Sidewalker

linate wrote:

Also my view on non Christians being condemned is the same as the catholic church.

That’s not what the Bible teaches.

Jesus said the most important commandment was to love God, and to “love thy neighbor as you love yourself” (Leviticus 19:18, Matthew 22:39, Mark 12:31, Luke.10:27, James 2:8 to name a few). I don’t see how you can love your neighbor as you love yourself without recognizing that his faith is to him, what your faith is to you.

Jesus said “in his father’s house there are many mansions” (John 14:2), and “the kingdom of God is within” (Luke 17:21).

The Bible tells us that “every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that” (1 Corinthians 7:7) and that “the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit from. (1 Corinthians 12:7).

In 1 Corinthians 12:12–27, the Bible uses the metaphor of a body with diverse parts working harmoniously together to express divine unity, unity is not about sameness, perhaps if we can stop confusing unity with sameness, and find the divine unity in diversity, then we will make the world a better place

Knowingly rejecting jesus is the basis for condemnation.

And yet, the Bible says that “whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him” (Matthew 12:32).

I can make a strong argument that the “unforgivable sin” is engaging in denominational strife and religious one-upmanship, that is in fact what Jesus referred to as “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit”, and I can’t imagine Jesus being anything but openly shamed by such a divided house. (I will start another thread regarding my interpretation of “unforgivable sin”)

And, its not so much that they cant advance in the afterlife, its that they aren't proactively saved by the covenant of jesus with the father

The Bible gives us an image of God’s kingdom that embraces diversity of religion, showing people from “every nation, tribe, people and language” worshiping together (Revelation 7:9).

The Bible tells us we should not judge others (Matthew 7:1) and that “the word of God is not bound” (2 Timothy 2:9), so how can you justify limit and confining the word of God?

Finally, the Bible is very explicit that you do not know what you are talking about. It says that at best it is as “seen through a glass, darkly” (1 Corinthians 13:12), that we only “know in part” (1 Corinthians 13:9-10) and that “if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.” (1 Corinthians 8:1-2}

The Bible quotes God directly in saying “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.” (Isaiah 55:8-9).

Given that the Bible tells you that you “do not know as you ought to know”, don’t you think it’s unpardonably arrogant to point at two billion Muslims and try to tell God that with that particular one-quarter of the global population, he’s doing it wrong?

Broken by a HUGE margin too.

Anthony Scaramucci's record was eleven days, that was a tremendous achievement, but Katie Zacharia has demolished the record by a full 6 days, she is out after only 5 days.

Trump thought blonde, beautiful, the ability to lie, and able to suck a hard-boiled egg through a garden hose meant she had all of the necessary qualifications. Guess not.

I'm sure he will find another "position" for her that utilizes all her qualifications.

Guy who's never been on a date is an expert on dating.

If you have any questions about cricket, just ask, I've never played cricket, so I'm an expert.

Debby wrote:

I thought the Krishna movement was dead. Someone must have reincarnated it.

That's what I thought too, but Fauxlaw said he found Krishna and was "woke" now.

linate wrote:

No salvation outside the catholic church

No salvation of unbaptized people and infants

No usury

Death penalty is inherently moral

Slavery is permissible. Notably newborns automatically become slaves if the mother was a slave

I know this ain't much of a catholic hangout but I thought id toss this out there

What is your denomination, and what are their beliefs on these issues?

How about salvation, are Catholics saved?

How about outside Christianity, is salvation exclusive to Christians?

Two debates, 14 total comments, and he's quit twice.

That says expert to me.

FLRW wrote:

I'm guessing that Debby is the most attractive women on this site. And guess who is the most attractive male?

Wink,wink.

I'm pretty sure the only other woman on the site is Shoresy.

RemyBrown wrote:

Hopefully SkyWalker and I can come to a rare moment of agreement here.

Awww, isn't that sweet, Pumpkin is obsessed with me.

Sorry Pumpkin, I thought you knew, but I'm married...that plus I'd rather have alone time with a grizzly bear.

There are only five other countries that have public executions, Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea, Somalia & Saudi Arabia.

Americans should be proud to be joining such an elite group.

SergeantLynch wrote:

And I'm guessing that Hegseth will get a hard on, whilst Donald will only achieve a semi.

Not so sure about The Donald, I understand he has boner spurs, and when he takes Viagra he just gets taller.

Debby wrote:

Pentagon is going to hold a public firing squad execution.

Really? I was wondering why I typed that in the OP, I guess that explains it, thanks.

Apparently, he changed cults, I was at the airport and I saw him in a robe with a shaved head, he gave me a flower and said, "Krishna loves you".

The MAGA cult shrinks more and more every day.

If your country opens a Department of War and closes the Department of Education, then you are going to live in a shithole country.

FLRW wrote:

No, I will not watch it. What would Jesus do?

Jesus attended an execution.

RemyBrown wrote:

if SkyWalker comments, then I'll probably ignore him.

I'm living rent free in Pumpkin's head, and he calls that ignoring me LOL.

Where we can watch a firing squad execution, but we can't watch Stephen Colbert.

Will you watch the execution? Why or why not?

Misterio wrote:

The polls for the next mid-term elections doesn't favor Trump, so the Democrats taking over the Congress is inminent, apparently.

Nevertheless, Trump seems to be evaluating to take over Cuba before elections so that he can win with the latino vote.

Do you think this is viable? Everything is possible.

A mistake both parties have always made is to think Latinos vote as a block, and they never do, there is a great deal of diversity among Latino voters,

Taking over Cuba would probably cost as many Latino votes as it gains, it certainly would not allow him to "win the Latino vote".

As I committed, here is roughly half of my promised argument that consciousness is not produced by the brain.

There are plenty of scientific studies that provide evidence that mental activity in human beings incorporates a lot of function that is completely external to the brain, the consensus opinion in the scientific community is that any serious consideration of the basis of mind must include the nervous system, the heart, and the sense organs in that analysis.

Throughout history shamans, saints, and sages Poets, artists, medicine men and women, and everyday language have referenced a connection of the heart with "knowing" and "awareness". Almost all Native American cultures have believed that whole people think with their hearts and traditionally advise us to “follow a path with a heart”. Today, these metaphors have become a scientific reality, with scientific evidence clearly demonstrating what we have always known “in our hearts” so to speak. The heart is now known by science to play a major role in our overall consciousness. Neural transmitters have been found connecting the heart and brain and the associated electrical and chemical impulses have been mapped and sequenced.

Studies have shown that the heart has its own complex intrinsic nervous system that is sufficiently sophisticated to qualify as a "little brain" that operates and processes information independently of the brain or nervous system. The heart's nervous system contains around 40,000 neurons with an elaborate circuitry that enables it to act independently of the cranial brain – to learn, remember, and even feel and sense. It is reasonable to conclude that the heart is not just an organ of consciousness but has some degree of autonomy as far as awareness/consciousness is concerned.

Neurocardiologists have found that 60 to 65% of the cells of the heart are actually neural cells, not muscle cells as was previously believed. They are identical to the neural cells in the brain, operating through the same connecting links called ganglia, with the same axonal and dendritic connections that take place in the brain, as well as through the very same kinds of neurotransmitters found in the brain. Quite literally, in other words, there is a "brain" in the heart, whose ganglia are linked to every major organ in the body, to the entire muscle spindle system that uniquely enables humans to express their emotions.

The heart is also a very powerful electromagnetic generator. It creates an electromagnetic field that encompasses the body and extends out anywhere from eight to twelve feet away from it. It is so powerful that you can take an electrocardiogram reading from as far as three feet away from the body. The intriguing thing is how profoundly this electromagnetic field effects the brain. All indications are that it furnishes the whole electromagnetic wave spectrum from which the brain draws its material to create our internal experience of the world. The role this electromagnetic field plays makes it clear that consciousness extends beyond the brain, and even beyond the body, to an immaterial field surrounding the body.

A final consideration regarding the heart is exemplified by people who have gotten heart transplants who quite often exhibit new behaviors of the late donor without any previous knowledge of such behavior. It appears the heart has its own memory,, and the associated learned behavior moves with the transplanted heart.

Finally, there is good reason to posit some attenuated degree of consciousness at the cellular level. Science speaks of "body intelligence" to address a resoundingly broad range of phenomena that intellect or mere "brain" study cannot address. Remember those weird kids that ate chalk in grade school? They are invariably found to be calcium deficient and yet intellectually they do not even know what calcium is, that they are calcium deficient, or that chalk actually contains calcium. There is a body intelligence that transcends brain that develops a "taste" for chalk. That is a rather simple example that can easily be challenged but it is one of many thousands that cannot be explained without recognizing that the intelligence of the body far transcends the physical brain.

In summary, the idea that consciousness is a product of the brain is not supported by scientific studies, the scientific consensus is that much more than the organ of the brain is implicated in consciousness. The logical conclusion is that consciousness is not a product of brain, instead, it appears to be distributed throughout the whole organism.

I will work on the second portion of my argument that consciousness is not produced by the brain next, there are valuable perspective issues that result from studying the evolution of consciousness over time. The evolutionary record demonstrates a continual rise in degrees of sentience that culminated in brains and conscious human beings, but it does not support the presumption of a cause and effect between brain and consciousness.

SkepticalOne wrote:

I realize I still owe you that explanation of “evidence” that consciousness is not produced by brain, I will try to get focused and start to work on that tonight.

I can never find the time, I'm going to end up giving it in an abbreviated form, or in pieces in this thread. I retired a little over a year ago and I wondered what I would do with myself, but now I can't figure out how I found the time to go to work.

Yes, I think that would be the most helpful. From the dualist perspective, what is the mind made of? Where does it reside? How does it work with the material brain?

You want the dualist perspective to be explained within your materialist framework; dualism philosophy does not fit into materialism philosophy. It’s something of a non-sequitur response to require something nonmaterial to possess material qualities, as if you don’t understand what the term nonmaterial means. You want to know what sort of material the nonmaterial is made of, what is its location in space, and what are the mechanics by which it works with the material brain. With those questions you are asking for the nonmaterial to be defined as material.

I think it is also important to point out the objections you attempt to turn back on monism dont hit quite like you want. Monism doesn't define mind as something independent of material. There is no immaterial substance. Anything 'immaterial' is contigent on material.

These are declarations of faith, rather than arguments. Would you find “There is immaterial substance” and “Anything immaterial is not contingent on material” as a logical counterargument?

So an 'immaterial' mind is emergent from material. It's not hard to understand how something that is an extension of material can affect material. It is unclear how something completely untethered to material made up of not-material can interact with it though. I hope you will tackle this interaction problem head-on.

Will you tackle the emergence problem head on? It is unclear how something completely material can produce a nonmaterial entity. Can you explain how material brain properties can produce nonmaterial phenomenal properties? To simply say it “emerges” is a declaration of faith, it isn’t explanatory. Materialism needs to explain how physical processes in the brain give rise to subjective conscious experiences. The hard problem is the problem of experience, how can you explain on a strictly material basis why there is something it is like to entertain a mental image, or to experience an emotion?” Why does it “feel like something” to be a human being?

I went and found the article for you.

Is Trump to blame for Americans getting explosive diarrhea? | Arwa Mahdawi | The Guardian

The author makes a strong argument, I don't think it's TDS.

Looks like Trump and Kennedy have brought back more than just measles.

I realize I still owe you that explanation of “evidence” that consciousness is not produced by brain, I will try to get focused and start to work on that tonight. 

SkepticalOne wrote:

As I understand it, substance dualists argue the mind is non-material. They separate everything into two distinct categories: material and non-material thinking substance. One of the biggest questions about this is how something non-material can affect material.

I have never understood the logic of this argument. In effect, you argue that mind and matter are so completely different that they could not interact, therefore they are the same? Too different to be different, so they must be the same? Please explain the logic behind that conclusion.

If mind is so immaterial that it cannot interact with matter, then wouldn’t it also follow that an immaterial mind could not be the product of a material brain. Your argument to refute Immaterial mind in favor of materialism also refutes your materialism, doesn’t it?

Our state of conscious awareness is a feature that trumps all others in the matter of epistemic authority, and the strongest argument for the interaction of immaterial mind and material matter is that we all observe it during every conscious moment, it is always a fundamental and significant part of our experiential reality, hence it is self-evident.

Consequently, the denial of the possibility of interaction of immaterial mind and material body is necessarily a rejection of the very concept of empirical evidence, which eliminates induction as valid, leaving nothing but detached abstractions that have nothing whatsoever to do with the real world.

To better conceptualize the criticism, imagine trying to pour a glass of whiskey for yourself with only your mind. No matter how hard you imagine, dream, hope, or wish you will not be any closer to your objective.

Imagine trying to pour a glass of whiskey for yourself without your mind to control your physical actions, without mind, you will not pour a glass of whiskey.

If the mind is non-material, then the material can certainly affect it.

Yes, and vice versa, and the self-evident experiential reality is that a reciprocal, transactional relationship is being described in the mind/matter discussion.

Let's skip over how, but your non-material mind somehow activates your material muscles to pour and consume a drink the old fashioned way (manual manipulation of a physical whiskey bottle, physical glass with your physicial body) and your mental world will certainly be dramatically and undeniably impacted.

The key to your argument is that statement, “Let's skip over how”, the fact that materialism doesn’t have an explanation of how immaterial mind can interact with material body does not refute dualism, it refutes materialism. Again, it just magically “emerges”  is not explanatory, if it was, then the counterargument for the interaction of immaterial mind and material matter is the same, it just magically “emerges”.

So how is it the physical world can affect the mental if the mind is not somehow attached to material?

I thought you said “Let's skip over how”, to say that the materialistic framework doesn’t explain the experiential reality of the transactional nature of the mind – body relationship does not count in favor of the materialistic framework, it indicates that the materialistic framework is not adequate. 

When responding, please do your best to provide a concise, personally created response. Copy paste responses of someone (or something else's) words will be ignored.

Immaterial mind has causal influence due to its content, not solely because of the physical aspects of its neural correlates. A conscious state includes a desire or intention; it includes the ability to envision a future state and establish a strategy for attaining that state. That makes it more than a purely physical state, it is a conscious state with reference to a future possibility, and no such reference is part of any purely physical state. Such conscious states can have causal effect to bring about further states for the sake of values and purposes, and intents, values, and purposes are not reducible to the purely physical state of your materialist argument.

Tastes like chicken

RemyBrown wrote:

cisgender straight gay people

LOL

Debby wrote:

All religions support an afterlife.

No, they don't.

Taoism, Confucianism, and Shinto do not believe in an afterlife.

Hinduism, Buddhism, and Sikhism teach reincarnation which isn't really an afterlife because it takes place in the physical world, it's more like a "do over" than an afterlife.

Debby wrote:

Now he wants them to live because he discovered how much they contribute to society.

Really? Does he still want to rape them?

SatanLucy wrote:

I am an expert at economics, btw.

Got his economics degree from Trump University.

RemyBrown wrote:

Tangent, get back to the main focus.

I thought "women should die" was always your main focus.

SergeantLynch wrote:

Had they never heard of third time lucky.

Surviving twice is lucky enough.

Though perhaps they should have used something stronger than Jack Daniels.

It was Tennessee, in Tennessee they don't believe there is anything stronger than Jack Daniels.

Only in the US though, could they botch an execution twice and then take the victim to hospital.

They heard the hospital kills people all the time.

The Chinese and the Saudi's would have only needed one go.

She probably wouldn't survive a beheading even once, although I do understand chickens do it sometimes.

SatanLucy wrote:

If you work every day, and can save half of those 10 cents each day, you will be a billionaire in less than 55 million years.

I found more apps and sites to earn crypto. Fire faucet seems legit. So maybe now my earnings are 100$ per year.

However, thanks to inflation, 100$ can turn into 10000$.

At that rate you'll have a billion in only ten million years, Congratulations.