Brain's 'Trust Machinery' Identified
This is a datum to support my assertion that Biological Bases for Behaviors are incorrectly interpreted as "Sin".
Brain processes were able to be manipulated without the subject noticing. This means that as far as our motives and desires go, we are our own frame of reference. We may not understand that our reactions, desires and motives fall outside the expectations of others or if we do realize that our behavior falls outside the expectations of others we may not believe that it is a problem. In effect, our perception of reality is a function of the electrochemical processes in our head to the point that we may very sincerely be wrong and very sincerely not realize it.
While the study doesn't relate specifically to sin, motives and desires, I will use it as an analogy to argue from based on the presumption built on evidence that the brain responds similarly to environmental and hormonal factors.
If our behavior can be manipulated from outside sources and we are not aware of it, the system of divine accountablity is flawed. No one can reasonably be said to be willfully sinning against God because, from the perspective of the Human, all the factors cannot be detected or taken into account.
For example, how do any of you, or even me for that matter, know that I have willfully rejected god? It could very easily be a malfunction in the brain. And conversely, christians that believe in God could very well be suffering from a malfunction in the brain. We could very well have a cocktail of chemicals that cause this feeling and we would not realize or believe that it is wrong.
How this relates to sin is that if we are not aware that we are sinning, how can we be held accountable? And since that is the case, if we are to be held accountable for eternity for our sins on earth, why is it possible to manipulate the center of our desires and motivations? Our behavior, desires and motives should be impervious to any influence that are not our own to ensure proper accountability.
While a rapist may very well know that he or she is doing wrong by raping he or she may have no control over the initiation of the desire to do it. He or she can't be said to "be evil" or have "lust in the heart" because the desire could very well be the result of electrochemical processes in his or her head. Some of us have overwhelming desires to do the wrong thing, something more along the lines of deception or gaining unfair advantage, that we can easily justify internally and not realize it is wrong. Behavior such a sweet grandmother that is racist. Behavior that is taught or picked up and embedded in our brains electrochemically until something changes it.
This demonstrates that there is no thought process that goes on outside the brain, there is only the thought process that goes on in the brain of which the brain is its own frame of reference and which can be manipulated by external agents of which it cannot detect.
Sciencedaily.com
The brain centers triggered by a betrayal of trust have been identified by researchers, who found they could suppress such triggering and maintain trust by administering the brain chemical oxytocin.
Brain processes were able to be manipulated without the subject noticing. This means that as far as our motives and desires go, we are our own frame of reference. We may not understand that our reactions, desires and motives fall outside the expectations of others or if we do realize that our behavior falls outside the expectations of others we may not believe that it is a problem. In effect, our perception of reality is a function of the electrochemical processes in our head to the point that we may very sincerely be wrong and very sincerely not realize it.
While the study doesn't relate specifically to sin, motives and desires, I will use it as an analogy to argue from based on the presumption built on evidence that the brain responds similarly to environmental and hormonal factors.
If our behavior can be manipulated from outside sources and we are not aware of it, the system of divine accountablity is flawed. No one can reasonably be said to be willfully sinning against God because, from the perspective of the Human, all the factors cannot be detected or taken into account.
For example, how do any of you, or even me for that matter, know that I have willfully rejected god? It could very easily be a malfunction in the brain. And conversely, christians that believe in God could very well be suffering from a malfunction in the brain. We could very well have a cocktail of chemicals that cause this feeling and we would not realize or believe that it is wrong.
How this relates to sin is that if we are not aware that we are sinning, how can we be held accountable? And since that is the case, if we are to be held accountable for eternity for our sins on earth, why is it possible to manipulate the center of our desires and motivations? Our behavior, desires and motives should be impervious to any influence that are not our own to ensure proper accountability.
While a rapist may very well know that he or she is doing wrong by raping he or she may have no control over the initiation of the desire to do it. He or she can't be said to "be evil" or have "lust in the heart" because the desire could very well be the result of electrochemical processes in his or her head. Some of us have overwhelming desires to do the wrong thing, something more along the lines of deception or gaining unfair advantage, that we can easily justify internally and not realize it is wrong. Behavior such a sweet grandmother that is racist. Behavior that is taught or picked up and embedded in our brains electrochemically until something changes it.
This demonstrates that there is no thought process that goes on outside the brain, there is only the thought process that goes on in the brain of which the brain is its own frame of reference and which can be manipulated by external agents of which it cannot detect.
90 comments:
I guess Hitler is off the hook now.
He just couldn't help it.
You guys really try to get around the fact that you and I are responsible for our actions.
Jamie,
I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but Hitler is dead. He committed suicide after losing World War II. There is no further accountability that humans can demand of him.
Accountability is for the living. No matter what you believe about what happens after death, humanity can not influence what happens after someone is dead, except to the degree that we can alter someone's reputation. Do you think Hitler somehow has a good reputation now?
If you are planning to kill millions of people however, you are still alive and therefore you can be held accountable.
So are you planning to kill millions of people? Do you think anyone posting on this blog is? We'd like to know.
Thanks for bringing Godwin's law into it so early though.
Lee wrote: "For example, how do any of you, or even me for that matter, know that I have willfully rejected god? It could very easily be a malfunction in the brain. And conversely, christians that believe in God could very well be suffering from a malfunction in the brain."
This affirms what Y'shua said about loving the enemy, eh?
People ought to be merciful to one another, but instead, if human value is predicated upon brain functionality (or social, religious, material, gender, racial, etc. etc. status), then opportunity arises to put into practice yet another manifestation of our territorial nature with a bias towards those with brains deemed flawed or dysfunctional.
Mankind's scrutiny and examination of creation does not always elicit the correct conclusions. I enjoy scientific discovery (especially brain research) but science is an ongoing process with flawed deductions along the way.
Afterall, it was once believed that brain damage was permanent but that is now disputed. If one believed their brains were permanently damaged, what is the likliehood that one would seek to heal such? A once very condemning view is now overturned.
Thanks,
3M
Avast Jamie! HAR!
I guess Hitler is off the hook now.
He just couldn't help it.
I don't know about you, but I don't let lawbreakers off the hook. I want to get them to stop breaking the law, then figure out why they did it.
man, you sure are a liberal.
Hi 3m,
If you mean Jesus, why don't you just say Jesus?
but science is an ongoing process with flawed deductions along the way.
You mean Science is self-correcting as you take advantage of it by responding to me on a computer running on the TCP/IP protocol developed on UNIX operating systems running DAEMONS developed at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency don't you?
Thank You, God for expressing yourself through Lee and others here on this earth. AMen.
P.S. Do you have a bias towards my use of Y'shua? It's what I prefer but I can use Jesus if that is more congenial for you :-)
While a rapist may very well know that he or she is doing wrong by raping he or she may have no control over the initiation of the desire to do it.
Desires don't give us the right to act or to make excuses for what we do. We are still accountable. To ourselves and to God.
This is just a bad, bad argument Lee.
Sorry but you really missed it on this one.
Hi Jamie,
I think you missed the point or don't have enough information to understand it.
In case you haven't noticed, the law is starting to re-evaluate the culpability of individuals based on biological bases for behavior.
It is recognized that MAOA is linked to aggression and that sugar affects our ability to resist temptation
you can read more about it in my introductory article on A Reasonable Doubt About Sin.
There are at least three issues here.
1. One culpability, could they help it?
2. accountablility, are they at fault?
3. response by society, should they be punished?
a rapist should be apprehended and held, not for punishment, but to prevent them from doing it again. Then they should be rehabilitated.
1. Is a rapist culpable? maybe
2. Is a rapist accountable? yes
e. Proper response from society? use the principle of minimizing harm and working toward the greater good. Apprehend them.
If they find god while they are in Jail, well, that is no guarantee they won't backslide, but fix any underlying physiological or psychological problem and there is less chance of recidivism.
You know that god is a mystery and he does things in his own time, but while we are waiting on him to get off his hands, we are working towards solutions.
Hi 3m,
P.S. Do you have a bias towards my use of Y'shua? It's what I prefer but I can use Jesus if that is more congenial for you :-)
I just want to know why you prefer it. You know how I am. Always wanting to know why, why, why...
lee,
Maybe you've already mentioned this book, but if not, many of these issues are addressed. The price is prohibitive (clearly a text for course work or desk reference). I've only read bits of it re: prefrontal cortex issues.
Anyway, a university library should carry it if not a public one for those interested.
Frontlines piece about teenagers is pretty good also. Explains a number of things about teenagers, but doesn't make me any less worried about my own. I'm just grateful they are less impulsive than some of their ditsy friends.
a rapist should be apprehended and held, not for punishment, but to prevent them from doing it again. Then they should be rehabilitated.
Can then a rapist be rehabilitated if so then can't all criminals be rehabilitated.
If so why have jails and prisons.
Also, God is off His hands, in my opinion and personal experience, maybe He isn't to you. He is to me.
God has changed my desires and has helped me to live a more moral life and a more compassionate life.
God can change a rapist as well.
He also can change an atheist or agnostic.
Jamie,
the problem as I see it is that God supposedly created us from nothing. Humans, on the other hand, did not create themselves.
Essentially, God is holding us responsible for what are, in part, his actions. This is hypercritical. We, on the other hand, have much less control over the behavior of others.
This is not to say that humans cannot abuse, brainwash or misinform others into doing things that are wrong. However, in many cases we find these people insane or incapable of knowing right from wrong. They are put in mental institutions and or receive treatment in an attempt to correct their behavior.
What I think Lee is saying here is that, despite having creating everything, God takes no responsibility for his involvement. And, as an omnipotent being, he makes no attempt to correct behavior. Instead, he merely forgives us, which does nothing to prevent it from happening again. A killer can kill and be forgiven, yet still exhibit the behavior to kill again.
This might have seemed remotely logical when we thought everything happened by fiat, but today we know that things happen because natural laws interact with the composition of things.
As an example, our bodies age because they have genetic codes which cause the aging process to occur. If God wanted humans to age, then he must have intentionally "designed" us with specific biological systems that actually interact with physical laws and cause us to age. This is because we have identified the mechanism behind aging and it is causal in nature.
If God omnipotently created everything from nothing, then everything around us must have ultimately originated from irresistible omnipotent commands. Nor can these atomic commands be ambiguous, because there would have been nothing else to fill in the gaps.
For example, if nothing existed, God could not command the creation of a ball that is blue or red as there would be nothing to decide the color. He must explicitly choose one or the other as randomness did not exist, nor did anyone else to choose for him. And in creating randomness, God would be exerting his influence on the outcome as randomness must also be ultimately broken down into irresistible omnipotent commands.
It would be so with out ability to choose. Whatever mechanism we use to choose must work exactly as God intended as it too must be ultimately based on irresistible omnipotent commands, otherwise it would not exist. Any mechanism or factors that God used to make our system of choice must have also ultimately come from God's omnipotent will.
As such, by positing God as the omnipotent creator of everything, he cannot escape his causal influence on everything.
All you're left with is that God says we're responsible because he said we're responsible. God makes the rules. They don't actually have to make sense or expect God to be held accountable for his actions.
Of course, God Is incoherent in many other ways, which doesn't seem to deter those who believe in him anyway. I wouldn't expect one more aspect to make a difference.
Lee wrote: "I just want to know why you prefer it. You know how I am. Always wanting to know why, why, why.."
Lee, you're sweet (and I mean that wholeheartedly). Do you suppose your trust machinery has been tampered with? Not that there's anything wrong with wanting to know why why why, but I'd invite you to consider that there is a degree of peace in recognizing and accepting various expressions of endearment.
At any rate, I'll respond to your query in order to satisfy that little "why-guy" nature; I began using the name Y'shua instead of Jesus because of a past association with Jesus trauma and the subsequent and nasty pride/idolotry virus I got infected with. Out of that I grew to prefer the name of Y'shua - it took on a meaning of healing and tenderness for me.
Peace out, Lee!
3M
I'm back!
After reading this post I sent you a package Lee. Open it and we should get along better. Trust me, I'll know when you get it!;) (Now that the smart ass comment is out of the way.)
If our behavior can be manipulated from outside sources and we are not aware of it, the system of divine accountablity is flawed.
Is it still flawed if those outside influences don't affect our freedom to choose our behavior? I'm not talking about those uncontrollable disorders, but those who may have genetic markers or other outside influences that leave our ability to chose different behaviors open. Peer pressure comes to mind. I know your not pushing for things like peer pressure, but it is a form of extremely effective outside influence.
I think, and I may be mistaken, that part of this applies to those who may not know what God has commanded and therefore commit sins without ever knowing it. Or even those who are incapable of understanding what sin is, can they still be held accountable and be punished for eternity even though it is not their fault. Did I miss the boat completely? Or maybe I jumped for the boat and am just hanging on to the edge?
If I read you right, you seem to be looking for a line as to when something can be defined as sin and maybe how to determine when there is accountability. Some guiding principle to follow. I may have to use the way of the scientist and change this as better information comes out. How about this this for starters. A person must know and understand what is expected of them from God, commandments. Knowing and the ability to chose you behavior based on your knowledge are key in being able to commit and be held accountable for sin. Like I said in your sugar post, I think someone can sin, and not be accountable, and I also think we can be influenced for good without interfering with free will, just to summarize where we kind of left off.
In case you haven't noticed, the law is starting to re-evaluate the culpability of individuals based on biological bases for behavior.
If us heathens can figure this out, shouldn't God already have a solution?
I still think science daily is a winner!
P.S. Lee also wrote: "If our behavior can be manipulated from outside sources and we are not aware of it, the system of divine accountablity is flawed."
I invite you to consider the words of Y'shua/Jesus when He said He came to set captives free from blindness and deafness. His words to us were an awareness alert to and a process of salvation away from unrealized influences.
Scott,
It is obvious you have broken the first Commandment by making up some god in your own image.
Scott,
It is obvious you have broken the first Commandment by making up some god in your own image.
Jamie,
It's quite simple. If God is omnipotent, then God cannot ask for one thing and get something else instead. And, If God created everything from nothing, then everything that exists must have been created by or ultimately caused by God's omnipotent will. Otherwise it would not exist.
Nor can God leave things to "chance" as he is omnipotent.
For example, could God create a deck of playing cards without defining the exact order of each card in the deck? Because, if God did not define the order of each card, then the result would be something different than a deck of playing cards. This is because, by definition, a standard deck of playing cards requires 52 distinct cards in a sequential order. The presence of a defined order is essential to it's existence.
The same can be said with our ability to choose, If God did not specify the exact method, process and factors we use to choose one thing over another, then we could not choose at all. Nor could God "farm out" the construction of our choice to something he did not ultimately create (and would not be responsible for) because nothing exists that God did not create. It's a catch 22 scenario.
The only way you can avoid this is to suggest that either something always existed that God did not create or God somehow end up with something that was contrary to his will. If the latter is the case, then God is not omnipotent. If the former is true, then God did not create everything from nothing.
Nor can you say that the things God created somehow conflicted with each other in some unexpected way as God is supposedly omniscient. Nor could anything act in a manner that God did not proscribe because he is omnipotent. Either things act in accordance with God's will or they would lack the ability to act at all.
Hi Jamie,
I'm kind of tied up for a while but I'll respond to you later. Thanks for your interest.
Hi 3m,
thanks for the complement, and thanks for your answer, I get it now.
Hi Rich,
I'll respond to you too later. check back tomorrow.
thanks.
Scott,
Just because God is omnipotent doesn't mean people whom were created by God, can't choose.
This is seen from Gen. in the BIble.
God created people not machines. This is obvious in life.
God's sovereignty just proves His decreed will, will be done. Nothing we can do about that.
THe Bible says "7 For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.” 18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens."
sorry for the cut and paste but it is quicker.
Jamie, we've had this discussion before, and I still don't get it. As Scott says, either God is omnipotent and holds all the cards, or he isn't, and we get to choose. You can't have it both ways.
Don't you see the contradiction in what you said yourself? You say:
God created people not machines. This is obvious in life.
Okay, so people can choose. Good enough. But then you go on:
God's sovereignty just proves His decreed will, will be done. Nothing we can do about that.
Nothing we can do about God's will? So we can't choose after all. Which is it? Your Bible quote would seem to favor the latter, that we have no choice:
"Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens."
Where is the free will in that? As I've said before, if God is omnipotent and omniscient, we are all like characters playing out our roles in a novel which was already written long ago: we may behave as though we have free will, we may believe we have free will, but we do not, because God wrote our part already. He is responsible for everything we do, because He wrote us, if He is omnipotent and omniscient.
I invite you to consider the words of Y'shua/Jesus when He said He came to set captives free from blindness and deafness. His words to us were an awareness alert to and a process of salvation away from unrealized influences.
Ah, then you should have evidence that shows that Christians commit far fewer crimes than non-Christians, as Jesus has freed them from their God-given dangerous impulses. Please, show your data. I am eagerly awaiting.
(hums theme to Jeopardy)
THe Bible says "7 For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.” 18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens."
So it's kosher for God to "harden" me for capricious reasons, then hold me culpable and punish me (eternally, no less) for what god "hardened" me to do.
Seems like the difference between your God and Satan is a decent PR department.
Zilch,
What's up. Your picture is awesome. Looks like you are living it up on the beach. Do you live there.
The point I am trying to make is this: From the Bible's perspective as I read it.
God has a Decreed will that will happen regardless of my actions. As a matter of fact, my actions help accomplish this.
For example Peters Sermon in Acts says: (forgive me for cutting an pasting)
22 “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know— 23 Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; 24 whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it. Acts 2
This is one example of many.
God also seems to have a desired will. Such as "Men and women coming to Christ, Me being a good husband, etc.....
This is up to me. God often holds men and nations responsible for their actions. This is why the Bible encourages, repentance, missions, forgiveness, etc....
This is short and rushed so I hope it helps.
Hi Jamie
Can then a rapist be rehabilitated if so then can't all criminals be rehabilitated.
If so why have jails and prisons.
Jamie, I regard this as a silly response. If you take one second to think it through you will see that you need the jails to provide a place for rehabilitation. At this point you seem to be just nay-saying.
Also, God is off His hands, in my opinion and personal experience, maybe He isn't to you. He is to me. God has changed my desires and has helped me to live a more moral life and a more compassionate life. God can change a rapist as well. He also can change an atheist or agnostic.
this is a very self-centered statement. Christians make up 30% of the worlds population. 70% of the world are not in chaos or are evil/bad people. Statistically most of the people in Jails have religion of some sort. Your argument is not very well thought out again. You claim doesn't bear out empirically.
thanks spirula,
that book is exactly what I'm talking about and I'm going to ebay to put a 'watch' on it right now!
thanks
Hi Jamie,
go read my last two genesis articles. They show that the story of creation in genesis is a myth. If you say it is not, show me the data, my articles are chock full of data.
Jamie- do I live on the beach? I wish. No, I live in landlocked (since the breakup of the Hapsburg Empire- alas, South Tyrol doesn't belong to "us" anymore) Austria. The pic was taken in Crescent City, CA, where my uncle lives. I'll be there in a couple of weeks. Anyone in the SF Bay Area between June 9 and August 16 should drop me a line.
So what you're saying is that God has a decreed will, things that will come to happen because of Him, and a desired will, things He'd like to happen, but can't forsee or control? Then God is very powerful, but not omnipotent.
Lee,
I go to prisons often. Just went to Catawba Hospital and prayed with a man sentenced to die, from Alexander county prison. He is very sick and on his death bed.
With all due respect prisons don't rehabilitate.
To answer your question people can change.
I have been changed.
Billions of people have been changed by a personal relationshp with Jesus.
Lee no disrespect but just because Jesus isn't your Savior doesn't mean he can't be someone elses.
No offense but men and women smarter than you and I have embraced and rejected Jesus. It is ultimately a faith issue.
I don't think it has anything to do with the sugars in our brain.
Hi Jamie,
No Offence taken on any count, thanks for your consideration. I have thick skin. well, you know what i mean....;-)
so you have a problem with the correctional facility infrastructure and you blame that on non-rehabilitation? God's not as influential as prison environment? must be that nasty problem of evil that defies reason and gets the best of us idiots.
You smart people have fun in heaven, gleefully looking down on us sinners (aquinas) and you might as well ironically adopt the term "bright" as bit of Irony at our expense.
When you get over there, remember me and ask Jesus if I can a moments reprieve. See what he says. Then ask yourself if its morally just. He's going to know what you're thinking so I'll make a place for you.
HI Rich,
Is it still flawed if those outside influences don't affect our freedom to choose our behavior?
This ignores the self-reference problem. There should be no self-reference problem if our souls are 'driving' us around. They should be impervious to being deceived into not know if it should trust or not. this is why I made so many jokes about the homunculus earlier in our other posts. The way the soul is described, it should be driving us around like we are transformers, alerting us when something like our trust machinery has been compromised.
Trust in Jesus becomes meaningless if it can be biologically manipulated and not detected.
In industry, and commerce, where quality is a deal breaker, like designer shirts, pharmaceuticals, nuclear power, there are tight limits for tolerance and one metric out of tolerance sends it to the 'recycle bin'.
This is what being a christian is like?
Like us, those objects did not make themselves but they were subject to appraisal and fell 'out of tolerance'. Granted they don't have the mind to make decisions, but they are self-referential, and they didn't realize they were doing wrong. As I've said before, since we cannot see outside our head, and we only have our selves as a point of reference, Atheists cannot be blamed if they do not trust god, or believe in what we consider Near Eastern Myths.
Rich, the only commandments that don't span cultures are the ones specific to the originating religion. The set of non-transferrable commandments are few. The rest are pretty universally accepted. Morality and behavior are independent of God. They must be. The problem of self-reference proves it and the fact that the only unique identifier of the 'true religion' is faith. If there were a datum that unequivocally showed one religion to be true over another, then it would be appropriate to hold someone accountable. This is a sound principle with applications in life. This 'faith saves argument' is special pleading.
If I read you right, you seem to be looking for a line as to when something can be defined as sin and maybe how to determine when there is accountability.
No, I just use it as datum to illustrate the point. This problem of the heap can be resolved by setting external standards within a context. I say when my sand is a heap, and you say when your sand is in a heap, and so on. Then we judge if each other sand is really a heap or not. For example, I think yours was heap a long time ago, and you are deliberately not saying so because you have immoral reasons or want to gain unfair advantage somehow.
A person must know and understand what is expected of them from God, commandments. Knowing and the ability to chose you behavior based on your knowledge are key in being able to commit and be held accountable for sin.
here is the self-reference problem again. How do I know what the right religion is? As I pointed out, Hinduism is the oldest know organized religion, and therefore it can be said that any others are the product of Satan. This is reasonable position based on religious principle isn't it?
And then, how do you know your "trust mechanism" hasn't been compromised? even slightly, buy your endocrine system? or some outside pollutant that hasn't been discovered, or maybe a hormone from someone elses body (pheromones affect our behavior, female menstruation and whether we think favorably about someone or not).
The authors of scripture demonstrate that they did not have any divine insight, they were just a bronze age guys trying to make the best out of the problem of evil.
Hi 3m,
I began using the name Y'shua instead of Jesus because of a past association with Jesus trauma and the subsequent and nasty pride/idolotry virus I got infected with. Out of that I grew to prefer the name of Y'shua - it took on a meaning of healing and tenderness for me.
I suspected as much. You have a self-referential problem as well. How is it that you have to play psychological games to get right with Jesus? to keep your perspective on Jesus? What happened to that 'holy spirit'? Do you need to 'tweak' your psychological framework for it to fit in? If so, it seems your Jesus framework has been compromised and is now unusable and I don't see how that should be able to happen.
I invite you to consider the words of Y'shua/Jesus when He said He came to set captives free from blindness and deafness. His words to us were an awareness alert to and a process of salvation away from unrealized influences.
But since our point of reference is ourself, and we can't detect when it is being manipulated, then he hasn't really done that has he? I present empirical evidence. Empirical evidence trumps testimony in most applications in real life.
Just because God is omnipotent doesn't mean people whom were created by God, can't choose.
I did not say people could not choose things. I'm saying that if we choose things because God "designed' us to choose, they our process of choice must be ultimately based on irresistible omnipotent commands. Otherwise, we would not choose at all. Are you saying that we gained the ability to choose without God's assistance?
For example, computers choose things because they are programmed to assign different weights to inputs and make a particular selection. Unless someone programs a computer with a system for evaluating inputs, it would have no basis to choose anything. Every choice ever made is the result of a process which must be defined in some way shape or form or it would not occur. And, if God created everything from nothing, then every aspect of this process must have been omnipotently defined, or it would not exist.
God created people not machines. This is obvious in life.
What is obvious is that people choose things. We observe it happening all the time. What not obvious is that God created people. We've never seen fully grown men and women being created by God.
God's sovereignty just proves His decreed will, will be done. Nothing we can do about that. The Bible says...
Again, all you're left with is that God says we're responsible because he said we're responsible. God gets the glory when things turn out "good" but everyone else is to blame when they turn out "bad." This doesn't solve the dilemma of God's supposed omni-traits.
If God is going to play the roll that you want him to play, he must be omnipotent and omniscient. If God is not omniscient, he might not know the right course of action or may not have accounted for some unexpected future occurrence. This is simply not acceptable as God is your guarantee that everything will turn out fine in the end. If God is not omnipotent, then he cannot have the potential to overcome every circumstance, defeat any enemy or re-create us in perfect bodies when we die. Again, this is not an option as your vision of the future depends on the occurrence of these things.
Therefore, God simply cannot be smarter than us or merely more powerful because he would not be worthy of worship or have the capacity to fulfill the role you want him to play.
But these same traits that can supposedly save us from our current situation would mean God would be responsible for us being here in the first place. Again, it's a catch 22 scenario.
Scott,
You need to take a theology 101 class.
Oh, hi again Lee!
Well thanks for sharing your perspective of my personal expression of life, even though I'm sure you're not aware of it until I mention it, but it seems rather unfriendly. My sincere apologies if I have presumed incorrectly.
You wrote: "I suspected as much. You have a self-referential problem as well. How is it that you have to play psychological games to get right with Jesus? to keep your perspective on Jesus? What happened to that 'holy spirit'? Do you need to 'tweak' your psychological framework for it to fit in?"
Lee, this is so cool that you are asking me about this - thank you! I had no clue what the good news was until I realized (and was set free from the shame for the need for grace) that sin (from Jesus'/Y'shua's perspective) is not a crime (even though we express ourselves in criminal ways) but a symptom of not knowing how well loved we are by a powerful God. Power usually is corrupted by the desire to control and clone others to onesself. But the gospel is not about punishing people because they don't understand they are loved and their own and others value - no! It wouldn't be logical to punish someone because they don't realize they are loved. But, by God's standards, it is about saving us from all the deceptions that devalue and disfigure our humanity. Trust me when I say that people who claim to know God and portray Him as a punisher of sinners are truly the sons of hell.
At any rate, Lee, I appreciate your inquiring and yes, I had self-referential problems and many psychological game playing on my way to being set free - I was deceived into trying to earn love that I had already prepared, waiting for me when I turned. When I apologized to God, I was not punished but saved. I am not ashamed to say that I rely on the grace of God each day now - it is safe to be truthful with Him.
Thanks once again, Lee - I appreciate your thoughtful and thought provoking inquiries.
3M
Hi again Lee - I wanted to impress one more thing in addressing your last comment. You wrote, "Empirical evidence trumps testimony in most applications in real life."
The way I interpret this is that you are saying that something so impersonal is more valued than another's expression of humanity. Am I correct?
God's love is expressed - not extracted. I would not promote a practice that is not present in the Kingdom of God - I would not encourage a behavior that is demanding or domineering - that would be allowing sin to mature - there is grace, of course, for this, but now, by faith, I see it as suffering, not a practice to be embraced or heralded.
I invite you to consider that seeking empirical evidence (as though a crime has been committed?) versus embracing and loving the truth are diametrically opposed positions.
Once again, thank you Lee!
3M
You need to take a theology 101 class.
Jamine,
Simply saying I need to take a theology class doesn't address the issues at hand. I know the party line. Theologians may has come up with what they conceder "answers", but they fail to address the issue.
Where do you disagree with my observations? Where does it break down?
- Did God create everything from nothing?
- Can God intend to create one thing, but get something else instead?
- Did God create human beings but not create our ability to choose?
- If God created our ability to choose, then did he not do so using his irresistible omnipotent will?
- Can an omnipotent being leave something ambiguous in his creation and magically have it filled in? If so, what fills in the gaps? Because, without God, nothing would have existed to fill in the gaps that he ultimately didn't create in the first place.
Lee R ~ "This demonstrates that there is no thought process that goes on outside the brain, there is only the thought process that goes on in the brain of which the brain is its own frame of reference and which can be manipulated by external agents of which it cannot detect."
[Lee this proves that there is no thought process in YOUR brain or the brain of anyone who would believe this JUNK! Has Dawkins found the Meme yet?
If the brain responds in an identifiable way and can be altered by the use of drugs, this means that there is a corresponding natural reaction to natural stimulation. There is also a spiritual action that produces a natural reaction. Similar to the natural hate that Jesus generates among them that hate him spiritually such as yourself. That any reaction can be altered is not problematic for a Christian or anyone who knows about spirituality. Cut a spiritual person and he/she bleeds, ie: Jesus (The God Man) Bled and even died, but he had Power (Authority) over the flesh and sin.
You guys seem to think it's a problem for biblical people for science to recognize how the body functions. Are you docetic in your thoughts toward christianity, Christians and Jesus. Based on how you view things it surely seems like it.]
Scott~ I don't know the full context but let me take a swing. You said, "
Did God create everything from nothing?
[YES]
- Can God intend to create one thing, but get something else instead?
[NO- he knows exactly what he created. He allows his creation to respond to him however.]
- Did God create human beings
[YES]
but not create our ability to choose?
[THE ABILITY TO CHOOSE WAS A COMMUNICABLE ATTRIBUTE THAT HE IMPARTED WITHIN MAN BASED ON THE DESIGN OF IMAGE]
- If God created our ability to choose, then did he not do so using his irresistible omnipotent will?
[PLEASE DEFINE IRRESISTABLE, OMNIPOTENT WILL FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE REGARDING THIS ISSUE. I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR USE OF IT HERE.]
- Can an omnipotent being leave something ambiguous in his creation and magically have it filled in?
[ONCE AGAIN PLEASE DEFINE AMBIGUITY OR WHAT IS AMBIGUOUS]
If so, what fills in the gaps?
Because, without God, nothing would have existed to fill in the gaps that he ultimately didn't create in the first place.
[WHEN I GET THE OTHER INFO I CAN BETTER ADDRESS THIS]
Later.
Hi Lee,
How this relates to sin is that if we are not aware that we are sinning, how can we be held accountable?
This is a statement I agree with. We cannot be held accountable for unknowingly committing sin. It's based on ones knowledge and actions. When we do something we know is wrong, then we can say we have committed a sin we are accountable for. Now we can enter in any number of factors or reasons why we committed a sin, chemical imbalance, genetic markers, choice, an so on, but the bare fact is that I knew I shouldn't do X but I did anyway, and that equals sin. Also could be an example about a society and breaking a law. We already went there in other posts.
If our behavior can be manipulated from outside sources and we are not aware of it, the system of divine accountablity is flawed. No one can reasonably be said to be willfully sinning against God because, from the perspective of the Human, all the factors cannot be detected or taken into account.
Lets ramp this down to accountability for us as humans and our laws. Can we reasonably say the same? Can we say there is no accountability for breaking a law because of the same factors you list here? Is this where we need to have society head? I really think we have a lot to learn with respect to dealing with people and punishment for crimes. But not holding people responsible for their actions? If something in your genes or brain compels you to uncontrollably steal, what should we do? I think it is reasonable to expect that person to return the items or pay for them, regardless of reasons why the crime was committed. Would you agree? Now how to deal with them? I think it is reasonable to expect that we give that person any help necessary to help them not steal anymore. If that person was me I would want to try anything that would help me not steal anymore. If that meant medicine, therapy, mental institution, or whatever. Also for me I would expect that I could use prayer as a method for removing the uncontrollable desire. That may not work or be reasonable for all but it is to me. I would change your first sentence in this quote to read that the system of divine accountability is not understood, rather than flawed.
I think it is flawed to presume that only one certain group of people that are from one specific religion will be the only "saved" ones. So follow the commandments, just like every religion preaches, but because you chose catholic over hindu, off to hell! If this is a pass/fail test system, where is the cutoff? Since we don't expect perfection out of anyone it must be lower than 100%. So 70% or less, off to hell, the rest into heaven? Do you automatically get below the threshold for choosing the wrong religion? You are certain to be below the threshold for not believing, no matter where it sits. i don't think the divine system is flawed, but I do think it is misunderstood. I'll include myself in those that could misunderstand the system.
This ignores the self-reference problem. There should be no self-reference problem if our souls are 'driving' us around. They should be impervious to being deceived into not know if it should trust or not.
But this is an assumption made that could be completely wrong. We are driven around by our brains, we are mortal while we are here. Could our brain be included in the "flesh is weak"? Is our brain considered part of our flesh? And it just may be that those who allow their brain total control are doomed since it is so easily manipulated. If our soul is to be impervious to being deceived then how is it that Satan managed to take some of those in heaven with him away for God? Maybe I should back up a little. If we posit that the scriptures are accurate, solely for the purpose of deciding if we should think the soul is impervious to deception, and in the war in heaven as talked about in revelations somewhere says that satan managed to take some spirits/souls with him and were all cast out of heaven, does that say that our souls are to be expected to be impervious to deception? I would think not.
Morality and behavior are independent of God. They must be. The problem of self-reference proves it
I would both agree with this and expect this to be true if I am to be expected to be personally responsible for my own sins. Otherwise I am not responsible and someone else is because they have the control not me.
I think yours was heap a long time ago, and you are deliberately not saying so because you have immoral reasons or want to gain unfair advantage somehow.
I'm not sure I follow you completely here, but I am not trying to hold back anything on purpose to gain any unfair advantage. I am trying to understand your position and hopefully learn from one another. I think you can always find gems when digging through other peoples heaps:)
here is the self-reference problem again....whether we think favorably about someone or not).
Maybe we can't ever conclusively know as an entire earth population. And you could be right about Hinduism. But there could also be an older organized form of religion that we haven't yet discovered that would change that perspective also. It could be that we are age of enlightenment people trying to do the best we can with the problem of evil.
Hi Harvey,
Lee this proves that there is no thought process in YOUR brain or the brain of anyone who would believe this JUNK!
Is that the same thing as calling me a fool? Harvey, buddy, don't you believe Matt. 5:22?
Whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, "Raca!" shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, "You fool!" shall be in danger of hell fire
Where's that peace that passes understanding? They called Jesus teacher, what would Jesus do in your place? Are you deliberately disobeying him? When you repent do you expect him to believe you? You're as good as toast buddy. The problem with Judaic and christian theology (and the jews recognized it and corrected it with extrabiblical mishnah(?) and rabbinic writings) is it tries to make you accountable for your emotions. Generally, We don't have any control over our emotions without some sort of training, and while we may be sorry for having a feeling, more than likely its going to happen again because of the way we are made. If you think god made us, then he built in this natural behavior of disobeying. I don't blame you, because I know how it works, but the ancients didn't know how it worked.
There is also a spiritual action that produces a natural reaction.
no, it is generated by the limbic system. Its emotional, and in some contexts its a placebo effect. A person can be biologically driven to act up. I know because psychiatry solves some of thier problems. And some of them don't know they are acting up, and some of them CANNOT CARE like a psychopath. To self-judge, or to realize something is wrong requires some facility to get an outside perspective. Susan Blackmore, and some other cognitive scientists talk about parallel streams of consciousness, such as how a person does things 'on auto-pilot' while thinking about something else. Driving is a good example, so is sleeping. If you want to say that the spirit or soul lies in there somewhere, then you have to account for the inability for those people in the test not to realize thier trust mechanism was compromised. As I said earlier, this negates any meaning in the commandment to 'TRUST IN THE LORD'.
Similar to the natural hate that Jesus generates among them that hate him spiritually such as yourself.
How do you know I hate Jesus? I feel sorry for him becausse he got in over his head and made a bad decision to play with fire in a tumultuous time in Jewish history when they were aching to get back to self-government and were looking for the messiah to bail them out. It resulted in rough treatment by the romans, and for whatever reason he made a trip to jerusalem talking the talk and walking the walk and got picked up for rabble rousing on the passover.
That any reaction can be altered is not problematic for a Christian or anyone who knows about spirituality.
How can you "know about spirituality" when you don't have any consistent data to look at? Its all self referential, depends on the person, and results hundreds of denominations of christianity who can't agree on anything but that Jesus was real and he was a human sacrifice to appease god for people acting up.
Cut a spiritual person and he/she bleeds, ie: Jesus (The God Man) Bled and even died, but he had Power (Authority) over the flesh and sin.
cut me and I bleed too, so do hindus, whats your point? You can say that about jesus till you're blue but it doesn't mean anything since there was no Adam. You know that.
You guys seem to think it's a problem for biblical people for science to recognize how the body functions.
It must be a problem because it can be shown that there is no external agent driving people around, there is only that three pound meatball behind our face. To say that we have a soul that know the difference between right and wrong, is easily refuteable by looking at case studies in psychology and criminology, and even in your church. Some of those people are disobeying god and don't even realize it, just like you claiming that I have no thought process going on in my head. ARen't you convicted by the spirit? If yes, then why did you go to the trouble to leave that comment there when you hit the "publish your comment" button?
Are you docetic in your thoughts toward christianity, Christians and Jesus. Based on how you view things it surely seems like it.]
Exuse me for telling you your job, but I don't believe in the spirit or that jesus was god, which is a requirement to be docetic, I just think he was guy that got in over his head and got caught.
If this comment is a duplicate please delete it.
Lee ~ I didn’t intend to call you names (other than, my standard, anti-Christ advocate). I will admit that calling you "brainless" was harsh, but I really wasn’t serious, I should have indicated that with my standard LOL, but since you so dogmatically want to convince me that I’ve violated the word of God, I will simply repeat what the word said about you and people like you (That is IF the shoe fits)
“The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.” Ps. 14:1
“The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.” Ps. 53: 1
Now IF you believe in God but just don’t believe in the Bible that’s another issue, but most of you (At least from what I’ve read) adamantly and constructively say that there is no God and that Jesus, as he is described in the word, is not God. All I can say is this about that:
“Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.” I John 2: 23
Now you quoted Mt. 5:22. Of course I believe in it fully. A couple of things, this was talking about a dispute between “brothers” or “yoke-fellows”. This was also talking about being angry without a cause. First I’m not angry in any way about anything here or otherwise and you’re an unbeliever and I’m not yoked with you. Therefore, you aren’t the biblical definition of a “brother” to me and if I were to call you a fool based on scripture, and your obvious and open confession, I’ve simply told the truth. Don’t get me wrong, I like you and you make some good points worthy of consideration but it seems that an improper understanding of God’s word has led you to many of the false conclusions that you proliferate. That’s unfortunate, but it’s your right. I only speak in response to your assertions as I understand them...I’m not the cosmic police and I don't mean to be intimidating.
One thing that I hope is progress, you say about Jesus, "I feel sorry for him because he got in over his head and made a bad decision to play with fire in a tumultuous time in Jewish history"...
Am I correct in understanding that you believe that he (Jesus) was a historical figure and not a myth? I’ve not heard this from you before. In fact you’ve adamantly maintained his mythical status previously. So have you actually reconsidered the position or were you just trying to be accommodating?
I’m sorry I WAY OFF the post and I won’t respond because I don’t want to draw this out any further. I’ll wait for another post so I can address issues more specifically but I would like to know your position on the historical Jesus, so that I can make more accurate statements in the future.
Thanks.
[THE ABILITY TO CHOOSE WAS A COMMUNICABLE ATTRIBUTE THAT HE IMPARTED WITHIN MAN BASED ON THE DESIGN OF IMAGE]
The action of choosing requires a specific process that applies weights inputs. No process, no choice.
For example, if God created human beings in final form, God must have designed the rods and cones in our eyes to respond with specific signals when exposed to specific levels of light. He must have designed our optical lobe to respond to each of these signals by stitching them together into a composite image. If, in the creation of human beings, God did not define, in exact detail, these specific response curves and patterns, we would not see anything.
The same can be said with our ability to choose. Unless God defined the specific process in which we weigh options and inputs, we would not choose anything as there would be no system by which to make a decision.
If, for the sake of argument, we assume God could in some illogically possible way leave our system of choice ambiguous, we would return an ambiguous answer when asked if we believe that God exists. The response would be meaningless as we there was no defined method of weighing the options.
[PLEASE DEFINE IRRESISTABLE, OMNIPOTENT WILL FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE REGARDING THIS ISSUE. I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR USE OF IT HERE.]
See question 1: - Can God intend to create one thing, but get something else instead? God must get what he asks for. He can't get something that he did not ask for. Nor can God get something from nothing with out asking for it.
[ONCE AGAIN PLEASE DEFINE AMBIGUITY OR WHAT IS AMBIGUOUS]
Can God create a deck of playing cards while leaving the exact order of each card in the deck ambiguous? Because the very definition of a deck of cards is 52 unique cards in a SPECIFIC order. No specific order, no deck of playing cards.
[ONCE AGAIN PLEASE DEFINE AMBIGUITY OR WHAT IS AMBIGUOUS]
Can God create rock at rest on the earth's surface while leaving it's speed and direction ambiguous? Because, if God did not create the rock already moving at the exact speed and direction relative to the earth's movement, it would either fly off the face of the earth a incredible speed or slam into the earth like a small meteorite. Of course, being omnipotent, God could put the rock at exactly the right position and make it appear at the exact moment required. Being omniscient, he could know the correct speed, direction and position. Still, he must account for these factors.
Even with something as simple as a rock, God would and must be aware of every possible outcome and consequence that would occur to to any act of creation. He cannot leave anything ambiguous as the result could be something completely different than what he intended.
Hi harvey,
Actually Bart Ehrman convinced me he likely was real, but my position is that it doesn't make a difference. There was no adam, so he couldn't be the second adam, and there was no original sin, so jesus may be myth, he may be a conflation of several people or he may be a real guy but one thing is for sure, he wasn't what paul made him out to be.
I'm working my way to that article, I'll probably get there in July.
And harvey,
I was needling you about the 'fool' thing. I'm not offended, but I did mean to show you that however you want to wiggle around the meaning of fool in the context you alluded to, it came natural didn't it? and you didn't even realize it or you wouldn't have done it. Its just more of the "jesus said this but he didn't really mean it that way because these here other scriptures say this".
its called equivocation. And you see what i mean by your religion regulating your emotions? It leads to you all blaming the victim. But I don't blame you harvey, you just got caught up in the spirit.
I'm going to go float off and polish my halo now.
Scott~ "The action of choosing requires a specific process that applies weights inputs. No process, no choice."
[I like your argumentation and the way you pose your observations. We (neither you or I) have ever experienced the complete "free-will" that Adam experienced from the beginning. Since we (you and I)are born with a shroud of sin on us and in us, our decision making can not be like Adam's or Jesus's in any way.
Adam, because he was only human, had a propensity or an ability to sin based on his choice, as a natural extension of what was given to him. Therefore, he had not only the ability to purely "choose" but to also communicate that choice.
As for the irresistable, omnipotent will, all I can say is that God DID NOT fatalistically determine or impose the sin decision on Adam. He was given all the tools necessary and "instructions" on what to do and not do. He had the unfettered ability to excercise his will like God.
So the question you're asking is does God through his omniscience superimpose himself within human agency and what we know as free will? Does that superimposition somehow reduce our responses to predetermined, patternistic responses?
I simply respond by saying no. As I said we have the propensity and the freedom even though our freedom has been damaged.
Titus 2:11-12 "For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;"
I believe that HIS grace has allowed us to make a truely "free" decision.
This same argument was the primary difference between Luther's evangelicals and the Arminians. Personally I DO NOT agree with the construct of Evangelical Christianity on the matter of free-will and salvation. But that's another story.
Good observations though!
Scott~ One more thing. You mentioned rocks, meteorites, etc. These are inanimate things and I believe God exercises complete control over those things. (at least to the extent that they are not controlled by humans)They do not think, they have not been given the mechanisms. So the category is totally different from that of humans...
Lee~ I understand what you were trying to do...but It's just YOU I fail to understand (LOL) Anyway, I'll see you later.
Hi rich,
I'm working on your response, please check back.
thanks
hey rich,
I emailed you in response to the email John forwarded me. Did you get it?
Hi Lee,
Yes I got the email and I saved your address so I won't have to go round about. I was working on that slower because it's a different topic altogether. Thanks for the response though. I will check back.
I simply respond by saying no. As I said we have the propensity and the freedom even though our freedom has been damaged.
[Insert Biblical reference here]
I know what the Bible says about free will, but this does not really "solve'" the dilemma of God's omnipotence and omniscience.
If you say that God can somehow overcome this contradiction because he is omnipotent, then I'd ask if God can create a round square or create a stone so immutable that even he can't change it?
Because saying a God who created everything from nothing would not be responsible for our choices would be in the same class of a contradiction.
Obviously, we do choose. And our minds are very complex. But this doesn't mean that our choice is somehow exempt from logical contradictions or God's omni-traits. This would be special pleading.
Either God is not omnipotent, free-will is just an illusion, or God did not create us from nothing.
They do not think, they have not been given the mechanisms. So the category is totally different from that of humans...
Harvey, we've only reached the tip of the ice burg in regards to the human mind. How can you say something is exempt or deserves special treatment when we don't even understand how it works?
It's estimated that the human brain consists of 100 billion neurons, which have 1 trillion synapses. Even with our current technology, our ability to observe, simulate and understand how this vast and complex network functions is in it's infancy.
To simulate the human brain, we'd need a modern day computer the size of two football fields and 200 times more storage than all of Google's storage combined.
But before we could run the simulation, we'd need to painstakingly map the inputs and outputs of each kind of neuron in detail. This is a slow process because our current ability to non-destructively observe brain cells is quite limited.
As such, It's not that we can account for everything that's happening in the brain and didn't find human choice there. The amount of information and activity is so massive, we simply can't make much sense out of it right now.
In this light, to say that human choice is exempt from God's creation without knowing how our brain works is like saying a particular plot twist doesn't exist in a book when you haven't it cover to cover.
it's an argument from ignorance.
Hi Rich,
Now we can enter in any number of factors or reasons why we committed a sin, chemical imbalance, genetic markers, choice, an so on, but the bare fact is that I knew I shouldn't do X but I did anyway, and that equals sin.
There is no warning in the bible that smoking will become one of the leading causes of death worldwide. That is a gross oversight. So there is no prohibition, no warning, but out bodies are designed (from the christian perspective) that we become addicted. We do it in moderation at first like good christians should but then we get these cravings that are biological. Nicotine has some seratonin-like properties that cause it to give us a feeling we like that reinforces that behavior. Now quitting becomes phsyically uncomfortable. Now this extend this to other things that people get addicted to and there is no word of warning that this biological booby trap is in place.
Key points here,
* Biological Booby Trap
* No warning
But not holding people responsible for their actions? If something in your genes or brain compels you to uncontrollably steal, what should we do?
Maybe I'm not making myself clear here. In the sermon on the mount, Jesus did the typically jewish teacher thing (rabbi/Pharisee?) and using the "precautionary principle" put culpability on emotion, desires and feelings to play it safe in terms of transgressions. Some Jewish rabbi's have done commentary on thier own laws and while they don't care about Jesus as god, his teaching is similar to thier own. They have reinterpreted those types of teachings to mean something like you are not guilty of the feeling but what you do with that feeling. This is different than if you lust in your heart you have committed adultery, etc. At that point if you don't do it, you're not guilty.
To place culpability and accountability on desires and feelings is to blame the victim. People don't have control over that aspect of their personality without training like buddhist monk, but jesus never said anything about learning how to be a buddhist monk. I can assert that this is a misguided extension of buddhist teaching, and I will once I get done with my genesis/romans articles.
More key points
There are at least three issues here.
1. One culpability, could they help it?
2. accountablility, are they at fault?
3. response by society, should they be punished?
a rapist should be apprehended and held, not for punishment, but to prevent them from doing it again. Then they should be rehabilitated.
1. Is a rapist culpable? maybe
2. Is a rapist accountable? yes
e. Proper response from society? use the principle of minimizing harm and working toward the greater good. Apprehend them. Find out WHY they WANT to do it and try to fix it.
The key element in my argument is the *WHY* THEY *WANT* TO DO IT.
So my argument is put the rapist in jail to protect society but don't assume they are in danger of going to hell, or are evil because they may be pathological. Now some people are obviously pathological, lets say 1% of the general population are criminally pathological. But that is a subset of another percentage that are pathological and not criminal, so lets say 5%, now they are a subset of a greater percentage that are not pathological in the sense that thier similar feelings and emotions don't cause them problems but the feelings are still there IN THIER HEART IN BIBLICAL TERMS, and we can back this out to the point that the percentage of the population that is guilty of sin in thier heart and the amount of SPECIAL GRACE that god needs to provide makes the atonement meaningless (it was anyway because there was no adam, but thats a different article). So you're average teenager, or even "dirty old man", that lusts in their heart is a victim of biological bases for behavior and is called a sinner. Now please don't go off and say unless you do it you are not a sinner, because we all know the tenet is that all are sinners and fall short of the glory of god.
THIS TENET BLAMES THE VICTIM.
i don't think the divine system is flawed, but I do think it is misunderstood. I'll include myself in those that could misunderstand the system.
this is not a christian tenet, therefore not christian. This is your 21st century moral ethic showing.
And it just may be that those who allow their brain total control are doomed since it is so easily manipulated.
how do you not allow your brain total control, and how do you know that your brains needs controlling? Your brain figures it out, or some external perspective that you measure yourself by, like the scripture, but should you have been killed for not respecting your parents as a teen? Or are you really guilty and in danger of the fires of hell for calling someone a fool? You can modify your behaviour based on the scripture, but if you don't feel it, it nullifies it because in your 'heart' your action is not consistent with your thoughts. And is it fair to say that I should love my enemy? This is non-sense, if you love them they are not your enemey. the definition is enemy excludes any loving.
and in the war in heaven as talked about in revelations somewhere says that satan
do some academic research on the book of revelations, then do some research on the history of the jews in the first millenium bc. you won't take revelations so seriously.
I had a feeling you were going to have a problem with my heap analogy, but it wasn't directed at you, that is why i preceded it 'for example'. the point is that we have criteria for our heaps and for other peoples heaps. we may innocently have different criteria, but because we are naturally biased and self-centered, we make mistakes in judgement.
ut there could also be an older organized form of religion that we haven't yet discovered that would change that perspective also.
you mean neanderthal cannibal sympathetic magic religion?
At this point I have to say that today my 'participate-for-a-week' principle kicks in and I'm going to close my participation in this thread, so you get the last word, but this is one of my standard topics so I'll bring it up again.
Scott ~ "Either God is not omnipotent, free-will is just an illusion, or God did not create us from nothing"
[Whichever conclusion you choose here is a fallacy. God's omnipotence DOES NOT negate free will. Basically what you are saying is that, if God exists, he is the cause for sin, because man could not resist what God knew in his foreknowledge or omniscience. That is false. God knowing DOES NOT create a predisposition neither does it make god vicariously accountable.
I tried to grow a certain plant before. I gave it everything it needed and did everything I knew that was right to do. The plant grew for a while then died. I knew it would die from the beginning. Even though I wasn't omniscient, I had a strong feeling that, "This isn't going to work" That did not stop me from trying.
Similar to humanity...God knew the failures and choices that we would make individually and collectively, but NONE of that stopped HIM from trying, that's what Jesus was all about...The failsafe of the complete plan.
So I reject your line of reasoning because it is a self-refuting proposition. The contingencies are false dichotomies.
So far as the comment I said about ROCKS not having the ability to think...I have no idea what you were trying to get to...Do you believe that inanimate objects such as rocks have a brain and can think? If so I've got a very special deal on a buch of live rocks in some swampland in FLa. I'd LOVE for you to purchase...Like I said, I'll make a very special deal just for you!]
By the way that scripture you wanted goes like this,
Ephes. 2:1-2 "And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; 2Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:"
Sin caused us to be "dead" meaning our ability to exercise true freedom of choice was either tarnished or nonexistent. Because he "quickened" us or brought us to life, now every aspect of our being is effected including our decision making abilities.
Adam had NO sin in him, he choose sin and therefore his experience is unique to both you and I. At either rate God didn't predispose him to sin or choose simply because he knew what he'd do. That's not even practical.]
Lee~ I'll deal with your psycho reasoning later...and I'm not calling you a psycho either (LOL) although you keep writin' mess like you're writin' and I'll have to second guess that position too(LOL)
Hi Harvey,
I'll deal with your psycho reasoning later...and I'm not calling you a psycho either (LOL) although you keep writin' mess like you're writin' and I'll have to second guess that position too(LOL)
there is an old saying "the truth is in the joke". meaning that while you are making jokes, you are acting aggressively and masking your true feelings with the label of "Humor".
from psychology today...
Wrapping their thoughts in a joke shields them from the vulnerability that comes with directly putting one's opinions out there.
...
Because humor and hostility often come mixed together, it can be difficult to pinpoint a wisecracker's primary intent. "Sometimes sarcasm is humor—purely a Don Rickles kind of joking—and sometimes it's just innocently insensitive," Stosny says. "But other times, it's devaluing." Everyone benefits from a wisecracker's comic relief, but if you are the target of regular swipes, it's best to assertively call the joker out. His hilariousness doesn't give him the right to belittle you.
You should know this. You should have had training covering this. Being a preacher means being a counselor does it not? They covered it in my training, and they probably covered it in yours, or didn't you get any formal training in counseling?
Lee~ "You should know this. You should have had training covering this. Being a preacher means being a counselor does it not? They covered it in my training, and they probably covered it in yours, or didn't you get any formal training in counseling"
[And your arm chair, home training is REALLY hittin' the spot...You're open to all the junk science and hypothesis on the market, you're just as ecclectic as Eckhart Tolle and ALMOST just as confused.]
Anti-Christ advocate extreme...
Later LEE!
Lee~ By the way I TRUELY feel that you offer JUNK and that JUNK is PSYCHOTIC...I like you though(LOL)
Peace Lee!
Hi Harvey,
By the way I TRUELY feel that you offer JUNK and that JUNK is PSYCHOTIC
usually in a discussion, dialog or debate the participants offer more substantial rebuttals than that.
But I like you too Harvey.
Tolle must really be confused. At least he believes in spirituality, I don't.
take care.
Basically what you are saying is that, if God exists, he is the cause for sin, because man could not resist what God knew in his foreknowledge or omniscience. That is false. God knowing DOES NOT create a predisposition neither does it make god vicariously accountable.
No, this is NOT what I'm saying. Omniscience is only half the equation.
Imagine God wanted to create a car frame that would crumple under some impacts, but not others. In creating the frame, God would need to choose an specific amount of force at which the frame should crumple, then create the frame with a specific alloy that would crumple at that precise force. If God left the amount of force ambiguous or left the composition of the frame ambiguous, the car frame might not even support it's own weight under the earth's gravity!
By leaving any of these factors ambiguous, the results could be radically different than what God would have wanted. But, by defining them, God determines exactly which amount of force crumples the frame. Since God is omniscient, he would know exactly what composition would be required to withstand the force. Being omnipotent, he would create the composition exactly to the required specifications. Omnipotence means that God cannot unintentionally create "defective" things.
The combination of God's omniscience AND omnipotence means that God's creation must exhibit the form and behavior he wanted, and that God would be intimately aware of the consequences of this form and behavior going forward.
The only way the frame would crumple differently under the same force would be if the laws of physics or the composition of the frame were different at each impact. But, for this to occur, God must intentionally, omnipotently change the composition of the frame or temporality and locally change the laws of physics for the frame in some impacts, but not others. Again, If God arbitrarily changed the laws of physics, who knows what might occur? God might cause a rift in the space time continuum or cause some kind of chain reaction that could extend beyond accident itself. The same can be said for arbitrarily changing the composition of the frame. As such, God simply can't leave things ambiguous and expect something remotely close to what he wants to occur. And he would need to intentionally choose to intervene in some situations, but not others.
So it's God's omnipotence in conjunction with his omniscience that is the issue here.
Here's another example. If God wants to establish his kingdom, then one would assume at least one person must choose God for this to occur. But if we truly have free-will, this might never occur. This would be impossible for God as it is said his will must come to pass. Therefore, either God's plan must be written around human desires or he must have designed human choice so that at least one person would choose him and fulfill his plan. But in exerting this influence, God must define a number of people that will choose him. This could have 1 person, 2 people, 50 people or 50% of all people or 100%. Again, God must define the parameters or the results might not appear anything like God wants them to be. Or, he must omnipotently intervene a specific number of times to cause a specific number of people to people to choose him.
Either way, if God does exist and does have omni-traits, free-will would just be an illusion.
So far as the comment I said about ROCKS not having the ability to think...I have no idea what you were trying to get to...Do you believe that inanimate objects such as rocks have a brain and can think?
Of course not.
Unless you can account for all of the activity and complexity of the brain, and in doing so show that consciousness and choices is not part of it, there is no grounds to assume that our ability to choose would be exempt from God's omnipotent will anymore than a rock.
This might have made sense when we though everything in the universe occurred by fiat, but we now know that there are uniform reasons why uniform events occur. It's an argument from ignorance.
Take the outdated idea that God opened a woman's womb. Since the process of conception was internal, people in the ANE had no idea how it worked. So it was thought that "God did it." However, we now understand the process of conception and have identified many natural reasons it may fail to occur.
Lee, while you complain and conjecture about the motive of hostile humor by Supt. Harvey Burnett, do you feel it is an edifying stance to impugn his credentials - are you trying to shame him into submitting to your position? I'm quite certain I can gather up some supporting psychological articles about the harm of using manipulation and shame/blame in relating to another.
I think it was Y'shua who advised us to approach one another thusly, "forgive me my trespasses as I forgive those who trespass against me" - voile! no more justification for "shame attacks"! Maybe the brain's trust machinery can be healed and rebuilt afterall! I have hope.....
Scott~ "God must define a number of people that will choose him. This could have 1 person, 2 people, 50 people or 50% of all people or 100%. Again, God must define the parameters or the results might not appear anything like God wants them to be. Or, he must omnipotently intervene a specific number of times to cause a specific number of people to people to choose him.
Either way, if God does exist and does have omni-traits, free-will would just be an illusion."
[Thanks for better explaining yourself, what you explained was the same process of Dr. Calvin and the refomers. I DO NOT agree with their assessment of "free-will" and "election" as you state here in other language. Under their theory, there is no true "free-will" or at the very least it is defined differently. Partially why they believe such is because they believe that SIN eliminated the ability of man to truely exercise free-will.
I agree that the effects of sin are greater than anyone, especially on this site, give credit. Sin had a negative effect on all of creation including inanimate objects.
I personally don't believe the doctrine of election as it is taught by reformed theology or evangelical Christians is correct scripturally but those teachings do not prohibit any individuals from pursuing God. So your point is not all inclusive of what the bible teaches about the issue.]
Scott~ "Take the outdated idea that God opened a woman's womb. Since the process of conception was internal, people in the ANE had no idea how it worked. So it was thought that "God did it." However, we now understand the process of conception and have identified many natural reasons it may fail to occur."
[Now, the problem is revealed that you believe that this is a closed continuum. That is not true. You would have overlook the overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary to make that assumption. I did a write up on this at my sight at
http://dunamis2.wordpress.com/antisupernaturalism-historical-critical-methodology/
2 things quickly, natural causes should be the first thing we seek but if we have a respect for evidentiary findings we should not limit findings to naturalisms only. IE: we cannot throw out what we dislike and hold only to what we like.
The example you site I have PERSONAL experience with and a medical record to match ,with a specialist in the field. What happend WE KNOW without doubt that God did. He interviened, that is without question. That can't be medically assessed but the record is clear, was clear then and the evidence is now an 11 year old child.
That experience follows the principle of analogy and cannot be overlooked. the same has happened for others historically. IF evidential truth is the aim then one can do what one wills. If supernatural evidence and testimony is minimized you've debunked the same scientific methods that you hold in high esteem elsewhere. That is the ultimate inconsistency.]
Thanks.
Harvey- we've been through these arguments about free will before. You might want to check out this post here at DC, where Scott, Lee, and I go into the issue at some length.
cheers from Vienna, zilch
Hi 3m,
in case you haven't noticed, harvey has yet to bring anything of substance to the table with regard to my viewpoint other than acting like a fountain of derision.
I'm supposed to be the bad one here while Harvey is supposed to be a teacher, counselor, example to the community.
He is providing a real time example to support my assertion that people are driven by wants, desires and motivations that they have a hard time controlling and regardless of his spiritual place in life, the holy spirit is not providing any help to him in refuting me. If the holy spirit is active in his life, I would expect something more substantial than I am foolish and a psycho. His peace that passes understanding and his answer to anyone that asks about the hope that lies within him is missing at crunch time.
3MMM~ don't even worry about Lee, he is a good anti-Christ advocate that only offers conjecture and modern fantasy. The deception is that he actually has a viable argument. He has none.
The JUNK he spouts breaks down at the door. You, Jamie and others have ADEQUATELY pointed that out...Look in Lee's world view human responsibility is like this:
No CRIMINAL is responsible for his/her actions
Each one should be apprehended, sat down and given a psychiatric exam by holding their hands because THEY are really the victim...
The courts and law enforcement should be much nicer because some people just have the "can't- help its"
As prisons get larger there should be accommodations for all of those who are "disadvantaged" by their conditions... we need a nicer and more in touch criminal just system for all the mentally unawhare victims.
Finally, we should all just get along but we can't do that as long as we believe in God.
He is FULL OF JUNK!
Sad thing about it is that he "thinks" that he proves something and that noone can read through his LIES and fantasy hypothesis and JUNK cognitive psychology...but I just leave that to him so he can have his "happy place"
but as I said I like him...(LOL)
Anti-Christ Advocacy...it's not just a job, it's a profession!
Thanks 3MMM
Thanks Zilch, I'll look at that.
Thanks for better explaining yourself, what you explained was the same process of Dr. Calvin and the refomers.
You're latching on to the mention of salvation and jumping to the wrong conclusion. The outcome might appear the same, but the reasoning is different.
Calvin assumed that GOD CHOOSES specific people to be saved. I'm saying that, to ensure that at least one PERSON CHOOSES God, he must have exerted his omnipotent will to influence our decision making process. This influence must be intentional, exact and result in a specific outcome because God is omnipotent and omniscient. If his influence was ambiguous, our choice would be ambiguous.
Please re-read the car frame example as it illustrates the problem without referencing salvation.
The example you site I have PERSONAL experience with and a medical record to match ,with a specialist in the field. What happend WE KNOW without doubt that God did. He interviened, that is without question.
This was not an attempt to deny miracles. It was an attempt to illustrate the fallacy of CONSISTENTLY attributing God's involvement in a process or system that was unknown at the time. However, If God intervened as you claim, he intentionally and specifically used his omnipotent will to cause a specific outcome.
Hi Harvey,
now you are back to your characteristic straw man building. That is a misrepresentation of my position. You still haven't said why my 'junk stops at the door'.
and I'm wondering
WHY you WANT to act that way.
I'm closing my participation in this thread and moving on to my next article.
You're most welcome, Harvey. Where the freewill debate seems to balk boils down to this: atheists say that omniscience plus omnipotence means predestination, which means that God wrote our scripts, so choice is an illusion. Believers say that even though God created us knowing how we would decide, we somehow still have choice, because He is omnipotent and can do whatever He wants, including granting us freewill.
To me, that seems just the same as saying that God can create a round square if He wants to- it's illogical. But if omnipotence means that one is not bound by logic, then all bets are off, and there's no point debating, since we are not omnipotent, and we are bound by logic, or at least should be, if we want to do anything other than set words to chasing their own tails.
Lee, Harvey, et al - in regard to free will, even Y'shua/Jesus acknowledged that people know not what they do - "forgive them Father for they know not what they do". HOWEVER, just because we start out blind and captive does not preclude us from being enlightened so that we can discern manipulations, subtle and even subliminal influences. God's grace allows us to mature towards what we gravitate towards or to be set free from gravitational forces.
For myself, a subliminal message of "I'm an imposition" was revealed at the foundation of my life. After it came to light, all the puzzle pieces of my life fit together - how I was treated when I was small, helpless and needy, helped to confirm that condemning and contemptuous message within me and was expressed in my daily life. Although I was moral, I was perishing within. By the grace of God, there is deliverance and freedom from such.
At any rate, the best to you all!
3M
Hi 3M,
That's sounds like what I was trying to say with regard to sin. I think that Lee is right in that there are things that we are unable to control that lead us to do certain things. Religion labels them as sin and the law labels them as crime. I don't agree however that biological factors refute sin. We hit a difference in where accountability comes in to the picture, but probably no one sees eye to eye there.
I guess I should leave a last word response for Lee then. (Rubbing hands together)
There is no warning in the bible that smoking will become one of the leading causes of death worldwide.
From the perspective that you have this is true and I think presents the very problem you bring up for Christianity. For me specifically, the use of tobacco has been warned against since the mid 1800s. So that warning is in place, even though it doesn't come with the warning that it will be the leading cause of death, the warning is there.
Maybe I'm not making myself clear here
Actually yes you did make your point clear. We again just differ in assigning a label. You say that thoughts, feelings, and emotions, shouldn't be labeled as sin because they are uncontrollable biological functions, although you add that we could if we become monks. But maybe that is what Christ was expecting. Control over your emotions, thoughts, and feelings.
I guess my biggest point here is that sin is a label. I think that how that sin is handled after the fact is the most significant part of this that isn't being discussed. That being repentance and the atonement.
The key element in my argument is the *WHY* THEY *WANT* TO DO IT.
I applaud this and also second the notion that people need help. But in reality we agree in a great deal here. Being put in jail is a consequence of the act of raping, and it does its job of protecting society from that individual. Regardless of the reason, or the why, this person raped it is still a crime and they are sent to jail. This is similar to what I am saying about sin. Now we determine what to do based on several factors. From a religious perspective that person can be said to be in danger of going to hell unless they repent and "go their way and sin no more." It's the unless part that you are overlooking here that to me makes the difference.
Now please don't go off and say unless you do it you are not a sinner, because we all know the tenet is that all are sinners and fall short of the glory of god.
I didn't and wouldn't have. And maybe that was directed at someone else too, which after some thought I think I get the heap now. ;)
this is not a christian tenet, therefore not christian. This is your 21st century moral ethic showing.
Well I guess that depends on who you ask as to whether I am a Christian or not. As much as I try to hide that darn 21st century moral ethic it keeps rearing its ugly head. About the love your enemy, could that have been meant to tell us to not have enemies? I know I wasn't an enemy to my Ex until she stopped loving me, then all hell broke loose.
As always it was a pleasure and I will look forward to this topic again.
M3,
Again, I'd note that you've come to conclusions about yourself and the world that anyone could have made without God. Nor does God have to exist for these things to be true.
God could just be a literarily device who is designed to set the stage and provide context for stories promoting moral teachings of an ancient culture.
If these personal observations you've made are really "true" then they will continue to be "true" if God exists or not. Instead, you act as if they are contingent on God.
How can this be? Is this not a contradiction?
And if you unconditionally believe in God, then God wouldn't need to make any sense or do anything because you're belief would be, well, unconditional. Nor can God have faith in you or trust you in return because he is supposedly omniscient.
Of course, you're belief in other Gods would be unconditional as well. Is this the case?
Instead, I'd suggest that the Christian God is what justifies a particular belief you "want" to hold. It provides support and "divine" protection for a world view that, by my estimation, you're really unsure of yourself. That's why you need God to exist and make sense to continue believing it.
If we could go back in time and prove that Jesus did not exist or was not born of a virgin birth, would the specific teachings you've chosen to adopt from the Bible suddenly become worthless? Would they stop being true for you? Or would they simply loose the divine protection and authority you seek? Would you search for some other supernatural way to justify them?
If we must use our modern sense of morality to pick and choose what is worth following from the genocide, slave regulations and apocalyptic end-times prophecy in the Bible, then we're the ones who ultimately decide what is right and wrong. What is moral and immoral. What's true and not true. You don't need God to do it for you.
Scott, I appreciate your thoughtfulness in responding to my comments. Thanks.
I don't know what I wrote to convey that I doubt God's existance, but nothing could be further from the truth - I've been a nonbeliever before and also practiced other religious beliefs that kept "god" at a comfortable distance - vague and undefined and malleable to suit my own justifications. But instead of flourishing, I was perishing.
Have you ever given thought to why it would be attractive to bypass God, a divine authority figure, to accomplish what you believe to be right? Insight, morality, justice - these potentially can be fine expressions of faithfulness, but in and of themselves, they do not save anyone from spiritual starvation. Oftentimes they are an expression of compulsion.
I lived many years bypassing God to become moral, but I was perishing. To do good for goodness' sake had truly rendered me pitiful and spiritually poor. I still practice (practice being the operative word) being moral and just, but not as the ultimate pursuit. No, I practice morality for the purpose of bypassing those distractions that would keep me from attaching to what I now know is the most valuable aspect of life - God. In loving God, I inherit a heart for what He cares about - people.
As a revelation to me, there were signs and wonders, palpable not only by me but by others as well. But miracles are not the main focus of faith - those were done as a concession to awaken me to realign my focus and value towards what God already created with esteem.
Pride means "taking credit" - perhaps instead of my telling you about my personal infection of such, it is best to leave the detection and acknowledgement of prideful ways up to each individual to explore. As a word of encouragement I can say this - pride is a destructive and deceptive territory that keeps various factions of humanity in contempt and offended by one another but it is definitely not insurmountable by any means.
At any rate, that's enough for now - take care, Scott!
Have you ever given thought to why it would be attractive to bypass God, a divine authority figure, to accomplish what you believe to be right? Insight, morality, justice - these potentially can be fine expressions of faithfulness, but in and of themselves, they do not save anyone from spiritual starvation. Oftentimes they are an expression of compulsion.
If there is no evidence that a city is present, do we need to create a road that goes around it? Before we can decide if we should bypass God, we need to decide if God exists.
While there may be aspects of Christ's teachings that have practical value, this does not mean that divine authorities exist. For example, name one moral idea or action held or taken by a theist that could not be held or taken by a non-theist?
Oftentimes they are an expression of compulsion.
And religion cannot be an expression of compulsion? Compulsion can be utilized. It's a feature of human behavior. We can decide which habits we take up and which we put down. It's not easy, but it's part of our makeup. We can also minimize compulsion by practicing mindfulness.
No, I practice morality for the purpose of bypassing those distractions that would keep me from attaching to what I now know is the most valuable aspect of life - God. In loving God, I inherit a heart for what He cares about - people.
All I'm trying to say here it that by identifying what you "love" with the Christian God, you have added a significant amount of unnecessary dogmatic "baggage." You must keep God coherent so you can love him. God must have had a good reason to have commanded genocide. There must be some mysterious reason why God would hold Adam responsible when he did not know good from evil. Etc. These are unnecessary liabilities which you obviously take seriously, otherwise you wouldn't have claimed God must have had a good reason why he could not denounce slavery.
As for distractions, mindfulness is a virtue that does not required God. It appears that you're simply labeled that which we find though mindfulness "God" in an attempt to make sense of it in todays culture. While nurturing mindfulness is an important aspect of one's existence, it does not require a supernatural being.
As a word of encouragement I can say this - pride is a destructive and deceptive territory that keeps various factions of humanity in contempt and offended by one another but it is definitely not insurmountable by any means.
You're preaching to the choir. While we need healthy self-esteem, pride can be destructive and isolating.
To summarize, God is not the only way to reach the truths you've discovered. Nor are they mystical impossibilities that require the Christian God to exist.
If you haven't seen this TED talk yet, I'd highly recommend it.
Take care...
Hi Scott! Good to hear from you again! I found this one paragraph to be symptomatic and consistant with your stance of nonbelief - you wrote:
"All I'm trying to say here it that by identifying what you "love" with the Christian God, you have added a significant amount of unnecessary dogmatic "baggage." You must keep God coherent so you can love him."
I am grateful to have had compulsion in the form of religion brought to light in me - when you say things like I "must keep" God coherent so I can love Him, that is a comment born out of compulsion - I dont' "have" to do any such thing unless I am worshipping a "god" of my own creation, eg, idolotry, of which I confess I used to do. An ugly job to be sure!
Then you wrote, "God must have had a good reason to have commanded genocide."
You must believe I am Jewish - while I embrace much of what Judaism has to offer, by following Messiah (remember, the OT folks did not yet have Jesus's example to understand God's will) I am able to recognize the difference between divine and human influences. No one who has believed in Y'shua ought to be confused about God's will. I value the hard work of the OT folks as Y'shua said, but because of Y'shua, I know the difference between what is human and divine nature whether it be in scriptural texts or in real everyday life.
Then you wrote: "There must be some mysterious reason why God would hold Adam responsible when he did not know good from evil. Etc. These are unnecessary liabilities which you obviously take seriously, otherwise you wouldn't have claimed God must have had a good reason why he could not denounce slavery."
I like that you have placed these two concepts together - holding Adam responsible while he did not know good from evil and this concept of God promoting slavery.
Y'shua did not come to condemn, but to save us from blindness and captivity. God saves us by removing the indictment from our perspective. God sees sin as symptomatic of our not being aware of how greatly and purely we are loved by Him - He considers it suffering - do you think He wants to punish us for not knowing we are not loved? No! He wants to save us by giving us His love. As for slavekeeping, why would God say, "Do not keep slaves?" when He addresses mankind on a wholesale basis and advises us that He is here to set us free from being held captive? To put a "Don't keep slaves" command in order would be to presume that some are already free to make a decision to hold slaves and be slaves. But that is not the case - we are all equal in our need for spiritual salvation.
We can put insight and wisdom and morality into practice but eventually we perish without a source of spiritual love and guidance towards what it means to be in a loving and intimate familial relationship. It's so easy to corrupt the meaning of what it is to love - I used to accept a lot of stuff that God never commanded or intended.
If you are not thirsting for a different way other than what you are already practicing in your daily life, chances are that what I am saying is not going to seem that attractive. It's during times of distress (and what we define as distress - some people now claim heavy traffic as a justification for road rage and violence) that what we believe comes to the surface and is expressed outwardly.
Thanks, once again Scott!
3M
Hi again Scott - I wanted to return after a thought came to mind about what you wrote here, "To summarize, God is not the only way to reach the truths you've discovered. Nor are they mystical impossibilities that require the Christian God to exist."
Even Y'shua acknowledged that there were other ways to get into the sheep pen (heaven) without entering through the gate (Him). But He said that those who did achieve entry in this way were like thieves and robbers - meaning that they draw people to themselves or their ideologies - we can bond to theology, gurus, religious or spiritual practices but that is missing (sinning) the whole point - what are we being robbed of? The communion with a divine father and bonding with a free spirit - now if I were inclined to worship that adorable little Flying Spaghetti Monster, that might transfer well into my reality by increasing my ability to enjoy pasta meals, but I would be left hungry and thirsting for spiritual satiation and maturation towards peacefulness amidst chaos. There is something to be said about coming into close connection to an infinite, supernatural father who teaches about how to love people in close intimate relationships. By faith, the supernatural transfers well into the natural realm. There is something to be said for connecting with an all powerful God that won't reject or punish us when we are small and helpless. Power and mercy and grace all in one - quite a paradigm shift from what I was used to experiencing. I used to be cynical about being needy and small and vulnerable, but I'm not anymore.
Once again, good talking to you, Scott!
3M
I dont' "have" to do any such thing unless I am worshipping a "god" of my own creation, eg, idolotry, of which I confess I used to do. An ugly job to be sure!
If God exists, he must have a will. And if God created the universe and everything in it, he must have used his omnipotent and omniscient abilities while creating them. God's sentience, which you claim as a benefit, has significant implications.
However, in your case, It appears that God's impact and influence is conditional.
No one who has believed in Y'shua ought to be confused about God's will. I value the hard work of the OT folks as Y'shua said, but because of Y'shua, I know the difference between what is human and divine nature whether it be in scriptural texts or in real everyday life.
While it may appear that God provided Jesus as a way out of our current situation, how did we get here? What part of the OT account do you accept? Because, if an all knowing, all powerful God really did create everything from nothing, then we just didn't get here by accident.
I like that you have placed these two concepts together - holding Adam responsible while he did not know good from evil and this concept of God promoting slavery.
I'm not saying that God promoted slavery. I'm saying that God did not clearly denounce slavery as he did with murder or even homosexuality. I find it odd that an all knowing, loving God would leave this out when he'd know how it would be interpreted and even used to defend slavery when criticized by others.
God saves us by removing the indictment from our perspective.
Do you share the same perspective about the Muslim or HIndu God? Why do you reject them why embracing the Christian God? Because, it seems that only the Christian God is immune from criticism.
God sees sin as symptomatic of our not being aware of how greatly and purely we are loved by Him
If God wanted us to know he loved us, do you think this would be a problem for him? And why would not knowing be a sin? While it might be a beautiful way of looking at the world we live in, It doesn't really make sense. I guess that's were we differ.
To put a "Don't keep slaves" command in order would be to presume that some are already free to make a decision to hold slaves and be slaves. But that is not the case - we are all equal in our need for spiritual salvation.
If this makes sense to you, I guess there's nothing I can say to make you see differently. However, I see no reason why God couldn't clearly differentiate between physical bondage and spiritual bondage. It's an ad-hoc limitation to keep God coherent. Why don't you simply reject this part of the OT just as you do incidents of genocide? It appears you simply reject all of the negative things in the Bible as human nature and accept the positive, such as putting limits on slavery, as divine.
We can put insight and wisdom and morality into practice but eventually we perish without a source of spiritual love and guidance towards what it means to be in a loving and intimate familial relationship.
My intention is not to take away something you rely on. I'm only trying to illustrate how God is a catch 22 situation. Unless God exists in a particular form, then everything is lost. It's necessary to defend and harmonize these points to keep God coherent.
If you are not thirsting for a different way other than what you are already practicing in your daily life, chances are that what I am saying is not going to seem that attractive. It's during times of distress (and what we define as distress - some people now claim heavy traffic as a justification for road rage and violence) that what we believe comes to the surface and is expressed outwardly.
What I think is true or not is dependent on what I think is attractive. We all separate these aspects in every other matter. Why should I act differently just because we can't prove with 100% certainty that God does not exist? Because I can? That's simply not a good enough reason for me.
we can bond to theology, gurus, religious or spiritual practices but that is missing (sinning) the whole point - what are we being robbed of? The communion with a divine father and bonding with a free spirit - now if I were inclined to worship that adorable little Flying Spaghetti Monster, that might transfer well into my reality by increasing my ability to enjoy pasta meals, but I would be left hungry and thirsting for spiritual satiation and maturation towards peacefulness amidst chaos.
As I mentioned earlier, whether the Buddha really existed is not a concern. I do not worship his likeness or his image. Truth I have found is not dependent stories that surround him. Peace that is dependent on anything is suffering. This is a key point in Buddhist teachings, which I found difficult to understand at first. But, when you think about it, it really makes sense. Because you must sustain, protect, rely on that dependency.
This is not to say that we can avoid suffering, or that some things are not worth suffering for. But we should be aware of our suffering and carefully weigh our options.
And, If peace depends on the lack of suffering, then you'll spend your time trying to avoid suffering, which is just another form of suffering.
Scott~ "I'm not saying that God promoted slavery. I'm saying that God did not clearly denounce slavery as he did with murder or even homosexuality. I find it odd that an all knowing, loving God would leave this out when he'd know how it would be interpreted and even used to defend slavery when criticized by others."
[I don't want to belabor the points here but, have you ever looked at what Darwinian Evolution teaches about Black people (such as myself) and women?
I mean this is the problem with naturalism and especially the Darwinian brand. There is rank classism and racism throuought.
God provided a much clearer view of morality in these issues and as much was actualized in the New Testament. Women were the FIRST to carry the message of his resurrection, and a Black man helped Jesus carry the cross. In addition the NT anncouncement was for equality among all classes and individuals.
Gal. 3:28 ~"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."
Col. 3:11 ~ "Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all."
Now I'll agre in a minute that those ultra religious Puritans messed up a whol bunch of stuff in the name of God...That was horriffic and unfortunately they used the bible to do it. But that does not make the command of god any less clear.
That's all I wanted to interject here. I noticed it before but had forgot until that message. Thanks and you guys have a good weekend]
God provided a much clearer view of morality in these issues and as much was actualized in the New Testament. Women were the FIRST to carry the message of his resurrection, and a Black man helped Jesus carry the cross. In addition the NT anncouncement was for equality among all classes and individuals.
Harry,
Do you think the theory of gravity presents a clear view of morality? How about atomic theory?
I ask because, just as all other scientific theories, evolution doesn't make moral claims. It's a theory that explains facts and observations of natural phenomena.
You're assuming that since God, though his creation of man, dictates morally for theists, that evolution must dictate morality for atheists. It simply doesn't follow. No wonder why you think it's such a poor guide.
In fact, I want to live in a world that is very far from the survival of the fittest. But how can we do this if we bury our heads in the sand? If we're going change course, we have to understand where we are, how we got here and where we're headed. Only by understating this process can we make informed decisions.
On the other hand, theism not only attempts to dictate morality - it also makes claims about the physical world, such as God created the universe and created man in final form, etc. Saying God did it doesn't really explain anything. All we've left with is that we're all sinners that need to be forgiven - which hasn't provided any new insight in over 2,000 years.
This might have made sense when we thought everything happened by fiat, but we simply do not live in that world anymore. Instead, we live in a vast universe where everything we learn pushes God further and further into the gaps.
Scott ~ "I ask because, just as all other scientific theories, evolution doesn't make moral claims. It's a theory that explains facts and observations of natural phenomena."
[Obviously you haven't thought naturalism through to it's conclusion. Since evolution is the affirmation of naturalism, and morality is said to be a product of natural means and environment, then (in a naturalist world view)all morality must begin with the process of evolution.
Under the evolutionary construct, one cannot seperate morality from the natural process of evolution because you belive that morality is a natural process of biology or at the very least convention.
I simply argue like William Lane Craig, that morality rooted in supernaturalism (specifically biblical) is a much better foundation for all morality and as such has proven it's self to be so as evidenced by societies including the USA that have been built or rooted within it. It is by far intrinsically more fulfilling.
It seems that what you are dealing with is the issue of control and the necessity to yield to something that you don't feel is essential in the definition of your character or freedom etc. All I can say is that God is certainly essential and history has proven that when morality and actions are rooted in him, there is a much better outcome for society in general in all areas.
The next hospital you or your family goes to will probably have been instuted under catholic or Methodist morality and is rooted within the religious moral system of Christianity to help the sick.
The next court room, the next Presidential inaguration, are all rooted in the Christian system of Biblical morality. Humanism only contributes to these entities that implore biblical morality to make life better. So to say that God is "pushed further into gaps" as we think on these issues is highly inaccurate.
as we truely think on these things, no matter how one wants to, a successful society cannot be had apart from the Christian supernatural root of morality.]
Peace.
DSHB"a successful society cannot be had apart from the Christian supernatural root of morality."
no, really, you MUST be kidding. you think the only successful societies have all been Christian? what an egocentric and blatantly UNTRUE idea! what about the many different successful native american societies of north america before they were decimated by small pox? oh, i could spend that rest of the night listing successful societies. evolution is a process and cannot 'dictate morality'. however, morality is instintive and is the PRODUCT of the PROCESS of evolution. the things basic things we find moral and immoral are the result of selection for self-preservation first, family preservation second, group preservation next, species preservation next, and on to similar species then the environment. the behaviors that lead to preervation of that hierarchy are the core units of morality. these involve such core things as not killing each other and caring for the sick among us and sharing food with needy and not trashing the environment. there are adjustments and details that are invented by people and taught that have nothing to do with true inherant morality such as clothing style, hair style, diet details, and these have nothing to do with true morality at all but these are the kinds of things religions specialize in with their goofy rules. chimpanzees and dogs and cats are moral. because it suits the continuation of the species on an evolutionery level. animals have morality in terms of not killing young, not killing family, the same hierarchy, and they do not have 'god'. in fact, chimps have successful societies in many ways, now that i think about it.
[Obviously you haven't thought naturalism through to it's conclusion. Since evolution is the affirmation of naturalism, and morality is said to be a product of natural means and environment, then (in a naturalist world view)all morality must begin with the process of evolution.
Obviously, you're jumping to false conclusions. Again.
Under the evolutionary construct, one cannot seperate morality from the natural process of evolution because you belive that morality is a natural process of biology or at the very least convention.
While It's true that moral behavior would have formed though the process of evolution, this doesn't mean this behavior must mirror the "survival of the fittest." Nor must the factual process of evolution that produced them be moral guidelines. it's a non-sequitor. This would be like saying the particular way a violin, or other instrument, was constructed is somehow guidance on writing, interpreting and
playing classical music. It's creationist propaganda.
The process of natural selection chooses behaviors and attributes that make organisms more likely to survive. However it doesn't dictate what these properties are or the method in which they are successful.
While consciousness may be the result of the evolutionary process, it's implications go far beyond mere survival. Due to it's complexity and capacity for self-reflection, consciousness has many secondary properties that may not have exhibited enough benefit for selection individually. It is these very properties which form the environment that we make moral discussions today.
As an analogy, a brick home is more likely to survive a hurricane or tornado that a wooden home. However the same properties that make brick more resilient to adverse weather also results in a home that requires less maintenance and is more energy efficient. However, if one is merely focusing on survival, it's likely that energy efficiency and reduced maintenance would not be "selected" if brick was significantly less resilient compared to a wood home (which lacks these benefits.) [You might need to expend more energy to heat, cool and maintain a wood home, but this would be more than compensated for if it could withstand significantly more adverse weather] As such, the existence of these secondary attractive properties are not directly dependent on their individual fitness for survival. They are part of a "package deal."
As I see it, instinctual morality was simply the "first stage" that gave us a evolutionary advantage until we evolved into conscious beings. We're current transitioning between instinct and consciousness, which is a dangerous point in human evolutionary process (as is clearly evident by events occurring all around us)
Here's an interview with Dr. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi which illustrates my view on morality in more detail.
To summarize, we are wired to pursue experiences that challenge our abilities and meet our needs to survive. But, to quote Csikszentmihalyi...
At the social level, the danger is that you end up finding flow in challenges that are zero sum, that is, that somebody has to lose for you to win. For instance, war can produce flow if you are on the front line, and everything is clear, everything is focused, and you know exactly what you want to do, and so forth. So many people come back from war to find civilian life very boring and dull compared to their front line experience.
Obviously, our survival instinct is in play here and we're being challenged, but war is a destructive, harmful activity.
However, through conciseness and our understanding of evolution, we can identify and choose experiences that not only challenge us, but go beyond survival to benefit others. We can see instincts and cultural developments as the result of a understandable process.
Simply saying "God did it" labels everything as either obeying God or disobeying God. There is no insight into our behavior other than Adam ate an apple he wasn't supposed to eat. The solution is to believe God sent Jesus to die for us and to ask forgiveness. Essentially, everything is the results of opaque supernatural causes beyond our understanding. How can we make any progress with this sort of understanding?
I simply argue like William Lane Craig, that morality rooted in supernaturalism
So, show me the evidence.. Whoops. There is no evidence! You must beg the question that God exists, and even then, you have no concrete evidence that points to God as being remotely responsible. It's an argument from ignorance.
(specifically biblical) is a much better foundation for all morality
Better than what? Scientific facts? Again, evolution isn't a moral guideline any more than the theory of gravity.
and as such has proven it's self to be so as evidenced by societies including the USA that have been built or rooted within it.
So why is Sweden so successful? It's based on a secular society and it exceeds the US in nearly every category, Including crime.
It is by far intrinsically more fulfilling.
So are donuts. Does this mean donuts are good for you?
It seems that what you are dealing with is the issue of control and the necessity to yield to something that you don't feel is essential in the definition of your character or freedom etc. All I can say is that God is certainly essential
As the one making the claim that God exists, you need to substantiate it. So far, I've seen nothing but assertions based on false conclusions. And you've failed to respond to my question. Again, are you not intentionally disobedient to the Muslim and Hindu Gods? Do they not claim their God's are "certainly essential"?
and history has proven that when morality and actions are rooted in him, there is a much better outcome for society in general in all areas.
Assuming anyone can know the mind of God is dangerous at worst and superstitious at best. Getting groups of people to agree on something for the wrong reasons isn't a good solution. We can do better. I guess you have such a low expectation of humanity that we need the threat of eternal damnation to prevent society from crumbling. Clearly, this isn't the case.
The next hospital you or your family goes to will probably have been instuted under catholic or Methodist morality and is rooted within the religious moral system of Christianity to help the sick.
Hezbollah, currently listed on the US list of terrorist organizations, provides significant humanitarian aid to hospitals in the middle east. Your point is?
The next court room, the next Presidential inaguration, are all rooted in the Christian system of Biblical morality. Humanism only contributes to these entities that implore biblical morality to make life better.
All you've shown is cultural bias towards religion. You'll have to do better than that.
So to say that God is "pushed further into gaps" as we think on these issues is highly inaccurate.
What issues are you referring to? Religion hasn't actually told us anything we couldn't have figured out for ourselves. And religious account have been continually replaced by naturalistic explications as we learn more about the world we live in.
as we truely think on these things, no matter how one wants to, a successful society cannot be had apart from the Christian supernatural root of morality.]
Again, there are other secular societies that are at as, if not more successful, than the US. This is simply an assertion with no support.
Scott: "The process of natural selection chooses behaviors and attributes that make organisms more likely to survive."
The survival of the individual is not sufficient. The individual must survive to the point of raising children to the point where they can reproduce. One survival strategy selected for in some niches for some creatures is to produce thousands of offspring that are sent out with not further care, of which only 1 may survive to reproductive age. Another strategy, ours, is to produce a few young but to invest heavily in their care. many of the instinctive morals that we have are because one very effective strategy is for a small group to raise the young, not just the mother. this is the basis for our social instincts of caring for each other and not stealing from each other and not killing others within our group. what we call teamwork is the appeal to the cooperative aspect of this instinct. what we call competetion is the appeal to the protective aspect of this instinct. many of our characteristics that do not seem to make much sense in terms of fitness for the survival of the individual make quite a bit of sense for the fitness and survival of the group that is going to help raise that young to reproducive age.
scott: "We're current transitioning between instinct and consciousness"
Not necessarily. Organisms tend toward more complexity because things are less likely to go away due to evolution than they are to be built up. If a feature had benefit then was replaced by something else, as long as it does not COST too terribly much, it is unlikely to evolve away. mutations tend to be additive rather than subtractive. chunks of dna get copied extra times or fail to divide all the way so have extra features more often than dna goes up missing. and creatures with more of something tend to be more suited tuo survive than those missing something. so instincts reside in our reptilian brain, around which is wrapped a mammalian brain, around which is wrapped the human brain with its two hemispheres. input from out senses goes to several different parts of our 'brains' and is processed at different levels of awareness. some things are processed totally beyond our awareness and some are processed quickly by our instintive brains then our concious brain becomes aware of it. there is theory that much of our decision making is not based on assessing the data and deciding but on snap 'gut' decisions bsed on instinct and that once or concious brain become aware of what we have chosen, it builds up a logical case after the fact.
read about blind sight where the concious vision centers have been damaged but people still rspond protectively to visual threats in their peripheral vision. they are never aware of 'seeing' the threat because it went to the reptillian part of the brain.
often we react in a certain way and someone says why did you do that and we are not really aware ofd why but we say "because . . . ' and put together a story on the fly - which may or may not really be why we made made the quick choice in the first place.
so will the hierarchical brain ever go away? i doubt it. will the concious brain ever become strong enough to override all control by the lower brains? I doubt it. we may be able to become more aware with practice of instinctive decisions and intercept the instinctive action and 'think' about it and 'choose' but i think the parts of the brain that use instinct are her to stay and will always be in control of much of our behavior.
Another strategy, ours, is to produce a few young but to invest heavily in their care. many of the instinctive morals that we have are because one very effective strategy is for a small group to raise the young, not just the mother. this is the basis for our social instincts of caring for each other and not stealing from each other and not killing others within our group.
As the process of evolution results in more complex features, their influences and interaction become more complex and diverse. The process of caring for one's young is a good example, as it requires much more complex set of skills than merely reproducing in volume.
The skills needed to care for one's young can also be useful in other areas. The whole is significantly greater than the sum of it's parts.
What's most fascinating is that one of our more recent adaptations, consciousness, was capable of revealing the very process that brought itself about. Surely, this ability of self-reflection is a game-changing event in human development, as it gives us insight as to where we are, how we got here and we're we're headed. This provides a level of transparency previously unavailable.
To quote Csikszentmihalyi...
Now that we are conscious of evolution, now that we are aware of what the heck is going on, and we know what entropy is like and we know what complexity of consciousness is like, then we naturally have to make a choice. If we had to determine a goal for our evolution, I think that complexity would be the goal that we would endorse. And by virtue of this very fact, complexity would be the goal of evolution.
...
So, in that sense, now it [evolution] has a purpose, it seems to me. It's our purpose. And we have to decide what that purpose is. What I'm trying to claim is that complexity, which in the past was what evolution generated—whether intentionally or not—has given us the opportunity to say, "Yes. This is what we want to make happen, this is what we want to become the conscious agents of."
While It's true that, from a technical perspective, our instinctual "brain" and concuss "brain" are both based on grey matter, only our conscious brain is aware that both influences are being exerted.
To Quote Csikszentmihalyi again...
Well, we all tend to take our experience, the surface experience that's presented to consciousness, as essentially being ultimate reality. There's a good reason for that. I mean, we can't examine every experience we have and ask, "Is this right or wrong? Is this good or bad?" But there has to be a certain ability to distance yourself, for instance, from your needs. If every time you're hungry you have to eat, if every time you feel sexual stimulation you want to act it out, if every time somebody tells you to do something you say, "Yes, sir" without thinking about it, then you live a tremendously restricted life. ... If that's how you live, you'll never break out from these conditions, these programs that genes set up over millions of years, or that the culture sets up for us before we were born, or before we grow up. We are born with certain instructions to act, and then we are told by the culture how to act. And while we have to honor the reality of these things, at the same time, we have to reflect on the implications that carrying out these instructions would have.
So, yes. I don't think it's possible to completely free ourselves from our instincts. Nor do I think we would want to completely. But we can be aware of their influences and compensate for them as necessary.
Hi again, Scott, et al ~
Wow - I hadn't been back to this post in awhile and didn't realize it was a continuing, ongoing conversation. Scott, I could re-respond to all of your comments, but how about for a future time? It seems to me (correct me if I'm wrong) that you and others here have a compassionate nature and are concerned for the welfare of others who might be under the reign of a condeming god. I used to be concerned about that, but in fact, by faith in Y'shua, your real concern ought to be who will be in heaven with you - okay? okay!!
BTW, just perusing the number of commentary here, it seems pretty amazing how much conversation is devoted towards the issue of trust - it is a pivotal element in the formation of our lives, isn't it?
Bye!
3M
MMM: "just perusing the number of commentary here, it seems pretty amazing how much conversation is devoted towards the issue of trust"
# of comments has little to do with tthe topic - it is because someone linked to it. be careful of making conclusions like that w/oi all the data.
GP, thanks for the awareness alert - I'm still learning about matters such as you mentioned. 3M
Post a Comment