Why is it okay for you but not for me?

I quoted Brian Holtz's Scripture which is just as valid as the scripture y'all quote.

It isn't a matter of "ok".
Plus , I never copy N paste.

I can see sometimes doing it , but not habitually like some do.

Basically posting what others say and think.

Quoting a bible verse is not on the same level.

You are an intelligent man Tom.
I want to hear your thoughts about what you copy N paste and the intent behind it.

Not 85% copy N paste and 15% (if that) of what you believe or what your primary intent is.

Well, I don't agree with a lot of what Brian Holtz writes in his website but I must agree that some of it does make sense to me.

I find the entire concept of Hell (and Heaven) doesn't fit my impression of God. It only makes sense if it is concepts written by man to control other men with a series of pushishments and rewards. The concept of Heaven and Hell is the foundation of religious beliefs. A foundation that makes no sense to me because I see God as, well ... God.

Promises and threats are things that MEN DO to influence OTHER MEN (people).
God requires no such methodology.

As for Copy & Paste...If I read something that is already written, Copy and Paste is the most efficient way to reference what I read. Its exactly like quoting scripture. The problem with explaining it in your own words is that the intent as written gets lost from the author.

Just like scripture, I quote things copy & paste for consideration only.
If I agree completely, I say so.

I found this tidbit interesting...Concerning Supernatural...

Paranomality
1.1. Philosophy / Metaphysics

Many humans believe in the existence of phenomena which lie outside the materialist reality of natural science. The phenomena alleged include:

Beings
Ra, Anu, Ashur, Ormazd, Baal, El, Yahweh, Jehovah, God, Zeus, Jupiter, Brahma, Amaterasu, Viracocha, Quetzalcoatl, Great Spirit, Lugh, Pele, Allah, Odin
Satan, Lucifer, Beelzebub, Mephistopheles, Loki, Osiris, Shiva
souls, spirits, demons, vampires, werewolves, hobgoblins, bogeymen
Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy
angels, fairies, leprechauns, gnomes, elves

Places or States
Heaven, Elysium, Olympus, Asgard, K'un-lun, T'ien
Hades, Tartarus, Orcus, Acheron, Hell, Gehenna, Jahannam, bhumis, Jigoku
Sheol, Styx, Purgatory, Valhalla, Limbo
nirvana, buddhata, satori

Forces or Substances
Good, Spirit, atman, ch'i, prana, karma, life force, Godhead, Nous
Evil, Thanatos
ether, humours, ectoplasm, elan vital, phlogiston, polywater
antigravity, cold fusion, perpetual motion, free energy, orgone

Apparitions
auras, bio-energy, chakras, Kirlian photography
ghosts, reincarnation, samsara
miracles, stigmata, speaking in tongues, possession, spontaneous human combustion
UFOs, alien abductions, crop circles, Bermuda Triangle

Powers
voodoo, witchcraft, sorcery, magick, shamanism, wicca
telekinesis, astral projection
crystals, pyramids
faith healing, alchemy, homeopathy, acupuncture, chiropractic

Knowledge
astrology, tarot, palmistry, numerology, phrenology, enneagrams, dowsing
I Ching, feng shui
prophecy, fortune-telling, Nostradamus, Bible codes

Perception
clairvoyance, telepathy, channeling

Humans have no credible evidence for these phenomena.
Over time these phenomena will recognized as delusions, hysteria, myths, nonsense, and hoaxes.

Thanks Tom for your post.
I respect your thoughts and beliefs , even if I don't agree with all of them.

Regarding your promises and threats statement I would like to say that God does not promise nor make threats.

God is truth.
He doesn't need to make promises or threats.

Sin(s) have NATURAL consequences as anyone can obviously see.

I say that because many people think that God is up in Heaven smiting those who sin .
Yes God judges and chastises, but in most cases the natural course of sin delivers the negative consequences thereof.

Humans have no credible evidence for these phenomena.

Actually, Tom, I saw Loki on TV last winter. He was trying to make his own Valhalla, so Thor punished him.

And I've also seen Kirlian photographs. They really bring out the essence of the infinite.—IM

Not to clever.

Where does Jesus endorse the murderous immorality of Yahweh?



Actually, Hell is rapidly disappearing from most modern bibles as scholars realize there never was such a place.



Why is that a downside? So He didn't toot his own horn much, so what? How is that an argument against Christianity? He did say that he and the Father were one. That's divinity enough.



It turns out that was more a failure of his hearers hearing and misunderstanding and mis-remembering what he said, and errors in the recording/writing. It's all explained in The Urantia Book.



Jesus didn't come here to speak to those human subjects or solve them for us, except for salvation, and that, he did speak to, very specifically.

"Not every one who says to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." (Matthew 7:21)

You must do the Father's will to attain salvation. Isn't that clear from what he said?

Where did you get your list from, anyway? Whoever it was doesn't know very much.



I don't understand the above statement. Do you mean "can be explained"? I donno. Anyway, it sound like a lot of blow-hard nitpicking. Anything can be subjected to misinterpretation, exaggeration, and embellishment.



How is that a failure of Christianity, even if true? Paul founded Christianity, not Jesus.



Jesus was not in the recruiting business. He did not come here to recruit. And with regards to his family, everyone has a freewill, even one's own family. Do you think Jesus should have put a gun to their backs? And as Jesus said: "A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country, and in his own house." And yes, it's true. It happens that prophets are often rejected by their own.

Well said.

And still no evidence of corruption and lying.

Happy Father's Day.
Any man can be a father but it takes a special man to be a dad.



I posted excerpts from Brian Holtz's webpage because he offers another view concerning religion which has a lot to do with whether people 'believe in hell' or not. I have stated that I personally don't agree with some of the things Brian Holtz wrote.

The links for some reason do not connect to the intended targets? The Source site is http://humanknowledge.net/





Last updated 2005-06-09

He has a blog (which I have never read) at http://blog.knowinghumans.net/
On HIS personal website http://holtz.org/
He writes this:
The writers that have influenced and persuaded me most are Robert Nozick, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Milton Friedman, Julian Simon, Jared Diamond, Desmond Morris, and George Gilder. Influential -- but not necessarily as persuasive -- have been Carl Sagan, Mortimer Adler, Bertrand Russell, Karl Marx, Henry George, and Arthur Clarke. Lately I've been reading and admiring the work of Robin Hanson, Nick Bostrom, Max Tegmark, David Friedman, Michael Martin, Quentin Smith, Richard Carrier, Steven Pinker, Richard Posner, Virginia Postrel, and Brad DeLong.
Now you know as much about the source as I do...


This acknowledgement supports the argument against the validity of religion. It is the fact that modern thinking supports "there never was such a place" calls to question the validity of other claims. Its like saying, "well, we lied to you for centuries about hell but that's not what's important". Makes one wonder if they were lying then, why can't they be lying now? If they lie about one aspect, why can't they be lying about other aspects? In my belief of God, God NEVER lies. If God NEVER lies, any lies must be man-made because man DOES lie.
God, to me, is reality. Reality, to me, NEVER lies. Reality may not be what I thought, or expected it to be but it is always reality.


Again, this admits to fallibility of man. Admitting that fallacy institutes fallacy in all. It opens the entire spectrum of religion to 2nd guesses. Misunderstanding, inaccurate recall and errors do exist in society. Religion assumes that its doctrine is infallible because it is the word of God. Your response, invalidates that assumption.
The thing about reality is that no matter how it is experienced, understood, recalled or documented, it remains reality. Since we exist in an ever-changing Universe, reality changes. The change doesn't invalidate the present condition, the condition merely changes to reflect new instances of reality. The current reality is the same for anyone experiencing it, what is different is how that person understands and accepts the reality before them.


Here it is again...


Really? This is why people don't want to discuss religious topics as much as they should. Attacking someone for their own views on a subject that is entirely ones own views. It assumes superiority without justification.
Might as well just point and say "You're a doogiehead". That's elementary school mentality.


Religions operate on the assumption that it is all true. To consider that this list (given to inspire discussion) could be true, calls into question, faith in that religion.
I believe God exists. When I read an argument that God does not exist, I look for the error in that argument.
I never consider that God doesn't exist? To me, that is not how my faith works. While I may not have the answer to prove my belief, I always believe. I see it as a quest to figure out the details.

Recruit: synonyms: enlist, call up, conscript, draft, muster in; archaic; levy

Nearly all religions attempt to recruit. There is a push to convert an individual's beliefs to their way of thinking. Many religions use punishments and rewards in their recruiting process. It was these promises of punishments and rewards that Jesus used to recruit His followers. They are written in religious texts like the Bible.

You may see my response as trying to justify Brian Holtz's list.
I assure you it is not.
I'm personally not against any specific religion.
Nearly all religions have a function in society.
I am just wary of the 'blind faith' that goes against simple reasoning.

This world we live in, the world right now, is VERY different than the "world" in the Middle East 2,000 years ago. Not only is 'that' world different, that view of the 'world' was limited to a specific region and a specific culture.

These 'old world' religions don't fit our current global society anymore.
"Blind Faith" doesn't work with mankind's current knowledge level.

I acknowledge your thoughts and beliefs as well.

No, God doesn't need to make promises or threats.
Religion does.

The natural 'sin' you refer to is 'error' and error is required to gain wisdom.

For my belief, God does not judge or chastise. People judge and chastise.

The consequences of my actions result in two main outcomes;
1. Reality rectifies the error
2. People try to rectify the error.

The first is cause and effect.
The second is a socially driven alteration, for any number of reasons, which may or may not be effective at rectifying the error.

I didn't say natural sin.
I said sin(s) have natural consequences.

In a sense sin(s) can be judge and jury, but not always with the same consequences.

Humans are born with an inherited sin nature however.

A lot of people struggle with this.

On a human level what "caused" sin?
Free will and choice that led to the choice of disobedience towards one and only one command given by God in the Garden.

The "effects" of that one sin?
Chaos and death.

The evidence is overwhelming.

To me and how I understand what you wrote you just contradicted yourself?

Free will and choice that led to the choice of disobedience
See, for me, and how I understand the reality in which I live, Free Will has no disobedience.
Obedience is not Free Will. Disobedience implies that obedience has not occurred. To obey is to forfeit Free Will.
Obey implies power of one over another. To cause the 'other' to give up their Free Will. There can't be Free Will and Obedience at the same time.
There can only be the will to obey. A will to obey that religions enforce with promises of rewards and punishments.

So, I'm reading about The Essence of Mind at Brian Holtz's site and I came across this on Free Will:

A mind is any volitional conscious faculty for perception and cognition.

Cognition

Cognition is the process of learning, reasoning, and knowing. Learning is the processing of experience into an increase in knowledge or behavioral effectiveness. Reasoning is the process of making and evaluating valid inferences.

Perception

Perception is the process of organizing sensation into experience. Sensation is the process of external influence on a monitoring or control system. Experience is any relatively unified and coherent interpretation of related contemporaneous sensations.

Consciousness

Consciousness is awareness of self and environment. Awareness is the direct and central availability of information in a monitoring or control system.

Volition

Volition is the power or act of making decisions about an agent's own actions. A decision is the causing by a system of events which were not physically determined from outside the system but rather were at least somewhat contingent on the internals of the system, and which were not predictable except perhaps by modeling the internals of the system.

Free will is either of the doctrines that human choices are a) determined internally rather than externally (volitional free will) or b) not pre-determined at all (indeterminate free will). Determinism is incompatible with indeterminate free will, but is compatible with volitional free will if agents have internal state that influences (and thus helps determines) their actions. Volitional free will is also compatible with forms of indeterminism in which the acausality is not so rampant as to undermine agent self-influence. Indeterminate free will requires indeterminism, but degenerates into uncaused chance if acausality confounds not only prediction of effect but also attribution of cause.

Since most effects seem caused rather than uncaused, and since the complexity of minds makes them hard to predict, minds appear to have at least weak free will. Weak free will is sufficient for assigning ethical responsibility to decision-making systems even in the face of complete determinism.

Do minds have strong free will, or can their decisions in principle be inferred from sufficient knowledge of prior circumstances?

Anti-materialists posit an immaterial soul or will that is free from both deterministic causality and random acausality. This notion violates the law of the excluded middle. Either the immaterial will is subject to (perhaps probabilistic but nonetheless causal) causes, or it is not. The same is true of material minds. The actions of an immaterial will could be said to be caused by its own internal causal processes, but the same can be said of material minds.

It makes me realize that my concept of Free Will aligns with his assessments. It also makes me realize that even my own understaning of Free Will may bot be entirely free will but choice resulting from cause and effect and choosing the path of personal reasoning. In that sense, Free Will doesn't actually exist.
There is always some factor that influences choices. Even if that factor is one's own sense of self.

heaven and hell are the two biggest lies/promises God ever said...if you don't do what it says, you go to hell...if you do what it says, you go to heaven... Not sure what your thought process is here...

I didn't contradict myself at all within the confinement of what I believe free will to be.

On how you perceive free will to be then yes it would be subjected to contradiction.

It doesn't mean that I am wrong, but it also does mean you are right.

Free will is limited by nature.
This limitation does not mitigate our accountability.

Free will doesn't take away the consequences of our choices.

they choose not to have freewill...that's the kicker they don't get...

Who is "they" in your statement and how did "they" give up their freewill?