|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 12, 2017 2:53:40 GMT
Are any of them impossible to meet? I never thought they were. If I'm wrong about that, do enlighten me. Are you saying that one of the things that makes a Christian a Christian is that they accept that all the standards and morals laid out by the bible are possible to meet? What standards are you referring to? |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jun 12, 2017 3:06:29 GMT
Are you saying that one of the things that makes a Christian a Christian is that they accept that all the standards and morals laid out by the bible are possible to meet? What standards are you referring to? Are you saying that one of the things that makes a Christian a Christian is that they accept that all the standards and morals laid out by the bible are possible to meet? |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 12, 2017 3:09:35 GMT
What standards are you referring to? Are you saying that one of the things that makes a Christian a Christian is that they accept that all the standards and morals laid out by the bible are possible to meet? What standards are those, doc?  Is this a mixed fabrics and shellfish kind of thing? That is so done already. |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jun 12, 2017 3:14:05 GMT
Are you saying that one of the things that makes a Christian a Christian is that they accept that all the standards and morals laid out by the bible are possible to meet? What standards are those, doc? Is this a mixed fabrics and shellfish kind of thing? That is so done already. ok so you actually don't have anything you are just hoping I can mention something you can leap on. You may not think I am a 'proper' Christian, but you have nothing to actually base that on, as usual you are making vague unsupported claims and if you are not honest enough to actually iterate those claims I am afraid you are not worth wasting time on. I am a Christian, start getting used to it and have the common decency to actually have some kind of substance to present next time you engage me. |
|
blade
Junior Member
@blade
Posts: 2,005
Likes: 636
|
Post by blade on Jun 12, 2017 5:31:58 GMT
You are the one making a claim, why am I not a Christian according to you? I regard Man to be in a fallen state, and Christ is the Savior. Do you believe this as well? Erjen, gagreel is not a Christian because he follows the word of man. Remember the religioustolerance.org website? |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 12, 2017 5:34:26 GMT
I regard Man to be in a fallen state, and Christ is the Savior. Do you believe this as well? Erjen, gagreel is not a Christian because he follows the word of man. Remember the religioustolerance.org website? Yes, I remember, but he calls himself a Christian. Does that mean I can call myself an atheist?  |
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Jun 12, 2017 5:38:45 GMT
Erjen, gagreel is not a Christian because he follows the word of man. Remember the religioustolerance.org website? Yes, I remember, but he calls himself a Christian. Does that mean I can call myself an atheist? Once you've achieved "Awakened", further titles are pointless.  |
|
blade
Junior Member
@blade
Posts: 2,005
Likes: 636
|
Post by blade on Jun 12, 2017 5:40:09 GMT
Erjen, gagreel is not a Christian because he follows the word of man. Remember the religioustolerance.org website? Yes, I remember, but he calls himself a Christian. Does that mean I can call myself an atheist? So why not bring up the fact that he follows the word of man? He repeatedly said the bible is not against homosexuality[homosexual acts] and linked to religioustolerance.org in defense of his claim. That website teaches that the bible was mistranslated...something we know is a lie. The website also goes directly against God's word [that homosexual acts are forbidden by God] Why not call him out on it? He is listening to that website over the word of God. i.e. he follows the word of man. Which means he's not a Christian. There's no getting around that fact. |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 12, 2017 5:44:07 GMT
Yes, I remember, but he calls himself a Christian. Does that mean I can call myself an atheist? Once you've achieved "Awakened", further titles are pointless. I know you meant that as a smartass remark, but perhaps you're accidentally right. You're not right very often, so take 'em any way you can get 'em. |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 12, 2017 5:49:56 GMT
Yes, I remember, but he calls himself a Christian. Does that mean I can call myself an atheist? So why not bring up the fact that he follows the word of man? He repeatedly said the bible is not against homosexuality[homosexual acts] and linked to religioustolerance.org in defense of his claim. That website teaches that the bible was mistranslated...something we know is a lie. The website also goes directly against God's word [that homosexual acts are forbidden by God] Why not call him out on it? He is listening to that website over the word of God. i.e. he follows the word of man. Which means he's not a Christian. There's no getting around that fact. I have called him out on it. I've called Pope Francis out on it too. Anyone who thinks he can rewrite God's laws should be called out on it. |
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Jun 12, 2017 6:35:31 GMT
The ants were my analogy. Which you did not address, despite your thinking it a better analogy than Skynet, which you did address. And yes, Skynet is fictional. But so are a few other things I could mention. This discussion is based on the assumption that God is real. Now, assuming Skynet was real, who's responsible? Bingo. And there you conceded as much yourself: You're the red pill type. Did you choose to be the red pill type? All choices we make are based on our personalities, but none of us is free to choose his own personality. Our personalities are formed by biology and experiences, and you are actually the one the least in control of shaping your own personality. Oh, yes, I see that you did bring up the ants first. Congratulations Suppose I swallow the blue pill instead, although the red pill is more attractive to me? Why would you then swallow the blue pill? |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 12, 2017 6:39:42 GMT
Oh, yes, I see that you did bring up the ants first. Congratulations Suppose I swallow the blue pill instead, although the red pill is more attractive to me? Why would you then swallow the blue pill? Because it's the easier of the two paths. |
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Jun 12, 2017 8:10:53 GMT
Why would you then swallow the blue pill? Because it's the easier of the two paths. So you do prefer the blue pill, then. If you take the easier of the two paths, it is because you want to take the easier of the two paths. Our decisions boil down to one of two, either the perceived greater good or the perceived lesser evil. |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jun 12, 2017 8:10:55 GMT
It is you who has an emotional attachment to the idea there's no free will mic. So if free will exists, how does that work then? You choose which thoughts to think before thinking them? Do you ingest water before drinking it? Do you put on clothes before getting dressed? The thoughts play a part in making a choice. Free will is the (perceived) ability to make choices. I have it, which I demonstrated here by choosing to reply to your post before having read the entire thread. |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 12, 2017 8:17:41 GMT
Because it's the easier of the two paths. So you do prefer the blue pill, then. If you take the easier of the two paths, it is because you want to take the easier of the two paths. Our decisions boil down to one of two, either the perceived greater good or the perceived lesser evil. No. I just said the blue pill was tempting because it is the easier one, and it takes an act of the will to decline it. Hope that helps. |
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Jun 12, 2017 8:20:34 GMT
So you do prefer the blue pill, then. If you take the easier of the two paths, it is because you want to take the easier of the two paths. Our decisions boil down to one of two, either the perceived greater good or the perceived lesser evil. No. I just said the blue pill was tempting because it is the easier one, and it takes an act of the will to decline it. Hope that helps. You're not getting it. If you pick the blue pill, it is obviously because you prefer it to the red pill. If not, then you would have picked the red pill, wouldn't you? For example, would I like to be in tip-top shape with a ripped body and stuff? Of course! But I must weigh that up against what it takes to get there. If I want to achieve that goal more than I hate the necessary conditioning to get there, then I'll do what it takes. If, however, I don't want the sweat and toil, ie. I mind the sweat and toil more than I desire the results, then I won't do it. It is all down to what I want. So I choose according to what I want, but I do not choose what to want. |
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Jun 12, 2017 8:23:12 GMT
So if free will exists, how does that work then? You choose which thoughts to think before thinking them? Do you ingest water before drinking it? Do you put on clothes before getting dressed? The thoughts play a part in making a choice. Free will is the (perceived) ability to make choices. I have it, which I demonstrated here by choosing to reply to your post before having read the entire thread. That's freedom of choice, not free will. Free will implies that you are in control of your own decisions, rather than a slave to determinism. |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 12, 2017 8:31:43 GMT
No. I just said the blue pill was tempting because it is the easier one, and it takes an act of the will to decline it. Hope that helps. You're not getting it. If you pick the blue pill, it is obviously because you prefer it to the red pill. For example, would I like to be in tip-top shape with a ripped body and stuff? Of course! But I must weigh that up against what it takes to get there. If I want to achieve that goal more than I hate the necessary conditioning to get there, then I'll do what it takes. If, however, I don't want the sweat and toil, ie. I mind the sweat and toil more than I desire the results, then I won't do it. It is all down to what I want. So I choose according to what I want, but I do not choose what to want. No, you're not getting it. And you're saying that whichever one somebody picks, the choice was something beyond that person's control. It's just a way of excusing oneself from personable accountability. I suppose that kind of cop-out holds a certain appeal for some, but not for all. If you want the ripped body, you decide that you want it. And if you don't want the sweat and toil that goes with it, then that's your decision too. It can't be anyone's decision except yours. |
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Jun 12, 2017 8:55:09 GMT
Once you've achieved "Awakened", further titles are pointless. I know you meant that as a smartass remark, but perhaps you're accidentally right. Almost certainly, man. You're basically Clear Level 5. Just awaiting the mother ship. Who the hell knew Youtube would end up being such a transcendental gateway? Anyway... remember us little people. |
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Jun 12, 2017 9:00:40 GMT
No, you're not getting it. And you're saying that whichever one somebody picks, the choice was something beyond that person's control. This is correct, and demonstrably true. None of us was ever in a position to choose one's own personality. This is not correct. You are still accountable for your actions. If there's something wrong with my car, the car is still what needs to be fixed - doesn't matter that the car is blameless. Imagine if I rammed the car in front of me because I was driving too close to his tail, and I wasn't paying attention when he hit the brakes. Imagine I then take the car to the mechanic, and instead of fixing my car he beats me up. "That'll teach you." Well, maybe that will teach me, but it didn't do much good for my car, did it? Similarly, if someone commits a crime, it is because of the conditions in which he had been raised. Conditions beyond his control. Society is ultimately to blame, but it is still the individual what needs fixing. So while the criminal may not be to blame for his personality, he still needs to be held accountable for it. We never decide to want anything. Doesn't work that way. You may try to tell yourself, "I want this!" But it's not going to make you want it. If people could simply decide what to want, then everybody would be in tip top shape because they would simply decide to like healthy food and exercise, and decide to hate unhealthy foods and pastimes. There wouldn't be any infidelity either, because people would simply decide that their significant other was enough in every respect. Absolutely not. I would love to love the sweat and toil, but I simply don't. It isn't subject to decisions at all. Do you like strawberries? Why? Or why not? Can you choose to change your mind? Can you choose the flavour, or how your brain reacts to it? Not in the slightest. If you say you can, you lie. |
|
