Total Posts:5|Showing Posts:1-5
Jump to topic:

Damnation/Dualities/Creation

John_Rodney
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2011 2:36:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Why is it with such acceptance and lack of pity that so many people can believe that all those who disagree with them should burn for eternity. Where has the empathy gone from the brains of those who believe in the love of Christ. Doesn't it seem more logical for the existence of mankind to be defined by each individual path? If there were indeed only two endings to every path what would be the need for anything other than two types of individuals? Or the need for anything other than two paths. Existence could be simplified into a short period of time in which one decision is made and then the result is to go on to the next destination. Does the life itself persist as to allow us a thousand chances to change our mind on the subject only to have the final answer being the last decision you made before death, even possible in the last seconds of life?

If one were to assume that god was real and created everything then the next logical deduction would be that god created science since science is the means by which the world around us works that he created. So science must validate god, and god must validate science. The church itself spends a ton of its time fighting new technology, theories, and experiments. If the church truly believed in the creation by a God and that God created science why would they fear the results of scientific endeavor or even attempt to hinder its progression when they knew that it would only serve to validate god? Unless it represented a fear of losing control.

It becomes interesting that the two largest concepts contend to contradict each other when in reality the outcome of their explanation of creation is the same. No ability to prove via experimentation and therefore must be believed either via the most logical conclusion of faith, or the most spiritual conclusion of faith. We are bending our own minds to see what we want out of every situation. I saw an experiment one time where a man simulated the early stages of planet earth development and caused the basic building blocks of RNA to be formed. The article believed this to be proof that life could randomly have occurred. I wondered why the article refused to acknowledge that the experiment had an intelligent designer, and I realized that it was due to what the person wanted to learn from the experiment and what I wanted to learn. We each perceived two opposite scenarios of which both could be considered correct from the same circumstance. Does this leave room for a 3rd 4th or fifth alternate circumstance that could also be assumed to be true as well? Is the concept of one truth and one falsehood merely a creation of a three dimensional mind trying to simplify concepts that are beyond it?

Einstein was able to point to the first ripples of a quantum world in which nothing could be fully certain and was constantly held to the need of an observer. Now we face a social mentality that still holds everyone to old school way of thought perpetuated with dualities. The contention that one is right leads to all those who disagree to be wrong. Is there a possible situation in which all parties are correct for their own individual paths that don't lead to only two destinations but an accumulation of destinations that are equivalent to the entire number of paths walked? If that was possible then every truth would only be correct if the party were walking on that exact path at that exact time. While global truths are undeniable and become scientific law, individual truths are complicated and self-defined. There is a world and reality that we could live in in which we recognize that both you are right and I am right and it doesn't threaten either of our existences or egos, because we accept the truth that we are different. What works for me will not work for you and vise versa. Life is complex and infinitely unpredictable there are so many flavors don't be scared to take a taste. Happy holidays.
gr33k_fr33k5
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2011 11:42:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/7/2011 2:36:27 AM, John_Rodney wrote:
Why is it with such acceptance and lack of pity that so many people can believe that all those who disagree with them should burn for eternity. Where has the empathy gone from the brains of those who believe in the love of Christ. Doesn't it seem more logical for the existence of mankind to be defined by each individual path? If there were indeed only two endings to every path what would be the need for anything other than two types of individuals? Or the need for anything other than two paths. Existence could be simplified into a short period of time in which one decision is made and then the result is to go on to the next destination. Does the life itself persist as to allow us a thousand chances to change our mind on the subject only to have the final answer being the last decision you made before death, even possible in the last seconds of life?

It is for this very reason that God is the one to judge souls not us. Each one's final destination IS the totality of the path walked. A tree is known by it's fruit, unfortunately our fruit is all bad (yes all of it) without to bool of Christ. Hence, anyone not in Christ is unable to please God, hence the Great Commission.

If one were to assume that god was real and created everything then the next logical deduction would be that god created science since science is the means by which the world around us works that he created. So science must validate god, and god must validate science. The church itself spends a ton of its time fighting new technology, theories, and experiments. If the church truly believed in the creation by a God and that God created science why would they fear the results of scientific endeavor or even attempt to hinder its progression when they knew that it would only serve to validate god? Unless it represented a fear of losing control.

The only science that I fight against is that which breaks moral laws I hold dear. As human beings we are naturally afraid of change, we are comfortable in the present. Any hesitance on the part of Christians to embrace technology or science is either
1) a personal choice (think Amish)
2) a choice made out of fear

either way it has no real bearing on the validity of Religion.

It becomes interesting that the two largest concepts contend to contradict each other when in reality the outcome of their explanation of creation is the same. No ability to prove via experimentation and therefore must be believed either via the most logical conclusion of faith, or the most spiritual conclusion of faith. We are bending our own minds to see what we want out of every situation. I saw an experiment one time where a man simulated the early stages of planet earth development and caused the basic building blocks of RNA to be formed. The article believed this to be proof that life could randomly have occurred. I wondered why the article refused to acknowledge that the experiment had an intelligent designer, and I realized that it was due to what the person wanted to learn from the experiment and what I wanted to learn. We each perceived two opposite scenarios of which both could be considered correct from the same circumstance. Does this leave room for a 3rd 4th or fifth alternate circumstance that could also be assumed to be true as well? Is the concept of one truth and one falsehood merely a creation of a three dimensional mind trying to simplify concepts that are beyond it?

agreed, bias is in every single action of our lives from the second we are born.

Einstein was able to point to the first ripples of a quantum world in which nothing could be fully certain and was constantly held to the need of an observer. Now we face a social mentality that still holds everyone to old school way of thought perpetuated with dualities. The contention that one is right leads to all those who disagree to be wrong. Is there a possible situation in which all parties are correct for their own individual paths that don't lead to only two destinations but an accumulation of destinations that are equivalent to the entire number of paths walked? If that was possible then every truth would only be correct if the party were walking on that exact path at that exact time. While global truths are undeniable and become scientific law, individual truths are complicated and self-defined. There is a world and reality that we could live in in which we recognize that both you are right and I am right and it doesn't threaten either of our existences or egos, because we accept the truth that we are different. What works for me will not work for you and vise versa. Life is complex and infinitely unpredictable there are so many flavors don't be scared to take a taste. Happy holidays.

What is wrong with traditional ways of thinking? Most of the questions i see today are simply re-makes of the questions presented by Greek Philosophers of old. That being said duality may be an oversimplification but it is often ultimately accurate. Either you are a terrorist or you aren't, either you love God or you don't, either you are living or dead. With regards to heaven and hell, hell is for those not perfect in life, heaven is for those who are perfect.
I am free, free indeed!

ignorance is bliss
John_Rodney
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2011 6:03:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/7/2011 11:42:02 AM, gr33k_fr33k5 wrote:
At 12/7/2011 2:36:27 AM, John_Rodney wrote:What is wrong with traditional ways of thinking? Most of the questions i see today are simply re-makes of the questions presented by Greek Philosophers of old. That being said duality may be an oversimplification but it is often ultimately accurate. Either you are a terrorist or you aren't, either you love God or you don't, either you are living or dead. With regards to heaven and hell, hell is for those not perfect in life, heaven is for those who are perfect.

The problem is the duality is not ultimately accurate it is never accurate. Due to the understandings of science and the reality that nothing can be certain we must understand even within ourselves there is no room for a concept of perfection. Unless perfection defines that which is us and then it would not be in any way based on our actions or our faiths but merely our existence makes us perfect. We haven't eliminated any of the ugly sides of our psychology, though science is constantly progressing the world around us. We gain the use of better and better toys while social advancement seems to lumber behind. While equal rights and woman's suffrage were great advancements to the western culture of thinking it is not merely enough. The creation of the achieved perfection itself is that which causes judgements between ourselves and eventually digresses into war and violence. I remember being told that no one is perfect and that every person is a sinner, by that definition I fear your last statement says that hell is for humans and heaven is for god. I understand in order for some truths to exist and be fully believed by the person walking their path they must deny that my truth is real or right. I accept that everyone won't agree with my mentality or mindset, but I still believe if you are being honest with yourself you are exactly who you should be in your state of existence. By then end of the progression of life the journey in its ecompasing of all behaviors and definitions will be impossible to categorize into a mere duality of right or wrong/ good or bad/ smart or dumb. It will be constantly ranging through different degrees of that and all other dualities in a combination. All those decisions and varying degrees will only be positively one thing and that is you. Take all the yous and events combine them together through all time and they will equal energy which will be continual and equivalent through all.