Taijitu

Forum Meta => Archive => General Discussion Archive => Topic started by: Solnath on July 12, 2007, 06:52:51 PM

Title: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Solnath on July 12, 2007, 06:52:51 PM
To enlighten the masses.



<Talmann> but you ruined my fun...
<Balthazar> Good.
<Balthazar> You deserved it.
* Talmann mumbles under his breath
<Talmann> fun-killer
<Balthazar> Repent, ye of little faith.
<Talmann> actually, I of NO faith
<Talmann> thus, I need not repent
<Balthazar> You have no faith in anything?
<Talmann> not in the religious terms
<Balthazar> So you do have faith.
<Talmann> which is where you got the quote
<Balthazar> Contexts can be changed.
<Talmann> and I responded in like fashion
<Talmann> And I still need not repent
<Balthazar> Why not?
* Khab gets the popcorn. Another battle of wits!
<Balthazar> You are of some faith, are you not?
<Talmann> Why should I?
<Balthazar> Have you not broken against that faith?
<Talmann> no
<Balthazar> Have you not sinned against yourself?
<Talmann> nope
<Balthazar> Oooh, a liar.
<Talmann> Not recently enough
<Balthazar> Time is irrelevant.
<Talmann> Already "repented" since I last broke my "faith"
<Balthazar> The order of our experience is not the key factor.
* Kor has joined #taijitu
<Balthazar> Why did you break against your faith?
<Talmann> and you have asked me to repent for your killing of fun, of which i should not
<Talmann> hey Kor
<Balthazar> I have told you to repent for your weak attempts at humour.
<Talmann> I shall not tell, it is of my own personal matter
* Korinna has quit IRC (Quit: (Bursts into flames))
<Balthazar> Personal matters matter only if some external observer can evaluate them and thus give them value.
<Talmann> ahh, it was fun though. And i need not repent for that
<Talmann> humor humors
* Kor is now known as Korinna
<Talmann> and the act of humoring is good
<Balthazar> You should repent the fact that you see no need to repent.
<Talmann> therefore I have not sinned
* ChanServ sets mode: +o Korinna
<Talmann> meh
<Balthazar> For arrogance is the greatest sin of man.
<Talmann> as should you, weakling
<Talmann> oh, no... I see reason to repent
<Balthazar> My humanity is... included, but not limited to.
<Talmann> but you are not qualified in my eyes for me to repent to
<Balthazar> I repent, but I understand why.
<Balthazar> Do not repent to others, but be true to yourself.
<Talmann> Naturally
<Balthazar> You cannot live without remaining steadfast with yourself.
<Talmann> therefore why ask you me to repent to you
<Balthazar> I did not.
<Balthazar> I told you to repent.
<Balthazar> Repenting has no object.
<Balthazar> Only a subject.
* Allama digs into the popcorn.
<Talmann> and how could you tell if I had or had not done what you asked?
<Balthazar> I do not need it, I can see the effects later on.
<Balthazar> Repentance shines through.
<Talmann> ahh, RIGHT
<Talmann> [/sarcasm]
<Allama> But how can one judge the repentance of another?  Can you feel his soul?  See his thoughts?
<Balthazar> When you acknowledge what you have done and - more importantly - why, you grow in spirit.
<Balthazar> I can see their happiness.
<Talmann> So you are saying if anyone "repents" it will change them into a better person/
<Balthazar> Their backpack will lighten up.
<Allama> This is true, but the outer appearance does not change quickly to reflect it in many cases.
<Talmann> ?
<Balthazar> Outer appearance is irrelevant for empaths.
<Balthazar> Their spirits will be lighter and their hearts as well, Tal.
<Allama> Can you feel his essence through the internet?
<Balthazar> (Reference was from my blog.)
<Balthazar> Weakened, but to a certain extent.
<Schwarzchild> Work, blech
<Schwarzchild> Later
* Schwarzchild has left #taijitu
<Allama> I am impressed.  You have much to teach us.
<Talmann> oh... so if someone takes pleasure and light-heartedness in macabre things, that repenting would cause him to take more pleasure from those things?
* Allama sits on the floor, waiting for instruction in the ways of electronic empathy.
<Balthazar> Pleasure is not derived directly from actions and the world around us.
<Talmann> what makes a spirit "lighter" or a heart, for that matter
<Balthazar> It comes from living.
<Balthazar> Repentance and self-discovery.
<Allama> The word has many cultural connotations; it may not mean to you what it means to someone else.
<Allama> For the record.
<Talmann> for, what is a spirit but an imagined thing by man, and it would be physically impossible to remove mass from the heart
* Khab wonders what her electronic essence would feel like. And also if it would smell like cookies.
<Talmann> by "repenting"
<Talmann> What kind of cookies
<Balthazar> What is the world, but a figment of imagination?
<Talmann> indeed
<Talmann> but then, what is imagination?
<Balthazar> It is irrelevant whether something essential is illusion because those who live and feel and experience - do so.
<Allama> Consciousness.  Your consciousness, of course, might ne naught but the imagining of another being.  If the entire universe can be thought of by one being, what is to say you ARE that being and not another figment?
<Balthazar> Truth and falsehood are moralistic and subjective terms.
<Balthazar> The spirit is your persona.
<Allama> ^^^^Agreed, Bal.
<Balthazar> You are your spirit.
<Talmann> who is to say that?
<Balthazar> I am, because I have gone down the rabbit hole.
<Balthazar> I tell you of Oz.
<Allama> Some believe that, as I do, but others believe that the pysical body is who you are.  Who is to say this is more or less valid than another belief?
<Balthazar> (Not St. Oz)
<Allama> Oooh, mixing stories?  Fanfic crossovers.
<Talmann> who is to say that it is not anything but chemical reactions, causing false colors to be drived inside the head, and interpreted by other chemicals
<Balthazar> Tal, so what if it is?
<Allama> Good question!
<Balthazar> It still is what it is experienced to be.
<Talmann> then we are nothing but masses of carbon compounds, destroying this figment called Earth slowly but surely
<Balthazar> Then we are, so what?
<Balthazar> If this all is just an illusion of a dream in something's imagination, so what?
<Balthazar> We are and hence we can be.
<Talmann> I have told you, and you are not a toddler, asking the simple yet complex why question
<Balthazar> And we should.
<Balthazar> Use punctuation.
<Balthazar> It helps.
<Talmann> [/argument]
<Balthazar> Question marks are great.
<Khab> ?! is even better.
<Balthazar> Should that be interpreted as retreat, Tal?
<Balthazar> Fear of going on?
<Talmann> meh, when arguing, it hinders my ability to get words out faster.
<Balthazar> Getting restless?
<Talmann> nah. just too much smart talk for one day.
<Talmann> heh
<Balthazar> So yes.
<Talmann> Mach' mir nicht auf Cryllic sprechen
* Balthazar gets on a speaking block.
<Balthazar> Hear ye, hear ye, Tal's dreams are doomed!
<Balthazar> He lacks the will to trudge on!
<Talmann> yet you still haven't gotten me to repent
* Thyatira has left #taijitu
* Balthazar steps down.
<Balthazar> Because you refuse.
* Talmann whacks Balt with a fish
<Balthazar> And hence, you are doomed to live forever in cyclical repetition.
<Balthazar> Well, technically no.
<Balthazar> That isn't living.
<Talmann> ok... I'm good with that
<Talmann> fix my mistakes
<Talmann> look at Groundhog Day
<Balthazar> Why should I fix others mistakes?
<Balthazar> Tell me.
<Talmann> I'd get bored... but se la vi
<Talmann> Have you not seen the movie?
<Balthazar> What responsibility do I have to do what others cannot do?
<Talmann> oh, sorry
<Balthazar> I have, unfortunately.
<Talmann> let me clarify
<Talmann> I could fix my mistakes
<Balthazar> Thought so.
<Talmann> cyclical living, and reincarnation, here I come...
<Balthazar> Cyclical repetition is a state where you do not learn new things.
<Balthazar> Mistakes cannot be fixed.
<Talmann> so?
<Balthazar> They are repeated forevermore.
<Talmann> and?
<Talmann> who are you to say that occurs?
<Balthazar> I have seen it.
<Balthazar> Living is not achieved to its potential.
<Talmann> you would be promoting life after death
<Talmann> the same life, but still
<Balthazar> The concept of afterlife is not the concern here.
<Talmann> and one cannot know this without dying one's self
<Balthazar> Cyclical repetition is when you are married for 60 years, go to church on Sundays and do everything the same way over and over again, regardless of the events in the surrounding environment.
<Talmann> you cannot say that cyclical repetition occurs, or will occur for that matter
<Balthazar> It occurs, I know it all too well.
<Talmann> No, that's just stupid people who want to do nothing with their lives. [/my opinion]
<Balthazar> And?
<Balthazar> "It doesn't happen except for stupid people" is your argument?
<Balthazar> If it happens for anyone, it happens.
<Talmann> those people repeat things within one life, not repeat their entire life from birth to death
<Balthazar> Ah, so you have misunderstood me.
<Balthazar> That is exactly the concept of cyclical repetition.
<Talmann> I interpret your "cyclical repetition" that way
<Talmann> ah
<Balthazar> One life is all we can prove to exist, hence I do not speak only theoretically.
<Talmann> so you doom me to that, eh?
<Balthazar> No, you do so.
<Balthazar> Because you refuse to reflect on your actions.
<Balthazar> And more importantly, on your faith.
<Talmann> I am too strong willed a person to be doomed to repeat myself, week to week
<Talmann> or, at least, I think so of myself
<Balthazar> Many have said so before you and many have fallen to the curse.
<Balthazar> Why rely on luck only?
<Talmann> besides, I look forward to traveling the world.
<Balthazar> If you control yourself, you can control your life.
<Talmann> what is luck, eh/
<Talmann> ?
<Talmann> I do control myself
<Balthazar> Why rely on probabilities acting out in your favour, then.
<Talmann> not the world controlling me.
<Balthazar> Are you sure?
<Balthazar> When is the last time someone influenced you greatly.
<Balthazar> Emotionally, intellectually?
<Talmann> Yes. If anything, it is chemical reactions acting within my body mass in correct succession, that controls me
<Talmann> Define emotions and intellect
<Balthazar> I think you should understand them well enough to survive this conversation, stop trying to derail.
<Talmann> hehe
<Balthazar> When's the last time someone made you feel sad or bad or mad?
* Thel has joined #taijitu
* ChanServ sets mode: +o Thel
<Talmann> and why cannot I derail?
<Balthazar> Because this is an exceptionally important discussion.
<Talmann> annoying, as an emotion, is occurring this minute, likely within both of us
<Balthazar> If you do not see that directly, trust me.
<Balthazar> Not in me.
Posted on: 12 July 2007, 21:52:39
<Allama> Annoying or annoyance?  ^_-
<Balthazar> I am a blank slate at the moment.
<Talmann> both, Al'
<Balthazar> There is no emotion needed as this is a rational process.
<Talmann> a, yes... the student.
<Talmann> Always eager to learn
<Balthazar> You can say I'm wrong but it will only be convincing if you understand what I'm saying.
<Talmann> no emotion... right. 'Eager' being my key word in the last sentence. But I digress
<Darthimus-Prime> Balthazar eh? hmmm
<Talmann> the world does not control me
<Talmann> Solnath
<Talmann> aka Soly
<Balthazar> Learning is growth, growth leads to strength and strength leads to the control of your will.
<Talmann> again, we do not agree on a point, that we may be just sequences of chemical reactions
<Balthazar> I do not disagree or agree with that statement.
<Talmann> there is no "will", just a heavier amount of chemical reactions
<Balthazar> I do not need to, for it is not concerned in this topic.
<Balthazar> If there is no will, how do you do anything?
<Talmann> there is no strength, just more muscle tissue formed in the body mass
<Balthazar> Not that kind of strength, silly.
<Balthazar> Strength and will are compound terms.
<Talmann> Chemical reactions, happening at certain times within one's brain tissue
<Balthazar> All personal actions spring forth from either the will or the subconciousness.
<Balthazar> Why does it matter what creates the will and the subconcious part of the mind?
<Talmann> define what these terms are, in terms of my reference
<Balthazar> The will is the part of your mind that you are aware of and can control.
<Balthazar> The subconcious is the rest of it.
<Balthazar> Your mind is the sum of your perceptions and experiences.
<Talmann> how can you "control" chemical reactions
<Talmann> ?
<Balthazar> I do not know, but it happens.
<Balthazar> Can you not think for yourself?
<Talmann> Ha HA!
<Talmann> I sense a weakness
<Talmann> a part that you do not know
<Balthazar> Your extravagant use of the term "chemical reactions" implies that what we think and act are only controlled by them.
<Balthazar> Actually, concerning the control of chemical reactions...
<Talmann> your body reacts to what light reflections come in through the eyes, forming a "mental picture".
<Talmann> the chemical process then will take that "picture" and react to it.
<Talmann> For instance
<Balthazar> Hush.
<Talmann> Your body is low on H2O
<Talmann> light reflections depict a glass container, with h2o inside it
<Talmann> your body then sends electrical pulses to the muscles stretching them out to grasp the container and pull it up to the mouth and tipping the cup so that the h2o goes into the body
<Balthazar> The nervous system receives input at a certain pace and reacts to this information. The rate of this process defines the "height" of the creature's sentience and when it reaches a certain threshold, it warps itself into a new dimension where thought and "advanced chemical reaction control" is possible.
<Balthazar> You talk of the body, not the mind.
<Balthazar> The mind controls the body through chemical and physical reactions.
<Talmann> exactly... but then what chemical reactions form the mind.
<Talmann> ?
<Balthazar> As said before, the structure forms the mind.
<Talmann> what structure?
<Balthazar> Enough ropes tied into a big-ass knot mean that in addition to having just ropes you have... a big-ass knot!
<Balthazar> The nervous system and its reactionary movement with the input and output streams.
<Talmann> so... metaphorically speaking...
<Talmann> you are saying
<Talmann> enough chemicals put together forms the mind?
<Balthazar> Enough chemicals put together working efficiently enough and a mind can exist.
<Balthazar> That mind can be destroyed or broken, of course.
<Balthazar> But it should not be, because who knows what enough mind can create?
<Talmann> but how can chemicals be efficient? Efficiency is a man-made concept
<Balthazar> Efficiency is a man-defined concept.
<Balthazar> Work over time.
<Balthazar> Very natural.
<Talmann> chemicals are random, at least in the fact that they have no time-line in which they "should" do something
<Balthazar> Chemicals are not random.
<Balthazar> A single atom might be vaguely random and quantum.
<Talmann> they have places, they will react when other chemicals touch them
<Balthazar> Highly developed carbon-based life-forms are not.
<Talmann> therefore, the movement of the chemicals could be said to be random
<Balthazar> And those places and other chemicals have been developed in 4.5 billion years.
<Balthazar> It's not random.
<Balthazar> Natural selection has made sure that it isn't.
<Talmann> and therefore, the time between reactions is random
<Balthazar> Seldom so.
<Balthazar> Human beings are a result of focus and development created by a random process, granted.
<Talmann> yes
<Balthazar> But, the result of that process has spawned circumstances suitable to sustain sentience and sentient beings can influence events over chemical reactions.
<Talmann> what is sentience but what we have discussed??!
<Balthazar> You say it is random.
<Talmann> sentience is doo-doo! nothing but sequences of chemical reaction in the complex form of the mind!
<Balthazar> I say it is the result of a random process but no longer constrained by the environment only.
<Balthazar> Complex enough to influence themselves!
<Talmann> you said it yourself: enough chemicals put together and a mind can exist
<Balthazar> The very definition of sentience.
<Balthazar> Yes.
<Balthazar> And then there is a mind.
<Balthazar> Which isn't chemicals.
<Balthazar> Greater than the sum of its parts.
<Talmann> what is it then
<Balthazar> It's Awesome.
<Balthazar> It's the mind.
<Talmann> because something has to exist
<Balthazar> It is humanity.
<Talmann> it has to be matter
<Balthazar> Why?
<Talmann> otherwise what is it
<Talmann> ?
<Balthazar> Something else?
<Talmann> like?
<Balthazar> The physical world mightn't be all there is.
<Balthazar> Ether cookies?
<Balthazar> I don't know, but I want to find out.
<Talmann> as do i
<Balthazar> And to find out, I need to develop the mind.
<Talmann> because otherwise, we cannot continue our discussion
<Balthazar> And not hide in a little box titled "no free will."
<Talmann> what is the mind composed of? matter? if so, what? something else? if so, what, and what are its properties?
<Talmann> I can see a scientific study titled such
<Balthazar> Maybe the intense chemical activity has created the biological equivalent of a space-time rapture that actually leads to another dimension we cannot perceive in any way.
<Talmann> or starting with such
<Balthazar> What is science but the study of matter?
<Talmann> perhaps...
<Talmann> true
<Balthazar> If something is outside matter, it isn't science, but it can still exist.
<Talmann> we cannot know, it is above our "knowing"
<Balthazar> As it should be, makes life fun.
<Balthazar> Gives us something to aim at.
<Talmann> which leads to another query, how does the memory work, then.
<Talmann> ?
<Balthazar> I know the answer, but can't remember.
<Balthazar> Poorly, I suppose.
<Talmann> exactly
<Balthazar> Maybe the biological rapture takes metaphysical content floating around and sticks them in a box from which it can look for it when needed.
<Balthazar> And then plugs it into the brain, converting it into impulses for the nervous system and affecting our bodies, causing us to perceive memory.
<Balthazar> That would work.
<Balthazar> The mind is the name of the nexus of operations and the body is just one branch of the government of the mind.
* Balthazar pokes Tal.
<Talmann> huh?
<Talmann> oh, sorry
<Talmann> was reading forum
<Talmann> hmm
<Talmann> heh, good metaphor
<Talmann> I suppose it is possible
<Balthazar> And hence, in an infinite cosmos, it exists.
<Balthazar> And so, science is not the ultimate extension of learning.
<Talmann> quite right
<Talmann> Sol, SCALE has a request
<Balthazar> So you should repent so that you do not fall into the cycle of blind science worship.
<Talmann> who says I will?
<Balthazar> No one, but it would benefit you to do so.
* Limi has joined #taijitu
* ChanServ sets mode: +o Limi
<Balthazar> So it is... logical for you to do so.
<Balthazar> After all, you lose nothing in a metaphysical attempt.
<Talmann> like I said, S.C.A.L.E. has a request for you
<Balthazar> Already there.
<Khab> oooooh a sucker.  er... I mean customer.
<Balthazar> But truly, you should repent, because it will help you understand the other branches of your government.
<Balthazar> Hmm, seems to me I get to keep my tribal immunity necklace.
<Balthazar> Go me.
<Talmann> and should I do so, how will it help me?
<Balthazar> Repentance is the process of training the mind-nexus and it is through the mind-nexus that your access and information flow to the other branches increases and becomes easier.
<Talmann> ...
<Balthazar> Understand, amigo?
<Talmann> I will not repent, but I will streamline my information flow
<Balthazar> How will you do that?
* Korinna has quit IRC (Ping timeout)
<Talmann> by training my mind-nexus
<Balthazar> And that is accomplished by repenting.
<Balthazar> Repentance is also known as thinking.
<Talmann> ... No, i refuse to repent
<Balthazar> Really?


Boom.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Khem on July 12, 2007, 07:08:40 PM
wow i remember when you grilled me like that back in the day. but yep thats 1 point for soly, 0 for talmann.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Allama on July 12, 2007, 07:10:15 PM
Stir the pot, stir the pot...
My question - If emotions are nothing but chemical reactions, wouldn't the sheer complexity of human chemically-derived emotion be counter-evolutionary?  All human emotions can find a base in fear, lust, hunger, or other survival-related impulses, but we have evolved so far beyond the instinctual origins of them to possess such incredible layers upon layers of emotion that I cannot think of a practical purpose for them.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Talmann on July 12, 2007, 09:57:22 PM
Oi! No point for him, he didn't make me repent! None the less, I am proud to have been able to withstand the grilling monster that is Soly. And Al', I ask you this, what is evolution but a slight change in chemical composition over time? Emotions are just hormones, or chemical compounds, that affect the mind-nexus and affect it in a way to produce a reaction to solve the deficit of what the body needs.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Allama on July 13, 2007, 02:16:07 PM
I agree with you on that point, hence my question.  Why, from an evolutionary standpoint, would it have been to the benefit of the human race's survival to evolve brain chemical reactions that create such complex emotions, ones that often hinder us in the attempt to live from day to day?  Such changes should not occur without purpose.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Talmann on July 13, 2007, 02:27:47 PM
What is purpose to an element? The only thing that elements do is move, form compounds, and that's about it. They need no purpose, if a chemical or energy source (being light or heat) makes itself available at a certain time, it will cause the reaction at that time, creating the "emotion".

As a side note: guys, don't EVER try to explain life this way to your girlfriends. Trust me, I tried and failed...
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Allama on July 13, 2007, 02:43:57 PM
I'm not asking if the chemicals themselves have a purpose; I'm asking for the purpose of the change.  We both know evolution favors changes that give an organism an edge to survive, as those unable to adapt to environmental changes die off.  Thus, changes that are not beneficial do not continue to be implemented by the simple fact that they are not passed on genetically.  Changes are passed on when they benefit the organism in question.

(To reply by saying that changes have no purpose, you must then deny that evolution exists.)

This leads me to believe that a mind and/or spirit must exist beyond chemical reactions, as there is not a physical need to be satisfied by deep, complex emotions.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Talmann on July 13, 2007, 03:11:22 PM
Yes, this is what Soly and I concluded. That the mind-nexus must be created with something that is beyond human comprehension, because we do not know why or how it controls these chemical reactions. And btw, satisfaction itself is an emotion, therefore an emotion requires other emotions, creating a loop with the only way out going to the mind-nexus. And you are also wrong in the sense that changes can still have no purpose, and yet evolution can still exist. I do not deny that there are changes, I simply state that they have no true purpose when viewed from the atomic scale.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Tacolicious on July 13, 2007, 06:26:09 PM
If the mind is nothing more then a series of chemical reactions then explain the following:

1)If it is only a matter of the right chemicals in the right proportions then could you please add all the chemicals that make a brain, throw the mixture into a blender and have a mind come out?
2)If it is only a chemical reaction then why can two chemically identical minds (identical twins being the best noteable example) have such varying reactions?

I think it can be safely said that if the mind is only chemical reactions that it is then a system of emergent properties. Meaning that the outputs of the system far exceed the capabilities of the base of it's construction. As such even if the brain is merely chemical (and it's not, there's also all those nuerons firing energy about, and we're learning even those simple neuron bursts are far more complex then we thought them to be even 5 yeas ago) then because it is a system which exceeds the properties of it's base, it's base cannot be used as the sole factor in considering it's function. Our current understanding of the mind does not disprove the existence of the soul merely because it can not quantify it. The inability to find a thing is insufficient proof of it's non-existence.

I however do not repent for any of my actions. I accept responsibility for the things I have done and learn from them. I have made my own choices of my own free will, my will is as free as the scope of my imagination and the scope of the mind is infinite. As such forgiveness from a spooky nether essence does not interest me. Repenting is not the solution to avoid a cyclical life, learning from ones mistakes and not living in the past seems the better solution. If any Gods want to object to the way of my life they can certainly try - and get an ear full in return -, but every experience I have had has been a valuable one even if they weren't "the right" thing to do, how can we have comparison without contrast? Even then if the universe if infinite then what falls on the right or wrong side of the line depends on where you choose to place your centre dot since the line is infinite (without edges, thus without centre). So why should one repent for having a valuable experience to learn from?

Also what makes something viewed from the atomic scale any more or less relevant then something viewed from the galactic, personal, societal or quantum scale? The atomic scale is like any other scale, It is a whole made of parts and a part of a larger whole.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Talmann on July 13, 2007, 06:35:13 PM
1) I am not a chemist, and am not sure of what exactly would make up a brain. A blender would, to me, seem to crude a device anyways. But I get your point. As stated before, we do not know exactly what makes a mind-nexus what it is.
2) In the case of identical twins, their bodies (and thus their minds) are being stimulated by different and varying amounts of chemicals and energy. An example: they aren't always eating the same thing, therefore different chemical compounds are being introduced to their bodies.

We didn't say that the soul doesn't exist, Taco. I agree wholly with your emboldened statement. And again, mind-nexus = unknown.

I completely agree with your last paragraph. I would likely have said the same thing, had I thought of it that way. So eat Taco, Soly!
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Tacolicious on July 13, 2007, 06:49:46 PM
So if the only reason for the twins having a different reaction to the same stimuli is the chemical ins then could you take two identical twins and provide them with the exact same chemical inputs and expect to get identical outs? If this is true then where is the soul in this equation? It seems to me that the chemical ins are not enough to explain the variety of humanity - which greatly exceeds the known chemical compounds of the human body.

I just get the feeling that by dumbing the body and mind down to a test tube, you're over looking far too much and drawing conclusions on insufficient and biased data. I think you're taking this with entirely too scientific a view even though you lack the scientific knowledge to work with. Science and spirituality are like a candle burning on both ends; it doesn't matter which end you hold too high either way you get burnt.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Khablan on July 13, 2007, 07:41:05 PM
For the record, the term 'identical twins' is misleading.  They aren't literally identical. 
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Tacolicious on July 13, 2007, 09:47:12 PM
maybe not 100% but pretty damn close. Still the best example I could think of in real world terms.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Solnath on July 15, 2007, 09:40:23 PM
First of all, the word "repent" in any of its forms was used to mean exactly what Taco said he does: thinking and reflecting on past actions. I chose the word to show how words themselves carry hidden meanings.

As for scale, the smaller you get, the simpler the components are. Maybe there's something "smaller" (after all, size is only one way of perceiving the physical world) than quarks and atomic particles, maybe there isn't. But as such, from those sub-atomic particles, everything else that is physical is made up from. As the scale increases with zooming out, two things happen:

1. The whole becomes more clear. The forest is seen from the trees, as I believe the saying goes.

2. The complexity of the structure increases. A shirt is more complex than a piece of string (usually, gimme a break, I'm talking about a short, straightened-out piece of string here, not a ten-mile tall ball of yarn) which is more complex than the molecular chains which are more complex than... you get the idea, don't you?

As for the purpose of evolution... I don't know, and I suppose I shouldn't know as I'm only restricted to the physical and mental realities. Just because we can't perceive other realities doesn't mean they don't exist, so Taco might be right about that, so maybe souls and God exist in some spiritual dimension. I'd really like to find out and to do so, I need to establish connections to the other dimensions. Maybe through combining the physical and mental realities? Or perhaps by honing them to their maximum potential?

I'm going to draw a picture one day, just to make it clearer. I have one mentally as a spatio-visual thinker.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Tacolicious on July 15, 2007, 11:12:19 PM
Well without getting into too much of a semantics debate as to what "repent" means, having been educated in the catholic school system I've always consider the process of repenting to be one of asking forgiveness from a higher power. Which I do stand opposed to because any higher "creator powers" gave you free will for a reason, probably not so that they could be bothered to fix things up for you all day.

As for scale, scale become irrelevant if the universe is truly infinite (I guess you could call that the corner stone of my faith). From the level of galaxies a shirt seems incredibly simple if it can even be noticed, sub-quantum particles (god only know what they are) probably seem quite simple from the level of the shirt, but the galactic could not exist without the sub-quantum and vise-versa. I've always thought the best shape to describe out universe (and that includes things above and below what can be seen in space-time, the true universe, whatever that might be) is a fractal torus, progressing infinitely into, out of and parallel to itself. In such a structure complexity or simplicity is merely in the eye of the beholder.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Solnath on July 16, 2007, 06:49:06 PM
Yes, well, considering that sentient people are the de facto higher power, everything works out just fine.

However, why would the universe have a shape we can name now? Maybe it's a gzzzazrzx for all we know.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Tacolicious on July 16, 2007, 10:14:50 PM
The suggested shape of the universe applies to the general idea of the structure as compared to a functional schematic. As such the idea being expressed through "my" mind - if all things are interconnected then define a separate self - would be expressible in the shapes of my mind. In this case the torus. We can't truly describe the shape of the universe for the same reason we can't be sealed in a box and expected to accurately describe how it looks from the outside. Even that analogy is flawed but all equations have their margins of error, so what is a poor Tacoman to do?
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Naivetry on July 16, 2007, 11:51:59 PM
I agree with you on many points, Taco.  I don't really see why you object to repentance to a higher power, however.  Repentance isn't saying "I'm wish this had never happened."  That's rather pointless, because of course whatever it is has happened.  If having good intentions doesn't make something right, intentions after the fact don't make up for it either.  Actions are what matters.  If you say you learn from your mistakes, so that you act differently in the future, I don't think any higher powers would care whether or not you regretted having made those mistakes.  We ought to regret and repent of the harm we have done to others; we should never regret or repent growing wiser from the choices we have made.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Tacolicious on July 17, 2007, 12:15:11 AM
This is why I don't repent to a higher power. I take responsibility for how I (ab)use my own free will.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Talmann on July 17, 2007, 10:24:41 PM
Agreed. One can change their actions themselves, without "repenting" to a "higher power".

Just so ya know... *Talmann is agnostic and has no true religion*
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Naivetry on July 18, 2007, 03:11:04 AM
This is going to sound mind-numbingly obvious, but bear with me - repenting to a higher power only makes rational sense if you believe there is a higher power concerned with morality.

In fact, repenting to a higher power only makes sense if you believe that your actions do not only harm other people, but harm God.  And God forgiving people for what they've done only makes sense if God is the one really hurt by it.  I don't know about you, but I generally don't go around forgiving Bobby for stepping on Susie's toe.  It's not my toe, after all.  Nothing can give God the right to forgive people unless God is the injured party in every wrongdoing.  So the whole fabric of religious repentance only holds together if you believe that God is good and is intimately involved with the sufferings of the world.

Emotionally, repenting to a higher power makes a great deal of sense.  Sometimes we can't face the people we've hurt to ask for their forgiveness... sometimes they can't give it.  So we can either learn to ignore guilt (which can be surprisingly easy to do - one merely avoids thought), face up to it (not so easy), or seek absolution (which still involves facing up to it).

At any rate, all repentance has to involve taking responsibility for what you've done.  It's just a question of how you try to live with yourself afterwards.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Tacolicious on July 18, 2007, 05:38:56 AM
Well, there are many paths to enlightenment my friend. I am happy to walk mine and happy to leave you all free to choose yours and can only hope for the same respect.

To each their own.  :D
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Eientei on July 18, 2007, 05:54:22 AM
This is going to sound mind-numbingly obvious, but bear with me - repenting to a higher power only makes rational sense if you believe there is a higher power concerned with morality.

In fact, repenting to a higher power only makes sense if you believe that your actions do not only harm other people, but harm God.  And God forgiving people for what they've done only makes sense if God is the one really hurt by it.  I don't know about you, but I generally don't go around forgiving Bobby for stepping on Susie's toe.  It's not my toe, after all.  Nothing can give God the right to forgive people unless God is the injured party in every wrongdoing.  So the whole fabric of religious repentance only holds together if you believe that God is good and is intimately involved with the sufferings of the world.

Emotionally, repenting to a higher power makes a great deal of sense.  Sometimes we can't face the people we've hurt to ask for their forgiveness... sometimes they can't give it.  So we can either learn to ignore guilt (which can be surprisingly easy to do - one merely avoids thought), face up to it (not so easy), or seek absolution (which still involves facing up to it).

At any rate, all repentance has to involve taking responsibility for what you've done.  It's just a question of how you try to live with yourself afterwards.

You bring up a good point, but there's a difference between my forgiving Bobby for stepping on Susie's toe and a higher power forgiving me for punching my friend in a sudden rage (not that that's ever happened or anything.)  A higher power (God, whatever you want to call it), assuming it exists, presumably has authority over me and everyone else by virtue of its creating humanity.  To look at it another way, since he created us, we're somehow "his", and so when we injure ourselves and each other we indirectly injure God.  That argument might be offensive to our sense of independence, but it's a rational way for someone to look at repentance in religious terms.  If you don't see the higher power as the creative force, however, it doesn't make a lot of sense.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Naivetry on July 19, 2007, 02:56:49 AM
^ True.  Another good point.   :)
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Solnath on July 20, 2007, 09:56:34 AM
ONE

If (the Christian) God is omnipotent, humans have no free will as everything belongs to the "divine plan." You kill someone, God wanted you to do it, so he has no reason to be mad at you.

TWO

If any God is powerful enough to create all of existence... why on earth would he give a damn about a few people?
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Khablan on July 22, 2007, 04:34:33 AM
All-knowing doesn't mean all-planning.

What if the god wasn't micro-managing every moment of every day?  What if he just put the ball in motion and sat back and watched what people made of it?  And therefore, free will governs peoples' actions, and nature takes its course.  What if there was no god saying "Because of my divine plan, so-and-so has to die today."  He died today because some idiot got drunk and ran him over, plain and simple.  Life isn't 'fair' or 'unfair'.  Maybe life just is. 
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Tacolicious on July 22, 2007, 04:41:00 AM
If that's the case then you still don't have to seek his (or her) forgiveness because God seems perfectly happy to let the ball roll as it pleases.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Khablan on July 22, 2007, 04:47:00 AM
Perhaps it would be of more value and importance to seek one's own forgiveness.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Tacolicious on July 22, 2007, 04:53:07 AM
Exactly  :D and not only to forgive oneself but to learn from one's own mistakes
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Naivetry on July 22, 2007, 06:47:06 AM
The majority of Christian denominations affirm free will.  I wouldn't be a Christian if that weren't the case, and that's why I'm not a Calvinist.

Khab's right: all-knowing =/= all-planning.

But Taco, we wouldn't really want God to go around smiting the evildoers, particularly when they happened to be us.   ;) (The Christian) God is nice, aka merciful, and usually goes in for a simple program of cause and effect instead.  Gives us a chance to learn.

Forgiving yourself is all well and good, and I agree that we need to do it and move on with our lives.  But sometimes you need to know that other people - and when people fail, God - can forgive you before you can find the courage to forgive yourself.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Solnath on July 22, 2007, 09:41:40 AM
Omniscience has a nasty trait. You know everything. Hence you consent to everything that will ever happen.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Naivetry on July 22, 2007, 08:18:22 PM
That's the price of freedom.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Solnath on July 22, 2007, 08:24:22 PM
Whose freedom?
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Naivetry on July 23, 2007, 03:30:50 PM
Humanity's.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Solnath on July 23, 2007, 03:34:20 PM
Well in that case, you'll have to define "freedom," because at the moment it seems like the fact that we're all controlled is the price of freedom according to you.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Naivetry on July 23, 2007, 05:13:00 PM
<_<

Free will and omniscience are compatible.  Is that the statement we need to argue?
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Solnath on July 23, 2007, 05:20:34 PM
Yes, how does that work, Na-chan?
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Naivetry on July 23, 2007, 06:23:40 PM
It has to do with the nature of time.

Time is something we experience linearly, as a succession of single moments.  We can only act in the present moment; the past is only a memory, and the future only a guess.

An eternal (= outside of time) God is not limited to dealing with reality only a single moment at a time.  Instead of "losing" each of his moments to the past or having them doled out in portions, for God, every moment is equally the present.

Thus, it is only from our temporally limited perspective that we can say, "God knew beforehand" - for God, there is no knowing beforehand and no knowing afterward, but only the manifold perception of our present actions.  He is omniscient because omnipresent in each moment, equally.  I submit that having an audience in this sense does not make our choices any less free.  God knows what we will do next Tuesday simply because he is already there watching us do it.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Solnath on July 23, 2007, 06:28:34 PM
God knows what we do and allows us to do it and nothing anywhere can stop him from stopping us from doing something that would go against His divine plan.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Naivetry on July 23, 2007, 06:35:33 PM
And why shouldn't the divine plan allow for freedom?  If we are made in the image of God, we are participants with him in the unfolding of the divine story; not executors of a pre-set script.

Think RP and not novel.  :P
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Solnath on July 23, 2007, 06:37:48 PM
DM-based or free-form?
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Naivetry on July 23, 2007, 07:07:39 PM
I'm more familiar with DM-based so that seems like a safer analogy... but no railroading PCs.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Solnath on July 23, 2007, 07:14:17 PM
How can we trust the DM not to?

EDIT: Also, we're the characters and God's also all of the players.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Naivetry on July 23, 2007, 07:23:17 PM
Because it's in his best interest as well as everyone else's that the game turn out well.

And not railroading doesn't mean he can't still nudge players along and drop hints about the best course of action.

EDIT:  Ah, but no!  That's the thing.  We're not just the characters.  That's the whole point of the immortality of the soul.  These characters we create - the lives we play out - reflect a spiritual existence greater than what we look like on paper.  Right now, we feel like our characters... we are our characters... but when the game is over, we'll all realize we've been something more, too, all along.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Solnath on July 23, 2007, 07:38:59 PM
And then we kick the DM's ass because he did nasty things to the characters we loved. Did I break your analogy?
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Naivetry on July 23, 2007, 07:47:51 PM
All analogies break down, of course.

But do you see the point I'm trying to make about the "divine plan"?  There's no need for it to be totally imposed from the outside; this is a cooperative game, not man vs. God.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Solnath on July 23, 2007, 07:50:20 PM
So what you are in fact saying is that the divine plan is not fixed, but rather... negotiable?
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Naivetry on July 23, 2007, 08:06:34 PM
As far as we can fathom that concept... yes.  Our actions impact and help shape the pattern of the divine plan, even if its character is out of our control.

Check out the Old Testament - Abraham, Moses, and so many others bargaining with God.  Or several of the approaches to prayer that Jesus talks about in the New - where if you ask boldly and persistently, you will receive an answer.

God doesn't want playthings.  He wants sons and daughters who can approach him freely and freely choose to love and obey.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Solnath on July 23, 2007, 08:08:57 PM
That sounds like really strange behaviour for a being that can do anything. Why does He need family?
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Naivetry on July 23, 2007, 08:26:30 PM
God doesn't need family, for God is perfect in himself and requires nothing.  But God desires family, for God is love.  Love desires always to increase in self-giving.

Try to imagine an existence without time and space.  There are exactly 3 things or beings that can be distinguished without the use of time or space: the Father who begets, the Son who is begotten, and the relationship between them.  We cannot imagine greater complexity - say, having multiple sons - without bringing in time and space.  How could you distinguish between multiple sons if you could not measure which came first?  How could you separate them from each other if there was no space in which for them to stand apart?

And so, for love to increase to include additional subjects, it is necessary to create time, space, and all the rest.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Solnath on July 23, 2007, 08:48:35 PM
I suppose I just fail to comprehend why perfection would desire anything. But assuming it would, that theory works. However, the more it is extended, usually to the Christian way of teaching, the larger the area it tries to explain becomes and at some points it breaks and then the whole system collapses with that point.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Naivetry on July 23, 2007, 09:52:49 PM
Perfect simply means complete.  But complete does not mean static.  Love is a dynamic force that expands as it is expended on its object, like a constant spring must eventually overflow its pool.  The more perfect the love, the more it must always increase.

Out of curiosity, at which point have you found that the system breaks?  Not all ideas aired in the church are matters of essential doctrine. The system should not be made to twist and contort around points that are not essential.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Solnath on July 23, 2007, 10:28:08 PM
It depends on who's expanding. For example, completion is static as it is the "ideal state." No reason to descend from it. But still returning to the omnipotence, God, regardless of what He does, manipulates reality and humanity.

EDIT: Examples:

God doesn't require anything... except dedication, obedience and prayer.
God loves you, go to Hell!
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Naivetry on July 23, 2007, 11:11:28 PM
I am not suggesting that God "descends" from an ideal state.  I am in fact suggesting that God's love is continually growing - increasing or ascending from an already completed state.  The ideal itself requires growth without the arbitrary limitations and ceilings that would be imposed if the ideal were static.

I'm not sure I understand what your examples are getting at.  (But I've also gotten 7 hours' sleep over the past 80 hours, between the TRR thing and Harry Potter, so maybe this'll all make more sense in the morning. :P )  Are you criticizing the fact that different people may come up with differing interpretations of the will of God?
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Solnath on July 24, 2007, 08:30:57 AM
That and the fact that some people attribute every detail of everything to the will of God. Christianity breaks against itself when its members all have their own personal Jesuses.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Naivetry on July 25, 2007, 05:11:39 AM
Pressed, but not crushed...

The farthest I take the will of God to apply is Romans 8:28. "And we know that in all things, God works for the good of those who love him, who are called according to his purpose."  (Or "God works all things together," or "All things work together.")  God does not will bad things to happen.  But when they do, he is working to redeem them.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Solnath on July 25, 2007, 05:57:07 AM
He might not will them, but he allows them to happen. Guilt through consent. Can you answer the examples, though?
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Naivetry on July 25, 2007, 07:38:29 AM
Guilt through consent only works if the person "consenting" can do something about the situation.  Without infringing on our free will, God can't.  But he's done everything else, up to and including die himself, to help us change ourselves.

I don't see how one answers examples.  Do you want me to say one or both of them is wrong and why?  Do you want me to explain that they are inconsistent statements?  I don't know what to do with statements we both dislike.  Give me a question and I'll answer it as best I can.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Solnath on July 25, 2007, 08:23:06 AM
Why is it the God doesn't want anything from us... except dedication, obedience and prayer?

If God loves someone, why should they go to Hell just because they are using their right to free will to exhibit a behaviour different from God's perfect goodness? After all, we, as imperfect beings, are born to err so should we be punished eternally for being created so?
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Naivetry on July 25, 2007, 11:07:14 AM
Quote
Why is it the God doesn't want anything from us... except dedication, obedience and prayer?
May I ask where you got that surprising list?  For on the contrary, God wants quite a deal more from us than that.  "To live justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God" is what I remember... and even that is more descriptive than "prayer."  I don't think you win brownie points with God by praying for an A on that last test.

Quote
If God loves someone, why should they go to Hell just because they are using their right to free will to exhibit a behaviour different from God's perfect goodness? After all, we, as imperfect beings, are born to err so should we be punished eternally for being created so?
Because there are natural consequences to the choices we make, and there is such a thing as responsibility.  Hell is not a punishment.  It is the natural result of living a self-centered life.  It is the logical extension over eternity of the daily choices we make to disregard, belittle, and injure others, in ways big or small.  And of course it's not fair for people to go to hell because they can't help making mistakes; that's why we have grace.  But when they want to keep making mistakes, you and me and everyone else, not just God, has a problem.

C.S. Lewis said there are only two types of people in the end - those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'thy will be done.'  All who are in hell choose it.

But goodness, we've jumped off topic.  :P  Where are we going with this?  A full-fledged apologia?
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Solnath on July 25, 2007, 11:20:17 AM
Not completely off-topic and it is my topic.

Would you say it's possible to get to Heaven without Jesus Christ?
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Naivetry on July 26, 2007, 04:31:53 AM
Point.

Depends on what you mean by "without."  My favorite quote on this is C.S. Lewis again - "We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him." - Mere Christianity.

All who perish apart from the law will be judged apart from the law, Paul says - if the ignorance of the law itself is not a reason to condemn someone, surely the grace that has replaced the law will not prove more legalistic.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Solnath on July 26, 2007, 09:28:57 AM
So disregard of the scriptures will not lead to eternal damnation if God's will is done by the person in question?
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Naivetry on July 26, 2007, 07:34:49 PM
Ignorance and disregard are not the same thing.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Solnath on July 26, 2007, 07:59:28 PM
So even if you are the most gentle, loving and generally good person ever, you still go to Hell if you don't accept Jesus Christ as your saviour and don't believe in the Bible?
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Naivetry on July 26, 2007, 08:34:48 PM
My dear antagonist, did I say that?

I have already told you, in so many words, that the economy of salvation is a mystery to me.  Your objections over-simplify the problems of human nature, which cannot be addressed in the broad sweeping strokes of "nice people" vs. "mean people."
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Solnath on July 26, 2007, 08:36:24 PM
So... you don't know how to get to Heaven?
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Naivetry on July 27, 2007, 05:37:25 AM
 :D

I know the fundamentals of salvation, and I know why they are necessary.

Imperfection exists.  This is a given.  In the light of eternity, however, there can be no partial good or evil.  Minor flaws - that is, misuses of what is good - extended over infinite time without chance of correction logically means the misuse of everything good.  Therefore, in the light of eternity, perfection or total depravity are the only options.

However, achieving perfection is impossible for humanity left to its own devices.  Grace is needed - an unmerited forgiveness, a get out of jail free card.  However, justice must also be satisfied.  We tend to brush over that part, but really, we do some pretty terrible things.  If someone doesn't pay the price, the universe would be treating good and evil acts alike.  Doesn't seem fair to me.

Second problem: the price is too much for us to pay.  For the hurt that we cause people, for the selfishness that allows us to buy a plasma TV when hundreds of people could be fed on what it costs us, for the brokenness of a world that sees poverty as a crime and genocide as an unfortunate fact of someone else's life, no price is too high.  The price is life.  And that is the price that God exacted... from himself.  It was the only way to punish evil and forgive it.  It was the only way to fulfill justice and promise mercy.

In the death of Jesus Christ, humanity was given a clean slate.  In his resurrection, we were given the means to change our most fundamental nature: to abandon selfishness, because sacrifice means reward.  To obey, because conscious obedience is the only real freedom.  To die without fear, because in our end is our beginning.

When we confess with our mouths that Jesus is Lord and believe in our hearts that God raised him from the dead, that is what we mean.  We are acknowledging a new reality.  We are placing our trust in grace, and in a love beyond our understanding that died to offer it to us.

I don't think God cares how you say it, or whether you understand what he has done.  None of us understands it perfectly.  The upshot of it all is, we all need help to get to heaven, and we're all going to get it if we want it.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Solnath on July 27, 2007, 11:27:26 AM
to abandon selfishness, because sacrifice means reward.

Paradoxical if you see what I mean. Being selfless in order to gain a reward for yourself is not only selfish, but astoundingly hypocritical.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Naivetry on July 27, 2007, 06:41:04 PM
No more paradoxical than doing the right thing when being virtuous makes you happy...

I would agree that it would be hypocritical if reward was the motivation.  But it's not.  The desire to do good must be unselfish, pure; the reward is only a promise of healing from the pain it will cause us.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Solnath on July 27, 2007, 07:56:49 PM
But as humans are imperfect, what do they do when they happen to think, "this will make God happy?"
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Naivetry on July 28, 2007, 07:31:35 AM
I suppose it would depend on the person.  :P  I know a couple of people who, thinking that, would immedately do the opposite of whatever they'd been planning.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Xyrael on July 28, 2007, 08:58:42 AM
Mind if I interject with a personal thought? You two are quite witty  ;D

But what's the point of heaven if you accomplish everything you want to in life?
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Solnath on July 28, 2007, 12:09:39 PM
Well, you don't go to Hell...
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Omnipius on July 28, 2007, 01:53:49 PM
That's always been my little problem with heaven: "It's all good and perfect? Sounds boring." Now I'm not one to wish for hell either, I just enjoy the trials and tribulations of life.

I do have a question for those apparently in the know on this subject:
If one spends one's life seeking to improve the world with little regard to religion and no expectation of reward or punishment in an afterlife, what would become of said person according to your understanding?
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Solnath on July 28, 2007, 01:59:32 PM
Well, in my view the person would go to Hell as by mere actions they cannot pay for their sins and the original sin made by Adam and Eve. However, based on the rest of this conversation, it depends on whether they ignored religion actively or just didn't hear about it.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Xyrael on July 28, 2007, 07:57:40 PM
I just don't see how Christians can assume it's a safe bet that Hindi will go to their hell, while they refuse the idea of reincarnation. One seems just as likely as another, it's a bit snotty to assume you're right they're wrong when neither has more proof beyond ancient texts and personal belief. Personally, I view life as a one time offer with no chance to insert another quarter and play again.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Solnath on July 28, 2007, 09:22:02 PM
They think they're right because if they didn't, they wouldn't think they're right.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Xyrael on July 28, 2007, 09:46:57 PM
Why does everything have to be right and wrong, good and evil, black and white... sometimes you're given a question and both answers are right. Have you ever noted the similarities between some religions claiming to not be related? (hinduism and catholicism, where hindu gods are equiv to catholic saints)

I can see why they want to be right, but what if it's like AD&D and there are multiple gods each with their own heaven? You go to the heaven controlled by the deity of your preference  :D
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Solnath on July 28, 2007, 10:23:27 PM
Then people will have been Wrong. Morality controls people. Organised religion aims to do exactly that.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Khablan on July 28, 2007, 10:37:23 PM
Why does there have to be multiple gods?  What if it's all the same god, and each culture has developed different ways of worshipping that same god?
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Omnipius on July 29, 2007, 03:49:51 AM
Well in the case of Western religions it literally is all the same God. This is why the media have started properly translating 'Allah' to 'God'. As much as they all don't want to admit it, Enlil, Ra, Zeus, Jupiter, Yahweh, God, and Allah are all one and the same.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Solnath on July 29, 2007, 01:51:57 PM
Yep, me.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Khablan on July 30, 2007, 04:54:08 AM
You're so humble, Soly, dear.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Solnath on July 30, 2007, 08:08:31 AM
Someone has to lighten up the conversation. Besides, I never said I'm *all* of god, though that might be possible as well.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Naivetry on July 30, 2007, 08:50:49 AM
But what's the point of heaven if you accomplish everything you want to in life?
If you accomplish everything you want to in life, I think you lack imagination.   ;)

That's always been my little problem with heaven: "It's all good and perfect? Sounds boring." Now I'm not one to wish for hell either, I just enjoy the trials and tribulations of life.
I suspect that life's not through with us when we get to heaven.  Heaven's just a name for the reality God lives in - the reality that we pray comes to earth ("Thy kingdom come...").  Heaven is not the end of the story.  It's just the beginning of the real adventure.

Quote
If one spends one's life seeking to improve the world with little regard to religion and no expectation of reward or punishment in an afterlife, what would become of said person according to your understanding?
I wonder on what grounds a person seeking to improve the world could give little regard to religion.  It is, after all, a major element of every human culture and a motivation for both terrible atrocities and awe-inspiring selflessness.  If any of it's true, it's the single most important aspect of human existence.  If it's false, it is still a major factor in understanding the workings of both individuals and society.  To ignore it seems like wearing blinders... and for what reason?  Fear?  Laziness?  Anyone looking to make an impact on the world must avoid both.

Quote
Well in the case of Western religions it literally is all the same God. This is why the media have started properly translating 'Allah' to 'God'. As much as they all don't want to admit it, Enlil, Ra, Zeus, Jupiter, Yahweh, God, and Allah are all one and the same.
They may have certain origins and concepts in common, but that certainly doesn't mean they're the same.

Why does everything have to be right and wrong, good and evil, black and white... sometimes you're given a question and both answers are right. Have you ever noted the similarities between some religions claiming to not be related? (hinduism and catholicism, where hindu gods are equiv to catholic saints)
The similarities reflect either a) similarities in human thought across cultures or b) different expressions of a single underlying truth.  Or both.  :P  And let's not make things equivalent too quickly.  Anyone can see where things are similar.  The hard part is knowing which differences are important.

As for why, say, Christianity instead of anything else, if you want objective reasons, I've got a couple.  The first is its compatibility with reason.  Given a very few theistic premises (e.g. God is the creator, God is love) plus the facts about the world as we know it, we can reconstruct a very large portion of Christian doctrine on a simply logical basis.  Another is historicity - extraordinary phenomena like the Church in all her rags and her riches seem to require an extraordinary explanation.  And then there's the incredible sanity of the faith - the way it unites science and story, history and myth, nature and the supernatural, mercy and justice, humanity and God.  I have never met a truth in another worldview or religion that I have not found more reasonable, more paradoxical, and more beautiful in Christianity.  Of course, I'm biased - but take that for whatever it's worth.    ;)
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Solnath on July 30, 2007, 11:03:10 AM
But what's the point of heaven if you accomplish everything you want to in life?
If you accomplish everything you want to in life, I think you lack imagination.   ;)
I do believe the correct terms are foolish ambition and greed.

That's always been my little problem with heaven: "It's all good and perfect? Sounds boring." Now I'm not one to wish for hell either, I just enjoy the trials and tribulations of life.
I suspect that life's not through with us when we get to heaven.  Heaven's just a name for the reality God lives in - the reality that we pray comes to earth ("Thy kingdom come...").  Heaven is not the end of the story.  It's just the beginning of the real adventure.
A beginning that lasts for eternity. It really does sound adventorturous like the Never-Ending Story.

Quote
If one spends one's life seeking to improve the world with little regard to religion and no expectation of reward or punishment in an afterlife, what would become of said person according to your understanding?
I wonder on what grounds a person seeking to improve the world could give little regard to religion.  It is, after all, a major element of every human culture and a motivation for both terrible atrocities and awe-inspiring selflessness.  If any of it's true, it's the single most important aspect of human existence.  If it's false, it is still a major factor in understanding the workings of both individuals and society.  To ignore it seems like wearing blinders... and for what reason?  Fear?  Laziness?  Anyone looking to make an impact on the world must avoid both.
Touché.

Quote
Well in the case of Western religions it literally is all the same God. This is why the media have started properly translating 'Allah' to 'God'. As much as they all don't want to admit it, Enlil, Ra, Zeus, Jupiter, Yahweh, God, and Allah are all one and the same.
They may have certain origins and concepts in common, but that certainly doesn't mean they're the same.
I wouldn't let Enlil, Ra, Zeus or Jupiter on the list. The three last are in their own league, Omnipotencia Maximus.

Why does everything have to be right and wrong, good and evil, black and white... sometimes you're given a question and both answers are right. Have you ever noted the similarities between some religions claiming to not be related? (hinduism and catholicism, where hindu gods are equiv to catholic saints)
The similarities reflect either a) similarities in human thought across cultures or b) different expressions of a single underlying truth.  Or both.  :P  And let's not make things equivalent too quickly.  Anyone can see where things are similar.  The hard part is knowing which differences are important.

As for why, say, Christianity instead of anything else, if you want objective reasons, I've got a couple.  The first is its compatibility with reason.  Given a very few theistic premises (e.g. God is the creator, God is love) plus the facts about the world as we know it, we can reconstruct a very large portion of Christian doctrine on a simply logical basis.  Another is historicity - extraordinary phenomena like the Church in all her rags and her riches seem to require an extraordinary explanation.  And then there's the incredible sanity of the faith - the way it unites science and story, history and myth, nature and the supernatural, mercy and justice, humanity and God.  I have never met a truth in another worldview or religion that I have not found more reasonable, more paradoxical, and more beautiful in Christianity.  Of course, I'm biased - but take that for whatever it's worth.    ;)
Many of Christianity's moral codes defy rational thought. Then again, I'm biased as well.

I'd like to open up a topic I have a morbid fascination in, the Ten Commandments. Wasn't Charlton Heston great, I mean, he-


I am the Lord thy God. You shall have no other gods.

A good start, says who's the Big Man. And who's the bitch.

Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.

Biatch!

Observe the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

"For being a good beeyotch, we shall reward you one free day per week. However, on that day you'll still be our beeyotch and won't do what we won't allow you to. Nyah!"

Honor thy father and thy mother.

A good starting premises, but that's about it. My parents get big points for having sex and my mother gets megapoints for pregnancy and labour, but Jesus on a pogostick, Respek wears out. Just because I'm genetically linked to them doesn't mean that they can't be not only a few notches below my ladder-o-respek, but in fact at Niagara Falls in a barrel falling down.

Thou shalt not kill.

This one is good. However, it's pretty ambiguous with all the euthanasia and abortion messes today. On the other hand if this is extended to all interpersonal violence, even better. You keep your anger at bay and I won't sic Max on anyone. Everyone's a winner. Except Max.

I shan't touch overpopulation, that can be weeded out by birth control, which is a great idea.

Thou shalt not commit adultery.

On one hand, it encourages to be faithful and not break people's hearts. Then again, what doesn't kill you makes you stronger. But it might kill them, so stick to this if no super hotties show up.

Thou shalt not steal.

You know, these three latest ones all fall under "do unto others as you'd prefer that the others do unto you a thousandfold" in most cases. However, stealing may be essential for survival (powertools in the mall during a zombie attack), so this is a guideline. Oh, and thou shalt not kill does not apply to the undead, they're already dead.

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

Don't lie. Unless it's for a great joke. Then minimise damage.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house.

Don't be greedy. I.e. break the system and economy. Won't work, but don't want too much so you won't be too focused on real estate.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, or his workers, or his cattle, or anything that is your neighbour's.

Same as above, and remember the ones about adultery and stealing.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Khablan on July 30, 2007, 02:51:58 PM
Soly, have you ever read the text surrounding those ten commandments?  There's actually a lot more to it than that.  I found it to be a quite interesting portrait of Moses and his role.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Xyrael on July 30, 2007, 03:04:16 PM
So they just threw in the 10th commandment to make it a nice round number really.

Thou shalt not kill is found in nearly every culture, regardless of religion.

The bit about killing seems to be ignored when Republicans wants a war, they seem to find some tiny text in the back that says it's ok to kill when they're your enemy... or do they follow the example of the Hebrews taking the land of Canaan by force... something like that

So, if you know you'll never accomplish everything you want in life Naivetry, what's the point? I prefer to have a simpler view of life, it doesn't need to be very complex for me to be happy.

If you read the actual texts for the Jews, Muslims, and Christians, you will find out Yahweh and Allah are just words for God. Allah is Arabic for God, Yahweh is Hebrew (well Yahweh has more meaning, actually God is a spinoff of Yahweh, but the Bible does not claim the God is not Yahweh). Ra, Jupiter, Zeus etc. are in effect the same, but the old Gods are emotions taken to extremes, Hera is jealousy/pride, Zeus is passion, etc.

I find Islam to be more compassionate, there are more doctrines focused around kindness and sharing than the Christians, there is no "sin" and God is forgiving if you are unable to do the things he asks (such as the US Army forcing Muslim prisoners to eat pork)
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Solnath on July 30, 2007, 09:23:52 PM
Khab, religious codes shouldn't be completely intertwined so that you have to read everything to understand a bit. The Ten Commandments are possibly the most common ones that are quoted from the Bible directly and the story surrounding it is just filler compared to them.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Khablan on July 31, 2007, 03:19:10 AM
Well, there wasn't just ten, actually.  And it seems to me that small bits used for quotes can often be taken out of context, just like in politics.  So I like to see where the quotes are coming from before I really give them any validity.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Eientei on July 31, 2007, 03:37:41 AM
I find Islam to be more compassionate, there are more doctrines focused around kindness and sharing than the Christians, there is no "sin" and God is forgiving if you are unable to do the things he asks (such as the US Army forcing Muslim prisoners to eat pork)

I think it's pretty hard to make that kind of assessment, especially when so many sects and interpretations exist within both Christianity and Islam.  I do like the Islamic idea that even the damned can and will eventually be saved by God from the fiery depths compared to the Catholic "you're screwed forever" notion.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Solnath on July 31, 2007, 10:44:35 AM
Don't forget, Catholicism = Christianity.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Khablan on July 31, 2007, 04:12:15 PM
Catholicism does not equal Christianity.  It's only one form of it.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Eientei on July 31, 2007, 05:49:14 PM
Don't forget, Catholicism = Christianity.

I know that, but Catholicism is the only form of Christianity I have a personal understanding about from family ties.  Catholicism certainly does the guilt thing best out of all the Christian sects I know of.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Ryazania on July 31, 2007, 07:39:01 PM
You obviously haven't seen much of the American South.

I can be on a road from Greenville to Fort Walton Beach and there is a sign that says ' Go to Church or the Devil Will Get You!'
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Solnath on July 31, 2007, 08:22:58 PM
The Pope said they're the same thing, they're the same thing.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Naivetry on July 31, 2007, 08:52:07 PM
If you accomplish everything you want to in life, I think you lack imagination.   ;)
I do believe the correct terms are foolish ambition and greed.
I would call it a healthy appreciation for the beauty, the wonder, and the opportunities of life.  If it's foolish to take delight in flowers, or to want to climb a mountain just because it's there, or to imagine what it would be like to dive through a cloud, call me a hopeless fool.  :)

So, if you know you'll never accomplish everything you want in life Naivetry, what's the point? I prefer to have a simpler view of life, it doesn't need to be very complex for me to be happy.
I agree - complexity for me hinders happiness.  But that's not what I'm saying at all.  I feel sorry for someone who, at the end of the day, says that life holds nothing more for them.  It is a good thing - it probably the best human thing - to be satisfied and happy with the life you have lived; it is another to say that life had nothing more to offer.  Maybe an example.  It's perfectly alright with me if I never learn to surf; I will not be lying on my deathbed wishing someone had taught me how.  But if I ever said that learning to surf is not worthwhile, I would be closed-mindedly stunting my own ability to appreciate every aspect of existence.  And that's what I mean by a lack of imagination.

I suspect that life's not through with us when we get to heaven.  Heaven's just a name for the reality God lives in - the reality that we pray comes to earth ("Thy kingdom come...").  Heaven is not the end of the story.  It's just the beginning of the real adventure.
A beginning that lasts for eternity. It really does sound adventorturous like the Never-Ending Story.
A never-ending beginning is an oxymoron.  You can't actually begin anything if you're never done with the beginning.  Would it help if I called death the beginning, and heaven the real adventure?

Quote from: Soly
Many of Christianity's moral codes defy rational thought.
Point me to some.

You've misstated the 10 Commandments by turning #10 into two, and left out #2. See text with commentary.
 (http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Exo&chapter=20#n1)All of these are rooted in plain, rational observations about human nature - even the first three, if you begin with the assumption that God exists.  Your commentary is not an argument against that basic rationality.  I can either explain how everything is rational at great and boring length, or you can ask me about any you have problems with.  Sound good?  :P

Khab, religious codes shouldn't be completely intertwined so that you have to read everything to understand a bit. The Ten Commandments are possibly the most common ones that are quoted from the Bible directly and the story surrounding it is just filler compared to them.
That intertwining is called history and reason.  It's much easier to criticize something that's historically arbitrary and illogical, so I can see why you might prefer it.  ;)  But "a text without a context is a pretext."  If you're going to criticize something, you should criticize what it actually is, and not a strawman.  I won't defend a strawman - it's as much my enemy as yours.

RE: Islam
I don't know nearly as much about Islam as I would like, but I do respect it (and Judaism) a great deal; all three are in the same Abrahamic tradition.  I've never met someone both knowledgable and willing to debate the theological differences and merits of Islam or Judaism as compared and contrasted with Christianity, however, so most of what I see are the things about Christianity that are lacking in Islam or Judaism, rather than the other way around.  That bit about hell in Islam, for instance, is interesting for that reason.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Solnath on August 01, 2007, 12:57:38 PM
I actually didn't misstate the Ten Commandments, I just used the ones provided by the Evangelical Lutheran Church.

Plain, rational observations? That just doesn't seem to fit in, I'm afraid, considering that greed is an integral part of humanity and many of the commandments deny the right to practice that.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Trey on August 01, 2007, 10:58:43 PM
It just seems to me that Commandment #10 and Commandment #4 are going to be broken no matter what.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Talmann on August 02, 2007, 03:31:35 PM
Xy- on dissing the government for breaking #6, there's a little thing in the Constitution called Seperation of Church and State.

And I see no reason why we should follow some "laws" laid out by "God", especially if you don't worship that "God" at all. The Commandments make rational sense, yes, but I wouldn't follow them just because "God" told me to.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Naivetry on August 03, 2007, 05:02:21 PM
I actually didn't misstate the Ten Commandments, I just used the ones provided by the Evangelical Lutheran Church.
*peruses wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments#Division_of_the_commandments)*  Well, that doesn't make any sense.  :P  I think the Anglican, Reformed, and other Protestants have this one right.

Quote
Plain, rational observations? That just doesn't seem to fit in, I'm afraid, considering that greed is an integral part of humanity and many of the commandments deny the right to practice that.
It's based on plain, rational observations that unrestrained greed, for example, harms people.  There are 2 out of the 10 commandments as I count them (or 3 as you do, but not "many") that might restrain one's greed (#8 and #10 in my numbering) and they both deal with not wanting stuff that belongs to someone else.  And that's just common sense for how to run a marginally peaceful society, no matter what Ayn Rand may tell you.

It just seems to me that Commandment #10 and Commandment #4 are going to be broken no matter what.
Not necessarily.  Sure, every teenager has spats with Mom and Dad, but you can still respect them at the end of the day.  And coveting isn't just saying to your neighbor, "Ooh, you have a Wii, I want one of those" - it's wanting his Wii, or his wife, or whatever... not in idle fancy or even in serious bargaining, but with malicious intent. 

And furthermore, the value of a moral ideal isn't dependent on whether or not we can meet it.  Christianity recognizes that the law - such as the 10 Commandments - often just points out to us where we've gone wrong.  That's why we emphasize God's love and grace, and our faith in response expressed in works, as the means to salvation, rather than some lifelong, flawless execution of the letter of the law.

And I see no reason why we should follow some "laws" laid out by "God", especially if you don't worship that "God" at all. The Commandments make rational sense, yes, but I wouldn't follow them just because "God" told me to.
And certainly I would never ask you to.  Follow them because they're rational - that's why, having grown out of the Sunday school explanations, I still do - and still would, even if I didn't also believe they are rational because instated for a rational world by a rational God.  But for people unable or disinclined to pursue rational, as opposed to merely selfish, lines of moral reasoning, the 10 Commandments give a very summary outline of and training in some basic, rational, moral findings.  For those in every age who refuse to listen to simple reason...
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Solnath on August 07, 2007, 12:03:57 PM
So they're negotiable, rather than literal.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Naivetry on August 08, 2007, 02:45:48 AM
"Negotiable" isn't the word I would use - that brings to mind other words, like "optional." 

But no, they're certainly not "literal."  Nothing can be literal, because language itself is symbol.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Trey on August 08, 2007, 10:45:08 PM
But isn't the whole point that you're supposed to follow them practically to the letter?
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Naivetry on August 09, 2007, 03:38:55 AM
...No?   :P

Jesus told those who wanted legalism from him that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath - and in my mind, that holds true for the rest of the law as well.  We are not slaves to the law - we are students of it.  Like the rest of Scripture, we hold it to be God-breathed and useful for teaching, reproof, correction, and training... to be taken seriously by all means, but because it is so darn useful and astonishingly correct, not for any other reason.

Probably the biggest growth I've experienced in my faith was the realization that there's a difference between taking something seriously, and taking it literally.  You generally get more out of any writing when you actually try thinking about it, rather than assuming your first impression of the text is correct.  There's so much more to it than the "literal" meaning on the page, and you miss out on the deeper meanings when you stop at the literal.  The Bible is no different from any other great work of literature in that respect.  The problem is that it is very easy to skew one's personal interpretation to fit one's own agenda, if you're not careful.  And that is why tradition, as well as reason, is so important.  It's like having a ready-made debate opponent at every turn.  :P

So the whole point isn't to obey some funny set of rules as strictly as possible without any clue why.  We're meant to learn from the rules given... meant to stop and take a closer look before doing something stupid.  Because following God's rules is, when you get right down to it, often just the thoughtful thing to do.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Solnath on August 09, 2007, 10:12:03 PM
I think the bottom line is, why should someone have faith in someone else's teachings instead of listening to their own hearts? Wouldn't that also enable a more direct link to God and not the shape we have placed It in, which is the Trinity or Allah or YHWH or whatever?
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Talmann on August 10, 2007, 04:04:35 AM
Quite agreed, Soly. Part of the reason why I see no true reason for churches (or variants of such). If you pray regulary, do everything you need to, and are reverant, wouldn't that, and shouldn't that get you passage to heaven? You're doing the same things, just by yourself. Plus, I agree with ^ in the sense that one's own heart would be closer to God than listening to someone else's heart, or some dumb old book written thousands of years ago.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Naivetry on August 10, 2007, 08:35:28 AM
Ideally, Soly, you should do both.

I don't know about you two, but I find my heart is not the easiest thing to listen to.  It's small, it's selfish, and it's continually changing.  That "dumb old book" broadens it; makes me look past myself and my own silly prejudices; gives my heart words that I can latch onto.  And it's such a wonder to listen to my heart and find that, across the millenia separating us, someone else's heart has resonated with mine.  Those thousands of years are the book's very strength and beauty.  Those years allow us to share the wisdom and the heartache and the joy of people who laughed and loved as we do - could we concede that the rest of humanity might have gotten something right?  Or do we prefer to make all the same mistakes, and relearn all the same lessons, over, and over, and over, out of some perverse pride in doing it all by ourselves?  We mess up enough even knowing the consequences ahead of time.

If you've never experienced the Church as a community, I don't blame you for thinking it's dispensable for your personal salvation.  Because the formal structure of it certainly is dispensable. 

The people are not.   How are you going to learn to love and to forgive others, and to be forgiven, if you're never around them?  How are you going to be effective at doing any good in this world, if you're too self-absorbed to look for help?  It's just a matter of practical sense to know that 2, or 10, or 200 people working together are going to feed more children and shelter more refugees than you all by your lonesome.  And how do you expect to learn anything true about God on your own?  Wouldn't you just be worshiping the product of your own imagination?  If God is real, you're not going to have exclusive access to him.  Like it or not, other people's ideas about him may be just as valid as yours, and need to be taken into account.  You have a right to think those other people are wrong and to argue why, but you can't ignore what they have to say.  That would be religious bigotry, my friends, and of the worst order.

Finally, you're not doing the same thing when you're by yourself as when you're with another person or persons - and that goes for every activity.  To use an analogy we'll all understand, it's like NS.  You can play NationStates all by yourself, answering the issues you get sent and never bothering to join the UN or reply to telegrams.  Or you can come someplace like Taijitu, and get on the forums, and find a whole different level to what was supposedly a simplistic game.  That's the difference between going it on your own and being part of something bigger than just you... and believe me, you still have to listen to your heart either way.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Solnath on August 10, 2007, 10:13:28 AM
If you stop trying to let your heart find its own way, when push comes to shove, it'll be lost. Alternatively, if you settle for the feelings of bliss and salvation, you might very well be missing something even better.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Naivetry on August 13, 2007, 05:30:18 AM
Quote from: Naivetry, just a post ago
you still have to listen to your heart
So we agree, then?

And I don't see the smiley I require.  Where is it...?  Aha.

(http://www.equilism.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/eyebrow.gif)

Your second sentence is nonsensical in two ways.  First, one does not "settle for... feelings of bliss and salvation" - or anything else, for that matter.  I do not wake up in the morning and browse through the list of available emotions for the day: "Ooh, petulance... nah... how about cynicism? ...meh, overdone... well, bliss is on sale, I guess I can settle for that." 

Second, it's like saying, "If you settle for bread and water, you might very well be missing something even better."  True?  Yes, but I'd rather eat bread than starve.  Show me you have a solid alternative; do not threaten me with hypotheticals.

Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Solnath on August 14, 2007, 06:27:58 AM
A solid emotional alternative? Oxymoronic at best.

Have you considered that perchance your comparison between bread and starvation is invalid? What if you are starving?
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Naivetry on August 14, 2007, 06:36:54 PM
A solid emotional alternative? Oxymoronic at best.
No more so than "settling for" feelings.  We can at least name the emotions of bliss and the joy of salvation - do you have so much as names for your hypothetical alternatives?

Quote
Have you considered that perchance your comparison between bread and starvation is invalid? What if you are starving?
If I'm starving by eating bread, give me something else to eat.  Propose an alternative.  All you've done thus far is suggest that bliss isn't good enough, which is a statement I'm perfectly willing to accept, if you can tell me why you think there's something better, and what you think that something is.  Until then, the something I've got is better than the nothing you're offering.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Solnath on August 14, 2007, 06:49:28 PM
Because I believe it is so?
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Talmann on August 15, 2007, 12:25:13 AM
Which doesn't apply to us. You've cornered yourself, Soly-san.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Solnath on August 15, 2007, 04:19:51 AM
Why doesn't it? Faith is as reliable a measure as anything. You believe in science, don't you?
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Talmann on August 15, 2007, 04:22:36 AM
Faith is not science. Because you believe it, doesn't mean it either exists, nor would it necessarily apply to us.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Solnath on August 15, 2007, 05:56:00 AM
It would apply to you if it exists and if you want to find out whether it exists, there's only one way to do so.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Allama on August 15, 2007, 12:54:04 PM
Faith is not science. Because you believe it, doesn't mean it either exists, nor would it necessarily apply to us.

Faith is not science, but science IS faith.  Empirical science operates on the unprovable assumption that the universe is governed by a set of "universal", observable laws that we can, over time, discover and refine our knowledge and understanding thereof.  Unfortunately, as it is impossible to observe every single possible instance of a phenomenon throughout time and space, you are making a leap of faith by stating "A + B was C in every one of the 437 times we tested it, so it will be every other time."

It is a very reasonable leap of faith, in my opinion, and one that I would make myself, but it is, nonetheless, a matter of belief as opposed to provable fact.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Eientei on August 15, 2007, 09:34:29 PM
It would apply to you if it exists and if you want to find out whether it exists, there's only one way to do so.

We'll all find out eventually, so no need to rush it.  After all, if the Bible really is correct: "It's a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God."
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Solnath on August 17, 2007, 05:53:07 PM
Anyway, my earlier point concerning the bread metaphor requires clarification. Instead of starving all the time, why not eat for the joy of eating and still be happy while you don't eat?
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Naivetry on August 20, 2007, 04:32:42 AM
But Soly, we were using "bread and water" to refer to emotions.

So are you saying, "instead of being unsatisfied all the time, why not feel for the joy of feeling and still feel happy when you don't feel" ?

Because I think that still doesn't make sense...
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Solnath on August 20, 2007, 04:38:03 AM
I thought the bread and water metaphor was for the connection to God. However, that's pretty close as well.

"Why not feel happy all the time because you can and there are too many reasons not to do so and at some times, feel even happier because some reasons are even better" would be a bit closer to the point, though.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Naivetry on August 20, 2007, 04:47:38 AM
Well, my first thought would be that sometimes and for some people, it's not so easy to choose to feel happy.

Second, the whole point of the metaphor was to criticize your statement:
Quote
Alternatively, if you settle for the feelings of bliss and salvation, you might very well be missing something even better.

You're saying something different, now, and I mostly agree with this new outlook.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Solnath on August 20, 2007, 04:52:29 AM
Well, I might have been incoherent, but the point there was that instead of having happiness some of the time (i.e. when you're praying or otherwise connected to your God) you could extend that feeling to encompass the whole of your life. By making that state the status quo, one would be able to reach even higher sensations.

Metaphorically, it's like trying to reach apples hanging from a tree. From the ground you can reach some of them if you jump, but if you elevate yourself to their level, you can get them whenever you want. And just like with the tree, once you have done so, you'll be able to see the sky beyond it and reach for the clouds, stars, etc.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Naivetry on August 20, 2007, 05:15:41 AM
"Rejoice always; pray without ceasing; in everything give thanks, for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you."

 ;D

I'm not concerned with attaining some bigger and better emotional high, however.  I've been in some pretty low places (*starts humming...*) and there's nothing like that contrast to make you appreciate being able to stand, let alone jump and grab an apple or two.

Because here's the real trick - emotions aren't on some kind of absolute scale of intensity.  It's from how far down you've come that determines how deeply you experience something good.  So give me jumping on a pogo stick any day over levitation.  I prefer continual effort with spotty results to total desensitization.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Solnath on August 20, 2007, 05:21:48 AM
Because here's the real trick - emotions aren't on some kind of absolute scale of intensity.  It's from how far down you've come that determines how deeply you experience something good.  So give me jumping on a pogo stick any day over levitation.  I prefer continual effort with spotty results to total desensitization.

I used to think so as well. One of the few times I'm happy that I was wrong.
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Naivetry on August 20, 2007, 06:31:50 AM
Oh, I'm wrong.  Well, that's clearly convincing.   :trout:

I am totally uninterested in how our experience of emotions might measure up. No direct, objective comparison of subjective experience is possible.  So do you want to make some sort of point or argument about religion, or just keep trading metaphors until we find one that suits us both?

Because you have to be able to account for the reality of things like depression, anger, grief, shame, etc.  They all serve a purpose.  To eliminate them (without also eliminating the reasons for them) would make us less than human.

So how about a new metaphor - climbing a mountain.  If you've ever been hiking, you know that often progress up can only be achieved after movement down.  Fits both our models, wouldn't you say?
Title: Re: Concerning the mind and repentance
Post by: Solnath on August 20, 2007, 07:01:02 AM
I've said this before and I'll say it again. There is nothing wrong with experiencing all emotions, only with letting them overrule rational thinking and the happiness. I'd rather be determined than angry, rather contemplative than depressed, rather accepting than grieving, rather improving myself than ashamed, etc.

Shame caught my eye on that list; a disgusting emotion that implies that one has failed themselves and is solely used to crush spirit.

In my mind that mountain must be a bit different, because every time you go down it, you feel the negative sides of emotions instead of the positives. For example, let's examine the emotion that creates drive: anger/determination. Anger is the negative form, raw and rampant; determination is the positive, more constructive shape. Sometimes you just have to let it run wild and sour? I disagree.

Currently the state of human emotions can be drawn as a simple diagram:

Negative <---------- Emotion ----------> Positive

So that in the case of this which I label as "drive," it would be:

Anger <---------- Drive ----------> Determination

What I propose is that instead of making the formula partial, i.e.:

Drive ----------> Determination

We move along in the progression of emotion to a more advanced sensation where what we now consider to be the "better" alternative is in fact less useful/nice/glorious in comparison to the other one:

Determination <---------- Drive ----------> ? ? ?

Of course, as all emotions are mixed and tangled more often than not, it might be necessary to combine emotions to get the improvements. We've already had physical and cultural evolution, why stop there?