Hell

Originally posted by mdhall
Please explain it to me No1.

I already did in my post in response to yours on page 3. The link I gave is a good one, too.

The main benefit of the doctrine of Karma theologically is that it explains something Christian doctrine does not i.e. why do bad things happen to good people?

Originally posted by no1marauder
I already did in my post in response to yours on page 3. The link I gave is a good one, too.

The main benefit of the doctrine of Karma theologically is that it explains something Christian doctrine does not i.e. why do bad things happen to good people?

I'm sorry, I just don't accept that questions like that require any mystical answer.

The appropriate answer to the question, "Why do bad things happen to good people?" is: What is bad/good and who decides?

Reality = Things happen without notions of good or bad.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The main benefit of the doctrine of Karma theologically is that it explains something Christian doctrine does not i.e. why do bad things happen to good people?

I agree with mdhall that no explanation is necessary.
Also your statement implies that the doctrine of Karma has a valid explanation which is not necessarily the case. You also imply that an explanation for why bad things happen to good people makes the doctrine of Karma 'better' than a doctrine that doesn't have an explanation.
Surely it is more important whether a doctrine is true than whether it attempts to explain anything?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I agree with mdhall that no explanation is necessary.
Also your statement implies that the doctrine of Karma has a valid explanation which is not necessarily the case. You also imply that an explanation for why bad things happen to good people makes the doctrine of Karma 'better' than a doctrine that doesn't have an explanation.
Surely it is more important whether a doctrine is true than whether it attempts to explain anything?

I assume you didn't read the word "theologically".

No answer to a metaphysical question is more "valid" than any other. But the doctrine of Karma is at least internally consistent whereas it's pretty clear that the doctrine that whodey subscribes to is riddled with contradictions.

EDIT: How would you suggest that a doctrine concerning metaphysics be "proven" true? How do you know any such doctrine isn't true? And what doctrine in any discipline do you know of that doesn't attempt to explain anything? Of what use would such a doctrine be?

Originally posted by mdhall
I'm sorry, I just don't accept that questions like that require any mystical answer.

The appropriate answer to the question, "Why do bad things happen to good people?" is: What is bad/good and who decides?

Reality = Things happen without notions of good or bad.

Actually you are incorrect. Things that happen because humans do them most certainly happen WITH notions of good or bad.

Your answer to metaphysical questions is no more valid than anyone else's.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Actually you are incorrect. Things that happen because humans do them most certainly happen WITH notions of good or bad.

Your answer to metaphysical questions is no more valid than anyone else's.

What is your logical proof for this statement?
Natural Law? Natural Rights? Karmic Law?

Originally posted by Kakistocrat
Do you believe it exists?
Is eternal?
How do you get there?

Some of these issues are explored at http://kakistocrat.blogsome.com/

Discussion is welcome (there preferrably)...

1. yes
2. yes
3. sinning

Originally posted by mdhall
What is your logical proof for this statement?
Natural Law? Natural Rights? Karmic Law?

Are you seriously disputing this statement:

no1: Things that happen because humans do them most certainly happen WITH notions of good or bad.

??????

A "logical proof" would be that humans have notions of good and bad and these notions influence their behavior. I can't imagine how that reality can be questioned.

EDIT: Perhaps by a "hard Determinist" I suppose.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Are you seriously disputing this statement:

no1: Things that happen because humans do them most certainly happen WITH notions of good or bad.

??????

A "logical proof" would be that humans have notions of good and bad and these notions influence their behavior. I can't imagine how that reality can be questioned.

EDIT: Perhaps by a "hard Determinist" I suppose.

Determinism has nothing to do with it.

Do you ever watch a nature channel? You see the coyotes take down the mother gazelle? Are these good or bad actions? Sure, if you take the perspective of the players.
However, the act itself requires no moral or ethical descriptor.
It happened and does happen all the time.

You are confusing this with Intentionality. That is a separate subject.

Rocks fall.
Animals die (that includes humans).
Things interact with infinite outcomes.

None of these things require a philosopher to come evaluate them.

Perhaps you are of the mind that if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to see it; then it truly makes no sound?

Originally posted by mdhall
Determinism has nothing to do with it.

Do you ever watch a nature channel? You see the coyotes take down the mother gazelle? Are these good or bad actions? Sure, if you take the perspective of the players.
However, the act itself requires no moral or ethical descriptor.
It happened and does happen all the time.

You are confusing this with Intenti ...[text shortened]... that if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to see it; then it truly makes no sound?

You are very confused.

I assume you now recognize that my statement is factually correct. Or are you really disputing that individual notions of "goodness" or "badness" have an influence on human behavior?

I have no idea at all what your last two statements mean or how they are possibly relevant to this discussion.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Sin i.e. disobedience to what God wants - brings death according to your theology because God decided it would. No more, no less. You're repeating illogical nonsense again.

I think you need to explore the implications of disobedience. What are we defying? If we are defying a God who is the source of all love and life then what are we then embracing? Is it not death and sin which is the breaking of the commandment of love?

At the heart of the matter is free will. God has free will as do we. However, if we decide to defy God's will by defying what he has told us is his will for us then we are welcome to go our own way. However, do not expect God to go along with such defiance. God blessing our self destructive ways simply is not going to happen because he is a God of love and cannot bless us destroying ourselves. It is then that a serperation of sorts occurs between God and man. We are then seperated from the source of love/life unless we are given a way back. If we want to live for eternity we must go to the source and power of such life. We must come to him on his terms and not our terms. Otherwise you would be violating God's free will which is equally obhorrent as him forcing us to do his bidding.

Originally posted by whodey
I think you need to explore the implications of disobedience. What are we defying? If we are defying a God who is the source of all love and life then what are we then embracing? Is it not death and sin which is the breaking of the commandment of love?

At the heart of the matter is free will. God has free will as do we. However, if we decide to defy G ...[text shortened]... d be violating God's free will which is equally obhorrent as him forcing us to do his bidding.

What nonsense. A's decisions can't violate B's free will. And if we MUST come to him on HIS terms or die (because that is the rule He made), what part is "free will"? The gun is at your head.

Empty the cup, whodey.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I still cant see how not putting the tree in the Garden of eden is a violation of Adam and Eves free will. Even putting a fence round it would hardly be a violation of their free will. Free will does not give one the ability to do absolutely anything, and removal of some privileges does not equal 'direct control over free will'.

I personally can't see anyone with the ability to do so could be described as loving if they abstain from doing so.

When I speak of free will I am speaking in terms of a relational aspect between God and man and not simply what I decide to wear when I get up in the morning. If God is to have a mutually loving relationship with man, man must have the ability to embrace or reject such love. Otherwise the relationship is a ruse and nothing more than direct control. It would be akin to God loving himself back through us. Therefore, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil enters the picture. It is a representation of man's ability to reject his Maker and his wishes if he so desires. Disobedience is the only vehicle for such rejection no matter what it may entail or have entailed in the garden of Eden.

Originally posted by no1marauder
[b]What nonsense. A's decisions can't violate B's free will.

Sure it can. Have you never been stolen from? Have you never been lied to simply so someone could manipulate you into doing something that you otherwise would not have done had you known the truth? Really that is what the serpant did to Eve was it not? He was manipulating and thus violating her free will by hiding the truth via deception.

Originally posted by whodey
When I speak of free will I am speaking in terms of a relational aspect between God and man and not simply what I decide to wear when I get up in the morning. If God is to have a mutually loving relationship with man, man must have the ability to embrace or reject such love. Otherwise the relationship is a ruse and nothing more than direct control. It woul ...[text shortened]... so desires. Disobedience is the only vehicle for such rejection no matter what it may entail.

Is there sin i.e. disobedience to God in Heaven?