In about 300 B.C., Epicurus eloquently summed up the problem of the existence of evil. It has come to be known as the Riddle of Epicurus or the Epicurean paradox. It was translated by David Hume in the Dialogues concerning Natural Religion:
If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to
Then He is not omnipotent.If He is able, but not willing
Then He is malevolent.If He is both able and willing
Then whence cometh evil?If He is neither able nor willing
Then why call Him God?
Every generation interprets God and man, good and evil, based upon their generational understanding. The fact is that it is not at all all evil nor is it all good. We may see more evil today because we as the human race have departed from Him that is all good and are now clinging to that which is all evil. You will never convince those who love evil that good (God) exists, this is because they only accept and serve that which is evil. There is a law from God that states whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. God can not nullify and make void His law, this is why evil continues to exist – man chooses evil, he therefore must live with evil. The moment a man submits his will to God and chooses to do good he will reap good. Another problem with an evil man is that you can not convince them that an evil has vanished from you do to the good of God, such is the case with miracles. The evil man can not afford to admit a miracle has taken place because this would bring condemnation upon him do to his acts of evil. Many of you on here speak as though it is all evil and no good (God) exists. Most of you would continue to make this claim even if you seen a verified dead man come back to life, your fallen nature hates the light and truth, you will never accept this through reasoning, no man will ever convince you that God exists, and God himself can not trespass and violate your unbelief. There is but one method, the hearing of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, that can open your eyes.
So, if I understand you correctly, CC, you are saying that people who don’t believe in God are ipso facto evil? And believers are, likewise, good? There are no evil theists, and no good atheists?
Dude, you gotta get out more.
Not at all HN, I am simply stating that those who choose evil over good exasperate the level of evil we must endure on this planet. I will be the first to confess to you HN that there are also multitudes of people who state they are believers yet they also continue to choose evil over good. The problem we face today in many of the churches is that many love the temporary pleasure some evil produces. Many evils taste sweet at first but in the end become very bitter. I know many who are not believers that do more good than many believers, too bad, but very true. I can only speak for myself HN, before I became a believer in Christ I was a companion of much evil, afterwards my entire nature was changed. I have now spent almost 35 years helping and loving others. It is a sad state of affairs when men use their religion as an excuse for abuse, I use my faith to try to be as much of a help to others as I possibly can. I am not happy with what I see going on today in many that profess Christianity, but none-the-less it has transformed me personally. HN, if you look closer at my previous comment you will discover that my issue is with all men, saved or unsaved, who justify and love evil. One point I would make is that the Bible clearly teaches that dominion and authority over this planet was given to man by God, what we see today is simply the result of what man in his authority has allowed to take place. Many think that God does not exist or simply does not care about what takes place here, not so, God has set principles and laws into motion that must be met before He can intervene. The stories of such intervention we read about in the Bible are all true, the problem we face today that prohibit this is the fallen state of His people. Believe me HN, the last thing a Christian who is living in sin is going to pray for is for God to visit the earth and judge sin!
I’m not sure I understand, CC. You state,
“I am simply stating that those who choose evil over good exasperate the level of evil we must endure on this planet.”
If that’s all you are stating, then you are simply expressing a tautology. But I suspect you mean to say more, and that “simply” is something of a hyperbole here. You earnestly go on:
“I will be the first to confess to you HN that there are also multitudes of people who state they are believers yet they also continue to choose evil over good.”
And so you imply that these self-described believers are not “true” believers.
“The problem we face today in many of the churches is that many love the temporary pleasure some evil produces. Many evils taste sweet at first but in the end become very bitter.”
One might just as well say: ‘The problem we face today with most theistic belief systems is that their adherents are unduely influenced by the false sense of comfort given by the thought that “someone is in control” provides them. Prepackaged answers to big questions are nice, but in the end big questions remain.’
“I know many who are not believers that do more good than many believers, too bad, but very true.”
So, belief in God is not a prerequisite to living a virtuous life, correct? And by extension, it may as such be possible to live a virtuous life even if no God exists, no?
“I can only speak for myself HN, before I became a believer in Christ I was a companion of much evil, afterwards my entire nature was changed. I have now spent almost 35 years helping and loving others.”
Ya, I’ve heard Buddhists, and sundry others, say the same thing. A change in belief system can have positive effects. Yay! In my own case, I certainly didn’t cease helping others when I shed my Christian snake skin sa quqrter century ago.
“It is a sad state of affairs when men use their religion as an excuse for abuse, I use my faith to try to be as much of a help to others as I possibly can. I am not happy with what I see going on today in many that profess Christianity, but none-the-less it has transformed me personally.”
Great, but to the issue of Epicurus’s paradox, do you simply ultimately admit that your notion of Deity is unreasonable (assuming you believe in an Omni-omni Supreme Being), or do you claim tha we may approach greater understanding through the use of our rational thought? If the latter, what say you of God’s relation to evil?
” HN, if you look closer at my previous comment you will discover that my issue is with all men, saved or unsaved, who justify and love evil.”
And I assume you do not include yourself in that group.
” One point I would make is that the Bible clearly teaches that dominion and authority over this planet was given to man by God, what we see today is simply the result of what man in his authority has allowed to take place.”
…and that God foresaw to begin with?
“Many think that God does not exist or simply does not care about what takes place here, not so, God has set principles and laws into motion that must be met before He can intervene.”
How thoughtful of him!
“The stories of such intervention we read about in the Bible are all true,”
…and your evidence for this assertion is… … …?
” the problem we face today that prohibit this is the fallen state of His people.”
Which, of course, has come as a total shock to God.
” Believe me HN, the last thing a Christian who is living in sin is going to pray for is for God to visit the earth and judge sin!”
Pfffeewwww!!!
Sorry to be so sarcastic, CC, but your inferred claim to be observing things from a superior standpoint simply doesn’t emit self-evident credibility It’s fine to speak for yourself, but it’s hard to keep it there, in’it?
Only the complete, perfect and whole (ultimate good) exists for eternity. Evil is only temporal, it does not exist from God’s perspective outside of time and in places where what he has purposed has been accomplished.
A person that passes into eternity from a body racked by cancer or someother temporal “evil” but confident in the nature of God’s complete perfect wholeness is at peace with himself and his creator. There is no accusatory statement to be made that God, (“if He exists”) is in anyway “evil” as we in our finite minds try to understand both God and evil as if one can’t exist without the other.
This is how bringing an end to that which is opposed to God’s existence and purposes and even those beings that persistently work at evil and who think they are thwarting God’s existence or purpose will bring about the ultimate “Goodness” of God.
It is only a delusion to beings that themselves wish to be like God, but without a conception of a perfect God themselves and who simply will for their beliefs and ideas “opposed to God” to go on forever.
I take it, Karl, that a person that passes into eternity from a body racked by cancer or some other temporal “evil” who is NOT confident in the nature of God’s complete wholeness will continue to be racked by pain foreveore? If so, God is not only jealous, but petty, cruel, and self-absorbed. As a parent, I simply cannot comceive of ANYTHING my child might do that would lead me to allow him to live in eternal agony. Such a metaphysic, to me, is to be rejected on simple moral grounds, nevermind any deeper reflections…
This conversation is solid evidence that one can not convince a carnal mind of spiritual truth. If you seen a man with his head cut off, and his head reappeared and he lived again, would you still seek a carnal answer? There would be no logical or scientific answer, yet man would not accept this as evidence of a creator.
I take it, CC, that you have seen someone regrow their head?
Happy Nihilist: You’re competing in The Game With No End, a sometimes fun but ultimately frustrating mental exercise. You make some great points, and I’m enjoying your logic and pov. I wish you luck in cracking through the 2000 year-old calcified Dogma shell encasing your sparring partners. Profound religious hypnosis is notoriously difficult to awaken from–congrats on your skin shedding!
Hey Mike, thanks for the props. Who knows, maybe I’ll learn something! But if nothing else, at least I can refine my own echoes… it would, of course, be nice to have at least some specific questons addressed, as I’ve taken care to attempt direct dialectic. I know, I know… good luck with that.
Happy Nihlist,
I take it that you have no reason to seriously discuss what I stated.
You have just evidenced that you claim to have no clue about what “Good” really is because you can only conceive of what “good” might be based upon your own manner of understanding what would be evil to you.
You believe “evil and its perpetrators” have every right to exist along side of what God has stated is not Good. God was the first one to say something in a temporal sense was not good, but then went on to rectify the situation. How else does one create a living being that must grow to maturity in all manners of existence, i.e. physical, mental and spiritual when every new stage of life means change from what one use to be, and into what one will become?
When he created man with out woman God was just beginning the process and yet God then went on to rectify a not very good situation with a better one without offending those who may have been happy with the status quo a couple of days earlier? Adam (a human) expressed the sense of incompleteness and God saw to it that the matter was settled.
Any time we try to think our judgement can superceed God’s sense of ultimate perfection, wholeness and righteousness we are simply stuck on what we want as opposed to what is a better way.
I’m so sorry you feel God has no right to pass judgement upon anyone or anything. God does not judge temporal beings for simply not meeting up to His standards, He judges them for believing they can know better than He does, and for believing His intentions and purposes really are not the right one’s for a specific point in time.
You believe God’s sense of judgement must conform to your sense of personal ideology, and this is all shrouded in your belief that there is no such thing as a spiritual existence to living because you do not believe there is anything more to “living” than what your carnal mind can convince you of.
Then you go right ahead and try to have me answer your question in some temporal light that makes God out to be in your back pocket or he can’t be God. Sorry, but this is exactly what God also stated would happen as soon as humanity partook of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
We as temporal entities have every reason to be confused about good and evil because what was good yesterday could be not so good today and actually really nothing like what the future could hold! By comparison yesterday, today or even the future are not evil unless we refuse to see that what God purposes and what we think can be at odds with each other for a time period without our being sentenced to either Hell or complete anihilation.
It’s those who have no desire to really allow God any say in their lives that make it unlikely that they will ever hear any kind of a message about how much God really loves them.
First of all, Karl, thank you for judging me. It’s great to have some sense of one’s worth in the grand scheme of things.
Perhaps you misunderstood my previous query. Let me rephrase:
You raised the spectre of pain and death in your mention of cancer as a temporal evil, having previously asserted that eternity (extemporality) is “all good,” and then directly connected with this the notion that a true believer would suffer their plight with blissful contentedness. The implication remains that those who fail to achieve such enlightened anesthesia would be judged to be unfit for eternal goodness. (And I’ll not raise the counter-possibility that such bliss might be attained in other ways. ot involving theistic premises.)
Now you remind me that God foresaw such “temporal reasoning” as the result of Eve’s cavorting with talking snakes.
I, of course, now reiterate the issue of how God can judge beings he already knew (to the minutest detail) would make erroneous choices.
And now you, I assume, will retort with some version of “it’s a mystery”, as if this were somehow revelatory.
I can accept the mystery notion. I can’t accept the assumption that mystery is a person. Blasphemy, Karl, blasphemy…
HN, I judge myself in this matter so don’t take it personal.
I understood your question. My answer was there will not be an ongoing “temporal” sense of the pain of judgement, which you would call a morally evil thing. I agree with that – but you didn’t seem to like the idea that any being has the right to bring an end to sin in a temporal setting because you still can’t fathom what it would mean to have any final judgement that brings an end to your temporal existence and moves existence to a higher plane into eternity.
To you, as I stated, you cannot grasp what it will be like to experience eternity because all you have is a purposeless existence in a temporal sense, so why would you even try to consider anything else.
I can’t speak for you here but if there is life after death, the physical head may not have to get re-attached to the body for life as you know it to continue in an eternal spiritual life that can exist either with or without a physical body. That is indeed a mystery to you, but not to me. I have faith to believe, you do not.
The only sense in which the final judgement upon sin itself proper or any specific manifestation of sin in the beliefs, ideals and actions of an individual is eternal is in the sense that a temporal being believes it could exist for eternity, however it will not exist after the final judgement upon this generation which I take to be those born of Adam’s posterity after the flood.
The term “generation” has no clear meaning other than some clear linkage to a progenerator and an end of the records kept concerning their temporal existence.
At that point of crossing from time into eternity there are many things that we can not grasp. I will not call it all mystery because we have glimpses of what it will be in the life, death and rsuurection of Jesus, but I will not say I can explain it all to your satisfaction.
Unjudged sin does not exist in an eternal setting and it will not exist outside of a temporal setting. Does that explain some of the mystery to you?
Not likely, because there still is the point that if life has no temporal purpose why should there be an eternal weight of glory.
“HN, I judge myself in this matter so don’t take it personal.”
Hey man, we’re talking about the fate of my allegedly immortal soul here, how more personal can you get?!
“I understood your question. My answer was there will not be an ongoing “temporal” sense of the pain of judgement, which you would call a morally evil thing. I agree with that – but you didn’t seem to like the idea that any being has the right to bring an end to sin in a temporal setting because you still can’t fathom what it would mean to have any final judgement that brings an end to your temporal existence and moves existence to a higher plane into eternity.”
Well, I was a devout Christian for a good many years. I resided in a Christian college for a few of them. I just may well have some inkling about what you believe to know. I, however, ultimately became convinced it was an unreasonable perspective, to be shelved along with the volumes of other defunct human speculations that have littered history. I do not claim to have a superior alternative, if it is ultimate answers that you want. Rather, I am concerned to maintain a more globally open mind. It’s not the “rights” of divine beings I’m most contesting, it’s their very existence. Confabulations of ad hoc rights and other theodicies simply bolster in me the impression that such is all simply a memetic discourse attempting to defend itself.
“To you, as I stated, you cannot grasp what it will be like to experience eternity because all you have is a purposeless existence in a temporal sense, so why would you even try to consider anything else.”
Yes, there is much I cannot grasp, especially that which is explicitly logically contradictory in nature. What exactly (or even just a lot less vaguely) do you mean by “eternity”? If you mean some notion of “outside time”, how is this not simply a deus ex machina to preserve concepts which cannot be reasonably explained. Is there, for instance, “duration” in eternity? Duration is a temporal concept. What is this Eternity? A “mystery”? Mystery is not something one ought to believe in, it is something one ought to uncover.
“I can’t speak for you here but if there is life after death, the physical head may not have to get re-attached to the body for life as you know it to continue in an eternal spiritual life that can exist either with or without a physical body. That is indeed a mystery to you, but not to me. I have faith to believe, you do not.”
If there is physicality in eternity, there is time. A physical body is an object that endures in space. More generally, “existence” is a term applied to things that endure. How is it you imagine existence may be applied to a dimension which lacks the component of time? The resurrection of the body and life everlasting is a notion contrived by pre-scientific guestimators.
“The only sense in which the final judgement upon sin itself proper or any specific manifestation of sin in the beliefs, ideals and actions of an individual is eternal is in the sense that a temporal being believes it could exist for eternity, however it will not exist after the final judgement upon this generation which I take to be those born of Adam’s posterity after the flood.”
I truly have no idea what you are talking about here. Sorry. Not a clue.
“The term “generation” has no clear meaning other than some clear linkage to a progenerator and an end of the records kept concerning their temporal existence.”
There are chartered accountants in eternity? What need of records in a dimension where no action may take place?
“At that point of crossing from time into eternity there are many things that we can not grasp.”
Yes, this is a clue that such speculations are at best specious, and at worst insane.
“I will not call it all mystery because we have glimpses of what it will be in the life, death and rsuurection of Jesus, but I will not say I can explain it all to your satisfaction.”
Ya, I’m next to certain you can’t, but please continue to make the attempt. I’ve read a few wise men who gave it a valiant go, but, no, they didn’t make it. You might consider reading Alvin Plantinga if you’re interested in adding some clarity to your presentation (he directly addresses Epicurus).
“Unjudged sin does not exist in an eternal setting and it will not exist outside of a temporal setting. Does that explain some of the mystery to you?”
Well, it’s an assertion without evidence. I can see why you’d wish it to be descriptive of reality, but I see no explication of the connection.
“Not likely, because there still is the point that if life has no temporal purpose why should there be an eternal weight of glory.”
Life has the purpose we create. The fact that it is not a prepackaged one makes it all the more precious. I just avoid being greedy in that respect.
HN,
So we have arrived at the place where your hihlism takes on a specific flavor. Purpose to you is of your own making.
That is exactly what causes self aggrandizement and pride and the rise of all sorts of evil perpetrated against other people who do not agree with your idea of self made and self understood purpose.
You also seem to use evidences from Nature as a vehicle to discount anything other than what you want to believe about existence. This is why you link the passage of time in a direct sequential manner of duration and can not consider that existence could have anyother tyoe of possibilities.
The Bible clearly states Jesus is both alpha and omega. This clearly means beings can exist outside of linear time as you undestand it. I can’t make you believe it.
It also seems that you make it part of your own purpose for living to discount and belittle what others find purpose in. Those who believe in a loving, forgiving, creator and redeemer shouldn’t be at odds with your own personal ideals.
If you really have doubts about whether or not you have a soul that will pass from this life into eternity belittling others who are at peace with that possibility makes little sense.
In the same way trying to simply scare someone into believing they will be a crispy critter for all of time and eternity as we think we understand it also makes little sense as well.
Those who beleive they are soul winners simply by offering fire insurance should better consider that you really win more friends to your ideas by the personal care and concern you show them rather than how much you try to hold them to the letter of the law.
Hey Karl,
“So we have arrived at the place where your hihlism takes on a specific flavor. Purpose to you is of your own making.”
Well, not exclusively, or even primarily, …rather, I am born into the reality of being a human at this time and place… I’m born into what has been created (read: evolved) thus far, and add my own miniscule heap of cosmic curiosities to the lot, in full knowledge that heat death may well wipe it all out.
In fact, I feel little need to isolate myself in terms of some autonomous sense of individualized ego. My “I” is very much a bio-social construct, imo. I’m comfortable in my dependent finitude, thank you very much.
“That is exactly what causes self aggrandizement and pride and the rise of all sorts of evil perpetrated against other people who do not agree with your idea of self made and self understood purpose.”
Well, I don’t think so, …and I won’t even bother raising the history of Christian imperialism here. Messianic belief systems should not throw stones.
“You also seem to use evidences from Nature as a vehicle to discount anything other than what you want to believe about existence. This is why you link the passage of time in a direct sequential manner of duration and can not consider that existence could have anyother tyoe of possibilities.”
Sure I can: Harry Potter clearly exists. In a book. I would, nonetheless, appreciate your clarifying your notion of eternity, as I previously asked.
“The Bible clearly states Jesus is both alpha and omega. This clearly means beings can exist outside of linear time as you undestand it. I can’t make you believe it.”
The Bible states, therefore… “clearly means”? Please clarify.
In any case, on what grounds do you discount other sacred texts’ projections of ontology?
“It also seems that you make it part of your own purpose for living to discount and belittle what others find purpose in. Those who believe in a loving, forgiving, creator and redeemer shouldn’t be at odds with your own personal ideals.”
Well, it was you who were suggesting I’m incapable of “fathoming” what has apparently been revealed to you, though you admit yourself that you cannot articluate what it is that you believe to be true in that regard. Yes, I have a problem with persons who make positive claims criticizing me for discounting them when, having not been presented substance, I suggest they’re position is without substance.
As a nautical term, your use of “fathom” suggests you’ve been swimming deep into the abyss of the celestial sea whereas I’m incapable of holding my breath. Pant, pant. You belittle my intellectual capacity on the basis of assuming I haven’t comprehended already the level of understanding you’ve achieved. Whether I have or haven’t, you haven’t demonstrated what that level is. Let’s start with “Eternity”…
“If you really have doubts about whether or not you have a soul that will pass from this life into eternity belittling others who are at peace with that possibility makes little sense.”
I don’t simply have doubts. I have no credible evidence. I have no basis (outside of stories) upon which to believe. I do, however, have the process of reasoning which has led me to suspect that such notions as “soul” are ones fraught with conundrum and are toxic to clear thinking.
If someone is at peace with the notion that drinking from lead plumbing is fine, well, I suppose I have a choice to make, don’t I.
“In the same way trying to simply scare someone into believing they will be a crispy critter for all of time and eternity as we think we understand it also makes little sense as well.”
On a related point: might you recall for me what percentage of the American Christian electorate believe that the Rapture will happen within their life time.
“Those who beleive they are soul winners simply by offering fire insurance should better consider that you really win more friends to your ideas by the personal care and concern you show them rather than how much you try to hold them to the letter of the law.”
Well, at least on online forums, I do admit to attempting to enforce the letter of reason. In any case, I’m not here to convert or win… I’m just asking those with the answers why they think their answers are correct.
I have already stated what I believe eternity is somewhat like. Since you believe there is no evidence for it in the physical reality you now experience I can only relate analogies which might reveal some portion of what it is like metaphorically.
A computer progrsmmer can design a software virtual world for gammers to enable gammers to find themself fighting against each other. It is only “experienced” in the minds of those who can use their senses to interact with the hardware interfaces. The real essence of the individuals is not itself part of the program, it becomes super-imposed into the workings of the software. In like manner, eternity and the real essence of people are not limited to only the experiences that are sensed and the interpretations of minds that live in this physical reality. One’s assumed physical consciousness is not all there is to being alive.
Futuristic science fiction shows like Star Trek create entire “Halo-worlds” were one mind can be tricked into thinking thye are actually someplace they are not. Fictional characters exist only in the minds of those who suspend their disbelief that it is really fiction. Doctor Who can go anyplace in time and take up experienceing it as if linearity and duration become meaningless to him.
For evolution to have taken place, you might believe in the possibility of multi-verses as opposed to a singular universe, so why must there be only one limited way of experiencing existence, as though it were the only “game” in town?
Those who believe the rapture is coming in their lifetime are correct because they believe when their lifetime comes to an end either by Christ’s return or by meeting Him in the air their limited physical existence will be transformed into a transfigured one where they will not be limited to the confines of physical earth. Their physical lifetimes do not cease until this transformation occurs. For those who die or fall asleep according to our reckoning of time, their transformation shall proceed before those who remain alive in this physical world.
At this transformation, those having died will awake as though they spent no time in the grave. Those having spent time without the presence of these people that have been dead will in the same moment be transformed out of this physical body and into a new one.
When the rapture starts, those having died will be transformed immediately and those still alive will not be transformed before those who have passed away. It will have ocurred at the end of all of their physical life spans at exactly the same physical time (as they have experienced it) as they pass into eternity.
jesus christ is not god and god is not jesus.
Hey Karl,
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-DKoOHNIo_Io/TXPAJOduc3I/AAAAAAAAAJo/zk2e0cYzExk/s400/declaration-of-independence.jpg
Did you know that if you look closely at the stylized “D” on the Declaration of Independence, it unmistakably resembles a hammer and sickle? It’s true! What does that fact mean? Well, we just don’t know.
Thomas Jefferson edited a fabulous New Testament. Have you read it? To tell the truth, I haven’t as of yet, though it’s downloaded on my iPhone for a while now. But the nature of it’s conception is compelling to me. Ixnay on the Oo-Woo-way. And a very meaningful extract emerges. Minus the grandfatherly boogabooga. Not that fictional epiphenomena don’t exist, but just not the way we may have been led to believe. They exist in a book. Did you know that writing used to be considered magic. And indeed it is. The Gospel is a powerful expression of human speculation, rooted out of very practical conundra. Octupi have eight legs, if you follow me.
But of course not, we must be clearer about what it is we aspire to believe in. Otherwise we will not be able to put it in words, which is to say, think about it for ourselves, in language.
The idea logos is on the tip of our tongue. It arises out of us, from within our ears. We have heard it before.
Numbers are eternal. But they do not have personalities.
Persona is an expression of finitude.
Finitude is (not) eternal.
And language breaks
updn…
spunds’ am sllads
savlas jno of ftal aj,am pue
Seems ya can’t turn c, k, or v upsidown. G is 8. J’s r.
Anyhow, I’ll hopefully get to a more direct response for ya momentarily
Eternity is best described by what it is not.
It is not a long duration of linear experiences, that go forever into the past and forever into the future, although that is the only conception you seem to have for it.
It is not a singularity of existence that is limited to a specific place in time and space either. The place Jesus went to prepare for those who have faith in Him is beyond the basic physical natural world, even though it can be superimposed upon a physical time and space.
Those, like Jefferson, with an orientation to the natural physical world within which people have no ability to grasp the unbelievable are indeed valued by you for obvious reasons. They create the spector that this life is all there is and it makes your use of the “logos” to fit your ideology as something you can wrap your mind around and thus believe it is worthy of your trust.
Go ahead and read Jefferson’s New Testament, there is still some of what faith and eternity is in there to lift your thoughts and ideas above the hammer and sickle, even if that is what you happen see at the beginning of the Declaration of Independence. Artistic, scriptive writing does not negate the actual meaning of the terms usless that is your entire motive for writing and reading to begin with. If the sole purpose of communication is to defend your ideology you have indeed left even the real world while you claim to be alive and part of it.
Way back in the 70’s, when I was a teen, a mysticism fad occurred in the southeastern US. Spurred on by TV shows about “psychic phenomena” and demonstrations by self proclaimed psychics such as Uri Geller, many teens who had found no answers in church dogma were hungry for alternatives for answers. Many dabbled in Satanism, at first thinking it to be an “anti-religion” and soon realizing it to be a competing religion.
I was never really caught up in this fad, and I actually preferred “The Amazing Kreskin” a mentalist entertainer who tended to expose the trick of the psychics.
An common belief among the kids that “looked into” satanic ritual was the odd idea that reading things from the bible in reverse had magical powers that could ward off the curses from those members of the Christian persuasion. Effective any word or name spelled backward was considered to be the opposite of the word or phrase spelled forward.
With that in mind:
EVIL; live… I can kinda see that one.
Satan: natas (in Spanish, the film that separates from milk when boiled, alternately used to mean privileged few or scum in Latino slang
God: dog
Yahweh: HewHay
Pray: Yarp an affirmative used by a severely learning disabled character in the movie “Hot Fuzz”
Hey there Karl,
“I have already stated what I believe eternity is somewhat like. Since you believe there is no evidence for it in the physical reality you now experience I can only relate analogies which might reveal some portion of what it is like metaphorically.”
Not simply in physical reality, but in terms of what I consider to be healthy reasoning processes. Metaphor is a fine tool, but it is meant as a starting point of discussion. You previously stated that eternity is a place where unjudged sin does not exist. I take it, then, that judged sin can exist in eternity?
“A computer progrsmmer can design a software virtual world for gammers to enable gammers to find themself fighting against each other. It is only “experienced” in the minds of those who can use their senses to interact with the hardware interfaces.”
Yes, but the processes underlying it are empirically demonstrable… and the “mind experience” too can be largely described in physical terms.
“The real essence of the individuals is not itself part of the program, it becomes super-imposed into the workings of the software.”
The “real essence”? And what is that? Sounds quite definitive. Must be something very particular.
“In like manner, eternity and the real essence of people are not limited to only the experiences that are sensed and the interpretations of minds that live in this physical reality.”
Well, in like manner, there ought to be a reflection of physical connections if we are to be postulating clear grounds for predication. Virtually “anyone” can experience the gamer world by means of physical apparatus.
“One’s assumed physical consciousness is not all there is to being alive.”
Indeed, there seems to be much we’re unconscious of. Such as the forces of upbringing and ubiquitous evolutionary urges.
“Futuristic science fiction shows like Star Trek create entire “Halo-worlds” were one mind can be tricked into thinking thye are actually someplace they are not.”
Yes, “tricked” is an apt term here.
“Fictional characters exist only in the minds of those who suspend their disbelief that it is really fiction.”
What?? I’m thinking of Harry Potter right at this moment, certain he is a fictional character, and yet there he is, right there in my mind’s eye! But perhaps this is your issue: Yahweh exists only in the minds of those who suspend their disbelief that he is really fiction? I can see that. God is an epiphenomenon dependent on the “worship” of human minds. Only then does He hold sway over “existence”.
“Doctor Who can go anyplace in time and take up experienceing it as if linearity and duration become meaningless to him.”
Well, not from his perspective. He retains his own linearity, we must imagine. Imagine being the key word here, as in, “imaginary”.
“For evolution to have taken place, you might believe in the possibility of multi-verses as opposed to a singular universe, so why must there be only one limited way of experiencing existence, as though it were the only “game” in town?”
Ya, I might ask you the same: why is Jesus the one game in town to this ever-after land? Why not as many ways as there are many minds? Why the single cosmic franchise? Is Eternity so narrow-minded?
“Those who believe the rapture is coming in their lifetime are correct because they believe when their lifetime comes to an end either by Christ’s return or by meeting Him in the air their limited physical existence will be transformed into a transfigured one where they will not be limited to the confines of physical earth.”
To paraphrase: Believers of the Rapture are correct because they believe in the Rapture. What?
“Their physical lifetimes do not cease until this transformation occurs. For those who die or fall asleep according to our reckoning of time, their transformation shall proceed before those who remain alive in this physical world.”
So there are first-comers in Eternity, which is to say an ordinal time process.
“At this transformation, those having died will awake as though they spent no time in the grave. Those having spent time without the presence of these people that have been dead will in the same moment be transformed out of this physical body and into a new one.”
Will there be clothing? […I’m totally not getting how all this is allegorical of the concept “Eternity”]
“When the rapture starts, those having died will be transformed immediately and those still alive will not be transformed before those who have passed away.”
Yes, you have said this already. But to reiterate: there is an eternal pecking order based on one’s temporal/historical location?
“It will have ocurred at the end of all of their physical life spans at exactly the same physical time (as they have experienced it) as they pass into eternity.”
Might we equally say, “into oblivion”?
[INTERMISSION]
“Eternity is best described by what it is not.”
Which, of course, is not to describe it, but everything else. Are you into Negative Theology, too? It has been said that only an Atheist can truly believe in God.
There are alternatives. I mentioned numbers. The axioms of mathematics are reasonably believed to be manifestations of an eternal dimension. But as I previously noted, they don’t have such accoutrements as personalities.
“It is not a long duration of linear experiences, that go forever into the past and forever into the future, although that is the only conception you seem to have for it.”
Hey, I haven’t even been offering much in the way of my own thoughts, though, yes, that is one standard definition. Again, the dimention of pure mathematics is another often used illustration of what partakes of the “atemproal” notion of eternity.
“It is not a singularity of existence that is limited to a specific place in time and space either. The place Jesus went to prepare for those who have faith in Him is beyond the basic physical natural world, even though it can be superimposed upon a physical time and space.”
So it is spatial. It requires preparation (due to disrepair or some other inadequacy). It is beyond physics, but in relation to it nonetheless. Ok… speculative, but at least some descriptive flavor.
“Those, like Jefferson, with an orientation to the natural physical world within which people have no ability to grasp the unbelievable are indeed valued by you for obvious reasons. They create the spector that this life is all there is and it makes your use of the “logos” to fit your ideology as something you can wrap your mind around and thus believe it is worthy of your trust.”
…no ability to grasp the unbelievable??
“Go ahead and read Jefferson’s New Testament, there is still some of what faith and eternity is in there to lift your thoughts and ideas above the hammer and sickle, even if that is what you happen see at the beginning of the Declaration of Independence. Artistic, scriptive writing does not negate the actual meaning of the terms usless that is your entire motive for writing and reading to begin with. If the sole purpose of communication is to defend your ideology you have indeed left even the real world while you claim to be alive and part of it.”
What, prey tell, do you imagine my “ideology” is? I tend to find myself lacking one. *shrug*
Oh and how extremely heartening it is to see two, presumably intelligent, human beings locked in an epic gambit of spiritual belief over the internet! What a prudent way to spend ones time!
If I had a nickel for every person that was swayed into believing the polar opposite of his or her ardent convictions through the comments of an internet article, I would be a very rich man.
It seems that a man who prefers fighting tooth and nail to prove his own beliefs over others rather than silently following and reflecting upon them is the most insecure of them all.
It appears that what you both really need (and what you are really trying to do here) is to convince yourselves of the things you say.
In response to your original post. God does not have to be one thing at once. Just as thrust trumps gravity, a natural law can be transcended by another. In order for a law to handle every circumstance, that law must be able to bend at certain times. Otherwise there will be exceptions. God can be omni-potent and not omni-potent all at once, simply because his law (the law of illogic) trumps the natural law of logic (which dictionaries are based off of). It doesn’t get any simpler than that.
@ Niklaus
devil did emit as a time did lived
ergo, temporality is bad. .dab si ytilaropmet ,ogre
bible : el bib
spoon fed def noops
okay, I’ll stop now. .won pots ll’I ,yako
If you can’t tell what your own ideology is you need to do a little more careful analysis of whether the things you believe are proactive or reactionary.
BTW, Harry Potter is not a real person. But if you can conceive of his being real why can’t you also consider the possibility of a “physically” real person having the essence of what they are still existing after their physical likeness of who they are on earth ceases to work anymore?
Doctor Who’s time and space travel is not a simple linear thing because when he or others try to be in the same time and place with two versions of the same entity, something outside of time wreaks havoc with this. If existence were really only linear and not a multi-verse this should not be.
@ Outsider: Alas, the triumverate is complete! :D. We have the scornful abstainer. To be fair to myself, Outsy (as, of course, I always am), I’ve already pled to the crime of honing my own echoes. But I suppose you wouldn’t have read that, given that the very notion of reading this exchange would no doubt be even MORE worthless in your eyes than was the process of writing it.
@ Falcon: So, you’re saying God is a contradiction. I wholly agree!
@ Karl:
“If you can’t tell what your own ideology is you need to do a little more careful analysis of whether the things you believe are proactive or reactionary.”
An ideology is a comprehensive system of belief. I’m simply not that
singularily systematic. Have you heard of the “Dreaming Butterfly Scenario”? Check out this dude called Zhuangzi.
“BTW, Harry Potter is not a real person. But if you can conceive of his being real why can’t you also consider the possibility of a “physically” real person having the essence of what they are still existing after their physical likeness of who they are on earth ceases to work anymore?”
I wasn’t conceiving of his being “real”, I was conceiving the reality of his fictional status. But again, what is this “essence of what real persons are” that you are referring to?
“Doctor Who’s time and space travel is not a simple linear thing because when he or others try to be in the same time and place with two versions of the same entity, something outside of time wreaks havoc with this. If existence were really only linear and not a multi-verse this should not be.”
I’m cool with the notion of multiverses, and I don’t mean to limit myself to “simple linearity”… complex linearity is linear nonetheless. So is a circle. Have you heard of the notion of “the eternal return”?
HN,
Saying Harry Potter is “real” fiction makes about as much sense as saying that something never physically alive is really alive or that existence is a simply a figment of the imagination, in which case how could anyone ever know for sure if their physical life was real or simply a virtual role played out upon a stage like actors in a play being written without a purpose, all of it would signify nothing and would result in lives of hopeless desperation.
Which kinds of makes me wonder why any Nihlist would ever really be happy for anyother reason than that they choose to write gibberish and call it meaningful.
There is nothing new under the sun, just how fast or slow that transitions appear/occur and at what point in some cycle it will all come to an end.
When that which is really new comes to be, it won’t be under the sun nor will it be anything our limited minds can conceive of now as if it will somehow compare to physical reality. Jesus has gone physically from reality, but the preparations of which He spoke were not ones’s in which He needed time and space to do somekind of work to prepare the afterlife.
The preparations include the untimely event of making the end of everyone’s physical lives to occur in such a way that all will either enter into His presence or out of His presence when they pass from physicsl life into eternity. To me that is what He meant when He said I go to prepare a place for you. Those preparations entailed making it possible so that “where” He went, we may go also. The preparations were done while he was still alive and going to the cross to die for the sins of all who would believe in His purpose for living and dying.
Jesus is not just the creator of physical existence for living creatures , He is also its sustainer, redeemer and restorer. At the end of time as we know it, He will also be the one who makes it even possible for anyone that has passed out of this physical world to not simply cease to exist altogether, despite whatever their druthers might be.
K,
“Saying Harry Potter is “real” fiction makes about as much sense as saying that something never physically alive is really alive or that existence is a simply a figment of the imagination, in which case how could anyone ever know for sure if their physical life was real or simply a virtual role played out upon a stage like actors in a play being written without a purpose, all of it would signify nothing and would result in lives of hopeless desperation.”
I believe you are mistaking the written record.
To recall, you previously stated: [“You also seem to use evidences from Nature as a vehicle to discount anything other than what you want to believe about existence. This is why you link the passage of time in a direct sequential manner of duration and can not consider that existence could have anyother tyoe of possibilities.”] To which I replied: [“Sure I can: Harry Potter clearly exists. In a book.”] Which you followed upon with a discussion of virtual gaming and science fiction, to which I noted that these examples are actually very much in line with physical explanations. For instance, you asserted: [“Fictional characters exist only in the minds of those who suspend their disbelief that it is really fiction.”] I contested: [What?? I’m thinking of Harry Potter right at this moment, certain he is a fictional character, and yet there he is, right there in my mind’s eye!”] You: [“BTW, Harry Potter is not a real person. But if you can conceive of his being real why can’t you also consider the possibility of a “physically” real person having the essence of what they are still existing after their physical likeness of who they are on earth ceases to work anymore?” Me: [“I wasn’t conceiving of his being “real”, I was conceiving the reality of his fictional status. But again, what is this “essence of what real persons are” that you are referring to?”] ….
…and now you are claiming not to understand what I meant by, as you put it, “real fiction”. BTW: you haven’t addressed the “real essence” question. That might be an important issue to resolve.
To go on,
“Which kinds of makes me wonder why any Nihlist would ever really be happy for anyother reason than that they choose to write gibberish and call it meaningful.”
Well, fair enough, insofar as I must trust you truly believe I’ve written nothing but gibberish. FYI, though, gibberish is not the only source of meaning in my life. 🙂
“There is nothing new under the sun, just how fast or slow that transitions appear/occur and at what point in some cycle it will all come to an end.”
I must confess I do love Ecclesiastes. All is vanity. Rock on!!
“When that which is really new comes to be, it won’t be under the sun nor will it be anything our limited minds can conceive of now as if it will somehow compare to physical reality.”
So, you’re telling me that your limited mind, too, has no conception of what it is you’re referring to?
“Jesus has gone physically from reality, but the preparations of which He spoke were not ones’s in which He needed time and space to do somekind of work to prepare the afterlife.”
Well, what’s the source of your info here? Is it explicitly scriptural, or are you inferring something speculative here?
“The preparations include the untimely event of making the end of everyone’s physical lives to occur in such a way that all will either enter into His presence or out of His presence when they pass from physicsl life into eternity.”
I take it, then that this untimely event has not (had not? will have not?) yet been prepared.
“To me that is what He meant when He said I go to prepare a place for you. Those preparations entailed making it possible so that “where” He went, we may go also.”
So let me get this straight, he said he’s going somewhere else in order to make preparations there.
“The preparations were done while he was still alive and going to the cross to die for the sins of all who would believe in His purpose for living and dying.”
His modem of preparation was, may I be clear, death. And more specifically, a death dedicated to counter-effecting the matter of original sin, which was the result of his Father knowingly breeding a race of self-destructive super-monkeys. Yes? For the sake of our argument, I’ll go with you on that and see where we end up.
“Jesus is not just the creator of physical existence for living creatures , [hold it, where’d you get that one!] He is also its sustainer, redeemer and restorer. At the end of time as we know it, He will also be the one who makes it even possible for anyone that has passed out of this physical world to not simply cease to exist altogether, despite whatever their druthers might be.”
Ok, but I return to my previous question at this point: why the monolithic passageway, why not a more eccumenical framework. Poor poor Shinto babies!! This sounds like hard sell marketing tactics to me.
Hope this response shows up in the right place.
HN, My source of information comes from comparing bible passages with other bible passages.
Investigate what the authors of the New Testament are trying to relate to the readers whenever the phrase “that day” is used. It appears that Jesus had a very unique way of describing the “end of time in this physical framework” as we would call it.
From its use, it points somehow to all of the various times when the various myriads of people have already or will pass from this world into eternity as though it all occurs either during or at the end of a specific day or “that day.”
The Bible states very specifically that no man can conceive of how this will all play out, just being in a human physical body limited Jesus in how and what he could explain about eternity.
Don’t fall for the exclusionary prejudice of finite thinking preachers that condemn any one but their own church members to hell. I believe there will be some so called Shintos, Buddhits as well as various other people from various religious faiths and even members of various Christian groups that some would call “cults” that will receive redemption because of Jesus’ work on the cross.
This is not because they have called upon the “name of Jesus” while they were alive (although it would be helpful to others if they did), but rather because they recognize their need of the work that Jesus did on the cross (God’s provision) and acknowledge that their works and ideas alone can not earn them entrance into eternal life. Even one that has not heard the “name of Jesus” directly can be saved, though much more unlikely because of the other things that they might believe that could prevent them from really believing that they can only receive salvation in the eternal sense from one designated by “God” as the actual one that fulfilled the required role.
Karl,
The skill of cryptography is certainly a wonderful way to keep the mind limber, but the assumption that there is a hidden secret which would elevate one cognitively above the heathen masses is precisely what provides the “Non-Believer” perhaps their greatest source of objection to the whole notion that connection to divinity is to be provided through the written word. Is it possible that you invest so much into weaving a coherent tapestry of interpretation out of that particular collection of paper and ink that it becomes nigh impossible for your ego to recognize the nature of its dependency?
You magnanimously suppose that a select number of persons in other faiths have access to the wonders of redemption because they have achieved a certain cognitive awareness of theological necessities. …but that for the most part, the ideologically unwashed will be dismissed from eternal salvation due to their adulterated belief systems, primarily through no fault of their own.
So, not only does all this cosmic meritocracy relate to where and when one was born, but also to one’s intellectual capacity in terms of decyphering the proper “message”. I have a big problem with that on many levels. Here’s one: I work with the developmentally delayed for a living, and it is my strong suspicion that the vast majority of my students do not even remotely have a conception of the requisite understandings you are claiming persons need to enter the sweet hereafter. I take it their souls’ ass is grass?
Ultimate matters in eternity have very little to do with the mind and what one thinks, they have to do with where one places one’s faith and trust. There are many developmentally different people in this life. They like we are not left without hope of eternity.
I have many friends that work with people with developmentally challenging circumstances but they are convinced as am I, that it is not one’s mental abilities that provide you enlightenment into the Kingdom of God. More so than not, mental abilities and personally conceived beliefs are what prevent people from entering the Kingdom of God.
Some people will never arrive at the place where their minds cause their spirits to doubt in the existence of God. These people will not be denied entrance into the Kingdom of God. The vast majority of people however at some point come to the place where what they believe in their thoughts about God either helps or hinders their abiltiy to believe or trust in God.
It’s not a matter of “spirit” over the “mind” but one of the “mind” over the “spirit.”
Enough said on this topic.
@The Happy Nihilist
Close, but slightly oversimplified. God is illogical, which means one can and must step out of the realm of logic to believe in him. Much like the Wright brothers did when they attempted their first flight. The stepped out of the realm that was their logic (or current knowledge), and believed thrust would overcome gravity. I, personally, don’t consider myself bound by logic or gravity, therefore I can believe.
Attack this argument if you will, but read it several times before you do, or you will trip yourself up.
-Falcon
Hey Falc!
I’ll assume you actually mean “alogical”. [cf. a-theist]
Now forgive me, I’m not familiar with the particulars of the Wright bros. biography, though I assume that they professed some variant of Christianity and were thus allowed a social life. Nonetheless, their “step out of logic” as you put it, would surely not have been one in the way of an utter “leap of faith”? Rather, their hypothesis was one directly connected to and arising out of well tested principles. They were trial-and-erring it, in good old scientific fashion. Their “belief” in flight was not one based on perseverence-over-evidence (aka Faith) but, indeed, a logical conclusion constructed on the basis of Newtonian physics. They didn’t step “out” of it, they stood “upon” it. In fact, the Wrights RELIED on gravity in order to fly.
If, as you say, you are not bound by gravity, are you not therefore ungrounded?
By the way, thanks for the trip-up warning, but I’m actually not afraid to fall. Please feel free to decimate my delusions.
…sorry, one more thing on that opening passage of yours:
“how could anyone ever know for sure if their physical life was real or simply a virtual role played out upon a stage like actors in a play being written without a purpose, all of it would signify nothing and would result in lives of hopeless desperation.”
That actually sums up one of my beefs with the portrayal of Yahweh, and goes to the heart of Epicurus`s beef. Predestination seems unavoidable in the reality of a universe created by an omniscient god. I return you to my dialogue between God and the Time Traveller on the previous page.
@ The happy nihilist
Whenever you are ready to make the leap and believe in something besides the power of man and science, the offer’s always open. It’s not a religion, it’s a relationship. And as such, I hate forcing it down another’s throat.
Cheers!
-Falcon
How considerate of you, Falc. I surely wouldn’t want to suffer the fate of Saul!
Yes, personal relationship is the bedrock of authentic belief. And even as your and my brief one here is limited to a purely textual interface, I question how genuinely “open” a relationship to the Divine is which is dependent on a Holy Book.
If, rather, this relationship you allude to is one not dependent on anything other than what is shared between the alleged Divinity and oneself, then there ought not be any legitimate arbitrator of what is “true” outside that particular relativity. Accordingly, and as is held to be in certain rabbinic and other traditions, silence ought to be one’s primary manner of expression.
This, of course, puts such social movements as Evangelism into radical question. And in a global world of merging spiritual beliefs, perhaps the idea of placing one’s relation to the Divine more directly into “open” contact with the ongoing reality, and less in dependence upon traditional prejudices, is the reasonable order of the day. We might, for instance, have to burn Deuteronomy and Leviticus, for a start.
But how could a “Believer” possibly conceive of how a “Non-Believer” has already a relation to the Divine every much as full and legitimate as their own, such that this Believer might more easily sustain their proper silence? You might consider (medieval Christian mystic, “disappeared” by the Vatican) Meister Eckhart’s words in this respect:
“A man should be so poor that he is not and has not a place for God to act in. To reserve a place would be to maintain distinctions. […] A man should be so disinterested and untrammeled that he does not know what God is doing in him. […] If it is the case that man is emptied of all things, creatures, himself and god, and if god could still find a place in him to act … this man is not poor with the most intimate poverty. For God does not intend that man should have a place reserved for him to work in since true poverty of spirit requires that man shall be emptied of god and all his works so that if God wants to act in the soul he must be in the place in which he acts. …(God takes then) responsibility for his own action and (is) himself the scene of the action, for God is one who acts within himself.” (from “Blessed are the Poor”)
Perhaps, then, the Atheist position can be viewed in a respectable light by the Theist, even as a perspective that the Theist themself might aspire to attain. Why look into the light, when the purpose of light is to forge into darkness? As Eckhart also considered, “The eye through which I see God is the eye through which God sees me.”
Given such reflections, then, so it is I am left to consider how to be silent in a society where, for instance, the likes of the current crop of Republican God-mongers and Rapturites (etc., etc.) splay their wares on a nation suffering from the consequences of gluttony and pride. A nation, likewise, where an Atheist has not the least chance of consideration as leader, no matter what their capacities might otherwise be. And oh yay, most verily, I shout to the Heavens, there is no God. Pray be silent!
Okay, that sounded a bit lame, but, well, hope you get the point. 😉
The portrayal of Yahweh that makes him out to be a complete “control freak” is of course one which makes him appear from a temporal setting to be a puppet master because anyone trying to comment upon eternity from within time itself makes about as much sense as a fish saying “air” is evil because it physically can’t get oxygen unless its in water.
The water (like time) is assumed to be a fundamental past of a fish’s physical existence. Take away the water and one assumes physical death must follow.
A person’s assumed requirement of not wanting to put their trust in anything but that which they can wrap their finite minds around is why the idea of predestination bothers someone who would prefer to just cease to exist when their physical body stops working.
If I understand you correctly, then, you believe in predestination.
I believe God predestines in the sense that he knows the beginning from the end, but that doesn’t preclude the ability of people while alive to make the choices they will during their lifetime.
It’s like those books that have more than one possible route to the ending, many of these books have similar outcomes but how they get you there is each a bit different.
“That day” will arrive, but we will all have arrived there through our own unique set of circumstances and decesions.
Yes, as Thaddeus said, enlightenment don’t care how you get there. God’s seen it from the end, all choices made. It was known from the start. I’d turn left at the dangerous intersection. Buddha-bum, tssssh!
And the beat goes on…
Turning left, is only a poor choice if that is where you still are when “that day” arrives and you then discover all of your enlightenment has been little else other than darkness.
Poor’s a relative term… you’re not saying I could choose otherwise than what God has allegedly known I would/will from the end since the beginning? What is the substance of this choice you speak of, that even God would be ignorant of it and eternity dependent upon it? Apparently my spirit’s a poor comparison to yours… what with all them riches of light in store for you and the chosen choosers. Are we to make decisions on the basis of personal rewards?
Blessed are the poor in spirit, no?
Light, dark, empty, full, …binary equivocations. Perhaps eternity is grey, …maybe even colourful. Yesses and nos, straight lines and goals. There is, was, and ever will be only now or nothing. Today’s the day, tonight’s the night.
Black is beautiful, baby! Fear destroys.