By the way -- if you claim to be a Christian...

[Sgt. Pepper]

Just to say, I've been going over some of the answers and I see few, if any, say what parts of the Bible they DO believe -- and although I asked purported Christians I see few answer what parts they DO believe. Maybe I missed them. Jesus gave his summation of the commandments, but maybe that's all they believe? (who knows...if they even believe Jesus, as outlined in the Bible, really existed) Of course, those not believing the Bible will offer their dispute, but the question was centered to those claiming to be Christian. If someone who claims to be Christian has already answered beyond the two commandments he says Jesus gave, maybe -- that's it??

In my experience, threads rarely go as planned, especially when they are posted in a religious debate forum accessible to all members.

 

[shunyadragon]

No, experts are credible because they're recognised as having specialist knowledge. The source of that knowledge is immaterial.

Experts is a rather meaningless generalization. Many scientists like myself have good general knowledge in college. I have taken college courses in history, archaeology, advanced geology, philosophy and religion over the years, There are many knowledgeable generalists. I believe my posts reflect a deep knowledge in philosophy, religion, history, and other sciences. I know the references available and where to find them to back up my posts.

My posts have specific references that back up my responses including a number of your posts. You need to respond specifically to my posts and not resort to vague insulting generalizations.

As per the subject of the thread 'Who is a Christian?'

Considering the subjective nature of the scripture and the many diverse conflicting beliefs. Anyone who claims to be a Christian is a Christian.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I’m not sure I understand the question since the example of babies seems (at least to me) a very clear example.



Again, not sure after the example. A 6 month baby comes out with a predisposition, a personality, just as much as a 9 month baby. At one year, we already see the manifestations of that soul. Sometimes we see a prodigy playing piano at 4 years… learned? We would have to say “no”.


We take a DISC personality test (for the purposes of what we are talking about… a soul test). You have the personality of who you are and then you have the personality that you “mask” when you are with a group of people.

I would say that you are “minted” before birth (when exactly would be up for debate) but that you can “develop” what you present to people when you are in a group.



Then I think I haven’t grasped the point you are trying to make. My apologies.


I think we are back to “Two people looking at the same evidence and coming to two different conclusions”. I revert back to the definition of “psychology” - the study of the soul.

I suppose we could contend the point but perhaps the simplest answer would be the best answer? A braid is a brain is a brain in all babies. It would be hard to hold to the position that all brains produce a different personality when it is just a brain. A soul seem to be the simplest solution.



yes… not all scriptures are black and white as some can be viewed differently because of not enough information. But it was a pretty good take, wasn’t it?

You mentioned that the existence of a soul is obvious. I'm asking what makes that obvious. Perhaps my question was confusing, but when someone declares that the existence of something is obvious, I cannot imagine it would be difficult to pass that along so that it is obvious to others.

What about puppies. They have a brain. They develop personalities as they grow. What is it about puppies that don't have a soul compared to baby humans that show that difference? I don't know. I've always been told that God didn't see fit to give souls to animals. So there must be a difference and some way to gauge it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This whole thread and life demonstrates this, repetition is obviously needed.

How? Show me.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

from entomology.

psychologymodern | Search Online Etymology Dictionary psychology \

I'm guessing not from entomology. Perhaps you meant etymology? In entomology it would be insect behavior and not psychology. Anyway, you link didn't come up with anything.

And that is the flaw in science, isn’t it? It never goes beyond what it sees? Doesn’t consider all possibilities?

That isn't a flaw. It is a strength of science. What would be the value of claiming that what some scientist believed about a subject. It wouldn't tell us anything except that the scientist believed something.

It considers all the possibilities that have evidence. Why would it consider something that can't be tested?

Certainly we know how “Modern” can change meanings. Like “Modern” understanding that a man can be a woman and visa versa and then they go through great lengths of trying to convince people on how they are right.

Yes, but your definition isn't about something in hand or observable. It is a conceptual definition that may or may not actually define the soul.

Ok… where do we intersect.

We can all agree that we need a mind that will operate the physical body. And that we have a will and emotions. We can extract all the understanding of how chemicals are released to produce emotions (although we really don’t know why it does that. Why is there even an emotion of “love”, only that love produces chemicals or somehow chemicals are released at the right time to the right person to produce an emotion of love.

Sounds too complicated and it is here where we diverge. I will say Occam’s Razor will fall on my side that the soul manipulates the brain that produces the chemicals.

Occam's Razor will not help you here, since, from the perspective of science, you are adding something that isn't observable, testable or that offers additional information in any way that provides verifiable answers.

Of course, we will eventually agree to disagree.

Perhaps so, but the question of the evidence of a soul that is so obvious that some people claim it is everywhere, but can't demonstrate that evidence or the soul at the same time. It is around but never found in that version of things.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What’s your definition of objective evidence and what is your objective evidence that there is nothing beyond the physical?

What is your objective evidence that there is? I can't wait to review what you offer.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Then stop doing that, the Soul is what drives the physical body, if that isn’t the case then everyone would be controlled by the environment. You would have no way to control what you do or don’t do.

That doesn't even make sense. You claim something you can't provide one iota of evidence for is in control and that without it, it would mean the environment controls us. No. There is nothing of any sensible relevance from what you are claiming.

 

[Polymath257]

What’s your definition of objective evidence and what is your objective evidence that there is nothing beyond the physical?

We know the physical exists, so the burden of proof is on those claiming there is more.

The fact that no such evidence has ever been presented is good enough to discard the possibility as unnecessary.

 

[Polymath257]

As I mentioned before, modernized changed meanings doesn’t change the reality of what it is.

And using old definitions doesn't prove existence.

There is absolutely no testing available to understand the conscience-when it is developed or how is it developed. Likewise, personality. We can see how it works but not how it comes about.

Those are equivalent.

Actually, it is the correct use.

Again, not so. I gave the reason it is incorrect: your hypothesis of a soul explains *absolutely nothing*.

yes… there is much to learn and discover. Of course, I will have a spiritual perspective on it.

Good luck with that.

 

[JerusalemBull]

hemmm

 

[ElishaElijah]

We know the physical exists, so the burden of proof is on those claiming there is more.

The fact that no such evidence has ever been presented is good enough to discard the possibility as unnecessary.

I call that willful ignorance

 

[Subduction Zone]

I call that willful ignorance

On your part? I doubt if you can show that he was willfully ignorant in regards to your beliefs.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I call that willful ignorance

You would be incorrect. Willful ignorance is claiming facts that can't be substantiated or waving off those that can. I believe there are numerous examples of that on this thread.

 

[ElishaElijah]

That doesn't even make sense. You claim something you can't provide one iota of evidence for is in control and that without it, it would mean the environment controls us. No. There is nothing of any sensible relevance from what you are claiming.

Well I’m controlled by the Holy Spirit, by submitting my will, emotions and mind over to Him by renewing my mind by the Word of God. This is something you cannot comprehend.
How are you motivated? Society?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well I’m controlled by the Holy Spirit,

So you say. No way I or anyone could really know.

by submitting my will, emotions and mind over to Him by renewing my mind by the Word of God.

What I see is a person behaving the way they think they are supposed to. There are subtleties that seeming contradict your claimed basis for behavior.

This is something you cannot comprehend.

I'm pretty sure the evidence indicates my comprehension of this is superior than what I have seen from some.

How are you motivated? Society?

I'm motivated by honesty and am blessed by God with the ability to learn and assimilate knowledge. I am not compelled by the rules of men in a specific church to do as I'm told and ignore reality and pretend it is different.

I don't really feel a need to ask you what motivates you.

 

[ElishaElijah]

You would be incorrect. Willful ignorance is claiming facts that can't be substantiated or waving off those that can. I believe there are numerous examples of that on this thread.

The Christians on this thread have had an encounter with the living God that has resulted in a change of heart, direction, purpose, hope and a future. Why would you feel the need to discard such a drastic change and deny that?
Why would you come on here and try to tell someone you know how that happened? We told you and if you like we could lead you to know how to test that? Would you like to know how?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well I’m controlled by the Holy Spirit, by submitting my will, emotions and mind over to Him by renewing my mind by the Word of God. This is something you cannot comprehend.
How are you motivated? Society?

What I find most odd is that you claim so many things, but can't seem to provide direct answers to questions. I would think that would be a piece of cake for someone claiming the authority that you do.

 

[ElishaElijah]

I'm motivated by honesty and am blessed by God

Then you know there is a spiritual realm that human beings are body, soul and spirit.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The Christians on this thread have had an encounter with the living God that has resulted in a change of heart, direction, purpose, hope and a future. Why would you feel the need to discard such a drastic change and deny that?

There you go again, putting words in the mouths of others that they didn't say. You make claims that have no evidence. That isn't putting words in your mouth about things not there. That is what you do. Since there is no means for me to know if you are honestly expressing something that happened, doing it for other reasons unknown or are completely confused. That is not denial. That is honest observation and facts.

Why would you come on here and try to tell someone you know how that happened?

I didn't. I just said I don't know that it did happen and only have the unverified word of some random individual on the internet to go by.

Why do you keep misrepresenting what I wrote?

We told you and if you like we could lead you to know how to test that?

This doesn't make sense. What are you trying to say here?

Would you like to know how?

I've already concluded what there is to learn from you, but thanks. I don't have any reason to think that I would learn more about my own faith from someone that acts in ways that I see as confounding faith.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Then you know there is a spiritual realm that human beings are body, soul and spirit.

I believe I know it. I can't show you that I know it. You can't show me or anyone else either. You just believe you can. But the evidence of this thread backs me up in my conclusion.