"I am NOT an animal"

[Zzyzx]

.
"I am NOT an animal"

Many who do not appear to have much knowledge of biology seem indignant when learning that H. sapiens are classified as animals (alternatives being plant and virus). I do not recall ever hearing a Non-Theist object. 1) Is there something about religion that causes this?

You see I am NOT an animal, never was and never in a billion years will I evolve to be one, my family tree all the way back to Adam don't have one ape in it.

2) Why be upset, indignant or in denial about a biological / taxonomic classification?

3) Since humans differ from other animals only in degree (some mental and physical characteristics), what is the objection to recognizing that they are animals?

4) Is anything other than religion (and possibly narcissism) involved?


In the quoted statement someone (whose theological position apparently defies description) claims knowledge of his family tree back to Adam – as though that proves the claimant is not an animal. However, if the hypothetical Adam was human (H. sapiens), he (Adam) classifies as an animal.

[WinePusher]

That is the very point, religion is not science, yet whenever possible religionists try to use science to support their unscientific beliefs. The biggest offender is the YEC claimants along with all who deny evolutionary biology. Courts have ruled that creationists have just plain lied; are dishonest in their claims that creationism is science. So I stand by my claim that they simply make up their own rules.

Right and as I said no one has ever claimed, at not I, that religion is science. Religion and science represent different domains of inquiry.

I'm not aware of the article you mention. Please cite the URL.

Really? I already linked it twice in my responses to you. When you edited my posts you chose to cut them out.

Again you are in error. Over and over it has been demonstrated that thought has a physical basis in the brain.

That wasn't your claim was it? You claim was that this idea that the body ['the flesh'] is separate from our thoughts is old and demonstrably untrue. You haven't tried to support this claim with any evidence other than your own personal opinions.

In addition to the overwhelming scientific evidence of this fact, one can experiment directly, personally. Simply drink alcohol. Certain physical substances ingested have a direct effect on thoughts. That's why they are called "psychoactive." I have conducted this noble experiment many times and shall continue my research.

lol alright, I'll take your word for it. Not sure what this has to do with your claim that the body is separate from our thoughts is demonstrably false. The fact that certain substances we ingest alter our thought processes has no bearing on the issue of whether our thoughts, our state of awareness and our mental activity can exist independently of a physically functioning brain.

We know that trauma to specific areas of the brain, causes specific and predictable results in thought patterns; changes to the mind itself. We can actually see different areas of the brain light up depending on what someone is thinking. This is beyond reasonable dispute.

Another non sequitor. You have asserted that without a functioning brain our thoughts cannot exist. Notice that when the brain is dying and is about to cease functioning, our thoughts and our sense of awareness is actually heightened. This contradicts your claim, and you ignored the article I linked explaining this.

You are mistaking knowledge of the EXACT and detailed nature of consciousness with not having ANY idea about how the brain produces thought.

Uh no, your claim was that this idea that the body ['the flesh'] is separate from our thoughts is old and demonstrably untrue. I pointed out that when it comes to this issue, no one knows yet because the research is still on going. No one knows if the body is separate from our thoughts and whether or not our thoughts and our state of awareness can exist if the brain dies. You have made a claim Danmark, please support it with something other than your opinions. If you have done your own research on this topic then please present it.

[WinePusher]

I'd happily admit to having read almost nothing on the alleged resurrection. Yet I'd be delighted to engage in a head-to-head on it.

What if someone said:

I'd happily admit to having read almost nothing on evolution. Yet I'd be delighted to engage in a head-to-head on it.

or...

I'd happily admit to having read almost nothing on the big bang. Yet I'd be delighted to engage in a head-to-head on it.

?

[OpenYourEyes]

[Replying to post 99 by OpenYourEyes]

When you say 'what is her mass' do you mean "What mass would she have, were she real?" or "What mass does my brain's representation of her occupy?". The latter would require substantial development in computing and neuropsychology.

I am referring to your second question. So you are placing your bets on a materialistic explanation eventhough we already know that light is a factor in our ability to see images and no light souce exists in the brain, esp. to reflect any real image/object.

I'm unaware when I sleep; if I was brain dead, I'd be unaware of everything.

On average you are correct but in rare cases there are behaviors that can cross that line like 'sleep walking', 'lucid dreaming', etc. This should count towards what the mind and body can do even if it rarely happens. Either way you still experience while you sleep so you might also experience things after brain death.

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to WinePusher]

What if they did?

Are you interested or no?

[Blastcat]

And of course, anyone can also observe the goodness of humans. You might be focusing too much on the evils... you wouldn't want to have a one sided view of reality.

Never said otherwise. Scripture is based largely on the internal observations of what man consists of, good and evil, and the interactions of same.

Read carefully. I never said that YOU SAID otherwise. I said that you were focusing TOO MUCH on one side, the evil side.

So, you agree that humans, are by nature capable of good and evil?... If so, I have to wonder why Christians usually go out of their way to focus on the fact that they are sinners.. and not the other way around?

First off, it's a particularly NEGATIVE view of humanity, and secondly, it's not a balanced one at all. That was my point. That you focus too much on what is negative.. and it's as if the positive aspects of humanity don't count as much.

Humans can be both GOOD and EVIL...
It seems that Christians like to DWELL on the evil part... That's what I have read in YOUR posts as well.. a focus on evil.

Original sin is a focus on evil. And I am all too familiar with Christians telling me about sin.. and how I should repent from sin, because I'm such a sinner.. and so on.

Well, I'm not such a sinner, and I do a lot of good. So... How about we talk about THAT side of the dichotomy for a while?

Think of it as Perfection bound with imperfection in the flesh if that makes it easier to understand.

Well, something cannot be PERFECT and IMPERFECT at the same time. That's a contradiction.

Of course it is.

Well, then, we agree. You embrace a contradiction. This will not make logical sense. No matter how much you try.. defying one of the three basic rules of logic MEANS that you aren't making sense.

You might be.. devout or.. happy.. but you aren't making sense.
I'm happy if you're happy.. but your logic fails.

If you wanted to make sense .. you haven't.

Try it sometime. If a law says "do not kill" the internal thought of doing so will often arrive on cue. Same with any other law. The "internal temptation" to do the opposite is quite a natural internal effect. Even children exhibit this effect. If mommy sez don't touch the stove children will often be moved think and do the exact opposite.

Yes, sometimes, I think ironically. Once given a concept, one of the first things that occurs to me is it's exact opposite. That's child's play. It's a word game. I like to play it sometimes.. But I am not BOUND to think in two contradictory ways at the same time for the same exact reasons.

The exact opposite of something isn't the same as the original thing. It's like you want to say that YES and NO are the same.

TRUE and FALSE are the same? --- not in my world.

If you embrace contradictions.. you make NO sense whatsoever.
So, saying that, somehow, perfection is the same as imperfection, you make no sense whatsoever.

This is how logic works.. the rule of non-contradiction helps us remain MEANINGFUL to one another. Otherwise, we are simply babbling. I prefer to do more than babble meaninglessly.

It's really one or the other. If something is LESS than perfect, it is simply not perfect.

Perfect has no tangible descriptions/boundaries. The Mystery of our Perfect nature resides within everyone. Some more, some less.

So, if the concept you want to USE had no description... then it is meaningless. It's no USE to say that something has the properties of this CONCEPT more or less if you can't describe the concept in the first place.

I have a term here... "blablablah".... you have this characteristic more or less... don't ask me what "blablablah" means. It has no tangible descriptions/boundaries.

Is this meaningful to you?.... But rest assured that you have some of it.
So, if I make a claim that you have BLABLABLAH... and I DON'T or CAN'T define what BLABLABLAH is... how can you FIND OUT if it's true or not that you have some?

And if I say that you have blablablahness and non-blablablahness... at the same time, I have INCREASED the information ?

( actually , you have a bit more blablablah than non-blablablah. )

So, no, your explanation doesn't make anything easier to understand. Not logically.

Make of it what you will. Scripture is an internal accounting of our present stew of being Gods children enveloped in an animal state with a side dose of internal evil to make things interesting.

Make of it as you will?.. so meaning ISN'T important to you?.. You put something out there.. and I can just make of what you say.. as I WILL?

Your words aren't meant at all to convey meaning.. or to convince?

I just told you that I CANNOT make any sense out of it... there IS no sense to what you are saying. You are simply repeating nonsense to me.. as if that would clarify what I couldn't understand from you in the first place.

Doesn't it concern you that what you write defies logic?

Contradictions are not permitted in logic.

All forms of logic are the produce of the fact sets inserted. No one has perfect fact sets, therefore all logic is limited. In theo-logic all things move to the Mystery quotients. I consider it superior logic, but it remains in the Mystery.

Actually, the RULES of logic are content free. They apply generally to ALL cases. So, LOGIC .. ( what other "forms" there are.. you haven't explained ) ARE NOT the products of data.

We APPLY logic TO any data that we have.

2 and 3 are just numbers.. the LOGIC would be the method to manipulate the numbers.

So.. here the LOGIC would be the + the = and the - and so on.. And this method has RULES.... If you violate the rules, your math isn't going to be the same math as other people.. OTHER PEOPLE wont "understand" your subjective math.

Or we will simply say that you are WRONG.

But if you show we YOUR NEW MATH and can get us to agree on your kind of math.. then ok.. WE WOULD AGREE.. and BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND IT....

and you STILL might be wrong.

But right now, by embracing contradictions. you are most CERTAINLY WRONG.. and NOT UNDERSTANDABLE.....

Yes, good thinking requires good evidence and facts. HOWEVER, it's no good at all to use bad logic in order to prove anything. I agree that humans don't have absolute knowledge.. that would include yourself. You face the same ignorance of perfect sets.

HOWEVER.. you also use bad reasoning. That's a double failure for your thinking. Bad reasoning on top of imperfect data will GUARANTEE you bad or meaningless conclusions.

Right now.. What you have written to me is mostly meaningless. I can't even disagree with your conclusions whatever they might be, because your methods at arriving at them are just wrong.

There is a principle laid out in scripture of "simultaneous truths." A simple example would be that God leans favorably to the good and resists the evil in everyone simultaneously, regardless of anything that transpires externally.

I have no idea what that has to do with anything. I can also hold two concepts in my mind at the same time. This isn't some godly trick.. this is just normal thinking.

But I don't see the relevance to your acceptance of contradictions.
Is white also black, is good .. evil?

is A equal to -A?

if your math has that 1 = -1 then you have a very different kind of math.

Logically, you are trying to make a case for A = ¬A

Good luck with that.

The law of non-contradiction tells us that A cannot be both A and not A at the same time and in the same sense. In other words, something (a statement) cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same way. We use the law of non-contradiction constantly in discussions and debates because we are naturally able to recognize when someone is contradicting himself. If I were to tell you that yesterday I went shopping and then later I told you that yesterday I did not go shopping, you would be correct in saying there was a contradiction. A contradiction occurs when one statement excludes the possibility of another and yet both are claimed to be true. Since we know that both cannot be true, we see a contradiction. From this principle, we can conclude that truth is not self-contradictory. This is a very important concept. Let me repeat it.

Truth is not self-contradictory.

In other words God both loves/uplifts and hates/resists everyone simultaneously.

If God loves and hates someone at the same time for the exact same reasons.. and does so PERFECTLY and ABSOLUTELY, this simply does not make logical sense. This would be a meaningless statement that you happen to like, but could not possibly be TRUE.

It's simply a logic failure. So, I HAVE to tell you that it literally makes NO SENSE TO ME.. and I can't understand things that make no logical sense. I don't live in a universe where red is green.. at the same time.. Street lights DEPEND on the fact that red is not green at the same time.. and that we can agree on the DIFFERENCE between the two GO and STOP signals.

I CAN love and hate someone at the same time, by the way.. but it wouldn't BE FOR THE SAME REASONS.. so there is no contradiction there. Your god CAN love and hate.. ( let's say a god can have human emotions for a second ) BUT NOT FOR THE SAME EXACT REASONS.

When you say that perfection and imperfection is the same thing.. then you are simply misapplying the rules of logic.. i.e. .. you are what is known technically as being "wrong".

IF you want to communicate this idea That perfect love is the very same thing as perfect hate.. you might as well be babbling at this point. It's like you want to get an A in math by inventing your own math system.. I think the teacher will end up failing you.

You wont get the same results if you insist that 1 is the same as -1.

And your answers will be WRONG... because we humans use ONE kind of math and logic to talk to one another and not some.. subjective, variable kinds of logic rules.

Anyone who has entered the Mystery of God in a heightened experience will experience the hatred side of the equations as a shocking reality.

Yes, that's my observation too. Christianity focuses on the negative aspects .. the hate and the evil are obsessively focused on.

When I gave all that up.. I found a way more balanced view of humanity. And yes, I am shocked at how horrible Christianity makes humanity out to be. By focusing WAY too much on the negative.. as if humans can't be loving and caring and just plain nice most of the time to one another.

In MY life.. there is way more love than hate and evil. My experience is very different from most fundamentalist Christians.. ORIGINAL SIN... that EVERY HUMAN HAS?...

I look at any baby and instantly know that this is about as wrong as wrong can be. What a terrible doctrine.

AND if you also mean that Christians aren't being logical .. I would agree with that too.. embracing contradictions IS NOT LOGICAL.

So.. it's got to be something else than logical or reasonable... I won't hazard a guess.

For many as an example, they wind up hating their neighbors and thinking in their minds/hearts that God is going to burn them alive forever and this is a result of Gods resistance being heaped upon them because "we" were actually all directed to do the exact opposite.

Well, their doctrines are sick. I don't hate my neighbors.
Most people on earth really just try to get along with them.

But in barbarous times.. when war was a common experience.. it probably DID make sense to distrust everyone. Because everyone was a potential enemy.

Lucky for me, I live in a world where everyone ISN'T a potential enemy.. I call that progress.. and it's a really good thing.

Now, some parts of the world are still barbarous.. and war is a common experience. That's very sad and wrong.. BUT we should NOT emulate those societies.

PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE is preferable to war. This is obvious.

I peacefully coexist with my neighbors as much as possible. It's a really good thing. It's heaven on earth when you achieve it.

And I don't ever have to pretend that if I don't cooperate that I will burn in hell.. i don't believe in fairy tales. I do it because it makes sense for people to cooperate.

This is known as civil society. I am not sure that when the Bible was written.. they knew what that meant as much as some of us do now.

I never have to worry about going to war against my neighbor.
Secular laws are really doing the trick around here.
People might be afraid of going to Hell eventually, but they are MORE afraid of paying fines and going to jail in the here and now.

And most people DO live in the here and now.
And if we live as good people in the here and now.. that settles the here and now aspect of our life.

Anything OTHER.. or after or whatnot.. is completely unknown. We don't REALLY Know if the Christian story of heaven and hell are literally true.. No matter what the conviction. You do not have perfect knowledge.. you can't know what's UP or Down there...

But you do believe. But belief isn't knowledge.

This is the evil nature being brought to the foreground in such. And the sad part is it goes unrecognized in the holders. La la la land.

God has diametrically opposed workings in this present world. They are termed "good and evil." And these are internal states for everyone.

Humans can, indeed, be good and evil... but BOTH AT THE SAME EXACT TIME for the same exact reasons ? NO this is not true. This is wrong.

Not at the very same time for the very same reason, they can't. Because that would be a logical impossibility. And logical impossibilities, by definition, are wrong.

Do you believe that red is blue, that up is down and that cats are dogs?

Good is evil?

Night is day?

A bachelor is married?

Do you really want to embrace contradictions?

Or do you want to be understood?

Because.. the point of a debate or a conversation is to be understood. You can believe anything you like for whatever bad reason you choose but to be UNDERSTOOD, you have to follow the rules of language.

The rule of non contradiction is one of the three most important rule for being understood. Doesn't it concern you at all that I keep telling you that I don't understand what you're talking about when you embrace contradictions?

I know it would concern me. But then again, I WANT to be understood.

Maybe you use another technique than logic to make your point. That would pretty much make it certain that I could not understand you.

Scripture doesn't deny that mankind [all] are beasts to certain extents. It presents our bestial nature as an integrated unavoidable internal elemental/part of our human construct and that we have all been placed "under" or subject to that elemental temporal wicked nature.

I am asking you about your technique.. about why you don't value logic.. and you come back with.. "unavoidable internal elemental/part of" .. ohhhhh brother.

This is nothing more than word salad to me.
It has nothing to do with my point.. it's not a meaningful reply at all.

Again.. I have to question you on your desire to be understood.

Is that at all important to you?

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 99 by OpenYourEyes]

When you say 'what is her mass' do you mean "What mass would she have, were she real?" or "What mass does my brain's representation of her occupy?". The latter would require substantial development in computing and neuropsychology.

I am referring to your second question. So you are placing your bets on a materialistic explanation eventhough we already know that light is a factor in our ability to see images and no light souce exists in the brain, esp. to reflect any real image/object.

While there is some understanding as to how memory (memory in general, in the computing sense) is stored in the brain on a cellular level (via particular axons, their strength, and the properties of the particular cell e.g. frequency and quantity at which neurotransmitters are released from a triggered neuron), there is little knowledge as to the more highly abstracted form of storage; the method of representation.

Someone can tell you the average weight of a neuron, the average weight of an axon, but until we know what particular configuration of neurons are used to store such a fantasy woman (for you, it is plausibly different for most individuals), nobody will tell you how much said woman weighs.

Consider an image of a woman on a computer screen - somebody could tell you the weight of the light (a counter-intuitive concept) of the image, they could tell you how many bytes it is stored in, the weight of the storage medium, etc. It's the same sense for the brain - except we don't know 'how many bytes'. (Though neural networks store information very differently to traditional computers - 'how many bytes' may not be a good concept to apply.)

But if you want an answer, somewhere between the minimum weight of an axon and the maximum weight of the lightest brain required.

(There's also the question of the complexity of the system needed to interpret said image/concept.)

I'm unaware when I sleep; if I was brain dead, I'd be unaware of everything.

On average you are correct but in rare cases there are behaviors that can cross that line like 'sleep walking', 'lucid dreaming', etc. This should count towards what the mind and body can do even if it rarely happens. Either way you still experience while you sleep so you might also experience things after brain death.

I don't always experience while I sleep, in fact I usually don't. I rarely dream, except when I'm sleeping at some weird time in the day.

[squint]

And of course, anyone can also observe the goodness of humans. You might be focusing too much on the evils... you wouldn't want to have a one sided view of reality.

Never said otherwise. Scripture is based largely on the internal observations of what man consists of, good and evil, and the interactions of same.

Read carefully. I never said that YOU SAID otherwise. I said that you were focusing TOO MUCH on one side, the evil side.

I happen to enjoy the theodicy equations (the study of evil and a Perfect God) of theology MUCH more than the bland one sided "bless me or Lord" equations for many theologically sound reasons.

So, you agree that humans, are by nature capable of good and evil?...

Entirely capable, but as to nature, that is one of the deeper formats to examine. It's not as simple as saying the mere term "human." In theology there are 3 wills at work in the world. The Will of God, the will of the resistance parties/powers-Satan and his messengers, and the will of the children of God-the children who see some and the children who don't see as much, if any.

It's a fascinating and complex dynamic when all the players are on the board to examine, engage and unfold in their respective components and mixes.

If so, I have to wonder why Christians usually go out of their way to focus on the fact that they are sinners.. and not the other way around?

That's just a surface game for the most part, and entirely predictable. Religious spirits were the most abhorred and hated by Jesus. Let's call them the great pretenders. If believers were honest about the scriptural sin equations, and really had to dig into the matters, there would be dramatically fewer of them. Honesty would weed out the majority of them.

First off, it's a particularly NEGATIVE view of humanity, and secondly, it's not a balanced one at all. That was my point. That you focus too much on what is negative.. and it's as if the positive aspects of humanity don't count as much.

It appears you might make a good surface christian. For the record "I" firmly believe that all people are Gods children and as such, already essentially Perfect. So there is no more positive available in "my" sight than that.

That leaves me more interested in theodicy, which is really a study of our mutual internal adversary/enemy. In theodicy, even though all people/humans are Perfect but that is not "all" they consist of. They also contain the deepest darkest evil there is in the form of the Tempter, the devil, Satan. So it's an interesting dichotomy/conundrum to engage.

Humans can be both GOOD and EVIL...
It seems that Christians like to DWELL on the evil part... That's what I have read in YOUR posts as well.. a focus on evil.

I'd suggest your reality engagement with them is different than mine. Christians in my observations LOVE to dwell on the evil portions of others, but certainly NOT for themselves, which in scriptural terms would be hypocrisy, and the antithesis of christianity.

Original sin is a focus on evil. And I am all too familiar with Christians telling me about sin.. and how I should repent from sin, because I'm such a sinner.. and so on.

Whether you or I or anyone else "repents" there is no escape from the scriptural conclusions of being a sinner, of having sin and of sin being of the devil regardless of how much "repentance" is applied. Selling anyone on the notion of being a sinner in the hope that they would then not be upon belief is a very unsound false sales pitch that was concocted somewhere along the lines of many sects. While I don't discount any methodology that brings people into a relationship experience with God, even if it can be somewhat social or imaginary in many cases, I think it's generally good to depart from evil for anyone.

Well, I'm not such a sinner, and I do a lot of good. So... How about we talk about THAT side of the dichotomy for a while?

Scripture actually says that anyone who loves knows God and is born of God. And I consider everyone loves or has loved, even if it is loving themselves. So I have no sales pitch to deliver you. Sorry. Anyone who tastes love knows it by their nature as being "good." And a lot of people if not most of them will naturally follow that course.

Well, then, we agree. You embrace a contradiction. This will not make logical sense. No matter how much you try.. defying one of the three basic rules of logic MEANS that you aren't making sense.

I attempted an explanation on the grounds of simultaneous truths existing from a scriptural perspective, and gave the simplest answer (among many) that God uplifts the good and resists the evil simultaneously. These are two truths that might appear contradictory to some, but they really aren't.

Yes, sometimes, I think ironically. Once given a concept, one of the first things that occurs to me is it's exact opposite. That's child's play. It's a word game. I like to play it sometimes.. But I am not BOUND to think in two contradictory ways at the same time for the same exact reasons.

The law contains two dynamics. #1, it's nature is spiritual or internal. It is not validated by external observation. It is always violated "internally." So any surface construct view of legality from a scriptural perspective is a lie. The law is meant to point us to the fact that we DO have the impetus of adverse/illegal thoughts, and that these violate our internals and make us technically all sinners.

Scripture presents those thoughts are not yours as Gods child, but those of the internal adversary, the spirit of disobedience that "all" mankind are presently bound with internally. This internal binding can NOT be eliminated and in fact will get much worse after belief. The law is meant to make us question our thoughts and to not allow the evil side of the quotients to control us, even though it is unavoidable to have them.

If you embrace contradictions.. you make NO sense whatsoever.
So, saying that, somehow, perfection is the same as imperfection, you make no sense whatsoever.

We are directed to love our neighbors as ourselves. So in this direction I see the fact (in my understanding) that all people are Gods children and essentially Perfect. That leaves the other side of the internal equations to examine. One can both love their neighbor AND understand that they all (and myself) are also bound with the spirit of disobedience, whom we do NOT have to love a'tall.

If a child molester (Gods totally blinded child in the flesh) has been overwhelmed with/by the spirit of disobedience, I know there is one to love and one to hate. And it would not bother me to see the child of God moved out of the flesh by death and returned to God.

This is how logic works.. the rule of non-contradiction helps us remain MEANINGFUL to one another. Otherwise, we are simply babbling. I prefer to do more than babble meaninglessly.

I've given sufficient examples of how the conundrum works. If you don't understand it I don't have to "blame you" as Gods child. Dig? I don't control your body/mind/temple and it's really not my business to do so, other than I enjoy sharing observations for my own benefits.

So, if the concept you want to USE had no description... then it is meaningless. It's no USE to say that something has the properties of this CONCEPT more or less if you can't describe the concept in the first place.

The undefined unbound Objective Position is not a foreign concept in philosophy or christianity or buddhism for that matter. Most understand that to place a definition is to merely place a limited view of same, so such sights of Perfect are all basic fouls of understandings. The Jews for example express this understanding as G_d. Meaning they know their human imposition is futile and they leave the spelling incomplete. Sorry if you're not familiar with the territory.

It is this same unbound undefined arena that many people contemplate in meditation or enhanced consciousness/sensory enlightenment. Alan Watts for example had some excellent lectures on this matter. The essence of the understanding is that all contemplations of the Perfect Objective are by nature, individually subjective. This same principle applies to christianity.

So when you speak of logic, please understand logic as really being "subjective" in nature. ALL of it. It is all 'limited' by subjectivity.

Since you put up a long post, which I appreciate, I'm going to cut it short at this point because the remainder is your personal insistence that subjectivity is all there is and that is your personal opinion and preference.

I'd suggest that science is moving closer to religion than you may think, understanding that "all" our views are in fact quite subjective and incapable of making subjective logic/formulas fit in their goals of strict material understandings. They all eventually bang their heads against the unknown undefined unbound Objective->because they themselves are 'subjective' at their core just like everyone else.

Religion has contemplated Greater matters for quite some time.

[Blastcat]

And of course, anyone can also observe the goodness of humans. You might be focusing too much on the evils... you wouldn't want to have a one sided view of reality.

Never said otherwise. Scripture is based largely on the internal observations of what man consists of, good and evil, and the interactions of same.

Read carefully. I never said that YOU SAID otherwise. I said that you were focusing TOO MUCH on one side, the evil side.

I happen to enjoy the theodicy equations (the study of evil and a Perfect God) of theology MUCH more than the bland one sided "bless me or Lord" equations for many theologically sound reasons.

Don't have a clue what you mean theodicy equations here... So.. are you focusing on good and evil in humans, both, or are you focusing more on the evil in humans?

Because, if we are talking about original sin... that means we are all evil from the get go.. until we .. do what we are told to do by the preachers.

And not only just any old preachers, but only by the RIGHT kinds of preachers, who have the RIGHT kind of salvation on display.

And that means that humans are .. more evil than good. Or are we mostly good.. I have no idea where you stand now.

So, you agree that humans, are by nature capable of good and evil?...

Entirely capable, but as to nature, that is one of the deeper formats to examine.

So, do you agree that humans aren't "good" or "evil" in nature.. but simply have the capacity to DO both?... and that good and evil are bogus GENERAL terms for people.. since nobody is PERFECTLY evil or PERFECTLY good?

It's not as simple as saying the mere term "human." In theology there are 3 wills at work in the world. The Will of God, the will of the resistance parties/powers-Satan and his messengers, and the will of the children of God-the children who see some and the children who don't see as much, if any.

We KNOW there are humans.. we can agree that there are humans.. as to the rest... no.. we can't agree that there are Gods and Satans and so on...

You make a statement about these "3 wills" as if I could ever agree with such a statement. ALL I CAN VERIFY is that there is ONE kind of will.. and that's the human will.

the rest... well, that's your belief. I don't have to take that into consideration until you prove that what you believe in is also TRUE.

I'm not at all concerned about falsehoods.. Sorry.

It's a fascinating and complex dynamic when all the players are on the board to examine, engage and unfold in their respective components and mixes.

Not to me... not to an unbeliever. To an unbeliever.. it's not at all fascinating because we only know of ONE kind of thinking beings here.. The supernatural kind are...purely speculative.

I'd much rather talk about what is KNOWN to be real.. not just hoped for and dreamed about. I mean.. speculation is a bit of fun.. but it's not serious talk.

If so, I have to wonder why Christians usually go out of their way to focus on the fact that they are sinners.. and not the other way around?

That's just a surface game for the most part, and entirely predictable. Religious spirits were the most abhorred and hated by Jesus. Let's call them the great pretenders. If believers were honest about the scriptural sin equations, and really had to dig into the matters, there would be dramatically fewer of them. Honesty would weed out the majority of them.

What are you talking about? Religious SPIRITS?.... The great pretenders?

I think that theists are pretending greatly.. but I have NO idea who you are referring to here...

And now, you mentioned this "sin equation" a few times.. what IS THAT?... or what is your take on this "sin equation"?

Remember in your explanation that

1. I don't believe in any god
2. Don't believe in sin
3. Think the idea of sin is incoherent.. and that your perfectly good god is completely incoherent..
3. Pretty much think that you've been incoherent for the most part so far... and that this new thing isn't helping me understand you.

So...

4. PLEASE try to clear something up.Don't make things LESS understandable by introducing YET ANOTHER undefined and vague concept to prove undefined and vague concepts.

You leave me BAFFLED.

Is this your intention? I'd like to stay on topic, if possible.. and NOT follow red herrings around and around ....

First off, it's a particularly NEGATIVE view of humanity, and secondly, it's not a balanced one at all. That was my point. That you focus too much on what is negative.. and it's as if the positive aspects of humanity don't count as much.

It appears you might make a good surface christian. For the record "I" firmly believe that all people are Gods children and as such, already essentially Perfect. So there is no more positive available in "my" sight than that.

OH.. BUT I would not make a TRUE CHRISTIAN... please.. the No True Scotsman argument is getting old.. very old ...

And your point?

IF, as you say, that humans are PERFECT.. then why do we need to be redeemed of any IMPERFECTIONS?

You live where logic doesn't matter?

IF we humans are perfect ALREADY, then attempting to PERFECT us is a ridiculous waste of time. But then again, you've already stated that you believe something can be perfect and imperfect at the very same time for the very same reasons.

I shouldn't EXPECT you to be logical.. maybe that's my expectation.. that you actually give a logical account for your thinking.

Too much to hope for, I guess?

That leaves me more interested in theodicy, which is really a study of our mutual internal adversary/enemy.

And all this time I thought theodicy meant something altogether different.
I have literally NEVER heard of this definition for theodicy.. which by most dictionaries means the attempt to answer the question of why a good God permits the manifestation of evil. You know, answering the PROBLEM OF EVIL?

Why is there evil if god is perfectly good?.....

Mutual internal adversary/enemy?

Could I have that in English please?.. this... vagueness means absolutely nothing to me.

In theodicy, even though all people/humans are Perfect but that is not "all" they consist of. They also contain the deepest darkest evil there is in the form of the Tempter, the devil, Satan. So it's an interesting dichotomy/conundrum to engage.

Wait, first, maybe this is YOUR theodicy.. theodicy is a body of thinking.. and there are MANY theodicies.. You seem to have adopted or conceived of ONE such theodicy. Please don't portray this as ALL of the theodicies out there.

Well, if I say someone is PERFECT.. he can't HAVE any faults of any kind.. that's what the word "perfect" means. It means absolutely good and without any logical contradictions of any kind. You seem to want someone to be perfectly good and perfectly evil at the very same time for the very same reasons.

This is not rational.. So I have to discount it AGAIN.

You make the very same error that I pointed out to you.. so... I won't point it out to you anymore. You don't seem to be able to comprehend what I wrote ...

Perfect means imperfect to you.. so.. yah.. end of using THOSE words in a meaningful way.

Black means white when you talk.. I have NO idea what you may mean at any time. SORRY.

Humans can be both GOOD and EVIL...
It seems that Christians like to DWELL on the evil part... That's what I have read in YOUR posts as well.. a focus on evil.

I'd suggest your reality engagement with them is different than mine. Christians in my observations LOVE to dwell on the evil portions of others, but certainly NOT for themselves, which in scriptural terms would be hypocrisy, and the antithesis of christianity.

MY REALITY ENGAGEMENT?.. what does that mean?

Yes, many Christians LOVE to dwell in the evil aspects of humanity.. That was my POINT.. and I am telling you that YOU do it also.

I've seen it in YOUR posts.. YOU accuse them of not being TRUE Christians.. the no true Scotsman fallacy again... AND THEN you seem to be oblivious of YOUR OWN FOCUS ON EVIL in humans.. that I was CAUTIONING YOU AGAINST in my first reply to you.

When I caught you out.. you distance yourself from THESE OTHER BAD KINDS of Christians.. and you talk of HYPOCRISY.....It's always JUST the other guys.. isn't it?

Those are the guys who make all kinds of thinking errors.. right?
Not you though.. you are a true Scotsman. YOU have the only correct theodicy possible?.. It's YOURS that is the only correct one? All the rest are wrong.. but YOU aren't wrong?

I think they would say that you are wrong.. and that they are right.

So.. I am impartial to BOTH groups.. and their group is bigger and meaner.. so why don't I just go ahead and believe them. They offer JUST AS MUCH EVIDENCE anyway...How do you know that yours is the only true kind of Christianity?

I think that kind of bluster sends me a signal.... HE knows the only true truth out there?... hmmmmm

AND he makes so many logical errors?... double hmmmmm

Original sin is a focus on evil. And I am all too familiar with Christians telling me about sin.. and how I should repent from sin, because I'm such a sinner.. and so on.

Whether you or I or anyone else "repents" there is no escape from the scriptural conclusions of being a sinner, of having sin and of sin being of the devil regardless of how much "repentance" is applied.

AND THIS IS what you call perfection?

You said that humans were perfect.. and now this... Sorry, I can't understand what you mean.. it's one or the other.. and not both.

And you prove my point that your FOCUS is on evil, sin, sin, sin, and the devil. I can see this focus. That's why I pointed it out to you. You are obsessed with sin and evil and the devil which is sin and evil personified.

So much for talk of LOVE. Humans MIGHT love.. but you don't focus on the GOOD we do.. your focus is on the EVIL we do... I can SEE YOUR FOCUS.

YOU ARE VERY ONE SIDED..

Sorry again.

Selling anyone on the notion of being a sinner in the hope that they would then not be upon belief is a very unsound false sales pitch that was concocted somewhere along the lines of many sects. While I don't discount any methodology that brings people into a relationship experience with God, even if it can be somewhat social or imaginary in many cases, I think it's generally good to depart from evil for anyone.

It's a very unsound sales pitch?

You do it yourself.. that's what I'm trying to point out to you.. Read your PREVIOUS QUOTE.. it was in the VERY SAME paragraph where you want to DISTANCE yourself from such ugly beliefs.

We have to accept that we are sinners, and YET.. people who want us to accept that we are sinners are ... bad salesmen?

Then YOU are a bad salesman, because YOU do the exact same thing.
I'm VERY confused now.

Well, I'm not such a sinner, and I do a lot of good. So... How about we talk about THAT side of the dichotomy for a while?

Scripture actually says that anyone who loves knows God and is born of God.

I don't "know" any god.. I'm not "born" of any "god"... come on.

You think that atheists are secret Christians?...
Please say that you don't think that.

And I consider everyone loves or has loved, even if it is loving themselves. So I have no sales pitch to deliver you. Sorry.

So, if I LOVE.. I prove your point?.. Ridiculous. If YOU LOVE you prove MY point.. so there.. just as ridiculous.

But you SELL to me all the time. you want me to believe in your god right? You want to CONVINCE me of something here, right?

You are trying to make a case that what you say is TRUE.. right?

Or.. are you simply preaching... and don't really care WHAT I THINK?

Well, if you AREN'T making an argument here. or you AREN'T trying to convince me in any way.. or anyone else that what you say makes sense and is also TRUE.. then I have to wonder what all of these words of yours are FOR.

You just like to.. what?

Babble?

Anyone who tastes love knows it by their nature as being "good." And a lot of people if not most of them will naturally follow that course.

The fact that LOVE is seen as a good thing says NOTHING AT ALL about your god.. if it's real, or if it's just a delusion you happen to really like.

You haven't at all established any connection between LOVE and your god concept. You've made a lot of statements.. and that's nice.. but you don't offer any SUPPORT for those statements.

It looks like I just have to take your word for ALL OF IT.

The problem is that I don't just take your word for all of it.. and most of it.. is perfectly meaningless to me. So I wouldn't have a clue what I would be agreeing ON.

Well, then, we agree. You embrace a contradiction. This will not make logical sense. No matter how much you try.. defying one of the three basic rules of logic MEANS that you aren't making sense.

I attempted an explanation on the grounds of simultaneous truths existing from a scriptural perspective, and gave the simplest answer (among many) that God uplifts the good and resists the evil simultaneously. These are two truths that might appear contradictory to some, but they really aren't.

Yes, I noted your attempt. HOWEVER, simultaneous beliefs or truths are NOT NECESSARILY CONTRADICTORY ONES.

We ONLY have a problem when there are CONTRADICTIONS.

I can say something is RED and then say it's TASTY and then say that it's SOFT.. and have NO CONTRADICTIONS.

And if someone loves GOOD things and despises BAD things, this is NOT a contradiction. So you weren't ADDRESSING contradictions.

You simply MISUNDERSTAND what a contradiction is.
Maybe if you understood what a contradiction is and how you can't HAVE ONE IN LOGIC.. you might tend to agree with me a bit more.

What you are describing is things that are DIFFERENT in nature.. but NOT necessarily CONTRADICTORY in nature.

BUT YOU CANNOT say that it is day right here right now and NIGHT TIME right here and right now in the same way. THAT is not only DIFFERENT STATES OF AFFAIRS but CONTRADICTORY STATES.

And of course, you can look up what "contradiction" means on the internet, if you DO have an interest..

Yes, sometimes, I think ironically. Once given a concept, one of the first things that occurs to me is it's exact opposite. That's child's play. It's a word game. I like to play it sometimes.. But I am not BOUND to think in two contradictory ways at the same time for the same exact reasons.

The law contains two dynamics. #1, it's nature is spiritual or internal. It is not validated by external observation. It is always violated "internally." So any surface construct view of legality from a scriptural perspective is a lie. The law is meant to point us to the fact that we DO have the impetus of adverse/illegal thoughts, and that these violate our internals and make us technically all sinners.

WHAT LAW are you talking about?

Why do you use the word "legality"?....
In order for me to understand ANYTHING in that paragraph.. and how it might relate to my quote just above .. you would have to WRITE IT again. Right now, I have NO clue what you mean.

I'm not exaggerating.. I literally have NO CLUE what you mean. I think YOU know what you mean.. but your words here just aren't working. And I can't be bothered to guess WRONG... so let me know what you meant by the above.

If you really care...

Scripture presents those thoughts are not yours as Gods child, but those of the internal adversary, the spirit of disobedience that "all" mankind are presently bound with internally. This internal binding can NOT be eliminated and in fact will get much worse after belief. The law is meant to make us question our thoughts and to not allow the evil side of the quotients to control us, even though it is unavoidable to have them.

OHhhh SCRIPTURE SAYS that whatever I say is wrong.. Great. well then.
So much for debating me.. you can just refer to the Bible and know what my points are, and how they work logically or not.

If you embrace contradictions.. you make NO sense whatsoever.
So, saying that, somehow, perfection is the same as imperfection, you make no sense whatsoever.

We are directed to love our neighbors as ourselves. So in this direction I see the fact (in my understanding) that all people are Gods children and essentially Perfect. That leaves the other side of the internal equations to examine. One can both love their neighbor AND understand that they all (and myself) are also bound with the spirit of disobedience, whom we do NOT have to love a'tall.

IF , as you repeatedly say, that we are PERFECT.. then why should we seek to PERFECT ourselves?

YOU CAN'T GET MORE PERFECT THAN PERFECT... otherwise, you'd' be IMPERFECT.

So what is it.. are we perfect or imperfect? IT CAN'T BE logically both.
Remember.. I quoted you the explanation for the rule of non contradiction?

Right now.. I'd have to flip a coin to know your actual position.

If a child molester (Gods totally blinded child in the flesh) has been overwhelmed with/by the spirit of disobedience, I know there is one to love and one to hate. And it would not bother me to see the child of God moved out of the flesh by death and returned to God.

Let me TRY to understand that.. it almost makes sense after reading it twice. You seem to want to write in poetic terms.. and that's so nice.. but also so VAGUE....

And since you believe in contradictions... well.. you can mean LITERALLY ANYTHING... so.. yeah.. makes it a tough challenge for me to KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN....

I'll give a stab at it.. and let me know if I even GET CLOSE.. because I'm thinking I WILL NOT BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND YOU ... so far.. it's been a failure of communication.

I can tell. I can't understand you very much at all. Is that a problem for you in any way?

OK.. my stab at understanding what you just wrote here....

A BAD PERSON.. ( child molester in your example.. not to confuse me with emotionally laden words at all )

is a totally ( morally ?) BLINDED person ... BECAUSE HE DOES A BAD THING?

and that is due to some SPIRIT that has invaded him... ( let's forget asking how you know that to be true in any way shape or form )

YOU LOVE... the bad man.. i guess... and HATE the evil nasty spirit...

OK.. is that what you're trying to say here?

AND THEN

It would not bother you at all if this person died.

Because when BAD people who TORTURE children die.. they go to GOD?

BAD PEOPLE ( including the child molesters ) GO TO HEAVEN?

I don't get it..

Looks like heaven has .. bad people in it. So.. DOING EVIL .. has LITERALLY no consequence. You blame the evil spirit and NOT the human?

And the HUMAN goes to HEAVEN?

Well then.. the HUMAN could have done LITERALLY ANY EVIL ACTS IMAGINABLE.. and still go to Heaven

This makes moral sense to you?

Not to me.. not if you say GOD is just .. NOT if you say that only with GOD can you have morality and so forth.. accountability?

WHAT ACCOUNTABILITY.. you said the child abuser goes to HEAVEN

AND NOT to the punishment of hell.. so WHY believe this stuff.. to give child abusers a GOOD FEELING ?

WOW .. YOU have completely LOST me .. again.

This is how logic works.. the rule of non-contradiction helps us remain MEANINGFUL to one another. Otherwise, we are simply babbling. I prefer to do more than babble meaninglessly.

I've given sufficient examples of how the conundrum works. If you don't understand it I don't have to "blame you" as Gods child. Dig? I don't control your body/mind/temple and it's really not my business to do so, other than I enjoy sharing observations for my own benefits.

I get that. You really like to share your observations for your own benefit. As to really engaging in the ideas of OTHERS.. or try to get to any understanding.. no.

But you like to share. Well I hope you enjoyed your sharing.
Let's not try to make sense out of it.. right?

So, if the concept you want to USE had no description... then it is meaningless. It's no USE to say that something has the properties of this CONCEPT more or less if you can't describe the concept in the first place.

The undefined unbound Objective Position is not a foreign concept in philosophy or christianity or buddhism for that matter. Most understand that to place a definition is to merely place a limited view of same, so such sights of Perfect are all basic fouls of understandings.

Right.. and they aren't understandable, either. Join the club. You like not being understood.

Tell me about my "blablablah" concept.. go ahead. It's just as "meaningful" and rich to me as anything you said so far.

Do you have an overwhelming urge to discuss Blablablah with me?...

Sorry if you're not familiar with the territory.

I understand when people use vague, meaningless terms as IF they had any meaning. I am QUITE familiar with that kind of flim-flam.. and remember.. it's all about blablablah.

But what IS this territory? It's.. NOT DEFINED territory.. it might be completely BOGUS territory.. after all.. we can't DISCUSS it meaningfully... logic doesn't apply.. we can't actually restrict it's meaning in any way.. This territory could literally mean ANYTHING AT ALL... and that would INCLUDE contradictions.. which you have no problem with.

So, yes means no to you... and evil is good... and so when you talk of EVIL.. you might as well be talking about the good. And I would HAVE no idea which one you meant at any time.

This is what I call babbling.. saying things that can mean ANYTHING AT ALL.. and consequently.. NOTHING at all... nothing of value, in any case.

Because it's all BLABLABLAH.. right? You agree with me, right? Blablablah explains it all?

It is this same unbound undefined arena that many people contemplate in meditation or enhanced consciousness/sensory enlightenment. Alan Watts for example had some excellent lectures on this matter. The essence of the understanding is that all contemplations of the Perfect Objective are by nature, individually subjective. This same principle applies to christianity.

So, TO YOU, everything is the same.
TO YOU, black is white and yes means no.
TO YOU God is evil and Satan is good, AND vice versa.. to you, contradictions are true.
You are wrong and you are also right.. and all of these WORDS are completely meaningless. SO WHY BOTHER with the words?

So when you speak of logic, please understand logic as really being "subjective" in nature. ALL of it. It is all 'limited' by subjectivity.

So, it's MY INSISTENCE that logic is subjective, is it? NO.. you seem to be projecting YOUR insistence. I do not hold that view at all.. And I have noted that you don't CARE about logic at all. Logic to you is .. merely subjective.. so yes again...

White is black
up is down
you are right
and you are wrong

Babble.. this is silly babble.
If you don't CARE about logic.. then whatever you might say is perfectly MEANINGLESS.

So.. babble all you like.

Since you put up a long post, which I appreciate, I'm going to cut it short at this point because the remainder is your personal insistence that subjectivity is all there is and that is your personal opinion and preference.

The reason my posts are so long is that VIRTUALLY ALL OF YOUR WORDS MAKE NO SENSE.. and I try to help you in that regard, ask for clarification, and attempt to break down what you MEAN possibly.

this is not easy and it's not short. You pack a WHALLOP of weirdness into each sentence.. So, my attempt to unpack all of that gobbledy gook takes a lot of WORDS.

My own personal insistence that subjectivity is all there IS?

Where did you GET THAT FROM WHAT I SAID?

I'd suggest that science is moving closer to religion than you may think, understanding that "all" our views are in fact quite subjective and incapable of making subjective logic/formulas fit in their goals of strict material understandings. They all eventually bang their heads against the unknown undefined unbound Objective->because they themselves are 'subjective' at their core just like everyone else.

You DO make a lot of suggestions. It would be nice if you had any support for any of them.. sorry. I have to OBJECT and REJECT most if not all of your suggestions.

You just PUT THEM OUT THERE.. and you offer NO evidence at all.. just TAKE MY WORD FOR IT... and what.. I'm supposed to agree with all of this?

It's as if you think that scientists don't agree that REALITY happens. Reality happens. Our ability to know reality PERFECTLY isn't even a question. We can't be perfect.. so .. great.

THAT DOES NOT MEAN WE DON'T know things with a great degree of certainty.

WOW man.. do you think you can walk through walls?

Again, all I see is a weird non sequitur from you that.. I can't really understand.

Do you CARE to be understood at all?.. because it REALLY looks like you don't care about being understood whatsoever.

DO you LIKE to just babble?

I don't get it.

Religion has contemplated Greater matters for quite some time.

Yes, and they've been wrong most of the time. So what?
Seems like a HUGE ( if not the hugest ) waste of time imaginable.

All that thinking?.... all that human resource?

all those MILLIONS OF MAN HOURS?... lost

and for what?

So that we can feel good about sharing our opinions?

OHHHH we can do so much better than that.

[squint]

[quote="blastc"]

Christianity teaches (some) to say NO to the wickedness IN us and in others, and directs us to The Perfect (undefined unbound) Objective, which is GOD.

Materialism, however intelligent, however "provable" will not over ride the reality of evil IN man, and as such MAN is not to be entirely trusted.

It's a fairly simple pretext to "hold" internally, and the basis of christian freedom, internal, directed to the non-material in recognition of the reality of evil and subjectivity.

In short, no christian will bow to any supposed PRIMACY of material impositions or the evil contained in the viewers.

We, for the most part know that something always smells "fishy" with man and it ain't fish. As much as the materialist seeks to dominate the sphere.

[arian]

This little video is pretty good in explaining that there is more to man then this body:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4E_bT4ecgk

That video explained no such thing. All it did is argue that the universe was designed. Design in no way implies mind/body dualism in humans.

Yes it does, to me anyways since it is clear that just by observing the universe around me reveals a 'Creator'.

I don't use videos to explain my understanding of Creator vs. the worlds understanding of created-creators, .. because so far I did not find even one that understands this basic-first-steps. I use videos to show the paradoxes that these (supposedly) scientific theories create, that's all. My understanding of Creation, possibilities, chance etc. is very, very different, .. as different as finite is from Infinite.
I have tried to explain, but you guys can only understand what you know, or what has been said already by those the world deems wise in their field, that "they should know", instead of using your creative mind to try to visualize what I am saying.

Also, you should be aware that the Cosmological Constant is what determines the speed of the universe's expansion from the Big Bang. The fine tuning argument that your video supports goes like this:

If the CC (and therefore the universe's expansion rate) were even just a tiny bit different, stars could never have formed and we could not ever have come to exist. Usually the "coming to exist" includes the process of evolution.

In other words, the whole video and all its arguments should be meaningless to you if you don't believe that there was a Big Bang, that the universe is expanding, and that evolution actually happened.

Exactly, .. as I said, the only reason I used it was to throw another paradox on top of the already plethora of paradoxes sitting there on a huge pile when considering the Big-bang and Evolution (falsely called) theories.

I am hoping that someone would at least 'try' another option instead of create more and more apologetics for an idea that creates more questions than it answers.