Why you believe what you believe I

[Rían]

Originally Posted by osszie

It's a sad, sad person who thinks they need either the threat of hell or the reward of heaven as a means to deciding what is good or bad.

It's quite worrying that as a race of people capable of fully independant thought (and thought processes) so many still require others to tell them how "best" to live, instead of being able to do it for themselves

Y'know, Cones, if that's what you think motivates Christians, then you're entirely wrong at least for me and the ones I know.

But I don't want to focus on that rabbit trail, because brownie is in the "hot seat" (see first post) right now Good to see ya, tho!

[Rían]

Originally Posted by inked

Alas, that I should live to see this day! Entmooters, ostensible Tolkien fans, who are iron-clad determinists succling on the discredited theories of Marx and psychology and sociology! Have you not read, have you not known, have you not understood? Yea, sayeth Tolkien, Man is free to choose and CHOICES COUNT!

LCoU - under the mistaken notion that religion is to make one happy as a general proposition! And swallowing whole heartedly the notion that freedom exists in absence of restraint rather than achieving one's Eru appointed tasks?!

Star Polish - caught in the tangled web of determinism that denies the efficacy of choice. Swallowing whole heartedly the inescapable fetters of genetics, nature and nurture whilst denying the creativity of tranformation in the person and the family and the society!?


I am distraught! Read Tolkien again!!!

Ditto!

(great post, inky!)

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Starr Polish

It's easier to imagine "brain in a vat" if you think about the movie The Matrix...at least, that's how the prof explained it to us.

(BTW, it's very disturbing to me that a uni professor would posit a special-effects-laden, make-believe movie as an example for a possible reality ... I hoep this uni doesn't receive federal funds that I've contributed to! )

Originally Posted by Tessaract

When does a young child usually behave the most politely? When they have their parents near at hand and willing to beat the living $*** out of them if they don't mind their manners.

Originally Posted by oz

Nope, a young child behaves when it decides to......have you never seen a kid admonished then stick it's tongue out as soon as it's parents turn their eye away

I think it's terribly wrong and extremely dangerous to teach a child "outward behavior", as opposed to behavior driven by the heart.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Starr Polish

Who says that thinking such things would create apathy?

Who sez? *looks at the posts* Why, I sez!

It is my opinion that that belief would create apathy in many (tho not all) people. This is based on knowing that it would create apathy in me, and that there are people similar to me ( poor twits ) out there. I need to base my decisions on MY opinion (after careful thought, and reference to knowledgeable sources when available). If your opinion differs, then I hope you would base your actions on your opinion, and not the opinion of others (and I think you would do this).

(and btw, yes, I think it would be good to watch the sarcastic humor - at least make it a little clearer - it's SO hard on the internet to tell "how" people are talking - most of communication is non-verbal, and all we have are words, and a few smilies! We want to know what you really mean, so please help us all you can! )

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Let me phrase it another way - IF it is indeed true that the God described in the Bible exists, and it is indeed true that He can help a person who turns to Him to grow immensely in love for others, and you knew this, would you turn to Him for help, or would you prefer to just use your own resources, even though it meant that you would be less loving to others?

i would assume if there was this biblical god, and he gave us "free will" as you say the bible states, that it would have to be possible for a human to be just as good whether they turned to him or not... you mentioned yourself in the past that there could certainly be non-christians, even agnostics, that you would trust more with your children than some christians

good is what good does, and, as i understand it, the christian pov is that we all are responsible for and can control "what we do"

this is not to say that the bible can not help some people (though i would say it is the stories that help, not the author behind them)... but i can't see how it could be seen as a necessary element... and, if it is, then we are not as "free" as you claim we are

IF the "no matter how good" story is actually an accurate description of the true state of things, would you still prefer to let "new, and maybe yet untold stories" shape your view of the world, even if some of those stories are totally wrong and could harm others?

we can't know whether it is accurate or not... so the only way we can approach the situation is to judge everything case by case... and modify our judgements as the world changes... if the new ideas were harmful, i would not adopt them... if the new ideas were better than anything proposed previously and did not cause harm, i'd give them a shot

you do this yourself... you've stated before that you don't just live a christian lifestyle 'cause "the bible says so"... you live it 'cause it makes sense to you... it jives with what you see in the world... i trust the sincerity in your statement... do you trust the sincerity in mine?

i have a question for you (if those on the hotseat can ask ), is there any "guideline" in the bible that you follow only because the bible says so? one that doesn't really make sense to you at any other level, but you accept because it is scripture

you and i are probably 95% in agreement on most moral issues... the ones we differ on tend to be the new and untested... homosexual marriage, active sex education and distribution of birth control at a young age, etc.

when i approach these issues, i look at the long-term social pros and cons... i don't pretend to know the best answer, no one does yet... but i think there is a value to constantly reassessing society's approach to such things... 100 years ago just being gay, or at least the practice of it, was illegal throughout much of the country... now we argue the relatively minor detail of marriage

[Starr Polish]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

(BTW, it's very disturbing to me that a uni professor would posit a special-effects-laden, make-believe movie as an example for a possible reality ... I hoep this uni doesn't receive federal funds that I've contributed to! )

It's a state uni.

He did not necessarily say that "The Matrix is reality." He was giving a generation-appropriate image to help us visualize what "brain in a vat" is equal to. It was supposed to help some of the students struggling with the concept. "Brain in a vat? What? What is that/how would you do that?"

Teaching the history of a subject in such a way that your students understand it does not necessarily mean you believe it to be true. I am still taught about Freud's methodology, even though much of his practice is now considered obsolete/incorrect, because it is an important historical aspect of psychology.

[Starr Polish]

Originally Posted by inked

Star Polish - caught in the tangled web of determinism that denies the efficacy of choice. Swallowing whole heartedly the inescapable fetters of genetics, nature and nurture whilst denying the creativity of tranformation in the person and the family and the society!?


I am distraught! Read Tolkien again!!!

I have never said that we don't have choices, but I believe that we are imprisoned by our genetics and our social upbringing (though the latter is a much less secure "prison" than the former). We have choices, but they are restricted through our genetics.

I am short...this is determined through genetics. Certain choices I made in the past (intake of caffeine during my growing years, my posture) may effect my ultimate height, but I could never be six feet tall, because there is a genetic RESTRICTION.

I am sucspetible to many disorders...namely depression, OCD and alcoholism. This is not through any choice of mine, and I cannot control the recurring symptoms of OCD because the chemistry in my brain is mildly screwed up (unless I use medication, but I am not so far along I need that). I can choose to learn how to cope with the thoughts, but that doesn't change the fact that I am genetically predisposed to OCD. I can choose not to drink often, and carefully monitor how much alcohol I drink to counter the effects of the possible alcoholism, but I can't change the fact that I am genetically predisposed to alcoholism.

ANd so on and so forth. That's what I meant. :-D

[inked]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

because ultimately it is in your own self-interest that you and the others around you act in such a way... happy society = happy people

but now you have made self-interest the ultimate good.

which is it, brownjenkins: the good of society or self interest?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i would assume if there was this biblical god, and he gave us "free will" as you say the bible states, that it would have to be possible for a human to be just as good whether they turned to him or not... you mentioned yourself in the past that there could certainly be non-christians, even agnostics, that you would trust more with your children than some christians

Brownie, you changed my question, you naughty thing! The part that I bolded in your response is directly against what was in my question. Could you please re-look and re-answer, under the assumption (even if you think it's wrong) that turning to God helps a person be better? (just as me turning to a Italian teacher would help me speak Italian better)

And yes, I stand by that comment about my kids.

... but i can't see how it could be seen as a necessary element... and, if it is, then we are not as "free" as you claim we are

I'm not asking if you can see how it could be necessary, I"m asking you IF it was that way, &etc. And I don't see how that impinges on our freedom, either, but we can deal with that after you re-answer my question.

we can't know whether it is accurate or not...

Again, not what I asked - could you please re-look and re-answer?

you do this yourself... you've stated before that you don't just live a christian lifestyle 'cause "the bible says so"... you live it 'cause it makes sense to you... it jives with what you see in the world... i trust the sincerity in your statement... do you trust the sincerity in mine?

Absolutely!

i have a question for you (if those on the hotseat can ask ), is there any "guideline" in the bible that you follow only because the bible says so? one that doesn't really make sense to you at any other level, but you accept because it is scripture

I can't think of any offhand, and I really GTG, but I'll consider it over the weekend.

you and i are probably 95% in agreement on most moral issues... the ones we differ on tend to be the new and untested... homosexual marriage, active sex education and distribution of birth control at a young age, etc.

Ah, yes - the ones you're wrong on! (joke, joke!)

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Starr Polish

He did not necessarily say that "The Matrix is reality." He was giving a generation-appropriate image to help us visualize what "brain in a vat" is equal to.

Yes, I realize that.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Ragnarok

To sum up Mr. Asimov's quote he is saying that if he did believe in a God, it would be a God who would prefer a honest and righteous atheist over a hypocritical christian. Believe me, there are alot of people who call themselves Christians but do not follow the examples of how Christ wanted them to lives their lives, which would be the reference to the preacher in his quote.

I agree. But remember, there's lots of Christians that DO follow Christ's examples, and these are usually the quiet ones.

Heres a question for you, suppose that your God does exist and there is in fact a heaven and hell would an atheist who lived a honest and righteous life, would he go to hell?

I'd like to answer that (in fact, I have answered it extensively and I'd like to find the post and link to it, because I put a lot of thought into it), but I simply MUST go now, and this is brownie's turn in the hot seat (see first post in this thread). Please remind me next week (I typically can't post much on weekends), and I'll post a link, and if you want to discuss it we can move it to another thread

[inked]

Originally Posted by Starr Polish

I have never said that we don't have choices, but I believe that we are imprisoned by our genetics and our social upbringing (though the latter is a much less secure "prison" than the former). We have choices, but they are restricted through our genetics.

I am short...this is determined through genetics. Certain choices I made in the past (intake of caffeine during my growing years, my posture) may effect my ultimate height, but I could never be six feet tall, because there is a genetic RESTRICTION.

I am sucspetible to many disorders...namely depression, OCD and alcoholism. This is not through any choice of mine, and I cannot control the recurring symptoms of OCD because the chemistry in my brain is mildly screwed up (unless I use medication, but I am not so far along I need that). I can choose to learn how to cope with the thoughts, but that doesn't change the fact that I am genetically predisposed to OCD. I can choose not to drink often, and carefully monitor how much alcohol I drink to counter the effects of the possible alcoholism, but I can't change the fact that I am genetically predisposed to alcoholism.

ANd so on and so forth. That's what I meant. :-D

to re-iterate:
"Starr Polish,

But I didn't misunderstand you! I replied in kind! Sorry to have seemed to have missed the boat on that but I thought my tongue-in-cheek was way over the top! I clearly hear what you were saying, I think. That's why I felt free to have a little fun!"

Now, you may have all the genetic predispositions in the world. Some may be related to choices you make and some may not. In the former you may avoid activities or behaviours that will put you in the higher risk because you know the latter, i.e., avoid alcohol, take appropriate medications when indicated for symptoms, avoid situations and activities that increase your OCD or depression, accept your stature limitations. In those influencable activities your actions make an impact on the expression of the potential.
BUT, it also true that your response to the "fixed" expressions is a CHOICE.
You can spend your life on Procruste's bed in an attempt to become taller, you can mope about caffeine's effect et alia, you could volunteer for implants like Wolverine in X-men, or you could graciously be yourself at your height.

I think what you mean is that the choices available maybe restricted by genetics in some people differently than others, but choices remain. There is no iron determinism that renders human choice and will ineffective in the manner of "IT's not my fault; it's my genes". One's response is always within one's purview. Which doesn't mean that it's not a convenient excuse to cop out with!'

Determinism does not reach the will nor the soul, merely the physical.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

but now you have made self-interest the ultimate good.

which is it, brownjenkins: the good of society or self interest?

both... what is good for society and good for the self... humans are social animals... unless you are a complete hermit or an absolute dictator, other people effect how good or bad your life is

if you think of them separately, i.e. only what is good for the self, or only what is good for society, you miss the full picture

the "best" course of action is one that balances these two perspectives... and it is important to note that there is no "ultimate" here... culture, technology, even climate can effect what is best for any given point on the globe

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I'd like to answer that (in fact, I have answered it extensively and I'd like to find the post and link to it, because I put a lot of thought into it), but I simply MUST go now, and this is brownie's turn in the hot seat (see first post in this thread). Please remind me next week (I typically can't post much on weekends), and I'll post a link, and if you want to discuss it we can move it to another thread

if i remember right i think your answer to that was basically yes

you said it was essential for one to sincerely express their belief in god in order to go to heaven... and in fact, someone who lived a not-so-virtuous life, yet truly repented an expressed their belief would also go to heaven... unlike the non-christian, who would not go no matter how virtuous his life

is that correct? (if not as eloquent as your statements)

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Brownie, you changed my question, you naughty thing! The part that I bolded in your response is directly against what was in my question. Could you please re-look and re-answer, under the assumption (even if you think it's wrong) that turning to God helps a person be better? (just as me turning to a Italian teacher would help me speak Italian better)

i answered it the only way i could... sorry

turning to an italian teacher to learn to speak italian better makes sense, since i do not know italian at all and i would assume the teacher would

turning to god to be a better person does not... i already know how to be a good person... and if i wanted to be more of one i'd "mentor" with someone who had some pretty good qualifications... it's a matter of interpretation for sure, but the biblical god does not hit me as being terribly "good" as far as i'm concerned... i'd personally have gone about many things quite differently

i can't accept a hypothetical with no basis in reason... if you wanted to say, "reading the bible can make you a better person", i'll buy that... it's got some good stories and lessons on life

i assume the basis for your question is "would i continue to do stuff the way i thought was right just 'cause i thought of it"... to that, i would say no... i've read many religious and philosophical texts, and i owe many of my beliefs to what i've gotten from them... and i'm sure i'll read, hear and discuss more throughout my life that will change the way i view any specific situation

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

if i remember right i think your answer to that was basically yes

I don't believe in simplistic answers to complex questions. The answer was not "yes" - the answer involved defining terms more accurately.

Is Russia on the Asian continent - yes or no? If yes, isn't Moscow in Russia? If no, isn't Omsk in Russia?

This question about Russia, like Rag's question, is not a valid yes or no question - it needs more defining. I'm into truth, not games. His question is quite a good one, IMO, and deserves an answer that is carefully thought out and expressed, so I didn't give a quick, inaccurate one.

you said it was essential for one to sincerely express their belief in god in order to go to heaven... and in fact, someone who lived a not-so-virtuous life, yet truly repented an expressed their belief would also go to heaven... unlike the non-christian, who would not go no matter how virtuous his life

is that correct? (if not as eloquent as your statements)

No, not quite. I'll just have to wait until next week.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i answered it the only way i could... sorry

turning to an italian teacher to learn to speak italian better makes sense, since i do not know italian at all and i would assume the teacher would

turning to god to be a better person does not...

Again, I didn't ask if it made sense to you. I didn't ask you to answer it based on if you thought it was true or not. I asked you to answer it in the same sense I would answer this question on homosexuality - "if atheism is true, would I (RÃ*an) be wrong about homosexuality?" My answer is yes, regardless of the fact that I don't think atheism is true. Could you please try to answer my question in that spirit?

(NB - I really should use the subjunctive tense and say, "If atheism were true ... ". Those who know what the subjunctive tense is will get the joke )

i already know how to be a good person... and if i wanted to be more of one i'd "mentor" with someone who had some pretty good qualifications...

With the assumption, it's a given that God has some "pretty good qualifications"

i can't accept a hypothetical with no basis in reason...

I don't think atheism has any basis in reason , but I'll answer hypotheticals about if I thought atheism was true or not. In fact, I really like to assume things I don't believe then make deductions from them - it helps me analyze the original premise.

So would you please do me the favor of assuming for a moment that assumption about God, even tho you think it is false, and re-answering the question? Pretty please?

[Rían]

browns - a quick thought before I check out for the weekend ...

I just finished watching a new version of "The Miracle Worker" (the story of Helen Keller) tonight with the kids - bawled my eyes out! I get so embarassed, but I can't help it - it's just beautiful how they overcame so much.

My question to you - given your worldview, why should Anne Sullivan have bothered with Helen Keller? I mean, Helen would never have known she was missing anything if they just left her wild. Was it a good thing what Anne did with her? Was it "right"? Would it have been a tragedy for Helen to have been left in her wild state, without communication? Why or why not?

(and please, please, please answer my other questions in the post above this one!)

[Millane]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

(BTW, it's very disturbing to me that a uni professor would posit a special-effects-laden, make-believe movie as an example for a possible reality ... I hoep this uni doesn't receive federal funds that I've contributed to! )

now you see how Heaven is disturbing to me , because if anything it is a lot more hazy than the matrix. And besides whatever your thoughts about the movie, it is still one of the greatest philosophical movies ever made.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

you said it was essential for one to sincerely express their belief in god in order to go to heaven... and in fact, someone who lived a not-so-virtuous life, yet truly repented an expressed their belief would also go to heaven... unlike the non-christian, who would not go no matter how virtuous his life

Actually, the judgment on the Last Day will be based upon works. The one with the virtuous life is going to inherit eternal life while the sinful person goes to hell. How does one gain a virtuous life, though? According to Christian theology, people cannot live virtuous lives on their own choice. What Christ does is not just forgive people and have that enough. No, people have to be forgiven and then change, turn from their former ways of life to the new ways of Christ. Even after being forgiven, they cannot change on their own effort alone. Christ changes the person from inside out. The person lets God take over in his or her life, and then God acts to change the person. It's something that takes place supernaturally. People that have had real experiences of meeting Christ change marvelously. People that were murderers and people deeply involved in all kinds of evil have transformed into utterly different people upon meeting Christ. Mature Christians can sometimes be recognized by the Holy Spirit living within them, to a person with discernment. I know because around some church leaders I have spiritually sensed the Holy Spirit in the people. They are otherly. One can just feel that they are from a different world. I know one Christian woman who had nonbelievers collecting in and around her house sometimes, and one of them told her, "because I just somehow feel good and peaceful in this place, in a way I don't elsewhere." That thing I mentioned of actually sensing the Spirit has only happened to me thus far with really mature believers, people who have walked with Christ for a long, long time. Them it can really be felt, and I just completely love those people, immediately. There is an otherness about them. I have found that it is not entirely them that I truly love- it is the Holy Spirit within them, and that is why I love them as I do. Around other people, a very few of the nonbelievers that I have met, that I sense evil and darkness. This is not normal for me to sense. It has only happened on about two or three occasions. But it is real, just as the other is. I certainly don't sense that around all nonbelievers, and it turns out that those I have sensed it around are friends of mine, people I really love.

Christ said that he came not to abolish the law (or to abolish justice), but to fulfill the law. He comes into people's lives and transforms them completely from inside out. Their behavior changes, their actions change. They act with grace, truth and love. Unfortunately this is not common for all Christians. A huge number of Christians don't have this real committed relationship with Christ, and many of them are not noticeably different from anyone else.

Jesus was relentless in his call to morality and good living. It wasn't just a, "I forgive everyone," policy. To me more important then asking God for forgiveness for my sins (though I do that too) is asking him to show me how I can change so that I am no longer acting in those ways.

So anyway, believing in Christ is what leads to a person being able to be counted as one of the righteous that will be saved on Judgment Day. The person believes. When they believe, they open the door for Christ to change them. When Christ changes them, their actions reflect Christ. Christ commanded us, "Be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect." That transformation begins to take place in this life when the person believes in Christ, and I believe the completion of it takes place in heaven, before the Last Day. On the Last Day, everyone will be either utterly righteous or utterly wicked- having driven God completely out of their lives.

I think that when a nonbeliever does good and righteous things in this life, their actions are from and through God. I'm out of time. Bye . Must go this second . . .