Nairaland Forum

Welcome, Guest: Join Nairaland / Login / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 1304677 members, 1859703 topics. Date: Sunday, 01 February 2015 at 08:09 AM

View PastorAIO's Posts

Nairaland Forum / PastorAIO's Profile / PastorAIO's Posts

(0) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (of 169 pages)

Religion / Re: Who Wrote The New Testament ? by PastorAIO: 11:19am On Jan 26
Joshthefirst:
I'm really sorry I missed this argument AIO.


It seems you're still missing it.


The bible isn't JUST a historical document, The bible isn't JUST a scientific document(it's more than those things). But it contains reliable historical and scientific data from the hands of many witnesses, and it is an accurate record of the original texts that left the hands of the original writers. More accurate than any other ancient text in the world.

Wake up, we're are passed that now. The bible is not a historical document at all, not even a scientific document. Check out what your boy Image123 said here:

i have never denied that there are seeming contradictions in the Bible. i have said that those ' contradictions' either take a little common sense to figure out or at most have no significance whatsoever in the scheme of things and in the divine perspective. There remains nothing unreliable about the Bible's account of Christ's death. We can reliably say that Jesus Christ died on the cross of calvary for our sins, and rose again for our justification. This is the greatest truth in the universe. It matters not whether He died 12:10pm or 3:58pm or from the foundation of the world. The Bible is not a coroner's report or a statistics textbook or a chronology guide. History can do well without pesky and petty details that suit the gainsayer's fancy.

If you agree with him, then I have no argument with you.

1 Like

Religion / Re: Why Are We Captivated By Nature's Beauty? by PastorAIO: 11:04am On Jan 24
plaetton:


I don't know how I can agree with that.
Terror is the when we recognize the absence or denial of beauty.


Terror is often when we find ourselves at the mercy of forces that we cannot control. Especially when those forces threaten/promise to totally engulf us and/or cause a dissolution of our ego.

Such an experience can definitely occur when one is in the presence of great overwhelming beauty.
Religion / Re: "God" Is Outside Of Space And Time... by PastorAIO: 11:07am On Jan 23
Mr Davien, I don't like how you are just blatantly ignoring me. Deze bloods you are sharing. Dairis God o! No wahala.
Religion / Re: Why Are We Captivated By Nature's Beauty? by PastorAIO: 10:32am On Jan 23
1ord:
Why do you people bother trying to open the eyes of those who have sworn not to see. Let the religious ilks continue in their arrant stupidity. There are more important things to discuss. I look forward to seeing progressive intellectual discussions on various subjects from politics to science and the humanities. Wasting brain cells on pseudo humans who have been brain washed by their European counterparts is a waste of higher conscience and learning.

I'm feeling particularly sensitive and touchy today. Are you talking about me, sir?
Religion / Re: Why Are We Captivated By Nature's Beauty? by PastorAIO: 10:31am On Jan 23
plaetton:


I don't know how I can agree with that.
Terror is the when we recognize the absence or denial of beauty.

Most things isnpire beauty from a distance, a safe distance.
Their appearance of beauty tend to take on a more terrifying posture when we get closer.
Examples are Oceans, mountains, sand dunes, the sky, the stars, even beautiful maidens, lol.

Works of art, on the other hand, present these terrifyng works of nature to us in a safe and comfortable format where they do not threaten us.

We allocate the attributes of beauty to objects of our chosing.

When was the last time you experienced an aesthetic attack while starving for food or thirsty for water ?
cheesy cheesy

Let me add again, how come those maidens tend to take a more attractive features after 2 shots of Hennessy?

How come everything seems peaceful , more colorful and larger than life after a whiff of cocaine , a puff of magic mushrooms or herbs ?

When the mind is altered, the attributes of beauty are equally altered.

Therefore, beauty is in the mind/eyes of the beholder.


It is not necessary that you agree after all as you yourself say, 'beauty is in the mind of the beholder'. Someone says the subjective experience that he calls beauty is akin to terror. I don't see how you want to argue with him/her over his/her own subjective experience. Personally I totally get what she means.

Also You seem to be unable to separate the Object of beauty from the experience of Beauty itself. We each can see beauty in different things, okay. But what is it that we experience when we say something is Beautiful, whatever it is?

Also I would make a distinction between Attraction (e.g sexual attraction) and Beauty.

Also, Beauty is not necessarily Harmony.

You were right when you said you can find beauty in anything and everything, it's just the state of mind that will allow you to see it where you see it.

Some see beauty in the aftermath of a great battle with the bodies strewn all over the field.

some see beauty in a puddle of water.

Some see beauty when they contemplate the cycles of life from birth to death to rebirth. The struggle for survival. Competition. The way Life strives against life, Life overcomes life, and Life is eventually overcome by life.

There is beauty in everything, we just don't all have the perception to see it in everything but everybody can see it in some few select things or others.
Religion / Re: Why Are We Captivated By Nature's Beauty? by PastorAIO: 8:03pm On Jan 22
PastorAIO:

Next time you think you've seen a beautiful girl don't bother to strain yourself to look closer. The disappointment can be crushing.
Religion / Re: Why Are We Captivated By Nature's Beauty? by PastorAIO: 8:02pm On Jan 22
plaetton:

Most things isnpire beauty from a distance, a safe distance.
Their appearance of beauty tend to take on a more terrifying posture when we get closer.
Examples are Oceans, mountains, sand dunes, the sky, the stars, even beautiful maidens, lol.


I see those women on the streets everyday.

Beautiful from Far
Far from Beautiful.

1 Like

Religion / Re: Why Are We Captivated By Nature's Beauty? by PastorAIO: 4:39pm On Jan 22
plaetton:
^^^
Therefore, I think beauty is better defined as the absence of fear. We see beauty when we are at comfort and ease.
A feared object can hardly ever take on the attributes of beauty.



“For beauty is nothing but the beginning of terror
which we are barely able to endure, and it amazes us so,
because it serenely disdains to destroy us.
Every angel is terrible.”


― Rainer Maria Rilke, Duino Elegies
Religion / Re: Why Are We Captivated By Nature's Beauty? by PastorAIO: 8:27pm On Jan 21
plaetton:


Yes sir.
But question remains whether beauty is a qualitative thing or a state of mind.

Is it a real graspable quality or an abstract of the mind?


I don't get the dichotomy. Why should a qualitative thing not be a state or abstract of the mind?

Perhaps you could clarify what you mean there.

Let me press on with something that might interest you and perhaps it is what you are asking me, though I'm not sure.


I do believe that the World of Experience is Dual. There is the Empirical World and there is a World of Enchantment.


To demonstrate these two worlds let me cast your mind back to something that you've perhaps experienced before. Most people have. Some people claim it hasn't happened to them before.
Do you ever remember being heartbroken? There was this cute little sweetie pie that was the apple of your eye. Then one day she told you she wasn't doing anymore. Plaetton was crushed. Plaetton was distressed. Plaetton was deflated.

Now I want you to remember your dinner that evening. Maybe you couldn't even eat that evening so let's fast forward a couple of days and you have a dinner set before you. Let's imagine it is Eba and groundnut soup.

You can recognise the texture of the Eba. You can taste the groundnut in the soup. You can taste the fish. These three things are all recognisably eba groundnut and fish. No doubt about it.
Yet there is something missing. 'sweetness' of the soup is not there. The Delight you get from feeling the lump of eba descend your throat is not there. Yet empirically you don't miss a single thing in the sensation. You feel the solidness of the lump, you recognise the taste and texture as eba. The only thing missing is the delight that usually accompanies these empirical sensations. The 'yumminess' of it.

Even sugar sef, you can taste it and empirically recognise that it is sugar and that it is sweet, yet it is sweet without a certain 'sweetness'. That certain 'sweetness' that delight belongs to the World of Enchantment. Thanks to your depression you are able to recognise that there are 2 worlds of Experience. The empirical world and the world of Enchantment which contains all the delight and zest and fervour with which you meet life every morning when you wake up.

It is certainly a qualitative thing. Enchantment adds quality to the World of experience. However can I say that it is not a subjective thing? That it doesn't occur in the mind too? I think everything occurs in the mind, both the Empirical and the Enchanted.

The fact that they can be separated demonstrates that they are two separate parallel worlds, though we usually experience them as commingled.
Religion / Re: Why Are We Captivated By Nature's Beauty? by PastorAIO: 6:45pm On Jan 20
plaetton:

But do we really see a qualitative beauty or do we just contemplate it, and then apportion it as we wish?

For example, I think and genuinely feel that my daughter is the most beauriful thing in the universe.
Is she truly so, or is it a biased judgement from my mind?

I'm trying to shift the focus away from the object of beauty and put it just on the fact of Beauty, regardless of what is considered beautiful.
Religion / Re: Why Are We Captivated By Nature's Beauty? by PastorAIO: 5:52pm On Jan 20
LordReed:


On this or some other issue?

This issue. Mostly that Art will lead to aesthetic arrest. I do not think that the only effect of beauty is Stillness. Nor that it is the function of Art (whatever that is) to effect beauty.
Religion / Re: Why Are We Captivated By Nature's Beauty? by PastorAIO: 5:50pm On Jan 20
plaetton:
The answer is encapsulated in the ancient but common saying that " Beauty is in the eyes of the Beholder ".

This simple truth implies that nothing is intrinsically beautiful on its own, otherwise, we should not be mocking gorrilas as ugly creatures.

We should wonder whether a mother gorilla sees wonderous beauty in the face of her offspring or the same fearsome ugliness that we see.

If beauty was an intrinsic quality, then we should all have the same taste and wonderment on the same objects, equally value the same aesthetic qualities in all things.
But we do not. That tells a lot about where the attributes of beauty are coming from; our minds, our cultures, our conditioning, and of course, our genetic predispositions.

No two people see the exactly hue or color in any object. Each of us sees a slightly different hue when we gaze upon any object.

But there is still beauty and there is still wonder. The question becomes not why there is intrinsic beauty in things. but why there is Beauty at all.

1 Like

Religion / Re: Why Are We Captivated By Nature's Beauty? by PastorAIO: 5:12pm On Jan 20
I hasten to add. I don't agree with Joyce in the most part.
Religion / Re: Why Are We Captivated By Nature's Beauty? by PastorAIO: 5:02pm On Jan 20
http://www.meditation24-7.com/page29/page29.html


The phrase, "Aesthetic Arrest" was first used by James Joyce in A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man.

As opposed to the totally boring idea that in meditation, you are supposed to blank your mind, James Joyce proposed a gorgeous idea: when we are in the presence of great beauty, our minds go still. Think about that for a few days. It's a radical and refreshing notion.

I would go further, and propose a sutra, a replacement sutra for the second verse of the Yoga Sutras. It could go something like this:

Attending to the beauty of the rhythms of nature, the mind enters stillness like the ocean at dawn.

Joseph Campbell helped to make the idea known, in his lectures on Joyce: "The aesthetic experience is a simple beholding of the object....you experience a radiance. You are held in aesthetic arrest." This radiance, the perception of beauty, is regarded as a communication of the hidden power behind the world, shining through some physical form..
Religion / Re: You Have Authority by PastorAIO: 8:43pm On Jan 18
Then why do we give our authority away.

We give it to others and then let them order us. Then when they push us to evil we say 'we were only following orders'. isn't that a lame excuse. Who said you had to follow orders without making an executive decision for yourself on what to do. You are the CEO of your own life. The Chief Executive.

Orikinla:
Your Daily Iconic Moments.
You have authority.



Saturday, January 17th, 2015.

I remember the story of a maximum ruler who once lost control of his horse and the horse would have thrown him down but for the intervention of an army Sergeant who quickly caught hold of the horse's reins and steadied the horse.

As soon as the Sergeant steadied the horse, the maximum ruler came down and turned towards the sergeant, "Thank you Major." Instantly the sergeant was promoted to a major all because the maximum ruler said so. That was authority being put to use.

"You will also declare a thing, And it will be established for you; So light will shine on your ways." Job 22:28

You also have authority and your authority was given to you by Jesus Christ. This simply means whatever and whoever obeys Jesus Christ is meant to obey you too based on your delegated authority.

But if you remain silent, how will you wield your authority? If you allow your mouth to remain in stitches, you will only have yourself to blame. Everything around you is waiting for the word of your command. Speak to the day and everything around you.

Action Plan:- Are you putting your God given authority to use?

Declaration:- All things are under my feet, I am in control of my destiny. 2015 is my year of Recognition. I declare that everywhere I have been overlooked, I will be remembered this year.

www.facebook.com/woleolusola

1 Like 1 Share

Religion / Re: Where Is The Garden Of Eden? by PastorAIO: 5:39pm On Jan 18
Iraq

just a guess
Religion / Re: The Question Most Christians Fail All The Time by PastorAIO: 3:20pm On Jan 18
davien:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMb00lz-IfE

I may not be able to continue on our above discussion because of technical difficulties...would continue probably later. sad
And the video below is called "This is not random" by Veritasium

These guys are confused. I don't even know where to start with them.

Let me try.

1:12 Fundamentally they seem to not know what information is. They get is confused with Order and Meaning. Information is what makes an Impression, What Influences, what Marks something else.

I know the sky is blue because Information in the form of lightwaves passes from the sky and makes an impression on my optical nerves.

I can take a stamp and make a mark on a piece of plasticene and I have just informed the plasticene. In other words I have just imparted Form to the plasticene.

The information can be of Order, or it can be of chaos. When I see white noise on the tv screen I'm well informed that it is white noise. I don't need to see order to know that.

3:23
Not only do they confuse Order, and Meaning with Information but they seem to not know what a code is. If write out information in a code and then compress the code into a smaller code I don't change the amount of information in the code. I've just found a more succinct way of encoding the information which itself totally stays the same.
How they jump from misunderstanding what a code is to saying that 'Randomness is Pure information' would make even a seasoned Nairalander who has seen all kinds of idiotic reasoning, like myself, throw up his breakfast. also the expression on the dudes face when he says , 'you wanna know how much information something has you have to know how random it is' like he is saying something deep. He reminds me of one of those evangelical pastors. It seems that they save that 'deep' facial expression for when they are about to say something particularly inane.

7:16
Laplace makes the conditional statement that if you knew the position and velocity of every thing then you could predict everything.

Quantum uncertainty says it is impossible to know the position and velocity. That doesn't disprove Laplace. It merely says that the conditions that Laplace requires are not possible.
Religion / Re: Who Wrote The New Testament ? by PastorAIO: 1:09pm On Jan 18
Image123:


i have consistently stated that the Bible(both Old and New Testament) is the Word of God. Of course it was penned down by men. It is daily printed by men. If you cannot reconcile or process that, you can ask God in prayer to help you. He is a present help in time of need.

Yes you have consistently stated, but you have never demonstrated.

i have never denied that there are seeming contradictions in the Bible. i have said that those ' contradictions' either take a little common sense to figure out or at most have no significance whatsoever in the scheme of things and in the divine perspective. There remains nothing unreliable about the Bible's account of Christ's death. We can reliably say that Jesus Christ died on the cross of calvary for our sins, and rose again for our justification. This is the greatest truth in the universe. It matters not whether He died 12:10pm or 3:58pm or from the foundation of the world. The Bible is not a coroner's report or a statistics textbook or a chronology guide. History can do well without pesky and petty details that suit the gainsayer's fancy.

I think we are starting to get somewhere although the red part is a lie. At least now you seem to accept that there are contradictions although you only call them 'seeming' contradictions. You will still explain how Jesus dying at 3rd and 6th hour are only seeming contradictions and not actual contradictions. The red part is a lie because you explicitly stated that the bible is historically and scientifically inerrant and that means that there can be no contradictions. So in fact you did deny that there were contradictions. You're a liar (though it's not your fault).


Nobody is talking about scheme of things in divine perspective. We are talking about history and scientific facts. Historical and scientifically the bible is full of error.

on the cross of calvary? are you sure that detail is important. does it matter that it was on the cross of calvary? Couldn't any old cross do? Does it even have to be a cross sef? Why couldn't it have been firing squad? After all that changes nothing. so far he died for our sins and rose the next few days later. Even a week later wouldn't matter.

Somebody shout Hallelujah!! Lord now lettest thy servant depart in peace. you're darn right that 'the Bible is not a coroner's report or a statistics textbook or a chronology guide', cos these would make them scientific and historical documents. I especially like the fact that you've now admitted that the bible is NOT a chronology guide, nor should it ever be. Any historian that looks to the bible for chronological facts is going to get lost.

I think we can end our little exchange with these final admissions of yours.
Religion / Re: Who Wrote The New Testament ? by PastorAIO: 12:49pm On Jan 18
Image123:


va·cu·i·ty (vă-kyo͞o′ĭ-tē, və-)
n. pl. vac·u·i·ties
1. Total absence of matter; emptiness.
2. An empty space; a vacuum.

3. Total lack of ideas; emptiness of mind.
4. Absence of meaningful occupation; idleness:


when you start addressing the points and making meaningful contributions I'll retract calling you vacuous.

i will still wait for your visible and logical attempts on this, and this one, and that, and that one, and this too.

For example when you ask me to address this. What is that? What question did you ask me there? If you have any points to make then please lay them out succinctly. I don't have time to read vacuous nonsense. I was good enough to lay out my points to you succinctly and I even gave them bullet points. Look again here:

I'll spell out the points again.

- The thread is about who wrote the new testament. First you said God and then you backtracked and said human beings. Which is it?

- There are factual contradictions in the bible about the time of Jesus' death. This makes the bible an unreliable historical document. History is about facts, dates and times.

- inerrant means 100 per cent no error. 99 percent (or sorry did you change that to 99.9 percent - you can't make up your mind) is not inerrant.

- Your hero Metzger said that the bible was doctored. You totally ducked that one. Answer him now? I'll re copy what he said for you in big print so you don't have to get your glasses.



and I did it earlier like so:


Where we are arguing is that the bible is NOT reliable as a scientific document.

The bible is NOT reliable as an historical document.

The Bible is NOT reliable as a true representation of the original texts that left the hands of the writers.
from here: http://www.nairaland.com/2072612/wrote-new-testament/4#29694233

So it is without a doubt what this debate is about. True to form you have sought to obscure and obfuscate the discussion by talking about the theological relevance of the OBVIOUS CONTRADICTIONS. Yet we have told you from the start that it is not a theological issue.

Bart Ehrmann states unequivocally in the video that the bible's errors and contradictions have no bearing on christian doctrine. I have said the same. Everyone had said the same. Then why are you trying to argue against the straw man. All you have said is that there is no theological or doctrinal relevance in the mistakes. Nobody is arguing with you on that. Yet you keep repeating it. Why are you running away from the true discussion. I'll repeat the points.

-Where we are arguing is that the bible is NOT reliable as a scientific document.


- The bible is NOT reliable as an historical document.


- The Bible is NOT reliable as a true representation of the original texts that left the hands of the writers.

Like I said, your ability to theologise and extract doctrines from the bible is limited only by your imagination. However what we are talking about here are historical and scientific facts.

Any other talk is nothing but vacuity.
Religion / Re: Who Wrote The New Testament ? by PastorAIO: 9:24pm On Jan 15
Image123:



Please I'm not interested in vacuities. I have raised some points and if you are incapable of addressing the points then just leave the matter there. I'll spell out the points again.

- The thread is about who wrote the new testament. First you said God and then you backtracked and said human beings. Which is it?

- There are factual contradictions in the bible about the time of Jesus' death. This makes the bible an unreliable historical document. History is about facts, dates and times.

- inerrant means 100 per cent no error. 99 percent (or sorry did you change that to 99.9 percent - you can't make up your mind) is not inerrant.

- Your hero Metzger said that the bible was doctored. You totally ducked that one. Answer him now? I'll re copy what he said for you in big print so you don't have to get your glasses.


In the earlier manuscripts of Mark 1:2, the composite quotation from Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3 is introduced by the formula "As it is written in Isaiah the Prophet". Later scribes, sensing this involves a difficulty replaced "As it is written in Isaiah the Prophet" with the general statement "As it is written in the prophets". Since the quotation Matthew(27:9) attributes to the prophet Jeremiah actually comes from Zechariah(11:12f), it is not surprising that some scribes sought to mend the error either by substituting the correct name or by omitting the name altogether. A few scribes attempted to harmonize the Johannine account of the chronology of the Passion with that in Mark by changing ’sixth hour’ of John 19:14 to ‘third hour’ (which appears in Mark 15:25). At John 1:28, Origen altered Bethany to Bethabara in order to remove what he regarded as a geographical difficulty, and this reading is extant today in MSS. 33 69 and many others , including those behind the King James version. The statement in Mark 8:31, that ‘the Son of man must suffer many things…and be killed and after three days rise again’, seems to involve a chronological difficulty, and some copyists changed the phrase to the more familiar expression, ‘on the third day’. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews places the golden altar of incense in the Holy of Holies (Heb. 9:4), which is contrary to the Old Testament description of the Tabernacle (Exod. 30:1-6). The scribe of Codex Vaticanus and the translator of the Ethiopic version correct the account by transferring the words to 9:2, where the furniture of the Holy Place is itemized.


- The matter of textual variants affecting christian doctrines doesn't come into play. Why? Because these doctrines owe more to your imagination than what is actually in the text. If it was just a matter of the text then how come there so many denominations of christianity each with conflicting doctrines and all reading from the same 'inerrant' book.
Religion / Re: The Word 'SOUL' Is Of Which Language Origin Or Root? (your Opinion On This Pls) by PastorAIO: 9:09pm On Jan 15
What you are looking for is the etymology of the word. There are many etymology dictionaries online. Check this one out:

soul (n.1)
"A substantial entity believed to be that in each person which lives, feels, thinks and wills" [Century Dictionary], Old English sawol "spiritual and emotional part of a person, animate existence; life, living being," from Proto-Germanic *saiwalo (cognates: Old Saxon seola, Old Norse sala, Old Frisian sele, Middle Dutch siele, Dutch ziel, Old High German seula, German Seele, Gothic saiwala), of uncertain origin.

Sometimes said to mean originally "coming from or belonging to the sea," because that was supposed to be the stopping place of the soul before birth or after death [Barnhart]; if so, it would be from Proto-Germanic *saiwaz (see sea). Klein explains this as "from the lake," as a dwelling-place of souls in ancient northern Europe.

Meaning "spirit of a deceased person" is attested in Old English from 971. As a synonym for "person, individual, human being" (as in every living soul) it dates from early 14c. Soul-searching (n.) is attested from 1871, from the phrase used as a past participle adjective (1610s). Distinguishing soul from spirit is a matter best left to theologians.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=soul




And while we are here, could someone explaining the use of the prefix El- or Ol- or Oni- in yoruba. It is usually used to denote ownership. e.g. Nkan oninkan. meaning[b] The thing of the owner of the thing.[/b]

But what do we understand to be the distinction between Eniyan (human being) and Eleniyan (literally the owner of the human being but usually used to refer to a person.

What about Angba for lizard? and Alangba which is also lizard, but really meaning the owner of the lizard.

Or Ogbo, or cat? but cat can also be Ologbo, which actually literally means the Owner of the Cat nature.

Or to go deeper still, What is the difference between Edumare and Eledumare? Are the both not just God? Or does God, Edumare have an owner Eledumare?

Who is the owner of these attributes that is indistinguishable from the attributes themselves?
Religion / Re: The Question Most Christians Fail All The Time by PastorAIO: 2:19pm On Jan 12
timonski:
Omnipotence to do what?

Does god not have a will? Omnipotence to do anything that he wills.
Religion / Re: The Question Most Christians Fail All The Time by PastorAIO: 1:14pm On Jan 12
timonski:
such intellect could predict the path/end of thoughtless processes. Predicting the actions of intelligent beings which can be influenced by other intelligent is open for further discussion.

PastorAIO:

I get you. Because we have free will, our decisions cannot be factored into the prognosis. hmmm.. Nice answer.

Wait o!!! Where does omnipotence fit into all of this?
Religion / Re: The Question Most Christians Fail All The Time by PastorAIO: 1:09pm On Jan 12
davien:

I may not be able to continue on our above discussion because of technical difficulties...would continue probably later. sad

That's cool. I've already derived a fair bit of satisfaction from the exchange. I think if we were to push it further we would be taking it away from the initial topic of this thread. Unless you want to start a new thread.

2 Likes

Religion / Re: The Question Most Christians Fail All The Time by PastorAIO: 12:32pm On Jan 12
davien:
There's a great educational video I can point you to on YouTube that gives a case that all probabilistic events may in fact be known....I'd like to see what you'd make of it..

Bring it on!

timonski:
such intellect could predict the path/end of thoughtless processes. Predicting the actions of intelligent beings which can be influenced by other intelligent is open for further discussion.

I get you. Because we have free will, our decisions cannot be factored into the prognosis. hmmm.. Nice answer.
Religion / Re: The Question Most Christians Fail All The Time by PastorAIO: 12:30pm On Jan 12
davien:

I'm not saying we aren't at the mercy of our urges....I'm just saying we(as in most of us) try to better keep them in check in a society....say if you noticed someone was expressing sociopathic behaviour,wouldn't that prompt you to distance yourself from that person and alert others that can subdue the person?

Not unless I had the urge to protect my society. There is nothing to consider in human behaviour outside of our fundamental urges. 'Society' does not decide to ostracise certain people unless driven by urges to do so. Even Society can be seen as a product of a confluence of human urges. It is also possible for the majority of members of a society to experience urges against the society. That is what causes revolutions and anarchy. It's all part of the natural processes of history.



My point of the analogy is to express how social creatures like ourselves value our kind over others...
The group evicts any member deemed dangerous to its existence..
And that is why we evict such people from the society...

The tendency to value our kind is just another basic urge.

Of course we can have conflicting urges and this is what causes a) internal conflicts, and b) social and global conflicts.


At first glance of the example below,there's no mechanism that urges one to do this...but put religion in the picture fueled by human curiosity and you have a match....or don't you agree that religion(most atleast) being fuelled by urges of curiosity leads one to dissociation in any sense...
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissociation_(psychology)

"the term dissociation describes a wide array of
experiences from mild detachment from immediate surroundings to
more severe detachment from physical and emotional experience.
The major characteristic of all dissociative phenomena involves a
detachment from reality, rather than a loss of reality as in psychosis."


Our curiosity afterall is an innate urge to understand the things around us... undecided

I can't figure out where you're going with this. Some people are drawn to their environment. Other people are more drawn to their inner world. Most people are somewhere inbetween. If you can't detach from the environment you'd be unable to day dream, you'd be unable to think abstractly, you'd be unable to form scientific theories, you'd be like an animal that can not step out of itself and consider it's life from an abstract perspective. In other words, you'd be sub-human. I don't think Religion is the cause of this. I think just being human is the reason for this.
Religion / Re: The Question Most Christians Fail All The Time by PastorAIO: 12:10pm On Jan 12
timonski:
omniscience is the quality of being all-knowing i.e, an omniscient being has access to all knowledge. Precognition is the ability to perceive the future, which is non-existent. We are living in a moving timeline( N/B: time is one-dimensional): the future becomes the present and the present recedes into the past.
A being can not directly see the future, for the future is not a separate event that is already occuring.
If one has the ability to see directly into future, then one sees an alternate timeline that is far ahead of our timeline. So it is not impossible for God to see the future, but illogical. Cos if God sees the future, say 30 years from now, he sees an alternate timeline(universe) 30 years ahead of his universe(timeline). Then that universe was created by another God who is way ahead of Him.
Err...my point is:
1. Omniscience is access to all
knowledge in a given timeline.
2. omniscience is does not include
precognition, predestination
3. Precognition is illogical

Are you saying that your god is incapbale of making prognosis? Even humans can boast that if they have knowledge of all the factors they can predict every subsequent event.

An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes.

—Pierre Simon Laplace, A Philosophical Essay on Probabilities
Religion / Re: The Question Most Christians Fail All The Time by PastorAIO: 10:06am On Jan 12
davien:
Not all urges are equal...

Nope they're not. and furthermore the relative intensity of the various urges differ from person to person and that is what makes us individuals. Some people the urge to eat is stronger than the sex urge. Other people the sex urge is stronger. Their behaviours and personalities will thereby be different.

we try to go with urges that do not impede on anyone's wellbeing....and society as a whole...

We don't 'try' anything. we are at the mercy of our urges, we don't choose them. they even define us. If you don't have the urge to cater for anyone's well being then your behaviour will reflect that and you might even be sociopathic.


Having urges met by killing people for instance is dangerous for you and my wellbeing...

I don't think the murderous fellow gives a flying poo about endangering your wellbeing.


And we also tend to psychologically re-evaluate urges that prompt people to disassociation themselves from reality by locking them up in asylums,provided evidence negates or goes contrary to it....
So they are stuck in this contorted belief that they refuse to let go or address the contradiction....a delusion is the term that best applies to this.

I don't understand what you're saying here. Urges always involve 'reality' or rather the world of experience. I don't know of any urge to dissociate from reality. Maybe the urge to dissociate from Social responsibility. People can become loners or even hermits.


And is there a reliable pathway with which you can separate your "god" from the alleged rest you claim?
Religion / Re: The Question Most Christians Fail All The Time by PastorAIO: 10:19pm On Jan 11
davien:
we are forced to believe it is a shared experience via "realism" because we can't know [/b]otherwise...and in this shared reality we tend to go with things that can be demonstrated to be [b]likely or more possible over things which aren't...
Thank you very much for this. Hence I made this statement earlier.

PastorAIO:


What do you 'know' that you don't believe?


We don't 'know', we just believe with varying degrees of certainty. Or as Plato put it, all we have is the LIKELY STORY. and of course as our experiences change so does what we consider likely.

davien:
now how does a "god" remotely follow this?....

Hence my first response to your question on this thread.
PastorAIO:
It follows that the op's question is unrealistic. There can be no such thing as 'definitive proof'.


Being forced to accept what we call reality we can verify the existence of other things(to varying degrees of accuracy) either through a deductive argument or the scientific method because they are the methods that we can attest to their pragmatism and they best account for wide phenomena...


Not 'varying degrees of accuracy'. I believe you mean to say varying degrees of certainty. Certainty however is also a psychological phenomenon. The certainty of most armchair scientists who feel very clever after reading a couple of popular science books is quite different from the certainty of a real scientists who has proposed very plausible theories before only to find them disproved under peer review. The sense of certainty that newbies have is often more intense than that of seasoned veterans. With experience, even if you've looked at a theory from every perspective and feel it is error proof there is always a sense of caution that you've missed something.



Because that's the point in the first place....we hardly can tell if the experience we call reality is real talk less of presuppose one that is so alien to it,it forces one to twist the experiences we share(reality) so much that anything we can understand to be demonstrated falls prey to this "presupposition"
Let me address what I think you're getting at like this. After consciousness the next most fundamental experiences that we have are Urges. We are aware that we are subject to a whole range of urges and they drive our behaviour. We act in order to gratify these urges. The ontological status of the objects are secondary to the urges. So what if the world is an illusion? What is important is that we enjoy the illusion. What is important is that our urges are gratified. If I'm dreaming that I'm hungry and I get presented with a huge feast which I thoroughly enjoy then that enjoy is what matters, not whether or not the feast actually happened. If a buddhist says that the world is Maya (illusion) and we have to escape from the illusion, I say Why? I'm having a great time! I'm more concerned with how I can enjoy the illusion better. I want to live a rich full life, not escape from it because someone says it's an illusion. It's like watching a movie, you know the drama is not really happening but you still get involved, you immerse yourself in it and thoroughly enjoy it.

With this way of thinking objective reality only matters to the extent that it can impact our primary urges. I'm interested in studying society because I get a lot of gratification from my interactions with society, and if I get those interactions wrong I can suffer a lot of pain, maybe become a social outcast thereby frustrating my basic urge for social contact. etc

Food is objective reality. Hunger is an urge. I'm interested in Food.

What if I have an urge that is met by Divinity? That would explain my interest in it. Evangelicals have this saying that I hate very much. it goes something like: We have a God-shaped hole in our souls and only God can fill it.
I can't stand that saying but I guess it apt for this conversation right now.




Good....so if a definitive way cannot be determined about "god" without it being called into question nor can it be substantiated in this reality how do you detect "god"?

I have certain urges that are met by the practice of religion.

But Wait! I said religion not God and that because I am not sure that what I mean by God is the same as what you or even other Theists call God. In fact I'm quite sure that what I call God is not the same with the 'god' of many of these fellows.
Religion / Re: The Bible Belt Is The Porn Belt by PastorAIO: 8:38pm On Jan 11
Is it not interesting that Jesus preached a lot about hypocrisy and now the most hypocritical people on the planet are those that claim that they are his followers?

There is a phenomenon that some psychologists call Projection. That is when you take traits that are in you and you see them in other people to the effect that you do not see the traits in yourself anymore.

Jesus talked about this alot too. He talked about the Log in one's eye that is ignored only to obsess about the speck in other people's eyes.

Plaetton, it is not only the Christ in you that they are blind to. They are blind to the hypocrisy to. How?

Very simple mechanism. Jesus was debating a lot with Pharisees and calling the hypocrites. Instead of 'christians' to now take these teachings and apply them to themselves instead they now project all their hypocrisy onto a group of people called the Pharisees.

It's like Pharisee to them just means hypocrite. If you ask them what are the doctrines of the pharisees they don't know. All they know is that Pharisees are hypocrites as if you have to sit an exam in hypocrisy before you become a pharisee. If you then show them that there is almost no difference between the doctrines of the pharisees and those of the christians it's like you threw a bomb on them. they start to tremble and feel insulted.

If pharisees with their similar doctrines could be hypocrites then surely christians with the same doctrines can also be hypocrites.
But the christians have something the pharisees didn't have. Christians have Pharisees.
Okay the Pharisees looked down on other 'sinful' jews but their wasn't a special group. We've got pharisees to look down on.

So we can pray like this:

‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like these Pharisees."

Luke 18:11

1 Like

Religion / Re: The Bible Belt Is The Porn Belt by PastorAIO: 8:24pm On Jan 11
I like the shades of Star Wars in there. The Empire Strikes Back.

plaetton:


I concur.

Jesus came (supposedly) to free.

The empire struck back with christianity, to ensnare , capture and enslave.

Jesus, just like Buddha , Zoroaster and others before him, tired to show, in his own simple language, the simple paths through which Humans may discover and attune themselves with their innate godhood , their Kristos, their Ka, their Chi, the interface between man and the abract universe.

But alas, the empire fought back fast and furiously by commandeering and simply putting a false twist to the message of Jesus.

By taking away your kristos, Chi or Christ and then investing it in the person of Jesus, the empire committed the greatest robbery in the universe, .. and the rest, they say, is history.

If Jesus revealed the christ in you to you, then whoever took it away from you and invested it into the person of Jesus is the anti-christ.

The church of Jesus is therefore guilty as charged.

1 Like

Religion / Re: The Question Most Christians Fail All The Time by PastorAIO: 8:21pm On Jan 11
malvisguy212:
Did you know that there exists today nearly 25,000 hand-written copies of portions of the New Testament? As
historians have compared these
manuscripts, they have concluded that
the New Testament we have today is at
least 99.5% accurate to the original. No
change. (The .5% differences refer to spelling, but no change in meaning.)
all you have to do is to comperd the bible used 300 A.D and present day bible.

Go back to sleep.

(0) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (of 169 pages)

(Go Up)

Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket

Links: (0) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2015 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 226
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.