So was god just lonely or what?

[brainuniverse]

OK, found few links here...

Fisrt a little about the mysteries of Christianity and the Gnostics(those Christians believing in reincarnation).

http://www.hermetic-philosophy.com/christian_mysteries3.htm
http://members.tripod.com/cryskernan/christian_reincarnation.htm

Trinity. (Hindu in nature ?)

http://www.geocities.com/maitreya_maitreya/page8.html
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jckr.htm

I can find more links if you want.

 

[buffys]

fantastic brainuniverse, thanks! Oh, if any others pop in your head let me know.

This is what so great about this place (and the net in general), someone throws an idea out and BOOM! you have access to it immediately, in detail and from a number of sources. how cool is that...

...ummmm, sorry about the little rant there but once in a while it occurs to me just how amazing the web really is.

...ok enough of that, back to the thread. I'd love to hear from anyone who has thoughts on this topic. Agree or disagree, just have a good argument and ill be extatic.

 

[EvilPoet]

I thought these links might be of interest ...

Origenes Adamantius

The Gnosis Archive

 

[buffys]

all right! more links! thnx guys.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by buffys

Satan, evil, what ever one calls it is only allowed because the one in control (god in this case) says its so. In other words (god, being the master of all) must have created evil.

How do you arrive at the conclusion that evil is created phenomena?

So, satan and hell can only exist because god allows them to, the desires available to us are chosen by him (god).

“Anything”, only exists because God allows it to, if we are describing the Supreme Being. Our desires are not chosen by God, for they would not be called “desires.”

Desire, v. t.] 1. The natural longing that is excited by the enjoyment or the thought of any good, and impels to action or effort its continuance or possession; an eager wish to obtain or enjoy.

Prisons are wildly unsuccessful in teaching the imprisoned the folly of their ways,

That may well be, but the original intention for prisons, is the best way to rehabilitate or to separate from the innocent, persons who are out of control, wouldn’t you say?

I'd hope god (being perfect in all ways) could do better.

By making all humans, robots?
Then there would be no point in being “human” and you wouldn’t be able to have this conversation.

My whole point is god makes the rules. The difference between a transgression and virtue is entirely under gods control.

If that is the case, then we should all be acting, without question, according to God’s desire, not our own. The reality is, we make our own choices, this is the nature of the human being. The universe doesn’t have rules as such, but it has laws and those laws can be broken just as much as it can be maintained. But there are consequences to bear when we violate the laws, this is transgression. And when we understand that to violate the laws is “spiritual suicide”, and act in such a way, we develop virtue.

Hot is hot, cold is cold because god decided it would be so.

No, it is so because of our bodies and mind. It is a reaction.
I’m sure anyone of the bright souls of the scientific community, currently on sci-forums can explain beautifully, the mechanisms of hot and cold in reaction to our senses, to you.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[buffys]

Jan Ardena,


-----Quote - "How do you arrive at the conclusion that evil is created phenomena?"

You actually answered your own question. Its precisely the reason i think "evil is a created phenomena." after the above question you said,
"“Anything”, only exists because God allows it to, if we are describing the Supreme Being." - thats my point exactly.


-----Quote - "Our desires are not chosen by God, for they would not be called “desires.”"

I didn't say god chooses our desires I said the desires available to us are chosen by him.


-----Quote - "That may well be, but the original intention for prisons, is the best way to rehabilitate or to separate from the innocent, persons who are out of control, wouldn’t you say?"

No, I wouldn't say that at all. I'll agree that jails do a passable job of separating "criminals" from the "innocent" but thats all and only for the length of their sentence. McPrisons are popping up all over the country and according to any stats ive seen, have rehabilitated very, very few.


-----Quote - "By making all humans, robots?"

I don't really see how god removing evil from our existence would make us robots. I'd assume people in heaven aren't robots yet god has seen fit not to allow evil there.


-----Quote - "No, it is so because of our bodies and mind. It is a reaction.
I’m sure anyone of the bright souls of the scientific community, currently on sci-forums can explain beautifully, the mechanisms of hot and cold in reaction to our senses, to you."

lol, yes im aware of the mechanisms involved in physical sensation.

I could just as easily have said,"black is black and white is white because he said so", it was just another way of saying god (by definition) controls and defines what is available to us to perceive.

 

[Michael]

Jan, I was wondering (and I'd be willing to bet) your parents are Christian?

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
The reality is, we make our own choices, this is the nature of the human being. The universe doesn’t have rules as such, but it has laws and those laws can be broken just as much as it can be maintained. But there are consequences to bear when we violate the laws, this is transgression. And when we understand that to violate the laws is “spiritual suicide”, and act in such a way, we develop virtue.

No the reality is you never really had a choice in the matter. The nature of the human being is to do as it is taught. Most human beings believe what they were brought up to believe.

I have a Question: Would you agree that if we were in ancient Roma (say 150 BCE) you would be proclaiming the virtues of Jupiter or some other god? If so - then you see my point. If not - explain what makes you so sure you wouldn’t?

 

[Killjoy]

Originally posted by buffys
...I didn't say god chooses our desires I said the desires available to us are chosen by him...


...I don't really see how god removing evil from our existence would make us robots. I'd assume people in heaven aren't robots yet god has seen fit not to allow evil there...


... god (by definition) controls and defines what is available to us to perceive....

HYPOTHETICAL EXPLANATION:
These are all elements of the Grand Experiment...
Presuming that God is a being of infinite love & caring, yadda-yadda-yadda... (but who occaisionally gets frustrated & floods the world or obliterates cities... )
Central to the exersize in Creation known to us as "the Universe" is determining whether or not mortal beings imbued with free will are capable of superceding the biological imperatives inherent to their physical bodies and embracing the doctrines set forth in the "commandments", and by Jesi Christu.
"Evil" is merely an option like the dead-end path of a maze for a lab rat...
It must exist to allow for the failure of the experiment, in spite of the fact that "God" desires this failure no more than that of the "Fallen Angels".
The subjects must be free to choose this alternative to insure the "objectivity" of the result...

The lack of "evil" in Heaven is a result of the transcendant state of those who have "chosen correctly" from among the options available. They eschewed evil/temptation during their physical lives, and hence are both no longer subject to the temptation, nor desirous of its lesser "reward"...

 

[grimreaper]

EE gads

Originally posted by Killjoy
HYPOTHETICAL EXPLANATION:
These are all elements of the Grand Experiment...
Presuming that God is a being of infinite love & caring, yadda-yadda-yadda... (but who occaisionally gets frustrated & floods the world or obliterates cities... )
Central to the exersize in Creation known to us as "the Universe" is determining whether or not mortal beings imbued with free will are capable of superceding the biological imperatives inherent to their physical bodies and embracing the doctrines set forth in the "commandments", and by Jesi Christu.
"Evil" is merely an option like the dead-end path of a maze for a lab rat...
It must exist to allow for the failure of the experiment, in spite of the fact that "God" desires this failure no more than that of the "Fallen Angels".
The subjects must be free to choose this alternative to insure the "objectivity" of the result...

The lack of "evil" in Heaven is a result of the transcendant state of those who have "chosen correctly" from among the options available. They eschewed evil/temptation during their physical lives, and hence are both no longer subject to the temptation, nor desirous of its lesser "reward"...

hand out the cigars.
me thinks ye hast got it!

with respect
:m:

 

[firingseeds]

would it be kind to say created things have no value, and yet god has given his son, jesus, that, whosoever believes on him, can actually become a reality, a thing of value. now how easy was that?
god loves his creation.

 

[doom]

Hmmmn,i still wonder if "the universe" is just a huge computer program.

Im fine with that so long as the owner dont put it in the recycle bin,or format the drive.

 

[Jenyar]

I think potential has a lot to do with it: what is love worth if it is not enacted? Think of any creative person - a writer brimming with ideas, like a mother ready to give birth - creation is the bringing forth of potential.

I can see the creation as a weight that was held up on one end, let go, and is now on a wild swing - like pendulum - to the other end, where it will be caught again. The 'inbetween' comprises its whole existence in movement, energy, power and relativity - everything it categorizes as 'life' - but its beginning and end is one of eternal rest or "peace".

While moving, it's impossible to comprehend such a rest, except conceptually, by meditation and "letting go" of the movement - hence the attraction of 'enlightenment' religions and philosophies. The closest we can come to it is harmony while moving. First cause and last cause religions all describe a 'fall' and a 'restoration', with instability - and striving for harmony - inbetween.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by buffys

Jan Ardena,


-----Quote - "How do you arrive at the conclusion that evil is created phenomena?"

You actually answered your own question. Its precisely the reason i think "evil is a created phenomena." after the above question you said,
"“Anything”, only exists because God allows it to, if we are describing the Supreme Being." - thats my point exactly.

If that is the case, then your answer is incomplete, because it doesn’t say how “evil” is created by God. We know that evil exists, and for a time, it is allowed to exist, but how have you come to understand that it is a created phenomenon?

-----Quote - "Our desires are not chosen by God, for they would not be called “desires.”"

I didn't say god chooses our desires I said the desires available to us are chosen by him.

Okay! I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. Please tell me how this is so.

McPrisons are popping up all over the country and according to any stats ive seen, have rehabilitated very, very few.

Maybe so, but that has nothing to do with the concept of prisons, and everything to do with the way they are run. The actual idea of a prison, is the best way to deal with such problems. And if they are run properly, then there is every chance of rehabilitation in high numbers, imho.

-----Quote - "By making all humans, robots?"

I don't really see how god removing evil from our existence would make us robots. I'd assume people in heaven aren't robots yet god has seen fit not to allow evil there.

Evil comes about purely through the choices we make. Eg…I want some money very quickly, so I will take it from someone weaker than me, even if I have to hurt/kill him/her. You take away the choice, hence you have a robot type being.
People in heaven are there because of the choices they make. There are rules and regulation to enter into heaven, the person must be in the mode of goodness.

I could just as easily have said,"black is black and white is white because he said so", it was just another way of saying god (by definition) controls and defines what is available to us to perceive.

Yes, I believe God is the Supreme Controller, and whatever is available for us to perceive, I believe is controlled by Him, I don’t believe He controls the definitions of what we perceive, although He Himself has His own definitions. But what you seem not to understand, is that we are all under control, there is not one who is free, on this planet. Therefore the emphasis for all persons, is to work out who or what it is, you wish to be controlled by.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by Michael

Originally posted by Michael

Jan, I was wondering (and I'd be willing to bet) your parents are Christian?

Keep your money Michael, neither myself nor my parents are Christians, in a fundamental sense.

No the reality is you never really had a choice in the matter. The nature of the human being is to do as it is taught. Most human beings believe what they were brought up to believe.

To do as “it” is taught?
I regard human beings as people not objects.
If most humans believe what they have been brought up to believe, then that is their choice, unless they are somehow incapable of making decisions for themselves.

I have a Question: Would you agree that if we were in ancient Roma (say 150 BCE) you would be proclaiming the virtues of Jupiter or some other god? If so - then you see my point. If not - explain what makes you so sure you wouldn’t?

Who knows what I would be proclaiming?

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Michael]

Jan, your parents needn’t be fundamentalists just Christian. Simply put, and the essence of my post, you probably believe along the lines of what your parents raised you to believe. Your parents were Christian therefore you're Christian. Surely you can see that there is a direct correlation between what a parent teaches a child is truth and what the child believes is truth. This child then becomes a parent and thus the cycle continues.

Would you agree with the following?

1) Most parents in India are Hindi ergo most of their children are Hindi.
2) Most Iranians are Islamic ergo most of their children are Muslim
3) Most Nipponese are Shinto ergo most of their children are Shinto.
4) Most Chinese are Atheist ergo most of their children are Atheist
5) Most of Thai Society is Buddhist ergo most children come to believe Buddhism.
5) Ancient Romans worshiped Juno ergo most of their children worshiped Juno.
6) Jan’s parents were moderate Christians ergo Jan most likely is a Christian.
Etc…
I think most everyone here can follow the logic. Somehow you were introduced to the Christian concept and are Christian. Your belief didn’t just come out of thin air and most likely came from a parent. Which is fine. Everyone needs to make sense out of the world and deal with its ups and downs as well as its inevitable end.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by Michael

Jan, your parents needn’t be fundamentalists just Christian.

Someone claiming they are “Christian”, without being a fundamentalist, is non-different to someone claiming they are a “scientist” without any scientific qualification or merit, they are just words, nothing else. A “Christian”, in the real sense, is someone who follows in the footsteps of Lord Jesus Christ, not someone who claims to be Christian.

Your parents were Christian therefore you're Christian.

Now please read carefully, my parents are not christians, and neither am i. I wish i could be.
Do you have any idea what it takes to become a christian in the real sense?

Surely you can see that there is a direct correlation between what a parent teaches a child is truth and what the child believes is truth. This child then becomes a parent and thus the cycle continues.

I understand what you are saying, but it is a gross generalisation and upon deeper inspection, makes no sense.

1) Most parents in India are Hindi ergo most of their children are Hindi.

This is culteral identity, it does not mean that the children are brought up without choice.

6) Jan’s parents were moderate Christians ergo Jan most likely is a Christian.

Why do you think I am a christian?

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Free Cycle]

Because you emphasize people as people, not objects (rather than regular old mammals like the rest of those evolved beasts) and you also use the word "Lord" before all caps jesus christ.

 

[Michael]

choice of belief is an illusion

Hi Jan

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
I understand what you are saying, but it is a gross generalization and upon deeper inspection, makes no sense.

Please elaborate.

I'm truly interested in what you have to say. To me it seems quite self evident.

I do not have think people have so much "choice" in the matter. Of course there is some choice (that’s the generalization you alluded to). However, most people don’t change their fundamental beliefs – that sort of change is not human nature. If it was human nature then there would be a viable possibility all American children will become Buddhist in a single generation. Though a possibility – it’s highly unlikely.

That’s the generalization.

Therefore we can say the choice of their belief was made for them – usually by their parents (perhaps reinforced by society). I can say with some amount of certainty that the children of Christian parents will be Christian (I use the word liberally not to walk in Jesus’ footsteps. We’ll define Christians as having a belief in a single god, occasionally going to Church on Sunday, belief that they may go to a heaven and that Jesus walked the earth 2000 yr ago). Using the same reasoning, the Children of Buddhist parents will most likely become Buddhist. Not always - but most of the time. If you are telling me that each of these children have complete and equal choice in their religious beliefs then I would have to disagree. If that is so why aren’t more Children of Christian parents Buddhist and Children of Buddhist parents Christian? So yes there is generalization and upon deeper inspection (what ever that is) it does make sense. The sense being that children believe what they are taught to believe.

Here is an example: Do you have the choice not to think in English (assuming English is you mother tongue - if not substitute mother tongue for English). Can you forget English? Let’s say today you thought "you know I do not like English and thus tomorrow I will no longer be thinking, talking or having anything to do with it”. Is that possible? Did you have the choice that English would be with you for ever? You see - it’s wired in now. A choice you did not have the chance to make - but you will most likely live with now for the rest of your life and eventually pass on to your children. So who made this choice? Ans: Your parents made the choice of what language you would be using and its reinforced by society. You are now stuck with it. That isn't to say you can not learn another language. But it is very difficult to unlearn your mother tongue. And perhaps in most people impossible.

Ergo, most people raised to think in English will remain thinking in English. Most people raised a Christian will remain a Christian.

These people didn't have much choice in the either learning English or becoming a Christian. It was a choice made for them by their parents.

A real case example: A child is adopted from Korea and raised in America. He becomes a Christian. His brother is left in Korea and he has become a Buddhist. See the sense? There is a direct correlation between what a parent teaches a child is truth and what the child believes is truth. This child then becomes a parent and thus the cycle continues.

What I find is amazing is the resiliency of people to continue to accept as truth that they actually had a choice in their belief. Even as plainly illustrated in the Korean example - that’s simply an illusion.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Re: choice of belief is an illusion

Originally posted by Michael

Hi Jan
Please elaborate.
I'm truly interested in what you have to say. To me it seems quite self evident.

Parents may have six children, and all of them will, more than likely, grow up to be completely different personalities, despite what they have been taught by their parents.
There are lots of people here who have christian or catholic parents, but they have decided not to be catholic or christian. I could go on all night long, but i hope you get my drift.

However, most people don’t change their fundamental beliefs – that sort of change is not human nature.

If they don't change their fundamental beliefs in a society where there are little or no restraints providing one is inside the law, then that is their choice. They are happy to believe what they believe.

If it was human nature then there would be a viable possibility all American children will become Buddhist in a single generation. Though a possibility – it’s highly unlikely.

The term "Buddhist" is a word which describes a state of mind. If the children develop the state of mind, then they are Buddhist, whether they think so or not.

I can say with some amount of certainty that the children of Christian parents will be Christian

That does not mean they did not choose to be.

If you are telling me that each of these children have complete and equal choice in their religious beliefs then I would have to disagree.

That is only your opinion, you do not know for sure.

The sense being that children believe what they are taught to believe.

That is the role of the child, this is how they learn, but once they develop independance, if they develop independance, then they are free to choose for themselves. In my experience this has been the case, as with all my freinds whom i know well, nobody has been forced to believe something they don't agree with.

Can you forget English?

This is a different situation, I speak english because i was born in England where everybody speaks english, it is to my benifit to speak english. Language is nothing more than a tool, it is not personal.

A child is adopted from Korea and raised in America. He becomes a Christian.

But is he really a christian, or just labelled one?
If he really is a christian, then he must have wanted to be one, because nobody in their right mind would be a christian if they didn't want to be. And those that are, don't stay christian for long, for being a christian is more than just saying "i am a christian". If they stay christian, despite not wanting to, then they have no idea what they are doing.

[quoteWhat I find is amazing is the resiliency of people to continue to accept as truth that they actually had a choice in their belief.

Try and understand that everybody is at different stages of personal development. Most of the people i know do not share the beliefs of their parents, and neither do i.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Michael]

Re: Re: choice of belief is an illusion

Just to simplify, for the remainder of this discussion I will define a Christian only as someone who believes that there was a person names Jesus around 2000 years ago and that by thinking about him on Sunday they will go to a place called heaven after they die to live eternally in bliss. Jan, I understand what you mean by Christian but I didn't want to diverge from this topic to much.

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
Parents may have six children, and all of them will, more than likely, grow up to be completely different personalities, despite what they have been taught by their parents.

I don’t dispute personalities. I don’t know if personality can be taught. Maybe. What I said is they will most likely believe what their parent teach them to believe.

1) If the parents are Zoroastrian they’re children will most likely become Zoroastrian.
2) If the parents are Christian they’re children will most likely become Christian.
3) If the parents are Christian they’re children will most likely not become Zoroastrian.

I’ll ask again:
A) Do you agree with statement #3?
B) Please, provide explaination (either way).

MII: If it was human nature then there would be a viable possibility all American children will become Buddhist in a single generation. Though a possibility – it’s highly unlikely.
Jan: The term "Buddhist" is a word which describes a state of mind. If the children develop the state of mind, then they are Buddhist, whether they think so or not.

OK I’ll agree with buddhism being a state of mind. However do you agree with the statement? Why?

MII: I can say with some amount of certainty that the children of Christian parents will be Christian
Jan: That does not mean they did not choose to be.

What does it mean then? By your statement, am I to understand that you believe the decision was completely independent of all parenting? If your answer is no then to some degree the choice was made for them by the said parenting.

MII: If you are telling me that each of these children have complete and equal choice in their religious beliefs then I would have to disagree.
Jan: That is only your opinion, you do not know for sure.

Do not know what for sure?
My theory is: most children believe in what ever Deity they are taught to believe is truth. I base the hypothesis on the obvious fact that in the real world most children do end up believing in the same religion as their parents. I didn’t say "every", I didn’t say "all", and I didn't say "exactly" I said most will beleive in the religon they are taught is truth. I didn’t say that the children are carbon copies of their parents. I didn’t say they have the personalities of their parents.

Acually here it is once more:

Originally posted by Michael
Would you agree with the following?
….
2) Most Iranians are Islamic ergo most of their children are Muslim
3) Most Nipponese are Shinto ergo most of their children are Shinto.
4) Most Chinese are Atheist ergo most of their children are Atheist
5) Most of Thai Society is Buddhist ergo most children come to believe Buddhism.
5) Ancient Romans worshiped Juno ergo most of their children worshiped Juno.
…..

Jan: Please provide another theory (other than parenting) for why children tend to have VERY similar religious beliefs as their parents. ie: Christian parents tend to give birth to Christian Children. If its not parenting then what is it?

MII: Can you forget English?
Jan: This is a different situation, I speak English because i was born in England where everybody speaks English, it is to my benefit to speak English. Language is nothing more than a tool, it is not personal.

You could have learned English in China. You would have learned it from your parents. You don’t need to speak English in England. Many don’t and live just fine. Your learning to speak in English is similar to learning to believe in a specific Deity. Similarly, most people don’t stop thinking in English once they learn it. Although with a lot of effort and patience people are known to stop thinking in English and start thinking in another language. In a similar manner, people who are taught to think religiously can, with a lot of effort, change their religious belief. Most don’t do either of the two. Although I am not fluent in another language. As I understand it, language is quite personal. Language itself can change the way a person thinks about even themselves. My partner is Nihon-jin. She says they have no word for “I”. They’re society has generally never had an individualistic flavor to it. Could it be that their language is driving their thoughts about “I”? I don’t know. I do think that language and religion share many similarities. But that is a different beastie