**
I never claimed that being murdered unjustly makes one righteous.
You, however, said that we are all deserving of being tortured in hell, which was the entire point of my story about Miriam.
That, then, is how I have “put words in your mouth.”
You said we are all deserving of hell.
I pointed out that you had said that.
You responded by accusing me of putting words in your mouth. Your rationale? Supposedly, I claimed that you said Miriam deserved to be murdered. Even though, as is abundantly clear, I did not, and had no reason to do so, given the entire point of my story.
[1] If there is only the physical universe, then the matter you raise is ethical, not moral. Only if goodness is made of atoms is the matter one of morality.
[2] There is a love that is the desire of the spirit, and a love that is the desire of the body. The latter is trivial.
[3] Emotions are irrelevant with respect to [symbol]agape[/symbol] love. A person may love, for example, while deeply depressed or angry.
[1] I’ve never read Vonnegut. I’m not a big fan of fiction novels. I’ve read only a handful my whole life.
[2] No. I’m asserting that the space-time cone is an excellent context for establishing a moral rebirth, forgiveness of the past, and hope for the future.
[1] You have obfuscated the deontic necessity. You should not have to do it, but you should do it.
[2] No. God has never failed to love.
[3] It is impossible to judge morality without intimacy of consciousness.
[1] I’m stating that an argument asserting the absence of freewill based on shared experience with shared consequences is invalid.
[2] Moot.
Not necessarily. Awareness of God might be synthetic and not analytic. But awareness of the universe is a priori synthetic.
You will never understand these things until you can think of “you” as something besides your brain and body. It is something that you know instinctively, but are unwilling to conceptualize. There is no reason for you to respond to my posts if you are nothing more than an ugly bag of mostly water. And yet, respond you do. The responses are from a gestalt that cares about truth, and not from dying cells that care only about reproduction.
Any advice that I give on these matters is for other luminous beings. Sacks of meat will not benefit.
The reason Robert said that is because you used the phrase “chronosynclastic ifundibulum,” which was invented by Vonnegut in his novel The Sirens of Titan.
You appear to be assuming the existence of souls, and basing your logic from there. I ask again, can you prove that anyone else has a soul?
And I enjoy debate. Competition releases endorphins, which makes me happy. Why would a luminous being respond to a mere composition of atoms, that patently doesn’t matter?
(And no saying I’m not just atoms until you can prove it.)
Wasn’t there an issue of the X-Men comics where Cyclops succeeded in doing just that? He’s been trying to rid himself of those uncontrollable eye beams for, like, decades.
Ah! Thank you. I actually learned the term when I lived in Charlotte. There was a head shop called Chronosynclasticinfundibulum. One word. The gimmick was that the sign stretched out over the sidewalk and a bit over the road!
It is a simple word to parse, and I find it convenient as a term for describing the fundamental way that space-time is contextualized and shaped.
Quite frankly, you can’t even prove that you exist. Why? Because any argument you might make would be circulus in demonstrando and petitio principii (as you have already agreed).
Before you can do anything at all, including prove your existence, you must first exist. That makes your existence axiomatic. Because your conclusion — that you exist — is identical to your axiom — that you exist — your argument begs the question.
Since consciousness is ablative, I can’t speak for anyone else. I merely trust Jesus when He tells me that you are God and that whatever I do to you, I do to Him.
Peptide hormones do make a happy brain and are inducible by a variety of means including drugs. Such “happiness” is but a cheap copy of spiritual joy which may experienced even when our brains are sad.
Alright.
Something interacts with the world in robertliguori-ish ways. (Posts to the SDMB, has a Hotmail account, etc.)
There is no evidence that whatever is interacting with the world in robertliguori-ish ways is not Robert Liguori.
(To me, at least. If there is any evidence, please tell me.)
Therefore, it makes sense to assume that yes, Virginia, there is a Robert Liguori, until the evidence comes up proving that I am one of Ukete’s socks. (Oops. Did I just say that out loud?)
Not a rigorus logical proof, but experimental demonstrations work in the field.
Can the existence of souls be so demonstrated?
Here’s a thought, Lib. Posit that I am merely a sac of wet meat. In what ways would I behave differently then if I am a luminous being, as you say?
Also,
Could you elaborate on what you mean when you say that Jesus speaks to you, please?
Like I said, I believe that every one of us deserves hell. Me, Polycarp, you, the Pope, Paul, Peter, John the Baptist…everybody. Paul wrote:
Now, I’ll try your other question. First, I’ll tell you what I’m answering, so you can tell me if I’m misunderstanding you again.
You’re asking me if the Christian who ducks and hides to escape the Nazis and lives a relatively easy life deserved to go spend eternity living in bliss with God, right?
Well, first, I’d say I think the Christian [sinned|was wrong|should be ashamed|whatever you call it] by choosing to save his own skin rather than doing everything in his power to help hide the [Jews|Muslims|whoever] and protect them from injustice and murder (I guess you would call it a sin of omission, as opposed to one of commission), although I can understand why a person would try to survive. But, just for the sake of argument, let’s change the story so that the Christian was taken by the Nazis and arrested for the crime of harboring Jews. He goes to Dachau or wherever with his Jewish friend Miryam. Let’s further imagine that he helped many people escape, and was, in fact, tortured to death because he was caught while helping Miryam to escape.
In other words, let’s pretend he was a wonderful, selfless, caring person, who gave his life defending complete strangers from injustice.
The answer is still no. A Christian who goes to heaven to spend blissful eternity with God does not deserve what he gets. It’s not something anybody can earn or deserve. It’s a gift:
Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic
So here’s my question: If I’m a good person, do I have to go to Heaven, or can I arrange it with God to just get snuffed out instead? If so, how do I go about doing it?
In reading Jeremiah 18:7-10 I found that God can change his mind.
JeremiahChapter 18 - 7-10
7 At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it; 8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. 9 And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; 10 If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.
So I assume if you really do not want to go to Heaven then God does have the capacity to change his plans for you. It does not mean that you however need to be an evil person while you are alive. But since God is all knowing I really don’t think you would even need to ask him, he would already know how you feel. Why would God want you to stay somewhere you would be unhappy?
It’s like the teenager who wants to leave home. The parents don’t want the teen to leave but the teen insists. Knowing everything is being provided for them but they still insist. The teen wants to be able to live own their own with their own place and make their own decisions. Ultimately the parents let the teen go. Where and how the teen does on his own is by his own choosing, not those of the parents.
In the end the ultimate decision is yours and yours alone to make. God wants you to live in heaven with him but if you choose not to, then I would assume he will let you live somewhere else the question is where?
You might be further entertained to know that Vonnegut defined the term in a philosophic sense to denote “those places where all the different kinds of truth seem to fit together,” those moments of lucidity where everything makes sense.
[quote] jjrt
In reading Jeremiah 18:7-10 I found that God can change his mind.**
Wouldn’t this imply then, that God is not omniscient? How can God change his mind if he knows he’s going to change his mind? If he knows he’s going to “change his plan,” then why would he make the plan?
I’ve been told this question is sophist, but I really think it’s fair.
You’re making a fairly large claim, there. I would submit that the brain’s ability to paralell-process and pull knowledge of precious metals and animal-shapes out of mental storage at the same time is what lets people look at gold lions and see gold lions, rather then a lump of gold/ a lion. Do you have a cite for this claim?
You tell us that God tells you to love. Some of the people mentioned in this thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=157377
tell us that God tells them to kill. Can you provide objective evidence that your message is divine, and theirs inspired by faulty wiring?
Well, He could, except that He already has, of course, by that I mean that He is going to will have, prior to knowing that He was going to will have. The biblical scribes had trouble with transtemporal tenses. Come to think of it, so do I.
And then there is the intertemporal tense for speaking from the transtemporal to the temporal with regard to issues of disparate chronological venues. This tense does not translate into temporal language, since temporal languages lack intertemporal grammar. So, the biblical scribes winged it. (See, they were divinely inspired, so they knew that we aren’t.)
So, your question is not sophist, it’s just darned hard to understand.
But, you never answered my butterfly about you and me and the angels being able to do (or be, or some intransitive verb I don’t know) something that God wants us to exist for. I mean, doesn’t that pique your curiosity just a bit?
Fa-tsang’s Chin shih-tzu chang. But you can find these discussions almost anywhere. The phenomenal and the noumenal worlds have been the topic of philosophical study since the hazy days of man’s earliest history.
Certainly not. Can you provide objective evidence that your position is sincere and mine is disingenuous?
I have to confess that I don’t understand your answer, particularly the bit that I bolded. How is it possible for there to be anything “prior to knowing” for an omniscient being (unless the being is not always omniscient)?
Not to be flip, but no, it doesn’t. Frankly I don’t like the idea of being part of somebody’s “plan.” Nobody asked me if wanted to be part of a plan (and I don’t). Maybe that’s an egoistic or moral failure on my part, but I find it belittling.
