A Question for Christians

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">I was quoted in the a newspaper saying "your job is to disagree, do it!" </font>

lol- I used to tell my former business partner that if we ever both agreed on everything, it's a problem, because then one of us would become unnecessary!

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">In other words, we are blind because we can see, and deaf because we can hear. What alternative, superior sense modalities do you propose? </font>


I'm pretty convinced there are dimensions outside our own existence and expererience. One might ask, how could a soul experience anything without eyes, smell, taste, sound, or feel? What I'm saying is those senses are limiting us from experiencing all that is beyond. Imagine viewing a parade through a keyhole. You see only certain parts marching past your view, but open the door and Whahla! There is so much more.

[paraphrasing slightly because I can't remember the exact quote]

"Once the doors of perception are opened, we begin to see things as they truly are, infinite."

-Huxley

[hmkpoker]

"If the doors of perception were cleansed everything would appear to man as it is: Infinite. This I shall do by printing in the infernal method by corrosives, which in Hell are salutary and medicinal, melting apparent surfaces away, and displaying the infinite which was hid."

William Blake, The Marriage of Heaven and Hell

http://www3.iath.virginia.edu/elab/hfl0234.html


Huxley, on the other hand, would have just come out and said "try mescaline" ^_^

[Lestat]

Oops! I KNEW it was William Blake, and tried to google it, but all I got was Huxley. I'm most familiar with the phrase as Jim Morrison said it.

Thanks for the correction.

[fuego527]

The reason why saying "read the Bible" is a cop-out is that we don't care what you think Job did or what the main course was at the Last Supper. The concept of "something that happens in a story" is very familiar to us already. The things that interest us are the "why do you think that?" and the "how did you come to this conclusion?" The problem is that the answer is not based in fact, which is the only thing that we will accept. It is, instead, based in belief. You feel safe in this belief because there are a lot of people that believe in the same thing. That is OK with me (which I know doesn't mean [censored] to you, as it shouldn't), believe what you want. I do not have that luxury, my brain does not allow me to believe things beyond the extent of "this seems probable" without proof of such things. So, from this perspective, you can probably see why threads like this one exist. People like Lestat and myself need to understand such specific details to think that something is true. The attempt is not to trap as much as it is to understand your specific belief. The truth is, however, that your system is not based on fact, and therefore can not stand up to such analysis. The last sentence is not intended in a derogatory manner, I just meant that that stuff CAN'T be proven.

[Sifmole]

[ QUOTE ]
The reason why saying "read the Bible" is a cop-out is that we don't care what you think Job did or what the main course was at the Last Supper. The concept of "something that happens in a story" is very familiar to us already. The things that interest us are the "why do you think that?" and the "how did you come to this conclusion?" The problem is that the answer is not based in fact, which is the only thing that we will accept. It is, instead, based in belief. You feel safe in this belief because there are a lot of people that believe in the same thing. That is OK with me (which I know doesn't mean [censored] to you, as it shouldn't), believe what you want. I do not have that luxury, my brain does not allow me to believe things beyond the extent of "this seems probable" without proof of such things. So, from this perspective, you can probably see why threads like this one exist. People like Lestat and myself need to understand such specific details to think that something is true. The attempt is not to trap as much as it is to understand your specific belief. The truth is, however, that your system is not based on fact, and therefore can not stand up to such analysis. The last sentence is not intended in a derogatory manner, I just meant that that stuff CAN'T be proven.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your post is, to me, a reasonable one with decent points. I did want to bring to the front the thing you ended with, which I think is most relevant. Christianity is a "faith", and based on "beliefs" not on facts or science -- and as such cannot be proven. But it can be discussed in a philosophical sense, and has been many times.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Which one is now Harry and which one is George?

[/ QUOTE ]

When they wake up from the operation just ask them, If they suffered no brain damage at all then each individual knows who they are(assuming they knew this before the operation).

[ QUOTE ]
2. In which body does George's soul reside?

[/ QUOTE ]

The soul resides with George. Once you know who George is you know where the soul is.

[ QUOTE ]

3. If the body that had Harry's brain before the transplant now commits a mortal sin, who's going to hell? Harry or George? (please specify which one is which).

[/ QUOTE ]

You have to ask God, he does the judging not men.

Stu

[Sifmole]

[ QUOTE ]
<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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, this response is perfect really.

You open with an insult, one which you find clever. And you of course chose not to respond in any way to the rest of my statements that did answer some of your questions and asked questions of you.

My point exactly.

[ QUOTE ]

Your post is, to me, a reasonable one with decent points. I did want to bring to the front the thing you ended with, which I think is most relevant. Christianity is a "faith", and based on "beliefs" not on facts or science -- and as such cannot be proven. But it can be discussed in a philosophical sense, and has been many times.

[/ QUOTE ]

Heya Sifmole,

I really think that here you hit the nail right on the head. Indeed relgion is based on faith, as has been demonstrated and claimed over and over again, on this forum. Of course if a religionist says that he has no rationale for his belief, I, for one, cannot object to this. I accept that it is so. The problem is that religionists in their insecurity always seem to want to justify to themselves and others that their position is somehow rational. Of course it isn't, and by these discussions they are going to be confronted over and over again with the obvious contradictions inherent in their faith based positions. This is why I do tend to answer statements from religionoists, altough I am certain, that they truly are not interested in critically investigating facts. They would like to convince themselves and others that their position is rational. But being confronted over and over again, may just be enough in rare case to start thinking critically, like nearly every atheist has probably had to do. I do hope so. Liberation from delusion is a very worthy thing in my experience. It is truly to be reborn and see the world as if for the first time.

By the way, I find it most interesting that religionists, seem to act in concert (in cohorts? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] ) and tend to ignore the most salient posts made on this forum.

you demand an answer from others about hypothetical conclsions for an event which may or may not ever be possible. There is not even any Biblical passage which says where the soul resides in the first place, so the question cannot even begin to be answered, and it may be moot anyways as your scenario may never take place