A Pondering of the Peculiar (3)

[bhsmte]

The difference is, those people know they are dreams and hopes, delusional people don't understand the difference.

Correct. When I played college sports, I used visualization all the time. It is just a method to enhance concentration on a specific task and is not reality.

 

[Sayre]

You are forgetting that we don't define ourselves by what we don't believe in. A rational, honest approach to reality has much to offer. Recognizing that purpose in life is the purpose we give it is a much better way of approaching the world, IMHO. It seems a lot better than following a 2,000 year old book that seems obsessed with sex, and which animals you eat.

Aww come on the song of songs is the only thing that made school religion classes worthwhile.

But I agree - I also don't define myself or my life entirely by what I am not and what I don't believe in.

I am not an atheist, and being a non-atheist doesn't describe the sum total of me.

 

[GenemZ]

You are forgetting that we don't define ourselves by what we don't believe in. A rational, honest approach to reality has much to offer.

The more one understands about the precision and complexity of biological life? The greater the understanding, the deeper the dishonesty when atheists are confronted with Intelligent Design. They feel its their noble duty to deny its possible. Then they close their ears when their rationales are refuted. Honesty? Why be honest when it robs you of what you want when you are only a biological function for a short period of time, and then no more? Why be honest?

Recognizing that purpose in life is the purpose we give it is a much better way of approaching the world, IMHO. It seems a lot better than following a 2,000 year old book that seems obsessed with sex, and which animals you eat.

Obsessed with sex? Are you one of those people who do not go to movies, nor, own a TV? Man is obsessed with sex. The Bible just defined (for the Jews, and then for Christians) how one is conduct themselves. You have a problem with that? It was not written for atheists to follow, yet you act like it was. Go enjoy what ever it is that stimulates you. Its none of my business. But, don't tell believers they are to take your path. And , don't act surprised when Christians react to certain perversions that many stable unbelievers throughout centuries have also found to be disgusting. Its not just a Christian thing. You seem to ignore that factor, and want to blame Christians.

 

[PsychoSarah]

The more one understands about the precision and complexity of biological life? The greater the understanding, the deeper the dishonesty when atheists are confronted with Intelligent Design. They feel its their noble duty to deny its possible. Then they close their ears when their rationales are refuted. Honesty? Why be honest when it robs you of what you want when you are only a biological function for a short period of time, and then no more? Why be honest?

Obsessed with sex? Are you one of those people who do not go to movies, nor, own a TV? Man is obsessed with sex. The Bible just defined (for the Jews, and then for Christians) how one is conduct themselves. You have a problem with that? It was not written for atheists to follow, yet you act like it was. Go enjoy what ever it is that stimulates you. Its none of my business. But, don't tell believers they are to take your path. And , don't act surprised when Christians react to certain perversions that many stable unbelievers throughout centuries have also found to be disgusting. Its not just a Christian thing. You seem to ignore that factor, and want to blame Christians.

As I understood it, the bible was written for all people to follow in the hopes of conversion. It doesn't exclude nonbelievers from the punishments of disobeying it, so why say that it is only made for believers?

 

[GenemZ]

As I understood it, the bible was written for all people to follow in the hopes of conversion. It doesn't exclude nonbelievers from the punishments of disobeying it, so why say that it is only made for believers?

In the context I was speaking it was intended for only believers.

Not all things in the Bible are for those who are yet spiritually dead. The Gospel is for both the unbeliever and believer. The letters to the churches, were not for the unbeliever.

In the OT not all passages pertained to the unbeliever as well. For example, the Bible was never telling an unbeliever male to be circumcised. That would have only been applicable for someone who became regenerate and decided to live in Israel.

The Bible is not obsessed with sex. The Bible was written at a time when many religions required all sorts of sexual activities to be performed as an essential part of their pagan religious ritual. The Bible was designed to counter the world's obsession with sex for the sake of those who believed. To some the Bible may appear to be obsessed with sex. That is only seen that way because those people are not aware of the lifestyle of the pagans during the years the Bible was written. When Paul wrote Ephesians, in the city were many temples for pagan worship. Temples which housed temple prostitutes...male, female, children, and even animals... All for WORSHIP using sex as a means for its expression.

That is why some misunderstand Paul and assume he was an uptight prude obsessed with sex. He was simply trying to establish sanity and respect in marriage for the church living in a sexually obsessed pagan world. In contrast to Paul.. Peter did not have to cover the subject so much, because he was the apostle to the Jews. The Jews had been under the law for centuries, and already were a well established in regards to having a strong sexual moral code.

 

[PsychoSarah]

In the context I was speaking it was intended for only believers.
Not all things in the Bible are for those who are yet spiritually dead. The Gospel is for both the unbeliever and believer. The letters to the churches, were not for the unbeliever.
In the OT not all passages pertained to the unbeliever as well. For example, the Bible was never telling an unbeliever male to be circumcised. That would have only been applicable for someone who became regenerate and decided to live in Israel.
The Bible is not obsessed with sex. The Bible was written at a time when many religions required all sorts of sexual activities to be performed as a pert of their pagan religious ritual. The Bible was designed to counter the world's obsession with sex for the sake of those who believed.

Considering some of the sex restrictions outlined in the bible, I have to wonder exactly what the heck was going on. Because people shouldn't have to be told not to have sex with nonhuman entities, that should be pretty obvious.

And it doesn't appear that telling people "no" makes them any less obsessed.

 

[GenemZ]

Considering some of the sex restrictions outlined in the bible, I have to wonder exactly what the heck was going on. Because people shouldn't have to be told not to have sex with nonhuman entities, that should be pretty obvious.

And it doesn't appear that telling people "no" makes them any less obsessed.

I think you responded while I was still editing my post. Please read it again. I believe it will answer your question.

Telling the unregenerate "No" will do nothing for them. Regeneration brings in God's grace which enables the person to have the power given to cease his obsession. A believer can still resent and reject grace. Yet, if accepted, the believer will find himself mysteriously enabled to have power over sin that he will know is not of himself. Its one of the "evidences" believers receive when they choose to live for God. God gives the grace to the humble. To the arrogant and proud they are denied grace and left to fend for themselves... which is actually a form of justice. Since they felt they did not need help from God in the first place. Yes, there are believers who can choose to live raunchy. They do not lead happy lives, but they get to live the life they wanted for themselves.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I think you responded while I was still editing my post. Please read it again. I believe it will answer your question.

Telling the unregenerate "No" will do nothing for them. Regeneration brings in God's grace which enables the person to have the power given to cease his obsession. A believer can still resent and reject grace. Yet, if accepted, the believer will find himself mysteriously enabled to have power over sin that he will know is not of himself. Its one of the "evidences" believers receive when they choose to live for God. God gives the grace to the humble. To the arrogant and proud they are denied grace and left to fend for themselves... which is actually a form of justice. Since they felt they did not need help from God in the first place. Yes, there are believers who can choose to live raunchy. They do not lead happy lives, but they get to live the life they wanted for themselves.

I agree that believers can still fall into sin, that is very true and observed. However, I don't feel that belief is the only means by which to resist temptation. I think with enough willpower and reason anyone can prevent themselves from committing sinful acts.

As it were, I have a couple or disorders that would pretty much prevent me from easily committing certain sinful acts. I have "touch phobia" (I can't remember the proper name for it), which is intense emotional discomfort when engaging in any human contact. I compare it to the discomfort one would feel when sticking their hand in a pool of dirty pond scum; you could force yourself to do it if you really had to, but you would definately not seek it out. I have a feeling lust isn't going to be an issue for me. Likewise, a quirk of my autism is reduced shame and pride. It kind of ruins any achievement for me and makes me prone to self-hate, but it is rare for me to feel true shame and even more rare for me to actually take pride in something I accomplish.

Don't get me wrong, these disorders make my life suck in their own ways, but you have to admit they prevent sin comparably as well as any belief could.

 

[Davian]

I think it just applies to people in general. People may say lying is a sin, but I have been punished far more for saying the truth than for any lie, even if you summed up all my punished lies and multiplied them by 10 (I don't lie a lot, not because of it necessarily being just the "right thing to do" but also because my social disorder makes it hard for me to detect situations in which lying is acceptable and I am so terrible at telling lies there isn't really much of a reason for me to bother with lies, even when the situation demands it). I wish there wasn't that kind of conflict: even secular situations preach honesty and punish it in the same breath.

I think the cartoon is less about outward hypocrisy (towards others), as you are talking about, and more about internal hypocrisy where one accepts a lie because it is comforting, rather than accepting an unpleasant truth. They may not be consciously or even subconsciously aware of the lie, but it will go unexamined, even in the absence of any evidentiary support, as in the case for gods.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I think the cartoon is less about outward hypocrisy (towards others), as you are talking about, and more about internal hypocrisy where one accepts a lie because it is comforting, rather than accepting an unpleasant truth. They may not be consciously or even subconsciously aware of the lie, but it will go unexamined, even in the absence of any evidentiary support, as in the case for gods.

That is true as well, I think the reason why the truth is punished is because it challenges those comforting inner lies.

 

[Loudmouth]

The more one understands about the precision and complexity of biological life? The greater the understanding, the deeper the dishonesty when atheists are confronted with Intelligent Design.

That is an empty claim given the complete absence of ID science. We haven't been confronted with anything other than wishful thinking. It is completely dishonest to act as if ID has produced any science whatsoever.

They feel its their noble duty to deny its possible.

Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Then they close their ears when their rationales are refuted.

Show us where they have been refuted. This is a perfect example of what I am talking about. You talk a big game, but when you are asked to back your claims, all we get is hot air.

Obsessed with sex? Are you one of those people who do not go to movies, nor, own a TV? Man is obsessed with sex. The Bible just defined (for the Jews, and then for Christians) how one is conduct themselves.

A deity who produced billions of galaxies, each with billions of stars and planets, is somehow concerned about one planet around one star, and concerned to the point that the deity asks people not to eat pigs on Saturdays while wearing a mix of flax and wool. Surely you can see how silly this is?

 

[GenemZ]

That is an empty claim given the complete absence of ID science. We haven't been confronted with anything other than wishful thinking. It is completely dishonest to act as if ID has produced any science whatsoever.

You are the modern day equivalent of those believed the world is flat. If you think your body came about by a trillion right chances, all going in its favor? I will leave you sitting on the shore line. Screaming at me that I will fall off the edge of the earth (which you claim also appeared by chance).

Your arguments are a repetition of the rationales you have been taught to think, so you would not need to think. The emperor's new clothes must be breathtakingly beautiful to you.

Sorry to embarrass your emperor. My eyes are simply too good not to.

 

[Loudmouth]

You are the modern day equivalent of those believed the world is flat. If you think your body came about by a trillion right chances, all going in its favor? I will leave you sitting on the shore line. Screaming at me that I will fall off the edge of the earth (which you claim also appeared by chance).

Your arguments are a repetition of the rationales you have been taught to think, so you would not need to think. The emperor's new clothes must be breathtakingly beautiful to you.

Sorry to embarrass your emperor. My eyes are simply too good not to.

You have presented nothing that needs confronting. All you have is incredulity and hot air.

 

[GenemZ]

You have presented nothing that needs confronting. All you have is incredulity and hot air.

I thought I would try your approach. At least you recognize it for what it is.

 

[Loudmouth]

I thought I would try your approach. At least you recognize it for what it is.

I guess you have missed all of the threads where I have presented evidence that supports evolution? The problem is that creationists like yourself run away from these threads like they are the plague, like this one:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7799122/

We have supplied mountains of real scientific evidence to support evolution, and zero scientific work has come from ID proponents. All we get is hot air, like you have supplied.

 

[GenemZ]

I guess you have missed all of the threads where I have presented evidence that supports evolution? The problem is that creationists like yourself run away from these threads like they are the plague, like this one:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7799122/

We have supplied mountains of real scientific evidence to support evolution, and zero scientific work has come from ID proponents. All we get is hot air, like you have supplied.

If you took all the materials that are used to construct a ship. And, analyzed all the elements it consists of? One could create an argument that a ship is a relative to an automobile. Scientifically, he could base it upon the elemental structures.

The genetic structure of many creatures can easily be found to be similar. For the Lord who designed biological life was working primarily with the same building blocks of life he invented.

One can argue that my kitchen table and a wooden baseball bat at one time came from the same source. And, they would be correct.

All biological life came from the Lord. So, why should anyone be surprised with the similarities of different life forms that are found? Does an artist use an entirely different type of paint for each and every picture he paints? No.. Same paints. Similar stroke impression. But, an entirely different scene for each one.

 

[EternalDragon]

I guess you have missed all of the threads where I have presented evidence that supports evolution? The problem is that creationists like yourself run away from these threads like they are the plague, like this one:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7799122/

We have supplied mountains of real scientific evidence to support evolution, and zero scientific work has come from ID proponents. All we get is hot air, like you have supplied.

Logical thinking that computers, airplanes and ipods did not come from trillions of right chances always going in their favor is not hot air. It's mathematically logical and scientific.

You have mountains of evidence that species can produce variety, within their species, through natural selection. That's all you have. That is not what is being discussed in these forums.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You are the modern day equivalent of those believed the world is flat. If you think your body came about by a trillion right chances, all going in its favor? I will leave you sitting on the shore line. Screaming at me that I will fall off the edge of the earth (which you claim also appeared by chance).

Your arguments are a repetition of the rationales you have been taught to think, so you would not need to think. The emperor's new clothes must be breathtakingly beautiful to you.

Sorry to embarrass your emperor. My eyes are simply too good not to.

Given the trillions upon trillions of stars, and numerous planets, even an unlikely event such as life is bound to happen. However, looking at the statistical probability that any individual human would exist that you know to exist is a logical fallacy, because we aren't looking at all those events happening all at once.

This is to better explain. So, there is a roughly 50% chance of a child being a boy or a girl. Now, here is a situation for you. There is a family with three children, all boys. The mom is with child once again; what is the probability of this child being a boy?

By your logic, because the probability of having a boy each time is 50% and there are, in this situation, 4 boys, that would be a probability of 1/16 chance that the child is male, because you counted the probability of prior events that have ALREADY HAPPENED.

The reality is that this child, like all of its siblings, has a 50% chance of being a boy, because the probability of individual events is not cumulative! especially not with events that have already happened. Now, if the family had not children and you were predicting the probability of having all boys if they planned to have 4 kids, it would be 1/16, but because 3 of those 50% events already happened! you can't count them in the statistics.

You are looking into the past events and lowering the probability of any person existing significantly more than is logical.

 

[GenemZ]

Given the trillions upon trillions of stars, and numerous planets, even an unlikely event such as life is bound to happen.

Only the conditions for life will exist. Conditions for life do not produce life.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Only the conditions for life will exist. Conditions for life do not produce life.

How do you know?