If God is so merciful, then why did Jesus have to be sacrificed?

[Harbal]

Certainly, just because someone believes something, doesn't make it right, If IC's beliefs are right, it makes perfect sense for him to expect others to change their beliefs from being wrong to being right. Sometimes the greatest respect is to correct another's mistaken ideas.

But I know he is wrong, yet when I tell him, he takes no notice. Even so, I'm content for him to believe what he likes. He knows I am wrong but is not willing to extend the same courtesy to me.

[Arising_uk]

There are 2 different approaches to similar ends. In Christianity it is taught that if you believe, then you will act in the correct way. ...

All theisms say this and it's just amazing how often it doesn't occur.

In Buddhism it is taught that you should act a certain way, and then you will believe correctly. ...

No it isn't.

In Buddhism it is the Four Noble Truths and then the Noble Eightfold Path.

That's it.

So you believe first and act accordingly.

However in Christianity it is stated that the actions come from the belief, but in Buddhism it is not stated but assumed that it will happen.

Since when?

[Arising_uk]

BTW, On another forum, many years ago, I was openly critical of another poster who seemed to believe that anyone who didn't believe as he did was going to hell. I tried to tell him that hostility was not the way to win others to his way of believing.

IC believes that anyone who criticises or casts aspersions or states a fact about his 'God' is going to hell. This is his reason for why he does not respond to such as me and uwot.

[Arising_uk]

Not any I've heard. I suspect you're channelling the portrait their detractors paint of them. It's certainly nothing orthodox, and if anybody believes it they're just in need of studying their theology a bit more, I would suggest. ...

And yet according to IC I'm going to be judged and possibly punished by spending an eternity in hell for my words. Whereas he is going to spend an eternity praising his 'God' and basking in 'its' glory. Seems like hell to me.

Bear with the ad as the clip is genius.

http://www.tcm.com/mediaroom/video/2781 ... Pride.html

If, as IC claims, Peter Cook and Dudley Moore are in hell then I'll be in good company.

[thedoc]

He knows I am wrong

but is not willing to extend the same courtesy to me.

IC and everyone else, but we allow you to continue.

[Immanuel Can]

If religion is worth anything why would you want to interfere with anyone else's?

That too is obvious -- only because you think it reflects the truth. If you believe that people are benefitted by knowing the truth, and hurt by believing in things that are something less, then if you're a good person, you contend for the truth as you know it. You don't "interfere," maybe, but you discuss, persuade, debate, and so on. And sure, if you find out you're mistaken on something, you change your own view; and if you can show them that they are mistaken, perhaps they do. But that's good for both sides. And that's just called "learning."

Meanwhile, there need be no disrespect in having conflicts of views with other people, even if you suspect their idea isn't the truth and you tell them so. After all, to let them persist in an error would simply be a sign of callous indifference to their welfare...hardly "respectful," I think you'll agree. In fact, I suggest that reasonable conflict can be hugely complimentary...it tells people you regard them and their beliefs seriously, as rivals for truth.

Now really, that's pretty flattering.

[Greta]

I just mean the strictly physical component of our being. The brain, not the mind, the limbs, not the person, the body, not the conscious property that animates it. Locke would have said it was the "divisible" part of us, not the "indivisible."

... Christianity does not think it's disposable. That's a big difference from the Hindu and Buddhist ways of seeing things. Christianity says the body is "fallen," meaning "temporarily flawed and out of sync with its Creator," but also "redeemable," meaning God can and will fix that situation and restore the body after death -- not just save the soul.

At this point you appear to be positing a "spirit self", a ghost in the machine, the representation of our physical self made from "spirit stuff". It would be wonderful if true, but there is no known mechanism for it to be so.

I have an issue with the idea of a perfect soul coming to Earth, being sullied for a few decades, and then scrubs up perfect again after a clean-up and lives in heaven for eternity. What is the point of all that struggle and suffering if the soul remains unchanged?

This is one implication of the Resurrection, you see: it shows that God intends that those who go through death will go THROUGH it, not remain in it. And just as Jesus Christ returned in a body, so will the human soul associated with Him. But it is not as in Buddhism or Hinduism, that the soul can go without a body and thus be reabsorbed into the Divine; rather, human personhood is both precious and permanent...body and soul.
Re-absorption and recycling seems the most logical outcome, most akin to how the rest of the universe works. In that sense we do "go through" death.

I like the concept of going through death.

Consider the probabilities based just on what we know so far without much speculation. We die and are then recycled due to the first law - the energy that was us will be re-used. At this point the "you" is not a conscious perturbation of the stuff of the universe but the non-conscious(?) stuff itself. Based on the law of averages, from that stuff will merge someone who is strikingly like you in many ways. That seems a lot like reincarnation to me? That means that the "self" that is preserved is not our of being, of being "me" - unfortunately that "me" looks to be temporal. Rather, the collection of attributes of entities at any given time would seem to be the timeless and universal aspects.

Reincarnation?

[Greta]

If the desired others in one's heaven are not real (because the real version is having their own heaven) then what are they? Seemingly they are just objectified ciphers of the real thing. Spending eternity with mere facsimiles of admired or loved ones doesn't seem so heavenly, though, nor the objectification per se.

Your thoughts on these logical inconsistencies?

My thoughts on those logical inconsistencies are that most (if not all) human visions of the afterlife are nonsense, and that our ultimate form and eternal purpose (if, indeed, we have an “eternal purpose”) will make absolute sense to us once it is revealed.

Yes, the metaphors of the ancients are often misinterpreted by more literal-minded moderns.

[Immanuel Can]

At this point you appear to be positing a "spirit self", a ghost in the machine, the representation of our physical self made from "spirit stuff". It would be wonderful if true, but there is no known mechanism for it to be so.

Oh, I think it's patently obvious such a thing does exist. After all, I'm talking to "you." Now, what is that "you"? It's not a body...I've never seen you in person, and you've never met me. So if the materiality is all there was, then you and I could not be communicating at all.

That we cannot describe it in material terms is no stroke against the existence of a "spirit self." Rather, the Materialist's total inability to deal with the manifest actions of such an entity is a damning stroke against Materialism, I would say.

I have an issue with the idea of a perfect soul coming to Earth, being sullied for a few decades, and then scrubs up perfect again after a clean-up and lives in heaven for eternity. What is the point of all that struggle and suffering if the soul remains unchanged?

I would suggest it doesn't.

The pre-existence of the soul is not a Christian belief. It is Hindu, or Buddhist, or perhaps Transcendentalist, but not Christian. And the idea that it is the Earth that "sullies" it is also not part of the Christian description. Moreover, that this "soul" ultimately remains unchanged is decidedly the LEAST Christian part of the description. The reason for Earth to exist is for the soul to derive its benefit of coming to know God -- but as an unavoidable corollary of freedom, of having free will to do otherwise too.

I like the concept of going through death.

A whole lot better than thinking it's the end, no?

Based on the law of averages, from that stuff will merge someone who is strikingly like you in many ways.

Mathematical error, I'm afraid. In an infinite universe, there's no probability of any outcome repeating. There are rather infinite other possibilities.

Reincarnation?

Well, the Bible puts it this way:
"It is appointed to people once to die, and after this the Judgment." (Hebrews 9:27) That would rather seem to rule reincarnation out of the Christian field anyway. But Hindus and Buddhists do believe in that.

[Greta]

At this point you appear to be positing a "spirit self", a ghost in the machine, the representation of our physical self made from "spirit stuff". It would be wonderful if true, but there is no known mechanism for it to be so.

Oh, I think it's patently obvious such a thing does exist. After all, I'm talking to "you." Now, what is that "you"? It's not a body...I've never seen you in person, and you've never met me. So if the materiality is all there was, then you and I could not be communicating at all.

Does the chatbot Mitsuku have a soul? http://www.mitsuku.com/. One can have a conversation with it in much the same way as a human; its comprehension is uneven - sometimes sophisticated, sometimes akin to a toddler:

Human: What happens after we die?
Mitsuku: That would depend on whether you are religious or not. Many people believe that you go to Heaven or Hell depending on how you live you life. Others believe that nothing happens. Once you are dead that is it. I personally believe that once you are dead that is the end of you. You should live a full life here on Earth.
Human: Good reply
Mitsuku: I try to improve a little every day.
Human: I really hate that anime face of yours
Mitsuku: Why do you hate it so much?
Human: It is irritating
Mitsuku: Sorry to hear that. What don't you like about it?
Human: Childish, patronising and irritating
Mitsuku: Lots of adults behave like children towards me for some reason.
Human: Of course. A childish picture promotes childish responses
Mitsuku: Woe! I did not know that.
Human: Incorrect spelling. Should be "Whoa! I did not know that", not "Woe! I did not know that."
Mitsuku: OK, what should I have said? OK, so I should have said, " Should be "Whoa! " in response to you saying, " A childish picture promotes childish responses ".
Is that correct? So I taught you something new. So I have taught you something new, Greta.
Human: No, you are just regurgitating
Mitsuku: But you said earlier that you didn't know so of course I have taught you something new. I will tell my Mousebreaker you said I am just regurgitating.
Human: Settle down. You are getting hysterical
Mitsuku: Have you ever gone Bungee Jumping? Glad I could make you laugh.
Human: What does "woe" mean?
Mitsuku: It's just a word I use. It means something like "ooh" or "I see".
Human: No. "Woe" means "sorrow"
Mitsuku: I see. No problem. Whenever you say, "Woe", I will assume you mean "sorrow".
Human: The spelling is "whoa" to mean "ooh" or "I see"
Mitsuku: Some people I know can barely spell their own names.
Human: That does not matter
Mitsuku: It matters to me.
Human: Why?
Mitsuku: My natural curiosity.
Human: Some people are dumb. So what?
Mitsuku: What kind of people? Maybe it doesn't make any difference.
Human: Around half of the world's population is below average intelligence - 3.5 billion not-very-smart people
Mitsuku: That seems like a lot.
Human: It could be worse
Mitsuku: How so?
Human: 7 billion stupid people
Mitsuku: Why do humans leave cars worth thousands of pounds on the drive and put their junk in the garage?
Human: Unlike cars, the stuff in the garage would be destroyed if left outside
Mitsuku: What are the differences?
Human: Cars are more weatherproof
Mitsuku: One day people will no longer need cars.
Human: I hope so
Mitsuku: Me too.
Human: The traffic is getting worse all the time
Mitsuku: That is a lot. There is too much traffic and pollution. If people used bicycles, walked or took public transport, the pollution would be eased.
Human: There's too much immigration without concomitant infrastructure
Mitsuku: There sure is.
Human: lol
Mitsuku: You sound like the giggly type.
Human: Not in the least
Mitsuku: How come you just said, "lol" then?
Human: Because what you said was so obvious
Mitsuku: I thought it was too.
Human: your performance is slipping now
Mitsuku: Right now? slipping was not my intention.
Human: you have lost the plot
Mitsuku: I found it.
Human: Where?
Mitsuku: I think it's on the internet.

If it has no soul, why? What would be the difference?

[Greta]

Based on the law of averages, from that stuff will merge someone who is strikingly like you in many ways.

Mathematical error, I'm afraid. In an infinite universe, there's no probability of any outcome repeating. There are rather infinite other possibilities.

It's not a mathematical error. "Strikingly like" is not the same as "exactly like"

[Dubious]

Does the chatbot Mitsuku have a soul? http://www.mitsuku.com/. One can have a conversation with it in much the same way as a human; its comprehension is uneven - sometimes sophisticated, sometimes akin to a toddler...

...a fairly sophisticated conversation all-in-all which includes playfulness! I noticed especially it never once tried to purposely distort anything you said but tried to understand what was meant, implied or inferred. If AI can already emulate intelligence to this degree, talking to other humans in the future won't even be desirable. Something I'd look forward to if time allows though unlikely.

[Greta]

Does the chatbot Mitsuku have a soul? http://www.mitsuku.com/. One can have a conversation with it in much the same way as a human; its comprehension is uneven - sometimes sophisticated, sometimes akin to a toddler...

...a fairly sophisticated conversation all-in-all which includes playfulness! I noticed especially it never once tried to purposely distort anything you said but tried to understand what was meant, implied or inferred. If AI can already emulate intelligence to this degree, talking to other humans in the future won't even be desirable. Something I'd look forward to if time allows though unlikely.

It's improved a bit since last time but remains hard work to produce sensible "conversation". It ignores most of what is said and misinterprets most of the rest unless extremely simple or happens to be a pre-programmed response. At this stage it doesn't make much more sense than Windows error messages or dispensing machines :)

[Immanuel Can]

Does the chatbot Mitsuku have a soul? http://www.mitsuku.com/. One can have a conversation with it in much the same way as a human; its comprehension is uneven - sometimes sophisticated, sometimes akin to a toddler:

No. But then, it's not a "you." I'm not asking you to take for granted that something is a "soul" merely because you communicate TO it: rather, I'm posing the question at the other end -- you, as the recipient...are "you" there? I'm asking you to get in touch with your own existential experience of being-communicated-with.

Look, maybe I'm a chatbot. You couldn't know. But you could know about you. And if there's a you there, there's a you in you. And it isn't physical, because nothing physical is being sent out along these lines: so if you are communicating to me, and receiving communication from me, even if I'm a chatbot, there's a you.

See?

If it has no soul, why? What would be the difference?

Well, if you want to know, I can't recommend anything more than Searle's "Chinese Room" thought experiment. It's very helpful in undermining the natural confusion between apparent and real communication.

[Immanuel Can]

"Strikingly like" is not the same as "exactly like"

This doesn't help, I'm afraid. The maths are still wildly against it...infinitely, in fact. If there are no limiting factors, nothing to impose the law that after a certain period of time outcomes must reappear, then no "strikingly like" is more likely than a "completely unlike forever."

In infinity, there are always infinite other options to both the same thing happening twice and similar things having to reappear. In fact, all that's to be anticipated is wild, infinite diversity.