Are you happy to know you will die?
Are you happy to know you will die?
Death or the fact that we die seems to be good news to Christians.
It is said that Adam’s sin brought death to earth and that the wages of sin is death.
Christians also sing that Adam's sin was a happy fault and necessary to god's plan.
This indicates that part of god’s plan and desire is that all people should die. God’s plan cannot be derailed., if god is real.
Do you think god’s plan working? If it is working as god wishes, which must be so if there is a powerful god, and if death is good for us, does the thought of dying make you happy?
If the notion of death makes you unhappy, then why sing of sin, --- and by inference, death, --- as being a happy fault and necessary to god’s plan?
Another issue on the death, specifically the death of Jesus springs to mind.
If Jesus was not a sinner, how could he have died?
Regards
DL
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ffea24acdd4b6688766ea59f1ab3e48b180de250f6a2af629eede11ba94149a9.jpg
Death or the fact that we die seems to be good news to Christians.
It is said that Adam’s sin brought death to earth and that the wages of sin is death.
Christians also sing that Adam's sin was a happy fault and necessary to god's plan.
This indicates that part of god’s plan and desire is that all people should die. God’s plan cannot be derailed., if god is real.
Do you think god’s plan working? If it is working as god wishes, which must be so if there is a powerful god, and if death is good for us, does the thought of dying make you happy?
If the notion of death makes you unhappy, then why sing of sin, --- and by inference, death, --- as being a happy fault and necessary to god’s plan?
Another issue on the death, specifically the death of Jesus springs to mind.
If Jesus was not a sinner, how could he have died?
Regards
DL
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ffea24acdd4b6688766ea59f1ab3e48b180de250f6a2af629eede11ba94149a9.jpg
Comments (140)
Christians believe there are different possibilities for what happens after a person dies. Heaven, Hell, classrooms.
Jesus willingly died in some sense because most christans would say he was God. I'm not going to get into the whole issue of the trinity. A soldier dies for their country because they believe in what their country stands for, and i believe Jesus is the same way.
And yes the thought of death does make me happy. I have stories to back that up but i'm not sure i want to talk about that right now.
Better, why did he have to be baptized and receive Christos?
Death will be a relief from the overwhelming paradoxes of living. I'm not yet wise enough to say I'm happy to know it, as its still a source of significant anxiety. Though such anxiety leads to interesting thought, so it isn't so bad in a way.
"Better, why did he have to be baptized by Christos?
Death will be a relief. I'm not yet wise enough to say I'm happy to know it, as its still a source of significant anxiety. Though such anxiety leads to interesting thought, so it isn't so bad in a way. "
i could explain to you why Jesus felt the need to be baptized by John but instead i'll say this: the answer deals with a particular religion and for you to think the person of religion can't come up with some loop hole for this sort of situation to make sense within the confines of the religion, i think that is obsurd.
I'm here to philosophize. I'll leave the apologetics up to people who feel called to be apologists or to preach.
In the case of Christianity, it is god, as the state in this scenario, that cause the crisis that demanded a needless death. This link speaks of that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-91mSkxaXs
I do not see Jesus as believing in what god stands for as he would not stand for genocide or god giving us the notion that it is somehow good and just to punish the innocent instead of the guilty. Jesus, in fact, followed the Jewish law that posits the reverse as just.
Regards
DL
Good points.
Regards
DL
I hear you.
It would take a vile way of thinking to think that one could spend many thousands of years in heaven above while watching most of those ones loved in life going through purposeless torture and death in hell.
Regards
DL
I've met alot of non christians who have cruel ways of treating people and i do agree there are christians that treat people cruelly. Don't Gnostics believe in punishment for certain behavior? As for why people go to hell forever, i would say only wicked people go to hell forever who have not taken the easy way out and allowed Jesus to forgive them.
why would I be happy if my life functions cease to stop?
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
I disagree. I do not think all Christians want to die even if they believe they will attain salvation.
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
Not according to Judaism and Islam.
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
Perhaps but how does that fit into the model of what God, so-called wants from us?
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
All life forms are destined to die this is the nature of mortal existence....nothing new.
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
I was born and I die. This is the nature of a thing. Am I happy that I will die eventually? No. But I will die. I full submit to what God has planned for me.
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
I am not happy, where did you get this idea from?
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
Because it is said in the Bible he was without sin? But more importantly because it was a part in the whole plan??
So many people seem to forget death, to simply absorb themselves in other matters. I try to respect their decisions and not think of it as escapism, but that is my prejudice.
Also, so many people think they will continue to exist in some form or another, after death. That is just some magical thinking that relegates our real world to become less real. Death as the inescapable dissolution of me is the only death worth considering. The concept of the afterlife imposes that the real world be interpreted as a draft, a classroom, a dream - in short, as preparation for the afterlife. It not only diminishes the nobleness of the real world - it makes people live for the afterlife, despising their real lives. It makes people more accepting of polluting and destroying the planet.
Am I happy that I will die? No. I think the question is badly formulated: happiness happens alongside the consciousness of death, and not because or despite the finiteness of being.
As one gets older (I;m 82)...a thing happens that can best be stated as, "The fact that I am going to die is less troubling to me than it was when I was younger."
I don't consider it to be "happy that I am going to die (relatively soon)"...but rather that the prospect is not as unpleasant to contemplate as it once was.
My elderly aunt (9 years older than I) WANTS to die. She is not in despair, but she feels her life no longer has the kind of meaning that it had a while back...and is looking forward to release.
Not sure if I will get to that point also, but I understand her attitude.
I don't think anyone with a sane mind would be happy that their life functions will cease in the future.
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
First time I'm hearing this. which Christian denomination is saying this?
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
I believe in some way metaphorically, the story of Adam at least in part is to explain the morality of humanity.
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
By getting metal nails implanted in his wrists and feet placed up on a Roman instrument and slowly dying from asphyxiation.
Why do you think that Christianity is better than Gnostic Christianity?
Christianity grew by inquisition and murder while Gnostic Christianity grew but good moral tenets.
Christianity is a homophobic and misogynous religion. Gnostic Christianity is a universalist religions that see women and gays as equals.
Christians posit that a genocidal and infanticidal god is good while Gnostic Christians think such a mass murderer to be evil.
Speak to those issues just for starters.
Of course Gnostic Christians believe in punishment and justice for evil doers.. Why do Christians punish women and gays for being exactly what Yahweh created them to be? Not that Yahweh is real.
Even if it is only people that end in hell, what kind of god do you have who punishes without purpose when he could just as easily cure them the way Jesus said he came to cure the sinners he ran into?
As to Jesus, your so called savior. Jesus said he came to fulfil the law and here you are trying to make him into a moral monster who would break the laws he came to fulfil. Here are his laws.
Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.
Do you agree that having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral?
Do you agree that to abdicate personal responsibility or use a scapegoat is immoral?
If not, please show how it is morally and legally good to punish the innocent instead of the guilty, bearing in mind that all legal systems think that punishing the guilty is what is justice.
Regards
DL
That was not the question. I was comparing dying to living eternally.
Try this. Do you wish to live for eternity?
Quoting Anaxagoras
You think they would not want to be with their god. Ok.
Quoting Anaxagoras
True. We are not speaking of their ideologies but of the Christian ideology.
Quoting Anaxagoras
It fits in as it questions what god wants. If a happy fault and necessary to his plan, then he would want us to sin.
Quoting Anaxagoras
Not to Christians who expect their souls to live forever and I think they include new bodies.
Quoting Anaxagoras
Submit, like a slave, when Jesus said he came to serve and not be served by slaves.
Quoting Anaxagoras
So you picked the contradiction that serves your thinking better. Quite the way to cherry pick.
Quoting Anaxagoras
All who recognize Easter as it is an Easter hymn. I do not have the itinerary of all the churches or denominations.
Quoting Anaxagoras
I agree. Christians condemn him and Gnostic Christians and Jews praise him.
What is your position? Was Eden where man fell, the Christian view even though they praise his happy fault of sinning, or the Gnostic Christian and Jewish position of Eden deing where man was elevated to god like status in terms of our moral sense?
Quoting Anaxagoras
Ineffective if he did not earn death through sin.
You can do better than this buddy. I hope.
Regards
DL
A perfect attitude. I share it.
Quoting Louco
I have to admit that I do that as death seldom enters my thinking. That does not prevent me from following your reply that I dubbed as perfect.
Quoting Louco
True. That is why I hate the lying preachers and imams so much. They rob people of their lives.
Quoting Louco
I would not take it that far as they also have children and I hope most want to leave them some kind of environment that can be lived in. It is hard to say though as most parents don't mind spending their inheritance by running tax deficits and loading the debt onto their children.
Regards
DL
Yes.
Life is long and one will tire of it after a while.
I am happy to know that somebody else will get a chance to live, that my departure will have made some space for them to live in.
Sometimes that seems like I believe in reincarnation and sometimes it doesn't.
I will read this as you getting happier.
I base my getting happier on the how much happiness and purpose I get from life.
When I run out of both, I will be really happy that I will die as then life would have little to no meaning.
Quoting Frank Apisa
I have seen that and is partially what prompted the question.
Do you think she would tell god where to put his eternal life if he offered it?
I believe I would as more of the same old same old would not be appealing to me.
Regards
DL
I hold no supernatural belief but I like your answer buddy.
Regards
DL
Yeah, something like that. The way I said it pretty much sums up the way I feel.
I may be old...but I am spry and enjoy every day. I'd just as soon not die any time soon...but when it happens, it will happen.
My aunt is not much into the "god" notion...and I have never heard her say a word about any sort of heaven or hell. She seems content to suppose that when she dies, she will simply be dead. She has had four sisters (one being my mother), a brother, and a husband who have died. Never heard a word about "I will be with them" or any thoughts of that sort.
I nearly died last year. Happy about every day that I have lived after that. The real thing that would have sucked is that I have two young children and loving wife, who I wouldn't want to become a widow at her age. My own mother died when I was 17 so I can relate somehow to the loss of a parent. I can imagine how it would have felt if I would have been 12. As my daughter is 6, she wouldn't remember so much about me later.
Death is more about the people you leave behind, the one's who you are important to. They are the one's that are affected. People might be religious and believe in Heaven or some kind of afterlife, or be atheists and conclude that in death your body goes into recycling and your thinking simply ceases to exist. Have it one way or the other, it's same the people who live that mourn, not the people dead.
Old people can genuinely want to die: they have lost all their friends, they have seen it all and being old when you cannot do anything can be boring. I don't shed much tears for them. It's when young children die that gets to you. That is really sad.
No you asked the question are you happy to know you will die? So, I answered it. Now if you were looking for something particular you should have written a fully formed paragraph to supplement that question. Instead you made it one sentence followed by a space so I therefore answered it as a stand alone question.
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
Is this a straight forward question or am I supposed to answer this when comparing to living and dying? Do I want to live forever? No. because eternity is not guaranteed and since nothing in existence is guaranteed except death then no.
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
It makes me think of the quote:
"Everyone wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die." Sure, I'm sure there are Christians that want to go meet their "God," but it doesn't negate the natural inclination of wanting to live on their own terms.
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
I'm not sure I understand this.
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
Seriously taking statements I'm saying in another thread now? I'm not Christian for one, but when I say submit I do not question the particulars of my life whether I am free or am I a prisoner of causes and effects. Like a parent who dictates the through parental rearing, I believe a Creator deity who is ineffable perhaps in some indirect/direct is controlling the universe but that is my personal belief.
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
Well that is Christian eschatology....
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
Dude why are you cherry picking shit I'm saying to someone else in another thread? WTF that is some weird shit. If you look I was asking a question to another person.....
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
You act like you did something clever....Not only are you weird but you took comments from another thread and quoted me here as if you're doing some "ah ha!" stuff man...SMH man some of you guys are very special.
I don't think this thread has much to do with this, but that question was floating around, and I didn't see the answer anywhere.
I am not christian, but went to a 7th day adventist college that required WAY too many christianity courses so I got you covered here. First off, you were half-way to the answer with one of your earlier statements:
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
Jesus was crucified to die for humanity's sin. (everyone knows this) The part that is forgot is that Jesus takes on all of humanity's sin right before death (if he was without sin there would be no cause of his death). This is when Jesus says something along the lines of "why have you foresaken me?" as a divine being is suddenly thrust into a mortal body suffering the effects of sin, he is struggling and asks God for help. There is also mention of "god is saving something for Jesus in heaven", the best guess as to what is being saved is Jesus' divinity, which had to be sacrificed in order to take on sin.
Also, know that A LOT of the bible is just justifying that god does not lie (if the wage of death is sin, and Jesus is taking on humanity's sins, he MUST die or god is a liar).
My experience with the very old follows your pattern of not hearing them talk of that nonsense either.
Regards
DL
Yes, and I see them as happy to not have an eternal life.
Nice that you lived through your crisis and know that we live vicariously through those we hang around for and love.
Regards
DL
That was what I wanted to know.
Quoting Anaxagoras
Try thinking this way. Psychotropic drug studies show that drug users are risk takers.
Risk takers have been shown to be better adjusted than (tea totalers) those who never take risks.
As a parent who knows this, I kind of hope that my children take drugs, in a safe way, as that says that they are better adjusted than if they did not. Think of sin as a necessary evil or a small amount of evil within the larger good.
I also use evolution as an example of this. We must cooperate and compete to be normal. When we cooperate, we do not create a loser or victim who would feel evil has come his way. When we compete, which we must do, we create a loser or one who feels evil has come to him.
Creating a loser and hurting him is evil, but an evil that we must do if we are to continue evolving, which we must do. A small evil in a larger good.
Regards
DL
I see that as faith, not belief.
Beliefs are usually based on facts while faith lacks any facts.
That might be splitting hairs to you but it is a fact.
Regards
DL
Not at all.
My intent was to dissuade any who though eternity to be desirable from that thinking.
I also wanted to bring those who believe in the supernatural back to thinking in a healthy natural way.
Scriptures say that adults are to put away the things of children and that would include supernatural thinking.
I also wanted to compare heaven to hell to show how heaven would be hell when the souls in heaven had to watch most of their friends and family burning below them in purposeless torture forever.
Only the insane could live through that or respect a god who set up such a foul system.
Regards
DL
God is the father of lies.
Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee. 1Kings 22:23
Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets. 2 Chron 18:22
Ah, Lord GOD! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people. Jer 4:10
And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet.
Ezekiel 14:9
For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie. Thessalonians 2:11
O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived. - Jeremiah 20:7
To me, God’s worse lie was to Adam and Eve. He told them they could eat of the tree of life and then reneged and in a real sense murdered them by denying them a remedy.
That pesky God sure works in mysterious ways.
As to Jesus dying for us. I do not think he would break the laws he said he came fulfill. Do you really want to make Jesus a moral monster?
Here are his laws.
Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.
Do you agree that having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral? Do you agree that to abdicate personal responsibility or use a scapegoat is immoral?
If not, please show how it is morally and legally good to punish the innocent instead of the guilty, bearing in mind that all legal systems think that punishing the guilty is what is justice.
Regards
DL
hehe, I was not trying to suggest that Christian theology is accurate or even logical.
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
??? What did I say that suggested this? Notice that Jesus never actually committed sin (based on the fantastic teachings of the bible). He simply accepted the burden of sin that humanity had/has/will accumulate (please do not ask me to make sense of this - it just is, like god).
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
I think Christianity is a few basic moral principles dressed in a bunch of hogwash. You suddenly switched from asking "what do christians believe?" to "are christians justified in their beliefs?"
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
yep immoral. That being said, if I was given the opportunity to die, and in so doing, remove the suffering of all human beings so all are peaceful and happy (pure fantasy, but for the sake of argument), I HOPE I would choose to die. This does not suggest that innocents should die for others, just that we should admire the "innocents" that are willing to sacrifice their own well being for the good of others (one of those basic moral principles I was talking about).
I go by whatever a poster says and answer by my impression of if he is a believer or not. I sometimes miss the mark, like here apparently. Apologies.
At least you have learned how I deal with the scapegoat riders.
I hope any of those lurking around answer as you did but they tend not to, if they reply at all. Most run for the hills and refuse to be honest.
Regards
DL
That is not what I read, especially if I follow the stupid Trinity concept. Yahweh/Jesus sins quite a bit.
Even if I do not tie Jesus to Yahweh, I still see Jesus as sinning on occasion.
His fit against the merchants at the temple is just one example.
Regards
DL
No problem. No non-believer should ever have to learn all that crap, so it was probably a fair assumption :smile:
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
Know that I am likely to agree with most examples you give that show the wackiness of Christianity. Having dealt with A LOT of apologetics though, I could guess one possible answer (and of course there is favorite standby of "god works in mysterious ways", ugh). It would be the same answer as why the old testament god was not sinning when he was accepting sacrifices and wiping out populations. He was meeting humans where they are. That is supposedly a justification for the 10 commandments also(DO IT OR ELSE does not seem very christian). The pharisees would not have responded if Jesus just kindly asked them to stop (not sure how that justifies actions that would otherwise be sin?).
Apologetics are a bunch of nonsense, but some churches have put a tremendous amount of effort into TRYING to make them seem logical. They fail, but it is an impressive attempt considering the nonsensical nature of the subject :grin:
No more than I am happy that the ground I'm standing on is made of stone. Neither is in my control; I simply accept them, as I must. What other option(s) do we have? To deny reality because we'd rather it was otherwise? No, that's not for me.
Nice that we both see the harm and foolishness within the religions that have used inquisitions and jihads against the innocent.
Regards
DL
True, but it is not true for those foolish enough to believe in the supernatural.
Regards
DL
Hmm. And yet *I* am that foolish.... :wink:
I'd rather be immortal, as long as I could be relatively young/healthy as an immortal.
What does your response mean, PC?
Are you saying you "believe" in the "supernatural?"
If so...are you saying that you are inferring knowledge...or is it just a general feeling or guess...that something other than what is a part of nature...exists?
What do you mean when you say you are an "atheist," Terrapin?
Are you expressing a "belief" or guess that there are no gods...or are you simply saying you lack a "belief" that any gods exist?
If the latter, to you also lack a "belief" that no gods exist? Are you generally lacking a belief in whether gods exist or do not exist?
I'm saying that I'm a believer (but not a Christian ;)). And before that, I was claiming not to deny or believe-against the evidence. OK? :smile: A guess? In formal terms, yes, that's exactly what it is. :wink:
Okay...just wasn't sure of your point.
I went from moderate religious...to zealous religious...to agnostic. Moderate up to age 17 - 18...zealous while in military service (peacetime)...and became agnostic about at age 21 - 25. Been that way ever since.
And I went from forcibly religious - I was raised Roman Catholic - until I was able to choose for myself. Thereafter I was (unthinkingly) atheist, then, gradually, agnostic. And now I am a Gaian Daoist. Gaia, the Nature aspect of God, and Taoism for the spiritual/philosophical side.
It takes all sorts! :wink:
I believe/I'm asserting the fact that no gods exist.
A bunch of that stuff you just made up in your head, or it's from a version of Christianity I've never seen, but it's not in the bible.
Why do you have Christian in your nickname if you know little to nothing about the religion, is it supposed to be ironic?
Okay...so you are a "believer."
It may be a correct guess. If I were to "hope" on the matter (I seldom do)...it is what I hope is the truth.
No maybe or hoping about it, but who knows the reason you have some doubts. You don't really seem to be sharing the source of your doubts.
Not sure what you mean that I am not sharing the source of my doubts. I have offered them several times...in several different places and threads.
I have absolutely no idea of the true nature of the REALITY of existence. Neither do you.
You can make a blind guess about its nature...about what is contained in it...and what does not exist...but it is nothing but a blind guess.
I choose not to do that...although I will if asked.
What on Earth is unreasonable about:
[i][b]I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...
...so I don't.[/b][/i]
Just to see who the less educated are.
I am happy to teach you anything you misunderstand about both Christianity, and it's more intelligent form of Gnostic Christianity.
Ask nice.
Regards
DL
A fool says in his heart, there is no God; -- a wise man says it out laud.
Regards
DL
Perhaps significant that you spelled "out loud" incorrectly.
Guessing there are no gods is not foolish...but then again, guessing there is at least one god is not foolish either.
They are simply guesses.
If someone wants to pretend either is more than just a guess...
...that person is being foolish.
I am French buddy and I can screw up in 3 languages.Only those who seek cheap points remark on such minute errors.
If a fool want to think there is a god by faith alone, then he has faith without facts and is truly a fool.
The wise go with reality and not some imaginary god, who just happens to be a genocidal son murdering prick of a god.
If fools are going to make up a god, can you tell us why they choose to create such a vile prick of a god?
Regards
DL
Are you talking about our mental content here, re dispositions, etc.?
Hey...you screwed up. No big deal. I just thought it was funny, because I disagreed with the sentiment you were attempting to convey.
If a person wants to guess there is a god...or to guess there are no gods...he/she is not a fool. One does not become a fool because one makes a guess.
That, essentially is what a "belief" in this context is...a guess.
Is that what you think...that you are...wise?
Okay...I enjoy a laugh.
Beats me.
A better question is: Since it seems humans invented gods like Zeus, Ra, Jehovah and that crappy like...why is that used by the fools of the world to suppose no gods exist...rather than that humans are fallible when it comes to describing some things?
I am saying that I (I am just talking about me at this point) do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence. I do not know what actually exists (or existed)...or what does not exist (or has not existed) in the REALITY of existence. It is big mystery to me...and I am not disposed to make guesses about most of it.
It is my blind guess that you do not know that either.
I should have included that qualification.
My bad. I apologize.
So if the religions are that far off the mark, it shows who the fools are.
Those who have the faith of fools have to hide behind a supernatural shield.
Faith closes the mind. It is pure idol worship.
Faith is a way to quit using, "God given" power of Reason and Logic, and cause the faithful to embrace doctrines that moral people reject.
The God of the OT says, “Come now, and let us reason together,” [Isaiah 1:18]
How can literalists reason on God when they must ignore reason and logic and discard them when turning into literalist?
Those who are literalists can only reply somewhat in the fashion that Martin Luther did.
“Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”
“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”
This attitude effectively kills all worthy communication that non-theists can have with theist. Faith closes their mind as it is pure idol worship.
Literalism is an evil practice that hides the true messages of myths. We cannot show our faith based friends that they are wrong through their faith colored glasses. Their faith also plugs their ears.
Regards
DL
The "fools" in my opinion...are those who insist, "There is at least one god"...
...who insist, "There are no gods"...
...or who insist they know which of those two is more likely.
They are the fools...in my opinion.
I recognize that decent, well-intentioned, intelligent people can disagree with me.
I suspect they are fools also.
Regards
DL
People unwilling to acknowledge they do not know if gods exist or not...or unwilling to acknowledge they cannot determine which is more likely...
...ARE FOOLS.
*End of the Line of Explanation*
The question you need to consider is whether everything has an explanation, or only the things we choose to say are explained. If we can choose what has an explanation and what does not, all science becomes subjective. This also means that things can act before they become operational - a contradiction in terms. (see my #36). Peace, Dennis?
Energy is conserved because the dynamics of the universe does not change over time (Noether's theorem tells us this). Science does not tell us why the dynamics does not change -- why the laws remain in operation -- that is the job of metaphysics and it leads us to the conclusion, not that "God did it" (which assumes that God exists), but that "God does exist" -- which is something we would not know if we did not investigate the question. So, try not to confuse the two statements -- they are very different.
No. I have made no hypothesis. There must be an explanation, or science will not work. The explanation cannot be an infinite regress. So the series of explanations comes to an end. The end of the line cannot be explained by anything but itself or it would not be the end of the line. Yet, our general principle says it has an explanation. So, it must be self-explaining. None of these are guesses, so there is no hypothesis and no god of gaps. Tear that page out of your copy of the Atheist's Playbook, it does not apply here.
If you want to say that the laws of nature are self explaining, then you are saying God controls the universe directly instead of via laws. Any self explaining being has to be infinite and so God. (Se the Appendix in my book). In my view, science works better if we do not assume that God is the proximate reason why things happen -- that is just saying "God does it" -- which I thought you did not like.
The principle is that everything has an explanation. God is included in everything. The problem you are having is assuming that everything is explained by something beyond itself. That is not implied by the principle. Since God is the end of the line of explanation, God is not explained by something else, but is self-explaining. There is no logical problem.
Things having explanations does not mean we know the explanations. Yet, we can know that a series of concurrent explanations (the laws act concurrently - #13) cannot be infinitely long, so there has to be a first term. To be first, it must be self-explaining (#15). To be self-explaining, a being's essence (what it can do - #35) must explain or entail its existence. Existence is simply the ability to act, so its essence can't cut down the power to act & is unlimited. Peace, Dennis?
@Dfpolis A contributor here.
A god can be an admired or adored person. It's a part of the English language. A natural language.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Are we done, fool?
Regards
DL
Your point is???
No I am not.
I am saying that if the God of the gaps is all religions can come up with, then they are in trouble.
Check the stats and note just how much trouble the shrinking religions are.
If the best man can invent are gods whose religions use inquisitions and jihads to grow, then you can easily dither our how vile our mainstream religions are.
Regards
DL
God can also be hated by those who care about morals.
That is why Christians always run away from moral discussions. They know that their moral sense has been corrupted by their beliefs.
Regards
DL
So...you are the kind who would resort to misquoting.
Okay. Makes it easier to deal with you.
I'll let you know when I am through with you.
In the meantime, I'll just quote my first response to this topic:
[i]As one gets older (I;m 82)...a thing happens that can best be stated as, "The fact that I am going to die is less troubling to me than it was when I was younger."
I don't consider it to be "happy that I am going to die (relatively soon)"...but rather that the prospect is not as unpleasant to contemplate as it once was.
My elderly aunt (9 years older than I) WANTS to die. She is not in despair, but she feels her life no longer has the kind of meaning that it had a while back...and is looking forward to release.
Not sure if I will get to that point also, but I understand her attitude.[/i]
I stand by that.
I'm not a Christian...so you can take up your generalization with one of them.
Right, so why do you think that if you feel that you don't know, then no one else does either?
I am not interested if gods exist in the natural language of English.
We were discussing if gods exist.
I do not know if any gods exist or not.
Are you claiming you do know?
I said it was my blind guess that YOU do not know either.
If you are questioning what I said...please restate your question to reflect what I actually said.
You feel that you don't know the true nature of reality.
Based on this, you're figuring that I feel the same way.
Why?
"Shrinking religions." The truth of a worldview should never be measured by its popularity, it's simply irrelevant.
I'm being held in existence by God, God is holding me in existence. I don't see a gap. Can you point one out to me?
You do have trouble quoting what people actually say...and want to substitute your own words for theirs...and then argue against your words.
I did NOT say I feel that I don't know...
I said, "I have absolutely no idea of the true nature of the REALITY of existence."
I also noted that I make a blind guess that you do not either.
If I feel like making a blind guess...I will. I do not have to have a reason.
A god can be an admired or adored person. I don't make the rules.
Again, I apologize to you. Somewhere along the way I failed to recognize your position.
No, as you have decided to go into intellectual and moral dissonance by a belief in the supernatural.
You have yet to put away the things of children, as scriptures put it.
That is why you idol worship a genocidal son murdering prick of a god and see him as good.
Regards
DL.
Do you know that you have no idea about the true nature of reality?
My oops then.
Who is your god if not the Christian god?
Regards
DL
I do.
So if you know that, doesn't it follow that you don't know the true nature of reality?
I'll miss yez.
Be back tonight.
Can't wait. I'm sure we'll make a lot of progress when you get back.
Oops, just caught this.
OF COURSE I DO NOT KNOW THE TRUE NATURE OF REALITY.
Have you read what I have been saying?
Here is something I wrote:
I said, "I have absolutely no idea of the true nature of the REALITY of existence."
Two or three times now!
I do not know the true nature of REALITY.
I did not say I FEEL that way...so that you could ask why I should think you should FEEL that way.
So is it not the case that you feel that you don't know the true nature of reality?
You don't feel that you know the true nature of reality, do you?
My philosophy is from Angelus Silesius:
...embodying a strange mystical pantheism drawn mainly from the writings of Jakob Böhme and his followers. Silesius delighted specially in the subtle paradoxes of mysticism. The essence of God, for instance, he held to be love; God, he said, can love nothing inferior to himself; but he cannot be an object of love to himself without going out, so to speak, of himself, without manifesting his infinity in a finite form; in other words, by becoming man. God and man are therefore essentially one.
If I understand you correctly, then your ---
Quoting Daniel Cox
--- is you calling yourself a Supreme being. That sounds rather egotistical.
In what supreme sense are you talking about?
Regards
DL
I KNOW I do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence.
It is not a feeling...it is what I know.
I'm using "feel" in the sense of being aware of something or experiencing something. You're aware of/you experience that you know this, right?
IF you do not mind, Terrapin...so that we are on the same page when we talk...I would prefer you use MY language when addressing what I say.
I am saying I KNOW I do not KNOW the true nature of the REALITY of existence.
I did not use the word "feelings" in there...so if you are questioning me on what I wrote...
...use the words I wrote.
I do mind, because for me to think that a conversation is worthwhile, I need to know that you can think about things off-script.
You need to be able to think about whether you'd say that you're aware of or that you experience knowing . . . for example.
If you cannot use the words I use when commenting on my comments...and prefer to make up words of your own...
...you are NOT commenting on what I wrote.
If you are not commenting on what I wrote...why the hell involve me?
Quote what I say...and comment on that.
Don't make crap up.
If you think I am being unfair by asking you not to make stuff up...not much I can do.
So it would follow that I'm not interested in a conversation with you, right?
I hope not, Terrapin.
I enjoy our conversations.
Here...let me make a modified version of the post that seems to have caused a problem.
I do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence.
I am using the word "know" here in the same way I would be using it if we were having coffee at a cafe'...and I said, "I know my name is Frank Apisa"...or..."I know the capital of England is London"...or "I know 2 + 2 = 4 in base 10."
Now...what problems do you have with that.
Just that...just what I wrote...not any interpretations or modifications of what I wrote. If you are unclear on anything...ask. But please, only ask if something truly is unclear to you...rather than just to try to fuzz up the issue.
What I'm trying to explore is why you'd think that I don't know the true nature of reality.
For starters, I will acknowledge it is a guess, Terrapin.
Tell ya what...I will acknowledge something else: My guess is that NOBODY on the planet knows the true nature of the REALITY of existence. In fact, my guess is that NOBODY in history...nobody who has ever lived...has known the true nature of the REALITY of existence.
I hope that gives you a clue as to why I guess YOU do not know.
Right. So what would be interesting to me is to figure out why you would say this.
Allow me a question, because what would be interesting to me is to figure out why YOU would think anyone with a brain would say anything differently.
So...do you...or anyone you know...KNOW the true nature of the REALITY of existence?
Do you KNOW, for instance, are there any gods involved?
Are there no gods involved?
Is what we humans call "the universe" all there is?
Is there anything within the thing we humans call "the universe" that humans do not know...or CANNOT ever know?
Via observations and reasoning basically.
(I don't want to answer more than one thing at a time, because I want to focus on stuff so that we make progress with it.)
Are you actually saying you DO KNOW the true nature of the REALITY of existence?
Yes. Many aspects of it.
Either the answer is "YES"...without that qualifier...
...or it is "NO."
Which is it?
For instance...are there any gods involved in the REALITY...or are there none?
It's not just yes or no, because we're not just talking about one thing/one aspect.
Quoting Frank Apisa
The whole way this conversation started was with my response to this.
No. Obviously there are no gods. The entire idea of gods is as absurd as anything you can imagine.
So...you know there are no gods.
Tell me...do you spend any time on the Frying Pan?
No idea at the moment what that's a reference to (the "Frying Pan").
Most people from NYC know the Frying Pan. It is probably the most famous watering hole in the town during the summer months...a former lightship moor against a pier that juts out into the Hudson River at 26th Street.
Never visited it?
???
I think Gnostic Bishop was attempting to find out how people feel about the prospect of death...and pt it into the "are you happy about the prospect" form.
Some of us answered...and once that happened, it ran dry. And as often happens in these situations, it is now on a (perhaps appropriate, perhaps not so appropriate) tangent.
Ah--no, I'm not familiar with it. I'm not much of a bar person.
Regards, Happy Easter, my High Holy Day.
Understood!
I was kind of hoping some Christians would argue for their desire to live eternally but it seems that most do not want that any more than the rest who suspect that there is nothing else after death.
That or they just do not believe in it any more than they really believe that their satanic god is good.
Their religiosity has nothing to do with a god and has everything to do with their appeasement of the tribal natures.
Regards
DL
Right over my head. I have no idea as to what you are talking about.
Regards
DL
Hi, Certain words are required to transfer meaning, but we can use other words to convey the same meaning, so let me give it a try. You're asking me about my religion, and yes, you're right in your response, right about me claiming to be not 'a' Supreme Being, but 'the' Supreme Being. This is called Christian Mysticism, it's kind of the claim of mysticism across the board. Every religion pretty much has a mystic branch that involves mystical oneness.
We're all one with God, that's kind of the theory or belief. John chapter 17. 1 John 4:20, James 1:27, and 1 Corinthians 13.
The phrase "I can't bid against myself" means that I haven't been outbid. Apparently you haven't looked into mysticism before. How can a person outbid mysticism with naturalism? How can one try and top mysticism with "Everything is natural." There is something mystical about that claim, naturalism.
As you say, things can be said in various ways and yet mean the same thing.
I do not see a conflict between mysticism and nature. That is why I describe myself as an esoteric ecumenist and naturalist. As a Gnostic Christian, I happen to use the more mystical natural Jesus and his way to the only salvation possible. That of the way we think.
I don't think we have an argument other that the use of terms like supreme. In a divine council, no one is supreme till supremacy is granted by others. It is not a title one can give ones self.
English is a poor language. I prefer my French. It is a cleaner language to use.
Regards
DL
Just for something to talk about, look at how people who deny God, people who claim to be "atheists" say, "Atheism is simple, it's the denial of the deity claim, but I'm an atheist-agnostic." If you follow a rigorous theory of truth, the correspondence theory for example, then the claimed adherent's position is 100% incoherent.
You can't be something waiting for someone else to say something to you (or me) in a predesignated way that activates the first party as the only premise doubling as their conclusion. That's a bit jumbled, but you get what I mean I hope.
For instance, for clarity, I could say to them, "I'm a Glibglabberist, I deny the atheist claim, and the atheist-agnostic claim. I'm underrepresented in prisons/jail, I'm more moral and we Glibglabberists are the intelligentsia. We score higher on IQ tests and tests regarding emotional well being." "Atheists rape children."
Naturalism is a faith statement. We're jiving 100% except on that word. I think it has something to do with so many people putting stock in "naturalist" scientists like Dawkins, Krauss, Hawking; Dennett, Sam Harris and the like. I think, kind of know, all God deniers are morons. If you look carefully at their arguments you'll see the incoherence I referenced above.
Mysticism & naturalism are diametrically opposed, they're enemies. Here's an argument I would give to the God deniers when Google + was alive:
Evidently, you are not aware of the proof technique in logic called Proof by Contradiction or, in other words, an indirect proof. This particular technique of arguing is also known as Reductio ad Absurdum, which is a valid form of deductive reasoning that dates back to the ancient Greeks.
Basically, according to this proof technique whenever there are only two alternatives, in this case supernaturalism (God, a transcendent reality) and naturalism (atheism), it is not necessary to directly prove either one of them. By proving that either one of them is false, then it follows that the other is true. Of course, in this case, in regards to supernaturalism and naturalism, this type of proof is not and cannot be a strictly deductive type, but rather an inductive.
Note that it has already been established that naturalism (atheism) is based on a logical fallacy. But, because naturalism (atheism) is based on a logical fallacy, it follows that naturalism (atheism) must be false. Therefore, supernaturalism (God, a transcendent reality) is true by Reductio ad Absurdum or, in other words, an indirect proof. Again this is not a strictly deductive type proof, but rather inductive.
The only fully consistent alternative to belief in God, properly understood, is some version of "materialism" or "physicalism"or (to use the term most widely preferred at present) "naturalism"; and naturalism--the doctrine that there is nothing apart from the physical order, and certainly nothing supernatural (a transcendent reality).
You're one of the only people I'm talking to here, and in general, one of 4. So, I really look forward to your next message.
Best regards (that's cool!),
Dan Cox
Some descriptors, in my opinion, are virtually useless because of that.
Atheism, agnostic atheism, naturalism, supernaturalism and the like just do not truly mean anything.
Best to thoroughly describe a position...and then use the descriptor as a shortcut in other parts of a commentary.
Yes. Death is the best painkiller there is.
I'm sure what you're saying makes complete sense to you just like what the Bishop is saying makes complete sense to him. Watch, I can say, "I'm an atheist" and "I'm a holy person" to the exact same effect, none. It doesn't matter how much I elaborate on either position because there is no criterion for knowing another's mental state to that degree. There's no science for it. As a matter of ongoing fact or truth, we know only one of those positions is even possibly true.
The closet I can think of in regards to "thought crime" is from the movie Minority Report where there were these "precogs" who knew what was going to happen before it happened via a psychokinetic bridge.
In my real estate finance business I spent a lot of time preparing cases & a few defenses and spent a lot of time in court. I know this is not that but the need to present legal arguments remains.
You're saying, "Say a whole bunch of stuff about your position and then put a shortcut label on it." I don't accept either. I can't know it's anyone's position or if it's their label or someone else's.
You have a nice writing style, I'm reminded by your writing that you're the guy who is over eighty years old? You might remember or know about this person, Madalyn Murray O'Hair? She claimed to be an "atheist" but she fought for her own religious rights while trying to castrate religious men for taking money. She said (in the movie I watched), "There's nowhere in the Bible where Jesus passed the plate." Well, for one, she did. She's a self-righteous, religious, hypocrite. Also, she couldn't possibly be any more biblically illiterate. Judas stole from the coffers. Luke 8 shows many women Jesus collected money from. The story of the widow and her two mites. Jesus encouraged people giving, and giving to his ministry (if you read between the lines).
A person's claim of their position is not any kind of avenue for knowing the truth. Do you really want to know the truth about me? I claim to be Messiah and have the worst addiction to porn of anyone I know. I've been making and giving away thousands of bars of soaps boasting for eight years how I don't take money, and now for this upcoming fair I've tried to collect money from about 15 different sources. Not a f*cking penny. I'm ready to quit. Everyone else is getting money. I'm either lying now or before. If we are really being honest about ourselves to others then that would be something. At least we'd be separating on good grounds.
I'm only (normally) going to tell you things about myself I believe will cause you to like me. The truth be damned. I don't lie to God haters but people I care about I shield the truth from.
In the law, every word has a very precise meaning. It's always the same in every legal context. The 'N'-word in the O.J. trial and "forfeiture by wrong doing" in the Drew Petersen case. Jodi Arias stabbed Travis Alexander 27 times and cut off his head in a premeditated jealous rage.
If someone has a special definition of words then it's impossible for me to talk to that person.
Be blessed my Friend,
Dan C
You have so many issues and doors open that I hardly know where to start, especially given that in philosophy, it is said that the definition of words usually happens after a more general discourse takes place with more common language and terms. You force the opposite but let's see what happens and if we can chat.
To what I quoted.
What fallacy?
I must have missed it.
Quoting Daniel Cox
I disagree.
noun: mysticism
1.belief that union with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or the spiritual apprehension of knowledge inaccessible to the intellect, may be attained through contemplation and self-surrender.
"St. Theresa's writings were part of the tradition of Christian mysticism"
2.belief characterized by self-delusion or dreamy confusion of thought, especially when based on the assumption of occult qualities or mysterious agencies.
"there is a hint of New Age mysticism in the show's title"
Even this definitions has built in contradictions.
=========
Naturalism
In philosophy, naturalism is the "idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world."
Even this definition I disagree with as spiritual thinking, if not laws, do operate here.
==========
The above is why definitions are left to the end of a discussion.
Let's ignore most of what you put for now as we will not even get going on anything.
Let's see if we can chat on your fallacy notion and see where it goes. At least we will learn each others styles.
Regards
DL
There is that aspect for sure.
it seems that many elderly that I have known would agree.
Regards
DL
??
Ok.
Regards
DL
I can't make an argument for myself.
Who declared you supreme, and as compared to who?
I have done what you call evangelize for Gnostic Christianity. If done in the right context, it is allowed.
Do as you like and if a mod is offended and i am not, I will back you up.
That or I can meet you at some other site of your choosing if you are not comfy here.
Regards
DL
.
Look me up on MeWe, www.mewe.com/i/danielcox25
"done in the right context," "Who made them supreme?" Exactly.
Salutations!
That's interesting. But death wishes aren't only held by the elderly. I wanted to die since I was eleven years old. (I'm not saying this to make anyone feel about about me.)
Whoever takes their cash.
Regards
DL
They have reasons. I guess that your reason is not worthy of you acting on it, a good thing, as you are still here buddy.
Perhaps wanting to loose your cherry is what is keeping you going. ;-)
I had to throw that in there.
Regards
DL
I'm beginning to like you more every day, more than just about everyone else I know. See, part of my claim stems from being a descendant of a thousand years of Jewish Bankers. It's a little bit of an exaggeration, but we are a few centuries ahead of the Rothchilds.
I'm slightly exaggerating because a thousand years is what I'm referring to as the millennial reign. It's not enough to be really great at making money, you have to be a consummate expert at keeping it.
I tend to get along quite well with Jews as compared to others who claim a religious affiliation.
I think that the Jews were well on their way to a moral ideology before Christianity usurped Yahweh and changed the world's perception of what he originally was.
I am pleased that you like me as I tend to speak more to theists than others and get a lot of hate thrown at me. Truth draws a lot of hate from those who do not want to hear it.
I dislike that many hate Jews. Jealousy from others has plagued you guys forever. Or at least from the time you, as a tribe, reformed from being the killers that you were when still living as nomadic shepherds. At least that is what Joseph Campbell said.
Regards
DL
You fight for us, you are one with us. I mean fight as in to argue!
A very large part of my identity as to the claim I make is immersed in my being born on December the 8th, 1962. The Feast Day of Immaculate Conception, Mary Queen of Scots birthday; Sammy Davis Jr.'s birthday, a famous convert to Judaism; Sam Kinison's birthday, a famous comedian formerly a Pentecostal minister (like me); David Carradine's birthday, Kwai Chang Caine; it falls on or near Hanukkah nearly every year, an 8 day festival, the Festival of the Lights, the Miracle of the Maccabees; & Eight Days a Week, the Beatles. The Lemniscate, infinity.
22At that time the Feast of Dedication took place in Jerusalem. It was winter, 23and Jesus was walking in the temple courts in Solomon’s Colonnade.
The Mashiach in my understanding is the Messiah referred to in Romans 14 grafting the Jews back in.
You're one of very few people who I told, "I'm Messiah" you behaved properly even if you don't accept it. When anyone makes a claim we deem irrational, the proper response is to placate the person, not intentionally irritate them.
Best regards,
Daniel Eugene Cox 144. It's one of the things my parents did for me.
If reincarnation were true, which is doubtful, I would wish to return as a Jew.
I do not know if I would make a good one given how in the face of Christianity I am.
Quoting Daniel Cox
I value truth and put it forwards in the most polite way I can until my interlocutor gets his back up and gets belligerent or obtuse.
I like to live by this wise quote and have no problem in using tough love thanks to my lack of a proper upbringing.
Proverbs 3:12 For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.
We all come to these places to either learn, teach or preach. I come to teach in the hopes of losing an argument and learning something new. I argue hard for my side but hope the other side wins.
Learning something new or changing ones mind and having a paradigm shift is one of the greatest pleasures in life and I am greedy for my next treat. I have been waiting years now and my apotheosis may have ended my ability to have that pleasure.
Regards
DL
I can back this up with some lines from the movie The Insider (1999).
Jeffrey Wigand: The process is known as "impact boosting". While not spiking nicotine, they clearly manipulate it. There was extensive use of this technology known as "ammonia chemistry". It allows for the nicotine to be more rapidly absorbed in the lung and therefore affect the brain and central nervous system.
This wasn't it, can't find it right now, almost out the door to donate blood (YAY! Me!!). The part I was looking for is Wigand testifying in court in violation of his confidentiality agreement. "Tobacco is specifically designed for maximum physiological impact. The pharmacological effect crosses the blood-brain barrier intact."
Something like that. It's why I'm here, my brain and my mind enjoy it.
The Lord loves those He corrects. I learned something about that when a group of haters got together and tried to have me murdered a couple times. I was seething with anger, contemplating revenge when I got a Rhema Word from God, "Vengeance is mine saith the Lord, I will reciprocate." God sort of told me, "Stick to your knitting, do what will make you a success, I'll take care of the rest." Life has been pretty damn good when I took the advice.
I am a teacher, I teach all kinds of stuff. At the mental clinic they call me, "Dr. Dan, Professor Dan, & Big Brother." The latter being my favorite. I teach all the time in therapy groups about the mind, those people educated in the field know next to nothing about it and are actually preaching alongside the Bible in a lot of instances, a practice frowned upon by the magisterial authority of academia bringing them there.
I also teach soap making. I'm getting better at the hobby/skill and I'm getting better at teaching it every day. So, if there is something you want to know, I'm your Huckleberry.
That sounds more appealing than why I post. I see it as my social duty to try to reduce the harm and poor thinking I see out here. I try to live by the Golden Rule and sometimes quote the following.
Change the labels in this quote to women, minorities, gays or children being brainwashed by religions and it shows what we should be thinking and doing for each other.
"First they came for the Jews, but I did nothing because I'm not a Jew. Then they came for the socialists, but I did nothing because I'm not a socialist. Then they came for the Catholics, but I did nothing because I'm not a Catholic. Finally, they came for me, but by then there was no one left to help me." – Pastor Father Niemoller (1946)”
I am not a good person, but perhaps some day.
It is harder when I have a delinquent attitude and a ------
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIjddye2JSA
Regards
DL
Nah, I'm just too lazy.
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
I'm a guy. :rofl:
So am I.
The saying applies to all where I come from.
Regards
.DL