30 Jun 13
Originally posted by twhitehead... pointless, you're hear to pontificate philosophical musings (not give a fair shake to any other points of view).
And your point is?
You won't discuss things because they are not relevant to the eternal destiny of my soul? If so, then why bother starting the conversations?
30 Jun 13
Originally posted by josephw"The only viable alternative to separation is to force the rejector to have eternal life."
The only viable alternative to separation is to force the rejector to have eternal life.
That way they could live with aging and disease and sin forever, and maybe then they would ask nicely to be forgiven.
... which since God's a Gentleman, He's incapable of doing.
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyInteresting use of the terms 'vertical' and 'horizontal'.
"What is the difference between a horizontal relationship in time and a vertical one?" (--- Penguin)
* One is temporary, transient, finite and temporal: [o---/] and leaves the ultimate questions unanswered: ¿
* One is permanent, infinite/spiritual: ) [o | ( o----> and answers the ultimate questions emphatically: !!!
The multiple relationships option I proposed still results in an infinite amount of time spent in relationship with this being. How is that unable to answer the questions that you suggest are answered by the 'permanent' relationship and what stops those relationships from being 'spiritual'? They could of course each be Graham's Number of years long.
Also, the OP made no mention of any logical requirement for a relationship to be 'spiritual' (whatever that means) or to answer any questions. It just suggested and offer of 'permanently with' and said the only other option was 'permanently without'
You have still said nothing that negates the possibility of a single or multiple temporary relationships.
--- Penguin.
04 Jul 13
Originally posted by Penguin"You have still said nothing that negates the possibility of a single or multiple temporary relationships." --- Penguin.
Interesting use of the terms 'vertical' and 'horizontal'.
The multiple relationships option I proposed still results in an infinite amount of time spent in relationship with this being. How is that unable to answer the questions that you suggest are answered by the 'permanent' relationship and what stops those relationships from being 'spiritual'? They co ...[text shortened]... the possibility of a single or multiple temporary relationships.
--- Penguin.
"Eternity Past) [o-------------- o, o, o, o, o, o etc. = Many Horizontal Relationships in Time]
Eternity Past) [o--------------------------------o|o = One Vertical Relationship in Time and (Eternity Future......" -gb
"multiple temporary relationships": of course. And the option of one permanent relationship. -gb
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
04 Jul 13
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyNo.
"You have still said nothing that negates the possibility of a single or multiple temporary relationships." --- Penguin.
"Eternity Past) [o-------------- o, o, o, o, o, o etc. = [b]Many Horizontal Relationships in Time]
Eternity Past) [o--------------------------------o|o = One Vertical Relationship in Time and (Eternity Future......" -gb
" ...[text shortened]... ple temporary relationships": of course. And the option of one permanent relationship. -gb[/b]
No riddles.
Answer in plain and clear English using actual words and complete sentences.
04 Jul 13
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyAs Googlefudge says, clear english using words and sentences. What you have posted there is indecipherable.
"You have still said nothing that negates the possibility of a single or multiple temporary relationships." --- Penguin.
"Eternity Past) [o-------------- o, o, o, o, o, o etc. = [b]Many Horizontal Relationships in Time]
Eternity Past) [o--------------------------------o|o = One Vertical Relationship in Time and (Eternity Future......" -gb
" ...[text shortened]... ple temporary relationships": of course. And the option of one permanent relationship. -gb[/b]
I think you might be accepting that multiple temporary relationships is a logical option but I could easily be wrong. I have no idea whether you are agreeing that a single temporary relationship is a logical option.
If you are disagreeing that either of these is a logical option, you have failed to explain why.
--- Penguin.
04 Jul 13
Originally posted by googlefudgeAny cerebrally functioning human being of sound mind may make many friends during the course of a lifetime. Of these, some will be loved in different categories and with varying intensities. All temporal relationships are of finite length.
No.
No riddles.
Answer in plain and clear English using actual words and complete sentences.
04 Jul 13
Originally posted by PenguinPenguin, do you love any other Penguins?
As Googlefudge says, clear english using words and sentences. What you have posted there is indecipherable.
I think you might be accepting that multiple temporary relationships is a logical option but I could easily be wrong. I have no idea whether you are agreeing that a single temporary relationship is a logical option.
If you are disagreeing that either of these is a logical option, you have failed to explain why.
--- Penguin.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
04 Jul 13
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyAnd?
Any cerebrally functioning human being of sound mind may make many friends during the course of a lifetime. Of these, some will be loved in different categories and with varying intensities. All temporal relationships are of finite length.
That doesn't answer the question.
You're basically saying that temporary relationships are finite.
Which is a tautology.
And you can't even manage to say that clearly.
Also, I again think you mean Temporary rather than Temporal.
Temporal is as I said a word seldom if ever used outside of Star Trek
technobabble or New Age Nonsense.
And it generally means something like "Having to do with, or existing
in time".
Which means that your sentence "All temporal relationships are of finite length."
is basically saying that "All relationships with a time dimension are finite."
Which may or may not be true (it certainly is for beings of a finite existence) but
given that you believe in souls that have (potentially) an infinite existence doesn't
seem to make a lot of sense and certainly contradicts your hypothetical that your god
is offering an infinite relationship.
Try again.
04 Jul 13
Originally posted by googlefudgegooglefudge, do you love any other googlefudges?
And?
That doesn't answer the question.
You're basically saying that temporary relationships are finite.
Which is a tautology.
And you can't even manage to say that clearly.
Also, I again think you mean Temporary rather than Temporal.
Temporal is as I said a word seldom if ever used outside of Star Trek
technobabble or New Age Nonsense ...[text shortened]... our hypothetical that your god
is offering an infinite relationship.
Try again.
05 Jul 13
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyI think I see where you are trying to go with this. Correct me if I am wrong but you seem to be saying that once dead we are 'outside of time' and therefore any state we might be in at that point cannot change because there is no passing of time in which the state could change. Therefore there is no possibility of my 'temporary' relationships followed by or interspersed with periods of separation. It is either all or nothing.
Any cerebrally functioning human being of sound mind may make many friends during the course of a lifetime. Of these, some will be loved in different categories and with varying intensities. All temporal relationships are of finite length.
Have I got that right?
There are a number of problems with this but the main one as I see it is that outside of time, there is no such thing as 'experience' since experience is a process dependent on the passing of time. Without experience, your concept of any kind of 'soul' vanishes. Likewise a 'relationship' is also impossible without the passing of time.
So you have to have some kind of time in order to have a soul that can experience a relationship. As soon as you bring time back into the equation, you also have to accept the possibility of my two extra options.
--- Penguin
05 Jul 13
Originally posted by PenguinOther problems:
There are a number of problems with this....
1. The concept that this occurs 'after' some point in our timeline is invalid.
2. The concept of 'eternal' is questionable in this context.
3. The concept that some choice in the timeline can result in a change to something outside of time is invalid.
Anything outside of time is static with respect to anything inside of time and anything inside of time is static with respect to anything outside of time ie the entity outside of time sees the whole timeline at once and cannot tinker with it or otherwise interact without creating new timelines.