What is a soul?

wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
What is a soul?

 

 I dunno. 

Did God create the universe?

    Maybe. How can you create something that has always existed?

 Is God all powerful?

    I dunno. It's not a concept that makes sense to me. More powerful than me is all I can say.

Is God all knowing?

   I dunno. It's not a concept that makes sense to me. Smarter than me is all I can say.

 Was Jesus real?

    There is some evidence that he was a real individual, but nothing definitive. 

Is Jesus the Son of God?

    Not my worry. If He is, then as long as I seek truth, it will be made evident to me.

Can rational thought alone explain existence?

    Maybe.

 Is sin real?

    Can't say. Too many defintions of sin. Shit happens. The shooting at Virginia Tech seemed like an act of evil.

 Does God send people to hell? Nah. We do a good enough job creating hell on earth. He doesn't need to step in.

 

Would you like me to answer any other questions? 

 

 

The more militant members of this forum would do well to realize I lay claim to very little. I am definately NOT a theist cut from the same cloth as Evengelical Christians.  


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
LoL, wave.  Despite the

LoL, wave.  Despite the fact that your ultimate disconnect between supernatural and natural aggravates me, I do think you're pretty cool.

The thing about you that puzzles me most is why you're trying so hard to use logic to explain something that's plainly illogical.  What makes you want so badly to believe in a god?

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: LoL,

Hambydammit wrote:

LoL, wave. Despite the fact that your ultimate disconnect between supernatural and natural aggravates me, I do think you're pretty cool.

The thing about you that puzzles me most is why you're trying so hard to use logic to explain something that's plainly illogical. What makes you want so badly to believe in a god?

 

 

This is going to sound weird. I want to know why I can't shake my belief in god. What is so strong in me that it refuses to be over-ridden by reasonable arguments to the contrary? I've never heard an explanation that cuts that cord. 


Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
It sounds to me more like

It sounds to me more like you subscribe to an idea of a superior being that created us but not neccessarily a supernatural being that defies natural?


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Tarpan wrote: It sounds to

Tarpan wrote:

It sounds to me more like you subscribe to an idea of a superior being that created us but not neccessarily a supernatural being that defies natural?

 

I am quite comfortable with the idea that "super-natural" is non-sensical. Everything that exists is natural. Super-natural is just some catch-all for all the stuff that we don't understand but feel we still need an explanation for. Or something like that.


Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: This is

wavefreak wrote:

This is going to sound weird. I want to know why I can't shake my belief in god. What is so strong in me that it refuses to be over-ridden by reasonable arguments to the contrary? I've never heard an explanation that cuts that cord.

I would like to take this challenge.

The attachment to god is one that is engraved in you from a young age and is a horrific thing to part with.  It's not socially acceptable either.  It's kind of like walking around with no pants all the time.  Even if you think it's better for you, it doesn't feel right and if the people around you don't agree with it, then you're a bit of a social outcast.

How do you go about cutting that cord though? If you honestly do want to, you have to not cut the cord but forget about the cord altogether.  And here's how you do it.

Repeat after me: "I don't know"

Your reason for believing in a god is impressioned upon you.  But if you're not 100%, why not just say it.  I don't know.  That's all it takes.  It sounds simple, but is one of the most difficult things I find for people to do.  Truely beliving that "I don't know" is an acceptable answer for afterlife, god, the universe, life.  I don't have all the answers.  Science doesn't have all the answers.  Religion has no proof.

All these things are really just surrogates for people having a hard time saying "I don't know".  If you truely want to cut your ties to faith and to theism, then accept "I don't know" as an acceptable response to those things and you'll be able to go on through life with a clear head and not worry about them.  Because you don't know.  Maybe at that point you can spend time learning, reading, finding what other people have to say.  But at the end of the day it's all about accepting that ignorance is both bliss, and a reality of life.  Assuming supernatural beings have all the answers is based on nothing.  Believing everything science has put forth as pure fact is being ignorant to the inevitable changes that will happen as time goes on.  So just admit that you're not an expert, you don't have the answers, and be content with whatever your level of ignorance is.

Tha'ts your first step.  That's not saying you're an atheist, but it puts you into the wonders of agnosticism.  And that's a good first step. 


JHenson
Theist
Posts: 112
Joined: 2007-03-29
User is offlineOffline
May I ask a few questions,

May I ask a few questions, wave? 

wavefreak wrote:

Did God create the universe?

    Maybe. How can you create something that has always existed?

Do you believe the universe has always existed?  Why?

wavefreak wrote:
Is sin real?

    Can't say. Too many defintions of sin. Shit happens. The shooting at Virginia Tech seemed like an act of evil.

In your opinion, would sin be God-centered or human-centered?  In other words, would a sin be against God or against people?  Is the distinction relevant?

wavefreak wrote:
Does God send people to hell? Nah. We do a good enough job creating hell on earth. He doesn't need to step in.

Heh, in a way I actually agree with you, and I try to be as conservative a Christian as I can be.  That's conservative as in taking few liberties, not as in crazy right-wing. Smiling

"The map appears more real to us than the land." - Lawrence


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: This

wavefreak wrote:

 

This is going to sound weird. I want to know why I can't shake my belief in god. What is so strong in me that it refuses to be over-ridden by reasonable arguments to the contrary? I've never heard an explanation that cuts that cord. 


I don't know that it took any one argument to "cut the cord" for me.  Personally it was a combination of things.
1. Learning of other philosophies and religions and wondering what was the reason for anyone truly believing they had the right answer (while also somehow really being sure everyone else was wrong)2. Asking the "wrong" questions to church people and not getting sufficient answers.3. George Carlin
I suppose this could be a long list...  but really I'm sure the path is different for everyone.


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Tarpan wrote: wavefreak

Tarpan wrote:
wavefreak wrote:

This is going to sound weird. I want to know why I can't shake my belief in god. What is so strong in me that it refuses to be over-ridden by reasonable arguments to the contrary? I've never heard an explanation that cuts that cord.

I would like to take this challenge.

The attachment to god is one that is engraved in you from a young age and is a horrific thing to part with. It's not socially acceptable either. It's kind of like walking around with no pants all the time. Even if you think it's better for you, it doesn't feel right and if the people around you don't agree with it, then you're a bit of a social outcast.

How do you go about cutting that cord though? If you honestly do want to, you have to not cut the cord but forget about the cord altogether. And here's how you do it.

Repeat after me: "I don't know"

Your reason for believing in a god is impressioned upon you. But if you're not 100%, why not just say it. I don't know. That's all it takes. It sounds simple, but is one of the most difficult things I find for people to do. Truely beliving that "I don't know" is an acceptable answer for afterlife, god, the universe, life. I don't have all the answers. Science doesn't have all the answers. Religion has no proof.

All these things are really just surrogates for people having a hard time saying "I don't know". If you truely want to cut your ties to faith and to theism, then accept "I don't know" as an acceptable response to those things and you'll be able to go on through life with a clear head and not worry about them. Because you don't know. Maybe at that point you can spend time learning, reading, finding what other people have to say. But at the end of the day it's all about accepting that ignorance is both bliss, and a reality of life. Assuming supernatural beings have all the answers is based on nothing. Believing everything science has put forth as pure fact is being ignorant to the inevitable changes that will happen as time goes on. So just admit that you're not an expert, you don't have the answers, and be content with whatever your level of ignorance is.

Tha'ts your first step. That's not saying you're an atheist, but it puts you into the wonders of agnosticism. And that's a good first step.

 

The problem with all this is that the theists in my life are the same people that caused me the most harm. I long ago rejected their "theism" but when I through out the bath water the baby was still in the tub.

And at some point I decided I don't care a rats ass for what other people think about what is socially acceptable. Case in point - I am 49 years old and still surf. So what you say? Except I do it on Lake Erie. I am DEFINATELY not in the norm.

 For some reason I find I believe in god regardless of anything else. Sometime sit seems so core to what I am that if the whole world became atheist I would shrug my shoulders and live the rest of my life in what ever insane asylum they put me in.

 

Completely irrational, ain't it? 


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: The more

wavefreak wrote:
The more militant members of this forum would do well to realize I lay claim to very little. I am definately NOT a theist cut from the same cloth as Evengelical Christians.

Noted (though I'm not sure if you'd call me militant).

wavefreak wrote:
Would you like me to answer any other questions?

Just one question for now I think. Reading over your post, it mostly seems pretty reasonable. So, I'm left wondering what you think about your beliefs makes you a theist. Particularly, do you believe definitely in a god, or a soul, or are you merely uncertain?

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak

wavefreak wrote:
Super-natural is just some catch-all for all the stuff that we don't understand but feel we still need an explanation for. Or something like that.
Hmm let's substitute 'supernatural' with 'god' since god is supernatural.

"god is just some catch-all for all the stuff that we don't understand but feel we still need an explanation for."

It works! 

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
JHenson wrote: Do you

JHenson wrote:

Do you believe the universe has always existed? Why?

Yes. Something has always existed. Even the quantum vacuum isn't empty. Why? That one stumps me.

Quote:

In your opinion, would sin be God-centered or human-centered? In other words, would a sin be against God or against people? Is the distinction relevant?

I suppose if I had to say, the distinction isn't relevant. To me a sin is doing bad things with intent. (Pretty vague so don't go off on me people)


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
AiiA wrote: wavefreak

AiiA wrote:

wavefreak wrote:
Super-natural is just some catch-all for all the stuff that we don't understand but feel we still need an explanation for. Or something like that.
Hmm let's substitute 'supernatural' with 'god' since god is supernatural.

"god is just some catch-all for all the stuff that we don't understand but feel we still need an explanation for."

It works!

 

Naw. Don't work for me. Part of the problem is that, for me at least,  logic and rationalism can't explain everything. If it was as simple as a word substitution I would have made that leap years ago.


Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
Based on this thread I've

Based on this thread I've basically read that you don't believe in the supernatural, and you don't conform to religion.  You just believe that there may be a creator though you don't see a logical reason for it.

Congratulations, you're an agnostic.  The idea that there is a creator that is himself not supernatural is a rejection of just about every faith out there and one that I even took up for a long while.

God by definition is supernatural, and you reject that idea.  What you're suggesting is not a God.  It's a superior life form.

Hell, you're pretty much an atheist with a bit of a wacky theory about the origin of the universe.  I'm actually surprised you label yourself a theist with this set of beliefs.

To me you're coming accross as a saying "I don't know" about just about everything with an inclination to a non-supernatural creator.  Agnostic with a large degree of atheism.


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Tarpan wrote: Based on

Tarpan wrote:

Based on this thread I've basically read that you don't believe in the supernatural, and you don't conform to religion. You just believe that there may be a creator though you don't see a logical reason for it.

Congratulations, you're an agnostic. The idea that there is a creator that is himself not supernatural is a rejection of just about every faith out there and one that I even took up for a long while.

God by definition is supernatural, and you reject that idea. What you're suggesting is not a God. It's a superior life form.

Hell, you're pretty much an atheist with a bit of a wacky theory about the origin of the universe. I'm actually surprised you label yourself a theist with this set of beliefs.

To me you're coming accross as a saying "I don't know" about just about everything with an inclination to a non-supernatural creator. Agnostic with a large degree of atheism.

 

The best I can offer is that there are things banging around in my head that I haven't the linguistic tools to communicate. I do know that it is not atheism. I also know that it is not contemporary Evangelical Christianity. I'm not sure that it even matters that I can't communicate it. But I am a bit OCD about it so I keep poking the bear.

 


Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
There's nothing wrong with

There's nothing wrong with being agnostic.  I know there's some atheists that oppost agnosticism pretty heavily, but I think it's a natural developmental stage.  Being comfortable saying that you don't have all the answers but you're being quite agnostic about the concept of a creator.  That's fine.

But I would call you an Agnostic borderline atheist.  You seem to share most atheist qualities except for leaving a lot of wiggle room around the core question of if there is a creator.

Like I said before I sat in that boat for a long time.  For me it was a gradual change from the catholic trinity.  I started out just believing that god wouldn't care if i followed a specific religion.  That he wasn't that ignorant and would know that I did what was best.  Then I changed into "it kinda doesn't make sense to have a god, but maybe" ... now i sit on the "highly unlikely" side of the fence and essentially act as though there is no god.

Agnosticism is perfectly normal though.  I think all atheists have to be agnostic to a degree keep themselves honest and to avoid absolutes. 

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Naw. Don't work for

Quote:
Naw. Don't work for me. Part of the problem is that, for me at least, logic and rationalism can't explain everything. If it was as simple as a word substitution I would have made that leap years ago.

I don't know if this will help, but let me tell you the progression I went through with this.

Step 1, Theist: Logic applies to science, and faith applies to god.

Catalyst for next step: If faith can give you knowledge, logic won't work. Logic only works if it's trustworthy. If any logical statement can be wrong because of faith, then we can't know anything. Since I know something, faith is bullshit.

Step 2, Agnostic: Christianity is bullshit, but there must be a god. It just feels like there must be a god. How could there not be a god? We can't know god because he's supernatural, and supernatural is unknowable.

Catalyst for step 2.5: Supernatural is broken. There's no such thing. If a thing exists, it must have qualities. If it has qualities, it is natural. "Supernatural" is not a positive definition, therefore it is nonsense.

Step 2.5, Agnostic: God can only exist if he is natural. There's no reason to think he doesn't, so god belief is rational. In fact, there are lots of things that might be perfectly natural -- ghosts, esp, prophecy, etc... maybe science just hasn't described them yet. If there's a possible scientific explanation for these things that we just haven't found, then there's the possibility of god.

Catalyst for step 3: If god is natural, he is limited by matter and energy. If he is so limited, he cannot have existed eternally, or preceded the formation of the universe. There can't be a supernatural heaven or hell. Death is almost certainly the end. Evolution is a fact. Evolution explains morality. Religions use god for morality, intercession, and afterlife. A natural being surely couldn't keep track of 6 billion people on this tiny little planet in a tiny corner of a tiny galaxy in a huge universe. That's crazy! Morality is explained, and there's no afterlife. So............

What do I need God For?

Step 3, Atheist: Not only do I not need god, nobody does. In fact, god is not useful for explaining anything scientific. In fact, the concept of god does nothing beneficial for humanity! Since it makes no sense to believe a natural alien being cares a whit for me, I am in charge of my own life. I need no comfort, for all my decisions are my own, and my successes are mine, as well as my failings. I need no consolation with death, for it is quiet and peaceful. It is nothing. My passed loved ones are dead, quite unaware of their non-existence, as I will be one day, as are billions of others who have lived. I need no moral authority, for I am rational, capable of working out for myself what is proper and good. I am an animal. A very smart animal. I am free.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


JHenson
Theist
Posts: 112
Joined: 2007-03-29
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: Something

wavefreak wrote:
Something has always existed. Even the quantum vacuum isn't empty. Why? That one stumps me.

To clarify, why do you think this?  (...rather than why is it so)

wavefreak wrote:
I suppose if I had to say, the distinction isn't relevant. To me a sin is doing bad things with intent.

Could a person do something bad without realizing it at the time (a "sin of neglegance," to coin a term)?  What constitutes a "bad" thing?

I'm not meaning to be obstonate, just curious about your beliefs.  I am an "evangelical" Christian, although not in the usual sense.  I try to keep John 6:44 in mind: "No one can come to me [Jesus] unless the Father who sent me draws him."  Point being, when it comes to conversions, Goddidit. Smiling

"The map appears more real to us than the land." - Lawrence


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
JHenson wrote: wavefreak

JHenson wrote:

wavefreak wrote:
Something has always existed. Even the quantum vacuum isn't empty. Why? That one stumps me.

To clarify, why do you think this? (...rather than why is it so)

wavefreak wrote:
I suppose if I had to say, the distinction isn't relevant. To me a sin is doing bad things with intent.

Could a person do something bad without realizing it at the time (a "sin of neglegance," to coin a term)? What constitutes a "bad" thing?

I'm not meaning to be obstonate, just curious about your beliefs. I am an "evangelical" Christian, although not in the usual sense. I try to keep John 6:44 in mind: "No one can come to me [Jesus] unless the Father who sent me draws him." Point being, when it comes to conversions, Goddidit. Smiling

 

I have a hard time believing that something comes from nothing. Even if in the end all we are is some quantum fluctuation in the cosmic foam, the foam is still "there". 

 

Regarding sin, the Chritisan God is presumably just. Sins of ignorance I have to believe would be handled justly. There is enough injustice in this world. I would go to hell rather than serve an unjust god.  When I travelled in evangelical circles I was always disturbed by the fact that getting to heaven was the focus. Heaven be hanged if it means being unjust in this life.  I once asked a Christian a hypothetical question - Say you were walking down the street and came upon an X rated theater. At that very moment an angel appears to you had says "enter this theater, go to the front row and talk to the man sitting there. He is about to commit suicide and you are the only one that can save him". Would you enter the theater and save this man?  This Christian said no, because it was a sin to go into an X rated theater. In other words, he would not sacrifice his "purity" to save another. I found it telling and also theologically suspect since presumably Jesus sacrificed his purity for our sins. I don't love God, I love the ideas that surround him - things like justice, love, and compassion. Were I to find chasing  god was futile, I would still love justice, love and compassion. I suspect that many Christians would abandon their faith were they to discover there was no reward at the end of it.


Avecrien
Theist
Avecrien's picture
Posts: 56
Joined: 2007-04-25
User is offlineOffline
What is a soul? Bible's

What is a soul? Bible's soul is just a word they used, nefesh, to denote a living thing. First time the word was used in the bible it was refering to animals. Same for second. And third. And souls are desrcibed as dying. Dead souls were even referenced in talking about animal carcasses. So a soul is a living thing.
Resurrection is important because things die. If 'souls' were to escape the simple word 'death' as an exception, the bible falls apart completely.

The word 'super-natural' and arguments of ignorance about god's relation to time and his levels of power only set religion back. We don't know what God can or cannot do. The bible does not necessarily describe a nonsensical being unrestricted by reality in any sense. The book's ending being all abou God physically and tangibly coming down and residing on the planet in New Jerusalem suggests that God inhabits a set amount of space in the most absolute sense. Like a person, God is either in the room or he's not in the room.

The bible doesn't tell us that this god can make a planet instantly appear. The bible doesn't even really tell us, if you accept it's language consistently, that God created the entirety of the planet. Definitely claims to have terraformed the thing. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. Assumptions and claims by church 'authority' shouldn't outrank the original material though.

I've personally wondered if, were god not a part of reality as I infer, we exist in something more akin to a computer simulation. The numbers themselves...but its not a belief I hold to. Just fun to throw at people Smiling

I don't take forgranted that anything always existed or will always exist. Anything at all.

Mike Gravel for president!


jread
SuperfanTheist
jread's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
What is the soul?   Would

What is the soul?

 

Would you be meaning 'soul' as if it were a part of your personal identity? Such as a part of your identity that lasts eternally? Let me know because there are a lot of great perspectives on personal identity from philosophers such as Locke and Hume. It's a real eye opener what they have to say about such things.  

The implication that we should put Darwinism on trial overlooks the fact that Darwinism has always been on trial within the scientific community. -- From Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth R. Miller

Chaos and chance don't mean the absence of law and order, but rather the presence of order so complex that it lies beyond our abilities to grasp and describe it. -- From From Certainty to Uncertainty by F. David Peat


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13827
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Avecrien wrote: What is a

Avecrien wrote:

What is a soul? Bible's soul is just a word they used, nefesh, to denote a living thing. First time the word was used in the bible it was refering to animals. Same for second. And third. And souls are desrcibed as dying. Dead souls were even referenced in talking about animal carcasses. So a soul is a living thing.
Resurrection is important because things die. If 'souls' were to escape the simple word 'death' as an exception, the bible falls apart completely.

The word 'super-natural' and arguments of ignorance about god's relation to time and his levels of power only set religion back. We don't know what God can or cannot do. The bible does not necessarily describe a nonsensical being unrestricted by reality in any sense. The book's ending being all abou God physically and tangibly coming down and residing on the planet in New Jerusalem suggests that God inhabits a set amount of space in the most absolute sense. Like a person, God is either in the room or he's not in the room.

The bible doesn't tell us that this god can make a planet instantly appear. The bible doesn't even really tell us, if you accept it's language consistently, that God created the entirety of the planet. Definitely claims to have terraformed the thing. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. Assumptions and claims by church 'authority' shouldn't outrank the original material though.

I've personally wondered if, were god not a part of reality as I infer, we exist in something more akin to a computer simulation. The numbers themselves...but its not a belief I hold to. Just fun to throw at people Smiling

I don't take forgranted that anything always existed or will always exist. Anything at all.

Are you a circus bear? The reason I ask is because I see alot of backpeddling.

"That is hocus pocus"

"No it isnt, I never claimed it was magic"

When called on something the theist will try to deny the magic once believed and try to pass of their wishfull thinking hocus pocus as natural, even though they wont admit to wanting the hocus pocus to be real.

Ok, so "souls" are natural now? Ok, why call them "souls" at all. Why not stick to reality and call them dead people and live people. Why not say that the memory of the dead lives on in the living.

But dont try to sell me this disimbodied conciousness and lie and say that is not what you are doing.  

"Souls" is a vacuous word and is tottally meaningless.

Since you got called on it you backpeddle insted of doing the intelectually honest thing and discard a bad claim.

And dont give me this crap that the bible doesnt claim hocus pocus.

"Let there be light" and "there was light" 

Show me where in that language the implication of long scientific process is. NOT THERE!. That language sends the message that "God" "POOF" made it happen in an instant. Dont lie and say that is not what it means. You are being intelectually dishonest.

You know as well as I that the people who wrote it, as well as far too many people today want a magic wand waver to exist. Dont sit there and lie and say that this type of language implies any knowlege of science.

This is comic book language. No different than the language used in Petter Pan or Harry Potter 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
It seems to me like an

It seems to me like an emotional attachment that you hold onto. Emotional attachments can sometimes be the hardest to let go of. People with oedipus complexes find it very hard to fully let go of their mother. Perhaps this is just a big oedipus complex for the big daddy in the sky. I commend you on your willingness to be rational and willingness to learn. My advice, let go, the ground is actually only inches away, you don't wanna be left hanging all your life.


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Jacob Cordingley wrote: It

Jacob Cordingley wrote:

It seems to me like an emotional attachment that you hold onto. Emotional attachments can sometimes be the hardest to let go of.

 

 

Ya think? Of course it's emotional. Are you suggesting we should not have emotional attachements?

 

Quote:

People with oedipus complexes find it very hard to fully let go of their mother. Perhaps this is just a big oedipus complex for the big daddy in the sky.

I would gladly let go of my mother if I were dangling her over a precipice. Seriuosuly, though, I don't have any such attatchment to her. She fits the clinical description of a psychopath. Really. 

 

Quote:

I commend you on your willingness to be rational and willingness to learn. My advice, let go, the ground is actually only inches away, you don't wanna be left hanging all your life.

 

Herein lies what may be a fundamental difference between me and RRS. It embrace my irrational side. I cannot deny that it exists. I do not stive for strict rationalism but rather work towards maintaining the an appropriate balance. I have no need to "let go". If something upsets that balance sufficiently, then that need my arise. I'm not too worried about it, either. It's not as if the whole world changes based on how I change by beliefs. I'm a tiny piece of reality with very little effect on this world.  


JHenson
Theist
Posts: 112
Joined: 2007-03-29
User is offlineOffline
Hopefully you won't end up

Hopefully you won't end up flanked on all sides by posts.  I'll try to be brief. 

wavefreak wrote:
I have a hard time believing that something comes from nothing. Even if in the end all we are is some quantum fluctuation in the cosmic foam, the foam is still "there".

I agree, something from nothing is preposterous.  Was the "foam" always there, then, or did it come from somewhere?  I've run across the idea that "supernatural" is a nonsense term because it can't be defined on its own merits, only by what it is not.  "Infinite" seems to bear the same problem.  I'm not tremendously hung up on it, but it's worth thinking about I suppose.

wavefreak wrote:
Regarding sin, the Chritisan God is presumably just. Sins of ignorance I have to believe would be handled justly. There is enough injustice in this world. I would go to hell rather than serve an unjust god.  When I travelled in evangelical circles I was always disturbed by the fact that getting to heaven was the focus. Heaven be hanged if it means being unjust in this life.  I once asked a Christian a hypothetical question - Say you were walking down the street and came upon an X rated theater. At that very moment an angel appears to you had says "enter this theater, go to the front row and talk to the man sitting there. He is about to commit suicide and you are the only one that can save him". Would you enter the theater and save this man?  This Christian said no, because it was a sin to go into an X rated theater. In other words, he would not sacrifice his "purity" to save another. I found it telling and also theologically suspect since presumably Jesus sacrificed his purity for our sins. I don't love God, I love the ideas that surround him - things like justice, love, and compassion. Were I to find chasing  god was futile, I would still love justice, love and compassion. I suspect that many Christians would abandon their faith were they to discover there was no reward at the end of it.

That's quite a story!  Jesus had several clear statements on exactly this kind of thinking.  There's the good Samaritan parable, in particular.  Also, Jesus healed on the Sabbath - a strict no-no by Jewish law.  This is why he said the Law of God is "written on our hearts," so we don't dodge our conscience in legalistic BS.

I will say that the scriptures teach that heaven is not a reward because no person is worthy to receive it.  Romans 3:10-11 says it well: "There is no one who is righteous; not even one; there is no one who has understanding, there is no one who seeks God."  The consequence of sin is death, so we all die.  That is where the idea of God's grace and Jesus as our savior comes from.  What need is there of grace or salvation if we can save ourselves by good deeds?  The moment we think of heaven as a reward we have looked to ourselves, when our goal should always be seeking God.

"The map appears more real to us than the land." - Lawrence


Avecrien
Theist
Avecrien's picture
Posts: 56
Joined: 2007-04-25
User is offlineOffline
Brian37, show me

Brian37, show me backpeddling. Can you point out one instance where I have ever claimed that souls meant anything else? One instance where I have ever claimed that human beings were anything other than meat? If you dig, instead you'll find me saying what you 'called me out on.' I am not a part of where your assumptions are coming from.

I used the word soul because it's the english word tied to the hebrew word in the book where I got the concept from. As far as I'm concerned, the modern idea of a soul does not exist and is made up. I don't go around using the word unless someone else brings it up(and someone did) because it has no normal place in modern language. It's a religion word, a puppet word. I don't like those.

As for God's non-immediate creation, you point out the Genesis 1 light verse. God asked for light, he got it. He asked for a lot of things. He made the planet what it is, so the book says. Instantly? Time elapsed, days of some literal or figurative sense. Places like Job have god talking about measurements and activities being done that brought about creation. God doesn't ask Job "Where were you when I spoke and BANG it happened?" Your light reference either conforms to the whole of the book or it stands out. If it stands out, I ask why.

If you'd like to talk, do me a favor and cut out the ranting. Please. You lash out with insults and accusations and, whats worse, you miss. Maybe you've confused me with someone else?

Mike Gravel for president!