Understanding the religious mindset

[seeds]

Besides, Mannie is very articulate and fully capable of defending himself. Indeed, I would be an admirer of his tenacity and his eloquent defense of his beliefs if he wasn't so devious and deceitful in the way he handles criticism.

I agree. It shouldn't be that hard for him to do... and it's certainly reasonable to expect from someone who claims to have honorable principals.

I don't know about you, Lacewing, but this thread is getting exhausting.

It’s an interesting and repeatable phenomenon how fine examples of extraordinary lucidity can either energize or drain energy according to conditions of ohm impedance...

What fine examples of "extraordinary lucidity" (within this particular thread) are you referring to?

Please point them out (as in provide a link to the post in which this "extraordinary lucidity" has been displayed).

Is the religious mindset an inherent patch self-generated to replace the blown-off bark of ego control? Or, must it be injected by faith.

Due to the fact that (for now) the "ultimate truth" of reality is kept hidden from us, then, yes, the "religious mindset"...

(as in our inherent propensity to reify our speculations as to what that ultimate truth might be)

...must indeed be a temporary "patch" injected by faith.
_______

[seeds]

A short quotation, then? I can do that.

"...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God..." (Rm. 3:23)

Immanuel Can, please explain to us how the children in the following image...



...have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God?
_______

as soon as you have self awareness you have to be carefull. for a 6yr old that sins and never accepts Christ gooes to Hell forever. like most of the rest of us.

Yes, gaffo, and that whole concept invokes the utterly bizarre logic that, starting from this moment, all humans should die as infants in order to guarantee their entrance into heaven and eternal life.

Indeed, it may result in the fact that no more humans will ever again be awakened into existence on this planet, but at least no one will ever again have to face the possibility of eternal damnation for not believing in or performing the rituals of the "right religion" while on earth.

The bottom line is that based on the very premises of Christianity, it is far too risky for any human to live past the age of accountability.
_______

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel Can, please explain to us how the children in the following image...

I can't actually believe you recycled a claim this clueless, Seeds.

We have no particular indication from the Bible as to what happens to infants...so far as I know and can discover. King David said he would "go to" his dead child, but we don't know what that implies. Jesus said, "Allow the little children to come unto Me," but we don't know exactly how that works out either.

The point is that we have no information on this subject. So your posture of certainty is just absurd. You have no idea.

What we do know is that there is a difference between sin as a nature and sin as an action. The former is what is meant by "original sin," and the latter by "sins." The baby perhaps has not committed anything that can be called a "sin," since he has no awareness...maybe. What happens to him? Who knows? You sure don't.

But here's an interesting thought: what if God knows not merely which child is or is not believing in Him, but also knows which child would or would not believe in Him, given enough time and having come of age of responsibility? Since the Bible says God does know all possible futures, this isn't even speculation. So how could you even reasonably suppose God doesn't know what the destiny of a baby should and would be?

See https://iep.utm.edu/middlekn/

As for the toddler, the case may be more simple. And judging by your smugness, I'm certain you don't have one, and have never seen one for five minutes, if you think they can't sin and do it very consciously. Wait five minutes and she'll slap her brother in the face or burst out in rage. They don't call it "the terrible twos" for nothing. That, if nothing else, should show you the truth that "original sin" exists in everyone.

I tried to do you the favour of ignoring this, but since you recycled it...I guess you get an answer.

[Sculptor]

Ethics is a univeral nature of man - it dates to 2-million BC - and so long before Christianity or any of the other known religons of the world..

Formal ethics would imply a branch of study and reflection. I do not think 2 million years can be offered as a date for that since no evidence could exist for ethics at that time.
A moral sense is present on all mammals to different degrees.
We definitely witness moral behaviours in our house pets, and simians, whales, elephants - and whole host of other animals, even some birds and reptiles.
One thing is for sure, Christianity is not necessary.

He's got a good point. Mammals show immense capacity to kill with minimal suffering.

Listen puppy!!
Did you ever get to drink your mummy's nipple? Did she give of her substance so that you could live?
I know you were probably shunned by the rest of the pack. But normal moral dogs form groups with group dynamics.
That is the essence of morality.

[seeds]

Immanuel Can, please explain to us how the children in the following image...

I can't actually believe you recycled a claim this clueless, Seeds.

I recycled it, not only because gaffo reposted it with an accompanying reply, but also because you completely failed to give any kind of adequate answer as to how those children have "...fallen short of the glory of God..." (as per your Biblical quote).

But here's an interesting thought: what if God knows not merely which child is or is not believing in Him, but also knows which child would or would not believe in Him, given enough time and having come of age of responsibility? Since the Bible says God does know all possible futures, this isn't even speculation. So how could you even reasonably suppose God doesn't know what the destiny of a baby should and would be?

So what you are basically saying is that the Creator of the unfathomable order and beauty of this universe is so viciously evil and cruel that he simply condemns little children to eternal damnation because he knew that those children would someday do something that displeases him? Really? Really???

If such were the case that God knew ahead of time (even before the person was born) that he was going to have to cast a particular soul into the proverbial "lake of fire,"...

...then don't you think it would be a wee bit kinder and loving of God to just not awaken that soul into existence in the first place?

I mean, according to your reasoning, they don't even get to experience the piddling little temporal pleasure of committing the crime they are condemned for.

Can you be any more ridiculous?

Why do you insult God by characterizing him as being so evil and, quite frankly, insane?

This is ranking up there with the way Muslim males insult God by picturing him as being some kind of "Cosmic Pimp" (as mentioned in an alternate thread) that's going to provide them with 72 whores after death.

Wake up, for crying out loud.
_______

[Immanuel Can]

So what you are basically saying is...

When you start a sentence with this phrase, it's ordinarily not an opportunity to make up your own explanation, but rather to demonstrate your grasp of some point the other has actually made. Maybe you should try reading the summary in the "middle knowledge" link.

If such were the case that God knew ahead of time (even before the person was born) that he was going to have to cast a particular soul into the proverbial "lake of fire,"...then don't you think it would be a wee bit kinder and loving of God to just not awaken that soul into existence in the first place?

That depends. It depends on what is at stake. There are some things worth the risk of that.

One, many people believe, is freedom. Another is love. People die for these things all the time, actually, and many more risk it. Maybe you don't believe in either, so maybe there's no reason for anything.

But love has particular terms. One is that it cannot be had unless both parties have free will. And free will entails that they can accept or reject each other. God, for His part, accepts all who freely come. But He takes no prisoners, in that regard; you come freely, or you come not at all.

And if God knows who will and who will not believe, then all that remains is for one to make that choice or not. For the freedom of God is but one side in a two-sided equation.

[Lacewing]

if God knows who will and who will not believe, then all that remains is for one to make that choice or not.

How is it a choice to be made or not, if God knows who will and who will not believe? There's nothing unknown to play out. So, why such a game? What's the point?

[Immanuel Can]

if God knows who will and who will not believe, then all that remains is for one to make that choice or not.

How is it a choice to be made or not, if God knows who will and who will not believe? There's nothing unknown to play out. So, why such a game? What's the point?

To know is not the same as to cause.

You might know I would reply...does that imply you made me reply? Of course not.

So foreknowledge is no problem; only actual Determinism (i.e. some force, whether a god or an inevitable sequence of material causes) would be.

And I'm not a Determinist.

[Lacewing]

if God knows who will and who will not believe, then all that remains is for one to make that choice or not.

How is it a choice to be made or not, if God knows who will and who will not believe? There's nothing unknown to play out. So, why such a game? What's the point?

To know is not the same as to cause.

I'm asking: If God knows the outcome, what is the point of pretending that the outcome is yet to be determined?

It sounds like a twisted game... a farce: Create beings, know what they're going to do, and declare rewards and punishments. It's like playing dolls with thinking beings. Isn't it?

[Immanuel Can]

How is it a choice to be made or not, if God knows who will and who will not believe? There's nothing unknown to play out. So, why such a game? What's the point?

To know is not the same as to cause.

I'm asking: If God knows the outcome, what is the point of pretending that the outcome is yet to be determined?

You're using the word "determined" in a slightly different way than it's meant by "Determinism."

We sometimes say, "I stepped outside to determine the weather," for example. But that does not mean that I made the weather beautiful or rough...it only means, "I figured out what they weather already was, or was likely to be." That's using "determine" in a merely knowledge sense.

Determinism means more. When we talk about the outcome of a game being "predetermined," we mean it was fixed so that only one team could win. We mean the outcome was preset by somebody. After than, the outcome was fated, certain, without option.

To say that God knows the future is not to say that God makes everything happen that happens. It's only to claim that he knows what free agents will choose, even before they have made up their minds. For God is not subject to time; to Him, all moments are present and knowable.

It sounds like a twisted game... a farce: Create beings, know what they're going to do, and declare rewards and punishments. It's like playing dolls with thinking beings. Isn't it?

Well, if we were predetermined, we wouldn't actually be "thinking" at all. We'd actually only be robots playing our programming. Or to use your word, we'd be dolls. But it isn't like that at all.

Let me give you another example. Have you ever raised a child? Babysit one? Seen one in action?

Okay, so let's go back to when he/she is maybe four years old. And there's a plate of cookies on the counter. And you know, before the kid even knows, that if you leave the room, then sure as shooting, that kid is going to go for the cookies. So you say, "Don't touch the cookies." But you still wonder if that's going to be enough, because chocolate chip cookies are awfully good...and you're pretty sure there's going to be a bad outcome, but you know the kid needs to learn to take responsibility for his/her choices, and learn to do the right thing.

Does your foreknowledge MAKE the child obey or disobey you? No. But you might still know darn well what the kid will do. Still, that's on the kid.

[uwot]

For God is not subject to time; to Him, all moments are present and knowable.

That's eternalism. If all moments are present, then the flow of time we experience is illusory.

Well, if we were predetermined, we wouldn't actually be "thinking" at all. We'd actually only be robots playing our programming. Or to use your word, we'd be dolls. But it isn't like that at all.

Yes it is. If all moments are present and knowable, there is nothing we can do to change them. The most you could claim with regard to free will is that we were given a choice of which timeline to follow in some prenatal crapshoot.

Let me give you another example. Have you ever raised a child? Babysit one? Seen one in action?

Okay, so let's go back to when he/she is maybe four years old. And there's a plate of cookies on the counter. And you know, before the kid even knows, that if you leave the room, then sure as shooting, that kid is going to go for the cookies. So you say, "Don't touch the cookies." But you still wonder if that's going to be enough, because chocolate chip cookies are awfully good...and you're pretty sure there's going to be a bad outcome, but you know the kid needs to learn to take responsibility for his/her choices, and learn to do the right thing.

Does your foreknowledge MAKE the child obey or disobey you? No. But you might still know darn well what the kid will do. Still, that's on the kid.

Where your analogy falls down is that god doesn't wonder if saying "Don't touch the cookies" will be enough; he already knows, because what to us is the future already exists.

[Walker]

I agree. It shouldn't be that hard for him to do... and it's certainly reasonable to expect from someone who claims to have honorable principals.

I don't know about you, Lacewing, but this thread is getting exhausting.

It’s an interesting and repeatable phenomenon how fine examples of extraordinary lucidity can either energize or drain energy according to conditions of ohm impedance...

What fine examples of "extraordinary lucidity" (within this particular thread) are you referring to?

Please point them out (as in provide a link to the post in which this "extraordinary lucidity" has been displayed).

Is the religious mindset an inherent patch self-generated to replace the blown-off bark of ego control? Or, must it be injected by faith.

Due to the fact that (for now) the "ultimate truth" of reality is kept hidden from us, then, yes, the "religious mindset"...

(as in our inherent propensity to reify our speculations as to what that ultimate truth might be)

...must indeed be a temporary "patch" injected by faith.
_______

A: For your pleasing, as I recall nothing that I wrote but rather, some of the postings immediately or close, preceding the quote of your words that prompted you to quote, and then politely question.

All body patches are temporary because the body dies and until that happens, patches replacing blown off bark are tougher than the original design which was put in place by the creator to protect against the slings and arrows of outrageous ignorance.

(note to self: remember the magic word)

Q: Please, what is the quality, or what are the qualities, of a posting that will blow bark off a big tree that is not so massive that it can resist lightning?

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

But love has particular terms. One is that it cannot be had unless both parties have free will. And free will entails that they can accept or reject each other. God, for His part, accepts all who freely come. But He takes no prisoners, in that regard; you come freely, or you come not at all.

No, love depends upon choice, not Free Will. God knows everything so God knows what choices you have. The man who chooses love in the most difficult circumstances, Jesus for example, does not do so from Free Will but from choice.

If it were true that God accepts only all who by means of Free Will come to Him then He cannot do otherwise than accept Himself. So far that is okay. But God is love. Love is unconditional. God presumably loves Himself despite His obvious lack of omnipotence over evil.

[attofishpi]

Immanuel Can wrote:

But love has particular terms. One is that it cannot be had unless both parties have free will. And free will entails that they can accept or reject each other. God, for His part, accepts all who freely come. But He takes no prisoners, in that regard; you come freely, or you come not at all.

No, love depends upon choice, not Free Will. God knows everything so God knows what choices you have. The man who chooses love in the most difficult circumstances, Jesus for example, does not do so from Free Will but from choice.

If it were true that God accepts only all who by means of Free Will come to Him then He cannot do otherwise than accept Himself. So far that is okay. [But God is love. Love is unconditional. God presumably loves Himself despite His obvious lack of omnipotence over evil.

From experience GOD does NOT love unconditionally. Were 10 Commandments conditions? ......and 'evil....wtf is that....Well let me explain...'humans can be evil..

There is nuffin beyond God, GOD can be the most EVIL **** if u r not up to the task.

[Immanuel Can]

... love depends upon choice, not Free Will.

Think about that claim.

If there are "choices," but you have no free will to "choose" any of them, what's the meaning of "choice"? If I take you to a restaurant that has a hundred items on the menu, but only let you say the words, "The house salad, please," have I given you a choice?

God knows everything so God knows what choices you have.

This is true. But for Him to "know" is not the same verb as for Him to "compel" or "force" the choice. The latter are actions, and the former is only a state of awareness. Knowledge doesn't make things happen.

God is love. Love is unconditional.

It depends on what you mean by "unconditional."

If you mean that a person cannot earn or compel love, then yes, real love transcends that. But love also has conditions. Consider, for example, the man who knows his wife is having affairs, and remains utterly unconcerned. Does he love her? Or is it pretty obvious he just doesn't care? In fact, would not the desire for exclusivity mark real love, and failure to be exclusive be the hallmark of less than complete love?

So love is not unconditional, if what we mean is that it has no particular demands or context.

Or again, if a man forced a woman to have a relationship with him against her will, we might call his attentions completely "unconditional." But we wouldn't call them "love," would we? We would understand that they lacked the condition of consent by the loved one.

So we might ask, what are the conditions under which we can have the love of God? And under what conditions would such alleged "love" merely be suffocating, controlling, overwhelming, demanding, destructive, and not really love at all?