• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

I invite you to pick apart Christianity

Night

Boring old fossil
Joined
Nov 2, 2007
Messages
4,755
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5/8
Right I want to comment on the fact that I haven't fully taken on whether I believe in pure determinism or the randomness nature of quantam mechanics. Not to mention that this discussion will move into discussion about things that aren't empirically observable or can't be proven.

Otherwise...
I'll roll along with a basic definition of common day speech regarding free will -being allowed to make a decision after consideration and influence.

Meh. I can't give a decent argument, how about you provide me one?

No worries, Kai. It's a Typology message board - how concerned with raw science can we possibly be? :D

My question is of genuine conversational interest - 'free will' is a fascinating coin, as it conflates unrelated (yet independently valid) theory into broad, fuzzy existential 'slang'.

From a religious stance, I get that 'free will' is a generally viewed as an act of divine grace imparted as a methodology to assert our respect for God, while pursuing a reality that actively seeks to encourage awareness of His message. A spiritual symbiosis, fusing intellectual awareness with humble self-deprecation.

If we are speaking in terms of biology, 'free will' is just another way of describing the evolving eminence of our brain over time. We began this process with simple impulse regulation centers (thalamus; brain stem; mid-brain) that eventually evolved into structurally-complex, connection-rich neurological ecosystems (Frontal Cortex) that functionally cooperate with the 'older' parts of our brain to conceive a creative, reasoned awareness of ourselves and our world.
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
So your argument is Christianity (not people who happen to be Christians) helped the Feminist movement and abolition of slavery when your argument for the flip side is, well, people who JUST happen to be Christians, abused and misinterpreted the religion? How do you justify such an obvious bias between the two sides of arguments?

Because I can just as soon come back with correlation and association where "Christianity" (or as you'd say, peeps who just *happen* to be christians) HINDERED both those causes....

For example, exerpts from the bible were being flung by BOTH sides (for and against) during the Suffragist debates on women's right to vote. So...? Where are you getting a final overall conclusion of Christianity HELPED?

Who do we hold up as great early feminists? Mary Wollstonecraft? Elizabeth Cady Stanton? Katherine Bushnell? All Christians.

I'm not arguing for a bias. You're just not getting it. You're not getting the simple fact that different people will use a philosophy for different means.

Socialism, for example, has been used for both great evil and great good in the world; it's also an atheistic philosophy. Capitalism? Many would say it is evil, but other would say that it's changed the world for the better : not atheist, but still a decidedly secular philosophy. Libertarians can twist their philosophy to claim how altruistic and freeing it is, others will claim it as justifcation for their gross selfishness: it is mainly perceived in our culture as an atheistic philosophy. America is good. America is bad. I could go on and on.

Christianity can be used for good. Christianity can be used for evil. It all comes down to the person interpreting it. Christianity was crucial in the early feminist movement, and also played a part in the civil rights movement. Whether or not you want to accept that is your choice. The fact of the matter is the world simply isn't as black and white as people on this thread appear to being trying to make it to be.
 

Snow Turtle

New member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
1,335
From a religious stance, I get that 'free will' is a generally viewed as an act of divine grace imparted as a methodology to assert our respect for God, while pursuing a reality that actively seeks to encourage awareness of His message. A spiritual symbiosis, fusing intellectual awareness with humble self-deprecation.

If we are speaking in terms of biology, 'free will' is just another way of describing the evolving eminence of our brain over time. We began this process with simple impulse regulation centers (thalamus; brain stem; mid-brain) that eventually evolved into structurally-complex, connection-rich neurological ecosystems (Frontal Cortex) that functionally cooperate with the 'older' parts of our brain to conceive a creative, reasoned awareness of ourselves and our world.

Yeah. I'd imagine that I'm looking for something inbetween, something that incorporates both positions coming from an eastern religion position. Otherwise I'd go with what biology mentions, which sort of contradicts all of the above.

Thinking a little more about the subject. I'd imagine that the free will aspect for religion or spirituality comes from the notion that the soul exists, and as it is a part of us, we'll never be fully binded by causality. Yet this doesn't really answer my own problem that people argue that we have free will because our future hasn't be determined. And only produces more questions that I couldn't really find answers too previously... does the soul not get influenced by information as well? Does this part constitute as a different identity? :(

I do like the idea that the fact that people can claim their lives at any point as evidence for free will, but people can still shoot that down by reasoning that it was from influences.

Argh. Will have to do more research.
 

Qre:us

New member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
4,890
Yes, I specifically used numb rather than dumb. It wasn't a typo.
I do remember reading in a book about a person who didn't have hands becacuse she never developed them in terms of exploring them, but I can't help but feel surely there is part of the self that definitely knows that it is itself from birth. Pain induced by the baby counts as an external stimuli?

Then there is such thing as temporality. Time A to Time B, these are the shifts in memory accumulation, relating one to the other....allows for a picture of this instrument/system called self. I was using touch as an example (and kinda completely missed the numb versus dumb :D). There's many many things outside the brain that together allows us to form our picture.

Pain induced by baby is all fine and well, but, a baby doesn't know (yet) that it caused itself the pain. All it reacts to is the pain. Until..it understands...ohhh, these things (hands) are mine (understanding what mine/me is).


It does make me wonder what a baby thinks of it's own thoughts straight after birth, whether it even realises that it comes from itself. Right, so I take back my words that the baby knows it's own body. It seems that is indeed learnt.

It would be hella interesting, wouldn't it? Asking a baby to relate how it sees the world. But, we only have available to us, proxy experiments in psychology and informed inference.

What would happen to an individual locked up for an extensive period of time, apart from dying, would they eventually recgonise their own thoughts and when does it occur?

It's interesting that you brough that up because, well, there's some obvious restrictions to finding such questions out...that of the ethical kind, because we can't do psych experiments for the sole purpose of finding such things out by depriving a newborn of all sensory inputs.

But, we come close though naturally occuring case studies...called, FERAL CHILDREN. Fascinating stuff has come out of looking at these children...and one thing they consistently see is the quite striking underdevelopment of the brain's processing. They have to be taught that a name means THEM. There's reports that some extreme cases do not even recognize their own reflection. And, other very detrimental physical and psychological set-backs.

Here's a cool site if you're interested in more:
FeralChildren.com | Psychological development of feral children
 

ThinkingAboutIt

New member
Joined
Apr 8, 2009
Messages
264
MBTI Type
INTP
Ok, I will join the show.


If christian God exists that means that he/she/it created the universe and laws of physics in this universe. What mean that he/she/it is directly responsible for the fact that Nuclear warfare in this reality is possible.

So the question is why would God do such a thing?
Especially since this does not make much sense even if he/she/it is testing us.
Since this allows a very small minority to wipe out majority with one blow.

I was just thinking about this topic so I hope you don't mind if I reply. It can be likened to this - if you are married, and your wife goes out and commits a crime, say shoplifting, are you responsible? No, she is solely responsible for her actions and will at some point pay the consequences that result from her decisions. Can she be stopped, yes, a variety of means can be employed. But if she is stopped, controlled, etc. then she does not learn, grow, or accept responsibility...she will just wait for the opportunity to do it the next time because she was not the one that made the decision to stop? Is it fair that the store she stole from loses? No, but cause and effect is reality - to the good or bad.
 

Qre:us

New member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
4,890
Who do we hold up as great early feminists? Mary Wollstonecraft? Elizabeth Cady Stanton? Katherine Bushnell? All Christians.

I'm not arguing for a bias. You're just not getting it. You're not getting the simple fact that different people will use a philosophy for different means.

Socialism, for example, has been used for both great evil and great good in the world; it's also an atheistic philosophy. Capitalism? Many would say it is evil, but other would say that it's changed the world for the better : not atheist, but still a decidedly secular philosophy. Libertarians can twist their philosophy to claim how altruistic and freeing it is, others will claim it as justifcation for their gross selfishness: it is mainly perceived in our culture as an atheistic philosophy. America is good. America is bad. I could go on and on.

Christianity can be used for good. Christianity can be used for evil. It all comes down to the person interpreting it. Christianity was crucial in the early feminist movement, and also played a part in the civil rights movement. Whether or not you want to accept that is your choice. The fact of the matter is the world simply isn't as black and white as people on this thread appear to being trying to make it to be.

Yes, now we're getting to the crux of what I'm trying to say (which, you're not getting...we are missing each other, it seems).

They're ALL man-made ideologies. Hence, it can be used as a vehicle for good and bad, because if it was by divine intervention, it would be perfection in truth. It would not be culturally applicable (the bible mentions slavery and how to treat them, all apostles were men, the big women figures, were the Virgin Mary and Mary Magdalena...and, very much so tied to the time's significance of women, tied predominately to their sexuality). It would surpass any of these cultural limitations of the time to be relevant throughout...and not for us to rely on debates of interpretive differences during modern times. As such, we can only use ONE or the OTHER as an argument.

(1) X ideology allows for interpretation. As such, certain people within the ideology tainted it - towards good, towards bad.

Or

(2) X is an ideology that has good merits and bad merits.


If (1) and we are speaking of Christianity, it really calls into question this notion of God's words/divine intervention, unless we allow god to be less than perfect. As such, he/she/it was short-sighted enough to write only to the culture at the time, allow for ambiguity, etc, etc.

If (2) then god is not goodness. God is good and bad.

We can't use the ideology as an indisputable truth, and excuse the bad instances as those that went astray and the good as those that TRULY understood it. This is the bias I speak of. Use the same evaluating scale for the good and the bad. Or don't use the scale at all as a gold standard.
 

Aerithria

Senior Thread Terminator
Joined
May 18, 2008
Messages
568
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4
I was just thinking about this topic so I hope you don't mind if I reply. It can be likened to this - if you are married, and your wife goes out and commits a crime, say shoplifting, are you responsible? No, she is solely responsible for her actions and will at some point pay the consequences that result from her decisions. Can she be stopped, yes, a variety of means can be employed. But if she is stopped, controlled, etc. then she does not learn, grow, or accept responsibility...she will just wait for the opportunity to do it the next time because she was not the one that made the decision to stop? Is it fair that the store she stole from loses? No, but cause and effect is reality - to the good or bad.

God created the universe with the tools necessary for nuclear weapons. You did not create your wife, so the fact that she is capable to shoplift has nothing to do with you. However, the fact that nuclear weapons can be created has everything to do with God, for making them have the ability to exist in the first place.

Now, had you said pet robot...
 

ThinkingAboutIt

New member
Joined
Apr 8, 2009
Messages
264
MBTI Type
INTP
God created the universe with the tools necessary for nuclear weapons. You did not create your wife, so the fact that she is capable to shoplift has nothing to do with you. However, the fact that nuclear weapons can be created has everything to do with God, for making them have the ability to exist in the first place.

Now, had you said pet robot...

Consider a child then. Is a parent responsible for an adult child?

There is much more to this - Gods sovereignity, His established authorities on earth - e.g. government, leadership, etc., in addition to His ability to limit free will of man when He wishes, but based on past posts being removed, I doubt we will be discussing it much though it is exclusive and relevant to Christianity and this topic.
 

Virtual ghost

Complex paradigm
Joined
Jun 6, 2008
Messages
19,769
God created the universe with the tools necessary for nuclear weapons. You did not create your wife, so the fact that she is capable to shoplift has nothing to do with you. However, the fact that nuclear weapons can be created has everything to do with God, for making them have the ability to exist in the first place.

Now, had you said pet robot...

You got it right.

But that is not all.
On wife that is stealing from stores and billions of dead people and destroyed biosphere are not exactly the same thing.

I simply don't inderstand why would God create a tool for wiping of milions and millions of devoted christians.

In the case that God is behind this I must rise a question " Does he really love us as he/she/it claims? " (In the case that God exists in the first place.)
 

ThinkingAboutIt

New member
Joined
Apr 8, 2009
Messages
264
MBTI Type
INTP
You got it right.

But that is not all.
On wife that is stealing from stores and billions of dead people and destroyed biosphere are not exactly the same thing.

I simply don't inderstand why would God create a tool for wiping of milions and millions of devoted christians.

In the case that God is behind this I must rise a question " Does he really love us as he/she/it claims? " (In the case that God exists in the first place.)

Something to consider...how do you know that He has not already stopped nuclear war multiple times?
 

Snow Turtle

New member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
1,335
You got it right.

But that is not all.
On wife that is stealing from stores and billions of dead people and destroyed biosphere are not exactly the same thing.

I simply don't inderstand why would God create a tool for wiping of milions and millions of devoted christians.

In the case that God is behind this I must rise a question " Does he really love us as he/she/it claims? " (In the case that God exists in the first place.)

That's essentially the same question as
"Why does God allow suffering to occur" which has been addressed...
 

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
Something to consider...how do you know that He has not already stopped nuclear war multiple times?

Nice try. It's not our place to show that he hasn't, it's yours to show that he has (and please stop capitalizing "he," it's annoying). You can't demand proof of a negative. If you can't show something to be true, it's automatically assumed to be false.

You don't understand logic at all, do you? LOL, I guess this is Christian 'thinking'.
 

ThinkingAboutIt

New member
Joined
Apr 8, 2009
Messages
264
MBTI Type
INTP
If "he" can limit 'free' will, is it truly free will?

There are two wills - free will and limited free will. God allows free will to choose a relationship with Him or not. He offers limited free will depending on His purposes after that (christian or not) because He is sovereign, has a plan in place=and it will be carried out just as He said. If someone interferes with His purposes, He will limit them. This doesn't make Him responsible for a persons choices if He chooses not to intervene though - else all humans would need to be robots, all could ascribe to a 'victim of life' and fatalistic attitude with zero responsibility.

I think to understand this perspective, the big picture needs to be considered. Man was created sinless, man chose to sin, God knew that, but allowed it and had a plan in place to redeem man, and did. But, He left man a choice of where He ends up at the end of that plan.
 

Virtual ghost

Complex paradigm
Joined
Jun 6, 2008
Messages
19,769
Something to consider...how do you know that He has not already stopped nuclear war multiple times?

Then why Japan got nuked ?

Why have people done so much nuclear tasts that entire planet is contaminated with radioactivity ?

Why we(humanity) have about 30000 nukes in reserve?

Why undeveloped countries are developing nuclear weapons as we speak?

Why it took 70 years for USSR to fall apart?
And it is still debatable if USSR is trully dead.


I mean, he created something just so that he can stop it later ?
I know that god supposed to work in a mysterious ways but I am sorry I am not buying it here.


In the case that God can actually stop nuclear holocaust that again rises a question of free will.
 

Aerithria

Senior Thread Terminator
Joined
May 18, 2008
Messages
568
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4
Consider a child then. Is a parent responsible for an adult child?

There is much more to this - Gods sovereignity, His established authorities on earth - e.g. government, leadership, etc., in addition to His ability to limit free will of man when He wishes, but based on past posts being removed, I doubt we will be able to discuss it.

Did the parent create the child's wills? Their desires? Did the parent create the child's universe and give them the tools to destroy it? Because if so, then yes, you can use this analogy. However, considering that the most involvement in creating a child that parents have active control over is whether or not they use protection, this still isn't the same. If God created everything, he created the world with specific vulnerabilities and created people with the intelligence to exploit these vulnerabilities, so unless he's a complete idiot, he is accountable.
 

Qre:us

New member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
4,890
There are two wills - free will and limited free will. God allows free will to choose a relationship with Him or not. He offers limited free will depending on His purposes after that (christian or not) because He is sovereign, has a plan in place=and it will be carried out just as He said.

So, those that are not christians have more free will than those that are (limited free will). Meaning, the moment you choose christianity, you are inadvertantly giving up your own free will to a degree (and 'placing it in god's hands, i'm gonna guess as the justification).

If someone interferes with His purposes, He will limit them. This doesn't make Him responsible for a persons choices if He chooses not to intervene though - else all humans would need to be robots, all could ascribe to a 'victim of life' and fatalistic attitude with zero responsibility.

Why doesn't it make him responsible for a person's action? He chooses when a person has will or not (meaning, he chooses depending on what the person will do...whether it's according to his plan or not)? So, limited free will is an illusion because it's not really free, only allowable because it's what God wants the person to do in the first place (because if otherwise, god will limit that will). So, why is a person then responsible for his/her own actions if god will intervene anyway depending on his plan?

I think to understand this perspective, the big picture needs to be considered. Man was created sinless, man chose to sin, God knew that, but allowed it and had a plan in place to redeem man, and did. But, He left man a choice of where He ends up at the end of that plan.

But, god allowed for sin to exist in the first place, god 'tricked' man (actually the WOMAN - Eve) to be tempted by sin, had Adam *also* pay for another's sin, and god knew what she'd choose, so, that was part of god's plan, to make man a sinner (because as you said, if it's not part of god's plan, he would limit such choices). So, god chose man to be sinner, and then make them redeem themselves for a sin that truly they didn't really choose out of their own complete free will? That's kinda fucked up for god to do that, isn't it?
 

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
There are two wills - free will and limited free will. God allows free will to choose a relationship with Him or not. He offers limited free will depending on His purposes after that (christian or not) because He is sovereign, has a plan in place=and it will be carried out just as He said. If someone interferes with His purposes, He will limit them. This doesn't make Him responsible for a persons choices if He chooses not to intervene though - else all humans would need to be robots, all could ascribe to a 'victim of life' and fatalistic attitude with zero responsibility.

I think to understand this perspective, the big picture needs to be considered. Man was created sinless, man chose to sin, God knew that, but allowed it and had a plan in place to redeem man, and did. But, He left man a choice of where He ends up at the end of that plan.

STOP IT! :steam: Your poor grammar bothers me more than your ideology. Believe in any god you want, but please stop capitializing words inapproriately. That makes you look worse than any other belief you may hold. Stop abusing the English language in an ill-conceived attempt to subliminally promote your god.

Capitalizing "God" is fine, but capitalizing a personal pronoun other than "I" when it doesn't begin a sentence is wrong.
 

Qre:us

New member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
4,890
STOP IT! Your poor grammar bothers me more than your ideology. Believe in any god you want, but please stop capitializing words inapproriately. That makes you look worse than any other belief you may hold. Stop abusing the English language in an ill-conceived attempt to subliminally promote your god.

That's not really fair, and, kind of childish, as it's not a relevant argument, as it assumes that the way ThinkingAboutIt conceives god is wrong. It's wrong to you. It's probably quite right to a whole group of others. There wouldn't be any discussion in this thread, without theists who BELIEVE responding to those of us who don't. That's the whole point of this thread. I don't think he/she picked on YOU for not capitalizing god.

Why would you harp on such an irrelevant issue? For the dull sake of being able to pick on someone? Does it make you feel good putting another down for irrelevant things? Joking sarcasm or not.
 

Snow Turtle

New member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
1,335
There's still a first question. Why did God bother with man in the first place?
What's up with all these plans to try save humanity? Isn't God omnipotent?

I don't buy into the argument that God is attempting to save humanity because they sinned, when he know what was going to happen. He could have created the perfect world where this problem need not occur. The fact that he planted the tree of knowledge and allowed Lucifer to exist in snakeform is already a downfall, unless of course there were other plans originally.
 
Top