|
|
Post by needysboy on Jan 1, 2020 1:00:10 GMT
I think it was de Maupassant who said something like, God never foresaw peaceable existence, He only foresaw creatures who bent on killing an devouring each other.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 1, 2020 2:53:52 GMT
Yes, the human mind is an "unfathomable mystery," which is why when you pick up a 1000+ page textbook on cognitive/neuroscience it just says "unfathomable mystery" on every page. We still concretely know very little about the human mind. And there are countless things that scientific consensus has considered irrefutably factual that turned out to be plain wrong. But it’s the wrong point for him to be making anyway, and almost irrelevant - he should’ve said the human “essence” or something along those lines, through a spiritual perspective the mind/body are miraculous circuitry that carry “you” here. Though I take it you’re a fairly strict rationalist from your posts and don’t like to entertain this sort of thinking, because there’s no hard proof of it. We may be coming from very different places, as while I am not religious, I am not convinced that human rationality - in our current state of evolution, at least - holds the key to certain things. Or is even capable of understanding what the key would look like. By what standard are you making the judgment that we know "very little?" That would assume that we know exactly how much more there is to know/discover and that we don't know/haven't discovered it yet. That seems quite presumptuous. I'll let faustus address the "countless things..." claim. "Essence" is a complete nonsense/woo term, something philosophers used when they regularly committed the mind-projection fallacy and thought that reality should conform to our language rather than the other way around. There is no "essence" to things, things simply just are and we create words/categories in attempts at communicating meaningful things about them. Again, saying "mind/body are miraculous circuitry that carries 'you' here" is just praising our ignorance, equating what we don't know about the natural with being "miraculous" and/or "supernatural." I'm a strict rationalist when it comes to questions about how reality is; there are plenty of things (ethics, aesthetics, etc.) that don't fall under that category, so I also don't believe that rationality holds the key to everything, merely questions about how reality is. Even when we can't currently use science and rationality to answer current questions, this is no excuse to simply make up shit. However much science/rationality may have limits to answering current questions, making up shit is almost certainly going to be wrong A good chunk of what's going on in this thread is people (mostly you and Sam) deifying our ignorance and making up shit, which has also never turned out well historically.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 1, 2020 3:04:03 GMT
I understand, but my entire point is that in order to answer the question you have to have some knowable facts about God, otherwise you can rationalize why god (any god) might would allow suffering. How is that any different than the "how many angles can fit on the head of a pin?" question; in either scenario, you're just making up an answer with no evidence to support it. To say our brains evolved towards anything doesn't mean some individuals haven't developed to varying degrees, or don't place more emphasis on certain aspects of what the brain can do than others. Perhaps someone doesn't recognize the beauty of a sunset, but they recognize the beauty of a Mozart symphony, or a Keats poem, or a Van Gogh painting, or their child's laughter, or their partner's smile, etc. Not many people find nothing about reality beautiful, but it's awfully arrogant to claim that those who don't find what you find beautiful to be spiritually unconscious. You don't need to know anything about the God(s) being discussed to see that any question including ANY imagined God will also have the component of an afterlife of some sort. There are no religions or belief systems where people believe in God(s), but also think 'When you die, that's it.' There are two main 'templates' for Gods, external and separate, or all-pervasive. Western or Abrahamic religions in the first case and Eastern religions in the second case. As far as I know, they all have an afterlife of some sort. If unconscious people don't like being told they're unconscious then they should start seeking. It was interesting when you said that people who use the term 'Spiritually Unconscious' are probably 'using it to feel they're more enlightened than others', even though it's a commonly used phrase if you look it up. One could easily invent a god/religion that doesn't include an afterlife. Again, the thing about God/religion is that people are free to invent anything they can imagine. It's also worth pointing out that some religions don't believe in a spiritual afterlife; Jehova's Witnesses believe that after death that's it until Armageddon, after which only the righteous will be bodily resurrected to rebuild Eden. Well, here I am telling you you're unconscious. Since I said it, it must be true. So start thy seeking, Sam! It also doesn't matter how common the phrase is, the only reason I can imagine people using it is as a way to feel more enlightened than others. It's certainly not a phrase that has any substantial meaning.
|
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Jan 1, 2020 3:54:50 GMT
What kind of suffering are you talking about? Why do you imagine suffering or pain is necessary to be alive or to feel like you're alive? What about some people who think there is some sort of eternal idyllic afterlife with no suffering? Do you think they imagine that life won't be "living?" I don't know of anyone who seeks suffering for suffering sake. Pain? Sure some exercise until they hurt...but that is pain with a goal that isn't the pain. And yes some medical procedures are painful, but recovery is the goal...not pain or suffering. and I guess some religious types deprive themselves...but the goal seems to be religious benefit. People, other than masochists or the insane don't seem suffering for suffering sake. Who do you think seeks suffering for suffering sake? You don't understand. You are not in tune spiritually. And you can't explain it.
|
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Jan 1, 2020 7:08:01 GMT
You don't need to know anything about the God(s) being discussed to see that any question including ANY imagined God will also have the component of an afterlife of some sort. There are no religions or belief systems where people believe in God(s), but also think 'When you die, that's it.' There are two main 'templates' for Gods, external and separate, or all-pervasive. Western or Abrahamic religions in the first case and Eastern religions in the second case. As far as I know, they all have an afterlife of some sort. If unconscious people don't like being told they're unconscious then they should start seeking. It was interesting when you said that people who use the term 'Spiritually Unconscious' are probably 'using it to feel they're more enlightened than others', even though it's a commonly used phrase if you look it up. One could easily invent a god/religion that doesn't include an afterlife. Again, the thing about God/religion is that people are free to invent anything they can imagine. It's also worth pointing out that some religions don't believe in a spiritual afterlife; Jehova's Witnesses believe that after death that's it until Armageddon, after which only the righteous will be bodily resurrected to rebuild Eden. Well, here I am telling you you're unconscious. Since I said it, it must be true. So start thy seeking, Sam! It also doesn't matter how common the phrase is, the only reason I can imagine people using it is as a way to feel more enlightened than others. It's certainly not a phrase that has any substantial meaning. Feel free to attempt to invent a scenario with God(s) but no afterlife. It might be an interesting experiment. And yes, I am seeking. Like a shark! I guess you must be used to comparing yourself with others all the time, otherwise you wouldn't make the assumption in bold. It isn't a competition.
|
|
|
|
Post by Huxley on Jan 1, 2020 9:44:32 GMT
Not so. We are spirit people housed in a earthy body. Are you Heeeyyy? No, I am not Heeeyyy. I do know her and we are friends. She is a Trump supporter, I loath Trump. She lives in Ca. I live in Ky. I think she has been banned temporarily. She'll be back.....I think.
|
|
|
|
Post by Huxley on Jan 1, 2020 9:49:52 GMT
You don't understand. You are not in tune spiritually. And you can't explain it. You understand God and the things of God with your inner self. To try to understand with your mind can't be done, it looks like foolishness.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Jan 1, 2020 12:08:05 GMT
And you can't explain it. You understand God and the things of God with your inner self. To try to understand with your mind can't be done, it looks like foolishness. How do you understand the inner-self, if you can’t understand the true nature of what God really represents?
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jan 1, 2020 14:13:55 GMT
You understand God and the things of God with your inner self. To try to understand with your mind can't be done, it looks like foolishness. How do you understand the inner-self, if you can’t understand the true nature of what God really represents? By examining below the surface of one's inner-self, and connecting with one's inner-inner-self.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 1, 2020 14:27:43 GMT
Feel free to attempt to invent a scenario with God(s) but no afterlife. It might be an interesting experiment.; And if there is a supernatural cause to everything it means that there must be an afterlife because ...
|
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Jan 1, 2020 14:31:25 GMT
Feel free to attempt to invent a scenario with God(s) but no afterlife. It might be an interesting experiment.; And if there is a supernatural cause to everything it means that there must be an afterlife because ... Gods and spirit-worlds/afterlife's go together like fish and water. Like I said a few times in this thread, you don't find beliefs in God(s) co-existing with the belief that when you die 'That's it'.
|
|
|
|
Post by Huxley on Jan 1, 2020 14:35:04 GMT
You understand God and the things of God with your inner self. To try to understand with your mind can't be done, it looks like foolishness. How do you understand the inner-self, if you can’t understand the true nature of what God really represents? Jesus said you must become as little children. But who wants that...right?
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 1, 2020 14:38:03 GMT
And if there is a supernatural cause to everything it means that there must be an afterlife because ... Gods and spirit-worlds/afterlife's go together like fish and water. Like I said a few times in this thread, you don't find beliefs in God(s) co-existing with the belief that when you die 'That's it'. The Sadducees were an ancient Jewish sect that generally believed that there was a God but no afterlife. You seem to be making an argument from popularity rather than logical necessity. The notion that everything was created by a deliberate supernatural Cause is not contingent on there being survival after death.
|
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Jan 1, 2020 14:45:45 GMT
And you can't explain it. You understand God and the things of God with your inner self. To try to understand with your mind can't be done, it looks like foolishness. My question had nothing to do with God or your inner self. What kind of suffering or pain do you think humans actively seem out with the sole goal of suffering? Who wants suffering for suffering sake? Humans endure pain or suffering either because they can't stop it or because it is a means to an end.
|
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Jan 1, 2020 14:50:51 GMT
Gods and spirit-worlds/afterlife's go together like fish and water. Like I said a few times in this thread, you don't find beliefs in God(s) co-existing with the belief that when you die 'That's it'. The Sadducees were an ancient Jewish sect that generally believed that there was a God but no afterlife. You seem to be making an argument from popularity rather than logical necessity. The notion that everything was created by a deliberate supernatural Cause is not contingent on there being survival after death. Thank you, interesting reading up on the Sadducees. However, I did get this: 'The Sadducees did not believe in resurrection of the dead, but believed in the traditional Jewish concept of Sheol for those who had died.' And then when I look up 'Sheol' I get this: "She’ol (/ˈʃiːoʊl/ SHEE-ohl, /-əl/; Hebrew שְׁאוֹל Šəʾōl), in the Hebrew Bible, is a place of darkness to which all the dead go, both the righteous and the unrighteous, regardless of the moral choices made in life, a place of stillness and darkness cut off from life and separated from God.[1] The inhabitants of Sheol are the "shades" (rephaim), entities without personality or strength.[2] Under some circumstances they are thought to be able to be contacted by the living, as the Witch of Endor contacts the shade of Samuel for Saul, but acts of sorcery are biblically forbidden, as spelled out in the Book of Deuteronomy (Deut. 18:10).[3] While the Hebrew Bible describes Sheol as the permanent place of the dead, in the Second Temple period (roughly 500 BC – 70 AD) a more diverse set of ideas developed. Sheol is considered to be the home of both the dead righteous and wicked, separated into respective compartments until the Last Judgement (e.g. 1 Enoch 22; Luke 16:19-31). In some texts, it was considered a place of punishment, meant for the wicked dead alone,[4] and is equated with Gehenna in the Talmud.[5] When the Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek in ancient Alexandria around 200 BC, the word "Hades" (the Greek underworld) was substituted for Sheol.[6] This is reflected in the New Testament where Hades is both the underworld of the dead and the personification of it.[4]
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 1, 2020 14:57:35 GMT
The Sadducees were an ancient Jewish sect that generally believed that there was a God but no afterlife. You seem to be making an argument from popularity rather than logical necessity. The notion that everything was created by a deliberate supernatural Cause is not contingent on there being survival after death. Thank you, interesting reading up on the Sadducees. However, I did get this: 'The Sadducees did not believe in resurrection of the dead, but believed in the traditional Jewish concept of Sheol for those who had died.' And then when I look up 'Sheol' I get this: "She’ol (/ˈʃiːoʊl/ SHEE-ohl, /-əl/; Hebrew שְׁאוֹל Šəʾōl), in the Hebrew Bible, is a place of darkness to which all the dead go, both the righteous and the unrighteous, regardless of the moral choices made in life, a place of stillness and darkness cut off from life and separated from God.[1] The inhabitants of Sheol are the "shades" (rephaim), entities without personality or strength.[2] Under some circumstances they are thought to be able to be contacted by the living, as the Witch of Endor contacts the shade of Samuel for Saul, but acts of sorcery are biblically forbidden, as spelled out in the Book of Deuteronomy (Deut. 18:10).[3] While the Hebrew Bible describes Sheol as the permanent place of the dead, in the Second Temple period (roughly 500 BC – 70 AD) a more diverse set of ideas developed. Sheol is considered to be the home of both the dead righteous and wicked, separated into respective compartments until the Last Judgement (e.g. 1 Enoch 22; Luke 16:19-31). In some texts, it was considered a place of punishment, meant for the wicked dead alone,[4] and is equated with Gehenna in the Talmud.[5] When the Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek in ancient Alexandria around 200 BC, the word "Hades" (the Greek underworld) was substituted for Sheol.[6] This is reflected in the New Testament where Hades is both the underworld of the dead and the personification of it.[4] Fair enough, but your argument still stems from the popularity of the afterlife among those who believe in a deliberate supernatural (probably because it forms the weave of the same comfort blanket). You have yet to show why one is necessarily contingent on the other. Why could a Cause of everything have to create a heaven?
|
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Jan 1, 2020 15:05:14 GMT
Thank you, interesting reading up on the Sadducees. However, I did get this: 'The Sadducees did not believe in resurrection of the dead, but believed in the traditional Jewish concept of Sheol for those who had died.' And then when I look up 'Sheol' I get this: "She’ol (/ˈʃiːoʊl/ SHEE-ohl, /-əl/; Hebrew שְׁאוֹל Šəʾōl), in the Hebrew Bible, is a place of darkness to which all the dead go, both the righteous and the unrighteous, regardless of the moral choices made in life, a place of stillness and darkness cut off from life and separated from God.[1] The inhabitants of Sheol are the "shades" (rephaim), entities without personality or strength.[2] Under some circumstances they are thought to be able to be contacted by the living, as the Witch of Endor contacts the shade of Samuel for Saul, but acts of sorcery are biblically forbidden, as spelled out in the Book of Deuteronomy (Deut. 18:10).[3] While the Hebrew Bible describes Sheol as the permanent place of the dead, in the Second Temple period (roughly 500 BC – 70 AD) a more diverse set of ideas developed. Sheol is considered to be the home of both the dead righteous and wicked, separated into respective compartments until the Last Judgement (e.g. 1 Enoch 22; Luke 16:19-31). In some texts, it was considered a place of punishment, meant for the wicked dead alone,[4] and is equated with Gehenna in the Talmud.[5] When the Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek in ancient Alexandria around 200 BC, the word "Hades" (the Greek underworld) was substituted for Sheol.[6] This is reflected in the New Testament where Hades is both the underworld of the dead and the personification of it.[4] Fair enough, but your argument still stems from the popularity of the afterlife among those who believe in a deliberate supernatural (probably because it forms the weave of the same comfort blanket). You have yet to show why one is necessarily contingent on the other. Why could a Cause of everything have to create a heaven? I don't think it's necessary to think that the creation of this Universe is deliberate, even if we're assuming for the sake of argument that there are Gods. And I'm not thinking of the typical Judo-Christian concept of 'Heaven' when I talk about afterlife. It could be the spirit worlds of the native Americans, the reincarnation of the Hindu's or whatever. Afterlife could even refer to other dimensions, like the realms people who use DMT profess to see. Spirit worlds and afterlife's of some kind are so typical of beliefs in God(s) that I can't think of any exceptions. A God cannot exist in a vacuum.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 1, 2020 15:13:26 GMT
Fair enough, but your argument still stems from the popularity of the afterlife among those who believe in a deliberate supernatural (probably because it forms the weave of the same comfort blanket). You have yet to show why one is necessarily contingent on the other. Why could a Cause of everything have to create a heaven? I don't think it's necessary to think that the creation of this Universe is deliberate, even if we're assuming for the sake of argument that there are Gods. And I'm not thinking of the typical Judo-Christian concept of 'Heaven' when I talk about afterlife. It could be the spirit worlds of the native Americans, the reincarnation of the Hindu's or whatever. Afterlife could even refer to other dimensions, like the realms people who use DMT profess to see. Spirit worlds and afterlife's of some kind are so typical of beliefs in God(s) that I can't think of any exceptions. A God cannot exist in a vacuum. That still offers no logical need for an afterlife, or whatever you term something similar. I agree a conviction of such is typical of religious belief but as I said that does mean it is necessarily a correct statement of the way things are, or must be. To look at this a different way: Buddhists believe death is a natural part of the life cycle. They believe that death simply leads to rebirth. This belief in reincarnation – that a person's spirit remains close by and seeks out a new body and new life – is a comforting and important principle. But they hold no god responsible for this state of affairs. Any Cause by the way must perforce have existed by itself at one point, since everything which follows is contingent to it. The only thing which it always had in addition to itself and the absolute absence of anything else at that point was its potential.
|
|
|
|
Post by Huxley on Jan 1, 2020 15:21:14 GMT
You understand God and the things of God with your inner self. To try to understand with your mind can't be done, it looks like foolishness. My question had nothing to do with God or your inner self. What kind of suffering or pain do you think humans actively seem out with the sole goal of suffering? Who wants suffering for suffering sake? Humans endure pain or suffering either because they can't stop it or because it is a means to an end. You answered your own question and I agree with you.
|
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Jan 1, 2020 16:04:17 GMT
My question had nothing to do with God or your inner self. What kind of suffering or pain do you think humans actively seem out with the sole goal of suffering? Who wants suffering for suffering sake? Humans endure pain or suffering either because they can't stop it or because it is a means to an end. You answered your own question and I agree with you. But humans live with constraints...we can't "make" things happen without taking into acct physical laws/limitations. We make mistakes because we don't know all there is to know about the world in which we live. Humans are not omnipotemnt/omniscient. We can't avoid certain outcomes. We need to take things into account, so to speak. Is that why God "allows" suffering...because he can't make things happen any other way? If so, I would agree, it's pretty much a given that God is either unaware of the suffering he causes, cannot avoid it or doesn't care enough to keep it from happening. IOW, God is limited in much the same way humans are. It's almost as if humans created God in their own image...a limited, somewhat selfish/jealous being who is forced to "deal" with real life, so to speak.
|
|
