So now I exist......

[AndyF]

…So tell me again why I should be greatful for existing?

Perhaps I was happier as a cloud of quirks and strings.

Simply out of the desire of a superior being I come from neutral comfortable nothingness “to be”, only to be confronted with some realities, that I am “being” forever, that if I don’t conform and show appreciation I will be made uncomfortable forever. There is never a condition where one can oppose, worse, that every disagreement is a measure of unappreciation, and that everything is taken personally and that a state of paranoia is the norm in this environment. I discover that mistrust of me is OK, but I cannot mistrust my creator, and that I am to make that grand leap and accept him has my Father.

I discover that stigmatization doesn’t prevent the creator from creating more of us. One of my first questions is why beings are created when the first act the creator will do is a negative one against him, but I catch myself increasingly becoming aware of what “self preservation” is. Based simply on what I am learning, this environement is a dangerous one. I am tempted to suggest as a more satisfying experiment a re-design and chock this up has a bad one, at least he wouldn’t need to go to the trouble of stigmatizing them on creation. I wonder if he’s trying to make this mistake work at the being’s expense.

Continuing my objective study of my new environment, I discover spiritual class beings who in a better position to realize the result of the actions and offend the creator, fair better when sentenced. I discover that I am to strive for perfection when save for 2 people out 2± trillion (and still counting) who were deliberately made that way, have never attained it. Those odds are supposed to instill hope and inspire me. I discover my kind is already stigmatized, showing me I enter in the midst of a battle ground and environment of opposing forces and an aire of hostility, definitely not the peace of non-existance.

The superior being claims the right to cause aware beings to be, that he can reach in that pool of nothingness parts box and make us. Since no judicial system exists, it is just as invalid as valid that that claim is justified. The very fact that he can “claim” supposes a pre-existing justice or code to abide by, when there is none. All created beings can claim on that same precept or lack thereof, that they have a right not to exist. The rights should come from a precept that ALL being abide by.

So I think these are the key points. Of course I find life interesting but I wonder about the value of it. It seems it should have value outside of the what is right and wrong. I think there are issues that are unjust based on things that have nothing to do with de/merit. As I already mentioned, spiritual beings should not be favored over material beings if they prove they can offend just as the material can. Most importantly for the sake of appearance, (if anyone really cared), added culpability should exist because of their favored position, not the reverse.

Another is black box justice. There is never any consideration how we may feel about having justice hidden from us, never any consideration of anxiety it may cause. Why not have the result of celestial trials revealed to us.? If we would discover just what was told to us, what harm would it do to reveal it.? What is it to bend to triviality just once, as a true “Father” would for his children.

He makes that claim remember, yet another claim?

MMMmmm, non existance seems like the better option.

AndyF

 

[Ahimsa]

.

MMMmmm, non existance seems like the better option.

Face it, dude. You’re stuck. No non-existence for you.

 

[water]

Face it, dude. You’re stuck. No non-existence for you.

the only way to deal with non-existence is non-existence itself.
For us to be existing is a great gift from God. Do not deny His gift.

When we have down time with many obstacles, we wish we were not born. On the other hand, when everything goes smoothly to our lives, we want to enjoy every second of it.

The ultimate gift to us is the eternal life. We are getting there someday soon. Just be patient!

 

[AndyF]

Face it, dude. You’re stuck. No non-existence for you.

!!

AndyF

 

[LilyM]

A cloud of quarks (not quirks) and strings has no existence, sure, but it also has no existence in HEAVEN! For ETERNITY! Happy forever with GOD!

It is for this chance that God deserves our eternal gratitude.

 

[jmcrae]

We will never have equal rights with God.

God has the same rights over us as I (I’m an artist) have over my paintings. If they don’t turn out the way I like, I slash them, cover them over, burn them, or throw them in the garbage. The ones that work out the way I want get to live in golden frames on nice walls in nice houses.

So, I guess we’d better turn out the way that God likes.

I think we are the only created things in existence that actually have a choice in how we will turn out. I consider that to be absolutely amazing.

 

[AndyF]

A cloud of quarks (not quirks) and strings has no existence, sure, but it also has no existence in HEAVEN! For ETERNITY! Happy forever with GOD!.

Neither do they know they are not happy.

AndyF

 

[LilyM]

Neither do they know they are not happy.

AndyF

Of course you’d rather be not happy and not know it than have the chance for happiness and know you could stuff it up. It’s human nature, it’s also a bit cowardly.

In any event, the choice to exist isn’t yours to make. You can deal constructively with the fact that you exist and the great opportunities existence gives you, or not.

 

[AndyF]

LilyM:

The statement I made was true, and you expressed your dislike of this, fine.

It’s human nature, it’s also a bit cowardly.

Ad Hominem. But if you wished you could still counter my argument based on reasoning and logic.

No the treatment of the new being in this manner would be insensitive. In fact the treatment would be similar one would give to an object, not to one that has feelings.

AndyF

 

[Mintaka]

You can’t ask someone if they’d like to exist, until they exist. And only things are not made in the likeness of God, so only things can non-exist. So yeah, we’re stuck. But it’s a good stuck. We’re co-heirs with God! We are going to live forever and do awesome things and be like God!

Of course, you could look at it the other way 'round. Compared to the Supreme Being, you exist so little (of yourself) that it’s like you don’t exist. (Everything in you that is true and really exists is really something that belongs to God and is from and part of God.)

So, like St. Catherine of Siena, you can happily, and as a very strong personality who does lots of cool things, refer to yourself as “she who is not”!

 

[AndyF]

God has the same rights over us as I (I’m an artist) have over my paintings. If they don’t turn out the way I like, I slash them, cover them over, burn them, or throw them in the garbage. The ones that work out the way I want get to live in golden frames on nice walls in nice houses.

So, I guess we’d better turn out the way that God likes.

Today we deal with inanimate objects, tomorrow God willing, self aware cyborgs capable of reasoning,feeling and intellect. How we will treat them? Will they have rights? Will they have rights equal to ours.?

One day this issue may very well become a reality. The “Datas” of tomorrow will also question why certain decisions were made.
(FWIW: For the Starttrek buffs, I think there was one episode covering this issue.)

There is evidence of the value of non-existance, and it is in the positive. Jesus made reference to the betrayer “better to not have been born”, so it is correct to say that non-existance is better than hell, and to me it makes it a candidate for a destination.

I think we are the only created things in existence that actually have a choice in how we will turn out.

No, there was a supreme choice made that called for no choice by you first, and you not having form as yet but still unaware were reprobated prior to being conceived. (for the sake of argument of course.) I think you are forgetting that it is not only from merit you will attain the elusive perfection, but from grace. That means in the grace end of things, you right out the womb were set back a few more notches from your brother, and that has nothing to do with your predictable performance.

Still it breaches no unreasonable law to allow for choice of existance. Some will accept and some won’t like the odds. There is no good or evil playing out at this point in time in this selection room, only out the door in the test environment.

Wouldn’t it be more just to having someone receive punishment for having chosen the dark after knowing the odds and opting for existance?

AndyF

 

[mark_a]

…So tell me again why I should be greatful for existing?

Perhaps I was happier as a cloud of quirks and strings.

Simply out of the desire of a superior being I come from neutral comfortable nothingness “to be”, only to be confronted with some realities, that I am “being” forever, that if I don’t conform and show appreciation I will be made uncomfortable forever. There is never a condition where one can oppose, worse, that every disagreement is a measure of unappreciation, and that everything is taken personally and that a state of paranoia is the norm in this environment. I discover that mistrust of me is OK, but I cannot mistrust my creator, and that I am to make that grand leap and accept him has my Father.

I discover that stigmatization doesn’t prevent the creator from creating more of us. One of my first questions is why beings are created when the first act the creator will do is a negative one against him, but I catch myself increasingly becoming aware of what “self preservation” is. Based simply on what I am learning, this environement is a dangerous one. I am tempted to suggest as a more satisfying experiment a re-design and chock this up has a bad one, at least he wouldn’t need to go to the trouble of stigmatizing them on creation. I wonder if he’s trying to make this mistake work at the being’s expense.

Continuing my objective study of my new environment, I discover spiritual class beings who in a better position to realize the result of the actions and offend the creator, fair better when sentenced. I discover that I am to strive for perfection when save for 2 people out 2± trillion (and still counting) who were deliberately made that way, have never attained it. Those odds are supposed to instill hope and inspire me. I discover my kind is already stigmatized, showing me I enter in the midst of a battle ground and environment of opposing forces and an aire of hostility, definitely not the peace of non-existance.

The superior being claims the right to cause aware beings to be, that he can reach in that pool of nothingness parts box and make us. Since no judicial system exists, it is just as invalid as valid that that claim is justified. The very fact that he can “claim” supposes a pre-existing justice or code to abide by, when there is none. All created beings can claim on that same precept or lack thereof, that they have a right not to exist. The rights should come from a precept that ALL being abide by.

So I think these are the key points. Of course I find life interesting but I wonder about the value of it. It seems it should have value outside of the what is right and wrong. I think there are issues that are unjust based on things that have nothing to do with de/merit. As I already mentioned, spiritual beings should not be favored over material beings if they prove they can offend just as the material can. Most importantly for the sake of appearance, (if anyone really cared), added culpability should exist because of their favored position, not the reverse.

Another is black box justice. There is never any consideration how we may feel about having justice hidden from us, never any consideration of anxiety it may cause. Why not have the result of celestial trials revealed to us.? If we would discover just what was told to us, what harm would it do to reveal it.? What is it to bend to triviality just once, as a true “Father” would for his children.

He makes that claim remember, yet another claim?

MMMmmm, non existance seems like the better option.

AndyF

You can join the JWs. If you live ia sinful life from that point, at least your soul will be destroyed instead of tormented.

The thing is, all these questions were asked thousands of years ago, and answered thousands of years ago. You are not alone.

 

[AndyF]

Mintaka:

Thanks.

(A state of existance that suits the temporary purpose of pending choice whatever that would be.)

AndyF

 

[AndyF]

mark:

Interesting.

The thing is, all these questions were asked thousands of years ago, and answered thousands of years ago.

That’s what I keep saying.

AndyF

 

[aboverubies]

There is evidence of the value of non-existance, and it is in the positive. Jesus made reference to the betrayer “better to not have been born”, so it is correct to say that non-existance is better than hell, and to me it makes it a candidate for a destination.

Is non-existence a candidate for a destination? I thought it was merely a beginning.

 

[Greg27]

…So tell me again why I should be greatful for existing?

Perhaps I was happier as a cloud of quirks and strings.

Simply out of the desire of a superior being I come from neutral comfortable nothingness “to be”, only to be confronted with some realities, that I am “being” forever, that if I don’t conform and show appreciation I will be made uncomfortable forever. There is never a condition where one can oppose, worse, that every disagreement is a measure of unappreciation, and that everything is taken personally and that a state of paranoia is the norm in this environment. I discover that mistrust of me is OK, but I cannot mistrust my creator, and that I am to make that grand leap and accept him has my Father.

The superior being claims the right to cause aware beings to be, that he can reach in that pool of nothingness parts box and make us. Since no judicial system exists, it is just as invalid as valid that that claim is justified. The very fact that he can “claim” supposes a pre-existing justice or code to abide by, when there is none. All created beings can claim on that same precept or lack thereof, that they have a right not to exist. The rights should come from a precept that ALL being abide by.

So I think these are the key points. Of course I find life interesting but I wonder about the value of it. It seems it should have value outside of the what is right and wrong. I think there are issues that are unjust based on things that have nothing to do with de/merit. As I already mentioned, spiritual beings should not be favored over material beings if they prove they can offend just as the material can. Most importantly for the sake of appearance, (if anyone really cared), added culpability should exist because of their favored position, not the reverse.

Another is black box justice. There is never any consideration how we may feel about having justice hidden from us, never any consideration of anxiety it may cause. Why not have the result of celestial trials revealed to us.? If we would discover just what was told to us, what harm would it do to reveal it.? What is it to bend to triviality just once, as a true “Father” would for his children.

He makes that claim remember, yet another claim?

MMMmmm, non existance seems like the better option.

AndyF

I am not quite sure what point you are trying to get at here, but you seem to argue that it would have been better not to exist at all, because you seem to think you are predestined to a fate you have no control over.

I’ve had similar problems with myself. I’ve found a lot of the time my religious feelings are like those of Pascal, the famous Jansenist. Mankind seems to be a tiny particle suspended, almost arbitarily, on a tiny knife edge between infinity and nothingness. If man is so weak in his nature, how can he possibly be saved? Is, like John Edward says in one of his sermons, the sinner like a spider in the eyes of God, hanging by a thread over an inferno, and just waiting for the thread to snap?

Jansenist theologians believed one was predestined either to perdition or salvation and there was no assurance of salvation, no matter what one did or how many times you participated in the sacraments. Jansenists even discouraged people from having regular communion.

I guess this comes down to our ‘model’ of God; do we see God as the angry judge, waiting and willing to sentence us to perdition for sin, to exact infinite reparation for the infinite offence to his majesty for sin? Do we see God as infinite love and mercy?

St Anselm tended to see God’s majesty and beauty in terms of his pure justice, while St Gregory of Nyssa saw God in terms of his overbounding love and compassion. A lot of Catholics here seem to obssess a huge amount over sin and hell to the point where I don’t see God mentioned much; the obsession is what we are saved from, but not what we are saved for.

In a way God’s majesty is shown in his infinite justice, but it is also shown through his love and mercy. If we curse our existence and prefer to not have exist, then we contradict the will of the creator who has brought all of us and the cosmos into being, and St Iranaeus said the glory of God is a human being truely alive. In my view life-hating sorrow at existence and self-hatred is a fairly serious theological and philosophical error, and no doubt the sort of Christianity atheists like Nietzsche quite rightly criticised (along with lukewarm sentimentalism).

 

[aboverubies]

A lot of Catholics here seem to obssess a huge amount over sin and hell to the point where I don’t see God mentioned much; the obsession is what we are saved from, but not what we are saved for.

Perhaps rather than “obsessing” we are all merely trying to work out our salvation with fear and trembling. When I make an act of contrition I say “O my God I am heartily sorry for having offended Thee, and I detest all my sins because I dread the loss of *heaven *and fear the pains of hell.” The two go hand in hand do they not? The topics of sin and hell are discussed so frequently not to the exclusion of God but because of the love of God.

 

[AndyF]

Is non-existence a candidate for a destination? I thought it was merely a beginning.

My point is there is a place for non-existance. If God can do anything, the same mechanism that brings a person in to existance could place him out of it. On a rating scale from best to worse, none existance ranks just below temporary purgatory, ie: heaven,purgatory(temp),non-existance, hell.

 

[batteddy]

My point is there is a place for non-existance. If God can do anything, the same mechanism that brings a person in to existance could place him out of it. On a rating scale from best to worse, none existance ranks just below temporary purgatory, ie: heaven,purgatory(temp),non-existance, hell.

And where is earth, our current life now? I’d say it is at roughly the same level as a temporary purgatory. So better than non-existence.

Trust me, I’ve thought of all this before. It does seem unfair that we are playing in a game we never agreed to and if we lose have to suffer forever. I’ve thought, “it would make more sense if we signed a contract first…then if we broke it, of course we could be punished.” And there is some argument that baptismal promises (even made by proxies) are a contract, and that if we break them, forfeiting heaven makes sense. But I’ve thought, “But even for the non-baptized who agreed to nothing…hell still comes from sin. Why are we being punished for failing at a task we never volunteered for?”

Shouldnt we be able to choose baptism as adults and, knowing the risks, agree to set the stakes as Heaven if we win, but Hell if we lose? But then also have the option of not betting, of living a life of pleasure mixed with pain and then dying into nothing? But that’s a terribly disordered view of it. Life is not a wager, and heaven is not some prize won by gambling with our souls.

You don’t have to agree to the laws of this country. If you break them, you will be punished. Sure you can leave…but might not find anywhere better. You are not the master of your own existence, you are not your owner. From the start, your maker had Title to you. You could never have given it to him or contracted it to him…because it was never yours to give or contract in the first place.

And how would we opt out? Would God create us and say, “Do you want to keep existing and agree to these rules?” But then if we said no…“we” wouldn’t non-exist, because non-existance is not an action and there would be no “we” to do it. So God would be able to recreate a new replica of us (but who, due to the gap in continuity existence, wouldn’t technically be identified with the formerly existing Self) and ask that version if it wanted to exist, and eventually one would be bound to say yes.

And so also…how do you know God doesn’t ask us? I’m not arguing for the pre-existence of souls…but in your worldview how do you know he didn’t ask you and then wipe your memory once you agreed? It’s not part of the Catholic faith, but why doesnt the possibility occur to you?

But we don’t believe God needs our agreement for anything…it’s well within his rights to give and take as he pleases…and if he wants to make us run in a race where the prize is salvation from eternal suffering…he very well may, even if we don’t agree.

But, if you do make it to heaven…it will have all been worth it. So you’re stuck. Big deal, we all are. Whining about it does nothing now. The only way to have made it all worth while, the only way to make it so that in the end it was worth bothering to get up in the morning…is to get to heaven. Then your birth will have been worth it. Otherwise, if one is sure they’re going to sin anyway and not make it to heaven…might as well kill oneself now and go to hell. Of course, no one can be sure where they’re going until they do, many things can change over time, so I don’t really advocate suicide or despair for anyone, obviously.

The greatest theodicy is the Cross. God suffered, God died. If he did that…we no longer have anything on him. We can no longer grumble, no longer complain.

The word “mystery” ultimately has an etymology related to something like “hand over mouth.” It was used to express the secret rites of the Greek “mystery” cults which by oath could not be revealed. Originally referring to this sort of “gag order,” mysterion came to be expanded to all the ineffable, the unspeakable, “that which takes one’s voice away”. And the Cross is the greatest “mystery” of them all, because it really shuts us up. There is no arguing before the Cross.

Today we deal with inanimate objects, tomorrow God willing, self aware cyborgs capable of reasoning,feeling and intellect. How we will treat them? Will they have rights? Will they have rights equal to ours.?

No, we won’t. We may have cyborgs that are very smart and, based on a cognition that replicates the human brain, they may simulate perfectly the material behaviour we associate with self-awareness. But they wont have souls, won’t have rational spirits, and so wont really be conscious. They wont experience qualia. They’ll just be p-zombies.

 

[AndyF]

I am not quite sure what point you are trying to get at here, but you seem to argue that it would have been better not to exist at all, because you seem to think you are predestined to a fate you have no control over.

You can categorize in an ist to your heart’s content and I have read most of them, but in this hypothesis which is self evident, I place myself has subject for convenience, but I could speak for anyone who came into being. Regardless of what they are destined for, some may feel the odds themselves as presented may not be reasonable.

I hate to being the bearer of bad news, but it is doctrine that some had no control of the fact that they have been reprobated prior to existance, in modern day terms it is a politically correct way of saying black listed. Some things are under man’s control, but a lot has to do to whether his being is wanted in the first place. This is what he is not told at his creation.

Man has control to a certain point. That we know bares out statistically. I will even venture a probable based on it. Any person on this forum will never attain perfection in this exile, unless he is destined to be the first in the trillionth in 3 billion years of earth’s life.

In a way God’s majesty is shown in his infinite justice, but it is also shown through his love and mercy. If we curse our existence and prefer to not have exist, then we contradict the will of the creator who has brought all of us and the cosmos into being, and St Iranaeus said the glory of God is a human being truely alive…

“shown?”.

That places little worth to love and mercy. The facts are sinful nations are handled with a different set of standards that sinful man will ever be, proving sinful nations are loved more than less sinful individuals. It is a fact verified through evidence “shown” by the Blessed Mother that the entity called nation does not suffer collectively in the form it has chosen to sin. God loves and is merciful but not by any consistant standard that is evidentiary. So you cannot say it is “shown”, and here is the reference to the black box mentioned earlier. You are wishful thinking. God’s justice is open to speculation, until we know why groups find favor over individuals in cases regarding sins of equal kind and similar circumstances and factors. This is not to say we don’t give benefit of the doubt, but that is as far as it could go. I presume this is why children are shown evidence of hell. The “how comes” would be more likely in adults.

Again, no one is saying they curse existance, only that non-existance could be an option that does not disturb any Devine rule, other than a voluntary incovenience of God. But then that is a possible too you claim has he is a “human” “Father” also. If it is an option then it is by the will of God. And as far as contradiction, man has his choices, either joining those warriors who prefer the show of bravado at the front lines battle when behind the scenes they act in contradiction. Which proves the better friend only God can tell.

In my view life-hating sorrow at existence and self-hatred is a fairly serious theological and philosophical error, and no doubt the sort of Christianity atheists like Nietzsche quite rightly criticised (along with lukewarm sentimentalism).

Atheists submitting theological material that has value.?

AndyF