@Thessalos - ah but surely some disabilities are worse than others.. On what basis are disabilities assigned to people? Christianity does not accept rebirth, so there is no past history by which the disabilities can be rewarded. If you say that they are assigned by a randomized process, well i would accept that, but if this is created by "God", then you accept "God" as someone who is not compassionate/fair (for the randomized system is presumably created by "God").

90

Edited 4/27/2018 01:23:58

I am still confused by the sentence "A ton of things can be explained simply by using proper science and looking at it through a Christian worldview."
This is so wrong, because alot of science is simply not compatible with religion.

The point of science is that you must look at it from an objective worldview, which is no worldview at all. Not Christian, not muslim, not Hindu, hell not even atheist (there is still the possibility that god(s) exist, but we cant explain them with science yet).

Edited 4/27/2018 01:48:45

Well @Cata, if you are suggesting we view science in a manner devoid of philosophy, then i strongly disagree with you. On the contrary, it is often philosophical motivation which brings new thoughts to science. See above my definition of philosophy and definition of science. As I explained earlier, we have a restriction map Res: {consistent philosophies} -> {subnetworks within science}, and a major scientific breakthrough often involves "guessing a new lift" which restricts appropriately.

That said, i agree that the "Christian worldview" has not really been very compatible with science in the past.

However, philosophy and science are fundamentally linked (via the restriction map), and this connection which is often overlooked should not be ignored..

90

Edited 4/27/2018 02:02:21

@90

You are assuming that God assigns things and that it is not just a corruption. And are certain disabilities worse than others from a christian point of view?

What you have to understand, is that through a christian viewpoint, a physical disability doesnt even matter that much, it is a "disability" or sinful nature of the soul which is what you have to look at, which is what is hindering you from eternity, not your (in the long term) very very short period of time with a physical disability). Having material attachment is the disability which is the real problem in terms of Christianity. In some ways, being disabled could theoretically be helpful in terms of spiritual development (which is the case in terms of my deaf friend).

Also, Satan in Christian theology has been known to create disabilities in people and generally make people miserable to try and keep them from salvation.

@Thessalos

Well, let us start our thought experiment small. I will ask questions and you answer them. I will write "Question n" for the nth question and you respond with "Answer n".

Question 1: Suppose a child is about to be born but the mother is hacked to death. Is this a good thing or a bad thing for the child? That is, from the christian point of view, does this child go to heaven or not? The child has not done anything bad, but has not done anything good either..

90

First of all, Wulfhere, you wrote lots of fancy words, but gave no evidence whatsoever for your claim. If you want us to take you seriously, give some supporting arguments and evidence. And a question for you: What do you think of Jesus?

It is the truth that for every being there exists a corresponding nonbeing and something beyond the being and nonbeing itself. A theistic God is a being. So it is the truth that there is something beyond God if he does exist. Christianity preaches that there is nothing beyond God. So Christianity does not preach the truth.

You don't have to use evidence to show something is invalid. If something is logically invalid it is invalid. You don't need to recite some textbook line to back it up. To say that I "gave no evidence whatsoever for my claim" is dishonest and not a refutation of the claim. You can dismiss a claim made without evidence without evidence but you have not dismissed my claim you are simply accusing me of something that isn't relevant.

Christianity could be USEFUL as long as it acts as a bulwark against decadence. It would have to be practiced by an aristocracy that is organic i.e. coming from its culture and ruling over it. Basically the plebs are too stupid to follow ethical systems that would promote the health of their souls and the soul of their culture. They would rather be utilitarians and materialists in the absence of a strong religious tradition. So Christianity, which is historically an organically Western faith, is a good religion for the masses to follow because it elevates them. Regardless of whether or not it is a true religion.

What I think of Jesus: no Roman historians during Jesus' life give him any consideration. Only people writing DECADES after his life talked about him. He was in all likelihood not a miracle worker but simply a theologian.

but I don't blame you for needing further clarification I'm happy to provide it.

Explanation in 1 hour @90

Edited 4/27/2018 02:40:37

Explanation in 1 hour @90

Edited 4/27/2018 02:40:47

Is it syncretism if I don't blend Scientology and Catholicism, but practice them fully independently of one another. The only contradiction I know between the two is original sin vs "everyone is born basically good". that doesnt seem so big to me.

It is the truth that for every being there exists a corresponding nonbeing and something beyond the being and nonbeing itself.

- Deepak "Wulfhere" Chopra

You cant practice Scientology and Catholicism at the same time since they are mutually exclusive, nice bait thread though

Also Wulfhere how can you say that statement is the truth apart from the fact it makes you sound smart?

Edited 4/27/2018 04:05:27

@90

Christians do not claim to know who goes to heaven or hell. From a christian point of view, of course it is bad the baby is murdered because murder is a sin.

@90

Christians do not claim to know who goes to heaven or hell. From a christian point of view, of course it is bad the baby is murdered because murder is a sin.

How is my thread bait?

Because you wouldnt be saying "I want to combine scientology and catholocism" if you werent baiting

combine scientology and catholocism

Nicole Kidman and Tom Cruise gave that a go.

@Thessalos -- you dodged the quesiton. A philosophy must assign "true" or "false" to it's points.. but here is your problem:

Case 1: If the baby goes to heaven, then it is desirable to kill babies, since you are doing them a favor.. so you cannot agree with this. (If you agreed with this then Christianity would be pro-abortion for example, and also be in favor murdering babies when they are born)

Case 2: If the baby does not go to heaven, then clearly it is undesirable for the baby to be born in that mother. So that baby is clearly disadvantaged over other babies since this baby had no chance to go to heaven whereas others did.. so you admit that (1) some "disadvantages" ("disabilities") are worse than others (2) God created an unjust system.

It is a lose lose situation. I hope you can see now the reason why I said that Christianity has several self-contradictions

Saying that "Christians dont claim to know who goes to heaven and who does not" is trying to dodge the question.

90

Edited 4/27/2018 12:06:39

this is impressive discussion

Also Wulfhere how can you say that statement is the truth apart from the fact it makes you sound smart?

It must be true if you have a grasp on logic.

There is everything and nothing. All the books on the bookshelf or none of the books on the bookshelf. All physical matter or no physical matter. But there is always something beyond everything and nothing, no matter what you're talking about. The outside world is beyond the collection of books on the bookshelf; there is an outside world to the physical world and even that would have something beyond it so long as it was something that existed.

To exist means there is something beyond.

So, it must be true that there is an absolute starting point, but the starting point can't be said to exist exactly: to say that the starting point is or is not is to invoke something even beyond it. It is a paradox rather than a thing, but everything and nothing is governed by it.

If you think I'm just trying to sound smart then you can refute me without accusations. The accusations just lead to needless drama and everyone abandons the discussion to defend their ego. Plebs like Ox are hopeless and you have to attack them to preserve your platform but there is hope for some people. Maybe you.

What I'm talking about is pretty basic metaphysics. It only sounds smart or seems like an attempt to sound smart if you haven't read into metaphysics, which you should and can do. I don't mean to sound special; I just summarize what I read and apply those concepts to discussions.