Why am I paying for someone else's sin?

[Ishraqiyun]

You took a example of something specific, with physical attributes, and transcended them to generalities and states of satisfaction

I was making use of a metaphor. The arrow in that story is representative of suffering and ignorance.

Anything not natural (physical world or material world) is supernatural.

So you believe the suffering and ingorance I was speaking of is "supernatural"?

I'm a monistic idealists. Matter itself is "made of" conciousness. For that reason I don't often make use of the distinction natural vs supernatural. There is only one unified reality. It's all simply experience.

 

[solarwave]

That's rather contradictory.

I'm quite positive several Christians would disagree with only my biology and cultural influences affecting my imperfectness...

Probably would and I could be wrong.

If I am imperfect, then I have no choice but to sin against God.

By imperfect I mean you have the possibility and desire to sin, but it doesn't necessarily mean there is no choice. Every time I am angry I have the possibility of punching someone, maybe even the desire, but I still have the choice whether I do or not. Sometimes we give in, sometimes we don't. So perhaps Aristotle was right to say that to become virtuous you must make virtue a habit.

 

[Biker Angel]

*sigh*

When you used the word "He" in your previous post, I was assuming you were talking about God, not Satan.

Most people start with a proper name, then use pronouns to talk about them afterwards.

You never started with the word "Satan", so I assumed the usual definition of He; God.



I hope you are paying attention, Biker for Christ, because this is what people do when they are wrong or misunderstand:

"I apologize, lucaspa, for my misinterpretation and my following comprehension of what you were talking about."

Maybe you can learn manners and etiquette, from an atheist, after all



By the way, your signature image is either about man's ability to defy the law of nature, set by your god, or that man is using that box to replicate or circumvent the powers of your god, allowing us to defy his law of nature.

I wouldn't be so cocky since your thread here is in violation of CF Board rules. FYI I was not responding nor talking to you, I was responding to lucapsa. Have a good day Sir.

 

[Non sequitur]

I was making use of a metaphor. The arrow in that story is representative of suffering and ignorance.

More of an analogous story. And a horrible example...

They guy was foolish because, given all that he knows about being hit by a physical arrow, he refused to go.

And then you to and make it parallel to us being continuously bombarded by non-tangible arrows, which we know nothing about, and are supposed to... accept Jesus?

I mean, the conclusions to your analogous premise could be endless. And to surmise that the others are all "not the real solution" is based on some unfounded and special knowledge.

I know, I know.

If I only would try and/or accept it.


That that circular logic works every time.

So you believe the suffering and ingorance I was speaking of is "supernatural"?

I'm a monistic idealists and view the idea of the "material world" as an illusion or an artifcat of our current limited manner of perception. "Matter" itself is "made of" conciousness. It's all just experience. For that reason I don't often make use of distinction natural vs supernatural. There is only one unified reality.

Natural and supernatural are used to define the difference between the physical world and things outside natural law and the observable universe.

Things either fall into one or the other.


You can esoteric all day long, if you want to, but all you will be doing is philosophizing about things already established.

Re-defining them in your mind is just silly.

 

[Non sequitur]

FYI I was not responding nor talking to you, I was responding to lucapsa. Have a good day Sir.

You were responding to him by talking about me as malfunctioning.

So, you get a response for free; nothing necessary is needed.

I wouldn't be so cocky since your thread here is in violation of CF Board rules.

While I find it suspect that you still never address many number of things you say that are wrong (and I'm not talking about the religious stuff), but continue to bring up something different each time, I'd like to know what it was that I violated.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

Natural and supernatural are used to define the difference between the physical world and things outside natural law and the observable universe.

How is suffering and ignorance outside of natural law? Are you unable to observe it in yourself? Don't you observe your own "subjective" world just as clearly as the supposed "objective" world?

"Physical world" is simply a manner of classifying experience and relating to it. All we have is experience.

You can esoteric all day long, if you want to, but all you will be doing is philosophizing about things already established.

What do you mean by that?

Re-defining them in your mind is just silly.

Do you have evidence that there is an "objective world" outside of experience?

 

[Non sequitur]

How is suffering and ignorance outside of natural law? Are you unable to observe it in yourself? Don't you observe your own "subjective" world just as clearly as the supposed "objective" world?

"Physical world" is simply a manner of classifying experience and relating to it. All we have is experience.

And "supernatural" is simply a matter of classifying non-experience/explainable and trying to relate to it.

While all we have is experience, we have been able to drill down and designate two kinds.

If you look at the earth from 24,000 miles away, you could say, "It is one unified reality, to itself."

That doesn't address the realities and "knowns" or unknowns on the earth.

You just seem to want to over simply things and end up sounding like the played-out beatnik/hippie on drugs at a concert.

Do you have evidence that there is an "objective world" outside of experience?

No, that doesn't make any sense.

I have evidence, or lack of evidence, that shows there are unknowns outside of experience.

Clumping it into a group called, "stuff that is", just makes me sound silly.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

And "supernatural" is simply a matter of classifying non-experience/explainable and trying to relate to it.

I don't see why you called suffering "supernatural" then? Is it something you have never experienced?

While all we have is experience, we have been able to drill down and designate two kinds.

Yes, we can create all sorts of designations. Some of them can be more useful than others. They often turn out to be expedient half turths when looked at too closely though. Reality transcends any of the categories we want to impose it like "objective" vs "subjective", matter and mind, etc.. All we know for a certainty is experience.

You just seem to want to over simply things and end up sounding like the played-out beatnik/hippie on drugs at a concert.

I see.

I have evidence, or lack of evidence, that shows there are unknowns outside of experience.

Such as?

 

[Ishraqiyun]

You might not want to read the book "Quantum Questions" because it could cause you to consider some of the pioneers in quantum physics to be burned out hippys. It's a collection of writtings by Heisenberg, Schoredinger, Einstein, de Brogile, Jeans, Planck, Pauli, and Eddington on issues of consciousness, mysticism and religion. More than a few even appear to be monistic idealists. I found " A Universe of Pure thought" by Sir James Jeans , "Oneness of Mind" by Erwin Schordinger, and "Mind Stuff" by Eddington to be worth the price of the book alone.

Quantum Questions: Mystical Writings of The World's Great Physicists [Paperback]

"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness. "

— Max Planck

Quoted in The Observer (25 Jan 1931). Cited in Joseph H. Fussell, 'Where is Science Going?:

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter."
Max Planck

 

[Mediakira]

He didn't "make" Eve eat the fruit. He tempted Eve and provided false information. In that sense, the serpent is allegorical for temptation. To which we all succumb, don't we?

Oopps That would be a typo. I knew Eve was tempted. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[Non sequitur]

You might not want to read the book "Quantum Questions" because it could cause you to consider some of the pioneers in quantum physics to be burned out hippys.

"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness. "

Ok, I agree with this paragraph in a general sense.... sorta.

Matter can be a derivative from consciousness (subjective observation of matter), however, being conscious had no bearing on matter existing or not.

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter."

1) If he is saying that, our perception of matter means we are conscious of it, then sure. We are the force that made ourselves conscious of it.

2) If he is saying, "matter exists only by virtue of a force", without our consciousness of matter needing to define it, that is an assumption. With no evidence to support that claim.

Everything after that, like, "We must assume behind this force... (is) an intelligent Mind" is asserting that the unknown assumption (#2) is the truth.

Invalid.

 

[razeontherock]

Haven't read the whole thread. Was your first question answered? Here's the first reply, which seems to me to be a thorough address:

The only sin you'll be held responsible for is your own, and that only if you insist on paying the penalty yourself, but you don't have to.

You then asked why it didn't end with Adam and Eve. Mostly because, people are dumber than dogs.

I see Lucaspa engaged you here. I fully expect that answered a lot? What further questions are there?

 

[Non sequitur]

Haven't read the whole thread. Was your first question answered? Here's the first reply, which seems to me to be a thorough address:



You then asked why it didn't end with Adam and Eve. Mostly because, people are dumber than dogs.

I see Lucaspa engaged you here. I fully expect that answered a lot? What further questions are there?

Not completely, but that's ok.