Theism's Perversion of Basic Terms

Originally posted by KellyJay
however, if mankind is accountable for His/hers actions than
justice seems to scream for God's interaction.

Except that man cannot be held accountable for something he has no control over. You just claimed in your previous post that we are incapable of the perfection required by God. How can we then be held accountable for not achieving perfection?
That is not 'justice' in my dictionary.

Originally posted by KellyJay
God being the standard sets the bar very high.

The bar is high in relation to what? To another standard?

Originally posted by Nicksten
From my point of view I really don't know what you are really asking but let me try.

I am not in the mood to type something long, will keep it short.

Evil once did not exist.
It was the lack of love which divided the devil from God.
I say evil created itself.
Love is a feeling that you feel that you can not explain feeling. Love is indescribable. ...[text shortened]... ous different things but from a Christian point of view it could also include: free of sin.

"Love is a feeling that you feel that you can not explain feeling. Love is indescribable. "



not true. love like any other human emotion can be explained with science. it has also been described a multitude of times, especially in terrible songs.

Originally posted by twhitehead
We are punished for our very nature and our behaviour that we are incapable of changing. We are punished because we do not maintain a standard of perfection that we are incapable of attaining.

In a nutshell this is why God sent His Son to be sacrificed for our sins and allow Man to attain that change and that perfection.

You're this close to finally understanding what Christianity has to offer. Just make the final leap of faith.

It's not so hard to wrap your head around it after all.

Originally posted by Taoman
Fine post. Respectful but strongly logical and challenging assumptions of some popular erroneous theistic stances.

Respectful?

The man used the term Perversion. How respectful is that?

Originally posted by Suzianne
In a nutshell this is why God sent His Son to be sacrificed for our sins and allow Man to attain that change and that perfection.

Bizarro justice if ever there was one.

You're this close to finally understanding what Christianity has to offer.
Its clear you understand 'what it has to offer' but haven't got a clue how it all works. It makes no sense. How can one hope to rely on an offer when the justification given for both the requirement of the offer and the method of making the offer is so nonsensical?

Just make the final leap of faith.
In other words understanding is actually irrelevant. I must believe without understanding. So lets add 'understanding' to the list of bizzaro words.

It's not so hard to wrap your head around it after all.
If it wasn't hard you would be able to explain it in a straightforward sensible manner without first asking me to 'take a leap of faith'. Understanding should not require a leap of faith either when understanding or explaining to others.
That no theist has ever been able to explain the core concepts to me in an intelligible way is quite telling.

Originally posted by Suzianne
In a nutshell this is why God sent His Son to be sacrificed for our sins and allow Man to attain that change and that perfection.

i don't see the connection between murdering a god's son and for humans to achieve change and perfection.

humans have to abandon such strange beliefs and faith in the absurd to come closer to achieving change and perfection.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
"Love is a feeling that you feel that you can not explain feeling. Love is indescribable. "



not true. love like any other human emotion can be explained with science. it has also been described a multitude of times, especially in terrible songs.

I'd beg to differ, love isn't something science can touch and if you like what
science has to say about it, I don't think we are talking about the samething
in or out of song as well.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'd beg to differ, love isn't something science can touch and if you like what
science has to say about it, I don't think we are talking about the samething
in or out of song as well.
Kelly

Well if it cannot be described then how could we possibly know whether or not we are talking about the same thing? If it can be described, then it can be studied by science.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'd beg to differ, love isn't something science can touch and if you like what
science has to say about it, I don't think we are talking about the samething
in or out of song as well.
Kelly

every time you have a loving feeling or thought there are a series of physiological happenings within the body.

these physiological happenings differ depending on the type of 'love' you are feeling.

science can monitor and measure these physiological happenings and describe them.


which of the above statements would you disagree with?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
every time you have a loving feeling or thought there are a series of physiological happenings within the body.

these physiological happenings differ depending on the type of 'love' you are feeling.

science can monitor and measure these physiological happenings and describe them.


which of the above statements would you disagree with?

Your first two statements are tautologies, once you accept that thinking is a brain activity and in humans, possibly some other animals, we are conscious of our thoughts.

You make too optimistic a claim when you say that science can monitor and measure these brain activities at a level that would provide an accurate map of the thought process, though the principle I suppose can be accepted and things are moving quite rapidly here. Strictly of course, this is more a matter of technology than science, if the distinction matters to you.

Where you are in danger of over reaching yourself is in the assumption that such physiological mapping of the thought process (incorporating the emotional systems of course, which is not particularly different or more difficult) would result in an explanation of love.

By analogy, I went out with my wife in our car today. The pistons went up and down, driving the wheels round and round, The pistons sent up and down, driving the wheels round and round, The pistons sent up and down, driving the wheels round and round, The pistons sent up and down, driving the wheels round and round, The pistons sent up and down, driving the wheels round and round, The pistons sent up and down, driving the wheels round and round, The pistons sent up and down, driving the wheels round and round, The pistons sent up and down, driving the wheels round and round, The pistons sent up and down, driving the wheels round and round.

Now what do you think of our trip?

Undoubtedly there is a scientific way to describe and discuss love that is meaningful and helpful. An important element of this would be to understand how emotions work, which can include understanding the biology of the brain. However, no scientic account would be adequate if it relied exclusively on the physiological data. Arguably it is not even scientific to attempt that, since it is a category error in its use of the wrong type of explanation for the nature of the problem. I see no reason to think it would be more informative than, for example, the novels or the poetry of Thomas Hardy, which are very informative indeed.

One correct scientific approach to religion (not love) was modelled by William James in his Varieties of Religious Experience. Instead of demanding logical explanations of religous belief systems, he actually investigated religious experiences and reported his findings. A very different approach would be to look into the history of religion and religious ideas. All very interesting stuff. Better than banging around your fallacies with opponents who bang around their fallacies. It might even lead to an interesting debate.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Bizarro justice if ever there was one.

[b]You're this close to finally understanding what Christianity has to offer.
Its clear you understand 'what it has to offer' but haven't got a clue how it all works. It makes no sense. How can one hope to rely on an offer when the justification given for both the requirement of the offer and the meth ...[text shortened]... been able to explain the core concepts to me in an intelligible way is quite telling.[/b]

It's all about Faith. Faith is required. Faith is the first ingredient. Without Faith there is minimal understanding.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
i don't see the connection between murdering a god's son and for humans to achieve change and perfection.

humans have to abandon such strange beliefs and faith in the absurd to come closer to achieving change and perfection.

Of course you don't. You have no Faith.

Originally posted by twhitehead
That no theist has ever been able to explain the core concepts to me in an intelligible way is quite telling.

In *your* language. In your language, in your understanding, you have no concept of Faith. It's just a word to you, with no real meaning. That is why it is unintelligible.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Of course you don't. You have no Faith.

you're right. i don't have faith that a bloodthirsty action is necessary to make a better man.