A Question of the Heart

All of it. There is much research in this area but, the bible is direct and to the point about the who, what, where and when with regards to cognition. It tells us who created it (God), what it is (a soul), where it comes from (His own image) and when it was created (preordained before time). It doesn't give us ALL the answers, and it tells us WHY it doesn't do that as well. Every other religion and science has something to say on it, and very thorough, logical arguments, I might add. But, only the bible speaks to man's condition in relation to sin.Sin is NOT, contrary to popular belief, doing "wrong". It is not doing the will of the creator, plain and simple. Using His creation (meaning 'all things in heaven and earth') in a way that it wasn't created for is sin. Which is why homosexuality is called sin, because your using your body in a way in which it wasn't intended or created for.This concept also extends to the mind, or spirit, where an individual uses his volition (or free will) to do what 'they' want to do, rather than what God wants. And God isn't unfair about it, either. He simply states that those who don't wish to do his will have a place set aside, away from the holiness of heaven. They won't be destroyed or annihilated, simply separated and left to their own devices.This is definite, direct, to-the-point information that, even logically, 'sounds' correct, simply because of what you know about yourself.See, science and religion can poke around in other people's hearts and lives forever but, the true testimony of what the bible says can only clearly be seen by looking into 'yourself', and seeing that 'fleshly' desire to turn away from what the bible says, while still sensing that 'teeny, tiny thing' inside that inherently knows right from wrong. Which is, in layman terms, your will vs. God's will.Research is just that, research. And they're barely scratching the surface of what that 'ancient text' has laid out for us already for thousands of years. I applaud science, it's brought us this far. But, science can only understand nature because it uses nature to try and explain unnatural concepts. I understand that science can tell us how we think, why we think, what we think about, where thinking takes place. But, it will never be able to tell what it is because of the methods it uses to try to explain it.I think it's similar to the way a robot will never be able to fully understand a human, no matter how sophisticated it's AI is. The reason for that being that a creation cannot be used to FULLY define the creator.Since we are getting deep into this here, I wanna pose a question to all those who want to debate what I'm saying here. What does science have to say about the law of cause and effect? From what I understand, nothing from nothing equals nothing. So, how could this universe come about without a cause? I've heard the big bang theory and all that, but it deviates from, rather than addresses the question. If, in the beginning,(there has to be a beginning because this universe contains energy that is slowly being depleted, eventually to nothing) there was NOTHING, where did ANYTHING come from?

More totally irrelevant nonsense from the Christian Cult of Ignorance.Sin is totally irrelevant to anyone but the individual. Specifically, bringing up homosexuality is a classic example of the bigots of the Christian Cult of Ignorance and has no bearing on the topic.It is a classic example of why the so called Biblical Christians are most likely eternally damned.Sin is a triviality and of no importance or interest to anyone but the particular individual.Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

All of it.

---

Why don't you pick one or two areas of study of the Brain/Mind and then we can discuss your problems with it?

Beg pardon? Sounds correct to whom? To you, perhaps? It sounds like gibberish to me - and that after about forty years of buying into that "life beyond this one" wishful thinking.You seem to be rapidly straying from your own thread topic here, and wandering off into some sort of preaching. This is "Faith and Belief," and you can include all of those you want, but please try not to wander too far afield. [/mod hat]

Faithful Servant I must correct you on this statement here since the energy is not being depleted. It is simply progressing to the point wherein the energy will be unavailable to accomplish work as it will have no potential difference between different locations in the universe. The energy remains regardless.
That is not known, however, this is also the same difficulty faced by those claiming it was God since we postulate that God is something we must also ask where god came from.

---

" Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention to arrive safely in a pretty and well-preserved body but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming: Wow!!What a ride!"
-----------------------------------------
What delightful hosts they are-Love and Laughter!
Lingeringly I turn away at this late hour,yet glad
They have not withheld from me their high hospitality.
So at the door I pause to press their hands once more
And say,"So fine a time!Thank you both...and goodbye.

The Bible does give us explanations, but I personally find scientific solutions much more satisfying.Scientific solutions are falsifiable and testable, as well as being based on natural occurences. This makes them more reliable and universal than religious explanations, which are often based on assumptions and supernaturalism. Scientists are in the process of giving us answers to the questions you posed. (They might already have several answers, but I can't understand half of them ) But which creator are you talking about? There have been many "creators" throughout history, and "sin" has mutated over time.Aztecs sacrificed people to Huitzilopochtli, the Sun God of their culture. They were "doing the will" of their creator/god; so according to your criteria, they were not sinning. Of course, you must have been thinking of the Christian God, but they had no knowledge of any such God.According to your criteria, why were the Aztecs sinning? I don't see how the concepts are unnatural, though. If they're entirely made up of natural processes, then they should be natural. (Unless there is an supernatural force behind everything in the universe, but I don't see any evidence of that.) I honestly don't know because I'm not trained enough in physics to understand the theories. There are, however, people on this forum who can help you. As for me, I'm not very curious about it; we're here, and that satisfies me for now.

You seem to be harshly offensive towards Christianity. Who told you that sin is irrelevant? Is that your own assertation, something you heard, scientific theory, or a revelation? Either sin is a triviality, or it's the truth. And, I doubt you have proof that it isn't. If I were gonna be on one side of the fence, I'd stay on the side of sin being truth.

Not at all, in fact I am a Christian. I am offended though by the Christian Cult of Ignorance and the bigots that it has spawned.Sin is irrelevant because it is a matter only between the individual and GOD.It is also irrelevant to this thread, to what consciousness is, what right or wrong are or the fact of evolution.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

That there's no such thing.You won't find a "law of cause and effect" in any science textbook.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Untrue. No, it actually sounds completely wrong. Because things that are made-up, like "sin", are nearly always wrong. Do you understand that this is circular reasoning? The only reason that it's similar is because you've just assumed that it's a fact that a "robot will never fully understand a human."There's no way that you could know that; it's just a convenient assumption you've made, but it proves nothing at all. I could just as easily say that someday a robot will be totally human, and then say that proves that human consciousness is just a natural consequence of our physical bodies. There's no such thing as "the law of cause and effect." We know that there are plenty of things that occur in this universe that have no cause. They just happen, at random. The "law of cause and effect" is an assertion that we live in a deterministic universe; but we know for a fact that isn't so. We don't know that there was nothing. In fact there almost certainly wasn't nothing.But aren't you getting ahead of yourself? You opened this topic to talk about human consciousness. How is the Big Bang even part of that? It would behoove you to address rebuttals to your arguments before you gallop on to new ones. Or did you think you just got to ignore what we have to say? That's not much of a discussion if you never respond to the other side.

Understanding what right or wrong is begins by understanding what sin is. Because your salvation is between you and God doesn't make sin irrelevant. To understand it, you must discuss it, and each and every individual can attest to the validity of the biblical account of sin.It's not irrelevant because our inclination to sin is evidence of what the bible says about it, and the bible seems to me to be the clearest account of the human condition. Right and wrong, consciousness and the fact of evolution are touched on in the bible, which gives weight to the validity of the bible.

Uh, no; I'm actually here to tell you that the Bible's account of sin has no validity; actions are good or bad because of their consequences in this world, not their adherence to an invisible sky-man's decree. Because that sky-man doesn't exist. There's no such thing as God, therefore how can there be sin?

Huh?Please show how sin is at all related to any of the things I mentioned. There is no problem with you asserting what something "seems to you". However unless you can make some reasonable supporting arguments I cannot see any relevance. And in many other writings, so how does that add any validity to the Bible.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Please tell us how the current state of sin research rates the following uses of things in heaven and earth.

Is it a sin to make clothes out of silk?

​

Is it a sin to use your ear to hold a pencil?

​

Is it a sin to use a rock as a paperweight?

​

Is it a sin to teach your dog to roll over?

​

Is it a sin to use a newspaper to wrap fish?

​

Is it a sin to use your teeth to open a bag of Doritos?

​

Is it a sin to use the moon as a flag stand?

​

Is it a sin to use your nose to hang a spoon?

​

Is it a sin to use your butt to shut a car door?

I look forward to reading your judgements._____Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Plase answer my question: What actual piece of neuro/cognitive research does not measure up?Or are you saying that all scientific research does not measure up?Will you soon be saying that geological/genetic evidence that indicates the impossiblility of the Flood, does not measure up too?Or what about the age of the Earth?What pieces of research don't measure up?Where is the lit review you have undertaken to allow you to make such statements? and Do you see that you are already contradicting yourself? What has this got to do with the OP?Sounds like creo bait and switch, to me.