We are not special

[ManOfTheAmish]

To exist and have the breath of life is special.

To exist in being is sacred.

 

[The Nihilist]

What does sacred mean?

 

[elman]

Is having a purpose different from having a use? If, ultimately, we have some sort of final purpose or ultimate use, than we are no more than tools, or, if you prefer instruments. A tool is a thing that is good only for its use. If you think that whether a person is good depends on how well they fulfill their purpose, then you necessarily think that a person is a tool.

No I believe a child serves a purpose to its parents, but it is not simply a tool. We are children of God if we wish to be and chose to be and that makes us beloved by God and capable of responding to His love with love. Tools that are merely tools are not capable of being loving or even being. We are cabable of being loving and we have the hope of being with our Father forever.

 

[The Nihilist]

No I believe a child serves a purpose to its parents, but it is not simply a tool. We are children of God if we wish to be and chose to be and that makes us beloved by God and capable of responding to His love with love. Tools that are merely tools are not capable of being loving or even being. We are cabable of being loving and we have the hope of being with our Father forever.

What is a child's purpose to its parents? Is this its only purpose? Can a child only be measured in regard to what you imagine this purpose is?
Tools aren't capable of being? I have a wrench. Does my wrench not exist because it's a tool?

 

[elman]

What is a child's purpose to its parents? Is this its only purpose? Can a child only be measured in regard to what you imagine this purpose is?
Tools aren't capable of being? I have a wrench. Does my wrench not exist because it's a tool?

A rock may exist, but it is not a being. Neither is your tool. No I never said a child can only be measured in regard to what the parent imagined its purpose to be so your question is not appropriate to what I said.

 

[The Nihilist]

A rock may exist, but it is not a being. Neither is your tool. No I never said a child can only be measured in regard to what the parent imagined its purpose to be so your question is not appropriate to what I said.

I think you were saying that just as a child has a purpose regarding its parents, so do we have a purpose regarding God. You now also say that the purpose of the child regarding his parents is not the most important measure of the child. It follows from your analogy that our purpose regarding God is not the most important way to measure us. Ergo, you have been owned. Q.E.D.

 

[elman]

I think you were saying that just as a child has a purpose regarding its parents, so do we have a purpose regarding God. You now also say that the purpose of the child regarding his parents is not the most important measure of the child. It follows from your analogy that our purpose regarding God is not the most important way to measure us. Ergo, you have been owned. Q.E.D.

I think the analogy of parent and child only applies so far to Creator and created. I believe our purpose as given to us by our Creator is the most important way to measure our ultimate worth or value. I don't know what you are saying by being owned, but if we are a child of God we volunteer to be owned by Him. It is not like being a child to our earthly parent who does not own us and we have no obligation to be owned by him. We have no choice in being born to our earthly father, but on the spirital level, we can chose to not be the child of our Creator if we wish.

 

[The Nihilist]

I think the analogy of parent and child only applies so far to Creator and created. I believe our purpose as given to us by our Creator is the most important way to measure our ultimate worth or value. I don't know what you are saying by being owned, but if we are a child of God we volunteer to be owned by Him. It is not like being a child to our earthly parent who does not own us and we have no obligation to be owned by him. We have no choice in being born to our earthly father, but on the spirital level, we can chose to not be the child of our Creator if we wish.

So is this our purpose? How is this different from being a mere tool? Even a tool that has as its function to love is still merely a tool.

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

A rock may exist, but it is not a being. Neither is your tool. No I never said a child can only be measured in regard to what the parent imagined its purpose to be so your question is not appropriate to what I said.

A rock is a being.

 

[ManOfTheAmish]

What does sacred mean?

A spiritual affinity in appreciation of existance.

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

A spiritual affinity in appreciation of existance.

So your argument, or more so your statement is dependent upon the existence of such a spiritual affinity?

 

[ManOfTheAmish]

So your argument, or more so your statement is dependent upon the existence of such a spiritual affinity?

What is wrong with my statement?

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

I didnt say anything is wrong with it, but you have to elaborate it.

 

[ManOfTheAmish]

I didnt say anything is wrong with it, but you have to elaborate it.

Life is sacred in that I know that I exist on the dependency of it and without creation I would not exist.

Life then becomes appreciative with a deepy psychological form of sacredness attached to it in that deeply felt stance of appreciation.

Is that elaborate enough for you?

 

[The Nihilist]

I'm going to defer to ExistencePrecedesEssence in the matter of the sacred.

 

[ManOfTheAmish]

I'm going to defer to ExistencePrecedesEssence in the matter of the sacred.

My essence is my existance.

 

[Emmy]

Dear Veratis. We are special, that is the most wonderful truth we have, God made us in His image, He wants to be with us, and He has proven it again and again. We moved away from God, yet He still loves us, we ignored His Commandments, yet God still loves us, He gave us His Commandments, for our own good, because He loves and wants us to learn to love again, to care for each other, to stop being selfish and wilfull, to stop being unkind and inconsiderate, to treat each other, as we would like to be treated ourselves. You are right, Veratis, it is too wonderful to believe, but it is true. Jesus came to show us the way back to God, He reconciled us to God, now it will be our decision, do we respond to God`s loving invitation, do we repent of our self-centred, selfish character, and learn to love again, with perfect love, as God`s Love is perfect, or will we ignore His invitation, and go our own way? I say this humbly and with love, Veratis. Greetings from Emmy, sister in Christ.

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

Life is sacred in that I know that I exist on the dependency of it and without creation I would not exist.

Life then becomes appreciative with a deepy psychological form of sacredness attached to it in that deeply felt stance of appreciation.

Is that elaborate enough for you?

If it is in fact, as you stated sacred, you create the concept of sacred dependent upon the fact that you know you exist through the cartesian cognition. If this is the case, i will reply that yes, my life is sacred in the fact that i know i exist(through the cogito). If though your life is dependent upon existence, or that the existent of your "self" is contingent upon the whole of existence, you bring in the fact that your life is not in actuality, "apart" of existence or existing co-existingly with existence itself, but a existent that exists seperate from existence and is thus contingent upon existence itself. Your existent, is dependent upon the existent of existence. The sacred concept that you state then is a epistemological perspective that your life, though dependent upon existence, is in fact not existence, but sacred to yourself, through the concept of realizing your existence "self" is not in fact existence. this will lead me to my next point.

Since your life, though contingent upon existence, is not "existence" you can state then existence, is not in fact your essence, but it is what allows you to have essence. Your existence is not your essence, for existence is purely the force your essence is contingent upon. It is the "base" for your essence to exist upon. You may exist, but you are not satisfied simply with existing. If you were, you would simply carry out your simple life-demanding tasks. You would not pursue sex for pleasure, hobbies for happiness, and wants for expanding your living condition. You are not finding essence in simply existing, because you express much more then simply existing. You are not like a rock, who exists in-itself without doing anything out of the way for-itself to exist.

If you say that existence is essence, you also mean that existence is your essence, that your existence is your essence. This cannot be soldified, and ive been given the same response many times by many people. You do not simply exist, and have essence is simply existing. You are not like a dog or cat that carries out only the basics for its life, which are its essence for existing, to carry out those tasks, is the dog or cats motive for existing. You though, are the only creature that must strive with-itself to exist. You are the only creature that must fight to have essence in existence.

Is that good enough recovering? Grnk.

 

[ManOfTheAmish]

If it is in fact, as you stated sacred, you create the concept of sacred dependent upon the fact that you know you exist through the cartesian cognition. If this is the case, i will reply that yes, my life is sacred in the fact that i know i exist(through the cogito). If though your life is dependent upon existence, or that the existent of your "self" is contingent upon the whole of existence, you bring in the fact that your life is not in actuality, "apart" of existence or existing co-existingly with existence itself, but a existent that exists seperate from existence and is thus contingent upon existence itself. Your existent, is dependent upon the existent of existence. The sacred concept that you state then is a epistemological perspective that your life, though dependent upon existence, is in fact not existence, but sacred to yourself, through the concept of realizing your existence "self" is not in fact existence. this will lead me to my next point.

Since your life, though contingent upon existence, is not "existence" you can state then existence, is not in fact your essence, but it is what allows you to have essence. Your existence is not your essence, for existence is purely the force your essence is contingent upon. It is the "base" for your essence to exist upon. You may exist, but you are not satisfied simply with existing. If you were, you would simply carry out your simple life-demanding tasks. You would not pursue sex for pleasure, hobbies for happiness, and wants for expanding your living condition. You are not finding essence in simply existing, because you express much more then simply existing. You are not like a rock, who exists in-itself without doing anything out of the way for-itself to exist.

If you say that existence is essence, you also mean that existence is your essence, that your existence is your essence. This cannot be soldified, and ive been given the same response many times by many people. You do not simply exist, and have essence is simply existing. You are not like a dog or cat that carries out only the basics for its life, which are its essence for existing, to carry out those tasks, is the dog or cats motive for existing. You though, are the only creature that must strive with-itself to exist. You are the only creature that must fight to have essence in existence.

Is that good enough recovering? Grnk.

A human being is like any other organism having a essence,instinct or inner nature comprising it's being and any other extras like that of pleasure is a constructed passion from man himself not that of nature in all reality.

Passion itself is not a extension of nature but instead is a extension of man but compassion however has it's roots in naturality.

Though I may be born in a receptive state on birth with a clean state through living and expirience my essence is formed making me what I am.

Although I will admit from creation itself there seems to be some essence that seems to be genetical or biological that predetermines some things but not all things. I stand by my statement though.

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

A human being is like any other organism having a essence,instinct or inner nature comprising it's being and any other extras like that of pleasure is a constructed passion from man himself not that of nature in all reality.

Passion itself is not a extension of nature but instead is a extension of man but compassion however has it's roots in naturality.

Though I may be born in a receptive state on birth with a clean state through living and expirience my essence is formed making me what I am.

Although I will admit from creation itself there seems to be some essence that seems to be genetical or biological that predetermines some things but not all things. I stand by my statement though.

Im really hung over, and im really getting confused in what your trying to continue to present to me. I did not say, man does not have an essence, but his essence does not remain in his simple existence, he must do to have essence, he cannot just exist and have total purpose, he must do and find purpose. Ill elaborate more, but im going to a movie with the lady, so give me a few hours.