|
The Kingfish posted:It's debatable. Especially when you consider the desirability of population growth and traditionally necessary (now largely obsolete) of sexual specialization of the workforce. Humans have largely removed themselves from natural selection pressures, yes, but that change happened in the blink of an eye when considering the scale at which evolution happens and doesn't change the fact that homosexuality is not a strictly negative trait in regards to evolution as Griffen said.
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 06:39 |
|
|
SedanChair posted:Are we talking about evolutionary fitness or the will of God? Even if you believe in evolution (which it is certainly possible for Christians to do), it's not like it should matter. If the end of days is near, evolutionary time scales are irrelevant. Correct, it doesn't matter to me the evolutionary fitness of one trait or another, I was simply trying to use other arguments, since the poster clearly saw little relevance to what I was saying thus far. Who What Now posted:Actually, no, this is 100% false. It's a very common misconception that evolution is concerned with individuals passing on their genetic lines, when actually evolution is concerned with population groups propagating a new generation. Homosexuality does have several evolutionary benefits to a societal species like us, as it allows for either the homosexuals to focus on non-caregiving tasks while the breeding members focus on child-rearing or for the homosexual members to adopt infants that are abandoned or orphaned, which in both cases increases the rates of infant survival. You know, I typed up a response to this, but really, this is a tangent that goes against what the OP laid out: GAINING WEIGHT... posted:This thread's title is not a challenge, but an invitation: rather than debate if God exists, or look at the reasons to think he does not, I want to start a discussion about why believers think he does. This is not a debate - this thread will solidly fall on the "discussion" side of the subforum's title, although if fellow believers think they can examine the nuances of others' reason to make them more robust, that is by all means permissible. I don't want to hear arguments against people's reasons based on the belief that God does not exist; let's just assume for the purpose of this thread that he does. What compels you personally to believe in God? I have no illusions that you are here to honestly debate the nature of whether homosexuality is a sin or not. If you want to debate that with Christians, go make a thread and do it there. This thread is for discussing why some of us believe God exists.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
edit: ^^ agreed, getting off topic
bitterandtwisted fucked around with this message at 17:14 on Jun 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
Griffen posted:I have no illusions that you are here to honestly debate the nature of whether homosexuality is a sin or not. I don't think you're wrong when you say that the bible lays out the homosexuality is a sin. In fact I agree with you when you admit to be surprised that other Christians don't. I was just correcting a faulty argument that you made in the hopes that you would stick with theological reasons against homosexuality.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
Griffen posted:Correct, it doesn't matter to me the evolutionary fitness of one trait or another, I was simply trying to use other arguments, since the poster clearly saw little relevance to what I was saying thus far. Well if you were intending to illustrate that the Old Testament prohibition on homosexual acts stayed relevant after the arrival of Jesus Christ you've still got your work ahead of you, since you felt the need to pivot to non-religious arguments. My impression is that some cultural factors are influencing your views on homosexuality, and that you have not fully explored the relationship between your religious and cultural influences.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
How do you feel about clothes with multiple fabrics or eating rare steak?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
Alright alright alright alright. Let me step in and brandish my OP powers for a moment. I may have overreached when I said this is not a debate, since having absolutely no dialogue would make this more akin to a PYF thread. I think it's fine if we poke and prod at each other's epistemology a bit; the question of why other religions have similar experiences to the Christian one when, in the poster's reckoning, those experiences demonstrate Christianity's truthfulness, is a good one. Happy to endorse challenges of that sort. But this homosexuality debate is useless. First, it is simply inescapable that the Bible is against homosexuality in testaments both old and new. If you, as a Christian, think being gay is permitted by God, then your reasons must come from outside the Bible - which is fine, and if you have a reason to believe Christianity but not the Bible, that would be perfectly fit for this thread, but to argue that the Bible doesn't take a position on the issue is dishonest. Conversely, whether and how homosexuality is an evolved trait is straight up irrelevant, until and unless someone posts saying "I believe in God because there's no way homosexuality is an evolved trait". To be clear, no poster is under an obligation to debate once they've stated their reasons for belief. But we can certainly question whether those reasons are good ones or if there is a way to make them more robust. That would actually be fairly interesting. Thank you and godbless
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:First, it is simply inescapable that the Bible is against homosexuality in testaments both old and new. If you, as a Christian, think being gay is permitted by God, then your reasons must come from outside the Bible - which is fine, and if you have a reason to believe Christianity but not the Bible, that would be perfectly fit for this thread, but to argue that the Bible doesn't take a position on the issue is dishonest. Many Christians (some fairly prominent and with seminary backgrounds) disagree, so I'm not sure you can just deliver a ruling on it like this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Many Christians (some fairly prominent and with seminary backgrounds) disagree, so I'm not sure you can just deliver a ruling on it like this. The problem is that for those people with seminary backgrounds, they have to rely on indirect arguments, such as condemning homosexuality harms homosexuals and is therefore wrong (if that is the case, condemning alcoholics is wrong, or condemning sloth is wrong). There is no Biblical basis to argue that homosexuality is not a sin. There aren't many cases in the Bible where something is so clear-cut, but this is one of them. The Belgian posted:How do you feel about clothes with multiple fabrics or eating rare steak? I was wondering when someone would bring up the cleanliness laws. Some of the tenets of the Old Testament involved how to become ceremonially clean, which was important for times of offering sacrifices, seeking God's guidance, and for conducting priestly duties. This was a means to impress upon the people the nature of their sins and their contrast to God's holiness. The sacrifices were done to show the cost of our sin and to make us right with God. Even some legitimately acceptable things had to be abstained from in order to be ceremonially clean for certain actions. There are accounts in the Old Testament where people are told to abstain from sexual relations with their spouses right before an important event. This was not because sex is wrong, but to impress upon the people that going before God is a big deal because of the gulf between us caused by sin. That is why only the high priest could go into the Holy of Holies only once a year on behalf of all the people, because of that separation. The good news of Christianity is that Christ bridged that gulf for us and gave us the opportunity to reach God; that is one of the themes in the book of Hebrews, that Jesus is our eternal high priest who intercedes on our behalf. In the same way, his sacrifice is the eternal sacrifice that wipes our sin away if we accept him. Thus, there is no more clean or unclean. As is recorded in Peter's vision in Acts, God tells Peter "do not call anything impure that God has made clean" (Acts 10:15). Therefore the cleanliness laws are no longer required, as the core meaning of them has been fulfilled in Christ. In the same way, Christians don't have to be circumcised, because the mark of the covenant is no longer a physical mark on our bodies, but the indelible mark of God on our souls by the Holy Spirit. Now, if you want to relate kosher laws with laws on sexual immorality, I don't know what to tell you. To me, that is text book cherry picking of wanting to equate things without understanding what they are or their context. If you concede that we are discussing the nature of God and His relation to Man, surely you have to admit that pithy one-liners are going to fall rather short in terms of having a functional dialogue. Who What Now posted:I don't think you're wrong when you say that the bible lays out the homosexuality is a sin. In fact I agree with you when you admit to be surprised that other Christians don't. I was just correcting a faulty argument that you made in the hopes that you would stick with theological reasons against homosexuality. Very true, and I apologize if my arguments were unsatisfactory to you. I'm not used to people wanting to stay in the realm of theology with me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
Sorry, OP. We're not getting out of this one alive.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
Volcott posted:Sorry, OP. We're not getting out of this one alive. yes we ARE SedanChair posted:Many Christians (some fairly prominent and with seminary backgrounds) disagree, so I'm not sure you can just deliver a ruling on it like this. The Bible only ever condemns it and never doesn't condemn it. You can be a Christian who thinks homosexuality is permissible, but saying the Bible doesn't condemn it is just factually wrong. But, yes, perhaps I shouldn't have weighed in on the discussion in order to stop it. Okay. Let's move on from this. There is plenty in what Griffen is posting - and, of course, others - that can merit a perfectly fascinating on-topic discussion. e: we can certainly have a "what is the Christian stance on homosexuality?" thread elsewhere
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
I would like to contribute but I'm unsure how. I would appreciate some direction.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
FilthIncarnate posted:I would like to contribute but I'm unsure how. Describe the religious experience: what happened, how did you differentiate it from an everyday event or a coincidence, and what about it pointed you toward a particular god, rather than some nebulous cosmic force (assuming that is indeed what you came to believe)?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Describe the religious experience: what happened, how did you differentiate it from an everyday event or a coincidence, and what about it pointed you toward a particular god, rather than some nebulous cosmic force (assuming that is indeed what you came to believe)?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
Griffen posted:The problem is that for those people with seminary backgrounds, they have to rely on indirect arguments, such as condemning homosexuality harms homosexuals and is therefore wrong (if that is the case, condemning alcoholics is wrong, or condemning sloth is wrong). There is no Biblical basis to argue that homosexuality is not a sin. There aren't many cases in the Bible where something is so clear-cut, but this is one of them. Blaspheming, cursing ones parents, witchcraft, and a number of other sons are just as clearly established in Leviticus as well. So the questions becomes what should be done to/for the sinners? Should sins be criminalized? If so, what should the punishments be? If not, isn't there an onus for Christians to save people actively as well as passively? quote:Very true, and I apologize if my arguments were unsatisfactory to you. I'm not used to people wanting to stay in the realm of theology with me. No worries.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Describe the religious experience: what happened, how did you differentiate it from an everyday event or a coincidence, and what about it pointed you toward a particular god, rather than some nebulous cosmic force (assuming that is indeed what you came to believe)? All right; here's where I am. I've tried to write a response to this several times, but each time I have trouble doing it. I mmm. I have previously written a little bit about the subject on this website; I could link you to the relevant post and thread. Unfortunately it is my suspicion that I will be frankly unable to communicate anything worthwhile, and, while I applaud your curiosity and good intentions, I think that it will be impossible for me to give you any sort of useful information. God is not like anything. It has no relationship to anything that can be seen, touched, heard, or thought about; its voice is it's not a voice. I wrote a book, really, is the answer to your question. I wrote a book; it was a bizarre and often painful experience; I abandoned my life and career and undertook a quiet life of manual labor as a result. God is strange, and difficult, and more terrible than can possibly be imagined. As I said, I don't know what I ought to tell you. Is this helpful? Preview edit: the book is not published; only a few people have read it; I have sat on it for years; I am, frankly, unsure what to do with such a thing. It is ferocious. It is alive. Right; sorry; I probably sound crazy. I wanted to be marine biologist, before all this happened; my father hoped I would be a lawyer; as a result of my experience, I ended up being something else.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
Yoshifan823 posted:If I actually take the time to think about it, it's pretty much because it gives me comfort. It provides me with a person to talk to when I'm alone, comfort for my fear of death, a community and way to connect with people. This is pretty much my answer too. It's a personal belief that I don't use to explain everything about the world if we have better evidence of anything else, and so would never legislate / make rules because of / would use as a point of an argument (It makes God sad! God doesn't approve! That kinda bullshit always upsets me). Honestly the more I've thought about my idea of God or a god or whatever, the more it's just a catch-all term for some universal thing we don't / can't know like we do other things. A large part of it is probably based on my belief that morality is an actual thing that exists in the universe, and maybe that's all I'm referring to when I say God. I'm not sure. I think the use of the term God / the use of "he" to refer to it, as someone asked about earlier, is just a linguistic tool for me. It'd take too long to say all this poo poo any time I wanted to talk about it, and a pronoun is useful shorthand too, so I figure let's just go with he, that's what most people are using anyway and I'd rather not waste time having a big argument about that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
Griffen posted:I was wondering when someone would bring up the cleanliness laws. Some of the tenets of the Old Testament involved how to become ceremonially clean, which was important for times of offering sacrifices, seeking God's guidance, and for conducting priestly duties. This was a means to impress upon the people the nature of their sins and their contrast to God's holiness. The sacrifices were done to show the cost of our sin and to make us right with God. Even some legitimately acceptable things had to be abstained from in order to be ceremonially clean for certain actions. There are accounts in the Old Testament where people are told to abstain from sexual relations with their spouses right before an important event. This was not because sex is wrong, but to impress upon the people that going before God is a big deal because of the gulf between us caused by sin. That is why only the high priest could go into the Holy of Holies only once a year on behalf of all the people, because of that separation. The good news of Christianity is that Christ bridged that gulf for us and gave us the opportunity to reach God; that is one of the themes in the book of Hebrews, that Jesus is our eternal high priest who intercedes on our behalf. In the same way, his sacrifice is the eternal sacrifice that wipes our sin away if we accept him. Thus, there is no more clean or unclean. As is recorded in Peter's vision in Acts, God tells Peter "do not call anything impure that God has made clean" (Acts 10:15). Therefore the cleanliness laws are no longer required, as the core meaning of them has been fulfilled in Christ. In the same way, Christians don't have to be circumcised, because the mark of the covenant is no longer a physical mark on our bodies, but the indelible mark of God on our souls by the Holy Spirit. You're the one cherry-picking. The laws I mentioned are only a few lines above the one possibly on homosexuality in Leviticus. If Acts 10;15 applies to those, then you should also remember Acts 10:28 quote:28 He said to them: “You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
FilthIncarnate posted:I have previously written a little bit about the subject on this website; I could link you to the relevant post and thread. Alright, fine, do that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Alright, fine, do that. I'm suddenly uncomfortable doing this but I'm going to anyway. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3765559&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=1 That's the thread; the section that might be relevant to this discussion occurs on page two: If you click that it should take you to the post, which is about the writing of the first book, and which contains some description of how the writing process felt. I realize you're probably looking for something more quantifiable, or a list of arguable reasons. Unfortunately my thinking process is a fundamentally irrational one, and I have no talent for debate. I hope this is a useful contribution; if I can do more, please let me know; otherwise, I'll stop clogging the thread, since people seem more interested in discussing specific points of theology/politics. You may also send me a private message, if you prefer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
^^^edit: can we maybe get a hint about what aspect of that experience was religious?The Kingfish posted:It's debatable. Especially when you consider the desirability of population growth and the traditional necessity (now largely obsolete) of sexual specialization of the workforce. Nonetheless, it's probably helped the priesthood's numbers. IIRC, tribal cultures have/had special jobs for people who didn't fit the standard man/woman roles, which I will simplify to shaman, and I imagine the (celibate) priest role has served that purpose for a great deal of Western history, and probably still does in some communities. Yeah this topic is a bit of a tangent, but maybe there are Christians who interpret someone's homosexuality as a message from God that being a celibate priest is a good path or destiny for that person. I mean, that's probably how I'd rationalize it if I were a Christian. Stinky_Pete fucked around with this message at 22:14 on Jun 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
The book was a version of the life of Christ.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
Though I guess the longer answer is that all poetics consists of a series of religious experiences; there are entire theories of poetics which consist of essentially metaphysical assertions. Right; I'm not organizing this very well, but I'm not great at prose. I found out one day that I was a poet; I had never done any form of writing or art before this; poets have an extremely involuntary relationship to their art; there was a Polish poet, Czeslaw Milosz, who argued that there was no such thing as the "art" of poetry at all, since all poetry is written indirectly and involuntarily. This kind of stuff is sort of common knowledge in poetic societies, but living, as we do, in a nonpoetic society, where art and poetry are considered to be basically valueless, it's not necessarily intuitive. Anyway. I perpetually expect to get a lot of flack for this, so I'm doing my best to not be preemptively defensive. But something important to understand about a lot of religious texts (most of the Hebrew Bible, the work of Jesus, Hindu texts, the Koran, for example) is that they're fundamentally poetic, and that without poetic thinking and training they're hard to deal with or understand. People tend to get frustrated with that and to flatten poetry out into prose, theology, and law, but it's important to remember that poetry doesn't uncoil super well, and that people like Jesus (especially Jesus, in particular) are writing in ways that are purposely difficult and often purposely intended to be misunderstood, or to mean a series of things at the same time that won't break down neatly into specific components. I know a lot of you guys are mathematicians and engineers, and that you might find that stuff stupid or frustrating, but it is important. Basically I'm asserting that this stuff is more complex than it appears and that Jesus is tough to understand. I would probably argue that modern Christianity is based on a misunderstanding of Jesus. Though I would further argue that all modern western society is based on misreadings of Jesus, Adam Smith, and Darwin, which is probably a controversial assertion, and one I don't raise often.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 01:42
|
|
|
Right, sorry, I'm wandering. My religious experience was the writing of poetry, which is (for all poets) an involuntary experience, and for many of them an explicitly religious one; there's a lot of literature I can point you to to support that assertion if there's interest. It's fundamentally unlike the writing of prose, and it's unlike everything, really. The etymology of the word is purposely generic, and right. Sorry. I'm trying to stay coherent, and to write in an appropriate D&D style, but I'm not very good at it. If anyone wants me to answer questions I could try; I did once have a scientific background also, and I'm educated in politics, economics, and law but my understanding of God is fundamentally bound up in my understanding of poetry, since they happened to me at precisely the same time and it became clear that the one was bound up in the other.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 01:47
|
|
|
FilthIncarnate posted:Though I would further argue that all modern western society is based on misreadings of Jesus, Adam Smith, and Darwin, which is probably a controversial assertion, and one I don't raise often. I'd definitely agree that most people misunderstand what Darwin meant by "survival of the fittest".
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 02:36
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I'd definitely agree that most people misunderstand what Darwin meant by "survival of the fittest". That's absolutely what I was referring to, although, interestingly, Darwin never actually coined that phrase; it was Herbert Spencer, who came after.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 04:06
|
|
|
.
RNG fucked around with this message at 08:51 on Jun 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 04:19
|
|
|
FilthIncarnate posted:Right, sorry, I'm wandering. Milton you ain't
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 04:44
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:Milton you ain't You don't want to be Milton. He's super dead.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 05:06
|
|
|
Also blind. And a huge rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 05:07
|
|
|
"Samson Agonistes" is really good tho.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 05:07
|
|
|
Possibly because it's about being blind. And a huge rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 05:08
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:Milton you ain't Well duh, FilthIncarnate is writing poetry, not making board games.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 05:08
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Blaspheming, cursing ones parents, witchcraft, and a number of other sons are just as clearly established in Leviticus as well. So the questions becomes what should be done to/for the sinners? Should sins be criminalized? If so, what should the punishments be? If not, isn't there an onus for Christians to save people actively as well as passively? Well, if you want to talk about criminalizing sins, you're entering theocracy territory. The Bible teaches us in Romans chapter 13 that we are to respect the governing authorities, as God can use even them to His ends. In our case, that means Christians are to live in a secular society and respect the notion of separation of church and state (at least here in the US and Europe). Can Christians try to provide a positive influence on other people? Sure, but there isn't a right or onus on us to persecute or punish non-Christians. 1 Corinthians states "What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside" 1 Cor 5:12. Sin is sin, and we are all called to turn away from it, but that is for each of us a personal decision. In the end, it comes down to a choice each of us make: do we choose God, or do we reject God? That is between you and God. However, Christians are called to encourage and instruct fellow Christians to ensure that no one is led astray. Thus I really don't like those guys with the "God hate fags" signs, as it is counter to the Bible to just condemn people who are not Christians with blanket hate and no purpose. We are to gently call them to God's way and be an example for them. If they choose not to, that is for God to deal with, and we can just hope they change their minds. The Belgian posted:You're the one cherry-picking. The laws I mentioned are only a few lines above the one possibly on homosexuality in Leviticus. If Acts 10;15 applies to those, then you should also remember Acts 10:28 Yes, Acts 10:28 is Peter acknowledging that while Jewish cleanliness laws forbid any Jew (like Peter) to enter a gentile's home (Cornelius), Peter's vision of God's command is a formal revocation of the barrier between Jew and gentile, of clean and unclean. That is the entire point of that event, that we are no longer required to hold to the cleanliness laws as we are made clean by Christ's sacrifice. That is what led Paul to publicly correct Peter when Peter began to backslide to agree with the Judiazers, who held that gentile converts needed to hold to Jewish custom. You are literally picking a passage that proves my point, which suggests to me you don't understand the context or meaning of them. Are you here to actually have a dialogue on your belief in God, or are you just trying to troll a Christian?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 06:40
|
|
|
This is picking up obliquely on an earlier point, but I suspect (or would speculate; this is grounded in my own interactions rather than studies) that for most people what's described as faith is in fact grounded in experience. They experience community, calm, consolation, catharsis, transcendence, feelings of self worth from ethical behavior and meaning. These experiences are certainly bound up with the sacred texts and dogmatic commitments they are related to, but I don't think the typical parishioner, for example, comes into the church, not having a background in the religion, in order to pursue science or history as they might do coming into MIT or Berkeley. The more typical story is probably something more like: come in (or come back) a broken, suffering person, do the recommended things (pray, meditate, act in a less egocentric manner, participate in group activities), then see if you come out a better or happier person; if yes, have faith that what you read / heard is true.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
Griffen posted:All of His values are my values. Can you honestly look at yourself in the mirror and say that there has not been a single time in your life that you let yourself down, did something that you knew you should not have done, or failed to do something that you knew you should have done? Failing your ideals is not the same as not having them. This was a neat post to read and helped me frame the issue more rationally for when I encounter people who think things based on religion that I don't about gays in the future. I've enjoyed reading your posts in this thread, thank you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 04:52
|
|
|
To the people who answered about why they believe in a specific God; why do you not believe in any of the many other Gods?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 05:20
|
|
|
Slightly Toasted posted:This was a neat post to read and helped me frame the issue more rationally for when I encounter people who think things based on religion that I don't about gays in the future. I've enjoyed reading your posts in this thread, thank you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_command_theory
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 05:25
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:To the people who answered about why they believe in a specific God; why do you not believe in any of the many other Gods? I do, in a way. I believe the protective, supernatural force that I felt manifests differently to people in different cultures. Virgin Mary is probably no more real or less real than Vishnu.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 06:39 |
|
|
God believers: do you recognize that a belief in any one particular God (most notably God of the Abrahamic religions) is irrational and illogical? And that to willingly act in irrational and illogical ways is, in short, stupid? I'm not trying to be inflammatory, but "stupid" really is the most apt word. Now I recognize that humans aren't perfectly rational beings. For example, if I injure my leg doing squats, but decide the next day to keep doing squats rather than rest, that's undeniably irrational, illogical, and stupid, if my goal is to not hurt myself. Yet I might do it anyway due to some irrational desire, and I would recognize that I'm doing something stupid because of a desire/belief that I cannot rationalize. Likewise, do you recognize that your belief is most likely the result of the circumstance of your upbringing, rooted in a part of your brain that has nothing to do with rational thought and logic, and that it doesn't really make sense, but you believe it anyway "just because"? Or do you honestly believe that God is a truth of the universe in the same way that 1+1=2 is a truth of the universe?
Subyng fucked around with this message at 02:18 on Jun 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 02:16
|
|