AMA (YYW)

Do Orthodox Christians define "heaven/paradise" the same as Protestant Christians? Or, is it different. 

That's actually fair and i highly respect that kind of view. I personally doubt a good god would punish those that he knows are naturally curious. I think the 'submit or die' type mentality is man-made. Which brings me to my next question. How confident are you that humans haven't corrupted the Bible... little, some, or greatly? 

It is not provable, correct. But i see it as something hard to ignore. I believe what i have evidence for, especially since i've found a way where it doesn't affect what you believe or anyone for that matter. It allows for all beliefs. But this kinda goes back to the previous question. Why would a good god punish someone that has found comfort in a belief that makes sense to them and adds positively to their journey on earth. That element has never made sense to me when i talk to Christians with a submit mentality, and it is one of the few reasons i choose to say i don't believe it. But, that doesn't mean i don't believe god could possibly exist. I actually think it's a high probability. I just feel humans have most definitely tainted all religions with their fallibility. I actually have no doubt. Humans are really poisonous creatures.   

Do you believe morals are based on genetically inherent traits that evolved to preserve the integrity of the herd?

Thoughts on Catholicism?

An odd question, but do you know what neurofibromatosis is?

>Do Orthodox Christians define "heaven/paradise" the same as Protestant Christians?

More or less in the same way.

>I think the 'submit or die' type mentality is man-made.

Not sure what you mean by that.  No Christian denomination maintains a "submit or die" mentality.  That's Islam. 

>How confident are you that humans haven't corrupted the Bible... little, some, or greatly? 

That is probably the most interesting question you've asked so far, and the answer to that question obviates the absurdity of strictly literal interpretations of Biblical texts, and the generally fundamentalist iterations of Christianity who base their so called theology on such literal interpretations.  The implications of this go far beyond merely invalidating fundamentalist Christianity, but redefine exactly how people can and should study the Bible itself or any interpretation of it.

I am as confident as I reasonably can be that certain translations of the bible can be read for what they are; such as the King James Version, the NIV, and the like.  There are other simplified versions that create a myriad of problems; in English and in most other languages on earth into which the Bible has been translated (which is basically all of them).  There are some German versions I've read that are good as well; same with a few Russian versions.  But, there are also German and Russian translations that raise eyebrows. 

Here's an example:  any version of the bible that incorporates the word "homosexuality" in any language is immediately suspect because the concept of homosexuality did not exist in or around the time that the Bible was written.  There were concepts that were "similar to" homosexuality, but they were emphatically NOT the same thing. 

So, what does this mean?  It means that when you see contemporary words which describe concepts that were not extant at the time the Bible was written (and "homosexuality" is a contemporary word, which has no then-extant analog) included in *any* scriptural text OR interpretation of that scriptural text, you should be seeing red flags everywhere.  The reason, of course, is obvious: some subsequent translator or version has imperiously modified the text's original meaning FROM what it was at the time the Bible was written TO that which the current translator wanted it to say for whatever reason.  So far as I am concerned, that is a cardinal error; but it's an error that is not uncommon. 

Homosexuality isn't the only word to which this applies, either.  The same goes for colloquially synchronic language (e.g., the word "virgin" as used in the King James bible does not mean the same thing as it does in 20th or 21st century English usage).  After all, all language is diachronic (meaning that it changes over time in terms of the way it is used), with the implication that it is improper to either interpose a 20th or 21st century connotation/definition to a word or term whose meaning varied from how it was used now when any prior version of the Bible was written.

So, literal interpretations are out the door.  Where that leaves us is in the position that we really have to think critically about what the text means; because merely looking at the words and then moving forward is NOT enough... and that's just the difficulties with a facial interpretation of the text itself.  That is to say nothing of the difficulties of interpretation related to biblical stories, like Jacob's coat or the trials of Abraham or Job.  

>Do you believe morals are based on genetically inherent traits that evolved to preserve the integrity of the herd?

I do not believe that morals are based on genetically inherited traits that evolved to preserve the integrity of the heard.  

But, that's a really specific thing you just asked.  There's a lot going on in that question.  To fully digest the meaning of that disagreement, we'd have to go through what "morals" are and are not; what exactly constitutes a "genetically inherent traits" and, whether or not, for example, that might include epigenetically inherited traits or only genetically inherent traits; what you mean when you refer to genetically inherited traits "evolving" (which is a strange way to describe traits that seemingly you think are *inherent*); and just what exactly "integrity" of the heard is, as well as "who" you mean to include in "the heard".  

>Thoughts on Catholicism?

Generally, I think it's a theologically erroneous variant of Christianity. 

>neurofibromatosis

Yes. It's a likely genetic nerve condition that exists in two types which vary based on the time of and character of symptom onset.  Type 1 onsets usually in childhood and goes beyond sensory processing nerves; whereas type 2 primarily affects the hearing and possibly vision.  It's a condition that involves the growth of noncancerous tumors on the nerves, which can impair sensory processing and affect things like balance depending on where the tumors manifest.  

How do you know about NF? I remember talking about it with you and you implied you already knew about it.

the herd lol not the heard...I've just been doing some casual viewing on the study of the behavior of monkeys and other mammals and how they naturally behave to preserve the herd.

Overall, I just know a lot about medical, psychiatric, and psychological conditions.  Whether it's from helping the boyfriend study for stuff, or from stuff I've just come to know in the course of my life. 

I don't have it, though.  I've only known of one person who did.  

You mean IRL or on DDO? 

I have a paradox in regards to the idea of heaven i'm curious what your opinions would be. For me personally, paradise as described by most Christians i ask scares the crap out of me. I would label it a hell with a smile. This is bc i have experienced what it would be like to be infinite. Therefore, i understand to a certain degree if i am eternal in any kind of place without the reset of death i would go mad. This is made worse if certain emotions are taken away such as fear, hate, jealousy, envy. I have learned to accept and love these darker emotions and i would not want them taken away from me for they are a large part of who i am. But mainly, i am scared to death of being infinite. I see death as a beautiful thing. Of course sad, but beautiful in what it is. So i often times think heaven would be hell as described by those that say being eternal and having specific emotions taken away is a part of the deal. What do you think? Is the Bible clear enough to construe you will be eternal and have your darker emotions erased? 

You're right that wasn't clear. I should have said submit or hell. That's what i meant. It's the if you don't join my club you will burn for eternity type of mentality i feel is man-made. I believe it is sufficient to read the Bible and find the love in it. Find the good and apply it to your life and live life well. I think if there is judgment at all... it will be off your heart, not whether or not you submit to a religion. 

Thank you, and very interesting answer. I am taken the meaning that you do believe humans have negatively influenced the religion which is very logical. People tend to forget that humans enjoyed watching other humans die, they enjoyed torturing and watching humans be tortured. And, we haven't really even got that much better. It is very unlikely that humans wouldn't use a faith for their own greed and power given how profound a belief is to a person. I personally wonder if even certain things are truly as people say the Bible writes including homosexuality. The way i read the Bible is that sexual immorality is a no no. But i don't think this specifically means homosexuals are sinning just for falling in love with the same sex. I feel if it becomes immoral, then it's in the wrong, but as long as it's done with love... i don't think god would have a problem again going back to god reading your heart. Of course i'm translating a lot myself, but i think it follows logically if we are thinking of a good god.  

 

When I say "boyfriend" I am referring to my current boyfriend.

There is so much in your last post it is probably going to take me four, maybe five 5000 character responses to say the things in response that I want to say.  That's not a bad thing, so much as it is that these are very complex concepts and it's not easy to just say a few words and then move on.  Anyway, here goes...

>paradise as described by most Christians i ask scares the crap out of me

If by "paradise" you mean heaven, then what I would suggest to you is that when and to the extent that each person conceives of heaven, what they are thinking of is more a projection of their ideal world than it is a reflection of what is actually described by God in the Bible.  The Bible has some fairly specific descriptions of heaven, such as the fact that God reigns there eternally; that Lucifer was purged from Heaven, and the like; but in terms of the character and environment of heaven, the Bible doesn't get that specific. 

Since I was about 12 or 13, I've pretty much thought that was intentional.  After all, if we knew *exactly* what heaven was, then it would stand to reason that humans would commit suicide en masse to get there now.  That's another curious difference between Christianity and fundamentalist Islam; while Christianity holds out little more than an abstract promise of paradise in the afterlife, that's not really an "inducement" to abide by the faith (which is why, for example, Pascal's wager isn't much of a wager because of the overvaluation of the thing sought, paradise), on the other hand Islam has some very specific offerings in heaven, that shall be given to each person according to their merit.  Some might theorize (and they have) that this is why Christianity is historically less murderous than Islam.

The point, here, is that when people talk about heaven, you should be seriously skeptical if you are lucidly interpreting scripture.  The bottom line is that there is minimal certainty about what heaven is, beyond generality and abstraction.  In addition, while people may individually conceptualize heaven as having specific and particular attributes, most of that is a sort of projection of what those persons might wish that heaven contains, involves, includes, or is; rather than a scripturally based description of what the reality of heaven will be.  

>hell with a smile

In the same sense, it's equally hard to conceptualize what "hell" is.  The most vivid conception of it, and probably the most prolifically referenced in Western culture and civilization, is the structure of hell as conceived by Dante Alighieri in The Divine Comedy's chapter, Inferno.  Inferno describes a journey through Hell as guided by Virgil, where Hell is conceived of as a series of nine concentric circles with torture and suffering approximating the nine levels of sin in which human beings can engage.  But, it is not at all obvious that Hell bears such a structure, however creative that poem may be. 

>I have learned to accept and love these darker emotions and i would not want them taken away from me for they are a large part of who i am

That reminds me of Lord of the Rings; and in particular, the story of Frodo.  I'm going to say some more about this later when I have time. 

I love this thread.

lol I'm glad 

More questions are encouraged, too

Why do you like AOC? 

She chased down Mitch McConnell over the shutdown and he ran from her like the cowardly bitch that he is.  It was in that moment I decided I liked her. 

I recall asking you this question earlier in the thread, but the upshot of it was you stating you would get in Ben Shapiro's pants, so I will remold the question:

What do you think of Ben Shapiro as a commentator/speaker? As a liberal what do you think he gets wrong? What does he get right?

If there are specific opinions he has you'd like me to discuss, point them out to me and I'll respond to those.  Overall though, I think he's wrong on nearly every social and economic issue he's had an opinion on; and he's wrong on almost every foreign policy issue he's spoken about as well.  

I was talking about the person with NF.

IRL

Is Kamala Harris a good democrat to run against Trump, assuming he survives his cold Wendy's and the investigation?

I think Kamila Harris is among the strongest democrats in the field.  She is basically what Barack Obama might have been, if he was legitimately on the left.  She is still not as far to the left as I'd like, but she is probably the only democrat who can get both progressives and blacks to the polls.  She should pick Sherod Brown as her VP if she wins the nomination.  

I had a particular Ben Shapiro video in mind, but first I must ask a question...

What do you think about the tenants of a social democracy? (Or "democratic socialism" as some modern leftists label it.)

Do you find this guy attractive?

He is cute, but I don't like star trek and I don't like sci fi at all. 

Would probably bang if given the chance.