Christianity

[Gary Childress]

Concentrate, IC. Did I say I was oppressed or dienfranchised? Why might I be asking that question?

I don't think you know any genuinely "oppressed" people, Gary. If you've always lived in the West, I can pretty much guarantee that.

But maybe you have travelled to the Two-Thirds of the current world that lives well below the standards of everybody in the West. If you have, you've never said so. And maybe you're deeply concerned about them. But then you wouldn't be whining to us about it, would you? Because we have no power over what happens in Colombia or Congo or North Korea.

So I think you must have meant somebody you think you know. But they're not the "oppressed." So it doesn't make a lot of sense.

Good powers of concentration, no?

Sophistry at best. Nothing you wrote amounts to anything concrete regarding my musing concerning heaven and hell.

[Immanuel Can]

Concentrate, IC. Did I say I was oppressed or dienfranchised? Why might I be asking that question?

I don't think you know any genuinely "oppressed" people, Gary. If you've always lived in the West, I can pretty much guarantee that.

But maybe you have travelled to the Two-Thirds of the current world that lives well below the standards of everybody in the West. If you have, you've never said so. And maybe you're deeply concerned about them. But then you wouldn't be whining to us about it, would you? Because we have no power over what happens in Colombia or Congo or North Korea.

So I think you must have meant somebody you think you know. But they're not the "oppressed." So it doesn't make a lot of sense.

Good powers of concentration, no?

Sophistry at best. Nothing you wrote amounts to anything concrete regarding my musing concerning heaven and hell.

So where are these "oppressed," Gary, about whom you are so profoundly worried?

[Harry Baird]

How about this: can you even tell us what sort of a scientific test we could use that might validate the theory of reincarnation? What would you consider evidence, if such were even possible?

I recommend starting with the research conducted into children who remember past lives under the aegis of the University of Virginia's Division of Perceptual Studies (DOPS), initially by Doctor Ian Stevenson, and then, when Dr Stevenson died, taken over by Doctor Jim Tucker. Both have published extensively in this area.

You might also find it interesting, as another start, to look up the case of Detective Robert (Bob) Snow.

I am still puzzled as to how from a fixed number of people, let us say two for example, that in a 'karmic reincarnated world' the number of people could increase

I don't know why anybody would be puzzled by this. Firstly, as attofishpi implicitly points out, souls have to be created somehow, and there is nothing that requires or entails that they were all created at the beginning, versus being created "as needed". Secondly, in this vast universe, there are presumably other planets into and from which beings might be reincarnated, so we can't assume that the demographics of Earth are all we have to take into account. Thirdly, even on this planet there is a variety of other life forms into and from which we might be reincarnated. Fourthly, we can't assume that all souls are incarnated at the same time: there might very well be or have been a bunch of souls waiting in some other realm for their next (or even first) incarnation.

There are probably even more possibilities that I haven't covered. In short: this isn't at all a puzzle.

[Gary Childress]

I don't think you know any genuinely "oppressed" people, Gary. If you've always lived in the West, I can pretty much guarantee that.

But maybe you have travelled to the Two-Thirds of the current world that lives well below the standards of everybody in the West. If you have, you've never said so. And maybe you're deeply concerned about them. But then you wouldn't be whining to us about it, would you? Because we have no power over what happens in Colombia or Congo or North Korea.

So I think you must have meant somebody you think you know. But they're not the "oppressed." So it doesn't make a lot of sense.

Good powers of concentration, no?

Sophistry at best. Nothing you wrote amounts to anything concrete regarding my musing concerning heaven and hell.

So where are these "oppressed," Gary, about whom you are so profoundly worried?

Never mind.

[seeds]

Personally, I am definitely of the intuitional school that the entire cosmos emerges from the mind of god. Actually you can pick any number of different metaphors or explanation-routes since they are simply poetic references. The term 'god' is becoming more and more useless though. It confuses the issue.

I tend to see the good sense in the terms used in Vedanta. Simply put, whatever 'god' is (the ultimate Brahman or *highest universal principle*) is beyond comprehension except in some sort of poetical state-of-mind or perhaps visionary state. That is why one needs to understand *personal god* or Ishvara.

I agree that because the term "God" carries with it such an enormous load of ancient baggage that it definitely confuses the issue.

However, what other "handy" term can we use that denotes a living Being (a conscious "I Am-ness") that represents the central and creative locus of this universe?

In other words, if you can provide us with a new and better term for us to use in everyday conversation that is, in essence, shorthand for "...the ultimate Brahman or *highest universal principle*...," then let's hear it.

(For one thing, I'm thinking that responding with "...the *highest universal principle* blesses you..." every time someone sneezes, would be a bit awkward )

Also, you stated that you are of the intuitional school that the entire cosmos emerges from the "mind" of God. Yet, in the next paragraph, you seem to be equating the "mind" of God with some sort of abstract "universal principle." And that, to me, seems incongruent.

Do you view your own mind as being some sort of abstract "principle"?

If not, then why view the mind of God in such terms?

What does the word "mind" mean to you?

My own view is that people do not focus on the right thing which is not a thing at all. It is existence.

What aspect of "existence" grabbed hold of the fabric of reality and shaped it into this...



Furthermore, how in the world did "existence" know that the above setting would be the perfect configuration of material substances from which multifarious forms of life and consciousness could emerge and flourish for billions of years?

The point is that you seem to be imbuing an abstract term called "existence" with teleological impetus and intention. To which I must ask from whence did "existence" acquire intention?

And more importantly, what connected that spirit of intention to the fabric from which the billions of galaxies of the universe were created?

I also believe that we could focus more on thinking about the nature of our own *world* as one among any number of different *worlds*. I mean discreet worlds with their own rules and conditions.

If we can logically assume that the main purpose for the existence of a "world" (i.e., a "universe") is to provide a stable setting in order to facilitate the efflorescence of life and consciousness from the very fabric of the setting itself,...

...then I challenge you to imagine a better world (a better universe) than one that uses suns and planets to get the job done.

Go ahead, give it a shot.

I mean, sure, we can imagine the existence of other discrete universes with their own rules and conditions, but if they do not contain life and consciousness, then as far as I am concerned, if there is nothing capable of seeing, feeling, hearing, smelling, and tasting the features of said universes, then they would be utterly dark and have absolutely no purpose or reason for existing.

We can only think about our own world comparatively, or if we try to think comparatively (intuitively, speculatively, imaginarily) then we see that the *rules* of our world are peculiar to this world -- but other worlds (planes of existence) could very well have different rules. Christianity is aware of *3 worlds* and this fits into an older and often universal vision: the world we are in, a hell-realm, and a heaven-world.

You are alluding to "old paradigm" nonsense. Which I guess is unavoidable, seeing how this thread has us on the inside of the bubble of Christian mythology, discussing the doctrines and features that hold the bubble together.

However, as I tried to make clear in my Venn diagram post - (viewtopic.php?p=600240#p600240), it's time to move onward (and upward) to a new vision of reality. So, we need to stop speaking of concepts such as "hell-realms" as if they actually exist (which they don't).

We are stuck into a world of biological flesh and the vehicle of our being and our apperance here is in these strange mortal encasings (σῶμα = sôma = “body”). But other sorts of vehicles and 'bodies' are conceivable. Which is what I think the notion of 'angel' refers to: a being with some other sort of body. A more enduring vehicle. One that is less bound to the rules that determine flesh-bodies...

Right!

Now just carry that line of reasoning to the logical conclusion that it also applies to the Creator of this universe, and that as we stand on the earth and look out into the universe, we are viewing God's body (her "more enduring vehicle") from the inside of her being.

And that would be in precisely the same way we would have been viewing the inside of our mother's body had we awakened within her womb a few weeks before being born out of her.

In other words, if you reach out and feel the air rushing through your fingers as you vigorously wave your hand in front of you, it is the metaphorical equivalent of what you would have felt had you been awake enough to notice the amniotic water rushing through your fingers as you moved your hand within your mother's womb.

I also do not have any particular problem with the idea of reincarnation...

I'm afraid I've made this post way too long (something we are both guilty of doing), so perhaps we can discuss the concept of reincarnation later?

But my quick response would be that, again, you are alluding to "old paradigm" nonsense, and that reincarnation is a problematic (if not downright false) concept.
_______

[Lacewing]

If your view has anything to it, let's see what it is. Cards on the table.

Again. We are supposedly being played with the same deck of cards, ergo, play your hand by the call u insist..that is where is YOUR evidence that all wo/men are here upon the Earth in their first and only incarnation to face judgement as if ALL had an equal affair in the matter?

EVERYBODY, cards on the table!!! Oh wait, we've already got all of our cards on the table in full view, don't we?! And there's NO PROOF OF ANYTHING.

Proof has to be interpreted as such by those reviewing the claims. Otherwise, we're still in the realm of unproven claims... not in the realm of proof.

Not answering reasonable questions that are in response to unproven claims is a childish deception used shockingly too much on this forum, and such deception is clearly employed to protect the self-serving beliefs of an individual -- rather than bravely exploring philosophical views beyond that.

[Alexis Jacobi]

These theological poker metaphors have me on the edge of my seat.

[Dubious]

If your view has anything to it, let's see what it is. Cards on the table.

Again. We are supposedly being played with the same deck of cards, ergo, play your hand by the call u insist..that is where is YOUR evidence that all wo/men are here upon the Earth in their first and only incarnation to face judgement as if ALL had an equal affair in the matter?

EVERYBODY, cards on the table!!! Oh wait, we've already got all of our cards on the table in full view, don't we?! And there's NO PROOF OF ANYTHING.

Proof has to be interpreted as such by those reviewing the claims. Otherwise, we're still in the realm of unproven claims... not in the realm of proof.

Not answering reasonable questions that are in response to unproven claims is a childish deception used shockingly too much on this forum, and such deception is clearly employed to protect the self-serving beliefs of an individual -- rather than bravely exploring philosophical views beyond that.

Proof on this subject is rarely possible if at all. The best we can do is, if in the light of reality as we actually live and perceive it to be, can any argument make sense and give it a probability of being what it claims. Most of the stuff here are just layers of pure trash speculation which amounts to nothing more than a mind game. Ask a necessary question and silence follows or an insult. That is the gist of this game. Philosophy forums are the least open-minded of all since there's hardly any criteria by which an argument can be judged where even bona fide facts can be attacked by some desperate logic to defend a believed in absurdity. In a more controlled debating environment many here, given their extremely disputable line of reasoning, would be disqualified if not corrected.

[Lacewing]

The term 'god' is becoming more and more useless though. It confuses the issue.

Yes, it does! It has become too personified.

Simply put, whatever 'god' is (the ultimate Brahman or *highest universal principle*) is beyond comprehension except in some sort of poetical state-of-mind or perhaps visionary state.

Agreed! Even as a kid, I thought (and accepted) that such was beyond comprehension as I watched adults use their imaginations to create and praise something that they couldn't possibly comprehend. I saw their fear... and I came to see the power of imagination.

It is (for some) freeing and empowering NOT to claim to know such a non-sensical god. It is a relief (for some) not to be so identified with such a thing that it must be defended at all costs for fear of death to one's identity/ego. Such fear and belief actually seems (to me) like the worst kind of evil perpetuated by and projected onto humankind.

Why would "the highest universal principle" so-to-speak be sufficiently represented by the convoluted nonsense created by humans in so many vastly varied forms throughout the ages of humans?

I agree that because the term "God" carries with it such an enormous load of ancient baggage that it definitely confuses the issue.

However, what other "handy" term can we use that denotes a living Being (a conscious "I Am-ness") that represents the central and creative locus of this universe?

The concepts of "living" and "I am" are human concepts. Why would "the highest universal principle" BE according to such terms? Any personification seems, to me, to be the product of limited imagination.

And any need for a 'god figure' seems, to me, to come from ideas of disconnection. I think we come into this human world as connected beings with all else, and then it is stripped away to be replaced by imagined identities. Perhaps there's nothing wrong with that in itself... since it's just imagination... but we use it in ways that limit ourselves and others from having greater experiences here.

[Age]

I constantly present evidence and reasons for what I believe.

But NOT when I challenge you.

Heh. What you say never actually even makes a lick of sense.

I mostly just ask you questions like;

HOW would God even be a male gendered thing/person, like you claim It is?

And if that does not make a 'lick of sense', to you, then that just SHOWS how CLOSED and STUPID you REALLY ARE "immanuel can".

Saying and claiming that God is, LOL, a male is what ACTUALLY Truly makes NO sense AT ALL. And, your INABILITY to back up and support YOUR CLAIM here just PROVES that it is you who is NOT making ANY sense AT ALL.

SEE, unlike 'you', "immanuel can", I CAN back up and support what I say and claim here. At the moment "you" just do NOT have the intelligence to find out, and thus SEE, HOW.

[Gary Childress]

So I'd like to ask a knowledgeable Christian something. I cede that you know the Bible well, IC. I cede that you're generally honest and up front to the best of your reckoning. So I ask you this:

1. Does the bible not say that adultery is sin?

2. And is sex outside of marriage not adultery?

3. And are the "wages of sin" not death?

4. And "death" in this instance refers to becoming a resident of hell?

5. And hell is eternal?

Is all the above correct as stated in the Bible and is the Bible the final word on matters pertaining to God?

So I'd like to have sex outside of marriage. If I act on that impulse repeatedly, knowing what the Bible says, will I go to hell?

[attofishpi]

The GREAT IRONY of this entire thread and the level of comprehension about the subject at hand of members of this forum.

IF Christ was to join this forum, and start posting here within this thread NONE of you would barely believe a word he had to say, and would argue with the man until your teeth fall out, prior to dropping dead.

I have NOTHING to gain by "mining" your minds - none of you have any insight into the subject at hand beyond books.

So I shall simply say: FUCK OFF.

[Immanuel Can]

So I'd like to ask a knowledgeable Christian something. I cede that you know the Bible well, IC. I cede that you're generally honest and up front to the best of your reckoning. So I ask you this:

1. Does the bible not say that adultery is sin?

It's commandment #7 of the 10.

2. And is sex outside of marriage not adultery?

It depends. Are the participants married, or not? It could be "fornication" or "lewdness," without being "adultery." In any case, it's a sin, too.

3. And are the "wages of sin" not death?

Yes.

4. And "death" in this instance refers to becoming a resident of hell?

That depends. Is one going to do anything about one's sin, or is one not? Is one going to accept salvation, or refuse it?

One could be an adulterer, or one of many things, and not end up under judgment, if one is willing to accept responsibility and humble oneself so as to seek God's mercy. See 1 Cor. 6:9-11.

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor those habitually drunk, nor verbal abusers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God." [underline mine]

5. And hell is eternal?

See, for example Rev. 14:11.

Is all the above correct as stated in the Bible and is the Bible the final word on matters pertaining to God?

Not quite correct, but in the ballpark, so to speak. See my comments for changes.

So I'd like to have sex outside of marriage. If I act on that impulse repeatedly, knowing what the Bible says, will I go to hell?

If you perform any sin "repeatedly, knowing what the Bible says" (as you put it) and thus unrepentantly, the outcome is exactly the same. But it's not merely adultery, or fornication...it's all the other things listed, as well. And it doesn't have to be "repeatedly," since sin is an all-or-nothing kind of thing, as Jesus Himself so clearly said. (Matt. 5:28) And it's the nature or character that "likes" (as you put it) to do such things that makes one unsuitable for eternal life.

So there are two problems: the action, which in its own right calls for judgment, and the nature that "likes" that sort of thing, and which is not merely prone to that one thing, but to many other sins as well. It's not just what one has done; it's that one is the sort of person who 'likes' to do such things. That takes the problem to a whole new level. It's clear that stopping the person from doing the one action isn't, in any way, going to address the root of the nature that makes him inclined to it.

I trust that's a straightforward and plain answer.

[Lacewing]

IF Christ was to join this forum, and start posting here within this thread NONE of you would barely believe a word he had to say

How do you know that?

What do you think he would say?

Maybe 'Christ' would be nothing like what's represented by Christians or those who claim to know 'Christ'. Maybe 'Christ' would be disgusted with such self-absorbed delusional wannabees who claim to uniquely know him. Maybe 'Christ' IS here! Where else might 'Christ' be?

[attofishpi]

IF Christ was to join this forum, and start posting here within this thread NONE of you would barely believe a word he had to say

How do you know that?

What do you think he would say?

Maybe 'Christ' would be nothing like what's represented by Christians or those who claim to know 'Christ'. Maybe 'Christ' would be disgusted with such self-absorbed delusional wannabees who claim to uniquely know him. Maybe 'Christ' IS here! Where else might 'Christ' be?

How do I know that? - let's just call it intuition. Everyone within this thread would require a miracle to be performed (evidence) prior to taking the fella seriously.