Laws

[James_S_Saint]

I’m failing to see how the physical laws of the universe connect to law about how to live your life.

Yes, “fail to see”. They call that blindness. And that is why there must be faith in those with sight, who do not fail to see. But the best faith is the faith in those who bring sight… to the blind who “fail to see”.

If the prophets gave guidelines on how to live a good life that fine, but there not there laws that have punishments, which don’t make seance since not choosing to obey them would only seem stupid, not evil.

Does the dog see why he shouldn’t run across the highway? Does the baby see why he shouldn’t stick his finger in the fan? Does the young man see why he shouldn’t steal? Does the young woman see why she shouldn’t expose herself?

When so many cannot see why they should do what would seem stupid if they could see, then giving them something that they can see is not all that stupid of an idea. Punishment is not the only way to prevent someone from doing what is stupid yet beyond their sight to see to be stupid. Punishment is the easy, primitive, and most common way. Sometimes it is the only way available at the time.

The blind are desperate for something to hold onto so as to make up for not being able to see. If someone with sight tells them when to step and in what direction, they desperately hold onto the advice. Others who cannot see argue that perhaps the sighted were not really sighted and just tricking them. “They are just controlling you for their own power.” The faith gets challenged.

Both the sighted and the blind give laws. You choose within whom you have faith. Only the truly sighted knew which laws were the better, which were really the laws of God, the creator of all things.

What stays in harmony cannot perish because of the very most fundamental law of all, “Something cannot be both what it is and also what it isn’t”. The effort to remain alive and the effort to remain a society, rationally require a minimum level of harmony. Harmony within becomes the priority given by the most fundamental of all laws.

From the need of harmony, comes all of the famous morals;“Thou shall not kill”, “Do unto others…”, “Love thy neighbor…”, “Bare not false witness…”, “Thou shall not steal…”, and so on. They ALL came from the laws of “nature’s logic”, the laws of God. Given by the very first, most fundamental of all. Given by God.

To disobey the laws for harmony is to invite disharmony and thus dispersion and death. The “Original Sin” was merely an error of disobeying the laws for harmony, the laws of God without which there can be no paradise, no garden, no rest from struggle other than death.

Once certain kinds of disharmony get started, there is no way to re-harmonize. A war gets started between the efforts to maintain harmony within opposing things. The disharmony propagates eternally as each side struggles against the other in an effort to maintain itself in disregard of the whole. disregarding the whole (the Holy) was the only error, the law that was broken.

The natural punishment is the punishment from God. Do what doesn’t work and you suffer what comes from doing what doesn’t work. It’s that simple. The hard part is knowing exactly what it is that doesn’t work; knowing which laws really were the ones to follow, within whom to have faith until you can see for yourself.

I suggest having faith in the one who brings sight to the blind; Clarity to the unclear.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Through **Clarity **(sight) comes **Hope **that provides **Inspiration **to the **Momentum **of **Harmony **for the Living.

That which remains in Harmony, Cannot perish.

Tis the Law.

 

[I_Seek_2]

Yes, “fail to see”. They call that blindness. And that is why there must be faith in those with sight, who do not fail to see. But the best faith is the faith in those who bring sight… to the blind who “fail to see”.

Does the dog see why he shouldn’t run across the highway? Does the baby see why he shouldn’t stick his finger in the fan? Does the young man see why he shouldn’t steal? Does the young woman see why she shouldn’t expose herself?

When so many cannot see why they should do what would seem stupid if they could see, then giving them something that they can see is not all that stupid of an idea. Punishment is not the only way to prevent someone from doing what is stupid yet beyond their sight to see to be stupid. Punishment is the easy, primitive, and most common way. Sometimes it is the only way available at the time.

The blind are desperate for something to hold onto so as to make up for not being able to see. If someone with sight tells them when to step and in what direction, they desperately hold onto the advice. Others who cannot see argue that perhaps the sighted were not really sighted and just tricking them. “They are just controlling you for their own power.” The faith gets challenged.

Both the sighted and the blind give laws. You choose within whom you have faith. Only the truly sighted knew which laws were the better, which were really the laws of God, the creator of all things.

What stays in harmony cannot perish because of the very most fundamental law of all, “Something cannot be both what it is and also what it isn’t”. The effort to remain alive and the effort to remain a society, rationally require a minimum level of harmony. Harmony within becomes the priority given by the most fundamental of all laws.

From the need of harmony, comes all of the famous morals;“Thou shall not kill”, “Do unto others…”, “Love thy neighbor…”, “Bare not false witness…”, “Thou shall not steal…”, and so on. They ALL came from the laws of “nature’s logic”, the laws of God. Given by the very first, most fundamental of all. Given by God.

To disobey the laws for harmony is to invite disharmony and thus dispersion and death. The “Original Sin” was merely an error of disobeying the laws for harmony, the laws of God without which there can be no paradise, no garden, no rest from struggle other than death.

Once certain kinds of disharmony get started, there is no way to re-harmonize. A war gets started between the efforts to maintain harmony within opposing things. The disharmony propagates eternally as each side struggles against the other in an effort to maintain itself in disregard of the whole. disregarding the whole (the Holy) was the only error, the law that was broken.

The natural punishment is the punishment from God. Do what doesn’t work and you suffer what comes from doing what doesn’t work. It’s that simple. The hard part is knowing exactly what it is that doesn’t work; knowing which laws really were the ones to follow, within whom to have faith until you can see for yourself.

I suggest having faith in the one who brings sight to the blind; Clarity to the unclear.

I See, Natural Laws= Consequences on earth

If all this is true and obeying Gods laws brings us harmony peace and happiness (and are the only way to), then shouldn’t that be enough incentive to follow them alone, why does there need to be an afterlife punishment?

 

[fhansen]

I See, Natural Laws= Consequences on earth

If all this is true and obeying Gods laws brings us harmony peace and happiness (and are the only way to), then shouldn’t that be enough incentive to follow them alone, why does there need to be an afterlife punishment?

If the obvious good: order, peace, joy, happiness-most importantly love-was the only alternative we’re given over and against disorder, misery, hate, what is unjust about *our having the choice *between them?

 

[I_Seek_2]

If the obvious good: order, peace, joy, happiness-most importantly love-was the only alternative we’re given over and against disorder, misery, hate, what is unjust about *our having the choice *between them?

I think you misunderstood my question on Earth what you said I’d agree with but if i said, you have to choose between, good, harmony, peace, and evil, disharmony and death, however if you pick evil disharmony and death, you will go to hell, it seems redundant, as well as influencing(more than just telling us why its bad to do) our decision regardless of weather its for a good reason.

 

[James_S_Saint]

I See, Natural Laws= Consequences on earth

If all this is true and obeying Gods laws brings us harmony peace and happiness (and are the only way to), then shouldn’t that be enough incentive to follow them alone, why does there need to be an afterlife punishment?

Do you “see” the after life? Do you understand what it is all about? Or is it one of those things which you cannot see and thus are blind about, one of those many things in which one must have faith until sight is brought?

Who said God’s laws are ONLY about “Earth”?

Your body will die, but does that mean that you will die? Must your spirit also die? Must your soul be forgotten and lost? Are these things which you can see clearly? Or must you have faith in someone of your choosing concerning these matters?

Heaven and Hell are the “Natural Consequences” (via God’s Law’s) of poor choices. They are not contrived so as to be punishment or reward. Do not place faith in whoever told you that, not even if it was yourself.

Heaven is the eternal harmony wherein disharmony cannot exist. The laws concerning harmony both create it and maintain it. What remains in Harmony CANNOT perish.

Hell is the eternal disharmony wherein harmony cannot exist. The laws concerning disharmony both create it and maintain it. What remains in Disharmony can only know struggle and suffering.

Your spirit can easily live beyond your body, but this is something that you cannot (yet) see. Which laws it supports causes the consequence of which realm it helps to create and maintain. Seeing in disharmony is far more difficult than seeing in harmony. Have faith in the laws of harmony and you at least have a chance to see which laws you want to support.

“Pray that it be done on Earth as it is in Heaven”, because the alternative is that it be done on Earth as it is in Hell and be blind to anything else - “I don’t see Heaven. It must be a myth and just a con-game”. Self-defeated = How can one strive to obtain what one believes does not exist to obtain?

The Law == What remains in Harmony CANNOT perish.

“Whosoever believeth in me, though shall die, shall live eternal.”

 

[fhansen]

I think you misunderstood my question on Earth what you said I’d agree with but if i said, you have to choose between, good, harmony, peace, and evil, disharmony and death, however if you pick evil disharmony and death, you will go to hell, it seems redundant, as well as influencing(more than just telling us why its bad to do) our decision regardless of weather its for a good reason.

I think the Catholic response is that we do just that, i.e. choose between the two. IOW, hell is a choice, a choice in the ultimate sense of rejecting love against my own selfish interests first and foremost. By willfully subjugating oneself to God we’re acknowledging Love as the highest good-and the right standard rather than ourselves or our desires as the standard for righteousness. All moral evil-or sin- in this world comes from man’s self-righteousness in action. Hell becomes a consequence-self chosen-rather than a direct punishment.

 

[fhansen]

I’m failing to see how the physical laws of the universe connect to law about how to live your life.

If the prophets gave guidelines on how to live a good life that fine, but there not there laws that have punishments, which don’t make seance since not choosing to obey them would only seem stupid, not evil.

From the Catholic perspective, the physical laws connect to the way we live our lives in that animate as well as inanimate things are created, each according to it’s kind. In the case of animate things, they are given natures which govern their behavior-sometimes referred to as the “natural law”. As humans we may like to think we’re all unique, and we are, but within a range of possibilities, but our similarities in most instances probably far out-range our differences. What this means is that, just like there’s a “dog nature” which prescribes that dogs will generally behave in certain manners, so is there a human nature.

With humans, however, due to free will, we have the possibility of behaving outside of our natures-actually deciding to be the “determiner” of our behavior-and, while this may seem like it could be innocuous enough, it’s responsible for the worst evils perpetrated by man. If the most heinous acts of man seem natural to you, then there must be no laws that pertain to man in the moral realm. But, if those acts appear unnatural to you-if evil comes off as something that should-not-be-then we’re faced with the prospect that man can disobey the laws of his own nature-that, as the doctrine of original sin postulates, man exists in an already potentially disobedient orientation, a state he can give free reign to or, alternatively, can reign in.

 

[I_Seek_2]

From the Catholic perspective, the physical laws connect to the way we live our lives in that animate as well as inanimate things are created, each according to it’s kind. In the case of animate things, they are given natures which govern their behavior-sometimes referred to as the “natural law”. As humans we may like to think we’re all unique, and we are, but within a range of possibilities, but our similarities in most instances probably far out-range our differences. What this means is that, just like there’s a “dog nature” which prescribes that dogs will generally behave in certain manners, so is there a human nature.

The animals are “Programed” to behave this way you’d say?

With humans, however, due to free will, we have the possibility of behaving outside of our natures-actually deciding to be the “determiner” of our behavior-and, while this may seem like it could be innocuous enough, it’s responsible for the worst evils perpetrated by man. If the most heinous acts of man seem natural to you, then there must be no laws that pertain to man in the moral realm. But, if those acts appear unnatural to you-if evil comes off as something that should-not-be-then we’re faced with the prospect that man can disobey the laws of his own nature-that, as the doctrine of original sin postulates, man exists in an already potentially disobedient orientation, a state he can give free reign to or, alternatively, can reign in.

Its not that I don’t like some of the acts, there are many acts that don’t think are good. But, The human mind being that it has free will, will always do what it wants to get what it wants. So if a person has the goal of world Domination then that person, will do whatever is necessary to obtain that goal (if they are determined to get it); so as far a actions go he is doing what everyone else is doing in that he is trying to obtain his goals, his actions therefore are what he would logically think to be “Natural” to achieve his goals. In other words he following human nature to achieve Goals, Relative to his perspective. The actions then would be natural it is the thought process that are “flawed” in some way.

Now here is my theory on evil:
I personally believe that there is no one on this earth the is inherently good or evil. We are all born the same, and we all have the same goal; to obtain happiness. The difference is circumstances that have shaped our life. In just the same was as the poor starving people in Africa can find happiness so can the rich class, middle class, and everyone in between. Happiness, then is not in the shape of materials or goods. Nor is it in the company of people. 1 hermits live happy lives if they choose to be hermits. 2 It is true that human company brightens your mood, it can also dampen your mood. In just the Same way when you kiss the girl of your dreams you go crazy with happiness, when you kiss your little sister its not the same. The difference in all of those situations is weather you think you are happy, weather you want to be happy, weather you believe your happy. If everyone in the world accepted this this, everyone would be happy. Where is the evil part you say. In the same way that the mind creates its own happiness, the mind can also achieve its goals, its sets, and in general the more determined a person is the more likely to achieve his goals. Now the men who are very determined people strive to achieve happiness, by the means the world tells them to: Material goods, or praise of their peers, and other means, but fail to find happiness, because that is of course not the way to happiness. They continue to gain more and more. In their determination to gain this materials they abandon anything the thought to be right, because it is a boundary to happiness they think. These are the people that would do anything to get what they want(this is not a bad trait, I’m just saying this is what happens) These would be considered “Evil” people.

 

[fhansen]

From the Catholic perspective, the physical laws connect to the way we live our lives in that animate as well as inanimate things are created, each according to it’s kind. In the case of animate things, they are given natures which govern their behavior-sometimes referred to as the “natural law”. As humans we may like to think we’re all unique, and we are, but within a range of possibilities, but our similarities in most instances probably far out-range our differences. What this means is that, just like there’s a “dog nature” which prescribes that dogs will generally behave in certain manners, so is there a human nature.

The animals are “Programed” to behave this way you’d say?

With humans, however, due to free will, we have the possibility of behaving outside of our natures-actually deciding to be the “determiner” of our behavior-and, while this may seem like it could be innocuous enough, it’s responsible for the worst evils perpetrated by man. If the most heinous acts of man seem natural to you, then there must be no laws that pertain to man in the moral realm. But, if those acts appear unnatural to you-if evil comes off as something that should-not-be-then we’re faced with the prospect that man can disobey the laws of his own nature-that, as the doctrine of original sin postulates, man exists in an already potentially disobedient orientation, a state he can give free reign to or, alternatively, can reign in.

Its not that I don’t like some of the acts, there are many acts that don’t think are good. But, The human mind being that it has free will, will always do what it wants to get what it wants. So if a person has the goal of world Domination then that person, will do whatever is necessary to obtain that goal (if they are determined to get it); so as far a actions go he is doing what everyone else is doing in that he is trying to obtain his goals, his actions therefore are what he would logically think to be “Natural” to achieve his goals. In other words he following human nature to achieve Goals, Relative to his perspective. The actions then would be natural it is the thought process that are “flawed” in some way.

Now here is my theory on evil:
I personally believe that there is no one on this earth the is inherently good or evil. We are all born the same, and we all have the same goal; to obtain happiness. The difference is circumstances that have shaped our life. In just the same was as the poor starving people in Africa can find happiness so can the rich class, middle class, and everyone in between. Happiness, then is not in the shape of materials or goods. Nor is it in the company of people. 1 hermits live happy lives if they choose to be hermits. 2 It is true that human company brightens your mood, it can also dampen your mood. In just the Same way when you kiss the girl of your dreams you go crazy with happiness, when you kiss your little sister its not the same. The difference in all of those situations is weather you think you are happy, weather you want to be happy, weather you believe your happy. If everyone in the world accepted this this, everyone would be happy. Where is the evil part you say.
The evil comes in when we use the same freedom to pursue whatever we think will make us happy by committing the rape of a child, for example. And the things we think will make us happy are only temporary anyway-we seek permanent happiness but can’t find that no matter where we look. The point of Christianity is that man needs God-only He can satisfy in the full and eternal sense-and everything else we pursue instead can become part of the educative process of coming to find this crucial fact out-by contrast. IOW, Adam & Eve pursued happiness outside the will of God. Mankind must come to see the error of this way if it’s to find happiness again.

 

[I_Seek_2]

Do you “see” the after life? Do you understand what it is all about? Or is it one of those things which you cannot see and thus are blind about, one of those many things in which one must have faith until sight is brought?

I go by what I was taught we ether end up in heaven or hell that’s it. Are there others that you know about?

Who said God’s laws are ONLY about “Earth”?

What I said was “Consequences on earth”, which bring me to another question i had, if an angel breaks God’s law, does he go to hell?

Your body will die, but does that mean that you will die? Must your spirit also die? Must your soul be forgotten and lost? Are these things which you can see clearly? Or must you have faith in someone of your choosing concerning these matters?

Heaven and Hell are the “Natural Consequences” (via God’s Law’s) of poor choices. They are not contrived so as to be punishment or reward. Do not place faith in whoever told you that, not even if it was yourself.

That begs the question why are their consequences **From God ** ( like hell) if it is not for punishment. If Gods Laws are the only way to peace and harmony why isn’t the consequences of disharmony and death(on earth), incentive enough for us? If we follow we get peace, if not earthly disharmony aren’t these the consequences? Why is there a need for an afterlife punishment?

Heaven is the eternal harmony wherein disharmony cannot exist. The laws concerning harmony both create it and maintain it. What remains in Harmony CANNOT perish.

Theoretically if one person(who has free will) decides not to cooperate the why can they?

Hell is the eternal disharmony wherein harmony cannot exist. The laws concerning disharmony both create it and maintain it. What remains in Disharmony can only know struggle and suffering.

Same question: theoretically if there is people( with free will) willing to cooperate, the why can’t they?

Your spirit can easily live beyond your body, but this is something that you cannot (yet) see. Which laws it supports causes the consequence of which realm it helps to create and maintain. Seeing in disharmony is far more difficult than seeing in harmony. Have faith in the laws of harmony and you at least have a chance to see which laws you want to support.

“Pray that it be done on Earth as it is in Heaven”, because the alternative is that it be done on Earth as it is in Hell and be blind to anything else - “I don’t see Heaven. It must be a myth and just a con-game”. Self-defeated = How can one strive to obtain what one believes does not exist to obtain?

The purple spaghetti monster would like a word with you, since you don’t think hes real . Your arguments for heaven and hell are best biased on why God does it, and not faith, because if so there’s not much to talk about, you believe what you believe and that is true for you, as it can be for any one that wants to do the same. There is always motivation to do things and eventually we can figure out what God wants.

The Law == What remains in Harmony CANNOT perish.

“Whosoever believeth in me, though shall die, shall live eternal.”

 

[I_Seek_2]

The evil comes in when we use the same freedom to pursue whatever we think will make us happy by committing the rape of a child, for example. And the things we think will make us happy are only temporary anyway-we seek permanent happiness but can’t find that no matter where we look. The point of Christianity is that man needs God-only He can satisfy in the full and eternal sense-and everything else we pursue instead can become part of the educative process of coming to find this crucial fact out-by contrast. IOW, Adam & Eve pursued happiness outside the will of God. Mankind must come to see the error of this way if it’s to find happiness again.

OK then how is it that the tribes of Africa, ans S. America(which have no belief in God), achieve happiness, can they for that matter? My thoughts are that Love is love no matter who is it, you agree/disagree?

 

[James_S_Saint]

I go by what I was taught we ether end up in heaven or hell that’s it. Are there others that you know about?

Yes, “what you were taught”, but by whom? The blind are leading the blind these days, in case you haven’t noticed. Politics and preferences have free reign to form the “Truth” into their own image. Your job is to learn how to discern what is rational, despite the fog and clouds.

What I said was “Consequences on earth”, which bring me to another question i had, if an angel breaks God’s law, does he go to hell?

How rational is it for you to concern yourself with the plight of Angels?

That begs the question why are their consequences From God ( like hell) if it is not for punishment. If Gods Laws are the only way to peace and harmony why isn’t the consequences of disharmony and death(on earth), incentive enough for us? If we follow we get peace, if not earthly disharmony aren’t these the consequences? Why is there a need for an afterlife punishment?

Did you ignore my post?

Why does gravity punish you when you fall out of an airplane? Wasn’t the dinner choice punishment enough?

Theoretically if one person(who has free will) decides not to cooperate the why can’t they?

If you are traveling along a one way road and come to a Tee where you must turn either right or left and you CLEARLY SEE that to the left there is a burning car off the side of the road and a police shootout going on with gang members and to the right, you SEE CLEARLY that the road heads through what looks to be a national forest park, which road would you decide to take?

If you wish to engage in the fun activities to the left, you are welcome to go that direction, but you will not be in the park. If you decide to go to the right, you are welcome to enjoy the park, but you will not be able to feel the smoke and heat and enjoy dodging the bullets.

You are free to make the decisions yourself, The only issue you have today is how CLEARLY You can SEE.

The purple spaghetti monster would like a word with you, since you don’t think hes real .

If I desired the “Purple Spaghetti Monster”, I would seek it until I wasn’t certain that I had a better option to seek. “Seek and ye shall find”, but don’t seek, and you certainly will not find.

Your arguments for heaven and hell are best biased on why God does it, and not faith, because if so there’s not much to talk about, you believe what you believe and that is true for you, as it can be for any one that wants to do the same. There is always motivation to do things and eventually we can figure out what God wants.

Is that your opinion of what is “true for you”? Are your eyes as clear as you think? Where did you get your opinions of “what is true”?

As I said, it is Your decision to find to whom to listen and if to listen at all.

 

[fhansen]

OK then how is it that the tribes of Africa, ans S. America(which have no belief in God), achieve happiness, can they for that matter? My thoughts are that Love is love no matter who is it, you agree/disagree?

I agree but I also think all human standards for happiness are way below the happiness God has in store for those who love as He desires us to-this is an unimaginable, eternally satisfying happiness. And by the same token I don’t believe we have much of a concept of Love either, as to its nature, the degree of its power and the affect it can ultimately have on us. The point is that the best that this world has to offer, including human love at its highest level, is vastly less than what God wants for us.

 

[I_Seek_2]

Yes, “what you were taught”, but by whom? The blind are leading the blind these days, in case you haven’t noticed. Politics and preferences have free reign to form the “Truth” into their own image. Your job is to learn how to discern what is rational, despite the fog and clouds.

I’m not saying I think it is true. But what then will happen in the afterlife in your opinion. I’m arguing the with assumption that it is believed that we ether end up in heaven or hell as the bible as well as the catholic church tells us.

How rational is it for you to concern yourself with the plight of Angels?

Did you ignore my post?

Why does gravity punish you when you fall out of an airplane? Wasn’t the dinner choice punishment enough?

Take it this way If I tell a child not to walk through a thorn bush and he does it anyway punishing him afterwords is redundant, if the child is smart he wont do it again, or he’ll find a way around it, if not well that his own fault for getting hurt.

And this probably bring us back to the beginning why have laws(and consequences) to govern how we live?

If you are traveling along a one way road and come to a Tee where you must turn either right or left and you CLEARLY SEE that to the left there is a burning car off the side of the road and a police shootout going on with gang members and to the right, you SEE CLEARLY that the road heads through what looks to be a national forest park, which road would you decide to take?

If you wish to engage in the fun activities to the left, you are welcome to go that direction, but you will not be in the park. If you decide to go to the right, you are welcome to enjoy the park, but you will not be able to feel the smoke and heat and enjoy dodging the bullets.

You are free to make the decisions yourself, The only issue you have today is how CLEARLY You can SEE.

I was referring to angels in this statement, so, then there can be disharmony in heaven, I know i know I’m nitpicking

If I desired the “Purple Spaghetti Monster”, I would seek it until I wasn’t certain that I had a better option to seek. “Seek and ye shall find”, but don’t seek, and you certainly will not find.

So would the purple spaghetti monitor exist if you were to seek it?

Is that your opinion of what is “true for you”? Are your eyes as clear as you think? Where did you get your opinions of “what is true”?

As I said, it is Your decision to find to whom to listen and if to listen at all.

Truth as in the same way a Buddhist, Muslim or Hindu, thinks his religion is the right one. One most likely, cannot convince him otherwise, since he believes it is true. If this is not the definition of truth then what is?

 

[James_S_Saint]

I’m not saying I think it is true. But what then will happen in the afterlife in your opinion. I’m arguing the with assumption that it is believed that we ether end up in heaven or hell as the bible as well as the catholic church tells us.

Don’t ignore the “Abyss” wherein you merely get totally dissolved and forgotten.

Take it this way If I tell a child not to walk through a thorn bush and he does it anyway punishing him afterwords is redundant, if the child is smart he wont do it again, or he’ll find a way around it, if not well that his own fault for getting hurt.

And this probably bring us back to the beginning why have laws(and consequences) to govern how we live?

You presume that you will always live to have a second chance. Do you let your child play in the street until he learns why he shouldn’t? You you let her sexually play until she discovers STD’s are real and child-birth is not a minor league game?

So would the purple spaghetti monitor exist if you were to seek it?

How would I know if I didn’t seek it?

Truth as in the same way a Buddhist, Muslim or Hindu, thinks his religion is the right one. One most likely, cannot convince him otherwise, since he believes it is true. If this is not the definition of truth then what is?

The “definition of Truth” is the mental image of Reality that accurately matches the state and behavior of Reality.

And yes, all of those “can be” convinced. It just isn’t an easy task. The ease of the task has nothing to do with the truth represented within (on either side).

As I keep telling you, it is YOUR job to discern who to believe and/or place your faith in. I recommend to place it in whoever brings sight so that from that point, you can then see without need of asking others. But even that is still your decision to make (until it is taken from you).

I have stated that afterlife concerns are not an issue of punishment but rather of predictable “natural consequence”, just like everything else you speak of. You keep to the notion that it is all about punishment. Why do you hold onto that thought when you can already see that it would not make sense? Why insist on what is obviously a mistaken thought often perpetuated by the blind leading the blind?

 

[I_Seek_2]

Don’t ignore the “Abyss” wherein you merely get totally dissolved and forgotten.

OK what are your thought about the after life?

You presume that you will always live to have a second chance. Do you let your child play in the street until he learns why he shouldn’t? You you let her sexually play until she discovers STD’s are real and child-birth is not a minor league game?

At what point do you let her make her own decisions? If it’s when she is responsible to make her own decisions that’s fine. But I would argue that there are some out there who aren’t responsible enough(agree/ disagree?) to handle those decisions, does that give us the right to parent them, where is the line drawn. Does God consider us children or adults?

How would I know if I didn’t seek it?

Shut up. Just because I didn’t see that doesn’t mean you have to rub it in my face But then doesn’t that mean anything could be true? So the question is then have you found?

The “definition of Truth” is the mental image of Reality that accurately matches the state and behavior of Reality.

And yes, all of those “can be” convinced. It just isn’t an easy task. The ease of the task has nothing to do with the truth represented within (on either side).

Yes however the person has to be willing to change or you will get no where. It is not you or your arguments that change there truth it is to them, its them believing your arguments that change their truth.

As I keep telling you, it is YOUR job to discern who to believe and/or place your faith in. I recommend to place it in whoever brings sight so that from that point, you can then see without need of asking others. But even that is still your decision to make (until it is taken from you).

I have stated that afterlife concerns are not an issue of punishment but rather of predictable “natural consequence”, just like everything else you speak of. You keep to the notion that it is all about punishment. Why do you hold onto that thought when you can already see that it would not make sense? Why insist on what is obviously a mistaken thought often perpetuated by the blind leading the blind?

Yes I see what your saying which brings us back to my original point why have those laws that govern our lives at all. My thought is get rid of the law and consequence since it seems to have little purpose. Which is why I asked what is there purpose. Some have said to keep order in society, some to have society live a better life and so on, I argue that we have the free will to make that decision for our self.

 

[fhansen]

Yes I see what your saying which brings us back to my original point why have those laws that govern our lives at all. My thought is get rid of the law and consequence since it seems to have little purpose. Which is why I asked what is there purpose. Some have said to keep order in society, some to have society live a better life and so on, I argue that we have the free will to make that decision for our self.

According to Catholic teaching, free will is what got man into the mess he’s in to begin with-a world of pain suffering, death, war, strife, egos in conflict. Free will itself is a good, with which we can freely choose the good-but the abuse of it leads to evil-because with it we can also choose the bad.

Jewish scripture says that man, early in his history, sinned-behaving without regard for the good of another- with unrestrained frequency. The Law was given to show man how he was to behave, i.e. what is truly natural for him if he were to behave as he was created to. The very fact that we might need something like this to tell us that it’s wrong (read out-of-character), to kill another, for example, can tell us something about ourselves-that man may be existing in a state where he takes many committed evils to be natural when in fact they’re not. IOW, he’s cut off in some capacity from his own nature-free to determine right and wrong for himself without necessarily knowing what’s right and wrong for himself.

New Testament scripture goes on to tell us that, even though the law was correct, it’s purpose was instructive, to demonstrate that man could not live up to it as he should-by revealing the reality of sin along with mans weakness in failing to overcome it.

The answer is simply that man needs God. Man never could refrain from giving into his own selfish motives without God’s help. And, seeking to live without God is basically what Adam & Eve did. What the New Covenant promises is to restore man to the heights from which he fell, after, hopefully, being schooled during this life as to what he’s missing out on by his exile from God. So the writer of Hebrews, in chapters 8 & 10, quotes the prophet Jeremiah from the Old Testament, regarding this New Covenant:

15The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:
16"This is the covenant I will make with them
after that time, says the Lord.
I will put my laws in their hearts,
and I will write them on their minds."

God, alone, can cause man to be true to himself.

 

[I_Seek_2]

According to Catholic teaching, free will is what got man into the mess he’s in to begin with-a world of pain suffering, death, war, strife, egos in conflict. Free will itself is a good, with which we can freely choose the good-but the abuse of it leads to evil-because with it we can also choose the bad.

Jewish scripture says that man, early in his history, sinned-behaving without regard for the good of another- with unrestrained frequency. The Law was given to show man how he was to behave, i.e. what is truly natural for him if he were to behave as he was created to. The very fact that we might need something like this to tell us that it’s wrong (read out-of-character), to kill another, for example, can tell us something about ourselves-that man may be existing in a state where he takes many committed evils to be natural when in fact they’re not. IOW, he’s cut off in some capacity from his own nature-free to determine right and wrong for himself without necessarily knowing what’s right and wrong for himself.

New Testament scripture goes on to tell us that, even though the law was correct, it’s purpose was instructive, to demonstrate that man could not live up to it as he should-by revealing the reality of sin along with mans weakness in failing to overcome it.

The answer is simply that man needs God. Man never could refrain from giving into his own selfish motives without God’s help. And, seeking to live without God is basically what Adam & Eve did. What the New Covenant promises is to restore man to the heights from which he fell, after, hopefully, being schooled during this life as to what he’s missing out on by his exile from God. So the writer of Hebrews, in chapters 8 & 10, quotes the prophet Jeremiah from the Old Testament, regarding this New Covenant:

15The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:
16"This is the covenant I will make with them
after that time, says the Lord.
I will put my laws in their hearts,
and I will write them on their minds."

God, alone, can cause man to be true to himself.

OK there are too many assumptions going on, lets start with defining some things:

What is natural for man?
What is our purpose? (since we have free will I argue we have none but what we make it)

People can refrain from things like addictions without God( Can an atheist overcome addictions?)
Since we are in a physical world what does it matter what we do in this physical world. Why does it matter if the physical universe becomes chaotic?

 

[fhansen]

OK there are too many assumptions going on, lets start with defining some things:

What is natural for man?

There are probably many things we’d agree on when answering that question. It’s natural for man to love pleasure, to work and find enjoyment in it (well, we might disagree on that one), to enjoy friendship, be attracted to members of the opposite gender, care about their appearance, experience shame, fall in love, feel angst and sorrow, appreciate the beauty of art, music, nature, enjoy some form of recreation/hobby, have the ability-and at least to some extent, a love- to learn in at least one area or another.

While we’d agree on most of these general similarities, if we were to try to explain them, say, to a hypothetical alien who’s observing and attempting to understand human nature for his own research, many of these qualities would be quite difficult to convey-because he wouldn’t necessarily be able to identify with them-they’re parts of *our *nature. And since we’re undeniably similar in many areas, wouldn’t we expect to be similar in other aspects of our lives as well-say in our morality?

Perhaps because we cherish our freedom to be self-determining as individuals, we may have a tendency to deny the existence of an objective morality that would pertain to us all, but wouldn’t you think that we’re probably ultimately similar in that area as well? Most of us are innately averse to murder-but while we’re aware that any of us could commit this act we’re unsure if the people who actually do so are acting in an unnatural manner or not. The Law-Gods commandments-constitute a proclamation that murder, for one (not mentioning other things like adultery, theft, lying, etc), is unnatural for man, i.e. it goes against our nature. Either this law is an arbitrary command to inhibit us from committing an act that might truly be consonant with our nature or it’s a command that does align with the true nature of man- indirectly pointing out the fact that man, for some reason, must be uncertain *himself *about the “program” designed for his own nature-or if there even is a program, i.e., “natural law” for him in this particular area.

What is our purpose? (since we have free will I argue we have none but what we make it)

Well, we can freely choose life or death, good or evil, love or sin. We can perceive a road that leads to order in the universe-peace, love, happiness-or we can opt for the quasi misery this world settles for. Faith makes out a dim light shining far off and gropes towards it. A lack of faith generally becomes more cynical over time- expecting nothing better-and so lives with little hope-which is a necessary part of mans peace and potential for integrity. Catholicism claims to give reason-substantiation-for this hope, so we can be, well, much more hopeful and less cynical as a rule.

People can refrain from things like addictions without God( Can an atheist overcome addictions?)
Since we are in a physical world what does it matter what we do in this physical world. Why does it matter if the physical universe becomes chaotic?

Maybe that’s the point. If we choose chaos then we get what we want-and maybe we think we’ll be we’re better off with it for one reason or another. But in any case I see much more evidence of chaos in mankind’s world- due to it’s existence in his moral decision making process - than I see in the animal world or the physical universe and this stands as a testimony to mankind’s failure-and his needfulness- in that respect, IMO. Maybe there is no ultimate order-and no ultimate justice for disordered actions, i.e. sin. But I bet otherwise.