Communion
- Thread starter Lori_7
- Start date
i've had my own question answered for quite some time birch. now i'm asking others to answer the question, and post their answers here and explain them.
the question is would you submit to this knowledge? i have yet to hear a "yes" or "no" answer from you and your explanation as to why. all i've heard from you is an argument over the premise itself.
And once again you miss the point.
Regardless of what you decide to do gravity is still there and you are still subject to it.
It cannot be ignored despite one's preferences: similarly, IF this "law" were actually a law then whatever any given individual declared they would still in actuality be following this law.
no, you are missing the point.
the point is, that there ARE laws in place that determine the far-reaching consequences of our actions. cause and effect. now then, if a source of knowledge regarding those potential consequences were available to you, would you submit to that knowledge, and use it to always act to benefit the greater good?
ok! phew! crap! thank you!
your answer is yes then, as the premise does in fact assume evidence and reason, and is not based on someone's unfounded claim or opinion.
Um, no...
Yes. And?
You mean would I constantly run backwards and forwards asking "What happens if I do this?" "Should I do this or would it be better if I stopped at home tonight?"
And I'll point out that this "source" is NOT a law - you've jumped from cause and effect (and ignored randomness) to a source. Not the same thing at all.*
Is this source a single source? I.e. some sort of oracle that has to be questioned on each individual decision? Or is it an equation that merely requires the numbers to be plugged in to get the "correct" answer?
You see, when it comes down to it, your "answer" (the "source") is as nebulous as anything else in religion.
You claim that it's a "source of knowledge" of these "potential consequences". Fine. What's the overall effect of me having an extra slice of cake at a party?
Will it leave someone angry that they didn't get their fair share, subsequently leading them into road rage and a fatal car accident?
What are the potential consequences of me painting (or not painting) my living room wall?
* And, of course, if there IS a source that is all-knowing then we're back to the dichotomy of free will not being possible if the future is known...
Ho hum. :shrug:
i am in no way suggesting that free will is compromised or that randomness is ignored. if randomness does exist, then it is factored in. and i am suggesting that you would voluntarily, and of your own free will, choose to want to do what benefits the greater good at all times.
stop concerning yourself with what you might call this source, or what it's based in, or it's possibility or probability of existing for a minute. you know, i described the premise pretty well. you could call it a collective conscious, some people call it god or a part of god, you could approach it from a scientific perspective which is based on cause and effect, given law, randomness, and anything else that may influence it. the point is, that it's known, and it's available for you to voluntarily adopt as your own conscience, allowing you to instinctually to do what benefits the greater good at all times, if you so desire. whatever it's source, and whatever you might call it, the premise is that it does exist, it is accessible, it is the truth, it is verifiable, it is demonstrable, and therefore it is trusted.
and focus on the question i'm asking...would you adopt this source into yourself, and opt to do what is truly in the best interest of the greater good all the time? why or why not?
Um, again, no.
If it can be known what the consequences will be of any action (including randomness) then free will doesn't exist.
But it ISN'T known - THAT is the point.
Already answered - if it's a law of nature then EVERYONE, regardless of what they claim, is already following this path.
If "hypothetically" there was something we could do to make everything hunky dory and the world would be a-ok and fair, would I do it? Sure, who wouldn't.
But, realistically, I'm gonna need a little more info on the details before I "submit" to being assimilated.
no, you still have a choice of action.
no, i'm sorry. there are plenty of threads already to argue that in. in this thread it is a given that it IS known, in a hypothetical situation.
no. given the laws of nature that determine the consequences of actions, would you choose to do what is determined to benefit the greater good all the time?
people who choose short-term benefits to themselves, at the expense of the greater good, or perhaps people who would blatantly reject the truth in order to maintain their own opinion. people who don't value the greater good or the truth. :shrug:
hypothetically, it would be given and that wouldn't be an issue. realistically, that's fair.
by us, the same way that we've determined, given the law gravity, that it wouldn't be a good idea to jump out of an airplane without a parachute unless you want to die.
So it's still a natural law?
In which case (and I get the feeling I'm repeating myself here):
if it's a law of nature then EVERYONE, regardless of what they claim, is already following this path.
Or are you positing that we can (will be able to?) see the consequences of our own actions?
Which sort of takes us away from this "source" that you put forward in the first place...
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
People already have consciences. Most people have an innate sense of fairness, reciprocity and compassion.
I don't understand how the idea of a 'collective conscience' would eliminate all suffering and deliver eternal life. That seems to be a leap.
I don't understand that either. 'Submit' to what? Are you talking about segregating people who make the resolution to always be good and nothing else, from all the remaining evil people? Do people always know what's right and wrong in every instance? What if people are weak and on occasion fail to keep their resolution? And even assuming that everyone in your paradisical community only does what he or she believes is right, how can we be certain that their actions will always be harmonious and that no unintended suffering will result?
The question is impossible for me to answer as it stands. The proposed paradisical state needs to be fleshed out in a believable fashion and the tradeoffs that seem to be implicit in the idea of 'submission' need to be clarified.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
You are making less sense, not more.
If you are asking us whether we would 'submit' to God's Kingdom or something, I'd have to fully understand the tradeoffs before I answered. And obviously, I'd have to believe in God and his Kingdom in the first place, which I don't.
So right now, it's too vague and hypothetical to think about clearly. If your savior ever shows up and is riding around the sky on a white horse with a flaming sword, smiting all the evil armies and air forces of the world's secular powers that try to oppose him, then at least there would be something tangible to talk about.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
I'd have to believe it first. I'd have to believe that an "all-knowing source" exists, that human beings can somehow contact this source and that we can distinguish that contact from all manner of errors and delusions, we would have to be able to extract useful and reliable information from the source, and we would need to have confidence that the information the source provides is indeed in humanity's best interest.
It's impossible to answer your question with a yes or a no, let alone to give you a reason why, until your own premises are clearly explained and justified. We need to have some idea what we would be accepting and rejecting if we say 'yes' or 'no'.
Sure. But I think people are getting a might bit testy, b/c your question is a non sequitur. They all kind of know you and your agenda Lori, and they know where you are going with it. This "knowledge" is somewhat subjective, isn't it? And it's ends, it's purpose, and indeed, what this supposed "greater good" is, that is all subjective too. So then, how does one "submit" to this "knowledge" if no one can ever agree on these points, or indeed, know what these points even are? Especially when you refuse to define them and claim they are already known? The "collective consciousness" values ALL points of its consciousness, be it saint or sinner, Christian, atheist, Muslim, or Jew. One need not "submit" to be a meaningful part of experience in the third dimension. Non-submission is just as valuable and instructive an experience to the collective consciousness as submission. Those who submit I would posit tend to be more likely to induce a victimization paradigm, and thus induce a need for a "savor" reality, rather than a self-reliant reality.
Last edited:
Put it this way... eliminate Christ an the Holey Bible from the issue an substitute "me"... in other words... one of my major tenets... my purpose, and the ultimate goal. assumes that something that could be described as a "collective conscience" would be recognizable, attainable, and demonstrable, and whose concern would always be the greater good. the outcome being the elimination of all suffering and eternal life for all who would submit.
this concept implies a segregation between those who would submit and those who would not for pretty obvious reasons...victimization...contamination if you will.
Well... YES or NO... woud you submit if you knew i was capable of makin it happen an made the sam offer... an offer which would eliminate all sufferin an give eternal life for all who submit.???
this concept implies a segregation between those who would submit and those who would not for pretty obvious reasons...victimization...contamination if you will.
Well... YES or NO... woud you submit if you knew i was capable of makin it happen an made the sam offer... an offer which would eliminate all sufferin an give eternal life for all who submit.???