What Is God Made From?

[Enki]

From Alan's  post 170:

The real freedom we have is to choose between what is right and what is wrong.  Even though we are given a conscience to know the difference, we still have the capability to choose to do something which we know to be wrong, and our conscience can make us feel guilty for doing it.  And when we choose to do something which we know to be right, we can get a feeling of elation.

Alan,
Am I to assume then that if a person acts according to their conscience(as you put it) then they are making a 'right' decision?

I ask because it should be obvious to you that many people can have conflicting ideas and hence make conflicting decisions on moral subjects.

For instance, I strongly support the 'Right to Die' movement. I have no guilt feelings attached to my position on this at all. Others strongly disagree with the 'Right to Die' movement. Presumably they feel their position is right, too.

So, whose conscience decides what is right and what is wrong?

[Alan Burns]

From Alan's  post 170:

The real freedom we have is to choose between what is right and what is wrong.  Even though we are given a conscience to know the difference, we still have the capability to choose to do something which we know to be wrong, and our conscience can make us feel guilty for doing it.  And when we choose to do something which we know to be right, we can get a feeling of elation.

Alan,
Am I to assume then that if a person acts according to their conscience(as you put it) then they are making a 'right' decision?

I ask because it should be obvious to you that many people can have conflicting ideas and hence make conflicting decisions on moral subjects.

For instance, I strongly support the 'Right to Die' movement. I have no guilt feelings attached to my position on this at all. Others strongly disagree with the 'Right to Die' movement. Presumably they feel their position is right, too.

So, whose conscience decides what is right and what is wrong?

All will come clear when you accept God's "Amazing Grace"

[Nearly Sane]

From Alan's  post 170:

The real freedom we have is to choose between what is right and what is wrong.  Even though we are given a conscience to know the difference, we still have the capability to choose to do something which we know to be wrong, and our conscience can make us feel guilty for doing it.  And when we choose to do something which we know to be right, we can get a feeling of elation.

Alan,
Am I to assume then that if a person acts according to their conscience(as you put it) then they are making a 'right' decision?

I ask because it should be obvious to you that many people can have conflicting ideas and hence make conflicting decisions on moral subjects.

For instance, I strongly support the 'Right to Die' movement. I have no guilt feelings attached to my position on this at all. Others strongly disagree with the 'Right to Die' movement. Presumably they feel their position is right, too.

So, whose conscience decides what is right and what is wrong?

All will come clear when you accept God's "Amazing Grace"

Can I get another fortune cookie, this one was a bit shite?

[floo]

From Alan's  post 170:

The real freedom we have is to choose between what is right and what is wrong.  Even though we are given a conscience to know the difference, we still have the capability to choose to do something which we know to be wrong, and our conscience can make us feel guilty for doing it.  And when we choose to do something which we know to be right, we can get a feeling of elation.

Alan,
Am I to assume then that if a person acts according to their conscience(as you put it) then they are making a 'right' decision?

I ask because it should be obvious to you that many people can have conflicting ideas and hence make conflicting decisions on moral subjects.

For instance, I strongly support the 'Right to Die' movement. I have no guilt feelings attached to my position on this at all. Others strongly disagree with the 'Right to Die' movement. Presumably they feel their position is right, too.

So, whose conscience decides what is right and what is wrong?

All will come clear when you accept God's "Amazing Grace"

Cloud cuckoo land!

[Jack Knave]

I have always liked blue.

Bright blues like sky or deep blues?

[Enki]

From Alan's  post 170:

The real freedom we have is to choose between what is right and what is wrong.  Even though we are given a conscience to know the difference, we still have the capability to choose to do something which we know to be wrong, and our conscience can make us feel guilty for doing it.  And when we choose to do something which we know to be right, we can get a feeling of elation.

Alan,
Am I to assume then that if a person acts according to their conscience(as you put it) then they are making a 'right' decision?

I ask because it should be obvious to you that many people can have conflicting ideas and hence make conflicting decisions on moral subjects.

For instance, I strongly support the 'Right to Die' movement. I have no guilt feelings attached to my position on this at all. Others strongly disagree with the 'Right to Die' movement. Presumably they feel their position is right, too.

So, whose conscience decides what is right and what is wrong?

All will come clear when you accept God's "Amazing Grace"

A particularly ineffective response, Alan. To me it simply illustrates your lack of ability to deal with the question.  A bit of a cop out, I suggest.

[Jack Knave]

As a Jungian I understand that what gives us meaning are our emotional triggers that come from the Unconscious's archetypes and the like

I do not believe that any human being is capable of fully explaining the mystery of their own existence.  If you get ten philosophers to explain their existence, you will get ten different philosophies, because they are all prone to human error.  The true meaning behind our existence can only be discovered in the revelations given to us by our Creator.

Jung wasn't a philosopher.

[torridon]

As a Jungian I understand that what gives us meaning are our emotional triggers that come from the Unconscious's archetypes and the like

I do not believe that any human being is capable of fully explaining the mystery of their own existence.  If you get ten philosophers to explain their existence, you will get ten different philosophies, because they are all prone to human error.  The true meaning behind our existence can only be discovered in the revelations given to us by our Creator.

It's far simpler, and to my mind vastly more likely to be the case, that human existence has no ultimate and over-arching meaning imposed from outside - why would it? There's nothing outside to do any imposing - and therefore it only makes sense to talk of meanings on the individual level which people create for themselves, if they have enough nous.

This seems to bother some people, for some reason. Perhaps because, as Sartre put it, it entails great responsibility and great effort, whereas some people would sooner have their meanings off-the-peg and ready-made, and you can't get an easier, lazier meaning of existence than the ones religions purport to provide. Pretty much all of the work is already done for you; you just have to turn off your critical faculties and bamboozle yourself into believing it's all true.

< thumbs up>

[Shaker]

Thank you, mon sewer

[torridon]

As a Jungian I understand that what gives us meaning are our emotional triggers that come from the Unconscious's archetypes and the like

I do not believe that any human being is capable of fully explaining the mystery of their own existence.  If you get ten philosophers to explain their existence, you will get ten different philosophies, because they are all prone to human error.  The true meaning behind our existence can only be discovered in the revelations given to us by our Creator.

Theologians are not immune to being human either.  Sunnis argue with Shias, Protesants disagree with Catholics, the CofE splits down the middle on issues around women bishops and gay clergy.  If divine revelation was clear and consistent you might have a point, but ....

[torridon]

The real freedom we have is to choose between what is right and what is wrong.  Even though we are given a conscience to know the difference, we still have the capability to choose to do something which we know to be wrong, and our conscience can make us feel guilty for doing it.

 
This says nothing to validate the idea that the mechanism of choice are free; moral decisions are just another sort of choice we make, but we make all choices including moral ones using the same fundamental neurobiology. That is what a brain is, a flesh and blood decision making machine.

And when we choose to do something which we know to be right, we can get a feeling of elation.

Yes, the endorphin reward helps keeps us in our moral bounds.

[Alan Burns]

Theologians are not immune to being human either.  Sunnis argue with Shias, Protesants disagree with Catholics, the CofE splits down the middle on issues around women bishops and gay clergy.  If divine revelation was clear and consistent you might have a point, but ....

We are all prone to the Devil's temptation to mis interpret God's word to suit our own self centred desires.

[Alan Burns]

From Alan's  post 170:

The real freedom we have is to choose between what is right and what is wrong.  Even though we are given a conscience to know the difference, we still have the capability to choose to do something which we know to be wrong, and our conscience can make us feel guilty for doing it.  And when we choose to do something which we know to be right, we can get a feeling of elation.

Alan,
Am I to assume then that if a person acts according to their conscience(as you put it) then they are making a 'right' decision?

I ask because it should be obvious to you that many people can have conflicting ideas and hence make conflicting decisions on moral subjects.

For instance, I strongly support the 'Right to Die' movement. I have no guilt feelings attached to my position on this at all. Others strongly disagree with the 'Right to Die' movement. Presumably they feel their position is right, too.

So, whose conscience decides what is right and what is wrong?

All will come clear when you accept God's "Amazing Grace"

A particularly ineffective response, Alan. To me it simply illustrates your lack of ability to deal with the question.  A bit of a cop out, I suggest.

We are all prone to using our human "logic" to override what our deep conscience knows is  right or wrong.  I would assume that Hitler somehow managed to justify his actions with the disturbing logic of promoting a superior race.  When we accept God's amazing grace, the Devil's scales of deception will fall away.

[torridon]

You are correct in saying neural networks can input information, process it, then produce results.  But no matter how complex the processing capability is, it is still just a collection of atomic particles reacting to the laws of nature.  In physical terms it is not a single entity.  The perception of what is being processed is not done from within.  To perceive the image of a painting, you need an outside observer.  You do not perceive the image from individual pixels.  Perception of the collective activity of many brain cells can't be done by the brain cells themselves.  It is perceived by something outside the brain.  It is perceived by our spiritual soul, which can also intervene to produce conscious acts of free will.

I think it is wrong to imagine a perceiver as a separate something; that is just a spurious complication, and an enormous one.  A truer to life understanding, imo, is that the sense of self, our sense of personhood, is something that emerges from the complex interactions of lower levels. A 'spiritual soul' is just a piece of make-believe, one that nicely fits perhaps, but in the end explains nothing and subverts our appetite for real enquiry..

[Alan Burns]

You are correct in saying neural networks can input information, process it, then produce results.  But no matter how complex the processing capability is, it is still just a collection of atomic particles reacting to the laws of nature.  In physical terms it is not a single entity.  The perception of what is being processed is not done from within.  To perceive the image of a painting, you need an outside observer.  You do not perceive the image from individual pixels.  Perception of the collective activity of many brain cells can't be done by the brain cells themselves.  It is perceived by something outside the brain.  It is perceived by our spiritual soul, which can also intervene to produce conscious acts of free will.

I think it is wrong to imagine a perceiver as a separate something; that is just a spurious complication, and an enormous one.  A truer to life understanding, imo, is that the sense of self, our sense of personhood, is something that emerges from the complex interactions of lower levels. A 'spiritual soul' is just a piece of make-believe, one that nicely fits perhaps, but in the end explains nothing and subverts our appetite for real enquiry..

The great sadness is that you do not realise just what a wonderful gift you have been given.  You are so much more than a complex collection of matter driven by the soulless determinism of natural events.  God has put you in control of an amazing machine through which you have the power to change the world.  I hope and pray that one day you will come to realise the simple truth that God loves you, and He has given you control of your own destiny.

[torridon]

You are correct in saying neural networks can input information, process it, then produce results.  But no matter how complex the processing capability is, it is still just a collection of atomic particles reacting to the laws of nature.  In physical terms it is not a single entity.  The perception of what is being processed is not done from within.  To perceive the image of a painting, you need an outside observer.  You do not perceive the image from individual pixels.  Perception of the collective activity of many brain cells can't be done by the brain cells themselves.  It is perceived by something outside the brain.  It is perceived by our spiritual soul, which can also intervene to produce conscious acts of free will.

I think it is wrong to imagine a perceiver as a separate something; that is just a spurious complication, and an enormous one.  A truer to life understanding, imo, is that the sense of self, our sense of personhood, is something that emerges from the complex interactions of lower levels. A 'spiritual soul' is just a piece of make-believe, one that nicely fits perhaps, but in the end explains nothing and subverts our appetite for real enquiry..

The great sadness is that you do not realise just what a wonderful gift you have been given.  You are so much more than a complex collection of matter driven by the soulless determinism of natural events.  God has put you in control of an amazing machine through which you have the power to change the world.  I hope and pray that one day you will come to realise the simple truth that God loves you, and He has given you control of your own destiny.

Ah, but you never have any justification for your position Alan, all you give is assertions of your beliefs.  I think you have been wrong footed by a set of appealing beliefs.  To convince me, it needs something stronger than appeal, it needs compelling evidence.

[Shaker]

Ah, but you never have any justification for your position Alan, all you give is assertions of your beliefs.  I think you have been wrong footed by a set of appealing beliefs.  To convince me, it needs something stronger than appeal, it needs compelling evidence.

Bravo

[Alan Burns]

We are all prone to using our human "logic" to override what our deep conscience knows is  right or wrong.  I would assume that Hitler somehow managed to justify his actions with the disturbing logic of promoting a superior race.  When we accept God's amazing grace, the Devil's scales of deception will fall away.

Unfortunately it doesn't.

As history and the violent actions of Christians show.

They just use their own " disturbing logic" to justify it.

The words "Amazing grace" come from John Newton's words to the hymn he composed when his scales of deception fell away, making him realise that slave trafficing was evil.  His epiphany was brought about with the help of a group of Christians led by John Wilberforce.

[Shaker]

This would be at the same time as some other Christians were supporting, defending and justifying slavery, yes?

[Alan Burns]

The great sadness is that you do not realise just what a wonderful gift you have been given.  You are so much more than a complex collection of matter driven by the soulless determinism of natural events.  God has put you in control of an amazing machine through which you have the power to change the world.  I hope and pray that one day you will come to realise the simple truth that God loves you, and He has given you control of your own destiny.

Ah, but you never have any justification for your position Alan, all you give is assertions of your beliefs.  I think you have been wrong footed by a set of appealing beliefs.  To convince me, it needs something stronger than appeal, it needs compelling evidence.

If you could just allow yourself to invite God into your life, you would have all the evidence you need.  Once you discover God's love, there is no going back.

[Shaker]

If you could just allow yourself to invite God into your life, you would have all the evidence you need.  Once you discover God's love, there is no going back.

You obviously didn't read - or understand - torridon's post. He said he wants evidence, not the unevidenced assumption of the existence of the very thing he's seeking evidence for in the first place.

[Alan Burns]

This would be at the same time as some other Christians were supporting, defending and justifying slavery, yes?

No, they were using their own distorted logic to override the true Christian message - Jesus commanded us to love one another.

[Shaker]

So are you stating as a matter of fact that these Christians didn't support, defend and justify slavery, Alan?

[Alan Burns]

If you could just allow yourself to invite God into your life, you would have all the evidence you need.  Once you discover God's love, there is no going back.

You obviously didn't read - or understand - torridon's post. He said he wants evidence, not the unevidenced assumption of the existence of the very thing he's seeking evidence for in the first place.

The evidence of God's love is truly overwhelming.   The sadness is that so many are blind to it.

[Alan Burns]

So are you stating as a matter of fact that these Christians didn't support, defend and justify slavery, Alan?

I simply pointed out that it was a group of devout Christians who helped to bring an end to slavery, by following the command of Jesus that we should love one another.

The "Christians" who supported slavery were not following the words of Jesus.