And I will refer you further back to post 911 which you seem to have conveniently forgotten.

 

Nope.

https://www.scoobynet.com/1034784-sc...l#post11804231

Now, if you'd kindly answer my question.

 

LOL sorry I didn't know you had ordered a cuppa, Loz. I had gone downstairs to start whistling again through my front door and wake all our neighbours up at silly 3:15 Rubix the fatty God was lording around in my freezing garden, covered in the snow dust. I had to towel dry him when he finally fancied coming in. Pain in da butt!

 

Whistle him in ?

was he a dog in another life

 

I've had three cat Gods so far, since 1994 or 1995. I had one for years until she departed, and now two. And I've always whistled my cat Gods in. That's the only way of 'giving them a shout' I've known and used, and they come running back home from wherever they are. My Fatty cat God drives me round the bend sometimes, like last night, because he chases other nocturnal animals about in the dark and gets carried away with it.

But yes, whistling them in is perfectly acceptable to my cat Gods.

 

Fair enough Mrs

 

Nope, you kindly answer mine first. But perhaps you can't?

 

“Finally, from what we now know about the cosmos, to think that all this was created for just one species among the tens of millions of species who live on one planet circling one of a couple of hundred billion stars that are located in one galaxy among hundreds of billions of galaxies, all of which are in one universe among perhaps an infinite number of universes all nestled within a grand cosmic multiverse, is provincially insular and anthropocentrically blinkered. Which is more likely? That the universe was designed just for us, or that we see the universe as having been designed just for us?”

Micheal Shermer

 

:l ol1:

You read what I wrote but you clearly don't understand what I have written.

And you know what, I cant be bothered to waste my time trying to explain the same thing in a different way in which you might actually understand.

So sadly, this time you will have to wonder what I actually meant.

Good luck!

 

what ever you say chief.

 

Can a psychopath be saved?

In post 903 I state "if they're a psychopath, they'll never repent and they'll go to hell." After much reading it would seem that whilst there are conflicting definitions of what a psychopath is, one thing that all experts agree upon is that they lack empathy. If one can't empathise one can't harbour remorse or love or regret and all the other emotions that lead one to repent and subsequently seek the forgiveness that redeems and saves. As such, I stand by my original statement. It must be said that this isn't definitive. I asked some friends during fellowship last night and a number of them said it was possible for a psychopath to 'recover' - as it happens, all the reading I've done suggests that no amount of therapy can restore a psychopath's capacity for empathy. It would take a miracle, which is where I think my friends were coming from.

Having committed to the statement then, it begs the question: why would God create a creature for whom redemption is out of the question? This can be best summed-up by the 'problem of evil' which in turn can be attributed to the fall of man. I've dealt with both of these issues on this thread.

I've included some decent Wiki' links for those with an aversion to Google:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_man

 

None of this holds water. If God is responsible for all creation then he created psychopaths, there can be no other explanation or excuse for their existence. No one chooses to be psychopathic, it's a character trait present from birth. It's God's will, and yet they are doomed to everlasting Hell for no fault of their own. It's just one of so many examples that the Christian God is not a loving God, more a merciless one with a twisted sense of humour.

 

But you don't believe in God. Anyway, I've answered the question as best I can from a Christian standpoint. If you'd now answer my question as agreed.

 

That's a glib response and the question is not related to my belief or otherwise in the Christian God, but yours. The crux of the question was plain enough. Why is a psychopath destined for Hell when his character traits are present from birth and, in most cases, quite unchangeable?

 

Because of The Fall.

 

So you obviously interpret that part of your Bible quite literally. One false apple move by Eve, prompted by a fallen Angel in serpent guise (another of God's failures by the way) condemns humanity for ever and a day? It defies rational thought, and even irrational thought must struggle with that conclusion.

 

Do I? How have you arrived at that conclusion?

https://www.scoobynet.com/1019401-go...l#post11637137

I currently align myself with Polkinghorne's interpretation, for what it's worth.

https://www.scoobynet.com/1026662-st...l#post11708993

I posted this earlier, you may have missed it:

http://biologos.org/resources/videos/the-fall

 

I'm not deliberately trying to muddy the waters here, but empirical research suggests that in a large proportion of cases, psychopathy is triggered by physical trauma to the brain. Once that trauma has occurred though, the condition remains as incurable as you've described.

 

I very nearly picked this up, but wanted to deal with one point at a time.

 

However pschopathy may have occurred, by birth or by accident, in neither case is it the fault of the psychopath who has the condition forced upon him or her.

And I think to quote The Fall as God's get out clause is feeble, and then to deny your own belief in it is even more feeble.

 

That raises a few questions, though. If they are trying to fit in the fall with the theory of evolution, then they have to accept evolution as described, fair enough?

If that's the case, then saying the fall is due to man achieving sentience, or consciousness, instead of eating an apple opens up a bit of a can of worms. If you accept that our mental superiority over animals is due to to evolution, then you if you wind that back, then ultimately, you must also accept we evolved from fish, or further back if you like.

You have already stated that only we have souls, but where in the evolutionary path did that happen? Did God forsee which branch evolution would take and grant a certain species souls, which carried on to us? What about Neanderthals? They died out, they are not us, so I assume they had no souls. But, homo sapiens and neanderthals interbred, what was the soul state of those? Are they all still in limbo?

The problem with stuff like that is that they have a story to which they try and fit the evidence. The evidence does not lead to God.

The fundamental issue is that whether you believe in the literal Genesis, or believe that God started evolution, a being as powerful has he is allowed evil to exist. He is a designer, a programmer, whatever. If someone creates something and it goes wrong, who is to blame?

 

I don't deny belief in the Fall as I point out in the link above. What I do contend, and like others you seem to struggle with this, is that the story of Adam and Eve is a myth designed to convey deep truths about the nature of man. We are not to get carried away with the notion of actual talking snakes.

As an aside it's often the case that people who are in possession of the 'dark triad' of personality traits are often very successful in the postmodern, secular world.

 

presumably you thinking of Hitler and Stalin?

 

...and pre '08 'investment' bankers.

 

Ok, now you shatter my childish belief in Adam and Eve, the apple and the talking snake; who is condemned to slide about on his belly by God, where actually he already is, being a snake. So like the psychopath and his afflictions, man was simply 'gifted' original sin by a loving God without any misbehaviour by Eve or Adam being required? So what was this original sin if not inspired by Eve's actions?

And I'm well aware of the successful employment of psychopaths, especially by HMG.

 

Did you actually watch the videos I posted?

James Bond?

 

I have read this, Geezer, but I want to give a considered response.

 

I tried but it made no logical sense to me. An all powerful God, with a wave of His hand, could create a perfect world full of perfect creatures. Why doesn't he? So either a) He is not all powerful or b) He is simply perverse. Which is it?


And James Bond is another fictional character.

 

Geezer posed virtually the same question during a different thread.

https://www.scoobynet.com/1019401-go...l#post11621090

Oh.

 

JT, how on earth do you conjure up all these old posts? Are you a memory guru?