Judgement

[Tsen]

Yet another flaw in religious doctrine. Most religions, especially Christianity and Islam, tend to focus on how we will be judged for our choices here on earth. We always supposedly have the "choice" to be who we are, to act the way we do. However, it is become increasingly apparent that we really don't have nearly as much of a choice as we'd like to imagine: Scientists over the last fifty years have been finding ever-mounting evidence that our personalities and actions can be altered by physical changes to our mind. For example, Phineas Gage. Phineas was a railroad worker who experienced a freak accident. A three-foot long metal rod was blasted through is head, entering below his jaw and exiting the top of his head above his left eye. This damaged part of his frontal lobe, in essence giving him a impromtu frontal lobotomy. After the accident, his entire demeanor was changed. Where he was once a well-liked foreman, he had trouble finding any work at all because people found his temper too short after the accident. This is one of several examples that show how a person's behavior can be altered in a means that excludes all possibility of a choice on the part of the person in question. Further, a recent study has shown that a small piece of tissue in the brain, when altered, can make a person anywhere from completely selfish to completely selfless. Again, there's no choice involved in the matter: the people do what they do only because of physical changes to their brains. Study found here. This makes some serious implications. With these findings, we see that people's choices aren't based on some higher conscious soul, but based in chemical reactions taking place in the brain. So how can gawd judge people on their actions when we're finding more and more that people might not have control over these actions? This becomes increasingly apparent when one views the doctrine of Christianity more in depth. According to mainstream Christianity, gawd is perfect and infallible. And yet, when gawd created us, he must've thrown in all these pieces of the brain, KNOWING what he was doing. So in essence, gawd is sitting up on his cloud, intentionally creates humankind in a way that some of us will sin without ever making a conscious choice to do so, and then judges those people on the "decisions" they made because of the way gawd made them. In short: Gawd is damning the people HE made for being people.

[Neruo]

Indeed. Actually wether or not you believe in a soul or not has alot to do with wether you are thiest/agnost. If you do not believe in a soul, no heaven can exist. If one dies, it is over. A soul indeed is illogical. Personalities can be changed rather easialy. Some people with mental deases, like being uber-uber-tidy get treated with some electrodes in the brain. I read this article in wich one of those people told that every time they changed something about the electrodes he would kind of have a different personallity, like more agressive. I can not see how christians can explain this, but they sure as hell will dodge it, like alot more difficult questions.

[The Blue Meanie]

Ha! Phineas Gage! Where did you get that from? Have you studied any psychology? We had a psych lecture about him last semester. Interesting case.

[Tsen]

Nah, I haven't taken much in terms of psych classes, I just stumbled upon it in one of my frequent internet wanderings. It IS an interesting story, though, isn't it?

[The Blue Meanie]

Yeah. I mean, you'd think somebody who got a metal frickin' POLE through the head would be dead, instantly. I mean, people are meant to die from just one bullet. Man. However, from now on in the Religion forums, I'm going to take a Christian perspective, just for the sake of playing devil's advocate (love the irony there): Whether a person is Good or Evil, is largely to do with their Core Nature. Their nature, of course, is shaped by their Worldly Actions. And, vice-versa. In the case of Phineas Gage, the injury he sustained had the effect of giving him less control over his own Actions and Moods, as the brain damage affected the prefrontal cortex (I believe, correct me if I am wrong). this changed him so that he could exert Less Control over his Emotions and Actions - it impaired his ability of self-control. Thus his actions can be seen to be More of an Indication of his Core Nature than could, perhaps, a person with far more control over their actions and who is able to "Hide" or Conceal their nature from the world. Allmighty and Allseeing God, of course, is not fooled by such Concealment. It is within his ability to look past a person's actions, and instead look at their Core Nature, the nature of their Soul. Actions, while they can affect one's own nature, are more often than not an insufficient and unreliable indicator of one's Core Nature. In the case od Gage, his accident can be said to have Exposed his Core Nature, rather than changed it. It is largely a matter of Perspective.

[Tsen]

Wow, TBM, gotta say you did pretty good at spinning that one. Well, I guess I'll play along and see what I can make of it all. I'd think that mainstream Christianity doesn't care about the core nature of a person. After all, a person who fights their instincts to be a selfish person and lives a charitable life is still a good person, correct? Gawd wouldn't condemn a man who fought his inner nature to be a good person. Following from this, if a person was fighting their instincts to be a good person, and suffered similar damage to Phineas, and were no longer able to supress their inner nature, could they really be judged negatively based on that? After all, they'd been a good person all their life, it was only when part of their "free agency" was taken away that they began to be evil.

[The Blue Meanie]

I'd think that mainstream Christianity doesn't care about the core nature of a person. After all, a person who fights their instincts to be a selfish person and lives a charitable life is still a good person, correct? Gawd wouldn't condemn a man who fought his inner nature to be a good person.[/b] You have hit upon a bit of a conundrum here. If somebody fights their Evil Instincts to become a Good Person, then surely that Urge to resist one's own Inner Evil must come from somewhere. There are, in my mind, two Possible Sources for this urge to resist letting one's Inner Evil manifest itself in Evil Actions. The first, is that there is a Desire on the part of that individual, to resist committing Acts of Evil, so that he may gain the Lord's favour, and be judged to be Worthy of Divine Grace, thus gaining entrance to Heaven. In this case, if the person persists in having an essentially Evil Core Nature, God, in his Infinite Wisdom and Perception, will see past this, and judge that person as Evil. The second, is that the person Resiting his or her Inner Evil, is so resisting because there is, alongside that Evil, an equally if not more strong Inner Good. In this case, though the person does have many Evil Instincts, the Core Nature of that peson, is Good. And, God shall judge him as such. In this case, the Urge to Resist one's Evil does not come from the conscious control of one's actions, but comes from a much deeper Intstinct towards Good. In the case of Phineas Gage, the effect of the brain damage he suffered, was to impair his Conscious control over his Actions. As such, he became easily identifiable as a Predominantly Evil Person because his Actions more accurately represented his Core Nature, uncensored as they were by any significant Conscious Control. Brain damage can never impair somebody in the second categories I have given from stopping their own Evil Actions. Because, in that case, the Desire to Resist their own Evil, comes from the same fundamental level as does the Urge to commit Evil in the first place. Following from this, if a person was fighting their instincts to be a good person, and suffered similar damage to Phineas, and were no longer able to supress their inner nature, could they really be judged negatively based on that? After all, they'd been a good person all their life, it was only when part of their "free agency" was taken away that they began to be evil.[/b] As I have said above, there are two situations: 1)Where the Potential Evildoer censors his own actions through, and as a result of, his Conscious Mind - his Conscious Motivation for doing so is primarily Selfish. 2)Where the Potential Evildoer's desire to abstain from Evil derives from a far more Fundamental Instinct Towards Good - his Conscious Motivation for doing so is Instinctual. The first can be affected by brain damage. Similarly, the first would be judged Evil by the Lord. The second cannot have his Instinctual Desire for Good impaired, just as he cannot have his Instinctual Evil destroyed. This second person would be judged Good by God.

[Orcanta]

It's my belief that as long as you repent in the end, God will forgive you. Maybe you have to do a bit more afterward to make up for it, but even the worst sinners can be saved if they truly repent. (Kind of a la Dante's Purgatorio.)

[Tsen]

I know, but what makes them a sinner? We're finding that they probably don't have nearly as much of a choice in the matter as we'd like ot think. They never CHOSE to be sinners, they just are that way because of chemical imbalances and physical mutations to parts of the brain. Refer to the selfishness link I posted earlier.

[Keeper]

I love (read: hate) the way you guys keep jumping on God, making fun of him, and waving your scientific data in his face. WHY do you think this is so? Several years ago they had PROOF that evolution was fact. Now they are not so sure. Years ago they KNEW that the human genom contained millions of genes. Now they found out that it only has seveeral thousand. your science will do proven wrong in the end. And though you lot hate to hear this line, I'm going to say it anyway, dispite how your going to jump down my throught or make fun of me for it: In the end, EVERY knee will bow, and EVERY tongue confess that Jesus is Lord. the Bible even says that God makes man do what he does. He has mercy on those he chooses, and judges those he chooses. Shall we say that God is not just? No, for dose a clay pot tell you that you made it wrong? Dose a creation tell its creator that he made a mistake? For we are but clay pots.

[The Blue Meanie]

WHY do you think this is so? Several years ago they had PROOF that evolution was fact. Now they are not so sure. [/b] Evolution is still fact. The only people disputing it are these stupid Intelligent Design junkies. ID is absolute fucking pseudo-science, a warped doctrine being pushed by fundamentalist christian lobby groups. I've said it before, I'll say it again. Years ago they KNEW that the human genom contained millions of genes. Now they found out that it only has seveeral thousand. [/b] No. Initial predictions were around about 100,000. Now they predict around about 25,000. And, "they" have never claimed they KNEW. These are predictions only. Andm, the only reason predictions are dropping, is that scientists are discovering each gene to be more complex than initially thought. If you want to keep on claiming that the world is flat, that's your problem. But, it is possible to be Christian and accept scientific developments rather than close one's mind to them. Take a leaf out of buddhism's book. If an aspect of Christianity is proven wrong by science, Christianity will have to change.

[Keeper]

your choice. But I still think I'm right. still, you do admit that science has been wrong before, and science has even proved several points in christianity aswell. (do NOT take that sentance out of context)

[The Blue Meanie]

still, you do admit that science has been wrong before, and science has even proved several points in christianity aswell. (do NOT take that sentance out of context) [/b] Science has been wrong before. But then again, so has christianity. As for Science proving points of christianity, I'm uncertain which points you're referring to. Gimme examples.

[Tsen]

This could turn bad, you know. LAST time somebody tried to tell me that the Bible was scientifically valid and science is proving it right...well, it got messy. Here's the thread. Looking back, I think I could've done a much better job at refuting him, but that'll have to do.

[The Blue Meanie]

This could turn bad, you know. LAST time somebody tried to tell me that the Bible was scientifically valid and science is proving it right...well, it got messy. Here's the thread. Looking back, I think I could've done a much better job at refuting him, but that'll have to do. [/b] Ahhh well. I'm actually reading through the bible at the moment, the New Revised Standard Edition, with all the apocrypha excluded in the Catholic version of the bible, cover-to-cover. I'm up to the Second book of Samuel at the moment. I can't stand ignorant christians, but, I also can't stand ignorant Atheists who make no attempts to get to know the religions they are refuting. As a sidenote, there's certainly some very interesting things in the bible. For instance, I have this theory that the Ark of the Covenant was radioactive. There's a few very interesting passages in Judges, I think, that suiggest this. The destruction of Sodom and Gommorah also sounds a bit like a nuclear explosion, particularly when Lot's wife turns into a "Pillar of Salt" because she stopped and was caught by the blast... I know the idea of nuclear weapons in biblical times seems freaking crazy, but, who knows... That's totally off the topic of this thread, but meh.

[Neruo]

Science does make mistakes in it's quest for the truth. So has christianity, I am sure that god did not like the spanish inquisition and the molestation of little boys by priests. I am sure albert einstein made some wrong assumption a few times. And christianity is doing the same: all of a sudden the pope wants to dismiss limbo, the place where dead born babies go to. Christianity is constantly changing itself, as is science. Only science works on facts and probablilities, the church works with emotions and public oppinion.

[Keeper]

Science does make mistakes in it's quest for the truth. So has christianity, I am sure that god did not like the spanish inquisition and the molestation of little boys by priests. I am sure albert einstein made some wrong assumption a few times. And christianity is doing the same: all of a sudden the pope wants to dismiss limbo, the place where dead born babies go to. Christianity is constantly changing itself, as is science. Only science works on facts and probablilities, the church works with emotions and public oppinion. [/b] I agree, however, when Christians fall, its because they havn't obayed scripcher. Limbo is NOT in scripcher. I'll see if I can find that link to the info I was talking about.

[Tsen]

Keeper--it's "scripture". Is English your first language?

[Keeper]

yes, but I've never been very good at spelling. When I read, I scim over the words, and dont take into account there spelling. When I talk, people often think that I come from England, due to my pronunciation at "acsent".

[Neruo]

I agree, however, when Christians fall, its because they havn't obayed scripcher. Limbo is NOT in scripcher. I'll see if I can find that link to the info I was talking about. [/b] Yes that is true. But absence in the scripture doesn't really matter to christians. Oh please DO point out a part that is against mastrubation, against lesbians (the scriptures are only against male homosexuals), ect.

[Keeper]

I'm sorry, but are you saying that you saport homosexuality? If God made something for one perpose (or random genetic mutations or whatever else you believe) it would naturaly be wrong to use it for another perpose. The Bible is against homosexuality, and against lust (you can choose not to lust after someone) but it isn't against masterbation. Who told you it was? Have you ever heard the expresion: "He who is slaved to the compase has the freedom of the sea"? Without a moral compase, are we not animals?

[CryoDragoon]

I'm sorry, but are you saying that you saport homosexuality? If God made something for one perpose (or random genetic mutations or whatever else you believe) it would naturaly be wrong to use it for another perpose. The Bible is against homosexuality, and against lust (you can choose not to lust after someone) but it isn't against masterbation. Who told you it was? Have you ever heard the expresion: "He who is slaved to the compase has the freedom of the sea"? Without a moral compase, are we not animals? [/b] don't you support homosexuality? IF god made us humans the way we are ("in his own image") then he surely would have known we could be homosexual, in fact, if he made us the way we are now, then he MADE us with the capacity to be homosexual, he has MADE some of us to be homosexual... and yet, at the same time, he doesn't approve of it? what kind of crap is that? surely... if he made us in his own image, we must be as perfect as he is... but who would make the perfect thing forbidden?

[Keeper]

I havn't watched it yet, but i will. Im sorry, but i dont follow your logic in your last statment.

[Neruo]

I'm sorry, but are you saying that you saport homosexuality? [/b] Besides the fact that it is scray you sound surprised, wich leads me to think you think it is fine to discriminate homosexuals, and thus cause alot of misery and sadness, besides that: Yes I do support homosexuality. Without being one. Being against homosexuality is actually quite old fashioned, even for christians... well maybe in some parts of europe and intelligent parts of america. Agruements coming up in next part. If God made something for one perpose (or random genetic mutations or whatever else you believe) it would naturaly be wrong to use it for another perpose. The Bible is against homosexuality, and against lust (you can choose not to lust after someone) but it isn't against masterbation. Who told you it was?[/b] Give me one, just óne american preacher from the bible belt (The non-costal parts of america) that does not judge negatively about mastrubation. I can assure you most do not approve of it. How do you know god made something for one purpose? How can you really know? I think god wants me to mastrubate... alot. Have you ever heard the expresion: "He who is slaved to the compase has the freedom of the sea"? Without a moral compase, are we not animals? [/b] How different are we from animals? Look at Koko http://www.koko.org/world/signlanguage.html, quite freaking intelligent if you ask me. I am quite sure that some monkeys would steal a banana and some wouldn't. They have as much potential for morals as we do, but thanks to civilisation we created alot more and more clear onces, since we can discuss them. You are a slave indeed, and you have the freedom to feeling real good about it, but you still are a slave. That compas is a burden around your wrists yet you carry it around while you turn your head to the key that would set you free, only desorientate you for a short period, while actually you could orientate by the stars even betten then by the compass... Man, I am sorry, but I have to say my methapore ROCKS HARD. - I am not in the mood to dicuss your other point. I believe in evolution becouse of obvious reasons, thus I think we are animals. Besides that, back to homosexuality: In just about every species in the animal kingdom homosexuality occurs. Why did god give such soulless animals that instinct? Animals have no free will like humans, for they have no soul and such, you reason, so it is god that made them love their own gender. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals (look at the homosexuality part) Besides that, studies indicate that homosexuals are actually born that way, have different brains, and it's to common to be called a desease. Allso, homosexuals can not be 'converted' truely as many christians try. They perhaps can repress it, with will power. However a homosexual that lives a fake life, like many sure do in america, lives a horrible live in my eyes. I wouldn't want to have a burden and a desire on my shoulder you can never get rid of, yet never can be furfilled by your surroundings. Last point: Really what did homosexuals ever did wrong. It's plain illogical to hate them without true grounds. Being homosexuals doesn't mean that you lead a less viritous life. Homosexuals arn't rapist and criminals any more then hetrosexuals are.

[Tsen]

Hey, just to further that bit about intelligent animals, it's been proven that dolphins refer to eachother with names--unique sound patterns that only that individual responds to. They also can refer to eachother in third person--talk about somebody who isn't there at the moment. They are most certainly intelligent. Next, there's several bonobos that understand fluently spoken english. They can't use sign language like Koko, but instead type things out on keyboards with symbols on them. The bonobos can understand and comprehend consequences, can predict and be excited or nervous about the future, use metaphors, and empathize with pain. I'll have to dig up the links to the relevant information, but it's a very interesting read.