A Question for Christians

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
Carlo,

This seems like pontificating to me. You are making all sorts of fantastic explanations and claims of reasons by way of supposedly facts without quoting any reference or authority! I presume you have a direct line of communication established with the "Know-all".

By the way, have you ever beed abducted by aliens as well, or can you as easily explain this phenomena in a similarly as coherent way?


[/ QUOTE ]

This is funny and you're right,it does come off as pontificating. I can't "jump out of myself" and throw a book at you as one would in a debate, for it offers nothing. What I've tried to present has it's own logical consistency and within this the truth or error can be experienced. Not to worry though, your higher self"That I Am" will not allow falsehood to enter.





[ QUOTE ]
This one really tops the lot of them and really is the one that got my attention and forced my relying (I could really not help myself). "The little death" etymology seems to have escaped your usual references implied accuracy. It is a direct translation of the french "La petite Mort" and its import and meaning is somewhat different to sleep. FYI, it refers to the post coital and post ejaculation, or post oragsmic, period of time for a man, where he would rather stay still and reviewing the experience just had, than pander to the woman need for re-assurances. LOL

You sound quite young Carlo. Good luck with your angels etc...


[/ QUOTE ]

Honestly,I've never heard nor read of "La Petite Mort" in the above context. Using your reasoning ability and non judgemental understanding, which one offers more of a connection to the term"Little Death", ejaculation or sleep?

Consider sleep: most of us consider it a turning off of consciousness much like turning off a radio and this is because of the thought processes in existance today. The thought processes for machines are brought into our everyday life and explain phenomenon(either explicity or implicity or not at all) without even realizing it. Sleep on it [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img].

To be fair,I'd like to offer Anthroposophy which can be found at Steiner Books.com.

carlo

P.S. MidGe-My son recently(2 years ago) did a semester in your land(Melbourne University)-worst grades ever! Young is nice [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

[DavidL]

Hi Carlo

I like the angle that you're coming from.

However, I think we need to consider that this is a "Science, Math and Philosophy" rather than "Metaphysics and Religion" forum; hence a large number of the contributors want to see "fact" that has a scientific foundation, and/or that which can reasonably deduced or extrapolated from such a foundation. We are dealing largely with Poker pros whose whole game plan is biased around probability and logic. I don't mean to sound sarcastic or conceited, but if we suddenly suggest that there exists a "realm" of the soul or spirit, then we have significantly challenged their world view. If moreover, we suggest that this realm transcends, or is a prerequisite of, the material world, then we are apparently seeking to turn that world view upside down. As such we should be expected to encounter a reception ranging from curiosity to abject skepticism. I expect to be flamed harshly for this post :-)

MidGe asks by what authority you claim to have the knowledge that you do. No offence specifically to MidGe, but other contributors have pointed to the Bible, God's word, as being the absolute authority. Of course this leads to the inevitable "why the Bible and not some other book, or system of belief?" question. Given anything other than a Christian perspective, it is a perfectly valid question. The heart of the problem is the differing innate convictions. Reason can be used to support, and extend, any system of belief.

Atheists insist that the "faith-versus-reason" debate be conducted with reason as the final arbiter, which means that faith will never get a fair hearing. Again I apologize if I appear conceited, but the problem is apparently that we speak and understand two different "languages", but they are fluent in only one, hence we are compelled to conduct the debate in the arena that is common to all.

Jesus says "unless a man is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God". Anybody who genuinely seeks God is slowly granted a window into the spiritual realm. This is an act of humility and surrender that has little to do with the intellect ("except you become as a little child, you can not enter the kingdom of God"). The Bible says that "knowledge will pass away, but these things will remain – faith, hope and love". Science, knowledge, logic – these are only temporary "conditions".

Believing in a spiritual realm complicates one's belief system, in that it potentially creates more questions than it brings answers to questions that we already have. To somebody whose goal is to work toward an understanding of all things, this must seem like a massively backward step. But it is pride that is the source of a desire to know everything; humility is about placing one's trust and faith, and ultimately one's whole life, in the hands of God. Yielding is extremely difficult, just believing in God doesn't necessarily make it any easier. Yet it is also the ultimate process in true liberation. Paradoxically, the more that we hold on to, the more we have to lose. But "repentance" (not a word I like personally, but one that is widely understood) is only ever one decision away. It is both as easy, and as difficult, as that.

Another problem is that not all Christians agree on issues of doctrine. Different denominations place differing emphasis and interpretation on different Bible verses. Again, to those who are seeking acquisition of knowledge, this lack of consistency is a stumbling block, which to them invalidates both the "Author" of Christianity along with His diversely-thinking believers. I have ceased placing faith in doctrine – which places me at odds with many other Christians – and sought a more existential approach, one that bypasses dogma to encompass emotion, subjectivity, individuality, imagination, intuition, compassion. For it is love, not a knowledge that will pass away, that lies at the heart of God. I think I've quoted Pascal before on this forum, but it remains an all time favorite: "the heart has its own reason, that reason can never grasp".

Many Christians project the unfortunate impression that God prizes moral purity above faith. All that does is create a perception of hypocrisy, for at the end of the day I am no closer to achieving moral perfection than anybody else.

Re the issue of belief, I've heard it said that "to those who believe, no proof is necessary; to those who do not, no proof is possible". A pretty fair conclusion, IMHO.

David

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Atheists insist that the "faith-versus-reason" debate be conducted with reason as the final arbiter, which means that faith will never get a fair hearing. Again I apologize if I appear conceited, but the problem is apparently that we speak and understand two different "languages", but they are fluent in only one, hence we are compelled to conduct the debate in the arena that is common to all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would it were so. A supernatural belief system is not layered on top of or in addition to the secular view or it would be irrelevant to living ones life. It's intertwined in the worldview, attributing different causes for occurences, different consequences as actions. Xtrianity is not complex to understand ( or it would be only for the bright, which it doesn't seem to be), and many have been in that framework and left it behind. There's no deep mystery to understanding the claims, most are very simplistic for that matter, and need to be.

"faith-versus-reason" debate can only occur in the arena of reason by definition "debate". Give us an example of a faith-based debate that leaves reason out .. who knows, maybe people would take to it. But remember .. NO reason or logic allowed. I'd love to listen in, you'll have no problem finding a partner on here.
I'm not even asking for a reason-faith debate done in the faith method .. I'd just like to see one between too people of the same faith, debating it, no reasoning, no logic.

gluck, luckyme

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Carlo

I like the angle that you're coming from.

However, I think we need to consider that this is a "Science, Math and Philosophy" rather than "Metaphysics and Religion" forum; hence a large number of the contributors want to see "fact" that has a scientific foundation, and/or that which can reasonably deduced or extrapolated from such a foundation. We are dealing largely with Poker pros whose whole game plan is biased around probability and logic. I don't mean to sound sarcastic or conceited, but if we suddenly suggest that there exists a "realm" of the soul or spirit, then we have significantly challenged their world view. If moreover, we suggest that this realm transcends, or is a prerequisite of, the material world, then we are apparently seeking to turn that world view upside down. As such we should be expected to encounter a reception ranging from curiosity to abject skepticism. I expect to be flamed harshly for this post :-)

[/ QUOTE ]

David,

Quite understand what you are saying but I have to bring to your consideration that what I am talking of can be absolutely cognized scientifically.

The duality of faith/knowledge is of course a result of the type of thinking in our time(the Galelio thing would be seen as an external manifestation of this). The church took faith and science took reason,Q.E.D.

Conceive that through thinking one can approach that "hidden knowledge" in a scientific manner. This would necessitate observation by an observer which could be verified by other observers.

The geist of our scientific community is that events are only verifiable via WEIGHT and MEASUREMENT. This crashes the human into materiality and in fact is a non thinking metholodogy. To them, if it does not contain ponderability it is not worthy of examination. The scientist then spins thoughts(spiritual realities) to explain what they do not comprehend. The result is theorems,hypootheses, speculations,bad dreams, and non reality realities. At a time in the future people will see this time as a great superstition much like we see the "old gods" of grecian times.

Something to consider is that our technology is truly amazing but be careful when having the scientist explain what is going on. Don't believe the Wright brothers needed a calculus of flight , nor Alexander Graham Bell the physics of acoustics, or Thomas Edison the Laplacian Transformation.Copernicus clarified the heavens but never considered that there was not a spirituality involved.

I would very much like to clarify a piece of this "hidden reality"as a "pointer"to consideration by thinking individuals. This type of activity is up to each individual and I hopefully related that this world does exist, and it is within their powers to approach this reality.

Science and religion, it would seem, are both interested in truth, and inexorably they will meet each other at the mount.

carlo

[hmkpoker]

I know it's just a simple spelling mistake, but "hypootheses" is really funny [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[11t]

Well assuming brain transplants are possible here is what I would say.

1. If you judge purely based on physical basis than obviously whoever looks like "George" is "George" and whoever looks like "Harry" is "Harry". Of course, if you think about it many psychologists believe in multiple personality disorder so by a purely psychological basis whoever's conciousness resides in a body dictates who it is.

2. Difficult to say, again I would think a soul would resign along conciousness. I mean, you seem to be implying that "the soul" would reside in an organ like the liver or something. Of course if you are talking about brain transplants than I suppose we would be assuming that the soul would resign in the brain. Of course, I would just say they resign along with the original conciousness.

3. By question 2, whoever's conciousness committs the mortal sin would go to hell. I would think that physical appearances mean very little to God. Of course who is to say that getting a brain transplant isn't a mortal sin.

Davidt,

Thanks for your very clear, helpful, yet moderate reply.

I will try again to explain the issue, and the reason for the extreme annoyance I experience with carlo et al.


This is the correct "answer":
[ QUOTE ]
Re the issue of belief, I've heard it said that "to those who believe, no proof is necessary; to those who do not, no proof is possible". A pretty fair conclusion, IMHO.


[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks davidt [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]


This, otoh is the super annoying and obscurantist view:
[ QUOTE ]
Science and religion, it would seem, are both interested in truth, and inexorably they will meet each other at the mount.


[/ QUOTE ]

Science and religion belong to two different domains. I don't really care much about what quaint religious beliefs peope have, as long as they don't force them on me or limit my behaviour based on those.

The really rankling and galling thing is to try to infer that somehow religion is of the same domain as science, and then trying to undo centuries of development and refinement of the scientific thought/process/method which has been extremely useful (more so than religion imo), by appropriating the rightly developped rational related prestige of science to support some travesty of it by bringing in the metaphysical concept of supernatural. Science and rationality have nothing to do with the SUPERnatural. It is of no concern to the scientific and to the rational mind. Rudolph (how seasonal [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] ) Steiner is neither a scientist, nor a rationalist or rational thinker. He, like many religionists, is trying to appropriate the inherent value of reason, and therefore pervert it, to sustain or add credibility to their own irrational fabrications. It is a very dangerous trait. It is an attempt at subversion of the rational by the irrational. It would have great and tragique consequences for culture and human development and it is a very insinuous and pernicious manner of attempting this subversion.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Science and religion, it would seem, are both interested in truth, and inexorably they will meet each other at the mount.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's an equivocation to think there is any connection between the truth that science seeks and the truth that religion seeks. Besides, most religions are about salvation or variations of that. IOW, a religion like xtrianity only asks that you accept jesus, there is no requirement or expectation of 'truth'even in whatever meaning that word would have in that context.
Natural selection vs ID is a good example. Do you really see the day that science says "yeah, I guess you're right, we'll destroy the evidence."

They are climbing different mounts. Since religion makes secular claims based on revelation and faith and science claims the material world is it's own to explore, there is no way for the two to BE reconciled, even if such a warm-fuzzy idea attracted some participants.

[AlwaysWrong]

I'd say you are making a huge assumption in identifying the mind with the brain. If you're a materialist, the mind is a function of the entire body, not just the brain. Although the majority of cognition is done in the brain, my consciousness must also be determined by the rest of my body: my hormones, my gurgling stomach, my blood-sugar level, etc.

So my inital response would be that the answer to your question isn't the answer to the question you want to ask.

Moving on...

If you're a dualist then the answer to your question depends on how you think the mind interacts with the body and the brain. It could be that cognition is entirely determined by the mind/soul, and the brain is simply a lump of flesh that relays instructions from the soul to the body and relays sensations from the body to the soul. In that case the question becomes how is the soul anchored to the body? Probably the only way to answer that question would be to perform the transplant and see if switching brains switches behaviour.

Obviously whatever body that is controlled by the soul would be the one whose actions the soul is responsible for when determining if the soul should go to heaven.

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
Science and religion belong to two different domains. I don't really care much about what quaint religious beliefs peope have, as long as they don't force them on me or limit my behaviour based on those.

The really rankling and galling thing is to try to infer that somehow religion is of the same domain as science, and then trying to undo centuries of development and refinement of the scientific thought/process/method which has been extremely useful (more so than religion imo), by appropriating the rightly developped rational related prestige of science to support some travesty of it by bringing in the metaphysical concept of supernatural. Science and rationality have nothing to do with the SUPERnatural. It is of no concern to the scientific and to the rational mind. Rudolph (how seasonal ) Steiner is neither a scientist, nor a rationalist or rational thinker. He, like many religionists, is trying to appropriate the inherent value of reason, and therefore pervert it, to sustain or add credibility to their own irrational fabrications. It is a very dangerous trait. It is an attempt at subversion of the rational by the irrational. It would have great and tragique consequences for culture and human development and it is a very insinuous and pernicious manner of attempting this subversion.


[/ QUOTE ]

You're fighting your own windmills. The title of this post is "A Question for Christians" and a picture of the soul was brought forward. Yopu then mocked me(with a smile) when speaking of a soul which to Christians,in main, is not material.

There are Christian scientists and scientific Christians and it is really hard to place them in opposition in the abstractions of religion and science. This is about INDIVIDUAL MAN and his work in his mileu.

I believe I did invite this contumely when I made it seem that scientists are somewhat less than human(superstition,speculation,etc.) and for this I apologize.

Rationality and logical thought cannot be destroyed by what you've read in these posts but to bring this knowledge(soul knowledge if you will) the thought forms and logic expected and understood by people of our day are absolutely necessary in the presenting of this work. I believe that luckyme said it clearly when he dared someone to have a discussion of faith or religion without the use of rationality . It would be interesting.

The opposing camps(yours not mine) are made up of INDIVIDUAL MAN and to believe that science or religion is greater than the work of these individuals is presenting things "fass backwards". This is the realm of compulsion, that of religion and science in a compulsive sphere.

Why is it so hard to believe that INDIVIDUAL MAN can reconcile?

I shudder to think of what would happen if I were not allowed rationality and logic to guide me in this life.

carlo