Total Posts:42|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What if God wants to remain mysterious

SingularityofLight
Posts: 1,915
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2018 9:00:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
What if, To prevent entrenchments in dogma that humans are so apt to do, The Supreme Being wants to operate only through our deepest being and conscience, But refuses to be named. She-he does not want to create religions, Churches, Scriptures, Etc. But wants everyone to use their own beings and conscience to uphold the basic principles of individual peace and freedom. That's it.
Leaning
Posts: 2,544
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2018 9:04:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
If it was, Then it would be, And sure, Might be already. Though I don't think so myself. I'm not sure it would really change anything in practicality.
SingularityofLight
Posts: 1,915
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2018 9:06:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Leaning wrote:
If it was, Then it would be, And sure, Might be already. Though I don't think so myself. I'm not sure it would really change anything in practicality.

It certainly would change a lot in practicality if this way of thinking became the majority view. Goodbye to a lot of the religious dogma, Churches, Scriptures, Etc and all the divisions and bloodshed they have entailed. It would change a lot.
Leaning
Posts: 2,544
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2018 9:09:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Hmm, Actually I hadn't considered that part. My thought of what was normal was people who do not use religion obviously in outward appearance in day to day life.
Leaning
Posts: 2,544
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2018 9:22:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
If that was the case. . . Then humans would still make all their religions, Churches, And dogma. Unless they were periodically reminded by the Supreme Being that he did not give his legitimacy to any of the people who said that they speak for him?
SingularityofLight
Posts: 1,915
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2018 9:58:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Leaning wrote:
If that was the case. . . Then humans would still make all their religions, Churches, And dogma. Unless they were periodically reminded by the Supreme Being that he did not give his legitimacy to any of the people who said that they speak for him?

As I said, It would have to be a majority view that was so endemic to society that government frowned on religions and made them difficult to start because of taxation laws, Etc. There would have to be a majority consensus that the Supreme Being frowns on religions, And that majority consensus would penetrate all levels of society and government.
SingularityofLight
Posts: 1,915
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2018 10:03:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Leaning wrote:
Isn't that dogma?

That the Supreme Being wants to remain unnamed/mysterious? It might be called a dogma that denies dogma, Yes, But the simplest of all dogmas.
Harikrish
Posts: 28,277
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2018 10:09:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
SingularityofLight wrote:
What if, To prevent entrenchments in dogma that humans are so apt to do, The Supreme Being wants to operate only through our deepest being and conscience, But refuses to be named. She-he does not want to create religions, Churches, Scriptures, Etc. But wants everyone to use their own beings and conscience to uphold the basic principles of individual peace and freedom. That's it.

Jesus struggled with the same predicament. He thought by not putting a name to his being he could dodge the question of who he was and simply responded to what they said I am. His response was not only vague, It was inadequate. They crucified Jesus.
SingularityofLight
Posts: 1,915
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2018 10:16:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Harikrish wrote:
SingularityofLight wrote:
What if, To prevent entrenchments in dogma that humans are so apt to do, The Supreme Being wants to operate only through our deepest being and conscience, But refuses to be named. She-he does not want to create religions, Churches, Scriptures, Etc. But wants everyone to use their own beings and conscience to uphold the basic principles of individual peace and freedom. That's it.

Jesus struggled with the same predicament. He thought by not putting a name to his being he could dodge the question of who he was and simply responded to what they said I am. His response was not only vague, It was inadequate. They crucified Jesus.

Come now, Harikrish, Do you honestly believe Jesus didn't know he was creating the most monstrous, Vampirous institution(s) the world had ever seen? That is the whole point of the Abrahamic religions: to suck dry the souls of those that it deceives to feed the failing, Blasphemous spirits of the hierarchies that try to make themselves out to be God.
Harikrish
Posts: 28,277
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2018 3:00:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
SingularityofLight wrote:
Harikrish wrote:
SingularityofLight wrote:
What if, To prevent entrenchments in dogma that humans are so apt to do, The Supreme Being wants to operate only through our deepest being and conscience, But refuses to be named. She-he does not want to create religions, Churches, Scriptures, Etc. But wants everyone to use their own beings and conscience to uphold the basic principles of individual peace and freedom. That's it.

Jesus struggled with the same predicament. He thought by not putting a name to his being he could dodge the question of who he was and simply responded to what they said I am. His response was not only vague, It was inadequate. They crucified Jesus.

Come now, Harikrish, Do you honestly believe Jesus didn't know he was creating the most monstrous, Vampirous institution(s) the world had ever seen? That is the whole point of the Abrahamic religions: to suck dry the souls of those that it deceives to feed the failing, Blasphemous spirits of the hierarchies that try to make themselves out to be God.

Jesus made it clear from the beginning he was not sent to change the law, But to fulfill them. Biblical scholars see Jesus as a reformist. He was trying to reform Judaism the religion he was following by making it more accessible to the common man and away from the glamour of high priests.

It is only after his death that his followers exhalted him to a God. And after 325AD the Romans under Constantine made Christianity the state religion and that buried Judaism. Now the Gentiles were in control of Jesus's message.
SingularityofLight
Posts: 1,915
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2018 3:08:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Harikrish wrote:
SingularityofLight wrote:
Harikrish wrote:
SingularityofLight wrote:
What if, To prevent entrenchments in dogma that humans are so apt to do, The Supreme Being wants to operate only through our deepest being and conscience, But refuses to be named. She-he does not want to create religions, Churches, Scriptures, Etc. But wants everyone to use their own beings and conscience to uphold the basic principles of individual peace and freedom. That's it.

Jesus struggled with the same predicament. He thought by not putting a name to his being he could dodge the question of who he was and simply responded to what they said I am. His response was not only vague, It was inadequate. They crucified Jesus.

Come now, Harikrish, Do you honestly believe Jesus didn't know he was creating the most monstrous, Vampirous institution(s) the world had ever seen? That is the whole point of the Abrahamic religions: to suck dry the souls of those that it deceives to feed the failing, Blasphemous spirits of the hierarchies that try to make themselves out to be God.

Jesus made it clear from the beginning he was not sent to change the law, But to fulfill them. Biblical scholars see Jesus as a reformist. He was trying to reform Judaism the religion he was following by making it more accessible to the common man and away from the glamour of high priests.

It is only after his death that his followers exhalted him to a God. And after 325AD the Romans under Constantine made Christianity the state religion and that buried Judaism. Now the Gentiles were in control of Jesus's message.

You said yourself that Jesus broke the ten commandments that he said he came to fulfill. How is that "reforming? " Jesus came to make the old testament more accessible all right, By drawing in the gentiles, Who were on the right track by worshipping the "unknown God, " to the rouge religion of a failing spiritual hierarchy led by the rouge spirits of Jehovah, Jesus, And Satan. If you think that the Gentiles "conversion" to Christianity was a good thing, I guess you love people's souls being made shallower than saran wrap.
Willows
Posts: 11,575
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2018 9:05:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
SingularityofLight wrote:
What if, To prevent entrenchments in dogma that humans are so apt to do, The Supreme Being wants to operate only through our deepest being and conscience, But refuses to be named. She-he does not want to create religions, Churches, Scriptures, Etc. But wants everyone to use their own beings and conscience to uphold the basic principles of individual peace and freedom. That's it.

It doesn't follow reason, Does it?
. . . . That any being, Who is for starters, Supreme, Would create an entire universe plus the life-forms contained therein and wants to remain anonymous?

Come on. . . . God would have to be so egotistical the He wouldn't miss a single opportunity like making cameo appearances in every TV show, Holding gigantic religious rallies and appearing at every shopping-center opening.
Harikrish
Posts: 28,277
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2018 2:35:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Willows wrote:
SingularityofLight wrote:
What if, To prevent entrenchments in dogma that humans are so apt to do, The Supreme Being wants to operate only through our deepest being and conscience, But refuses to be named. She-he does not want to create religions, Churches, Scriptures, Etc. But wants everyone to use their own beings and conscience to uphold the basic principles of individual peace and freedom. That's it.

It doesn't follow reason, Does it?
. . . . That any being, Who is for starters, Supreme, Would create an entire universe plus the life-forms contained therein and wants to remain anonymous?

Come on. . . . God would have to be so egotistical the He wouldn't miss a single opportunity like making cameo appearances in every TV show, Holding gigantic religious rallies and appearing at every shopping-center opening.

But God did not remain anonymous. He put his words in the Bible. You just haven't read it!
SingularityofLight
Posts: 1,915
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2018 2:37:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
SingularityofLight wrote:
What if, To prevent entrenchments in dogma that humans are so apt to do, The Supreme Being wants to operate only through our deepest being and conscience, But refuses to be named. She-he does not want to create religions, Churches, Scriptures, Etc. But wants everyone to use their own beings and conscience to uphold the basic principles of individual peace and freedom. That's it.

It doesn't follow reason, Does it?
. . . . That any being, Who is for starters, Supreme, Would create an entire universe plus the life-forms contained therein and wants to remain anonymous?

Come on. . . . God would have to be so egotistical the He wouldn't miss a single opportunity like making cameo appearances in every TV show, Holding gigantic religious rallies and appearing at every shopping-center opening.

It is pretty mysterious, I agree. We are dealing with one smart being, Who knows just how rotten that crap is. It is satisfied with just moving through the deepest beings and softest consciences. It's got the good life for sure.
Harikrish
Posts: 28,277
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2018 6:46:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
SingularityofLight wrote:
SingularityofLight wrote:
What if, To prevent entrenchments in dogma that humans are so apt to do, The Supreme Being wants to operate only through our deepest being and conscience, But refuses to be named. She-he does not want to create religions, Churches, Scriptures, Etc. But wants everyone to use their own beings and conscience to uphold the basic principles of individual peace and freedom. That's it.

It doesn't follow reason, Does it?
. . . . That any being, Who is for starters, Supreme, Would create an entire universe plus the life-forms contained therein and wants to remain anonymous?

Come on. . . . God would have to be so egotistical the He wouldn't miss a single opportunity like making cameo appearances in every TV show, Holding gigantic religious rallies and appearing at every shopping-center opening.

It is pretty mysterious, I agree. We are dealing with one smart being, Who knows just how rotten that crap is. It is satisfied with just moving through the deepest beings and softest consciences. It's got the good life for sure.

The Bible is the best selling book of all times and the IRS cannot tax him. It's got the good life for sure.
Willows
Posts: 11,575
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2018 9:39:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Harikrish wrote:
Willows wrote:
SingularityofLight wrote:
What if, To prevent entrenchments in dogma that humans are so apt to do, The Supreme Being wants to operate only through our deepest being and conscience, But refuses to be named. She-he does not want to create religions, Churches, Scriptures, Etc. But wants everyone to use their own beings and conscience to uphold the basic principles of individual peace and freedom. That's it.

It doesn't follow reason, Does it?
. . . . That any being, Who is for starters, Supreme, Would create an entire universe plus the life-forms contained therein and wants to remain anonymous?

Come on. . . . God would have to be so egotistical the He wouldn't miss a single opportunity like making cameo appearances in every TV show, Holding gigantic religious rallies and appearing at every shopping-center opening.

But God did not remain anonymous. He put his words in the Bible. You just haven't read it!

That is still being anonymous, Isn't it?
Willows
Posts: 11,575
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2018 9:45:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
SingularityofLight wrote:
SingularityofLight wrote:
What if, To prevent entrenchments in dogma that humans are so apt to do, The Supreme Being wants to operate only through our deepest being and conscience, But refuses to be named. She-he does not want to create religions, Churches, Scriptures, Etc. But wants everyone to use their own beings and conscience to uphold the basic principles of individual peace and freedom. That's it.

It doesn't follow reason, Does it?
. . . . That any being, Who is for starters, Supreme, Would create an entire universe plus the life-forms contained therein and wants to remain anonymous?

Come on. . . . God would have to be so egotistical the He wouldn't miss a single opportunity like making cameo appearances in every TV show, Holding gigantic religious rallies and appearing at every shopping-center opening.

It is pretty mysterious, I agree. We are dealing with one smart being, Who knows just how rotten that crap is. It is satisfied with just moving through the deepest beings and softest consciences. It's got the good life for sure.

Yet, With all that ability, God would still surely want us to know that He does exist but has never done so.
As for His supposed envoys such as Koresh, Christ, And Jones; each one of them fell well short of having the least bit of credibility.
SingularityofLight
Posts: 1,915
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2018 9:51:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Willows wrote:
SingularityofLight wrote:
SingularityofLight wrote:
What if, To prevent entrenchments in dogma that humans are so apt to do, The Supreme Being wants to operate only through our deepest being and conscience, But refuses to be named. She-he does not want to create religions, Churches, Scriptures, Etc. But wants everyone to use their own beings and conscience to uphold the basic principles of individual peace and freedom. That's it.

It doesn't follow reason, Does it?
. . . . That any being, Who is for starters, Supreme, Would create an entire universe plus the life-forms contained therein and wants to remain anonymous?

Come on. . . . God would have to be so egotistical the He wouldn't miss a single opportunity like making cameo appearances in every TV show, Holding gigantic religious rallies and appearing at every shopping-center opening.

It is pretty mysterious, I agree. We are dealing with one smart being, Who knows just how rotten that crap is. It is satisfied with just moving through the deepest beings and softest consciences. It's got the good life for sure.

Yet, With all that ability, God would still surely want us to know that He does exist but has never done so.
As for His supposed envoys such as Koresh, Christ, And Jones; each one of them fell well short of having the least bit of credibility.

It is just all that ability that God wants to downplay. The only thing she-he wants to magnify is a soft conscience and a deep being, The only things which keep us healthy.
Tradesecret
Posts: 1,417
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2018 12:52:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
What if, To prevent entrenchments in dogma that humans are so apt to do, The Supreme Being wants to operate only through our deepest being and conscience, But refuses to be named. She-he does not want to create religions, Churches, Scriptures, Etc. But wants everyone to use their own beings and conscience to uphold the basic principles of individual peace and freedom. That's it.

If so, Then God has done a pretty lousy job. It would make me think that God is not all powerful and not all knowing and has a lousy strategy. Why? Because if this was God's plans, Then why has he / she permitted humans to think otherwise? Surely if this was God's position then it would have happened - unless God simply had a want he / she could not practically achieve.
SingularityofLight
Posts: 1,915
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2018 1:04:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Tradesecret wrote:
What if, To prevent entrenchments in dogma that humans are so apt to do, The Supreme Being wants to operate only through our deepest being and conscience, But refuses to be named. She-he does not want to create religions, Churches, Scriptures, Etc. But wants everyone to use their own beings and conscience to uphold the basic principles of individual peace and freedom. That's it.

If so, Then God has done a pretty lousy job. It would make me think that God is not all powerful and not all knowing and has a lousy strategy. Why? Because if this was God's plans, Then why has he / she permitted humans to think otherwise? Surely if this was God's position then it would have happened - unless God simply had a want he / she could not practically achieve.

Humans that put their freedom of conscience before all other things, Including ancient documents and corrupt institutions, Are doing pretty well on the earth thanks to the Supreme Being.
Tradesecret
Posts: 1,417
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2018 1:11:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
What if, To prevent entrenchments in dogma that humans are so apt to do, The Supreme Being wants to operate only through our deepest being and conscience, But refuses to be named. She-he does not want to create religions, Churches, Scriptures, Etc. But wants everyone to use their own beings and conscience to uphold the basic principles of individual peace and freedom. That's it.

If so, Then God has done a pretty lousy job. It would make me think that God is not all powerful and not all knowing and has a lousy strategy. Why? Because if this was God's plans, Then why has he / she permitted humans to think otherwise? Surely if this was God's position then it would have happened - unless God simply had a want he / she could not practically achieve.

Humans that put their freedom of conscience before all other things, Including ancient documents and corrupt institutions, Are doing pretty well on the earth thanks to the Supreme Being.

I don't agree. But let us for the sake of your argument say it is true. It those who are not doing well, That your God has let down by his remaining so mysterious. And if any have been let down because of your God's remissness, Then your God has failed.
SingularityofLight
Posts: 1,915
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2018 1:17:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Tradesecret wrote:
What if, To prevent entrenchments in dogma that humans are so apt to do, The Supreme Being wants to operate only through our deepest being and conscience, But refuses to be named. She-he does not want to create religions, Churches, Scriptures, Etc. But wants everyone to use their own beings and conscience to uphold the basic principles of individual peace and freedom. That's it.

If so, Then God has done a pretty lousy job. It would make me think that God is not all powerful and not all knowing and has a lousy strategy. Why? Because if this was God's plans, Then why has he / she permitted humans to think otherwise? Surely if this was God's position then it would have happened - unless God simply had a want he / she could not practically achieve.

Humans that put their freedom of conscience before all other things, Including ancient documents and corrupt institutions, Are doing pretty well on the earth thanks to the Supreme Being.

I don't agree. But let us for the sake of your argument say it is true. It those who are not doing well, That your God has let down by his remaining so mysterious. And if any have been let down because of your God's remissness, Then your God has failed.

My supreme being hasn't let them down, They have let the Supreme Being down by whoring themselves to ancient documents and corrupt institutions rather than following the softness of their consciences in all things.
Tradesecret
Posts: 1,417
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2018 1:32:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
My supreme being hasn't let them down, They have let the Supreme Being down by whoring themselves to ancient documents and corrupt institutions rather than following the softness of their consciences in all things.

But if what you are saying is true, Then that makes your God or supreme being even less worthy and perfect. Why would he let them or allow them to whore themselves? What kind of monster is he / she?
SingularityofLight
Posts: 1,915
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2018 1:47:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Tradesecret wrote:

But if what you are saying is true, Then that makes your God or supreme being even less worthy and perfect. Why would he let them or allow them to whore themselves? What kind of monster is he / she?

The Supreme gives us the free-will to violate the softness of our consciences. Are you saying you don't believe in free-will?
Tradesecret
Posts: 1,417
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2018 2:18:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The Supreme gives us the free-will to violate the softness of our consciences. Are you saying you don't believe in free-will?

Probably not in the way you do.

I think we have free will to do whatever we want to do. Yet I think our sinful nature means that we won't do the things that we necessarily ought to do. For instance, We should repent of our sins and turn to God, Yet we don't. In fact the bible says, No one does. So free will in relation to salvation is irrelevant. Our sinful nature always kicks in. C S Lewis gave this striking illustration of this: he said, Imagine a bank robber walking out of a bank with a bag of money in his hand. He looks out across the road and sees a police officer. The question is what ought he do? The answer is, He should walk across to the police officer, Hand over the bag of money and hand himself into the police officer. That is what he ought to do. But he won't. What will he do? He will run away as fast as he can. Why? Survival? Instinct? Human nature. He will always do what he wants to do - but not necessarily what he ought to do. This is why it is a newsworthy story whenever someone hands in a large sum of money they find. Because it is so unusual. People don't want to hand it in, So they don't.

I think free will is something that God has given to humanity. Yet, I also take the view that in Adam, We now have a sinful human nature which distorts our free will. We won't do what we ought to do - which is to repent of our sins against God and turn to him for forgiveness.

But that is my position. Not yours. Your God or supreme being or whatever it is - seems to be mysterious. Yet, Not powerful enough to stop people from creating all sorts of things or images or idols that are trying to purport to be him or it. You say we have free will - well that is nice, But how do you actually know this is true? Do you deduce this from your own experience or by some ancient document? Obviously from your are saying it can't be the latter, So from where? And how do you know it is true or indeed FACT? After all, No one according to you can know fact 100%. Your God has not revealed it to you, So either it is based upon logic or reason or your explanation for why there is evil in the world, Or perhaps it is just that you want it to be based upon your modern / postmodern view of the world and possibly from a western ideology which has some Marxist / socialist undertones.
SingularityofLight
Posts: 1,915
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2018 2:33:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Tradesecret wrote:
The Supreme gives us the free-will to violate the softness of our consciences. Are you saying you don't believe in free-will?

Probably not in the way you do.

I think we have free will to do whatever we want to do. Yet I think our sinful nature means that we won't do the things that we necessarily ought to do. For instance, We should repent of our sins and turn to God, Yet we don't. In fact the bible says, No one does. So free will in relation to salvation is irrelevant. Our sinful nature always kicks in. C S Lewis gave this striking illustration of this: he said, Imagine a bank robber walking out of a bank with a bag of money in his hand. He looks out across the road and sees a police officer. The question is what ought he do? The answer is, He should walk across to the police officer, Hand over the bag of money and hand himself into the police officer. That is what he ought to do. But he won't. What will he do? He will run away as fast as he can. Why? Survival? Instinct? Human nature. He will always do what he wants to do - but not necessarily what he ought to do. This is why it is a newsworthy story whenever someone hands in a large sum of money they find. Because it is so unusual. People don't want to hand it in, So they don't.

I think free will is something that God has given to humanity. Yet, I also take the view that in Adam, We now have a sinful human nature which distorts our free will. We won't do what we ought to do - which is to repent of our sins against God and turn to him for forgiveness.

But that is my position. Not yours. Your God or supreme being or whatever it is - seems to be mysterious. Yet, Not powerful enough to stop people from creating all sorts of things or images or idols that are trying to purport to be him or it. You say we have free will - well that is nice, But how do you actually know this is true? Do you deduce this from your own experience or by some ancient document? Obviously from your are saying it can't be the latter, So from where? And how do you know it is true or indeed FACT? After all, No one according to you can know fact 100%. Your God has not revealed it to you, So either it is based upon logic or reason or your explanation for why there is evil in the world, Or perhaps it is just that you want it to be based upon your modern / postmodern view of the world and possibly from a western ideology which has some Marxist / socialist undertones.

I think there is some truth in many philosophies including enlightenment, Modern, Postmodern, Etc. Beliefs. I think that there is some truth in capitalism and communism. There is also rotten things about all these belief systems. My belief is that the Supreme Being holds us accountable to the softness of conscience that he puts in us through his cycles of rebirth and karma. So, I have a lot of beliefs in common with ancient Hinduism before it got corrupted with their Hindu Trinity. That being said, I'm not a Hindu because I believe their religion is too far gone, Even though it is the closest one to the truth. I'm a believer in a Supreme Being, Conscience to uphold individual peace and freedom, Karma, And reincarnation. But all these beliefs of mine are based on part reason and part faith: I know I don't know anything for certain. It is the softness of my conscience that draws me towards belief systems and ideas which I believe upholds individual peace and freedom the most.
Tradesecret
Posts: 1,417
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2018 4:57:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think there is some truth in many philosophies including enlightenment, Modern, Postmodern, Etc. Beliefs. I think that there is some truth in capitalism and communism. There is also rotten things about all these belief systems.

Now you are starting to confuse me. Obviously, This is what you "think", Not what you know for sure. How do you draw this conclusion and how do you measure what is true and what is rotten? This is where you keep losing me.

My belief is that the Supreme Being holds us accountable to the softness of conscience that he puts in us through his cycles of rebirth and karma.

This also confuses me. Please correct me, But this accountability sounds very much like no accountability. What I mean by that is that all the accountability relates to after this current life and is tied up with rebirth and karma. Hence, No accountability. After all, If in this life you were born into a nice family, Does that mean that in the previous life you did good or not and that the decisions you made then or some of them and which ones of them were the ones that were correct and ensured that this life you have now is what it is. In other words, I think using that as a means of accountability means no real accountability. As for Karma if I am correct, Then it also does not bring an immediacy to its impact - which again leaves us living in a place of relativity.

So, I have a lot of beliefs in common with ancient Hinduism before it got corrupted with their Hindu Trinity. That being said, I'm not a Hindu because I believe their religion is too far gone, Even though it is the closest one to the truth.

Again I find this fascinating stuff you are telling me although it leaves me perplexed. How do you know that the Hindu Trinity is a corruption? Surely that is only a perception you have obtained while living in this life - whereby your conscience has not yet received the accountability of the next life or rebirth? And yet, Despite the perception that Hinduism is the closest to truth, You have chosen to reject it because it is too far gone? How can it be too far gone if it is the closest to the truth? Is if it as you perceive, Why would you choose to reject it and tend towards something less close to the truth? Why would you want to live a lie or move away from the truth? Surely your standard of truth or right and wrong is not based upon "up to date with the latest trends".

I'm a believer in a Supreme Being, Conscience to uphold individual peace and freedom, Karma, And reincarnation. But all these beliefs of mine are based on part reason and part faith: I know I don't know anything for certain. It is the softness of my conscience that draws me towards belief systems and ideas which I believe upholds individual peace and freedom the most.

It sounds to me like you are quite confused by most things. Personally I reject Karma, Because it takes away the need for a Supreme Being. I also reject reincarnation because it implies that good works is the motivator for salvation. It also implies that you can lead a very nasty life this time around and then next time repent of your sins and get glory. In other words, It really takes away the accountability of what we do in the now and the present because it continues to offer second and third and fourth chances until we get it right. This gives people excuses to take the law into their own hands now - take the punishment and then come back again and relive their lives in a better way. In other words, There is no accountability in this life for the now.
SingularityofLight
Posts: 1,915
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2018 5:06:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Tradesecret wrote:
I think there is some truth in many philosophies including enlightenment, Modern, Postmodern, Etc. Beliefs. I think that there is some truth in capitalism and communism. There is also rotten things about all these belief systems.

Now you are starting to confuse me. Obviously, This is what you "think", Not what you know for sure. How do you draw this conclusion and how do you measure what is true and what is rotten? This is where you keep losing me.

My belief is that the Supreme Being holds us accountable to the softness of conscience that he puts in us through his cycles of rebirth and karma.

This also confuses me. Please correct me, But this accountability sounds very much like no accountability. What I mean by that is that all the accountability relates to after this current life and is tied up with rebirth and karma. Hence, No accountability. After all, If in this life you were born into a nice family, Does that mean that in the previous life you did good or not and that the decisions you made then or some of them and which ones of them were the ones that were correct and ensured that this life you have now is what it is. In other words, I think using that as a means of accountability means no real accountability. As for Karma if I am correct, Then it also does not bring an immediacy to its impact - which again leaves us living in a place of relativity.

So, I have a lot of beliefs in common with ancient Hinduism before it got corrupted with their Hindu Trinity. That being said, I'm not a Hindu because I believe their religion is too far gone, Even though it is the closest one to the truth.

Again I find this fascinating stuff you are telling me although it leaves me perplexed. How do you know that the Hindu Trinity is a corruption? Surely that is only a perception you have obtained while living in this life - whereby your conscience has not yet received the accountability of the next life or rebirth? And yet, Despite the perception that Hinduism is the closest to truth, You have chosen to reject it because it is too far gone? How can it be too far gone if it is the closest to the truth? Is if it as you perceive, Why would you choose to reject it and tend towards something less close to the truth? Why would you want to live a lie or move away from the truth? Surely your standard of truth or right and wrong is not based upon "up to date with the latest trends".

I'm a believer in a Supreme Being, Conscience to uphold individual peace and freedom, Karma, And reincarnation. But all these beliefs of mine are based on part reason and part faith: I know I don't know anything for certain. It is the softness of my conscience that draws me towards belief systems and ideas which I believe upholds individual peace and freedom the most.

It sounds to me like you are quite confused by most things. Personally I reject Karma, Because it takes away the need for a Supreme Being. I also reject reincarnation because it implies that good works is the motivator for salvation. It also implies that you can lead a very nasty life this time around and then next time repent of your sins and get glory. In other words, It really takes away the accountability of what we do in the now and the present because it continues to offer second and third and fourth chances until we get it right. This gives people excuses to take the law into their own hands now - take the punishment and then come back again and relive their lives in a better way. In other words, There is no accountability in this life for the now.

No, You are so far away from correctly understanding what I was saying, That I seriously doubt you want to understand. Again, I'll let my previous post stand. If you agree that you won't dissect my posts, I might change my mind if you are truly "fascinated" by this conversation as you say you are.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.