Philosophy Now Forum

uwot wrote: Can you really not think of a better way to forgive someone than to have them torture your son to death?

It left an impression on you, didn't it. People still argue about whether it was the best way or not, but people still argue about it.

uwot wrote:Come, come, Mr Can; I think you are feigning a lack of imagination. Can you really not think of a better way to forgive someone than to have them torture your son to death?

Nobody appears to understand. Christ quite likely was the human form of God itself - calling himself the son of God - when he turned up probably kept things a lot simpler at the time than stating he IS God.

Then it comes to experiences like ive had - where God is literally torturing you for past indiscretions - ultimately you still have to kneel and respect what HE did. And yes - having been nailed to a cross of wood - gave a symbol - and it was likely the biggest news for miles...at the time.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

thedoc wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote: Can you accept positive evolution?

PhilX

Evolution is neither positive nor negative, evolution is only change to fit a changing environment. There is no such thing as "positive evolution". Salvation has nothing to do with evolution.

From a certain POV, you're right. Since the goal is to live our lives to the fullest, then evolution that meets that goal has to be positive. As for salvation, maybe God has somehow arranged it that, indirectly, salvation can result.

PhilX

Evolution is not about "living your life to the fullest", it's about surviving and reproducing, if you're miserable while reproducing, evolution doesn't care so long as you reproduce more than everyone else.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Can you accept positive evolution?

PhilX

Can I "accept" it? "Positive" evolution?

Not following. Since the topic you've set is "salvation," what does "evolution" have to do with it, and in what sense do you regard it as "positive"? Answer those questions, and perhaps I can figure out what you mean well enough to venture an answer to your question. Absent clarification, I don't even know what you mean.

thedoc wrote:

uwot wrote: Can you really not think of a better way to forgive someone than to have them torture your son to death?

It left an impression on you, didn't it. People still argue about whether it was the best way or not, but people still argue about it.

Wasn't the point to save souls, rather than start an argument?

uwot wrote:

thedoc wrote:

uwot wrote: Can you really not think of a better way to forgive someone than to have them torture your son to death?

It left an impression on you, didn't it. People still argue about whether it was the best way or not, but people still argue about it.

Wasn't the point to save souls, rather than start an argument?

But the point is to make people aware of it, people are still talking about it, and thus are aware of the event. That is the first step in salvation, if it had been a lesser event that people forgot about, there wouldn't be the same response.

attofishpi wrote:Nobody appears to understand. Christ quite likely was the human form of God itself - calling himself the son of God - when he turned up probably kept things a lot simpler at the time than stating he IS God.

I don't really see why anyone should have more trouble believing in god, than the son of god. You make it sound as if an omniscient, omnipotent being didn't know how, or couldn't be bothered to persuade the people he'd come to save that he really was god.

attofishpi wrote:Then it comes to experiences like ive had - where God is literally torturing you for past indiscretions -

Those are your experiences and it would impertinent of me to challenge your interpretation.

attofishpi wrote:...ultimately you still have to kneel and respect what HE did.

Well, if a human being, who wasn't going to spring back to life after three days, I'd be impressed.

attofishpi wrote:And yes - having been nailed to a cross of wood - gave a symbol - and it was likely the biggest news for miles...at the time.

Actually, being nailed to a cross was such a common event, that, if you believe any mainstream church, only four people bothered to report it.

thedoc wrote:But the point is to make people aware of it, people are still talking about it, and thus are aware of the event. That is the first step in salvation, if it had been a lesser event that people forgot about, there wouldn't be the same response.

I'm not sure he thought it through. If I understand correctly, many people are now worse of, because they are aware of the event and either don't believe it, or are unimpressed. Presumably, anyone who hasn't heard of the crucifixion could gain access to heaven simply by being a decent human being.

uwot wrote:

attofishpi wrote:Nobody appears to understand. Christ quite likely was the human form of God itself - calling himself the son of God - when he turned up probably kept things a lot simpler at the time than stating he IS God.

I don't really see why anyone should have more trouble believing in god, than the son of god. You make it sound as if an omniscient, omnipotent being didn't know how, or couldn't be bothered to persuade the people he'd come to save that he really was god.

Ah yes we are back at the point of some time ago where Arising refused to complete a thread discussion with me, and you chimed in stating he doesnt have to. He doesnt remember and im sure you wont. Our short discussion was a tad tangent to the original anyway.
Doubt? Why is there doubt?

On you first point, even thinking in terms of people 2000 years ago, running around stating you are God over stating you are a son of God, i think the latter will be more accepted and listened to. At least for one reason people can comprehend a fellow human that has a mother. There are more reasons.

uwot wrote:

attofishpi wrote:Then it comes to experiences like ive had - where God is literally torturing you for past indiscretions -

Those are your experiences and it would impertinent of me to challenge your interpretation.

Ok.

uwot wrote:

attofishpi wrote:...ultimately you still have to kneel and respect what HE did.

Well, if a human being, who wasn't going to spring back to life after three days, I'd be impressed.

I don't understand.

uwot wrote:

attofishpi wrote:And yes - having been nailed to a cross of wood - gave a symbol - and it was likely the biggest news for miles...at the time.

Actually, being nailed to a cross was such a common event, that, if you believe any mainstream church, only four people bothered to report it.

We are all aware that crucifixion was common. The difference being - Christ had a following as some sort of messiah at the least. The Jewish priesthood also had a rather huge following in the vicinity. I think if you were there you would find more than four people reporting it - short sighted to the extreme.

attofishpi wrote:...
Ah yes we are back at the point of some time ago where Arising refused to complete a thread discussion with me, and you chimed in stating he doesnt have to. He doesnt remember and im sure you wont. ...

Still waiting for you to point it out so I can see if I missed anything.

Arising_uk wrote:

attofishpi wrote:...
Ah yes we are back at the point of some time ago where Arising refused to complete a thread discussion with me, and you chimed in stating he doesnt have to. He doesnt remember and im sure you wont. ...

Still waiting for you to point it out so I can see if I missed anything.

The thread is long gone - it was a discussion regarding the concept of us eventually evolving into a super-efficient system - an A.I. if you will that since it could control reincarnation i accepted as 'God' and you proceeded to discuss with me. It came down a final conclusion that required a binary answer and you refused to, since it would win my argument that such a 'thing' 'God' would exist as a result of entropy. As my gramps would say - no matter.

Are you saying it's been deleted? As I find it hard to believe that someone who saves whole threads cannot point me towards it. How about this 'binary question'(you mean a yes/no question I presume)?

Arising_uk wrote:Are you saying it's been deleted? As I find it hard to believe that someone who saves whole threads cannot point me towards it. How about this 'binary question'(you mean a yes/no question I presume)?

Hey, this was some time ago i admit. Yes it came down to a binary answer that could only be answered 'yes' by reasoning of our previous debate, and you bailed out, unfortunately for me.

- i dont thread record btw...was kidding.

It's symbolic. Jesus the man sacrificed himself to Jesus the Christ and overcame the world by doing so. I know this sounds absurd to literal-minded people, but it's really quite simple once you understand the symbolism behind it.

Reflex wrote:It's symbolic. Jesus the man sacrificed himself to Jesus the Christ and overcame the world by doing so. I know this sounds absurd to literal-minded people...

... such as religious fundamentalists. Most secularists see the Bible's stories as either metaphorical or a product of the local culture.