Ignoring the mind to make major life decisions.

[Realworldjack]

I think we can all agree there are a number of members on this site who were once Christian. Some of these folks will even admit to truly embracing the faith, with all their heart, and soul.

Moreover, these folks seem to insist, that they did not use the mind, (or as one member here insisted) "they did not use it properly" to make such a major life decision, and they would now like us to believe, that it was the use of the mind which caused them to reject the faith.

QUESTION FOR DEBATE: If one can make such a major life decision without the use of the mind, or without "using it properly", would a change of mind be any sort of guarantee, that the mind is now engaged? Or, is it possible to claim to have changed the mind, without the mind actually being engaged?

[marco]

[Replying to post 3 by marco]

Seen through the eyes of realism, the decision is not, as you say, a major life decision.

Oh really? So you are attempting to tell me, that when a person decides to become a Christian with their whole being, to the point they live their lives in such a way as to attend church, everytime the doors are open, live their lives as though Christianity were true, and give thousands, and thousands of dollars to the church, that this would not be a, "major life decision?" I cannot imagine a decision that would be any more of a, "major life decision."

I wasn't attempting to tell you about Christian converts. I was telling you, rather than trying, that the move from being Christian to non-Christian is not life-changing. Little changes except an idea, and one's location of a Sunday morning. In your OP you talk of those who were once Christian and moved. In all probability the status of Christian was imposed on them and so they did not exercise any judgment to be followers of the Christian faith. To opt out, however, would clearly involve thought. As for those who become Christian, having been Muslim or atheist or whatever, they obviously are exercising some thought, but I didn't see that they were subject to the question in the OP.

if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless

This is a valid condemnation of Christianity. No resurrections, no authenticity. And of course we can be fairly certain there was no resurrection.

In the history of mankind there are better teachers than Paul;

Not only would I agree with you here, but I think Paul would have agreed, as well.

Then so far we are not in any disagreement. We must remember, of course, that what Paul says in apparent modesty is not what the shrewd Paul actually thinks. He had a fine conceit of himself and did see himself as instructor par excellence, sent by God.

What I find fascinating is, those who are highly intelligent, and assume they must, and have to be correct, when they have not, and cannot demonstrate what it is they claim to believe.

I think high intelligence is accompanied with the ability to articulate. Someone who can't isn't highly intelligent. If you are referring to atheists - they are not required to make claims about Yahweh other than to suggest he's a fiction.

Or, you would be one who is under the impression that you have no need in determining the evidence for, and against certain claims, because you possess the ability to determine what would be true, or false, without any sort of evidence.

I think one can be fascinated by the letters of Paul, say, and then wrongly assume that fascination is proof of something. The question is simple: Did Paul have a divine experience or not? I cannot see any intelligence involved in deciding he had. If his credentials are based on his belief he was God-chosen, then he was probably mistaken. He wrote well, but so what?

At any rate, as we look back at what you have said, all you have done is to make comments, with absolutely no substance whatsoever. All you have done is to share with us your feelings, opinions, and beliefs, just like many Christians do. Moreover, you have not answered the question of the OP.

Everyone offers opinions, for it is what discussion involves. If we simply fill our replies with quotes, we are preaching. Opinions are obtained sometimes through years of study and research; is it compulsory to append notes of all the books one has read that led to our views? I don't detect any proofs in what you say - just strongly held views. We form judgments by assessing millions of pieces of information that our minds have imbued, from disparate sources. When I said Christianity was not for me, I was lightly expressing the view that, having considered what is written, I find it unconvincing. The important word is "considered", which involves examination and listening to a variety of views.

[marco]

QUESTION FOR DEBATE: If one can make such a major life decision without the use of the mind, or without "using it properly", would a change of mind be any sort of guarantee, that the mind is now engaged? Or, is it possible to claim to have changed the mind, without the mind actually being engaged?

Since my previous reply was no reply at all, let me try again.
The if clause supposes we can "make a decision" without the use of the mind. We can do things without apparently thinking about them but a decision is something that necessarily involves whatever mind we have.


Perhaps the misunderstanding came about when someone mentioned that most Christians are Christians because of birth. No decision was made. If someone later in life opts to become one of the Christian varieties this is a decision made not by the left hand but by the mind.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 21 by marco]

I wasn't attempting to tell you about Christian converts. I was telling you, rather than trying, that the move from being Christian to non-Christian is not life-changing.

I clearly understand this. However, you were insinuating that I would be incorrect to say it would have been a "major life decision" when I never spoke about rejecting Christianity as being a "major life decision." Therefore, your correction had nothing to do with the conversation, and I was pointing out that I had never said such a thing.

WIth this being the case, I think we can agree, that it would be a "major life decision" to become a Christian, especially if one were to embrace it with all their heart, as a number of folks here describe.

Little changes except an idea, and one's location of a Sunday morning.

Okay, we have just established this is not what I would be talking about, and yet you continue to bring it up, as if there is some sort of point to be made?

In your OP you talk of those who were once Christian and moved.

Exactly! But I never once said that this would have been a "major life decision." Because you see, these folks I am referring too, claimed to have made the "major life decision" to become a Christian without the mind. However, they go on to claim the mind was in use, when they rejected, and it was this use of the mind that caused the rejection. So then, why would I be referring to the rejection as a "major life decision" when the whole point was, "without the use of the mind?"

In all probability the status of Christian was imposed on them and so they did not exercise any judgment to be followers of the Christian faith.

I can understand this when one is a child. However, when one becomes of age, and goes on to claim they spent years of their adult life, living and believing something as if it were indeed true, without truly thinking about it, to go on to say "they truly embraced it without thinking", then claiming it was imposed on them, would not follow in the least.

In other words, a child can certainly use such an excuse. However, a grown adult cannot use this excuse, because they are not forced to continue to believe, and are free to use the mind.

To opt out, however, would clearly involve thought.

Oh, okay. So, there was no thought to become, or remain a Christian? But somehow there must, and has to be thought to reject? Well how about this? These folks clearly admit to being weak minded as Christians. So what is to say, that they continue to be weak minded, and use the same exact reasoning to reject, as they did to become, or remain a Christian, just like the two post I cited, that demonstrates this clearly?

As an example, they became, or remained a Christian simply because of the advantages they saw being a Christian such as, comfort, and then go on to explain this same thing as a reason they came to reject the faith, because they have found comfort in the decision?

Here is a quote form an OP, and you tell me if you see any differences in the thinking.

I can assure everybody, however, that loss of Christian faith is to lose what you don't really want. My losing my Christian faith is perhaps the best thing that ever happened to me. I felt a great sense of freedom in both thought and in deed when I lost my faith, and I still do. I now have hope that I can live this one true and real life the best way I can. I now have a view of the world that sensible and honest people have discovered through hard work and solid evidence. It truly is a tremendous gain to lose Christian faith!

This certainly sounds to me as if it could have been said by one of those Christians, who "do not use the mind", and believe me there is more, on top of the fact we had another member, using the same exact reasoning for his rejection, after years of embracing, without the mind.

To opt out, however, would clearly involve thought.

Right! So how much thought is demonstrated in the above quote?

As for those who become Christian, having been Muslim or atheist or whatever, they obviously are exercising some thought, but I didn't see that they were subject to the question in the OP.

Well because I have not seen any of them here on this site, who are claiming they did not use the mind to reject Christianity, and it was the use of the mind that lead them to embrace Christianity. If I had seen such a thing, they may have been included.

This is a valid condemnation of Christianity. No resurrections, no authenticity.

Exactly! And if Paul had any idea that the Resurrection would not have been true, then it would not have been wise to say such a thing. However, it certainly seems as if Paul was staking his claim on a real, historical Resurrection, and was not giving any room for any sort of, mythical, or spiritual Resurrection.

And of course we can be fairly certain there was no resurrection.

As I said, you continue to simply make comments. This would be no different than if I were to say, "we can be fairly certain there was a resurrection." But then again, I am at least intelligent enough to understand that your comment, nor mine, would have any bearing whatsoever upon the fact.

Then so far we are not in any disagreement. We must remember, of course, that what Paul says in apparent modesty is not what the shrewd Paul actually thinks. He had a fine conceit of himself and did see himself as instructor par excellence, sent by God.

Another comment made. Can you supply any references here that would demonstrate this? Or, are you fine with just making comments?

If you are referring to atheists - they are not required to make claims about Yahweh other than to suggest he's a fiction.

Yeah, you are right, and you, and I can go back and forth, continuing to simply "suggest" certain things.

Because you see, I have been on this site a good number of years, and I have posted a good number of times, and I have never once insisted that there must, and has to be a god, and I have also never insisted that the letters in the NT, must, and have to be reporting the truth. So then, what in the world would cause you to believe, that I own the burden?

What I have insisted upon would be, there is good, solid evidence, and reasons to believe there may in fact be a god, along with good, and solid evidence, to believe the letters contained in the NT may in fact be reporting the truth, and I have supplied these reasons, and evidence many times.

So you are right, we can both continue on to give our suggestion, which is what you seem to do most of the time, but I would rather explain the reasons, and evidence behind my suggestions, as we are about to see.

I think one can be fascinated by the letters of Paul, say, and then wrongly assume that fascination is proof of something.

Well, if you are speaking of me, then I can assure you I have never been "fascinated" in the least by Paul's letters. Rather, it seems to be you who is fascinated by his letters, since you claim that he, "wrote well."

As you can more than likely tell, I couldn't care less how well he may have wrote, because this sort of thing does not impress me. What does fascinate me is the fact that we do indeed have the letters, contained in the NT.

From these letters, we can know beyond any reasonable doubt that Paul would have authored a good number of these letters, and we can also know beyond any reasonable doubt that Paul would have been opposed to Christianity to begin with, to the point he was traveling around in order to put a stop to this movement, even going to the extent of having Christians arrested, and at least one put to death.

We can also know beyond any reasonable doubt, something happened to Paul, that not only caused him to repent of such things, but also to become the reason for the spread of Christianity that he was so opposed to, to be preached in all the known world at the time.

We can know beyond any reasonable doubt, that the missionary journeys of Paul, would have taken decades, and we can also know beyond any reasonable doubt that Paul was arrested, and spent quite some time under arrest for his preaching.

We can know, beyond any reasonable doubt, that Luke would have been traveling around with Paul on these journeys, and we can know beyond any reasonable doubt that this same Luke sat down to write, not one, but two long, and detailed letters to a friend, concerning what he claimed to have, "investigate carefully", along with being an eyewitness to much, if not all, of the journeys of Paul.

We can know for a fact, that in his second letter, Luke verifies much of what Paul writes in his letters, to completely different audiences, addressing completely different concerns.

I could continue on, and on, explaining things we can know beyond any reasonable doubt by reading these letters. So then, I will assure you that I am not in any way, "fascinated" by the writing of Paul.

What I am, and would be "fascinated" with, is if all these things we can know beyond any reasonable doubt, would be based upon those who were either, deceived, delusional, or lying.

Because I am here to tell you, whether they were deceived, delusional, lying, or telling the truth, it is fascinating. The writing of Paul to me? Not so much. But that's just me.

Next, I have never proclaimed that these letters would be "proof" of anything at all. However, as demonstrated, these letters would certainly, and beyond doubt be classified as, testimonial evidence, even though they were never intended to be more than letters written between different audiences at the time, which gives them even more validity, in that they were never intended for anyone else.

Because you see, these letters are not only evidence of the actual existence of these men, they are also evidence, of how they lived their lives, way up into old age.

The question is simple: Did Paul have a divine experience or not?

You are exactly right! However, I cannot answer this question, all I can do is to point to the evidence, and facts we have.

Do you have an answer? If so, what would be the facts, and evidence, that would support such an answer?

I cannot see any intelligence involved in deciding he had.

This is simply a personal view, or an opinion. What facts, and evidence do you have that would suggest what it is you say?

If his credentials are based on his belief he was God-chosen, then he was probably mistaken.

His credentials, are based upon the facts, and evidence we have in the letters contained in the NT. So then, what facts, and evidence can you supply that, "he was probably mistaken?"

He wrote well, but so what?

This is simply another opinion, and who cares?

Everyone offers opinions, for it is what discussion involves.

Not necessarily. One can have a discussion, and discuss nothing but facts, and never give an opinion of the facts. Moreover, this is a debate site, and if one feels the need to share an opinion, then they are under obligation to give the facts, and evidence which would back such an opinion.

Because you see, there have, and will be times I may share my opinion of the facts, but most of the time, I simply deal with the facts, as I did above. As you can see, all I supplied were the facts, and never give my opinion of the facts. Therefore, it can be done, and you should try it.

If we simply fill our replies with quotes, we are preaching.

I do not believe I used the first quote, just facts.

Opinions are obtained sometimes through years of study and research

So are facts, and I like to deal with them, as you can see above.

is it compulsory to append notes of all the books one has read that led to our views?

I have read a large number of books myself, and can demonstrate this by my library, much of which would be opposed to Christianity. I referred to none of them. Rather, I referred to the facts.

I don't detect any proofs in what you say - just strongly held views.

First, can you supply any evidence, in all my years of being on this site, where I have ever stated that, "I have proofs for what it is I believe?" I can assure you I have "proofs" for what I wrote above. The fact of the matter is, I very seldom, "say" what I believe. Most of the time I only "say" what I know I can demonstrate.

As an example, getting back to the OP, I ask it as a question, but it would be a fact that, simply because one can change the mind, this would not demonstrate in the least, that the mind is now engaged.

When I said Christianity was not for me, I was lightly expressing the view that, having considered what is written, I find it unconvincing.

And you see, this I have no problem with in the least. What I have a problem with, is those who claim to, "find it unconvincing" to themselves, and go on to insist there would be no reason for anyone else to be convinced.

The important word is "considered", which involves examination and listening to a variety of views.

You are right, and whether you believe it or not, I have read much by those who are opposed to Christianity. As an example, have you ever heard of Karen Armstrong? She has written many books, and I have a good number of them, and have read every word, and enjoy reading what she has to say, and have also learned a tremendous amount from her.

In fact, if you want to talk about being "fascinated", I am "fascinated" by what she has to say, and I hung on every word as she told the story of her life, in a book entitled, "The Spiral Staircase."

She would not be alone, I read many who are opposed to Christianity, which demonstrates that my reading, and studying, involves far more than being confined to those who agree with me. Moreover, I have been on this site for 6 years now, hearing, listening, and contemplating the arguments of those opposed. So I do not think I can be accused of simply listening to one side.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 23 by Realworldjack]

I can understand this when one is a child. However, when one becomes of age, and goes on to claim they spent years of their adult life, living and believing something as if it were indeed true, without truly thinking about it, to go on to say "they truly embraced it without thinking", then claiming it was imposed on them, would not follow in the least.

In other words, a child can certainly use such an excuse. However, a grown adult cannot use this excuse, because they are not forced to continue to believe, and are free to use the mind.

This is wrong in and of itself. In the strictest sense, yes, no-one can be "forced" to continue to believe (in the privacy of their own minds), but there is such a thing as social pressures that can indeed act as an impetus to continue to believe, to not question, to not doubt.

Because you see, these folks I am referring too, claimed to have made the "major life decision" to become a Christian without the mind. However, they go on to claim the mind was in use, when they rejected, and it was this use of the mind that caused the rejection. So then, why would I be referring to the rejection as a "major life decision" when the whole point was, "without the use of the mind?"

Can you actually name me, please, when you refer to me like this? It's not like it's a big secret who it is you're talking about, just that it might be clearer to readers and myself who exactly it is you're talking about. Jagella has yet to speak up on this, but I have gone on record as saying that it was my use of the mind that changed me from believer to non-believer. Yet here you are speaking in the plural...

So, there was no thought to become, or remain a Christian?

Not no thought. Obviously one has to think thoughts to believe things, even if one doesn't critically examine them.
"Jesus Christ is the Son of God, who died for our sins" is a thing that has to be thought.

But somehow there must, and has to be thought to reject?

Yes. "I no longer believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God who died for our sins" is a thing that has to be thought, in order to transition from believing the proposition originally, to no longer believing it.

These folks clearly admit to being weak minded as Christians.

Who exactly are you talking about? Care to name names?

So what is to say, that they continue to be weak minded, and use the same exact reasoning to reject, as they did to become, or remain a Christian, just like the two post I cited, that demonstrates this clearly?

Except our testimony as to what exactly it was that acted as an impetus for the change? My own kick in the pants, as I have described previously? I have described that in some detail, and it boggles my own mind as to how you can conflate the kick in the pants with what it was that made a believer originally. The two are very different.

As an example, they became, or remained a Christian simply because of the advantages they saw being a Christian such as, comfort,

Again, who exactly is it you are talking about? This doesn't apply to me. Unless you'd care to name names and/or provide quotes, this sounds like a strawman.

and then go on to explain this same thing as a reason they came to reject the faith, because they have found comfort in the decision?

Ah, Jagella then. Good for me then that I am not Jagella. Why is it that you were talking in the plural?

This certainly sounds to me as if it could have been said by one of those Christians, who "do not use the mind", and believe me there is more, on top of the fact we had another member, using the same exact reasoning for his rejection, after years of embracing, without the mind.

Are you talking about me? Because I have detailed that I did in fact use the mind. If you are not talking about me, who is it you are talking about?

Well because I have not seen any of them here on this site, who are claiming they did not use the mind to reject Christianity, and it was the use of the mind that lead them to embrace Christianity. If I had seen such a thing, they may have been included.

Apart from yourself...? Is this a special category that includes only RWJ?

Exactly! And if Paul had any idea that the Resurrection would not have been true, then it would not have been wise to say such a thing.

Wise or not, how does that then follow that he would NOT have said such a thing? People do say things that are foolish, even if they don't realise it.

However, it certainly seems as if Paul was staking his claim on a real, historical Resurrection, and was not giving any room for any sort of, mythical, or spiritual Resurrection.

Is it? I hear tell that the Greek he used in his writings can be translated as to a spiritual resurrection.

As I said, you continue to simply make comments.

Just as you make comments that are about others, potentially about me, and yet do not name me or quote me.

From these letters, we can know beyond any reasonable doubt that Paul would have authored a good number of these letters, and we can also know beyond any reasonable doubt that Paul would have been opposed to Christianity to begin with, to the point he was traveling around in order to put a stop to this movement, even going to the extent of having Christians arrested, and at least one put to death.

I suppose it is unreasonable for me to entertain doubt that he even WAS an opponent of Christianity? After all, Paul is literally the only source we have for Paul being an opponent. It's not outside the realm of possibility for someone to enter a new up-coming movement by claiming to have once opposed it, to say "See! You are speaking truth, after all you converted ME of all people!"

We can also know beyond any reasonable doubt, something happened to Paul, that not only caused him to repent of such things, but also to become the reason for the spread of Christianity that he was so opposed to, to be preached in all the known world at the time.

And we don't have this something, from Paul. No, it's detailed in Acts of the Apostles, which as far as I can remember, was written after his death.

We can know beyond any reasonable doubt, that the missionary journeys of Paul, would have taken decades, and we can also know beyond any reasonable doubt that Paul was arrested, and spent quite some time under arrest for his preaching.

Yes, as have plenty of others throughout history. Paul isn't the only person who has preached or taught and been imprisoned for it.

We can know, beyond any reasonable doubt, that Luke would have been traveling around with Paul on these journeys, and we can know beyond any reasonable doubt that this same Luke sat down to write, not one, but two long, and detailed letters to a friend, concerning what he claimed to have, "investigate carefully", along with being an eyewitness to much, if not all, of the journeys of Paul.

Was the author of Luke with Paul on the road to Damascus?

So then, I will assure you that I am not in any way, "fascinated" by the writing of Paul.

Pull the other one! You just wrote a chunk about them. Not in any way fascinated, yeah right!

You are exactly right! However, I cannot answer this question, all I can do is to point to the evidence, and facts we have.

You can't answer the question...but you are a Christian, a person who claims to have converted to Christianity by careful examination of the evidence...thus it would follow that yes, you WOULD have an answer to the question.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 24 by rikuoamero]


I look forward to responding to this post in whole, but I have a couple more I need to get to before I can do this. However, after reading your post, I was compelled to respond to something you say.

Can you actually name me, please, when you refer to me like this? It's not like it's a big secret who it is you're talking about, just that it might be clearer to readers and myself who exactly it is you're talking about.

I am not referring to you in the least! I have repeatedly said, "those who embraced Christianity, for years of their life, AS AN ADULT."

If I am remembering correctly, (and I am) you claim to begin to question Christianity at your confirmation, and then went on to say how you told your school mates that you did not believe in God.

With this being the case, I have no problem with this in the least. The priest told you that, "you were now filled with the Holy Spirit", and because you did not feel anything, you reasoned in your mind that it was garbage.

This seems to mean, you were brought up in the Church as a child, and because you were a child, you believed what you were told, which is completely understandable. However, before you even became of age, you had decided you did not believe. So how can I be referring to you?

What you have done, would be far different from what I have explained, which is those who claimed to have truly embraced Christianity for years of their adult life, and go on to claim they made such a major life decision, without the mind.

Why is it that you were talking in the plural?

Well, because it was not simply one post I cited, but two, (neither was yours). Moreover, there are other members of this site who claim to have embraced Christianity for years of their adult life, and go on to claim the mind was not engaged, and at least 2 of them that I know of, have web sites describing as one member puts it, "How Christianity stole years of my life."

Explain how Christianity can be responsible for stealing years of your life, when you are the one who admits, you did not use the mind to make the decision?

So no, I did not have you in mind.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 22 by marco]

The if clause supposes we can "make a decision" without the use of the mind. We can do things without apparently thinking about them but a decision is something that necessarily involves whatever mind we have.

Do you really want to waste time arguing over semantics? We all know that we can do nothing without the brain functioning. Therefore, when one talks about, making a decision "without the use of the mind" they are certainly not talking about some sort of switch they may have, that turns off the brain. Rather, it is just a way of saying, they did not think about the decision they were making.

Perhaps the misunderstanding came about when someone mentioned that most Christians are Christians because of birth.

Well no! It would be understandable for a child who is brought up in a Church, to simply accept what they are told, and identify as a Christian. However, when one becomes of age, they are responsible for their own thinking.

So then, I really do not see how one can claim to be a "Christians because of birth." If there are those who say so, then I would suggest they would classify as one who would be a Christian, without the use of the mind, (without thinking).

At any rate, allow me to give you an example of how one can make a decision, without the use of the mind.

Let's imagine one goes to Church for the first time, and they are swept away emotionally by the singing, service, and the pastor gives a captivating, message targeting the emotions, and at the end of the service there is the final song, with pleas to come to the front, and receive the Lord.

This person flies to the front, and exclaims they "want to be a Christian" and this decision would be completely emotional based, and while the brain may be functioning, there is no thinking involved.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 25 by Realworldjack]

I am not referring to you in the least!

If I have truly made a mistake, I apologise. Just that it did seem like you were talking about me. I was the person who said Jagella might be speaking the Christian's language in that other thread he started.

(and I am) you claim to begin to question Christianity at your confirmation, and then went on to say how you told your school mates that you did not believe in God.

Not immediately after no. There was a great deal of reflection involved, which took several years, before I could admit it to myself, much less say it to school chums.

With this being the case, I have no problem with this in the least. The priest told you that, "you were now filled with the Holy Spirit", and because you did not feel anything, you reasoned in your mind that it was garbage.

Yup, that's pretty much how it went down. However, I didn't immediately become an atheist (didn't even know that word at the time). I didn't immediately drop my belief in God.
That was my first major kick in the pants theologically speaking, and the immediate takeaway for me was that priests are either lying or mistaken when it comes to religious matters.