blessed me with supernatural hope, and I believe there there is more depth in your heart than what you show here.



    __________________________________________________ _________________________________

    The entire parable is in Luke 16 is here:

    19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:

    20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,

    21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.

    22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;

    23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

    24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

    25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.

    26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.

    27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:

    28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.

    29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

    30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.

    31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

    Last edited by Eliza Thomason; 11-02-2020 at 01:01 AM.
    "A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
    ........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........


    "Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
    by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
    attitude acceptable to today's standards."
    - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"

    .
    .
    .


  12. #12
    Subthigh Socionics Is A Cult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beijing
    TIM
    TMI
    Posts
    19,276
    Mentioned
    514 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eliza Thomason View Post
    @Subteigh when my husband and saw me on 16T he asked if I was "throwing pearls to swine again". He meant you, because he sees my stress when you insult my deeply held beliefs; he knows the time I put into sincere replies to the questions you like to put out there for me to answer for you. After which, you have never offered any positive acknowledgement of any point I ever made. So it doesn't feel like a conversation. It is something else.

    I told him I wasn't writing you and if did it would be after quite some time. So he quoted St. Thomas Aquinas, which I will share now. I know you have spent a great deal of time studying and extolling the works of the most most depraved and existential philosophers you can find, but now hear words of a good man in a whole different class from your favored friends, renowned and unmatched in all of history not only for his extremely superior mind and logic but also his great virtue and faith.[/SIZE][/COLOR][/B][/FONT][/INDENT]
    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    @Eliza Thomason
    Being careful not to insult the "most deeply held beliefs" of others...

    Do you believe that Vishnu reincarnated as Rama?

    Do you believe that the Buddha when he died reached "parinirvana (final nirvana, the end of rebirth and suffering achieved after the death of the body)"?

    Do you believe that Muhammad received a divine message from God via the angel Jibreel (Gabriel)?

    Do you believe that Joseph Smith received a divine message from God via the angel Moroni?

    Do you believe that the incident at Roswell in 1947 involved a flying saucer and aliens?

    Do you believe that Kim Jong-un is a god?
    Aquinas was one of the most inanely dogmatic individuals to have ever lived.

  13. #13
    Subthigh Socionics Is A Cult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beijing
    TIM
    TMI
    Posts
    19,276
    Mentioned
    514 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eliza Thomason View Post
    Faith is a virtue. I want to learn from the greatest, wisest persons who lived in great virtue, not people who lived depraved lives of sin like many of those you extol. Sin compromises intelligence. Why do you waste your time with the confused drivel of renowned sinners? To impress other ignorant people? To leave them confused and thinking they missed something, and that you must be smarter than them? How trite. What a waste of your mind and life.

    My husband continued by citing the final quote in the parable of the rich man and the beggar Lazarus:

    ..............."31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

    To this my husband added, "For someone with a stubborn resistance to God or anything supernatural, there is NO kind of event they will not dismiss."

    That often looks like it is your "cause". To hold a stubborn resistance to God or anything supernatural. Am I right? Then what a useless exercise for me to to answer your questions, when you don't really want ANY answers, you just want to play your "cause", and oppose anything I say. In a true civil conversation of good will, one seeks and expresses points of agreement, even if one must politely express a view to the contrary.

    And this story reminds me of the Pharisees and another good man named Lazarus, the wealthy, prominent friend of Jesus, brother of Mary Magdalen and of Martha. The Pharisees had said they would not believe unless they saw a man rise from the dead, and Jesus let his good friend Lazarus die a horrible slow death, and then rot in the tomb for three days, grieving Mary and Martha greatly, before He resurrected him, shouting, "Lazarus, Come out!" in the presence of large crowd that included the prideful, mocking and scoffing Pharisees. The great miracle only infuriated the Pharisees. And of course, they did not believe. Nothing would make them believe, because they did not want.

    But Subteigh, even though your Bible favorite is Judas Iscariot, your favored philosophers are depraved, and you like to play the part of the wicked Pharisees, God has blessed me with supernatural hope, and I believe there there is more depth in your heart than what you show here.



    __________________________________________________ _________________________________

    The entire parable is in Luke 16 is here:

    19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:

    20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,

    21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.

    22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;

    23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

    24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

    25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.

    26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.

    27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:

    28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.

    29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

    30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.

    31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

    I don't regard believing without evidence to be a virtue. If you believe something without evidence, you are capable of believing anything without evidence. Although seeing as you do this, you may not be able to see why that is a problem.

    The "God" of the bible engaged in or promoted genocide, murder, rape, slavery, and torture. The papacy includes individuals who did the same. I consider myself to have a better standard than that. I don't think it is a matter of intelligence.

    Either death is irreversible, or it isn't. If it is reversible, then why would you consider that a supernatural act? Why does such an act mean I should believe in a being that has no observable properties? If a being promotes genocide, murder, rape, slavery, torture, cannibalism etc. like that worshipped by Catholics...why should I worship that being just because they do something you think is amazing?

    A being resurrecting someone from the dead would make me believe in them, but NOT because they resurrected someone from the dead...but because I had observed them. You seem to treat belief as an act of loyalty - why? The truth does not care if you believe in it or not.

  14. #14
    💩 Nobody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    TIM
    POOP™
    Posts
    439
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think I get it now, "faith", you can't argue against it, because it doesn't care, because it can't listen. Thousands of religions and they all have faith that they are right and other religions are wrong. You don't need ears with faith, you don't need eyes, you don't need anything. You just need to hold your faith above all else and believe and feel it, without hesitance. It's blind, it's deaf, it can justify anything, and it exudes pure confidence in doing so. Jesus Christ...
    Quote Originally Posted by Aramas View Post
    Just rename this place Beta Central lmao
    Quote Originally Posted by MidnightWilderness View Post
    The only problem socionics has given me is a propensity to analyze every relationship from the lens of socionics and I also see that it is worse in my boyfriend. Nothing makes any sense that way and it does not really solve any problems.





  15. #15
    End's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    TIM
    ILI-Ni sp/sx
    Posts
    1,913
    Mentioned
    305 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nobody View Post
    I think I get it now, "faith", you can't argue against it, because it doesn't care, because it can't listen. Thousands of religions and they all have faith that they are right and other religions are wrong. You don't need ears with faith, you don't need eyes, you don't need anything. You just need to hold your faith above all else and believe and feel it, without hesitance. It's blind, it's deaf, it can justify anything, and it exudes pure confidence in doing so. Jesus Christ...
    Once again, quality shitpost. Here's a purely secular take that explains why zealots always beat secularists. See, feelings/morals>facts, Culture>Politics, and 2+2=5 if and when the mob says it does despite the "fact" it does not.

    Sad fact is, the most "intolerant" faction in any given war tends to win out....

  16. #16
    Haikus Computer Loser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,430
    Mentioned
    96 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    Jesus blessed those who believed without evidence, while notably did not bless Thomas who only believed in the resurrection after he had touched Jesus' body. That is notably in the bible.
    Sorry, no, here John/Jesus is not supporting blind faith; again, you have to look at the entire context (basically the next verses after the one you refer to, John 20:30-31) of scripture instead of cherry-picking verses to support an agenda.

    In John 20:29, Jesus is actually chastising Thomas for Thomas’ ridiculous requirements for evidence. Jesus is saying "The evidence you have SHOULD be enough... But if you need more, hmm fine here you go."

    In addition, they aren’t saying faith back by evidence is necessarily bad, on the contrary, the whole book of John supports evidence-based faith by illustrating the miracles Jesus performed, so that all may believe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    If Thomas in the gospels was not even able to believe in the resurrection despite allegedly having seen all the miracles that Jesus had done...including resurrect someone from the dead...I can only conclude that these stories were passion plays designed to sway those to convert to Christianity in its early history. If even Thomas did not believe without evidence, then I have good read to believe the miracles were all made up.
    Even when Jesus performed miracle after miracle, (some) of the disciples still didn’t believe. I mean, even after the resurrection itself, Jesus decided to stay a little longer, performing miracles for 40 more days. That just goes to show the flaws in human nature. You also see this theme throughout the entire bible where God’s people continually forget / abandon him even though they were shown miracles. Even if miracles were to be performed today, there would still be (some) non-believers.
    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    A miracle as I understand it is something supernatural - i.e. not natural, contrary to the laws of nature. But by that definition, it necessarily follows that a miracle cannot happen, because every phenomenon is necessarily natural, within the laws of nature. If you point at a miracle, I merely see a natural event.
    But the whole point of a miracle is that they’re in a different category of its own and operates outside of the laws of nature / physics.

    ”Atheism" is simply defined as a lack of belief in the existence of gods. It does not require any belief, and is not an ideology tied with the baggage you try to pack in with it.
    Sorry, I didn’t mean to define “Atheism” but the philosophy of Naturalism, let me clarify;

    Naturalism - the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted.

    Again...the only person who says that Something came from Nothing is you. I don't believe that. For all I know, matter is indestructible.
    Nah, I’m saying something came from something beyond the universe (God). You have proposed that the universe has always existed or it can come from nothing (we just don’t know how).

    Define what you mean by "life". That is a very loaded term.
    Condition(s) that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death

    We know that in nature, that long-chain molecules such as RNA are able to form - these are normally considered inanimate, lifeless. But the distinction between what is life and what is not life is arbitrary.
    And as far as we know, lifeless, inanimate strands of RNA by themselves do not have the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death

    "science has known for many decades that, in nature, life only comes from pre-existing life." - What? "Science" makes no such claim. It is bad science to claim as knowledge something that is unfalsifiable - "you can't prove a negative." - I could well say that by that standard, that completely destroys your argument for "God" - we have not observed this supposedly all-powerful, ever-present being ANYWHERE, at ANY SCALE. Scientists don't make observations such as "We have not observed God" in scientific journals - they start from observations first - no Yahweh "God" being has been observed and defined in a way that could qualify as a hypothesis which could be tested.
    That’s beside the point.

    As far as we know, lifeless, inanimate strands of RNA by themselves do not have the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death

    The evidence shows that donkeys did in fact evolve from fish.

    Last edited by Computer Loser; 11-05-2020 at 10:42 AM.

  17. #17
    Subthigh Socionics Is A Cult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beijing
    TIM
    TMI
    Posts
    19,276
    Mentioned
    514 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by peteronfireee View Post
    Sorry, no, here John/Jesus is not supporting blind faith; again, you have to look at the entire context (basically the next verses after the one you refer to, John 20:30-31) of scripture instead of cherry-picking verses to support an agenda.

    In John 20:29, Jesus is actually chastising Thomas for Thomas’ ridiculous requirements for evidence. Jesus is saying "The evidence you have SHOULD be enough... But if you need more, hmm fine here you go."
    I don't know where you get that from. The passage simply does not say that.

    Quote Originally Posted by peteronfireee View Post
    Even when Jesus performed miracle after miracle, (some) of the disciples still didn’t believe. I mean, even after the resurrection itself, Jesus decided to stay a little longer, performing miracles for 40 more days. That just goes to show the flaws in human nature. You also see this theme throughout the entire bible where God’s people continually forget / abandon him even though they were shown miracles. Even if miracles were to be performed today, there would still be (some) non-believers.
    "And the Pharisees came forth, and began to question with him, seeking of him a sign from heaven, tempting him. And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth this generation seek after a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this generation." - Mark (8:11-12)

    Quote Originally Posted by peteronfireee View Post
    But the whole point of a miracle is that they’re in a different category of its own and operates outside of the laws of nature / physics.
    Where do you get that idea from?

    If something CAN happen, it is within the laws of nature, otherwise it wouldn't be able to happen.
    Quote Originally Posted by peteronfireee View Post
    Sorry, I didn’t mean to define “Atheism” but the philosophy of Naturalism, let me clarify;

    Naturalism - the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted.
    Why then did you put "atheism" after the descriptive "Naturalistic"? It seems to me clear that was exactly what you intended to say. Also, the things you ascribed to as beliefs of "Naturalistic atheism" could just as much be the beliefs of someone who only ascribed things to the supernatural or the spiritual.

    I wouldn't consider myself a "naturalist" by your understanding, as it would be a redundant belief. I just prefer to only consider explanations that fit observation.

    Quote Originally Posted by peteronfireee View Post
    Nah, I’m saying something came from something beyond the universe (God). You have proposed that the universe has always existed or it can come from nothing (we just don’t know how).
    But what you suggest isn't even falsifiable. It isn't based on any observation either.

    I don't limit myself to only those two hypotheses.

    Quote Originally Posted by peteronfireee View Post
    Condition(s) that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death

    And as far as we know, lifeless, inanimate strands of RNA by themselves do not have the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death
    Why do you say that?

    What do you consider the most basic form of life?
    Quote Originally Posted by peteronfireee View Post
    I await your scientific paper disproving the theory of evolution by natural selection.

  18. #18
    Subthigh Socionics Is A Cult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beijing
    TIM
    TMI
    Posts
    19,276
    Mentioned
    514 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by peteronfireee View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    The evidence shows that donkeys did in fact evolve from fish.
    I forgot to point out that the dogma of your religion says that humans evolved from dust, that humans were the first life according to one variant of the myth (the other variant in the same book says that the animals of the sea and air were created before humans). In both stories, Adam was created before plants - as we know, we need these in order to breathe.

  19. #19
    Haikus Computer Loser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,430
    Mentioned
    96 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    On miracles,

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    If something CAN happen, it is within the laws of nature, otherwise it wouldn't be able to happen.
    Another approach can involve looking at the (minimal) facts of one the most important miracles in Christianity, such as the resurrection.

    These facts / data are accepted by both christians and non-christian scholars:

    1. “Jesus died by crucifixion;

    2. “Very soon after His death, His followers had real experiences that they thought were actual appearances of the risen Jesus;

    3. “Their lives were transformed as a result, even to the point of being willing to die specifically for their faith in the resurrection message;

    4. “These things were taught very early, soon after the crucifixion;

    5. “James, Jesus’ unbelieving brother, became a Christian due to his own experience with whom he believed to be the resurrected Christ;

    6. “The Christian persecutor Paul … became a believer after a similar experience.”

    These ‘minimal facts’ come not only from multiple eyewitnesses as recorded in Scripture, but from numerous non-biblical sources (admitted by virtually all scholars) — even sources hostile to Christianity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    Why then did you put "atheism" after the descriptive "Naturalistic"? It seems to me clear that was exactly what you intended to say. Also, the things you ascribed to as beliefs of "Naturalistic atheism" could just as much be the beliefs of someone who only ascribed things to the supernatural or the spiritual.

    I wouldn't consider myself a "naturalist" by your understanding, as it would be a redundant belief. I just prefer to only consider explanations that fit observation.
    Naturalist; believes in natural causes, not miracles
    Atheist; No belief in God

    All atheists are naturalists, but not all naturalists are atheist

    Naturalistic atheism- A naturalist who happens to be an atheist

    The main point- Since there is some overlap, wanted to point out that atheists also have a belief system / philosophy


    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    Why do you say that?

    What do you consider the most basic form of life?
    That's the whole point. Evolutionists / scientists can't even explain how life even begun (or the failure to explain the origin of genetic code)

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    I await your scientific paper disproving the theory of evolution by natural selection.
    Some problems with evolution:

    https://evolutionnews.org/2012/07/what_are_the_to_1/


    --Lack of a viable mechanism for producing high levels of complex and specified information. Related to this are problems with the Darwinian mechanism producing irreducibly complex features, and the problems of non-functional or deleterious intermediate stages.

    --The failure of the fossil record to provide support for Darwinian evolution.

    --The failure of molecular biology to provide evidence for a grand “tree of life.”

    --Natural selection is an extremely inefficient method of spreading traits in populations unless a trait has an extremely high selection coefficient;


    --The problem that convergent evolution appears rampant — at both the genetic and morphological levels, even though under Darwinian theory this is highly unlikely.

    --The failure of chemistry to explain the origin of the genetic code.

    --The failure of developmental biology to explain why vertebrate embryos diverge from the beginning of development.

    --The failure of neo-Darwinian evolution to explain the biogeographical distribution of many species.

    --A long history of inaccurate predictions inspired by neo-Darwinism regarding vestigial organs or so-called “junk” DNA.

    --Humans show many behavioral and cognitive traits and abilities that offer no apparent survival advantage (e.g. music, art, religion, ability to ponder the nature of the universe).

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    I forgot to point out that the dogma of your religion says that humans evolved from dust, that humans were the first life according to one variant of the myth (the other variant in the same book says that the animals of the sea and air were created before humans). In both stories, Adam was created before plants - as we know, we need these in order to breathe.
    Again, you have to read the text more carefully and put things into context.

    Genesis 1 and 2 serve different purposes. Chapter one (including 2:1-4) focuses on the order of the creation events; chapter two (2:5-25) simply provides more detailed information about some of the events mentioned in chapter one; it is about one small part of what happened on the sixth “day” of creation.

    Verse 5 is key to understand what is going on here. It says, “no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up.” In other words, at this point agriculture had not yet begun. The shrub of the field and the plant of the field represent crops which sustain human life. At this early point, Adam and Eve were gatherers, not farmers. It was only after they left the garden that, as a result of sin, mankind had to make a living by tilling the earth. Genesis 3:18-19 makes this clear as God tells man that he will begin to eat “the plants of the field.” The Hebrew here is the same as in Genesis 1:5.
    Last edited by Computer Loser; 11-05-2020 at 10:42 AM.

  20. #20

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,115
    Mentioned
    108 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by peteronfireee View Post
    The bible is deeper than you give it credit for







    These would operate outside the laws of nature, that's why they are called miracles.



    Naturalist; believes in natural causes, not miracles
    Atheist; No belief in God

    All atheists are naturalists, but not all naturalists are atheist

    Naturalistic atheism- A naturalist who happens to be an atheist

    The main point- Since there is some overlap, just wanted to point out that atheists also have a belief system / philosophy



    That's the whole point. Evolutionists / scientists can't even explain how life even begun (or the failure to explain the origin of genetic code)



    Some problems with evolution:

    https://evolutionnews.org/2012/07/what_are_the_to_1/






    Again, you have to read the text more carefully and put things into context.

    Genesis 1 and 2 serve different purposes. Chapter one (including 2:1-4) focuses on the order of the creation events; chapter two (2:5-25) simply provides more detailed information about some of the events mentioned in chapter one; it is about one small part of what happened on the sixth “day” of creation.
    The problem with this tactic is circular reasoning. You're citing an unreliable source. That's your prerogative to pick up a book and say its stories are true and happened.

    (I'm talking about your methods)

    I am Christian among other things.

  21. #21
    Subthigh Socionics Is A Cult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beijing
    TIM
    TMI
    Posts
    19,276
    Mentioned
    514 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by peteronfireee View Post
    On miracles,



    Another approach can involve looking at the (minimal) facts of one the most important miracles in Christianity, such as the resurrection.

    These facts / data are accepted by both christians and non-christian scholars:

    1. “Jesus died by crucifixion;

    2. “Very soon after His death, His followers had real experiences that they thought were actual appearances of the risen Jesus;

    3. “Their lives were transformed as a result, even to the point of being willing to die specifically for their faith in the resurrection message;

    4. “These things were taught very early, soon after the crucifixion;

    5. “James, Jesus’ unbelieving brother, became a Christian due to his own experience with whom he believed to be the resurrected Christ;

    6. “The Christian persecutor Paul … became a believer after a similar experience.”

    These ‘minimal facts’ come not only from multiple eyewitnesses as recorded in Scripture, but from numerous non-biblical sources (admitted by virtually all scholars) — even sources hostile to Christianity.
    You still haven't produced a body, living or dead. A fact cannot be used a proof of a miracle. It is meaningless to say things happen contrary to the laws of nature.

    Quote Originally Posted by peteronfireee View Post
    Naturalist; believes in natural causes, not miracles
    Atheist; No belief in God

    All atheists are naturalists, but not all naturalists are atheist

    Naturalistic atheism- A naturalist who happens to be an atheist

    The main point- Since there is some overlap, wanted to point out that atheists also have a belief system / philosophy
    Incorrect, not all atheists are naturalists. A baby is not a naturalist, but it lacks a belief in the existence of gods. Atheism does not require a belief system.

    Quote Originally Posted by peteronfireee View Post
    That's the whole point. Evolutionists / scientists can't even explain how life even begun (or the failure to explain the origin of genetic code)
    You didn't answer the question.

    Quote Originally Posted by peteronfireee View Post
    I suggest you read research papers or books that summarises them by experts in the field of biology rather than limiting yourself to the opinions of creationists.

    Quote Originally Posted by peteronfireee View Post
    On miracles,



    Another approach can involve looking at the (minimal) facts of one the most important miracles in Christianity, such as the resurrection.

    These facts / data are accepted by both christians and non-christian scholars:

    1. “Jesus died by crucifixion;

    2. “Very soon after His death, His followers had real experiences that they thought were actual appearances of the risen Jesus;

    3. “Their lives were transformed as a result, even to the point of being willing to die specifically for their faith in the resurrection message;

    4. “These things were taught very early, soon after the crucifixion;

    5. “James, Jesus’ unbelieving brother, became a Christian due to his own experience with whom he believed to be the resurrected Christ;

    6. “The Christian persecutor Paul … became a believer after a similar experience.”

    These ‘minimal facts’ come not only from multiple eyewitnesses as recorded in Scripture, but from numerous non-biblical sources (admitted by virtually all scholars) — even sources hostile to Christianity.
    You still haven't produced a body, living or dead. A fact cannot be used a proof of a miracle. It is meaningless to say things happen contrary to the laws of nature.

    Quote Originally Posted by peteronfireee View Post
    Naturalist; believes in natural causes, not miracles
    Atheist; No belief in God

    All atheists are naturalists, but not all naturalists are atheist

    Naturalistic atheism- A naturalist who happens to be an atheist

    The main point- Since there is some overlap, wanted to point out that atheists also have a belief system / philosophy
    Incorrect, not all atheists are naturalists. A baby is not a naturalist, but it lacks a belief in the existence of gods. Atheism does not require a belief system.

    Quote Originally Posted by peteronfireee View Post
    That's the whole point. Evolutionists / scientists can't even explain how life even begun (or the failure to explain the origin of genetic code)
    You didn't answer the question.

    Quote Originally Posted by peteronfireee View Post
    I suggest you read research papers or books that summarises them by experts in the field of biology rather than limiting yourself to the opinions of creationists.

    Quote Originally Posted by peteronfireee View Post
    Again, you have to read the text more carefully and put things into context.

    Genesis 1 and 2 serve different purposes. Chapter one (including 2:1-4) focuses on the order of the creation events; chapter two (2:5-25) simply provides more detailed information about some of the events mentioned in chapter one; it is about one small part of what happened on the sixth “day” of creation.
    It would be ignorant to treat Genesis as a scientific and historical account.

  22. #22
    Haikus Computer Loser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,430
    Mentioned
    96 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    You still haven't produced a body, living or dead. A fact cannot be used a proof of a miracle. It is meaningless to say things happen contrary to the laws of nature.
    Produce a body, no. But facts and evidence are tools in the toolkit to extrapolate potential possibilities of what happened (pretty good too, better than no external body of evidence)

    It's the same thing with our evolutionary scientist friends; they extrapolate data from what's known, since we weren't there to observe how the world/animals evolved over time

    It is meaningless to say things happen contrary to the laws of nature.
    Ok, Mr Naturalist

    A baby is not a naturalist
    LOL. *eyeroll*

    Incorrect, not all atheists are naturalists. A baby is not a naturalist, but it lacks a belief in the existence of gods. Atheism does not require a belief system.
    atheism does not require a belief system no, but **atheists** are people and often have accompanying beliefs, such as naturalism

    You didn't answer the question.
    I did, u just read it too literally. You, I, nor anyone else can explain how life started / what it is from an evolutionary perspective.


    So then u look at abiogenesis...

    And still. There are more questions than answers

    I suggest you read research papers or books that summarises them by experts in the field of biology rather than limiting yourself to the opinions of creationists.
    I'm familiar with them

    It would be ignorant to treat Genesis as a scientific and historical account.
    Genesis is an often misunderstood book but contains *many* theological, scientific, and historical gems
    Last edited by Computer Loser; 11-07-2020 at 03:07 AM.

  23. #23

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,115
    Mentioned
    108 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    i don't think people realized how inadequate and problematic the ideas of hell, heaven, and purg are when they dreamed them up

  24. #24
    Haikus Computer Loser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,430
    Mentioned
    96 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    I believe it is possible for "good" to exist without "bad". "Good" is not made greater because "bad" exists. You are just engaging in apologetics.
    What are the possible ways (involving good and evil) God could have created the world? There are 4 options:

    1. No world
    2. Creating a world where there is no such thing as good and evil (an immoral world)
    3. Creating a world where we could only choose good
    4. Creating this kind of world, where good and evil exists and we have the freedom to choose

    Out of the 4 options, #4 is the only possible world where love is possible.


    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    Deuteronomy 20:16-18 says that the Canaanites were utterly destroyed. This was an act of genocide.
    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    The only thing worse than killing in my view is eternal torture - therefore, the act of genocide against the Canaanites was probably worse than anything the Canaanites had done.
    Some context:

    First, the wording should be understood in the context of ancient Near Eastern military narrative. Ancient writings commonly traded in hyperbole—exaggeration for the sake of emphasis—especially when it came to military conquest. The practice is evident throughout battle reports of the time. “Joshua’s conventional warfare rhetoric,” Copan writes, “was common in many other ancient Near Eastern military accounts in the second and first millennia B.C.”
    Therefore, phrases like “utterly destroy” (haram), or “put to death men and women, children, and infants”—as well as other “obliteration language”—were stock “stereotypical” idioms used even when women or children were not present. It decreed total victory (much like your favorite sports team “wiping out” the opposition), not complete annihilation
    https://bible.org/article/canaanites...de-or-judgment

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    Not only were the men, women, and children killed, but every living thing was killed
    Some context:

    Women and children probably weren’t targets since the attacks were directed at smaller military outposts characteristically holding soldiers, not noncombatants (who generally lived in outlying rural areas). “All the archaeological evidence indicates that no civilian populations existed at Jericho, Ai, and other cities mentioned in Joshua.”
    https://bible.org/article/canaanites...de-or-judgment

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    In any case, the bible is factually wrong, the Canaanites left descendants that survived to this day.
    Again, although the removal of the Canaanite population was commanded (Deuteronomy 20:17), numerous passages indicate the incomplete nature of the conquest (e.g., Joshua 17:12-13; Judges 1:27-33).

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    Another genocide in the bible was when 42,000 Ephraimites were killed simply for being unable to say the word "shibbólet"
    The Gileadites did not kill the Ephraimites “for mispronunciation.” Gilead was at *war *with Ephraim, and killed the fleeing enemy because they were at war. Their pronunciation betrayed their true tribal affiliation when the Ephraimites were attempting to escape via subterfuge
    According to the Flood myth, most people on earth except 8 people as well as most life was wiped out. I find this to be pure malice.
    God actually delayed His destruction of the wicked world by water for many years, while Noah preached righteousness to them. Eventually, however, God’s longsuffering came to an end. The Flood began, and every wicked person on Earth received his just punishment from a loving God who gave them plenty of time to repent. Sadly, rather than follow “all that God commanded,” as Noah did, the wicked world of that time resisted the will of God and suffered a disastrous death

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    If sending people to hell is the last thing "God" wants, why then did he create people it intends to send to hell, as literally as the last thing it wants? If you don't want to do something, then you shouldn't do it.
    If I made disbelief something which merited eternal torture and I did not want anyone to go there, then I would do everything in my power to ensure that no one disbelieved.
    To make someone knowing they are incapable of having the "correct" beliefs and yet punishing them all the same is utterly inexcusable.
    In my case, it isn't just a matter of me being unable to believe the existence of something without any actual evidence, it's that I find the doctrine of eternal damnation morally reprehensible.
    The Nazis occasionally threw living victims straight into the fires of the ovens at concentration camps, which I find absolutely repulsive. But the dogma of the "God" you follow not only does this, it tortures them for eternity. If you cannot appreciate why I find this morally reprehensible, then I don't think we can meaningfully continue this discussion. But your "God" too also has an uphill struggle if it is genuine in its wish to save me from such a fate - I simply cannot follow a being that engages in torture, nevermind believe in the existence of an omnibenolvolent and omnipotent being who has such a doctrine.
    If it did not have such a doctrine, I'd actually be more likely to believe in an omnibenolvolent and omnipotent being.
    This is a tough question and quite frankly, I don’t think anyone or anybody can tell you exactly what God’s intention was for creating people that would eventually rebel against him.

    I do think that ultimately behind his intentions, there is some sort of plan and purpose:

    The Bible says that a day is coming when God will stop evil (2 Peter 3:7-13). He will put evil away forever, and create a new heaven and a new earth, where there will be no death, mourning, crying or pain (Revelation 21:4). In the meantime, God is using the suffering that exists for good (Rom 8:28) (Philippians 1:12).

    I also think it’s related to the fact that he wanted us to choose a relationship with him.

    God himself is a relational being, and in order to have true relationships with his creation, he creates for us the ability to have a choice, an actual freedom, to choose a relationship.

    A relationship without having to choose isn’t really a relationship, but a relationship that’s chosen is real.

    And because we have this choice, we can either choose to love him or reject / separate from him.
    Last edited by Computer Loser; 11-13-2020 at 10:24 AM.

  25. #25
    Subthigh Socionics Is A Cult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beijing
    TIM
    TMI
    Posts
    19,276
    Mentioned
    514 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by peteronfireee View Post
    What are the possible ways (involving good and evil) God could have created the world? There are 4 options:

    1. No world
    2. Creating a world where there is no such thing as good and evil (an immoral world)
    3. Creating a world where we could only choose good
    4. Creating this kind of world, where good and evil exists and we have the freedom to choose

    Out of the 4 options, #4 is the only possible world where love is possible.
    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    In one of the stories, the Sun stood still in the sky for 24 hours so that Joshua had longer to commit genocide.

    In the New Testament, during Jesus' crucifixion, there was an impossibly long three hour solar eclipse at Passover - Passover only happens at a Full Moon, while solar eclipses only happen at a New Moon.

    If you concede that the Joshua accounts are hyperbole, then you have utterly defeated your argument in favour of the alleged New Testament miracles, including Jesus' alleged resurrection.

    Quote Originally Posted by peteronfireee View Post
    Again, although the removal of the Canaanite population was commanded (Deuteronomy 20:17), numerous passages indicate the incomplete nature of the conquest (e.g., Joshua 17:12-13; Judges 1:27-33).



    The Gileadites did not kill the Ephraimites “for mispronunciation.” Gilead was at *war *with Ephraim, and killed the fleeing enemy because they were at war. Their pronunciation betrayed their true tribal affiliation when the Ephraimites were attempting to escape via subterfuge


    God actually delayed His destruction of the wicked world by water for many years, while Noah preached righteousness to them. Eventually, however, God’s longsuffering came to an end. The Flood began, and every wicked person on Earth received his just punishment from a loving God who gave them plenty of time to repent. Sadly, rather than follow “all that God commanded,” as Noah did, the wicked world of that time resisted the will of God and suffered a disastrous death



    This is a tough question and quite frankly, I don’t think anyone or anybody can tell you exactly what God’s intention was for creating people that would eventually rebel against him.

    I do think that ultimately behind his intentions, there is some sort of plan and purpose:

    The Bible says that a day is coming when God will stop evil (2 Peter 3:7-13). He will put evil away forever, and create a new heaven and a new earth, where there will be no death, mourning, crying or pain (Revelation 21:4). In the meantime, God is using the suffering that exists for good (Rom 8:28) (Philippians 1:12).
    You say they were commanded to commit atrocities and therefore it was legitimate. This is known as the "Nuremberg defense"...which is no defense at all. If "God" wants to stop evil, then it shouldn't engage in it and tell others to carry out evil on its behalf.

    Quote Originally Posted by peteronfireee View Post
    I also think it’s related to the fact that he wanted us to choose a relationship with him.

    God himself is a relational being, and in order to have true relationships with his creation, he creates for us the ability to have a choice, an actual freedom, to choose a relationship.

    A relationship without having to choose isn’t really a relationship, but a relationship that’s chosen is real.

    And because we have this choice, we can either choose to love him or reject / separate from him.
    I have no choice. I cannot "choose" to believe in the existence of something contrary to what the evidence shows me; I cannot "choose" to follow an ideology I consider fundamentally immoral.

    According to the bible, you are a flawed pot, and not because you choose to be flawed, but because you were made flawed:
    "The word which came to Jeremiah from the Lord, saying: “Arise and go down to the potter’s house, and there I will cause you to hear My words.” Then I went down to the potter’s house, and there he was, making something at the wheel. And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter; so he made it again into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to make. Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying: “O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter?” says the Lord. “Look, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel!" ~ Jeremiah 10:1-6

    "He who orders his slave to do things that he knows him to be incapable of doing, then punishes him, is a fool." ~ Abu Isa al-Warraq

  26. #26
    Haikus
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    2,594
    Mentioned
    103 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Heaven is Hell.

  27. #27
    Subthigh Socionics Is A Cult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beijing
    TIM
    TMI
    Posts
    19,276
    Mentioned
    514 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default


  28. #28
    💩 Nobody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    TIM
    POOP™
    Posts
    439
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Damn, I just finished watching "The Good Place" and I'm really amazed at the writing and thought that went into it. It recognized all the problems listed here and actually addressed them. If anyone likes fantasy tv, especially as it relates to the topic, you'd probably like it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Aramas View Post
    Just rename this place Beta Central lmao
    Quote Originally Posted by MidnightWilderness View Post
    The only problem socionics has given me is a propensity to analyze every relationship from the lens of socionics and I also see that it is worse in my boyfriend. Nothing makes any sense that way and it does not really solve any problems.





  29. #29
    Hakuna Matata and the cycle of Samsara godslave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2022
    Location
    Southern France
    TIM
    694 sp/sx
    Posts
    3,007
    Mentioned
    168 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Even if it's blasphemy to say it , I've always felt more merciful and empathetic than the God of Abrahamic Religions. I guess that's something we acquire when we have a superego forged in a post einleighment western society even if in my case it's more complicated than that since I'm a minority and the superego at home was in dissonance with that of the society and the "spirit" which I relate with the most. There was conflict but I had my coping mechanisms...


    In Islam Hell has seven names . The one I like the most is "Saqar", it sounds like a hostile Planet from the Star wars/Trek universe !


  30. #30
    Psychic/Steel CosmicCat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    TIM
    ENTP
    Posts
    775
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @godslave

    Here's what St. John Vianny says about purgatory: namely, that it is exceptional and rare for a Catholic to go straight to Heaven after death, but rather must make arrangements to loosen his suffering in Purgatory.

    As for Heaven, only baptized souls (which causes the remission of every sin you ever committed from birth until the moment of baptism, including original sin) are considered eligible for Heaven. All others go to Hell.

    "For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting. For God sent not his Son into the world, to judge the world, but that the world may be saved by him. He that believeth in him is not judged. But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God." (John 3:16-18 Douay-Rheims Bible)

    If you do consider repenting and becoming baptized, don't touch our relics and statues. It is a grave sin to smash statues and throw away holy relics. Muslims might be liable to do this.
    (My name is Yon Yonson,
    I live in Wisconsin.
    I work in a lumber yard there.
    The people I meet as
    I walk down the street,
    They say "Hello!"
    I say "Hello!"
    They say "What's your name?"
    I say: (My name is Yon Yonson...

    All posts licensed under the GNU General Public License. Some rights reserved.

  31. #31
    Hakuna Matata and the cycle of Samsara godslave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2022
    Location
    Southern France
    TIM
    694 sp/sx
    Posts
    3,007
    Mentioned
    168 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SacredKnowing View Post
    @godslave

    Here's what St. John Vianny says about purgatory: namely, that it is exceptional and rare for a Catholic to go straight to Heaven after death, but rather must make arrangements to loosen his suffering in Purgatory.

    As for Heaven, only baptized souls (which causes the remission of every sin you ever committed from birth until the moment of baptism, including original sin) are considered eligible for Heaven. All others go to Hell.

    "For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting. For God sent not his Son into the world, to judge the world, but that the world may be saved by him. He that believeth in him is not judged. But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God." (John 3:16-18 Douay-Rheims Bible)

    If you do consider repenting and becoming baptized, don't touch our relics and statues. It is a grave sin to smash statues and throw away holy relics. Muslims might be liable to do this.

  32. #32
    Psychic/Steel CosmicCat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    TIM
    ENTP
    Posts
    775
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by godslave View Post
    Thank you. That video helped process some neuroses. Thanksgiving and praise.
    (My name is Yon Yonson,
    I live in Wisconsin.
    I work in a lumber yard there.
    The people I meet as
    I walk down the street,
    They say "Hello!"
    I say "Hello!"
    They say "What's your name?"
    I say: (My name is Yon Yonson...

    All posts licensed under the GNU General Public License. Some rights reserved.

  33. #33
    Still Alive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    TIM
    LII-C
    Posts
    4,949
    Mentioned
    279 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    it's all likely an invention by introverted intuition honestly. the promise of Heaven is supposed to give you hope in an environment that without fossil fuels was pretty harsh to live under and the concept of hell is punishment for not adhering to a specific ideology and this kind of drastic punishment screams NiSe to me. We are all probably just on a random rock in outer space with no rhyme or reason to be here but without religion or similar concepts people seem to become disconnected from society and any form of morals. like it often is there is no perfect answer to it all.
    Quote Originally Posted by idiot View Post
    I have been thinking about what Alive was saying about everyone on here being IEI, and I conclude that he is right, or at least he is on to something.

    If Jung based his theories on the people he met in his life, even if he met more people than the average person, that means that he based his theories on a certain type of person. The type of person who might go to him for therapy or talks, or who might believe the esoteric ideas he was spouting at the time. Thus it's possible that he did not categorize all humans into types, but just made subtypes for a specific type of person. This overarching type of person is the same type that is heavily interested in theories of this kind, and whom Alive says is an IEI.

    Therefore, Alive is right. We are all IEIs with subtypes. With that, I'm off this forum
    https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...ung-s-subjects

  34. #34
    Hakuna Matata and the cycle of Samsara godslave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2022
    Location
    Southern France
    TIM
    694 sp/sx
    Posts
    3,007
    Mentioned
    168 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikite iru View Post
    it's all likely an invention by introverted intuition honestly. the promise of Heaven is supposed to give you hope in an environment that without fossil fuels was pretty harsh to live under and the concept of hell is punishment for not adhering to a specific ideology and this kind of drastic punishment screams NiSe to me. We are all probably just on a random rock in outer space with no rhyme or reason to be here but without religion or similar concepts people seem to become disconnected from society and any form of morals. like it often is there is no perfect answer to it all.
    I agree 100%. It is obvious that Abrahamic Religions are flooded with Beta themes.

    If I was God, I wouldn't have used so much matter and mass to create the insignificant rock we call our planet. I mean the Big Bang, the expansion and 9.22 billion years, is all it took for the earth to be created, what a waste of time, energy and matter ! Talking about a super production!



    But who are we to judge ideas traced back to the dawn of humanity from the perspective of the knowledge of our present days. I mean, God's creation worked in a geocentric paradigm with a limited awareness of the reality of the size of our visible Universe. You and I probably would have been "satisfied" with that explanation of the world had we lived in that time. The rest is literature, beliefs and in the worst-case scenario fanaticism.
    Lack is the Muse of all Poets

  35. #35
    Kill4Me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    SLE-Ti 8w7 so/sp
    Posts
    2,641
    Mentioned
    270 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    heaven and hell are just regurgitations of pagan inventions. obviously christianity rests on biological impossibilities (virgin birth; human resurrection) and the bible is complete and utter nonsense (though extremely well-written nonsense!).

  36. #36
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    15,763
    Mentioned
    1404 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    There is you life here. If you behave by one way - you are feeling happier. If you do good to others - this should do better to you too (alike by karma links). If you are accented on good feelings to reality and its parts - you are accepting the Creation and hence God's will and this should help to feel better. If you are feeling the acceptance with own heart/soul (as it's Creation's part) - follow to it - then you are feeling good. If you are feeling joined state with God - you are feeling happy and the life goes not bad also.

    While "Heaven, Hell and Purgatory" after death conceptions should be paganic folklore included to Christianity to be easier understood and accepted. It's some possibly that a part of you as a "soul", what is not your human personality or your mind has after death links to other forms of the life or with other beings - in other dimentions or place/times. The idea about a place where your mind suffers eternally or feels good eternally - looks rather strange. Emotions or sensations relate to bodies, while a soul is something other.

  37. #37
    Subthigh Socionics Is A Cult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beijing
    TIM
    TMI
    Posts
    19,276
    Mentioned
    514 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by returnofxenu View Post
    I generally prefer to avoid these debates, they never amount to anything and at the end of the day... religion is a personal matter, it's up for each person to decide what they believe. And belief is not rational, it is not something you debate over and convince another person about. Belief is a fundamental disposition toward reality and arrived at prior to any reasoning...
    But there are too many philosophical claims in this thread to ignore them all....

    SubT said:
    "I believe it is possible for "good" to exist without "bad". "Good" is not made greater because "bad" exists. "
    Without good and bad there is no choice, but the whole concept of morality is that we can choose the good and avoid the bad. There is no moral imperative without the ability to choose, and so there is nothing normative about morality any longer... it ceases to be morality, it becomes nothing but a description of a given state of affairs.

    Morality is not "this is good", it is "this is the right thing to do". You aren't moral because you are born rich, you are moral because you choose to act a certain way, or at least you will to act a certain way (because sometimes your will is not strong enough).
    "Good" and "Bad" is a matter of personal taste. I don't "choose" the things I like, but that doesn't mean I enjoyed them less. Therefore, I can only conclude it is possible for "Good" to exist without the "Bad".

  38. #38
    Subthigh Socionics Is A Cult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beijing
    TIM
    TMI
    Posts
    19,276
    Mentioned
    514 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by returnofxenu View Post
    Your conclusion doesn't follow from the premise - the fact something is a matter of taste does not make it unrelated to choice. For example, if I eat bananas for 3 months straight I might begin to enjoy the taste of bananas. Actually the microorganisms in your gut will change and begin sending you cravings for bananas. Preference is developmental in many ways. Nor does it say anything about about whether a preference is good or bad on a broader level - if you have heart disease, the preference for eating mcdonalds will kill you. Sure you enjoy the taste of it, and you're hardwired to enjoy it, but there's a broader concern. So you might have to choose not to eat mcdonalds, in order to survive...
    And you can extend this broader concern beyond yourself to other humans, that's generally the idea of morality. It's not just some simplistic matter of your personal tastes.
    If it's impossible to chose whether to eat mcdonalds - the outcome is something purely outside of your control - besides the fact this is absurd, the concept of something being good and bad deteriorates because... there is no longer any imperative toward action, good becomes as I said just a passive assessment of the state of affairs. It's no longer actually morality you're talking about at that point.
    The idea of choice is built into the definition of morality, I think the words 'imperative to act' are actually in the definition.
    If you change your taste, that doesn't mean this is indicative of a choice.

    There are many ways things can be considered "Good" or "Bad", and there is no reason to consider something absolutely "Good" or "Bad".

    "Morality" is purely a subset of aesthetics - it's a matter of taste. Defining an act as "moral" because you consider it "Good" and because you believe it involves an explicit choice is purely the definition of yourself or the thing you decide to give up your agency to when it comes to so-called matters of morality.

  39. #39
    Subthigh Socionics Is A Cult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beijing
    TIM
    TMI
    Posts
    19,276
    Mentioned
    514 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by returnofxenu View Post
    ...? Once again, the fact something is related to taste says nothing about whether choice is involved.

    Do you believe that you can choose to do anything? I'm assuming you accept that a person can choose whether to put a hamburger in their mouth, if you don't believe such a thing is possible than... well, maybe this conversation has to end here. We disagree. I believe it is possible for you to choose to put a hamburger in your mouth, basically. Or to instead eat a banana.

    The choice may not be simple - this goes back to the developmental aspect of choice and patterns of behavior. The choice might be very difficult, but even in such scenarios your will remains

    Anything else?
    I don't think the question of whether or not we can have free will is answerable.

    But there are certainly many things I cannot choose to do - i.e. things that are contrary to the laws of physics.

    The question has no bearing to me on how I live my life. I do not believe my life is less enjoyable because there's a possibility I have no free will.

    “Further conceive, I beg, that a stone, while continuing in motion, should be capable of thinking and knowing, that it is endeavouring, as far as it can, to continue to move. Such a stone, being conscious merely of its own endeavour and not at all indifferent, would believe itself to be completely free, and would think that it continued in motion solely because of its own wish. This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined.” ~ Baruch Spinoza

    “Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.” ~ Arthur Schopenhauer

  40. #40
    ┌∩┐┌∩┐ Darth Cultis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2024
    TIM
    FU
    Posts
    181
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Enters Laughing View Post
    I don't think the question of whether or not we can have free will is answerable.

    But there are certainly many things I cannot choose to do - i.e. things that are contrary to the laws of physics.

    The question has no bearing to me on how I live my life. I do not believe my life is less enjoyable because there's a possibility I have no free will.

    “Further conceive, I beg, that a stone, while continuing in motion, should be capable of thinking and knowing, that it is endeavouring, as far as it can, to continue to move. Such a stone, being conscious merely of its own endeavour and not at all indifferent, would believe itself to be completely free, and would think that it continued in motion solely because of its own wish. This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined.” ~ Baruch Spinoza

    “Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.” ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
    So...when people talk about determinism vs nondeterminism, I get a little confused. So you say you can't choose things that are against the laws of physics. I would agree.

    But then people will say that means we are deterministic. BUT if there were no laws of physics, how would we even exist to begin with? It provides a structure for our being. So any being, whether God or not, needs a "form" or it isn't a thing. It's like the argument on whether you can create something from nothing. If there is nothing, then there is nothing. If something is created from nothing, then you could argue there was never nothing to being with, just something, where something had to create from the nothing, so there's something.

    Anyway, my point being, can you even have true nondeterminism? Some would argue this is God, but then again that would be saying you can get "something" from "nothing", which even as an idea is contradictory in itself. Someone could argue a higher dimension to reality that God would inhabit, but it still doesn't make God nondeterministic. I tried to mention this to Christians, but they just ignore it or say God transcends our understanding...

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •