Spirituality
18 Jun 06
08 Jul 06
Originally posted by no1marauderYep, but what concern is it to you? Why are you concern about how
Paul, naturally. Do any of you "Christians" actually read Jesus' words?
another serves their master, it is between Christ and us, not your
problem. If you want to find fault for not following Christ's words, do
you follow them?
Kelly
08 Jul 06
Originally posted by StarrmanYou are claiming the wind exists because we are able to measure it, able to see its effects, able to explain its existence using venacular totally nature-inclusive. I am using the effects of wind as a metaphor to explain the existence of something totally nature-exclusive.
What? Did you not understand the second paragraph in my post? Or are you choosing to ignore it on purpose? You cannot talk about a soul's anything before you prove the soul exists. And if, to do this, you use definienda which lay within the measuring process, you fail to define anything.
We see the effects of the wind and thereby know of its existence (whether or not an explanation is possible). Likewise, we see the effects of the soul and know of its existence.
08 Jul 06
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayWhat business is that of yours? If you people are really followers of Jesus rather than Paul, you'd think you'd quote the former more than the latter. Instead on this forum I'd say that the Fundies quote Paul at least 10 times as many times as they quote Jesus. Perhaps you should change the name of your belief system to "Paulian" and jettison the Gospels entirely.
Yep, but what concern is it to you? Why are you concern about how
another serves their master, it is between Christ and us, not your
problem. If you want to find fault for not following Christ's words, do
you follow them?
Kelly
08 Jul 06
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou might want to go about presenting some evidence that anything is "nature exclusive" i.e. has an existence outside of reality. Otherwise your concept of a "soul" is no more valid than my electricity delivery boys since no one can "show me" they don't exist in a "nature exclusive" way either.
You are claiming the wind exists because we are able to measure it, able to see its effects, able to explain its existence using venacular totally nature-inclusive. I am using the effects of wind as a metaphor to explain the existence of something totally nature-exclusive.
We see the effects of the wind and thereby know of its existence (whether or n ...[text shortened]... n explanation is possible). Likewise, we see the effects of the soul and know of its existence.
08 Jul 06
Originally posted by HalitoseRelative, there are no absolutes
Originally posted by Starrman
[b]If morality is a socially agreed contract, we punish people and reward others on the basis of success. What is good for the success of the group is deemed morally acceptable, what is deemed bad for the success of the group is morally unacceptable.
The above post reminded me of a thread I had been meaning to s ...[text shortened]... ction of beliefs as to what constitutes a good life.
So -- are morals relative or absolute?[/b]
08 Jul 06
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderBecause you don't understand what Christianity is and the roll God
What business is that of yours? If you people are really followers of Jesus rather than Paul, you'd think you'd quote the former more than the latter. Instead on this forum I'd say that the Fundies quote Paul at least 10 times as many times as they quote Jesus. Perhaps you should change the name of your belief system to "Paulian" and jettison the Gospels entirely.
plays in the life of man basically warps your understanding to what
following Jesus means. Jesus is our Lord, the Son of God, the Son of
man, God in the flesh. Jesus as a man could only affect the human
condition as any man could with God working through hiim. Jesus said
it was better for us that He leave so that the Holy Spirit would come,
who could and would lead us and guide us, empower us. Paul is just a
guy, no different than any other, Jesus is Lord, and the Holy Spirit
through Paul has written some powerful words, that help us in our
journey in this life in following Jesus, and Jesus whose words we do
read and study and live by.
Kelly
08 Jul 06
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHShoe me a peer reviewed scientific paper that measures the soul.
Converserly, the soul can be measured equally. You've not presented an argument against the existence of the soul as much as for the soul. Sure, the wind's results are measureable, but likewise are the soul's desires.
Again, show me the wind.
EDIT - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?
db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16803042&itool=i
conabstr&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum
(that's all one link. RHP think's it's too long, so I broke it up. Reconnect it from http to docsum if you want to see the abstract)
08 Jul 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBH'The wind' is the noun we apply to the presentation of these measured effects in nature. 'The wind' is not being claimed as the origin of these presentations, but a terminology describing them.
You are claiming the wind exists because we are able to measure it, able to see its effects, able to explain its existence using venacular totally nature-inclusive. I am using the effects of wind as a metaphor to explain the existence of something totally nature-exclusive.
We see the effects of the wind and thereby know of its existence (whether or n ...[text shortened]... n explanation is possible). Likewise, we see the effects of the soul and know of its existence.
'The soul' remains unmeasured and cannot be said to be a presentation of anything else, until we define the origin of the desires you speak of. You are not (as in the case of the wind) observing and measuring desires and applying the term 'soul' to them, you are saying desires exist and assuming the origin of these desires is the soul. This is clearly not the same as the case of the wind.
09 Jul 06
Originally posted by StarrmanThat is all cool and everything, but again it does not allow us to
'The wind' is the noun we apply to the presentation of these measured effects in nature. 'The wind' is not being claimed as the origin of these presentations, but a terminology describing them.
'The soul' remains unmeasured and cannot be said to be a presentation of anything else, until we define the origin of the desires you speak of. You are not (as ...[text shortened]... gin of these desires is the soul. This is clearly not the same as the case of the wind.
see the wind now does it? The affects are plain enough, but again
show the wind if you will. We can say the life that shows feelings
and emotions is a result of the soul too, it doesn't make the
soul something we can see, any more than watching a dust devil
kick up dust and leafs allows us to see wind.
Kelly
09 Jul 06
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayAs usual, you don't know what you're talking about. I was raised in the same superstition and am perfectly aware of the details of the belief system. Your post is irelevant to my point anyway; it was Freaky who suggested that people primarily read Paul for guidance on the point we are discussing; maybe you should direct your little singsong routine to him. And you can't reasonably deny that the Fundies here quote Paul much more than the Gospels, so how do they live by Jesus' words when they are basically unfamiliar with them (sometimes they rebuke other people for using Jesus' words as in the case of Matthew 25 i.e. "You luvvvvvvvv quoting Matthew 25!"đ.
Because you don't understand what Christianity is and the roll God
plays in the life of man basically warps your understanding to what
following Jesus means. Jesus is our Lord, the Son of God, the Son of
man, God in the flesh. Jesus as a man could only affect the human
condition as any man could with God working through hiim. Jesus said
it was better f ...[text shortened]... n this life in following Jesus, and Jesus whose words we do
read and study and live by.
Kelly
09 Jul 06
Freaky: Thought is the domain of the soul, (temporarily) transmitted in the locale of the brain. Like the branches of a tree bowing in the wind, the measureable impulses within the brain simply testify to the movement of the soul.
Are the measurable impulses inside say a dog's brain attributable to the movements of its soul?
09 Jul 06
Originally posted by KellyJayArgument 314:
That is all cool and everything, but again it does not allow us to
see the wind now does it? The affects are plain enough, but again
show the wind if you will. We can say the life that shows feelings
and emotions is a result of the soul too, it doesn't make the
soul something we can see, any more than watching a dust devil
kick up dust and leafs allows us to see wind.
Kelly
You cannot see the wind with your eyes.
You cannot see a soul with your eyes.
Therefore God exists.