RELIGION TOPIC (Fi-nal-ly) -

***Nate*** · #**151** 02-06-2006, 11:16 AM

That's like saying the energy in your light bulb can't 'go away' so whenever you turn off the switch it must jump over to your TV.

Mojo · #**152** 02-06-2006, 11:30 AM

And then the TV jumps on!

***Nate*** · #**153** 02-06-2006, 11:31 AM

And starts playing I Love Lucy reruns!

Or has this metaphor got away from me?

OANST · #**154** 02-06-2006, 11:33 AM

Yes, it has. It's Mash reruns.

Stupid.

Adder · #**155** 02-06-2006, 12:34 PM

:

That's like saying the energy in your light bulb can't 'go away' so whenever you turn off the switch it must jump over to your TV.

Have you heard of "The Laws of Conservation of Energy"?

The energy in the lightbulb has already gone elsewhere (into light and heat). When you turn it off, the remaining energy dissipates through light and heat.

Consciousness is a bunch of electro-magnetic waves and fields... possibly (it's hard to be sure).
The Self (beyond physical) has to go somewhere.

***Nate*** · #**156** 02-06-2006, 02:22 PM

The brain contains electric currents certainly but, as you say, these are dissipated as heat. The laws of conservation of energy also state that energy must follow the laws of physics as it is transferred and converted. Your theory does not follow through on this.

If there is a soul, and I hope there is, it cannot be described in any physical manner, like you are attempting. The metaphysical is just that; beyond our physical form and environment and impossible to detect and measure.

Abeguy · #**157** 02-09-2006, 01:40 PM

True words, Nate, but if the soul did follow the conservation of energy laws, when someone, died, their sould would go into a suitable place, I.E. a human, or, maybe even some jewel

Kimon · #**158** 02-09-2006, 06:12 PM

:

True words, Nate, but if the soul did follow the conservation of energy laws, when someone, died, their sould would go into a suitable place, I.E. a human, or, maybe even some jewel

Yeah, but it wouldn't, because the soul is not a physical object/entity. If anything, I think our soul is our nomadic sense of conciousness. It may infuse itself into other objects (which I don't think is likely, really), but it wouldn't be due to physics. It would probably be due to a spiritual or emotional connection shared between the soul and the object.

Of source, I'm just talking out of my ass here.

Adder · #**159** 02-09-2006, 11:52 PM

Kimon, you're talking about metaphysics {"beyond physics"}. There's almost no uniform belief or theory in metaphysics. It's very hard to say "here it is" within metaphysics. Of course, there's very little physical exlination for metaphysics (after all, it deals with things like Soul, Spirit, Trancendental Meditation)

But, if metaphysical energy obeys the laws of physics in a meta-physical way, who knows what could happen.

On the point of reincarnation, I believe one of the avangalists said "You must be born again". Literal interpretation would mean there's nothing you can do about it, you're coming back alive.

Abeguy · #**160** 02-10-2006, 04:24 AM

I believe the sould does exist, and for this reason, people say that someday we'll be able to back up our brains on a computer and "live forever as a machine" but that is not true, you wouldn't know it, because, when you die, you die, you won't instantly open your eyes and be seeing out of a computer screen, people would just have a copy of your brain, as Adder says, the soul is "Beyond Physics" and therefore if you copied your brain, it just be a computer thinking like you, not you completely

kinda hard to explain, but...yeah

Adder · #**161** 02-10-2006, 06:24 AM

Abeguy, you've got that idea of "soul in a computer" wrong. The idea was that a computer would read every part of your mind at the same time, or absorbe all the information from your mind. Then your conscience would be in the computer. It would be another copy of you (like a photocopy). Even after the origional is gone/dead, the photocopy would remain. You're conscience is still thinking from inside a computer, but you {physical you} have died.

There was a question a friend (well... maybe just someone) asked that went "If you kept upgrading your body with machinery, when would you stop living? Assume that every part of your body could be replaced."
It all boils down to the definition of Life. You would no longer be alive if you were all machinery (by biological definition), but your mind would not cease to exist.

***Nate*** · #**162** 02-10-2006, 12:24 PM

Which begs the question of whether consciousness is caused by having a soul...

:

On the point of reincarnation, I believe one of the avangalists said "You must be born again". Literal interpretation would mean there's nothing you can do about it, you're coming back alive.

I can't tell if you're kidding here but he meant 'born again' in terms of coming back to your faith and starting life anew.

RANDOM RELIGIOUS FACT OF THE DAY: In the Old Testament, the first rule of warfare is that all soldiers must carry a shovel and go a certain distance out of the camp if they want to take a shit, so that they don't spread diseases.

Dino · #**163** 02-10-2006, 01:29 PM

:

but your mind would not cease to exist.

Assuming you could find a way to replace the brain with machinery in such a way that you would not interrupt consciousness, yeah. Scary thought.

Adder · #**164** 02-10-2006, 01:48 PM

nate_dog_woof, I meant the "If you MUST be born again, someone's gonna force you to without your consent. THat someone is God" interpretation.

The old testement also stats "A kid must not be boiled in it's mother's milk"

OANST · #**165** 02-10-2006, 03:04 PM

It means a young goat.

***Nate*** · #**166** 02-10-2006, 05:32 PM

Specific interpretation: Don't be cruel to animals, even emotional pain.
General interpretation: Don't eat meat and milk cooked together.

But I fail to see why it counts as being interesting.

Adder · #**167** 02-11-2006, 02:49 AM

Actual interpretation: Something to do with kosher food.

There's a lot of other... questionable ones.

:

While they were enjoying themselves, the men of the city, a depraved lot, surrounded the house, and started pounding on the door. They said to the old man, the master of the house, 'Bring out the man who came into your house, so that we may have intercourse with him.' And the man, the master of the house, went out to them and said to them, 'No, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Since this man is my guest, do not do this vile thing. Here are my virgin daughter and his concubine; let me bring them out now. Ravish them and do whatever you want to them; but against this man do not do such a vile thing.'
Judges 19:22-24

:

If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not listen to the voice of his father or his mother even when they punish him his father and mother must take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard. All the men of the town must then stone him to death. You must banish this evil from among you.
Deuteronomy 21:18-21

Abeguy · #**168** 02-11-2006, 03:16 PM

Judges? umm...Isn't that the story of Lot in Soddom? I don't think thats in Judges.
Or it's a suprisingly similar story.
but I have read that, and that is wierd

Now, if the second rule was still in effect today, you'd probably be dead by now

***Nate*** · #**169** 02-11-2006, 04:41 PM

Yeah, it is the story of Soddom. And of course, as usual, it loses something in the translation. As pointed out in that link posted in the Gay Adoption thread, the bible actually says that the townsfolk wanted to "know" the strangers which of course has an entirely different meaning.

There's plenty of historical doubt whether the second rule was ever actually acted out. There's a saying that if an ancient Jewish court sentenced one man to death in 70 years, then it was considered a murderous court.

Rich · #**170** 02-12-2006, 02:04 AM

Or, like with everything else in the book, its a metaphor to instill an emotion or moral into people. Basically, that if you are bad, you get punished.

Abeguy · #**171** 02-12-2006, 04:57 PM

adultery Rich, nice touch to your post. Good luck with that

Yeah, I didn't remember there being the word "intercourse" in there. Thats a screw up in translation, I'm not sure even the people of Soddom would walk up to your house and say "hey, you got a visiter, let us have sex with him" Thats fricking twisted

Adder · #**172** 02-12-2006, 11:45 PM

Yes but "let us know him!", "NO! Know my daughter instead" doesn't make much modern-day sence.

Rich · #**173** 02-13-2006, 04:00 AM

:

adultery Rich, nice touch to your post. Good luck with that

I was referring to the second one. About stoning people to death.

Abeguy · #**174** 02-16-2006, 05:48 PM

I was reffering to your location. About Pb & J, I like it with tortilla shells

Rich · #**175** 02-18-2006, 02:48 AM

:

I was reffering to your location.

Pfft, jealousy is terrible isn't it?

Abeguy · #**176** 02-18-2006, 02:08 PM

Not quite, Rich, I'm not turned on by you in the least

Rich · #**177** 02-19-2006, 02:43 AM

You could be if your Ladybird book of religion was more tolerant of same sex relationships.

And I fail to see how I've committed adultery. Is sleeping with someone I love a sin? You best all stone me to death now.

Abeguy · #**178** 02-19-2006, 09:14 AM

its not the book that keeps me straight, its me

and also, look up adultery in a dictionary
it also covers if both people are unmarried

Rich · #**179** 02-19-2006, 09:29 AM

But I'm a virgin. In bed with her is different to fucking her.

And why the hell am I defending myself against your laws anyway...

Rex Tirano · #**180** 02-19-2006, 01:00 PM

Aw Rich. How slightly chivalrous[sp] of you.

And yes, don't make comments like that, when you're totally oblivious about the situation. You could at least read the thread about us meeting up, if you're going to make bitchy and totally untrue comments. Get over yourself, I don't appriciate you bitching at Rich.

If you want to talk about adulteryness in religion that's absolutely fine. But don't even bother commenting about something you're ignorant on, when it would take you 2 seconds to load the thread [which would take you less than a minute to read].

- Rexy