Originally posted by PalynkaThere was some question I wanted to know the answer to the other day and you said, No!
Now I'm curious. Why? PM me if you wish.
I will not do that to you.
I didn't mean much by the statement. It's just that I never know where you are going to stand on an issue. Sometimes I'll say something and you will seem to be firmly on the same side of that issue.
Other times I will say something that seems very similiar to me and you will seem to be firmly against it.
Other people are easier to figure out. Take Rook Rake for instance; he's almost catoonish in the way he attacks me. Like a one dimensional character in a comic book, he's against everything that I say.
Originally posted by Red NightIt's indifferent to his point.
Suppose I believe in re-incarnation?
Your beliefs in an afterlife would then affect your behaviour in the present, therefore making you fundamentally different than someone who believes in nothing or believes in hell. A line is drawn, regardless.
Not focusing on an afterlife allows us to focus on the meaning of the action itself in the world, and not merely its consequences on a possible afterlife.
The question is: Is morality self-justified, without a higher order of existence?
Sing me a song, youre a singer
Do me a wrong, youre a bringer of evil
The devil is never a maker
The less that you give, youre a taker
So its on and on and on, its heaven and hell, oh well
The lover of lifes not a sinner
The ending is just a beginner
The closer you get to the meaning
The sooner youll know that youre dreaming
So its on and on and on, oh its on and on and on
It goes on and on and on, heaven and hell
I can tell, fool, fool!
Well if it seems to be real, its illusion
For every moment of truth, theres confusion in life
Love can be seen as the answer, but nobody bleeds for the dancer
And its on and on, on and on and on....
They say that lifes a carousel
Spinning fast, youve got to ride it well
The world is full of kings and queens
Who blind your eyes and steal your dreams
Its heaven and hell, oh well
And theyll tell you black is really white
The moon is just the sun at night
And when you walk in golden halls
You get to keep the gold that falls
Its heaven and hell, oh no!
Fool, fool!
Youve got to bleed for the dancer!
Fool, fool!
Look for the answer!
Fool, fool, fool!
Originally posted by PalynkaThat's a great question.
It's indifferent to his point.
Your beliefs in an afterlife would then affect your behaviour in the present, therefore making you fundamentally different than someone who believes in nothing or believes in hell. A line is drawn, regardless.
Not focusing on an afterlife allows us to focus on the meaning of the action itself in the world, and not merely ...[text shortened]... afterlife.
The question is: Is morality self-justified, without a higher order of existence?
A lot of religions, and Zoroastrianism is an early example, seek to externalize internal moral conflicts.
I think that morality is self justified. If you take Sartre when step further, then God is an invention of man and he/she exists as an invention. So, when we honour him/her we are really honoring our fellow man and obeying the moral rules we created for ourselves.
Someone is going to come along and tell us we are in the wrong forum!
Originally posted by aspviper666And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make.
Sing me a song, youre a singer
Do me a wrong, youre a bringer of evil
The devil is never a maker
The less that you give, youre a taker
So its on and on and on, its heaven and hell, oh well
The lover of lifes not a sinner
The ending is just a beginner
The closer you get to the meaning
The sooner youll know that youre dreaming
So its on and on a ...[text shortened]... fool!
Youve got to bleed for the dancer!
Fool, fool!
Look for the answer!
Fool, fool, fool!
1 edit
Originally posted by Red NightSartre...that reminds me of one of my favourite threads in Spirituality. I'll try to find the link.
That's a great question.
A lot of religions, and Zoroastrianism is an early example, seek to externalize internal moral conflicts.
I think that morality is self justified. If you take Sartre when step further, then God is an invention of man and he/she exists as an invention. So, when we honour him/her we are really honoring our fellow man and ...[text shortened]... created for ourselves.
Someone is going to come along and tell us we are in the wrong forum!
Edit - There you go. If you have patience enough, it's worth it.
Thread 37544
Originally posted by 7ate9I heard this guy once on the radio. He was the kind of guy I would normally disagree with but he said something that realy struck me about John 3:16 and Christ dying for our sins.
yeah, for sure it means something different to different people. i reckon many people in churches believe in a system more than Jesus. also, i've been wondering over recent times if it's possible for people who don't believe they believe actually do. it depends on what the definition is.... john 3:16. most people can't come to terms with creation, the flood etc.....so what happens in the next life may be even harder.
He said that if God gave his son then we as humans could not choose whether to accept that gift or not. Because giving us a choice placed us in a position of being more powerful than God. (This is not intended as a pitch for Christianity.)
Originally posted by PalynkaI'll take a look Paynka. I've come to admire you and respect your opinion.
Sartre...that reminds me of one of my favourite threads in Spirituality. I'll try to find the link.
Edit - There you go. If you have patience enough, it's worth it.
Thread 37544
