|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Apr 12, 2009 1:14:23 GMT -5
Ah, that used to bother me too, back in the day. The reason why the old Pascal's Wager "What if I'm wrong" thing shouldn't scare you is that there are simply so many man-made gods out there. People who come out of Islam and Judaism and Hinduism have the same problems. You have the issue with Christianity because, I assume, you were raised Christian. I was also raised Christian by parents who became "born-again" after my father had an out-of-body experience (which, I've told him, can be explained scientifically). From that point on I was baptized and raised Presbyterian, which is actually a relief due to the stricter sects of Christianity I could've been brought up in. Of course, the Christians could be wrong and god could be Baal, Allah, Zeus, Odin, Horus, Krishna, etc. And on top of that there are over 3,000 different sects of Christianity including Oriental Orthodoxy, Eastern Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Latter-Day Saints, Seventh-Day Adventist, Christian Science, Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Evangelical, Anglicanism, Calvinism, Methodist, Reformed, Pentecostal, Restorationism, Anabaptist, Pietism, Charismatics, Sunday Adventists, Unitarianism, Universalism and Messianic Judaism. In other words, you could be wrong and I could be wrong....but so could everyone else ^_^
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Apr 12, 2009 3:23:23 GMT -5
But the question is still unanswered: Why with the whole Earthly test for matters of Divine Existence? Why is the existence here on Earth necessary at all when a more relevant test would occur in the Divine realm? As an apt analogy would highlight, why take driving lessons and then a driving test just so you can get to fly? Look at it this way: If we were all divine 100% of the time, would we know things like hunger, sadness, illness, age, et cetra? Those are all things that a person needs a physical body in order to experience and understand. That's still not why, why do we need to know that for an eternity of divinity where you'll never worry about it
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Apr 12, 2009 8:38:50 GMT -5
Look at it this way: If we were all divine 100% of the time, would we know things like hunger, sadness, illness, age, et cetra? Those are all things that a person needs a physical body in order to experience and understand. That's still not why, why do we need to know that for an eternity of divinity where you'll never worry about it Unless God is an old Jewish mother....
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Apr 12, 2009 8:57:55 GMT -5
Look at it this way: If we were all divine 100% of the time, would we know things like hunger, sadness, illness, age, et cetra? Those are all things that a person needs a physical body in order to experience and understand. That's still not why, why do we need to know that for an eternity of divinity where you'll never worry about it Does the word "empathy" ring a few bells? How about "experience?"
|
|
|
Post by Bluefinger on Apr 12, 2009 9:00:11 GMT -5
Does the word "empathy" ring a few bells? How about "experience?" How would empathy be something only to develop in an Earthly existence? And still, how does experience of an earthly existence translate into anything meaningful for a Divine existence? The connection still hasn't been established in any useful way.
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Apr 12, 2009 9:10:07 GMT -5
That's still not why, why do we need to know that for an eternity of divinity where you'll never worry about it Does the word "empathy" ring a few bells? How about "experience?" You don't get it sky, since you'll exist as a perfect entity in a perfect place for all of time, how would any of this 'earthly' experience prove any good to you? You would already know it by being perfect in perfection. Get a clue
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Apr 12, 2009 10:19:01 GMT -5
Does the word "empathy" ring a few bells? How about "experience?" How would empathy be something only to develop in an Earthly existence? And still, how does experience of an earthly existence translate into anything meaningful for a Divine existence? The connection still hasn't been established in any useful way. If you have a theology that holds judgment takes place right after death, then once on the other side you're in a position to immediately deal with those people who are still alive - the whole bit with angels answering prayers and whatnot. If you have a theology that holds humans who make it will have their own chunk of rock, then that might just allow them to be better at governing whatever they get.
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on Apr 12, 2009 10:28:56 GMT -5
That's still not why, why do we need to know that for an eternity of divinity where you'll never worry about it Does the word "empathy" ring a few bells? How about "experience?" What about psycho/sociopaths? They have no empathy. And again, what does a child born to die learn?
|
|
|
Post by lunalelle on Apr 12, 2009 13:58:07 GMT -5
Ah, that used to bother me too, back in the day. The reason why the old Pascal's Wager "What if I'm wrong" thing shouldn't scare you is that there are simply so many man-made gods out there. People who come out of Islam and Judaism and Hinduism have the same problems. You have the issue with Christianity because, I assume, you were raised Christian. ... In other words, you could be wrong and I could be wrong....but so could everyone else ^_^ It's one thing to know this. It's another to change the way I feel, which is often not rational in spite of my attempts.
|
|
|
Post by John E on Apr 12, 2009 14:26:19 GMT -5
If you have a theology that holds judgment takes place right after death, then once on the other side you're in a position to immediately deal with those people who are still alive - the whole bit with angels answering prayers and whatnot. Angel =/= dead human.
|
|
|
Post by Sigmaleph on Apr 12, 2009 14:41:46 GMT -5
Sky: Can't God just instantly give you that experience/knowledge? Would be faster, save a lot of suffering, and be way more complete (have you ever heard of one person that has experimented every possible situation a human can?) And don't try to say it would be somehow better if we experienced it rather than got the knowledge directly. This is an omnipotent God we are talking about. If he can't give you instant perfect knowledge on any subject, then he hardly deserves to be called omnipotent.
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Apr 12, 2009 16:30:37 GMT -5
How would empathy be something only to develop in an Earthly existence? And still, how does experience of an earthly existence translate into anything meaningful for a Divine existence? The connection still hasn't been established in any useful way. If you have a theology that holds judgment takes place right after death, then once on the other side you're in a position to immediately deal with those people who are still alive - the whole bit with angels answering prayers and whatnot. If you have a theology that holds humans who make it will have their own chunk of rock, then that might just allow them to be better at governing whatever they get. So what you're saying is god sends you to earth while being all powerful and perfect, from a perfect existance to this flawed one to be tempted away and burn for all eternity or learn lessons that you would already know (being made by a perfect being) to deal with others that get sent to this flawed world that you will have no contact with until they come back to the divine existance, if they come back? Circular logic, bullshit, and god is a cruel fucker then.
|
|
|
Post by ausador on Apr 12, 2009 16:33:22 GMT -5
Guys, your missing the point that Sky is a Mormon not a mainstream Christian. He believes that he will be more or less a god after death with his own planet(s) to rule and people to torture watch over. Therefore from his view eathly life is training to teach him about being human before he later becomes a god. This way he will understand and have empathy for the humans and their problems when he rules over them some day.
From the view of his religion everything he has said is perfectly valid, which I suppose, although I hate to admit it, makes more sense than mainstream christianity does on this point.
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Apr 12, 2009 16:37:06 GMT -5
Guys, your missing the point that Sky is a Mormon not a mainstream Christian. He believes that he will be more or less a god after death with his own planet(s) to rule and people to torture watch over. Therefore from his view eathly life is training to teach him about being human before he later becomes a god. This way he will understand and have empathy for the humans and their problems when he will rules over them some day. From the view of his religion everything he has said is perfectly valid, which I suppose, although I hate to admit it, makes more sense than mainstream christianity does on this point. Not really, because people do not learn completely, no one ever knows everything. It would be much smarter, and more logical that a perfect, omnipotent god would create you to rule whatever with the knowledge already aquired. Sending people to earth to be tempted away from him, where 90%+ of those that came from divinity will suffer eternal torment just for not living in the right place in the world is a wasteful asshole of a god that deserves nothing but the same label any of history's brutal dictators have earned
|
|
|
Post by Bluefinger on Apr 12, 2009 16:37:44 GMT -5
Guys, your missing the point that Sky is a Mormon not a mainstream Christian. He believes that he will be more or less a god after death with his own planet(s) to rule and people to torture watch over. Therefore from his view eathly life is training to teach him about being human before he later becomes a god. This way he will understand and have empathy for the humans and their problems when he rules over them some day. From the view of his religion everything he has said is perfectly valid, which I suppose, although I hate to admit it, makes more sense than mainstream christianity does on this point. No, we aren't missing the point, we are grilling him for the points he gives. The reasons behind the points he presents are lacking, and I'm fully aware that what he is referring to is his own doctrine, to which I still present the same questions because they remain unanswered. The "Why" is never dealt with, only side-stepped.
|
|