Religion Of Christianity - General

well thanks for that you've said all you need to say all you need to do is start hearing a voice that says it's elohim and tells you to kill someone, and you're on the true path to righteousness.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43873796]great avoidance of the question guess we're done here [editline]11th February 2014[/editline] You can't do anything but make slights at me and avoid questions, can you[/QUOTE] You should try a new utility heuristic that relates a positive effect to instances where Zenreon117 says something nonsensical or disturbingly crazy, rather than the usual emotional response of frustration and pity.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43873863]well thanks for that you've said all you need to say all you need to do is start hearing a voice that says it's elohim and tells you to kill someone, and you're on the true path to righteousness.[/QUOTE] Burden of proof of identification is quite high. So no.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43873889]Burden of proof of identification is quite high. So no.[/QUOTE] would you know the difference between a voice in your head and the voice of god in your head? be honest, would you really know?

[QUOTE=Ziks;43873580]While we're on the topic, could you explain why the whole crucifixion thing was an optimal solution for anything? That's something I've never understood at all, but I'm sure it must have some sound reasoning behind it since it's such a core aspect of Christianity.[/QUOTE] The just consequence of sin (or missing the mark of perfection) is death, both spiritual and physical*. Every human being has this on their head the moment they first commit a sin. It would be just for God to allow the continuation of this death, but because of his love and mercy for humanity Jesus was born onto the earth to take this penalty in place of us. In order to do this he was required to be completely human, which he was, live a sinless life, which he did, and give his life up voluntarily, which he did. Him being the only one able to do all of these things make him not only the optimal solution, but the only solution. By doing these things he paid the penalty that we deserved to pay. He experienced the physical death through the actual dying of his body on the cross while also experiencing the spiritual death, as noted by the phrase: "My God, My God, why have You forsaken me?" (Mark 15:34b) *A physical death entails the separation of the spirit from the fleshly body while a spiritual death entails a complete and utter separation of our spirit and God.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43873889]Burden of proof of identification is quite high. So no.[/QUOTE] How dare you require God prove himself to you! You will obey when commanded!

[QUOTE=Ziks;43873871]You should try a new utility heuristic that relates a positive effect to instances where Zenreon117 says something nonsensical or disturbingly crazy, rather than the usual emotional response of frustration and pity.[/QUOTE] I'm not going to appeal to the Zeus mentality of theism. When I answer a question I am going to do with with the entirety of the concept of YHWH. Not just some bearded dude who rattles off commands. [editline]11th February 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Ziks;43873913]How dare you require God prove himself to you! You will obey when commanded![/QUOTE] Hah. Proof of ID =/= proof of existence.

How would you know if it's god or just a voice in your head? How would you know

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43873573]Well if you want to strawman it like that go for it but no, because I don't want to sounds like a good enough reason to me but feel free to strawman me however you want, I know you're not really trying[/QUOTE] You literally said that the decision would be purely emotion (lacking in reason). How did I strawman you by calling it irrationality, exactly what it is. I get if you want to argue that emotion is a legitimate reason to do things... but you don't also get to pretend that it isn't completely irrational. You can't have both rationality and emotion have equal weight.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43873905]would you know the difference between a voice in your head and the voice of god in your head? be honest, would you really know?[/QUOTE] Well right now there are technologies that can emit vibrations into your skull to make you hear voices. So at the moment I am highly skeptical of the authenticity any potential revelation.

[QUOTE=sgman91;43873912]The just consequence of sin (or missing the mark of perfection) is death, both spiritual and physical*. Every human being has this on their head the moment they first commit a sin. It would be just for God to allow the continuation of this death, but because of his love and mercy for humanity Jesus was born onto the earth to take this penalty in place of us. In order to do this he was required to be completely human, which he was, live a sinless life, which he did, and give his life up voluntarily, which he did. Him being the only one able to do all of these things make him not only the optimal solution, but the only solution. By doing these things he paid the penalty that we deserved to pay. He experienced the physical death through the actual dying of his body on the cross while also experiencing the spiritual death, as noted by the phrase: "My God, My God, why have You forsaken me?" (Mark 15:34b) *A physical death entails the separation of the spirit from the fleshly body while a spiritual death entails a complete and utter separation of our spirit and God.[/QUOTE] That seems a little disturbing from an external perspective, but I can see how it makes sense within the context of Christianity. Thank you for taking the time to help me understand.

[QUOTE=sgman91;43873946]You literally said that the decision would be purely emotion (lacking in reason). How did I strawman you by calling it irrationality, exactly what it is.[/QUOTE] Because you're taking your equally emotional reason and calling it purely rational, dismissing utility based emotional reactions as "irrational" You can't have your cake and eat it to. If mine are irrational, as are yours as they are based on the exact. same. thing.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43873920]Hah. Proof of ID =/= proof of existence.[/QUOTE] Requiring proof of ID is still requiring proof.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43873948]Well right now there are technologies that can emit vibrations into your skull to make you hear voices. So at the moment I am highly skeptical of the authenticity any potential revelation.[/QUOTE] So say you lived 50 years ago, and you heard gods voice in your head how could you be sure it's god?

[QUOTE=Ziks;43873952]That seems a little disturbing from an external perspective, but I can see how it makes sense within the context of Christianity. Thank you for taking the time to help me understand.[/QUOTE] It is disturbing. If it weren't the only possible solution, then it might even be revolting.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43873966]So say you lived 50 years ago, and you heard gods voice in your head how could you be sure it's god?[/QUOTE] Or what about ~2000 years ago?

[QUOTE=Ziks;43873964]Requiring proof of ID is still requiring proof.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=ESV bible]4 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world[/QUOTE] It's doctrine to require proof of identification.

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;43865646]That would imply that things happen because God knows that they will happen, that is not not what I am saying. The precise nature of God's omniscience is a debated topic with Christianity, but it's vital that free will exist in parallel with it(thus meaning that your statement is not the case). God merely knowing that I will do something is not restricting me from doing something else, even if I will be doing what God knows I will do.[/QUOTE] Actually with that view you are running into the free will problem. If my decision is predetermined, do I actually have free will or merely an illusion of free will. The general consensus in that case, is that it's merely an illusion of free will, as a requirement for it is that I can change my decision, that it is not a fixed constant. So as far as god goes, you have two options. A) Either free will is an illusion (and thus the bible lies) or b) free will exists, but that ultimately means that god is not omniscient, as he doesn't know our decisions in advance (aka the bible lies again) Considering he did seemingly not know about the eating of the apple, Lucifer's fall and many other things, it is quite possible that he is in fact not omniscient. Whcih is as odds with the bible.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43873966]So say you lived 50 years ago, and you heard gods voice in your head how could you be sure it's god?[/QUOTE] Testing it against the scripture as well as correct prophecy. If what he says matches up to what is, then it is most likely true. Regardless I don't think it would be very hard to know the difference. The Ruach Ha Kodesh (Set apart Spirit) comes over people when they are contacted by the highest of the high. Ultimately it isn't a major concern of mine, he who lives by the sword dies by the sword.

[QUOTE=sgman91;43873979]It is disturbing. If it weren't the only possible solution, then it might even be revolting.[/QUOTE] To be honest I would struggle with the ethics involved in willingly worshipping an entity that mandated such a state of affairs, especially as I can't see how such a mandate could be the optimal solution given an infinite set of possibilities. [editline]11th February 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;43874003]It's doctrine to require proof of identification.[/QUOTE] I stand corrected.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43873960]Because you're taking your equally emotional reason and calling it purely rational, dismissing utility based emotional reactions as "irrational" You can't have your cake and eat it to. If mine are irrational, as are yours as they are based on the exact. same. thing.[/QUOTE] My argument: 1) Action X is good. 2) One ought to do good actions. 3) One ought to do action X. None of these are based on emotion. Your argument: 1) Action X feels good. 2) I enjoy doing actions that feel good. 3) I do actions that I enjoy. 4) I do action X. One of these is based on what IS and the other is based on what I feel. One is objectively rational no matter the emotions invovled, one is subjectively rational based only on emotion. [editline]11th February 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Ziks;43874040]To be honest I would struggle with the ethics involved in willingly worshipping an entity that mandated such a state of affairs, especially as I can't see how such a mandate could be the optimal solution given an infinite set of possibilities.[/QUOTE] This is why the whole nature of God thing is vital. The objective moral system that I believe to exist flows from the very nature of God. He didn't create it, He didn't choose it, it just is. There is literally no other standard to even compare it to. Every other standard is purely subjective. Within this system sin has the just consequence of death, there's no way around it.

[QUOTE=sgman91;43874065]My argument: 1) Action X is good. 2) One ought to do good actions. 3) One ought to do action X. None of these are based on emotion. Your argument: 1) Action X feels good. 2) I enjoy doing actions that feel good. 3) I do actions that I enjoy. 4) I do action X. One of these is based on what IS and the other is based on what I feel. One is objectively rational no matter the emotions invovled, one is subjectively rational based only on emotion.[/QUOTE] Misrepresentation. [i]Both[/i] of our positions: 1) I would regret not performing action X 2) I wish to minimise regret 3) I attempt to perform action X

[QUOTE=Ziks;43874101]Misrepresentation. [I]Both[/I] of our positions: 1) I would regret not performing action X 2) I wish to minimise regret 3) I attempt to perform action X[/QUOTE] Whether one regrets it or not is irrelevant in my argument. The only rational choice would be to do action X since it objectively ought to be done. One would only choose to not do action X out of irrationality or ignorance.

[QUOTE=Ziks;43874101]Misrepresentation. [i]Both[/i] of our positions: 1) I would regret not performing action X 2) I wish to minimise regret 3) I attempt to perform action X[/QUOTE] You are taking a reason and applying it to someone else. As I've said before, reasons vary, and consequences can be seperate from reasons. You may do something because you wish to minimize regret, I do something because I wish to fufill my purpose before the most high. While our reasons may lead to eachother's reasons as consequences, that doesn't mean the REASON for our action was such.

You're saying something is objective. Who says it is? You do. Sounds plenty subjective to me

[QUOTE=sgman91;43874065]This is why the whole nature of God thing is vital. The objective moral system that I believe to exist flows from the very nature of God. He didn't create it, He didn't choose it, it just is. There is literally no other standard to even compare it to. Every other standard is purely subjective. Within this system sin has the just consequence of death, there's no way around it.[/QUOTE] I'd assumed until now that your objective morality was objective because it was defined by God (using the Highest of the High model as Zenreon117 would put it). I can't see how any system of morality could be objectively true without being explicitly defined by a higher entity, because morality itself is such a subjective concept.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43874142]I do something because I wish to fufill my purpose before the most high.[/QUOTE] So it's for emotional personal gain then? [editline]11th February 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;43874122]Whether one regrets it or not is irrelevant in my argument. The only rational choice would be to do action X since it objectively ought to be done. One would only choose to not do action X out of irrationality or ignorance.[/QUOTE] By what definition of rationality? And as an organic system, you don't transcend the emotional aspect of your decision to act. You act because you emotionally desire to at a fundamental level, regardless of higher moral purposes.

[QUOTE=Ziks;43874155]I'd assumed until now that your objective morality was objective because it was defined by God (using the Highest of the High model as Zenreon117 would put it). I can't see how any system of morality could be objectively true without being explicitly defined by a higher entity, because morality itself is such a subjective concept.[/QUOTE] It's define by his nature. This is different than saying it is defined by his choice. If it is defined by his choice then there are other choices available, but if by his nature then only one possible system exists. There simply isn't anything else to even think about choosing from.

[QUOTE=sgman91;43874065]My argument: 1) Action X is good. 2) One ought to do good actions. 3) One ought to do action X. None of these are based on emotion. Your argument: 1) Action X feels good. 2) I enjoy doing actions that feel good. 3) I do actions that I enjoy. 4) I do action X. One of these is based on what IS and the other is based on what I feel. One is objectively rational no matter the emotions invovled, one is subjectively rational based only on emotion. [editline]11th February 2014[/editline] This is why the whole nature of God thing is vital. The objective moral system that I believe to exist flows from the very nature of God. He didn't create it, He didn't choose it, it just is. There is literally no other standard to even compare it to. Every other standard is purely subjective. Within this system sin has the just consequence of death, there's no way around it.[/QUOTE] But why is 1) true? Because you say god says so? But here's the problem, you still sound highly subjective.

[QUOTE=Ziks;43874173]So it's for emotional personal gain then? [/QUOTE] No, it's for Yah.