Seiki_sands' forum posts

#1 Edited by Seiki_sands (1720 posts) -

In Christ's message I see truth and find peace. That is not an easy thing for me to come by. Compassion, generosity, love, humility, and justice are not exclusive to my religion or any religion. People seek and stumble upon them regardless of their faith or lack of faith. Yet for me the gospels distill honesty, simply and clearly in their parables and sermons. They make truth easy. Christ makes it easier for me to love, to trust, to not be blinded by pride quite so often. Like the OP I cherry pick my religion, I restrict my reverence to the accounts of Christ's ministry and even there recognize the world in which the words were spoken. The rest of the books are at most to me a well-meaning interpretation of the message.Yet it is enough to help me be better and see better. I don't question the nature of the particulars, or rather question them endlessly while trying never to yield to pointless assumptions. I don't care about God's nature save that in God I find hope. I don't care about the nature of God's relationship to Christ or mine to either save that I am made to feel love for having a relationship.

#2 Edited by Seiki_sands (1720 posts) -

@Legend002:

Some of my favs

Sci-Fi

X-Files, Battlestar Galactica (New), Farscape, Dr. Who (New), Anything Star Trek, Twilight Zone (Old)

Action Adv

Peaky Blinders, Sherlock, Merlin, Walking Dead, Breaking Bad, Sons of Anarchy, Blacklist, Copper, Hell on Wheels

Comedy:

Black Adder, Venture Bros., Louis, Doc Martin, All Creatures Great and Small, Bob's Burgers, Archer, Bojack Horseman, Futurama

Other:

Twin Peaks, Cosmos, Frontline, House of Cards (American), West Wing, Lost, House

#3 Edited by Seiki_sands (1720 posts) -

I'm wondering what exactly is being done to ensure the criminals face their crimes, and resolve to do better. Putting someone up in a nice place for awhile doesn't achieve this in and of itself, or at least the mechanism eludes me. I don't have a problem with treating prisoners like human beings, but prison should be a time for sober reflection and growth and if your spending all your time watching TV and engaging in sports and activities with civilians, exactly when are you facing what you've become and what you've done.

#4 Posted by Seiki_sands (1720 posts) -

@Seiki_sands said:

In most instances English translations use soul for naphesh, which refers to the inner essence of a physically living being, but it's not like the Bible doesn't include terms like ruach (used about 400 times in the bible), that literally does mean breath of god, spirit, wind, etc. and was also translated as soul. Not to mention even early translators were aware of this, hence the Greeks using "life" when translating "naphesh" and "breath" when translating "ruach."

The word soul can mean eternal spirit in english and is derived from old english and germanic words that may relate to binding one for the grave so as not to let one's ghost escape.

It's probably not a good idea to tell people what they mean. He's not misusing the word soul as he is using the english language and giving it its english meaning.

And the answer to your question is no, I do not remember before I was born, therefore I cannot fathom that. Perhaps you can fathom it, by all means tell us what it was like.

So you agree that the meaning has evolved. That's great, because it doesn't matter what anyone meant except the author.

And no I don't remember before I was born, and that's the point: there's nothing to contemplate after death because you can't. Nonexistence exists on both sides of existence.

You told him the word soul doesn't mean what he thought it does, in this I see no evidence of your being correct. He may not have been aware of every aspect of its origins, or he may have been. There is NO evidence to suggest he was using it incorrectly for his meaning.

Do you have evidence of the finite quality of our existence? Which is not to suggest you must leap to faith in the absence of evidence, only that I would think a normal attitude of anyone that values the empirical and isn't faithful is, and most likely always will always be, "I don't know what, if anything exists beyond consciousness" rather than "I know there is nothing."

#5 Posted by Seiki_sands (1720 posts) -

@wittgenstein728 said:
Think of it this way: If heaven and hell are not real, what do you think will happen when you die? Do you think it'll be like an eternal sleep? Your whole body won't work anymore. you can't think. Dunno about you guys but I can't fathom that. If you believe we have souls then that means those souls go somewhere when their vessels die.

Remember what it was like before you were born? Yeah, that.

And the word 'Soul' doesn't mean what you think it does. A Soul isn't something you have, it's what you are WHILE ALIVE.

Nephesh is a Biblical Hebrew word which occurs in the Hebrew Bible (or Old Testament). The Hebrew terms nephesh literal is "living being". Although it is commonly rendered as soul in English translations, the word refers to the tangible aspects of life, and human beings and higher animals are both described as having a nephesh.

-Linky

In most instances English translations use soul for naphesh, which refers to the inner essence of a physically living being, but it's not like the Bible doesn't include terms like ruach (used about 400 times in the bible), that literally does mean breath of god, spirit, wind, etc. and was also translated as soul. Not to mention even early translators were aware of this, hence the Greeks using "life" when translating "naphesh" and "breath" when translating "ruach."

The word soul can mean eternal spirit in english and is derived from old english and germanic words that may relate to binding one for the grave so as not to let one's ghost escape.

It's probably not a good idea to tell people what they mean. He's not misusing the word soul as he is using the english language and giving it its english meaning.

And the answer to your question is no, I do not remember before I was born, therefore I cannot fathom that. Perhaps you can fathom it, by all means tell us what it was like.

#6 Edited by Seiki_sands (1720 posts) -

@Seiki_sands said:

My entire point went to how wrong generalizations are, so how you can respond that way is beyond me.

As to your specific querry, if you google "atheists are destroying" you'll find the interwebz say they have it in for America, Liberty, and Christmas. If you google "Christians are destroying" you'll find they have it in for America, Islam, their own religion and classic literature.

What exactly anyone is supposed to glean from such a search other than a GENERALIZED view of uninformed prejudice toward both groups I know not, which you yet somehow latched onto as being weighted in favor of one over the other. Hence my posting something that demonstrates what happens if you generalize like an intellectually dishonest atheist.

I'm going to guess you didn't even bother to search. If you had, you'd see that BOTH arguments are mainly put forth by...CHRISTIANS. Yes, even 'Christians are destroying'. See here:

My whole point being that it's Christians with the fatalistic view which they somehow manage to work into 'we have the moral high ground' (even vs. other Christians).

Notice how I didn't add any modifiers to the search term. These are the top search results for "Christians are destroying".

Now, come again?

I searched the exact words, but without the quotations that ensure the phrase stays in order, i,e, Christians are destroying instead of "Christians are destroying"

These are the results

Although I perused not just the top results, but numerous pages beyond. You can't possibly think that either search should entitle one to speak about whether Christians or Atheists are quicker to claim superiority during an argument, when referencing groups who literally represent a third of the world's population and 2-20% of the world's population, respectively.

Even if a very specific and narrow internet search meant anything, there are several explanations beyond blanket characterizations of the effect Christianity has on people. For instance, top results being largely restricted to the english speaking world, there are FAR more Christians in English speaking countries who care to speak on ALL matters of theology relative to atheists because A.) there simply are FAR more of them and B) By its very nature atheism doesn't promote exploration of any spiritual question or the impact of spiritual beliefs, nor should it.

This started as you responding to an accusation that atheists claim a sort of superiority, with the suggestion that Christians claim superiority more. I think while you are correct, far more Christians claim moral superiority in terms of sheer numbers, you aren't taking into account his real claim; which is that when a conversation, presumably about religion, with a Christian and an atheists comes up, the atheist is more likely to take a superior attitude. That isn't a fair charge. It isn't provable one way or another. All results will be anecdotal. Instead of saying that you generalized right back at him. And you generalized in such a way, and with such a phrase as reminded me of a common and popular refrain from atheists I've seen in recent arguments, that Christianity has inspired so much damage, violence, etc. that it cannot but be seen as a destructive force. I was so caught up in my annoyance at seeing something that looked like it was referencing that ignorant, foolish and hyperbolic and rarely challenged generalization, that I missed the possibility that given the context you might not have been referencing that at all, and for that I'm sorry. And though I probably have no right given the circumstances I'm going to say in my defense that the fact that people repeat such vitriolic and hateful things from the popular atheists like Dawkins and the Comedian Bill Maher is precisely why Christians feel that there is a vacant, presumptuous superiority in dealing with atheists. Basically, the only atheists I seem to commonly hear from about questions of faith are the hostile and nasty who throw juvenile rhetorical bombs to piss people off.

Then there is another point to be made; the search results can easily speak to a much different conclusion than yours about the nature of Christianity on people. You say that Christians attacking Christians is an outgrowth of their beliefs, or spiritual beliefs in general, not allowing for flexible thought. I think most reasonable people not out to demonize religion would see that such results reflect genuine searching, genuine questioning and struggling about what what is right, in other words precisely the opposite of a fatalistic viewpoint of things are immutable, they are the way they are, right and wrong, black and white. Yes, they are using hyperbolic language with terms like "destroying", but that's just the nature of modern discourse.

#7 Posted by Seiki_sands (1720 posts) -

@Seiki_sands said:

A Variation of the old argument "more people have died in the name of Christ..."

Yet in the course of 30 years three committed atheists named Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot managed to equal the kill score of 2,000 years of Christian barbarism.

Atheists will of course say that is a fallacious argument because those marxists didn't kill in the name of atheism unlike the "christians." Yet they unquestioningly, stupidly, and hypocritically blame the religious identity of those in various so called "religious wars" (nearly all of which were about temporal power politics and had NOTHING to do with religion, despite claims to the contrary by the authors of the violence.) What's more atheism is undeniably part of the ideological package the of the Marxists, who were determined to overthrow traditional institutions like the church. Thus it is certainly no more of a stretch to say they were killing in the name of atheism than it is to say the northern Barons of France were killing the heretical Cathars of southern France in the name of Christianity, when in fact we all know it was a land grab.

Wicked people use any aspect of their identity to indulge in their wickedness. Atheists or Christians.

Nice generalizations. You may as well go ahead and say that Christians claim black people carry the curse of Ham. Sure some believe such, but I'm not about to throw that umbrella over all Christians.

And the above is a total deflection of my point. Hit a nerve?

My entire point went to how wrong generalizations are, so how you can respond that way is beyond me.

As to your specific querry, if you google "atheists are destroying" you'll find the interwebz say they have it in for America, Liberty, and Christmas. If you google "Christians are destroying" you'll find they have it in for America, Islam, their own religion and classic literature.

What exactly anyone is supposed to glean from such a search other than a GENERALIZED view of uninformed prejudice toward both groups I know not, which you yet somehow latched onto as being weighted in favor of one over the other. Hence my posting something that demonstrates what happens if you generalize like an intellectually dishonest atheist.

#8 Edited by Seiki_sands (1720 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:

@serpentmage36 said:

Agree 100%. Before integration, blacks werent free. In some ways, you could say they still arent free, especially young black men.

Isn't the demographic that continues to murder each other?

@Seiki_sands said:

Almost a third of black males can't vote or get anything but dead end jobs in this country because of non-violent felony drug offences, so I'd say yeah, he's pretty much got a point. We know they are arrested disproportionately, we know they serve longer terms where their free labor is exploited.

Uh if they have a felony....the blame is on themselves. What the fuck.....

Yes, let's completely ignore the 100:1 sentencing disparity that existed between cocaine and crack until 2010.

The question isn't whether they broke the law, the question is whether those laws were tailored and created to criminalize the specific behaviors of black drug users. To such an extant that a simple possession charge carried with it a five year mandatory minimum prison sentence.

The question is also whether they are unduly targeted and most of the evidence available suggests that yes, they are targeted disproportionately.

The question to my mind is also whether a non-violent drug offender really deserves to have their life ruined and their fundamental rights as a citizen permanently stripped after serving a needlessly long prison sentence, or whether that punishment FAR outstrips the crime.

You don't have a problem with the knowledge that we put more people in prison than well ANY other country?

What's more, private prison companies started under Reagan, which would be bankrupted without a constant and increasing flow of prisoners, are lobbyists behind tough sentencing laws. That obvious conflict of interest doesn't bother you?

It doesn't seem odd to you that the incarceration rate of African American women has risen by 800% since 1986?

#9 Posted by Seiki_sands (1720 posts) -

Almost a third of black males can't vote or get anything but dead end jobs in this country because of non-violent felony drug offences, so I'd say yeah, he's pretty much got a point. We know they are arrested disproportionately, we know they serve longer terms where their free labor is exploited.

#10 Posted by Seiki_sands (1720 posts) -

@kalloo said:

I really do not get why some atheists feel they are intellectually superior to religious folks. It's not a matter of intelligence, but hope; hope that there is some karmic force out there.

Google "Christians are destroying" and then compare that with "atheists are destroying" and then we can talk about who is claiming superiority.

A Variation of the old argument "more people have died in the name of Christ..."

Yet in the course of 30 years three committed atheists named Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot managed to equal the kill score of 2,000 years of Christian barbarism.

Atheists will of course say that is a fallacious argument because those marxists didn't kill in the name of atheism unlike the "christians." Yet they unquestioningly, stupidly, and hypocritically blame the religious identity of those in various so called "religious wars" (nearly all of which were about temporal power politics and had NOTHING to do with religion, despite claims to the contrary by the authors of the violence.) What's more atheism is undeniably part of the ideological package the of the Marxists, who were determined to overthrow traditional institutions like the church. Thus it is certainly no more of a stretch to say they were killing in the name of atheism than it is to say the northern Barons of France were killing the heretical Cathars of southern France in the name of Christianity, when in fact we all know it was a land grab.

Wicked people use any aspect of their identity to indulge in their wickedness. Atheists or Christians.