Absurd Escapism

Originally posted by KellyJay
"The irony is you talk a lot about union (with God) yet fail to see you are on the same page as the Buddhist or Hindu."

I cannot speak for him, but no way is that true! The union with God that Christians have
has nothing at all in common with either Buddhist or Hindu.

'Nirvana is a place of perfect peace and happiness. In Hinduism and Buddhism, nirvana is the highest state that someone can attain, a state of enlightenment, where a person's individual desires and suffering go away, replaced with pure unity.'

Is that really a million miles away from heaven, from union with God?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
'Nirvana is a place of perfect peace and happiness. In Hinduism and Buddhism, nirvana is the highest state that someone can attain, a state of enlightenment, where a person's individual desires and suffering go away, replaced with pure unity.'

Is that really a million miles away from heaven, from union with God?

In this life I've never looked for "Nirvana", I've looked for the Lord, but that was never to
glean some really cool feeling or mental high! Also, within the Christian faith we are not
to strive to acquire some level of understanding of God to reach some higher plain in the
Christian faith our walk is with God. It is God reaching to us not us reaching to God.

Originally posted by KellyJay
In this life I've never looked for "Nirvana", I've looked for the Lord, but that was never to
glean some really cool feeling or mental high! Also, within the Christian faith we are not
to strive to acquire some level of understanding of God to reach some higher plain in the
Christian faith our walk is with God. It is God reaching to us not us reaching to God.

What utter nonsense you talk sometimes.

How often did Jesus speak of the following:
- Seeking
- Striving
- Looking
- Searching.

and doing it DILIGENTLY.

Originally posted by Rajk999
What utter nonsense you talk sometimes.

How often did Jesus speak of the following:
- Seeking
- Striving
- Looking
- Searching.

and doing it DILIGENTLY.

Why don't you just go away without having to go through some question and answer
where you will without a doubt get uncomfortable trying to defend your stance which is
counter to what the scripture teaches. You just spout off your stance and leave when you
are asked to defend what you say. I can more than likely give you all the scripture you
know since you only use a handful which backs up your stance only until you have to
look at the rest of the Bible too.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I would like to point out you left our conversation about a universal now after I answered
your point about how we are unable to view or see it. With God and without God the
universal now does change, with God it is as real as any period in time as a year or even
a thousand years, without God it is beyond seeing. So would universal morals would go
and change with and without God as well.

Well to be honest, it was difficult for me to think of a fruitful way of carrying it on. The classical physics picture has a fixed space and time as a parameter. In the trade this is known as a fibre bundle structure, the base space is time (a one dimensional line). At each point on the base space a three dimensional copy of the universe is in place, known as the typical fibre, the total space is the base space with fibres attached at each point on it. The laws of physics amount to rules about how the world line of particles has to be continuous when moving from fibre to fibre. With the advent of relativity this was replaced by a space-time structure, where there is no division into base space and fibres, the time dimension and space dimensions can be mixed in the same way that our familiar three dimensions are in a rotation. There is a four dimensional space which locally looks like Minkowski space. Minkowski space is just the relativistic equivalent of Euclidean space - a flat four dimensional space with one dimension picked out as different and has a different rule to Pythagoras' one for distance (or interval or proper time as it is called in relativity theory). From the point of view of an entity outside the universe it is a static thing. To know what happened at some particular time, all such an entity would have to do is to look at the relevant part of our four dimensional universe. So I agree with what you were referring to as "universal now". It's just a little tricky as I cannot be sure that what you have in mind is what I do.

In philosophy there are roughly three views on space-time. The first is "Presentism". "Now" exists, the universe is three dimensional and neither the past or future exist. This is the framework of classical prerelativistic physics and is contrary to Einstein's theory of relativity. The second is "Eternalism", which is essentially the framework of general relativity. Your "eternal now" picture, provided it is from outside of the universe, fits this perfectly - there you are: Einstein's on your side. The picture I personally favour is called "Possibilism" in this the present and the past exist. Up until "now" it is the same as the "Eternalism" picture but it leaves the future open, it doesn't exist yet. There are some problems with this picture which are beyond the scope of this post (unless you want a really tough discussion), but relate to EPR type scenarios where different observers disagree about what the past and future are - I do not know if they are resolvable. However it also fits with Christian cosmologies as first it allows for free will, which I think is necessary for divine judgement to make sense in the first place, as well as making a final judgement make sense as by those times everything will have happened and so the whole history of the universe will be there for an omniscient judge.

So to sum up, I cannot see any logical or even nomological problem with your "eternal now" picture. Since I basically agreed with your first post on this matter I saw no particular reason to disagree with it. What I'm arguing with in this thread is the not the notion that Christianity is possible (I'll give you that, and an eternal now picture fits that) but the notion that a God is necessary for ideal justice, I'm arguing that we have no basis other than scripture and the other signs Christians normally claim that other cosmologies (in the sense of Heaven, Hell and "supernatural" entities) are impossible. So any claims about the necessity of God for absolute justice are nomological in the sense that one can imagine other mechanisms but it just happens to be that we have a God and that that God provides for an absolute justice, assuming that such a God exists to have these properties.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Why don't you just go away without having to go through some question and answer
where you will without a doubt get uncomfortable trying to defend your stance which is
counter to what the scripture teaches. You just spout off your stance and leave when you
are asked to defend what you say. I can more than likely give you all the scripture you
know since ...[text shortened]... a handful which backs up your stance only until you have to
look at the rest of the Bible too.

OK well where does JESUS support this :

"..within the Christian faith we are not to strive to acquire some level of understanding of God to reach some higher plain in the Christian faith our walk is with God. It is God reaching to us not us reaching to God."

Because Jesus speaks of seeking, searching, striving, looking. All this means striving for understanding, reaching for God and seeking after the Kingdom of God.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Well to be honest, it was difficult for me to think of a fruitful way of carrying it on. The classical physics picture has a fixed space and time as a parameter. In the trade this is known as a fibre bundle structure, the base space is time (a one dimensional line). At each point on the base space a three dimensional copy of the universe is in place, ...[text shortened]... God provides for an absolute justice, assuming that such a God exists to have these properties.

The point I was making early on was that both morals and universal now change with and
without God. We are limited therefore what we can grasp or not are only limited by our very
own limitations, all of which changes with someone who has a stake involved that is not
bound by our limitations and actually supersedes them.

Originally posted by Rajk999
OK well where does JESUS support this :

"..within the Christian faith we are not to strive to acquire some level of understanding of God to reach some higher plain in the Christian faith our walk is with God. It is God reaching to us not us reaching to God."

Because Jesus speaks of seeking, searching, striving, looking. All this means striving for understanding, reaching for God and seeking after the Kingdom of God.

Again, you don't talk you only spout, conversations are not in your DNA. If I thought you
would enter into a conversation with give and take I'd pay attention to what you say, since
you do not it doesn't matter.

To those posters savvy enough philosophically to pinpoint what school of thought they are of, on Morality and Meaning of life, could you identify which one?

I. Noncognitivist Theories

--- A. Emotivism
--- B. Imperativalism

II. Cognitivist Theories

--- A. Subjectivist Theories
1.) Private Subjectivism
2.) Cultural Relativism

--- B. Objectivist Theories
1.) Ethical Naturalism
2.) Ethical Nonaturalism

Put on a hat so I can study up. I think I would be classified as Ethical Nonaturalism. But I have to double check. Christian Theist would be more straightforward, maybe.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Again, you don't talk you only spout, conversations are not in your DNA. If I thought you
would enter into a conversation with give and take I'd pay attention to what you say, since
you do not it doesn't matter.

You're acting like you've been well and truly rumbled.

Originally posted by sonship
To those posters savvy enough philosophically to pinpoint what school of thought they are of, on [b]Morality and Meaning of life, could you identify which one?

I. Noncognitivist Theories

--- A. Emotivism
--- B. Imperativalism

II. Cognitivist Theories

...[text shortened]... turalism. But I have to double check. Christian Theist would be more straightforward, maybe.[/b]

LemonJello,

I think in my reading your critique of my argument it seemed to put you in an Noncognitivist camp - Possibly an Emotivist.

I say this based upon your ( I believe) summary of my position on justice/injustice in which your take on my conclusion, as you saw it was "That sucks!". IE. morality simply an expression of emotional likes and dislikes.

Is this fair ?

Concerning the raping murdering pedophile, that he is guilty of an injustice, is it actually true or false or is it only a matter of expression emotional reaction to what was done ?

Do you hold that moral arguments do not amount to actual true or false conclusions?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Again, you don't talk you only spout, conversations are not in your DNA. If I thought you
would enter into a conversation with give and take I'd pay attention to what you say, since
you do not it doesn't matter.

I dont care for you to pay attention to what I say. I almost always quote Jesus Christ. . he says seek, strive, look etc etc .. you better pay attention to Him.

Originally posted by DeepThought

Then you've missed the point. I'm not suggesting that "God is stumped" I'm pointing out that if such a thing as a soul exists then either the soul retains memories, in which case reincarnation makes sense as a mechanism for justice, or souls do not retain memories in which case the Christian cosmology has problems.

Do you think that in this life I forget that I did a hit and run in my automobile last year, and I am found out, not remembering will make it hard for me to be judged in a civil court ?

I don't yet see your problem with limitations of human memory.

My "God is stumped??" reply is in reaction to you assuming that because a sinner forgets, God will also forget.

Like a court of law in this world, what is the problem with deeds brought back to the person's recollection ?

Originally posted by KellyJay
The point I was making early on was that both morals and universal now change with and
without God. We are limited therefore what we can grasp or not are only limited by our very
own limitations, all of which changes with someone who has a stake involved that is not
bound by our limitations and actually supersedes them.

From the physics pictures we have there is no "universal now" that any mortal observer can see. What I was taking the "universal now" to mean was a sort of outside-the-universe view of the universe of General Relativity. It is a four dimensional object, all times preceding quantum collapses (or whatever controls what now is) from a vantage point outside the universe appear to be simultaneous. So the only way the "universal now" can change, in this picture, is by addition - the (undetermined future) becoming the present where it is fossilized into the past. So I'm not sure we are on the same page with "universal now".

I agree with your point regarding what is is, whether we understand or like whatever actually is.

Originally posted by sonship

Then you've missed the point. I'm not suggesting that "God is stumped" I'm pointing out that if such a thing as a soul exists then either the soul retains memories, in which case reincarnation makes sense as a mechanism for justice, or souls do not retain memories in which case the Christian cosmology has problems.

Do you think that in ...[text shortened]... of law in this world, what is the problem with deeds brought back to the person's recollection ?

This is the thing isn't it. There are statutes of limitations on some things. However, on the one hand the person who committed an offence against either the law or any given divinely ordained or indeed secular morality is responsible for their actions, assuming they're not insane or otherwise incompetent - however, on the other hand it seems unjust to hold someone to account for an offence that they have no recollection of committing due to medical amnesia. I'm distinguishing amnesia as a pathology from amnesia as failing to remember an event because it didn't seem important at the time, which one would hope would rule out the greater wrongs and I can't believe in a God which would damn one for an unpaid parking fine.

But it is not human memory that is the problem, it is the memory of the soul. If the soul cannot remember things then in the Christian cosmology its fate is to be punished for crimes it does not know it committed or rewarded for virtues unknown to it, on the other hand if a soul can keep memories then there is no particular logical problem with reincarnation provided it conforms with observed facts about the surface personality not remembering previous lives.