Originally posted by bbarrIf the Bible isn't the only reliable source of information regarding eternal salvation [or its alternative eternal condemnation], what other sources would an engaged intellect reference? John 3:36 New American Standard Bible: "36 He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey [believe] the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."
That's really unfortunate. The questions of the Bible's historical accuracy and moral wisdom I find particularly fascinating. If winnowed down to a more definite field of knowledge, this topic could have made for a great discussion. I think you should reconsider.
Originally posted by wolfgang59I see. Ok, I would be willing to do this.
What I had in mind was that the general forum population
create a thread and nominate you (or another) as mod.
As an aside, one topic that I think would make for good discussion would be the desirability/value (or lack thereof) of immortality. Suppose, for example, there is a special elixir that is readily available to you, and suppose you know that if you take the elixir it will make you immortal. Should you take the elixir?
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloDoes it come with eternal youth? There's a Greek myth where one of the Godesses Eos has a human lover Tithonus, she begs Zeus to make him immortal but forgets to ask for agelessness. Eventually they have to beg Zeus to let him die.
I see. Ok, I would be willing to do this.
As an aside, one topic that I think would make for good discussion would be the desirability/value (or lack thereof) of immortality. Suppose, for example, there is a special elixir that is readily available to you, and suppose you know that if you take the elixir it will make you immortal. Should you take the elixir?
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI'm thinking it could be worthwhile to leave the question underdescribed with respect to these details. And then the forum goers could offer different views on what sorts of conditions or assurances would be necessary or sufficient to make it worthwhile to consume the elixir. Could be an interesting discussion.
Does it come with eternal youth? There's a Greek myth where one of the Godesses Eos has a human lover Tithonus, she begs Zeus to make him immortal but forgets to ask for agelessness. Eventually they have to beg Zeus to let him die.
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyYou should pitch this to Dasa. He likes this kind of "debate". 😉
If the Bible isn't the only reliable source of information regarding eternal salvation [or its alternative eternal condemnation], what other sources would an engaged intellect reference?
Originally posted by black beetlethat sounds fancy, but no, i don't agree. objectivity exists. even if you could argue that all humans have personal views, one can still detach him/herself and do a job while remaining impartial.
Objectivity is non-existent. Existent is the collective subjectivity, that is misunderstood as "objectivity"
😵
Originally posted by DasaVirtually all religious people think their own religions are "true" and others' religions are "false" and their "criteria" are perceived and justified accordingly.
This means you have to come up with the criteria that make a religion true and the criterion which makes a religion false.
Originally posted by FMFThis is sadly true.......
Virtually all religious people think their own religions are "true" and others' religions are "false" and their "criteria" are perceived and justified accordingly.
This why there must be criteria for making a religion true.......
However (maya) is very strong....
Originally posted by DasaWell if it works for you to find "criteria" for making your religion "true" then good for you. You clearly do not want to persuade any of the members of this community that your religion is "true". Perhaps behaving the way you do is you fulfilling one the "criteria" for your religion's adherents?
This why there must be criteria for making a religion true...
Originally posted by ZahlanziNot only I ‘m sure that all humans have exclusively personal views according to the evaluation of the mind, but I argue that whenever one is acting either according to a specific personal or/ and collective view or/ and rules or/ and consensus in order to remain impartial and do a job (for example a judge, or a moderator as is the case over here), in fact one is acting purely subjectively and as it is required by a specific collectively subjective core;
that sounds fancy, but no, i don't agree. objectivity exists. even if you could argue that all humans have personal views, one can still detach him/herself and do a job while remaining impartial.
Methinks we could enjoy a debate as regards this matter, for auld lang syne😵
1 edit
Originally posted by black beetlei always argued one should change the spirituality forum to "philosophy". this subject might not be that spiritual. but yes, create it, and i would love to participate
Not only I ‘m sure that all humans have exclusively personal views according to the evaluation of the mind, but I argue that whenever one is acting either according to a specific personal or/ and collective view or/ and rules or/ and consensus in order to remain impartial and do a job (for example a judge, or a moderator as is the case over here), in fa ...[text shortened]... ubjective core;
Methinks we could enjoy a debate as regards this matter, for auld lang syne😵
"whenever one is acting either according to a specific personal or/ and collective view or/ and rules or/ and consensus in order to remain impartial"
i think we are unclear on the definition of impartial here. even though rules are created by a society (and thus they can be argued to be subjective), they are impartial if they apply to all equally regardless of any outside conditions
Originally posted by ZahlanziI think the capacity to philosophize is an integral ingredient in the human spirit's capacity for the abstract and therefore essential to any conception of human spirituality. I resist the commandeering of the word "spiritual" to exclude celebration of the human spirit as it is (as I see it), and instead loading the word up only with superstitions, divine beings, supernatural myths and occurrences and all the partisan mundane religionist and human spirit-frittering posturing that follows in tow. 🙂
i always argued one should change the spirituality forum to "philosophy". this subject might not be that spiritual. but yes, create it, and i would love to participate
in the elixir of immortality thread i believe so far we have a decent debate. how a debate should be.
a philosophical subject, with every opinion valid. one doesn't have to agree to the other, just present their opinion in a valid matter.
the spirituality forum offered so many examples of utter garbage because of one's insistence of presenting an obvious scientific falsehood and another's insistence of setting the facts straight which most of the time degenerated into name calling and eventually surrender.