ag_NO_stic Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 Yes, and then most of you pendulum towards intellectualism......and that answers everything. For me, @end3, it wasn't as much about the "intellectual" evidence (this just happens to support my recent deconversion), as it was about the history of the bible, the noticeable inconsistency of God's behavior between OT and NT, and philosophically/critically considering what I believed. It was a very emotional "breakup" for me when you learn about how the bible came to be as we know it today. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
☆ DarkBishop ☆ Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 Yes, and then most of you pendulum towards intellectualism......and that answers everything. Yep what agnostic said. It isnt just evidence. There are many reasons the bible and faith fail. If you read the testimonies you will see many different reasons why people deconvert. For me it wasn't a full deconversion until I saw an extreme lack of evidence where their should have been abundant amount of evidence. For others it is all the Unanswered prayers, the righteous and humble, and seemingly simple requests that go unanswered. I'm sure some it's the fact that he still hasn't showed up. Others were in actual cults and we're abused by "christians". Whatever the reason may be for deconversion it is a very painful process when your world gets flipped upside down like that because we, like you. Truly believed. DB 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
☆ DarkBishop ☆ Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 Repeat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
☆ DarkBishop ☆ Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 Repeat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
☆ DarkBishop ☆ Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 That was weird my posted three times...... sorry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted June 22, 2017 Super Moderator Share Posted June 22, 2017 "Yes, and then most of you pendulum towards intellectualism......and that answers everything." You act as if using one's intellect is a bad thing. We all have both intellect and emotion. Emotional decisions are generally inferior to decisions based on information. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astreja Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 Emotion is useful, but when it's regularly allowed the upper hand over reason, bad shit tends to happen. It makes a great starting point, though, a quick-and-dirty guide to an emerging situation. Experience and reason will tell you how much you can trust emotion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 "Yes, and then most of you pendulum towards intellectualism......and that answers everything." You act as if using one's intellect is a bad thing. We all have both intellect and emotion. Emotional decisions are generally inferior to decisions based on information. No, it's not a bad thing, but it's not the only thing. Again, what I have noticed here over the years is a tendency for this group to be very intellectual....and then being less open to emotional/spiritual means. I also understand that people weighed both in different orders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 For me, @end3, it wasn't as much about the "intellectual" evidence (this just happens to support my recent deconversion), as it was about the history of the bible, the noticeable inconsistency of God's behavior between OT and NT, and philosophically/critically considering what I believed. It was a very emotional "breakup" for me when you learn about how the bible came to be as we know it today. We have had many discussions here regarding the differences. I have a theory and will share it if you like. But it seems to fit...for me at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted June 22, 2017 Super Moderator Share Posted June 22, 2017 Emotional responses or spontaneous feelings vary between people, totally subjective. Beyond our feelings lies the world of objective reality. Emotions, while useful and even unavoidable, are not trustworthy for discerning objective truth. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ag_NO_stic Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 No, it's not a bad thing, but it's not the only thing. Again, what I have noticed here over the years is a tendency for this group to be very intellectual....and then being less open to emotional/spiritual means. I also understand that people weighed both in different orders. I cannot speak for everyone else, but I am very open to emotional/spiritual means. It's the "emotional means" that caused my deconversion. I would never send someone to eternal hell or sit there and let some kid get raped, I would never do that. It became unacceptable to me that god would. Worse, he will send entire nations and cultures to hell. I emotionally checked out and turned to the evidence to confirm what I could no longer stomach emotionally. What I am absolutely NOT open to is other people telling me what god says. I am open to "the lord talking to me", but he doesn't and never will. Because he likely doesn't exist. Until he does speak up, I have to rely on what I can reasonably know. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ag_NO_stic Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 We have had many discussions here regarding the differences. I have a theory and will share it if you like. But it seems to fit...for me at least. Please share. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 Emotional responses or spontaneous feelings vary between people, totally subjective. Beyond our feelings lies the world of objective reality. Emotions, while useful and even unavoidable, are not trustworthy for discerning objective truth. Our understanding of our objective reality is wonderfully incomplete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted June 22, 2017 Super Moderator Share Posted June 22, 2017 Our understanding of our objective reality is wonderfully incomplete. So we should fill any gaps in knowledge with whatever we feel or imagine might go there? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 I guess the point would be that to show that we are absolute in our love, that we are perfect, we must allow everything, because humans and objects are worthy of absolute love. We can't pick a flower, we can't eat animals, we can't verbalize, etc. In my mind the left and non-believers would more fall into this group than the right and believers. Thinking both are good ideas, but God gives rules that some things are allowed. From what I see, now we have a mess as determined by what we think is allowed and not. If you're trying to say that we try and give humans the benefit of the doubt and automatically assign value to them simply based on their humanity, then I don't see how that's such a bad premise to work from. Unfortunately, that's not what happens in the real world, but I wish it did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 So we should fill any gaps in knowledge with whatever we feel or imagine might go there? No, but I also don't think it's wise to throw it all out because our understanding is incomplete.....I'm sorry ma'am, I can't love you, I don't have the hormonal/chemical mechanisms that describe love.....peer reviewed of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 If you're trying to say that we try and give humans the benefit of the doubt and automatically assign value to them simply based on their humanity, then I don't see how that's such a bad premise to work from. Unfortunately, that's not what happens in the real world, but I wish it did. yeah, I think you are understanding what I was trying to convey. Yes, to take an individual and they have absolute love is a great idea, but our situational reality combined with not understanding the reasons for the situations disallows us to not consider the situations as well. I we did understand, then we might be able to say, yes, ultimately I am treating you in your best interest or not, loving or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 Please share. Ill get there please....not ignoring you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted June 22, 2017 Super Moderator Share Posted June 22, 2017 Emotional responses or spontaneous feelings vary between people, totally subjective. Beyond our feelings lies the world of objective reality. Emotions, while useful and even unavoidable, are not trustworthy for discerning objective truth. QFT. What place does emotion even have in a discussion on absolutes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 Emotional responses or spontaneous feelings vary between people, totally subjective. Beyond our feelings lies the world of objective reality. Emotions, while useful and even unavoidable, are not trustworthy for discerning objective truth. @florduh I'd like to probe your thinking on this concept a little bit. Are you saying there is no truth in any subjective feelings? Afterall, no one is able to prove the truth of their feelings. I think I may have mentioned this in other threads, so excuse me if I'm repeating myself, but how does one prove that they love someone? There are no tools or tests to determine whether any emotion is 'real.' Love is just a feeling. But can it not also be true? [I feel like I should inset a clip from the movie, Princess Bride, here]. No one challenges that love really exists, even though love (as well as hate, anger, joy, pain and the whole gamut of human emotions) is a totally subjective experience. Do you truly believe that these subjective human responses are inferior to other more objective 'truths?' If so, then why does the whole point of living, of being human, seem to be an effort to experience these subjective emotions? And how does one define 'truth' and 'trustworthy?' I'm not attacking, just curious about your line of thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ag_NO_stic Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 No, but I also don't think it's wise to throw it all out because our understanding is incomplete.....I'm sorry ma'am, I can't love you, I don't have the hormonal/chemical mechanisms that describe love.....peer reviewed of course. For the record, I agree with this sentiment. I just don't agree with how you're choosing to understand things with regard to bible god. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted June 22, 2017 Super Moderator Share Posted June 22, 2017 @florduh I'd like to probe your thinking on this concept a little bit. Are you saying there is no truth in any subjective feelings? Afterall, no one is able to prove the truth of their feelings. I think I may have mentioned this in other threads, so excuse me if I'm repeating myself, but how does one prove that they love someone? There are no tools or tests to determine whether any emotion is 'real.' Love is just a feeling. But can it not also be true? [I feel like I should inset a clip from the movie, Princess Bride, here]. No one challenges that love really exists, even though love (as well as hate, anger, joy, pain and the whole gamut of human emotions) is a totally subjective experience. Do you truly believe that these subjective human responses are inferior to other more objective 'truths?' If so, then why does the whole point of living, of being human, seem to be an effort to experience these subjective emotions? And how does one define 'truth' and 'trustworthy?' I'm not attacking, just curious about your line of thought. Not trying to overstep my bounds here; but I would submit that the universality of love would be a good indicator of its "truth" (for lack of a better term). Love is, and has been, experienced by people of all races, ethnicities, ages, and religions, throughout human history. It is a common human emotion, like happiness; but with much more profound consequences, like joy. The father who sacrifices for his children, or the wife who longs for her man to come home from war. Love is, in my opinion, an absolute; in that the effects of love are felt consistently by all. Contrast this with the effects of "god", which vary widely between religions; and even churches within the same faith cannot seem to agree. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator TrueFreedom Posted June 22, 2017 Moderator Share Posted June 22, 2017 I don't consider love a feeling. I can like something or someone a lot and not realize why until I really think about it. It's acts of charity, praise, kindness, and sacrifice that show love, IMO. I can decide to show love, whether I desire to or not, whether I'm driven by a passion for the person or not. The same applies to how I might show love towards all people and all creatures. All that I have to do is look at what I would enjoy and see how sharing that will improve life for everyone, including myself. Choosing to live in such a simple way would result in a superior state to what the bible prescribes. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted June 22, 2017 Super Moderator Share Posted June 22, 2017 @florduh I'd like to probe your thinking on this concept a little bit. Are you saying there is no truth in any subjective feelings? Afterall, no one is able to prove the truth of their feelings. I think I may have mentioned this in other threads, so excuse me if I'm repeating myself, but how does one prove that they love someone? There are no tools or tests to determine whether any emotion is 'real.' Love is just a feeling. But can it not also be true? [I feel like I should inset a clip from the movie, Princess Bride, here]. No one challenges that love really exists, even though love (as well as hate, anger, joy, pain and the whole gamut of human emotions) is a totally subjective experience. Do you truly believe that these subjective human responses are inferior to other more objective 'truths?' If so, then why does the whole point of living, of being human, seem to be an effort to experience these subjective emotions? And how does one define 'truth' and 'trustworthy?' I'm not attacking, just curious about your line of thought. I mean that a feeling is a feeling and a fact is a fact. You may feel the emotion of love for someone, even want to marry him, and that love is "real." However, the object of your emotional outpouring may be some loser who is on the market now after five failed marriages, may be a convicted child molester, or may even currently be in prison. Love is real, but is it by itself something to base important decisions on? Christianity spreads as either being handed down by family/society or it is adopted via an emotional hook. Decisions based on your current emotional landscape can lead you to join Christianity, Scientology, or buy a $1,000 vacuum cleaner from the door to door salesman. Critical thinking leads to better decisions. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 I mean that a feeling is a feeling and a fact is a fact. You may feel the emotion of love for someone, even want to marry him, and that love is "real." However, the object of your emotional outpouring may be some loser who is on the market now after five failed marriages, may be a convicted child molester, or may even currently be in prison. Love is real, but is it by itself something to base important decisions on? Christianity spreads as either being handed down by family/society or it is adopted via an emotional hook. Decisions based on your current emotional landscape can lead you to join Christianity, Scientology, or buy a $1,000 vacuum cleaner from the door to door salesman. Critical thinking leads to better decisions. Let's go down your path for a moment....disregarding a "soul". This would mean that feelings are essentially instantaneous facts. And what I hear you saying is that if we understand facts, sure, that's a good thing, but if we don't, bad thing. You really can't make that judgment with these instantaneous urges/facts because they might certainly be telling your mind to move into or away from said circumstance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now