Philosophy Now Forum

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Sep 12, 2022 4:45 pm Why would God create us, and then demand we be preoccupied with him more than with each other? Why would he want us to have our minds on the place where he intends us to eventually go, rather than the place we are here and now? People say that God gives meaning to our lives, but I see it as being totally the reverse. For God to create this planet, then create us to live on it, just so we can believe in him and worship him for three score and ten years before we are sorted into those deserving of a better place and those not, would be utterly, utterly pointless. Where is the meaning in that? If I believed what the Bible asked me to believe, I would also have to believe that we were being toyed with.

(Great post, Harbal.)

Indeed!

It would seem pointless to go through life continually fixated on anything, rather than noticing the ever-unfolding potential and magnificence within every moment and all that we are part of. Surely, it is only fearful men who embrace and perpetuate limited positions that serve them.

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Sep 12, 2022 4:45 pmTo me, the word faith implies confidence in something being true, along with a desire for it to be true, and in fact counting on it to be true. I have no desire for the God of the Bible to be true, and the less confidence I have in it being true, the better, and I'm certainly not going to cultivate faith in it being true. I don't mind there being a God, but please don't give me that one.

Agreed.

Faith is like a commitment to hopeful imagination.

A god imagined and used by man in such obviously faulty ways does not represent truth to me. Any people can write (or read) a book and claim it is the word of a god, despite it being full of nonsense from the fearful and distorted imaginings of (we) humans. Exclusions, divisions, and separation are clearly the products of men because of what they are incapable of understanding. So, faith can be used to sidestep the expanding nature of broader understanding.

Surely an immense god-scape would have countless paths and much greater potential than any self-serving specifics manufactured by humans.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Sep 11, 2022 5:57 am As the Bible says, "All have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God." (Rm. 3:23) All have sinned...already.

seeds wrote: ↑Mon Sep 12, 2022 5:04 pm Sometimes I just cannot sit back and remain silent when you use that particular Biblical quote to support your argument.

In which case, I must (once again) ask you to explain how these two children...

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 12, 2022 5:13 pm Yes, yes...very cute. One is tempted to be emotionally misdirected, for sure.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the "cuteness" of those two children but is solely in reference to their "innocence."

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 12, 2022 5:13 pm But don't let the cuteness of the picture fool you. As anybody knows who has ever had a child, as cute as they are, they know how to rage, hit, steal, deceive, and as soon as they can speak, lie as well...it's rudimentary in them, but they seem to come out of the womb knowing exactly how to make it all work. And it's not very long until they start making it work in practice, as every parent also knows.

I cannot believe that anyone would actually offer-up such an embarrassingly lame argument. But I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 12, 2022 5:13 pm But it's wrong to think that "all have sinned" means "all have sinned equally." That is not ever said in Scripture: in fact, the opposite is maintained. Condemnation comes in degrees. There are sins of children and sins of adults; there are sins of temptation and sins of malevolence. There are sins of inattention and sins of plotting. And they do not weigh equally in the scales of justice.

Ah yes, the old Immanuel Can "Twisty Shuffle" that attempts to suggest that the concept of "Original Sin" doesn't actually mean what all of Christendom believes it to mean, which is clearly stated in this Wiki article...

Wiki wrote: Original sin is the guilt of disobedience to God passed on from Adam and Eve to all subsequent generations....

...Not only do individuals inherit a sinful nature due to Adam's fall, but since he was the federal head and representative of the human race, all whom he represented inherit the guilt of his sin by imputation.

In other words, contrary to your personal interpretation, the truth is...

"...all whom he [Adam] represented [which is all future humans] inherit the guilt of his sin [equally]..."

So then, back to these children....



...The only sin I can imagine them being guilty of is maybe big sis might have hugged little sis a little too hard and squeezed out a fart.

In which case, had they both died a few minutes after that photo was taken, what level of heat in the furnaces of hell do you suppose they would have earned by such a grievous offense against God?
_______

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Sep 11, 2022 5:57 amAs anybody knows who has ever had a child, as cute as they are, they know how to rage, hit, steal, deceive, and as soon as they can speak, lie as well...it's rudimentary in them, but they seem to come out of the womb knowing exactly how to make it all work. And it's not very long until they start making it work in practice, as every parent also knows.

Do you have children who know you think this of them?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Sep 12, 2022 7:49 pm (Great post, Harbal.)

Hello, stranger.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 12, 2022 5:03 pm
Then they have none. For absent God, there is no reason we owe any "duty" to our neighbour, far less to "the planet," since both are (presumably) chance fixtures in a universe that came into being by chance. We can't owe mere chance, mere accidents, anything.

Yes, I agree, but I was speaking in the event that there were a God who put us here for a reason.

Well, if you said, "I don't mind there being an IC, but please don't give me that one," perhaps you'd have a point.

I would never say that, IC. "Better the Devil you know" is my motto.

When I reread my post it seemed more blunt than I intended it to sound. It comes across as deliberately provocative, and that isn't what I was aiming for. What I'm saying is that I just don't have a spiritual or religious mindset; it just isn't me. And further to that, I do not find the God of the Old Testament to be an attractive character, so if I were looking for somewhere to place faith, I would probably be shopping around.

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Sep 12, 2022 11:08 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Sep 12, 2022 7:49 pm (Great post, Harbal.)

Hello, stranger.

I'm no stranger than you are.

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Sep 12, 2022 11:35 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 12, 2022 5:03 pm
Then they have none. For absent God, there is no reason we owe any "duty" to our neighbour, far less to "the planet," since both are (presumably) chance fixtures in a universe that came into being by chance. We can't owe mere chance, mere accidents, anything.

Yes, I agree, but I was speaking in the event that there were a God who put us here for a reason.

Well, if you said, "I don't mind there being an IC, but please don't give me that one," perhaps you'd have a point.

I would never say that, IC. "Better the Devil you know" is my motto.

When I reread my post it seemed more blunt than I intended it to sound. It comes across as deliberately provocative, and that isn't what I was aiming for.

Not a problem. I'm not thin-skinned, and I wasn't reading any hostile tone into your words...but thanks for the heads-up anyway. In any case, I wouldn't want you to lose your edge...it's pretty entertaining.

What I'm saying is that I just don't have a spiritual or religious mindset; it just isn't me.

Fair enough. I appreciate the bluntness. I'd rather you say that than go for the traditional, "Well, I'm not religous, but I consider myself spiritual" line. I never know what people really mean when they throw that one out, and it always seems to me more than a little weasely.

And further to that, I do not find the God of the Old Testament to be an attractive character, so if I were looking for somewhere to place faith, I would probably be shopping around.

Well, the OT has been given a bad rap on that. Jews know better, though: they say that a major characteristic of God is (Heb.) "chesed," meaning, "lovingkindness." Most skeptics don't read the OT that way, and that leaves the impression that the OT God is somehow harsher and less loving than the NT one. But I see no difference in character, only in covenant.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 13, 2022 1:42 am "Well, I'm not religous, but I consider myself spiritual" line. I never know what people really mean when they throw that one out

Religious: Concerned with religion; member of a religious order, congregation; pious, devout; scrupulously faithful

Spiritual: Relating to spirit; non-material

Being spiritual doesn't require being religious. Being religious doesn't ensure being spiritual.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Tue Sep 13, 2022 4:53 am Spiritual: Relating to spirit; non-material

Circular definition: see, circular definition.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 13, 2022 4:54 am

Lacewing wrote: ↑Tue Sep 13, 2022 4:53 am Spiritual: Relating to spirit; non-material

Circular definition: see, circular definition.

See the dictionary. You're the one who said you don't understand it.

Nobody ever says 'spiritual' in everyday, scientific, or intelligent philosophical conversations. For this reason the word cannot be defined for itself but it does rather point to self congratulation; as possessing a superior vision of life and stuff like that.

I first met the word 'spiritual' in a children's library book written by an author who had died long before I was born and whose books were illustrated with pen drawings of young girls with hair styles popular before 1914, and long skirted , tight- waisted dresses. I gathered from the context that the young girl who was said to be spiritual was regarded as quiet in her manner because she had better things to think about than the other girls who had discovered the joys of riding bicycles and playing hockey.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 13, 2022 1:42 am "Well, I'm not religous, but I consider myself spiritual" line. I never know what people really mean when they throw that one out

Lacewing wrote: ↑Tue Sep 13, 2022 4:53 am Religious: Concerned with religion; member of a religious order, congregation; pious, devout; scrupulously faithful

Spiritual: Relating to spirit; non-material

Being spiritual doesn't require being religious. Being religious doesn't ensure being spiritual.

Hmm. I would be surprised to find someone who was/is religious, but not spiritual. My own RC upbringing leads me to believe that religion is unavoidably spiritual; God's realm is a spiritual one. Even though I reject Christianity now, and have done since I was old enough to think for myself, I agree with this part of what I learned from them.

I also don't see the point in arguing that we can't properly define 'spiritual'. Of course we can't. There are loads of words, and their associated concepts, of which we have only a general grasp, and so, quite naturally, the words we use to describe those concepts are dimly defined too. That's OK, though, because they are general concepts, which appropriately enjoy a general definition.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 12, 2022 3:37 pm

The stakes are high, whether we sense they are or not.


After all, there are stakes.

There's no high stakes.

Such ideas only pertain to a stake claimer. Life is a singular movement. And the stake claimer is an illusory movement within that singular movement.

Man engages in life as soon as he or she is granted a live birth. There is no other play.

Man fulfils his or her designated parts in the play believing them to be real, the outcome of his or her own performance. Thus, the consequences of the performance are his or her responsibilities. No God has the power to judge your actions but yourself within the game.

Hello Lacewing. I thought you’d joined a monastery or something equally radical.

All I have is my phone with me. In 2 days or so I’ll be back . . .

I look forward to ripping the tiny shreds all conventions . . .

Lacewing wrote: ↑Tue Sep 13, 2022 6:17 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 13, 2022 4:54 am

Lacewing wrote: ↑Tue Sep 13, 2022 4:53 am Spiritual: Relating to spirit; non-material

Circular definition: see, circular definition.

See the dictionary. You're the one who said you don't understand it.

You don't know what a "circular definition" is?

It's a definition that uses the same word to define itself. It's like, "A 'mother' is somebody who is a mother." It fails, as a definition, because it depends on the reader already knowing the very word it purports to inform him about.

So when you say something akin to, "Religious means being religious," or "Spiritual means people who are spiritual," you've added no information at all. So have another go: try defining the distinction without using the words "religious," "spiritual" or "spirit." You'll find it's quite possible to generate non-circular definitions, but it requires one to understand the term one is defining.