SO YOU WANT ME TO BECOME A CHRISTIAN?
-
We shall seeOriginally posted by Icemoon:Maybe not .. but shd be able to overtake cars.
Religion, politics and sex are hot topics and they map to EH, CC and BAR.
Come come come.. who wanna place your bet? -
wow .. hahaaOriginally posted by Honeybunz:Oh ok.... we are going back to question 1 all over again.
Trust me. SIS has more patience, persistence and endurance than fandango.
i hope icemoon also joins the debate
lol -
[nothing]
-
ya ya, then it will be interesting. Rating will increase. More exchange. More flame. More actions..... but why you like to see all the debates leh?Originally posted by ben1xy:wow .. hahaa
i hope icemoon also joins the debate
lol
-
quite busy nowadays. only have time to write a few lines.Originally posted by ben1xy:wow .. hahaa
i hope icemoon also joins the debate
lol
SIS asked deep challenging questions. it would be disrespectful to write only a few lines .. haha -
thus far there's no flaming laOriginally posted by happyharvest:ya ya, then it will be interesting. Rating will increase. More exchange. More flame. More actions..... but why you like to see all the debates leh?
debates actually broadens ur perspective. and actually... seeing how ppl tackle issues actually helps me write my papers
lol -
Ya, I agree but when sensitive topics are debated without a more "senior" people to monitor, it may lead to flaming, vulgarities , call names ..... This sgforums huh, really no one supervise one de. But freedom of speech right?Originally posted by ben1xy:thus far there's no flaming la
debates actually broadens ur perspective. and actually... seeing how ppl tackle issues actually helps me write my papers
lol
Ya, I love to learn from how they arguement their point. All the twisting here and there ........... -
Woah woah woah...suddenly i seem to get e feeling i'm getting flamed. no, i wasn't really discussing, debating, arguing for that matter, just simply injecting more facts into picture.
The questions follow. Under no circumstances will "The Lord works in mysterious ways" or other arguments in that vein be acceptable.
naturally, no one would accept that as a basis for argument - i wasn't even arguing to begin with. while refuting what was said, i can't see your point in bringing out that being 'merciful' and 'just' is contradictory. were you saying it's impossible?
philosophically, polarities do meet; obvious contradictions do meet, and do have a way to reconcile or even coexist. as for 'merciful and just', can someone who's more intelligent explain this? i can't.So u r saying the peopel r crazy because the demon possess them and not because of medical affliction ? I have to say tis but medically it is already established as a physical defect rather than a spiritiual one and cure has been found to curb the symptoms. Is the doctor's medicine attacking the demon possessing him or curing his physical ailments?
it is obvious from this point that you care only to flame dude. nothing personal, but please do read what i've written. I said that 'demon-possessed', 'schizophrenia' are simply names given to a certain condition. Back then, a certain condition was to be termed and regarded as 'demon-possessed' to explain someone afflicted with what we know today as 'schizophrenia' or some other schizoaffective disorders.
I didn't say or imply that people are crazy because demon possessed them.I think earlier someone say tat in heaven all your pain sadness etc r removed away. If all pain and sadness is removed then my guess is u receive perfect happiness
If pain, unhappiness, sadness, anger...are removed away, that doesn't mean one is happy. Bringing this back to the point, the bible didn't say ascension to heaven would lead to happiness.
besides, neurologically, sadness, anger, happiness, all seemingly opposite emotions are almost identical on the ElectroEncephaloGram. Even many autonomic responses to different emotions are actually quite similar, but not identical.
again, removal of sadness doesn't mean one will be happy, being sad doesn't imply depression, happiness does not equate to joy...Actually I have explained tis many times before. Even though evolution is a "theory", in scientific terms it is a scientific fact. It means scientifically, it is regarded as true and they really did find some species att were evolved (nylon digesting bacteria where nylon is man made)
in the scientific field, evolution remains as a theory, not fact.And so ? U mean having conscious is a sin?
no. having consciousness by itself is not a sin; the original sin from which consciousness is developed is the sin. original sin that one is born with simply means, that that consciousness that we all inherit from AdamEve from the instant that they ate e apple is the sin.Biblically speaking, no one can say for sure when babies, if they die, can reach heaven. There r verses tat support babies go to hell while verses tat stand babies can go to heaven. Tat is why they come out with the idea of baptising babies so even when they die they can go to heaven for sure (don't know why can ti be sure).
for sure babies will go to heaven when baptized? haven't heard of anything like this before. and the bible didn't say babies go to heaven or hell.
stupidissmart...it appears, it appears that you're to argue/debate...however, when refuting the arguements, you didn't bring out your points either. So it's hard to see where you are coming from and what you seek to achieve coming into EH. If you're truly seeking only to flame, you'll learn little, gain that little satisfaction having to outtalk, and gain little after that, if any that is. -
naturally, no one would accept that as a basis for argument - i wasn't even arguing to begin with. while refuting what was said, i can't see your point in bringing out that being 'merciful' and 'just' is contradictory. were you saying it's impossible?
To me, a magistrate who give trial to perhaps the whole mankind from beginning of time to end can either be merciful or just. For the time being I feel tat it seems to be a bit contradictory to fulfill 2 criteria fully
philosophically, polarities do meet; obvious contradictions do meet, and do have a way to reconcile or even coexist. as for 'merciful and just', can someone who's more intelligent explain this? i can't.it is obvious from this point that you care only to flame dude. nothing personal, but please do read what i've written. I said that 'demon-possessed', 'schizophrenia' are simply names given to a certain condition. Back then, a certain condition was to be termed and regarded as 'demon-possessed' to explain someone afflicted with what we know today as 'schizophrenia' or some other schizoaffective disorders.
At tat time, the church do go about and openly declare it is demon possession
I didn't say or imply that people are crazy because demon possessed them. From the earlier reply I do thought tat u r implying mental illness is demon possession
it was demon-possessed since people didn't have what our modern medical science; it is now schizophrenia, yet we still can't pinpoint or know its exact causes.
So from tis reply r u trying to say tat they r just mental illness and not demon possession ?If pain, unhappiness, sadness, anger...are removed away, that doesn't mean one is happy. Bringing this back to the point, the bible didn't say ascension to heaven would lead to happiness.
I don't knwo wat u r really to get here but it seems u believe if u have no pain, no sadness and no anger u still don't get happiness. I just felt tat if u r not left with happiness, then u r left with nothingless and u probably live life without emotions and tat seems to be a pretty undesirable existence
besides, neurologically, sadness, anger, happiness, all seemingly opposite emotions are almost identical on the ElectroEncephaloGram. Even many autonomic responses to different emotions are actually quite similar, but not identical.
again, removal of sadness doesn't mean one will be happy, being sad doesn't imply depression, happiness does not equate to joy...in the scientific field, evolution remains as a theory, not fact.
In various sciences, a theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a certain natural or social phenomenon, thus either originating from observable facts or supported by them (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations made that is predictive, testable, and has never been falisfied.
The modern synthesis, like its Mendelian and Darwinian antecedents, is a scientific theory. In plain English, people use the word "theory" to signify "conjecture", "speculation", or "opinion". In contrast, a scientific theory is a model of the world (or some portion of it) from which falsifiable hypotheses can be generated and be verified through empirical observation. In this sense, "theory" and "fact" do not stand in opposition, but rather exist in a reciprocal relationship — for example, it is a "fact" that an apple dropped on earth will fall towards the center of the planet in a straight line, and the "theory" which explains it is the current theory of gravitation. Currently, the modern synthesis is the most powerful theory explaining variation and speciation, and within the science of biology it has completely replaced earlier accepted explanations for the origin of species, including creationism and Lamarckism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionno. having consciousness by itself is not a sin; the original sin from which consciousness is developed is the sin. original sin that one is born with simply means, that that consciousness that we all inherit from AdamEve from the instant that they ate e apple is the sin.
So u r saying tat adam and eve do not have consciousness before they eat the fruit of wisdom ? I thought they already so have conscious If adam and eve has no conscious of their actions, why will eating the fruit be a sin ? If they do have conscious before eating the fruit of wisdom, then why do u say we have original sin by having conscious when in the first place we already have it ?for sure babies will go to heaven when baptized? haven't heard of anything like this before. and the bible didn't say babies go to heaven or hell.
So now u r arguing tat baptising has no real application ? There r some parts of christian who believes they r useful u know. If u do not believe they r useful, then u r not really the type of people tat tis question is asking from.stupidissmart...it appears, it appears that you're to argue/debate...however, when refuting the arguements, you didn't bring out your points either. So it's hard to see where you are coming from and what you seek to achieve coming into EH. If you're truly seeking only to flame, you'll learn little, gain that little satisfaction having to outtalk, and gain little after that, if any that is.
When i refute the arguments, in a way the questions asked by the author still stands and tat is the point. Actually wat about u ? R u here just to defend because u r a christian or u r here to learn wat is the truth ? -
29. If your god wants us to worship him through our own free will, why does he threaten us with Hell? If you have someone threatening you with a punishment, it isn't free will.
11For reasons known only to Him, He gave us a free will, to worship God or reject Him. It is your choice. A big part of the problem is that people's hearts are hardened, usually by their love of sin or by the devil himself, to the gospel message. Don't blame God when we only have ourselves to blame.
See what I wrote for question 11, 12 and 13. Plus, note today that people in popular culture almost like the idea of going to hell, and look forward to it, as if it wasn't a punishment.
12 can't find anything there
13 As I said above, God wants people to be near Him, and if they don't, they should be punished for rebellion against their Creator and willful rejection of the One that loves mankind so. I don't like it either, but it's the truth.
Lets put it tis way, god do not give us real "free will". If he give real "free will", then we can really live according to wat we like. However he "force" us to follow a lifestyle and when we do not, he will send us to hell. Tis is not really "free will" anymore. If free will is the thing tat cause us to be in eternal damnation, then "pluck it out and throw it away"; meaning god should started off by giving us restricted free will from the start. But however he give us free will to be like a trap where he can see people fail due to his plans. Might as well just force us, or program us to be like wat god himself wanna us to be in the first place. Don't program us otherwise then blame it on us and throw us into hell. -
30. Why would your god deliberately cause sinners to sin (cf. Romans 9:15-23 and numerous parts of the book of Exodus where Jehovah says, "I will harden Pharaoh's heart.". Are these sinners still responsible for the sins that your god forces them, against their will, to commit? Justify your answer.
16It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."[g] 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
Look carefully at that passage again. God doesn't force them to sin, but with their heart hardened, they won't accept Him yet. This is done so that God's will may be fully accomplished on earth.
19One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "[h] 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory—[/[i]quote]
Actually from the bible, tis section do seems to me tat the pharoah is already "planned" by god to commit the deeds he did as an elaborate show to men. And god really answer tis question by "tat is too bad for u, I planned u to be a sinner and then put the blame on u. And too bad u r made by me and u can't do anything about it". I don't know if my translation is wrong, otherwise how do u interprete the quoted sections especially 19-21 ? I don't really find fandango's interpretations in these sections -
45From the sixth hour until the ninth hour darkness came over all the land. 46About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi,[c] lama sabachthani?"—which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"[d]Originally posted by happyharvest:Fandango, I help you on one question. Sorry for disrupting the sequence. Ya, this is a cut and paste answer:
93. Do you feel that the last words of Christ were significant? If so, why do the four gospels attribute three different sentences to Christ as his last? (Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34: "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?"; Luke 23:46: "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit"; John 19:30: "It is finished".
Answer: http://www.carm.org/diff/Mark15_34.htm
Regards
47When some of those standing there heard this, they said, "He's calling Elijah."
48Immediately one of them ran and got a sponge. He filled it with wine vinegar, put it on a stick, and offered it to Jesus to drink. 49The rest said, "Now leave him alone. Let's see if Elijah comes to save him."
50And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.
(Matthew 45-50)
33At the sixth hour darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour. 34And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"—which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"[c]
35When some of those standing near heard this, they said, "Listen, he's calling Elijah."
36One man ran, filled a sponge with wine vinegar, put it on a stick, and offered it to Jesus to drink. "Now leave him alone. Let's see if Elijah comes to take him down," he said.
37With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last.
(Mark 33-37)
30When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit. (John 19:30)
i.e. He gave up his spirit by saying:
46Jesus called out with a loud voice, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last. (Luke 23:46)
So Jesus last words were Luke: Here, Jesus is committing His spirit into the Father’s hands, indicating that He was about to die – and that God had accepted His sacrifice. -
duplicated.
? -
Heavenly Father:
Do you love yr children?
Holy spirit...jesus christ save my soul
AMEN -
Same to u..Originally posted by happyharvest:Ya, I agree but when sensitive topics are debated without a more "senior" people to monitor, it may lead to flaming, vulgarities , call names ..... This sgforums huh, really no one supervise one de. But freedom of speech right?
Ya, I love to learn from how they arguement their point. All the twisting here and there ........... -
To me, a magistrate who give trial to perhaps the whole mankind from beginning of time to end can either be merciful or just. For the time being I feel tat it seems to be a bit contradictory to fulfill 2 criteria fully
The fact that neither you nor myself could reconcile both qualities doesn't imply that such a possibilty is out of question, unthinkable, or impossible. Improbable perhaps. I guess we could stop here and ponder.
For christians, non-christians alike, this line about being merciful and just could be a nice quality of christ that we all could imitate. Though to truly understand what it means, could take us a lifetime to ponder. I don't know.At tat time, the church do go about and openly declare it is demon possession Rolling Eyes From the earlier reply I do thought tat u r implying mental illness is demon possession
ok, let it end here. i was saying the term demon-possessed and schizophrenia are simply terms given to certain condition in question. Without the science we have today, people during those times blame this condition on the demons. Today, we call it schizophrenia.
Yet given today's sciences, we can't pinpoint its exact causes. The closest we have is to blame on the genetics. Carriers are certainly more likely to develop schizophrenia than in families who are clean of this disease. Yet not every carrier would develop schizophrenia. Which is why i said, it's exact causes remains to be determined.I don't knwo wat u r really to get here but it seems u believe if u have no pain, no sadness and no anger u still don't get happiness. I just felt tat if u r not left with happiness, then u r left with nothingless and u probably live life without emotions and tat seems to be a pretty undesirable existence
you're pretty right on on my point. that's what i feel also...
if we go goto heaven, with pain, sadness, everything else removed, what are we left with? Removal of negative feelings and emotions doesn't imply positive emotions will follow. Besides all these feelings are essentially the same.
it's also clear that at this point that i'm pretty much like the original author who posed that many questions. i used to be christian, and learned much from the religion and bible. confusion soon followed and i led vagabond-like spiritual life. learning a bit of buddhism, hinduism, islam....In various sciences, a theory i...
Ay...let's skip this part, it's not important for the original argument anyway - we're digressing too much. personally, this evolutionary theory/fact can't prove itself, neither can anyone disprove it. the argument will never end.o u r saying tat adam and eve do not have consciousness before they eat the fruit of wisdom ? I thought they already so have conscious Rolling Eyes If adam and eve has no conscious of their actions, why will eating the fruit be a sin ? If they do have conscious before eating the fruit of wisdom, then why do u say we have original sin by having conscious when in the first place we already have it ?
apologies on this part, i guess i was not being specific enough.
ok..i meant that adam-eve do have a mind of their own - they could do what they want, exercise their freedom, but they lack a sort of self-consciousness that see themselves differently from others. before eating the apple, they didn't feel ashamed exposing themselves to each other.
after eating the apple. "their eyes opened", they begin to see things differently after they ate the apple. they become more self-conscious and hid themselves, covered themselves with leaves and stuff...
so the original sin is the self-consciousness that we are not supposed to have. and we wouldn't have this sort of self-consciousness if adam-eve didnt eat the apple in the first place. original sin also because we weren't supposed to be like this, but (perhaps) living all harmoniously as a social being working towards God's plan, not seeking each others throats, being selfish and all.
personally, this is my best understanding of the beginnings of Genesis. for those who are truly interested could read the Quran. I heard from my Muslim friend that their version of Genesis is in greater detail which also explains the origin of Satan, who he was before he turned against God. Also included are the detailed conversation between Satan (the serpent) and Eve...so now u r arguing tat baptising has no real application?
i'm not sure what u mean by "real".
to christians, baptism's "real" application is to signify the acceptance of Christ, washing away of past sins and become a clean slate, often dubbed as "being born again in Christ". 2 applications hence, the acceptance, and the washing of sins.
many denominations argue about infant baptism because it exactly doesn't go well with my first point - accepting christ. children hardly understand what accepting christ mean, much less an infant. A lot of critics argue that infant baptism, hence, have no real application in the christian domain.
personally, i'm neutral in this argument. The infants grow up to be adults and then they'll decide for themselves if they'll stay in the religion. Young christians often have the Sunday schools or catechism classes to learn about christianity. as for the christians that later walk out on christ in life, it's really up to God if they're saved. -
The fact that neither you nor myself could reconcile both qualities doesn't imply that such a possibilty is out of question, unthinkable, or impossible. Improbable perhaps. I guess we could stop here and ponder.
My guess is as long as nobody realyl can clarify tis part, the question on god being just and mercy appears to be improbable and the question from the original author still stands
For christians, non-christians alike, this line about being merciful and just could be a nice quality of christ that we all could imitate. Though to truly understand what it means, could take us a lifetime to ponder. I don't know.ok, let it end here. i was saying the term demon-possessed and schizophrenia are simply terms given to certain condition in question. Without the science we have today, people during those times blame this condition on the demons. Today, we call it schizophrenia.
Then let me ask tis question to u. Wat do u think cause schizophrenia ? Demon possession or genetic+enviromental factor ? In the past the church says they r demon-possession, which to me, is something wrong. And as such we can again see an example of the errors comitted by the church. Unless u agree tat they r demon-possession...
Yet given today's sciences, we can't pinpoint its exact causes. The closest we have is to blame on the genetics. Carriers are certainly more likely to develop schizophrenia than in families who are clean of this disease. Yet not every carrier would develop schizophrenia. Which is why i said, it's exact causes remains to be determined.Ay...let's skip this part, it's not important for the original argument anyway - we're digressing too much. personally, this evolutionary theory/fact can't prove itself, neither can anyone disprove it. the argument will never end.
If it is just your personal thinking then i have nothing to say. I just wanna bring out the fact tat evolution now is really a textbook truth where perhaps a large chunk of researcher such as biologists believe and based their studies on. It is really much a "fact"
apologies on this part, i guess i was not being specific enough.ok..i meant that adam-eve do have a mind of their own - they could do what they want, exercise their freedom, but they lack a sort of self-consciousness that see themselves differently from others. before eating the apple, they didn't feel ashamed exposing themselves to each other.
I don't know about u, but do any babies u see cover themselves up when they r borned
after eating the apple. "their eyes opened", they begin to see things differently after they ate the apple. they become more self-conscious and hid themselves, covered themselves with leaves and stuff... I thought they cover themselves up only after seeing wat the world has been doing. If we let them grow up in a environment where nobody wears clothes, they r probably gonna go around naked and feeling nothing is wrong as well. In fact given the right conditions u can educate him watever to become something much like adam. I really see no difference between human now and the state adam is in before eating the fruit in terms of consciousness.i'm not sure what u mean by "real".
I am glad u agree tat there r denominations tat believe baptism is important for a baby to prevent it going to limbo or something. If u don't believe in it, tis question is not for u. U don't agree with it and I also don't believe tis is logically right as well. But there r people who do and the question is for them, not u.
to christians, baptism's "real" application is to signify the acceptance of Christ, washing away of past sins and become a clean slate, often dubbed as "being born again in Christ". 2 applications hence, the acceptance, and the washing of sins.
many denominations argue about infant baptism because it exactly doesn't go well with my first point - accepting christ. children hardly understand what accepting christ mean, much less an infant. A lot of critics argue that infant baptism, hence, have no real application in the christian domain. -
31. If Jesus did have to die, why did someone (specifically, Judas) have to be damned in order accomplish the death and resurrection of Jesus? Jesus was at least a volunteer for the cross; I doubt that your god asked Judas if he was willing to go to Hell so that the resurrection could be accomplished.
Tis question is probably link with question 30. God specially create judas to become the role he is playing, tat is betray jesus, take the money and then get killed etc. So in fact from a certain viewpoint juda is a victim of circumstances which he have no real control of. He is damned because god wanna him to be damned. God already planned jesus death and truly, judas do help god in tis sense to make jesus cruxified.
Of course not. The thing is, like Jesus said, "You cannot serve both God and Money." Like many in our world today (including a lot of Christians), Judas claimed to serve God, but he only served Money. Betraying Jesus was to him, at first, just a quick way to make a few pieces of silver.
Also, note that Judas figured out that what he did was wrong, like Peter, but he judged himself and committed suicide. Unlike Judas, Peter turned to God, and when Christ was resurrected, He forgave him. -
32. If Judas was willing to go to Hell for humanity (see #31), didn't he make more of a sacrifice than Jesus, who spent only three hours in pain? Shouldn't we then be worshipping Judas?
I don't think u understand the question but Judas is very much like christ who act out the role assign to him by god. Judas acts the way he did because god wanna him to act in such a way. In a way, Judas seems to sacrifice more than jesus to make the reserrection possible
No! At the time, he was just trying to make a quick buck, and didn't realize that he was fulfilling prophecy by sending Messiah to die. Actually, also, Satan possessed him, and he obviously didn't know what he was doing. Look at my answer to question 31 again. Plus, he did eventually realize that what he did was wrong, and that is why he killed himself. -
33. Why should we accept the words of the gospel writers as truth when they are known to be liars? (See Romans 3:7).
There r terrorists tat go to their death for their preceived ideals. Tat doesn't means he is not a lier or tat he never lie. These r really 2 different things. So the question on why do christian accept the gospel writers as absolute truth, yet gospel writers r really just lying mere men as well. If it is me I would not trust absolutely but will reserve doubt on the more suspicious sections
Read the context, and it would appear that Paul is saying that the ends do not justify the means. If the gospel writers are liars, why did they go to their deaths proclaiming this lie? -
34. Do you believe that your god is anti-homosexual? If so, explain why he would create homosexuals in the first place. If not, refute or explain away Leviticus 20:13 and Romans 1:26-27.
tentatively, there has really been a debate on whether is homo natural or nurture. I don't think it is fair for anyone to say they r not born naturally to be gay and discriminate them. And I don't think tat making "adam" and "eve" means god do not make gays
He didn't create them, they chose that lifestyle. Why is it wrong? It's unnatural. If God wanted it that way, He would have made Adam and Steve (two men), or Amanda and Eve (two women). But obviously, He didn't.
Our modernist view is that homosexuals believe that they were born and created in that manner. They argue that they are either born with additional organs or the lack of. But there has been no scientific proof that this is true. Surely the world love proof-by-science, why the null results even up till this day? God make only adam and eve (noah's offsprings too) and their children have to commit incest to reproduce. So god want people to commit incest ? -
35. Explain why prayer is OK, but spell casting is not, when both amount to the same thing: requesting that a superior supernatural force to intercede in a way that would be impossible according to the normally accepted laws of physics.
Isn't miracle healing something like requesting a miracle as well ? And spellcasting doesn't means requesting help from satan but perhaps from other deities like forest spirits etc. So the only difference is prayer is from god while spellcasting is from another "god" ? Christian seeks from their god is okie but others seeking help from their other god is wrong ?
Prayer does not necessarily request a miracle. It can be used for praise, worship, strength in times of trouble, etc. The dark forces of the world (Satan and his minions) have power to work miracles, except that God holds them back when necessary. -
Then let me ask tis question to u. Wat do u think cause schizophrenia ? Demon possession or genetic+enviromental factor ? In the past the church says they r demon-possession, which to me, is something wrong. And as such we can again see an example of the errors comitted by the church. Unless u agree tat they r demon-possession...
Personally, I believe that genetics certainly plays a part by predisposing carriers to be more prone to developing schizophrenia than others as evidenced by statistics gathered. The gathered data steadily shows a trend that schizophrenia runs in families; though not all carriers would eventually have schizo. I also think that the development of schizophrenia is to the interplay between genetics and environment - which includes mental/physical stresses.
One analogy is the development of lung cancers (and other cancers). Doctors and health sciences always stress that smoking highly increases the risk of lung cancers. At the same time we also hear of people smoking a few packs a day and live until theirs 90s. Most scientists agree that genetics predisposes one's tendency to develop that specific cancer, and smoking is one of the stronger factor among others that would trigger the onset of cancer in these carriers with the 'lung cancer' gene. I can fully agree on this with schizophrenia.
As for being demon-possessed, until the day scientists can truly pinpoint its cause, there'll still be people saying that certain neurological disorders are due to demon possession. This is not uncommon during the Middle Ages, but even today to religion like Taoism, Roman Catholism, some christian denominations, Hinduism...but do any babies u see cover themselves up when they r borned Rolling Eyes I thought they cover themselves up only after seeing wat the world has been doing...
haha, certainly u r right about that. adam-eve were created as adults, not infants. then infants see whatever the world is doing, they do the same. as for the covering up part, it's one of manifestations of self-consciousness. even the most indigenous ppl don't walk stark naked. but as these people learn more about the ways of the world, their huts got further and further away frmo each other. these people emphasized more on their personal privacy, moving from a tribe-centered mindset to a more self-profit one.
it's a little hard to explain, but i hope u get my idea. perhaps u could try reading the first chapters of genesis and ponder what it is.
to answer your question which i think i had missed. i really take a neutral stand and put in a few fair words here and there. [/quote] -
Personally, I believe that genetics certainly plays a part by predisposing carriers to be more prone to developing schizophrenia than others as evidenced by statistics gathered. The gathered data steadily shows a trend that schizophrenia runs in families; though not all carriers would eventually have schizo. I also think that the development of schizophrenia is to the interplay between genetics and environment - which includes mental/physical stresses.
In short the church is really wrong in linking a diesease to be demon possession. The actual cause is, according to medical research is physical, such as differences in the brain frontal lobes, hippocampus, and temporal lobes. These differences are heavily linked to the neurocognitive deficits which often occur with schizophrenia, particularly in areas of memory, attention, problem solving, executive function and social cognition. Electroencephalograph (EEG) recordings of persons with schizophrenia performing perception oriented tasks showed an absence of gamma band activity in the brain, indicating weak integration of critical neural networks in the brain. Those who experienced intense hallucinations, delusions and disorganized thinking showed the lowest frequency synchronization.
One analogy is the development of lung cancers (and other cancers). Doctors and health sciences always stress that smoking highly increases the risk of lung cancers. At the same time we also hear of people smoking a few packs a day and live until theirs 90s. Most scientists agree that genetics predisposes one's tendency to develop that specific cancer, and smoking is one of the stronger factor among others that would trigger the onset of cancer in these carriers with the 'lung cancer' gene. I can fully agree on this with schizophrenia.
As for being demon-possessed, until the day scientists can truly pinpoint its cause, there'll still be people saying that certain neurological disorders are due to demon possession. This is not uncommon during the Middle Ages, but even today to religion like Taoism, Roman Catholism, some christian denominations, Hinduism...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophreniahaha, certainly u r right about that. adam-eve were created as adults, not infants. then infants see whatever the world is doing, they do the same. as for the covering up part, it's one of manifestations of self-consciousness. even the most indigenous ppl don't walk stark naked. but as these people learn more about the ways of the world, their huts got further and further away frmo each other. these people emphasized more on their personal privacy, moving from a tribe-centered mindset to a more self-profit one.
I am glad u know tat there r indeed some indigenous people tat walk around naked. (african tribes, chumash clans, native americans in amazon basin). At one time in greece nudity is accepted. So the idea of "consciousness" is really flawed and men were trained to wear clothes and not out of consciouness. The scientist belief on the true origin of clothing is when they need to wear fur clothes to travel in cold regions. It is probably after religion and other factors set in then men become conscious of nakedness or not.
it's a little hard to explain, but i hope u get my idea. perhaps u could try reading the first chapters of genesis and ponder what it is.
to answer your question which i think i had missed. i really take a neutral stand and put in a few fair words here and there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked -
Originally posted by laurence82:Same to u..