Existence, Preservation of State

[donsnow]

Obviously. We cannot choose either to exist or not to exist before we exist (and even after existence we are sufficiently advanced to even contemplate this question). Our existence is a “forced” one, no matter what. Yosupman argued that God did not want to “force” us into the perfect existence. Yet God “forced” us into this inferior existence. I am asking how can God’s alleged “love” be reconciled with forcing anyone into an inferior existence when a better solution (perfect existence) is available.

.

Your viewpoint of being forced to be here, is beyond my understanding. I’ve always felt we were blessed, to be here. Yes, compared to the glories of Heaven and resurrected bodies, we are in an inferior existence, here. However, as I told AndyF, when we look at life here as a learning experience, that changes things. We are here to learn how to become perfected, so we may attain that perfect life.
God is love.
And, that love protects us from failure, by not arbitrarily putting us in the perfect existence from the get go. We would be imperfection in perfection. We wouldn’t fit. We would fall. So, here we are, imperfect creatures in a world made imperfect by Adam’s sin. Nevertheless, we have Jesus Christ to follow on the path to perfection. So, that when we are resurrected after we die, we will fit into that perfect existence, and not fall.

Well, that is a reasonable possibility. Personally, I don’t consider “freedom of choice” a superior solution. I would much rather be “forced” into the perfect existence, then to be forced into an “imperfect one” - even if there is a chance of getting into the perfect one (which is far from certain - this perfect existence being a matter of faith, not knowledge). There is the risk of “missing the mark” to get into that perfect existence - and then one faces eternal torture. The trouble is that there is no “up-side” of this risk, but there is a huge “down-side”. We gain nothing having been forced into this existence and can lose everything (and more) in hell.

As I pointed out above, an imperfect creature forced into a perfect existence would fall. God’s love protects us from that fall by starting us out on the Earth. God has already created perfect creatures in all the angels of Heaven. They love and obey Him because He created them to do that, without choice. Those are the creatures “forced” into the perfect existence. Only, Satan didn’t like worshiping God; he thought he knew better than God; and, maybe he’s also jealous of humankind, in that God loves us and gave us repentance from sin, so we could become perfected. Angels can’t repent. Once they make a choice, that’s it. Satan doomed himself by choosing to rebel against God.
That is to say, Lucifer was a perfect angel in a perfect existence and didn’t accept that.
Now, I disagree that we have nothing to gain and everything to lose. We have much to life for, here. We’re here to learn about God, without disputing His good nature. On that, you’ve been listening to Satan, the enemy of God and humankind.

I cannot imagine anyone who would choose hell over heaven, if one could make an informed decision - which means after having a guided tour of both places, and given a clear, unambiguous list of instructions which enumerate what are the “do’s” and “don’t’s” to get to heaven. Mind you, this action would not negate our freedom of choice in the least. We would be perfectly free to make our selection, but we would have the necessary information to make an informed decision. But we are not given this information. We must make our choices “blindfolded”. This is where the problem lies. To demad full responsibility, while not giving full information is not an act of “love”.

The gospel of Jesus Christ is the clear, unambiguous list instructions, which enumerates the do’s and don’t’s of getting to Heaven: Love God with all your heart, mind and strength and love your neighbor as yourself. Jesus Christ says in those two commandments are all the Law and all the prophets. I can say no better than He.

Yes, indeed. There are brute facts. We probably disagree on just what those brute facts are. But that is ok. If we agreed on everything, there would be no reason to conduct a conversation.

Well, I have answered your questions, the best I can at this juncture in my pilgrimage. I hope you may benefit from my effort.

God loves you,
Don

 

[yosupman]

Ok, got it.

I have no idea what that word means. Did not find it in any dictionary either. Also you will have to tell me, how is that pertinent to the question I asked. (To repeat: how can God’s love be reconclied with forcing us into an inferior existence, when a perfect existence is available?)

Spock: I can tell this question is really agonizing you. I’ll tell ya…I have some questions that have agonized me also.

Can I ask this question: Spock, do you think non-existence is better than the life we have now with the possiblity of reaching heaven, even though we could end up in Hell if we choose to do evil?

 

[Spock]

Your viewpoint of being forced to be here, is beyond my understanding.

The phrase “forced” I used carries no negative connotation, it is simply a neutral description of the fact that we did not choose to be created. It was Yosupman’s phrase originally - and a very accurate one at that - so I simply borrowed it from him. (If the gender is incorrect, I apologize. I wish there would be a gender-neutral way to refer to someone in the third person. )

I’ve always felt we were blessed, to be here.

Sure, I can understand it, but that has nothing to do with the point at hand. Generally speaking I am also very happy to exist, though I can imagine that I would be even happier to exist in heaven.

You see, what Yosupman said was very interesting and that is what started my whole thought process: “he said that God did not want to force us into the perfect existence with him”. It made me curious and this is the way how I see it: “according to his wording there would be something negative or undesirable about being created (“forced”) into perfect existence”. But since we are obviously here, and according to his belief, God created (“forced”) us into this existence, it is somehow better to be “forced” into an inferior existence. It seems akin to a parent who could feed his child with “perfectly” nutritional food, but gives him junk food, instead. And that just makes no sense at all. After all, if God is perfect love, he would choose the best existence for us.

So we reach the conclusion: the “imperfect existence” is better that the “perfect existence”. Which is a clear contradiction. (Not a “mystery”! A contradiction.)

IYes, compared to the glories of Heaven and resurrected bodies, we are in an inferior existence, here. However, as I told AndyF, when we look at life here as a learning experience, that changes things. We are here to learn how to become perfected, so we may attain that perfect life.

Again, even if you are correct (and as far as I am concerned, it is just speculation) what is the point? God could “imbue” us with whatever we are supposed to “learn” here. Moreover, if one understands Jesus, only a few will find the narrow path, the majority will miss it. So the teaching method is not very “perfect”, if it has such a large “scrap”.

We would be imperfection in perfection. We wouldn’t fit. We would fall.

Sorry, that is just speculation, again.

Angels can’t repent. Once they make a choice, that’s it.

Again, speculation. How would you know that? It is useless to speculate about angels. How many angels would fit in the point of a needle? Such questions are abandoned these days.

The gospel of Jesus Christ is the clear, unambiguous list instructions, which enumerates the do’s and don’t’s of getting to Heaven: Love God with all your heart, mind and strength and love your neighbor as yourself. Jesus Christ says in those two commandments are all the Law and all the prophets. I can say no better than He.

Unfortunately that is not “all”. Not by a long shot. First, it is not obvious that the Bible is more than just another human-created story. Second, it is not obvious that God exists at all. Some people say he does, others doubt it. Third, it is not obvious that the Bible does indeed accurately convey the wishes of God. There are all sorts of things which cast doubt on your claim. And, of course, even though those two commandments you quoted are clear and unambiguous, they are also very vague. No specifics are given. How would the zillions of “auxiliary rules” fit into the picture? I am sure you will say that the Catholic Church is the authority to “translate” those two simple commandments into specifics, but that is just another claim. There are zillions of people who deny that the Church is any kind of authority, and moreover, the Church is unable to convince a sizable percetange of the Catholics themselves when it comes to the specifics. Look at the dissent over women’s ordination, use of artifical birth control, or abortion. The Church itself would benefit from a periodicial “reinforcement” from “above”.

No, my friend, I don’t see the clear, unambigious and detailed list of do’s and don’t’s. I don’t see the clear and accurate guided tour of what will await us when we get there. And yet, according to the claims, we must choose based upon the dubious information we have. We have the responsibility but not the information. And that is incompatible with a loving God - in my opnion.

Well, I have answered your questions, the best I can at this juncture in my pilgrimage. I hope you may benefit from my effort.

I certainly appreciate your effort. I attempted to clarify my position, too. I hope I succeeded somewhat.

 

[Spock]

Spock: I can tell this question is really agonizing you. I’ll tell ya…I have some questions that have agonized me also.

I would not use the word “agonizing”. I certainly found it interesting and worthy to contemplate.

Can I ask this question: Spock, do you think non-existence is better than the life we have now with the possiblity of reaching heaven, even though we could end up in Hell if we choose to do evil?

I cannot give one generic answer, but I can give two: 1) for those who who make the grade, it is definitely better. 2) For those who miss the mark it is definitely worse. They would be much better off not to exist at all.

But I can give you another definitive answer: it would be infinitely better to exist only in the perfect existence.

 

[Spock]

I cannot give one generic answer, but I can give two: 1) for those who who make the grade, it is definitely better. 2) For those who miss the mark it is definitely worse. They would be much better off not to exist at all.

Oops. Seems like I happened to switch the two answers. What I intended to say was that “for those who pass the exam, this life, even if it is a ‘bumpy’ road, is better then nonexistence”. On the other hand, for those who “missed the mark” and will be thrown into hell for eternal torture, non-existence would be the preferred state of affairs. My mistake, sorry.

 

[Qoeleth]

If having found oneself existing and no option to return, then is not existence simply
an exercise in the preservation of state?.

Consider. We wish to either gain positively, or at least not to experience a worse state. Primarily, all efforts then become an exercise in not offending, doing what we are told because a more powerful being now has full control of us, etc and in a nutshell bettering the sensory and spiritual mystical nature that we are without tripping the trap doors of life or setting off the claxtons of failure. Basically, and I said basically, nothing is really amazing or in wonderment, but simply practical.

However we feel we may find inspiration through elevation to transcendence or rapture as much has this is possible in this world, our base principal will always be the underlying foundation to our predicament. Ironically, it is a solid base principle as well, since if the situation differed and we found ourselves subjects of an oppressing tyrant creator, the principle would still exist, albeit more urgently endeavored.

Thoughts?.

Andy

I think your analysis is an accurate picture of human reality. Existence is indeed primarily an exercise in preservation of state. It is human nature to cling to things, even when we know they are worthless. This is one of the ironies of our fallen condition. But Jesus teaches us detachment from existence, willingness to lay down our life, etc., a kind of metaphysical rebellion against the imperative to exist.

 

[yosupman]

Oops. Seems like I happened to switch the two answers. What I intended to say was that “for those who pass the exam, this life, even if it is a ‘bumpy’ road, is better then nonexistence”. On the other hand, for those who “missed the mark” and will be thrown into hell for eternal torture, non-existence would be the preferred state of affairs. My mistake, sorry.

Spock,

One suggestion…

I bet if you change your focus, that you’ll find an answer to your problem. See, I’m an auditor/CPA. Sometimes when I’m working on an audit, I’ll find a question I can’t answer. If I leave that and work around it, answers pop up. It is sort of like working on a puzzle, if you find the edge first, you can start filling in.

You’re main question I’ve seen is, why would God create me, if I have the possibility of Hell? I will think about this and get back with you. I won’t give some flippant answer you would expect from a political Hack.

May I suggest a practical approach (since your name is Spock). You are already here. That is self evident. So as Steve Martin would say…“Now what happens??..”.

 

[Spock]

I bet if you change your focus, that you’ll find an answer to your problem. See, I’m an auditor/CPA. Sometimes when I’m working on an audit, I’ll find a question I can’t answer. If I leave that and work around it, answers pop up. It is sort of like working on a puzzle, if you find the edge first, you can start filling in.

Thank you. I am very well aware of this method, and how wonderful its result can be. I used in all the time myself.

You’re main question I’ve seen is, why would God create me, if I have the possibility of Hell? I will think about this and get back with you. I won’t give some flippant answer you would expect from a political Hack.

Very kind of you. But you are mistaken. My question is exactly what I asked. Let’s recap:

You said that “God did not want to create us into the perfect existence”. From our existence it follows logically, that God had no problem with creating us into this inferior existence. (I am dropping the usage of the word “force” for its negative connotation.) From God’s omnibenevolence it also follows logically that whatever route God takes must be the best one. And from that it follows that the inferior existence has some advantages over the perfect existence. But the inferior existence cannot be “better” than the perfect one. That would be a contradiction.

Your currently posited question could be contemplated, too. But I suggest a slighly different and much more accurate wording: “why would God create me, if he knows up front that I will slip (miss the mark) and end in hell?”. It is certainly not in my best interest to exist under these circumstances. Also God cannot “use” me to help someone else, that would mean that I am merely a tool, which goes against my supposed “dignity”. Again, from God’s omnibenevolence it follows that he only acts in everyone’s best interest.

I am simply delighted to have such a conversation with you. Many a times I have seen someone using the ultimate “trump card”, and says: “who are you to question God? God is God and whatever he does cannot be questioned”. I am very glad you do not try to use this method.

May I suggest a practical approach (since your name is Spock). You are already here. That is self evident. So as Steve Martin would say…“Now what happens??..”.

The answer is simple: make the best of it.

 

[donsnow]

The phrase “forced” I used carries no negative connotation, it is simply a neutral description of the fact that we did not choose to be created. It was Yosupman’s phrase originally - and a very accurate one at that - so I simply borrowed it from him. (If the gender is incorrect, I apologize. I wish there would be a gender-neutral way to refer to someone in the third person. )

Sure, I can understand it, but that has nothing to do with the point at hand. Generally speaking I am also very happy to exist, though I can imagine that I would be even happier to exist in heaven.

You see, what Yosupman said was very interesting and that is what started my whole thought process: “he said that God did not want to force us into the perfect existence with him”. It made me curious and this is the way how I see it: “according to his wording there would be something negative or undesirable about being created (“forced”) into perfect existence”. But since we are obviously here, and according to his belief, God created (“forced”) us into this existence, it is somehow better to be “forced” into an inferior existence. It seems akin to a parent who could feed his child with “perfectly” nutritional food, but gives him junk food, instead. And that just makes no sense at all. After all, if God is perfect love, he would choose the best existence for us.

So we reach the conclusion: the “imperfect existence” is better that the “perfect existence”. Which is a clear contradiction. (Not a “mystery”! A contradiction.)

Again, even if you are correct (and as far as I am concerned, it is just speculation) what is the point? God could “imbue” us with whatever we are supposed to “learn” here. Moreover, if one understands Jesus, only a few will find the narrow path, the majority will miss it. So the teaching method is not very “perfect”, if it has such a large “scrap”.

Sorry, that is just speculation, again.

Again, speculation. How would you know that? It is useless to speculate about angels. How many angels would fit in the point of a needle? Such questions are abandoned these days.

Unfortunately that is not “all”. Not by a long shot. First, it is not obvious that the Bible is more than just another human-created story. Second, it is not obvious that God exists at all. Some people say he does, others doubt it. Third, it is not obvious that the Bible does indeed accurately convey the wishes of God. There are all sorts of things which cast doubt on your claim. And, of course, even though those two commandments you quoted are clear and unambiguous, they are also very vague. No specifics are given. How would the zillions of “auxiliary rules” fit into the picture? I am sure you will say that the Catholic Church is the authority to “translate” those two simple commandments into specifics, but that is just another claim. There are zillions of people who deny that the Church is any kind of authority, and moreover, the Church is unable to convince a sizable percetange of the Catholics themselves when it comes to the specifics. Look at the dissent over women’s ordination, use of artifical birth control, or abortion. The Church itself would benefit from a periodicial “reinforcement” from “above”.

No, my friend, I don’t see the clear, unambigious and detailed list of do’s and don’t’s. I don’t see the clear and accurate guided tour of what will await us when we get there. And yet, according to the claims, we must choose based upon the dubious information we have. We have the responsibility but not the information. And that is incompatible with a loving God - in my opnion.

I certainly appreciate your effort. I attempted to clarify my position, too. I hope I succeeded somewhat.

Hi, Spock,

Oh. Well. I think that there’s quite a difference, contextually and literally, between “forced” and “created”.

I think my viewpoint of being blessed to be here is germane to the point. The point is, isn’t it, that we are here? Our existence is the point, isn’t it? Secondary to that, would come imperfect and perfect existing. I think that my rebuttal that we’re blessed to be here does answer yosupman’s dour opinion that we are forced to be here.
We were and are being, created here. I think to complain about the way it is as a fact seems childish.

I have already explained my opinion of why God did not create us as perfect creatures. Please refer to that as my reply to your third paragraph of this text.

I never saw the conclusion that it’s better to be imperfect than to be perfect.

I think that my opinion that the imperfect would fall from the perfected as conjecture, or stronger than, speculation. Furthermore, your shifting the focus from our learning to your opinion of the teacher ignores my salient point: life is a learning experience.

Angels are a tradition based on witnesses claims of angelic appearances to humans. That is not speculation. I would prefer your honest “I don’t believe in angels”: to your labeling an evidential tradition of many religions as “speculation”.

That is all…that I’m prepared to discuss.

Well, I see love in God’s teaching. I always thought that the Ten Commandments were all clear and unambiguous. Those are the fundamental law that Jesus’ comments on His two commandments referred to.

I’m not here to argue your and my belief systems. I have discussed what I care to discuss.

God loves you,
Don

 

[Spock]

Oh. Well. I think that there’s quite a difference, contextually and literally, between “forced” and “created”.

I have no problem with using the word “created” - without our consent.

I think to complain about the way it is as a fact seems childish.

But I do not “complain” in any sense of the word.

I have already explained my opinion of why God did not create us as perfect creatures. Please refer to that as my reply to your third paragraph of this text.

Yes, I know you did state your opinion. And I stated mine.

I never saw the conclusion that it’s better to be imperfect than to be perfect.

Not explicitly, no. But implicitly, definitely. From God’s omni-benevolence it logically follows that whatever God does is the best route to be taken. No one can imagine a better way to handle things. And since God chooses the imperfect existence, it MUST be somehow better than the perfect one - which is a contradiction.

I think that my opinion that the imperfect would fall from the perfected as conjecture, or stronger than, speculation. Furthermore, your shifting the focus from our learning to your opinion of the teacher ignores my salient point: life is a learning experience.

I do not argue with this. It is perfectly fine what you say. But, you see, “learning” is a procedure to make one more experienced, more knowledgeable, better in some respect. However God can “imbue” us with the desired final stage - without going through the process itself. Again, from omnibenevolence it logically follow that God chooses the optimal path. A simple analogy: a doctor must treat a patient bitten by a poisonous snake. The doctor has two options, use an antidote or amputate the patient’s limb. If the doctor chooses to amputate when he could chose the apply the antidote, he cannot be “benevolent” - since he chose the sub-optimal solution. An omni-benevolent being (God) always chooses the best possible solution, the one which achieves the desired result with minimum “discomfort”. Since directly “imbue” us with the necessary knowledge entails “less discomfort” than the learning process here in this existence, God should (or MUST) choose the direct method - IF he is benevolent.

Angels are a tradition based on witnesses claims of angelic appearances to humans. That is not speculation. I would prefer your honest “I don’t believe in angels”: to your labeling an evidential tradition of many religions as “speculation”.

I did not intend to hurt your feelings. Of course I do not believe in angels and demons and what have you. But that does no modify that fact that “tradition based on witnesses” is simply speculation.

Well, I see love in God’s teaching. I always thought that the Ten Commandments were all clear and unambiguous. Those are the fundamental law that Jesus’ comments on His two commandments referred to.

They are clear for sure. But they are not all there is - according to the claims I see. Previously you talked about the two commandments issued by Jesus and you said that nothing else is needed. Now you include the ten commandments, too. Of course the the ten commandments do not include the so called seven deadly sins. So next time you will have to include those. And then we shall have more and more other “sins”, sexual and otherwise…

I’m not here to argue your and my belief systems. I have discussed what I care to discuss.

Whatever you wish to discuss is fine by me.

 

[Qoeleth]

I cannot give one generic answer, but I can give two: 1) for those who who make the grade, it is definitely better. 2) For those who miss the mark it is definitely worse. They would be much better off not to exist at all.

But I can give you another definitive answer: it would be infinitely better to exist only in the perfect existence.

Scipture tells us quite clearly that non-existence is better:
“Rather than the living who still have lives to lead, I salute the dead: happier yet are those who have never been born.” (Qo 4:2-3)
The philosophy Schopenhauer similarly argues that non-existence would be better than any form of existence. The philosopher Camus describes salvation as the right to stop existing at all. Of course, detachment from existence, laying down one’s life, renounciation, self-denial, is the heart of the Christian (and Buddhist) ethic.

Perhaps “Heaven” is simply a metaphor for non-existence?

 

[AndyF]

donsnow:

“…be called before judges, imprisoned, persecuted and even slain.” We are to keep faith, in love and the truth, unto imprisonment, torture and/or even death.
So, this changes the exercise of life, doesn’t it?

I could do better given some answers.

Nope. Existence at one point or another in a creature’s life becomes a learning exercise. If it doesn’t, that creature ceases to exist, sooner or later. This learning concept goes for both animals and humans.

It would seem we agree. Getting our fingers burned is to be avoided. The means ensures the end or preservation of the organism. For permanent souls preservation in the next life also.

When you consider my reply in full, you can see that following Jesus Christ in the face of persecution, name calling, imprisonment, torture and being killed, that changes our base principal, which becomes no longer survival, but now keeping faith with love and truth.

Should we forget his allusion to a state that is better to having been born, but all the same a few notches better than hell?. Not only do we have philosophers making this statement, but God making this revelation.

some skeptics and atheists

Steps to maturing Faith(Cor) starts at zero for some, these are not outcasts but preemies of Faith.

The exercise in not offending or not, depends on where you are on the learning curve. Once we learn to cling to the truth, living and dying, then we can see why our example and Savior, Jesus Christ, did

These can all be categorized has performance by the subjects, beaten to death ad nauseum. But the performance of the subjects is not only what makes the realm appealing. We can take the anology of the desires of new immigrant to a prospective nation. Our subject may find no disgreement that the subjects must be law abiding, but would like his contribution noted as well. At intervals a standing of his position would be helpful, a performance sheet as it were. His choices that have judicial worth, must also carry weight when he makes stand alone choice decisions. But then he may make a welcomed scrutiny of the conduct and attitudes of those making rules and those in authority, and of those other created beings within it. Togeather they all work has one for the betterment in order to acheive goals of the King or nation. Their interactions become clues has to what to expect.

So on his cosmic quest, perhaps in the ideal of a plural universe with many realms, our conceptual being, and yet-to-be proto-soul, would seek to find the best there is and decide to come out of the comfort of the state of …not.

Andy

 

[AndyF]

John21652:

Here you jump straight from a subjective analysis of self to an attempt at an objective analysis of what others demand, require, or need and in the process you do a quantum leap in logic by relegating existence to the necessary pleasing of others as the necessary requirement for your existence.

so what if I do. The final verdict is made by the posters, and it would seem my point is generally understood. That trumps your critique of my style. You’ll either have to come up with material for rebuttal or move on.

Andy

 

[AndyF]

Qoeleth:

It is human nature to cling to things, even when we know they are worthless.

Can you expand on this, I’m trying to understand.

But Jesus teaches us detachment from existence, willingness to lay down our life, etc., a kind of metaphysical rebellion against the imperative to exist.

Are you saying in effect that it is forbidden for any aware sentient being to ponder his existence? If there are pitfalls in this exercise, is one of them that he is forbidden to conclude to a negative.?

Andy

 

[AndyF]

If God forced heaven on us, we would all be “Chatty Cathy” dolls. Have you checkout these Chatty Cathy dolls on Ebay? They sell for quite a lot. But back on point…our love must be voluntary. Only those that freely choose to love will be admited into heaven.

But he did just that after the fall of the angels. He moved them from sanctifying grace to beatification. So now the elect angels can choose but only between goods.

Andy

 

[Qoeleth]

Qoeleth:

It is human nature to cling to things, even when we know they are worthless.

Can you expand on this, I’m trying to understand.

But Jesus teaches us detachment from existence, willingness to lay down our life, etc., a kind of metaphysical rebellion against the imperative to exist.

Are you saying in effect that it is forbidden for any aware sentient being to ponder his existence? If there are pitfalls in this exercise, is one of them that he is forbidden to conclude to a negative.?

Andy

In answer to your questions:

1. Deep down we know life in this world to be struggle, a sham, an illusion, a trial, a disappointment, an empty vanity, yet it is human nature still to want to continue to live. i.e. existence wants to preserve itself. This is how things tend to be, not necessarily how it should be.
2. What Jesus is teaching us is not to cling to existence too much, for, as Scripture tells us “all things a vanity and vexation of spirit”. (Qo 1) Of course, we are not forbidded to ponder it- after all that is what Jesus and other philosophers did.

 

[donsnow]

I have no problem with using the word “created” - without our consent.

But I do not “complain” in any sense of the word.

Yes, I know you did state your opinion. And I stated mine.

Not explicitly, no. But implicitly, definitely. From God’s omni-benevolence it logically follows that whatever God does is the best route to be taken. No one can imagine a better way to handle things. And since God chooses the imperfect existence, it MUST be somehow better than the perfect one - which is a contradiction.I do not argue with this. It is perfectly fine what you say. But, you see, “learning” is a procedure to make one more experienced, more knowledgeable, better in some respect. However God can “imbue” us with the desired final stage - without going through the process itself. Again, from omnibenevolence it logically follow that God chooses the optimal path. A simple analogy: a doctor must treat a patient bitten by a poisonous snake. The doctor has two options, use an antidote or amputate the patient’s limb. If the doctor chooses to amputate when he could chose the apply the antidote, he cannot be “benevolent” - since he chose the sub-optimal solution. An omni-benevolent being (God) always chooses the best possible solution, the one which achieves the desired result with minimum “discomfort”. Since directly “imbue” us with the necessary knowledge entails “less discomfort” than the learning process here in this existence, God should (or MUST) choose the direct method - IF he is benevolent.

I did not intend to hurt your feelings. Of course I do not believe in angels and demons and what have you. But that does no modify that fact that “tradition based on witnesses” is simply speculation.

They are clear for sure. But they are not all there is - according to the claims I see. Previously you talked about the two commandments issued by Jesus and you said that nothing else is needed. Now you include the ten commandments, too. Of course the the ten commandments do not include the so called seven deadly sins. So next time you will have to include those. And then we shall have more and more other “sins”, sexual and otherwise…

Whatever you wish to discuss is fine by me.

 

[AndyF]

In answer to your questions:

1. Deep down we know life in this world to be struggle, a sham, an illusion, a trial, a disappointment, an empty vanity, yet it is human nature still to want to continue to live. i.e. existence wants to preserve itself. This is how things tend to be, not necessarily how it should be.

Ok I see, Ecclesiastes sets an excellent example.Thanks.

 

[donsnow]

donsnow:

“…be called before judges, imprisoned, persecuted and even slain.” We are to keep faith, in love and the truth, unto imprisonment, torture and/or even death.
So, this changes the exercise of life, doesn’t it?

I could do better given some answers.

Nope. Existence at one point or another in a creature’s life becomes a learning exercise. If it doesn’t, that creature ceases to exist, sooner or later. This learning concept goes for both animals and humans.

It would seem we agree. Getting our fingers burned is to be avoided. The means ensures the end or preservation of the organism. For permanent souls preservation in the next life also.

When you consider my reply in full, you can see that following Jesus Christ in the face of persecution, name calling, imprisonment, torture and being killed, that changes our base principal, which becomes no longer survival, but now keeping faith with love and truth.

Should we forget his allusion to a state that is better to having been born, but all the same a few notches better than hell?. Not only do we have philosophers making this statement, but God making this revelation.
And
some skeptics and atheists

Steps to maturing Faith(Cor) starts at zero for some, these are not outcasts but preemies of Faith.

The exercise in not offending or not, depends on where you are on the learning curve. Once we learn to cling to the truth, living and dying, then we can see why our example and Savior, Jesus Christ, did

These can all be categorized has performance by the subjects, beaten to death ad nauseum. But the performance of the subjects is not only what makes the realm appealing. We can take the anology of the desires of new immigrant to a prospective nation. Our subject may find no disgreement that the subjects must be law abiding, but would like his contribution noted as well. At intervals a standing of his position would be helpful, a performance sheet as it were. His choices that have judicial worth, must also carry weight when he makes stand alone choice decisions. But then he may make a welcomed scrutiny of the conduct and attitudes of those making rules and those in authority, and of those other created beings within it. Togeather they all work has one for the betterment in order to acheive goals of the King or nation. Their interactions become clues has to what to expect.

So on his cosmic quest, perhaps in the ideal of a plural universe with many realms, our conceptual being, and yet-to-be proto-soul, would seek to find the best there is and decide to come out of the comfort of the state of …not.

Andy

Andy,

It’s been good conversing with you. I’m leaving this thread, today.

God loves you,
Don