Easter celebration

[twoskinsonemanns]

Seems funny arguing semantics of soul and spirit, topics of which there is absolutely no evidence.

My major hang up over the religions I've been exposed to has always been the claims of the creator being absent of any evil.
I perhaps could accept a creator that was sadistic... Or maybe just a mix of good and evil.
If the bible is accurate then the creator made man with the exact variables in order for him to fail.
Being omniscient one would know that a creation with these certain attributes put in this certain situation would do this certain thing.
The same goes with satan. Created in the exact way that would lead to his falling from grace.
If I built a robot, and programmed it to do something, then got angry when it did it...That wouldn't make much sense.
I could feasibly accept a creator that did that in order to have some fun of whatever. But don't try selling me on him being pure good, loving and all that.

So if there is an honest religion that has some answers I would be open to it. "We're not meant to know" just doesn't cut it.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I like Penn Jillette's take on it. There is no evil just wrong.

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

That is correct. Very good. Man has free will to fail or succeed, as he chooses.

To make Satan and the Creator equivalent is, IIRC, the Manichaean Heresy, a dualistic cosmology of good battling evil. Tang Emperor WuZong ordered Mani's followers exterminated in the Ninth Century. Caliphs and Muqtars killed so many that a Tenth Century scholar knew of only five Manichaeans in Bagdad, its center city.

God created evil so that men attracted to evil would be helped in their failure. A kind and loving God.

Man's choice? He created a man in a certain way with the knowledge that as created he would fail. If omniscient then it was all planned out and executed exactly the way he designed. Adam had no free will. God made him with the precise physiological make up to act the way he did.

What was it about adam that made him choose evil?....exactly what god put in adam that made him choose it.
Any other way puts limits on god's omniscience.

not so kind and loving IMO.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Man's choice? He created a man in a certain way with the knowledge that as created he would fail. If omniscient then it was all planned out and executed exactly the way he designed. Adam had no free will. God made him with the precise physiological make up to act the way he did.

What was it about adam that made him choose evil?....exactly what god put in adam that made him choose it.
Any other way puts limits on god's omniscience.

not so kind and loving IMO.

Doesn't follow... Claiming that omniscience equates to choosing every action taken by every object or entity. Claiming that knowing what will happen equates to causing it to happen. That is a false.

Oh, and the great thing about it is the Easter story. Even though we failed, Christ came and lived a perfect life, and made a way for us to be redeemed, something that we could never accomplish on our own, no matter how hard we tried. I bet that really pisses Lucifer off, that we'd be given that opportunity and not him, eh?

 

[georg jetson]

... Since we are talking about spirits, which are by definition immortal, ...

How are spirits immortal by definition?

 

[georg jetson]

Seems funny arguing semantics of soul and spirit, topics of which there is absolutely no evidence.

Well... that's not the case. There's plenty of evidence.

My major hang up over the religions I've been exposed to has always been the claims of the creator being absent of any evil.
I perhaps could accept a creator that was sadistic... Or maybe just a mix of good and evil.
If the bible is accurate then the creator made man with the exact variables in order for him to fail.
Being omniscient one would know that a creation with these certain attributes put in this certain situation would do this certain thing.
The same goes with satan. Created in the exact way that would lead to his falling from grace.
If I built a robot, and programmed it to do something, then got angry when it did it...That wouldn't make much sense.
I could feasibly accept a creator that did that in order to have some fun of whatever. But don't try selling me on him being pure good, loving and all that.

So if there is an honest religion that has some answers I would be open to it. "We're not meant to know" just doesn't cut it.

For the sake of your question would you consider the definition of "evil" as anything contrary to the will of the Creator?

If so, then I propose that the Creator wants beings that WANT to be with him. The only way to do this is to put them somewhere else and give them a choice. We are given the opportunity to do things any way we wish and are allowed to suffer the consequences. Each of us will eventually come to terms with the fact that following the Creator's will is truly the only correct way. If we were created, placed in the Creator's presence and then forced to do his will, then we'd be robots.

 

[georg jetson]

Doesn't follow... Claiming that omniscience equates to choosing every action taken by every object or entity. Claiming that knowing what will happen equates to causing it to happen. That is a false.

Oh, and the great thing about it is the Easter story. Even though we failed, Christ came and lived a perfect life, and made a way for us to be redeemed, something that we could never accomplish on our own, no matter how hard we tried. I bet that really pisses Lucifer off, that we'd be given that opportunity and not him, eh?

Excellent explanation. Not only saying omniscience equates to no real choice is false, but that actually constrains an omnipotent Creator. Of course such a creator is capable of creating sentient beings that have an actual ability to make a choice. So the Creator knows what those choices will be, they're not mutually exclusive.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Seems funny arguing semantics of soul and spirit, topics of which there is absolutely no evidence.

That statement sure doesn't seem right. Might as well say "I'm not self-aware" or something equally odd.

If I built a robot, and programmed it to do something, then got angry when it did it...That wouldn't make much sense.
I could feasibly accept a creator that did that in order to have some fun of whatever. But don't try selling me on him being pure good, loving and all that.

So if there is an honest religion that has some answers I would be open to it. "We're not meant to know" just doesn't cut it.

How interesting. I think you have some false impressions about God. Not sure if you're open to discussing it or if you were just doing some drive by criticism If open, I could try to discuss with you. If not, I won't try.

 

[Citizen]

How are spirits immortal by definition?

continue to exist despite death of body

 

[Citizen]

Seems funny arguing semantics of soul and spirit, topics of which there is absolutely no evidence.

Oh, I don't know. I think it depends on which evidence and how conclusively a fella wants it proved. I say this because every time a thread steered in this exact direction in the past, it ended up with the naysayers rejecting all the evidence presented as "doesn't prove it!" Somehow the discussions always get shifted from evidence of support to demands for irrefutable conclusive proof.

So, I figured I'd close the door on that before it came up.

There is lots of evidence. Just like anything else, a fella's degree of certainty about something depends on how much he observes that something. So, rather than get into arguments about whether this or that evidence conclusively proves it, lets just look at some evidence. If its not conclusive for you, fine by me. If it only makes you say to yourself, "Hmmmm. I wonder?" then fine by me.

Another thing that comes up all the time is disputation that every piece of evidence is inconclusive because the observer was hallucinating, lying, etc., etc. They always seem to forget that their statements about witness hallucinations, lies, etc., are conjectural and certainly don't disprove the evidence any more than the evidence proves it.

So, here's some evidence. Take it for what its worth. Also, lets leave religion out of it or the moment; my examples stand independent of religious considerations.

The simplest one is ghosts. Tons and tons and tons of people report ghosts. I've personally encountered three. The first occurred in company of another person--we both saw the same thing. I've lost count of the number of others who've told me they encountered ghosts. The list includes friends, a family member, co-workers, an employer.

Past-life memories. I've encountered a number of people who can remember stuff that happened to them before this life. I can't, so I can't testify to it myself.

Out-of-body experiences. Tons and tons of these reported. Plus, people I know personally: one each by two employers, co-workers across the years, a family member.

So, there you go. For me, the volume and variety of that evidence adds up enough to push the question dang close to total certainty. However, I can understand a fella having some doubts unless he's experienced it himself.

Back to religion. So, for me, I am not surprised at all that religions discuss the human spirit or soul. What would be surprising is if they didn't.

 

[georg jetson]

continue to exist despite death of body

I meant, why is a spirit immortal by definition? I don't see immortality as a part of the definition of a Spirit.

 

[Citizen]

I meant, why is a spirit immortal by definition? I don't see immortality as a part of the definition of a Spirit.

I'm not following you.

Also, I see where I did not quite get my answer right. Lemme try again. "Exists independent of the body, even beyond death of the body."

 

[solus]

That statement sure doesn't seem right. Might as well say "I'm not self-aware" or something equally odd.

How interesting. I think you have some false impressions about God. Not sure if you're open to discussing it or if you were just doing some drive by criticism If open, I could try to discuss with you. If not, I won't try.

rof...

so much for proselytizing...

ipse

 

[solus]

Well... that's not the case. There's plenty of evidence.
snip

truly...objective evidence not emotionalized subjective evidence...truly...

ipse

 

[Citizen]

truly...objective evidence not emotionalized subjective evidence...truly...

ipse

Why not have a look at post #168 above.

 

[georg jetson]

I'm not following you.

Also, I see where I did not quite get my answer right. Lemme try again. "Exists independent of the body, even beyond death of the body."

Ok. I agree we have a spirit seperate from the body, I just don't think it's immortal. It may very well die when the body does or maybe at some other time. Just sayin that the agreement that there is a spirit doesn't nesessarily mean an immortal spirit.

 

[Citizen]

Ok. I agree we have a spirit seperate from the body, I just don't think it's immortal. It may very well die when the body does.

Oh, I see what you mean.

Why not take a look at post #168 above.

I would argue that instead of having a spirit, a person is a spirit. Said differently, the thing behind the eyes that is aware of itself, I would argue, is a spirit.

 

[georg jetson]

Oh, I see what you mean.

Why not take a look at post #168 above.

I would argue that instead of having a spirit, a person is a spirit. Said differently, the thing behind the eyes that is aware of itself, I would argue, is a spirit.

Agreed.

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

If open, I could try to discuss with you. If not, I won't try.

I'm open to a logical discussion. Would you agree that when god made adam the exact way he did he knew adam would choose to sin?

Surely he could have made adam slightly different so he would choose not to sin.

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

Why not have a look at post #168 above.

I understand the hesitation to get into deeply. I was refering to hard evidence. Scientific observable evidence. Not ghost stories. Obviously many people have had unexplained personal experiences they believe to be ghost or spirits. I wouldn't call that evidence.