A Challenge Of Sorts

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Budge' post='1107450' date='Nov 1 2006, 12:33 PM']
The Bible is not some mysterious document impossible to understand.

God has blessed us with an English translation.

Thats the problem with Catholicism, telling its people, you need us experts to "understand" the Bible.

no you do not.
[/quote]


We need "experts" aka Teachers to understand the English Language. So to we need Teachers to rightly understand the Word of God.

[Justified Saint]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' post='1106824' date='Oct 31 2006, 05:44 PM']
it helps to be able to logically reason God's existence as a starting point.
[/quote]

"God does not exist; He is eternal" - Kierkegaard

[Anomaly]

That's the problem with human religion, you don't know who is right in all instances.
God alone knows and reads our hearts and is the perfect and merciful judge of our intents and imperfections. Religion is an aid, not The Judge. One only has to look at the repeated failures of humanity in all religions and philosophies. Religions fall prey to humans who seek power and dominion over other humans. People often abuse religion to control others, to feel good about themselves, or to make others look up to them, not to help others have a real relationship with God. Hopefully, people abusing religion is the exception, not the rule. Sadly, that's not always the case. I find little effective difference between most of the poster here, despite what 'denomination' they claim is the 'most right'.
It does not matter what version of the Bible or Quoran or Writings or Little Red Book or Science Book you acknowledge as being most correct when it's being used as a weapon to pound somebody in the head.

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1107297' date='Nov 1 2006, 06:02 AM']
How could you without it coming down in the end to your subjective opinion?
Yet would a Nazi in Hitlers Germany, argue the same? The Nazi does not have to worry about your subjective logic because the Nazi is stronger, the Nazi is Human, and the jew is not. In the Nazi's subjective logic it is a dog eat dog world the Nazi has the "right" to live because the Nazi is better than the jew, and the jew is weak and does not have the right to live. Thus the Nazi does not have to worry about "the most juvenile point of logic", because the Nazi's is "better" and does not have to worry about the jews hurting them, because after all the jews are all locked down in camps and can not cause much harm to anyone but those in the camp.
And the love of a Mother? Just a chemical reaction?
Why do we, as human beings, have value? Or, do we have value?
How is it that our lives have value? How do we determine whether or not any given human life has value?

Do we have value only if we can be productive, if we have a job, or if we serve some useful purpose? Do we have value only if someone else thinks we have value? Do we have value only if we have an IQ of 100 or higher? Do we have value only if someone else loves us? Do we have value only if our “quality of life” meets some arbitrary standard set by others?
[/quote]

To be fair, Knight, the nazis didn't have to worry about Christian theology either. People will do evil things. It's the just the way the world is. And yes, I think evil must surely exist - there's a lot of agreement around the world on that point. I'm just not seeing why a brain driven by chemicals is any less sentient than a brain driven by a soul.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Budge' post='1107450' date='Nov 1 2006, 02:33 PM']
The Bible is not some mysterious document impossible to understand.

God has blessed us with an English translation.

Thats the problem with Catholicism, telling its people, you need us experts to "understand" the Bible.

no you do not.
[/quote]
Oh? So you'd say that the English translation is as authoritative as the original, then, i.e. inspired by God? Which English translation? Each English translation reflects a different understanding of the Scriptures, so they can't all be authoritative. So which is it? Which one is the perfect, unadulterated word of God? Each translator had a certain intention in translating that made him prefer one way of saying it over another, so which one was inspired by God? Since a translation is a way of interpretting the original, anyone who relies on an English translation is, in fact, relying on an expert to understand the Bible. Different experts have different opinions. So which is the inspired one? More importantly, don't you admit that, by this fact, anyone who can't read the original and has to read the English is relying on experts to understand the Bible? If experts didn't do the translating, who did? Are people to rely on geniuses who know nothing of Scripture rather than on experts? What about the fact that the Ethopian eunuch needed an interpreter, one who was trained in the way?

Budge, you leave far too many questions unanswered. I'm really interested in answers. Please start answering questions people have posed for you and stop dodging them.

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1107545' date='Nov 1 2006, 02:10 PM']
Oh? So you'd say that the English translation is as authoritative as the original, then, i.e. inspired by God? Which English translation? Each English translation reflects a different understanding of the Scriptures, so they can't all be authoritative. So which is it? Which one is the perfect, unadulterated word of God? Each translator had a certain intention in translating that made him prefer one way of saying it over another, so which one was inspired by God? Since a translation is a way of interpretting the original, anyone who relies on an English translation is, in fact, relying on an expert to understand the Bible. Different experts have different opinions. So which is the inspired one? More importantly, don't you admit that, by this fact, anyone who can't read the original and has to read the English is relying on experts to understand the Bible? If experts didn't do the translating, who did? Are people to rely on geniuses who know nothing of Scripture rather than on experts? What about the fact that the Ethopian eunuch needed an interpreter, one who was trained in the way?

Budge, you leave far too many questions unanswered. I'm really interested in answers. Please start answering questions people have posed for you and stop dodging them.
[/quote]

Then take them to a different thread. We already have and have had about 7 dozen on sola scriptura. Go argue in one of them.

[Kosh]

so KnightofChrist, gonna respond? and yeah, Budge, I can interpret any given passage at least 60 different ways. and if it's not impossible to understand what the heck is with the million different forms of protestantism? Are they all confused? But take it somewhere else, I 'gree with KizlarAgha.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Nah, I'll let that subtopic die. If Budge wants to continue it, I'll split it.

Sorry for the hijack.

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1107558' date='Nov 1 2006, 02:28 PM']
Nah, I'll let that subtopic die. If Budge wants to continue it, I'll split it.

Sorry for the hijack.
[/quote]

All is forgiven, my son. Go and hijack no more.

[Kosh]

and say 3 our fathers and 4 hail marys

[suuran]

Kizlar, what do you think of the ideas I mentioned about beauty and goodness? I don't see how those can be explained via materialism.

[Kosh]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' post='1107544' date='Nov 1 2006, 01:09 PM']
To be fair, Knight, the nazis didn't have to worry about Christian theology either. People will do evil things. It's the just the way the world is. And yes, I think evil must surely exist - there's a lot of agreement around the world on that point. I'm just not seeing why a brain driven by chemicals is any less sentient than a brain driven by a soul.
[/quote]
Because a chemical reaction/interaction isn't sentient. Or subjective. It always reacts the same way to the same thigns. If you add water to cesium it always explodes. A brain driven by chemicals wouldn't have free will. Just acting on instinct and its DNA. Plus theres what Jalazar said. Brains acting on mere chemicals without something deeper wouldn't be able to comprehend beauty or goodness as objective ideals.

For that matter, our brains wouldn't be any better than better ape brains. I think everyone would agree that there is a SIGNIFICANT difference between human behavior and ape behavior that cannot be explained by a 3% (that's what I seem to remember) difference in DNA. There has to be something else. aka, a soul.

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Jalazar' post='1107610' date='Nov 1 2006, 03:43 PM']
Kizlar, what do you think of the ideas I mentioned about beauty and goodness? I don't see how those can be explained via materialism.
[/quote]

I think they can. For example, humans have a love of symmetry. It has been discovered that people with more symmetric faces are considered more attractive. Symmetry in the human body isn't perfect, because as we're growing different things can impact the rate of growth. So, an unhealthy person is likely to be less symmetrical than a healthy person. That means that symmetry is a sign of health - a good mate. So it could be that we are programmed to like symmetry because it confers health benefits on our offspring should we mate with a symmetrical person. Other aspects of beauty can likely be traced back in a similar manner.

[quote name='Kosh' post='1107672' date='Nov 1 2006, 04:12 PM']
Because a chemical reaction/interaction isn't sentient. Or subjective. It always reacts the same way to the same thigns. If you add water to cesium it always explodes. A brain driven by chemicals wouldn't have free will. Just acting on instinct and its DNA. Plus theres what Jalazar said. Brains acting on mere chemicals without something deeper wouldn't be able to comprehend beauty or goodness as objective ideals.

For that matter, our brains wouldn't be any better than better ape brains. I think everyone would agree that there is a SIGNIFICANT difference between human behavior and ape behavior that cannot be explained by a 3% (that's what I seem to remember) difference in DNA. There has to be something else. aka, a soul.
[/quote]


A 3% difference in DNA perhaps, but a very large difference in brain size. Human brains are 8 times larger than what we would expect for a mammal of our size and five times larger than what we would expect for a primate of our size. That means we have a great deal more computing power than even our closest animal relatives. Also, I don't see why chemicals can't cause sentience. Chemicals can cause depression. They can cause hallucinations. They can cause euphoria. They can cause all sorts of things. Why not sentience?

[Kosh]

only if you're talking about it in the physical sense. That's not what he's referring to.

Okay, granted about brain size. But we don't see ANY traces in ANY other animal, no matter how small, of Beauty, Goodness, Evil (in the objective sense), or any other virtue or value that we humans treasure so much. Freedom? No other animal displays a yearning for freedom unless you define "freedom" rather narrlowly. How 'bout Love? Animals display love only in the physical sense. When humans fight wars we fight for causes. the Crusades, WW2, etc. You think this can be explained by a difference in brain size? Or DNA?

Edited November 1, 2006 by Kosh

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' post='1107544' date='Nov 1 2006, 02:09 PM']
To be fair, Knight, the nazis didn't have to worry about Christian theology either. People will do evil things. It's the just the way the world is. And yes, I think evil must surely exist - there's a lot of agreement around the world on that point. I'm just not seeing why a brain driven by chemicals is any less sentient than a brain driven by a soul.
[/quote]


How can there be evil if there is no God? Without God we are just like the other animals and "evil" is merely survival of the fitest.