NationStates Jolt Archive

Ooo you're gonna love me. Or hate me. Or neither.

I reckon, first off, that God probably can't see mega far into the future, otherwise He wouldn't have created us knowing the suffering that would happen.

Perhaps...

God gave us free will. Thus, God can not interfere under any circumstances. But he can punish people after they have carried out their action based on free will.

However, he gave us an in-built ability to sense when others are in danger, and as long as we take heed of that sense, it continues to work, warning us that someone near by needs our help. We have the free will to take heed of it, or ignore it, and when we ignore it, suffering happens (especially as the more we ignore our senses, the less they become needed so they work less - including our sense that lets us know when a fellow human being is in danger).

When someone prays, it doesn't send a signal to God, because God is already there but is unable to intervene - it sends a signal to the nearest person (and because it's focused energy (and incidentally I've just found out that spelling 'focused' like this: 'focussed' apparently changes its meaning), it's more powerful than unfocused energy so more likely to reach people, even those who are far away) but the person has to heed the signal (which comes in the form of a 'bad feeling' or whatever you term it) in order for suffering to be prevented/stopped.

So in short:
Bad thing happens. God watches, deciding on punishment, but can not intervene. Signal is sent to nearest person (a signal which comes from the human, not God). Nearest person decides to heed/ignore signal. Bad thing stops if signal heeded and nearest person manages to help. If nearest person ignores signal, bad thing continues. God decides on punishment for person who did bad thing.

And because people can change their mind, then PERHAPS God did see into the future really far, but because of the ability of humans to change their minds He only saw what MIGHT happen, which is why He gave us the ability described above. But what He didn't realise was that lots of people would ignore their feelings. Or perhaps he can't see mega far into the future after all.

I'm an atheist, but personally, I think it's much more likely that if there is a god, he's simply either a jerk or doesn't give a damn about humanity, having a whole universe to tend to. Occam's Razor- no need for weird focused energy signals or anything like that. Of course, this goes against the biblical god, but so does a non-omnipotent god. How do you explain god being unable to intervene and punish people until bad things happen? That's rather convenient. If a campaign of mass murder starts, for example, can't he punish the participants before it gets out of hand once they've committed crimes?

LARGE TEXT IN YOUR SIG WILL NOT ALTER PEOPLE'S RELIGIOUS BELIEFS

Had to get that off my chest.

Karma´s concept is similar, but based on a diferent spiritual model.

What we do know is that our actions directly and indirectly influence other´s opinions, actions and behavior. That is know by psychology, buddhism, taoism, physics and many other models out there.

Why? Because they try to explain one of the most basic laws of nature, and that is of the action-consequence cycle.

Basicaly, one action creates a consequence. This consequence will be the action that will trigger another consequence, and so forth. Considering there are a infinite number of actions going all the time, the future is a direct consequence of the imedient present.

Now, if you want to create another model based on this law, you can. But be warned that you are only getting a nature´s law (just like gravity or electricity) and trying to find an unnatural explanation to it. But I believe chemistry, physics and psychology are much more helpfull.

You may think physics and chemistry cant aply to humans or "souls", but you´re wrong = they can. Their aplyiance to living beins, in the first stance, is the study of biology, while the study of this law aplied to humans is what we call psychology. Yes, unfortunaly psychology is at its very early stages, but we can see promise in them in the next 50 to 100 years.

i dont see how we could possibly have the ability to stop the vast majority of suffering in the world if we "heeded the signal" from god. most suffering is random and unstoppable.

the whole OP can be disproved by the fact that Multiland God is omnipotent it knows all, ALL

also I'm getting a signal now it reads:

"burn that sig and get off this frequency"

i dont see how we could possibly have the ability to stop the vast majority of suffering in the world if we "heeded the signal" from god. most suffering is random and unstoppable.

Though it seems my theory is flawed due to armies going around shooting people etc., most suffering is not random and unstoppable. As has been evidence by scientific tests on twins, there are non-physical means of contacting another human (and how many times you had a bad feeling about something before something bad happened?) so if more people took heed of their feelings then there'd be less suffering, since suffering is most often caused by one or a few individuals who would not be too difficult to stop.

I reckon, first off, that God probably can't see mega far into the future, otherwise He wouldn't have created us knowing the suffering that would happen.

As I pointed out in another topic - maybe God believes in the principle of "greatest happiness for the greatest number". And maybe us humans are the insignificant minority in this universe, or maybe our suffering is minute compared to the joy it causes elsewhere.

Though it seems my theory is flawed due to armies going around shooting people etc., most suffering is not random and unstoppable. As has been evidence by scientific tests on twins, there are non-physical means of contacting another human (and how many times you had a bad feeling about something before something bad happened?) so if more people took heed of their feelings then there'd be less suffering, since suffering is most often caused by one or a few individuals who would not be too difficult to stop.
uh, what?

Though it seems my theory is flawed due to armies going around shooting people etc., most suffering is not random and unstoppable. As has been evidence by scientific tests on twins, there are non-physical means of contacting another human (and how many times you had a bad feeling about something before something bad happened?) so if more people took heed of their feelings then there'd be less suffering, since suffering is most often caused by one or a few individuals who would not be too difficult to stop.

youre going to have to give me an example or 2 of how "getting a signal that someone is in trouble" can alleviate suffering. its not going to stop anyone's illness, loss of a loved one, bad grade on a test, death by tsunami, etc.

As I pointed out in another topic - maybe God believes in the principle of "greatest happiness for the greatest number". And maybe us humans are the insignificant minority in this universe, or maybe our suffering is minute compared to the joy it causes elsewhere.

ohhhhhhhh alma, you mean we might be the very entertaining theater of the absurd for the rest of the universe?

ohhhhhhhh alma, you mean we might be the very entertaining theater of the absurd for the rest of the universe?

It is possible. "The Chosen People" does have a soap-opera ring to it ;)
But it could also be a matter of balance. Or wastedumping.

It is possible. "The Chosen People" does have a soap-opera ring to it ;)

Perhaps our entire universe is an interactive soap-opera for much more powerful beings.

youre going to have to give me an example or 2 of how "getting a signal that someone is in trouble" can alleviate suffering. its not going to stop anyone's illness, loss of a loved one, bad grade on a test, death by tsunami, etc.

See post above. If someone is being battered close to your house, getting a feeling/signla/whatever you want to call it that something bad is happening means you can choose to do something about it.

LARGE TEXT IN YOUR SIG WILL NOT ALTER PEOPLE'S RELIGIOUS BELIEFS

It won't?!

*belief system shatters*

I'm an atheist, but personally, I think it's much more likely that if there is a god, he's simply either a jerk or doesn't give a damn about humanity, having a whole universe to tend to.
Or that we deserve it. Most human problems are generated by humans (not neccessarily the person who specifically suffers), and so why should an immortal entity busy itself cleaning up our messes and wiping our asses like some sort of nurse-maid?

Though it seems my theory is flawed due to armies going around shooting people etc., most suffering is not random and unstoppable. As has been evidence by scientific tests on twins, there are non-physical means of contacting another human (and how many times you had a bad feeling about something before something bad happened?) so if more people took heed of their feelings then there'd be less suffering, since suffering is most often caused by one or a few individuals who would not be too difficult to stop.

At this point I would like to ask what is suffering? What constitutes suffering.

Is it suffering for example to have been beaten everyday as a child and told how lazy, and no good you are and how you will never ammount to anything?

Is it still suffering if this portion of your life is directly responsible for spuring you on to achive many great things, which in turn builds up your money and your proflie to such a state that you can effect real change for the betterment of 1000's of people?

Isn't then suffering subjectivie? If I like phyiscal pain, and my wife slaps me, then do I suffer or not? If my wife crys over a stubbed toe, and I slap her back, does she suffer?

See post above. If someone is being battered close to your house, getting a feeling/signla/whatever you want to call it that something bad is happening means you can choose to do something about it.

But this fails to take into account things like illness, natural disaster, etc.

Ooo you're gonna love me. Or hate me. Or neither.

I reckon, first off, that God probably can't see mega far into the future, otherwise He wouldn't have created us knowing the suffering that would happen.

OBJECTION! *slam*

If god is god, he can see into the megafuture, the hyperfuture, the super ultra deluxe future, and even the one with 22" rims on the side, because he's GOD.

Understand the concept of infinite.

I think that there are infinite universes, each one different in at least one small way, probably many big ways. If there were a God, he'd know all that happens, and will happens, in every one of the infinite universes; he would know what I am likely to do simply because he knows what an infinite amount of alternate me's do. So the importance placed on any one particular universe, one particular reality, one particular individual there, is simply less because we are like the tip of the icebergs of totality. God's concerns, if he had them about us, would be about the totality of ourselves in all infinite universes.

I think that there are infinite universes, each one different in at least one small way, probably many big ways. If there were a God, he'd know all that happens, and will happens, in every one of the infinite universes; he would know what I am likely to do simply because he knows what an infinite amount of alternate me's do. So the importance placed on any one particular universe, one particular reality, one particular individual there, is simply less because we are like the tip of the icebergs of totality. God's concerns, if he had them about us, would be about the totality of ourselves in all infinite universes.

Yeah and also there are many, many, many concepts of just what God is.

If God is the all, then there is indeed no such thing as suffering, all such things and their opposites would merley be God experiancing God via us(God).

Yeah and also there are many, many, many concepts of just what God is.

If God is the all, then there is indeed no such thing as suffering, all such things and their opposites would merley be God experiancing God via us(God).

That's actually (to an extent) a pantheistic view of things, and something I've been tossing around for a while.

Edit: Not tossing around here. In my head. To myself.
...stop looking at me funny, damnit.

Yeah and also there are many, many, many concepts of just what God is.

If God is the all, then there is indeed no such thing as suffering, all such things and their opposites would merley be God experiancing God via us(God).

Thus, when I masturbate, I am having sex with God; but when I have sex with a hooker, I am God masturbating.

At this point I would like to ask what is suffering? What constitutes suffering.

Is it suffering for example to have been beaten everyday as a child and told how lazy, and no good you are and how you will never ammount to anything?

Is it still suffering if this portion of your life is directly responsible for spuring you on to achive many great things, which in turn builds up your money and your proflie to such a state that you can effect real change for the betterment of 1000's of people?

Isn't then suffering subjectivie? If I like phyiscal pain, and my wife slaps me, then do I suffer or not? If my wife crys over a stubbed toe, and I slap her back, does she suffer?Suffering is a point of view, or of mental set-up.

Ooo you're gonna love me. Or hate me. Or neither.

I reckon, first off, that God probably can't see mega far into the future, otherwise He wouldn't have created us knowing the suffering that would happen.




If God can't see far into the future, then he wouldn't be God as he wouldn't be all-knowing. your thesis is flawed from the start.

Thus, when I masturbate, I am having sex with God; but when I have sex with a hooker, I am God masturbating.

Yep I guess so, but if the hooker is also God, then it is God having sex with Godself, again.

Y'know that God it really is a dirty bugger!

It's also the esoteric heart of most of the major religions. Yours and mine included.

Aye, but none of the Abrahmics ever want to admit it.

Thus, when I masturbate, I am having sex with God; but when I have sex with a hooker, I am God masturbating.You have sex with hookers?

That's actually (to an extent) a pantheistic view of things, and something I've been tossing around for a while.

Edit: Not tossing around here. In my head. To myself.
...stop looking at me funny, damnit.


It's also the esoteric heart of most of the major religions. Yours and mine included.

Suffering is a point of view, or of mental set-up.

Yeah that's what I think.

See post above. If someone is being battered close to your house, getting a feeling/signla/whatever you want to call it that something bad is happening means you can choose to do something about it.

yeah cause vigilantism is perfectly acceptable in fact I can't think of a single time when acting on ones base instincts has gone wrong :rolleyes:

If God can't see far into the future, then he wouldn't be God as he wouldn't be all-knowing. your thesis is flawed from the start.Your definition of God is rather flawed from the start. And how the fuck do you know about any god's abilities?

Aye, but none of the Abrahmics ever want to admit it.

Hehe well I don't know, what about the Derivses, and the Qabalists, and the Fakhirs, and the Sufis?

Hehe well I don't know, what about the Derivses, and the Qabalists, and the Fakhirs, and the Sufis?

Yes, but those are all often considered apocryphal and non-canonical in nature, or at worst heretical. I'm talking mainstream.

I mean we have the Om, and I'm sure you Sikhs have a similar concept (but I'll admit I don't know much about your religion aside from your somewhat unusual [to me] funeral practices)

You have sex with hookers?

No no, I thought we had it established God has sex with hookers!

yeah cause vigilantism is perfectly acceptable in fact I can't think of a single time when acting on ones base instincts has gone wrong :rolleyes:

Really? Well let me tell you about the time....hey say, you, umm you are being sarcarstic innit!

Hypothetically!O' course...

You have sex with hookers?

Hypothetically!

yeah cause vigilantism is perfectly acceptable in fact I can't think of a single time when acting on ones base instincts has gone wrong :rolleyes:

I am Batman.

Ooo you're gonna love me. Or hate me. Or neither.

I reckon, first off, that God probably can't see mega far into the future, otherwise He wouldn't have created us knowing the suffering that would happen.

Perhaps...

God gave us free will. Thus, God can not interfere under any circumstances. But he can punish people after they have carried out their action based on free will.

However, he gave us an in-built ability to sense when others are in danger, and as long as we take heed of that sense, it continues to work, warning us that someone near by needs our help. We have the free will to take heed of it, or ignore it, and when we ignore it, suffering happens (especially as the more we ignore our senses, the less they become needed so they work less - including our sense that lets us know when a fellow human being is in danger).

When someone prays, it doesn't send a signal to God, because God is already there but is unable to intervene - it sends a signal to the nearest person (and because it's focused energy (and incidentally I've just found out that spelling 'focused' like this: 'focussed' apparently changes its meaning), it's more powerful than unfocused energy so more likely to reach people, even those who are far away) but the person has to heed the signal (which comes in the form of a 'bad feeling' or whatever you term it) in order for suffering to be prevented/stopped.

So in short:
Bad thing happens. God watches, deciding on punishment, but can not intervene. Signal is sent to nearest person (a signal which comes from the human, not God). Nearest person decides to heed/ignore signal. Bad thing stops if signal heeded and nearest person manages to help. If nearest person ignores signal, bad thing continues. God decides on punishment for person who did bad thing.

And because people can change their mind, then PERHAPS God did see into the future really far, but because of the ability of humans to change their minds He only saw what MIGHT happen, which is why He gave us the ability described above. But what He didn't realise was that lots of people would ignore their feelings. Or perhaps he can't see mega far into the future after all.

:rolleyes: More ad hoc bullshit for the world's oldest bad idea.

"God cannot interfere under any circumstances." Then he is not God and your theory is over. God is omnipotent, and also all-knowing: from the instant he hit GO on the universe, he HAD to have known everything that was going to happen. Because he had the infinite power to change it, it logically follows that he signed off on everything from the Care Bears to the Holocaust. There is no succesful refutation of Calvinism.

"However, he gave us an in-built ability to sense when others are in danger, and as long as we take heed of that sense, it continues to work, warning us that someone near by needs our help." Tell that to the families of the firefighters buried under the rubble of the World Trade Center. Oh, wait, let me guess, the rescue workers just weren't paying attention to their "in-built ability." :rolleyes:

"When someone prays, it doesn't send a signal to God, because God is already there but is unable to intervene - it sends a signal to the nearest person (and because it's focused energy, it's more powerful than unfocused energy so more likely to reach people, even those who are far away) but the person has to heed the signal (which comes in the form of a 'bad feeling' or whatever you term it) in order for suffering to be prevented/stopped."

OK- so prayer is "focused energy." Please offer any evidentiary claims behind this statement other than that "this is a total guess that tries to rescue the world's oldeset bad theory." And this is "focused energy" so it's "more likely to reach people?" Is this a joke? Are you trolling for Sylvia Browne or something? Oh, and of course your theory has a built in falsifiability-escape clause: "but the person has to heed the signal." So whenever your theory is wrong, the people on the other end just aren't heeding the signal.

"Or perhaps he can't see mega far into the future after all."

Or perhaps he doesn't exist and you're wasting your time offering ad hoc solutions to the world's oldest bad idea. People have been trying to solve the problem of evil for centuries. They've failed because their God is incompatible with the universe.

You've offered an ad hoc solution that offers no evidence or reason behind it other than "this is what I pretend to be true so that God can exist."

D-

Yes, but those are all often considered apocryphal and non-canonical in nature, or at worst heretical. I'm talking mainstream.

I mean we have the Om, and I'm sure you Sikhs have a similar concept (but I'll admit I don't know much about your religion aside from your somewhat unusual [to me] funeral practices)

Yeah I make you right, that is why I say esoteric. We have the Ikonkar! Which has elements of Om in it(I think I remember reading somewhere that on, is Pujabi for Om?)

As to the Sikh religion, well I'll only be too glad to tell ya what I know, heh bearing in mind I'm not a good Sikh, I'm not baptised(amritedie) and I certianly like a drink or a smoke!

Yeah I make you right, that is why I say esoteric. We have the Ikonkar! Which has elements of Om in it(I think I remember reading somewhere that on, is Pujabi for Om?)

As to the Sikh religion, well I'll only be too glad to tell ya what I know, heh bearing in mind I'm not a good Sikh, I'm not baptised(amritedie) and I certianly like a drink or a smoke!

So why even bother calling yourself a Sikh? You can believe in whatever you believe while removing the parts you don't agree with (no drinking/smoking) and call it something else.

I am Batman.

http://www.israelnewsagency.com/fathersrights.jpg

I rest my case trespasser!

http://www.israelnewsagency.com/fathersrights.jpg

I rest my case trespasser!

Psh, I am Batman. I, I'm Batman. Batman, am Batman I Batman am Batman I am I Batman.

[/pokemon]

So why even bother calling yourself a Sikh? You can believe in whatever you believe while removing the parts you don't agree with (no drinking/smoking) and call it something else.

I make you right, I call meself a Sikh purley because Sikh thought most marries up with my thoughts and feelings on God.

Hehe I guess deep down we all like to belong to a club or two huh?

I make you right, I call meself a Sikh purley because Sikh thought most marries up with my thoughts and feelings on God.

Hehe I guess deep down we all like to belong to a club or two huh?

Yeah but I don't call myself black, because I'm clearly white. I don't really qualify. As much as I might want to be part of the Black Club, I'm not.



Note: I'm fine being in the White Club. We go first in chess.

Yeah but I don't call myself black, because I'm clearly white. I don't really qualify. As much as I might want to be part of the Black Club, I'm not.



Note: I'm fine being in the White Club. We go first in chess.


Say are yoou diggin' me out?:eek:

Lemme explain a bit then.

There is a document that is important for Sikhs, it is called the Rehat Maryada. It is the offical document that lays down exactly what a Sikh is, brought about in the 40's by the Sikh governing body that looks after all of the Gurdwaras(Temples) in India.

It states that anybody who belives in the ten human Sikh Guru's from Guru Nanak Ji, to Guru Gobihnd Singh Ji, and Guru Granth Sahib our holr scripture(but more than that our everlasting Guru ji) can call them selfs Sikh.

I cerrtianly belive in all of that.

In addition the Rehat lays down certin rules, and certian practics that are forbidden for baptised Sikhs,smokeing and drinking amongst them.

Two things to bear in mind here, I am not baptised, and so I can smoke and drink(although it is true that every Sikh should strive to become baptised) and this rule cannot be found in Guru Granth Sahib, nor as far as I know hs been uttered by any of our Guru's.

In fact the biggest draw of the Sikh faith(for me) is the lack of dogma, and dogmatic rules. Our Guru's preached endlessly about 'meaningless rituals' and becomeing emersed in Maya, the following of rites by rote being an example of such emersion.

There is no religious reason to be a vegiterian, nor a woman hater, our Guru Granth Sahib does say this, of smoking and drinking, the only thing Guru ji says, is anything done without keeping the naam of Waheguru in mind is done for the porpuse of enjoyment and thus is illusion and maya, In that respect, yep I plead guilty.

So you see, I hope, that I am fully able to call meself Sikh, yep indeed that is what I am.

Say are yoou diggin' me out?:eek:

Lemme explain a bit then.

There is a document that is important for Sikhs, it is called the Rehat Maryada. It is the offical document that lays down exactly what a Sikh is, brought about in the 40's by the Sikh governing body that looks after all of the Gurdwaras(Temples) in India.

It states that anybody who belives in the ten human Sikh Guru's from Guru Nanak Ji, to Guru Gobihnd Singh Ji, and Guru Granth Sahib our holr scripture(but more than that our everlasting Guru ji) can call them selfs Sikh.

I cerrtianly belive in all of that.

In addition the Rehat lays down certin rules, and certian practics that are forbidden for baptised Sikhs,smokeing and drinking amongst them.

Two things to bear in mind here, I am not baptised, and so I can smoke and drink(although it is true that every Sikh should strive to become baptised) and this rule cannot be found in Guru Granth Sahib, nor as far as I know hs been uttered by any of our Guru's.

In fact the biggest draw of the Sikh faith(for me) is the lack of dogma, and dogmatic rules. Our Guru's preached endlessly about 'meaningless rituals' and becomeing emersed in Maya, the following of rites by rote being an example of such emersion.

There is no religious reason to be a vegiterian, nor a woman hater, our Guru Granth Sahib does say this, of smoking and drinking, the only thing Guru ji says, is anything done without keeping the naam of Waheguru in mind is done for the porpuse of enjoyment and thus is illusion and maya, In that respect, yep I plead guilty.

So you see, I hope, that I am fully able to call meself Sikh, yep indeed that is what I am.

Wait, the biggest drawback is a LACK of dogma? As in, there's not ENOUGH random shit you're supposed to do/think/say because the religious leaders tell you to?

Wait, the biggest drawback is a LACK of dogma? As in, there's not ENOUGH random shit you're supposed to do/think/say because the religious leaders tell you to?

No man, the biggest draw, the thing that drew me in. Not draw back, draw!

Anyhoo we don't have relgious leaders, we don't have a clergy. Any Sikh man or woman, can get up in Gurdwara and read from Guru Granth Sahib, as long as they can, as long as they are baptised.

No man, the biggest draw, the thing that drew me in. Not draw back, draw!

Anyhoo we don't have relgious leaders, we don't have a clergy. Any Sikh man or woman, can get up in Gurdwara and read from Guru Granth Sahib, as long as they can, as long as they are baptised.

Ah.

But you do have gurus, and muslim priests (not sure what the muslim version of priest is), and they are religious leaders, are they not?

Ooo you're gonna love me. Or hate me. Or neither.

I reckon, first off, that God probably can't see mega far into the future, otherwise He wouldn't have created us knowing the suffering that would happen.

Perhaps...

God gave us free will. Thus, God can not interfere under any circumstances. But he can punish people after they have carried out their action based on free will.

However, he gave us an in-built ability to sense when others are in danger, and as long as we take heed of that sense, it continues to work, warning us that someone near by needs our help. We have the free will to take heed of it, or ignore it, and when we ignore it, suffering happens (especially as the more we ignore our senses, the less they become needed so they work less - including our sense that lets us know when a fellow human being is in danger).

When someone prays, it doesn't send a signal to God, because God is already there but is unable to intervene - it sends a signal to the nearest person (and because it's focused energy (and incidentally I've just found out that spelling 'focused' like this: 'focussed' apparently changes its meaning), it's more powerful than unfocused energy so more likely to reach people, even those who are far away) but the person has to heed the signal (which comes in the form of a 'bad feeling' or whatever you term it) in order for suffering to be prevented/stopped.

So in short:
Bad thing happens. God watches, deciding on punishment, but can not intervene. Signal is sent to nearest person (a signal which comes from the human, not God). Nearest person decides to heed/ignore signal. Bad thing stops if signal heeded and nearest person manages to help. If nearest person ignores signal, bad thing continues. God decides on punishment for person who did bad thing.

And because people can change their mind, then PERHAPS God did see into the future really far, but because of the ability of humans to change their minds He only saw what MIGHT happen, which is why He gave us the ability described above. But what He didn't realise was that lots of people would ignore their feelings. Or perhaps he can't see mega far into the future after all.

I'd say it's more of a karma thing.

what does it mean to "believe in the ten human Sikh Guru's from Guru Nanak Ji, to Guru Gobihnd Singh Ji, and Guru Granth Sahib, our holy scripture, (but more than that our everlasting Guru ji)"?

do you have to believe something in particular about the gurus?