What is so scary about thinking, or discovering, your Religion is false?

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Oh...right. The Ra Material. I've only given it a cursory glance. I don't see what the point would be, but then again, we obviously just don't know. That's what makes it so intriguing.

reply to post by wildtimes


You don't have to sound so disappointed. I'll make a note not to mention it again.

reply to post by wildtimes

SHE HAS TO LIVE IT
TO GET IT.

i cannot believe that you are wishing suffering for your own daughter!!
Your model of belief does not have forgiveness.
You blamed me for wanting revenge/justice yet karma is the same just looks more palatable.

In my model God just looks at the intentions and sees if there was a genuine effort to learn and be good and thats enough to go to Heaven.

In your model absolute perfection is required before uniting with the source. It kind of resonates with the perfection that christianity demands and claims that it cannot be achieved except by accepting Jesus pbuh as saviour.

My favourite example is of a super computer and calculator.
Your model says that the calculator should be born again and again till it learns everything that a super computer knows.

I feel its wrong to give humans comprehension power of a calculator and expect them to reach a higher level of a super computer by getting more and more chances.

In short if God made me with limitations then God cannot expect perfection from me for which my God given limitations are the obstacles.
I think AI would agree with this part.

Extending time to multiple lives to compensate for these limitations may not necessarily lead to perfection.
Its a very evolutionary idea. Imagine a graph. A line moving up and right at 45 degrees showing progress of humans(spiritual) till the line joins the divine.
It falsely assumes that we have infinite potential to comprehend/learn/understand which we don't.

reply to post by logical7


She isn't wishing suffering. The hardest lessons are the closest to our heart. Surely you understand that? She embraces the reality of our psychology. The hardest road is the most precious, because you never forget what it teaches you. The easier to learn, the easier to forget. Because it didn't leave as deep a feeling, as big a mark. If you don't understand that, you've never learned anything the hard way.

Me? I've never done it any other way. I'm a hard-headed individual, which is why I'm so damned sure of how I feel and what I think. Because I came up with it myself. The hard way.

reply to post by logical7

i cannot believe that you are wishing suffering for your own daughter!!
Your model of belief does not have forgiveness.

What absolute BULL#T.

I know that she will make mistakes - all of us will make mistakes, including YOU. Forgiveness has nothing to do with education, or learning through experience. DO I WANT HER TO SUFFER?

OF COURSE NOT! You have no CONCEPT of how much a parent suffers when their child is suffering. It is heartbreaking. So, I shared my own mistakes and experiences and lessons learned with my children, in order to help them avoid pitfalls.

If you want to twist that into "wishing suffering" on her, that's your own asinine twist on what I said. I know she WILL endure suffering. It's part of the human condition. I'm here to support and LOVE HER, unconditionally, while she LIVES WITH HER OWN MISTAKES. I've done my level best, and continue to do so, to guide, mentor, teach, and nurture my children.

NOTHING THEY CAN DO or HAVE DONE changes my devotion and profound, UNCONDITIONAL LOVE for them.

A truly loving "God" would STILL love its creation, no matter what they did. You know SO LITTLE about maturity, parenting, and unconditional love that it is truly sad.

YOU are the one who said, "If my child deserved it, I would allow their hand to be cut off."

That's the difference.

FORGIVENESS is, "oh, honey, I'm so sorry that you're hurting. What is it you think you did, or could have done differently, in this situation? I know you're doing your best. I love you JUST THE WAY YOU ARE. THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO OR SAY that will EVER change that."
^^^^
THAT is a loving parent.
--------------------------------------
As opposed to:
"Go, have your hand chopped off, you stupid sinner. You deserve it. And when you get back I'll humiliate, reject, and wag my head for shame that you are such a LOSER, even though I've TOLD you not to steal cookies. YOU DON"T LISTEN!"
^^^
That is NOT a loving, compassionate parent. Nor is it a just, forgiving "God."

THAT is a selfish, hard-hearted, cruel, arrogant and insensitive TYRANT.

reply to post by logical7

It falsely assumes that we have infinite potential to comprehend/learn/understand which we don't.

THAT IS ALSO BULL#T.

We DO have infinite potential. And you won't admit it, but you wish suffering (Hell) on those who you feel have hurt you. Forgiveness is not 'hoping they burn in hell.' Nor is it conditional.

I don't understand your thought process at all, log7. I hope you wait at LEAST 10 years before you become a father. For your children's sake.

OMG

reply to post by wildtimes

We DO have infinite potential. And you won't admit it, but you wish suffering on those who you feel have hurt you.

I try not to. That's called "holding a grudge" or "carrying a grudge", and quite honestly, give it three days max and I'm over it. I have absolutely no use for grudges.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

I try not to. That's called "holding a grudge" or "carrying a grudge", and quite honestly, give it three days max and I'm over it.

I know that. And good for you. I was talking to logical7, that HE HOPES there is a hell so the people he hates can go and burn there. All about revenge. Nothing about unconditional love and real forgiveness.

wildtimes
but you wish suffering (Hell) on those who you feel have hurt you.

That's basic psychology (as you know). Straight out of the textbook.
Psychology Today - Why are we pleased with others misfortune?
Schadenfreude

Forgiveness is not 'hoping they burn in hell.' Nor is it conditional.

Yep. God = love.
So wishing for people to burn in hell because they worship differently than you is anti-God.
At least, according to the teachings of major spiritual leaders.

wildtimes
HE HOPES there is a hell so the people he hates can go and burn there. All about revenge. Nothing about unconditional love and real forgiveness

Thats the exact opposite of what God (supposedly) wants, so that means that sentiment is anti-God.
God doesn't want people in hell. He doesn't delight in people having to go there.
That's a very HUMAN thing to want people to be in Hell. Ungodly.


1 Timothy 2:3-5 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of truth. For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus ...

John 3:17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world but to save the world through Him.

Ezekiel 18:23 Do I take pleasure in the death* of the wicked? Declares the soverign Lord? Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their evil ways and live??

** Death of the wicked means that they fall into hell. Live means everlasting life in heaven.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Sorry for the delay in this reply, I think either way is a failure. It seems that idea of pretending to be the best has already been put to the test, and has failed miserably.

Your reply has inspired an idea, though, I might try to assemble eventually in some research forum.

reply to post by Divine Strake


I'm not sure you understood what I was trying to say. I guess we'll see.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


I'm sorry, especially if I didn't get what you are saying. I already put so little energy into the concept of religion anyway that it's just a farce.

Skeptic I am, but, true, we shall see.

reply to post by Divine Strake


My point was that our species has this terrifically inconvenient tendency of picking extremes. We have this absolutism mentality where if something exists, it is that and nothing else. There is no gray area or blurry line. There is no balance because there's only one side. It's a dominance complex, and I find it disheartening because the only time we've ever made any progress is when two sides have worked together instead of one curbstomping the other in a bid for supremacy.

Maybe I've made myself clearer now.

There is no gray area or blurry line. There is no balance because there's only one side. It's a dominance complex, and I find it disheartening because the only time we've ever made any progress is when two sides have worked together instead of one curbstomping the other in a bid for supremacy.

Crystal clear. . .and that's why I enjoy omniscient narratives in various sci-fi works. Some give us that third-person vision that might barely connect the two sides for a collaborative goal.

Humanity will never be able to get over itself to achieve a common goal. I mean, I want to believe that it will, but I have very little faith in that prospect. In fact, it seems it's easier for opposing sides to "work together" when the source of the belief is faith based.

I can appreciate your way of thinking.

reply to post by Divine Strake

Crystal clear. . .and that's why I enjoy omniscient narratives in various sci-fi works. Some give us that third-person vision that might barely connect the two sides for a collaborative goal.

I hope you aren't referring to sacred texts exalted in various cultures spawned from the minds of blinder-oriented humans.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


What I am referring to are media, no matter the form, that allows humanity, if minds are open enough, to look upon itself with a perspective that allows for a greater spectrum of thought.

Sometimes it's fun, others it's very profound. Either way it never hurts to look at our existence through the eyes of a god, or an "alien", with the goal of applying common sense to a dysfunctional collective.

From the bible to "Mork & Mindy", we should embrace the will to form a union of "sides" and address what truly needs to be for the sake of evolving thought.

"From the bible. . .?" I actually said that didn't I?

Since humans are all the authors of said works, it is only reasonable that we could only gather a humanistic point of view from those works. . .so, is there an actual allowance for a collective "growth"? I don't know, but on a personal level, it makes sense.

Yet, what is an ocean but a multitude of drops?

reply to post by Divine Strake


I never said Bible. I said "sacred text", because I was being general, not specific.

Yet, what is an ocean but a multitude of drops?

Interesting question. I have one for you in return: what is an ocean if a large portion of its multitude of drops spend their whole existence pretending to be something other than water? How does that affect the environment that houses them or the lifeforms subjected to them?

AfterInfinity
reply to post by Divine Strake

 

I never said Bible. I said "sacred text", because I was being general, not specific.
No, I said bible and it caught me off guard that I might give it some importance into the window of humanity.

Yet, what is an ocean but a multitude of drops?

Interesting question. I have one for you in return: what is an ocean if a large portion of its multitude of drops spend their whole existence pretending to be something other than water? How does that affect the environment that houses them or the lifeforms subjected to them?

edit on 7-11-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

Your return question is excellent, I suppose it might depend on the interpretation of what the large portion might interpret itself, or pretend, to be. Then again, to just call the drops simply drops is too broad.

If a large portion of the drops can achieve the state of what they might pretend to be. . .then both the environment within them and the lifeforms subjected to them must either die or cease to exist in the way they might be defined as subjected to water.

reply to post by Divine Strake

Your return question is excellent, I suppose it might depend on the interpretation of what the large portion might interpret itself, or pretend, to be. Then again, to just call the drops simply drops is too broad.

Hmm...in the interest of examination, let's say these particular droplets imagine that they have been mistakenly born as water but are meant to be...fire. And they spend their entire existence trying to become fire. Never mind the fact that their whole world is designed precisely to play its game of give-and-take with liquid elements. That's not of concern. Never mind the fact that everything which they affect, everything they rely on, everything that interacts with them is born to water through water. They care about one thing: their desire to be FIRE.

What say you then?

If a large portion of the drops can achieve the state of what they might pretend to be. . .then both the environment within them and the lifeforms subjected to them must either die or cease to exist in the way they might be defined as subjected to water.

Hahaha...my above explanation was written before I even looked at this second part of your response. Imagine my satisfaction when I find that you have written yours as though knowing my own before I even typed it.

Coincidence? Or...a divine strake of inspiration?