Have We Got Christianity Right?

[Animus]

I have made a few statements that issue in accordance with "Christian" thought, I have quoted scripture on one or two occasions. I have made youtube videos discussing Christianity and posted comments on Facebook. I realize that for many on this board Christianity is an incendiary issue and "Atheism" is touted a lot. But there are a few points I would like to make. I apologize for a lengthy introduction, but I think it is warranted if not necessary for proper discourse.

I've been a self-proclaimed "atheist" most of my adult life, I didn't form such opinions in childhood or adolescence. However, I have had a lot of exposure to Christianity, both in childhood and adolescence when I attended "Confirmation" at a Faith Lutheran church. As an atheist I frequently picked through scripture and Christian ideology to find flaws to use against Christians in debate. The most unlikely thing happened when I embraced the idea that I didn't know and no one else did either. It wasn't about Christianity particularly, it was a general realization. Words began to lose concrete meaning, language become more fluid and I was able to embrace different grammatical settings.

The importance of grammatical settings is in the way relationships are interpreted. I'm fond of an example used by Azrienoch, that of a rock tumbling down a hill. If we say "The rock tumbled down the hill" it implicitly assigns agency to the rock, its as if the rock was behaving all on its own. We could say "The rock was pulled down the hill by gravity" and it would clear up this problem of agency. Actually, there is no problem of agency, its really a problem of communication. If I were to claim "Tommy tumbled down the hill" you might think he did so deliberately, or maybe he slipped and fell, but you'd most likely assign agency to Tommy. If instead I claimed "Tommy was pushed down the hill by Fredrick" then it would be clear what the cause was of Tommy's descent. The point here is just that words can convey multiple meanings in different grammatical settings.

Now, it wasn't just that I embraced ignorance, it was a combination of knowledge and the embrace of ignorance. It seems paradoxical, but it was through the embrace of ignorance that I fused notions which had hitherto been compartmentalized. I found correlations between Christian scripture and my neurophilosophical or secular atheistic world views. This intrigued me of course and I've begun looking at this issue more. So on with the points I want to make.

It seems plausible that the anthropomorphic properties of the scripture are for the express purpose of hooking people. The stories appeal to people on a childish level and causes propagation of the stories. This serves the purpose of introducing people to the concepts and increased chance of redistribution (word of mouth). If what I know to be true is true, then the reality is quite abrasive to our egos, any literature which makes a direct expose' of truth will not be very popular at all. What if the authors concluded; let us make a book which appeals to many and provides a path. Even if few were to find the hidden path amongst the riddles, would it be more effective than a direct revelation? If this was their thinking, then surely one could prophecy masses of deluded "Christians" taking the bait ("Prophecy of Isiah").

Another plausible bit of theology is the notion that a "Personal God" is a mode of interacting with "God". It is a primitive way of interacting, mainly through projecting an image of oneself to a ficticious third-person. This might be a severe form of idolatry, but who's judging? If causation determines all, then who is to blame? We can only acknowledge where a person is at in their "spiritual" journey, and maybe that is paying homage to Zeus. Eventually, whatever falsehoods exist in their conceptions will be revealed or they will die. As a species, I think we will continue to evolve our understanding of the truth collectively and these primitive modes will fade. We can lead them to evidence, but we can't make them think. In-fact we have a better chance if we operate from within their doctrines of belief.

Since I've began a more serious, equanimous, investigation of Christian theology I've found some peculiar things, events that have gone largely unnoticed by mainstream Christianity. Alister E. McGrath's Christian Theology and Christian Spirituality are enlightening on the subject. There was plenty of debate in Christian theology as to whether God is personal or impersonal, how does omnipotence actually work? All the questions that atheists routinely ask of Christians, Christians ask of themselves, but not all Christians. The vast majority of Christians are likely to be on the level of childlike interactions with projections of their own fancy.

I believe there is plenty of evidence supporting this. Take the mainstream doctrine of "Free-Will", there is no support of this anywhere in the scripture, none that I've found or anyone I've talked to. All references to "Free-Will" are in a sociopolitical grammatical setting in the Old Testament and relate to animal sacrifice. It is to say; if the sacrifice is not by obligation of the sociopolitical environment (a free-will offering). So it is no contradiction when Paul refutes free-will in Romans 9. What does mainstream Christianity have to say about all of this? Nothing, I've found. Reformists have a more elaborate schema, but somehow slip after-life in there as well. The thing about after-life as well, where does the Bible promise anyone after-life? Ecclesiastes 9:5-6 says the dead have no conscious content. James 4:14 says we are vapor, here for a while then gone. Instead, Jesus speaks of "eternal life" which is not necessarily the same as "after life".

I have plenty of more to say on the subject, but lets see how far this goes... ;)

[Pincho Paxton]

I always started to read the Bible, and got to 'The Ark', and then put it down. Too unbelievable. But last week I figured out that 'The Ark' is in fact a pyramid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arc_(geometry)

And the information means get everything into a pyramid.

Jesus was put into a cave, and the entrance was sealed, and then he rose again.

Noah is in fact part of the sun.
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=308

Which produces huge flares.


That means, get into a cave, and seal the entrance so that you can survive, and mankind can rise again.

The great flood then follows.

Jesus would be put into a Pyramid after his death, so that is where to find him.

[Animus]

I always started to read the Bible, and got to 'The Ark', and then put it down. Too unbelievable. But last week I figured out that 'The Ark' is in fact a pyramid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arc_(geometry)

And the information means get everything into a pyramid.

Jesus was put into a cave, and the entrance was sealed, and then he rose again.

Noah is in fact part of the sun.
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=308

Which produces huge flares.


That means, get into a cave, and seal the entrance so that you can survive, and mankind can rise again.

The great flood then follows.

Jesus would be put into a Pyramid after his death, so that is where to find him.

So... we should all build pyramids, gather up a bunch of animals and then get crucified and hope someone will put us in the pyramid?

[Pincho Paxton]

I always started to read the Bible, and got to 'The Ark', and then put it down. Too unbelievable. But last week I figured out that 'The Ark' is in fact a pyramid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arc_(geometry)

And the information means get everything into a pyramid.

Jesus was put into a cave, and the entrance was sealed, and then he rose again.

Noah is in fact part of the sun.
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=308

Which produces huge flares.


That means, get into a cave, and seal the entrance so that you can survive, and mankind can rise again.

The great flood then follows.

Jesus would be put into a Pyramid after his death, so that is where to find him.

So... we should all build pyramids, gather up a bunch of animals and then get crucified and hope someone will put us in the pyramid?

Not sure what the crucifixion is to be honest. Probably a witch hunt of some sort. The Bible isn't literal, so you have to decode it.

[Nad]

Since I've began a more serious, equanimous, investigation of Christian theology I've found some peculiar things, events that have gone largely unnoticed by mainstream Christianity. Alister E. McGrath's Christian Theology and Christian Spirituality are enlightening on the subject. There was plenty of debate in Christian theology as to whether God is personal or impersonal, how does omnipotence actually work? All the questions that atheists routinely ask of Christians, Christians ask of themselves, but not all Christians. The vast majority of Christians are likely to be on the level of childlike interactions with projections of their own fancy.

True. Many Biblical interpretations have been debated over the centuries, with each believer believing his interpretation the correct one. Ulitimately, many doctrines that are currently accepted as orthodoxy, have only become so because rulers in the past have dictated that certain interpretations be privileged over other interpretations.

I've read the Bible, and I'm struck by many contradictory concepts. There are Christians, for example, who believe in the divinity of Jesus, that he is Almighty God in essence, and there are scriptures that seem to support this interpretation. Yet, there are others who believe that Jesus is not God in essence, but that Jesus is the Son of God, a distinct and seperate entity who was begotten by God. There are also scriptures that seem to support this interpretation.

This question over the nature, creation, and divinity of Jesus was a major source of dispute and disagreement within Christianity for centuries. The Nicene Counsil sought to settle the dispute. Arius, who claimed that God, the Father, created Jesus, the Son, was ultimately excommunicated from the church, and the divinity of Christ and the Holy Trinity was adopted as creed among all Christians who chose to remain in the chuch.

Along with the doctrines established in the Nicene Creed, Emporor Constantine also consumated a close bond between Church and State, which continued to excommunicate any who rejected their particular interpretation of scripture. As such, through control and force, one particular interpretation of Christian doctrine became dominant, and others could be dismissed as heresy. Just because orthodox Christian doctrines are popularly held by Christians does not mean that there aren't competing Christian interpretations, views that might have as much Biblical support as any other.

Take the mainstream doctrine of "Free-Will", there is no support of this anywhere in the scripture, none that I've found or anyone I've talked to. All references to "Free-Will" are in a sociopolitical grammatical setting in the Old Testament and relate to animal sacrifice. It is to say; if the sacrifice is not by obligation of the sociopolitical environment (a free-will offering). So it is no contradiction when Paul refutes free-will in Romans 9.

In my analysis of the Bible, I believe that it is inherently contradictory on the subject of free will. While the term "free will" is not, to my knowledge, used directly in the Old Testament, it is implied. If everything was determined, and freedom of choice did not exist, it would not have been just to punish Adam and Eve for their sin in the Garden of Eden. In the creation story, Adam and Eve have the freedom to choose their course in life, a choice that would result in different outcomes for all of humanity.

The problem with this concept of free will within the context of the Bible is that the Bible also claims prophecy. It seems to me, from my study of the Bible, that there are three different types of prophecy used to prove that God knows the future:

1) Prophetic warnings: In many places, God warns of what future events will occur if people disobey his laws. This type of prophecy would not necessarily contradict the concept of free will. It might limit a person's freedom out of fear of consequence, but not eradicate the ability to choose.

2) Prediction: There are many instances where God warns what could happen if a certain course is pursued. Theoretically, a being who has such extensive knowledge, so as to create life and the universe, might be able to predict future events without absolute knowledge of future events. The only problem with this, is that it has to be acknowledged that if there is even the slightest possiblity that god could be wrong in his prediction, he's not omniscient.

3) Foreknowledge: There are also prophecies in which details of future events are provided, not as warning, but as cause for establishing God's foreknowledge and godship. This concept of foreknowledge of events, or omniscience, is contradictory to the concept of free will.

If true freedom of choice exists, there must be randomness in all events. If, with the roll of a die, the outcome is truly random, free will is possible, but foreknowledge of events is not. If God could know the future, not with merely a high level of prediction, but with absolute certainty of foreknowledge, there is no free will.

The Bible seems to promote the idea of freedom of will and choice, but it also promotes God's ability for foreknowledge, although not necessarily omniscience. Therefore, I find the Bible to be internally contradictory on this subject.

The thing about after-life as well, where does the Bible promise anyone after-life? Ecclesiastes 9:5-6 says the dead have no conscious content. James 4:14 says we are vapor, here for a while then gone. Instead, Jesus speaks of "eternal life" which is not necessarily the same as "after life".

True.

Nad

[Animus]

In my analysis of the Bible, I believe that it is inherently contradictory on the subject of free will. While the term "free will" is not, to my knowledge, used directly in the Old Testament, it is implied. If everything was determined, and freedom of choice did not exist, it would not have been just to punish Adam and Eve for their sin in the Garden of Eden. In the creation story, Adam and Eve have the freedom to choose their course in life, a choice that would result in different outcomes for all of humanity.

The problem with this concept of free will within the context of the Bible is that the Bible also claims prophecy. It seems to me, from my study of the Bible, that there are three different types of prophecy used to prove that God knows the future:

1) Prophetic warnings: In many places, God warns of what future events will occur if people disobey his laws. This type of prophecy would not necessarily contradict the concept of free will. It might limit a person's freedom out of fear of consequence, but not eradicate the ability to choose.

2) Prediction: There are many instances where God warns what could happen if a certain course is pursued. Theoretically, a being who has such extensive knowledge, so as to create life and the universe, might be able to predict future events without absolute knowledge of future events. The only problem with this, is that it has to be acknowledged that if there is even the slightest possiblity that god could be wrong in his prediction, he's not omniscient.

3) Foreknowledge: There are also prophecies in which details of future events are provided, not as warning, but as cause for establishing God's foreknowledge and godship. This concept of foreknowledge of events, or omniscience, is contradictory to the concept of free will.

If true freedom of choice exists, there must be randomness in all events. If, with the roll of a die, the outcome is truly random, free will is possible, but foreknowledge of events is not. If God could know the future, not with merely a high level of prediction, but with absolute certainty of foreknowledge, there is no free will.

The Bible seems to promote the idea of freedom of will and choice, but it also promotes God's ability for foreknowledge, although not necessarily omniscience. Therefore, I find the Bible to be internally contradictory on this subject.


Nad

Well, I have found references to "free-will" in Old Testament, but taken in context they do not refer to what philosophers call "Libertarian free-will". For example; Exodus 35:29 refers to a spontaneous gift "29The Israelites, all the men and women, whose heart moved them to bring material for all the work, which the LORD had commanded through Moses to be done, brought a (T)freewill offering to the LORD." or as in Leviticus 22:23 and Ezra 3:5 it is a "voluntary offering" "as opposed to one in consequence of a vow, or in expiation of some offense" (http://www.christiananswers.net/diction ... ering.html) " 23'In respect to an ox or a lamb which has an overgrown or stunted member, you may present it for a freewill offering, but for a vow it will not be accepted." " 5and afterward there was a (A)continual burnt offering, also (B)for the new moons and (C)for all the fixed festivals of the LORD that were consecrated, and from everyone who offered a freewill offering to the LORD.". In some translations the words "free-will" are replaced by "voluntary".

In broader context these "free-will offerings" relate to a voluntary act not decreed by custom or other obligation. In Exodus there is the story of Moses and Aaron visiting Pharoah to request the release of the Israelites. God "says" he will "harden" Pharoah's heart so that he will not release the Israelites, in alternative passages it is said that Pharoah hardened his own heart.

Exodus 4:21
The LORD said to Moses, "When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go.

Exodus 7:3
But I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and though I multiply my miraculous signs and wonders in Egypt,

Exodus 8:15
But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the LORD had said.

Exodus 8:32
But this time also Pharaoh hardened his heart and would not let the people go.

So who is doing the hardening? In my best interpretation they both are. In various passages God is described as being omnipotent and within every man. Then it is God who is the root of all the neural pathways within the individual, whatever decision the individual makes issues in accordance with God's will. In this sense both God and Pharoah did the hardening.

In John 6:44 Jesus says: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day." Implying that one can only choose to worship God by the grace of God.

St. Paul goes into detail on this issue in his letter to romans.

10Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. 11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls—she was told, "The older will serve the younger."[d] 13Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."[e]

14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses,
"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."[f] 16It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."[g] 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

19One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "[h] 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? 25As he says in Hosea:
"I will call them 'my people' who are not my people;
and I will call her 'my loved one' who is not my loved one," 26and,
"It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them,
'You are not my people,'
they will be called 'sons of the living God.' "[j]

27Isaiah cries out concerning Israel:
"Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea,
only the remnant will be saved.
28For the Lord will carry out
his sentence on earth with speed and finality."[k]

29It is just as Isaiah said previously:
"Unless the Lord Almighty
had left us descendants,
we would have become like Sodom,
we would have been like Gomorrah."[l]


So really, I see no unequivocal support of libertarian free-will in the scripture.

[Animus]

I've come across interesting articles like the following:

A term employed in modern philosophy with various meanings, but applied generally speaking to the Supreme Being. It signifies (1) that which is complete and perfect; (2) that which exists by its own nature and is consequently independent of everything else; (3) that which is related to no other being; (4) the sum of all being, actual and potential (Hegel).
In the first and the second of these significations the Absolute is a name for God which Christian philosophy may readily accept. Though the term was not current in the Middle Ages, equivalent expressions were used by the Scholastic writers in speaking, e.g. of God as Pure Actuality (Actus Purus), as uncaused Being, or as containing pre-eminently every perfection.

This is an excerpt from the article on "The Absolute" at newadvent.org

The etymological roots of words reveals some other striking similarities. The word "God" originates from PIE -ghut meaning "that which is invoked", while "Reality" originates in Latin realis meaning "That which is evoked". The difference between evocation and invocation is rather subtle given that both words contemporaneously refer to "ultimate reality".

The Hebrew name for God YHWH (Jehova) or as in Hebrew יהוה which translates into "I AM" or "I AM THAT I AM"

Exodus 3:14 (King James Version)

14And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

One can easily see how the phrase "I am that I am" refers to ultimate reality or that which is invoked/evoked.

I think the tendency to anthropomorphise God was not only deliberately for the purpose of hooking or confusing individuals, but because Speech was also synonymous with evocation or causation. In Latin "Logos" was assigned to Reason, Word, Speech, Logic, and so forth. So as a matter of analogical description it is adequate to describe the invocation of matter as "God speaking". Certainly if we now say "Nature spoke the earth into existence" we'd all get the metaphor because of the grammatical context associated with the words within modern society.

In early Christianity there were a group of worshipers known as the Anthropomorphites who were accused of taking scripture too literally and perceiving of God as a man sitting in a cloud somewhere. It is clear amongst theologians that the anthropomorphic attributes ascribed to God in scripture are analogical and not literal. Still, a vast majority of Christians seem to interpret it literally or semi-literally. The "persona" ascribed to God is illusory in the fact that "persona" pre-Tertullian was not reserved for humans or other beings with seeming agency. A rock would be said to have a "persona".

[Nad]

So really, I see no unequivocal support of libertarian free-will in the scripture.

I agree, and herein lies the problem with Christianity, I believe. When one attempts to look at the Bible as containing a consistent, logical message, it always breaks down. Certain scriptures must always be ignored, or in some way rationalized or explained away, in order to preserve a consistent interpretation.

For example, Deuteronomy 30: 19, 20 states: 19) I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants, 20) by loving the LORD your God, by obeying His voice, and by holding fast to Him; for this is your life and the length of your days, that you may live in the land which the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give them.

This seems to indicate freedom of choice. Before witnesses, a person can choose life or death. Yet, Isaiah 46: 9-13 states: 9) Remember the former things long past, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me, 10) Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, 'My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure'; 11) Calling a bird of prey from the east, The man of My purpose from a far country Truly I have spoken; truly I will bring it to pass. I have planned it, surely I will do it. 12) Listen to Me, you stubborn-minded, Who are far from righteousness. 13) I bring near My righteousness, it is not far off; And My salvation will not delay And I will grant salvation in Zion, And My glory for Israel.

This scripture seems to contradict the concept of free will. Whether God preordains humans and events to deterministically accomplish his will, or he is capable of foreseeing the future and foretelling events, either way free will is merely an illusion.

A History of God by Karen Armstrong provides an interesting historical view of the evolution of Judaism and Christianity. The Hebrew word for God is Elohim, which some historians think stems from El, the supreme god of the Canaanites. The Canaanites were polytheists, and in the early part of the Old Testament, there are numerous scriptures, such as Exodus 20:3, that indicate polytheism among the Israelites. Many times the Israelites were chastised for worshiping other gods or making idols to other gods. Elohim is portrayed as a jealous god, even showing his might in a battle with Baal (1 Kings 18) and including this jealousy and demands for exclusive devotion in the 10 commandments. It seems that the monotheism of Judaism and Christianity evolved from their earlier henotheism and polytheism.

It’s quite probable that much of the Old Testament is not even based on historical data, but on the oral stories and myths that were passed down generation after generation among the Hebrews. Many of the stories of the OT are extremely similar, if not identical, to those of surrounding polytheists and pagans. A mishmash of contradictory ideas and stories is exactly what one would expect to see in a book that was written by different humans over the course of hundreds or thousands of years.

If an Almighty God were the author of a book, I would expect much more logic, consistency, and clarity. There would be no need for human interpretation if God was an effective communicator. Surely an omniscient and omnipotent creator could find a way to convey his existence to his human subjects in no uncertain terms, without all the mental and emotional manipulation and control afforded religion. If Christianity is the gatekeeper for an Almighty God and absolute truth, Satan help us all.

Nad

[Animus]

I agree, and herein lies the problem with Christianity, I believe. When one attempts to look at the Bible as containing a consistent, logical message, it always breaks down. Certain scriptures must always be ignored, or in some way rationalized or explained away, in order to preserve a consistent interpretation.

For example, Deuteronomy 30: 19, 20 states: 19) I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants, 20) by loving the LORD your God, by obeying His voice, and by holding fast to Him; for this is your life and the length of your days, that you may live in the land which the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give them.

This seems to indicate freedom of choice. Before witnesses, a person can choose life or death. Yet, Isaiah 46: 9-13 states: 9) Remember the former things long past, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me, 10) Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, 'My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure'; 11) Calling a bird of prey from the east, The man of My purpose from a far country Truly I have spoken; truly I will bring it to pass. I have planned it, surely I will do it. 12) Listen to Me, you stubborn-minded, Who are far from righteousness. 13) I bring near My righteousness, it is not far off; And My salvation will not delay And I will grant salvation in Zion, And My glory for Israel.

This scripture seems to contradict the concept of free will. Whether God preordains humans and events to deterministically accomplish his will, or he is capable of foreseeing the future and foretelling events, either way free will is merely an illusion.

A History of God by Karen Armstrong provides an interesting historical view of the evolution of Judaism and Christianity. The Hebrew word for God is Elohim, which some historians think stems from El, the supreme god of the Canaanites. The Canaanites were polytheists, and in the early part of the Old Testament, there are numerous scriptures, such as Exodus 20:3, that indicate polytheism among the Israelites. Many times the Israelites were chastised for worshiping other gods or making idols to other gods. Elohim is portrayed as a jealous god, even showing his might in a battle with Baal (1 Kings 18) and including this jealousy and demands for exclusive devotion in the 10 commandments. It seems that the monotheism of Judaism and Christianity evolved from their earlier henotheism and polytheism.

It’s quite probable that much of the Old Testament is not even based on historical data, but on the oral stories and myths that were passed down generation after generation among the Hebrews. Many of the stories of the OT are extremely similar, if not identical, to those of surrounding polytheists and pagans. A mishmash of contradictory ideas and stories is exactly what one would expect to see in a book that was written by different humans over the course of hundreds or thousands of years.

If an Almighty God were the author of a book, I would expect much more logic, consistency, and clarity. There would be no need for human interpretation if God was an effective communicator. Surely an omniscient and omnipotent creator could find a way to convey his existence to his human subjects in no uncertain terms, without all the mental and emotional manipulation and control afforded religion. If Christianity is the gatekeeper for an Almighty God and absolute truth, Satan help us all.

Nad

Really though, this is the same problem with any philosophy of the will. For example:

I might say "All human decisions are determined by antecedent variables whether or not we are aware of them."

An opponent might say "Bullshit, I can choose to have chocolate or vanilla ice-cream, that is a free-choice!"

Or I've often heard "Then how is it that we make choices? If there is no free-will then we shouldn't be able to make choices either!"

This is really just naivity about the problem though. I think it arises from dualistic conceptions of self. When a computer program is playing chess it "Makes Choices" but these "choices" issue in accordance with the code of the program. Supposing the chess game had an internal world-model that represented itself to itself in the form of a "self" with the perceptual quality of being the "one making choices". Even if that was the case, the choices made by the game would still issue in accordance with its code.

So for humans it is like this, we are like computer programs with the illusion of being thee "one making choices". So even for us the fact that we make choices is compatible with a deterministic universe. In fact, its unclear how anyone could make decisions in a non-deterministic universe. If they were causally disconnected from reality making choices would be meaningless. Responsibility would also be meaningless, all the cherished notions are grounded not in free-will but causal dependency. They just need to be updated a bit...

So this is why I say its not so difficult to understand the Bible on this matter. If one has worked out the issue of free-will in secular philosophy its just a matter of transposing words.

I don't think any serious theologian considers the Bible to be the inerrant word of God, that is clearly a nonsensical claim. Even after it was written, as you said, it filtered through Greece, was tainted by Platonic thinking and edited by the Council of Nicea. Rather theologians hold that the Bible is written by "inspired" men. I take "inspired" to mean essentially "enlightened".

See, I think what has happened is the evolution of the same truths arrived at by different thought structures in different cultures. SO the terminology is different.

Something I come across a lot in otherwise smart Christians is the claim that the Bible is the only path to "God". They cite Jesus saying "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the father but by me.". But wait a minute! Jesus is saying that he is the truth. Does this mean that the Bible is truth? No, obviously Jesus and the Bible are separate things. Nor is the body of Jesus the same as Truth. That's not what he is saying. He is using himself as a representation/beacon of Truth. He is saying "No one comes to the father but by the truth.". Clearly the Truth must stand alone, independent of any physical manifestation in the form of ink on paper or flesh and bones. So all we really need to ask is "What is Truth?" The Bible is just a guide like any other and I can appreciate some thinking its a rather crappy guide in that it is so confused. But at the same time, this is to say it is not a good guide for them. There are multitudes who will not spend the time to read the collected works of Nietsche or Weininger. There are many who will not entertain the idea of Buddhism. Because these people are emotionally bound to simplicity and familiarity. Its not a fault necessarily of the doctrine, as the same could happen with any doctrine. That it happens more easily with Christianity is another thing, and probably in-part why Christianity has remained popular. It appeals to that kind of thinking.

[Animus]

In addition, at the time the Bible was written, there was no Nietszche or Weininger. All there was, was polytheistic traditions and one other monotheistic tradition Zoroastrianism. Buddhism and Hinduism may have existed in other regions but weren't as accessible. Not that I think the other traditions are necessarily wrong. Personally I find it bizarre that humans would just imagine a dude casting lightning from the clouds. That seems rather counterintuitive. For a species that figured out the Mayan long-count calender and built the pyramids, this seems like a rather fantastic theory. I submit that a lot of the problem is in our modern interpretation. We've devised discrete terminology to elucidate our meanings, whereas ancient civilizations relied on vaguer language. As I say, I'm not a linguist, but my light trenching through etymology inclines me to think this. I have studied German and Latin to some extent. There are some very strange differences between them. Differences which are metaphorical or grammatical.

So, you are probably familiar with the word "Kindergarten". This is a German word which literally translates as "Child Garden". Obviously "Garden" is metaphorical in its use here and in a way uncommon to English speakers. A common phrase in German is "Wird wieder in die Hände gespuckt" which translates into "We spit in our hands". This is a metaphor for doing labour/work which is seldom (if ever) used in English. We call it "Applying elbow grease" or "The Grind". I can just imagine in 2,000 years people trying to figure out what elbow grease is and what it needs to be applied to.

Here is an example of the usage of the German phrase this time with "Jetzt" appended which means "Now". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFMu5Nlh5b0

It seems to me that this illustrates a lot of the problem with interpreting any work. It elucidates the fact that interpretation is always at play. There is really no way of saying anything directly, even with our modern language. All speech is analogical and relative to the person speaking. Attempting to interpret ancient literature in a modern grammatical context is extremely problematic. Nevertheless, that is being done by reading the Bible or the Qu'ran or any other ancient text. It creates a two-way problem. On the one hand a person may read it and interpret it in a way that is realistic and believe it whole-heartedly. Mean-while others can interpret it as ludicrous nonsense and think its delusional. When these two people encounter each other they are probably not going to see eye-to-eye. They could be discussing the exact same phenomena but not be able to agree with each other.

If you pay a listen to what people ascribe to words this becomes more apparent. In dialog a Christian will attribute properties of "Reality" to God and an Atheist will do the opposite. When a Christian says "God did it" the Atheist says "Get real!". On the one hand, the individual grasping for an explanation says "God works in mysterious ways" and on the other its said "We just don't understand what is happening in reality.". The pursuits of either are similar, the absolute truth. The Christian seeks to understand God with greater clarity. The Atheist seeks to understand Reality with greater clarity. If these two individuals are ever in disagreement about what they are discussing its gotta be because they are speaking different languages OR they are incorrectly attributing properties to the phenomena spoken of. That is to say, if a person says "God is a dude up in the clouds" that is only his interpretation of what "God" means, to another this sounds like "Reality is a dude up in the clouds". However, I'm only speaking of individuals with a philosophical/spiritual drive. People who blindly follow a guy in robes of any tradition abound. These people missed the boat completely. As well the people wearing the robes, whether or not they had some insight, they are in contradiction of the truth. They often seek to turn people into lemmings not inspired individuals. They don't free minds they sentence them to hell. For example Osho, although he said wise things he also had many riches. Part of his teaching was for people to give up all their riches. You know, the guy was a walking contradiction. So were the Pharisees in the Bible. Christendom has outdone the Pharisees.

[Animus]

I've read the Bible, and I'm struck by many contradictory concepts. There are Christians, for example, who believe in the divinity of Jesus, that he is Almighty God in essence, and there are scriptures that seem to support this interpretation. Yet, there are others who believe that Jesus is not God in essence, but that Jesus is the Son of God, a distinct and seperate entity who was begotten by God. There are also scriptures that seem to support this interpretation.

I wanted to respond to this earlier, but it such a difficult controversy to tackle. Of course there is not much of a controversy in modern times. For me, I have to ask myself what would qualify a person as a son of God. I think we are all Children of God. What Jesus did that was different was embodied truth. I don't want to get too much into the historicity of Jesus, as its not really important to my interpretation at this point. For me if a person claims "I am the truth" then they are claiming that their neural pathways are perfectly aligned to reality and they have become the embodiment of truth. In that case, they are of quite a different status from the average person and their speech has to be interpreted differently. Such a person does not speak from themselves as much as they speak from the truth. They identify with truth and not their physical body. In this way all it would take is for a human, anyone, to fit the criteria of the prophecy to fulfill it. Any one of us could be the second coming of Christ if we were so able to fully embody the truth. The fact is we cannot and Jesus is most likely a myth, just part of the story. A figure which illustrates what we ultimately cannot achieve but never-the-less should strive for.

Parthenogenesis (immaculate conception) is a popular theme in modern Christianity. But it wasn't always so, the prophecy calls for a "young woman" not a virgin. The prophecy also calls for two different names "Yeshua" and "Immanuel". These are probably different, but virtually identical prophecies. Parthenogenesis is in-fact possible biologically, but it is not possible for a female virgin to give birth to male offspring. Women do not possess Y chromosomes. So Jesus would have to be a woman. Alternatively Mary might possess male and female gonads like some hermaphrodites, but she would only be capable of cloning herself. In a very rare case a freak mutation could occur during meiosis that produced a completely male offspring. This does actually happen with some lizards. The virginity theme probably comes from gnosticism. Truth is the "first born" of reality. The only begotten son. From these more esoteric perspectives. There were others though "Sophia" (wisdom). Solomon talks about wedding himself to Sophia, taking her into his "bridal chamber" where no woman is taken. Sophia and Christ are not literal people in gnosticism, although they are often described as if they are human counter-parts.

[Nad]

Really though, this is the same problem with any philosophy of the will. For example:

I might say "All human decisions are determined by antecedent variables whether or not we are aware of them."

When you say “antecedent variables,” what type of variables are you referring to?

An opponent might say "Bullshit, I can choose to have chocolate or vanilla ice-cream, that is a free-choice!"

This is really just naivity about the problem though. I think it arises from dualistic conceptions of self.

It seems to me, all decisions (and I would not limit this to humans) are experientially determined by antecedent variables, but I can still choose chocolate or vanilla ice cream. By stating, “I choose…” I’m taking ownership for the decisions I make regardless of what causal sequence resulted in those decisions.

This does indeed come down to a discussion of the self. Even if a plethora of variables cause me to choose vanilla over chocolate, it is still me that chooses. What we do not have control over are many of the variables that ultimately determine what decisions we’ll make. This, as I see it, limits the freedom in the choices we make. They may be our choices, but freedom is the illusion.

When a computer program is playing chess it "Makes Choices" but these "choices" issue in accordance with the code of the program. Supposing the chess game had an internal world-model that represented itself to itself in the form of a "self" with the perceptual quality of being the "one making choices". Even if that was the case, the choices made by the game would still issue in accordance with its code.

So for humans it is like this, we are like computer programs with the illusion of being thee "one making choices". So even for us the fact that we make choices is compatible with a deterministic universe. In fact, its unclear how anyone could make decisions in a non-deterministic universe. If they were causally disconnected from reality making choices would be meaningless. Responsibility would also be meaningless, all the cherished notions are grounded not in free-will but causal dependency. They just need to be updated a bit...

I understand your analogy in likening humans to a computer program, but by stating that the internal world-model of the human represents itself to itself in the form of a “self” with the perpetual quality of the “one making choices,” in the same illusory way a computer might operate, it seems to me a materialist assumption about the reality of the human mind. It may be that the human brain is nothing more than a biological computer, reacting on “programmed” impulses and electroneurochemical code, but how do you know that?

In addition, at the time the Bible was written, there was no Nietszche or Weininger. All there was, was polytheistic traditions and one other monotheistic tradition Zoroastrianism. Buddhism and Hinduism may have existed in other regions but weren't as accessible.

Nietszche and Weininger? No. But not only does Greek philosophy predate the writing of the New Testament and Christianity by hundreds of years, the Jews and Christians were living in Greece. Incredible philosophers of the time, such as Protagoras, Epicurus, Aristotle, and the stoics championed logic and science above mysticism and theism. The Bible itself indicates that the apostle Paul was well aware of Greek philosophy, and he preached against it.

It seems to me that this illustrates a lot of the problem with interpreting any work. It elucidates the fact that interpretation is always at play. There is really no way of saying anything directly, even with our modern language. All speech is analogical and relative to the person speaking. Attempting to interpret ancient literature in a modern grammatical context is extremely problematic. Nevertheless, that is being done by reading the Bible or the Qu'ran or any other ancient text. It creates a two-way problem. On the one hand a person may read it and interpret it in a way that is realistic and believe it whole-heartedly. Mean-while others can interpret it as ludicrous nonsense and think its delusional. When these two people encounter each other they are probably not going to see eye-to-eye. They could be discussing the exact same phenomena but not be able to agree with each other.

I would quite agree.

If you pay a listen to what people ascribe to words this becomes more apparent. In dialog a Christian will attribute properties of "Reality" to God and an Atheist will do the opposite. When a Christian says "God did it" the Atheist says "Get real!". On the one hand, the individual grasping for an explanation says "God works in mysterious ways" and on the other its said "We just don't understand what is happening in reality.". The pursuits of either are similar, the absolute truth. The Christian seeks to understand God with greater clarity. The Atheist seeks to understand Reality with greater clarity. If these two individuals are ever in disagreement about what they are discussing its gotta be because they are speaking different languages OR they are incorrectly attributing properties to the phenomena spoken of. That is to say, if a person says "God is a dude up in the clouds" that is only his interpretation of what "God" means, to another this sounds like "Reality is a dude up in the clouds".

I would agree with your observation here. Indeed, both Christians and atheists often believe themselves to have the correct understanding of reality, and believe the other to be wrong. Herein lies the problem, in my opinion, the pursual of absolute truth. The atheist’s assumptions about reality often rest in scientific observation and logical deduction. The Christian's assumptions about reality often rest in Biblical interpretation, faith, and to a lesser extent (than the atheist) scientific observation and logical deduction. Both believe absolute truth is knowable.

This is not true of all atheists though. This could more rightly, I believe, be said of atheists who hold materialist assumptions about the world. Atheism alone is merely a negative claim regarding the existence of a god. It’s the materialist ontologies often held by atheists that assert affirmative epistemological claims. I consider myself an atheist for the simple reason that I hold no belief in a god. At the same time, I make no assumptions about reality, for it appears that neither the Christian, nor the atheist, nor the Buddhist, nor the scientist can escape his own perceptual experience of observable phenomena to make good an affirmative claim for absolute truth.

However, I'm only speaking of individuals with a philosophical/spiritual drive. People who blindly follow a guy in robes of any tradition abound. These people missed the boat completely. As well the people wearing the robes, whether or not they had some insight, they are in contradiction of the truth. They often seek to turn people into lemmings not inspired individuals. They don't free minds they sentence them to hell. For example Osho, although he said wise things he also had many riches. Part of his teaching was for people to give up all their riches. You know, the guy was a walking contradiction. So were the Pharisees in the Bible. Christendom has outdone the Pharisees.

Quite true.

I think we are all Children of God.

In what sense do you believe that we are all children of god?

Parthenogenesis (immaculate conception) is a popular theme in modern Christianity. But it wasn't always so, the prophecy calls for a "young woman" not a virgin. The prophecy also calls for two different names "Yeshua" and "Immanuel". These are probably different, but virtually identical prophecies. Parthenogenesis is in-fact possible biologically, but it is not possible for a female virgin to give birth to male offspring. Women do not possess Y chromosomes. So Jesus would have to be a woman. Alternatively Mary might possess male and female gonads like some hermaphrodites, but she would only be capable of cloning herself. In a very rare case a freak mutation could occur during meiosis that produced a completely male offspring. This does actually happen with some lizards. The virginity theme probably comes from gnosticism. Truth is the "first born" of reality. The only begotten son. From these more esoteric perspectives. There were others though "Sophia" (wisdom). Solomon talks about wedding himself to Sophia, taking her into his "bridal chamber" where no woman is taken. Sophia and Christ are not literal people in gnosticism, although they are often described as if they are human counter-parts.

True. It seems that the theme of being born from a virgin, the god-man savior, and divine resurrection were highly prevalent myths in many ancient societies. Many other incredible similarities exist between Jesus and Osiris of Egypt, Dionysos of Greece, Mithras of Persia, and other ancient gods. Celsus, the Greek satirist, mocked Christians for their absurd belief in the reality of Jesus. While pagans believed there were value in these myths, Christians believed them to be reality.

Nad

[Animus]

When you say “antecedent variables,” what type of variables are you referring to?

Antecedent simply means prior to. This would be things like life experiences and genetics. But its not that simple, its not dichotomous. Genes construct the brain along with experience. There is a seemless interplay between genes, brain and environment. Its not as if the individual makes independent decisions, nor does the environment or genetics make all the decisions. Nor is it true that we make decisions in harmony with the environment. Our brains make decisions and our brains are collectives. There is no "one" who makes decisions. When we ascribe action to our "self" and say "I chose this breakfast" realistically we might refer to the gross output of our brains, but there is no singular "I" that chooses anything. Our decisions are the result of the computational sequences in our brains. The sequences in our brains are determined by our past experiences. Think of it this way, just before we are born we have a stage of neurogenesis and synaptogenesis. These are overproduction of nerve cells and synapses. They are overproduced there is not enough brain food to keep them all alive. So there are all these nerve cells with a lot of connections (synapses). Its chaos in the brain. As the infant experiences the senses activation of nerve cells occurs, synapses are fired and weights are adjusted to create a representational structure of what is being sensed. Whichever nerve cells and synapses are active consume brain food in the process resulting in their survival, those cells which prove useless die. Over time we get a more refined model of the world. But this also leads to rigidity. Synaptogenesis also occurs in the frontal lobes just before adolescence. So these patterns of activation are laid down, they are still subject to change, but change comes when there are variations in the input data that cause weight adjustments. Whether or not this input data originates from other parts of the brain, locally they are antecedent causes. They learn by experience and not on their own. On higher levels of representation, where selves and desires are concerned there may appear to be a great deal of flexibility and there is, but even here everything happens in sequence and according to basic rules somewhat unique to the individual.

This does indeed come down to a discussion of the self. Even if a plethora of variables cause me to choose vanilla over chocolate, it is still me that chooses. What we do not have control over are many of the variables that ultimately determine what decisions we’ll make. This, as I see it, limits the freedom in the choices we make. They may be our choices, but freedom is the illusion.

Well, there is nothing limiting freedom that is an illusion. Looking at the issue from the perspective of one making choices is just a way of looking at the issue. I feel like I make decisions, but I also feel like those decisions are the result of implicit and explicit biases. A co-worker offered me a pickled herring at work today and urged me to try it. I'm generally not into trying new foods especially things pickled and/or fishy. But I did try it and didn't like it, I kept tasting it for hours. Still, I didn't feel like this was a free decision. I felt like a compulsory decision. If I wanted to know why I made the decision I'd have to think about it. Probably because of who my co-worker is and the influence he has on my decisions. He can be imposing at times and I tend to go along with it. I probably wouldn't jump off a cliff if he asked me to, but I guess I'll try some pickled herring. I normally wouldn't. You see, I can't even figure out why I tried it, I knew I probably wouldn't like it. Maybe I wanted to prove something, but I doubt it I generally don't get into macho stuff like that. Personally, I think the idea that one is in control, that one is making choices is all in the head. I often feel like my actions are automated. I've become more so. When I was young I occasionally blacked out consciously while going on a rampage. That was my first indication that I wasn't totally in control. But gradually that faded, now I just realize that all of my behaviours are contextually scripted. I act in typical ways according to the circumstances of the environment. I can predict with accuracy the frequency with which I eat certain meals. Although I do not plan a rotation, I can predict that I will have rice one every other weekend, chicken, potatoes and steaks. In the moment I might say "Well, I had rice and chicken last weekend and left-overs this week so I don't really feel like that, I'll have something else." Whether or not this is obvious to me at the time or upon further introspection is I suppose dependent on what my attention is on. If I'm irritated because I'm hungry and I'm frantically plowing through options in my mind then I'm not likely to be aware of the more subtle thought dynamics determining the whole enterprise. So I think it just comes down to a lack of introspection and attentive attachment to certain phenomenal aspects of circumstance, like being hungry.

I understand your analogy in likening humans to a computer program, but by stating that the internal world-model of the human represents itself to itself in the form of a “self” with the perpetual quality of the “one making choices,” in the same illusory way a computer might operate, it seems to me a materialist assumption about the reality of the human mind. It may be that the human brain is nothing more than a biological computer, reacting on “programmed” impulses and electroneurochemical code, but how do you know that?

Epistemology? I think honesty is paramount, honesty with one's self. That's it, if a person is dishonest they will "know" a lot of wrong stuff. Knowledge is just an operational model of reality which has the phenomenal content of certainty. Whatever it is we claim to know has impressed upon us in past experience. Causal determinacy is at play in everything including the claim to knowledge.

"By convention hot, by convention cold, but in reality atoms and void, and also in reality we know nothing, since the truth is at bottom.

But we in actuality grasp nothing for certain, but what shifts in accordance with the condition of the body and of the things (atoms) which enter it and press upon it.” - Democritus

Nietszche and Weininger? No. But not only does Greek philosophy predate the writing of the New Testament and Christianity by hundreds of years, the Jews and Christians were living in Greece. Incredible philosophers of the time, such as Protagoras, Epicurus, Aristotle, and the stoics championed logic and science above mysticism and theism. The Bible itself indicates that the apostle Paul was well aware of Greek philosophy, and he preached against it.

Democritus was a Greek atomist existing before Christ. However, the Jewish tradition was influential in the region. I don't think humans are stupid and I think all these traditions drive at a similar point but they are all kind of lost in ancient thought dynamics.

"Materialism" to me is a physicalist description, but the logical association is perhaps "immaterial". The human need not necessarily be perceived as a human, there is flexible use of metaphor. Whatever immaterial is it is no different than the material, its just another way of looking at the same phenomena. If one supposes otherwise then the problems start. If a theory breaks causation somewhere and attempts to insert a causeless entity its going to fail. Either the thing is not related in any way to our reality because its completely causally unrelated or it is related and subject to causation and effectively no different than reality. But you can look through the other way, its hard to explain, don't separate mind from matter. Matter is not even important its the causal dynamics. Brains are just a way of visualizing the dynamics. Even atheists can believe that they are somehow outside of reality, that reality is their playground and they are disconnected. The boundary of the skin provides the appearance of separation, but there is a seamless causal continuum flowing through us and around us in harmony all the time. We are ego-bound creatures, meaning that we perceive reality according to the desire to exist as individuals. We are blind to the fact that we are not individuals in reality and we grasp for more existence by asserting ourselves in relation to our community, family or workplace. Even in tend to permeate our fantasies.. In our deepest sorrows we are doing little but coddling the self we assert ourselves to be. We identify with others but that only temporarily transposes us, it doesn't touch the ultimate reality.

In what sense do you believe that we are all children of god?

In that we all originated from the same causally interconnected reality which anthopomorphically can be referred to as the Father or Mother.

[Blair]

It seems plausible that the anthropomorphic properties of the scripture are for the express purpose of hooking people. The stories appeal to people on a childish level and causes propagation of the stories. This serves the purpose of introducing people to the concepts and increased chance of redistribution (word of mouth).

The anthropomorphic view is built into the mechanism of the ego by God. Before spiritual revelation, it's the only way a human can understand anything or function.

If what I know to be true is true, then the reality is quite abrasive to our egos, any literature which makes a direct expose' of truth will not be very popular at all.

The reality of God does not enter the shield of the ego, it is this way to facilitate the process of divine realization to occur. This is the entire purpose of a human life, although it does not happen very often.
When the ego shield drops completely, God can and will enter, which causes a fusion between the body - the material realm, and the holy spirit realm.

Another plausible bit of theology is the notion that a "Personal God" is a mode of interacting with "God". It is a primitive way of interacting, mainly through projecting an image of oneself to a ficticious third-person.

God is indeed personal, and reflects back what you are, how like him you are, but he is not "the totality" or an all connected consciousness, or other such false ideas. God is altogether differentiated from the world (and by extension all matter and energy).

[Nad]

Antecedent simply means prior to. This would be things like life experiences and genetics. But its not that simple, its not dichotomous. Genes construct the brain along with experience. There is a seemless interplay between genes, brain and environment. Its not as if the individual makes independent decisions, nor does the environment or genetics make all the decisions. Our brains make decisions and our brains are collectives. There is no "one" who makes decisions. When we ascribe action to our "self" and say "I chose this breakfast" realistically we might refer to the gross output of our brains, but there is no singular "I" that chooses anything. Our decisions are the result of the computational sequences in our brains. The sequences in our brains are determined by our past experiences.

What do you mean when you state that our brains are “collectives”? Computers operate collectively through networks. In what way are human brains networked so as to operate as collectives?

It seems to me that the only thing any of us can truly know is the existence of the self. If each person develops physiologically and psychologically in relation to both genetic and environmental influences, the sense of “self” arises from the ongoing dialectic.

Studies in neuroscience seem to indicate that newborn infants, while able to sense and react to painful stimuli, do not seem to perceive themselves as separate from their caretaker. As they develop physiologically, they seem to start becoming aware of themselves as individuals. If this is true, our sense of self, or self-awareness, is not inherent from the start, but is something that evolves in the individual.

That sense of self evolves in relation to genetic influences and environmental objects, and the means by which this dialectic occurs is sensation. Through sight, sound, taste, touch, and smell we interact with the perceptual world around us. What would happen if an individual, during infancy, lost all ability for sensual experience? Would an infant who had no ability to interact with external objects, who had no understanding of language, and who had not yet developed any self-awareness ever be able to develop a sense of self?

External influences, such as the caretakers of a child, the time period in which the child is born, the language in which the child learns to think and speak, cultural and social norms, etc. all contribute to who the individual will become. The “self”, as I see it, is not static. It changes and evolves in relations to the individual’s experiences in life.

I, for example, was raised by extremely fanatical religious parents, and for many years I believed in the truth of their religion, with its rules and norms, as ardently as they did. Not only has my body changed as I’ve grown from a child to an adult, my worldview has changed too. The way I saw my self as a Christian adolescent is much different than the self I experience today.

This does not mean that the self is an illusion anymore than it means that the body is an illusion. If you were to look at me as an adult, and then look at 100 pictures of infants, one being mine, you would probably have no clue which one was me. People change so much physically over the course of their lives that they become unrecognizable. I don’t see the self being any different. It develops in relation to many influences, but it’s still uniquely me. You are still uniquely you. The decisions you make, while influenced heavily by numerous variables, are still yours.

Humans tend to develop a sense of self in relation to other objects, including other humans, before we begin to question, doubt, and think rationally about those objects. Children develop the ability to see themselves as distinct individuals, separate from others, well before they understand concepts such as gravity, matter, or god. That sense of *I* precedes religious, scientific, or philosophical belief.

I think about the self in these terms: Flip Descartes on his head. I am, therefore, I think. Who I am as a person preceded my ability to think (logically, analytically, skeptically), so my personal biases will, no doubt, influence my thoughts even when I give the utmost care to being honest and objective. By the same token, my thoughts and experiences in life will affect and influence my self, because the self is continually changing.

Epistemology? I think honesty is paramount, honesty with one's self. That's it, if a person is dishonest they will "know" a lot of wrong stuff. Knowledge is just an operational model of reality which has the phenomenal content of certainty. Whatever it is we claim to know has impressed upon us in past experience. Causal determinacy is at play in everything including the claim to knowledge.

So is knowledge objective or relative? Are humans capable of knowledge of absolute truth, or is knowledge merely our own interpretation or a collective understanding of sense data?

But you can look through the other way, its hard to explain, don't separate mind from matter. Matter is not even important its the causal dynamics. Brains are just a way of visualizing the dynamics. Even atheists can believe that they are somehow outside of reality, that reality is their playground and they are disconnected.

How can anyone imagine their self existing outside of reality? That statement makes no sense. I would assert that I don’t know what reality is in any absolute sense, but that’s quite different from existing outside of reality.

The boundary of the skin provides the appearance of separation, but there is a seamless causal continuum flowing through us and around us in harmony all the time. We are ego-bound creatures, meaning that we perceive reality according to the desire to exist as individuals. We are blind to the fact that we are not individuals in reality and we grasp for more existence by asserting ourselves in relation to our community, family or workplace. Even in tend to permeate our fantasies.. In our deepest sorrows we are doing little but coddling the self we assert ourselves to be. We identify with others but that only temporarily transposes us, it doesn't touch the ultimate reality.

How do you know? On what basis do you make these claims? You state that there is a “seemless causal continuum flowing through us and around us in harmony all the time.” Where? What is it? How do you know that we are not individuals in reality? How do you know that reality isn’t exactly what we perceive it to be? What is ultimate reality?

Most people assume the physical universe and matter to be reality. I’m skeptical of that claim, and I believe that materialist assumptions require faith, just as supernatural assumptions require faith. You seem to be making the argument that life, matter, and human existence as we perceive it is not reality. But that’s simply another assumption that requires a leap of faith. Skepticism regarding existence and reality is perfectly logical; to make claims of this sort goes beyond mere skepticism to a level of belief. I don’t see your claims about reality being any different from a theist's or a materialist’s. They rest on assumptions that cannot be verified.

In that we all originated from the same causally interconnected reality which anthopomorphically can be referred to as the Father or Mother.

What reality? What is reality, Animus? And how do you know?

Nad

[Animus]

My apologies Nad, I was speaking the basis that you understood the Axiom of Causation.

Causation is to humans what water is to fish. It is often said that were a fish to go searching for water he could not find it, because it permeates his whole environment.

To give an analogy from experimental neuroscience: An experiment was done where monkeys were placed in rooms with red lighting and the activity of their color-opponency cells was monitored. Over time the cells became less responsive to the red hue engrossing the room. The cells attained equilibrium with the environment to the point that the monkey no longer perceived the red hue. This is how the brain works, it seeks coherence with the environment, constructing a dualistic frame of reference around the perceived base-line. What is ubiquitous is not noticed, it rests on neither side of the dichotomy, it is the base-line for comparison.

As indicated by your questions, I cannot provide you with sufficient answers. To do so would likely consume several pages of this thread, just in the introduction. All of my view is grounded in the axiom of causation, the law of non-contradiction, THEE axiomatic bedrock assumption of any and ALL world-views. The only difference is that I've become aware of it and accepted it. There are scores of individuals who will attempt to refute it without ever understanding it. Understanding is not easy, because the mind naturally wants to reject it to secure its own autonomy in a causally disconnected safe-zone. Causation is axiomatic and hypotheses otherwise ARE mere speculation, causation itself is not speculation. Causation is the single most obvious fact known to man and quite easily the most often denied fact.

[Animus]

I'll try to demonstrate the axiom of causation in as succinct a way as possible.

When you ask me "how" I know that causation is true you are asking me to lay out a causally dependent foundation for how knowledge works. Which I've already explained above, knowledge as acquired by convention, by prior experience, it is impossible to know something which has never once been experienced. There is an underlying causal dependency involved in knowing. "How" is an inquiry into the interior causal mechanisms. No one could give a contra-causal answer to the question of how something works without simply avoiding the inquiry.

Merriam-Webster gives the definition of "how" as: in what manner or way b : for what reason : why c : with what meaning : to what effect


"for what reason", reason is of course a reflection of causal dependency in our thinking processes. We grasp for "reasons" for external and causally sufficient justifications. When you ask what my reason is for believing the axiom of causation you ask me to provide a cause for my belief. Were I capable of providing a cause for my belief in contra-causality, that would be a contradiction. Instead I recognize and accept the utter ubiquity of causation.

When you speak of our "self" being defined by past experiences this is a system of causal determinacy. Causation is not easily understood however, because there are many subtleties including co-dependent origination, and the difference between necessary and sufficient causation.

As previously mentioned, Ted Honderich has a very good book on causation (although not a complete description). http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctytho/dfwCausat ... erich.html

[Animus]

To be sure, I spent close to three years toiling over the axiom of causation and free-will. It took as long to develop a concrete understanding with many personal obstacles along the way. I cannot expect anyone to be convinced of what I know in a short discussion, if at all. However desirable it is that others come to the same conclusions, I must accept the reality that probably few people will and certainly not enough to effect social change.

[Nad]

Causation is to humans what water is to fish. It is often said that were a fish to go searching for water he could not find it, because it permeates his whole environment.

The same could be said of oxygen, carbon, light, and any number of other components necessary for human survival. I'm not asking you to defend causation. Causation is not the issue in question. As I've acknowledged, both genetic and environmental causes seem to influence human development, behavior, and experience. What I'm questioning is your assertion that this is reality. How do you know that the material universe, with all its causal relationships, is not merely an illusion? How do you know that reality isn't something wholly different from our experience and perception of existence?

Nad

[Animus]

Causation is to humans what water is to fish. It is often said that were a fish to go searching for water he could not find it, because it permeates his whole environment.

The same could be said of oxygen, carbon, light, and any number of other components necessary for human survival. I'm not asking you to defend causation. Causation is not the issue in question. As I've acknowledged, both genetic and environmental causes seem to influence human development, behavior, and experience. What I'm questioning is your assertion that this is reality. How do you know that the material universe, with all its causal relationships, is not merely an illusion? How do you know that reality isn't something wholly different from our experience and perception of existence?

Nad

Causation is not based in material reality. Causation is the basis for material reality.

Material reality is a perspective on reality, its not a complete description of reality, but it serves as a sufficient model for our survival. Our perception of reality which constitutes "material" reality is limited to the percepts afforded us by our evolutionary past. It is not conducive to survival to have direct access to reality, nor is it an epistemic possibility.

[Animus]

Infinity makes such short work of "Ultimate reality"-- who has time to belabour the axiom of causation?

Wha? What's the difference between "infinity" and "ultimate reality"?

[Animus]

What's infinite ain't ultimate, it's infinite.

That's a semantic difference. What is infinite would necessarily be the only thing that exists and would therefor be ultimate in any sense because there would be nothing greater or lesser than it.

[Animus]

dejavu:What's infinite ain't ultimate, it's infinite.

Animus: That's a semantic difference. What is infinite would necessarily be the only thing that exists and would therefor be ultimate in any sense because there would be nothing greater or lesser than it

There may not be less infinity, but there is always more.

Ultimate reality or Infinite reality? A semantic difference of course, which makes all the difference!

Let's put it this way--which adjective is the truer for what we're using it, in any sense?

Its a superfluous argument.

[Pincho Paxton]

You could possibly work out all materials from what they are made from. A bit like you can work out that the Lottery is 49 numbers that have to have 6 ingredients. That's 14 million possibilities. I think that knowing the ingredients of the Universe gives you some sort of absolute possibility for materials to work with. But combining them like Billions of times in DNA gives you variations of the same thing.

Worm to Human share the same DNA of some sort. A bit like the Lottery I guess.

[Blair]

In other words, God is jack shit? lol

Yes exactly, from your current perspective, God is non-existent. God is not in your life, except as something which you are rebelling against, a non-existent being. You are programmed this way, that's the whole point.

More than anything else God is a hiding place for people who don't know what to think. Religious tolerance is highly legal, internationally acclaimed, safe in the wash, etc etc----- pity it tastes like crap

The nuance and language that you are using belies a deep discontent with the idea of God, this should raise alarm bells in your head. You feel this way for a reason. Time is irrelevant, it only takes a moment to realize the truth about your own existence. If you don't get it, fine.

You do not not possess the intellect to be able to bypass the concepts of religion, you are basically doomed. That's ok though, not everyone is capable of actually connecting with God. It requires a degree of humility and a sophisticated understanding of human nature to which you are not privy.

Keep on searching through the material world for all the gratification you can get, and see if there is an end to it. See if it ever fills the gap. All the sensations and pleasures you can experience are at God's grace, you have been given it all as a gift, by a designer and father which you can't even begin to comprehend the generosity and love of.

Take it all, it's a gift. Show a bit of gratitude, and you might find the pleasure multiplying intensely.