Spirituality
13 Mar 21
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
15 Mar 21
@avalanchethecat saidI understand.
It means I'm not interested in making such a choice.
The question was if you HAD to make a choice.
IF you had to choose between
I take your answer to be you don't want to be put into the place of "IF I HAD to choose which I preferred."
You wish to evade the having to choose.
15 Mar 21
@sonship saidNo evasion, I simply don't find your choice of choice interesting enough to consider.
I understand.
The question was if you HAD to make a choice.IF you had to choose between
I take your answer to be you don't want to be put into the place of "IF I HAD to choose which I preferred."
You wish to evade the having to choose.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
15 Mar 21
1 edit
No evasion, I simply don't find your choice of choice interesting enough to consider.
But you lean towards more interest to choose the first if you could change the nature of the first choice to be identical in outcome with the second.
Hmm. Immoral seems like it'd allow the possibility of becoming moral at some point during the eons of interminable dullness, so I'll take (1).
You don't really know that being processed into moral perfection would be dull. It might be increasingly enjoyable and pregnant with infinite possibilities of happiness.
15 Mar 21
@bigdoggproblem saidWhile the Bible says that God created man in His Own Image, it is not something that links man to omnipotence. It is an observation about man alone being possessors of reason, and for a great capacity for goodness that puts him in a sort of position of stewardship over the earth.
"In his own image"
This was inevitable. We could not relate to a God who was unlike us.
Even in the minds of atheists, there is a strong perception that we humans are the most advanced species on earth.
Carl Sagan boasted, "we are a way for the Cosmos to know itself".
Is that the one thing all people have in common? A belief in human superiority?
(The role of steward over the earth has become even more apparent in the 21st century considering the environmental catastrophes around us.)
Man is told in the same Bible that God is omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent.
God is also said to be exponentially above us in His Ways:
“For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways My ways,” declares the Lord.
“For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways
And My thoughts than your thoughts.
Isaiah 55:8,9
15 Mar 21
@Philokalia
"Exponential" - but of course. "God" is what a human imagines they would be, if their powers had no limits.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
15 Mar 21
While the Bible says that God created man in His Own Image, it is not something that links man to omnipotence. It is an observation about man alone being possessors of reason, and for a great capacity for goodness that puts him in a sort of position of stewardship over the earth.
Exactly.
(The role of steward over the earth has become even more apparent in the 21st century considering the environmental catastrophes around us.)
I think the initial seemingly simple seeds of truth in their basics given in Genesis have never changed. Man was placed in a garden to guard it and keep it. When his relationship with God was ruined the earth would bring forth
thorns and thistles under the sweaty labor of man now expelled from harmony with God and the earth.
But God's history is to recover and exalt even further the normal coordination with God and balance of a harmonious earth.
"Thorns and thistles" of Adam expulsion are now rising seas and depleted resources of the earth. "Cursed is the ground because of you" to Adam is now the pandemics, starvation, disease, scarcity, drought, and warfare encroaching upon modern man manifold times more.
The creation was subject to vanity. The creation eagerly awaits the manifestation of the sons of God to be liberated from that corruption into liberty. The fall of man was the collapse of his creation. The restoral and manifestation of the sons of God is the recovery of the environment created for God's kingdom on the earth.
Man is told in the same Bible that God is omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent.
God is also said to be exponentially above us in His Ways:
There was the normal man totally united with God.
"But we see Jesus, who was made a little inferior to the angels because of the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death on behalf of everything." (Heb. 2:9 RcV )
Unfortunately, we do not all see Jesus. As some shut their eyes and do not want to see Jesus. And others imaging that to see Jesus is no big deal for they also "see" unreal mythical people among whom they quickly hope to make the Son of God just another one of those legendary or mythic characters of superstition or human imagination.
15 Mar 21
@sonship saidBecause of their cognitive abilities and their capacity for abstraction.
@BigDoggProblem
"God" is what a human imagines they would be, if their powers had no limits.
Is there any other living thing on earth that has this problem?
How is it that human beings happen to develop this particular malady?
15 Mar 21
@bigdoggproblem saidNo, it is distinguishing man from brute beast.
@Philokalia
"Exponential" - but of course. "God" is what a human imagines they would be, if their powers had no limits.
You simply read too far into it in order to have another argument against our concept of God, I think.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
15 Mar 21
2 edits
Because of their cognitive abilities and their capacity for abstraction.
So the developed cognitive abilities always carries along with it this problem of -
"God" is what a human imagines they would be, if their powers had no limits.
This always comes along as a problematic byproduct with higher cognitive abilities and capacity for abstraction?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
15 Mar 21
1 edit
@FMF
This [phenomenon, reaction, or tendency] always comes along as a byproduct with higher cognitive abilities and capacity for abstraction?
15 Mar 21
@sonship saidNo. Both seem equally intolerable.
But you lean towards more interest to choose the first if you could change the nature of the first choice to be identical in outcome with the second.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
15 Mar 21
1 edit
No. Both seem equally intolerable.
Why would it be INTOLERABLE for you to be transformed eventually to be a man of utmost moral beauty and perfection were there a power able to do so at your allowing?
Why would that be INTOLERABLE to you?
Would you consider that to be a kind of hell to be pure, gloriously right with yourself and everyone?
15 Mar 21
@sonship saidPrimarily it's the immortality bit that I wouldn't touch with a stick. You make it seem even more distasteful with your talk of 'transformation' and 'perfection'. I'm well adjusted to being fallible and mortal and don't feel a need for any gods at all.
@avalanchethecat
No. Both seem equally intolerable.
Why would it be INTOLERABLE for you to be transformed eventually to be a man of utmost moral beauty and perfection were there a power able to do so at your allowing?
Why would that be INTOLERABLE to you?
Would you consider that to be a kind of hell to be pure, gloriously right with yourself and everyone?