Do u beleave in God

[steveorino 7]

He said: "Im sure we all agree that in a debate between atheist and Christians that soul refers to some form of the mind that survives physcial death"

Maybe it is semantics, but I would not equate it with the mind or brain activity.

steveOrino

[philh 0]

yes i think we just have a semantic problem. I didnt mean to imply that you felt the sould resided in the brain, only that it is some form of consciousness, is that fair?

[steveorino 7]

Quote

yes i think we just have a semantic problem. I didnt mean to imply that you felt the sould resided in the brain, only that it is some form of consciousness, is that fair?

Well, I think it is more than consciousness. I think it is the essence of who we really are.

steveOrino

[philh 0]

Can you be more specific? What more than consicousness? I presume part of this definition involves it survivng physical death? if you can give us a more precise deifnition we can have a more meaningful debate. vague definition such as "essence fo who we are" arent really helpful for debate.

[Andy9o8 2]

philh said:

Quote

Can you be more specific? What more than consicousness? I presume part of this definition involves it survivng physical death? if you can give us a more precise deifnition we can have a more meaningful debate. vague definition such as "essence fo who we are" arent really helpful for debate.

For example, when Spock's brain was stolen and installed into the Amazon Planet's Controller computer, leaving his otherwise live body aside, where did his soul reside? The computer? His body? Elsewhere? This theological question has lingered for at least 40 years. What's your take on it?

[steveorino 7]

No, I doubt I'll satisfy you with any "definitions" I can think up. It is the part of us that defies a simple concrete definition. Crudely I'd define it as the basic, real, and invariable nature of a human.

steveOrino

[steveorino 7]

Quote

philh said:

Quote

Can you be more specific? What more than consicousness? I presume part of this definition involves it survivng physical death? if you can give us a more precise deifnition we can have a more meaningful debate. vague definition such as "essence fo who we are" arent really helpful for debate.

For example, when Spock's brain was stolen and installed into the Amazon Planet's Controller computer, leaving his otherwise live body aside, where did his soul reside? The computer? His body? Elsewhere? This theological question has lingered for at least 40 years. What's your take on it?

Sorry, I think Trekkies are nerds. I never watched even one show.

I can see you now with Phil and your spock ears at a Star Trek convention. Which one is Capt. Kirk?

steveOrino

[Andy9o8 2]

But...but...



See, this really hurts, man. I mean, look at Billvon, or Kallend, or PhreeZone, and especially Eule. They're incredible nerds. But you pick on me.

Quote

2 Timothy 4:1-2 - I urge you, Timothy, as we live in the sight of God and of Christ Jesus (whose coming in power will judge the living and the dead), to preach the Word of God. Never lose your sense of urgency, in season or out of season. Prove, correct, and encourage, using the utmost patience in your teaching.

[steveorino 7]

Have I been impatient with you? Perhaps. But eventually one is to wipe the dust off and move on.


I'm not sure how my belief that Trekkies are nerds is being impatient though. Maybe you can explain that.

BTW, I wouldn't call BillVon or Kallend nerds. They just do a lot more no nonsense logical thinking than me. The others you mention; I don't remember anything they have posted.

steveOrino

[hairyjuan 0]

go as verb is written by a P.H.D. in Theology




MITAKUYE OYASIN
We Are ALL Related

we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively


wishers never choose, choosers never wish

[Andy9o8 2]

OK, OK, my weird sense of humor aside, I was just hoping for a bit more clarification in the difference between human consciousness, and human essence. I confess I've always equated them. Suppose a person's brain is absolutely and permanently brain-dead, but their body is kept physiologically functioning. To me, his essence is gone. Your take on this?

[steveorino 7]

Quote

OK, OK, my weird sense of humor aside, I was just hoping for a bit more clarification in the difference between human consciousness, and human essence. I confess I've always equated them. Suppose a person's brain is absolutely and permanently brain-dead, but their body is kept physiologically functioning. To me, his essence is gone. Your take on this?

Since this a relatively new situation (the ability for science to keep the body alive w/o brain function) there hasn't been much theological writings on this, so my ideas would be merely a guess. I haven't read, studied or for that matter, thought much about this phenom. I "guess" the soul may depart either to be with God or apart from God.

steveOrino

[philh 0]

So lets get it straight.
You accept there is no evidence of a soul
You're not even sure how to define a soul.
Yet you are still convinced it exists?
What evidence there is suggests that human nature comes from a number of factors including our enviroment -definitley not invariant- and our genes - defintely something which is part of biological make up and hence unlikely to survive our physical death except in the act of mating and the replication thereof.
Moreover, neuroo chemistry and brain mapping show stacks of evidence that damage to the brain can lead to huge changes in behaviour. For example those who have experienced damage to the frontal lobe show marked increases in violent behaviour, those that have damage to the Wemicke area in the temporal lobe cannot understand what is being said to them, damage to the oribto frontal cortex impaires social behaviour, amygdala damage impairs eotional regontion etc etc etc
The scientific facts are that your behaviour is a function of at least your enviroment, your genes and your brain chemsitry. The concept you mention of an invariable human nature has no basis in reality and one that transends death is even more of a fantasy.

[steveorino 7]

I've defined it quite rationally for me and about 90% of the population. I said I doubt I'd find an explanation YOU would accept as you want to measure everything in scientific terms. Some things cannot be measured that way. Spirituality is one of them.

As I previously said. "You don't believe, nor do you seek. Fine, that is your choice to make."

The funny thing is you probably think I'm a religious nut w/o the ability to reason logically. I see myself as one who is very happy with my insight. I have questioned everything I was taught about Christianity and my faith is far different than my parents. On a pragmatic scale, theirs seem to work for them, but it didn't for me. Years of serious study and asking questions that made some of my professors uneasy has brought me to a point in my life where I'm very satisfied with my path.

I love to discuss theology with those who differ from me from fellow pastors & Christians to Buddhist & atheists. However, I have grown very weary of the debate continually being tossed back to scientific reason just as I would grow weary of the KJV only people's debates. No offense to you personally, but I'm "brushing the dust off and moving on" from your replies. I wish you peace!

steveOrino

[pajarito 0]

Quote

So lets get it straight.
You accept there is no evidence of a soul
You're not even sure how to define a soul.
Yet you are still convinced it exists?
What evidence there is suggests that human nature comes from a number of factors including our enviroment -definitley not invariant- and our genes - defintely something which is part of biological make up and hence unlikely to survive our physical death except in the act of mating and the replication thereof.
Moreover, neuroo chemistry and brain mapping show stacks of evidence that damage to the brain can lead to huge changes in behaviour. For example those who have experienced damage to the frontal lobe show marked increases in violent behaviour, those that have damage to the Wemicke area in the temporal lobe cannot understand what is being said to them, damage to the oribto frontal cortex impaires social behaviour, amygdala damage impairs eotional regontion etc etc etc
The scientific facts are that your behaviour is a function of at least your enviroment, your genes and your brain chemsitry. The concept you mention of an invariable human nature has no basis in reality and one that transends death is even more of a fantasy.

Rationale for the existence of our soul, by C.S. Lewis, with reference to the conscience and the inherent knowledge of right & wrong:

Quote

For example, some people wrote to me saying, ‘isn’t what you call the Moral Law simply our herd instinct and hasn’t it been developed just like all our other instincts?’ Now I do not deny that we may have a herd instinct: but that is not what I mean by the Moral Law. We all know what it feels like to be prompted by instinct – by mother love, or sexual instinct, or the instinct for food. It means that you feel a strong want or desire to act in a certain way. And, of course, we sometimes do feel just that sort of desire to help another person: and no doubt that desire is due to the herd instinct. But feeling a desire to help is quite different from feeling that you ought to help whether you want to or not. Supposing you hear a cry for help from a man in danger. You will probably feel two desires – one a desire to give help (due to your herd instinct), the other a desire to keep out of danger (due to the instinct for self-preservation). But you will find inside you, in addition to these two impulses, a third thing which tells you that you ought to follow the impulse to help, and suppress the impulse to run away. Now this thing that judges between two instincts, that decides which should be encouraged, cannot itself be either of them. You might as well say that the sheet of music which tells you, at a given moment, to play one note on the piano and not another, is itself one of the notes on the keyboard. The Moral Law tells us the tune we have to play: our instincts are merely the keys.
--C.S. Lewis

[philh 0]

"I've defined it quite rationally for me and about 90% of the population."
So by just saying its rational it becmes rational? i dont think so.
i dont want to measure everything in scientific terms. In fact if you read some of my replies you will find i categorically state some things cant be measured scientifically. However what i do want is scientific evidence when claims are made about somethings existence especially when its of vital importance to the planet to know whether those claims are true. If someone says I love that painting i dont ask for them to quantify it, I dont ask them to prove it. But If someone says the world is warming and we need to take very expensive action to do something about it then its right to demand evidence. Simlarly its right to demand evidence for the existence of god and the sould. whether they exist or not has huge consequencs for our society and for the world. This is true for these issue probably more so than any other. Anyone who has read through these posts will see not a drop of any evidence for either concept. Just look at any other belief that has no evidence whether its a diffent religion than yours or blief in astrology or whatever and you will see they are absurd. Now turn that back on your beliefs.

"The funny thing is you probably think I'm a religious nut w/o the ability to reason logically. "
I wonder if thats your own cosncious talking there, if you imagine thats how your arguments sounds maybe its not without foundation. But i dont think you r nut i think you are like so many people able to reaosn very well, you just switch off that reason when it comes to religion perhaps becuase you need religion or it makes you feel good or...well i dont know why. Anyway i wish you peace as well.

[billvon 3,080]

>But you will find inside you, in addition to these two impulses, a third
>thing which tells you that you ought to follow the impulse to help, and
>suppress the impulse to run away.

And you will find a fourth thing that tells you that it's probably not a cry for help, or that he has his own friends, or whatever. Those third and fourth things are our intelligence getting involved in what was originally an instinctive response.

If you define "drives to do things that go against your basic impulses" as religious in origin, then you have to take the bad with the good. Serial murderer? Religious in origin. Guy who pushes other people in front of subways? The 'touch of God' made him do it.

>The Moral Law tells us the tune we have to play: our instincts are merely the keys.

Right. But for some people, that "internal law" tells them to murder, steal, commit genocide, eat far too much etc. You may judge these to be bad things (and most people do) but that doesn't mean you can exclude them from the discussion.

[philh 0]

Yes Ive read Cs Lewis his argument is seriously flawed. When we make moral choices he assumes that we have inside some objective morality programmed from god. If that were so why do many people disagree with each other on what is moral. Dont forgest Christians defended slavery on the basis of their religious beliefs, they thought it wa moral; other Chrsitians took the opposite view based uon the same belief! If Lewis was right this wouldnt happen.

[kallend 2,113]

Quote

Quote

So lets get it straight.
You accept there is no evidence of a soul
You're not even sure how to define a soul.
Yet you are still convinced it exists?
What evidence there is suggests that human nature comes from a number of factors including our enviroment -definitley not invariant- and our genes - defintely something which is part of biological make up and hence unlikely to survive our physical death except in the act of mating and the replication thereof.
Moreover, neuroo chemistry and brain mapping show stacks of evidence that damage to the brain can lead to huge changes in behaviour. For example those who have experienced damage to the frontal lobe show marked increases in violent behaviour, those that have damage to the Wemicke area in the temporal lobe cannot understand what is being said to them, damage to the oribto frontal cortex impaires social behaviour, amygdala damage impairs eotional regontion etc etc etc
The scientific facts are that your behaviour is a function of at least your enviroment, your genes and your brain chemsitry. The concept you mention of an invariable human nature has no basis in reality and one that transends death is even more of a fantasy.

Rationale for the existence of our soul, by C.S. Lewis, with reference to the conscience and the inherent knowledge of right & wrong:

Abundant evidence exists that environment has a huge effect on whet people consider right or wrong. Repeated exposure to violence makes violence and brutality acceptable, as we saw in Nazi Germany, during the Cultural Revolution in PRC and in clinics for abused women and children worldwide.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jakee 1,565]

Quote

I've defined it quite rationally for me and about 90% of the population.

Popularity implies neither rationality or truth.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Almost the entire 5th Chapter of Matthew is the beautitudes. Almost every paragraph begins with, "You have heard it said .... Then he follows with "But I say to you" He is quoting Moses from the OT, and correcting the understanding.

Before I counter those arguments, let me ask you why do you think JC _corrected_ the understanding? Just because "no murder" was said AFTER "cursing children should die to death" - and this means that if we find ANY JC explanation for murdering in the Bible after that, it will counter the appropriate 5th Chapter? Or there is different reason?

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

You must read some awful boring stuff. I mean imagine literature without metaphors, similis, hyperboles, idioms and figures of speech.

If you look on the literature which supposed to teach us how to live by setting the rules like "what can and what cannot be done" - yes, this literature is awful boring stuff. Just look on U.S.C. or your state laws.

But if you are talking about the literature which was created to entertain or amuse you - yes, I'd agree that this is the only thing the Bible is useful for.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

for someone with no time you sure seem to spout off a lot around here
do you really think anything you say here even matters

i noticed you used the concept of belief, your belief, in a post
i find that somewhat ironic as you seem to give no creedence to belief

I didn't say I have no time at all. I said that trying to prove that something does not exist is a waste of time if that thing never existed. Try to prove that Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist, and you'll get it.

Regarding beliefs - I missed your point here. Could you explain?

Quote

George, you do not even know me, can you be sure about how i spend my time
let me tell you, it is because i care about a God that i believe in

I don't really care. And the God does not care either: by your definition He is already omnipotent, so He does not need any support from anyone.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Regarding beliefs - I missed your point here. Could you explain?

I think he is curious why you use the phrase "I believe" when it looks more apparent there is nothing you "believe" that is not concrete or requires an amount of faith.

steveOrino

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Quote

You must read some awful boring stuff. I mean imagine literature without metaphors, similis, hyperboles, idioms and figures of speech.

If you look on the literature which supposed to teach us how to live by setting the rules like "what can and what cannot be done" - yes, this literature is awful boring stuff. Just look on U.S.C. or your state laws.

But if you are talking about the literature which was created to entertain or amuse you - yes, I'd agree that this is the only thing the Bible is useful for.

While some taught with the style of Socrates, JC often taught with stories and parables. While it was not unique to him he was obviusly very good at it. Your discussing what he said two thousand years later.

steveOrino