Becoming the Right Person vs. Doing Right for Right Reasons

[shunyadragon]

What are you talking about Shuny your own religion teaches that we have a rational immaterial mind, that is the seat of consciousness and rationality. It teaches substance dualism.

Your arguing something different. You are arguing the there are aspects of the mind, consciousness, and ah . . . qualia that cannot be explained by science. We are not debating what our religions believe, but nonetheless . . .

Careful that you may misrepresent the view of the Baha'i Faith in terms of substance dualism. Substance dualism believes there are two distinctly independent worlds that of the body and mind. In the Baha'i belief the soul and the attributes of the soul are distinctly separate and not dependent on the body and the mind. The mind, consciousness and the qualia are a product of the brain and not the soul, which remains independent of the body and mind.

[seer]

Your arguing something different. You are arguing the there are aspects of the mind, consciousness, and ah . . . qualia that cannot be explained by science. We are not debating what our religions believe, but nonetheless . . .

Careful that you may misrepresent the view of the Baha'i Faith in terms of substance dualism. Substance dualism believes there are two distinctly independent worlds that of the body and mind. In the Baha'i belief the soul and the attributes of the soul are distinctly separate and not dependent on the body and the mind. The mind, consciousness and the qualia are a product of the brain and not the soul, which remains independent of the body and mind.

First Shuny, what your religion teaches is substance dualism - two distinct substances - the rational soul and body. And it is the soul that is the source of human rationality And the immaterial soul it beyond science.

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/S...=highlight#gr3http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/S...=highlight#gr5

[shunyadragon]

First Shuny, what your religion is substance dualism - two distinct substances - the rational soul and body. And it is the soul that is the source of human rationality And the immaterial soul it beyond science.

Selective quotes get you no where. Substance Dualism believes in two separate substances the Body (brain) and the mind. Yes, the Baha'i Faith believes the soul is separate from the body(brain), but it is also separate from the mind, which is NOT substance Dualism as it is defined.

In this thread and many many others over the millennia you have tried to justify, by argument from the ignorance (ie David Chalmers) that mind is separate from the body and equated with the soul, and that does not reflect the view of the Baha'i Faith.

[seer]

Selective quotes get you no where. Substance Dualism believes in two separate substances the Body (brain) and the mind. Yes, the soul is separate from the body(brain), but it is also separate from the mind, which is NOT substance Dualism as it is defined.

Nonsense Shuny the rational soul is the thing that thinks and acts:

The power of the rational soul can discover the realities of things, comprehend the peculiarities of beings, and penetrate the mysteries of existence. All sciences, knowledge, arts, wonders, institutions, discoveries and enterprises come from the exercised intelligence of the rational soul. There was a time when they were unknown, preserved mysteries and hidden secrets; the rational soul gradually discovered them and brought them out from the plane of the invisible and 218 the hidden into the realm of the visible.

All knowledge, all sciences, discoveries, etc... are the result of the exercised intelligence of the immaterial, rational soul.

And your own quote says that the mind is not material - so that is beyond science too...

If you examine the body with the eye, the ear or the other senses, you will not find it; nevertheless it exists. Therefore the mind has no place but it is connected with the brain

[shunyadragon]

Nonsense Shuny the rational soul is the thing that thinks and acts:



All knowledge, all sciences, discoveries, etc... are the result of the exercised intelligence of the immaterial, rational soul.

And your own quote says that the mind is not material - so that is beyond science too...

Your attempts at selective citations to justify your dishonest agenda have exceeded all expectations.

[JimL]

Emergent dualism could be a strictly material effect or result, but not necessarily.

Not sure what you mean. Do you mean to suggest that consciousness is an immaterial thing in itself, separate and apart from the material source from out of which it is emergent?

[seer]

Your attempts at selective citations to justify your dishonest agenda have exceeded all expectations.

What are you talking about Shuny, your own religion (even the quote you used) says that the rational soul and/or the mind are not material - they are therefore beyond scientific investigation. How is that selective when I use your own quote and the direct teachings of your religion?

[seer]

Not sure what you mean. Do you mean to suggest that consciousness is an immaterial thing in itself, separate and apart from the material source from out of which it is emergent?

Like I said it the past Jim, it would be more akin to the magnetic field (mind) around the magnet (brain). Whether that field is material or immaterial is an open question.

[shunyadragon]

What are you talking about Shuny, your own religion (even the quote you used) says that the rational soul and/or the mind are not material - they are therefore beyond scientific investigation. How is that selective when I use your own quote and the direct teachings of your religion?

Of course, the mind is not material, but it is intimately related to the brain. In the Baha'i Faith it is the soul that is independent of both the brain and the mind. The mind is not considered independent of the brain as believed in substance dualism. I of course believe the human attributes of the brain, mind, and soul are created by God, but your argument is bogus.

Your selective use of quotes to justify your agenda continues unabated.

[seer]

Of course, the mind is not material, but it is intimately related to the brain. In the Baha'i Faith it is the soul that is independent of both the brain and the mind. The mind is not considered independent of the brain as believed in substance dualism. I of course believe the human attributes of the brain, mind, and soul are created by God, but your argument is bogus.

Your selective use of quotes to justify your agenda continues unabated.

But both the mind and rational soul are where we think, where consciousness lies, etc... and are immaterial and beyond science to investigate. And as far as the mind being connected to the brain that is my position of Emergent Dualism. And you do believe in a form of substance dualism body/mind + rational (thinking) soul. So when you demanded "objective evidence" when I was speaking of dualism not only were you a hypocrite (since you hold a similar position) there would be no scientific way to prove either an immaterial mind or soul.

[tabibito]

I believe in my teenage years I read every single one of Lewis' books. I do recall reading Miracles, but I cannot remember the individual arguments he made in it.

Moral issues the NT is morally wrong on:
Slavery,

Slavery of the form that we term slavery is not in view, and I find it difficult to believe you do not know how slavery played out in practice during the late Roman Republic/early Empire.

homosexuality,

A matter that is considered unacceptable to God. A person given to malicious gossip would most likely find the NT morally wrong in its view of malicious gossip too.

divorce, the subordination of women, marital rape,

Under the heading of responsibilities, rather than rights. No SCRIPTURAL support can be found for any of these.

eternal punishment,

This is one that should be moved to the "unclear" heading.

obedience to authoritarian governments.

A particular verse or two, taken without regard for other statements addressing the matter can be seen to support such a course. Overall assessment of the NT shows that "obedience" to wrongful governmental edicts is not expected. And that is taken without addressing whether "submission" really is synonymous with "obedience," nor whether "superior authorities" might apply to secular governments or officials.

Moral issues the NT is a bit unclear about:

Non-violence,

Is it even addressed?

polygamy, sex before marriage,

A man who seeks a position as an elder is required to be the husband of only one wife. Taking a strictly legalistic view, he isn't prevented from having a concubine or three. There is no mention of rules that might apply for a woman who seeks to be an elder.

racial discrimination, interracial marriage

The NT declares that the only divides are between believer and non believer. Explicitly declared: there is no basis for discrimination on the grounds of race (there is neither Jew nor Gentile) nor of gender (there is neither male nor female) nor even status (there is neither bond nor free).

sex before marriage

On the contrary - the NT is quite explicit on this issue.

Moral issues the NT fails to speak to:

Torture, genocide, war crimes, human rights,women's rights, abortion

The New Testament is strong on responsibilities, not rights. And the responsibilities it advocates would not allow for the violation of human rights. A proper evaluation of these factors would, naturally enough, mean that you would find it expedient to move some of the items in this list to another of your categories.

animal rights,

It doesn't address animal rights, true enough.

, contraceptives.

The NT is silent on this matter - so it is pretty much a matter of conscience. It is not as though 1st century peoples did not know of or use contraceptives.

The NT does not really give substantially better moral teachings than the average random society in human history.

True.

You ask if we object to 'the golden rule', but you realize that the golden rule is famous for being found in a large number of different societies right? Imagine you are one of the elders in a (non-Christian) society and you have a meeting with the other elders to discuss "what laws should we have to make our society prosper?", you are obviously all going to agree that having people murdering each other left, right, and center is counterproductive to social peace, and are likewise going to agree that rampant theft is going to pose a similar problem to general social harmony, and so are obviously going to outlaw murder and theft, and it doesn't take having a bible to do that. That is, in fact, roughly the method by which our modern societies work: Through the democratic process we create the laws that we together would like to see enacted and think would make our society prosper, and it doesn't take a bible to do that.

Also true.

[Tassman]

Slavery of the form that we term slavery is not in view, and I find it difficult to believe you do not know how slavery played out in practice during the late Roman Republic/early Empire.
A matter that is considered unacceptable to God. A person given to malicious gossip would most likely find the NT morally wrong in its view of malicious gossip too.
Under the heading of responsibilities, rather than rights. No SCRIPTURAL support can be found for any of these.
This is one that should be moved to the "unclear" heading.
A particular verse or two, taken without regard for other statements addressing the matter can be seen to support such a course. Overall assessment of the NT shows that "obedience" to wrongful governmental edicts is not expected. And that is taken without addressing whether "submission" really is synonymous with "obedience," nor whether "superior authorities" might apply to secular governments or officials.

Moral issues the NT is a bit unclear about:
Is it even addressed?
A man who seeks a position as an elder is required to be the husband of only one wife. Taking a strictly legalistic view, he isn't prevented from having a concubine or three. There is no mention of rules that might apply for a woman who seeks to be an elder.
The NT declares that the only divides are between believer and non believer. Explicitly declared: there is no basis for discrimination on the grounds of race (there is neither Jew nor Gentile) nor of gender (there is neither male nor female) nor even status (there is neither bond nor free).
On the contrary - the NT is quite explicit on this issue.

Moral issues the NT fails to speak to:
The New Testament is strong on responsibilities, not rights. And the responsibilities it advocates would not allow for the violation of human rights. A proper evaluation of these factors would, naturally enough, mean that you would find it expedient to move some of the items in this list to another of your categories.
It doesn't address animal rights, true enough.
The NT is silent on this matter - so it is pretty much a matter of conscience. It is not as though 1st century peoples did not know of or use contraceptives.

True.
Also true.

[tabibito]

In the Christian sphere, adherence to the letter of the law comes a very poor second to justice and mercy. The sad fact (in the opinion of self righteous persons at least) is: where adherence to the letter of the law would result in injustice, the letter can be over-ridden.

Also noted: in the absence of duly accredited commissioners and prophets - adjudication of such matters becomes difficult.

[tabibito]

[Charles]

I know this may cause some frustration but I would like to ask why only male prostitutes are mentioned?