We cannot be created since consciousness is irreducible and primary

[Nixbits]

John Martin:

The fig tree is perfectly appropriate.

I’m still not convinced. It was not the fig tree’s fault that it had no fruit. There was nothing that the fig tree could have done to avoid God’s judgement. This allegory seems to suggest predestination, rather than teaching us to strive to fulfil God’s plan for us.

If the allegory is so open to widely disparate interpretations, is it fair to say it’s a good allegory?

 

[John_Martin]

I’m still not convinced. It was not the fig tree’s fault that it had no fruit. There was nothing that the fig tree could have done to avoid God’s judgement. This allegory seems to suggest predestination, rather than teaching us to strive to fulfil God’s plan for us.

If the allegory is so open to widely disparate interpretations, is it fair to say it’s a good allegory?

According to the ideal nature of a fig tree it produces figs, no free will, but if it does not do what an ideal fig tree does it is thrown out to be burned. Sometimes the nurturing makes up for missing nutrients, and there is fruit, and the tree remains with the owner.

According to nature, a human with free will and grace from God (the farmer nurturing) it is designed to and it can love God and with free will do good works (fruits). But if it does not do these good works, it is thrown into the fire. Sometimes there are fruits chosen freely, there is love for God, and the person remains with the owner (God) forever.

It is a parallel, no predestination.

 

[Tomdstone]

It was not the fig tree’s fault that it had no fruit.

Rather than cursing a tree that does not bear tangible fruit, would it not be better to try to nurse it back to health so that with proper care and feeding it might be able to spring back?

 

[John_Martin]

Rather than cursing a tree that does not bear tangible fruit, would it not be better to try to nurse it back to health so that with proper care and feeding it might be able to spring back?

If you look at the original post, you will see it was nursed by the gardener.
And, if you think about it, Jesus himself, the Son of Man, is the owner of the vineyard, even the whole earth, and when he comes to the fig tree and finds that the gardener over the life of the tree has not gotten it to bear figs by his nursing before Jesus arrived, Jesus curses it.
This wasn’t a parable when he cursed it. He is God in the flesh requiring the fruit right at that moment of his appearance by the tree.

Now you have your free will, to love God or not, to do his will or not. But when he comes by, he will look for what he calls good fruit, not what you or I call good fruit. And it will be that quick as with the fig tree. You will not be able to argue that your consciousness is eternal and not reducible or anything. Does he see what he considers good fruit. Yes or no.

 

[Tomdstone]

If you look at the original post, you will see it was nursed by the gardener.
And, if you think about it, Jesus himself, the Son of Man, is the owner of the vineyard, even the whole earth, and when he comes to the fig tree and finds that the gardener over the life of the tree has not gotten it to bear figs by his nursing before Jesus arrived, Jesus curses it.
This wasn’t a parable when he cursed it. He is God in the flesh requiring the fruit right at that moment of his appearance by the tree.

Now you have your free will, to love God or not, to do his will or not. But when he comes by, he will look for what he calls good fruit, not what you or I call good fruit. And it will be that quick as with the fig tree. You will not be able to argue that your consciousness is eternal and not reducible or anything. Does he see what he considers good fruit. Yes or no.

I don’t have a fig tree, but I (the family really) have a lemon tree. It was a bit sickly for a while and our family nursed it with organic fertiliser. It came back later and is now giving a lot of lemons. Should we have cursed this lemon tree instead of nursing it back to health?

 

[seagal]

I don’t have a fig tree, but I (the family really) have a lemon tree. It was a bit sickly for a while and our family nursed it with organic fertiliser. It came back later and is now giving a lot of lemons. Should we have cursed this lemon tree instead of nursing it back to health?

It’s only a tree. There is no moral injunction for you to try to save a plant.

Jesus used the fig tree as a teaching moment for his disciples. Some scholars have noted that even though fig trees shouldn’t have produced fruit at that time, the tree had leaves. Fig leaves usually appear at the same time as the fruit, not before. Perhaps Jesus was illustrating what happens to people (or more specifically, the Jews) who should have been producing spiritual fruit but weren’t. I’m not going to go into an analysis of this passage, you can find any number by googling " Mark 11:13 commentary"

This thread has gone majorly off the rails.

 

[tonyrey]

How can the universe itself ‘yearn’ for anything? Could it not be the case that the universe is just a collection of material with no intelligence of its own?

Then how did intelligence and consciousness originate?

 

[John_Martin]

Originally Posted by Nixbits View Post
How can the universe itself ‘yearn’ for anything? Could it not be the case that the universe is just a collection of material with no intelligence of its own?

From God, of course.
Unless you are trying to bring this thread “back on the rails” to guide us into Bahman’s goal with him in knowing ourselves as joined participation in individual (or shared) eternal consciousnesses, who intermittently join to a body at its birth and gain experiential (name removed by moderator)ut to know we experienced it, then flow back into the universe when that body died, only to join another body on this planet or anywhere in the universe, constantly repeating the experience of that material body, and repeat again eternally. Our purpose as conscious humans knowing about this eternal consciousness that joined to us is to give it all the experiences it can handle while we live to satisfy its temporal yet everlasting hunger for experience after experience upon experience forever and ever.
Has that sufficiently brought it back to Bahman’s train track? Are we all ready to jump on?

 

[wittgenstein]

1. Correct, no consciousness as you know it now when you write your replies, or think about what you read - gone - there will be no comparing and contrasting to reach conclusions, which is an activity of the soul / body composite being, and as an activity it is moved by the will as informed by the intellect, therefore caused, and therefore reducible or corruptible. Since consciousness is an activity of a composite being, not being itself, it is not simple, and therefore reducible.

We are unconscious for eternity after death? That means that you believe that there is no afterlife.

 

[Bahman]

From God, of course.
Unless you are trying to bring this thread “back on the rails” to guide us into Bahman’s goal with him in knowing ourselves as joined participation in individual (or shared) eternal consciousnesses, who intermittently join to a body at its birth and gain experiential (name removed by moderator)ut to know we experienced it, then flow back into the universe when that body died, only to join another body on this planet or anywhere in the universe, constantly repeating the experience of that material body, and repeat again eternally. Our purpose as conscious humans knowing about this eternal consciousness that joined to us is to give it all the experiences it can handle while we live to satisfy its temporal yet everlasting hunger for experience after experience upon experience forever and ever.
Has that sufficiently brought it back to Bahman’s train track? Are we all ready to jump on?

First, I did already comment on death. It is not clear that life is a simple cycle of birth and death from my argument.

Second, the truth should be more valuable to us than fake promises hence life is interesting even if its only purpose is to serve awareness in a simple cycle of birth and death.

Third, it is clear that Christianity and other similar religions does not provide a clear picture of death. Resurrection, if it is true, is a simple recreation of the dead person since identity is gone upon death. So that is God duty to reprogram your new body after granting and uniting it to your soul. What soul grant upon death? Nothing. Who you are after resurrection? A completely new person. Does that make you really happy?

Forth, to me there could be an option of entering to the world of dream after death and life could grow and last forever from there.

 

[John_Martin]

We are unconscious for eternity after death? That means that you believe that there is no afterlife.

We do not have the consciousness that you experience in your brain right now. The soul, the intellect, cannot do any of the reasoning that makes use of the brain. It does know with its own consciousness in itself, but because it needs the body to objectify what it knows, it cannot actualize its knowing into thought.
This lasts until the resurrection of the dead when it is re-united with its body. Until the resurrection, after death, it knows “others” as the angels know, by a direct inspiration or infusion of knowing from God. It does not “reason” about this knowing, but simply knows.
It is still the knowing of the individual, this soul that knows. It is the same person, same identity as you were when your body was alive, not a non-personal consciousness that floats about the universe until it gets a body.

 

[Tomdstone]

We do not have the consciousness that you experience in your brain right now. The soul, the intellect, cannot do any of the reasoning that makes use of the brain. It does know with its own consciousness in itself, but because it needs the body to objectify what it knows, it cannot actualize its knowing into thought…

How do you know for sure that St. Johm Paul II. cannot actualize his knowing into thought?

 

[Michael19682]

First, I did already comment on death. It is not clear that life is a simple cycle of birth and death from my argument.

Second, the truth should be more valuable to us than fake promises hence life is interesting even if its only purpose is to serve awareness in a simple cycle of birth and death.

Third, it is clear that Christianity and other similar religions does not provide a clear picture of death. Resurrection, if it is true, is a simple recreation of the dead person since identity is gone upon death. So that is God duty to reprogram your new body after granting and uniting it to your soul. What soul grant upon death? Nothing. Who you are after resurrection? A completely new person. Does that make you really happy?

Forth, to me there could be an option of entering to the world of dream after death and life could grow and last forever from there.

To Bahman and everyone else. I’m wanted to say this thread is become a barren fig tree save for the fact that Bahman’s points can be addressed with sacred scripture. I believe it is fair to say that Bahman will and already does have a alternative paradigm in mind that is complete unto itself, and therefore that all attempts at persuasion cannot disturb the completeness of what he has. Bahman you make 3 statements that beg scriptural answers:

1. “Christianity and other religions like it do not provide…” FALSE. The answer given is all throughout the gospels. One who eats the body and blood of the Lord does not truly die at all. It is also in 1 Cor 15:36-
2. Does it make you happy to be a truly new person? YES. This new person is free from sorrow and is in heaven. It’s worth the wait.
3. About dream worlds…You could make lots of fantastic arguments on 1 Cor 15:36- that all presuppose a certain ‘metaphysic’. The bottom line is something new and transcendent but not automatically without ties the this earth and its former existence.
   You simply have to wait until you find out for yourself. Death is not explicitly mapped out, but is left open to experience. If the Spirit of God hadn’t guided us in that way, we would likely become very lax indeed.

And I still think the fig trees of the gospel are here in this thread in season. (You can even find them dried and on string,) brought out from the storehouse of all non Christian scripture, which in them contains the basic intent and reflects great labor in production, but does not give the Living Word in the Spirit that ‘makes all things New’.

Treasures New and Old

51 “Do you understand all these things?” They answered, “Yes.”
52 And he replied, “Then every scribe who has been instructed in the kingdom of heaven is like the head of a household who brings from his storeroom both the new and the old.”
53 When Jesus finished these parables, he went away from there.

 

[tonyrey]

From God, of course.
Unless you are trying to bring this thread “back on the rails” to guide us into Bahman’s goal with him in knowing ourselves as joined participation in individual (or shared) eternal consciousnesses, who intermittently join to a body at its birth and gain experiential (name removed by moderator)ut to know we experienced it, then flow back into the universe when that body died, only to join another body on this planet or anywhere in the universe, constantly repeating the experience of that material body, and repeat again eternally. Our purpose as conscious humans knowing about this eternal consciousness that joined to us is to give it all the experiences it can handle while we live to satisfy its temporal yet everlasting hunger for experience after experience upon experience forever and ever.
Has that sufficiently brought it back to Bahman’s train track? Are we all ready to jump on?

You gave me the impression that God doesn’t come into the picture:

Could it not be the case that the universe is just a collection of material with no intelligence of its own?

According to materialists intelligence is just a product of fortuitous events!

 

[wittgenstein]

We do not have the consciousness that you experience in your brain right now. The soul, the intellect, cannot do any of the reasoning that makes use of the brain. It does know with its own consciousness in itself, but because it needs the body to objectify what it knows, it cannot actualize its knowing into thought.
.

Please expand on that. Are you saying that a subject cannot exist without a predicate?

 

[John_Martin]

How do you know for sure that St. Johm Paul II. cannot actualize his knowing into thought?

This is how they know, as I said, by direct inspiration from God of what concerns them, they do not think thoughts or reason about it, but “simply” know.
I will let St. Thomas explain:
Summa, Treatise on the Resurrection, Question 72, Article 1
"I answer that, The Divine essence is a sufficient medium for knowing all things, and this is evident from the fact that God, by seeing His essence, sees all things. But it does not follow that whoever sees God’s essence knows all things, but only those who comprehend the essence of God Cf. FP, Q[12], AA[7],8]: even as the knowledge of a principle does not involve the knowledge of all that follows from that principle unless the whole virtue of the principle be comprehended. Wherefore, since the souls of the saints do not comprehend the Divine essence, it does not follow that they know all that can be known by the Divine essence—for which reason the lower angels are taught concerning certain matters by the higher angels, though they all see the essence of God; but each of the blessed must needs see in the Divine essence as many other things as the perfection of his happiness requires. For the perfection of a man’s happiness requires him to have whatever he will, and to will nothing amiss: and each one wills with a right will, to know what concerns himself. Hence since no rectitude is lacking to the saints, they wish to know what concerns themselves, and consequently* it follows that they know it in the Word.** Now it pertains to their glory that they assist the needy for their salvation: for thus they become God’s co-operators, “than which nothing is more Godlike,” as Dionysius declares (Coel. Hier. iii). Wherefore it is evident that the saints are cognizant of such things as are required for this purpose; and so it is manifest that** they know in the Word ** [direct inspiration from God] the vows, devotions, and prayers of those who have recourse to their assistance.

Reply to Objection 5: God alone of Himself knows the thoughts of the heart: yet others know them (know the prayer to the Saint), in so far as these are revealed to them, either by** their vision of the Word **[directly from the inspiration from God] or by any other means [inspiration by an Angel from God]. "

Brackets ] are my insertions. The Saints are “beatified” (happy-ified). They are at the place of the satisfaction of their will, not by trying to think about how to be happy, but instantaneously. God reveals to their knowing what we are praying to them, Our prayers do not go directly to them. And they simply KNOW our desires by God inspiring that knowing in them. And when they Will (for the Will is in the soul), they have no brain to think how to help us, but only know it is good that we be helped. And God, granting them all happiness (beatification) inspires them to know he is helping and to know exactly what he is doing if knowing that is necessary for their happiness. So, they know, they will, and they are satisfied, all in an instant.

 

[John_Martin]

Please expand on that. Are you saying that a subject cannot exist without a predicate?

The post I just made to Tomdstone might give what you ask, but if not, ask more by all means…

The soul is the form of the body, intelligent form that actualizes in an intelligent body. It knows itself and the body IS that living knowing of the soul (the soul in material actuality), a living intelligent thinking known object of the soul in time and space (like a house is the known object of the architect). After death, there is knowing, and will, but no body to actualize what is known. The living form, with all it has come to know about itself and the “other” has no way to actualize anything anymore. And so, its “state” if that is the correct term, is a kind of “un-satisfaction” of its will. Until heaven, where the knowing and the satisfaction of what is willed is provided by God (informing the soul of the actuality’s reality and satisfying the will). God overcomes the “un-satisfaction” of no body, until the resurrection where we will in a new way, a perfect way, use our wills in actualizing them.

 

[Winterwolf00]

1. This means that consciousness does not need anything to exist

Technically consciousness needs a brain to exist.

 

[tonyrey]

Technically consciousness needs a brain to exist.

Our primary datum and sole certainty is the fact that we are thinking. Without a mind we wouldn’t even know the brain exists! We infer there is a material world from our mental perceptions.

 

[Bahman]

Technically consciousness needs a brain to exist.

In simple word, nothing can cause consciousness otherwise we cannot make conscious decision. Moreover, you cannot simply say that the conclusion of an argument is wrong unless you show that one of the premises is wrong.