God

[mammutly]

There is a general link between cultural constructs and the broad content of hallucinatory experiences. However, no assocaition between any neurochemical brain state and a particular thought/image/ experience has ever been established.

I heard you the first time but thankyou for making my point for me.

I think you are missing the point.

'General' means exactly that. People used to complain about posession/influence by demons, then aliens, then radio waves, then micro waves, then mobile phone signals These days it's graduated as far as nano technology.


However, as regards the content of NDE reports, one of the most striking things is the specificity and detail and the lack of cultural variation. These reports have not changed with the times, whereas general delusional beliefs certainly have.

 

[lloydie]

I heard you the first time but thankyou for making my point for me.

I think you are missing the point.

'General' means exactly that. People used to complain about posession/influence by demons, then aliens, then radio waves, then micro waves, then mobile phone signals These days it's graduated as far as nano technology.


However, as regards the content of NDE reports, one of the most striking things is the specificity and detail and the lack of cultural variation. These reports have not changed with the times, whereas general delusional beliefs certainly have.

No, I don't think I did but...
Are you saying NDE's do NOT vary?
Are you saying a "type' of experience is a specific one?
From your knowledge of neuroscience would you say that it's possible that an area of the brain could be influenced to give the subject the experience of seeing a bright light whilst none is present?

 

[mammutly]

I think you are missing the point.

'General' means exactly that. People used to complain about posession/influence by demons, then aliens, then radio waves, then micro waves, then mobile phone signals These days it's graduated as far as nano technology.


However, as regards the content of NDE reports, one of the most striking things is the specificity and detail and the lack of cultural variation. These reports have not changed with the times, whereas general delusional beliefs certainly have.

No, I don't think I did but...
Are you saying NDE's do NOT vary?
Are you saying a "type' of experience is a specific one?
From your knowledge of neuroscience would you say that it's possible that an area of the brain could be influenced to give the subject the experience of seeing a bright light whilst none is present?

The content of NDE reports is remarkably specific.

It is certainly possible to stimulte areas of the occipital cortex to provoke visual sensory effects.

 

[lloydie]

No, I don't think I did but...
Are you saying NDE's do NOT vary?
Are you saying a "type' of experience is a specific one?
From your knowledge of neuroscience would you say that it's possible that an area of the brain could be influenced to give the subject the experience of seeing a bright light whilst none is present?

The content of NDE reports is remarkably specific.

It is certainly possible to stimulte areas of the occipital cortex to provoke visual sensory effects.

There would appear to be types of NDE that vary according to subject. Although there is certainly a "set" of types that are common, subjects do not report a uniformity of experience.

Here's some food for thought...

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.skepdic.com/nde.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.skepdic.com/nde.html</a>


This would be a fair quote as far as my position goes...

At this point in our knowledge, to claim that NDEs provide strong evidence that the soul exists independently of the body, and that there is an afterlife awaiting that soul that just happens to coincide with the beliefs and wishes of the near-death experient, seems premature

 

[ElanJo]

He also believes in eternal punishment and thought-crime.

The general definition of the Biblical God is completely illogical. All-powerful, All-knowing etc. is a contradictory mess.



And yet nothing contempory at all. Was there some guy called Yeshua who got executed? probably. Was there a guy called Yeshua, the Messiah, who spent his life performing miracles etc? That requires better evidence than notes many years after his death. For someone this out of the ordinary to not have a single contempory account is quite odd don't you think?



People die for a lie quite often. Voluntary False Confessions, to protect others and other forms of sacrifice, under coercion or torture, for the 'greater good' and even for something as simple as fame.
If any of the above occured within a religious context then you'd go down as a Martyr...

If you believe in the resurrection then do you also believe Matthew 27:51-53?

For what can only be described as the invasion of the zombies not to have a single contempory or extra biblical account is utterly astounding.


Here's a question. Do you think that the Bible is the word of God? To be more specific, do you think its moral teachings are derived from God?

Thanks for your response ElanoJo:

Point 1) He also believes in eternal punishment...

This is because God takes our decisions seriously, he respects our choice. If we choose to follow him, then the fruit of our choice is eternal life. If we choose not to follow him, then the fruit of our choice is eternal death. It's spelled out clearly in the Bible, God gives us this choice because he loves us...and part of that love is respect for our free will. If he just let everyone in to heaven, then he does not respect the decisions that we make on earth.


Point 2) and thought crime.

God does not want anything to get in the way of his relationship with us. Sin is conscious movement away from God, and you don't do that without thinking about it...so saying that thinking about sinning is a crime is acknowledging that the thought process is what leads to sin. If you didn't think you wanted to hit someone, you wouldn't do it.

Point 3) How is all-knowing/all-powerful a contradictory mess? If God is the creator of everything, surely he has to be all of these things?

Point 4) I'd be able to sympathise with your Voluntary False Confessions theory if the disciples hadn't all abandoned and denied Jesus before he was crucified. They didn't sacrifice themselves to try to protect Jesus then, they ran. Something must have changed massively to truly convince them that Jesus was worth dying for.


Pont 5)

And yet nothing contempory at all

Anything within 100 years of an event in that period of history is classed as very reliable. There's Flavius Josephus as well, a Jewish historian, who wrote between c.37AD and 100AD.

Also, at the time, the people who are going to record the history are either going to be Jewish, and they didn't like Jesus or think he was the Messiah, or Roman, who had their own Gods and did not like their authority being challenged. There's also the risk of being killed for writing something blasphemous. Why would you risk it if you didn't believe?

Yes I do believe in the resurrection; as for the multiple resurrection of the saints, I believe it is possible (again, I believe God created everything, so I believe that this is possible), but whether this event happened or not I'm unsure, given that this is a Matthean addition; this event does not appear in Mark, Luke or John.

I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God. I look to Jesus for my moral teachings. There is nothing that he does that contradicts the moral teachings given to the Israelites in the Old Testament. So yes, I believe its moral teachings are derived from God.

Point 1)
Non of that says anything to to the immoral nature of eternal punishment for finite transgressions (let alone not being convinced of Yahweh/Jesus' -as depicted- existence)
Free Will/Choice simply doesn't come into the equation when it comes to beliefs. Belief isn't a matter of choice.

Point 2)
Am I to read from your post that you think thought-crime is a good moral law?

"God does not want anything to get in the way of his relationship with us."
Well, in that case, a little more evidence than an ancient, self-contradictory, changing, book would be nice! God is putting the souls of billions upon billions of people in the hands of sinful people. Something a little less editable than a book would have been a better idea tbh ;)

Point 3)
Ok, a simple one for starters:
-If you know that X is going to happen you cannot change it - thus you are not omnipotent/all-powerful.
-If you have the power to change X you cannot know that X is going to happen - thus you are not omniscient/all-knowing.
-You cannot be omnipotent/all-powerful and omniscient/all-knowing.

If God is the creator of everything, surely he has to be all of these things?

What other things are there? (I have an idea of what you're referring to but I don't want to put words in your mouth)

Point 4)
We can get into the specifics of the resurrection and the diciples if you like but my point was simply to refute the idea that "nobody would die for a lie".

Point 5)
Within 100 years isn't contempory and if you want to say that anything within 100 years is reliable then what about the other so-called Messiahs? What about the parts of the bible that you seem to dismiss ("Mathews" account of the graves emptying and invading Jerusalem). You can't just make a blanket statement like that.

Josephus' writings about Jesus are, to be kind, extremely unreliable.

I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God. I look to Jesus for my moral teachings. There is nothing that he does that contradicts the moral teachings given to the Israelites in the Old Testament. So yes, I believe its moral teachings are derived from God.

In that case what are your thoughts on God supporting slavery?

 

[lloydie]

my apologies if this has been posted before....

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.theonion.com/articles/god-cites-moving-in-mysterious-ways-as-motive-in-k,535/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.theonion.com/articles/god-ci ... -in-k,535/</a>

 

[Fame Monster]

Forgive my ignorance, but I'll try and bring a bit of rationalism to the thread.

If God created the earth a few thousand years ago then surely he is dead by now. Therefore, God does not exist.

End of thread.

 

[BulgarianPride]

Forgive my ignorance, but I'll try and bring a bit of rationalism to the thread.

If God created the earth a few thousand years ago then surely he is dead by now. Therefore, God does not exist.

End of thread.

I am sorry but i don't see anything rational in your post.

 

[Ally.P]

Thanks for your response ElanoJo:

Point 1) He also believes in eternal punishment...

This is because God takes our decisions seriously, he respects our choice. If we choose to follow him, then the fruit of our choice is eternal life. If we choose not to follow him, then the fruit of our choice is eternal death. It's spelled out clearly in the Bible, God gives us this choice because he loves us...and part of that love is respect for our free will. If he just let everyone in to heaven, then he does not respect the decisions that we make on earth.


Point 2) and thought crime.

God does not want anything to get in the way of his relationship with us. Sin is conscious movement away from God, and you don't do that without thinking about it...so saying that thinking about sinning is a crime is acknowledging that the thought process is what leads to sin. If you didn't think you wanted to hit someone, you wouldn't do it.

Point 3) How is all-knowing/all-powerful a contradictory mess? If God is the creator of everything, surely he has to be all of these things?

Point 4) I'd be able to sympathise with your Voluntary False Confessions theory if the disciples hadn't all abandoned and denied Jesus before he was crucified. They didn't sacrifice themselves to try to protect Jesus then, they ran. Something must have changed massively to truly convince them that Jesus was worth dying for.


Pont 5)

Anything within 100 years of an event in that period of history is classed as very reliable. There's Flavius Josephus as well, a Jewish historian, who wrote between c.37AD and 100AD.

Also, at the time, the people who are going to record the history are either going to be Jewish, and they didn't like Jesus or think he was the Messiah, or Roman, who had their own Gods and did not like their authority being challenged. There's also the risk of being killed for writing something blasphemous. Why would you risk it if you didn't believe?

Yes I do believe in the resurrection; as for the multiple resurrection of the saints, I believe it is possible (again, I believe God created everything, so I believe that this is possible), but whether this event happened or not I'm unsure, given that this is a Matthean addition; this event does not appear in Mark, Luke or John.

I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God. I look to Jesus for my moral teachings. There is nothing that he does that contradicts the moral teachings given to the Israelites in the Old Testament. So yes, I believe its moral teachings are derived from God.

Point 1)
Non of that says anything to to the immoral nature of eternal punishment for finite transgressions (let alone not being convinced of Yahweh/Jesus' -as depicted- existence)
Free Will/Choice simply doesn't come into the equation when it comes to beliefs. Belief isn't a matter of choice.

Point 2)
Am I to read from your post that you think thought-crime is a good moral law?

"God does not want anything to get in the way of his relationship with us."
Well, in that case, a little more evidence than an ancient, self-contradictory, changing, book would be nice! God is putting the souls of billions upon billions of people in the hands of sinful people. Something a little less editable than a book would have been a better idea tbh ;)

Point 3)
Ok, a simple one for starters:
-If you know that X is going to happen you cannot change it - thus you are not omnipotent/all-powerful.
-If you have the power to change X you cannot know that X is going to happen - thus you are not omniscient/all-knowing.
-You cannot be omnipotent/all-powerful and omniscient/all-knowing.

If God is the creator of everything, surely he has to be all of these things?

What other things are there? (I have an idea of what you're referring to but I don't want to put words in your mouth)

Point 4)
We can get into the specifics of the resurrection and the diciples if you like but my point was simply to refute the idea that "nobody would die for a lie".

Point 5)
Within 100 years isn't contempory and if you want to say that anything within 100 years is reliable then what about the other so-called Messiahs? What about the parts of the bible that you seem to dismiss ("Mathews" account of the graves emptying and invading Jerusalem). You can't just make a blanket statement like that.

Josephus' writings about Jesus are, to be kind, extremely unreliable.

I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God. I look to Jesus for my moral teachings. There is nothing that he does that contradicts the moral teachings given to the Israelites in the Old Testament. So yes, I believe its moral teachings are derived from God.

In that case what are your thoughts on God supporting slavery?

With regards to eternal punishment. I believe that we choose where to go, in the next life, and its not decided for us. We go where we would be happier. If you choose to go to Hell, then that would be like your Heaven.

 

[ali benarbia's studs]

Forgive my ignorance, but I'll try and bring a bit of rationalism to the thread.

If God created the earth a few thousand years ago then surely he is dead by now. Therefore, God does not exist.

End of thread.

I am sorry but i don't see anything rational in your post.

nobody pays him any attention `cos he craves it!


cnut *ahem*

;)