22 Jun 07
Originally posted by eatmybishopI see the point you're making. But then, doesn't that sound like a new religion?
do you think maybe god is waiting for us, as opposed to us waiting for him? by that i mean heaven is a place that will exist on the earth, it will exist when mankind has progressed far enough spiritually that we realise there is only one core religion, one race, one love etc... by then we would have become one with god, understand god; we would have created our heaven on earth with him guiding us all along?
Truth rests on the authority from which it comes.
22 Jun 07
1 edit
Originally posted by eatmybishopIt's very revealing the way people handle the concept of heaven. They don't allow animals in heaven, only humans. Now that in itself is revealing of the motives of the people who started the concept.
do you think maybe god is waiting for us, as opposed to us waiting for him? by that i mean heaven is a place that will exist on the earth, it will exist when mankind has progressed far enough spiritually that we realise there is only one core religion, one race, one love etc... by then we would have become one with god, understand god; we would have created our heaven on earth with him guiding us all along?
This suggests that people think themselves the height of creation and therefore animals to be so far down the scale as to not be worthy of a spiritual side therefore only humans get to be in heaven. Personally I think the whole concept bogus. 1) Some people think "god" is lonely and needs supplicants who worship it. More like, if anything, a person keeping a nice budgy in a cage and amazed at how it can almost act smart.
2) People also think the heaven setup means even though they led lives of work and development of the planet and themselves physically and intellectually, there would be no more such in heaven, just sit around and adore the lord. To me that would be the end of my mind. Why would that kind of life be any better than an animated statue?
3) That said, it seems to me the entire concept to be fake, just crap made up by men to control men, to give them hope for a better life if you will only support me and my church. That is so much more believable.
22 Jun 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadI think you're wrong on this.
Truth does not 'rest on authority'. Something is either the truth or it isn't.
If "something' is true, or not, then that 'something' is the authority.
If something is true, or not, what determines the validity of that truth? If it is the thing that is true or not that validates it's self, then truth is objective.
Truth is subjective when WE determine what is true or not.
22 Jun 07
1 edit
Originally posted by josephwA fact is something that is (very probably) true.
I think you're wrong on this.
If "something' is true, or not, then that 'something' is the authority.
If something is true, or not, what determines the validity of that truth? If it is the thing that is true or not that validates it's self, then truth is objective.
Truth is subjective when WE determine what is true or not.
An authority is not a fact.
An authority is someone who is qualified to declare that something is a fact, given their knowledge and expertise.
But this is only true of brute facts: see my qualification below.
22 Jun 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadI think there are exceptions to this rule.
Truth does not 'rest on authority'. Something is either the truth or it isn't.
What you state is true of brute facts, for example, that an atom of hydrogen has one electron spinning around it.
I also think it is likely true of ethical and aesthetic facts, for example, that cavalier murder is wrong, and that Beethoven wrote better music than Czerny. But this is a contentious area.
However, institutional facts are not independent of authority.
For example, the Bank of England has the authority to declare that interest rates are such and such. It has the power create a new institutional fact, which then persists, assuming there isn't widespread collective rejection of the fact.
23 Jun 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadwell if you're not 5 you're sounding like one, allow me to quote:
It seems, then, that you would have trouble understanding a 5 year old.
I asked whether mankind as an entity or species progresses spiritually. I did not ask about individuals.
I am atheist, my father was not, so is my 'subgroup' of mankind going backwards?
"manking as an entity... i did not ask about individuals..."
you then go on to say:
"i am atheist, my father was not..."
can you clarify, are we talking about you? i.e. the individual, or mankind as the whole???
i think you're trying to say - though not too well - are this generation of mankind more spiritual than the previous? if so, i would have to say i think there is a greater spiritual awareness than there was 100 or 50 years ago; not all will open up to it, but it seems there is a larger number who are opening up and accepting it, as opposed to a previous time when religion was inflicted on you through social conditioning and fear
23 Jun 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadthat's rubbish.... you're implying what was true 1000 years ago is still true today... we once believed the earth was flat.... that was considered truth... does that belief still hold?
Truth does not 'rest on authority'. Something is either the truth or it isn't.
23 Jun 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Penguinsays the person who hasnt moved for about 70 days....! we seem to have found twhitehead's twin profile!!!
[b]Won't you be dead by then?
Yes, a five year old would ask such a question and the answer (which you failed to give) is "yes, we will all be dead before then".
Where will he fit all the people?
Again, a five-year old would ask this. I suppose the answer (which again is not forthcoming) would be some sort of handwaving. If we uploaded ou and socially and I reckon that 'spiritually' is encompassed by these.
--- Penguin.[/b]
23 Jun 07
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhousewas just putting forward an idea... not saying it's gonna happen though, maybe the worms get us all after all
It's very revealing the way people handle the concept of heaven. They don't allow animals in heaven, only humans. Now that in itself is revealing of the motives of the people who started the concept.
This suggests that people think themselves the height of creation and therefore animals to be so far down the scale as to not be worthy of a spiritual side th r a better life if you will only support me and my church. That is so much more believable.
23 Jun 07
Originally posted by eatmybishopYes. This seems to be the vision of Muhammad, Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, etc. What do you think is keeping man from progressing spiritually?
do you think maybe god is waiting for us, as opposed to us waiting for him? by that i mean heaven is a place that will exist on the earth, it will exist when mankind has progressed far enough spiritually that we realise there is only one core religion, one race, one love etc... by then we would have become one with god, understand god; we would have created our heaven on earth with him guiding us all along?
23 Jun 07
3 edits
Originally posted by royaltystatementUnfortunately history has shown in no uncertain terms that Christianity has "the stain of the imagination of man". The core teachings of Jesus are pretty much the same as those of Muhammed, Buddha, Krishna, etc., while Christianity has proven itself to be as lost in greed, power, corruption, etc., as any other religion if not more.
Man himself is keeping himself from progressing spiritually. There is but one truth which leads to eternal salvation. All other faiths have the stain of the imagination of man. Only Christianity