Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Life isn't perfect. And it isn't eternal either.
Does God have Respect for Life
- Thread starter PsychoticEpisode
- Start date
Life isn't perfect. And it isn't eternal either.
not yet, duh. when it's perfect, then it will be eternal. we're still working on the free will part. it won't be eternal until we're redeemed (perfected), then reborn into the kingdom (if i understand it correctly).
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
It will never be perfect. Evolution works on the principle of imperfection, so to speak.
why wouldn't life be eternal? even from your materialist perspective, surely there will always be life somewhere in the universe, because energy can't be created or destroyed.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
There are lots of things that have energy and that are not alive.. I don't see your point.
so it will stop when we're perfected. sin is like a birth defect. it's genetic. it was perpetrated during the fall of man and will be removed with redemption.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Huh.. ? That's illogical.
If it will never be perfect, it will never be perfect.
You can't say it will never be perfect until it is :bugeye:
it's not illogical. you're just saying that because it's an unusual perspective. after all, if evolution works to eliminate imperfection, then what is it working for? see...it IS logical. doh!
Are you saying God intentionally created life to be imperfect, unintentionally created imperfect life or an imperfect god created life?
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
It is.
No. It's an illogical perspective.
Evolution doesn't work towards anything.
But without imperfection there's no evolution.
No, it isn't. Trust me.
jdawg
“
and your statement about real rewards and avoiding suffering wasn't such an attempt?
The common standard of happiness is to simply go with what is immediately pleasurable. A higher standard is to encounter some sort of difficulty or austerity. Generally it takes some sort of outside pressure to establish that higher cause. At the very least, I assume that you are quite thankful that you were burdened with a study workload for 10-18 years in your early life, even though you could have thought of a thousand better things to do than go to school in your youth.
money is simply an expression of desire (at least whatever is left after the cost of living), which again brings us back to values
“
regarding the middle east, at least the political/economical jelly bean jar is considerably larger
given the choice of either raping someone or getting raped, what do you think is the quickest way to get your name out there?
according to your values, no doubt ....
it was your angle that there is something fishy about a god that can't trust us without bringing in laws
and lo and behold knowing a particular person commonly involves going to particular locations, meditating on how to express one's desires to them, being assailed by issues of guilt/rejoicement over unavoidable issues of reciprocation/obligation etc ...
and your statement about real rewards and avoiding suffering wasn't such an attempt?
.... and that folks, are your values speaking
arguable one could ponder how a life that entails issues of unavoidable attachment to transient things at 100% being quite silly
even a fool can make progress if they can recognize a mistake
The common standard of happiness is to simply go with what is immediately pleasurable. A higher standard is to encounter some sort of difficulty or austerity. Generally it takes some sort of outside pressure to establish that higher cause. At the very least, I assume that you are quite thankful that you were burdened with a study workload for 10-18 years in your early life, even though you could have thought of a thousand better things to do than go to school in your youth.
I assume that you are also familiar with the costs of living too ....
sure
money is simply an expression of desire (at least whatever is left after the cost of living), which again brings us back to values
even if you were voted in as president you still couldn't implement anything to avoid people paying some sort of tax, so there are a few practical limitations that surround the power of your voice ...
free will entails the possibility of imperfection ..... unless of course you are number one in the universe.
That is why there are clear distinctions between god and the living entity, even though both share some qualitative similarities.
Yes, because the political and economical fallout from the event matters more. It's real, we can feel it. Not that such a thing has ever been a requirement for anything you believe to be real, but still...
Get your name out there? What the hell are we talking about? My point was that the consequences of rape are most often primarily psychological as opposed to physical, which is the means.
What do you know of my values? Oh, wait, is this some more of that religious arrogance? Don't pretend for one second that you hold the moral high ground. The fact that you pick and chose your morals out of your book means that you get your moral compass from the same place I do--evolution.
That doesn't answer my question, which was "Who has instinct to break away from law and order?".
But those things are far more natural, far more rewarding, and don't demand anything of you. I never said society didn't have its own rituals, I simply said that they were for real causes, and you'd have to go through them regardless of if you had faith or not. So again, why put yourself through an entirely similar, far more demanding, and far less rewarding system on top of the real one?
No. But I'm finding it hard to converse with a person who can't answer in more than one sentence. If you really felt you had the right position on this, you'd defend your stance more fully, and counter mine more effectively.
That doesn't even deserve a response. You don't qualify it in any way whatsoever, so why should I qualify the response?
But do you argue that? See, it's hard to defend my position when I'm not entirely clear who I'm defending it against. Perhaps you should say "I[/i] argue that a life that entails..." But you don't, because you're not the slightest bit interested in having a real discussion about this. You would rather (and perhaps it's all your capable of) take pot-shots at my stance without any substance, and not really put your own stance on the line.
But to the point of the apparently anonymous opinion posited in your statement, one could argue that such a life is silly. But they'd also have to accept that it's necessary for society to function. What is life without interaction and attachment? Yes, the attachments can be painful, especially when they are broken, but try not having them. How would you find the finer things in life, like love? Like the amazing feeling of having respect for someone or being respected by another?
I don't believe the first sentence of this paragraph is true in even the slightest sense. All you have to do is ask a drug addict, or a former drug addict, what getting by on the immediate pleasures does for one's happiness. No, I believe it has been clearly demonstrated that true happiness comes not from the "now" but from the greater body of achievements.
As for the rest of the paragraph, there is no way to compare a childhood and young adult-hood of study that prepares you for the rest of you life, to that of religious worship. There simply is no comparison. Again, the rewards for the study in school is available to you here. The rewards promised for your servitude to God can only be redeemed at death.
Yes. All the more reason you shouldn't throw your money at a church. And for the churches to demand that you do pay them, especially in these hard times is, dare I say, sinful.
No no no. You can't tell us we need to ignore the primarily practical applications of money so we can view the minority of which that goes to our hobbies and egos in a certain negative light.
A "practical limitation" to the power of my voice is better than having no voice at all.
jdawg
“
Beliefs of a person or social group in which they have an emotional investment (either for or against something)
"you" (based on your argument)
Just like marriage offers a broader scope for relationship than merely being someone's offspring, sibling or friend.
First you say life is real because you don't have problems
Now you say life is real because you do
Do you want to go for a third variation?
You are starting with your values and working backwards to determine what is or isn't valid in the universe.
Whether the universe is also in agreement requires a different sort of argument
value based arguments don't warrant a serious shake down
basically they boil down to "its not true because I think its silly"
If you want a substantial philosophical discussion you have to step outside of tentative arguments
If not, why get agitated when I lodge a tentative refutation to your tentative argument?
I mean the whole introductory assertion of spiritual life is that you cannot avoid attachment and interaction - rather that there is a better option than hedging one's bets in the material world
but since people's common standards of happiness are also their common standards of misery, you start to see a pattern evolving
at least I have a different experience
the results are plainly available even in this life
“
:shrug:
“
my point is that if something is the actual cause it is plainly obvious when you examine how it is dealt with
what you tell me about them (no, I am not a mind reader)
by "values" I simply mean ...
Beliefs of a person or social group in which they have an emotional investment (either for or against something)
I thought I did
"you" (based on your argument)
the reason you don't notice that they are demanding is because you like them .. which again gets back to issues of values
religion simply offers a broader scope for those rituals
Just like marriage offers a broader scope for relationship than merely being someone's offspring, sibling or friend.
well you just changed stance
First you say life is real because you don't have problems
Now you say life is real because you do
Do you want to go for a third variation?
I am simply indicating how your argument is completely value based.
You are starting with your values and working backwards to determine what is or isn't valid in the universe.
Whether the universe is also in agreement requires a different sort of argument
value based arguments don't warrant a serious shake down
basically they boil down to "its not true because I think its silly"
If you want a substantial philosophical discussion you have to step outside of tentative arguments
If not, why get agitated when I lodge a tentative refutation to your tentative argument?
so why are they mutually exclusive?
I mean the whole introductory assertion of spiritual life is that you cannot avoid attachment and interaction - rather that there is a better option than hedging one's bets in the material world
sure
but since people's common standards of happiness are also their common standards of misery, you start to see a pattern evolving
actually no
at least I have a different experience
the results are plainly available even in this life
capitalism basically asserts that highest substance is capital ...
“
well desire is where all the dynamics of life happens so it certainly needs to be brought under inspection (or at least introspection) regularly
but practically there is no difference
:shrug:
I seek to break away from law and order? In what way? There is no way I gave you them impression that I'm even remotely interested in anarchy.
No, I understand what is required of me. But I operate in the real world, I don't have the need to be coddled in the supernatural. I don't need that comfort. I'm not willing to ignore reason. My brain works, I can't just shut it off, which is required of you if you are to be a believer.
No, it just offers you more rituals, and less reward.
...? You can marry your offspring or sibling if you want a broader scope for the relationship?
Can you even read? I never said that there are no problems in life. The entire time I have said that there is a difference between the problems and struggles in your life, and the bullshit guilt and ritual that a life of service to God entails. I'll say it again, and this time call your mommy in to read it out loud for you, seeing as you're having trouble:
Real life is real. The pleasure and pain of this life is real. When I suffer something here, I feel the effects here.
God isn't real. The rewards offered by the church are fake. The rituals are real and are far worse than any ritual you have to endure in your daily life. You believe in a myth, and you suffer for it.
Not even close.
But have fun giving your money to the church while you feel guilty because you got a boner for the chick on TV. I'll be over here not thinking about how the best time of my life doesn't come until I'm dead.
Jdawg
“
What would you rather have? Go to church and worship all day every day? Or prevent myself from indulging in life's pleasures because some god that someone else worships doesn't trust me enough to be responsible? Please. Your god preaches abstinence, I practice moderation.
my point is that even mundane society doesn't trust you to be responsible, so arguing that you're beyond law and order in relation to something higher than that (or arguing that a god that involves issues of law and order is somehow less valid) doesn't really hold.
Unless you want to argue that you are some super rational guy that doesn't even put a christmas tree up for the kids and simply talks to your partner about your plans for the future in terms of neurons and evolution
Because my rewards are real, and do not force me to suffer regardless of my actions.
:shrug:
care to explain in what way your rewards don't entail issues of suffering?
I mean surely you are experienced enough to grasp all the BS, guilt and ritual that mundane life already encompasses
(let me guess, your values right?)
For instance a drug addict may anticipate that getting of drugs is painful. A reformed addict may anticipate it as pleasurable.
Which one is real? (or more real?)
(now is a good opportunity for you to show us how you don't ignore rationality)
rituals (if you want to call them that) are far worse in mundane life are far worse
/grabs popcorn
Is this rational?
I was focusing on your
“
What would you rather have? Go to church and worship all day every day? Or prevent myself from indulging in life's pleasures because some god that someone else worships doesn't trust me enough to be responsible? Please. Your god preaches abstinence, I practice moderation.
my point is that even mundane society doesn't trust you to be responsible, so arguing that you're beyond law and order in relation to something higher than that (or arguing that a god that involves issues of law and order is somehow less valid) doesn't really hold.
instead you are coddled by other things, which ironically are not real (in the sense that they are temporary)
all you are not willing to ignore are your values .... and where ever there are values there are issues of belief, etc
Unless you want to argue that you are some super rational guy that doesn't even put a christmas tree up for the kids and simply talks to your partner about your plans for the future in terms of neurons and evolution
or alternatively, rewards that your values don't encompass you to accept
no less than you can palm off serving one's family and society as an equal or greater occupation than serving god
you said
Because my rewards are real, and do not force me to suffer regardless of my actions.
:shrug:
care to explain in what way your rewards don't entail issues of suffering?
in what clear way?
I mean surely you are experienced enough to grasp all the BS, guilt and ritual that mundane life already encompasses
so it begs the question "what is real"?
(let me guess, your values right?)
so the next question is whether your experiences and anticipations (aka values) of dualities is sufficient to delineate the length and breadth of the universe.
For instance a drug addict may anticipate that getting of drugs is painful. A reformed addict may anticipate it as pleasurable.
Which one is real? (or more real?)
and how do you know this?
and how do you know this?
(now is a good opportunity for you to show us how you don't ignore rationality)
actually I would argue its the opposite
rituals (if you want to call them that) are far worse in mundane life are far worse
try and establish how you are beyond issues of myth
/grabs popcorn
you are free to provide input to a system where you don't have to pay taxes, but even if you were voted president you couldn't install a system where you wouldn't?
Is this rational?
ok just don't let your wife clue on to it and you will be fine
have a great time watching TV
dixonmassey
Valued Senior Member
Omniscient God, if any, who've created this "dog eat dog" world, engulfed in suffering and death, got to be a maniac. There are no other options. Oh, I've forgot that omniscient things blamed Eve (and us) for everything. It's like designers blaming a building for its fall.
If Christian God exists, he's a monster. Poor us. What for? I've "been" nothing, emptyness for zillions of years. I didn't ask to bring me to life just to be blamed for everything I had nothing to do with.
If Christian God exists, he's a monster. Poor us. What for? I've "been" nothing, emptyness for zillions of years. I didn't ask to bring me to life just to be blamed for everything I had nothing to do with.
unless issues of death are not the final issue for living entities endowed with eternality
I just gave one
If you examine theistic philosophy you can find heaps more
or alternatively its like if one's heart is set on falling, we have just the right place where you can feel like home (well almost anyway).
If however you want to accept that this is the best of all possible worlds, then I agree, you run into problems.
if humans can ultimately be beyond designations of social partitioning, I think it's reasonable to suggest that god can too