Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

No

Only Judeism

Only Islam

Yes to both Judeism and Islam

[Graknorke]

Christian beliefs and discussion yes....

I don't see why my comment wouldn't fit.

Because the existence of a soul is a key part of the Christian faith, if you were to dismiss it then it would be outside the scope of Christianity. It would be a more general metaphysics discussion, which isn't what this thread is.

[TD1]

Right....but it's still discussion on a core aspect of christianity, whether or not there is a soul. If you make it so that opposite views can't be expressed, then it takes away from the discussion bit.

If not, well, then sorry for detracting from the real debate.

[Lord Shonus]

The concept of a "soul" as a spiritual construct distinct from the physical one is a common belief in Christianity, but it is not a required one. There are a number of sects (of which the best known would be the Jehovah's Witnesses) that don't include the concept other than as a metaphorical one to describe the spiritual side of a person's life. The position is that the Resurrection Of The Body is all that is needed, that you are completely gone while you are dead, and those that go to Heaven instead of living in paradise on the "new earth" are taken there in a bodily sense instead of a spiritual one.

[TD1]

The concept of a "soul" as a spiritual construct distinct from the physical one is a common belief in Christianity, but it is not a required one.

You can say the same about a lot of things in Christianity. There will always be a denomination that doesn't believe certain bits.

[MonkeyHead]

Hence 40000 denominations.

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

i have no problem with artificial intelligence

though the matter doesn't exactly concern me 

[Rolan7]

I like how in some sci-fi stories, even artificial intelligences must be "grown" much like organic ones.  It's usually at a more rapid pace than for organic beings, but the intelligences essentially go through the stages of mental development and grow their neural network in response to a simulated childhood.

A certain text adventure starts with the player character being pulled from the simulation, briefly informed that his entire childhood was a lie, and put in charge of running the cameras and doors in some skyscraper.

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

I like how in some sci-fi stories, even artificial intelligences must be "grown" much like organic ones.  It's usually at a more rapid pace than for organic beings, but the intelligences essentially go through the stages of mental development and grow their neural network in response to a simulated childhood.

A certain text adventure starts with the player character being pulled from the simulation, briefly informed that his entire childhood was a lie, and put in charge of running the cameras and doors in some skyscraper.

Blade runner

[Arcvasti]

AI... I'm thinking a purely mechanical AI might not have a soul. Or it might. I really have no idea. One of those things outside the scope of current doctrine. Pretty sure the proper thing to do would be to give the AI the benefit of the doubt and ASSUME it has a soul. Partially or fully biological AIs would most probably have a soul. I don't know. Pretty sure a theologian would have a different answer.

[Bohandas]

BTW, does anybody else see this classic movie clip in their head whenever they hear the Parable of the Good Shepherd (Matt 18:12-14, Luke 15:3-7)?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fd7e1fXYIuM

Spoiler: Scene Transcript (click to show/hide)

Hannibal Lecter: [shouts] No!

[normal voice]

Hannibal Lecter: I will listen now. After your father's murder, you were orphaned. You were ten years old. You went to live with cousins on a sheep and horse ranch in Montana. And...?

Clarice Starling: [tears begin forming in her eyes] And one morning, I just ran away.

Hannibal Lecter: No "just", Clarice. What set you off? You started at what time?

Clarice Starling: Early, still dark.

Hannibal Lecter: Then something woke you, didn't it? Was it a dream? What was it?

Clarice Starling: I heard a strange noise.

Hannibal Lecter: What was it?

Clarice Starling: It was... screaming. Some kind of screaming, like a child's voice.

Hannibal Lecter: What did you do?

Clarice Starling: I went downstairs, outside. I crept up into the barn. I was so scared to look inside, but I had to.

Hannibal Lecter: And what did you see, Clarice? What did you see?

Clarice Starling: Lambs. The lambs were screaming.

Hannibal Lecter: They were slaughtering the spring lambs?

Clarice Starling: And they were screaming.

Hannibal Lecter: And you ran away?

Clarice Starling: No. First I tried to free them. I... I opened the gate to their pen, but they wouldn't run. They just stood there, confused. They wouldn't run.

Hannibal Lecter: But you could and you did, didn't you?

Clarice Starling: Yes. I took one lamb, and I ran away as fast as I could.

Hannibal Lecter: Where were you going, Clarice?

Clarice Starling: I don't know. I didn't have any food, any water and it was very cold, very cold. I thought, I thought if I could save just one, but... he was so heavy. So heavy. I didn't get more than a few miles when the sheriff's car picked me up. The rancher was so angry he sent me to live at the Lutheran orphanage in Bozeman. I never saw the ranch again.

Hannibal Lecter: What became of your lamb, Clarice?

Clarice Starling: They killed him.

It's essentially the same story - one lamb is missing and the shepherd leaves to seek it out (albeit in this case with the help of the local constable) - but this version is told from a different perspective and with a rather important bit of context left in which was omitted from Jesus' tale and which changes the whole tone.

(I asked this question earlier but it was at the same time as that intense discussion about whether we should be duscussing Judiasm and Islam too, so it kind of got drowned out by that and nobody noticed it)

[Orange Wizard]

There's a lot of semi-Christian imagery in Silence of the Lambs/Red Dragon/etc. Even the names.

I'm not really sure how I feel about the whole "lambs to the slaughter" spin on it. It certainly begs discussion, however.

[penguinofhonor]

So Superpope just explicitly supported the Big Bang Theory and evolution.

Francis explained that both scientific theories were not incompatible with the existence of a creator – arguing instead that they “require it”.

“When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so,” Francis said.

He added: “He created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one so they would reach their fulfilment.

“The Big Bang, which today we hold to be the origin of the world, does not contradict the intervention of the divine creator but, rather, requires it.

“Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.”

This is a continuing part of the Catholic Church's "make sure Galileo doesn't happen again" campaign. Their official stance has been pro-evolution for a while, but they've been pretty wishy-washy and rarely talked about it, especially during the Benedict years where the church leaders apparently released a few statements that were digs at evolution.

Catholics have a pretty similar rate of belief in creationism as the American public. Hispanic Catholics lean slightly more toward creationism; white Catholics lean slightly more toward evolution. I'd expect more belief in something when it's scientific fact and church doctrine, but the church's behavior in the last decades has created plenty of Republican Catholics in America that agree with the church on gay marriage and abortion and little else politically.

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

I wonder if i'm the only baptist here
probably on my own when it comes to my views

[TD1]

I know a few baptists, despite being Church of Ireland raised.

[Rolan7]

I live in the American bible belt, so... 

I've encountered three main kinds of Baptists:

Easter Baptists who dress up for church on Easter, call themselves Baptists when asked, but aren't really interested in religion (until a crisis comes along, at which point we all become desperate for answers and purpose).  These people are cool, and definitely not worth arguing religion with.

Cheerful Baptists who go to church regularly, love God, and are tolerant of others.  These people are wonderful!  They ignore or carefully rationalize away all the problematic parts of the Bible, though.  Like they think that nonbelievers aren't somehow going to Hell, Deuteronomy doesn't exist, homosexuality might not be a sin...  I never debated religion with people like this before I don't want to disrupt their happiness and tolerance of others.  Most of my family is like this.

Evangelicals, who want to save everyone from being sinners.  Which is actually the most logical and generous action for a true believer.  The most dangerous tyrant is one who selflessly helps people.  I always tried to argue with these.  Mostly because they joined the fight willingly, and were campaigning fanatically against my rights.  There was always so much internally-consistent logic behind their arguments, that I thought I could just point out the flawed foundation and they'd change their minds.  I was young and naive, heh.