An unexpected religious conversation...

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

10/29/2009 09:43:03 PM · #977

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, as I said, since my life operates through the lens of my faith, any advocating I do would be dictated by it.

So you're a slave to your faith? I'm sure you find it a very rich experience but it certainly limits you in areas like this, IMHMO. Personally, I don't like guns, but I don't think society should bend over backwards and ban them simply because I don't like them. There needs to be a more compelling reason then that. I get the sense that you disagree? You say it's just democracy in action. I guess you're right and I should just go out and make enough mini-yankos to turn the tide, eh?

That just strikes me as apathy and apathy never accomplished anything.

I don't follow. Are you saying you must have a religious basis in order to be passionate about a cause?

No, I'm just saying maybe you should be a little more passionate about your feelings. If you don't like guns, why not make your view known unless you really don't care about it?

How do you know I don't do that? What exactly did I say that led to that assumption?

Message edited by author 2009-10-29 21:44:30.

10/29/2009 11:12:25 PM · #978

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
No, I'm just saying ...

I notice you seem to have nothing to say in response to my question ...

About the schizophrenia? I didn't know that was real. Obviously hearing voices is not the only characteristic of schizophrenia and personally I don't know anybody who hears God in an audible way so I may not be the expert at answering your questions. If someone did approach me and told me they heard God, I'd probably start by looking for signs of mental illness. The less I saw, the more I'd have to start considering their claim to be real.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

10/29/2009 11:14:24 PM · #979

Originally posted by yanko:

How do you know I don't do that? What exactly did I say that led to that assumption?

I assumed there was more behind your dislike for guns than merely "I don't like them". If there isn't, then you may have a point. Still, to equate religious convictions with a mere "I don't like them" is a bit insulting.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

10/29/2009 11:50:55 PM · #980

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
No, I'm just saying ...

I notice you seem to have nothing to say in response to my question ...

About the schizophrenia? I didn't know that was real. Obviously hearing voices is not the only characteristic of schizophrenia and personally I don't know anybody who hears God in an audible way so I may not be the expert at answering your questions. If someone did approach me and told me they heard God, I'd probably start by looking for signs of mental illness. The less I saw, the more I'd have to start considering their claim to be real.

What I'm asking is what test you can use to make a definitive decision. If the person absolutely believes that God has told them -- audibly, by sign language, or any other form of communication you care to name -- to do "X" and has complete faith in that belief, how would you conclusively demonstrate one way or the other whether it was true or not? After all, someone's life or freedom could be at stake.

... and how does one "hear" anything in an inaudible way, anyway? Isn't hearing something inaudible a contradiction in terms?

As shown by the landmark Rosenhan experiment "On Being Sane In Insane Places" distinguishing sanity from insanity can be a pretty dicey proposition. But somehow it seems to me that an unwavering belief in things which aren't -- and can never be shown to be -- "real" is a likely starting point ...

Message edited by author 2009-10-29 23:55:03.

yanko

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

10/29/2009 11:57:24 PM · #981

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by yanko:
How do you know I don't do that? What exactly did I say that led to that assumption?

I assumed there was more behind your dislike for guns than merely "I don't like them". If there isn't, then you may have a point. Still, to equate religious convictions with a mere "I don't like them" is a bit insulting.

I said, I don't like them. I didn't say why. You're either reading way too much into what I wrote or you're the one insulting me.

ETA: Since you went this route suppose I said my reasoning was "merely" the result of my favorite author being anti-gun or my parents were against guns. What then? Would my stance have validity? Would it be equal to one holding the same view but for religious reasons?

Message edited by author 2009-10-30 00:05:48.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

10/30/2009 12:02:45 AM · #982

Originally posted by GeneralE:

... and how does one "hear" anything in an inaudible way, anyway? Isn't hearing something inaudible a contradiction in terms?

Not according to Julian Jaynes...

R.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

10/30/2009 12:17:43 AM · #983

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
... and how does one "hear" anything in an inaudible way, anyway? Isn't hearing something inaudible a contradiction in terms?

Not according to Julian Jaynes...

R.

I don't think experiencing an "auditory hallucination" is the same as "hearing" and does little to demonstrate the existence of something "real."

Hallucination - noun:
1. a sensory experience of something that does not exist outside the mind, caused by various physical and mental disorders, or by reaction to certain toxic substances, and usually manifested as visual or auditory images.
2. the sensation caused by a hallucinatory condition or the object or scene visualized.
3. a false notion, belief, or impression; illusion; delusion

Message edited by author 2009-10-30 00:18:31.

RulerZigzag

Nikon D750

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR

10/30/2009 12:31:40 AM · #984

If that's the case then the entire Holy Bible was written by a bunch of schizo's because many of the authors claim that it was God that moved their pens. Many songwriters and artists have made similar claims on how they wrote the lyrics with the help of the holy ghost.

The Holy Spirit

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR

10/30/2009 01:15:48 AM · #985

Originally posted by RulerZigzag:

Not a very compelling point given that many cult leaders and drug abusers have claimed the same thing. The different writing styles and conflicting details between accounts of the same story among the gospels are strong indicators of non-divine authorship. There's also the fallacy of using a work of literature as evidence of its own truth (Opus claiming to have been drawn by Bill the Cat is not evidence of either's existence or veracity).

"Historically, Christians have generally believed the entire Bible to be inerrant -- free of error -- in the books' original, autograph versions. However, the entire Bible was written by a group of very human authors. The only way in which fallible humans could have written so much inerrant text would have been for them to have been inspired by God. Given biblical inerrancy, one can assume that God must have overseen the creation of the Bible's text in some way, and pro-actively prevented the authors from committing any error.

Fundamentalists and other Evangelicals Christians still follow the traditional belief. Liberal Christians have generally abandoned belief in both inerrancy and inspiration of the Bible. Instead, they analyze the Bible as a historical document using techniques of 'higher criticism.'"

Message edited by author 2009-10-30 01:19:11.

RulerZigzag

Nikon D750

10/30/2009 01:46:26 AM · #986

Well yea heads or tails I guess, but how could you say my point is not compelling if I'm merely showing a historical account of a main component in the Christian religion and probably others. Most of all major religion is actually compatible, so I'm not sure the details are that conflicting.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

10/30/2009 07:36:31 AM · #987

Originally posted by RulerZigzag:

Most of all major religion is actually compatible, so I'm not sure the details are that conflicting.

Shiite Muslims have killed Sunni Muslims and Catholics have killed Protestants (and vice versa) over even THAT level of details.

Matthew

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

10/30/2009 02:49:04 PM · #988

Originally posted by RulerZigzag:

Most of all major religion is actually compatible, so I'm not sure the details are that conflicting.

Is the common factor

(1) a common god or
(2) the fact that the believers were all human

We know that (2) is true. While (2) does not exclude the possibility of (1) as well, (2) provides a perfectly acceptable, logical, rational and complete explanation for the phenomenon.

10/30/2009 03:08:39 PM · #989

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by yanko:
How do you know I don't do that? What exactly did I say that led to that assumption?

I assumed there was more behind your dislike for guns than merely "I don't like them". If there isn't, then you may have a point. Still, to equate religious convictions with a mere "I don't like them" is a bit insulting.

I said, I don't like them. I didn't say why. You're either reading way too much into what I wrote or you're the one insulting me.

ETA: Since you went this route suppose I said my reasoning was "merely" the result of my favorite author being anti-gun or my parents were against guns. What then? Would my stance have validity? Would it be equal to one holding the same view but for religious reasons?

Validity in voting your conscious? Certainly. Validity in persuading others? Perhaps not so much.

Message edited by author 2009-10-30 15:09:42.

10/30/2009 03:09:07 PM · #990

Maybe Paul need to prove to me right now he's not insane. That might be a good first step...

Matthew

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

10/30/2009 03:31:42 PM · #991

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

If being a slave to Christ was good enough for Paul, it's probably good enough for me... ;)

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Maybe Paul need to prove to me right now he's not insane. That might be a good first step...

Despite never having met Jesus, Paul was very influential in shaping the early Christian church. One view might be that Paul was the master not the slave in that relationship: he shaped the way in which Christianity chose to remember Jesus.

10/30/2009 03:38:13 PM · #992

Originally posted by Matthew:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If being a slave to Christ was good enough for Paul, it's probably good enough for me... ;)

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Maybe Paul need to prove to me right now he's not insane. That might be a good first step...

Despite never having met Jesus, Paul was very influential in shaping the early Christian church. One view might be that Paul was the master not the slave in that relationship: he shaped the way in which Christianity chose to remember Jesus.

While I'm sure lots of post-docs have been written to such effect, I'm guessing Paul himself would have been the first to conk you over the head for such thinking... ;)

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 28-70mm f/2.8D IF-ED

10/30/2009 04:25:38 PM · #993

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Matthew:
Despite never having met Jesus, Paul was very influential in shaping the early Christian church. One view might be that Paul was the master not the slave in that relationship: he shaped the way in which Christianity chose to remember Jesus.

While I'm sure lots of post-docs have been written to such effect, I'm guessing Paul himself would have been the first to conk you over the head for such thinking... ;)

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Maybe Paul need to prove to me right now he's not insane.

Perhaps Paul was conked over the head first?

VitaminB

Nikon D800

10/30/2009 04:25:50 PM · #994

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
No, I'm just saying ...

I notice you seem to have nothing to say in response to my question ...

About the schizophrenia? I didn't know that was real. Obviously hearing voices is not the only characteristic of schizophrenia and personally I don't know anybody who hears God in an audible way so I may not be the expert at answering your questions. If someone did approach me and told me they heard God, I'd probably start by looking for signs of mental illness. The less I saw, the more I'd have to start considering their claim to be real.

What I'm asking is what test you can use to make a definitive decision. If the person absolutely believes that God has told them -- audibly, by sign language, or any other form of communication you care to name -- to do "X" and has complete faith in that belief, how would you conclusively demonstrate one way or the other whether it was true or not? After all, someone's life or freedom could be at stake.

... and how does one "hear" anything in an inaudible way, anyway? Isn't hearing something inaudible a contradiction in terms?

As shown by the landmark Rosenhan experiment "On Being Sane In Insane Places" distinguishing sanity from insanity can be a pretty dicey proposition. But somehow it seems to me that an unwavering belief in things which aren't -- and can never be shown to be -- "real" is a likely starting point ...

I would think that 'hearing' God is akin to 'hearing' your conscience speak to you. You cannot prove or disprove it. Everyone has 'heard' their conscience, and not everyone is schizophrenic.

VitaminB

Nikon D800

Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 28-70mm f/2.8D IF-ED

10/30/2009 04:26:40 PM · #995

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Matthew:
Despite never having met Jesus, Paul was very influential in shaping the early Christian church. One view might be that Paul was the master not the slave in that relationship: he shaped the way in which Christianity chose to remember Jesus.

While I'm sure lots of post-docs have been written to such effect, I'm guessing Paul himself would have been the first to conk you over the head for such thinking... ;)

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Maybe Paul need to prove to me right now he's not insane.

Perhaps Paul was conked over the head first?

Are we talking about St. Paul? or

GeneralE?

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

10/30/2009 04:29:44 PM · #996

Originally posted by VitaminB:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Matthew:
Despite never having met Jesus, Paul was very influential in shaping the early Christian church. One view might be that Paul was the master not the slave in that relationship: he shaped the way in which Christianity chose to remember Jesus.

While I'm sure lots of post-docs have been written to such effect, I'm guessing Paul himself would have been the first to conk you over the head for such thinking... ;)

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Maybe Paul need to prove to me right now he's not insane.

Perhaps Paul was conked over the head first?

Are we talking about St. Paul? or GeneralE?

haha. Ya, I was wondering if things were getting confused there. :)

St. Paul is the slave. GeneralE is the one I'm worried about his sanity... :)

Message edited by author 2009-10-30 16:30:15.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

10/30/2009 05:25:10 PM · #997

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by VitaminB:
Are we talking about St. Paul? or GeneralE?

haha. Ya, I was wondering if things were getting confused there. :)

St. Paul is the slave. GeneralE is the one I'm worried about his sanity... :)

Given my recent work schedule you are perhaps right to be concerned, but at least I don't hear the voice of God telling me what to do or say. ;-)

10/30/2009 05:29:14 PM · #998

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Given my recent work schedule you are perhaps right to be concerned, but at least I don't hear the voice of God telling me what to do or say. ;-)

So you say, but you are the crazy one... ;)

yanko

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

10/30/2009 06:00:26 PM · #999

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by yanko:
How do you know I don't do that? What exactly did I say that led to that assumption?

I assumed there was more behind your dislike for guns than merely "I don't like them". If there isn't, then you may have a point. Still, to equate religious convictions with a mere "I don't like them" is a bit insulting.

I said, I don't like them. I didn't say why. You're either reading way too much into what I wrote or you're the one insulting me.

ETA: Since you went this route suppose I said my reasoning was "merely" the result of my favorite author being anti-gun or my parents were against guns. What then? Would my stance have validity? Would it be equal to one holding the same view but for religious reasons?

Validity in voting your conscious? Certainly. Validity in persuading others? Perhaps not so much.

Ah, so they are in equal footing then.