One Mechanism for Biological Bases for Behavior
This is a datum to support my assertion that Biological Bases for Behaviors are incorrectly interpreted as "Sin" and that we don't have as much free will as we think we do. The new field of Epigenetics is documenting that regulating gene expression in the brain affects how susceptible we are to maladies such as depression, anxiety and drug addiction.
One viewpoint that I keep pushing around here is that we don't have as much free will as we think we do. I argue that the brain is an electrochemical device where millions of tiny biological switches accept combinations of thousands of analog signals that interact together to turn processes on and off to produce what we call "our self". Now I know there is lot a packed into that statement (presumptions and all) but I want to focus on one molecular mechanism that is a part of all of that.
First, a layman's description of Genes and Gene expression.
What is a Gene?
Genes are a smaller component of DNA. It is made up of combinations of chemicals units called A (Adenine), T (Thymine), G (Guanine) and C (Cytosine). Chromatin proteins called histones compact and organize DNA to form chromosomes. Chromosomes are made up of DNA and reside in the nucleus of a Cell. Chromosomes guide the interactions between DNA and other proteins.
Genes carry chemical information that is used by the cells to collectively determine their characteristics. Each cell contains from 20,000 to 25,000 genes attached to a strand of DNA coiled up into a chromosome, sitting in the nucleus of a cell.
One estimate I found states that there are between 75 to 100 trillion cells that make up the human body. Only in the brain there are estimated to be 100 billion cells interconnected by trillions of synapses (http://www.livescience.com/mysteries/070405_brain_use.html).
Gene Expression
Our genes form the blue prints for proteins. Our bodies are built on proteins, just like a nicely marbled rib eye steak. Accordingly our brains are built on proteins. Every cell has every gene, but each cell only uses a subset of those genes. For a gene to be "expressed" it must be accessed by a chemical catalyst to cause the formation of an RNA molecule. The RNA is then used to make a protein, and the cell uses the protein to carry out its purpose in life, whatever that may be. In the brain, the purpose is to run your body in the background without any conscious effort or knowledge of it on your part and to produce the various stages of consciousness you experience between sleep to stressing out in traffic. Don't forget that while you are stressing out in traffic and worrying about that slow person in your way, you are still listening to the radio, working the pedals, breathing, remembering to call someone when you get in, etc. There's a lot going on that you are not conscious of so it is not accurate to say that YOU are in control, but it is accurate to say that your sense of self is one of those processes going on in the brain that you are not of aware of or even know how to manipulate. But those process are manipulated automatically biologically by a wide range of bodily process which include hormones produced by your organs (the endocrine system). Your brain gets feedback from your organs and it is regulated by them whether you like it or want it or not. Your brain reacts to stimulus and is regulated by the various chemicals that are set into motion as a result. Your experience in traffic changes your mind, your mood, your attitude, your thoughts, your wishes, your desires whether you like it or not. Those molecules that are the catalyst for creating RNA molecules are released, and they go about feeding the cells that your brain is using to handle your traffic experience. Your performance, your emotion, your mood, you thoughts, your access to your memories and your sense of self depends on how well those molecular processes work.
For an RNA molecule to be produced, a chromosome "unravels" (remember that a chromosome is coiled up DNA) to permit the catalyst molecules access to the sequence of ATGC that it is made up of. To "silence" a gene, is to prevent the interaction of the catalyst by preventing it from getting to the uncoiled part of the chromosome or from preventing the chromosome from uncoiling. The body does this on its own, your 'self' doesn't have any choice in the matter, whether it works properly or not. In fact, you or your personality can be modified and you won't even realize it. Just like gene expression causes your pancreas to work properly to do what it is supposed to do, gene expression causes your brain to work properly to do what is supposed to do which is run the processes in your body (such as your sense of self), and create your physical and emotional characteristics that everyone else knows as "YOU".
Now the Hard questions. Were does the soul fit into this? What is "the Soul"? Is the Soul "the personality"? Is the Soul the "I" in "I am alive"? If the personality/soul likes chocolate or to harm animals, can it stop liking those things? Why do people like anything? Am I responsible for things that I like? How do we turn "liking" on or off?
I'll buy a beer for anyone that can tell me why chocolate is so appealing to people. I know why, I'm just looking for audience participation.
One way to turn "liking" off is by manipulating the brain. Its bound to be more reliable than praying and there's no worrying about whether you've got the right god or not.
Nature versus Nurture.
We have been living with this concept since as long as I can remember. What makes one tomato more tasty than another or one person more amicable than another? Finally we know, it is a feedback loop between nature and nurture and we have identified one mechanism by which it happens. Now that this mechanism is revealed, scientists hope to develop treatments for maladies such as drug addiction, schizophrenia, depression and anxiety. Maybe one day they can discover where a specific desire originates from. Maybe one day it can be used to rehabilitate criminals. Maybe one day they can fix the Limbic Systems in psychopaths or make sociopaths more compassionate. Maybe one day they can give me something that will allow me to like mushrooms.
If I were to take a liking to harming animals, and I acted on that, then I am responsible and should be stopped, not necessarily for punishment because punishment may not mean anything to me, but I should be stopped simply to prevent more harm. However, if I have the desire, but do not act on it, since it is "in my heart" the bible says that I am still responsible for it. The desire is born in the brain, electrochemically, and subject to the "nature vs nurture" feedback loop. Since this feedback loop is verifiable, and predictable to a degree, and at least one mechanism for how it works has been identified, to say that human kind is accountable to the creator for "its sin" is as ridiculous as to say that I am responsible for how ugly I am or I am responsible for my dislike of mushrooms or that I even have a choice in the matter.
For further reading
Scientific American Mind, June 2008
* The New Genetics of Mental Illness (subscription or print only)
* Unmasking Memory Genes (subscription or print only)
* Addicted to Starvation: The Neurological Roots of Anorexia
From me on DC
* Reasonable Doubt About Sin: Biological Bases for Behavior
* Sin, Genes, Sugars and Alcohol
* Brains "Trust Machinery" Identified
* "When Our Vices Get the Better of Us"
* Negativity Is Contagious, Study Finds
* Schizophrenia Candidate Genes Affect Even Healthy Individuals
* Brain atrophy in elderly leads to unintended Racism, Depression and Gambling
One viewpoint that I keep pushing around here is that we don't have as much free will as we think we do. I argue that the brain is an electrochemical device where millions of tiny biological switches accept combinations of thousands of analog signals that interact together to turn processes on and off to produce what we call "our self". Now I know there is lot a packed into that statement (presumptions and all) but I want to focus on one molecular mechanism that is a part of all of that.
First, a layman's description of Genes and Gene expression.
What is a Gene?
Genes are a smaller component of DNA. It is made up of combinations of chemicals units called A (Adenine), T (Thymine), G (Guanine) and C (Cytosine). Chromatin proteins called histones compact and organize DNA to form chromosomes. Chromosomes are made up of DNA and reside in the nucleus of a Cell. Chromosomes guide the interactions between DNA and other proteins.
Genes carry chemical information that is used by the cells to collectively determine their characteristics. Each cell contains from 20,000 to 25,000 genes attached to a strand of DNA coiled up into a chromosome, sitting in the nucleus of a cell.
One estimate I found states that there are between 75 to 100 trillion cells that make up the human body. Only in the brain there are estimated to be 100 billion cells interconnected by trillions of synapses (http://www.livescience.com/mysteries/070405_brain_use.html).
Gene Expression
Our genes form the blue prints for proteins. Our bodies are built on proteins, just like a nicely marbled rib eye steak. Accordingly our brains are built on proteins. Every cell has every gene, but each cell only uses a subset of those genes. For a gene to be "expressed" it must be accessed by a chemical catalyst to cause the formation of an RNA molecule. The RNA is then used to make a protein, and the cell uses the protein to carry out its purpose in life, whatever that may be. In the brain, the purpose is to run your body in the background without any conscious effort or knowledge of it on your part and to produce the various stages of consciousness you experience between sleep to stressing out in traffic. Don't forget that while you are stressing out in traffic and worrying about that slow person in your way, you are still listening to the radio, working the pedals, breathing, remembering to call someone when you get in, etc. There's a lot going on that you are not conscious of so it is not accurate to say that YOU are in control, but it is accurate to say that your sense of self is one of those processes going on in the brain that you are not of aware of or even know how to manipulate. But those process are manipulated automatically biologically by a wide range of bodily process which include hormones produced by your organs (the endocrine system). Your brain gets feedback from your organs and it is regulated by them whether you like it or want it or not. Your brain reacts to stimulus and is regulated by the various chemicals that are set into motion as a result. Your experience in traffic changes your mind, your mood, your attitude, your thoughts, your wishes, your desires whether you like it or not. Those molecules that are the catalyst for creating RNA molecules are released, and they go about feeding the cells that your brain is using to handle your traffic experience. Your performance, your emotion, your mood, you thoughts, your access to your memories and your sense of self depends on how well those molecular processes work.
For an RNA molecule to be produced, a chromosome "unravels" (remember that a chromosome is coiled up DNA) to permit the catalyst molecules access to the sequence of ATGC that it is made up of. To "silence" a gene, is to prevent the interaction of the catalyst by preventing it from getting to the uncoiled part of the chromosome or from preventing the chromosome from uncoiling. The body does this on its own, your 'self' doesn't have any choice in the matter, whether it works properly or not. In fact, you or your personality can be modified and you won't even realize it. Just like gene expression causes your pancreas to work properly to do what it is supposed to do, gene expression causes your brain to work properly to do what is supposed to do which is run the processes in your body (such as your sense of self), and create your physical and emotional characteristics that everyone else knows as "YOU".
Now the Hard questions. Were does the soul fit into this? What is "the Soul"? Is the Soul "the personality"? Is the Soul the "I" in "I am alive"? If the personality/soul likes chocolate or to harm animals, can it stop liking those things? Why do people like anything? Am I responsible for things that I like? How do we turn "liking" on or off?
I'll buy a beer for anyone that can tell me why chocolate is so appealing to people. I know why, I'm just looking for audience participation.
One way to turn "liking" off is by manipulating the brain. Its bound to be more reliable than praying and there's no worrying about whether you've got the right god or not.
Nature versus Nurture.
We have been living with this concept since as long as I can remember. What makes one tomato more tasty than another or one person more amicable than another? Finally we know, it is a feedback loop between nature and nurture and we have identified one mechanism by which it happens. Now that this mechanism is revealed, scientists hope to develop treatments for maladies such as drug addiction, schizophrenia, depression and anxiety. Maybe one day they can discover where a specific desire originates from. Maybe one day it can be used to rehabilitate criminals. Maybe one day they can fix the Limbic Systems in psychopaths or make sociopaths more compassionate. Maybe one day they can give me something that will allow me to like mushrooms.
If I were to take a liking to harming animals, and I acted on that, then I am responsible and should be stopped, not necessarily for punishment because punishment may not mean anything to me, but I should be stopped simply to prevent more harm. However, if I have the desire, but do not act on it, since it is "in my heart" the bible says that I am still responsible for it. The desire is born in the brain, electrochemically, and subject to the "nature vs nurture" feedback loop. Since this feedback loop is verifiable, and predictable to a degree, and at least one mechanism for how it works has been identified, to say that human kind is accountable to the creator for "its sin" is as ridiculous as to say that I am responsible for how ugly I am or I am responsible for my dislike of mushrooms or that I even have a choice in the matter.
For further reading
Scientific American Mind, June 2008
* The New Genetics of Mental Illness (subscription or print only)
* Unmasking Memory Genes (subscription or print only)
* Addicted to Starvation: The Neurological Roots of Anorexia
From me on DC
* Reasonable Doubt About Sin: Biological Bases for Behavior
* Sin, Genes, Sugars and Alcohol
* Brains "Trust Machinery" Identified
* "When Our Vices Get the Better of Us"
* Negativity Is Contagious, Study Finds
* Schizophrenia Candidate Genes Affect Even Healthy Individuals
* Brain atrophy in elderly leads to unintended Racism, Depression and Gambling
99 comments:
Thanks Mr Randolf. You crafted an excellent (grade A) essay.
Great post DC!
I figure we may as well stop calling natural things sinful, it's just stupid and leads to more trouble than it's worth.
I find it amusing that the Christians never really dispute the deep weeds posts that discuss science. The implications are profound and troubling to any Christian who understands them (it is what deconverted me and apparently one of the things that got John on the road to deconversion), but I think the solution most Christians have is to not understand them.
Lee wrote" Biological bases for behaviors are incorrectly interpreted as "sin" and that we don't have as much free will as we think we do."
I think there is enough evidence of"cool design" to alert our base instincts to when things aren't "cool". So by labeling something as sin or as a malady, this is a way of identifying,not necessarily indicting or condemning,stigmatizing etc.etc.. That is the beginning of the gospel message - that while God is capable of identifying when we are exhibiting signs of being lost, it isn't His intention to indict,stigmatize or punish but to save.
Have you seen the movie "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind?" While I enjoy scientific discovery,I don't always agree with the conclusions drawn or the applications put into action. I don't believe we are to take sacred life (which often has been debased and devalued) and conform or fix, whitewash,manipulate or clone people to the standards set by an elite medical or scientific community - God promised a full life, one of liberty and expression which does include overcoming and compassion for suffering of all kinds.
I do not prescribe to the free will camp as some perceive it - that we are always found capable of making conscientious choices. I was found, as Jesus described, blind and captive, with only base instincts, subliminal engines and a profound and deeply desperate desire for a different, but unknown way.Epiphanies happen, enlightenment occurs and freedom is attainable, but not void of a closeknit and loving bond. (I know - a bonded freedom- one of those paradox designed to confound our territorial mindedness).
At any rate,Lee-the best to you!
For me, as well as for alot of other people, sin carries with it a negative image. This is true for alot of people that have been abused. For me sin brings up the idea of eternal suffering and punishment. When I think of the word sin I think of atonement, blood, sacrifice, cruel and unusual punishment. I've had to get rid of that image. It fucked my mind up.
I don't call my flaws and character defects sin anymore. When I do something wrong I take responsibility for it make my amends forgive myself and then go on.
About free will. I'm not sure. It seems to me that I do have a choice today whether or not I pick up that first drink or drug. I do get the urges sometimes but I can and do resist them. It's not like I'm a robot but neither am I completely free.
Cole, I agree we certainly have the illusion of freedom and we should act as if we are free and people should be held accountable as if they are free.
However there are certain circumstances where behavior is simply not a matter of free choice.
I'm sure you can imagine several.
Ok - I can understand that "sin" is a result of genetics. No problem, easy. But how on earth did we go from mislabelling "sin" to having two parallel afterlives which are determined by sin - is there a gene for imagination too?
Hi Cole,
I do get the urges sometimes but I can and do resist them. It's not like I'm a robot but neither am I completely free.
hypothetical situation or not, I'm sure if one had their choice one would be free of the urges. An addict cannot will themselves or pray themselves free of the urge.
Addiction is a biological booby trap. People get addicted to a lot of things that there was no warning about. Anorexia, smoking, not to mention all that goes with Obsessive compulsive disorder to include nymphomania and kleptomania.
Then there are insecure people that feel the need to put other people down whether jokingly or seriously. I'm sure we all know a few of those.
Even,
Yeah, I would agree there are situations for some people where behavior is not a matter of choice.
But for me today at this point in my life it is a matter of choice on wether or not I get drunk. That's just me.
Lee,
Yeah, I know some of those people because I'm one of them. I've definitly felt insecure about myself and put others down. For me personally the urge hasn't went away completely but it's not as strong as it use to be. For some it takes time. For others they have prayed and it went away. At least that's what they say. Everybody is different. At least that's been my experience.
HI Cole,
But for me today at this point in my life it is a matter of choice on wether or not I get drunk. That's just me.
I'm the first to quip "lifes all about choices and strategy". It sounds like one persons beer is another persons poison. Its that way with a lot of things. I don't drink liquor and I don't buy and eat bags of candy no matter how much I want to.
As Evan stated, in any case, we have to live like we have free will. That includes dumping any strategies that depend on wishful thinking. If you use a "higher power" more power to you, whatever works, I've known people that use the group as their higher power the warrant being the principle that two heads are better than one.
But in the end, life is all about choices and strategy, in the things you have a choice about.
Lee,
I know people who don't even go to A.A. and never have and have stoped drinking. Good for them.
My wife is a pharmacist and she tells me that about 75% of the drugs she fills are for anxiety and depression. If the statistics of a belief in God stand, than most are religious people whose real salvation is a chemical reaction sold in a bottle.
I remember attending a Baptist church service back in the 80’s and the preacher proclaiming how wonderful the Christian life was by Jesus giving the Christian true heart felt love and happiness and that such happiness can only be found in salvation offered by Christ.
I also recall that this same preacher (who was president of the state Baptist convention) was heavily on anti-depressant drugs. He later became so drug dependant that he had to go to a detoxification center to try and get off these strong anti-depressants. He died a few years after that still struggling with his dependence on drugs to cope with chronic depression…a living Christian Hell!
What was so sad was that he had to get up in the pulpit and sell the philosophical “snake oil” of Jesus’ love despite his own continuing struggles with depression and the drugs he became hooked on for his personal “salvation”.
I can help but feel that the Christian lie he had to preach to make his living only added to his heavy depression and early death.
Hi Cole,
then I guess we are in agreement.
Yeah, pretty much. Except I don't believe my experience of God is wishful thinking. I take it to be real. Of course I do wonder sometimes if it's real. It does seem to me to be real.
Hi Cole,
here's food for thought.
If god is real, and he made the world and everything in it, then he must have intended for there to be suffering because suffering is a naturally occurring outcome in this 'creation'. He must have built it in. That is consistent with the hypothesis that the problem of Evil/suffering is a test.
is that consistent with your idea of God?
Do you think your suffering was built into you? I think mine was, only I don't think it was by any God.
It occurred to me a long time ago that to attribute this world and universe to the 'christian' god is an insult. I think its clear that the god described in the bible would do better and would necessarily create a universe its creation would have no reason to criticize. That is of course unless he intended there to be suffering.
Hi MMM,
Same question to you.
Do you think that it makes sense that if god made the world, he built suffering into it?
additionally, why do you consider the bible authoritative?
Lee,
I'm not sure that the universe was created by only one good God. The world is imperfect. I'm not sure that God is to blame for all the suffering in the world. I've also been thinking that maybe some form of dualism is correct. I'm not sure. I see both good and evil in creation. It's not all good and it's not all bad. If God did create the world then He's half good and half evil. I don't think the God of the Bible would do a better job at all. The God of the Bible abuses people.
Hi Cole,
I see you reconciling your observations about the world in your own way. No criticism here, just want to point out that you are creating yet another theory of God to throw onto the pile of those that already exist.
At what point should we just say, "lets stop guessing and just go with what we know"?
Hi Lee -
You asked, "Do you think that it makes sense that if god made the world, he built suffering into it?"
I do not believe He built suffering into it. There is grace for it.I believe He is innocent of being the source of suffering,but in my case, the collision between myself and divinity did uproot some deep emotional pain and truth,(Not, I repeat NOT planted by Him)but I'm grateful for it to come to the surface and I am grateful to be growing somewhat more humane in my relationship practices.
Then you asked, "additionally, why do you consider the bible authoritative?"
I consider God authoritative .He is not a literary work, although I see Him wholly and accurately depicted in Jesus of the Bible and it serves as a source of inspiration and guidance for me now.
Bye,
3M
Lee,
I think it is consistent with what we know. At leat I think so. Scientists and philosophers are in disagreement about what we know. I'm not a philosopher or a scientist but from what I've read it seems to me that at the present that some form of dualism best explains what we see. I could be wrong. I know Antony Flew doesn't go along with it.
HI MMM,
I do not believe He built suffering into it.
then, as a thought experiment, just imagine there have never been any humans. Now, I think you will agree, there still is a significant amount of suffering that goes on with disease and predation. It is the outcome of natural processes, all of which God supposedly created.
how do you account for that if suffering isn't built in?
Hi Lee,
Here's something to chew on. We, as humans have created a great many things. Cars are great as transportation and are good when used properly. When no used the right way they become dangerous. When I am sick and decide to take some medicine, I look at the side effects to see if they might be worse than my illness. even cold medicines could have some pretty nasty side effects. Computers are a great tool, but can also be used for some pretty bad things. It's not that these things are designed to make us suffer, or are designed for evil if you will, however their "creation" came with those possibilities. Now if it is that rather than create everything out of nothing, God organized this planet from existing material for us to come and live on, it is possible that the very act of creating brings with it the possibility of evil. Not created by God, but inherent in creation. I am at work and I got called away just now but I will elaborate more later.
Hi rich,
I get it. I suppose that makes sense if I was to do it. But now you're talking about not-omniscient, not-all powerful.
If you want to say that god is not all powerful, then thats fine with me. But at this point we are equivocating what it means to be all powerful. If it comes down to the meaning of 'all powerful' then I guess we can call that topic unresolvable due to philosophical differences about how much power all powerful contains.
But did he make heaven? And isn't heaven suppose to be perfect? What is the difference between heaven and earth? One has suffering and one doesn't. Therefore, unless god made a mistake, he meant to build suffering into our universe.
As the late Morton Smith (professor of Ancient Jewish History at Columbia University) once said: “If we don’t understand it, it must be religious.” In other words the “religious explanation” is the easy out for our lack of understanding; it is the ignorant default setting for the history of the human brain.
We humans draw our intelligent understanding from our past experiences. The “God” explanation (whatever “God /god” can be) can run from everything from some an amalgamation of theologies of the Bible to a Star Trek “The force”.
What makes this God Explanation so useful is that even 10 year old Sunday school educated Timmy can use an explanation drawn from ancient ignorance (which are usually totally acceptable in our Judao-Christian culture) while a real factual explanation must be formed from new data and facts as they become available to the mature educated mind which his will to concede it‘s ancient religious past.
The problem of good and the problem of evil is simply an unacceptable religious explanation for the simply “being” of our natural world. It’s the way the secular educated mind often has to deals with the 90 some odd percent religious default set “Timmys“ who claim they beleive in something explained as "God".
Hi Lee,
I am not trying to change the meaning of all powerful or how much power it contains. Are you trying to say that if God is all powerful he must do everything he has the power to do? Even though I think you recognize that an all powerful all knowing being could act differently then we think it should, you always seem to drive at the same conclusion with the problem of evil. If God has the power to remove evil, he must or he is not all powerful. Just because we can't imagine a reason to have pain and suffering exist, even if an all powerful being could remove it, doesn't mean there isn't a reason.
Therefore, unless god made a mistake, he meant to build suffering into our universe.
I don't think he made a mistake. If it is a logical impossibility for God to make a rock to big for him to lift, then maybe it is that power ends when it isn't logically possible to accomplish something. Following that, maybe it is logically impossible to create a world without evil. We may have only an illusion of free will, but I would say that God must have free will. He certainly has the power to do whatever he wills. So maybe we get a smaller dose of free will until we learn how to use it properly, not an illusion but not the full range of free will and the power to do as we will.
Let me ask you another question. Lets put you in Henry Fords position. You want to help your fellow humans by providing the horseless transportation. You invent the car and all seems well. Now 100+ years later and looking back would you say that the car was good? Think of the environmental impact we are facing because of cars. Oil, gas, emissions, and such. Would you have regrets about inventing the automobile? It was good, and still is, but it comes with unforeseen baggage. I'll be interested in your answer.
evan,
I find it amusing.....but I think the solution most Christians have is to not understand them.
I would agree with this. But there are those who do understand them and retain their faith, along with those who lose their faith. I include myself within the don't understand many things, but that doesn't keep me from trying.
Hi cole,
I don't call my flaws and character defects sin anymore. When I do something wrong I take responsibility for it make my amends forgive myself and then go on.
This is what you should have done all along. I have gone over this with Lee a few times. Crime has negative image also. It has the image because it is a label put on actions that are contrary to our laws. We break a law, we call it crime. We break a commandment, we call it sin. It is a label put on an action, just like crime. So of coarse it has a negative image, it's meant to.
To go further, if you continually break the law, are you considered a criminal? How about if you break the law but make amends and don't continue to break the law, are you still a criminal? So is there a difference between committing a crime and being a criminal? To me there is a big difference. So should it be with sin. Just put sin and sinner in the same sentences.
Anyone interested in exploring this further would benefit from reading up on the recent intersection of Buddhist psychology (to separate it from religion/superstition)and Western psychology. There is a growing list of scientific studies objectifying the claims made by this 25 century long study of the mind and consciousness.
Anyone believing in sin would benefit from hearing about an ancient tradition which believes a person is essentially born perfect, precious, and whole - with room for improvement. An issue with sin is that it can lead to a view of unworthiness, self-criticism, shame and self-hatred. We can read numerous testimonies on this site to these repressed feelings from the deconverted and how leaving "the fold" eventually benefited their outlook toward self and others. This is a view of self many other cultures have little to no traditional concept of.
To those believing behavior has purely a biological basis, it may be beneficial to hear how emotion can lead your actions, but reason can keep your actions in check. Science shows that emotions are a chemical response to stimuli and that it takes about 90 seconds for the chemicals to dissipate. If not acted upon out of habit, reason can recognize that acting on the emotion may be wrong. In addressing the aforementioned substance abuse example, one may have a genetic propensity to enjoy the effects of these substances (aside: could this, behavioral genetics, substantiate the claim for original sin?), if you make yourself aware of this response and don't act on it out of emotional/chemical response and let reason be the guide one has total freewill to decide the course of action. Go ahead, insert your exceptional case here to prove you are right ;-)
In the original post, the author claims there are many biological processes we are unaware of while driving a vehicle. While true on the surface, it does not address the fact that we can make ourselves aware of these processes. While I don't recommend taking your concentration away from driving to notice your vascular system pulse or your GI system function, one could do it, and with practice focus on several processes. We choose to focus on something because it is perceived as more important to us at the time.
I have neither the time nor the credentials to address this subject further, but I invite anyone interested in the topic to challenge their beliefs by introducing another viewpoint to themself. There are many new books published discussing East/West psychology.
Hi Rich,
I have to keep this short and sweet cause I'm going offline till tomorrow.
If God has the power to remove evil, he must or he is not all powerful. Just because we can't imagine a reason to have pain and suffering exist, even if an all powerful being could remove it, doesn't mean there isn't a reason.
The problem I have with that is you are saying that we don't have enough information to come to a conclusion. But that could be the answer to everything. It is similar to the fallacy of impossible precision. There comes a point when you have to make the call especially when
* there is no objective empirical evidence in favor of the christian god over any other gods in the world
* there is stronger objective evidence that the events in the bible did not happen as they were written
* the foundational theology that christ died for our sins is based on a folklore story of two specially created people, with plenty of objective evidence to contradict it
* there are a myriad of different interpretations on the meaning of the bible including fundamental inconsistencies between christian theology which is not consistent with a coherent truth.
* nobody can agree on what it is that makes them know intuitively that there is a god. Its just a feeling. That doesn't fly anywhere else except in competing religions.
Name one reasonably irrefutable reason (or even a reason that makes yours more likely ) that your scripture trumps any other.
The physical properties of the brain and the resulting processes of the various stages of consciousness refute the existence of any coherent theory of a soul.
Its time to stop saying "we don't have enough information" because we do have enough information to say that the bible is folklore.
Hi Lee -it's the ol' POE and predation again,I see. As usual I am not planning on deconverting anytime soon.
Look, as far as predation is concerned, I am in no way indicting an innocent animal for satiating their appetite. That would be my bad for applying stigma to the process- there's grace for an innocent animal to eat, same as for a person. That's just plain hypocritical for a person to complain of animals eating one another when we do it ourselves routinely. Do I believe God created the need for predation? His is the supernatural - He created the lion and the lamb to lie down together in peace.
Like I said before, I believe and trust Jesus who indicated there is an antagonist to this notion of inviting one to dinner as a guest - there is an antagonist that invites one as a guest but then devours them as dinner. Animals are most susceptible to expressing spiritual surroundings through base instinct, and people get infected with it too on various levels(spiritual,mental, emotional biting and devouring,).
Thanks!
3M
Regarding the Problem of Evil being recast here, the question no apologist seems prepared to answer is this:
Why didn't god abstain from creating, to avoid the possibility of evil?
If he is so all-powerful, then why is he so insecure as to have this illogical need for sentient mortals to worship him? Why is he not content being the only being in the universe?
Rather than argue on about the existence of evil as being directly or indirectly god's responsibility, why don't we focus instead on the fact that we are here -- therefore god chose to create rather than to not-create, and therefore, if he is all-powerful and omniscient, then he chose evil, suffering, death, etc.
There is no escape from this line of reasoning, unlike the more classic form of the PoE. If god had merely abstained from creating, there would be no evil. Instead, he chose otherwise (if you accept the existence of god, even for the sake of argument), so he therefore is not worthy of the worship he demands.
Despite the obvious paradox, god would be more worthy of our worship if he hadn't created us at all.
--
Stan
Hi stan,
totally agree, as you might expect.
Hi MMM,
His is the supernatural - He created the lion and the lamb to lie down together in peace.
how do you figure that when a lion will eat a lamb in a heartbeat?
MMM,
Here's the crux of the problem.
You think there's something special about people beyond those things that are already known to be special. You think there is a being called "God" who cares about people.
Yet every piece of evidence we have shows that we are an unusual animal. We are capable of amazing things, but there is nothing about us that can't be explained if someone assumes there is no God.
Therefore, it is dangerous to believe that we are in any way special, that we have any sort of cosmic parent or force or whatever you wish to call it who is watching out for us and what we do and will save us from the consequences of our actions.
We can and do destroy our own habitats. We can and do destroy huge populations of our own kind. We can and do devastate geographical forms. We can and have exploded bombs that poison the atmosphere.
Not ONCE has anyone or anything stepped in to stop humans from doing something horrid. Yet the belief in the God of theism suggests that he can and at some point will do just that.
It's like being a child and thinking that Santa will in the end always give you what you want. It's just wrong and it's misguided.
We are an unusual animal.
Get that into your head and roll it around.
We are an unusual animal who evolved on this earth without any evidence of any intervention by any other intelligence.
Think about what that means.
We are an unusual animal who evolved on this earth and has created one of the greatest extinctions of life to ever take place (including the extinction event that wiped out the dinosaurs).
What does that imply about God?
We are an animal who has the weaponry in existence right now to destroy even more of life on earth suddenly should terrible sequences of events take place.
Do you think God would intervene to keep a global thermonuclear war from happening?
We are an animal who is in the process of altering our own habitat in many ways for the worse simply by the way we are overconsuming our resources on the planet.
Should we expect God to fix that?
So you are left with two choices as I see it.
1. Your God didn't, can't and won't do any of the things that I suggested he can't, doesn't and won't do.
or
2. Your God doesn't exist.
Which makes more sense given your assumption of God's goodness?
Now if God is an evil bastard, then all those other facts make sense too, so you have that option as a theist, but I think very few theists want to worship an evil bastard.
Hi rich,
I left something out.
* since we seem to agree that god built suffering into creation, the fact that suffering has the ability to overcome the participant effectively nullifies the test and makes it trivial to have created the participant in the first place.
taking sound principles from the major aspects of life and applying them to religion demonstrates that the only way religion can keep chugging along is through special pleading.
Hi Derek,
I'm getting there, but when you get a chance, make some recommendations for further education whether books or audio, but please don't list anything from alan watts.
Lee wrote, "how do you figure that when a lion will eat a lamb in a heartbeat?"
God's vision is for no predation so I'll reiterate here - I believe God has an antagonist - did I mention that before in the parable of the different dinner invitations??? I trust Jesus knew what He was saying when He said, "Satan get thee behind me!".
Hello Evan! You wrote, "You think there's something special about people beyond those things that are already known to be special. You think there is a being called "God" who cares about people."
Evan, thanks ever so for educating me about my beliefs - really,I had no idea. Thanks for setting me straight on that.
Then you wrote, "Therefore, it is dangerous to believe that we are in any way special, that we have any sort of cosmic parent or force or whatever you wish to call it who is watching out for us and what we do and will save us from the consequences of our actions."
Evan, what can I say except that the "abuse of grace" clause in your statement here is pretty glaring - not an uncommon corruption of the gospel to be sure. Evan, I'm sure you are not aware of this, but could you do me a little favor and quit projecting that stuff onto the interpretation of my comments? I'd grab that little splinter out of your eye except I'm waiting for Weyerhaueser to finish up on getting that log out of my own. Look,in all seriousness, I don't want to suffer apart from God anymore - to justify or give license to sin just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me anymore. It happens, but I'm not gratified, protective or promotional about it.
Then Evan wrote,"Not ONCE has anyone or anything stepped in to stop humans from doing something horrid. Yet the belief in the God of theism suggests that he can and at some point will do just that."
Evan, I'm sorry if no one ever intervened on your behalf in your life. But let me ask you this -did you ever claim to be a believer? If so, did you believe Jesus when He said that there would always be wars??? That there would always be poor people? Because as a believer, I gave pause to that statement and searched my own heart and came to know why He said that and once I knew, I wasn't so intimidated by the truth or rendered impotent by it. There is grace for you and I, and for the people it seems so tempting to bemoan and complain of their evil fallibilities.
Then Stan posed this one: "Why didn't god abstain from creating, to avoid the possibility of evil?" I'll take a guess - He isn't anal and repressed or a coward???? I know, I know, it's a lofty goal, but I doubt it's on God's "to do" list to aspire to any of these stations in life. Hey I noticed something - God is not a hypocrite - when He says to love our enemies,it's because He already does this Himself. Grace - it's not for the cowardly of heart.
At any rate, it is what it is.
3M
Hi MMM,
I read your post again and realized you said
Animals are most susceptible to expressing spiritual surroundings through base instinct, and people get infected with it too on various levels(spiritual,mental, emotional biting and devouring,).
which answers the question of how it is that when god created the lamb and lion to lay down together, the lion eats the lamb.
That is sheer speculation on your part. They are made the way they are made, they don't have any other standard to live up to than survival. If you equate us with them, and we do have a higher standard to live up to (being a good christian) then obviously a mistake has been made somewhere since we can't seem to overcome our nature, which makes the whole thing trivial.
can you overcome your nature? Do you think you will before you die?
Hi MMM,
sorry for the confusion about the lamb thing.
Hi MMM,
you said,
I don't want to suffer apart from God anymore - to justify or give license to sin just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me anymore.
explaining what "sin" is helps us to understand how to deal with it better. It won't just go away because we keep wishing for it on a star or on a god.
The best chance we have for dealing with human behavior is to figure out how it is derived.
MMM,
in response to stans question about why didn't god refrain from creating to avoid evil and you said
I'll take a guess - He isn't anal and repressed or a coward????
is that your only answer? That god is not a coward so he created and evil was a byproduct?
If you ask me why I did something that causes great pain and suffering, and I tell you its because I'm not anal, repressed or a coward would you be okay with that? I bet you'd tell me I need Jesus.
to say that god created when he knew how things would suffer and then to say that he loves us is inconsistent with what we mean by love and is inconsistent where the principle can be applied elsewhere.
If I created a situation where people compete for a prize, and the situation is so bad that they suffer not only from their own selfish decisions but from the environment and the decisions of others would you say that I love the participants? Is this consistent with your idea of Love?
Hi Lee! Thanks for the apology - I value those but honestly,no big deal about the lion/lamb analogy- I misinterpret and misread too.
As far as it being a matter of speculation regarding animals being susceptible to supernatural influences, you obviously haven't watched the Dog Whisperer :-) Although my dog does seem to be resistant to such attempts at calming his nature, he is nonetheless a well loved pet,much like his owner here.
Then you wrote this "If you ask me why I did something that causes great pain and suffering, and I tell you its because I'm not anal, repressed or a coward would you be okay with that? I bet you'd tell me I need Jesus." Wow, you really had a script when you were involved in religion,didn't you? Have I ever told you that here? Have I????? Maybe I can do a quick search on this blog to see..but I doubt it....Now, here's a thought - if you really aren't anal, repressed or a coward,there are many many many other possibilities - liar, hypocrite,manipulator,sleeze bucket,jerk, a--hole, - well, you get the gist. :-)
Hey, then you wrote, "since we can't seem to overcome our nature, which makes the whole thing trivial." That depends on what behaviors you associate with "overcoming" - do you mean completely irradicating any and all possibility of needing and exercising grace? To come into close fellowship being fully known and fully loved, with mutual mercy and mutual edification? Or do you mean irradicating any or all traits that would lend one worthy of the trashpile of natural selection? No,I'm not perfect in accordance with the rules of natural selection - but I hope to grow in my capacity to express God's perfect grace. Remember,faith isn't faith until it's expressed towards a love challenge.
In the simplest terms, I do believe we are born into a supernatural spiritual nature - we can grow from an immature spiritual infant in faith and mature in our knowledge and respect that there is a God Who loves even those we do not have the faith to care for. And to recognize and confess that lack of connection due to territorialism, as a loss - a cause for sadness rather than a virtue to put into practice, pursue, or otherwise celebrate. Just that change in perspective has created a more humane human within me.
God really only ever intended to invite us to dinner - really. Jesus said it-not me, and I am finally coming to the point of believing Him.
Okay,
3M
Lee, now it's my turn to apologize - I think I erased this from my last comment by accident-
You had written - "is that your only answer? That god is not a coward so he created and evil was a byproduct?"
I'll cut and paste my previous comment about God and how people see His grace as enabling evil to exist - I think I said this "I do not believe He built suffering into it. There is grace for it.I believe He is innocent of being the source of suffering,but in my case, the collision between myself and divinity did uproot some deep emotional pain and truth,(Not, I repeat NOT planted by Him)but I'm grateful for it to come to the surface and I am grateful to be growing somewhat more humane in my relationship practices."
This is no doubt the more efficient way to go about this, don't you agree?
As Always,
3M
Hi MMM,
I believe He is innocent of being the source of suffering,
I got that, and it prompted me to ask that battery of questions you ignored sometime after you started "teasing" about me being a liar etc.
It goes something like this. If god created everything, and humans are not responsible for all the suffering in the world, (because if you remove humans, there is still predation and disease) suffering is a natural outcome of processes he created, and he is capable of producing a perfect place (heaven). The only conclusion we can draw from this is that god intends there to be suffering in the universe with or without humans.
or there is no god and this all happened naturally with no planning.
Hi Lee -
The nature of creativity is in diversity and expression, not in cloning although there is grace for cloning and copying does happen - you seem to equate power and creation with the ability to remove liberty when in fact, the claim of faith is that God's power is in grace and the truth in love. I know as a nonbeliever, I gravitated towards lose/lose and win/lose relationships. I was really cynical and wary of anything resembling a win/win situation.
You had also written, "If I created a situation where people compete for a prize, and the situation is so bad that they suffer not only from their own selfish decisions but from the environment and the decisions of others would you say that I love the participants? Is this consistent with your idea of Love?"
I'm assuming when you write of competition that you're referring to the scripture written by Paul that encourages people to live life as though they are seeking a prize? I view that as an appeal to challenge ourselves to increase our faith. There is healthy competition and then there is the sort of "survival of the fittest" competition that leaves the losers discarded on the junkpile of life. The latter is not of faith.
Gotta go - bye!
3M
MMM,
Instead of scolding me for projecting ideas on to you that you don't share why don't you ever elucidate what you actually believe instead of spouting mumbo jumbo?
So first I said you believed there is a God who cares about people. You scolded me for projection. Do you now say that you don't believe that?
Cuz if you will admit there is a God who doesn't give a dung about people we're very close to one another.
Then I said it was dangerous to believe our species was in any way special and again you scold me for projection.
I'd be thrilled if you would agree with me that we are not in any way special and that God is not a cosmic parent looking out for us. Do you believe that?
Please answer me since I enjoy carefully parsing your posts to figure out what it is you actually believe.
By the way ... if large numbers of people read your posts regularly and can't figure out exactly what it is you believe, is that their problem or yours?
Evan,thanks - what I was against was your interpreting my writing as an abuse of grace - when you say "special" I sensed you were leaning towards an inferance of elitism and denial which ultimately does cause undue suffering in those who practice it. The narrow path that Jesus mentions is one of loving all people.
I've written what I believe but I can say it again. I believe we are the expression of a loving and creative God - One Who is not hypocritical,but gracious and loves those in enmity towards Him. I believe, as Jesus said, in forces antagonistic towards faithful and loving communion. I believe God loves people but not all people love Him in return but prefer to cooperate with punishment and condemnation in order to gratify and promote woundedness. I believe that sin is suffering and that it is not God's intention to punish us (as sin bears its own pain and suffering) , but to awaken/enlighten us to a different Way in order to save us from perishing.Those who prefer gravitating and succeeding at sin will most likely reject grace and from my own experience, I know that suffering can become familiar and comfortable territory and "homey". People who pursue this will be at home where those practices are perpetuated. I believe God's grace allows people to mature according to what they gravitate towards or aspire to. Do I believe there will be a culminating event where the grace period ends? Yes I do - God is eternal - I do not believe humanity is the final expression of His creativity (and I don't mean that as a putdown or a cause to devalue or debase humanity but that there is more that He has to share)- I believe He will move ahead and I also believe He's invited us to come along. I believe the practices we put into effect here in this life are what will travel with us beyond the death of our earthly bodies.
I don't believe that complaining or assigning blame about POE is consistant with belief since Jesus (and acknowledging the truth of everyday existance) uses knowledge and acknowledgement as a tool of faith to equip and prepare us to respond.
So there you have it, Evan.
Hope you enjoy the holiday!
3M
MMM so you basically agree with everything that I said you believed. You just take offense at the way I phrase it.
Fine.
Hi Evan --- here's my answer (from paragraph 1, section A of my last comment) - I wrote,"Evan,thanks - what I was against was your interpreting my writing as an abuse of grace - when you say "special" I sensed you were leaning towards an inferance of elitism and denial which ultimately does cause undue suffering in those who practice it. The narrow path that Jesus mentions is one of loving all people"
Bye!
3M
So ... do you believe Jesus loves all animals and plants too in the exact same way?
I imagine not.
Therefore you believe people have a special relationship with some divine daddy ... and I was exactly correct in every syllable I wrote.
Hi Evan - You wrote,"So ... do you believe Jesus loves all animals and plants too in the exact same way?"
As far as special relationship by faith, that would be one of stewardship and servanthood. What's that scripture- the one who can be trusted with a small matter can be trusted with much?
As far as a wooden approach in all relationships - do you think that Jesus modeled that? I do not.
Bye again!
3M
MMM, I used to read your posts and be confused because I couldn't tell what you believed. Then I became annoyed because I thought you were deliberately hiding what you believed.
But this thread has cleared up a lot for me. You don't really know what you believe.
So thanks for that.
Hi Evan. Well I'm glad that you've gotten some closure about this - conversing with you brought back memories of the smugness I used to experience when I felt I was right - a sense of empowerment and superiority. A small triumph being superior over the likes of me but nonetheless, if that has been edifying for you,then who am I to argue?
At any rate, I gave it some more thought about the "special relationship with God" notion and it brought up yet another reminder of a conversation that I once had with a Southern Baptist adherent. She was using that same terminology - that people have a special relationship with God and that animals won't be in heaven. This was a person who confessed to taking the bible literally. My response to any who espouse this - then where do the riders in Revelation get their horses from?
Okay, it's been great, Evan!
3M
Hi MMM,
I think youre pretty heavy on the rhetoric and light on the principles too. You are a fountain of statements but never explain the principles behind them.
check the comment where I accused you sheer speculation for an example.
see, it is easy to demonstrate that the hypothesis of "the problem of evil/suffering is a test" is not consistent with an intelligently designed test because the test has aspects that cannot be overcome by some participants even if they want to. The apostacy of former religious people is one strong datum to support that.
in the following talk about 'winning' just imagine winning means meeting a standard.
When you create participants that you know can't win, then the only other purpose they can have is to support the test for the others, that means that either there is a predetermined special group or that the creation of the losers is trivial (has no purpose).
To say that god doesn't know who is going to win is to say that he is not omniscient.
See, there I've laid out a claim, and the principle, and the data. A nice complete argument. Conclusion, Data and the bridge to the data.
Hi MMM,
My response to any who espouse this - then where do the riders in Revelation get their horses from?
What do the riders in revelation need with horses? Why not helicopters?
I'll tell you, its because this piece of literature reflects the technology of the time in exactly the same way it reflects the values, principles and ethics of the time.
Neither one is timeless, nor has any divine aspects about it.
Hi Lee! If you want to enter into a discussion about horses vs. helicopters I'd have to say that God probably prefers a living creature over a machine. Plus I think horses are just way more beautiful and dramatic in my view. Helicopters can be cool too though.
I've been giving this notion of people having a "special" relationship with God again and my articulation was not the best. What I was attempting to convey to Evan is that between God and man, there is a relationship that includes expectation - that man has the potential to become a faithful care giver/steward of creation. This is a position of honor and value. Expectation by God is determined by ability (to much has been given, much is expected). The term "special" in a Godly relationship is one of trust not privilege or license to abuse ability. I do believe God cares for animals as much as any other created being, but they are more open and vulnerable to influence by instinct and thus more vulnerable. They do not have the same expectation placed upon them as we do. As far as insects or animals or other living beings that I might determine as "bad" or "condemnable" the more that is learned, the less I am hasty in making determinations about such. I have the ability to take an action about intervening on those situations that I perceive as an immediate threat based on fight or flight but now, I can also respond by faith - which is a third and different choice. I won't go into divulging any eyewitness accounts here but there is something about the spiritual realm that is palpable if our sensitivities are open to it - the dog whisperer is an example of spiritual influence over the easily influenced. At any rate, I hope to be more sensitive and foresighted about the longterm results in my daily lifestyle actions and not erroneously condemn that which can serve ultimate good.
To summarize, by faith, I'm learning that the role of special relationship with God is ultimately a valued and trusted servant,born out of faithful love, not compulsion.
One more thing - as a nonbeliever, I had an undermining (subliminal if you prefer) foundation of contempt from unhealed emotional trauma, so the idea of man and animal being equal in life stature (actually, I had more respect and care for animals) helped me to justify and maintain a practice of demeaning and debasing myself and others. This whole topic would not be an issue if it were not for the temptation of contempt and debasing life. So as far as measuring the degree of love God expresses, that is a nonissue for me - He loves consistantly and relationally to His creation and it is right.
Thanks so much Lee and Evan - I am edified in my conversations with you!
3M
Lee,my apologies again! I somehow missed several of your comments addressed to me here and would like to address some of them. I don't think I'll have time to do that today but would like to later on. Hope you had a nice 4th of July.
3M
Hi Lee- I do have time to address this comment, "You are a fountain of statements but never explain the principles behind them."
That is only if you don't believe that God exists and acts supernaturally. Belief - it's not a matter of a foundation of principles, (although those are an expression of faith) but a foundation of an actual living God.
Gotta go,
3M
Hi Lee,
The problem I have with that is you are saying that we don't have enough information to come to a conclusion. But that could be the answer to everything.
With only the bible as our source I would agree with that. Since that's not my only source, however, I would say there is a lt more to this then I can add to this post and it is mostly unrelated to the topic so I will compose a lengthy email for you. I know, I know you can hardly wait;)
Let's save so time and do some sumarizing. We both agree that suffering is intended in this creation, although we most likely differ on why. I agree that there are biological mechanisms that control behavior. And I think we agree that we are lacking in the way we think sin is handled.
To say though that because we have uncontrolable behaviors, there is no such thing as sin is where we seem to part ways. To me we also should say that about crime. They are equal in terms of being a set of laws we are asked to follow. The breaking of those laws results in the label of crime or sin. Once that law has been broken then we enter the accountability stage. You have laid out before what you feel about this and it may, or may not surprise you that we agree on it.
Ultimately, I just don't agree that uncontrolable behavior because of our biological makeup nulifies an action being labeled as sin. If you steal it's a crime and a sin. It doesn't change being called a crime if the person has some mental issue that uncontrolably compels them to steal, but they may not be held accountable. So it is with sin.
Hi again Lee,
the fact that suffering has the ability to overcome the participant effectively nullifies the test and makes it trivial to have created the participant in the first place.
Before I answer this maybe I should have you define the test you are speaking of so I know we are on the same page. I mean I think I do but that has been a problem in the past, thinking.:)
Name one reasonably irrefutable reason (or even a reason that makes yours more likely ) that your scripture trumps any other.
If I had that I would. You also talk about things nulifying the test. I am thinking of "the test" in terms of us being here on this planet out of the presence of God, not being able to see him or have irrefutible evidence of his existance, being given some commandments said to come from this God, and choose to follow them without being compelled by knowledge or being able to see that God is real. This is faith, following the commandments because you belive that God exists and because you want to. I have to think of people I work with. If I were to build a kingdom of people, I would want to take with me the ones that follow rules wether the boss is there watching over their shoulder or not. If someone will be good while boss is around, then not when he/she is gone, I don't consider them trustworthy. The only way to know though is to not have the boss around.
Rich, it sounds to me like you would run your kingdom like a ruthless, bigoted tyrant.
Good leaders look for the good in others, value diversity, individuality, and strength of character, and make an effort to inspire, nurture, protect and defend those who fall behind.
And what good is your faith if, for all you know, you aren't actually following the will of god?
Hi 3m,
the dog whisperer is an example of spiritual influence over the easily influenced.
I'm not sure I understood what you were alluding to with the dog whisperer comment, but it looked like you use were using it as an example of a point you were making. So I looked it up.
The "dog whisperer" is condemned by the American Human Society.
If that is not what you meant to do, nevermind, if that is what you meant to do, shame on you.
In my mind, this is why faith does more harm than good. It keeps people from adhering to sound principles.
If instead you were talking about Natural Horsemanship of the original "horse whisperer"
I get it. But I still caution you on your unskeptical adoption of ideas.
HI Rich,
I am equating "the problem of suffering/evil as a test" to the hypothetical test that I am talking about.
If someone will be good while boss is around, then not when he/she is gone, I don't consider them trustworthy. The only way to know though is to not have the boss around.
Then using this principle, a moral atheist or hindu is more deserving than than a moral christian, because the atheist is moral even when he doesn't believe there is a boss. See ya in heaven. ;-)
but wouldn't this trivialize Gods human sacrifice of his other 100% half that reportedley said on the cross "my god, my god why have your forsaken me"?
Why yes it would and this kind of thing is why christianity fails the hypothesis test (see the thinkers toolkit for an everyday application of it), because it doesn't fit with reasonable principles like the one I quoted from you.
christianity is inconsistent with itself. So are complex lies.
Hi rich,
If you steal it's a crime and a sin. It doesn't change being called a crime if the person has some mental issue that uncontrolably compels them to steal, but they may not be held accountable. So it is with sin.
Is thinking about stealing a crime? No? then its not a good analogy. I'm talking about the aspect of god as "mind cop". That is "sin" as I'm talking about it. Just saying that sin is the act and excludes the thought is not what jesus taught on the sermon on the mount.
The human mind is like a boat afloat on an ocean of hormones in an electrochemical storm where one minute you want to kill the people that murder chlldren walking down a country road, or you have seizures due to flashing lights, or you are crabby from not sleeping well the night before, or whatever changes your brain state without your consent.
Does your brain state get changed without your consent? I'll bet it does. Are you responsible for that? I don't think so.
So now I expect you'll say, "the recovery is more important than the mistake" where we say a person thinks that they hate their spouse or would commit adultery at the first opportunity, and then asks for forgiveness because they realize they are wrong.
I pull the culpability out of it, and say, its natural, to have bad thoughts, its also natural that they go away on their own, riding the same electrochemical current that they came in on. No harm, no foul, no sin, just a state of consciousness resulting from a brain process going on in parallel to the process keeping your balance in your chair.
Hi lee! You wrote,"The dog whisperer is condemned by the American Human society."
Now,I'm not familiar with the American HUMAN Society and I followed the link to a site hosted by the American Humane Association -- not the same thing as the American Humane Society. I've watched the Dog Whisperer for quite some time and have not witnessed abusive actions as they claim. Condemning by bearing false witness or sensationalizing is not uncommon and famous people, especially those who do so much good, can be a target as seems to be the case here. I don't know their motive but one might think if the Dog Whisperer were guilty of abuse that the American Humane Society would be the more credible and well regarded organization to bring that to light.
After Googling this myself, I noticed that out of all the good posts about this man, you singled out this item to try and put me to shame....this is an innocent man!
Grrrrrr....
3M
If I were to build a kingdom of people, I would want to take with me the ones that follow rules wether the boss is there watching over their shoulder or not. If someone will be good while boss is around, then not when he/she is gone, I don't consider them trustworthy. The only way to know though is to not have the boss around.
Wow. This is a poor analogy on multiple levels.
First, how do we know what the rules are if the boss doesn't clearly reveal them to us? It's a catch 22 situation.
God could exist, but he might not have any demands. Or his demands might be different than what you perceive them to be. Because the last time he "showed up at the office" was to a group of superstitious employes, who couldn't even take notes, over 2,000 years ago.
As such, you must take it on faith that God wants us to have faith in him at all.
Second, his unwillingness to clearly tell us what his rules are strongly implies it's not important which rules we follow, but that we follow them faithfully. Are these really the kind of people you'd want in your kingdom?
Third, God would be incapable of trusting anyone, regardless of how they behaved in his absence.
Faith and trust, by very definition, require a gap in knowledge to be filled by assuming a specific, but uncertain outcome. Since God is supposably omniscient and exists outside of time, there would be no gaps in one's behavior for God to fill or speculate on. You've merely projected your limitations on God in an attempt to give him motive for his actions (or lack there of).
Hi 3m,
so i made a typo, interesting that you use an obvious mistake to poison the well.
And I consider nearly asphyxiating an animal "cruelty", I can't speak for anyone else. Thats why I picked that one. And should you choose to look, there are more animal societies that have petitioned to have the national geographic channel remove him.
I need to make a correction. Above I said that the way I see it dualism best explains the data that we have at the present moment. I failed to take into account that there are infinitely many logical possible explanations, so it is difficult for me to ensure that I have the best explanation. I failed to take into account that what seems plausible to me can reasonably seem implausible to someone else. Plausibility judgements are made against one's background beliefs. So, plausibility is in the mind of the beholder. Sorry about that.
Lee wrote,"so i made a typo, interesting that you use an obvious mistake to poison the well."
So you don't like having your error magnified??? Interesting....out of thousands of posts,I can find no other that reflects this position. Talk about magnifying an error....
"And I consider nearly asphyxiating an animal "cruelty", I can't speak for anyone else. Thats why I picked that one. And should you choose to look, there are more animal societies that have petitioned to have the national geographic channel remove him."
Again, more sensationalizing - I'm not impressed or intimidated.
3M
Hi Cole,
So, plausibility is in the mind of the beholder.
I agree with that to the degree that a thing will sound plausible to many people when it conforms to what they already think they have knowledge about or it conforms to demonstrable principles that support what they think they know.
I stress principles because as I see it, the application of sound principles across categories of thought is a problem for most people.
For example, if you think of categories of thought as spheres, then most of them would have a large part intersecting with each other. However most people don't see that. They see each sphere independently and don't realize that, for example, if its bad to neglect a child, its bad to neglect an animal (as in the kind of people you see on 'animal cops' on the animal planet channel).
or if human sacrifice is bad, then so is a crucifixion to appease a god.
Lee,
I see what you're saying. I think I'm going to stick with some form of dualism. I'm not sure which one though.
Lee,
I also don't think that this test thing will work. I don't see life's hardships as a series of cosmic tests designed by my Higher Power to teach me something. If something traumatic happens I don't say that my Higher Power is testing me. I don't think that a loving Higher Power would test my faith or character. Life can be terribly painful at times. But not all the pain is inflicted on me by my God. Rather that Power is constantly by my side.
Today I have faith that my God's will for me is good, and that I am loved. Neither do I see that love as being undeserved (grace). Somewhere along the way in my life I developed strong feelings of inadequacy and inferiority. Deep inside I felt worthless. I try to remember that I'm a worthy human being with dignity who deserves the love of my Higher Power. So, I reject the concept of grace.
Hi 3m,
Again, more sensationalizing - I'm not impressed or intimidated.
where did this "intimidated" thing come from? Thats all you baby. You are the subscriber, I just provide your entertainment.
Lee wrote, "Thats all you baby. You are the subscriber, I just provide your entertainment."
uh oh--now I am intimidated.....
Hi Tigg,
Rich, it sounds to me like you would run your kingdom like a ruthless, bigoted tyrant.
Not exactly sure how you concluded that. Unless you mean that setting up laws and asking people to follow them is ruthless. Since I didn't exclude anyone who wants to be there I don't see the bigotry. Kind of looks like you jumped to a conclusion about my leadership skills based on what I expect of others.
hi Lee,
Then using this principle, a moral atheist or hindu is more deserving than than a moral christian, because the atheist is moral even when he doesn't believe there is a boss. See ya in heaven. ;-)
I don't know about more deserving but for sure deserving equally. And yes you may make it to heaven. I don't see how this trivializes the atonement because without the atonement no one, moral or not, gets to heaven.
HI Rich,
I don't see how this trivializes the atonement because without the atonement no one, moral or not, gets to heaven.
I want to analyze this conclusion. Please indicate where I am wrong.
P: God needs to know we will be good when he is not around.
P: christians believe in Jesus and are good even though he is not around
P: non-christians don't believe in Jesus and are good even though they don't believe
P: Earth is a non-perfect place and it exists
P: Heaven is a perfect place and it exists
P: everyone wants to get to a perfect place.
P: Heaven is the reward for following gods commandments of which doing good without him around is big part.
P: ritual killing is generally regarded as bad
P: ritual killing of a human is considered murder
P: a ritual killing is taking the life of a thing in honor or apeasement of a god
P: God gave his only son so that none may perish but have eternal life, this is the atonement, or reconciliation between god and man
C: without the atonement no one, moral or not, gets to heaven.
The thing that stops good people of all types from getting to that perfect place is a ritual killing.
Therefore in this one case ritual killing is good.
Can you name any other ritual killings that are considered GOOD?
I can't. I can't think of a single precedent.
This is called SPECIAL PLEADING and without a good warrant, is faulty.
Wheres the warrant? What is the principle that makes ritual killing in this case GOOD.
In what other circumstance can the warrant used to justify ritual in this case be used to justify other ritual killings?
Hi Lee,
Is thinking about stealing a crime? No? then its not a good analogy. I'm talking about the aspect of god as "mind cop". That is "sin" as I'm talking about it. Just saying that sin is the act and excludes the thought is not what jesus taught on the sermon on the mount.
This is why I wanted a little clarity. Lets jump into the brain a little. First I agree that thinking about stealing isn't a crime. Our actions are only one way to sin as you pointed out that our thoughts can be another way. Now the only thought I recall from the sermon on the mount is lusting, but I'm not willing to limit thought as sin to only lust. Isn't coveting something done in the brain? Wishing something someone has was yours. Could this lead to other bigger problems? Absolutely! Coveting could lead to theft, murder, adultery, abuse, to name a few. So would the caution to not covet what your neighbor has be a good principle to follow? But then how can we if we have no control over our thoughts? Is this just another unfair unattainable commandment for us solely meant to condemn?
I don't think we have control over which thoughts enter our brain. but I do think we can have control over which ones we entertain and which actions we choose from those thoughts. So for stealing, it seems to be largely a crime of opportunity. But doesn't it take a bit of planning to pull of even shoplifting, or purse snatching? You have to entertain the idea of grabbing a purse, running away, and dodging getting caught. So it seems there is much more to it than being random. The randomness involved looks more like risk assessment. So while thinking about stealing may not be a crime, I could certainly see it being a sin.
Now our next favorite from the sermon on the mount, lusting. First it would appear that, because of your chosen topic, you are saying that lusting is an uncontrollable biological process that is wrongly labeled as sin, correct me if I'm wrong. Lusting after someone involves much more than simply having a thought enter you mind, correct? Lusting is a strong sexual desire towards another, something that has to be carried out in your mind for some time, not just a fleeting moment of thought. So I can see why lusting would be labeled as sin.
I found this article that brings up some good points about entertaining negative thoughts. Could it work for such things as lusting? Sure could, and I believe it is evidence to support my assertion that we can control what thoughts we entertain. Part of understanding how our brain works seems to be towards the end of learning how to make positive changes to our behavior. Anger management, psychotherapy, both seem to be towards that end. So I would think it is possible for us to have control over our thoughts to some extent. If that is true than it follows that calling such things as lusting after a woman sin may not be out of line, if in fact we can control it.
Lee I am working on a response to your last post, stay tuned:)
HI rich,
Let me explicity say what is at the 'molecular' level of this argument. That since it is likely that we can manipulate the brain, there is no soul. Since there is no soul, there is no accountability for our thoughts, because they are purely biological. Since there is no soul there is nothing to go to heaven.
Remember the homunculus? The external agent driving us around? That's what you need to make this sin thing work. Something that is impervious to biological influence. all the rest is just fluff.
Now to a higher level in the argument.
so you agree about the origin of the thought is not our fault.
I agree that to entertain the thought rather than just squash it is possible for some people, but not all. To what degree are they culpable? We can't say that there is anything wrong with them because they haven't crossed the line of 'normalcy' but they obsess. Why do they obsess? It warrants investigation. We have a better chance of creating righteous people through medical means than through prayer. don't take that as an absolute because as I've stated some people can manage themselves naturally and not all of them christians.
If you want to say that we should figure out how to manage our thoughts and be righteous, then how is the common man suppose to do that? The Buddha taught some ways, but that was before christ. As I stated, I think (if there was a jesus) he took parts from that type of philosophy and taught it.
If i put you in a city with one way streets with no signs and tell you to go church without breaking any laws, good luck. Should you be held accountable? I told you what to do. its up to you to figure it out, and if you don't, all you can do is plead your case in court, tell me how sorry you are. Sure you'll get off, cause i'm acting like jesus the merciful in this analogy, but its a silly principle to put into place that does not work anywhere else.
And please, keep in mind that god is supposed to be all knowing and all powerful, and that contains all knowledge and all power. ;-)
I want to lay out the relationship to the problem of evil suffering since it has played a big part in this thread as well as, to a lesser degree, the soul. As I see it there is an intersection
The problem of evil/suffering is supposedly mans fault.
POE depends on Sin, Atonement depends on Sin, the disposition of the soul after death depends on Sin. 'Sin' depends on the brain. The biological nature of the brain cancels the soul out, and to a large degree, culpability over out thoughts.
oh yea rich,
and thanks for sticking around.
you keep me on my toes!
OK Lee,
I want to analyze this conclusion. Please indicate where I am wrong.
It looks pretty good. The only hang up I have is the ritual killing. Christs' death was not a ritual killing, nor was it meant to appease or please God. The atonement was much more then dying on the cross. That was the end of the atonement which began in the Garden of Gethsemane. The atonement appeased justice so that we could be forgiven of sin and be able to return to Heaven. This is something that we are unable to accomplish on our own, and we had need of someone to voluntarily give their life and appease justice by suffering for our sins so that we could then repent and be forgiven and be able to return to heaven.
Rich who exactly is justice that he needs to be so appeased?
That since it is likely that we can manipulate the brain, there is no soul.
I don't see how that can rule out the existence of the soul. Soul or no we could still manipulate the brain since the soul is not the brain.
Something that is impervious to biological influence.
It seems that from the creation account(another favorite topic;)) that when life was breathed in to the body, that is when we became a living soul. So does that imply that it takes both the biological body and the spirit together to be a soul? If that's the case then our biology has an influence over our total "self" of which some things we can't control, thoughts, but some we can, which thoughts we entertain. Could we then change some of the scripture references that mention the flesh being week, to read that our biological part of our self is week, but the spirit is strong? There are other references to "the flesh" which may make more sense to us now if they were changed to read something like our biological portion of our self. or maybe natural man or something. that's a side show.
I agree that to entertain the thought rather than just squash it is possible for some people, but not all.
Good, common ground once again, this is becoming a habit;)
We have a better chance of creating righteous people through medical means than through prayer.
No surprise that I don't agree here but you also follow with what I would counter this with so we're still in good shape.
If you want to say that we should figure out how to manage our thoughts and be righteous, then how is the common man suppose to do that?
Shouldn't we expect more than just the bible to help guide us through this seemingly impossible task? I think so. you city analogy holds up if we just count on the bible, especially considering how it is the became a book. if God is truly all he is hyped up to be, shouldn't we expect more than just the bible as our guide? Even granting the Holy Ghost. Aren't we as important to him as the ancient Jews of the bible? So add this to some common ground, that having only the bible as a guide fits with an all everything God.
Last time I checked Evan, justice was a thing not a person.
Rich, last time I checked justice was a human concept. Not a thing or a person.
Therefore, a human concept need not have anyone die to appease it.
Societies may choose to execute people, but there are plenty of societies who do not so choose and they are successful.
You don't want to say the truth here because it weakens your case, but the only "person" who needs "justice" in the sacrifice of Jesus is Yahweh.
HI Rich,
The atonement appeased justice so that we could be forgiven of sin and be able to return to Heaven.
Justice is a principle is it not? Human or Godly. This was not a human principle was it? It was a principle of Justice created by god that needed to be satisfied. If this was not a principle of justice made my god then whose was it?
Did god not SACRIFICE his son to MEET THE REQUIREMENT of this principle that was created by God?
atonement from answers.com
# Amends or reparation made for an injury or wrong; expiation.
# 1. Reconciliation or an instance of reconciliation between God and humans.
2. Atonement Christianity. The reconciliation of God and humans brought about by the redemptive life and death of Jesus.
ritual killing from answers.com
Ritual murders have undoubtedly occurred in the past in the form of human sacrifice, and are still occurring today, for example in medicine murder (also known as muti killings).
Isn't Jesus compared to the Passover Lamb? Wasn't he killed during passover?
Now you tell me why god sacrificing his son by way of having him killed on a cross to meet a principle of justice that he created is not a ritual killing.
Hi Rich,
It seems that from the creation account(another favorite topic;)) that when life was breathed in to the body, that is when we became a living soul.
Which theology of the soul are we talking about?
The Egyptian Ka associated with Ptah that SPOKE THE WORLD INTO EXISTENCE that goes into PEOPLE MADE BY KHNOUM ON THE POTTERS WHEEL that stays in the person after death in their embalmed body (called Mummy) that is preserved for its RESURRECTION in its tomb and allows them to LIVE FOREVER IN A PERFECT PLACE?
or are you talking about the christian version that is associated with YAHWEH that SPOKE THE WORLD INTO EXISTENCE and put into PEOPLE THAT HE MADE FROM DIRT/CLAY OF THE EARTH that lives in people that get a SPIRITUAL RESURRECTION AND A NEW BODY so they can LIVE FOREVER IN A PERFECT PLACE?
So how are you so sure about this soul thing? Where is the data to support its existence? The bible? Considering Egypt, the Assyrians, the Hittites and the Persians kept knocking the snot out of each other in canaan, palestine and Judah, are you so sure the hebrew version has not picked up aspects of other versions? What makes it the correct version since it obviously shares key elements with the old Egyptian Religion?
Did you know that an Egyptian strategy to fight the advancing assyrians was to meet them in Judah and let the Israelites help them out? That went on for a long time. Egypt took from and traded with the lebanese for their famous cedar to use in building their temples, palaces and what not from the early days of the pyramids, before 2000bc, before anyone believes abraham came on the scene.
I prescribe some serious bible study for you mister.
Hi rich, I forgot to mention that Akenaten was apparently the originator of monotheism, and that before alexander the great could be made king of Egypt, he had to be recognized as the son Ra.
His daddy had to be a god.
It was a requirement for all kings/pharoahs and queens to be descended or conceived by the gods.
sound familiar? wasn't jesus daddy a god and isn't he supposed to be the King? wasn't he put in a tomb and wrapped in bandages with spices such as frankensense and myrh? Didn't his body disappear and go to the perfect place to live forever as the king? Why that sounds just like key points in the life of a pharoah.
Hi Rich,
I forgot one more thing. The egyptians had three trinities of gods.
the Memphite Trinity
Sekhmet, Ptah and Nefertum
the Elephantine Trinity
Khnum, Anuket and Satet
and the Theban Trinity
Amun, Mut and Khonsu
And the Hindu's, as I've said before, have the trinity of
Brahma, Shiva and Vishnu.
The greater civilization influences the lesser.
I haven't gotten into Iranian/persian history yet, but I will. I'm making the rounds.
Rich, last time I checked justice was a human concept. Not a thing or a person.
Ok Evan I'll give you that one, it is a human concept. But it is a noun, person, place, or thing. In this case we are not talking about a person or a place but a thing. So it is a thing last time I checked also.
Therefore, a human concept need not have anyone die to appease it.
Your still stuck on the cross, I am talking about the atonement, beginning in the Garden and ending on the cross. The death was only part of the whole package.
Societies may choose to execute people, but there are plenty of societies who do not so choose and they are successful.
I have no quarrel with that.
You don't want to say the truth here because it weakens your case, but the only "person" who needs "justice" in the sacrifice of Jesus is Yahweh.
Your right about who needed justice served but wrong about me not wanting to say it or it weakening my case. That was the whole purpose of the atonement, to appease justice so that we could be saved.
Hi Lee,
We are going to be stuck with the ritual killing part as I suspected so lets dig a little deeper. Isn't a ritual killing suppose to be for appeasing or pleasing a God? Plenty of societies did this throughout history. So then this death of Christ should fit with God being pleased with the sacrifice yes?
Mat27:51 says"And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;"
Does that seem consistent with a pleased God? Isn't it usually the opposite? You know a god is angry for X reason and we sacrifice a virgin or something to please this god and all is well? But this is backwards, God was apparently upset when this killing occurred that was suppose to please him. It sounds more along the lines of someone willing to die for us, kind of like a soldier jumping on a hand grenade to save his buddies in a fox hole. Is that also a ritual killing?
Now you tell me why god sacrificing his son by way of having him killed on a cross to meet a principle of justice that he created is not a ritual killing.
Did God command that he was killed on the cross, or did he know that he had to die and that it would be by way of crucifixion? Christ willingly stepped up to be killed and atone for our sins just like the guy who willingly jumps on a hand grenade. So I guess if the latter is a ritual killing, then the former is too.
Hi Rich,
Isn't a ritual killing suppose to be for appeasing or pleasing a God?
yes
Mat27:51 says"And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;". Does that seem consistent with a pleased God? Isn't it usually the opposite? You know a god is angry for X reason and we sacrifice a virgin or something to please this god and all is well? But this is backwards, God was apparently upset when this killing occurred that was suppose to please him.
Honestly I don't know. Everytime I try to infer what we can expect from an omni-everything being, I keep getting told I'm wrong by other people that do seem to know what an omni-everything being is thinking.
So you think the overall net result is that god is not pleased that now all those good people can get into heaven? Thats what we are talking about, the death of a 100% human possessed by God was the impediment to all those deserving people getting into heaven because of principle he made. God made the rules, I think he would be pleased that things went as he expected, but he knew how it was all going to play out before he created anything didn't he? He knew what the result would be of his ingredients before he put them together. He made us flawed intentionally, or he's not perfect.
It sounds more along the lines of someone willing to die for us, kind of like a soldier jumping on a hand grenade to save his buddies in a fox hole. Is that also a ritual killing?
no, its not the same thing at all. I don't think you thought this through very well. There is no god or religion involved. That is a key ingredient in ritual killing. Also the analogy doesn't fit because the hero is not in control, he did not set up the situation, he is not doing it to please a god, he is doing it because he is motivated to fall on the grenade because he does not want to live if the others die. As cold as this is going to sound (and I won't discuss it in this thread but disagree if you want), he has made a decision based on his desires, he has pleased himself, he did a personal inventory, thought it through and made the call. He should be pleased at the outcome, unless he made a mistake. I tend to think that falling on a grenade is not the smartest thing to do in any case, because those you are trying to protect, if they live, are one man less but still in a whole heap of trouble. The grenade probably is not an isolated event. Theres probably more where it came from.
Did God command that he was killed on the cross, or did he know that he had to die and that it would be by way of crucifixion?
whats the difference? He spoke the world into existence, he has a plan, everything has to go as he planned it, as he expected it, as he predicts, as he knows it will happen. He set it up so that he'd have to die on the cross, he could have set it up so that he didn't. He made his own flawed humans and the principle that justice requires one of them to die on a cross on passover before the rest can get the reward they deserve. That doesn't sound very efficient. If he wanted a desired effect, he should have made everything the way wanted it to turn out in the first place with all his children with the attitude they would have attained on earth all safe and sound under his wing.
Christ willingly stepped up to be killed and atone for our sins just like the guy who willingly jumps on a hand grenade.
In a way, but he could not have done anything different because he was possessed by god, and he was made to do what he did. When god planned everything out, he knew that the result of his influence on Mary's biological material would produce a person open to being crucified on Passover as a human sacrifice analogous to the passover lamb. I suspect there was a purpose to impregnating mary himself, otherwise why do it?
So I guess if the latter is a ritual killing, then the former is too.
no for the same reasons as I stated above and furthermore, one was planned from the start, prepared for, and the other was not.
Did it ever occur to you that it looks like God set up the world as a test to see who was righteous enough and self sacrificing enough to reject Him? That the real winners are those that value principles over eternal reward? The winners are those that do the right thing for the sake of doing the right thing.
I think you all should think about that and start getting worried.
So you think the overall net result is that god is not pleased that now all those good people can get into heaven?
No I don't think that at all but I think that there is more than meets the eye here. I think God is mourning the death of his son. No being appeased by his death which would make it sound like a ritual killing.
no, its not the same thing at all. I don't think you thought this through very well. There is no god or religion involved. That is a key ingredient in ritual killing.
The key to the similarity is someone being willing to sacrifice their life for the benefit of others. I maybe didn't think it through, I do that a lot, it's what popped into my head at the time and it sounded good until it got tore apart:). Oh and I probably wouldn't jump on a grenade either, not on the top of my to do list. Which brings me to this, but he could not have done anything different because he was possessed by god, and he was made to do what he did.
This is where we differ than because I am saying that Christ chose to be the innocent sacrifice and was not made to do it by God. I know you guys don't particularly care for using the bible, but I am looking at this story there and not seeing that it fits a ritual killing but rather a willing sacrifice chosen by the murdered. I don't know if I'm making sense. If the crucifixion was a ritual killing, why then was God not apparently pleased when it was done? This is the supposed monster that orders many killings prior to this with no earthquakes and renting rocks or temple walls, but now this one time it's suddenly different. So what gives? Maybe I'm wrong, and I'll accept that if I am, but I'm not convinced yet.
The winners are those that do the right thing for the sake of doing the right thing.
I agree with this 100%. But it also would be the same to say that he set up the test to see who would accept him. I'll give it some consideration though. I am trying to fill my prescribed medicine of more bible study;).
I hope I'm still keeping you on your toes.
Hi Rich,
Yea your still keeping me on my toes. In fact you have been the 'angels advocate' to an article I have been wanting to write on human sacrifice compared to Jesus sacrifice. I wanted to do it before harry announced he was working on one and then when he announced that he was going to do one, I dropped it. I even bought a book on the history of human sacrifice.
I think God is mourning the death of his son. No being appeased by his death which would make it sound like a ritual killing.
Rich with all due respect, how you want to think about it has no bearing on what it is. it is a human sacrifice, to bring about justice as defined by a god. At its smallest component, that is a ritual killing.
If the crucifixion was a ritual killing, why then was God not apparently pleased when it was done?
that is your interpretation of the earthquake and the torn curtain. Another key element in that myth is that fact many came out of their tombs and met people in the streets. This is the only place in the world where this story appeared, and think about it, its in a roman province, and there was large diverse population established over thousands of years and I have a book with personal records that apparently average people wrote to keep track of stuff. if that dead thing really happened, it should have been written up somewhere in someones personal documents. Maybe we'll find something someday, but until then, I will err on the side of caution and go with what I know which is, the dead only walk in zombie movies.
If it were true, it should show up somewhere else.
back to earth quake and the torn curtain, you are inferring he wasn't pleased, therefore it wasn't a ritual killing, but overall, he must have been because he met his goal. And he's perfect, so it went as planned. I'd like to see you argue how someone can meet their goal and not be pleased (unless they make a mistake). Even dropping the bomb on hiroshima etc was a horrible thing to do, but the net result stopped the war. The net effect was pleasing. I suppose you could say its a form of "utility".
But it also would be the same to say that he set up the test to see who would accept him.
Rich, I'm not stupid, and neither are you. The difference is that you believe. I believed then applied principles equally across categories and realized that sound principles don't apply to religion. When this is the case in any other category of thought, either the principle is flawed or the thought is flawed. The principles aren't flawed.
my conclusion is that if god were real, I'd believe in it, just like all the other things I believe in. I believe in Japan because there is so much supporting evidence that I'd be crazy not to. I would be crazy to NOT believe in god, if there was enough supporting evidence.
In my mind, it comes down to how much evidence it takes to convince someone, and whether or not the person is willing to give up whatever personal investment they have in whatever it is they believe, whether it is a favorite stock, or favorite god.
and the "serious bible study" crack was my euphemism to compare the bible to known facts in history and use sound principles to make inferences. Thats what my other category of articles lately are about. Making a hypothesis test that the bible is authoritative about what it talks about.
Hi rich,
I would like to move on to my next article on genesis if you don't mind. I will do the 'Human Sacrifice' article and compile it from this discussion. I'm not going to mention you unless you want the credit. I invite you to come back to it and give me hell then. ;-)
as always, its been a pleasure, and I hope to see you in my next article.
OK Lee, I'll let you move on. If you would like to use me in the Human sacrifice article that would be fine.
One more thing before I go, the reason we like chocolate. At least one reason I know of is that it a brain chemestry impact. it does contain cannabinoids, but not enough to cause an effect, unlike marijauna. It does contain also tyramine and tryptophan that the brain converts to dopamine and seratonin. It makes us feel good, we even can start making seratonin just by opening a wrapper.
If that works for your explaination I'll be waiting for that beer;)
Always a pleasure talking with you.
Hi Rich,
Okay, you got it right. I'll buy that beer for you. mmmmm, that was good. Would you like me to buy another one for you? Please?
;-)
Maybe one day we can meet up somewhere, but we'll have to coordinate that offline.
Maybe one day we can meet up somewhere, but we'll have to coordinate that offline.
That sounds like a good idea for someday.
Post a Comment