Jump to content

Myrkhoos

Regular Member
  • Content Count

    565
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by Myrkhoos

  1. Well, everything is a matter of degree. However Trump was no ayatollah Khomeini . . Altough I will say. Crises make or break dictatorships. Have to see where this is heading.
  2. Hello, A bit of hyperbole with the fascist theocratic, but anyway
  3. You know, this reminds me of the Derek Chauvin trial , idk if you are watching. The alledged killer of George Floyd. Eric Nelson, the defense lawyer is arguing that Derek Chauvin lacked mens rea to kill, and also he was just following standard procedure. Othr things too. Interesting trial to watch. I am imagining the serpent been called as a witness in Adam's trial and pleading the fifth
  4. Btw, it is not for me to define what a Christian is or isn't. There have been thousands of sects, all throughout history, who claim to be , in some way, Christians. Some did not accept all known Scriptures. Some, like the Mormons, added new ones. Some, like Muslims regard him as prophet whose teaching has been corupted. Some new eclectic religions like Maniheism, or modern Cao dai in Vietnam as a prophet along with others such Buddha, Lao tsi, etc. Some think he didn't exist at all, some he was the failed Messiah. So in a way, yes, who cares? Is right. My point was, maybe miscommun
  5. Altough, epistemology of ancient people is smth I am interested in. That includes astronomy and by that I mean general ideas about the sky and objects seen on the sky.
  6. Ok. I m just not interrsted in the topic right now to continue. Good luck! Hope you will become a literary star! (You get it? ) :))
  7. Man please, are you really gonna compare astrology to the telescope images of jupiter's Moons? Really? As I said, go for it. And I think the vast majority of atheists also think the idea of zodiac ages is bonkers. You seriously don t realise how new agey and deepak chopra like your ideas sound like? I am not saying they are not true but it is going to be an uphill battle for them to be taken seriously by anyone, religious or not. And pls don t call me ignorant bk I don t really follow the zodiac. It makes YOU not me, look silly.
  8. 1. What I said one if one starts with that axiom, then everything follows, NOT tgat the axiom was justified. I do not think you can justify anything at that level without reverting to experience. Reason cannot justify reason , it would be circular. You too start from presuppositions, as does science. 2.no offense but your story abou Jesus as Avatar of some Zodiac age sounds bonkers. Your starting point will make the majority of even open minded theologians probably look away. It is like saying Jesus was an alien. I have other obs but it would take too much space. Anyway I said my im
  9. PS, I do appreciate values like compassion and I am glad when others, like you, do too. :}
  10. I do not think Christianity or religion is irrational in the broad sense. Nor did I think logic from Satan. But it has a specific epistemological hierarchy. Revelation comes first. And that is easy to understand. If you truly think some piece of information comes the Creator of the world himself, it is VERY rational to trust that over anything else. Why would I trust some foreever changing set of experiments , ideas and methods - scientific world, over the all eternal omniscient Creator? THAT would be irrational. The epistemological hierarchy of some parts of secularism put human reasoning fir
  11. Go for it. I think it has almost zero chances of having big influence but you decide how you spend your time. I personally never thought science mattered much while I was in the Church. Bk what I thought was revealed by God trumps anuthing revealed by humans so rejecting anything that came from science was easy. My issue was when I could not be sure anymore what revelation was true and how.
  12. Again, this is your interpretation of the Bible and your Jesus. Ok. You basically created your own Bible and Jesus. I mean the idea that you could be part of the Church and not believe in God is ludicrous from the standpoint of most of the documents of early Christianity like NT and apostolic fathers. You could as well pray to dr Seuss or Frodo from the Lord of the Rings. And from someone who says they do not impose orthodoxy on people, you sure seem very sure of your opinions and that other people are dead wrong in the fundamentals :). But Jesus, in the Gospels, when accused of not
  13. Well, the IMO is very important. Because your opinion seems to be to be at odds with the majority as in the billions of people who call themselves Christians. And if Jesus was really a Jewish rabbi, then he would have followed the Old Testament, and the Old Testament is kind of clear about non believers and about what is right and what is wrong sexuality. The Jesus you are talking about seems like an embodiment of modern, as in 2020, liberal secular values. Which, if we go by the historical documents, he most probably was not. That does not mean it is right, or wrong, just at odd
  14. Well, I was told this body was the result of the Fall so the bodies of Eve and Adam were different. I never go to the point of how. Tye whole design bit is truly unreal. I get how you bypass ot with the Fall, but in this world it seems more designed to kill us than keep us alive
  15. Help theologians? Are you serious? They woukd probably not even read your book, let alone use it to reconfigure their beliefs. Do you imagine pope francis going...aaa yes...the gospels is just about stars in the sky? :))
  16. Well, no wonder they came from scottish prebyterians. This is a NO TRUE SCOTSMAN after all :)) My firm opinion is the majority do not come or stay in religion or large groups with ideologies like politics bk of truth. But bk of emotional/physical needs. This means that they do not really care about consistency and if they run into cognitive disssonance they cling to religion as much as possible. It was true for me, to some, but not all extent. So smtimes they come up with simple cliche to refute others. Oh you don t believe right at the bat? Then you weren't saved. So no
  17. Ok, I am sorry, I do not see anyway to discuss with you. Your comments seem incoherent and inconsistent, full of vague and use non sequiturs and you seem to attack "logic" making any further discussion impossible bk without a shared logic system ( like language actually is) there is only chaotic word salads we can throw at one another. In order for people to agree they usually "argue these points" . Dialogue. Within an accepted logical framework. You don't seem to want to do that. Ok. Then I retreat. In a way I feel like playing chess with someone who wants to use scream sounds ins
  18. Are you very tired or is your autocorrect wacky? You last posts seems quite illogical. What is " those definitions we are unable to physically keep" supposed to mean? Also, terms of Christianity means very little. What kind of Christianity? I am only familiar with the Chrustian Orthodox view, and even there only a fraction. And even they have different views on what sin actually is, God, Jesus, etc, the meaning of the commandments.
  19. I really do not understand this post at all. I would choose what to believe in? Qualities to give? In what way? Please clarify. Need to believe in qualities? Right decision for what? What is the choice?
  20. That is why I asked you, please define your terms. We might have different definitions of freedom so what is correct to you is not for me bk we might be using different standards. Let me start. I think freedom as possibility to choose between two things is irrational. I think neither hard determinism nor pure randonmness nor any combination can produce that outcome as it is a self contradictory notion. No need to develop why here. "Freedom" is useful and logical to me in a limited, narrow sense. A man who is not in a prison is free relative to the prison for ex.
  21. By the way, in many legal systems, telling someone they can either sign a contract or be killed is considered coercion, is illegal and nullifies any contract signed in those conditions. It is not considered a "free" choice. That is why you should define what freedom means to you in the context of genesis.
  22. That is kind of a word salad. There is NO freedom when you are required to obey now and Forever. Unless you redefine the word "freedom" . Which you can, but do tell from the beggining. Otherwise, Freedom to choose obedience is like saying having sex in order to remain a virgin.
  23. I ran into another paradox. God gives us supposed freedom and then asks us to offer unquestioning obedience. I mean what is the point of freedom if obedience is the end goal. It is like saying you offer people freedom to vote and then command them to vote a candidate under threat of violenve. What is the point if that election except for some perverse performance?
  24. Lack of some elements of determinism - i.e. Bible deities - does not equal random chance. I more include to think that hard determinism in true, than randomness. The thing is, from our perspective, even if things are deterministic, they still often look and feel random, because we do not know all the variables. Objective determinism often lives side by side with subjective randomness. And modern science would be impossible to do without methodical determinism - you have to assume cause and effect to study anything. You cannot have any drug trial if you think the drug effects are just random. S
  25. Yes, it does. Thank you. As I said it was a little confusing as I did not subscribe to that vision if the Bible even as a Christian.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.