|
Post by vertigo on Feb 12, 2006 9:16:51 GMT -5
Just like a suicide bomber who does what Allah wants. If you can't see the danger in that, you are as blind as a bat.
You could say pigs can fly, it wouldn't make it any truer.
|
|
|
Post by guerrillasaint on Feb 12, 2006 23:11:19 GMT -5
I don't have the same God as the suicide Bombers so it isn't just like them. Their God hasn't give his life for them and my God has. Since you don't know him you don't know if trusting in him is dangerous or not. So do not judge me on things you know nothing about.
Yeah, but what is your point
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Feb 13, 2006 8:12:35 GMT -5
Catch a wake-up, bird, you don't know him either. He is a mental crutch, an escape from responsibility, you are delusional. Even if you knew him, trusting him would be wrong, because his threat is "do it or go to hell". The Bible says "but who would not choose life?" but they forget to mention God is threatening us, not Satan. Rebellion from oppression is a good quality, so we should look to Satan sooner than God (if you buy into the story). Satan was banished for the sin of pride, that's all. He didn't respect God's authority and was banished. It's authoritarian and not deserving of any respect.
God tells us in Leviticus, "I am a jealous God", but you choose to love him? How depraved is that?
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on Feb 13, 2006 9:55:07 GMT -5
This theory makes a lot of sense I could say that it is common sense put into a theory. Hey it is even in the Bible-Provers 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it. Meaning if you want his reenforcement value to become the will of God then teach him God's ways. That's not quite how it works. I wasn't speaking about reactance. I was speaking in regards to this statement you made: This is the purpose for the locus I described. Much like the AA 12 step method - they use it heavily in their "treatment". Also, it does not necessitate a rejection of utilzing an internal locus as well. Like most things, the loci fluxuate. However, that is only one small part in the interaction - we did not get into attitudinal adjustment, cognitive biases, dissonance theory, nor even reactance when was mentioned earlier. My point is that it serves a certain purpose as an avoidance mechanism to anxiety producing situations and that many make an inaccurate attribution - the subsequent attributional error - about the causation of their state of mind. Not that it is necessarily a bad thing at all - only that many interpret it wrong. So, your definition of joy would be in line with: Correct? That's not what I was saying, no.
|
|
|
Post by guerrillasaint on Feb 13, 2006 19:55:54 GMT -5
No, it isn't an avoidance mechanism. I will try to explain this better by giving you an example that will be along the same lines as my first statement to you.
I am trying to get into Graduate School so I have filled out my application to the best of my ability. Now if I don't get into school I will see it as I don't have what they want in a student, or I did something wrong on the applications. I also see it as God didn't want me to get into the school. I wasn't supposed to get into the school because it wasn't God's will and I don't have what the people wanted. It isn't either or. So I don't spend my life worrying about life's situations because what will happen will be for the best even when I do the wrong thing.
What proof do you have that I am delusional?
quote]"do it or go to hell"[[/quote] God never said that. The deal is if you don't believe you will go to hell because it is the consequence for the original sin and since you haven't given your life to Christ you haven't been absolved of the original sin. It isn't a threat it's what is going to happen. You have chosen to believe in other things and that is your choice. I have chosen to believe in God and that is my choice.
meaning he doesn't want anything above him. He wants to be our everything. Like if you were married your wife wouldn't want you cheating on her with another woman ( at least i wouldn't want my husband doing that) She would want you to consider her your one and only lady.
I don't feel oppressed. I live in one of the richest countries in the world. I get food everyday and I don't have a job. I have a family that loves me and would do anything for me. I have friends that would risk there lives for me. I live in a warm 2/b 2/b bath apt. I have an education and will get a job. I even made art that cuts into the bible and Have my own show. I prayed about it and my God said it was OK. I am free to do what I want. So how am I oppressed?
The deal is no matter what you do you have consequences. I can't just kill someone and be angry when I get put into Jail for it. See it from God's point of view. He made you then he came down in human form and endured everything a normal human had to endure. Then he was nailed to a cross and died. So that anyone can be absolved of their sin. Then you go around call him a delusion an, a authoritarian, and that he doesn't exist but he still will allow you to accept him. If he wanted to oppress you you wouldn't have choice in the matter. You would believe and be happy about it because he can do that.
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on Feb 14, 2006 11:20:18 GMT -5
No, it isn't an avoidance mechanism. I will try to explain this better by giving you an example that will be along the same lines as my first statement to you. I am trying to get into Graduate School so I have filled out my application to the best of my ability. Now if I don't get into school I will see it as I don't have what they want in a student, or I did something wrong on the applications. I also see it as God didn't want me to get into the school. I wasn't supposed to get into the school because it wasn't God's will and I don't have what the people wanted. It isn't either or. So I don't spend my life worrying about life's situations because what will happen will be for the best even when I do the wrong thing. You misunderstand my usage of "avoidance". I propose that it is a used as a cognitive mechanism to stave off or "avoid" aversive states through many possible variations such as active rumination. You also seem to think that it is not possible for one to utilize both loci focusing upon the same event - the secondary external locus - notice the "secondary' part. Do not confuse attributions with assessment of the loci. To better illustrate my point about the coexisting loci, in a study in 1988 - it was found that the "god" control - which is the secondary external locus coincided with the personal internal locus of control: Source - Jackson, L. and Coursey, R. (1988). The relationship of God control and internal locus of control to intrinsic religious motivation, coping and purpose in life. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 27: 399-410. Therefore the interactive prescence of both appears to be a common item. Do you understand better what I am trying to say? Now, don't get me wrong - I am not reducing the process of god in your life to a single sociocognitive theory - I was merely commenting on one aspect. Just to make sure there isn't confusion on that point. ...and I believe all the other comments were directed to other posters.
|
|
|
Post by guerrillasaint on Feb 15, 2006 0:58:42 GMT -5
I understand most of what you have written and agree but I have one question if you could clear it up for me I would be grateful. (yes the other posts were for other people)
Do you mean that I have made God up to cope with bad situations such as having to think for myself?
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on Feb 16, 2006 9:13:43 GMT -5
No, I'm saying the cognition involved when you "put it in god's hands" or "god will do what he will with me" and so forth acts as a cognitive mechanism to, just as I said, avoid aversive states through the many variable routes that can appear like, as I pointed out, rumination. Nowhere did I say you "made god up" - please don't put words in my mouth. And I did not say "bad" situations - I said aversive states there's a difference. Which all achieves a certain type of assessment as you stated earlier:
I'm not saying it's a bad thing - you seem to think I am implying such.
|
|
|
Post by guerrillasaint on Feb 16, 2006 13:13:40 GMT -5
So if my processes results in me connecting situations that make is seem like God is working in my life, right. So may I ask you to help me understand your cognitive processes. What do your cognitive thought process result in. How do you relate them to your life, beliefs/non-beliefs, and so on?
I didn't mean to put words in your mouth that is why I asked you what you meant.
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on Feb 17, 2006 9:46:54 GMT -5
So if my processes results in me connecting situations that make is seem like God is working in my life, right. Sort of, it's more complicated than that as I was only touching on one small point. My thinking processes are just like other folks most of the time. The exception between me and someone who is a theist is that I do not make attributions to the supernatural or deities (although I make a distinction between superstition and religion/spiritual items - research has shown those to not be the same thing). Barring that I may take a test and make an internal attribution - "I didn't study enough" or an external one - "That test was hard." or I may realize it is a combination of the two in my appraisal of the situation. Oddly enough most "normal" people tend to assess things with "rose colored" glasses so to speak. Those who are mildly depressed such as those having dysthymic disorder (a type of mild depression) tend to assess thing more accurately and closer to reality. But that's off the topic at hand... I try my best to rarely rely on heuristics even though they become so engrained and part of our schemas a lot of the time - it takes higher order thinking to override them. I also try not to succumb to priming or the myriad of cognitive biases like the flavors of dissonance. If I am wrong - I see that all the objective evidence is against my stance - I can admit I'm wrong. Within the area of discussion we're on, I'd wager that there isn't much difference between my cognitive processes and yours save that I do not have the secondary external locus for attributional purposes. Also, please don't think that my comments are pointing to belief in god as some disorder or maladaptive behavior - it isn't. I've seen people make such assessments about atheism as well and it is simply ridiculous. One article I read recently claimed that atheism stems from an absent father and unstable family conditions growing up - sadly a professor had the gall to tack their name onto that article. He utilized outdated and (now) unused Freudian ideas to make his assessment and had no research whatsoever to substantiate his claims - the poor man even wrote a book about it. Ah, no foul then.
|
|
|
Post by guerrillasaint on Feb 23, 2006 23:38:47 GMT -5
Thank you Solidsquid for sharing your knowledge in a not so offensive way. I appreciate you sincerity and courteousness. Also if you didn't mind could you explain to me a little more about LOC if you have time. Still, thank you again.
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on Feb 24, 2006 9:19:26 GMT -5
No problem, I'll see if I can whip up a post on the salient items involved and get back to you pronto.
|
|
marodee
Maverick's Chew Toy
Posts: 1
|
Post by marodee on Feb 24, 2006 10:04:38 GMT -5
As africans (very religious and firm in beliefs) we agree in the existence of a GOD. Why? why shouldnt we?, then again why should we? I understand that certain realities have always existed without our knowledge or our consciousness of their existence. for instance, who knows for instance Infra Red (IR) rays ever existed till it was discovered even though offcourse we cant see, touch, hear, feel or smell them. A basic fact,- all you know is not all there is to know, hence you will be out of place if you believe certain things solely because you can comprehend them or have experienced them. Albert Einstein - the great physicist - a free thinker (if you may) at a point declared - Only fools are thought by experience. If our perception were a yardstick for fact aquisition then we should not have had needs for inventions for the "develpment". Whether you agree or not, your are limited and will always be indeed of something superior, whether as a muslim, christian, budhist etc. u are not self sufficient - i stand to be opposed - infact, you are totally dependent. The existence of God, devil etc should not arise, who ever he may be, the issue is there is something outthere that we dont understand but cannot overul his existence.
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Feb 24, 2006 11:11:54 GMT -5
If we don't know the exact size of pluto, for instance, does that mean that fact is 'superior'?
What do you mean there 'is something out there'? Do you know there is something out there? You say 'we cannot overrule his existence'. If that's true, you also can't overrule Chico the Supernatural Chicken's existence. SFW?
The 'existence' of God or Chico the Supernatural Chicken is meaningless. Geddit?
|
|
|
Post by Dragon*of*Heaven on Feb 27, 2006 19:51:34 GMT -5
Fist off Hello Merodee welcome to the forum. I hope to have many good arguments. Now dispensing with pleasantry's on to business.
I think you should probably talk about your self here and not about your race. Unless of course you have proof to back it then ok but Id stick to self examination. Its just simpler to argue.
|
|