Christianity

[Lacewing]

Are you assuming that our life here on Earth is not for a good/necessary reason...perhaps even a reason that we 'ourselves' agreed to and orchestrated?

You seem to be implying that we pre-existed in some context of reality prior to our present situation here on earth.

I had a feeling I should have been more clear about that statement by adding "agreed to on some level". I do not know or imagine what else we are or what else there is -- I simply think we are much more than this physical/human reality, and that our connectivity to ALL is way beyond this Earth experience. My "glimpses beyond" seemed to show me that much -- and it felt totally natural. All is fine and in order... no need to hurry through or make anything of it.

Why are we here if we're not supposed to be?

Again, we are here because physical brains and the earth represent the physiological means and setting that was required for awakening our minds/souls into existence...

Maybe.

...(as opposed to what you are [hopefully] going to tell me is your own theory as to how individual souls are formed).

I don't need such a theory. It doesn't matter. We are here doing this. Thinking there's something else doesn't necessarily help us do this any better. There is beauty and the purpose in the moment. If we dismiss our moments to obsess over some big finale, then we've really missed the whole point and the opportunity... I think.

all I am suggesting is that if that fact was fully revealed to us, then I'm pretty sure that most of us, especially the folks in these sorts of dire and oppressive situations...

I don't think there is a fact. There is a belief or an imagining. If you think something needs to be different than what is, then what are you going to do about it? What do you want other people to do about it?

I prefer to seek understanding for WHAT IS without automatically labeling it as a mistake. Displaying horrible pictures of suffering doesn't explain anything. ALL THINGS/QUALITIES EXIST. So what does that imply? Is that God?

For the life of me, I cannot figure out why I get so much flack about suggesting that, in the end, everything is going to be absolutely perfect for everyone,...

Sounds great! But there's no reason for anyone to think that you or any of us know anything.

...indeed, so perfect, and so wonderful that it must be kept hidden from us so that we are not compelled to seek it out prematurely.

Then why are you?

Why spend life trying to focus on what does not apply to us (or needs to be hidden from us) right now? It's like going to a school called Earth and spending all one's time looking out the window and complaining about everything. What can be learned that way? Perhaps it takes courage to see such challenges with love... and such ugliness as beauty. Maybe learning to love is the tough school we are in. What else can we do with it?

[Immanuel Can]

I see no sincerity at all there.

That's strange. I can make a mistake and just accept it and fix it and move on no problem.

Show me one example of you doing it.

[henry quirk]

one is the democracy of individualism, opportunity, meritocracy, equal participation, etc. That's traditional American democracy, and Henry's kind, I suspect.

It sounds good 'cept for that pesky lil bit about how I'm supposed to do what the majority sez. It's a deal-breaker for me.

[FlashDangerpants]

I see no sincerity at all there.

That's strange. I can make a mistake and just accept it and fix it and move on no problem.

Show me one example of you doing it.

That can be arranged very easily by you showing me a quote which just says that it will become illegal to own anything and all stuff must be rented from the government. The one with no interpretation required because it's in their words.



You clever man, you've tricked me into overcommiting myself!
Oh it's going to hurt my ego so hard when I have to eat all that shit because you've got this whole quote about global world governments owning all the stuff.

[Immanuel Can]

one is the democracy of individualism, opportunity, meritocracy, equal participation, etc. That's traditional American democracy, and Henry's kind, I suspect.

It sounds good 'cept for that pesky lil bit about how I'm supposed to do what the majority sez. It's a deal-breaker for me.

Heh. Right. Agreed.

Democracy isn't some sort of magical arrangement that came down from the clouds. It's a provisional political arrangement, a way of dealing with life in a fallen world, and keeping the autocrats from eating everybody alive. And like Churchill, or Disraeli are said to have said: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for every other one." It's just the best of a flawed thing.

[Immanuel Can]

That's strange. I can make a mistake and just accept it and fix it and move on no problem.

Show me one example of you doing it.

That can be arranged very easily by you showing me a quote...

No, you...you show an example. Not me.

[FlashDangerpants]

That's strange. I can make a mistake and just accept it and fix it and move on no problem.

Show me one example of you doing it.

That can be arranged very easily by you showing me a quote which just says that it will become illegal to own anything and all stuff must be rented from the government. The one with no interpretation required because it's in their words.



You clever man, you've tricked me into overcommiting myself!
Oh it's going to hurt my ego so hard when I have to eat all that shit because you've got this whole quote about global world governments owning all the stuff.

[Immanuel Can]

That's strange. I can make a mistake and just accept it and fix it and move on no problem.

Show me one example of you doing it.

That can be arranged very easily...

No, you.

[FlashDangerpants]

Show me one example of you doing it.

That can be arranged very easily...

No, you.

The problem here is that, because I am not much like you, I don't worry much about losses, so I don't really have some inventory of shame. Best I can remember on this site is when that Spank Penguin guy was arguing that some weird looking nonsense was a valid arg and I was adamant it wasn't. In the end I couldn't make my claim stick so I lost that one.

You have all the ammo to obliterate me today though. You just have to not be lying. That's all it needs. Just for IC to have been telling an unvarnished truth one time.

[Gary Childress]

Hey, IC. I will grant you that Christ was correct in his teachings for the most part. Of that I'm pretty sure, however, I'm still skeptical on whether or not he was God incarnate. Maybe he was just a very wise person. Why did God choose only to disclose himself to Abraham and his descendants? Why not disclose himself to people in Asia or the Americas? That seems terribly unfair or ungodly to choose only one tribe. Why not choose multiple tribes or all tribes.

[Immanuel Can]

That can be arranged very easily...

No, you.

The problem here is that...

The problem here is that somebody can't understand a three-letter word.

I'm finding conversation with you...not so rich. Bye.

[Immanuel Can]

Hey, IC. I will grant you that Christ was correct in his teachings for the most part.

Which "part" do you disagree with?

I'm still skeptical on whether or not he was God incarnate.

Well, He said He was...so either that makes him confused, or manipulative, or...maybe He was telling the truth, just as he was about what you call "the most part" of what else He said.

Maybe he was just a very wise person.

A "wise" person who claimed to be God? That doesn't seem very "wise," unless it's true.

Why did God choose only to disclose himself to Abraham and his descendants?

He didn't. He has disclosed Himself to all men, as Romans 1 tells us.

But you're right in this much: His most absolute disclosure is in His Son, (Heb. 1:1-3) and that was to the Nation of Israel, that through them, as God told Abraham, "all the Earth will be blessed." One nation, whose job was to represent the One True God among the nations. That seems fine.

[FlashDangerpants]

No, you.

The problem here is that...

The problem here is that somebody can't understand a three-letter word.

I'm finding conversation with you...not so rich. Bye.

But I have your example. It's here
viewtopic.php?f=26&t=25913&start=150
Please note in particualr how deeply unkind I am at the start of the thread to poor old "philosopher" who I roundly describe there (and here admittedly) as a colossal idiot. But if you skip to page 11.... there it is, me losing and noticing and just saying so.

Now then.....

[Gary Childress]

Hey, IC. I will grant you that Christ was correct in his teachings for the most part.

Which "part" do you disagree with?

I'm still skeptical on whether or not he was God incarnate.

Well, He said He was...so either that makes him confused, or manipulative, or...maybe He was telling the truth, just as he was about what you call "the most part" of what else He said.

Maybe he was just a very wise person.

A "wise" person who claimed to be God? That doesn't seem very "wise," unless it's true.

Why did God choose only to disclose himself to Abraham and his descendants?

He didn't. He has disclosed Himself to all men, as Romans 1 tells us.

But you're right in this much: His most absolute disclosure is in His Son, (Heb. 1:1-3) and that was to the Nation of Israel, that through them, as God told Abraham, "all the Earth will be blessed." One nation, whose job was to represent the One True God among the nations. That seems fine.

The Buddha seems like he was wise in many respects, however, apparently he was wrong. History is full of charismatic figures who seem to have gotten it wrong about God and other things.

[Gary Childress]

That seems fine.

Seems fine to you maybe because you were born and raised in the "correct" religion. How do you think others of us may feel? Apparently we weren't chosen or matter enough to God.