By the way, Stoid, your long paragraph didn’t even answer the question that I asked. It only condemned me for asking it.
[QUOTE=Stoid]
This is a view held by a large number of people, of more than one spiritual background. The details differ, but the big picture boils down to something in the reincarnation vein, and includes the belief that each spirit chooses the experience they have on earth.
It actually offers what I find to be a pretty good argument for why “bad things happen to good people”. Our usual error in considering these matters is believing that what a personality in a body perceives as “bad” is the same thing that a spirit perceives as bad. Your spirit is here to experience, and there is no value judgment on the experience. What is pain and suffering to a person in a body is merely learning and experiencing to the soul that inhabits the body. Souls do not fear pain or suffering, souls exist outside that kind of experience. In the same way, souls do not delight in the way the personality does to what we consider pleasant, positive experiences. Wealth and poverty both have lessons. Health and disease, joy and pain… all things teach, all things are experience that add to the soul.
Which makes sense to me. (Assuming I can get into the idea of spirit in the first place, which I can accept more easily than I can accept the idea of a creator, but I’m still not sure that we’re anything more than animated meat.) Spirit is eternal and cannot be harmed by things that happen to the personality and the body on earth. Think of every and any icky, evil, horrible thing you can think of. Now..how can any of those things persist in the spirit as somehting horrible beyond this existence? I’ve never thought of anything that could, I’d be impressed if you could come up with something.
It’s all just experience. Outside the earth and life in the body, Hitler and Mother Theresa are equal: they just chose different experiences on earth, and those things simply don’t carry over beyond earthly existence. Yin and yang are necessary to all things, one cannot exist without the other. One is not better than the other, together they make the whole.
Shakespeare said it perfectly:“All the world’s a stage,
And all the men and women merely players” - we each choose a role to play. And because for spirit no role is “better” than another, all roles have value. Being the baby that lives and dies in weeks is an experience that has something to learn from. Living a hundred years of health and success and acclaim is another experience that teaches something. Neither is better or worse.
I know, it’s very difficult to wrap your head around if the majority of your exposure to ideas abotu spirit are the basic religious ideas we are all familiar with. But sit with it. Try to step away from your knee jerk reaction regarding “good” and “bad” and see what happens. I think you’ll find it an interesting exercise, if nothing else.
[/QUOTE]
I’m impressed, good thinking. Life is for fun also. But don’t forget the Love part, most important, that will open the door to spirit.
Unfortunately most people are like standing in a brilliantly lit room with their eyes tightly shut yelling for someone to turn on the lights. Don’t spend too much time on them. They will “see” at their own pace, teach those whose eyes are open and asking “what is going on here.” – Emanuel
[QUOTE=lekatt]
I’m impressed, good thinking. Life is for fun also. But don’t forget the Love part, most important, that will open the door to spirit.
Unfortunately most people are like standing in a brilliantly lit room with their eyes tightly shut yelling for someone to turn on the lights. Don’t spend too much time on them. They will “see” at their own pace, teach those whose eyes are open and asking “what is going on here.” – Emanuel
[/QUOTE]
If you are standing in a room full of people and you are the only one who sees a bright light, I suggest you call 911.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
I’m impressed, good thinking. Life is for fun also. But don’t forget the Love part, most important, that will open the door to spirit.
Unfortunately most people are like standing in a brilliantly lit room with their eyes tightly shut yelling for someone to turn on the lights. Don’t spend too much time on them. They will “see” at their own pace, teach those whose eyes are open and asking “what is going on here.” – Emanuel
[/QUOTE]
Again I ask, is there an organization I can contact or a book to read to get details on these ideas, or are you the only source? You keep claiming that you are not religious, but it seems as if you are actually trying to start a religion.
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
By the way, Stoid, your long paragraph didn’t even answer the question that I asked. It only condemned me for asking it.
[/QUOTE]
Wow, Czar, defensive much?? All I was doing was sharing what I’ve been exposed to over the years that dovetails with what I felt Lekatt was referring to. There was ZERO attempt to get you to believe a damn thing, and ZERO condemnation! Your remark led me to believe that you probably had no familiarity whatsoever with these ideas, so expected that you would react the way people usually do when exposed to them, and I was suggesting you withdraw from that reaction just for the intellectual exercise, if nothing else.
Jeez.
[QUOTE=Stoid]
Wow, Czar, defensive much?? All I was doing was sharing what I’ve been exposed to over the years that dovetails with what I felt Lekatt was referring to. There was ZERO attempt to get you to believe a damn thing, and ZERO condemnation! Your remark led me to believe that you probably had no familiarity whatsoever with these ideas, so expected that you would react the way people usually do when exposed to them, and I was suggesting you withdraw from that reaction just for the intellectual exercise, if nothing else.
Jeez.
[/QUOTE]
Where did you get the idea that have no familiarity with these ideas? Was it because I didn’t swallow them whole? These ideas have been put forth over and over again, but because there doesn’t seem to be a consensus on the details, just the overall “feelgood” factor, and since these ideas usually(but not always) originate with the person posting them, we have no common source to study. We only have the unsupported words of the poster, making said poster the head of a religion. If you post “facts” about the afterlife, God and the like, and you are the only source, not only do you belong to a religion, you are the religion.
I reacted to these ideas the same way I would react to any idea unsupported by evidence or science. This is why I am proud to be a skeptic.
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
Where did you get the idea that have no familiarity with these ideas?
[/quote]
Oh, I dunno, Czar, would you say this: “Did you read all this in a book, did you dream it, or are you making it up as you go along?” about the basics of Christianity? That says to me that the ideas were new to you, but hey, evidently not. Whatever.
[QUOTE=Stoid]
Oh, I dunno, Czar, would you say this: “Did you read all this in a book, did you dream it, or are you making it up as you go along?” about the basics of Christianity?
[/QUOTE]
Nope. Obviously, there is a reference book involved in this case(it’s called the Bible). Even with this reference book, there are hundreds, if not thousands of splinter groups that just can’t agree on the details. Now, you may say that the details aren’t what’s important, its the general idea of Christianity itself. I have strong doubts though, because if the details weren’t important, there wouldn’t be all of these splinter groups, would there? If the details didn’t matter to people, they would all meet together under one banner, agree on the overall message, and agree to disagree on those pesky little details.
Again I ask, as I have asked before and will continue to ask in the future-What is your source for the details? Details matter. Details are the foundation.
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
Nope. Obviously, there is a reference book involved in this case(it’s called the Bible). Even with this reference book, there are hundreds, if not thousands of splinter groups that just can’t agree on the details.
[/QUOTE]
And there’s lots of books that talk about these ideas. So? That doesn’t make any of them (including Christianity) right or true or legitimate. Books don’t confer legitimacy or truth or even popularity. (And I think you have a rather broad view of “reference”, unless you simply mean “a book to which one may refer to find out what people who believe in this book believe”, in which case, all books discussing ideas are reference books, which is certainly a true definition, if not a common one.)
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
Now, you may say that the details aren’t what’s important, its the general idea of Christianity itself. I have strong doubts though, because if the details weren’t important, there wouldn’t be all of these splinter groups, would there?
[/QUOTE]
I disagree. Just because people obsess over details, it doesn’t mean that they are genuinely meaningful or important. Maybe they are, maybe they aren’t, people’s obsessions don’t decide the matter in either direction. (Of course, the idea of “importance” is rather unclear to begin with. Since you are the one making it an issue, what do YOU mean by “important”?)
I guess that answers my question, then. Because it matters to people, that makes it important.
Of course, if that’s true then a whole bunch of stupid shit is evidently important, but it’s your issue so you get to say. Again: whatever.
Please explain why you are making such an issue of this? I don’t know about Lekatt, but I have no axe to grind, Czar. Just sharing things I’ve learned about over the years, from multiple sources. (Unlike Christians, I haven’t fixated on any particular tome as The One True Book That Must Be Believed In Every Particular. I’ve taken in lots of books, lots of sources. And in my own view, that’s a better plan because it is more legitimate TO ME to see what similar ideas coem out of all of them. IN MY OPINION, it is precisely the large similarities that have weight and the little differing details which are unimportant.
Why are you taking such a pissy position about it, anyway? It isn’t as though I (or Lekatt, to my eye) declared: “These things are true! Believe them or perish! All other thoughts are garbage!” So why are you acting like I did? It’s just some other ideas to ponder Czar, ponder them yourself or don’t, because I really don’t give a shit one way or another, ya know?
Some people give a shit about the ideas they follow, some don’t.
I do.
[QUOTE=the raindog]
Than our position is flawed, because I agree with you.
As an atheist I take comfort in logic. I am glad to state that my deductive reasoning, inferences and judgement is the basis of my atheism. It is a defendable position. (while ignoring the fact it is, at the core, a gussied up belief system)
[/quote]
Certainly you are correct; at the core, it is a belief system. But it is a belief system in the way that all things are a belief system; we have to have belief that the world actually works by logic, and that we aren’t wrong, for example. I think, however, that religious belief differs from irreligious belief on one point; faith is present. As I see it (and not having been religious at any point, i’d appreciate the words of experience on this) religious people often value faith as a sort of stepping stone between what they see of the universe and sincere belief. It’s a leap of faith in the very meaning of the term. Irreligious people OTOH don’t tend to value faith in this way; they certainly have a belief system, just as I have a belief system that cars will start, cows moo, and mice don’t suddenly start flying about the room. But there’s no leap of faith from how they see the world to a “certainty”, for lack of a better word. Clearly this doesn’t apply to strong atheists (who would say “no gods exist, I am certain, none, nada, zero”) who I would agree have faith comparable to most religious people.
Yep, but I do think science can come in handy. Can’t prove that a god doesn’t have a hand in something, of course, but it can show that there are possible alternate ways things could work. IOW, that god may exist, but is not necessarily needed.
If science and maths are objective, we surely have no way of knowing, being subjective beings. And I haven’t denied that some of those theists have compelling logic - at the same time i’m disagreeing with you i’m disagreeing with **ForumBot ** on this very argument.
[QUOTE=recessiveMeme]
[QUOTE=Stephen Roberts]
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
I’ve never liked this argument. Theist reasons for disbelieving in Zeus when they believe in God aren’t all the same as atheist ones; their biggest reason for not believing tends to be that they already have a belief in god/gods who are incompatible with others. If they end up dismissing that god, they may still see the signs of what they believe is the work of a god in the world, and so find a new belief system.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
Not to choose a crack addict for a parent.
[/QUOTE]
:eek:
Wow. I think you are the single craziest person on this message board. I thought that I was a contender with my “opt-in government”, but you have me beat by a mile. You win. That is a significant accomplishment.
[QUOTE=FriarTed]
My belief in a Creator is not based on the Bible. My belief in the nature & identity of that Creator is. The Bible is clear that God knows all things. It is not so clear about the “Future” being a “thing” that can be known.
The Lake of Fire is the Biblical metaphor for the experience of God by those who
utterly reject Him. I think it is logical that if there is a God, that all souls return to Him because ultimately there is nowhere else to go, and that for those who will not be reconciled to Him, the experience of His unescapable presence will be
intensely unpleasant.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, it is your belief,that is your right, but it doesn’t make it a fact.
The Bible is a human’s thought about what or who God is but that does not prove it is true. One’s belief in God is based on human teaching, writing or self.
A plant or animal can go to the same place as a human they become part of the whole of existence Nothing truly dies it just changes like burning a paper the atoms are still part of existence just not in the form of paper.
Monavis
[QUOTE=Stoid]
Oh, I dunno, Czar, would you say this: “Did you read all this in a book, did you dream it, or are you making it up as you go along?” about the basics of Christianity? That says to me that the ideas were new to you, but hey, evidently not. Whatever.
[/QUOTE]
I’d call that Czarcasm Sarcasm. YMMV.
[QUOTE=Stoid]
I disagree. Just because people obsess over details, it doesn’t mean that they are genuinely meaningful or important. Maybe they are, maybe they aren’t, people’s obsessions don’t decide the matter in either direction. (Of course, the idea of “importance” is rather unclear to begin with. Since you are the one making it an issue, what do YOU mean by “important”?)
[/QUOTE]
If you want to read books of this sort to learn what other people are thinking, that’s fine. But if you are reading them as a source to the Big Secret, one would hope there would be one shred of reality at the start. There never is. It’s always just what some person is thinking. Interesting fiction, but hardly a guide to life or a worthwhile subject for further investigation. Gimme something I can work with.
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
Again I ask, is there an organization I can contact or a book to read to get details on these ideas, or are you the only source? You keep claiming that you are not religious, but it seems as if you are actually trying to start a religion.
[/QUOTE]
There are groups of people and there are books, thousands of them. Spirituality has been around as long as man. Probably the first large writing is the “Egyptian Book of the Dead.” Yes, there is diversion of thought just as there is diversion of clothes for people to wear. The main principles are the same. Unconditional love the main goal. Much of what I know I learned from my near death experience, and later from the hundreds of books I read on the subject, and further contact with the spirit realm. I have to go now, be back late today. If any are interested someone should start a thread on the subject of spiritual principles. I can then point out some of my favorite writings.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
There are groups of people and there are books, thousands of them. Spirituality has been around as long as man. Probably the first large writing is the “Egyptian Book of the Dead.” Yes, there is diversion of thought just as there is diversion of clothes for people to wear. The main principles are the same. Unconditional love the main goal. Much of what I know I learned from my near death experience, and later from the hundreds of books I read on the subject, and further contact with the spirit realm. I have to go now, be back late today. If any are interested someone should start a thread on the subject of spiritual principles. I can then point out some of my favorite writings.
[/QUOTE]
I’ve never seen the term “unconditional love” used as a universal in religion. Why do you say that? It’s not even an uncontested theme in christianity!
[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
I’ve never seen the term “unconditional love” used as a universal in religion. Why do you say that? It’s not even an uncontested theme in christianity!
[/QUOTE]
Are you serious? Why, Odin was just a big old teddy bear.
And Huitzilopochtli? Just a bundle of love. As long as you weren’t related to him.
http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/huitzilopochtli/Myth_Rel_Huitzilopochtli_Aztec.htm
[QUOTE=lekatt]
The main principles are the same. Unconditional love the main goal.
[/QUOTE]
Bollocks. There are plenty of cases of religions where not only is unconditional love not a main goal, the gods themselves pretty actively enjoy annoying all the others. But hey, you’ve done research. Cites, please. Let’s have unconditional love as a main goal from… the Norse pantheon, if you will.
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
And Huitzilopochtli? Just a bundle of love. As long as you weren’t related to him.
http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/huitzilopochtli/Myth_Rel_Huitzilopochtli_Aztec.htm
[/QUOTE]
Hey, don’t malign those SA guys. They were really into love and giving - why, I’ve heard that sacrifices from the heart were very popular!
Something like that, anyway…