|
|
|
|
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/14/2007 6:23:36 PM |
I think the op did shit himself - that's how this thread came into being.
Your ridiculous analogies do nothing to support your argument N8.
LOLOLOLOL. I'm glad someone else finds my analogy amusing. That was the intent, after all. :-P | |
|
mak68
|
Joined: 4/14/2007
Msg: 102 | |
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/14/2007 8:32:11 PM | Maybe I'm misinterpreting this, but I just don't seem to get what you're asking. I've known plenty of followers, even leaders of small congregations of Baptists, Evangelicals, Catholics, and others that will concede that a deed doesn't have to be blatantly inspired by the Holy Spirit (or whatever -- although a lot of them did try to argue that God can work through nonbelievers) for it to be good. Does this mean that that's a doctrinal position for the sect or faith as a whole? I seriously doubt it, but the recognition's there, if only from individuals
No problem, I'll try and clarify.
I ask, is there a sect of christianity, that would consider a good deed performed by an atheist to be a good deed in the eyes of god? Although there is no faith, god would still recognize the action by the atheist as good.
Now, trying to get back on track a little here, considering the question of freewill and predestination, ie choice.
Today at work, I discussed this question with one of my anglican co-workers. He put it this way:
God puts us in predetermined situations to see what our choices will be, or what path we decide to take. For example, he arranges for us to find a pistol on the street. This part he predestines. What we do with the pistol he leaves up to us, that is freewill part. We can use it to kill someone, we can turn it into the police, or we can bring it home to turn it into a modern art masterpiece. This is why you will hear many christians saying "there's a reason for everything".
I, of course, have no evidence or proof of this deity, so to me, finding a pistol on the ground is happenstance. Totally by chance. There is not always a reason for something happening. I think that if we start believing that there's a reason for everything, then soon enough we may start to believe that Tsunamis happen because people are being too sinful. | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/14/2007 10:00:47 PM | Wow this was an entertaining read. Great stuff. The analagies offered by OP don't seem to offer a truly comparable view of freewill and choice next to those required by the biblical faiths. The choices in the analogies given, are much easier, and require mostly just common sense and logic to accept. Especially if you know the man in the 1st is responsible for the earthquakes, you go with him. It's like the story of god coming to noah and telling him "heads up, I'm flooding the earth build a boat now". You know he's gonna kill everyone but.....self preservation.
Anyway the contradictions which exist in all biblical faiths don't exist in either analogy. In biblical terms I'd throw him off the mountain and head for the valley. He made the valley, the earthquakes, and generally allows the mass suffering and death of millions of his creations. Starvation, disease, and violence at the hands of his own creatures are his daily routine. Not gonna be friends with this guy no matter if he does pick me.
Cheers to all the super intelligent, witty stuff above folks | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/14/2007 11:08:25 PM | And to #2 while I'm at it. It's far easier to believe the aliens. What the heck they're aliens!! that alone lends quite a bit of credability to their story.
Far harder to believe that a divine being could exist that would make an entire universe, full of billions of creatures he could torture for eons. The reality of choice = There really is no choice. It's impossible for that much power to be imbibed in a creature of pettiness, cruelty, and supreme egotistical behavior. Anything that could create hell (or allow some of the atrocoties on earth) could never exist let alone be worshipped and loved, or EGAD! chosen? Can you really choose to love a being you KNOW has been endlessly torturing billions of people for thousands of years in a fiery pit of dispair and woe? If you can tell yourself you not only believe this, but freely choose it....Seems to me your a traitor to mankind. You'd rather believe and follow, live in heaven all comfy for eternity while your fellow souls of mankind squirm in fiery brimstones of agony the entire time? Who would worship (praise, honor, devotion) anything that could allow that for simple disbelief in his existence.
Perhaps their could be a creator, anythings possible. A kids marble game causes the big-bang a zillion years ago and here we are now. That's an easier choice for me anyhow.
Was a fun thread to read though. So gj on that OP and contributors. | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/14/2007 11:48:46 PM |
I ask, is there a sect of christianity, that would consider a good deed performed by an atheist to be a good deed in the eyes of god? In reply, all I can say is:
"A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho...  I honestly have no place speaking for any sect of Christianity, so I won't presume to say, but logically, if the Christ Himself can call attention to good works by folks not of the faith, His followers ought to be able to recognise them.
Although there is no faith, god would still recognize the action by the atheist as good. In effect, yes, the actions are good, as is the heart of him/her that chooses to do good works. They may not be "saved", but if they're loving their neighbour, then yeah.
Now, trying to get back on track a little here, considering the question of freewill and predestination, ie choice... As I read it, the OP was more concerned with whether or not a clear choice to believe or not was laid out for us. Not so much the distinction between free will and predestination. On that score, though, I also spoke at length with an evangelical coworker today regarding the distinction and came to a conclusion. Either predestination is the norm from God's perspective, while from ours it's free will, or we need a new popular conception of God.
I think that if we start believing that there's a reason for everything, then soon enough we may start to believe that Tsunamis happen because people are being too sinful. I'm right there with you, dude. More in keeping with the OP's analogies, too, if folks want to insist that a natural disaster (or other apparent "coincidence") is God's will for humanity making choices He doesn't like, then what's the point of having handed out the capacity for choice? And, if He's got a stiffy for punishing when folks are naughty, what's the point of hell?
Especially if you know the man in the 1st is responsible for the earthquakes, you go with him. Maybe so, if he's the only one knows how to get to safety. But, when all's said and done, I for one would sure as hell hold his ass accountable for starting the fraking disaster in the first place.
It's impossible for that much power to be imbibed in a creature of pettiness, cruelty, and supreme egotistical behavior. Oh, I'm sure it's possible, but I'm thankful there doesn't actually seem to be one of those.
Can you really choose to love a being you KNOW has been endlessly torturing billions of people for thousands of years in a fiery pit of dispair and woe? Actually, I do choose to love that guy. He's cool with me... | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/15/2007 5:29:45 AM | From a previous post:
"If you have not repented and changed your ways, then your transgressions of the past will be your transgressions of the future.
If you haven't changed up to this point, show no sign of changing now, then there is no evidence that you will change in the future.
If you're never going to change, why shouldn't the damnation be eternal?"
I think the possibility existed that our spirits, after failing to have met Heaven's standards in previous lifetimes, through God's mercy might have had their memories wiped and been given a new body to try it again. Remember that realization of being on a wrong path is only a soul search and a decision away. However, I think we may be approaching a time where there will be no more chances. That our next death could be a double death and permanent. It's too bad so many cannot see past the flawed reality of earthly life and might instead set their hearts to achieving the indescribable beauty, peace, and painlessness of what lies beyond. | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/15/2007 3:30:20 PM | Especially if you know the man in the 1st is responsible for the earthquakes, you go with him.
It is easy for us to think that we know something... The christian camp would say that they know the truth and that the atheist/agnostic camp doesn't, and vice versa. Why the assumption that the man is responsible for the earthquakes?
Maybe so, if he's the only one knows how to get to safety. But, when all's said and done, I for one would sure as hell hold his ass accountable for starting the fraking disaster in the first place.
What if you falsely accused him? The christian perspective would blame man for the earthquakes. If sin had never entered the world, there may still have been earthquakes, but there would have been no death... We could argue this point, but in all honesty, we all should know that this is what the church teaches from the bible.
Now if we want to consider a different god than the one from the bible, maybe that god would be responsible... | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/15/2007 5:31:47 PM |
What if you falsely accused him? Can't be done, sor. According to the analogy, the man represents God or God in the guise of Christ making us aware that there is a choice to reach safety before disaster strikes, and the person in the situation has a choice to go down to the beautiful valley he saw before (even though it will be destroyed), or take the high road at the behest of his saviour. The problem is that, if one is to extend that analogy to the Christian cosmology, the dude offering an out is the one who started the earthquake. Take away the analogy, and God's effectively saying, "Follow Me, get everlasting life. Don't follow me, and I won't be responsible for the consequences that I caused." Dude, can God abdicate responsibility? Is that what it's all about? Woah...
The christian perspective would blame man for the earthquakes. If sin had never entered the world, there may still have been earthquakes, but there would have been no death... That's true, in the modern Christian worldview, but it's irrelevant to the analogy.
Now if we want to consider a different god than the one from the bible, maybe that god would be responsible... I get what you mean, now. Groovy! | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/20/2007 11:24:54 AM | I find it interesting, that I stated at the begining of this thread, that I was providing the two analogies as a way describe how it is, that I understand Christ and God.
"Based off of what I know about Christ and God, I pose a different way of looking at it. It is not God who damns us, but we who damn ourselves. That ultimately, it all comes down to our own choice. I give two analogies to explain my view"
It was that simple. I just wanted people to either agree that, yeah, they made since that it comes down to choice, or no and explain why. Some people said," yeah, I see some truth in that" and others said no, but instead of trying to debate the analogies for what they were, the only way people could try to negate them, was by trying to add other stuff in, or take parts out of context, or even go completely off track. There were even times when people tried to put words in my mouth. 
I tried to make my analogies as simple as possible for a reason. Even when it's presented in a way that is stupid simple, where the obvious choice is overtly obvious, people will still refuse to accept it.
People want to debate an entire book and you can't even come to terms with two simple paragraphs. If you don't agree with the logic of my analogies give me just one argument, just one, that takes on my analogies for what they are. Don't try to add anything, just tell me that they don't make sense and why? What is so hard to accept?
All I'm asking, is can you see the possibility of heaven/hell the way I presented it, and that the way you CHOSE to react effects the outcome. If we can all come to some sort of understanding, then maybe, we can move forward and take the debate to another level instead of engaging in cyclicle arguments that go nowhere for another 5 pages and dissolve into petty insults being flung around, but only if we can take the first step.
As far as my analogy of insanity that keeps being attacked. I was using it in the context of doing evil. One has done evil, is doing evil, then logic states that they will do evil in the future. It's the princple of inertia. An object moving in a straight line will continue to move in a straight line unless acted upon by an outside force.
Because I was using the analogy in the context of evil, all presented arguments from this and any other thread, are thrown out the window. That is unless you see a baby who craps itself as EVIL, or if you negate the CHANGE that was enacted when the child was potty trained.
Finally, for anyone who cares, the reason I've been away from the forum, is that I noticed that some people seemed to be spending their time inbetween posts, just thinking about what they would say next, instead of really letting what others said sink in.
Peace to all the Patawan | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/22/2007 1:30:06 AM | Ok well. I'm curious how a nonbeliever, whom your original post seems to be addressing, could choose damnation over salvaltion. I don't believe in god, therefore I have no fear of damnnation. I don't choose to not believe in god, likes it's a conscious effort I'm making to deny his existence. I simply don't.
So yes were given knowledge of our situation. I chose to believe other knowledge(science), by doing so their is no downfall I need to be wise for, and no horrific situations to be worried over.
So I guess I back away from the analogy man slowly, make sure my wallets still there, and suggest he move along as I don't apparently believe in earthquakes. | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/22/2007 3:01:49 AM |
As far as my analogy of insanity that keeps being attacked. I was using it in the context of doing evil. One has done evil, is doing evil, then logic states that they will do evil in the future. It's the princple of inertia. An object moving in a straight line will continue to move in a straight line unless acted upon by an outside force.
Your analogy is being attacked because it is completely unrealistic and makes no sense whatsoever. Nothing is constant except change: past events are a pretty good clue of future intentions, but cannot conclusively determine ANYTHING. Using your inertia example (as completely irrelevant as it is... but I've come to expect that), there is nothing that can possibly continue in a straight line for any period of time, as everything that exists is constantly being acted upon by something. Even light is distorted by gravity. So the idea that someone can do something 'evil' in the past, do something evil in the present, and based upon that always do evil in the future cannot possibly be concluded, as there is absolutely no way of knowing what 'outside force' will act upon them, and the effect that outside force will have. | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/22/2007 2:46:37 PM | My analogy makes perfect sense, but I understand why some would argue it, because to accept it, one would have to question ones place. They would have to accept that who they are is not determined by future events, but by a culmunation of what they have done and what they are currently doing.
"On a long enough timeline, everyones life expectancy is zero" (10 points for anyone who can name that movie)
The only guarantee that the future holds is death.
God is constintly acting upon our lives in order that we might change. Unfortunately, being that we have free will, we have the ability to CHOSE to refuse His prescence in our lives. The reality of choice.
There is no way of knowing what outside forces will act upon someone, but if you look at their history and see that all previous acts of outside force have had no effect in changing the persons heart and that current outside forces are causing no change, then regardless of what the outside forces are, there will be no change. Otherwise, why haven't they changed already?
If someone walks through a doorway, and gets hit on the head with a hammer, how many times will they walk through the doorway until they learn to duck?
The only answer is, however many times it takes until they duck.
They will continue to get hit until they make a change. If you watch them walk through the door 10 times, 100 times, or 1,000 times, and every time, they do it the same way, and every time they get hit, and if you're watching them walk through one more time, and they are doing everything the same way as they have every other time, and there is no sign of change, then you KNOW that they are going to get hit.
It is only when we CHOSE to change, that we can say, who we will be in the future is different than who we have been in the past. The evidence to prove this, is the fact that who we currently are shows a difference. | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/22/2007 2:57:29 PM | Ok well. I'm curious how a nonbeliever, whom your original post seems to be addressing, could choose damnation over salvaltion. I don't believe in god, therefore I have no fear of damnnation. I don't choose to not believe in god, likes it's a conscious effort I'm making to deny his existence. I simply don't.
So yes were given knowledge of our situation. I chose to believe other knowledge(science), by doing so their is no downfall I need to be wise for, and no horrific situations to be worried over.
So I guess I back away from the analogy man slowly, make sure my wallets still there, and suggest he move along as I don't apparently believe in earthquakes.
Well to be honest, our current situation doesn't look so good from a scientific point either, and yes there are some horrific situations to be worried over. That's really besides the point though. Regardless of how it comes to an end, within your lifetime you will die. Your world will come to an end. If you don't believe in God, I assume you don't believe in heaven/hell, do you believe in any sort of afterlife? | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/22/2007 3:10:16 PM | "Your analogy is being attacked because it is completely unrealistic and makes no sense whatsoever..."
I have read this thread and commented on it a few times. I have discussed a few points with some of the regulars, and they have understood and agreed with my point of view to some extent. I for one apreciate the thoughtful people that chew on these thoughts. I also promise to return this respect by thoughtfully chewing on everybodys thoughts and ideas in kind... | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/23/2007 5:54:45 AM |
I find it interesting, that I stated at the begining of this thread, that I was providing the two analogies as a way describe how it is, that I understand Christ and God. And, all I've been saying is that, if those two analogies represent the sum total of your understanding of God, heaven, hell, and salvation, then you've got considerably less understanding of Christian cosmology than I initially gave you credit for.
It was that simple. I just wanted people to either agree that, yeah, they made since that it comes down to choice, or no and explain why. Your unwillingness to accept the negative responses based on their legitimate expansions from the overly facile analogies provided has no bearing on whether or not we choose to agree or disagree. The facts remain, yes?
...the only way people could try to negate them, was by trying to add other stuff in, or take parts out of context, or even go completely off track. If, by extending the analogies to include the actual facts of Christian cosmology, folks have "added stuff in" or "taken parts out of context", then you have a point. I'll get to that, then.
I tried to make my analogies as simple as possible for a reason. Yes, evidently to exclude the unsavoury details of the actual principles you were apparently attempting to mischaracterise.
People want to debate an entire book and you can't even come to terms with two simple paragraphs. Not so. Here's an idea for you, come up with two straightforward and logical paragraphs not logically predicated on information that's blatantly excluded, and we'll see, yes?
If you don't agree with the logic of my analogies give me just one argument, just one, that takes on my analogies for what they are. Okay, simple. They're flawed analogies that don't take into account all the considerations present in the situations they're mischaracterised as representing.
Don't try to add anything, just tell me that they don't make sense and why? Okay, they don't make sense. In the case of the mountain, the "saviour" figure has no established credibility, and his offer of help to safety works only if one accepts his claim of danger. With regard to the aliens, they have no credibility, either. Granting that they could have the wherewithal to transport the entire human race, they could just as likely utilise whatever technology they would use to that end, instead, for the actual protection of Earth by turning it on the meteor and negating the threat.
What is so hard to accept? That you honestly believed that educated folks would buy that the analogies were legitimate at face value, for one.
All I'm asking, is can you see the possibility of heaven/hell the way I presented it, and that the way you CHOSE to react effects the outcome. I can actually see it better through much better analogies, at least regarding the fact that choice determines personal outcome. That's essentially a no-brainer, right there. To extend it into bad analogies begs the question of what you're trying to accomplish with them. Taking them at face value proves them to be worthless, and including the apparently intentionally excluded information (whether due to duplicity or simple confusion over one's own theology, I won't speculate) shows them to be utterly inapplicable.
...but only if we can take the first step. What is that first step, then, if not simply acquiescing to your apparent hope that they count as effective arguments for the choice to believe or not that heaven/hell exist?As far as my analogy of insanity that keeps being attacked... ...It's the princple of inertia. An object moving in a straight line will continue to move in a straight line unless acted upon by an outside force.Then, it's another bad analogy, reducing humans to the point of mere objects that require external action to "change course". Effectively stating that no one has the capacity to learn or change their minds without something supernatural doing the changing.
My analogy makes perfect sense, but I understand why some would argue it, because to accept it, one would have to question ones place. Amazing. Truly amazing. When faced with the fact that the analogy is crap, you've gone out of your way to insist that the only way to argue it as such is to have already completely rejected you as a debater. Utterly fascinating.
They would have to accept that who they are is not determined by future events, but by a culmunation of what they have done and what they are currently doing. Note, also, that this completely ignores the possibility that who they are might have a bearing. Goodness, you have an interesting view of reality.
The only guarantee that the future holds is death. Which also argues against the insanity analogy.
God is constintly acting upon our lives in order that we might change. Without recourse to a dogmatic worldview, this only applies insofar as "God" can be defined as that which "constantly acts upon our lives" to that end.
Unfortunately, being that we have free will, we have the ability to CHOSE to refuse His prescence in our lives. Or, potentially fortunately, if we actually do extend the analogies given to include all pertinent information. You're effectively arguing that choice is a reality because we really have a choice. Evidence?
There is no way of knowing what outside forces will act upon someone, but if you look at their history and see that all previous acts of outside force have had no effect in changing the persons heart and that current outside forces are causing no change, then regardless of what the outside forces are, there will be no change. This only works if one is to assume that the impulse toward evil/insanity is innate, outside forces don't have any bearing on whether or not previous or current acts are evil/insane, and whatever future forces might come to bear would only serve to change the present state. Arguing, on the contrary, from actual realistic principles outside forces are always at work (as are internal ones -- those we somehow keep entirely overlooking with regard to this analogy), and had to have had a bearing on previous and current actions.
It is only when we CHOSE to change, that we can say, who we will be in the future is different than who we have been in the past. The evidence to prove this, is the fact that who we currently are shows a difference. Solipsism and circular logic do not an argument make, with regard to whether or not choice is the driving force behind change.
I for one apreciate the thoughtful people that chew on these thoughts. I also promise to return this respect by thoughtfully chewing on everybodys thoughts and ideas in kind... Uhh... Thanks, I think. Masticate my post, and tell me what you get out of it, please. | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/23/2007 11:30:22 AM | You're still not facing the fact that it's your choice.
If you can agree with that, then the debate can move forward.
So what, if the man caused the earthquakes? Who cares if the aliens can destroy the meteor or not? If you CHOSE not to listen to what they're saying and to stay where you are, you get left behind. They've promised you safety if you CHOSE to go with them. Are you going to be so stuborn and arrogant that you just sit there trying to argue the who's, whats, whens, and wheres of the situation instead of heeding the warning and following the necassary steps to safety? | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/23/2007 12:28:55 PM |
Are you going to be so stuborn and arrogant that you just sit there trying to argue the who's, whats, whens, and wheres of the situation instead of heeding the warning and following the necassary steps to safety?
The point is simple:
Anybody and I truly mean Anybody can give "warnings" and offer "necessary" steps. It doesn't mean that it's right, the truth, or the "only way". It's one mans thoughts, opinions, etc. | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/23/2007 2:40:10 PM | quote]As far as my analogy of insanity that keeps being attacked. I was using it in the context of doing evil. One has done evil, is doing evil, then logic states that they will do evil in the future. It's the princple of inertia. An object moving in a straight line will continue to move in a straight line unless acted upon by an outside force.
Then perhaps you overlooked something I said earlier:
The problem isn’t with what you say, but with what you relate it to. Humankind was given (gifted some might be inclined to see) a series of books to use as their passport to life and how it should be lived. Unfortunately, we are informed, it is based on faith. Not only is it based on faith it cannot be taken for granted that the contend holds true to its original text.
Finally, for anyone who cares, the reason I've been away from the forum, is that I noticed that some people seemed to be spending their time inbetween posts, just thinking about what they would say next, instead of really letting what others said sink in.
I don't think anyone's avoiding issues and "thinking before you speak" seems like a good idea...you should try it sometimes.
| |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/23/2007 2:55:36 PM | First Analogy:
You are standing on the steep slope of a hillside. Below you lay a lush and inviting valley. Above you extends a treacherous cliff face. The entire area is unstable and earthquakes plague the whole of the land. Down in the valley a dark fog is moving in obscuring everything, blocking all sight of what lay behind it. A man climbs down from the cliff and approaches you, saying “I have come to save you.” You ignore him, since there is nothing you know of, to be saved from. So he goes on to explain that the earthquakes are caused by, that which approaches from behind the cover of fog, and that everything in its path will be destroyed. He further states, that if you go with him, he will show you the way up the cliff, to a place of safety. There, neither the fog can obscure your view, nor can the earthquakes destroy the land.
Once again you ignore him, because you’re not in the fog, and the ground you’re on seems pretty stable. He explains that, in due time, all the land below the cliff will be shrouded in fog, and eventually all the land will be destroyed, even the place where you stand. He tries to show you all the signs that point to the fact that the ground you’re on is not as stable as you think, and why it’s going to crumble. He doesn’t force you to make a choice, but provides you with knowledge, so that you can freely make a choice that can save you from the devastation ahead.
No forced damnation, just choice.
N8, did you mean for us to understand the man in this analogy to be Christ, or perhaps someone more like you, a disciple? | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/23/2007 7:40:52 PM |
No forced damnation, just choice.
That conclusion might make hell doctrine easier to swallow, but it's not really that clear cut. I think the story would be much more accurate if the stranger says, "You're in great danger; follow me!" and you reply, "What danger? How do you know I'm in danger?" Then the stranger replies, "God told me!" Now, you are left to ponder whether:
1. There IS a spiritual realm
2. There IS a god
3. This god communicates unmistakably to certain people
4. This stranger is one of those people
OR
This stranger is a can short of a six pack.
IF choosing the latter damns a person forever, then this "choice" sucks you-know-what. | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/24/2007 1:31:42 AM |
You're still not facing the fact that it's your choice. I disagree. I am quite well aware that, in all cases, we have a choice. Just as I choose to point out that the analogies presented do not satisfy the point that is apparently being made. Given the choices in the analogies, there are a multitude of actions people could opt to take. That's choice. If it's an either/or you're looking for, then for the sake of "moving the 'debate' forward", I'll concede that, if there's evidence of an imminent disaster and a credible person (or alien) arrives to direct one toward safety, one will out of self-preservation, opt for safety.
So what, if the man caused the earthquakes? I've already covered this one. If the guy was responsible, his credibility as regards safety is suspect. If, on the urging of one's instinct for self-preservation, they still follow him, this doesn't exonerate him of the responsibility, for which he should be held to account.
Who cares if the aliens can destroy the meteor or not? Any rational person who realises that the choices given in the analogy are not all the options available.
If you CHOSE not to listen to what they're saying and to stay where you are, you get left behind. So, effectively, they'd refuse to utilise their advanced cosmic knowledge to preserve the Earth, but they'll take anyone who trusts them to "safety"? Loss of credibility, there.
They've promised you safety IF you choose [sic] to go with them. Gotta put the emphasis in the right spot, dude. It's conditional, see? They're not benefactors, they're extortionists. So what, if it's "paradise" you're going to, if the intent of getting you there is to please them at the cost of your reason and freedom of will? Again, self-preservation intervenes, and one would most likely go with them, for that reason. But, while it seems you're arguing this as a win/win situation, in reality, it isn't.
Are you going to be so stuborn and arrogant that you just sit there trying to argue the who's, whats, whens, and wheres of the situation instead of heeding the warning and following the necassary steps to safety? Is it arrogance to want to honestly know the intentions of someone who says they want to help you? Particularly someone who conveniently appears out of nowhere at precisely the time that you're in peril (*cough* deus ex machina *cough*)? The analogies given simply aren't satisfactory to make whatever point you're trying to make. However if, as you seem to so adamantly insist is important to the discussion, it's necessary to concede that, in a position of peril, one will accept assistance to safety, I'll grudgingly do so. If only to keep from being labelled "arrogant" or "stubborn". | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/24/2007 1:56:33 AM | I see nothing unprovable. I see something that regardless of how much proof is provided there will be those who do not accept. What good is it to prove something that people will still chose to deny. It's a waste of energy.
I think the issue is, people need something more substantial than a book written by men, even men supposedly guided by the divine. Why? What's to say Christianity is the correct religion vs. all the other perfectly reasonable possibilities out there? One being more or less predominant doesn't necessarily give it more credibility. To condemn those who believe differently when the choices presented before them are all a leap of faith into the unknown no matter what decision they make is...well, just another method to scare people into believing something. It's like saying "convert or die," but instead suggests "convert or lose your immortal soul." Well, if you believe in souls, anyway...
I'm not necessarily arguing that Christianity is wrong, just that it's not as cut and dry as you're trying to make it seem in your analogies. | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/24/2007 2:54:06 AM |
My analogy makes perfect sense, but I understand why some would argue it, because to accept it, one would have to question ones place. They would have to accept that who they are is not determined by future events, but by a culmunation of what they have done and what they are currently doing.
*sigh*
No.
Why do you continue to think that nothing can ever change? I thought the whole point to your diatribes was to try and convince people to follow your concept of God... yet you also claim that nobody can ever change anything about themselves or anyone else, as their present and past actions prove beyond any possiblity for error what they will be in the future: thus, a person who didn't believe in their past (like, say, a baby) and a person that doesn't believe in the present will then NEVER believe... so your efforts, by your own reasoning, are utterly futile.
Which means that, on some level, you don't even believe your own stupid bullshit theory, because you continue to try and convince us that you are something other than a raving lunatic. Logically, the only conclusion one can draw is that you literally have no idea what it is you are tring to say nor how to say it. If you were sincere in your belief that one's past and one's present will continue indefinitely and they will be the exact same person in the future, you wouldn't even make the attempt to post here or anywhere else, as doing so would have no bearing on anyone, including yourself.
Again, both because its funny and because you have made it clear that you have completely missed it, I offer this analogy:
You claim that if one acts a certain way in the past, and the same way now, they will always act the same way.
Let's look at a four year old. A four year old used to be an infant. Infants regularly soil themselves. Four year olds on occasion soil themselves. Thus, according to your theory, it is reasonable to assume that our four year old will continue to soil him/herself for the remainder of his/her life. Common sense says that such a statement is plain idiocy.
Let's look at another example, then. Since you also used inertia to try and prove this inane idea of yours, we'll look at that. Let's say we were in space, and threw a ball in a straight line. It would continue on indefinitely, right? Pretend there's no planets, stars, or cosmic dust. Just nothingness.
Now, try throwing a ball here on Earth. What happens? Gravity acts upon it to bring it down. Or perhaps someone walks in front of said ball. Perhaps it bounces off a tree, or gets blown off course by the wind. Now, humans are infinitely more complicated than balls: yet, you claim that humans will remain unchanged in perpetuity: never mind that such a state is completely impossible. Even upon death, the body goes through millions of changes as outside forces act upon it: and a corpse is still less complicated than a living, breathing person.
So your analogy is disproven on two counts.
One: Past events do not, and cannot, conclusively determine future ones. They can suggest patterns, but the patterns are in no way absolute.
Two: it is impossible for any person to live any length of time without some 'outside force' acting upon them (including their own consciousness... we'll call anything that requires conscious thought an outside force... as these actions would not occur without some sort of active input).
I have provided a mere two examples, two general examples no less, that debunked your theory. Now are you going to try and pull some other nonsense out of your magic hate of Christian Excuses, or are you going to grow a spine and admit you may have been mistaken? | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/24/2007 3:37:18 AM |
(including their own consciousness... we'll call anything that requires conscious thought an outside force... as these actions would not occur without some sort of active input) Oh, sure, ruin my inner/outer dichotomy. Otherwise, right on. | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/24/2007 4:40:33 AM | | Dammit, I meant to say "Magical HAT", not "magical hate". Stupid typos. >_< | |
|
|
| Page 5 of 7
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 |
|
Home
login 
