The idea of a Restoration of Christ’s New Testament “church” was unoriginal

[PseudoPaul]

The standard in the Old Testament for adultery was that adultery wasn't a moral issue, but a property crime. The woman was the property of her husband so a husband cheating on his wife wasn't adultery unless his partner was also married.

Jesus taught that adultery was a moral issue that applied equally to men and women.

Thanks for your response. I'm curious how you went from "By teaching that men could be guilty of adultery for sleeping with other women, or even marrying a second women after a divorce, "
to interpreting that as an "issue that applied equally to men and women."

I'm not a Bible scholar, so I appreciate you humoring my questions on this, but I don't see Jesus' words as applying equally to men and women when only men's behavior is mentioned.

I'm contrasting Jesus' teachings, which have the same standard for male and female adultery, with the Pentateuch, in which adultery is a property crime against the "owner" (husband) of the woman.

From the HarperCollins Bible Dictionary:

"In the Old Testament, adultery had a precise and limited definition: sexual relations between a married (or betrothed) woman and any man other than her husband. Adultery, therefore, was committed only against a husband, never a wife.

"[…] In the New Testament period, it appears that the definition of adultery was extended in its scope. For example, the teaching of Jesus was understood to mean that a husband could now be held responsible for committing adultery against his wife."

So for example, a married man having sex with a prostitute was not adultery, in the terms set out in the Torah. But for Jesus, a married man having sex with a prostitute did count as adultery.

[MG 2.0]

What are your thoughts in regard to whether or not you will exist after death?

If you believe that there isn't anything after you die isn't that more or less being nihilistic?

If you believe in life after death, what do you think the 'mechanism' is that gets us from here to there?

Regards,
MG

I won't have personhood in death. My molecules will disintegrate and take other forms. There is no plausible mechanism for consciousness to survive death.

Some philosophers argue that consciousness is not reducible to or superseded by physical matter (molecules) and is a fundamentally separate, or irreducible, aspect of reality.

If that is true, what happens to your consciousness after you die?

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

Thanks for your response. I'm curious how you went from "By teaching that men could be guilty of adultery for sleeping with other women, or even marrying a second women after a divorce, "
to interpreting that as an "issue that applied equally to men and women."

I'm not a Bible scholar, so I appreciate you humoring my questions on this, but I don't see Jesus' words as applying equally to men and women when only men's behavior is mentioned.

I'm contrasting Jesus' teachings, which have the same standard for male and female adultery, with the Pentateuch, in which adultery is a property crime against the "owner" (husband) of the woman.

From the HarperCollins Bible Dictionary:

"In the Old Testament, adultery had a precise and limited definition: sexual relations between a married (or betrothed) woman and any man other than her husband. Adultery, therefore, was committed only against a husband, never a wife.

"[…] In the New Testament period, it appears that the definition of adultery was extended in its scope. For example, the teaching of Jesus was understood to mean that a husband could now be held responsible for committing adultery against his wife."

So for example, a married man having sex with a prostitute was not adultery, in the terms set out in the Torah. But for Jesus, a married man having sex with a prostitute did count as adultery.

Thank you for responding. I see discussion of Jesus' teachings as they apply to men, which you defined as teachings "which have the same standard for male and female adultery."

My question remains the same, how do you interpret Jesus' words as applying equally to men and women when only men's behavior is mentioned?

[MG 2.0]

What are your thoughts in regard to whether or not you will exist after death?

If you believe that there isn't anything after you die isn't that more or less being nihilistic?

If you believe in life after death, what do you think the 'mechanism' is that gets us from here to there?

Regards,
MG

I won't have personhood in death. My molecules will disintegrate and take other forms. There is no plausible mechanism for consciousness to survive death.

As I've mentioned, is it possible that you have it sorta backwards? Consciousness is independent of molecules?

Regards,
MG

[PseudoPaul]

I won't have personhood in death. My molecules will disintegrate and take other forms. There is no plausible mechanism for consciousness to survive death.

As I've mentioned, is it possible that you have it sorta backwards? Consciousness is independent of molecules?

Regards,
MG

No, just as strength is a property of muscles, so consciousness is a property of a functioning brain. There isn't a soul-sized gap in what we observe about the functioning of the brain as it relates to consciousness.

This view, by the way, is Biblical. In the Psalms it's made quite clear that death is the end of all consciousness.

[PseudoPaul]

I'm contrasting Jesus' teachings, which have the same standard for male and female adultery, with the Pentateuch, in which adultery is a property crime against the "owner" (husband) of the woman.

From the HarperCollins Bible Dictionary:

"In the Old Testament, adultery had a precise and limited definition: sexual relations between a married (or betrothed) woman and any man other than her husband. Adultery, therefore, was committed only against a husband, never a wife.

"[…] In the New Testament period, it appears that the definition of adultery was extended in its scope. For example, the teaching of Jesus was understood to mean that a husband could now be held responsible for committing adultery against his wife."

So for example, a married man having sex with a prostitute was not adultery, in the terms set out in the Torah. But for Jesus, a married man having sex with a prostitute did count as adultery.

Thank you for responding. I see discussion of Jesus' teachings as they apply to men, which you defined as teachings "which have the same standard for male and female adultery."

My question remains the same, how do you interpret Jesus' words as applying equally to men and women when only men's behavior is mentioned?

Jesus mentions the behavior of both the man and the woman.

Mark 10: 10 Then in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. 11 He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, 12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

[PseudoPaul]

I won't have personhood in death. My molecules will disintegrate and take other forms. There is no plausible mechanism for consciousness to survive death.

Some philosophers argue that consciousness is not reducible to or superseded by physical matter (molecules) and is a fundamentally separate, or irreducible, aspect of reality.

If that is true, what happens to your consciousness after you die?

Regards,
MG

It's not a philosophical question, it's a neurological question. Just as you can't lift a 10 pound weight when you are dead, so also you can't have consciousness when you are dead.

[MG 2.0]

As I've mentioned, is it possible that you have it sorta backwards? Consciousness is independent of molecules?

Regards,
MG

No, just as strength is a property of muscles, so consciousness is a property of a functioning brain. There isn't a soul-sized gap in what we observe about the functioning of the brain as it relates to consciousness.

This view, by the way, is Biblical. In the Psalms it's made quite clear that death is the end of all consciousness.

There are not a few experts that see the brain as being more or less a filter:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... er%20focus.

Dr. Peter Fenwick:
A highly regarded neuropsychiatrist who, based on his extensive research into near-death experiences (NDEs), suggests that the brain acts as a filter for consciousness, which he views as an inherent, independent property of the universe, much like gravity or dark matter.
https://imhu.org/integrative/where-does ... %20gravity.

There are others that look at consciousness as being primary rather than an outgrowth of the material brain itself.

Off topic, I know. But it seems as though you see no need/evidence for an afterlife. I'd just say, "Not so fast, buddy!"

If there is something beyond death then it becomes a matter of 'what is it?' Believers in Jesus provide one option to look at. There are some others, of course.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

Thank you for responding. I see discussion of Jesus' teachings as they apply to men, which you defined as teachings "which have the same standard for male and female adultery."

My question remains the same, how do you interpret Jesus' words as applying equally to men and women when only men's behavior is mentioned?

Jesus mentions the behavior of both the man and the woman.

Mark 10: 10 Then in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. 11 He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, 12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

I see, thank you!

[I Have Questions]

No, just as strength is a property of muscles, so consciousness is a property of a functioning brain. There isn't a soul-sized gap in what we observe about the functioning of the brain as it relates to consciousness.

This view, by the way, is Biblical. In the Psalms it's made quite clear that death is the end of all consciousness.

There are not a few experts that see the brain as being more or less a filter:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... er%20focus.

Dr. Peter Fenwick:
A highly regarded neuropsychiatrist who, based on his extensive research into near-death experiences (NDEs), suggests that the brain acts as a filter for consciousness, which he views as an inherent, independent property of the universe, much like gravity or dark matter.
https://imhu.org/integrative/where-does ... %20gravity.

There are others that look at consciousness as being primary rather than an outgrowth of the material brain itself.

Off topic, I know. But it seems as though you see no need/evidence for an afterlife. I'd just say, "Not so fast, buddy!"

If there is something beyond death then it becomes a matter of 'what is it?' Believers in Jesus provide one option to look at. There are some others, of course.

Regards,
MG

From your first link MG 2.0

What’s more, according to Fenwick, our consciousness tricks us into perceiving a false duality of self and other when in fact there is only unity. We are not separate from other aspects of the universe but an integral and inextricable part of them. And when we die, we transcend the human experience of consciousness, and its illusion of duality, and merge with the universe's entire and unified property of consciousness. So, ironically, only in death can we be fully conscious.
This is not to be taken as joining God or a creator because the cosmic consciousness that Fenwick describes did not create the universe but is simply a property of it. Obviously, despite his impressive body of research into this subject, there is no current way to empirically establish the validity of Fenwick’s cosmic consciousness hypothesis. Ultimately, it aligns more with faith than science.

So Fenwick is simply making a baseless assertion that consciousness is universal. He’s suggesting that your consciousness and my consciousness are simply two windows into the same universal consciousness. Your linked article concludes with this…

Thus it seems the answer to the question in this post’s title is “No.” There is no empirically established explanatory framework for understanding how consciousness can exist independently and outside of the brain.

Why do you provide links to information that refutes the notion that you are suggesting they support? Don’t you read them? Note: I’m not criticising you as a person.