God is cruel

[+Liquid Gardens]

4 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

You are totally wrong  in your conclusion.

Studies across the world show that  even  before the y can speak, and even if they are the children of atheists, human children construct belief in the existence of magical agents.

You are wrong to conflate 'magical agents' with 'God', which was what Nostro was referring to.

4 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

As the y grow older, the y pick up more adult understandings for these agents according to the culture and or beliefs of those around them.

Sometimes.  Most adults end up jettisoning Santa somewhere along the way but many still like to cling to other magical agents.

[Truthseeker007]

5 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

Well, likewise, what good would it do to be inaccurate that the UB is inaccurate when you haven't read it? All of it?

With an open mind, in the spirit of sincerely seeking for truth, with the attitude that the truth is real and can be found?

 

 

I have a pretty good overview on it that I don't need to do any further reading of it. I could learn much more by spending a few hours in nature then sitting down and reading 2,000 pages of a book that you say has all the answers and not to mention doesn't even have an author.

[Duke Wellington]

20 hours ago, I'mConvinced said:

Sounds like an awful bore if you ask me. So essentially you are saying that we suffer in order to be able to appreciate the lack of suffering in our final form?

Surely if all we need to do is cease all conscious thought then we need an anaesthetist not meditation...

I said the mind has primacy with its conscious thoughts.

They create a reality, it is a reality in which you cannot escape from suffering, and the suffering you go through in that reality changes your mind. You either move on from your negative experiences (by changing the way you think) or they consume you until you do.

There is no escaping the process and the outcome will happen even if you have to be dragged there screaming and crying. Even if you have to go through life 1000 times. With the mind having primacy, creation of a reality will keep occurring so long as you have conscious thoughts.

When you sleep at night or get put under by a surgeon you haven't overcome conscious thoughts. The underlying problem still exists. Although they are states of mind closer to God than your waking or none dissociated state, they are temporary. You dont have to wait for death for reunification with God (assuming you have overcome the need for conscious thought  by the point of death). You can develop it now. Many religions have it as the end outcome of meditation.

The meditation practice causes changes not only to your conscious but your subconscious so you can attain a state where no conscious thoughts occur.

Edited January 22, 2018 by RabidMongoose

[Will Due]

Just now, Truthseeker007 said:

It seems you are surly trying to make a religion out of it. Where are your buddies William Sadler and Wilfred Kellogg? Where they not Seven Day Adventist?

 

No one has, nor ever will, make a religion out of the Urantia Book. It has been in existence for 63 years, since 1955.

But the Urantia Book does reveal what true religion is. Because true religion is, and many throughout history have known this, that true religion is the personal business of finding God, which must overlay everything and anything else that lesser religious activities, like submission to the organized religions of authority, demand.

True religion has always been practiced apart from all other religious experiences and always will, but true religion must be sought for alone, and only will be found through total commitment to seeking honestly for the truth, and for God.

As a tool and as an adjunct to this personal business, the Urantia Book is immediately helpful in accomplishing this goal.

 

 

[Truthseeker007]

1 minute ago, Will Due said:

 

No one has, nor ever will, make a religion out of the Urantia Book. It has been in existence for 63 years, since 1955.

But the Urantia Book does reveal what true religion is. Because true religion is, and many throughout history have known this, that true religion is the personal business of finding God, which must overlay everything and anything else that lesser religious activities, like submission to the organized religions of authority, demand.

True religion has always been practiced apart from all other religious experiences and always will, but true religion must be sought for alone, and only will be found through total commitment to seeking honestly for the truth, and for God.

As a tool and as an adjunct to this personal business, the Urantia Book is immediately helpful in accomplishing this goal.

 

 

To me religion is a mind control program. Why should I have to seek for God when it is everywhere and including myself?

[Illyrius]

Something about the etymology of the word "Religion";

According to Cicero derived from relegere "go through again" (in reading or in thought), from re- "again" (see re-) + legere "read" (see lecture (n.)). However, popular etymology among the later ancients (Servius, Lactantius, Augustine) and the interpretation of many modern writers connects it with religare "to bind fast" (see rely), via notion of "place an obligation on," or "bond between humans and gods." In that case, the re- would be intensive. Another possible origin is religiens "careful," opposite of negligens. In English, meaning "particular system of faith" is recorded from c. 1300; sense of "recognition of and allegiance in manner of life (perceived as justly due) to a higher, unseen power or powers" is from 1530s.

--------

So the basic point of what is discussed here is difference between ORGANIZED religion and personal search for the truth.

Edited January 22, 2018 by Mr. Argon

[Will Due]

1 minute ago, Truthseeker007 said:

To me religion is a mind control program. Why should I have to seek for God when it is everywhere and including myself?

 

Because the goal of the program of true religion is self-control.

When this is achieved, the purpose for seeking for God reaches within for the meaning of the fact that because we're God's children, we have a certain kind of growing up to do. To become more and more like him.

This is a responsibility to take up daily.

 

"If any man would come after me, let him disregard himself, take up his responsibilities daily, and follow me."

 

 

[pallidin]

God's Universe, with all its dimensions, is "His", and he has a specific outcome.

Hold on tight, everyone, it's one heck of a ride.

 

[Truthseeker007]

3 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

Because the goal of the program of true religion is self-control.

When this is achieved, the purpose for seeking for God reaches within for the meaning of the fact that because we're God's children, we have a certain kind of growing up to do. To become more and more like him.

This is a responsibility to take up daily.

 

"If any man would come after me, let him disregard himself, take up his responsibilities daily, and follow me."

 

 

Again I don't follow a religion whether you call it true or not. I have no need to follow anything or anybody and especially something that claims to be the Almighty God.

[Will Due]

Just now, Truthseeker007 said:

Again I don't follow a religion whether you call it true or not. I have no need to follow anything or anybody and especially something that claims to be the Almighty God.

 

Then what is it you're seeking?

 

 

[Truthseeker007]

1 minute ago, Will Due said:

 

Then what is it you're seeking?

 

 

Truth. I don't see much wisdom in seeing God as a male figure who is supposed to be followed. To me that is just another version of the Aramaic religions of the world.

[Will Due]

2 minutes ago, Truthseeker007 said:

Truth. I don't see much wisdom in seeing God as a male figure who is supposed to be followed. 

 

Then what or who do you think is wise to follow?

 

 

[Truthseeker007]

5 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

Then what or who do you think is wise to follow?

 

 

It depends on the person and what they need to experience in a certain lifetime. Some feel they need to follow something or someone such as a Jesus or a Krishna. Others do not like to feel that they are dependent on someone else for their salvation or for finding the truth. How can you find the truth, if it is the other person who finds the truth rather than you? Some could say that by worshipping a master or some God, they are not actually finding truth themselves, or becoming more spiritually developed. Who says you need a guide? Isn't God everywhere? Isn't Divinity everywhere in the creation? There are just different paths to follow in peoples experiences and really it depends on the individual on if they need someone to follow or not.

[Aquila King]

10 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I think that's possible, but the logic works just as well the other way: could it be that the positive things that happen are in a definitely twisted way possibly a bad thing?  That the lack of that which is bad causes us to suffer that much more profoundly from the bad?

[Mr Walker]

17 hours ago, Nostrodumbass said:

Could I know God if you were not able to speak for him Mr. Walker?

If so, let HIM let me know and understand. 

No disrespect, but I think you mistake the human capacity to imagine with the existence of the imaginary. In view of that when you say I am totally wrong in my conclusion, I take it as confirmation of the common sense in my words.

You could know god if i was not able to speak to him, but you were able to speak to him. 

To know something you must have a verifiably true personal experience which gives you that knowledge

And indeed, for you to know him, you must have a personal  connection to/with him  Of course most humans have faith and build their belief  around  around that faith constructing their concept of what god is from  their mental  understanding of him.

 ( Ps god is not of course a him at all, but many people perceive god in masculine form. )

Your last point is very simply answered.

Real things are verifiably real,and imaginary things can be shown to be imaginary, by a few basic tests of observation and logic.

Thus I know that my own three dogs have an indention physical existence.

Now while i know Hairy mc Clary form Donaldson's dairy, just as well as i know my own dogs, iI also know that he is an imaginary  construct of an author of children's books.

The difference?  i can establish the physical reality of my dogs  via physical testing. 

The conclusion i was saying you have wrong about is that children learn concepts of god from  adults or older children.

That is scientifically disproven.  Very young children construct their own belief constructs,  that intelligent, purposeful, magical agents exist, to explain the inexplicable in their lives.

Later, those constructs become more stylised and complex, as they become aware of the models of god around them, and adapt their own constructs to the constructs of those around them  . 

[Mr Walker]

14 hours ago, I'mConvinced said:

Did you just try to excuse God's actions by saying "it's cool, he was pally with the Jews so all that murder, persecution, vengeance and hate is justified?"

No, but i guess you need a knowldge of human history psychology and theology  to get what i am saying.

You gave a list of horrible things  that gods laws allowed as punishments. 3-4000 years ago.  I pointed out that most of the prohibitions against those things still exist,  and that indeed many crimes are still punished by execution in many parts of the world and that execution for serious crimes was only stopped in most western countries within my life time.

You are trying to judge the people and laws and punishments of 2-4000 years ago by your very modern sensibilities. They were not like us, they did not have the values or ethics we have, and they simply could not afford to have such values.  They needed laws and punishments which effectively held their society together, and made people obey the laws.

So yes, killing when legal,  (in war or by authority to punish criminals)   has always been, not just legal, but justifiable.  it is justifiable to execute people who refuse to obey the laws of your society, IF such disobedience threatens the good order and survival of that society and (i would argue)  if their behaviour endangers the lives or safety of innocents .

Today societies are bigger, stronger,  and more robust, so we can afford to keep some killers, rapists, thieves  etc alive until the y die in prison, and offer our citizens more diversity of belief and behaviour.  But there is no innate moral/ethical reason not to kill anyone who threatens your freedom, safety, or society. Killing is often ethically and morally justifiable, and indeed, logical

You argue these are done from hate or vengeance.  i would argue that when done by legally constituted authority, the y are value neutral  and natural justice,  and indeed might be done from  love and compassion for those who are the victims of criminals Or to preserve the safety of the innocent in a society.          

 

[Mr Walker]

14 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

You are wrong to conflate 'magical agents' with 'God', which was what Nostro was referring to.

Sometimes.  Most adults end up jettisoning Santa somewhere along the way but many still like to cling to other magical agents.

No. Studies show that humans first cognitive reasoning causes them to  create magical agents  This is not a taught/learned construct.  It is an innate construct of all  human minds, beginning before we can even speak . 

Because this is our first form of cognitive reasoning, it creates a propensity for belief in human minds.  That belief may be about santa claus OR it might be why an adult believes in spirits/ gods or other agencies 

There are studies which show and explain why Santa is different to god, and why god fills cognitive and psychological needs in adults  

One big difference is that we can show and prove to an adult ,  how santa is a human construct. 

 There is no way at present that human science can prove or demonstrate that gods do not exist, that there is no potential life after death, or that you may not be reunited with lost loved ones, in a future time.

This allows a sane, educated, and rational, adult to construct and hold onto a belief in gods, via faith,  because it CANNOT be shown to be illogical or wrong, and it does confer strong measurable benefits on humans.

 science believes this may because  of the evolutionary advantages conferred on humans through belief and faith  which increase survival probabilities and quality of life by compensating for the fears and uncertainties that  self aware conscious inevitably creates in human beings  .  Very basically, humans know and fear the nature of death.  Belief is a cognitive mechanism which allows the mind to sidestep or ignore that fear,  by creating an uncertainty that death is final or permanent  This allows us to ignore death and to get on with living. 

In cognitive terms, a god construct  like the biblical god, is the ultimate magical agent, and an  evolved and more sophisticated version of the child's first constructed magical agent .  it cannot be proven to not be true, and thus remains viable, and highly effective, in an adult mind.  

Edited January 23, 2018 by Mr Walker

[freetoroam]

17 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Killing is often ethically and morally justifiable, and indeed, logical

I got to go to work so will explain myself later, just flitter through at moment.

Do not agree with above bit...killing in never justifiable....it is explainable...but not justifiable. 

So killing may have reason, but it does not make it justifiable and right.

Edited January 23, 2018 by freetoroam

[Mr Walker]

1 minute ago, freetoroam said:

I got to go to work so will explain myself later, just flitter through at moment.

Do not agree with above bit...killing in never justifiable....it is explainable...but not justifiable. 

Difference is killing may  have a  reason, but it does not make it right. 

Killing is right where it creates a better outcome for more people than not killing  Ethics and moralities MUST be constructed  to produce, when acted upon, better  measurable, criteria referenced outcomes.

  Where one action, based on one belief or morality,  creates a better outcome than another, based on a different  belief or morality 

You need to ask what it is in your mind that  is arguing to you that killing is always wrong. There are no absolutes in ethics moralities or the values we use to construct them.    it might be better to  resolve  a situation without killing but this is not always practical or possible.

Killing is not right or wrong in itself.   It is the context and reasons for the killing, which  make each case right or wrong.   

[Nostrodumbass]

2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

You could know god if i was not able to speak to him, but you were able to speak to him. 

To know something you must have a verifiably true personal experience which gives you that knowledge

And indeed, for you to know him, you must have a personal  connection to/with him  Of course most humans have faith and build their belief  around  around that faith constructing their concept of what god is from  their mental  understanding of him.

 ( Ps god is not of course a him at all, but many people perceive god in masculine form. )

Your last point is very simply answered.

Real things are verifiably real,and imaginary things can be shown to be imaginary, by a few basic tests of observation and logic.

Thus I know that my own three dogs have an indention physical existence.

Now while i know Hairy mc Clary form Donaldson's dairy, just as well as i know my own dogs, iI also know that he is an imaginary  construct of an author of children's books.

The difference?  i can establish the physical reality of my dogs  via physical testing. 

The conclusion i was saying you have wrong about is that children learn concepts of god from  adults or older children.

That is scientifically disproven.  Very young children construct their own belief constructs,  that intelligent, purposeful, magical agents exist, to explain the inexplicable in their lives.

Later, those constructs become more stylised and complex, as they become aware of the models of god around them, and adapt their own constructs to the constructs of those around them  . 

I think I'm getting what your trying to say.

Though, from an evolutionary point of view its better to believe in magical agents than to feel lost and overwhelmed in an unexplained environment, and said belief would be conducive to our survival. This is why magnitude of belief in magical agents is normally inversely proportional to our understanding of the world around us. A survival mechanism is more evidence against, than for, the existence of god/spirit. 

Unfortunately our development on this planet has less to do with truth, and more with the ability to accept things (by any means, sometimes magical) and carry on breeding. 

So when we worship God and just 'believe' and feel content, congratulations! You are experiencing one of our unique survival mechanisms in all its glory, and will probably be part of the gene pool.

Edited January 23, 2018 by Nostrodumbass

[Illyrius]

2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

This allows a sane, educated, and rational, adult to construct and hold onto a belief in gods, via faith,  because it CANNOT be shown to be illogical or wrong, and it does confer strong measurable benefits on humans.

Since there cannot ever be an expalanation for the origin of First Cause, because something can not be created out of nothing.. is it in your opinion rational and logical to believe in Intelligent Causeless Cause - a Supreme Deity - intelligent Originator of the Universe?

[Truthseeker007]

29 minutes ago, Mr. Argon said:

Since there cannot ever be an expalanation for the origin of First Cause, because something can not be created out of nothing.. is it in your opinion rational and logical to believe in Intelligent Causeless Cause - a Supreme Deity - intelligent Originator of the Universe?

Wouldn't a Static Void be a something?

[Illyrius]

1 minute ago, Truthseeker007 said:

Wouldn't a Static Void be a something?

Yes.

[Mr Walker]

23 minutes ago, Mr. Argon said:

Since there cannot ever be an expalanation for the origin of First Cause, because something can not be created out of nothing.. is it in your opinion rational and logical to believe in Intelligent Causeless Cause - a Supreme Deity - intelligent Originator of the Universe?

Who says something cannot be created out of nothing?  

It also depends on how you define something and nothing 

eg chaotic energy might always exist and, given a natural tendency towards order,  this energy may naturally evolve into matter  in many forms, as well as energy. 

First cause does not necessarily  mean an intelligent first cause. It might simply be a natural  first step along the  long road of evolution 

Because we are intelligent, imaginative, creative beings, we tend to suppose that we are the eventual result of  an intelligent imaginative creative being, but that is not needed to explain our present existence and condition 

It is not irrational to believe, or disbelieve, in  ANYTHING for which there is no scientific knowledge. 

However there is no evidence for such a creator, and neither is one necessary for evolution to occur totally naturally,  and for us to evolve without any intelligent participation in any part of the process. 

[Illyrius]

1 minute ago, Mr Walker said:

Who says something cannot be created out of nothing?

Physics, logic, reason... a few choices.