Religious debate (split from main board)

#829
#829
Snakes on a Wii said:
Wow I hope I didn't kill this thread. Religion is one of my favorite things to talk about.
Click to expand...

Mine too.

So in the spirit of that, I give you this:

biblefight.jpg


;)
 
#832
#832
VolInMn said:
Does that apply to the gnostic gospels as well? ;)
Click to expand...

You're assuming they know what that is :crazy:

I once met a girl who tried very hard to convince me that Jesus was actually a free-market economist and the stuff about helping the poor were all socialist distortions.
 
#833
#833
A few months ago, I had a couple who were Jehovah's witnesses come to my door. I offered to discuss theology with them and asked their opinions on the gnostic gospels.

They "thought they had heard of them".
 
#836
#836
gsvol we miss you

I've had a religious conversion and realized that science is wrong and the earth is 6,000 years old and einstein believed in god

not really
 
#837
#837
Snakes on a Wii said:
gsvol we miss you

I've had a religious conversion and realized that science is wrong and the earth is 6,000 years old and einstein believed in god

not really
Click to expand...

From gsvol to Einstein, none of the things you mentioned have anything to do with the salvation of your soul.
:)
 
#838
#838
MWR said:
From gsvol to Einstein, none of the things you mentioned have anything to do with the salvation of your soul.
:)
Click to expand...

You assume I believe in the existence of a "soul". All the evidence seems to show that the phenomenon of mind requires no such thing. The brain has been shown to be the source of just about every facet of what we call "consciousness".
 
#839
#839
Snakes on a Wii said:
gsvol we miss you

I've had a religious conversion and realized that science is wrong and the earth is 6,000 years old and einstein believed in god

not really
Click to expand...

FWIW -

The idea of a 6,000 year old earth is not held as in high regard with as many Christians as it once was. Granted, a lot still believe it, but not as many as you would think. There's a couple of possible theories I've read that "could" prove it (that base solely on the concept of the atmosphere before The Flood), but it's becoming a gradual shift to the concept that the world is millions/billions of years old or that they are like me, and have quit concerning themselves with it because it doesn't really make a hill of beans difference.

And I also think that the KJV only people are also a bit too much as well.
 
#840
#840
Snakes on a Wii said:
You assume I believe in the existence of a "soul". All the evidence seems to show that the phenomenon of mind requires no such thing. The brain has been shown to be the source of just about every facet of what we call "consciousness".
Click to expand...

Right, and some psychological studies are doing more than show that the brain doesn't need a soul - they're making it very hard to believe in a soul at all. Its relatively old, and beaten to death, but Steven Pinker relates (in The Blank Slate) the fact that when the corpus callosum (joining the hemispheres) is severed, the self is cut in two. In Pinker's words "the left hemisphere constantly weaves a coherent but false account of the behaviour chosen without its knowledge by the right". When the patients were told something like "go into the other room", they would get up and do so. However, when asked why they did, they would reply with answers such as "to turn off the stove", "to get a drink", etc. The right hemisphere responds to the demand to leave the room, and the left hemisphere, once severed, doesn't know the reasoning behind the act, and tries to assign a plausible one. The result is a mind/self working in two opposite directions, independently of one another.

What role would this leave for the soul? Would the soul be split in two? Would the soul be forgetful, and not realize that the hemispheres are split and trying to talk? Or does the soul not affect thought/self....at which point, what is the point?
 
#841
#841
turambar85 said:
Right, and some psychological studies are doing more than show that the brain doesn't need a soul - they're making it very hard to believe in a soul at all. Its relatively old, and beaten to death, but Steven Pinker relates (in The Blank Slate) the fact that when the corpus callosum (joining the hemispheres) is severed, the self is cut in two. In Pinker's words "the left hemisphere constantly weaves a coherent but false account of the behaviour chosen without its knowledge by the right". When the patients were told something like "go into the other room", they would get up and do so. However, when asked why they did, they would reply with answers such as "to turn off the stove", "to get a drink", etc. The right hemisphere responds to the demand to leave the room, and the left hemisphere, once severed, doesn't know the reasoning behind the act, and tries to assign a plausible one. The result is a mind/self working in two opposite directions, independently of one another.

What role would this leave for the soul? Would the soul be split in two? Would the soul be forgetful, and not realize that the hemispheres are split and trying to talk? Or does the soul not affect thought/self....at which point, what is the point?
Click to expand...

You forgot the all defeating spiritual argument "Because we don't know everything we know nothing" :lolabove:
 
#842
#842
tigervol9802 said:
FWIW -

The idea of a 6,000 year old earth is not held as in high regard with as many Christians as it once was. Granted, a lot still believe it, but not as many as you would think. There's a couple of possible theories I've read that "could" prove it (that base solely on the concept of the atmosphere before The Flood), but it's becoming a gradual shift to the concept that the world is millions/billions of years old or that they are like me, and have quit concerning themselves with it because it doesn't really make a hill of beans difference.

And I also think that the KJV only people are also a bit too much as well.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I only know a few Christians who claim to be creationists. But it seems to me like whether or not a Christian is a creationist depends on how scientifically literate they are.
 
#843
#843
Snakes on a Wii said:
You assume I believe in the existence of a "soul". All the evidence seems to show that the phenomenon of mind requires no such thing. The brain has been shown to be the source of just about every facet of what we call "consciousness".
Click to expand...

Are you saying you do not have a soul?

If so, you are the first person I've heard say they have no soul. And I've met a lot of people who say they have a soul. And I'm just being curious here, but since you are a minority of one here, do you have any proof that you do not have a soul?
 
#845
#845
MWR said:
Are you saying you do not have a soul?

If so, you are the first person I've heard say they have no soul. And I've met a lot of people who say they have a soul. And I'm just being curious here, but since you are a minority of one here, do you have any proof that you do not have a soul?
Click to expand...

I have no rhythm, but I definately have a soul.
 
#846
#846
Snakes on a Wii said:
Yeah, I only know a few Christians who claim to be creationists. But it seems to me like whether or not a Christian is a creationist depends on how scientifically literate they are.
Click to expand...

You are just trying to start crap with this statement....arn't you?
 
#848
#848
turambar85 said:
Right, and some psychological studies are doing more than show that the brain doesn't need a soul - they're making it very hard to believe in a soul at all. Its relatively old, and beaten to death, but Steven Pinker relates (in The Blank Slate) the fact that when the corpus callosum (joining the hemispheres) is severed, the self is cut in two. In Pinker's words "the left hemisphere constantly weaves a coherent but false account of the behaviour chosen without its knowledge by the right". When the patients were told something like "go into the other room", they would get up and do so. However, when asked why they did, they would reply with answers such as "to turn off the stove", "to get a drink", etc. The right hemisphere responds to the demand to leave the room, and the left hemisphere, once severed, doesn't know the reasoning behind the act, and tries to assign a plausible one. The result is a mind/self working in two opposite directions, independently of one another.

What role would this leave for the soul? Would the soul be split in two? Would the soul be forgetful, and not realize that the hemispheres are split and trying to talk? Or does the soul not affect thought/self....at which point, what is the point?
Click to expand...

What do you define as your soul?
 
#849
#849
BeecherVol said:
What do you define as your soul?
Click to expand...

I don't define anything as my soul - it is an empty meaningless concept. I don't have a soul - nor does anybody else.

What do you think the soul does? What is its role in consciousness? Is it the powerhouse of the brain? If so, how do you reconcile it with psychological studies like the one I mentioned?
 
#850
#850
But, I will say that I was operating within the framework of "the soul is the self" doctrine. I don't think there is a theologically intriguing definition of soul that lacks this component.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top