/int/ - International

>>19295 >Am I missing the core message of Christianity? You're missing it because you have no faith. Christianity is not a philosophical position you reach through logical reasoning, only through faith.

>>19296 Faith in what?

>>19298 Faith in God (the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit), without this you can't understand Christianity.

>>19300 You need to believe that Jesus was historically real and that God exists somewhere for Christianity to make sense?

I didn't Sin either, also Jesus didn't die, he is supposed to come back to life and also be Jehovha. That's like a Billionaire saying he is donating a million dollars to charity and then taking it back anyway.

>>19295 >Yet all this appreciation falls to the ground once I interact with common traditional christians: they often say that "Jesus died for your sins". Which sins? I'm just a sad Bernd that did no evil to anyone. It seems that Christianity is mostly about confession, repentance. Do you want Jesus to have died for nothing? Go out and sin! Rape an altar boy or something. Jfc, you'd be the worst catholic ever.

In Eastern Christianity the understanding of sin is less about legalistic guilt, and more about missing the mark, which is what the Greek word for sin originally means. Redemption of sins in this sense is not about wiping a ledger clean, but restoring man to his unfallen divine state.

Next you'll say the Trinity is polytheism.

>>19295 >Is my view wrong, Bernd? Am I missing the core message of Christianity? No, the second coming of Jesus and the ensuing destruction of his enemies is at the core of Christianity

>>19328 Who are his enemies?

>>19328 Why doesn't Jesus love his enemies like he tells us to do? Why does he want to destroy them instead of turning the other cheek?

>>19339 The lords of this Aion

>they often say that "Jesus died for your sins". Which sins? I'm just a sad Bernd that did no evil to anyone. If you haven't found evil within your own heart, then I think you haven't looked deep enough. The Gospels are also clear about the nature of evil, which is not merely something you do, but also something you think or desire. Everyone is guilty to some degree. If you were already perfect, you probably wouldn't be bound to this plane of existence anymore. >>19301 Pretty much, but you don't have to buy into the whole package right away. Imagine the worst possible thing happened to the best possible man. Everyone was guilty of it to various degrees. But then when hope was lost, the very fabric of reality rebelled against it and brought him back to eternal life. It's a pretty cool story, but what if it's real? What if justice is a real thing, as real as gravity or whatever else? What if the universe cares?

>>19366 >The Gospels are also clear about the nature of evil, which is not merely something you do, but also something you think or desire. I might be wrong, as I'm not a christian. But taking the gospel of John for example, it seems the evil is cosmic and external. "The prince/ruler of this world" appears three times (John 12:31, 14:30, 16:11) - hostile cosmic power "The world hates you" (15:18-19) "My kingdom is not of this world" (18:36) - fundamental alienation "The whole world lies in the power of the evil one" (1 John 5:19) >What if justice is a real thing, as real as gravity or whatever else? What if the universe cares? This is very interesting, but everything is so fucked up, it doesn't seem that the universe care.

>>19295 It’s kinda like this: imagine Hogwarts got taken over by a bunch of corrupt prefects — the kind who’d hex first-years for fun and skim chocolate frogs off everyone’s rations. The castle itself (the “vineyard”) is still magical and sacred, but it’s being run by absolute goblins-in-human-skin. The rightful headmaster (call him God) sends messages through owls, ghosts, and eventually his own kid — who walks into this mess like Harry in Year 7, unarmed and saying, “Hey, you’re not supposed to be here.” Naturally, the tenants — these corrupted caretakers — freak out, kill the messengers, and eventually kill the son too. That’s your crucifixion right there: a cosmic Hogwarts mutiny. And Jesus as an *interdimensional savior*? Yeah, that fits — like he’s not just from another house, but from outside the whole magical realm, stepping in from a higher plane to reboot the system. He’s trying to free the *castle itself* (humanity) from the infestation inside. But then you meet the average pew-sitter Christian, and it’s like chatting with the Ministry of Magic bureaucrats — they’ve turned the rebellion, the cosmic jailbreak, into paperwork. “Jesus died for your sins” becomes a slogan, not an insight. They want you to confess like you’re handing in homework late, not realizing you’re actually supposed to *storm the castle from within*. You’re not evil, you’re just stuck in a haunted school that forgot who it belongs to.

>>19383 >But taking the gospel of John for example, it seems the evil is cosmic and external. Well, it might be. But you exist in the world, so you are affected by it. He went on: “What comes out of a person is what defiles them. For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and defile a person.” Mark 7:20-23 >This is very interesting, but everything is so fucked up, it doesn't seem that the universe care. This is something you can quite easily test yourself. Try genuinely believing, or as someone said, behave as if God truly exists, then see if your life benefits or not. If the opposite is true then what you do doesn't matter anyway, Pascal's Wager style.

>>19403 >behave as if God truly exists Can you give an example of a behaviour like this? I don't know if I can believe in god, it's like I would be lying to myself.

>>19410 >I don't know if I can believe in god, it's like I would be lying to myself. Why? Is it because the world is fucked? >Can you give an example of a behaviour like this? One thing that comes to mind is not to judge people too harshly. Nobody is perfect, everyone pales in comparison to true goodness. To tie it back to your point about the state of the world, I can guarantee you that the harsher your judgement about the whole world, the harsher you will judge yourself with it.

>>19295 The framing of Christianity around sins (both original and unoriginal) is a gimmick to gain followers. You cannot be a shepherd without sheep. Look at how much marketing is framed this same way: without this car/clothes/new shiny object you are suffering and incomplete. Only buying our product can redeen you. Note that even godless Nietzsche felt the need to invoke the concept of eternal recurrence as a form of potential eternal suffering (and being Nietzsche, life-affirming joy as well).

>Is my view wrong, Bernd? Am I missing the core message of Christianity? Your original idea was pretty close. 1. God made the world perfect, but he also made man with free will, and by his free will man brought evil into the world. This was the Fall. 2. Physical creation is still fundamentally good, but as a result of the Fall it's interlaced with evil at all levels - like gold alloyed with lead. 3. Christ came to heal the damage caused by the Fall. This damage is "sin". Sometimes it manifests in evil actions towards others, but "sin" is any separation from the divine ideal. If you don't live a life of bliss in constant communion with God and His creation, you are caught up in sin. 4. By accepting Christ as our Lord and doing our best to follow His commandments and His example, we gradually heal from the Fall and return to our original God-like nature. The gold is purged of the contaminating lead.

>>19434 > You are incomplete without this car > = Not driving this car is a sin There are examples of advertising strategies that work with guilt or virtue, but this is not one and you are a dumb motherfucking nigger who should be eliminated from the face of the planet , because the empty space you leave behind will be a more than sufficient replacement. Stop please go and kys now.

>>19434 >The framing of Christianity around sins Basic human guilt manipulation. My ex used this shit very often

>>19438 I cant imagine how people really believe this stuff.

>>19495 Maybe because they were stupid peasants without any knowledge about the world

>>19488 The goal of christianity is to make you ashamed of yourself and feel eternally guilty over bullshit that some other guy 100s of years ago decided was wrong

>Am I missing the core message of Christianity? You've hit on an important topic, which is very much neglected nowadays. For me, it was some parts of the Bible, namely the story with the snake pointing Eve to the apple from the Tree of Knowledge and her eating it being grounds for expulsion from Eden. To my young self this was unthinkable, what kind of god would punish for knowledge which he himself has stuck in your face, where you can but reach for it? The Gnostic sect of Ophites venerated the snake and Jesus as the same entity sent to liberate humans at different points in time. This was once a very common interpretation of the life of Jesus, although the gnostics have early on veered off to do their thing and that's led them to all sorts of places. But this doesn't mean this was never a popular way of looking at Christianity. Literally the first major Christian heretic is Marcion of Sinope, who has done one important thing: He has clearly delineated between Old and New Testaments (not done before him) then he wrote a discourse called Antitheses that posits that the New testament is fundamentally incompatible with the Old, and that Yahveh is a lesser entity than Christ and his Father (where Christ actually comes from). Marcionism has proven so popular that measures had to be taken to countermand it vigorously at the Council of Rome and they compiled the current biblical canon (Marcion's was literally the first). But these ideas have popped up over time, notably right in the middle of Europe in the form of catharism that was the object of the famous crusade - the cathars also held gnostic beliefs. Gnostic views are still recognized as a significant danger to Catholicism and Francis has publicly condemned them not long ago. But to me, this is the only way this religion every makes sense. TL;DR you're right but they fucked with the message over time so nowadays it makes little sense

>>19495 Christianity and many other religions correspond to humans' psychology. For example, everyone wants to believe in justice and life after death. Moreover, people with such believes act more morally and more bravely. Being atheist isn't easy, many go nuts (see Reddit) or switch to more destructive quasi-religions (see communists). >>19567 Guilt isn't necessarily a wrong feeling, it motivates you to be a better person. I often feel it (despite not being religious), ask myself "am I a good person? am I doing everything right?", and it helps me to find and try correct my faults. The problem is when religion forbids something innocent per se, yet important. But most of Christian commandments are something which you better do anyway, regardless of your faith.

>>19567 It's the opposite actually. >>19590 >Being atheist isn't easy, many go nuts (see Reddit) or switch to more destructive quasi-religions (see communists). That's by design. It's not something that is hard to do, it's something that is supposed to eat your soul the more you buy into it. >most of Christian commandments are something which you better do anyway There are just two: -Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. -Love your neighbor as yourself. That's it really.

>>19605 >Love the Lord your God But why?

>>19606 Because you're part of it.

>>19607 No i am not.

>>19618 You don't get to decide your innermost nature. You don't even get to decide your own values.

>>19448 Have you ever heard of Catholics? Confessions, indulgences, and penance? Where you can buy/talk your way out of sin. < For the price of one cup of coffee a day, our priests are standing by to absolve all your sins.

>>19629 Does not prove any god.

>>19636 Objective morality kinda does.

>>19639 What morality is objective? Also objective morality could easily be attributed to evolution anyway.

>>19605 Why should I love that god and not any other deities?

>>19640 Even physics is not objective, you learn that in your philosophy of science course in uni

>>19651 Wait wat? I didn't learn that.

>>19652 But you learned that no theory can be proven true, that every theory can be proven false and that even if you prove a theory false you can always save it by an ad hoc hypothesis, so actually you can make anything not-false if you want. You also learned that science tends to ignore facts that contradict if no better theory is available. There are ways to differentiate between a good theory and a bad one but they’re not really about objective truth.

>>19653 In the end science is built on believing

>>19653 What about Laws? Are they objective?

>>19653 If you put it like that, sure. >>19655 They often have a scope in which we consider them valid. The laws of classical mechanics describe how your car works really well. They stop working well when things have really high relative speeds, or when you look really really closely. The particles in a collider are described poorly by the laws of classical mechanics. I don't like the word law by the way, because laws tend to be written by how things ought to be, but laws of physics try to describe how things are.

>>19655 Newton's law of universal gravitation says that a particle attracts every other particle in the universe. But Einstein General Relativity states that it’s false and that gravity is caused by the curvature of spacetime. So no they’re not.

>>19656 Being able to predict things as they ought to be means you have a thorough understanding of how things are and how things work. That's why a law is a law and a theory is a theory.

>>19657 But General relativity is a theory not a law.

>>19659 People who like that word couldn't be me would refer to the "laws of general relativity".

>>19658 What swissball is saying is that there’s a limited scope of what the law can predict. They work, they’re useful but they’re not universal. >>19659 Isn’t law just analytical observation derived from theory. For general relativity it would probably be Einstein’s field equations. But I hardly know physics, never came close to understanding that stuff.

>>19660 Google AI says it is a theory not a law. >>19662 No, it's not universal, it only applies to whatever is in it's scope. But would you agree that they are objective within that scope?

>>19663 Google AI being useless as always. I don't find this semantics useful in understanding physics or science. In my experience, those tags are given out somewhat interchangeably, although laws tend to be specific formulas while theories tend to be more complex. That's why a theory can have laws and such. But I'd be surprised if there's a rule as to which scientific tidbit counts as a law, theory, rule, etc. My gut feeling: * Theories are complex and describe large-scale phenomena * Laws describe a single aspect * Rules are small simple laws * Theorems are a bit more important than rules? I don't even know. It's bullshit and my approach while going through university was just to remember that it's Hund's rule, Pauli principle , Fermi's golden rule (forgot about that while making the list above) etc. Just focus on the physics, not the names, if you're interested in physics.

>>19664 The way I understand it, a theory is a theory until you can be accurately used to calculate results. So the theory of evolution is a theory because whilst we are confident in it we can't use it to accurately predict evolution in practice. Nobody could accurately say that in x number of years cat's are going to gain an extra vertebrae for example. But with the law of Gravity or the Law of Thermodynamics you can make such predictions.

>>19665 >a theory is a theory until you can be accurately used to calculate results. By that logic, general relativity shouldn't be a theory, but you said it was. I repeat myself: distinguishing laws from theories, rules, principles etc. is a linguistic and historical task, not a scientific one. The historical context and the author's ego probably all play a role. Also, the retrospect.

>>19663 The way I see it, law is a tool. What it describes doesn’t exist in itself it’s an idealistic relation of x stuff to y stuff. You can use it to predict what happens but you can also use a different law for that and end up if similarly correct prediction. Just some laws are better in different contexts. You can do rocket science with Newton’s laws but you probably also could use Einstein’s equations. That’s why I wouldn’t call laws universal. But I’m not a physicist so I might be saying something dumb. Also even empirical evidence isn’t fully objective because there’s the base statement problem. Not sure if it’s the proper English translation but it essentially boils down to what can be seen as a direct observation. Let’s say that you made some measurements with some equipment. How do you know that those measurements are correct? If you want to be logically infallible you need to prove that your equipment does what you claim it to do. You invent a way to prove your equipment works, make some observations. But the way you just proved your equipment also needs to be proven. In this way you’re failing into an infinite loop of proving, you need to stop at some point and just believe that what you observed simply happened. Thus, science is fundamentally based on believing.

>>19666 As Poland ball said. It contradicts with a law. So whilst you can use relativity to predict things it's not infallible and the predictions it makes don't work in some cases. So it's a theory not a law.

>>19669 Huh? Isn't it rather the opposite? Newton's laws of mechanics fail to describe reality at certain speeds while general relativity describes all of newton plus more.

>>19670 There must ne some reason for that. I'm not a physicist though. I didn't even go to uni.

>>19670 >>19669 All I said is that Einstein contradicts Newton. I would say that theory is a general explanation for scientific phenomena, while laws are specific observations that are derived from that explanation. My theory states that OP’s mother is a whore. Laws would describe specifics of her movements towards neighbors houses and their movements during sex.

>>19671 Swissball is right. Einstein’s equations are better cause they’re able to predict more of reality. Newton’s equations are still good for that scope of reality that they can predict. Means Einstein is better than Newton but Newton is still somehow correct. Someday someone will make equations that can predict more than what Einstein’s can. Einstein’s equations will still be somehow correct. That’s all there is to it theory vs law has nothing to do with what’s true or false.

>>19673 To add why both can be correct under certain conditions: Look at this graph. If you use newton's laws, you get the brown curve. If you use Einstein's laws/theory/formula/letsnotdothisrightnow, you get the red one. If the speed v of something is 0.8c (0.6 times the speed of light), then your estimate of its kinetic energy using newton will be quite wrong. But in this graph, I can't see a difference for 0.2c, so I might call newton to be correct for speeds below that. If you look at an arbitrary high precision, the two methods will always differ. But everything that you will encounter in your daily life will be perfectly described by classical mechanics, even if it's "wrong".

>>19639 >Objective morality kinda does Yeah then it doesnt, thank you.

>>19707 Relativism has been tried, it just doesn't work.

>>19718 Still does not force a christian god.

>>19731 Are you moving the goalpost, now? I thought we were arguing about the concept of God, not the Christian God specifically.

>>19733 Both gods dont exist just because >>19718 >Relativism has been tried, it just doesn't work

>>19736 Both as in Christian and non-Christian? >just because >>19718 >Relativism has been tried, it just doesn't work How does that follow? If there is an absolute and objective good, then we could call that God.

>>19751 The existence of god does not follow from trying relativism and failing. We can call abstract stuff all the way we like.

>>19756 >We can call abstract stuff all the way we like. Therefore we disagree on semantics. Good.

>>19751 What is the objective good and how can that not be explained be evolution?

>>19757 Yes i disagree to >Something, something, therefore god Its the same value as saying >Something, something, therefore Harry Potter Why god? Why not Harry Potter?

>>19792 To do that, you would have to explain how a material universe can give rise to consciousness in the first place. Then you may explain how biology can lay down the coordinates of your moral plane. Even then, you may find that although human biology definitely points in one direction, one could just choose not to follow it. Alternatively it could be that consciousness comes pre-baked into the universe as a fundamental quality of sorts, with its own coordinates upon which biology and culture get overlayed. That seems a lot more likely to me.

>>19877 >To do that, you would have to explain how a material universe can give rise to consciousness in the first place. Then you may explain how biology can lay down the coordinates of your moral plane. No you would not. Consciousness is probably just electric signals in our brains anyway. >Even then, you may find that although human biology definitely points in one direction, one could just choose not to follow it. And people do. You are avoiding the question.

>>19878 >No you would not. Consciousness is probably just electric signals in our brains anyway. Yes you would. Either there is a satisfactory material explanation or there isn't. You can't just start from the conclusion and work yourself up to the reasoning behind it. >You are avoiding the question. What sort of answer do you expect? I claim there must be an objective good, not that I can tell you what it is exactly. One can perhaps get glimpses of it.

>>19295 >Which sins? Killing and causing harm to plants and animals just to survive for starters. Life in this world necessitates "sin", hence the concept of eternal sin.

>>19383 >This is very interesting, but everything is so fucked up, it doesn't seem that the universe care. What if our sense of reality itself has been hacked long ago?

>>19891 It's satisfactory and yes you can work backwards from the end result. Why must there be objective good?

>>19495 Meanwhile, in real life.

The sins you will inevitably commit throughout life because nobody is really worthy. You can still repent and be saved.

>>20102 Now please show us a map of which countries' populations believe in god the most.

>>20107 ntb, are we going to take race & IQ into account?

>>20108 Sure, I'd love to see the correlation of IQ vs. how important god is to someone. Or which races are the most religious.

>>20106 If Jesus, is he an interdimensional savior? How can I be saved? How to stop being a vineyard abused by wicked tentants?

>>20109 I mean shitholes are shitholes because the inhabitants are low IQ, not because they're religious. I doubt there is data on IQ and religiosity but I do see what you are driving at - dumb brown animals are the most superstitious.

>>20153 IQ is low because these countries are shitholes. The question of how much exactly is nature vs. nurture is ongoing, but it's clear that a black baby growing up in upper class USA can easily have a high IQ while a white baby that's food insecure will most likely develop a low IQ. IMHO, causality is mainly poverty -> low IQ -> religiousness. Although there are second-order effects like a country full of low-IQ individuals will have a hard time escaping poverty. A strong religious state will not encourage too much free thinking, and the time of religious scholars trying to understand the universe are long gone. Today's (quasi-)theocracies hate higher education beyond reading the holy scripture. My comment was a lazy jab at "religiousfags are low-IQ niggers", there's some tragic reality contained in the entire topic.

>>20154 >The question of how much exactly is nature vs. nurture is ongoing You can look at German schools with 80%+ foreigners to look how effective nurture is vs. predisposition.

>>20156 Do you think that Murat whose mother cleans toilets for 16 hours each day has the same nurture as Vincent with three governesses?

>>20160 >implying those go to the same school Can you also not be dishonest?

>>20120 >How to stop being a vineyard abused by wicked tentants? I didn't catch that when I first read the OP. What makes you think the vineyard in the parable is supposed to be you? >>20154 Nature and nurture chase and reinforce eachother. The way out are moral values, which an atheistic worldview cannot give. In fact, atheism is antithetical to that.

>>20160 Most migrant mothers don't work.

>>20183 Why can't natural selection explain moral values and what moral values are even objective anyway? You keep avoiding this.

>>20186 How can a physical process explain consciousness in the first place? It can't. You may trick yourself into thinking it does, but it's don't.

>>20191 Firstly even if we don't know that just means we have more to find out, secondly it probably just has something to do with electric signals and such like I said before.

>>20193 Do you think lightbulbs feel pain whenever they're turned on?

>>20194 No, they don't have pain receptors, a nervous system nor a brain.

>>20195 A nervous system only passes on electric impulses, as do wires. So lightbulbs are in constant pain.

>>20196 This post has convinced me to become darkatarian.

>>20196 No, because they would need pain receptors and then a brain to interpret that.

>>20198 Circular logic.

>>20199 How so?

>>20107 Allah is not God.

>>20194 I believe, that lightbulbs feel enjoyment when turned on. It is awesome for them.

Components and processes of the pain system Nociceptors: Specialized sensory receptors in the peripheral nervous system that are activated by potentially damaging stimuli. Transduction: The initial process where nociceptors are activated by factors released from damaged tissue, such as histamine, substance P, and nerve growth factor, initiating a nerve impulse. Transmission: The signal travels from the nociceptors to the spinal cord through nerve fibers like the A-delta (fast, sharp pain) and C fibers (slow, dull pain). In the spinal cord's dorsal horn, the signal is passed to a second-order neuron, which crosses to the opposite side of the spinal cord. The second-order neuron then travels up the spinal cord to the brainstem and thalamus, which acts as a relay station. From the thalamus, the information is sent to the somatosensory cortex, where the location and intensity of the pain are processed. Modulation: A process that can reduce or amplify pain signals before they reach the brain. This is influenced by the "gate control theory," which suggests that signals from touch fibers can close the "gate" to pain signals in the spinal cord. The descending pathway, from areas like the periaqueductal gray matter, also helps control pain signals. Perception: The final stage where the brain creates the conscious, subjective experience of pain. This is influenced by various factors, including emotions, attention, and expectations, which is why the same injury can be perceived differently by different people. >>20201 Allah and Jehovah are the same.

>>20198 Please explain to me how headaches work since we don't have pain receptors in the brain.

>>20200 >you need electrical signals for consciousness >but you need the electrical signals in the brain to interpret (?) the electrical signals

>>20202 Heretic!

>>20206 We are the end result of billions of years of evolution. The first life wouldn't have even felt pain.

>>20205 Google AI said this. >Headaches are not felt in the brain tissue itself because it lacks pain receptors, but rather by pain-sensitive nerves in the surrounding tissues and muscles, such as those in the scalp, face, neck, and the blood vessels and protective layers (meninges) covering the brain. When these tissues are stretched, irritated, or inflamed, they send pain signals to the brain, which then perceives the pain as a headache.

>>20209 >he had to consult AI to tell us something everyone knows You don't know anything, and you using AI just shows that you know even less. But now the real question: Why does a herniated disc hurt?

>>20210 If you knew why did you ask? Why wouldn't a herniated disk hurt?

>>20208 So we can conclude that, through "evolution", something eventually came from nothing. Also >The first life wouldn't have even felt pain. The hell do you know about that?

>>20212 Yes. Because the first life was very, very simple. It was made of one cell.

>>20211 >Why wouldn't a herniated disk hurt? You tell me why it WOULD hurt. Protip: It's not the cartilage that is hurting.

>>20213 So simple = unconscious, complex = conscious? It still doesn't make any sense, sorry.

>>20215 Leave him, he's probably the gachaposter, he's certainly not conscious.

>>20216 kek

>>20214 It doesn't matter what's hurting. The point is that it hurts. Look it up on AI yourself if you want to know. >>20215 As life becomes more complex it develops a consciousness. Primitive life was primitive, it just absorbed nutrients and multiplied. But as it grew more complex it started developing new things and the more complex it became the more of a consciousness it needed. You don't need to process pain if you can't even feel pain. >>20216 So what if I am?

>>20218 >It doesn't matter what's hurting. The point is that it hurts. No, you specifically talked about pain receptors. A herniated disc hurts. Why? Where are the pain receptors involved?

>>20218 >As life becomes more complex it develops a consciousness. ...out of nothing. It just comes about. And then, you can neatly make your case that moral values are also a result of that process. Great.

>>20220 >out of nothing More like, out of its own complexity. A single neuron cant think, a few can control simple organisms and billions can comment on /int/

>>20221 Poppycock.

>>20220 >moral values We haven't got anywhere near that far yet, we are still in the early stages of life. So eventually we get cells forming multi cellular organisms, they from a symbiotic relationship and work together to eventually form one organism. But eventually that organism starts developing cells that sense and react to things and those senses and reactions need to be processed somewhere so a brain of sorts develops, becoming more and more complex the more and more information it needs to process and tasks it needs to do. >>20219 Ai says this >Pain from a herniated disc is caused by nerve compression and irritation, and pain receptors are located on the compressed nerve roots and within the intervertebral disc itself. The pain felt in the leg (like sciatica) results from the pressure on the nerve roots in the lower back, while the disc material and inflammation can directly stimulate pain receptors (nociceptors) within the disc. Look it up yourself next time, I'm not your mum.

>>20221 > and billions can comment on /int/ It certainly needs way less than that, as evidencey by certain blue and white containing balls

>>20223 I feel that we're starting to repeat the same things in a different fashion, so I'll just state my case a final time for now. You say that consciousness comes out of inert matter arranged in a complex way (which makes no sense and you should see that by now), I say that consciousness is a fundamental quality of the universe which is expressed through organized life. Such fundamental quality comes with coordinates pre-built into it, which establish a hierarchy of thoughts, feelings and sensations. Thus, on the far end of this spectrum, there must be an absolute good.

>>20227 >You say that consciousness comes out of inert matter arranged in a complex way This sounds reasonable. >I say that consciousness is a fundamental quality of the universe which is expressed through organized life This is magic wambo jambo. >Such fundamental quality comes with coordinates pre-built into it, which establish a hierarchy of thoughts, feelings and sensations. Thus, on the far end of this spectrum, there must be an absolute good Aaah thats why.

>>20222 Pure, unadulterated poppycock! Enough tomfoolery and ballyhoo.

>>20231 >This sounds reasonable. Utterly insane.

>>20235 A consciousness is nothing special. There is no magic sauce.

>>20237 Yet it exists, and you have to resort to mental gymnastics to explain it does. Or your materialistic worldview may be in peril.

Matter doesn't even have a solid definition. In the old mechanical philosophy, pre-Newton, it did have a definition. The world was seen as corpuscular and the whole world interacted through contact mechanics. Then Newton came along and showed there's this "occult force" (his actual words) that moves things at a distance, without contact. He was very much disturbed by this fact yet he had to admit it's truth. Gravity, an occult force, moves things through action at a distance. Later people accredited the founding of quantum mechanics for having destroyed the idea of pure materialism but that's actually incorrect. Newton did it was his discovery of gravity. > It is commonly believed that Newton showed that the world is a machine, following mechanical principles, and that we can therefore dismiss “the ghost in the machine,” the mind, with appropriate ridicule. The facts are the opposite: Newton exorcised the machine, leaving the ghost intact. The mind-body problem in its scientific form did indeed vanish as unformulable, because one of its terms, body, does not exist in any intelligible form. Newton knew this very well, and so did his great contemporaries. >John Locke wrote that we remain in “incurable ignorance of what we desire to know” about matter and its effects, and no “science of bodies [that provides true explanations is] within our reach.” Nevertheless, he continued, he was “convinced by the judicious Mr. Newton’s incomparable book, that it is too bold a presumption to limit God’s power, in this point, by my narrow conceptions.” Though gravitation of matter to matter is “inconceivable to me,” nevertheless, as Newton demonstrated, we must recognize that it is within God’s power “to put into bodies, powers and ways of operations, above what can be derived from our idea of body, or can be explained by what we know of matter.” And thanks to Newton’s work, we know that God “has done so.” The properties of the material world are “inconceivable to us,” but real nevertheless. Newton understood the quandary. For the rest of his life, he sought some way to overcome the absurdity, suggesting various possibilities, but not committing himself to any of them because he could not show how they might work and, as he always insisted, he would not “feign hypotheses” beyond what can be experimentally established. https://chomsky.info/201401__/

>>20258 >Matter doesn't even have a solid definition It does. Spin 1/2 particles. Disregarded the rest of your comment.

>>20259 >Disregarded the rest of your comment. Your loss bucko.

>>20227 We probably will keep going in circles. But even if what you said was true(it's not) that would still not imply an absolute good.

>>20238 >and you have to resort to mental gymnastics to explain it does No. >Or your materialistic worldview may be in peril. What?

>>19295 The landowner = God The tenants = Zionist Jews The servants = Palestinians The son = Jesus It isn't a difficult parable to figure out.

>>20290 Back to kohlshit with you.

>>20154 The twins studies already did the nature vs nurture thing, nature is the main factor for potential, nurture is a factor in deciding how much of that potential is reached. Intelligence is a largely heritable trait.

>>20154 IQ isn't a great measure of intelligence... Even in the US, 50-100 years ago white Americans would typically score above average on IQ tests and minorities would score like 60-80. Now, it is more like 95. All that shows is that IQ is a measure of education.

I don't think the Vineyard man deserves to have that Vineyard, he sounds pretty stupid.

>>20321 But you are right. If you look at countries where the education is lacking, they believe in God and miracles and fate and spirits and all sorts of nonsense. If you look at countries where the population is educated, they might also believe in God, but it's a limited distant God, not this God that appears in the sky and performs miracles and someone saw it and you have to believe. That only happens in poor countries.

>>20323 Poor countries like the US?

>>20324 The US isn't a poor country. It ranks in per capita wealth and all the countries around it are tiny, apart from small countries like Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Norway, which tend to be behind it. Australia is 12th. But if you want to use your comparison, religion in the US doesn't emphasize miracles like it would say in Latin America. I don't think many Americans (or Australians) would say that they saw God in the sky or witnessed a miracle.

>>20326 It ranks 8th in per capita wealth

>>20326 What about people like the Amish, Mormons, Baptists and the Seventh day Avengers?

And also, if the US isn't a poor country why does it still have rabies, no properly functioning welfare system(or government lol) and no paid maternity leave?

>>20328 A lot of the Protestant denominations in the US heavily emphasize the Bible over anything else. Essentially that the Bible is this miraculous, perfect book while arguing that a lot of the other commonly held Christian beliefs are bullshit. Baptist example being that infant baptism is bullshit. >>20329 The US has rabies because it has a large number of bats which harbor rabies and are impossible to eradicate. Bats are like the perfect vessel for rabies as they live in big colonies, hang upside down, bite and scrap each other during the day and then venture out at night. The US has paid maternity leave, it is just not directed by the government. If you are working a good job in the US you will get paid maternity leave but the government isn't going to order that you have to receive it. Same with healthcare, if you are working a good job then they will offer you healthcare, but the government isn't going to order it. Why is the US healthcare system like this? Because American health insurance companies make a lot of money off this system and use that money to lobby politicians to keep it this way. It's not designed not to work. It is designed to work as long as you are putting money into it, which is used to keep it going...

>>20330 Australia has bats too. Just stop eating them.

>>20331 Australia has never had rabies. It is an island so the rabies virus has never crossed over and infected the bats. It does have ABLV, which is similar.

>>20332 What about Western Europe and Japan? They got rid of it. Just stop eating bats...

>>20334 Europe killed off all it's wildlife and Japan is an island that got rid of Rabies my vaccinating it's dog population. Like I said that wouldn't work in the US because it is 1) not an island and 2) bats are the main vessels of rabies in the US so any rabies elimination program would have to target them primarily, not dogs. There hasn't been an attempt to do that yet.

>>20336 Also, bat isn't eaten in the US but is commonly eaten in Oceania. At least half the bat species in Oceania are eaten.

>>20336 To eliminate rabies from the US, rabies would have to be eliminated entirely not just from the bat population, but foxes, skunks, possums, etc, not just in the US but in Canada and Mexico as well. Even then, it would still get reintroduced through Central America. This means getting rid of rabies is impossible given the current technology we have now.

>>20290 So Palestinians were sent by god to teach Zionist Jews to leave the vineyard?

>>20356 Its a very overt parable. The landowner = God The son = Jesus The people = people The vineyard = Earth, Israel/Palestine There is very little concealment or alternate interpretation, it is literally saying that God will send his people who would be struck down, then he would send Jesus who would also be struck down. >to leave the vineyard The tenants weren't asked to leave. They were allowed to live at the vineyard. Hence the name, tenants. It was just that, once they were allowed to live at the vineyard, they ganged up and claimed it as theirs and denied the landowner, his son, and his servants.

I support Italyball ITT. Stay strong.

>>20371 Accurate. People have become rotten. They have become scum and need to be exterminated. God once cleansed the earth with water and killed everyone but Noah. This time, god will cleanse the earth with fire. The unbelievers will call it 'nuclear war', but it will be the hand of God that will press the button!

>>20385 No it is Harry Potter.

>>20385 How many nukes does the Vatican have?

>>20371 Jehova is stupid then isn't he. He should have gotten the authorities involved after his servants got killed. Sending his son after that was just dumb.

>>19295 >Is my view wrong, Bernd? Am I missing the core message of Christianity? Recently watched Long Story Short and I gotta say, I like the concept of waiting for a Messiah instead of accepting that our Messiah died like a loser to mere mortals and improved nothing on this world; in fact, he made everything worse.

>>19295 There's too choices of Christianity: 1. Just be nice to everyone, even though they are assholes. Which is a great tool to feel more important than anyone who doesn't live that way, but that's besides the point. I appreciate that value IRL, but I gladly hate people online, because being nice is unthankful and doesn't get you anywhere. I watch videos about streamers who became criminals, they were all rich despite being horrible people. 2. Remind yourself daily that you're horrible person because hell awaits. Touch your dick while peeing? Better confess, bitch. Then, for SOME reason, judge everyone else who misbehaves or simply isn't from your community and try to save them from hell. I still don't understand that behaviour. Maybe its jealousy of anyone who lives without those boundaries.

>>20420 You have a childish understanding lf Christianity. so do many christians, admittedly

>>20221 >More like, out of its own complexity. Why, with what goal does moral emerge from matter then?

>>20203 >Allah and Jehovah are the same. Lol, no. Allah is just another jinn that buttfucked Mohamed. Jehovah is Chronos is Saturn and creates our physical through limitation by literally cutting space and time into individual sequential parts to make a linear experience of reality possible.

>>20559 Probably because I stopped caring after childhood. I'm only interested in religion as a setup for a movie or series now, and only research when a game brings it up. Hell, Bible fanfiction is more interesting than the religion itself (e.g. The Divine Comedy).

>>20575 So all your knowledge stems from childhood? Maybe start reading the Bible again as an adult to update your opinion then.

>>20573 Who says God wasn't originally a Djinn who just buttfucked Jesus before a ton of people rewrote the bible however they fucking wanted?

>>20579 >Who says God wasn't originally a Djinn Every actual clairvoyant who is worth his salt for instance, like Edgar Cayce or Rudolf Steiner.

>>20578 I could but its sooo goddamn loong. Mine is also printed on paper which must have been chosen by Catholics, because not getting a papercut from that is impossible.

>>20581 Just read Genesis from the Old Testament and the four main gospels from the New Testament to start with. Maybe add the Dead See Scrolls for some gnostic perspective.

>>20583 Honestly I'm just more interested in God wrecking shit, when you're raised Christian then all you hear about is Moses and Noah ad nauseam.

>>20585 >Honestly I'm just more interested in God wrecking shit That sounds very infantile.

Honestly I didn't read the whole thread, but to me the point of the parable is - Jesus was just one man, he couldn't fix it. People acting on his behalf could, and would have a duty to do so. > Yet all this appreciation falls to the ground once I interact with common traditional christians: they often say that "Jesus died for your sins". Which sins? It's just one of many parables. To answer this question, you'd have to look at everything else in the NT.

>>20583 This.

>>20572 Why does stuff need a goal?

>>20573 Take your medication. They are both the same God, Christians just believe Christ is the son of Jehovha whereas Muslims don't and instead believe Muhammed is special.

>>20696 You are correct, the complicated part is that Muslims believe that theirs is the only correct version. Specifically, all of the old and new testament were actually Muslims and not Jews and that Jews and Christians are misled. This is a bit different than Christianity which tends to view itself as an extension of Judaism, not separate from Judaism. Islam and Judaism probably have more in common than either do with Christianity, however.

>>20699 Specifically, Judaism and Islam both practice strict monotheism, are law based, and focus on a relationship with God without intermediaries. Christianity diverges on all of these core tenants.

>>20700 Islam however, rewrites the Torah and new testament and draws it together into a new book that is more similar to how the Torah is written than the Bible. Since everything is rewritten, everyone is now and always Muslim. Christianity's old testament is closer to the original Torah, therefore those people are Jews and not Christians.