 | | Re: One of my issues (Warning: even wordier than usual) —David Eaton
|
| | | (...) I completely disagree. You're forcing a Christian God into something that it doesn't need to be. Certainly there are *some* sects of Christianity that would require it as you say, but again, they don't disprove the whole of Christianity. (...) (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: One of my issues (Warning: even wordier than usual) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) In that case we must be careful, or else we're once again presented with a receding target: A. How about this criterion? B. Well, that's not the *real* Christian God. A. Okay, how about this criterion? B. Well, that's not the *real* Christian (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: One of my issues (Warning: even wordier than usual) —David Eaton
|
| | | | (...) That's ok. I think the subject of debate in this thread is James' (pick one) view on Christianity. You'll have to take the battles as they come. Certainly I could try the turn-around on you: - Science is wrong, cuz it says the world is flat. - (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: One of my issues (Warning: even wordier than usual) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) But as you of all people konw, science doesn't declare truths; it's a system of explanation endlessly refined to fit more closely with observation. Christianity, by contrast, declares certain absolutes that remain absolute regardless of (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: One of my issues (Warning: even wordier than usual) —James Simpson
|
| | | | | (...) This 5-response string of linear debate was so remarkably thorough and compicated in its exigesis, and so many Jameses were postulated, quoted, and deconstructed that I am frankly coming to doubt my own identity. A friend and i have recently (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Peronhood (was One of my issues) —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | (...) a (...) On initial inspection, I'd say the latter - those memories & neural functions are (IMO) based on the combination of body / brain in which they reside. Suddenly changing that would cause...well I don't really know what it would cause, (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Peronhood (was One of my issues) —James Simpson
|
| | | | | | | (...) An even hairier one: Person X's brain is cut in half, as is Person Y's. One pair of lobes is swapped between the two of them (Person X's right lobe is fused with Person Y's left lobe, etc.) What has become of their singular personhoods? Do the (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Thinking for your self, whoever that is (Was Re: Personhood ) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) There is a body of evidence--not really conclusive, but provocative--gleaned from the study of epileptics who have had the corpus callosum (the goop connecting the two hemispheres of the thinkbox) severed. Studies have shown that in some cases (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Thinking for your self, whoever that is (Was Re: Personhood ) —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | | | | | | | What is this? The ugly return of the Julian Jaynes part of the argument? See: (URL) is exactly the kind of stuff that Jaynes would have used to support his seemingly radical theory. What's worse is that if you follow it further it seems to justify a (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Peronhood (was One of my issues) —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | | | | | | Unfortunately, I don't think you're going to get an answer to ANY of these cases until they are actually tried (and make no mistake, they'll be tried sooner or later, we are too curious a lot to ignore them). (...) -- | Tom Stangl, iPlanet Web (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Personhood[1] (was One of my issues) —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | | | (...) A (...) in (...) new (...) terms (...) body (...) adjustment (...) not (...) that? (...) swapped (...) Yep, exactly. How much of the "person" is in the "soul"? I say none, the soul doesn't really exist, but who knows? ROSCO [1] Lar, note (...) (23 years ago, 17-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Peronhood (was One of my issues) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) Do we have Peronistas here? Ack. Something about Ross we did not know! Don't cry for me, Argentina! (and no, I am not going to give up my day job...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: One of my issues (Warning: even wordier than usual) —David Eaton
|
| | | | (...) disproven. (...) Well, the similarity was insofar as by asking "How about this criterion? No that's not the *real* Christian God", one assumedly is receding the Christian beliefs, but only to a point. IE, accepting the answers as true results (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
