Christian Evangelicals - not all are made equal

PrimalxConvoy

NOT a New Member.
Citizen
Seems like the only difference is that evangelizing is an attempt to convert someone to Christianity specifically.
As far as I was told, Christians were instructed via the Bible, etc, to live their lives according to their principals and to tell the world about Jesus. The "converting" part is up to the individual. It might seem like splitting hairs but I believe it's a significant difference myself.
 

Ungnome

Grand Empress of the Empire of One Square Foot.
Citizen
SEVERAL biological processes do seem to have a quantum component to them, but given the tiny scale of cell parts, that just goes with the territory. It doesn't mean that consciousness itself is a quantum property. Heck the flash memory used in SSD's and SD cards relies on quantum effects to work(quantum tunneling specifically), having one installed on your computer doesn't turn it into a quantum computer.
 

diamondgirl

Member
Citizen
SEVERAL biological processes do seem to have a quantum component to them, but given the tiny scale of cell parts, that just goes with the territory. It doesn't mean that consciousness itself is a quantum property. Heck the flash memory used in SSD's and SD cards relies on quantum effects to work(quantum tunneling specifically), having one installed on your computer doesn't turn it into a quantum computer.

Yeah, I don't really understand quantum mechanics. I guess I'm just using it metaphorically. Einstein even called it "spooky action at a distance. "

I'm just saying biological process and physical processes have failed to explain and account for consciousness. So it seems plausible that consciousness may come first. The theory does seem to suggest that the physical world exists because we are "observing it. " If we go down small enough to the atomic level, everything, including ourselves, is just invisible energy, vibrations. It's why The Flash can phase through solid matter if he vibrates his atoms and molecules fast enough.

There is a related school of thought that says there's just not enough space in our brains to hold all our memories. They can't even point to locations in the brain where specific information and memories are stored. So the suggestion is that alot of where our memories our stored is outside our brains in some sort of cloud or world-wide web.

I'm fascinated by the Hindu and Buddhist ideas of finding your Dharma, awakening your Kundalini, and using your Chakras. They are just practical principles that just seem to work for self-help, self-improvement, and enlightenment. I just see them as forms of psychology and cognitive-behavioral therapy.

For me, they don't conflict with Christianity which involves unburdening yourself, and laying all your burdens and worries on God, and relying on Jesus for forgiveness, healing, and washing away our sins. On the contrary, Christianity involves emptying yourself, clearing your mind, opening yourself up, so you can listen and understand with your heart.

Namaste.
 
Last edited:

Ungnome

Grand Empress of the Empire of One Square Foot.
Citizen
You are right that we don't fully understand consciousness, but there are a great many things we don't understand, that doesn't mean consciousness doesn't manifest as an emergent property of complex interacting systems.

If you iterate Z₂ = Z₁ + C on a complex plane and filter out the results that head to infinity, you'll get an infinitely complex shape from a VERY simple set of rules. The interactions within a single neuron are much more complex.
 
Last edited:

CoffeeHorse

*sip*
Staff member
Council of Elders
Citizen
There is a related school of thought that says there's just not enough space in our brains to hold all our memories.

That's just people wildly overestimating how much brain is actually required to do things. Even fish brains can do a lot more than we used to think.
 

KidTDragon

Now with hi-res avatar!
Citizen
Except that term isn't universally accepted due to bias.
That's news to me. Whose bias?

As far as I was told, Christians were instructed via the Bible, etc, to live their lives according to their principals and to tell the world about Jesus. The "converting" part is up to the individual. It might seem like splitting hairs but I believe it's a significant difference myself.
I'm going by the Oxford Dictionary's definitions.
 

Pale Rider

...and Hell followed with him.
Citizen
In the next episode, I want to see Christians for Mohammed. Or maybe Christians for Joseph Smith.
 

PrimalxConvoy

NOT a New Member.
Citizen
That's news to me. Whose bias?


I'm going by the Oxford Dictionary's definitions.

"...Some draw distinctions between evangelism (or da‘wah in Islamic terminology) and proselytism, regarding proselytism as involuntary or coerced; the two terms can also be understood to merely be synonyms...

...The World Council of Churches has indicated that, when used pejoratively, proselytism refers to attempts at conversion by "unjust means that violate the conscience of the human person", such as by coercion or bribery..."

(Source: - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proselytism )
 

Pale Rider

...and Hell followed with him.
Citizen
FB friend:
I still remember the day I realized what an unserious philosophy Christianity is.

I was in university and I was taking philosophy courses where we read about the writings of philosophers who ask interesting questions like "if you were a brain in a box being fed stimuli, how would you know", and then I sat in a cafeteria at a Christian college with a bunch of students who were asking questions like "what do you think you'll be wearing in Heaven".

They concluded that you would be wearing the most expensive and stylish clothes you'd ever worn in your life, and you would look the hottest you ever did in your life, like on your wedding day. And ... well, that was the day I realized what an unserious philosophy Christianity is.

These were smart, well-read Christian university students, many of whom had some formal theology training, and their idea of Heaven was a place where they'd get to keep the trappings of their socio-economic class here on Earth. In their Heaven, poor people would still be poor. Of course, they didn't realize that this is what they were saying, which is part of how you know their religion was a totally unserious philosophy. They just didn't think it through.

PS. Yes, I am aware that there are Christians who would never say something so shallow. But ... be honest: what percentage of global Christianity do you think falls into this category? And what would constitute a good answer to that question? Is everyone naked in Heaven? Does everyone wear standardized clothes, like in a prison?

Corollary to my previous rumination: I am no great philosopher. I took only one philosophy course in university. But one thing I do know about philosophy is that a philosopher will never avoid a question by complaining that it's an unfair "gotcha" question.

The whole point of Socratic interrogation is to ruthlessly pick apart a philosophical argument with hostile questions until it either falls apart or demonstrates its worth by surviving the challenge.

In philosophy, "gotcha" questions are the only kind of question worth asking.
 

NovaSaber

Well-known member
Citizen
The shallow philosophy is a direct result of the core values, though.

Christianity is full of all sorts of things that are clearly immoral, untrue, or incoherent to anyone who actually thinks about them deeply, and full of authoritarians who discourage such thinking.

The majority of Christians have not even thought about how their religion works deeply enough to even realize something as basic as the fact that, even if their religion is true, their god isn't saving anyone from anything besides himself.
 

Spin-Out

terminal shitposter
Citizen
The big problem with Christianity is it takes a deity who isn't meant to be infallible and all-good - from what I understand about Judaism, the more jerkass things Yahweh does in the Torah are meant to illustrate He's as capable of ******* up as we are (since we're made in His image - we have His best and worst traits), to the point He even gets some sense talked into Him by Moses when He's being particularly petty towards the Israelites - and tries to present Him as all-loving and kind... While adding the lovely idea that He'll torture you for eternity for not loving Him enough, which has zero basis in Judaism.

Basically Christianity took a god who's meant to be flawed (like most gods in any mythology) and tried to pretend He's all benevolent, while also unintentionally making Him an even bigger asshole.
 

NovaSaber

Well-known member
Citizen
Meanwhile, if there was a law requiring churches to do this (like there should be), all the MAGAchurches would complain about it.
 


Top Bottom