Page 3 of 4
Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2004 6:19 am
by Worm of Despite
Dragonlily wrote:Lord Foul wrote:Perhaps, but I feel no yearning for any kind of spiritual satiation, theistic or otherwise. Correct me if I'm wrong, but, by your logic, since I don't feel any "hunger", there must be nothing to be hungry for. Either that, or I simply have no void (or I'm not aware of it).
As my beliefs go, if those things were right for you now, you would be yearning for them. This means you have other things to focus on. Maybe later that will change, maybe not. My two cents.
Sorry Joy, could you clarify? Are you saying that I will
eventually yearn for something spiritual, because yearning for something spiritual happens to everyone across-the-board, and the only reason someone isn't yearning is because it's not "the right time"? I could be totally misinterpreting, and I apologize if I am, but that's what I'm picking up from your frequencies.
Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2004 6:21 am
by duchess of malfi
And a very good two cents they are.
Peoples' needs can change at different places in their lives.
Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2004 6:23 am
by Worm of Despite
Ah, gotcha. Yes, good
! Being the dashing young jailbait that I am, my needs haven't changed much, but I can relate marginally--insofar as music is concerned. For instance! Thought I could never live without Led Zeppelin, but just recently I got rid of all my Zep CDs to make room for some glam rock (God, I hope dAN doesn't read this post).
Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2004 6:30 am
by Avatar
Foul-- I think that what DragonLily was saying is that your lack of such need
may change, but it may
not.
I like your logical extension of ChoChiyo's statement by the way.
--A
Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2004 6:38 am
by Dragonlily
Right, Av. Different lives have different needs, imo. And as Duchess said, they often change within lives, too. 30 years ago I would never have predicted my thinking now.
Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2004 2:05 pm
by ChoChiyo
Lord Foul wrote:Dragonlily wrote:Lord Foul wrote:Perhaps, but I feel no yearning for any kind of spiritual satiation, theistic or otherwise. Correct me if I'm wrong, but, by your logic, since I don't feel any "hunger", there must be nothing to be hungry for. Either that, or I simply have no void (or I'm not aware of it).
As my beliefs go, if those things were right for you now, you would be yearning for them. This means you have other things to focus on. Maybe later that will change, maybe not. My two cents.
Sorry Joy, could you clarify? Are you saying that I will
eventually yearn for something spiritual, because yearning for something spiritual happens to everyone across-the-board, and the only reason someone isn't yearning is because it's not "the right time"? I could be totally misinterpreting, and I apologize if I am, but that's what I'm picking up from your frequencies.
Lord Foul--
I think that your attention is focused on the thing you need the most at the time. I'm well fed, I'm very satisfied with my career, my friendship needs are met, I'm well hydrated. So my spiritual needs are at the forefront of my attention.
I also wonder, too, if "other longings" may be, in reality, the spiritual longing--but unidentified.
Like, when you are craving something and you go through your entire refrigerator and all the cupboards looking for "it" but unsure what "it" is.
Just a thought.
Oh, by the way, I have had long periods of time when I have not felt this longing, but it always comes back, eventually.
Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2004 8:56 pm
by Baradakas
Fortunately, we did not create God; He created us. And as Jesus existed long before his human incarnation, nothing that exists is older than Him. And as He is the incarnation of God, anything else in all creation is only relevant as it pertains to Him.
And you would prove this how? Jesus never made that statement in all the books of the Bible. Considering he has only showed up once and that was a couple of thousand years back I'm not sure how concerned about the world he really is especially with all the bleakness dennis describes.
Actually, He did make that statement. In the New Testament Jesus clearly states that no man has laid eyes on the Father, meaning, of course that the God of the Old Testament was in fact Jesus himself!! This is one of the most overlooked statements that He makes, clearly telling us that He existed long before he was incarnated into human shape.
Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2004 4:35 am
by Avatar
Baradakas wrote:Actually, He did make that statement. In the New Testament Jesus clearly states that no man has laid eyes on the Father, meaning, of course that the God of the Old Testament was in fact Jesus himself!! This is one of the most overlooked statements that He makes, clearly telling us that He existed long before he was incarnated into human shape.
Sorry Baradakas, perhaps it's down to lack of context, but I don't see how you make the leap from jesus saying no man has ever seen god, to the fact that the OT god was jesus. Doesn't Occams Razor insist that the words mean that god has never been seen?
Maybe if you quote the verse, but it still seems like specious reasoning to me.
--Avatar
Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2004 2:48 pm
by Baradakas
No, because there are many instances of people meeting God in the Old Testament....
Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2004 3:59 pm
by ChoChiyo
Yes, Moses saw him face to face on MT. S*** I can't remember how to spell it...Siani? Sianai? Sainai?
Something like that.
And there is speculation that the figure that appeared in the "fiery furnace" with Shadrack, Meshack, and Abednego was Jesus.
Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2004 6:17 pm
by Revan
ChoChiyo wrote:If he made us unable to break them, then we would have no free will--we'd be like robots programmed to say "I love you" when in truth there would be nothing there--like a doll with a tape recorder inside.
In my humble and imperfect understanding of all things religious, I believe that God gives us the choice to love him or not.
Where the problem comes in for me is that he lets us choose to love him or not, but if we don't, he sends us to hell.
That for me is a problem.
Set a cookie on the table and say to a child, eat the cookie or don't, it's up to you. (But if you eat it, I'll beat the shit out of you.)
I know there must be an answer that makes sense. I'm just struggling with it.
Nathan wrote:That's the way I've always thought of it. God gives us the "gift" of life, but we live it his way, or he puts us into eternal torment. Not such a great gift really is it? That's like putting the kid in a room with a biscuit on the table, then scrawling on the wall "Eat the biscuit or don't, it's up to you. But if you do I'll take it back from inside your stomach then beat the shit out of you, and continue beating the shit out of you for all eternity."
He doesn't even know if it was you who wrote it there, or if you did, whether you'll know he's eaten it, or even care enough to come back and beat the shit out of him if he does eat it.
Exactly, so really, if we HAVE to obey these Commandments, or we'll go to hell, surely we have no free will anyway. So therefore, your argument saying "then we would have no free will"; is void. because if we go to hell because we don't obey the commandments, we have no free will anyways.
Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2004 9:09 pm
by UrLord
Darth, that's lunacy. You're suggesting that because some choices bear unpleasant (to put it mildly, in this case) consequences, then that choice simply does not exist. You're suggesting that only choices with no negative consequences actually count as choices, which is ridiculous. Hey, I could choose to write the assembly program that I've been assigned for homework...or I could choose not to. If I chose not to write it, then I very well might fail the class...but the choice still exists.
You make choices and accept the consequences that result from your choice, but the potential consequences of choices do not determine the existence of the choice itself.
Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2004 9:34 pm
by Cail
Precisely. All choices have consequences, some good, some not-so-good. We've all made choices that have negative outcomes, oftentimes on purpose.
I broke curfew, knowing I'd get beaten and grounded.
I skipped classes knowing my grades would suffer.
I drive fast knowing I could get a ticket.
That's freewill Darth.
Posted: Sat Dec 11, 2004 5:54 am
by dennisrwood
Darth : and there is more to follow than just the ten commandments anyway. Jesus replaced the old covenant. and still free exists.
Posted: Sat Dec 11, 2004 3:00 pm
by Revan
Hang on! I didn't say I believed that rubbish! i'm saying that's basically what we've been given! I know it's stupid! That's what I'm trying to put out to you.
Posted: Sat Dec 11, 2004 3:37 pm
by Furls Fire
What is stupid? Be very careful here, Darth...
Posted: Sat Dec 11, 2004 5:48 pm
by Worm of Despite
Darth Revan wrote:ChoChiyo wrote:If he made us unable to break them, then we would have no free will--we'd be like robots programmed to say "I love you" when in truth there would be nothing there--like a doll with a tape recorder inside.
In my humble and imperfect understanding of all things religious, I believe that God gives us the choice to love him or not.
Where the problem comes in for me is that he lets us choose to love him or not, but if we don't, he sends us to hell.
That for me is a problem.
Set a cookie on the table and say to a child, eat the cookie or don't, it's up to you. (But if you eat it, I'll beat the shit out of you.)
I know there must be an answer that makes sense. I'm just struggling with it.
Nathan wrote:That's the way I've always thought of it. God gives us the "gift" of life, but we live it his way, or he puts us into eternal torment. Not such a great gift really is it? That's like putting the kid in a room with a biscuit on the table, then scrawling on the wall "Eat the biscuit or don't, it's up to you. But if you do I'll take it back from inside your stomach then beat the shit out of you, and continue beating the shit out of you for all eternity."
He doesn't even know if it was you who wrote it there, or if you did, whether you'll know he's eaten it, or even care enough to come back and beat the shit out of him if he does eat it.
Exactly, so really, if we HAVE to obey these Commandments, or we'll go to hell, surely we have no free will anyway. So therefore, your argument saying "then we would have no free will"; is void. because if we go to hell because we don't obey the commandments, we have no free will anyways.
I would've said "ultimatum", rather than free will.
Posted: Sat Dec 11, 2004 8:51 pm
by UrLord
Darth Revan wrote:Hang on! I didn't say I believed that rubbish! i'm saying that's basically what we've been given! I know it's stupid! That's what I'm trying to put out to you.
Let me get this straight, Darth. When you said "we have no free will" what you really meant was "some people think we have no free will, but I'm not one of them!"
So you're saying that you believe we do have free will then? Or are you misinterpretting my rebuttal of your statement for agreement?
Posted: Sun Dec 12, 2004 4:43 pm
by Baradakas
Darth : and there is more to follow than just the ten commandments anyway. Jesus replaced the old covenant. and still free exists.
Jesus did not
replace anything. When asked how to achieve life eternal, what does Jesus say? "Follow the Ten Commandments." No where in the Bible does it say, Jesus nailed the commandments to the cross.
Read the New Testament. A man without works does not achieve life eternal. In Revelation, read about the masses singing "songs old and new", this is a sign that the Old Testament and New were meant to live in harmony. Again, I repeat, show me one line in the New Test. that shows we have "done away" with God's Laws. Especially after all the times God states clearly, "I am the Lord, I do not change."
-B
Posted: Sun Dec 12, 2004 5:14 pm
by ChoChiyo
Somewhere, and I'm sorry to say, I can't remember where (or how, exactly, it was phrased), in the Bible, Jesus says something like he did not come to abolish the law (of the old testament) but to fulfill it.