Can We Truly Consent to Infinite Torture?

[Prodigal_Son]

One has stated that very well. Even RA Heinlein, the well known SF author said that “In English, only the first person singular of the verb “to be” is true to fact.” David Bohm, the celebrated physicist, even made a bold attempt to propose a mode of English he constructed that would rise above its dualisms.* He despaired, though, of it ever coming into common usage.

People learn language through distinctions. This is the only way to understand non-physical concepts. Discursive knowledge is all about making distinctions.

I agree that there is another type of knowledge; this is the knowledge that we were made for. It is familiarity with, not knowledge about. This knowledge destroys the distinctions that make language work – but, with this knowledge, language is unnecessary. “We shall know as we are fully known…”

But until then – if post-Tower-of-Babel language is flawed, it is nevertheless necessary. We need not be crusaders for the Word, since a crusader for the Word destroys the Word by making it into a stick to beat over another person’s head. But we ought to be defenders of the Word, trusting only in the distinctions that have been made by Christ, our standard bearer.

 

[LilyM]

A wonderful reply! Punishment can be constructive, but not if there is no chance for redemption. Eternal punishment is an idea I think people throw around without really thinking about how ridiculous and sadistic it is.

Plenty of criminals are held to have no chance for redemption - and for precisely that reason are punished by the state by literally lifelong imprisonment (ie punishment for the remainder of time that the state is ABLE to punish them) for their crimes.

The fact is execution would probably be just as effective as deterrent to others. It would also more effective in terms of ensuring the impossibility of their committing further crimes, since prisoners can both commit crimes in prison and possibly escape to commit further crimes.

Yet we still, for the most part, imprison rather than executing these unredeemables. Perhaps because we consider life as having an inherent value and are thus reluctant to take it. Perhaps also because another purpose of the justice system is to ensure that criminals pay for their crime, and that retributive purpose needs to be considered alongside the rehabilitative purpose.

And if humans lived a hundred, a thousand, or a million times longer than we currently do, that state would doubtless imprison the majority of those criminals who are considered ‘beyond redemption’ for a hundred, a thousand or a million times longer than IT currently does. After all, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a billion-year-long life for a billion-year-long life.

Our sins have caused the death of our God - surely that in itself is an infinite offence that merits an infinitely long punishment for those who do not throw themselves on His infinite mercy which alone can atone?

 

[Oreoracle]

After all, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a billion-year-long life for a billion-year-long life.

“An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.” – Mahatma Gandhi

 

[Detales]

'Our sins have caused the death of our God - surely that in itself is an infinite offence that merits an infinitely long punishment for those who do not throw themselves on His infinite mercy which alone can atone?" This is typical of how christianists misunderstand the symbolic ground of the Jesus story, whether it happened as described or not. So we have the continuing difference between redemption and punishment and the ignorance of transformation.

Mhz said it well: “If there is a purpose in existing it would be for the God of creation to take a “free will” being and expose him to genuine agape love, for as long as it takes, and as much as it takes for him to “get it”. Love without end and love without failure. None of this “love means we have the right to send ourselves to Hell”, stuff. Genuine love would never give up on something it created when it has the power to do otherwise… and this idealistic God of my fantasy has all the power and time and love to do it.”

This is one of the sanest statements I’ve seen on these fora. Thank you Mhz. You are far from alone. This is an approximation of the Teaching that predates christainism by at least three thousand years, and is in fact the foundation from which it deteriorated into its present unfortunate form of demeaned dualistic paternalism.

(There; I said it again.)

Bindar Doondat, FZPC

 

[LilyM]

“An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.” – Mahatma Gandhi

"The judge will turn you over to the officer, and the officer throw you into prison. I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.” - Jesus Christ. (Luke 12:58-59)

Nothing wrong with requiring just punishment for sins or crimes.

 

[liquidpele]

Plenty of criminals are held to have no chance for redemption - and for precisely that reason are punished by the state by literally lifelong imprisonment (ie punishment for the remainder of time that the state is ABLE to punish them) for their crimes.

The fact is execution would probably be just as effective as deterrent to others. It would also more effective in terms of ensuring the impossibility of their committing further crimes, since prisoners can both commit crimes in prison and possibly escape to commit further crimes.

Yet we still, for the most part, imprison rather than executing these unredeemables. Perhaps because we consider life as having an inherent value and are thus reluctant to take it. Perhaps also because another purpose of the justice system is to ensure that criminals pay for their crime, and that retributive purpose needs to be considered alongside the rehabilitative purpose.

And if humans lived a hundred, a thousand, or a million times longer than we currently do, that state would doubtless imprison the majority of those criminals who are considered ‘beyond redemption’ for a hundred, a thousand or a million times longer than IT currently does. After all, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a billion-year-long life for a billion-year-long life.

Our sins have caused the death of our God - surely that in itself is an infinite offence that merits an infinitely long punishment for those who do not throw themselves on His infinite mercy which alone can atone?

I was unaware we tortured our criminals in lakes of fire. Honestly, we for the most part treat our criminals better than we do our homeless and mentally ill.

Execution is a horrible deterrent… just ask our troops in Italy during WWII. Word got out we were just shooting the hostages, and suddenly the Italians fought 3x as ferociously because they knew being caught meant death.

 

[LilyM]

I was unaware we tortured our criminals in lakes of fire. Honestly, we for the most part treat our criminals better than we do our homeless and mentally ill.

And where does scripture indicate that Hell is LITERALLY a lake of fire? Hmmm? Where does church teaching require us to believe that Hell is LITERALLY a lake of fire?

Execution is a horrible deterrent… just ask our troops in Italy during WWII. Word got out we were just shooting the hostages, and suddenly the Italians fought 3x as ferociously because they knew being caught meant death.

And the ancient Roman soldiers ALSO knew that the penalty for falling asleep while on guard duty was death. That had no deterrent effect and really made them bad soldiers - so bad that they only managed to conquer most of the known world.

 

[Oreoracle]

Nothing wrong with requiring just punishment for sins or crimes.

What good reason is there to do so? Why is it a good idea to punish wrongdoers if it will not improve the situation?

Methinks that you are simply trying to wave away the problem of evil by neglecting your conscience and dodging the point.

 

[LilyM]

What good reason is there to do so? Why is it a good idea to punish wrongdoers if it will not improve the situation?

Methinks that you are simply trying to wave away the problem of evil by neglecting your conscience and dodging the point.

I don’t get your meaning. My sins are offences against God. My paying the just penalty for them - Hell - ‘improves the situation’ in that justice is done vis-a-vis Him, the victim, the one offended by them. I owe Him restitution - which is paid by my punishment for my offences in cases where I don’t, by repentance, take advantage of His mercy.

If I steal from you would you not consider it to ‘improve the situation’ if I paid the penalty for my crime by going to jail? If I paid my debt to you and society, both of which are hurt by my offence of theft, in this fashion? Rather than getting off scot-free as if I’d done nothing wrong?

What would you suggest be done to criminals who cannot, for example, bring a murder victim back to life or repay sums they have stolen, if not criminal punishment?

Isn’t that why the victims of crime - or their families - so often make a point of attending the court cases, or executions, of the perpetrators? Because even though they don’t get their situation restored as it was, even though there may be no hope of rehabilitating the criminal, they consider it to mightily ‘improve the situation’ when justice is done and the criminal pays the due penalty for their crimes?

Personally you might not agree that punishing a criminal for their crimes ‘improves the situation’ but you would be far in the minority. The whole criminal justice system exists and flourishes precisely because the vast majority DO find that punishing criminals for their crimes ‘improves the situation’.

What good reason can you give that their view isn’t the correct one? Or that God shouldn’t or wouldn’t hold the same view of justice?

 

[Oreoracle]

I don’t get your meaning. My sins are offences against God. My paying the just penalty for them - Hell - ‘improves the situation’ in that justice is done vis-a-vis Him, the victim, the one offended by them. I owe Him restitution - which is paid by my punishment for my offences in cases where I don’t, by repentance, take advantage of His mercy.

So you’re basically saying you should be punished so God will feel better? Does God approve of this system? I know people who wouldn’t desire such needless punishment. It leads me to believe there are some people who are morally superior to your God.

If I steal from you would you not consider it to ‘improve the situation’ if I paid the penalty for my crime by going to jail? If I paid my debt to both you and society, both of which are hurt by my offence of theft, in this fashion? Rather than getting off scot-free as if I’d done nothing wrong?

Let’s say you stole from me twenty years ago, but the evidence for this theft has just now surfaced. You aren’t the type who is willing to steal anymore, so punishing you would not discourage future crimes. Would I want you to be punished for this? Certainly not. It would simply yield no benefits and cause you to suffer. I’m not a sadist.

Isn’t that why the victims of crime - or their families - so often make a point of attending the court cases, or executions, of the perpetrators? Because even though they don’t get their situation restored as it was, even though there may be no hope of rehabilitating the criminal, they consider it to mightily ‘improve the situation’ when justice is done and the criminal pays the due penalty for their crimes?

Personally you might not agree that punishing a criminal for their crimes ‘improves the situation’ but you would be far in the minority. The whole criminal justice system exists and flourishes precisely because the vast majority DO find that punishing criminals for their crimes ‘improves the situation’.

Ah yes, this is the revenge mentality that has thrived in many cultures throughout human history. People really need to move past these primitive sentiments.

 

[Detales]

If that is how you think, Lily, I would like you to explain to me Danion Brinkley’s experience of judjement, as well as the many others who have similarly experienced this same phenomenon in a remarkabley uniform fashion regardles of age, gender, language, culture or religion thoroughout the world and over time.

dannion.com/main.htm and near-death.com/index.html

 

[LilyM]

So you’re basically saying you should be punished so God will feel better? Does God approve of this system? I know people who wouldn’t desire such needless punishment. It leads me to believe there are some people who are morally superior to your God.

I’m talking about justice, not vengeance or even restitution. You’re certainly way oversimplifying to imagine that justice is only, or even primarily, about making the victim feel better.

As the Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines it, justice refers to the just administration of merited rewards and punishments.

From the same dictionary, ‘just’ means ‘conforming to a standard of correctness’.

Now since it is God who rewards us (with heaven) or punishes us (with hell) who else’s standard of correctness - or merit of those rewards or punishments - should we observe than God’s? Why should we expect God to reward or punish us according to OUR often very different notions of what is correct?

Why would you consider it unfair that God who created the universe would expect it to run by any other standards of correctness than that which He, its creator, sets for it? Why, since you created neither the universe nor the legal system nor heaven nor hell, should you expect them to be run by YOUR notions of what is just and merited?

Let’s say you stole from me twenty years ago, but the evidence for this theft has just now surfaced. You aren’t the type who is willing to steal anymore, so punishing you would not discourage future crimes. Would I want you to be punished for this? Certainly not. It would simply yield no benefits and cause you to suffer. I’m not a sadist.

In other words in your scenario I recognise the error of my ways and am repentant. Surely you know what my response will be - as any Christian would tell you, God doesn’t punish the repentant, but only the unrepentant.

To use your analogy, we’re talking about a case where I’ve stolen from you and say to you ‘not only do I think I did nothing wrong by stealing from you twenty years ago, in the same circumstances I’d do it again tomorrow (which is always the case if you see nothing wrong in what you did)’.

I’m guessing your views on whether I merit prison or other legal punishment would change if I was unrepentant.

Ah yes, this is the revenge mentality that has thrived in many cultures throughout human history. People really need to move past these primitive sentiments.

Again, why are you equating justice with revenge? Or more particularly with the individual wish for it? The individual is not God, nor is the individual the justice system.

A criminal isn’t fined, imprisoned or executed because one person demands it, rather because as a society we have the sense that it is right and fitting to impose criminal punishments on those who commit crimes. It’s a concept and process that is much bigger than the individual.

Note how many individual victims are denied their personal desire for revenge because those who have actually committed crimes against them are let off punishment because of procedural issues and so on. Note also the criminal justice system’s many and varied attempts to ensure that if there is genuine doubt about an accused person’s guilt that they are let off.

And note how many self-righteous persons, like the older brother in the Prodigal Son story, see God’s mercy towards sinners - the idea that all they have to do is repent sincerely and they will be forgiven and admitted to heaven no matter how heinous their sins - as being somehow unfair as well.

Many in ignorance assert that a Judas or a Hitler could not possibly be in heaven, and that it would somehow be unjust or unfairly lenient if they were there. The Catholic Church wisely says the very opposite - that they could very well be in heaven.

Does that sound like a truly pitiless God to you, if He could just as easily forgive a repentant Judas who betrayed Him to death, or a repentant Hitler who killed so many, as you or I? It sounds quite the opposite to me. All He asks of us is that we are genuinely repentant for our sins. How is it unreasonable or unjust or bloodthirsty to ask so little as a condition for forgiveness and salvation?

Most of us certainly don’t get any kind of jollies or satisfaction out of the idea of people burning in hell - or rotting in prison. Especially because in acknowledging the existence and justness of both hell and prison we also acknowledge the ease with which we could end up in either place ourselves. It’s an idea that makes us sober up and reflect on our own lives and conduct, not a cause of bloothirsty rejoicing or happiness.

 

[LilyM]

If that is how you think, Lily, I would like you to explain to me Danion Brinkley’s experience of judjement, as well as the many others who have similarly experienced this same phenomenon in a remarkabley uniform fashion regardles of age, gender, language, culture or religion thoroughout the world and over time.

dannion.com/main.htm and near-death.com/index.html

Uniform?

Try unitypublishing.com/Moral/gloriapolo.htm (a lady who had an NDE which entirely tallied with the Christian ideas of heaven and hell!) and read the accounts of the child seers of Fatima, St Faustina and other Catholic mystics who have also been gifted with visions of heaven, purgatory and hell.

I utterly dispute that there is uniformity of accounts - even wikipedia states the following:

“A near-death experience (NDE), refers to a broad range of personal experiences associated with impending death, encompassing multiple possible sensations including detachment from the body; feelings of levitation; ***extreme fear; ***total serenity, security, or warmth; the experience of absolute dissolution; and the presence of a light, which some people interpret as a deity.[1] Some see NDEs as a paranormal and spiritual glimpse into the afterlife[citation needed].”

and further on

"Some people have also experienced extremely distressing NDEs, which can manifest in forewarning of emptiness or a sense of dread towards the cessation of their life[citation needed]. The distressing aspects of some NDE’s are discussed more closely by Greyson & Bush [42]. ***The content of near death experiences may vary by culture ***43].

not to mention this interesting tidbit: theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/visions_of_hell.htm which contains accounts of unpleasant and hellish NDEs.

Why mention extreme fear, extreme distress, actual suffering a la classical depictions of Hell, or variation according to culture if there is a uniformity of experience among those who have NDEs?

 

[Dameedna]

St. Katherine said that one drop of contrition would empty hell. In other words, since God is omnipresent, the fires of hell are his all consuming love. Condemned souls are not sent to a place where God oversees, and prolongs their “torture” for all eternity. A person who leaves this world in a state of unrepentant mortal sin will deny God’s eternal love for all eternity. The torment of hell is the fact that a condemned soul will never cease to be consumed by the eternal “fire” of God’s Love which he has denied, and will continue to deny forever.

Regardless of how Hell is described, you are still saying that in one lifetime, a person makes a choice, and cannot “change” their choice after their death. You say *** a person who leaves this world in a state of unrepentant mortal sin WILL deny God’s eternal love for all eternity***

IE, a person who rejects “god” during their lifetime, cannot change their mind in the afterlife. Why on earth would you think this is true? Do these individuals no longer have free will?

Since God is ultimately resonsible for all creation, then God, is ultimately responsible for this condition. People seem to think that describing this in a myriad of way’s, changes the problems that occur as a result of this doctrine. There is no way to get around the fact that this was all God’s choice. He (apparently) chose to create in the first place.

The only concept of Hell that would make sense, is one where the doors to hell are wide open for all eternity, and the choice is an eternal choice, not the end result of a finite choice.

Think of a child who is angry at his parent for a perceived injustice. The child will act out in anger in an attempt to make his parent see things his way. Being that the parent is wiser beyond comprehension to the child, the parent will not return the angry sentiments. Rather, the parent will react with love while maintaining his position on the matter in question. This will only make the child angrier and angrier until he reaches the point of reconciliation where he must accept his parents wisdom even if he doesn’t fully understand it. A condemned soul will never reach this point. They will wallow in self pity and hatred for God for all eternity while God himself will never stop loving them. Gods perfect love is the lake of fire that burns for all eternity!

Why on earth, would a soul wallow in self-hatred and pity for all eternity? Why could a soul not eventually find their way back to loving God? You dont’ think God is enough of a capable parent, to find a way?

The problem is not a concept of suffering because one rejects love. It is a problem where the soul, has no choice(and God does not do anything) to bring that soul to a point where they can accept love after a biological death.

In other words, a finite choice, results in an infinite torture, a system setup and designed by a God, that had no need to create in the first place.

And wether you like it, if your doctrine is right, and you are not following the correct version of God, then you will suffer an eternity with no chance of redemption. No wonder people are so gung-ho about their church teaching them absolute truths.

 

[Dameedna]

I agree that the door should be open, but that’s not what we were talking about. You (essentially) said God should be responsible/accountable for the evils of his creation. I felt this was an unfair assessment of the situation imho. Also, regarding the “your doctrine” comment, keep in mind that I’m agnostic. I was merely pointing out what I felt was a flaw in either your logic or wording.

No, I wasn’t saying that God is responsible for all our choices, I have never actually said that.(quite the reverse a few times during this thread).

I’m talking about ultimate choice. God chose to create a free willed creature, knowing it would make a mistake. If a God was to do this, and then find no way of changing the state of that free-will creature through some kind of learning process or technique, then God is ultimately resonsible for an eternal suffering.

God did not HAVE to create a free-willed creature, that would disobey him and therefore God is ultimately responsible for it. I’m thinking much bigger and more holistically than one individuals life.

I just realized something. I think 'm dealing with a Paradox. HA!!! No-wonder it’s so confusing to people. I love paradoxes.

Sorry about the assumptions of your beliefs. I will work harder at not doing that. My bad

 

[Dameedna]

I’m talking about justice, not vengeance or even restitution. You’re certainly way oversimplifying to imagine that justice is only, or even primarily, about making the victim feel better.

As the Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines it, justice refers to the just administration of merited rewards and punishments.

From the same dictionary, ‘just’ means ‘conforming to a standard of correctness’.

Now since it is God who rewards us (with heaven) or punishes us (with hell) who else’s standard of correctness - or merit of those rewards or punishments - should we observe than God’s? Why should we expect God to reward or punish us according to OUR often very different notions of what is correct?

You are presuming your view of God is correct. It is this view of God that people are challenging, because their understanding of justice is different than yours.

Both sides can agree that if there is a God, then God would be just.

What we disagree on, is what justice IS in the first place. So when you say, that God rewards and punishes, this is what you have been taught, therefore something you accept as being just. But what if you are being taught, the wrong notion of justice and the description of God you have been given is incorrect?

This is what plenty of people believe, because their notion of justice is superior and more accurate than yours(in their opinion). They aren’t challenging God, they are challenging you, your religion and your understanding of God.

To use your analogy, we’re talking about a case where I’ve stolen from you and say to you ‘not only do I think I did nothing wrong by stealing from you twenty years ago, in the same circumstances I’d do it again tomorrow (which is always the case if you see nothing wrong in what you did)’.

I’m guessing your views on whether I merit prison or other legal punishment would change if I was unrepentant.

Actually, I would wonder what we’ve done wrong in society to end up with humans who cannot see cause and effect and cannot understand why they are doing something wrong.

There are other societies, that have a VERY, VERY different view of Justice than ours. Our understanding of Justice comes from a Judeo-christian belief. We are slowly in society beginning to realize, that this belief isn’t alway’s accurate and doesn’t create a better society, nor a just society.

If you want, I can give you an example of a society who understanding of justice is imo, far superior to ours. IE…they got it right, the israelites, got it wrong.

Cheers

 

[liquidpele]

No, I wasn’t saying that God is responsible for all our choices, I have never actually said that.(quite the reverse a few times during this thread).

I’m talking about ultimate choice. God chose to create a free willed creature, knowing it would make a mistake. If a God was to do this, and then find no way of changing the state of that free-will creature through some kind of learning process or technique, then God is ultimately resonsible for an eternal suffering.

God did not HAVE to create a free-willed creature, that would disobey him and therefore God is ultimately responsible for it. I’m thinking much bigger and more holistically than one individuals life.

I just realized something. I think 'm dealing with a Paradox. HA!!! No-wonder it’s so confusing to people. I love paradoxes.

Sorry about the assumptions of your beliefs. I will work harder at not doing that. My bad

I think it’s the other way around… I think (assuming a lot for the sake of argument obviously) since God created a free-willed creature, he can hold US responsible. If we were not free willed… I would think it would be more like a train set and he would be responsible for how he played with it. Now… I do think that if God made a free-willed creature, he would be responsible for making choices fair, just like a parent. For instance, hiding and giving no evidence and then banning you to hell for eternity for not believing in him seems a bit deceptive unless you view it thought some pretty thick “this is how it is” goggles.

 

[ryeis1]

Regardless of how Hell is described, you are still saying that in one lifetime, a person makes a choice, and cannot “change” their choice after their death. You say *** a person who leaves this world in a state of unrepentant mortal sin WILL deny God’s eternal love for all eternity***

IE, a person who rejects “god” during their lifetime, cannot change their mind in the afterlife. Why on earth would you think this is true? Do these individuals no longer have free will?

Like St. Katherine said; “one drop of contrition would empty hell.” Also, I believe this is true because it’s what the Church teaches about the subject.

Since God is ultimately resonsible for all creation, then God, is ultimately responsible for this condition. People seem to think that describing this in a myriad of way’s, changes the problems that occur as a result of this doctrine. There is no way to get around the fact that this was all God’s choice. He (apparently) chose to create in the first place.

You’re talking about “the problem with evil” argument. Evil is not a thing in an of itself, it is the absence of Good. Evil only exists because we have the free will to reject goodness. Without this free will, we could not choose to love God. This is apologetics 101. I’m sure this site has endless articles on this matter if you are truly interested in learning about it.

The only concept of Hell that would make sense, is one where the doors to hell are wide open for all eternity, and the choice is an eternal choice, not the end result of a finite choice.

The Church’s entire teaching revolves around the concept that the meaning of this life is preparation for eternal life. We can choose to love our neighbor, or not. We can choose to believe in God or not. Our eternal destination is ultimately our own choice. And once again, “one drop of contrition would EMPTY hell.” So by your own standards, The Catholic view of hell is the only one that makes sense! The church doesn’t say that a condemned soul can’t repent, She say’s that a condemned soul won’t. As far as I know (and I’m paraphrasing different things I’ve read), a person who has hardened his heart to the point of rejecting the truth of God even unto death, will be incapable of repentance by his own choice.

Why on earth, would a soul wallow in self-hatred and pity for all eternity? Why could a soul not eventually find their way back to loving God? You dont’ think God is enough of a capable parent, to find a way?..

…The problem is not a concept of suffering because one rejects love. It is a problem where the soul, has no choice(and God does not do anything) to bring that soul to a point where they can accept love after a biological death…

…In other words, a finite choice, results in an infinite torture, a system setup and designed by a God, that had no need to create in the first place.

See above.

And wether you like it, if your doctrine is right, and you are not following the correct version of God, then you will suffer an eternity with no chance of redemption. No wonder people are so gung-ho about their church teaching them absolute truths.

You are on the wrong forums. What you describe here is more of a fundamentalist protestant view of hell. The Catholic view is that only God knows the heart of man. We are judged based on what we’ve been given and how we respond to it. Not whether we belong to a certain church or none at all. Of course there is such a thing as culpable ignorance. If you have good info, yet choose to reject it, there may be a problem. If you are truly seeking, you will find what you’re looking for.

 

[Detales]

People learn language through distinctions. The acquired subject/object mind, which operates by dividing (distinctions) and through symbols “maps” those distinctions symbolically and very selectively according to what constitutes the person’s needs for consensus “reality.” This is the only way to understand non-physical concepts. This is the only way to make non-rational experience thinkable Discursive knowledge is all about making distinctions.Yes

I agree that there is another type of knowledge; this is the knowledge that we were made for. It is a capacity we have to Know, which capacity is rarely used in the fullness of its potential, as it entails going past the veil of the subject/object mode of awareness. That s/o awareness is considered by most to be the sole medium of human experience, which it is not. It is familiarity with, not knowledge about. In the non-s/o mode, this can be called "Knowledge by Identity. It is not knowledge in an intellectual sense of “about.” The idea of "familiarity, if I understand your use of it, is an application of a s/o relationship of rational intellect to a state of pre-linguistic Self awareness This knowledge destroys is not in the same quale as language, yet can inform the linguistic ability of need of of a symbolic accounting of such experience the distinctions that make language work – but, with this knowledge, language is unnecessary. as long as one’s awareness is strictly focused only on that state. The mind is capable of entertaining both states at once, though this is a rarely developed ability “We shall know as we are fully known…” Yes

But until then – if post-Tower-of-Babel language is flawed, it is nevertheless necessary. But when such language is deconstructed, vis a vie our belief systems, it can be seen that our faith systems themselves are learned in the selective, “babelic” mode, unfounded on the Reality of the ground of Being that allows them to be percieved as maps, innacurate as they are, due to being founded soley in s/o interpretations of non-s/o Teaching. We need not be crusaders for the Word, since a crusader for the Word destroys the Word by making it into a stick to beat over another person’s head. But we ought to be defenders of the Word, trusting only in the distinctions that have been made by the Christ, our standard bearer. in whomsoever THAT State precipitates. So apart from not being a crusader and being defenders, both military terms, there is the possibility as well of sharing experience and pointing to that State of Christ Consciousness as explicated by the Saints and Sages of the Ages, including Jesus.

Prodigal, you are someone who might be very interested in reading The Philosophy of Consciousness Without an Object, by Franklin Merrell-Wolff. You appear to be one of the few on here who might have the intellectual capacity to understand the thesis of that work.

 

[LilyM]

Actually, I would wonder what we’ve done wrong in society to end up with humans who cannot see cause and effect and cannot understand why they are doing something wrong.

Is that really all you have to offer as a reponse to the very real fact that I’ve stolen from you and given the chance would do it again in a heartbeat? Seriously? A bunch of useless navel-gazing?? Sounds like no notion of justice at all.

If you want, I can give you an example of a society who understanding of justice is imo, far superior to ours. IE…they got it right, the israelites, got it wrong.

Cheers

You know the saying, opinions are like elbows …

I suppose in this ideal society of yours everyone else would sit on their hands and twiddle their thumbs in a useless bout of existential angst whenever confronted by wrongdoing or evil just like you would. No thanks.