Choosing a faith

Fear and hate are tow different things, but I do suggest that they both require intelligent consciousness. In case of fear I agree that it is largely and instinctive and necessary for survival, but it still does take a mental awareness of the situation to cause the fear. That of course is true for people and flies.Anger is something that isn't instinctive but it is a conclusion based on circumstances and can easily vary from day to day in with the same circumstances. I see that as flowing from our consciousness and that consciousness is, like Descartes says fundamental to my existence.

quote:

---

I have never claimed that you called me a liar. You didn't and just the opposite in fact. There have been two posters on this thread that did and so I stopped replying to their posts. If you notice I'm still replying to yours.

---

I have not called you a liar but I note that you are not replying to my posts.

No, emotions are part of having a brain and nervous system.Many organisms - mice for example have been extensively studied - exhibit the same responses to stimuli as humans do using the same brain chemicals - like cortisol, serotonin, noradrenalin, corticosterone, dopamine etc. We are not in control of these hormones, they are released into our brains and make us feel frightened, stressed, happy, depressed etc.They are evolved response:stimuli reactions. Now you're confusing consciousness with emotions. They are inter-related but different. All our emotions are different and have different causes. Mental awareness arrives after the fact, the chemicals are released before we are aware of them. It's pure reflex. You know this yourself when someone shouts 'boo' we react, then think.
​ Anger is absolutely instinctive. Read the neuroscience. It's controlled mostly by the amygdala and by cortisol. The executive, thinking, part of the brain, the pre-frontal cortex is less involved that you would imagine. The science is against you. As always.

What in your mind would be a realistic god? I'm not sure I agree with either of your assessments, but I worship a God that is represented by a man who was tortured, humiliated and killed on a Roman cross. Not a lot of sunshine and lollipops there.

Just as a by-the-by, why do you think it necessary to worship anything?

Hi Paul
I'll answer this out of sequence. I have been trying to stick to the idea of answering posts inn the order that they were posted. I am kinda behind as it is hard to keep up. I responded to about 6 posts yesterday and when I came home again there were 9 more.So either I'm just behind or possibly I missed one. At any rate I certainly have no problem with your posts.Cheers
Greg

Well, it is my belief He did in Jesus.

It is amazing all right. I have read a couple of Brian Greene books which takes me pretty much and, and beyond, my conceptual knowledge. The study of time is amazing and I suggest that we have a long way to go.I suppose we have to consider time as being static in our the place where the event occurred. We talk about light from a star having taken a many light years to get here so even our reference to what we see we consider that the light we see was emitted all those years earlier.In so many ways it is just how we perceive things.

She does have a PHD on brain imaging from Cambridge so I think she has a certain level of experience.The patient had zero control of any bodily functions and yet she remained conscious of all that was going on around her. Like I say I am no expert but she is and found it informative.

But there is no real evidence of any other influences. You might in some cases know of a life experience that you think might have caused someone to do what they did, but you can't be sure as there is no real evidence.

You haven’t responded to or acknowledged Message 716 and I really think you need to take it on board.If nothing else it might give you some understanding of why people might call you a liar.

Firstly Streeter's proposal is very nearly 100 years old. There has been a considerable amount of work done by scholars since then. The diagram on this page presupposes Markan priority, and as near as I can tell is consistent with Streeter.
Four Document HypothesisNow we can look at the Griesbach hypotheses which presupposes Matthean priority. There is no need of "Q". Essentially Matthew fills that function. Two Gospel HypothesesAs you can see, there is no need for "Q" and this was the view held by all the early church fathers.I would add to that the point that Luke, IMHO, was not just using Matthew but was also, as a companion of Paul, using Paul as a source as well as the eye witnesses in Jerusalem.Also of course, Mark travelled with Peter and would have used him as a source and again the disciples in Jerusalem.I do acknowledge that it is a minority position, but after reading David Alan Black's book I am confident that it gives the best explanation. I could be wrong.I apologise for not answering this sooner. I must have meant to get back to it and forgot.

It was kinda tongue in cheek, but you might go back and look the full discussion. It was about an area that science might and might not fill.

Right, so if you can't detect it then it's not there.

For one thing, "a" god doesn't make much sense. If you must postulate a "superior intelligence", an advanced alien civilization would be more likely. The death of Jesus is hardly relevant. The CURRENT behaviour of your god is all forgivey.