The foundational lie in the psyche
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-07-2014, 11:27 AM (This post was last modified: 12-07-2014 12:21 PM by childeye.)
The foundational lie in the psyche
Many here claim to be former Christians even though some of you do not define God as Love/empathy. So I brought this over from a Christian forum for your inspection to see what you think. The topic is freewill. Each phrase carries a rephrase so as clarify as much as possible. The rephrase is in italics.


I can argue in depth both sides of the argument and all the subsequent implications depending upon which way you believe.
I know how to argue both sides of freewill and not freewill. Also I have explored the ramifications of each way of believing and they are different.
Terms like worship, repentance, mercy, responsibility, guilt, love, humility, all take on different connotations depending upon which way one believes.
Words like worship, repentance, mercy, responsibility, guilt, love, humility, all carry different meanings or nuances depending upon which side I am arguing.


There is a difference between saying I am wicked without God, and saying, I can freely choose to be wicked by denying God.
I will say something two different ways that may seem similar but are different in a subtle way. "I become wicked in my heart when I am separated from God"..."I can freely choose to become wicked, by choosing to say no to God".

There are two different spirits that dwell in the heart depending upon which way one believes.
Now these two different ways will produce two different types of spirit inside of a person according to which one they believe in.

In one, the person is utterly dependent upon God so as not to become wicked. Their worst fear is ever becoming wicked in separation from Him.
The not freewill one that says, "I become wicked in my heart when I am separated from God", counts God as their goodness. And therefore the one who believes this, believes he/she needs God to keep them from turning into a wicked person.
The worst thing they could ever imagine happening to them, is turning into a wicked person. So it is that they never ever want to be separated from God for any reason.

To choose to be wicked is something they cannot conceive of ever wanting, nor can they believe anyone else would ever freely choose to be wicked.
They could never dream of wanting to be wicked, much less choosing to be wicked. Likewise they would never understand how anyone would ever choose to be wicked.
Hence they Love God with all their hearts minds and soul in the truest sense.
Therefore they Love God in the most pure way with every fiber of their being, because He is all that makes them good.

In the other one, the acceptance of the idea that men have a free choice to deny God, is made palatable by accepting the idea that it is then a free choice to Love God.
In the freewill one, that says, "I can freely choose to become wicked, by choosing to say no to God", it is accepted truth that all men have a free choice to deny God. And the thought of choosing to deny God is only made acceptable to the mind, by also accepting that this will mean then, that men can also choose to Love God.
Here a person has equated denying God with Loving God in the form of freedom of the will.
In this way of thinking the person has made denying God and Loving God equal in that they are both viable choices and this is portrayed as freedom by the term freewill.
Hence it is an equivocation in the mind.
In the mind this makes it appear as if a person is not free without the ability to choose between denying and Loving God.

Therefore, this spirit that believes humans freely choose to Love God or freely choose not to, is completely different that the other one, who cannot believe anyone would ever choose to not Love God, unless they were deceived.
Consequently the spirit that results from believing this freewill way, is not the same as the spirit that believes in the not freewill way. For the not freewill way spirit believes that nobody would ever choose to deny God unless they were not in their right mind or blind in some way.
While the other would believe that any man can freely choose to Love or deny God and do so, without any deception.
But the spirit of the freewill way, believes that all men can and do freely choose to both Love and deny God and without any blindness or deception.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-07-2014, 11:42 AM
RE: The foundational lie in the psyche
(12-07-2014 11:27 AM)childeye Wrote:  Many here claim to be former Christians even though some of you do not define God as Love/empathy.

No True Scotsman right from the very first sentence.

I like where this is going.

Not.

(12-07-2014 11:27 AM)childeye Wrote:  So I brought this over from a Christian forum for your inspection to see what you think. The topic is freewill. Each phrase carries a rephrase so as to erase as many semantics as possible. The rephrase is in italics.

I do believe you mean clarify. To erase semantics would be to erase meaning.

(12-07-2014 11:27 AM)childeye Wrote:  I can argue in depth both sides of the argument and all the subsequent implications depending upon which way you believe.
I know how to argue both sides of freewill and not freewill. Also I have explored the ramifications of each way of believing and they are different.
Terms like worship, repentance, mercy, responsibility, guilt, love, humility, all take on different connotations depending upon which way one believes.
Words like worship, repentance, mercy, responsibility, guilt, love, humility, all carry different meanings or nuances depending upon which side I am arguing.

If definitions are not agreed-upon no discussion is possible.

Since your preferred method of defining things is to vacuously assert without substantiation highly idiosyncratic and downright incoherent drivel, and defend it by way of repeating it so often people get tired of trying to correct you...

I like where this is going.

Not.

(12-07-2014 11:27 AM)childeye Wrote:  There is a difference between saying I am wicked without God, and saying, I can freely choose to be wicked by denying God.

Indeed. Both are meaningless, since neither you nor anyone else can coherently define God.

(12-07-2014 11:27 AM)childeye Wrote:  I will say something two different ways that may seem similar but are different in a subtle way. "I become wicked in my heart when I am separated from God"..."I can freely choose to become wicked, by choosing to say no to God".

There are two different spirits that dwell in the heart depending upon which way one believes.
Now these two different ways will produce two different types of spirit inside of a person according to which one they believe in.

In one, the person is utterly dependent upon God so as not to become wicked. Their worst fear is ever becoming wicked in separation from Him.
The not freewill one that says, "I become wicked in my heart when I am separated from God", counts God as their goodness. And therefore the one who believes this, believes he/she needs God to keep them from turning into a wicked person.
The worst thing they could ever imagine happening to them, is turning into a wicked person. So it is that they never ever want to be separated from God for any reason.

To choose to be wicked is something they cannot conceive of ever wanting, nor can they believe anyone else would ever freely choose to be wicked.
They could never dream of wanting to be wicked, much less choosing to be wicked. Likewise they would never understand how anyone would ever choose to be wicked.
Hence they Love God with all their hearts minds and soul in the truest sense.
Therefore they Love God in the most pure way with every fiber of their being, because He is all that makes them good.

Are you going somewhere with this? I detect no sign of intelligent life on this expedition so far.

(12-07-2014 11:27 AM)childeye Wrote:  In the other one, the acceptance of the idea that men have a free choice to deny God, is made palatable by accepting the idea that it is then a free choice to Love God.

Humans or people would be preferable to men.

That is the least of your worries.

(12-07-2014 11:27 AM)childeye Wrote:  In the freewill one, that says, "I can freely choose to become wicked, by choosing to say no to God"...

Find me a single person in all of history who ever said such a thing. It's okay, I'll wait...

(12-07-2014 11:27 AM)childeye Wrote:  ... it is accepted truth that all men have a free choice to deny God. And the thought of choosing to deny God is only made acceptable to the mind, by also accepting that this will mean then, that men can also choose to Love God.
Here a person has equated denying God with Loving God in the form of freedom of the will.
In this way of thinking the person has made denying God and Loving God equal in that they are both viable choices and this is portrayed as freedom by the term freewill.
Hence it is an equivocation in the mind.

Well; if anyone knows equivocation, it'd be you.

(12-07-2014 11:27 AM)childeye Wrote:  In the mind this makes it appear as if a person is not free without the ability to choose between denying and Loving God.

Why am I doing this to myself?

My mind is going. I can feel it.

(12-07-2014 11:27 AM)childeye Wrote:  Therefore, this spirit that believes men freely choose to Love God or freely choose not to, is completely different that the other one, who cannot believe anyone would ever choose to not Love God, unless they were deceived.

Yes. Those are different ideas. So what?

Elves and dwarves are different, too.

(12-07-2014 11:27 AM)childeye Wrote:  Consequently the spirit that results from believing this freewill way, is not the same as the spirit that believes in the not freewill way. For the not freewill way spirit believes that nobody would ever choose to deny God unless they were not in their right mind or blind in some way.
While the other would believe that any man can freely choose to Love or deny God and do so, without any deception.
But the spirit of the freewill way, believes that all men can and do freely choose to both Love and deny God and without any blindness or deception.

Oh, so it's just bog-standard presup hogwash. See, you could have just said that at the beginning and saved everybody a lot of time.

And saved me the IQ points I sacrificed by going over this dreck.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like cjlr's post
12-07-2014, 11:58 AM (This post was last modified: 12-07-2014 12:04 PM by true scotsman.)
RE: The foundational lie in the psyche
(12-07-2014 11:27 AM)childeye Wrote:  Many here claim to be former Christians even though some of you do not define God as Love/empathy. So I brought this over from a Christian forum for your inspection to see what you think. The topic is freewill. Each phrase carries a rephrase so as clarify as much as possible. The rephrase is in italics.


I can argue in depth both sides of the argument and all the subsequent implications depending upon which way you believe.
I know how to argue both sides of freewill and not freewill. Also I have explored the ramifications of each way of believing and they are different.
Terms like worship, repentance, mercy, responsibility, guilt, love, humility, all take on different connotations depending upon which way one believes.
Words like worship, repentance, mercy, responsibility, guilt, love, humility, all carry different meanings or nuances depending upon which side I am arguing.


There is a difference between saying I am wicked without God, and saying, I can freely choose to be wicked by denying God.
I will say something two different ways that may seem similar but are different in a subtle way. "I become wicked in my heart when I am separated from God"..."I can freely choose to become wicked, by choosing to say no to God".

There are two different spirits that dwell in the heart depending upon which way one believes.
Now these two different ways will produce two different types of spirit inside of a person according to which one they believe in.

In one, the person is utterly dependent upon God so as not to become wicked. Their worst fear is ever becoming wicked in separation from Him.
The not freewill one that says, "I become wicked in my heart when I am separated from God", counts God as their goodness. And therefore the one who believes this, believes he/she needs God to keep them from turning into a wicked person.
The worst thing they could ever imagine happening to them, is turning into a wicked person. So it is that they never ever want to be separated from God for any reason.

To choose to be wicked is something they cannot conceive of ever wanting, nor can they believe anyone else would ever freely choose to be wicked.
They could never dream of wanting to be wicked, much less choosing to be wicked. Likewise they would never understand how anyone would ever choose to be wicked.
Hence they Love God with all their hearts minds and soul in the truest sense.
Therefore they Love God in the most pure way with every fiber of their being, because He is all that makes them good.

In the other one, the acceptance of the idea that men have a free choice to deny God, is made palatable by accepting the idea that it is then a free choice to Love God.
In the freewill one, that says, "I can freely choose to become wicked, by choosing to say no to God", it is accepted truth that all men have a free choice to deny God. And the thought of choosing to deny God is only made acceptable to the mind, by also accepting that this will mean then, that men can also choose to Love God.
Here a person has equated denying God with Loving God in the form of freedom of the will.
In this way of thinking the person has made denying God and Loving God equal in that they are both viable choices and this is portrayed as freedom by the term freewill.
Hence it is an equivocation in the mind.
In the mind this makes it appear as if a person is not free without the ability to choose between denying and Loving God.

Therefore, this spirit that believes men freely choose to Love God or freely choose not to, is completely different that the other one, who cannot believe anyone would ever choose to not Love God, unless they were deceived.
Consequently the spirit that results from believing this freewill way, is not the same as the spirit that believes in the not freewill way. For the not freewill way spirit believes that nobody would ever choose to deny God unless they were not in their right mind or blind in some way.
While the other would believe that any man can freely choose to Love or deny God and do so, without any deception.
But the spirit of the freewill way, believes that all men can and do freely choose to both Love and deny God and without any blindness or deception.

Since there is no such being as God in reality, it's all moot. Answer me this: How can I reliably distinguish between what someone claims is God and something that he or she might merely be imagining?

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes true scotsman's post
12-07-2014, 12:00 PM
RE: The foundational lie in the psyche
Since you have never, ever said even one thing of substance here, I skipped straight to cjlr's response for the lulz.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 9 users Like Chas's post
12-07-2014, 12:18 PM (This post was last modified: 12-07-2014 12:35 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The foundational lie in the psyche
(12-07-2014 11:27 AM)childeye Wrote:  Many here claim to be former Christians even though some of you do not define God as Love/empathy.

Thank you. My sister teaches Logic to High School kids, and she's always on the lookout for "non-sequiturs". Great example. The kids thank you.

(12-07-2014 11:27 AM)childeye Wrote:  I can argue in depth both sides of the argument and all the subsequent implications depending upon which way you believe.

Really ? Aren't we just all self-confident today ? Not just argue, but "argue in depth". I AM impressed. No really ? I am. (Not)

(12-07-2014 11:27 AM)childeye Wrote:  I know how to argue both sides of freewill and not freewill. Also I have explored the ramifications of each way of believing and they are different.
Terms like worship, repentance, mercy, responsibility, guilt, love, humility, all take on different connotations depending upon which way one believes.

No shit Sherlock. Brilliant. Simply brilliant. I see the "depth" he was speaking of. Weeping

(12-07-2014 11:27 AM)childeye Wrote:  Words like worship, repentance, mercy, responsibility, guilt, love, humility, all carry different meanings or nuances depending upon which side I am arguing.

Exactly. You can rearrange the toys in the Presupositionalists bag of tricks, and make it sound all intelligent, even while it's completely meaningless.

(12-07-2014 11:27 AM)childeye Wrote:  There is a difference between saying I am wicked without God, and saying, I can freely choose to be wicked by denying God.

Totally irrelevant. No one here claims to be wicked at all, so you wasted you time, as neither situation is applicable.

(12-07-2014 11:27 AM)childeye Wrote:  [/i]
There are two different spirits that dwell in the heart depending upon which way one believes.

No spirits live in hearts. I've dissected a few, and found no evidence for any. The argument has already become circular.

Moral Theology teaches that intention is the crux of a moral decision. All this crap is mental masterbation, and completely beside the point. As science has demonstrated, decision are made at the sub-conscious level, thus any notion of "free will" or "free to chose" is preposterous. One is not *free* if one is not FULLY aware of what's happening in one's brain. Humans are not.

No one who HONESTLY thinks the gods are preposterous, is HONESTLY *free* to accept them. Even Jebus said "No one shall come to me unless the Father draw him", so even your Jebus disagrees with this bullshit.

In short, is your god SO fucking stupid, she wouldn't know if people say "I believe" when they really don't ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist & Levitating Yogi
John 15:16 : "You did not choose me, I chose you, so that you might go and bear fruit--fruit that will last"

Lots of fruits in beligion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
12-07-2014, 12:25 PM
RE: The foundational lie in the psyche
(12-07-2014 12:00 PM)Chas Wrote:  Since you have never, ever said even one thing of substance here, I skipped straight to cjlr's response for the lulz.

Same here. I ended up glazing over trying to read the original post. It just looked like word salad.

I was trying to think of something witty to say like asking for it to be put in bullet point format but in the end I couldn't be arsed doing even that.

I still don't know what the OP actually said.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Mathilda's post
12-07-2014, 12:29 PM
RE: The foundational lie in the psyche
(12-07-2014 11:58 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(12-07-2014 11:27 AM)childeye Wrote:  Many here claim to be former Christians even though some of you do not define God as Love/empathy. So I brought this over from a Christian forum for your inspection to see what you think. The topic is freewill. Each phrase carries a rephrase so as clarify as much as possible. The rephrase is in italics.


I can argue in depth both sides of the argument and all the subsequent implications depending upon which way you believe.
I know how to argue both sides of freewill and not freewill. Also I have explored the ramifications of each way of believing and they are different.
Terms like worship, repentance, mercy, responsibility, guilt, love, humility, all take on different connotations depending upon which way one believes.
Words like worship, repentance, mercy, responsibility, guilt, love, humility, all carry different meanings or nuances depending upon which side I am arguing.


There is a difference between saying I am wicked without God, and saying, I can freely choose to be wicked by denying God.
I will say something two different ways that may seem similar but are different in a subtle way. "I become wicked in my heart when I am separated from God"..."I can freely choose to become wicked, by choosing to say no to God".

There are two different spirits that dwell in the heart depending upon which way one believes.
Now these two different ways will produce two different types of spirit inside of a person according to which one they believe in.

In one, the person is utterly dependent upon God so as not to become wicked. Their worst fear is ever becoming wicked in separation from Him.
The not freewill one that says, "I become wicked in my heart when I am separated from God", counts God as their goodness. And therefore the one who believes this, believes he/she needs God to keep them from turning into a wicked person.
The worst thing they could ever imagine happening to them, is turning into a wicked person. So it is that they never ever want to be separated from God for any reason.

To choose to be wicked is something they cannot conceive of ever wanting, nor can they believe anyone else would ever freely choose to be wicked.
They could never dream of wanting to be wicked, much less choosing to be wicked. Likewise they would never understand how anyone would ever choose to be wicked.
Hence they Love God with all their hearts minds and soul in the truest sense.
Therefore they Love God in the most pure way with every fiber of their being, because He is all that makes them good.

In the other one, the acceptance of the idea that men have a free choice to deny God, is made palatable by accepting the idea that it is then a free choice to Love God.
In the freewill one, that says, "I can freely choose to become wicked, by choosing to say no to God", it is accepted truth that all men have a free choice to deny God. And the thought of choosing to deny God is only made acceptable to the mind, by also accepting that this will mean then, that men can also choose to Love God.
Here a person has equated denying God with Loving God in the form of freedom of the will.
In this way of thinking the person has made denying God and Loving God equal in that they are both viable choices and this is portrayed as freedom by the term freewill.
Hence it is an equivocation in the mind.
In the mind this makes it appear as if a person is not free without the ability to choose between denying and Loving God.

Therefore, this spirit that believes men freely choose to Love God or freely choose not to, is completely different that the other one, who cannot believe anyone would ever choose to not Love God, unless they were deceived.
Consequently the spirit that results from believing this freewill way, is not the same as the spirit that believes in the not freewill way. For the not freewill way spirit believes that nobody would ever choose to deny God unless they were not in their right mind or blind in some way.
While the other would believe that any man can freely choose to Love or deny God and do so, without any deception.
But the spirit of the freewill way, believes that all men can and do freely choose to both Love and deny God and without any blindness or deception.

Since there is no such being as God in reality, it's all moot. Answer me this: How can I reliably distinguish between what someone claims is God and something that he or she might merely be imagining?
I am not talking about something imaginary, but that which is experienced by all people. Hence without empathy I become wicked.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-07-2014, 12:31 PM
RE: The foundational lie in the psyche
(12-07-2014 12:25 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  
(12-07-2014 12:00 PM)Chas Wrote:  Since you have never, ever said even one thing of substance here, I skipped straight to cjlr's response for the lulz.

Same here. I ended up glazing over trying to read the original post. It just looked like word salad.

I was trying to think of something witty to say like asking for it to be put in bullet point format but in the end I couldn't be arsed doing even that.

I still don't know what the OP actually said.

So it's not just me then. I couldn't make heads or tails of it either.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like true scotsman's post
12-07-2014, 12:36 PM
RE: The foundational lie in the psyche
(12-07-2014 12:29 PM)childeye Wrote:  
(12-07-2014 11:58 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  Since there is no such being as God in reality, it's all moot. Answer me this: How can I reliably distinguish between what someone claims is God and something that he or she might merely be imagining?
I am not talking about something imaginary, but that which is experienced by all people. Hence without empathy I become wicked.

I have lots of empathy. I'm brimming with it. And I don't need to believe in imaginary beings to have empathy.

Now I didn't ask you whether what you were talking about was imaginary, I already know it is. I asked you by what method can I reliably distinguish what you call God from something you may be merely imagining.

Answer the question. If you do you will be the first to do so in my experience.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-07-2014, 12:36 PM
RE: The foundational lie in the psyche
tldr

The responses are much more interesting to fallacy heaped upon fallacy.

Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored- Aldous Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: