A Question for Christians

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Lestat presented a "simple' question with very little details and wanted an answer. The transparent intention is that he will then follow up with numerous "complications" attacking each answer given -- in an attempt to trap the responder.

[/ QUOTE ]
Totally agree and disagree. The best way to find out about another persons views is to not constrict their ability to describe them by setting up a bunch of perhaps irrelevant preconditions. You state a general condition and let them add the lines that fit how they see it. Successful negotiatiing often works along those lines also.
If you lay out a detailed scenario, you're almost for sure going to put in stipulations that make it impossible for the other guy to answer ( have you stopped beating your wife).
Yes, there will be followup 'details' on both sides, that's the point of the general question on a philosophy forum, "I think X because of ABC".
I WANT people to find sloppy thinking or overlooked facts in stances I've arrived at, it's one reason I post on here and the crew seems to heave-to pretty well. No, it doesn't mean I'm going to become a Moonie, or that NR will take up Zen. The hope is that all parties will come away with a better grasp of their view and a better understanding/appreciation for the other guys.
I don't understand the 'fear' part.

[Sifmole]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Lestat presented a "simple' question with very little details and wanted an answer. The transparent intention is that he will then follow up with numerous "complications" attacking each answer given -- in an attempt to trap the responder.

[/ QUOTE ]
Totally agree and disagree. The best way to find out about another persons views is to not constrict their ability to describe them by setting up a bunch of perhaps irrelevant preconditions. You state a general condition and let them add the lines that fit how they see it. Successful negotiatiing often works along those lines also.
If you lay out a detailed scenario, you're almost for sure going to put in stipulations that make it impossible for the other guy to answer ( have you stopped beating your wife).
Yes, there will be followup 'details' on both sides, that's the point of the general question on a philosophy forum, "I think X because of ABC".
I WANT people to find sloppy thinking or overlooked facts in stances I've arrived at, it's one reason I post on here and the crew seems to heave-to pretty well. No, it doesn't mean I'm going to become a Moonie, or that NR will take up Zen. The hope is that all parties will come away with a better grasp of their view and a better understanding/appreciation for the other guys.
I don't understand the 'fear' part.

[/ QUOTE ]

Read the rest of Lestat's posts and you will see that his mindset is so totally different from yours. You are saying you are interested in hearing others views to expand your knowledge; he is interested in trapping someone and showing how stupid they are.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
While taking positions to their logical extremes is a valid method to expose the full implications of various arguements, these types of far out hypothetical questions only have the intentions you gave.

[/ QUOTE ] Yeah, what useful thought could come out of "hmmm..what would be happening if I rode a beam of light." Pumping your intuition with simplified starting points is one of secrets of flushing out good and new understanding of concepts that are hard to articulate.
Archimedes - "I could move the world" scenario.
Descartes Demon.
Philosophy is full of visualization tools and hypothetical scenarios.

[ QUOTE ]
A sincere person wanting to understand christianity can read the bible and commentaries and catechisms on same. If they wish to honestly know more about buddhism, then they can read the sutras and writings of buddhists through the ages.

[/ QUOTE ]
So, what exactly (oops..details, details sorry)..Roughly are you hoping to acheive when you ask somebody "why do YOU think X, or How does Y appear from your view". Does a reply "read Sartre" add anything. How could Sartre know what Hortense is thinking and why? [ QUOTE ]
A sincere person wanting to understand christianity can read the bible and commentaries and catechisms on same.

[/ QUOTE ] Bluffthis, that's my point. Why if I can understand your views or xtrianities views on anything by doing what you suggest does there seem to be 300 versions of what that view is? When I read the bible and did my catechism I didn't end up with NRs views, your views, Peter666's views... why? if it's all attainable the way you suggest.
I like my explaination better. People interpret their religious viewpoint based on a variety of needs that they bring to the table ( else you'd be right and I'd find your view when I read bible) so any person you are discussing a moral or general religion influenced area with needs to be asked for their spin on it. "I" won't find your views in the bible any more than you'll find mine in Sartre et al.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> Do you honestly believe that Lestat has any intention of changing his already held stance that "Christianity is stupid and so are those brainless fools that believe it." </font>

Wow! Where did I ever get the reputation of being so hard core and immovable? On the contrary, I consider myself among the more permissable and softer toned non-believers here. I entertain anyone's opinions, which is exactly what I was trying to do here.

Will I be convinced otherwise? Not likely, but I'm genuinely interested in other people's opinions and rationale. And if someone ever did provide a logical argument contrary to my beliefs I would consider them. This is more than can be said for people like BluffThis.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">he is interested in trapping someone and showing how stupid they are. </font>

Would love to play some poker with you, cuz your read on me couldn't be more wrong. I might not be as eloquent as Luckyme, but the reasons he gave are EXACTLY why I made the post.

I want to hear YOUR thoughts about my questions, because if you say something coherent that disagrees with what I've come to believe, it makes me question how I arrived at where I am. If you say something coherent that I still can refute, then it helps me consumate my beliefs better.

Did you see my reply to BigDaddyO? I said I liked his analogy, but I pointed out that I still had some problems with it.

What about my response to bluebassman? I indicated where I thought he was wrong and even went so far as to give what I thought would be a rational explaination from a BELIEVER'S side! I don't know where you're coming up with my trying to trap people. That's not what this is about.

[Sifmole]

I didn't quote your whole posting....

One answer is: that an attempt to support a position under fire requires significant effort, anticipation, and thought; and I would say that this level of effort is truly well beyond that supported by an Internet forum.

Pointing others to volumes of information already formulated, thought about, edited, etc over many years is a useful thing for helping someone else find information. Why is a reference to reading 500 pages of Aquinas seen as a cop-out? It takes 500 pages to explain, or even more.

The process of tearing something down is in relation, extremely easy. You need only take one point or aspect and rip at it w/o the need to support but only the need to cast doubt.

[Lestat]

I can tell you I won't be starting a new account any time soon, and I think it's sad that you're unwilling to discuss your beliefs and how you arrived at them on a philosophy forum.

"Read the bible" is a copout. I might tell you to read Dawkins.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
You are saying you are interested in hearing others views to expand your knowledge; he is interested in trapping someone and showing how stupid they are.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I may be if I fell for his trap :-)
If somebody poses a question poorly ( or even trickily) and I get 'trapped' by answering it by not seeing the box I've put myself in, that's a valuable learning experience. I'll have learned something about the implication of certain phrases or the sloppiness of my thinking or ...
Even if somebody had crappy motives - and I don't think wanting to show up my sloppy thinking is a bad thing ... since it's one of my goals. with ego problems ( Lestat..I'm not referring to you in any of this, just to the general fear)
One of my best lessons in clarifying issues came when I was 'set-up' on stage in a public debate on constitutional issues years ago. I learned to be sure I agreed that the question was framed in a way I could answer.
I just fail to see anything trappy in the hypothetical posed and I think hypotheticals are necessary in many areas of discussion.
Years ago I was laughed at for asking about taking a monkey cell and tinkering with it and implanting it in a human..what would the baby be? Turns out, just like lestats, it has some relevance in moral decisions of today.
I tell people on boards I sit on to stay home if they're going to agree with me. I was quoted in the a newspaper saying "your job is to disagree, do it!" You ideas best friends are people that disagree with them. I think we should look stupid about once a week just to remind us that we really are. luckyme

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]

We got a whole squad of these guys infesting this forum and they keep making new accounts when people finally realize they are being toyed with and stop responding.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do find it funny that you think this is happening. A squad? How many people have done this in your estimation?

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you need to look outside the 5 senses. I'm a non-believer and I think our 5 senses are actually limiting our experience of the universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, we are blind because we can see, and deaf because we can hear. What alternative, superior sense modalities do you propose?

[ QUOTE ]
If I were a believer, I'd tell you that once we die, the soul is freed, no longer bound by just the 5 senses in which we can experience everything. We are now exposed to God's full glory and His creation. Things like Alzheimer's, senility, and the lack of earthly sensory perception of a newborn are baseless.

[/ QUOTE ]

My question asks what, precisely, is meant by the verb "to experience" in the afterlife, not how do we sense external stimuli. My experience, i.e. my consciousness, is a direct result of the neural firings in my brain. Since those firings cease upon death, I don't know in what way I can continue to "experience" anything which is not a result of that neural activity.

Like I said, any answer is unintelligible.