A Civil Religious Discussion


Off-Topic Discussions

1,551 to 1,600 of 13,109 << first < prev | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

OK, THIS pisses me off.

What I heard was that a group of unarmed protesters and punks waving 'anarchy' and 'down with Bush' signs were protesting at a university. Normal, right?

Now it gets wierd. First, the police show up in f$%$ing riot gear, and the protesters scatter. Then, the f$@*ing FBI manage to track down one of the protesters. The FBI tells the guy to divulge the names of his (and I quote) "fellow anarchist anti-american terrorist sympathizers." When the guy doesn't spill the beans, he gets arrested.

He managed to shrug off the treason charges, but the fact that it got that far scares the shit out of me. How the f%*$ did this happen?

Scarab Sages

The Eldritch Mr. Shiny wrote:
He managed to shrug off the treason charges, but the fact that it got that far scares the s*&% out of me. How the f%#@ did this happen?

The further question is why is this on the "Civil Religious Discussion" rather than the rant thread? ;)

Liberty's Edge

Moff Rimmer wrote:
The Eldritch Mr. Shiny wrote:
He managed to shrug off the treason charges, but the fact that it got that far scares the s*&% out of me. How the f%#@ did this happen?
The further question is why is this on the "Civil Religious Discussion" rather than the rant thread? ;)

I dunno. I guess I lumped it under 'philosophical/government stuff' and shoved it here. Sorry 'bout that.


The Eldritch Mr. Shiny wrote:

OK, THIS pisses me off.

What I heard was that a group of unarmed protesters and punks waving 'anarchy' and 'down with Bush' signs were protesting at a university. Normal, right?

Now it gets wierd. First, the police show up in f#%*ing riot gear, and the protesters scatter. Then, the f#%*ing FBI manage to track down one of the protesters. The FBI tells the guy to divulge the names of his (and I quote) "fellow anarchist anti-american terrorist sympathizers." When the guy doesn't spill the beans, he gets arrested.

He managed to shrug off the treason charges, but the fact that it got that far scares the s#%! out of me. How the f#%* did this happen?

And people who were upset by this hate freedom.

Just idiotic governmental stuff. Though the "anticrist" thing concerns me, but I'm not overly surprised. What really concerns me is that htis may hint at a growing trend of stuff like this. This is the first time I've heard of an official attitude so severe (but I live under a rock, so that may not mean anything).

Scarab Sages

The Eldritch Mr. Shiny wrote:

OK, THIS pisses me off.

What I heard was that a group of unarmed protesters and punks waving 'anarchy' and 'down with Bush' signs were protesting at a university. Normal, right?

Now it gets wierd. First, the police show up in f@*&ing riot gear, and the protesters scatter. Then, the f@*&ing FBI manage to track down one of the protesters. The FBI tells the guy to divulge the names of his (and I quote) "fellow anarchist anti-american terrorist sympathizers." When the guy doesn't spill the beans, he gets arrested.

He managed to shrug off the treason charges, but the fact that it got that far scares the s~*# out of me. How the f@*& did this happen?

Wow, you'd think the big media folks would have picked up on this. Crazy!

Liberty's Edge

Dirk Gently wrote:
The Eldritch Mr. Shiny wrote:

OK, THIS pisses me off.

What I heard was that a group of unarmed protesters and punks waving 'anarchy' and 'down with Bush' signs were protesting at a university. Normal, right?

Now it gets wierd. First, the police show up in f#%*ing riot gear, and the protesters scatter. Then, the f#%*ing FBI manage to track down one of the protesters. The FBI tells the guy to divulge the names of his (and I quote) "fellow anarchist anti-american terrorist sympathizers." When the guy doesn't spill the beans, he gets arrested.

He managed to shrug off the treason charges, but the fact that it got that far scares the s#%! out of me. How the f#%* did this happen?

And people who were upset by this hate freedom.

Just idiotic governmental stuff. Though the "anticrist" thing concerns me, but I'm not overly surprised. What really concerns me is that htis may hint at a growing trend of stuff like this. This is the first time I've heard of an official attitude so severe (but I live under a rock, so that may not mean anything).

I said 'anarchist', not 'antichrist'. Freudian slip on your part, maybe? ;}


The Eldritch Mr. Shiny wrote:
I said 'anarchist', not 'antichrist'. Freudian slip on your part, maybe? ;}

Do not read posts when groggy.

Liberty's Edge

Dirk Gently wrote:
The Eldritch Mr. Shiny wrote:
I said 'anarchist', not 'antichrist'. Freudian slip on your part, maybe? ;}
Do not read posts when groggy.

Groggy is a fun word to say. Groggy groggy groggy groggy groggy groggy groggy groggy groggy groggy groggy groggy groggy groggy *thud*


The Eldritch Mr. Shiny wrote:
Groggy groggy groggy groggy groggy groggy groggy groggy groggy groggy groggy groggy groggy groggy *thud*

Was that the sound of this thread dying?


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Was that the sound of this thread dying?

Here lies the Civil Religious Discussion thread. While we can't really agree on what's going to happen to it, metaphisically speaking, we hope it rests in peace anyway.

Liberty's Edge

Kirth Gersen wrote:
The Eldritch Mr. Shiny wrote:
Groggy groggy groggy groggy groggy groggy groggy groggy groggy groggy groggy groggy groggy groggy *thud*
Was that the sound of this thread dying?

No, just the sound of Elan falling out of a wagon.


Dirk Gently wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Was that the sound of this thread dying?
Here lies the Civil Religious Discussion thread. While we can't really agree on what's going to happen to it, metaphisically speaking, we hope it rests in peace anyway.

Too funny, Dirk.

Liberty's Edge

Lady Aurora wrote:
Dirk Gently wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Was that the sound of this thread dying?
Here lies the Civil Religious Discussion thread. While we can't really agree on what's going to happen to it, metaphisically speaking, we hope it rests in peace anyway.
Too funny, Dirk.

Yep, he's a goner fer sure.

Scarab Sages

Dirk Gently wrote:
Here lies the Civil Religious Discussion thread. While we can't really agree on what's going to happen to it, metaphisically speaking, we hope it rests in peace anyway.

If this thread is going to die, I just want to say a quick thank you to all the contributers to this thread in making it one of the most interesting discussions that I have ever been a part of. That it has remained "civil" in spite of the delicate nature of the topic for more than 1,500 posts is incredible and a tribute to the fine people that grace these boards. I have learned so much about my religion and other religions these past few months. It's really been a lot of fun.

More specifically...

Thanks Dirk Gently for your insights and for your neutrality.
Thanks Mr. Shiny for keeping it random.
Thanks The Jade for keeping it fun.
Thanks Kirth Gersen for your knowledge and another insight to other religions.
Thanks Erian_7 for starting this monster.
Thanks Lady Aurora for helping me demonstrate and show what Christianity is meant to be about.
Thanks Sebastian and Sexi Golem for asking all the really tough questions.

Still want to have that beer with many of you...


Getting back to reading Paizo regularly and I find this sucker still going (well, starting to die out it seems...)! It's good to hear things remained civil through the life of the conversation. I echo the thoughts that the community here is a touch above the average forum, where something like this would have gone down in flames long ago.

Wonder if I can actually read through this whole monster...

Scarab Sages

erian_7 wrote:
Getting back to reading Paizo regularly ...

There you are... Where you at? We need to get together some day.


I'm down in Birmingham, AL. And despite the Baptist roots I'm always up for a good beer!


It has been a great run. I wouldn't say we're an above average forum. I'd say we're a fantastic forum. Ug, didn't mean to suggest fantastic four in there, but there it is.

Thank you all for the education, your temperance, your patience, and your ear.

May each of us find what it is we're looking for.


erian_7 wrote:
Wonder if I can actually read through this whole monster...

He he, good luck.


erian_7 wrote:
I'm down in Birmingham, AL. And despite the Baptist roots I'm always up for a good beer!

Welcome back, Erian! We missed you.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Welcome back, Erian! We missed you.

Thanks! Work got crazy on me for a bit, but it's settling down now. As such I hope to be around a lot more again.


So the thread is dormant...

Sorry I sort of vanished - real life intervened and I had no net access, so I haven't been on the boards for a while. This was definitely the best discussion on religion I've ever had on the net, and no-one lost their cool, which would amaze me if this were any other forum. I've really appreciated being able to match wits and share experiences with everyone, and if I've inadvertently angered anyone along the way I am sorry, that was not my intention. If not then so much the better :)

Til next time hey?


kahoolin wrote:
Til next time hey?

Right on, brother.

Contributor

From the season 3 finale of House: "He doesn't pray or worry. He says if you don't do one you don't need the other."


I'm back just in time for...what? Is this thread back or has it realized its ownmost nonrelational possability not-to-be-bypassed? ARG!! Heidegger on the brain!!! The big phrase is his happy way of saying "dead".

Liberty's Edge

Dirk Gently wrote:
I'm back just in time for...what? Is this thread back or has it realized its ownmost nonrelational possability not-to-be-bypassed? ARG!! Heidegger on the brain!!! The big phrase is his happy way of saying "dead".

Yep, he's back, everybody. Hide the syllables, lest he hoard them for himself.


The Eldritch Mr. Shiny wrote:
Dirk Gently wrote:
I'm back just in time for...what? Is this thread back or has it realized its ownmost nonrelational possability not-to-be-bypassed? ARG!! Heidegger on the brain!!! The big phrase is his happy way of saying "dead".
Yep, he's back, everybody. Hide the syllables, lest he hoard them for himself.

Mwahaha. I revel in my polysyllabic spleandor. After spending 3 weeks around fellow super-nerds, I'm going to let loose some hippopotomonstrosusquipedalian (I'd put sp? here, but who in their right mind would be so nerdy as to want to correct this monster) posts on Paizo, beware.


Wow, I just read through the thread (ok, i skipped a good chunk in the middle) but I must say this is one of the best things on the net! People talking about really hard subjects without snapping is a rarity indeed. I only wish I had jumped on it when it started but anyway, Kudos to all of you!


Onrie wrote:
Wow, I just read through the thread (ok, i skipped a good chunk in the middle) but I must say this is one of the best things on the net! People talking about really hard subjects without snapping is a rarity indeed. I only wish I had jumped on it when it started but anyway, Kudos to all of you!

Ask us a question, start a discussion, if the mood ever strikes you. The thread's not over until Paizo shuts down.

Scarab Sages

Dirk Gently wrote:
Ask us a question, start a discussion, if the mood ever strikes you. The thread's not over until Paizo shuts down.

Most of us are all still here.


I appreciated my discussions with each one of you but I wanted to take a moment to thank Kirth specifically.
My Dad passed away just over a week ago. The resultant necessary dealings with my Buddhist sister-in-law were not something I was looking forward to. In fact, I haven't seen or spoken to her in 3 years and I was dreading the coming confrontation. The issue of my father has always caused great tension between us in the past. Add to that the antagonism of religious differences and the relationship between Lori & me has been strained at best. But when we got together, I found myself with a whole new appreciation for her beliefs and attitudes. It was so peaceful and refreshing and wasn't tense at all. I kept wanting to just blurt out "Hey, I have a friend online who's also a Buddhist and he has taught me so much and...".
I do consider you my friend, Kirth, and I wanted to thank you for impacting my life in such a way that a potentially unpleasant encounter became a nice bonding moment.
The funeral was over 90 minutes of talk of my father's final destination with the Pastor delivering a powerful gospel message. I thought my sister-in-law handled the entire thing with amazing poise and tolerance. I'm thankful that I have come to a place of greater understanding of her as a person. You, Kirth, were instrumental in my "enlightenment". Thanks again.


Lady Aurora wrote:
Thanks again.

I'm very sorry for your loss. If I've made any positive difference at all in such a difficult time, that's more than ample thanks.

And, honestly, I'd abandon Buddhism (or any other -ism) tomorrow if it could make that kind of difference with even one person. Sometimes we get so wrapped up in theoretical cosmic absolutes that we forget the people we're here with, and the lives we're all leading together. That's the greatest misery in religion, and the brightest aspect of this thread.


I just attended the wedding of a former student of mine, who at times has been like a daughter to me. Her parents were so intent on having a "proper Christian wedding" that most of the people attending the ceremony thought the couple were marrying Jesus, rather than each other. (The poor dad seemed so caught up in the sermon that he sort of lost track of the bride and groom.) I looked at my friend and at her new husband and smiled with joy for the happiness they'd found with each other... he's an atheist, by the way, and smilingly okayed the sermon simply because her family had asked for it.

So, many, many thanks to everyone here, and to you, Aurora, for pointing out, better than I ever could have, that we are all more important than our respective "-isms."


Wait a second. It ain't over yet. I've been woefully neglectful in not reading this thread until yesterday. Thanks to my abysmal internet connection, I was only able to get through five pages- perhaps that's also due to the fact that everything written was so elegant and thought provoking. At any rate, I just thought I'd skip to the end. Sorry for missing out on so much, but I can't resist the temptation to post here. The following is my opinion and belief- we'll just see what comes of it. If nothing, well, then, I'd at least like to think I finished off such a great thread with a crescendo. :) This is directed at no one in particular, although I will use the word "you" a lot simply because it is easier for me to type and think that way. Oh, and this will ramble.

I am not a "religious" person. When I was adopted by my parents, my mother started going to church and really became a Christian (dad was always a Christmas and Easter kind of guy, and now we don't even do that). I could just never get into what was being preached to me. Then again, I was raised Presbyterian, and I distinctly remember one of our own pastors calling the denomination "God's frozen chosen." Perhaps that had something to do with it.

I adhere to science. I accept and ground myself in scientific facts and thoughts; I often approach, and always enjoyably, the world in a scientific way. I don't believe in magic, voodoo, towers of flame from the sky, people turning into pillars of salt, or the divine smiting people with lightning, locusts, or anything else. I don't believe in a big beardy guy on a throne on a cloud handing out orders. I don't believe in any god in the traditional sense.

Yet I do believe. I believe in something. Of that, of this "existence," I am certain. And I believe that it is the source and inspiration for faith, for hope, for intellect, for life, and utlimately for all religions.

As far as religion itself, it is no more evil than nuclear power, or fire for that matter. Certainly both have been used for great evil. Yet that is the deprivation of mankind, and not a fault of the power and source behind such things. Both also have a great and continual promise for the future if handled correctly. Whether they are or not is the concern of man, not God.

To return to god, this is where I depart from the norm. It strikes me as nothing but hubris to try and define "god." How egocentric must we as a species be to assume that "god" has, or even must have, a mind that is human, or understandable to human ways?

The assumption is that "God" is all knowing, yet just because he doesn't do what you expect, you are going to judge "God?" Are you omniscient? No. Then how can one even begin to assume that the actions of such a being must make sense to those who lack that quality? That simply strikes me as faulty logic. How arrogant is one to assume that "God" must justify "God's self" to you?

If you had an ant farm, which you tended carefully and loved the members thereof dearly, I still highly doubt that you would bother trying to explain yourself to the ants every several generations, even assuming you could (which you can't; an ant cannot comprehend the world of a human). So how is it that humans are so special that when roles are reversed, we feel entitled to being able to understand that which is greater than us? It reeks of an inflated ego to me.

The same goes, to some extent, towards the Bible. To me, it seems blasphemous to consider "God" to be so human as therein depicted (at least as it is in the minds of the majority of the "faithful"). It seems blasphemous to me to think that mankind, or any other living being, or any physical or energetic form at all for that matter, is the form of "God."

My feelings? The word "God" isn't even really appropriate. "God" connotes a deity, an actual being, which I resoundingly reject. To sidetrack myself for a moment, what does it matter what it's called? God, Jeohvah, Yahweh, YHWH, Zeus, Jupiter, or a radish. Does it really make a difference what combination of phonetics are applied to the concept? Call "it" what you will. I personally like "the Divine," as it seems to connote a state of being as much as anything else, and I don't feel it tries to limit the notion as much as "God."

But to return to my point. I truly and genuinely feel that everything is Divine, and the Divine is everywhere. I am Divine. You are Divine- all of you reading this. The computer screen you're looking at is Divine, as are the walls of the room around you, the sky above them and the birds within it, the waves of the ocean and the fish beneath, and the rocks of the Earth upon which we all spin around the sun within the vast collective that is the Milky Way as it moves through the Virgo supercluster in this, our universe: all of that is the Divine to me.

In my eyes, God is Life. God is Existence. God is Intellect. God is Truth. And God is Love. God simply is.

God is not a being responsible for them; God is the essence of those things. Where they are, God is. Where God is, they are.

The fact that there are stars in the night sky and that we are here to see them and that we know this, is God. The smile of a child and the love given by its mother is God. What could be more divine?

And if it has an intelligence, it is far, far greater than anything we could ever understand. The is the heartbeat of eternity, the rythm of existence, the primal and infinite force and drive and knowledge behind all of "it."

So please, go on and tell me how the fact that a soul doesn't spill out when we cut open a human body on a table is proof that it doesn't exist. And tell me there is no mind to a plant or an insect on some level. Tell me an animal has no soul. While you're at it, tell me the world is round and human's will never leave the ground.

Tell me how the interaction of electricity and chemicals in a gray mound of flesh becomes the memory of my fifth birthday. Or the thought of the smell of a rose or the sound of music. I can shoot electricity through a brick all day, but something tells me that it doesn't suddenly gain awareness. And tell me that the awareness we hold in our minds and bodies isn't the essence of the Divine.

Now, to break from that tirade, I remember Grimcleaver's worries that the world doesn't seem perfect enough for God to truly be at the helm. I haven't seen Grimcleaver on the boards in a while, and it may well be that the issue was resolved somewhere in the thirty-odd pages of this thread that I haven't investigated.

But my thoughts remain and shall be spoken.

Who says God doesn't fart (I mean, what do you think all this around us is?) :)

But seriously, what is so "ungodly" about the fact that humans have waste products? Who is to say what "God" does and doesn't think is "holy" when such mundane matters come into play? Who is to say that the fact we poop somehow removes us from divinity? Who is to say that God even remotely cares? Why should this stand in the way of faith?

Now my mind turns to more skepticism; skepticism I saw that was based on questions centering around "if there is a god, how come bad things happen to good people?"

What is bad? What is evil? Is the wave that killed tens of thousands in Asia evil? Are the deaths of those people inherently bad? What of those who die in fire or earthquake? Has some evil fate befallen them? Is pain evil?

No, I don't think so.

And I am not unqualified to speak on matters of tragedy. When I was thirteen years old, my mother was diagnosed with cancer. It proved to be a battle she would not win. She passed away when I was fourteen. I watched as he flesh atrophied and her skin hung upon her skeletal frame, as her long hair fell from her head; I hid in my room to try and escape the wails of pain and fear and the crying that raged for months in the night. And in the end, I watched as her eyes glazed over, her once keen mind stolen and dissolved by morphine and disease. I'm not even sure she knew who I was during the last week of her life, as she lay broken and infantile, coughing on her own saliva and drool running down her chin.

I've known pain. And I've known loss. And I've known tragedy.

Do I think what happened to my mother was evil, though? No. Do I credit or blame God or Satan? No (I don't believe in the latter; I feel evil is real, but lies solely in human hands). Death is not evil.

It took me several years to admit it, but I have actually grown and become a greater person from my experiences in that darkness. For a while, it seemed to violate my mother's memory to think anything good could come from her death, but eventually I realized that it is what she would have wanted. And so I should be proud that I have risen above the ashes.

But I digress. A tsunami isn't evil. It is tragic, but not evil. Natural events simply occur; there is no malice. What is evil is the neglect shown when something can be done. What is evil is the destruction mankind brings to itself on a routine basis for no gain.

Why does God not stop evil? Why doesn't "he" come down here and do something about it? Stop right there. Why don't we do something about it? Would God be cold and callous for expecting humanity to be able to rid itself of such problems? Why is it God's concern? There are trillions of worlds in the cosmos, many of them likely inhabited. Why are humans so special?

Would the galaxy mourn if we blew ourselves to little bits tomorrow, or today? No, the galaxy wouldn't even know or care.

We are only what we choose to become. If we choose to be petty and small, then that is all we shall ever be. However, if we choose to be great, then we can be. If we choose to Live, to Grow, to Progress, then we shall. If we choose to do Good, then we shall naturally recieve Good in the same manner as one recieves Love for giving Love. And then, we can be notable to the rest of the universe. Then, perhaps, if there were some great "Annals of Everything" being written, we would be worthy of entry.

Too many want God to come down and help them, do something for them, fix their problems. What has God done for me lately?

What have you done for God? Why is it God's problem if you have a cold, or a debt, or any other mundane problem and you can't overcome it yourself? Why are humans so special? Why is your ego so large as to think we are? Why invoke God to come down and perform a parlor trick on your behalf? That is what I call blasphemy.

One last thought, not necessarily related to the above. I don't believe that humans or any other being in the universe will ever know "Everything." There will always be something beyond our grasp. I view knowledge like an asymptote. You can come as close as you want to knowing everything, but there is some point which you cannot actually achieve. Ever. That's the Divine.

I suppose I've said quite enough. Hope no one gets too bothered- I mean it sincerely when I say the last thing I want to do is offend someone.

Scarab Sages

Making up for lost time? wow...

Saern wrote:
...and I distinctly remember one of our own pastors calling the denomination "God's frozen chosen." Perhaps that had something to do with it.

I'm curious what it was that your pastor was trying to get across with this statement. Just seems kind of odd to me.

Saern wrote:
To return to god, this is where I depart from the norm. It strikes me as nothing but hubris to try and define "god." How egocentric must we as a species be to assume that "god" has, or even must have, a mind that is human, or understandable to human ways?

But we are egocentric. Probably to an extreme.

Saern wrote:

The assumption is that "God" is all knowing, yet just because he doesn't do what you expect, you are going to judge "God?" Are you omniscient? No. Then how can one even begin to assume that the actions of such a being must make sense to those who lack that quality? That simply strikes me as faulty logic. How arrogant is one to assume that "God" must justify "God's self" to you?

If you had an ant farm, which you tended carefully and loved the members thereof dearly, I still highly doubt that you would bother trying to explain yourself to the ants every several generations, even assuming you could (which you can't; an ant cannot comprehend the world of a human). So how is it that humans are so special that when roles are reversed, we feel entitled to being able to understand that which is greater than us? It reeks of an inflated ego to me.

Playing "devil's advocate" a little here -- The ant doesn't necessarily acknowledge you as its creator either. Also, you are not trying to get get the ant to worship you.

Saern wrote:
My feelings? The word "God" isn't even really appropriate. "God" connotes a deity, an actual being, which I resoundingly reject. To sidetrack myself for a moment, what does it matter what it's called? God, Jeohvah, Yahweh, YHWH, Zeus, Jupiter, or a radish. Does it really make a difference what combination of phonetics are applied to the concept? Call "it" what you will. I personally like "the Divine," as it seems to connote a state of being as much as anything else, and I don't feel it tries to limit the notion as much as "God."

Except that the definition of the different "combination of phonetics" is vastly different. Because of that alone, it does matter.

Saern wrote:
But to return to my point. I truly and genuinely feel that everything is Divine, and the Divine is everywhere. ...And tell me that the awareness we hold in our minds and bodies isn't the essence of the Divine.

This got a little weird for me. Are you saying that God is essentially the "Force" from Star Wars? Sounds a little similar to the Buddhists' point of view?

Saern wrote:
What is bad? What is evil? Is the wave that killed tens of thousands in Asia evil? Are the deaths of those people inherently bad? What of those who die in fire or earthquake? Has some evil fate befallen them? Is pain evil?

I don't fully understand people's hang-up on this either. It probably goes back to the "egocentric" concept. As near as I can figure out, people seem to think that if God is a caring God, then he has a 'duty' to keep tragedies from happening. And then the converse of that is that if he isn't a caring God, then why should we be worshipping him? I don't really think that either one is the case, but it is hard to "prove" or demonstrate why.

Saern wrote:
Do I credit or blame God or Satan? No (I don't believe in the latter; I feel evil is real, but lies solely in human hands).

Why believe in God and not Satan? While I think that far too many people use Satan as a crutch ("The devil made me do it", "The devil is manipulating XXXX"), I don't understand why you are simply dismissing the idea.

Saern wrote:
Why is it God's concern? There are trillions of worlds in the cosmos, many of them likely inhabited. Why are humans so special?

Ok, assuming that there are "many" other inhabited worlds out there, I guess that the answer to "Why are humans so special" would largely revolve around -- I think, therefore I am. Again, I guess a bit egocentric.

And "Why is it God's concern"? Psychologically, I feel that people simply want to know that A) there is something more/better out there for us and B) that something powerful out there actually does care about 'me'. (We really are rather egocentric.)

Saern wrote:
One last thought, not necessarily related to the above. I don't believe that humans or any other being in the universe will ever know "Everything." There will always be something beyond our grasp. I view knowledge like an asymptote. You can come as close as you want to knowing everything, but there is some point which you cannot actually achieve. Ever.

I hope to never stop learning (at least not until I am dead).

Saern wrote:
I suppose I've said quite enough. Hope no one gets too bothered- I mean it sincerely when I say the last thing I want to do is offend someone.

You certainly haven't "said" more than I have or others here. I'm glad you posted. It is interesting to see your views on it.


Moff Rimmer wrote:
Saern wrote:


...and I distinctly remember one of our own pastors calling the denomination "God's frozen chosen." Perhaps that had something to do with it.
I'm curious what it was that your pastor was trying to get across with this statement. Just seems kind of odd to me.

As I remember the event, he was attempting to make a joke referencing the stoic nature of Presbyterians. I didn't really get it, either, and this is probably one reason I'm no longer Presbyterian. :)

Moff Rimmer wrote:
Saern wrote:


The assumption is that "God" is all knowing, yet just because he doesn't do what you expect, you are going to judge "God?" Are you omniscient? No. Then how can one even begin to assume that the actions of such a being must make sense to those who lack that quality? That simply strikes me as faulty logic. How arrogant is one to assume that "God" must justify "God's self" to you?

If you had an ant farm, which you tended carefully and loved the members thereof dearly, I still highly doubt that you would bother trying to explain yourself to the ants every several generations, even assuming you could (which you can't; an ant cannot comprehend the world of a human). So how is it that humans are so special that when roles are reversed, we feel entitled to being able to understand that which is greater than us? It reeks of an inflated ego to me.

Playing "devil's advocate" a little here -- The ant doesn't necessarily acknowledge you as its creator either. Also, you are not trying to get get the ant to worship you.

I don't necessarily worship the Divine, either. I hold inifite wonder and respect towards it, faith in it, love for it, but don't really "worship" it. I consider it part of myself and myself part of it.

Moff Rimmer wrote:
Saern wrote:


My feelings? The word "God" isn't even really appropriate. "God" connotes a deity, an actual being, which I resoundingly reject. To sidetrack myself for a moment, what does it matter what it's called? God, Jeohvah, Yahweh, YHWH, Zeus, Jupiter, or a radish. Does it really make a difference what combination of phonetics are applied to the concept? Call "it" what you will. I personally like "the Divine," as it seems to connote a state of being as much as anything else, and I don't feel it tries to limit the notion as much as "God."
Except that the definition of the different "combination of phonetics" is vastly different. Because of that alone, it does matter.

Unless you can tap into the same source of power and faith, in which case I don't care what you call it; "Jim" would be just fine, if it suits you.

And, while even I think that it would be taking it to an extreme, I do believe that one could find divine inspiration in a radish, although such a person would likely be commited to a ward by our society.

Moff Rimmer wrote:
Saern wrote:


But to return to my point. I truly and genuinely feel that everything is Divine, and the Divine is everywhere. ...And tell me that the awareness we hold in our minds and bodies isn't the essence of the Divine.
This got a little weird for me. Are you saying that God is essentially the "Force" from Star Wars? Sounds a little similar to the Buddhists' point of view?

I suppose that, yes, it is something like that. If I had to try and express my concept of the Divine in scientific terms, it would be similar to an intelligent force, an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent power source. The Divine doesn't say "grow!" or "change!" to plants and animals, but its mere presence infuses life with purpose, energy, and drive, include that to change and advance (hence evolution in my mind; I don't buy into macroevolution being completely random with no direction behind it).

Moff Rimmer wrote:
Saern wrote:


Do I credit or blame God or Satan? No (I don't believe in the latter; I feel evil is real, but lies solely in human hands).
Why believe in God and not Satan? While I think that far too many people use Satan as a crutch ("The devil made me do it", "The devil is manipulating XXXX"), I don't understand why you are simply dismissing the idea.

I don't believe in Satan because I don't believe in a Biblical version of God. I don't believe in devils, demons, or even angels, unless by those terms one means, in our case, a human being possessing the qualities of being "angelic" or "diabolic/demonic" (such as the oft-cited Mother Teresa and Hitler, respectively).

But I do believe in evil. I suppose evil goes back into being somewhat like a force for me, but infinitely weaker (and inherently self-consuming) than the divine and lacking awareness. It only exists as brought into existence through the deeds of certain intelligences, such as humans.

I'm quite glad that I managed to present all that in a form that was capable of sponsoring some discussion; I've had great success in face to face dialogs of such matters, but the more I got to thinking about it, the less sure I was that it would come off well in the "conversation via thesis" format found on messageboards. I'm still trying to read through the rest of this massive thread, but it will likely take me a few weeks. I'm looking forward to it. :)

Scarab Sages

You've got so much here, but I'll try and do one idea/concept at a time...

Saern wrote:
But I do believe in evil. I suppose evil goes back into being somewhat like a force for me, but infinitely weaker (and inherently self-consuming) than the divine and lacking awareness. It only exists as brought into existence through the deeds of certain intelligences, such as humans.

Curious to know what you think about the 'after-life'. Do 'good' people get absorbed into the 'good' force and vice-versa?

You started talking about how basically it is simply God is God and who are we to even try and figure out what his whole point was in the first place. So then the question leads to...
Are we in control of our 'destiny'? Is there a final 'destiny'? Are we just "puppets" controlled by this God/Force? Do our actions make a difference? Is there a reason to be 'good'? Is there a reason not to be 'evil'? Is there a benefit to living longer? If we shouldn't figure out who/what God is, then what do we do with God? If the answer is "nothing", then what good is God (or the concept of God)?

For better or worse, I think that most religions try and answer these types of questions simply because most people don't like to think of their existence as pointless and ultimately rather finite. Kind of curious on how your thoughts fit into this.

And I too like the people here at Paizo for doing a great job discussing so much of this stuff 'civilly'.


What happens when we die? Dunno. I think something happens to our souls (rather than one simply ceasing one's existence), but whatever that is, I have no clue. Ultimately, I don't worry about it or think too much about it. Unlike investigations of one's notion of the divine and morality and spirituality, what the afterlife is or is not seems to have little to no bearing on the here and now, displays no evidence to even base a guess off of, and thus speculation is ultimately futile.

I like to believe my mother is still out there somewhere, along with others I have known who have died. Beyond that, I don't even guess except when I'm feeling whimsical.

I do believe in destiny and fate. Several incidents in my life, including the particulars of the story of my adoption, have left me with no doubt regarding this. But I also believe in free will, and don't think the future is set in stone. I certainly try to be proactive and make my own destiny, yet I feel that there are some things which are (more or less) bound to happen. A falling stone is bound to hit the ground; certainly, there's the chance things will change (someone could catch it), but the vast likelyhood is that it will impact the ground. That's somewhat my view regarding destiny.

As far as some final destiny- I don't know. I'm not sure that there's anymore "reason for being" other than to live and be happy. I think that's quite enough, really. I personally like the theory that the universe will one day implode and everything will start over. So I don't believe there's a final and eternal paradise or result that the universe is striving to achieve. Other than maybe a positive account of its history.

Do our actions matter? They can; they most certainly can. Or, they can mean nothing. If you live a life of good, then you build something for the future. You have a legacy. You mean something.

If you live a life of evil... what's your point? Why even be here? What good is it to detract from existence? You engage in self-destruction, and ultimately you are nothing. You have no "reason" or "meaning." You simply decieve yourself and are small and weak (yes, I think Hitler was a small, weak man, and had no "point" to his existence).

Why not be evil? Well, why choose not to live in filth? Why not disregard the toilet and urinate on your own walls and let it pool around the feces on your floor? Why bathe? Why not let the parasites and dirt eat and rot your skin? For these are the things that the wicked do to themselves in their souls.

Regarding long life- "life" is part of goodness, of the Divine. "Life" is kind of the reason for the universe. So, generally speaking, a longer life is a good thing. You can experience more of the world, learn more, be more, do more, leave more. You have more opportunities to be happy. You are part of this collective we call the world for a longer time. Typically speaking, that's good.

But death is not automatically evil simply because it is the end of life. Lions are not evil because they slay a gazelle, and the gazelle did not die an evil death. All things are made, exist for a time, and then cease. This is true for animals and plants, countries and empires, contenents and seas, planets and stars, galaxies and the universe itself. Endings are simply a fact of existence.

Although, death can be evil. Evil is the death from bullet and bomb, from disease and virus in a land which should be aided and yet recieves too little, or none.

What do we "do" with God? What can you do with god? Consider a child who asks, "Why does the rain fall?" He can recieve an answer, and he may believe it or disbelieve it. Or he may recieve no answer at all. It makes no difference, for the rain continues falling.

So I feel about the Divine. I wonder why things are the way they are, and these are the answers I have found. Whether they are the right answers for anyone else, or whether someone else even has an answer at all, doesn't really matter in the end. The Divine will be, regardless. However, sharing and discussing, of these or any other thoughts, is a good thing because it is a way to learn.

Live, love, and learn. That is all there is to do.


Dear Schrodinger:
Regarding your comment, "I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it,"-- quantum mechanics, that is, well gosh, we're all sorry about it, but there it is: virtual particles keep effervescing out of and back into the quantum foam (read nothiingness) unless some random energy pulse empowers them with reality; particles that once were intimate with each other still act out their marriage after separation, however distant; their positiions are statistical abstractions, never being more thatn 50% probable and even at 36 nanokelvins they refuse to be less than a skidmark; electrons go on leaping from one orbit to another without crossing the space between; so you might just as well stop b+&@#ing and buy some f%@#ing cat food.

- David Lunde, Asimov Magazine, February, 2006


Wow. I feel that this thread is back and ready for action. And with new material, it seems. Three cheers for Saern!

Some comments, however:

No angels and demons--why? I don't really see why your worldview would regard them as fiction, simply because there is no biblical god or satan. In general, yes the idea of divine flying epitomes of perfect good and grimy hateful beings of pure evil seem unlikely without their "boss entities", but your view still seems to hold a "good" and an "evil" that is more or less absolute. Why not have entities of such absolute ideas? On this, I also think that the sheer size of annecdotal evidence of angels in particular, even into modern times, is too great for everyone to have been halucinating or crazy.

But then again, that is my view on the matters, and it has nothing to do with yours or reality (er... get back to that one later I think), just throwing out some ideas.

I was also going to say something about your definition of the evil person, but decided just now that that would open up a huge can of fiendish worms, and also that it is a very common conversation that would vex everyone here.

I think I'm done now. Thank you again for reanimating this thread.


OK, now to the reason I cam searching for this thread.

I have already started this conversation with some of my friends, but hope that the nice people here on Paizo could give me a better perspective on it.

The past. Not to get into all of the abstract "is it a dream" or 1984 stuff, but I feel no connection with mine. I feel like when I remember stuff, it is someone else completely different, and I am simply looking at his day through first person. I also feel like it is a different person in all of the memories, like each day this thing that has culminated in me has woken up differently.

And that's the bit that freaks me out, because is has so much reprocussions for the future. Who will "I" be tomorrow, and will I like this person? Or will this person be so totally different that he will not care about the change? And which one is "me", in any sense?

Sorry to dump this on you guys, but I want to know if there is any others who have had similar feelings, or if I should just have myself commited.


Unfortunately we're going through some crazy contract shifts at work, so I won't have much time to respond. However, I did want to note that from what I read, Saern, you seem to fall fairly well into the "pantheism" thought process. Would you classify yourself as such? I'm not saying we all need to be an "ism" but it can help to frame ones thoughts and conversation.

For that Presbyterian preacher, his comment strikes me as also evoking the Calvinist roots of that particular group, specifically that Man has no ability to choose God, and so God has a Chosen/Elect that will recieve salvation. These Chosen are known and inalterable, predestined so to speak, and so they are the "Frozen Chosen." Though I'm not a Calvinist myself, I did want to point this out as it might provide further clarification on the comment.


Dirk Gently wrote:
Sorry to dump this on you guys, but I want to know if there is any others who have had similar feelings, or if I should just have myself commited.

Felt that way as a youngster; then I had a number of experiences--not all of them voluntary--that stretched my boundaries (or, in some cases, broke them), and I found a constant "core" of self that didn't chip, mold, or vary. And now the "me" of today is more or less exactly the "me" of 10 years ago--older, hopefully wiser, and with a higher cholesterol--but those are all superficial changes. Nothing religious here, just basic human psychology: if you pull through in some tough spots, you sort of learn to trust yourself, I guess. I wouldn't worry too much about it, though--it'll happen on its own, and you'll just wake up one day and realize that "you" are suddely a lot older but that you haven't really changed (personality-wise, I mean; we should NEVER stop learning and developing).

Contributor

Dirk Gently wrote:
The past. Not to get into all of the abstract "is it a dream" or 1984 stuff, but I feel no connection with mine. I feel like when I remember stuff, it is someone else completely different, and I am simply looking at his day through first person.

There's good reasons we can't remember things with perfect accuracy. If you could fully remember pain, you'd go into shock every time you remembered that time you broke your leg. On the flip side, if you could fully remember pleasurable experiences, there'd be no reason to seek new experiences. Hazy memories keep us moving forward.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Dirk Gently wrote:


The past. Not to get into all of the abstract "is it a dream" or 1984 stuff, but I feel no connection with mine. I feel like when I remember stuff, it is someone else completely different, and I am simply looking at his day through first person. I also feel like it is a different person in all of the memories, like each day this thing that has culminated in me has woken up differently.

And that's the bit that freaks me out, because is has so much reprocussions for the future. Who will "I" be tomorrow, and will I like this person? Or will this person be so totally different that he will not care about the change? And which one is "me", in any sense?

Sorry to dump this on you guys, but I want to know if there is any others who have had similar feelings, or if I should just have myself commited.

My con law professor made an argument along those lines that got me. It was in the context of living wills. Suppose you could make a living will that contained a provision like "if I am ever so senile that all I like to do is sit and watch cartoons and eat cocoa puffs, I want you to quit giving me meds and let me die with dignity." Flash forward a few years and it turns out you do in fact become so senile that all you like to do is sit and watch cartoons and eat cocoa puffs. Not only that, you are very happy doing so. What right does that person in the past have to terminate your life in the present, a life that you particularly like.

Ever since then, I've thought about time and identity in a way that is similar to the idea raised in your post. It has occurred to me that the person that made the decisions that brought me to the point where I am in life had fundamentally different values and dreams than I do as I type this today. The thought of trusting my life to the 17 year old kid strikes me as insane, and yet, that's what happened.

Scarab Sages

Sebastian wrote:
It has occurred to me that the person that made the decisions that brought me to the point where I am in life had fundamentally different values and dreams than I do as I type this today. The thought of trusting my life to the 17 year old kid strikes me as insane, and yet, that's what happened.

While I understand what you and Dirk are saying, it feels to me like this line of thinking almost forces us to think that it is impossible to change and remain the same person.

Ok, maybe after writing it out that may be the case -- but it still doesn't really feel to me that I am an entirely new "creature" with every decision that I make.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Moff Rimmer wrote:

Ok, maybe after writing it out that may be the case -- but it still doesn't really feel to me that I am an entirely new "creature" with every decision that I make.

I don't view it as becoming a new creature with each decision you make. I look at it as driving a long distance or going out to sea. Each mile, taken individually, does not make the difference between being near land and out to sea, but in the aggregate and over time, you eventually do lose sight of land. At some point, the land mass moves from being a tangible thing that you can see and reference to an intangible memory inaccessible from your vantage. This is not to say that the land does not exist, but there is a difference between being close enough to land to reach it and being so far out to sea that you could not. And once you are out to sea, you may well think to yourself "what the hell have I done, how did I get out to sea" and back at the beginning of the chain of events that brought you to that point is a naieve you with a boat and the idea of leaving land.

It's like having kids. They change your life in a way that you cannot possibly understand prior to having them, even if you are aware of the changes in the abstract. There's no way that the person who decided to have children could have been fully informed as to all the consequences of their decision to procreate.


Sorry for taking so long to post back here, and thanks for the feedback!

As rural Southern Indiana isn't known as a hotbed of religious diversity (there's "devout church-goer," "Easter and Christmas," and "non-church-goer"), I've never actually had the chance to speak with a pantheist. All my knowledge of it comes from other sources, such as Wikipedia.

I have to say I don't identify myself as part of any religion, or necessarily even philosophy (other than my own). I don't see the point. I look at others and see if there's something I like, perhaps adopting an idea or permutation thereof, but even if I were to find something that matched my ideas completely, I wouldn't suscribe to "being one of them." I may closely sympathize with them, and even admire their beliefs, but I am me, not a Christian or a Buddhist or Zoroastrian or anything else.

Further, I have not and probably never will develop a name for my beliefs, because, again, I don't see the point. They are my beliefs, and that's all there is to it.

But perhaps that's just me feeling uneasy with describing myself in such terms and not wanting to "sign up" to any larger "religious" organization. So, all that said, I think that some forms of pantheism are very, very close to my beliefs. If one feels the need to classify me as something, you could call me a pantheist and I wouldn't be offended at all. But it would probably just be a "closest fit" type thing.

Back to my minister, that's a very interesting insight on his comments, Erian. As I remember (and this was a good while ago, so that may be faulty), he said it with a smirk, and I think he was trying to make light of the stoic nature of Presbyterians- which I hadn't really noticed before. As a matter of fact, while I wouldn't call it stoic, the church we went to was, as I was fond of saying then, like religion with all the spirituallity sucked out by a hypodermic needle.

Now, back to angels and demons. I had to think for a while to come up with an answer to that question. I suppose that I can't throw out the possibility that they may exist. Then again, we could all be brains in jars, or I could be hallucinating everything around me, and none of this matters. But that's another issue.*

Anyway, I suppose I don't feel that the divine doesn't reach out like that. I feel that the experience of divinity can be, and is for me, extremely personal. Yet it is a cosmic force, and one is only as important as one chooses to become. One must reach out to make contact; it will not come for you. As such, angels don't seem to make a whole lot of sense to me.

But, what are we talking about when we say "angel?" The things of folklore? No, I don't believe in them. However, if by "angel," you mean a person who becomes filled with spirit and holiness, a burst of divine power and inspiration almost like an adrenaline rush, to commit heroic and good acts, then yes, I believe in angels, and I think such a person really is an angel. They have achieved, at least temporarily (and sometimes permanently), an extreme, intimate, and empowering connection with something greater.

When it comes to demons, I don't believe in the folkloric version. I don't believe that a human can "transcend" in the same way as one might become "angelic," either. Evil is inherently weaker than good, though it may appear stronger in the short term. It lacks the power and strength. It is self-destroying, stops "evolution." It is anathema to life and existence.

I believe that humans possess the capability for all the evil that the world will ever see. There is no need for demons and devils, and such things would only become scapegoats. I won't entertain a philosophy which allows someone to proclaim "the Devil made me do it!"

At any rate, evil is something that exists by human, or sentient at least, construction. Evil is a force which exists only in the collective world that our minds create and cohabit with the rest of the physical world. Without the type of mind possessed by humans or like beings, evil is an impossibility. Things simply "occur," with no intent. It takes motive; a choice, even an unconscious or unintentional one, to bring evil into existence.

Good, love in particular, is like a fire that creates its own fuel. The more it burns, the stronger it grows, and brighter, and longer-lived. Evil consumes its fuel and will eventually leave only ash and nothingness (by this, I mean what would occur, for example, after a full nuclear exchange).

For this reason, evil is also insanity. Why would someone engage in something that will ultimately be their doom, with no rewards for prosperity? And what does an evil act gain? Even if one controls all the earth, is that true power? If the sun were to not rise the next day, for whatever reason, could you somehow save yourself with all your "power"? If your conquest came at the cost of the habitability of the planet, would your authority somehow stave off your death? No. So, then, what was the point? All you have achieved is undoing.

Anyway, I'm starting to (or am already) ramble. I also want to say that, looking back over what I've written, I fell into the trap of saying "an evil person," and such. While I do believe it is possible for someone to be wholly, or almost wholly, evil, it is rare. More commonly, someone commits evil, engages in evil, etc., but I do not tend to pass judgement in regards to them being evil themselves so quickly (passing judgement on them being ignorant or stupid is another matter).

I'll just throw out a couple more thoughts, hopefully as clarification. I find my basis for morality by asking simple questions. Many people ponder what the point of life is. Well, what does life seek to do? Biologically, the answers are "not die" and "procreate." A living thing flees danger in an attempt to stay alive, and a living thing seeks to reproduce. Obviously, then, this is the point of life: Existence and Evolution. Evolution not just as in macro/micro evolution, but evolution as in change and progress. Going from a bacterium to homo sapiens sapiens is evolution, but so is progress from monarchy to democracy. Infanthood to adulthood. Hydrogen clouds to stars.

The point of evolution is, to me, to contribute to the world, either by something's simply existing, or by what it can do beneficially for others (which sometimes its simply existing is beneficial enough).

Now, what's the point of an individual's life? What's the point of my life, or your life? That's also simple. Happiness. Humans seek to do things which make them happy, so that must be the point of our lives. Of course, one should remain within the context of the even larger goals of Existence and Evolution. Happiness through serial murder isn't allowed, nor is happiness through self-destructive sloth a good thing. So long as you are happy and that happiness doesn't cost you some form of health, or someone else a form of health, then you are fulfilling the point of life. Simple as that. Oh, and thanks to the Dalai Lama for that insight; I didn't develop it on my own. :)

So, then, life is about being Happy, while continuing to Exist and Evolve. What of death? Death is part of the cycle. As I previously said, all things (ALL THINGS) are created, exist for a time, and then perish. Unless one believes existence is inherently evil, something so integral and natural as "ending" cannot be bad by definition. You can only Exist for so long, and when that time is over, accept death without fear.

But what of death inflicted upon other beings? Does that not interfere with their Existence, perhaps Evolution, and certainly their Happiness? Yes, but there is a context to it. A lion eating a gazelle has a certain balance to it, and overall actually continues the saga of Evolution, which may be the most important of all life's goals. Likewise, a hunter taking deer from a forest often provides a service by making sure that the deer do not become too populace and end up greating stress on their species by depleting the food supply. Predation within balance is not evil.

Additionally, a life form has a right to defend itself if it is able. Were the gazelle to figure out how to kill a lion before the gazelle itsef were killed, that would be "fair." If a squirrel were to slay a hunter who were after it, somehow, that would be "fair." Perhaps tragic, for some beings in some cases, but "fair." This is how I feel humans are perfectly justified in killing the germs that prey on our bodies. Such things live fragile existences, anyway. As a group they are nearly indestructable, but individually they perish constantly. So their deaths aren't something which really is concerning to the universe, as their "lot" seems to be only that. Further, they contribute little to Evolution. At least, relative to a human, or even a dog. Letting such things as diseases wipe us out simply to preserve their right to Existence is folly, because the whole world would be reduced to bacteria, and Evolution, along with Happiness, wouldn't be served. And again, a being is entitled to its own defense if it can find a way to enact it.

So, finally, Good is that which is in the balance of Existence, Evolution, and Happiness. Evil is that which disrupts the balance. One may from infer from this that Good is the norm, what is going on in most situations, and Evil is the deviance, only occasionally, but noticeably, appearing. And I would agree with one. What we consider to be acts of Good, then, may well be pronounced actions taken to restore a balance to the normal milieu of "goodness."

So, there are some more musings, ramblings, definitions, and hopefully, some answers. I can't say how happy I am to actually be in a conversation about these things, considering the normal reaction is either a blank stare or total confusion. :)

*Such musings, while at times entertaining, drive me crazy when seriously discussed. They strike me as a serious waste of time. If they are true, then when you become aware of it, it should be like waking from a dream, all this will dissappear, and you'll know it. The very fact that one is still around to discuss the concept means that either it's not true at all, or you haven't "awoken" yet; in either case, the point is moot as you are still a subject of this reality. Now go do something more productive, or smoke a joint so that what's coming from your mouth is at least to be expected. Sorry, got ranty.


Saern wrote:

*Such musings, while at times entertaining, drive me crazy when seriously discussed. They strike me as a serious waste of time. If they are true, then when you become aware of it, it should be like waking from a dream, all this will dissappear, and you'll know it. The very fact that one is still around to discuss the concept means that either it's not true at all, or you haven't "awoken" yet; in either case, the point is moot as you are still a subject of this reality. Now go do something more productive, or smoke a joint so that what's coming from your mouth is at least to be expected. Sorry, got ranty.

Why? Why are such things useless? I only reflect on the possablility that we may be wrong. There are things we don't understand. Is this a hallucination? Maybe, maybe not. I understand that that sounds like an evasive answer, but the truth is that we cannot be sure of anything we say (and yes, I fully understand the paradox in that statemnt, or as much as I can). It's a perspective thing -- by realizing that there are most definitely things we don't and possibly can't understand, we get a perspective on all the things we do. Of course, a skeptical attitude may not be necessary when doing something like, say, buying a pretzel from a street vendor, but when talking about things like, say, god or angellic/daemonic beings, it helps to realize that there is the possability that the world is stranger than we know.

Am I saying these things for my own entertainment? No, not that I am aware of. I am stating a belief of mine. Could I be horrably wrong and entertaining a useless and time wasting idea? Yes, I accept that possability. But frankly, I don't care. I feel that this perspective on things is, in fact, productive. It has been for me. And I'm not the only one, either, others have felt so strongly about this that entire volumes have been written on the subject.

As for the "awakening" bit, why? I'm not talking about "The Matrix", or any such thing. Will thinking that this may be an illusion cause it to not be? Perhaps, perhaps not. Quite frankly, if it is all an illusion, why should there be anything to "awaken" to, except more illusion. Why should there be anything after the first illusion? There might be, how should I know, but it doesn't immediately follow that an illusion implies a "truth" or "reality".

Sorry I dragged this out, but there seemed to me to be a few misconceptions on what I was saying.

Oh, and the joint thing was extraneous. Thought I should adress that.


Sorry; I didn't mean to get offensive in that addendum of mine. It's simply my personal opinion that lengthy discussion of such thoughts don't offer as much potential as others do. Questioning the nature of god, morality, etc., can lead insight into what one should do here, and now, in this world, which we assume to be real. What one means by the word "god" or "angel" or anything, for that matter, seems, to me, to be ascertainable by a more direct discussion of semantics, rather than questioning whether or not anything is ever really knowable or whether the person we're speaking to really exists.

Because yes, it does. That may sound arbitrary and close minded, but the fact is if you don't eat, you're going to starve, and if you walk in front of a truck, you're going to get splattered. No illusion to it. Doubting whether any of our thoughts or senses can be trusted, to me, seems to only lead to dysfunctionality in which nothing ever happens. How could you continue contemplating the idea if the things you were suspecting proved true?

It's always good to question, and to seek further information, and the best of that information which is available, and be cautious and cognizant, when taking actions, that unknown factors might be at play which will lead to unintended results.

But the truth remains that eventually you have to go with what you know at the moment and simply act on it in the best way you know how.

I feel it's like pondering the afterlife, something that I don't really do. It's too far removed, and the implications are too distant, and there are too many other more relevant, immediate, less abstract concerns. But all that's just me. I certainly believe in anyone's right to philosophize whatever they want, and often find such thoughts pondering the reality of reality intriguing and enlightning... but it's just not my favorite cup of tea, relative to more, I suppose, practical(?) matters.

1,551 to 1,600 of 13,109 << first < prev | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / A Civil Religious Discussion All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.