Topic: The road to the End of Religion: How sex will kill God - page 9. (Read 37219 times)
Modern western culture seems entirely obsessed with sex, which makes it hard to save yourself for marriage.
Have some science: http://jezebel.com/5923855/turns-out-getting-slutty-on-the-first-date-can-lead-to-marriage
This theist ( http://thomrainer.com/2014/04/sex-millennials-church-five-implications ) sums up the situation nicely
Quote from: ThomRainer
Most Millennials, including Christian Millennials, see nothing wrong with unmarried persons living together. Many of them will come to our churches and be surprised to hear their behavior is sinful. How churches handle this reality will determine the success of efforts to reach the generation.
While the trend toward approval of homosexual marriage is growing in society at large, the positive view is pervasive among Millennials. Churches that choose to ignore this issue have little hope of impacting culture positively.
Millennials will exit quickly from churches whose members are shrill and unloving toward those with non-biblical views on sexuality. Unfortunately, many Millennials stereotype all Bible-believing churches as filled with members who carry Westboro-like placards that scream “God hates fags.” While this is not the case in most churches, there are still some Christians who do a good job of reinforcing that stereotype.
Ironically, Millennials will not stick with churches that have no convictions. Liberal churches with compromising views on biblical sexuality will not attract and retain Millennials. Though Millennials are indeed increasingly liberal in their views and actions on sexuality, they view churches as places that should be convictional and even counter-cultural.
The greater opportunity lies with those churches that are able to speak truth in love, and to demonstrate that love. The preceding sentence sounds a bit cliché, but it is increasingly a reality. Many of our church members are very uncomfortable engaging, for example, a homosexual in a way that demonstrates the love of Christ. But that is the world and the culture where our churches and Christians reside. We can choose to either engage or withdraw.
There are nearly 79 million Millennials. Most of them are not Christians. Indeed, we estimate in our research that only about 15 percent of those in this generation are believers in Christ. So that means that this generation is a mission field of over 67 million men and women who do not know Christ.
We can bemoan the state of culture. We can withdraw from culture. Or we can choose to love these sinners as Christ loved us sinners.
emphasis mine While the trend toward approval of homosexual marriage is growing in society at large, the positive view is pervasive among Millennials. Churches that choose to ignore this issue have little hope of impacting culture positively.
Millennials will exit quickly from churches whose members are shrill and unloving toward those with non-biblical views on sexuality. Unfortunately, many Millennials stereotype all Bible-believing churches as filled with members who carry Westboro-like placards that scream “God hates fags.” While this is not the case in most churches, there are still some Christians who do a good job of reinforcing that stereotype.
Ironically, Millennials will not stick with churches that have no convictions. Liberal churches with compromising views on biblical sexuality will not attract and retain Millennials. Though Millennials are indeed increasingly liberal in their views and actions on sexuality, they view churches as places that should be convictional and even counter-cultural.
The greater opportunity lies with those churches that are able to speak truth in love, and to demonstrate that love. The preceding sentence sounds a bit cliché, but it is increasingly a reality. Many of our church members are very uncomfortable engaging, for example, a homosexual in a way that demonstrates the love of Christ. But that is the world and the culture where our churches and Christians reside. We can choose to either engage or withdraw.
There are nearly 79 million Millennials. Most of them are not Christians. Indeed, we estimate in our research that only about 15 percent of those in this generation are believers in Christ. So that means that this generation is a mission field of over 67 million men and women who do not know Christ.
We can bemoan the state of culture. We can withdraw from culture. Or we can choose to love these sinners as Christ loved us sinners.
While it's true that human beings generally are polygamous sexually(Yes, arousal to others other than your partner and the desire to have sex with others adds to this), I don't believe "sex will kill god". The end of religion based primarily on faith without conclusive evidence(99% of all religions out there) would likely occur at the spark of something absolutely, astoundingly, revolutionary such as the creation of a "human-level" artifical intelligence and/or more.
It's funny, people turning away from God in favor of an idol is exactly what the bible predicts...
Anyhow, sex is still a HUGE motivation for people to not be religious, especially Christian. Even younger people who identify as Christian and claim to love Jesus freely have sex and just ignore the part of the bible where is says to not do that.
Modern western culture seems entirely obsessed with sex, which makes it hard to save yourself for marriage.
"Let it be said that not all humanists are atheists, but presumably all atheists are humanists, since what else could they be?"
Atheism and Secularity, Page 10
Link
Atheism and Secularity, Page 10
Link
Only Man or GOD can be the guarantor of knowledge and thought (reason).
I propose (along with Mr. Eller) that a rationalist atheist would also dismiss claims about the entire line of "spiritual" thinking, as nothing more than a metaphor run amok.
This would be a mistake because Life after death is not a metaphor--it is backed by 52 salient points of evidence.
Now I am asking atheists to be rational with regards to the evidence; in common parlance this means that one can think clearly and is capable of intelligently assessing new ideas when presented.
I have just presented evidence refuting humanism, defined as the idea that Man is the basis for existence, thought, and ethics and acts as the founder and guarantor of knowledge and thought. For the humanist, a soul is a foreign and inert concept--and nothing more than a concept, literally a word without a referent.
I have proven that life exists after death, and that is where Beliathon is wrong about the mind.
I hope he will try to responsibly address the evidence, and likewise for any atheist.
A debate about God can neither be won nor lost, therefore as far as debate goes it is shit.
Well, I disagree. All atheists are humanists, since what else could they be? I have debunked humanism, so therefore all atheists are mistaken.
That is a fallacious statement. Any time you use worlds like all, every, none, never, etc you should reexamine your statement, because it is likely incorrect. Not all atheists are humanists, and not all humanists are atheists.
"Let it be said that not all humanists are atheists, but presumably all atheists are humanists, since what else could they be?"
Atheism and Secularity, Page 10
Link
So why don't YOU tell me what else they could be? I have already examined the topic and found all non-humanist atheists to be "fakes". They don't ever address the evidence for life after death and what it could mean.
I have backed up my claim with this quote from the anthropologist Jack David Eller; who is backing your claim?
WOWEE. An anthropologist made a statement. Proof enough for me! I don't have to prove anything. You are the one making the claim that all atheists are humanists. The burden of proof is upon you, not me. He who claims proves.
Throw rock into pond.
Rock create ripples.
Rock gone, but ripples spread.
Live brain in pond of life.
Brain create mind ripples.
Brain die and is gone, but mind ripples still go on.
This is actually not a terrible analogy, however you made one important error. The "ripples" our brains create in life do not represent our mind, but our thoughts, expressed through spoken language and written word. Rock create ripples.
Rock gone, but ripples spread.
Live brain in pond of life.
Brain create mind ripples.
Brain die and is gone, but mind ripples still go on.
Those thoughts we commit to the net will live on long after we're dead. Unlike our minds, which reside wholly in our rotting and dead brains.
Live mind in pond of life.
Mind creates thought ripples.
Brain dies and mind is gone,
but thought ripples carry on
through those whose lives we have touched.
Then why can I [subject] perceive my brain [object]? That is, if the mind is wholly inside the brain, how is it capable of wholly perceiving the brain? Furthermore, why can it not perceive itself?
A debate about God can neither be won nor lost, therefore as far as debate goes it is shit.
Well, I disagree. All atheists are humanists, since what else could they be? I have debunked humanism, so therefore all atheists are mistaken.
That is a fallacious statement. Any time you use worlds like all, every, none, never, etc you should reexamine your statement, because it is likely incorrect. Not all atheists are humanists, and not all humanists are atheists.
"Let it be said that not all humanists are atheists, but presumably all atheists are humanists, since what else could they be?"
Atheism and Secularity, Page 10
Link
So why don't YOU tell me what else they could be? I have already examined the topic and found all non-humanist atheists to be "fakes". They don't ever address the evidence for life after death and what it could mean.
I have backed up my claim with this quote from the anthropologist Jack David Eller; who is backing your claim?
A debate about God can neither be won nor lost, therefore as far as debate goes it is shit.
Well, I disagree. All atheists are humanists, since what else could they be? I have debunked humanism, so therefore all atheists are mistaken.
That is a fallacious statement. Any time you use worlds like all, every, none, never, etc you should reexamine your statement, because it is likely incorrect. Not all atheists are humanists, and not all humanists are atheists.
A debate about God can neither be won nor lost, therefore as far as debate goes it is shit.
Well, I disagree. All atheists are humanists, since what else could they be? I have debunked humanism, so therefore all atheists are mistaken.
You always have the choice of accepting something and rejecting something else; it is simply a matter of education and effort.
I think Beliathon fears to acknowledge the truth about GOD just like he refuses to acknowledge life after death. I am not acting out of fear by offering these writings to you for your consideration. If you want to reject the Phoenix Journals, go right ahead; I have still posted the evidence from the near-death site which refutes humanism; Lie-a-thon ignores what is in front of his eyes at his own peril; if he does not want to respond, it is because he is afraid.
So much thought, so much effort, so much energy wasted denying what is right in front of your eyes. I know you're afraid theists, afraid of the unknown.
But there's nothing to fear, there never has been. The unknown is nothing more than a shadow on the wall.
But there's nothing to fear, there never has been. The unknown is nothing more than a shadow on the wall.
I think Beliathon fears to acknowledge the truth about GOD just like he refuses to acknowledge life after death. I am not acting out of fear by offering these writings to you for your consideration. If you want to reject the Phoenix Journals, go right ahead; I have still posted the evidence from the near-death site which refutes humanism; Lie-a-thon ignores what is in front of his eyes at his own peril; if he does not want to respond, it is because he is afraid.
Hatonn talks about the need for each one to be responsible for waking up to the truth about GOD; he has produced a vast volume of writings, but he cannot demand that you believe them.
http://www.phoenixsourcedistributors.com/PJ_85.pdf
Quote
I simply ask you to take note at how many people pronounce edicts regarding our work and word and how many of YOU labor long and hard in trying to change perceptions--when the persons involved have not, nor have any intentions of so much as reading the work and word in point. I am continually amused at how many tell me to "go back to Christ!" How so--I TRAVEL WITH YOUR "CHRIST"!! AND, FURTHERMORE, IF ANYONE BOTHERED TO READ MY WRITINGS--IT CAN NOT BE REFUTED. So, WHO is the fool? Well, perhaps "me" for wasting your time with it for, after all, I have all the "time" in the Universe--and you are VERY LIMITED IN THAT COMMODITY. I would ask you, however, WHAT ELSE ARE YOU DOING THAT TAKES SO MUCH "TIME"?
...
you CANNOT DEMAND THAT A PERSON BELIEVE ANYTHING. Therefore, what is your RESPONSIBILITY? Always it gets down to "responsibility". You can "offer" but more than that--you are efforting to "cause" through one form of coercion or another--your "opinions" upon another and manipulate that "other's" responsibility aspect. Remember Little Crow's rather "crude" but impressive statement?: "People are too lazy, wanting somebody to help them see the light. Get off your dead ass and look for the light yourself. Find the switch, turn it on..." You cannot do a thing FOR somebody else any more than you can have the right nor the capability to take on another's responsibility.
...
you CANNOT DEMAND THAT A PERSON BELIEVE ANYTHING. Therefore, what is your RESPONSIBILITY? Always it gets down to "responsibility". You can "offer" but more than that--you are efforting to "cause" through one form of coercion or another--your "opinions" upon another and manipulate that "other's" responsibility aspect. Remember Little Crow's rather "crude" but impressive statement?: "People are too lazy, wanting somebody to help them see the light. Get off your dead ass and look for the light yourself. Find the switch, turn it on..." You cannot do a thing FOR somebody else any more than you can have the right nor the capability to take on another's responsibility.
http://www.phoenixsourcedistributors.com/PJ_85.pdf
5. I have posted a record too. Anyone may choose to ignore it. However, it is the truth about GOD, so by ignoring it you are no better than Beliathon who will undoubtedly ignore the truth outlined in the above 4 points.
I mostly agree with you, and you have a right to believe whatever you like. My point is that bringing your beliefs about God into the conversation is not only pointless but counterproductive. A debate about God can neither be won nor lost, therefore as far as debate goes it is shit.
Just because most of your arguments are valid does not mean the little bit of adding arguments about God is ok. If I gave you a gallon of ice cream and told you "Don't worry, there is only a LITTLE bit of shit mixed in with it, its mostly delicious ice cream." would you still eat it? Of course not, because that little bit of shit spoils the whole lot.
As you correctly stated, he has no leg to stand on, so why give him one by bringing God into it instead of just punking his ass with facts that he has no reply to?
Hatonn talks about the need for each one to be responsible for waking up to the truth about GOD; he has produced a vast volume of writings, but he cannot demand that you believe them.
http://www.phoenixsourcedistributors.com/PJ_85.pdf
Quote
I simply ask you to take note at how many people pronounce edicts regarding our work and word and how many of YOU labor long and hard in trying to change perceptions--when the persons involved have not, nor have any intentions of so much as reading the work and word in point. I am continually amused at how many tell me to "go back to Christ!" How so--I TRAVEL WITH YOUR "CHRIST"!! AND, FURTHERMORE, IF ANYONE BOTHERED TO READ MY WRITINGS--IT CAN NOT BE REFUTED. So, WHO is the fool? Well, perhaps "me" for wasting your time with it for, after all, I have all the "time" in the Universe--and you are VERY LIMITED IN THAT COMMODITY. I would ask you, however, WHAT ELSE ARE YOU DOING THAT TAKES SO MUCH "TIME"?
...
you CANNOT DEMAND THAT A PERSON BELIEVE ANYTHING. Therefore, what is your RESPONSIBILITY? Always it gets down to "responsibility". You can "offer" but more than that--you are efforting to "cause" through one form of coercion or another--your "opinions" upon another and manipulate that "other's" responsibility aspect. Remember Little Crow's rather "crude" but impressive statement?: "People are too lazy, wanting somebody to help them see the light. Get off your dead ass and look for the light yourself. Find the switch, turn it on..." You cannot do a thing FOR somebody else any more than you can have the right nor the capability to take on another's responsibility.
...
you CANNOT DEMAND THAT A PERSON BELIEVE ANYTHING. Therefore, what is your RESPONSIBILITY? Always it gets down to "responsibility". You can "offer" but more than that--you are efforting to "cause" through one form of coercion or another--your "opinions" upon another and manipulate that "other's" responsibility aspect. Remember Little Crow's rather "crude" but impressive statement?: "People are too lazy, wanting somebody to help them see the light. Get off your dead ass and look for the light yourself. Find the switch, turn it on..." You cannot do a thing FOR somebody else any more than you can have the right nor the capability to take on another's responsibility.
http://www.phoenixsourcedistributors.com/PJ_85.pdf
Way to ignore my point and go right on again arguing about God. You two deserve each other.
Ah, I see you don't want to discuss humanism, but notice how it is humanist ethics that Beliathon is advocating!
I have posted evidence that negates the foundation of humanism (denial of life after death). This undermines humanist ethics as well.
You wanted to discuss "the dangers of Liathon's socialist dogmas"??
Humanism is the dogma that I am attacking; Marx has stated that Marxism is not different from humanism!
I hope you will agree that humanism has been discredited.
I don't want to discuss any topic interwoven with God or faith based logic
because it is a pointless discussion that never ends and only serves as a distraction from facts.
You didn't just discredit humanism,
you also threw in a bunch more bullshit about God,
giving this asshat Liathon all the ammunition he needs to no only dismiss everything you say,
but then use you to push his logical failures and inconsistencies down the page
and get away with ignoring them
in favor of having your pointless arguments about God
which he knows FOR A FACT he can't be proven wrong about.
1. It is not "faith-based logic" that discredits humanism; rather, it is evidence from observation and reasoning; I made 52 salient points and they are all logical, they evidence the fact of life after death.
2. Lie-a-thon can ignore all he wants, and he can even lie if he sees fit; he is a humanist, after all, so for him and all humanists, Lying is a relative term and therefore doesn't exist if the person thinks it is OK.
3. I am pointing out his failures and inconsistencies as regards the evidence for mind-outside-of-the-brain. He was still arguing with BADecker about this even after he was shown the evidence.
4. What cannot be ignored is the record that is being posted here. Beliathon ignores both you and me, so his arguments are failing.
5. I have posted a record too. Anyone may choose to ignore it. However, it is the truth about GOD, so by ignoring it you are no better than Beliathon who will
Way to ignore my point and go right on again arguing about God. You two deserve each other.
Ah, I see you don't want to discuss humanism, but notice how it is humanist ethics that Beliathon is advocating!
I have posted evidence that negates the foundation of humanism (denial of life after death). This undermines humanist ethics as well.
You wanted to discuss "the dangers of Liathon's socialist dogmas"??
Humanism is the dogma that I am attacking; Marx has stated that Marxism is not different from humanism!
I hope you will agree that humanism has been discredited.
I don't want to discuss any topic interwoven with God or faith based logic because it is a pointless discussion that never ends and only serves as a distraction from facts. You didn't just discredit humanism, you also threw in a bunch more bullshit about God, giving this asshat Liathon all the ammunition he needs to no only dismiss everything you say, but then use you to push his logical failures and inconsistencies down the page and get away with ignoring them in favor of having your pointless arguments about God which he knows FOR A FACT he can't be proven wrong about.
Way to ignore my point and go right on again arguing about God. You two deserve each other.
Ah, I see you don't want to discuss humanism, but notice how it is humanist ethics that Beliathon is advocating!
I have posted evidence that negates the foundation of humanism (denial of life after death). This undermines humanist ethics as well.
You wanted to discuss "the dangers of Liathon's socialist dogmas"??
Humanism is the dogma that I am attacking; Marx has stated that Marxism is not different from humanism!
I hope you will agree that humanism has been discredited.
Unlike our minds, which reside wholly in our rotting and dead brains.
The difference is, I demand evidence for each and every wild thing I believe, and you don't. It's a matter of intellectual integrity in which I find you lacking.
Where is the evidence or reasoning to contradict the 52 points on the near-death site which demonstrate that mind can exist outside of the brain?
http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a36
I conclude that the burden of proof has shifted to the skeptics; that point neatly summarizes the other 51 points.
Why does Beliathon reject this evidence? Will he tell us?
Remember, there is the soul as well. And God directs all things
We both believe wild and amazing things, BADecker. The difference is, I demand evidence for each and every wild thing I believe, and you don't.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Too bad you have so much trouble citing that evidence.
Mark Twain: “In religion and politics people’s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.”
Remember, there is the soul as well. And God directs all things
We both believe wild and amazing things, BADecker. The difference is, I demand evidence for each and every wild thing I believe, and you don't.Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Too bad you have so much trouble citing that evidence.
Remember, there is the soul as well. And God directs all things
We both believe wild and amazing things, BADecker. The difference is, I demand evidence for each and every wild thing I believe, and you don't. It's a matter of intellectual integrity in which I find you lacking.Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Throw rock into pond.
Rock create ripples.
Rock gone, but ripples spread.
Live brain in pond of life.
Brain create mind ripples.
Brain die and is gone, but mind ripples still go on.
This is actually not a terrible analogy, however you made one important error. The "ripples" our brain creates in life do not represent our mind, but our thoughts, expressed through spoken language and written word. Rock create ripples.
Rock gone, but ripples spread.
Live brain in pond of life.
Brain create mind ripples.
Brain die and is gone, but mind ripples still go on.
Those thoughts we commit to the net will live on long after we're dead. Unlike our minds, which reside wholly in our rotting and dead brains.
Live mind in pond of life.
Mind creates thought ripples.
Brain dies and mind is gone,
but thought ripples carry on
through those whose lives we have touched.
All the mind is, is a complex compilation of thoughts... at least that we know of.
When the mind is no longer influenced by the brain, the complexity is influenced by all of nature that it reaches and reacts to. Thus, the complexity is changed.
The question isn't about the mind not going on. The question is about what it becomes as it becomes one with the "vibrations" of the whole universe. Just as the ripples in the pond become one with the pond as they dissipate, even so the mind becomes one with the universe as it dissipates.
Remember, there is the soul as well. And God directs all things, if only through cause and effect down through the ages. Thus, until we find out for sure what happens to the mind, if it absorbed by nature, or if God directs it in other ways, the only thing that we can be sure of is that it goes on after cessation of brain activity.
Jump to: