Originally posted by Agerg Nope...If I want to lie, for example, and your god forbids lying then my propensity for telling porkies has not been "refined", it has been eradicated.
[re-edit] You might as well say living as a person with severe learning difficulties would be awesome since I'd have little capacity to formulate any notions of how I would be disadvantaged, and how living in that way isn't awesome.
yes but i have already explained that you would not only not need to tell any porkies, but that your conscience would prevent you, instead you would use your now perfect intellect to form some other type of entertainment.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie yes but i have already explained that you would not only not need to tell any porkies, but that your conscience would prevent you, instead you would use your now perfect intellect to form some other type of entertainment.
I anticipated that response and edited mine to reflect this (but I was too late); I'll repost:
Nope...If I want to lie, for example, and your god forbids, or renders impossible the act of lying then my propensity for telling porkies has not been "refined", it has been eradicated.
You're using sleight of hand here Robbie, if where I can currently lie is changed so my conscience forbids it then my personality has been changed to someone who doesn't want to lie - that is not *me*.
Originally posted by Agerg I anticipated that response and edited mine to reflect this (but I was too late); I'll repost:
Nope...If I want to lie, for example, and your god forbids, or [b]renders impossible the act of lying then my propensity for telling porkies has not been "refined", it has been eradicated.
You're using sleight of hand here Robbie.[/b]
no the propensity for telling porkies would still be there, only you would not be inclined towards the nefarious practice.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie no the propensity for telling porkies would still be there, only you would not be inclined towards the nefarious practice.
but *me* is so inclined!!! 😵
Joe Bloggs is someone who wouldn't be inclined to lie.
You might as well say if I thought entirely like you, I'd still be *me* - only a better version of *me* 😕
Originally posted by robbie carrobie yes at present you is inclined, thats because sin is sweet! but sadly spiked with pain!
yes that's what i am saying, not better, only more spiritually elevated, i know that sounds condescending but its not meant to be.
What defines *me* is my characteristics that make me distinct from others - if a *me2* has different characteristics, then any attempts to identify *me* with *me2* isn't so far removed from identifying two identical twins as being the same person (shared amongst two bodies).
Originally posted by Agerg What defines *me* is my characteristics that make me distinct from others - if a *me2* has different characteristics, then any attempts to identify *me* with *me2* isn't so far removed from identifying two identical twins as being the same person (shared amongst two bodies).
yes but put you in a different environment and you will absorb certain elements from that environment, will you not? shaping your personality.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie yes but put you in a different environment and you will absorb certain elements from that environment, will you not? shaping your personality.
Different personality Robbie; my personality, in particular my basic traits, as they are now are defined by my environment, experience, and intellect. For example, I'm a working class sort of person that doesn't mingle well with toffs. If I'd been born into money with blissful abandon I'd be the sort of person *me* doesn't want to be.
You are in essence trying to identify one "super personality" X (as defined by your god) with a collection of different personalities and then arguing that if they were all amalgamated and refined so to as to be like X you still retain distinctness - it doesn't work that way.
If you respond here you'll have to wait for mine - am off out.
Originally posted by Agerg Different personality Robbie; my personality as it is now is defined by my environment, experience, and intellect. For example, I'm a working class sort of person that doesn't mingle well with toffs. If I'd been born into money with blissful abandon I'd be the sort of person *me* doesn't want to be.
its a rather interesting statement, i too am 'working class', my grandfather was a miner, his father before him a ploughman. Sometimes we can be guilty though of a kind of inverted snobbery, a prejudice if you like against those who are socially privileged. I agree, one would rather spend time among those to whom we feel an affinity but one must remember, that they are human as well, can only wear one pair of shoes at a time, sleep in one bed at a time and must wipe their own bums. I am fortunate in this regard that i have the example of the Christ, a working class person who was comfortable among the rich and wealthy as he was among the lowly lepers of the land. But i hear what you are saying, its not so much the privileged its the pretentiousness that goes with it.
So we agree then that environment shapes our personality regardless of whether we want it or not.
ill be back in a wee while Agers my son, gotta do some stuff!
Originally posted by robbie carrobie its a rather interesting statement, i too am 'working class', my grandfather was a miner, his father before him a ploughman. Sometimes we can be guilty though of a kind of inverted snobbery, a prejudice if you like against those who are socially privileged. I agree, one would rather spend time among those to whom we feel an affinity but one must re ...[text shortened]... we agree then that environment shapes our personality regardless of whether we want it or not.
Originally posted by generalissimo Im aware of this, but it doesn't in any way serve to conceal the outright bizarre tales told by the writer of Revelation. George Bernard Shaw once called it the "peculiar record of the visions of a drug addict" it is a description which ,knowing the contents of the Book, I can understand.
Bernard Shaw commenting on Revelation is like Dawkins commenting on the entire Bible. Although both are intellectually gifted in various ways, their areas of expertise are finite and wanting in terms of theology. It would be akin to me going to my doctor and asking him a legal question or vice versa. They would look at the wording and probably say, "Its all Greek to me".
So lets test your area of expertise. You say parts of Revelation are outright bizarre. Which ones then?
Originally posted by generalissimo Like I said, the prospects of life in paradise are appealing, but it isn't something I'd be willing to accept at this moment considering how much there is to do here in our world. Overcoming injustices in people's lives seems like a more worthwhile endeavor.
I wouldn't say that the strains of modern life necessarily prevent me from developing my min ...[text shortened]... ccurrences and routines that stimulates thinking about all sorts of philosophical questions.
Develop your mind all you want, but life is really about relaionships. It is about relationship with our God and fellow man. Otherwise worth would be based upon intellectual ability. Although some might agree with this I suspect you don't.....at least...I hope not.
As far as correcting injustices, is that really up to us or God? If it is up to us, then there will be no real justice will there? In addition, although you disdain Revelation, if it is accurate it would appear that mankind is in need of salvation for God to return before mankind destroys himself.
Don't get me wrong, I beileve God can use us to help right certain injustices, but I also recognize who is at the wheel. It ain't Whodey nor the general.
Originally posted by rwingett As they say, you can never go home again. Eden is lost to us. Civilization cannot be undone. What Jesus represented was an attempt to reconcile our fallen civilized state with our pristine pre-civilized past and arrive at a synthesis whereby we might once again live in harmony with the wholeness of nature and 'god' (in a pantheist sense). Where we might once again be whole ourselves. The way to go is forward, not back.
But I thought Christ talked about a life to come, did he not?
I agree that we cannot go back to the way things used to be, but then, who wants to? After all, if it was soooo great to begin with why did it lead here?
It still does not change the fact that we desire the paradise lost in Eden...minus the serpant. It seems to me that, on the one hand, you say we can't go back in full but, on the other hand, we can attain a closer Eden experience if we take certain steps. It would then appear you seek a modified Eden of sorts. Either way, you still seek a utopia of some sort as I think we all do.
Originally posted by whodey Bernard Shaw commenting on Revelation is like Dawkins commenting on the entire Bible. Although both are intellectually gifted in various ways, their areas of expertise are finite and wanting in terms of theology. It would be akin to me going to my doctor and asking him a legal question or vice versa. They would look at the wording and probably say, "Its al t your area of expertise. You say parts of Revelation are outright bizarre. Which ones then?
I don't think his conclusion was at all comparable to anything Dawkins would have said, I think it was quite honest. Personally I can understand how it could have been the visions of a drug addict.
I think everything goes downhill after the introduction, the imagery is captivating as it is full with the splendor of apocaliptic doom, but there are times when the plot gets too bizarre even for the most pious of believers, whole concept of Satan being cast into the bottomless pit only to re-emerge again later in the story is a baffling twist in the plot which doesn't seem to hold any apparent theological importance, there are many other strange happenings detailed in that Book which I could comment on, but really, need I say more?
Garden of Eden
22 Jan '11 18:07
Back to Top