The Soul as the Brain

Discussion in 'Philosophy, Truth, and Ethics' started by BibleHoarder, Jun 5, 2018.

  1. BibleHoarder

    BibleHoarder Active Member

    Posts:
    392
    Likes Received:
    146
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian (Protestant)
    Some arguments regarding the idea that experiences of the mind/soul are only the brain itself:
    https://gizmodo.com/5843117/scientists-reconstruct-video-clips-from-brain-activity

    Also, the suggestion that the idea of a soul existing is redundant if there's already a part of the brain that functions for consciousness? There's also claims that the size of gray matter in your brain biologically disposes you to be more forgiving without a spirit, and that certain parts are responsible for certain functions often only attributed to the soul, like empathy, which when removed make someone incapable of feeling it.
     
  2. BibleHoarder

    BibleHoarder Active Member

    Posts:
    392
    Likes Received:
    146
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian (Protestant)
    I also want to know: I've had materialists argue that we are only the brain because it is redundant for there to be individual parts of the brain for separate emotions. It would be more logical to believe we have a soul, they say, if there was just one region for consciousness for the soul to interact with the rest of the body, but the more 'spiritual' aspects emerge from the unseen parts. However, this does not happen, and we see that stimulation can be applied to those regions of the brain that control certain feelings, and can trigger or numb those respective feelings, suggesting that things like love and other things are purely physical. My only argument is that it makes sense that maybe not all the brain should functionally be in one region alone, to deal with certain changes or damages. But, I don't know. Let me know.
     
  3. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    961
    Likes Received:
    778
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    An argument can be made that consciousness IS the soul. In other words only man is actually conscious, and that animals are just sophisticated automatons, no different from biological robots.


    You can cut off many parts of the brain and that will obviously affect and alter your capacities as a human being. There's nothing new about that, is there?

    The question is not whether the brain is important to the functioning of those capacities; but whether it is the source of those capacities.

    That's the question that often gets missed by the atheist-scientist types.


    I addressed this above. The brain can be the transmission mechanism from the soul to the real world; or it can be the source AND the transmission mechanism. Atheist types assume, by default, that it can only be the latter. There is no necessary reason why we have to assume that. If simple manipulations of the brain affecting our behavior was enough to disprove the existence of the soul, the soul would've been disproven a long time ago, since scientists have been able to manipulate the brain, and thereby our behavior, for a long time now.

    A good metaphor I often use is: the music CD, and the CD player. When you have a malfunctioning CD player, obviously the music gets distorted. But no one is confused enough to say that the music comes from the CD player. We quite clearly know that the music comes from the CD. It's just that the player distorts it.
     
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2018
  4. neminem

    neminem Member

    Posts:
    94
    Likes Received:
    75
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Christian
    Body - mind - soul.

    Mind bridges between body and soul.
    There is the body-mind which is tied to worldly knowledge, facts, reason, fear, doubt, etc.
    Then there is the soul-mind, which is tied to the invisible world of 'knowing' without facts, reason, fear, doubt, etc.

    Mind is our source of thoughts, based on beliefs (whatever we agree to be true). These beliefs determine the status of both body and soul.
     
  5. BibleHoarder

    BibleHoarder Active Member

    Posts:
    392
    Likes Received:
    146
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian (Protestant)
    Materialists claim our soul is the brain because our beliefs and identity can change during mental illness, and proves they are part of the physical brain being affected.
    In response to the argument: "I can lose some brain cells and my body can change as I grow, but I still can know I am the same person as I was before", they mention that more severe cases of brain damage and illness DO cause these things to change as I mentioned, and disprove them as part of the soul. All we can say then is that consciousness is the spiritual core, like you mentioned. Our identities can change or evolve even without brain damage as we mature and learn more about the world.

    One particular argument made from a pro-soul perspective is that our beliefs are contained in our brain, but even if they are changed, what matters to God is our free will response to what is presented before us, regardless of what state we're in.
     
  6. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    961
    Likes Received:
    778
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    But they don't. No one becomes another person as a result of mental illness. People try to find evidence for this (if they're materialists, and it proves materialism). But those claims should be taken with skepticism. People are trying to find ways to show how animals talk as humans do, and therefore animals and humans are basically no different from each other. There are a lot of evil/malicious atheists out there, with wrong motives. Don't let their intent pollute the actual science of what is fact.
     
  7. BibleHoarder

    BibleHoarder Active Member

    Posts:
    392
    Likes Received:
    146
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian (Protestant)
    I agree many are corrupt, but I don't understand one thing: When people go around claiming to be God or an Alien prophet named Starship1 under mental illness, aren't they in some respect another person? And although they may not be their 'usual' self, medicines for this, which may help them return to 'normal', do so by affecting material parts of the brain and not spiritual ones, so they must be physical in nature. What is your response?
     
  8. Tiffy

    Tiffy Active Member

    Posts:
    326
    Likes Received:
    74
    Country:
    UK
    Religion:
    CofE
    And a good argument too, as far as it goes. Certainly what we label 'personality' in human beings could equally be labeled 'soul'. Soul and spirit are synonymous scripturally speaking. The two terms are used interchangeably, so that human beings may be considered as a composite of 'body and soul'. Body is obviously material in essence but soul is immaterial, ethereal and intangible. It is 'the ghost in the machine', the software running on the hardware, the processing of data rather than the processor of data.

    Soul or spirit is an 'emergent quality', if defined as, [the ability to respond, decide and made choices], which is only exhibited by living entities. To respond by deciding and making choices first requires a brain, however rudimentary that might be. The ability to respond and decide is an ability not restricted entirely to human beings. Many creatures have this ability, some even have distinct 'personalities', as anyone who has companioned several dogs will testify. Some creatures clearly communicate with one another by various means, Some communication is 'biologically robotic' as you suggest, as in insects and lower invertebrates, but some is complex and intelligent such as orang-utans, elephants, dogs, dolphins and whales. Elephants clearly are 'emotional creatures', like us. They grieve, communicate that grief, and express it communally.

    There is nothing uniquely exclusive about human consciousness. It is merely more advanced, articulate and environmentally capable, than that of any other creature on the planet. For all we know dolphins may be more 'intelligent' than human beings. They have bigger brains. They may even be more 'spiritually attuned'. Without a common language we cannot explore that possibility but however 'intelligent' they may be, they cannot be as effective as human beings have been in colonizing the planet, because they are so specialized to the dictates of their environment.

    No other creature seems to have advanced in its mental capacity and accumulated knowledge as has mankind. That puts a heavy burden of responsibility upon the human race to do as little damage to the planet as possible and ameliorate whatever may be detrimental to the welfare of all creatures in our complex ecosystem. It is in fact our divinely ordained purpose.

    Gen.1:28-31. Gen.2:15-17.
     
  9. neminem

    neminem Member

    Posts:
    94
    Likes Received:
    75
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Christian
    Humans are not necessarily conscious, as in being aware of the truth, or even that their perceptions are their own.
    As much as the mind has an effect on the soul, the soul can do so in return. That is, the soul, being part of God, God can alter ones perceptions or consciousness. For instance, you may pray for patience, and God alters you perception to only see trials to practice patience in. After all, we just don't get patient, we have to practice it, or how else are we going to learn.

    I know most won't believe what I wrote. But when it was revealed to me, I knew that what I am conscious about is not necessarily of my own making. Clean or unclean spirits can influence our consciousness (without us being conscious of it).
     
  10. BibleHoarder

    BibleHoarder Active Member

    Posts:
    392
    Likes Received:
    146
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian (Protestant)
    The funny thing about beliefs is that when people are under delusions because of mental illness, the accumulated changes to their previous beliefs while under delusion do not remain with them once the illness is cured, meaning whatever the medicine treats is likely unrelated to their actual beliefs and however they're retained, since those become normal again with treatment.
     
  11. Tiffy

    Tiffy Active Member

    Posts:
    326
    Likes Received:
    74
    Country:
    UK
    Religion:
    CofE
    They may be 'our own' perceptions in that they are perceptions that are localized within our own brain, but the perceptions can easily be 'put there' and manipulated, steered and controlled by outside influences. Ideas can be 'catching'. Ideas can be 'absent'. Ideas can be 'unique to an individual'.

    I rather think 'the mind' is the same as 'the soul' is the same as 'the spirit', and (they all, or it), is/are dependent upon a functioning human brain to exist. (even an unconscious or defective one will do, but never a dead one), dead flesh cannot support spirit. The brain needs a body which is also 'functional' to at least the extent that is essential for the brain to 'survive'.

    Since God is omnipresent, we are immersed, 'so to speak' in the spiritual entity we call God, it is the whole body and soul of human beings which are 'in God' not just the mind. It is the 'mind,soul,spirit' however that communicates with God and can receive communication from God. It is the 'mind/spirit/soul' which we call 'we, us, I or me' that "lives and moves and has its being in God". It is that which is renewed in regeneration. It is that, emotional centre, which we feel is centered at the core of our 'being', which we feel to be "The Heart". Thus 'circumcision of heart', 'heart of flesh' instead of 'heart of stone', etc.

    What you say about patience is supported by scripture. Praying for patience, will likely bring you tribulation, enabling you to learn patience. Rom.5:1-8.

    I'm inclined to think that there is a distinction between unclean 'thoughts' and an unclean 'spirit'. Both are products of the human mind, but it seems to me that 'thoughts' can be 'self' controlled, (made captive, 2 Cor.10:5), but unclean spirit 'captivates and binds us'. Lk.13:16.
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2018
  12. BibleHoarder

    BibleHoarder Active Member

    Posts:
    392
    Likes Received:
    146
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian (Protestant)
    My concern is because my psychiatrist tried to convince me to believe the brain is the soul.

    In one particular post, I mentioned my experience with my own psychiatrist which seemed suspicious. He was the one who tried to deprogram me and was very insidious and hostile because I upheld biblical convictions. He said they already know everything about the brain already, and that it 'wasn't that complex' and that virtually every neuroscientist in the public is lying in saying that we still have a lot to understand to fool people. He said, "Yeah, we get all this stuff years before it comes out to the media. Everybody in the field knows this. You know when they say, "We're in the process of a scientific breakthrough? Yeah, that's the stuff. Some of this stuff isn't public because it's too controversial."

    There were some very suspicious things about his story though. He was mostly trying to argue that they could change or control your beliefs. He seemed to suggest it was based on some 'secret research' and said, "I think they can change them. Well, they could make you less religious. Hm, yeah, I think they can change them." But, he seemed to be alluding to a (public) article by Kathleen Taylor that says something more along the lines of 'maybe, because certain regions light up in the brain during processing certain facts and beliefs, we can either make people believe things less or stop it, but we don't really know, and it could be possible perhaps in 60 years." He also had a colleague who worked with him. When I asked him about it, he denied the claim that it was common knowledge among anyone that this degree of neuroscience or brain knowledge existed, and that it was from my doctor that he had heard about it and said, "Man, this guy must have some secret information that most people don't know. We shouldn't even be talking about this!" But, he still seemed to take the claims as legit, ignoring the fact that the doctor stated it as widely known. So now it is no longer the collective "We" it is just him (my doctor) that knows this stuff. He claimed that many retracted fraudulent papers on science were often done because they were actually true and that the Korean scientist who claimed to clone a human was telling the truth. However, that was not a private matter. The public did admit that he was a fraud, that he had only partially cloned a human cell which never went far, and that his real success came from cloning a dog. I think my doctor may have admitted this was a faulty example of conspiracy, but I can't remember. He may have said they secretly kept the human embryo for further experiments because they never said what happened to it.

    Since he had mentioned brain stimulator devices like the Jose Delgado experiments, I was under the impression that they must have some technology by now to scan alignments of neurons in the brain, and then inject them back in by manipulating neurons remotely through a helmet or device or something. So I asked: "Since memories and beliefs and the like manifest a bit differently each time they are recalled or expressed, and are intermingled with a lot of complicated beliefs which express a similar fluid form, if they use a brain scanner to see and record the pattern of those beliefs (provided they can even separate them from the rest), and then remotely manipulate the neurons back into the brain into the same shape or whatever, they have to reinsert them with the same harmony as every other belief connected with it or they could potentially harm the patient, because the trial and error behind it would be very high risk and I am skeptical that they would do that." Then he said, "Uhm, yeah, ok, I see. But what do you think about the fact that people's beliefs and identity change when they get mentally ill?" And I thought about it for a while. I cannot recall whether it was then or another session in which I attempted to express my thoughts on the matter. The most competent argument I am going to make may or may not have even been presented to him during any of the sessions, because my memory is cloudy on that.

    My doctor later admitted in another session that he had actually never seen a lot of these things such as belief changing, but he then on began to say that he only heard it from colleagues who were supposedly a secret group of researchers but from where, I can't remember. I think the story peaks when he reveals that the way they changed beliefs was not by a helmet or whatever, but by injecting some dye that they could remotely manipulate with some imaging and turn beliefs on and off. He claimed some doctor he knew was involved in this experiment and that the guy who was the subject was scared by it and they didn't tell anyone because it was too creepy. But, it sounded like a modified version of the research online which talks about optigenetics (which requires modified cells to make them respond to the outside triggers) and brain implants that can be inserted then remotely controlled (only tested in mice so far and mostly for emotions). There are also known problems with dyes. Funny thing about beliefs, is that, when people do go crazy when under the influence of some brain problems, rather than accumulating successive and permanent changes in previous beliefs that occur during the delusion, their original beliefs and identity are retained, and then reassumed once the problem is corrected, thus the problems treated by medicine are more complicated and related to something else entirely. If I had even told my doctor about this in response to his original question, he most likely said, "Yeah, but they can, and that's that." I guess, truth being stranger than fiction, and knowing some things turn out different than you'd expect, it seems probable, but in that case, so can the idea of a delusional manipulative psychiatrist who was smart in some ways, but in the sense of the psychopath, or sociopath, or whatever, especially considering some of the other insidious things he said and the way he acted which was bad enough to make me leave him, as I am now seeing another doctor.

    It's a curious case for sure, but I am skeptical because of the way it evolved and changed, and believe it is possibly a lie. I've heard psychiatrists will do things like this to give their profession an all-encompassing authority, though I'm not sure if most of them have such convoluted explanations as this doctor did.

    The thing is, at times he sounded authentic as he tried to inject moments of 'objectivity' and 'humility' to sound more honest. He was a former Catholic and said, 'I tried everything to justify or prove it and couldn't. And it doesn't matter if the evidence for Jesus' resurrection looks real because we know from the secret research that the soul is the brain and it doesn't matter, because it means it can be faked." I also remember him saying the same rude things to my father when he was in session. We tried to reconcile with him at one point to offer forgiveness (which he said didn't exist) and make up, and I remember him being swooned one time into a calmer sort of state and we said we'd pray for him and at that point when we asked him if he was telling us the truth, he seemed to give vague answers as to what he thought of the people who told him this, saying maybe they are wrong but he said they usually turn out being right. Next time I saw him, I said I wanted to see another doctor because I didn't feel comfortable continuing in this, or possibly inciting any sourness based on past experiences. He started becoming hostile again, and said, "You didn't forgive anything because you're still holding that against me. And I don't forgive you so you can find a new doctor. But, when I said I wasn't actually sure about the research? Well, I was just feeling nice. But now you know I do have research and know people who are in to that, because then I would've said if I was lying. So, you know there is no soul and you have to commit suicide now (he suggested suicide in a cold, heartless way to me and my dad after attacking our beliefs and saying if they are false and we are too devastated without hope after losing them, we should commit suicide, because he can't be responsible for our suicides. And, he said he'd tell our grieving relatives that we didn't care so they would resent us, and then try to deprogram them, and if they couldn't handle it, they could commit suicide too and no one would be left to care. However, many of the things the man said and did, and the progression of his story, seems consistent with Quora posts I've read regarding psychopaths in psychiatry. Psychopaths are elaborate and skilled manipulators and liars. When I told my psychiatrist of my resentment towards atheists because of their coldness, and lack of ability to show love as true Christians do, he began that moment to imitate a Christian conversion experience by saying "OK, I love you and forgive you and want you to give those beliefs up because I care about you." Thing is, the man is an advocate of things I believe to be sin. I fell into a swoon feeling like I was being touched by the holy spirit, weeping and feeling an elation and I told him to go away, and that it was from the devil, but he said, "No, we can do this in psychology. I can make it happen every time, and it's science. If it's from the devil, then so are the ones you think are from God. But it's a mind trick." When I rejected it, he said, "See? You don't really want love." However, I refuted it by saying that is was unusual that an atheist would ever try to sway someone like that and those techniques to change or affect people are not common to atheists generally, and it seemed to be a trick of the moment to manipulate me, because if atheists did this as often as Christians, there would be more testimonies of changed lives or moving experiences in atheistic conversions in the same mold as Christian ones, and I know it's not true. Think is, I have a hard time rejecting some things like this. But, I sometimes made myself seem like a fool, because I said hateful things and made murderous threats because I said I would not refrain from killing him if I was not a Christian and that he was infuriating me, so it made me look like a hypocrite, but I maintained to myself that even in spite of my flaws, I've seen Christians succeed at showing virtues that atheists often pale in comparison. I said if he was right and there was no soul, hell, or sin, I would murder him and the entire facility and his colleagues who defended him like the columbine massacre and commit suicide. He said that would be stupid because if I left the faith, I would see that things weren't that bad without God and want to thank him, because everyone he deprogrammed has said they got better, supposedly. I said, that, in the end, it is about how I define life and that I am the standard. I said, if Madalyn Murray O'Hair was so cold towards her colleagues and vice versa, and ended up being murdered by her atheist lawyer along with her relatives, what makes you think I can't have incentive to hate and slaughter you even if we share some similar beliefs? I can kill you for the same reason her arrogance and rudeness led her to die. And of course, there is this irony that the only thing he could do is convince me that delusions can motivate people in profound positive ways, because I do not trust or believe in the idea that atheists societies produce better people or living. The way psychopaths are often thought to be good at improvising lies, as well as carry them on for long periods of time, and also, that they take things from other places and are able to convincingly make them seem as if they are their own (as with his research. Someone on Quora mentioned a psychiatrist psychopath who did something very similar) seems consistent with what I saw in that man. And yet, I sometimes feel afraid that it is all true, and I am confused. It has left a lot of scars of me that I am battling. I have reason to doubt atheists because of their arrogance and immense lack of humility even towards other atheists (Which rightfully leads to them destroying each other as in the case of O'Hair).
     
    Stalwart likes this.
  13. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    961
    Likes Received:
    778
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Speaking of evil atheists, you've got a case in point right there. And he's your healthcare provider, meaning this broken person is actually in charge of your health.
     
  14. BibleHoarder

    BibleHoarder Active Member

    Posts:
    392
    Likes Received:
    146
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian (Protestant)
    He said Sam Harris, Dawkins, and the others were genius. He also said William Lane Craig was an idiot after I recommended him to him, and said Kalam was refuted. Towards the end of my time with him, he pulled a gun out of his drawer which they keep for emergencies, and said he was going to kill me. He said that I had no true love because if I only loved to avoid hell, then it was fake. He then said, "I am seriously going to have to kill you, because you are probably scared enough and doubting that you are going to lose your faith but I also believe you're serious when you say you are going to kill me or someone else without any belief." Because he couldn't pursuade me to find moral motivation outside of religious conviction, and failed when we debated about it. Then I begged him not to and said, "But I don't want to leave my mom and dad behind." And he said, "You don't really care about them. OK, if you care about your parents you can love and live for them without believing in God or you don't really love them if you're just avoiding hell." Then he said, "You need to renounce those beliefs." I said that I wasn't really going to renounce them, but came up with some new age lingo and jargon to make it sound like I had embraced some inclusivist new age reimagining of Christianity, to confuddle him. And he said, "You should say Atheists are better than Christians, and that Sam Harris and Dawkins are all right and there is nothing wrong with them," and that I should renounce my position against incest, beastiality, and pedophilia which he said I was wicked for saying were wrong. I just said, "OK, maybe. We'll achieve our spirituality in differing cosmic vibrations." And he just seemed sort of "What the heck, but OK." I said I wouldn't renounce calling those things sins, but that if you want to do them, you do them, but for me, no. And he got angry and said, "No, they are not just good for some people. They're good for everyone, including you. So go screw your family and you'll see it's good." But I didn't say much after that.

    In one session, he brought in a staff member who was a very naive girl who followed everything he said mindlessly like a lap dog. She also said if he needed, she'd help him conspire to kill me, because in this world it's survival of the fittest and there was no hell or God to worry about. I also mentioned how communist secular countries were complete rubbish and they just said, "OK, if that's the way it has to be, then we'll become communists and have to be meaner. I think they're doing good killing Christians in their countries to keep them out." They also went on about how cute incest was, and the doctor said, "If it is consentual, it's OK, including pedophilia. It's not hurting people. It only does that sometimes and the only reason they reject it is because of religion. They can't defend it otherwise." Then I said that was against the law and I didn't understand how a doctor who uses all these legal threats and sanctions against me could also break the law, and he said, "Everyone breaks the law. I don't have to enforce it if I don't believe it is wrong. If someone came in and said they were having sex with a relative or their child, and it was consentual, then I wouldn't report it." And I said, "Do you do this?" and he said, "If me and my wife were going to have sex with our little girl, then it is our business. And I am OK with people having sex with their relatives, kids included." And the staff said, "And I'm sure incest relationships can be very loving and probably more than normal ones, and I am sure if you do these things with your child, that will be fine, because you are a good person, and I'm sure it will be very cute." And the doctor smiled and nodded. The staff member also went into the reception desk to try and deprogram a fellow worker who had Christian beliefs. She said she hated Christians because of the things I told her about how I think it makes life better for people but she said, "NO, they are NOT better than anyone else. And now I REALLY hate these people." That is when she mentioned they needed to confront their Christian employee and tell her the soul was the brain, and that she cannot defend any sentiments against incest, and this is exactly what happened, as I saw it in action at one point. I don't know if the employee is still there or they succeeding in winning her over, she seemed very uncomfortable when they asked her about it. That's as far as I saw the dialogue go. The doctor also tried to defend the idea that it was OK to have incest babies. When dealing with the truth about it, he made some audacious claim and change of mind when contemplating whether it would produce incest babies, and he said to his staff, "Actually, incest babies are not that common. Most people who have incest have healthy babies. I know people who have been having sex with relatives and are producing healthy babies and have a very loving relationship with their siblings. So, you can have incest babies. And it was in the bible, anyway." And again, he smiled, and the staff member just ate it up and said, "Yeah, now we know incest is a good thing."

    They were true by-the-book atheopaths and a prime example of godless corruption in these institutions.
     
  15. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    961
    Likes Received:
    778
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
  16. BibleHoarder

    BibleHoarder Active Member

    Posts:
    392
    Likes Received:
    146
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian (Protestant)
    I just wanted to mention something that's been on my mind recently in terms of arguments for naturalism. There was a program that can determine various things about you by your facial features, and supposedly it is often right, such as sexuality, political orientation, aggression/kindness, etc.

    It is used in favor of biological determinism but it might be biased due to scientific propaganda. However, if they can determine many of these things, it may confirm some fear of mine. That religious capacity is biologically determined. Evolutionists or naturalists claim that religion is related to a need for collective identity. Indeed, most religious people are conservative, but they aren't conservative because they are religious if their genes largely determine that. Conservative is related to conformity and not being adventurous. On the other hand, liberals tend to be the ones producing most of the 'creative' work, and are usually less religious. We complain about Christian movies, music, etc. being bad most of the time, and perhaps the fact that conservative people are genetically disposed not to have very strong creative potential means that won't change anytime soon. Also, they can refute racial equality in significant factors like behavior and IQ and prove certain races actually are inherently and largely violent, promiscuous, ignorant, etc. if they can show that a certain race, based on this facial technology, produces a majority population inferior in the categories that are often negatively ascribed to it. It all points less to the idea of the spiritual at work in the world, and more about genetics and environment influencing our outcome. I could try to defend conservatives by saying they have more common sense in knowing what works by doing it vs. imagining things that sound nice in art, but may not be feasible or realistic, as I often feel if the case with many 'artists'. Many of these 'creative' types live in their own world and abide by lies, but some conservatives are following the herds for the wrong reason. So, there is certainly problems with both sides, regardless of why they're like that.

    It also seems that people in countries that are more ignorant have a harder time grasping religious concepts that are more complex and require greater comprehension, leading to more misunderstandings and superstition, such as catholic countries inhabited by poor, undereducated minorities. It mostly seems to be upper class people who manage to grasp Catholic doctrine, or even other deep religions like Buddhism, which again shows less influence of a spirit than it is IQ capacity. The idea that a religion which is supposed to have spiritual origins depends on something more human to be properly understood doesn't flow well with the idea of a Holy Spirit guiding people's faith. I hope I am wrong, but these are just concerns or doubts I've had in recent years.
     
  17. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    961
    Likes Received:
    778
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Again, I say this respectfully, you're giving far too much credence to crackpot theories. There is absolutely no evidence that a face can predict one's politics, or sexual 'orientation'. One's politics can change completely over a course of a lifetime, what a brainless theory for them to put forward. And sexual orientations don't exist. There is only one orientation: to procreate. Other 'attractions', to same gender, to both genders, to children, to animals, are devious perversions, a sickness, an illness. And that too can change, and many people who suffer from same-sex attraction recover and proceed to live good and healthy normal lives. The face does not change in any of those situations. You need to stop giving credence to these hare-brained theories.
     
    Toma likes this.
  18. BibleHoarder

    BibleHoarder Active Member

    Posts:
    392
    Likes Received:
    146
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian (Protestant)
    I am trying to detoxify from naturalistic indoctrination that I entertained in my teen years during my search for God. I am sensitive to scientism propaganda because I never understood science that well to begin with and most of what I was introduced to had an atheopath agenda. I generally do not trust atheists to have humility, but feel conflicted in mind at times. I also see evidence and credibility in the idea that there is a supernatural world and personal God that corresponds with Christianity. Having relatives who have had credible encounters with occultic phenomenon and have battled it in the name of Jesus helps sustain my belief. I too, have probably encountered it from time to time in my life, especially with crazy people like my atheopathic doctor. I am getting better from the experience he put me through that I constantly ranted about here. Constant prayers and encouragement from the body of believers has helped, too.
     
    Toma and Stalwart like this.

Share This Page