Searching for GOD...

[Shaker]

Not really.... more like your ass really is saved.

From what? Big Barry in D wing or what?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Big Barry in D wing

Who he?

[Shaker]

Who he?

Used to be a priest until he had that spot of bother.

Now: about this saving business - saved from what?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Used to be a priest until he had that spot of bother.

Now: about this saving business - saved from what?

John 8.24    commentary          Our own sins and the consequence of sin.

[floo]

John 8.24    commentary          Our own sins and the consequence of sin.

It is god, who supposedly created human nature, who needs saving as it messed up big time!

[Shaker]

John 8.24    commentary          Our own sins and the consequence of sin.

Ah but that's a wholly imaginary thing to atheists, isn't it?

[torridon]

Ah but that's a wholly imaginary thing to atheists, isn't it?

FIFY

[Shaker]

FIFY

While I won't disagree, theists are likely simply to play the true-for-you-too card and say that everybody is a sinner whether they recognise or realise it or not.

Of course, proving it is another thing ...

[wigginhall]

It's that word 'our' again, which AB is fond of.   Why impute your own shit to me?

[ekim]

We will have heavenly bodies.

After the resurrection, there are some indications that the resurrected body of Jesus was different from His earthly body.  In John 20:17 Jesus tells Mary and her companion:
17 “Do not hold on to me,” Jesus told her, “because I have not yet gone back up to the Father.
Indicating that His resurrected body was not yet ready for embracing.
And there are several passages where the resurrected Jesus is not at first recognised by the disciples.

I think you are stretching the quote from John ... Jesus is saying to her, "Do not touch me, for I have not yet stepped towards  My Father." .... a bit far.  Also it doesn't seem to fit too well with the saying of Jesus in Luke 17:21 "The Kingdom of God (Heaven) is inside of you".  What sort of body do you think those who are destined for Hell will have, bearing in mind that the sense of thermoception will not be functioning?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Ah but that's a wholly imaginary thing to atheists, isn't it?

basically it's a warning about if one wants to stew in ones own keech, one will get one's wish.
Basically any wrong doing toward anything and anybody has an affect on the person doing the wrong doing. Unless one's life is a veritable perfume factory of a life. I see no evidence that that is true.
Some may make God in their own image...but others make 'right' in their own image.

I'm afraid a lot of us here grew up believing in 'consequence free environments' I think something like brexit is about to deal a lesson in how wrong that is.

[Dicky Underpants]

basically it's a warning about if one wants to stew in ones own keech, one will get one's wish.
Basically any wrong doing toward anything and anybody has an affect on the person doing the wrong doing.

Unless it's lying for Jesus, perhaps. Too many Christians thinking that Jesus is a patent remedy for guilty consciences.

Although probably inauthentic, maybe the words of Jesus to the woman taken in adultery express something of his essential message "Go and sin no more". Not "Don't worry, you'll keep on sinning, but you can put it all on me".

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Although probably inauthentic, maybe the words of Jesus to the woman taken in adultery express something of his essential message "Go and sin no more". Not "Don't worry, you'll keep on sinning, but you can put it all on me".

I've never heard your singular thesis before. Are you suggesting Jesus had a similar view to Tertullian?

[wigginhall]

basically it's a warning about if one wants to stew in ones own keech, one will get one's wish.
Basically any wrong doing toward anything and anybody has an affect on the person doing the wrong doing. Unless one's life is a veritable perfume factory of a life. I see no evidence that that is true.
Some may make God in their own image...but others make 'right' in their own image.

I'm afraid a lot of us here grew up believing in 'consequence free environments' I think something like brexit is about to deal a lesson in how wrong that is.

Well, that sounds like karma to me. 

[Alan Burns]

True to some extent and of course the same is true of humans, external behaviours and communication are an indicator of internal mind state but we cannot ever get inside the mind of another creature or another person. Humans are capable of more nuanced communication, but of course, with greater cognitive resources we have also a greater capacity for intentional deceit than most other creatures.

I note you use the phrase "intentional deceit".
From your previous posts concerning the need for physical compliance with cause and effect scenarios, where does this "intention" come from.  If our brains are entirely driven by the deterministic action of physical chains of cause and effect, where and how does this "intention" originate?

[Gordon]

I note you use the phrase "intentional deceit".
From your previous posts concerning the need for physical compliance with cause and effect scenarios, where does this "intention" come from.  If our brains are entirely driven by the deterministic action of physical chains of cause and effect, where and how does this "intention" originate?

Would you not say, Alan, that an intention (as in 'I'm going to make some coffee') is an example of thinking: something our brains do routinely (when awake).

[Shaker]

Would you not say, Alan, that an intention (as in 'I'm going to make some coffee') is an example of thinking: something our brains do routinely (when awake).

... if you're lucky ...

[Alan Burns]

Would you not say, Alan, that an intention (as in 'I'm going to make some coffee') is an example of thinking: something our brains do routinely (when awake).

But Torridon uses the phrase "intentional deceit", which one hopes would not be done routinely but by a deliberate act of conscious free will.  So if, as Torri claims, humans are more prone to acts of intentional deceit, is this not evidence for something which can wilfully interact with the "routine" deterministic chains of physical cause and effect?  Something from outside the physical cause and effect chain?

[Gordon]

But Torridon uses the phrase "intentional deceit", which one hopes would not be done routinely but by a deliberate act of conscious free will.  So if, as Torri claims, humans are more prone to acts of intentional deceit, is this not evidence for something which can wilfully interact with the "routine" deterministic chains of physical cause and effect?  Something from outside the physical cause and effect chain?

Nope: this just seems like more thinking (I've been given £3 too much in change by the checkout operator and I think I'll keep it).

[Maeght]

But Torridon uses the phrase "intentional deceit", which one hopes would not be done routinely but by a deliberate act of conscious free will.  So if, as Torri claims, humans are more prone to acts of intentional deceit, is this not evidence for something which can wilfully interact with the "routine" deterministic chains of physical cause and effect?  Something from outside the physical cause and effect chain?

No.

[Alan Burns]

Nope: this just seems like more thinking (I've been given £3 too much in change by the checkout operator and I think I'll keep it).

But what directs your conscious thought processes?

[Maeght]

But what directs your conscious thought processes?

What directs your soul Alan?

[torridon]

I note you use the phrase "intentional deceit".
From your previous posts concerning the need for physical compliance with cause and effect scenarios, where does this "intention" come from.  If our brains are entirely driven by the deterministic action of physical chains of cause and effect, where and how does this "intention" originate?

Intentions form as a means to satisfy prior need. I intend to go for a slap up meal down at my high street kebab van tonight, why, because I am hungry.  The need is pre-existing, so this scenario is consistent with cause and effect.  Intentions don't arise out of thin air, they arise as a plan to satisfy a need. When a domestic cat crouches motionless in the long grass intently watching the blackbird, it is not random, it is because it has formed an intention, a plan, to take the hapless bird with a surprise attack when the moment is right.

[SusanDoris]

But what directs your conscious thought processes?

Survival. As it is a trait that humans possess and which has survived the natural selection, evolutionary process, it was probably a survival trait. Fortunately, the altruistic trait far outweighs the lying one.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But what directs your conscious thought processes?

That's the fallacy of begging the question, a type of circular reasoning. You just included the conclusion to be proven (that there must be something to do the "directing") within the premise of the question.

You've had explained to you many times that needs and wants emerge from the subconscious (you don't decide to be hungry for example), that your little man at the controls "soul" is both redundant and logically incoherent, and that your personal incredulity and your sincerity about that conjecture has no epistemic value at all.

Why then do you keep repeating the same mistakes?