Religious

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You missed today's exchange between Foxy and me. Go back several posts and read what Jesus told the man who called him "Good Teacher". Try to stay awake.

See my post 15938. I am awake, it seems you need to stay awake.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

Bulltwiddle.
You are the one who claimed:

"The individual has no control over any of these, ergo he/she has no control over his/her future mental state, ergo free will is an illusion."

The burden of proof is on you to refute the thousands of studies that discuss
neuroplasticity, biofeedback, and rewiring the brain.
No. I won't look them up for you.

My burden of proof is limited to refuting arguments which specifically address my argument. Claiming that there are thousands of studies which refute my argument does not qualify. If you are unwilling (or unable) to name a specific study then I have every right to assume that no such study exists and that you are blowing smoke.

If I were to accept your claim that such studies exist, and then try to google it, I leave myself open to the unfair claim that I found the wrong study or that I used the wrong search terms. No thank you. I will not look them up for you.

I will gladly address any study that you name but I will not go on a wild goose chase.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Define your flavor (brand) of Determinism, as there are different kinds.

I recall your claiming that there are different flavors of agnosticism. You never responded to my question as to what those different flavors are.

This sounds like the same thing. Tell me what flavors of determinism are on the menu. Until you do there is only one brand of determinism as far as I am concerned.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by Actor

Claiming that there are thousands of studies which refute my argument does not qualify. If you are unwilling (or unable) to name a specific study then I have every right to assume that no such study exists and that you are blowing smoke.

.

You can assume that no such study exists then and I won't name any for you.

But those studies exist and most brain rehabilitation programs rely on their findings.
Brain scan, neuro-imaging, and EEG research offer solid scientific foundations for them.

Let's move on.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by Actor

Name one.

Joe Mamiya. University of California Medical Center, San Francisco. Interesting synopsis in Charles Tart's Altered States of Consciousness.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

I recall your claiming that there are different flavors of agnosticism. You never responded to my question as to what those different flavors are.

Au contraire, I did. I told you there is Limited and Unlimited Agnosticism.

This sounds like the same thing. Tell me what flavors of determinism are on the menu. Until you do there is only one brand of determinism as far as I am concerned.

Surely you must have one in mind since you claim that moral free agency and determinism are contradictions. Why don't you start by defining your idea of "determinism", and then we can go from there.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

I gave it to you many,many moons ago. Feel free to do search. Your presuppositions frame your thinking and your personal interpretations.

How do you know that I don't give God praise and glory? Do you follow me around? I am not like the hypocrites who pray in public so all can see, nor do I thank God for not being like the "unbelievers". Also my neighbors are not just the "believers".

You still don't understand the Scriptural warning about not judging others.

You need such a book, so you won't continue to look like a class A ballplayer attempting to play in the Show.

Instead of accusing and judging, why don't you answer thask's question about the prohibition regarding shrimp. You already failed to tell thask the "Good News" are you going to fail him again?

How do I know? Because you never have on this thread. You're too busy exalting man (as you did with the my late friend Johnny's church!) Plus your humanistic philosophy shines through. For example, under the New Covenant, which is radically different from the Old, it's not possible for any person whom God has sovereignly brought into a covenant relationship with to lose his salvation. It's impossible. Yet, you exalt man's "power of will" and his sinfulness over God's promises, his faithfulness, his power and his grace to keep and preserve his people.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

See my post 15938. I am awake, it seems you need to stay awake.

Even the wicked love with a worldly love and don't poison their loved ones. So, they know how to give "good" gifts. But that doesn't mean that they are inherently good.

Furthermore, you now deny God's common grace in the world? Does not God send the rains to righteous and wicked alike? Does not the Holy Spirit restrain evil in the world? Have you ever considered what this planet would be like without God graciously interacting with his moral creatures? Tell me: Do you think it would be more like heaven or hell?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

See my post 15938. I am awake, it seems you need to stay awake.

Also, it was a non-answer; for I know you think that the people who know how to give good gifts must be inherently good. But you didn't bother your little ol' self to reconcile that interpretation with Jesus' clear teaching in Mk 10:17. You think you are so slick. You constantly do this: You toss out a text "B" that you think refutes text "A" but you never bother to tell us how your interpretation of "B" can be reconciled to "A".

Have a strong cup of coffee and get busy on that for us, will ya?

[Show Me the Wire]

Boxcar,

All three of your posts are all strawman arguments, which rise to bearing false witness. Never have I said or defended the position man is inherently good. Second my posting about Johnny is exactly the issue. Johhny acted according to his nature being grateful for the compassion shown to him. BTW, which is your point from last night's post of the day, man acting according to his nature.

Therefore, your accusations are bearing false witness against me. Once again, I forgive you for bearing false witness, due to your inability to comprehend reasoning. Denying one idea or concept does not automatically mean advocating its extreme opposite.

Understand this man is not inherently "good" nor "evil". Evil is the absence of good. As Scripture stated, man cannot consistently do good. Meaning man is not inherently good, because man does evil, but man's nature is not completely lacking good, because man can do good.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Au contraire, I did. I told you there is Limited and Unlimited Agnosticism.

I don't recall you ever saying that, but I'll concede the point. I don't have time to search through a thread that is twice the length of the Bible. Of course you could just tell us in which post you said that.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Surely you must have one in mind since you claim that moral free agency and determinism are contradictions.

I'd think it's obvious that they are. How could they not be?

Originally Posted by boxcar

Why don't you start by defining your idea of "determinism", and then we can go from there.

Will you accept a definition from quantum mechanics?

[Show Me the Wire]

Furthermore, you now deny God's common grace in the world? Does not God send the rains to righteous and wicked alike? Does not the Holy Spirit restrain evil in the world? Have you ever considered what this planet would be like without God graciously interacting with his moral creatures? Tell me: Do you think it would be more like heaven or hell?

Not even the issue, but another false witnessing. We are discussing Jesus' nature. Jesus is fully human and fully Divine. Therefore, if you believe Jesus had to be human and not an irrational animal, like a donkey or ox, to do his work, then Jesus had all the faults of human nature. If I were to accept your argument, I would out of necessity have to believe Jesus, like all men, could not go against his human nature, which is the natural state of being inherently evil.

Me thinks you need much more than a strong cup of coffee to stay abreast of the discussion.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by traynor

Joe Mamiya. University of California Medical Center, San Francisco. Interesting synopsis in Charles Tart's Altered States of Consciousness.

Is that on line?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Not even the issue, but another false witnessing. We are discussing Jesus' nature. Jesus is fully human and fully Divine. Therefore, if you believe Jesus had to be human and not an irrational animal, like a donkey or ox, to do his work, then Jesus had all the faults of human nature. If I were to accept your argument, I would out of necessity have to believe Jesus, like all men, could not go against his human nature, which is the natural state of being inherently evil.

Me thinks you need much more than a strong cup of coffee to stay abreast of the discussion.

Maybe you were thinking about Jesus' nature, but I wasn't. I was thinking about man's nature. But come to think of it...I can see where you would conflate the two. Tell me: Do you agree with Mr. Foxy that when Jesus said that "only God alone is good" that that statement amounted to a tacit admission of Jesus' own inherently evil nature?

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Maybe you were thinking about Jesus' nature, but I wasn't. I was thinking about man's nature. But come to think of it...I can see where you would conflate the two. Tell me: Do you agree with Mr. Foxy that when Jesus said that "only God alone is good" that that statement amounted to a tacit admission of Jesus' own inherently evil nature?

Was Jesus fully human or not? Greyfox's interpretation is not relevant as to whether Jesus participated fully in human nature.