the meaning of (after)life (...Philosophy?)

Discuss whatever you want here--both QB and non-QB related. Anything from the DEF INT command to the meaning of life!

Moderators: Pete, Mods

mennonite

the meaning of (after)life (...Philosophy?)

Post by mennonite » Sat Jun 25, 2005 6:20 pm

(*skip to the end if you want to know where this came from. if you don't, that part isn't even important.)

what i "believe" is not constant... it's a summation of all i've read and deeply pondered. my beliefs have a flexibility that does not Show when i express them... they flux and change... my ideas about being decent to people don't change as much (but they do get more lax.)

my collection of beliefs, pretty much everything i believe, has a strong-agnostic (there is a term called "strong atheist", "strong-agnostic" is meant to be tongue in cheek.) slant to it... that is, i don't believe much without believing the OPPOSITE is possible. i could be wrong about anything, including my own existence.

but assuming we don't die and just poof - oblivion forever (this is totally possible! in my book) then i would say everyone is eternal, and even conscious. i don't think in terms of heaven and hell... i think in terms of here-and-now, and not here-and-now.

i don't see evil as a force but an imbalance. nothing is evil in its right place... when anything, a force, an idea, an action, is in the wrong place, that is what causes what people call "evil." when everything is in its right place, there is no evil.

and i see people as being symbolic of this... in the world to come, if this world is not the last for us, then we will not ALL be together, much more than we are today. we will be where we are... that is, you will be one place and someone else will be another. the concept of community fits here... hitler will not be somewhere that pious jews are, unless hitler does something to become uh, beneficial to jews. (i know, you have to keep in mind that this is on an eternal scale. i can't imagine myself what hitler could do to redeem his actions, but given an eternity in which to do so...)

the theme here is one of progress, not perfection. we are sorting ourselves into communities, in my thinking. heaven and hell is too simple... we simply move towards people that we get along with and can work with. in my idea of the afterlife, michael and i may be in the same place regardless of specific beliefs because we believe in getting along and trying to help people, and like computers. bill gates probably won't be nearby because he hates open source and likes material things so much. in this he is very different, i think. he may use computers, or computer-like devices, but he will move to somewhere that is business and trading oriented... the main theme of his life appears to be business.

and robbers will be with robbers... but it is harder to make that Work... and in fact without materialism there can be no theft. as things are more restored there will be no need to rob things, and so robbers will become other things. with less imbalance and fear and hate, there will be fewer people who are harmed enough (in the head) to rape and torture other people, too. in my vision of the world to come, not everything will be exactly in it's right place... but it will be a step closer to that. as far as how silly the idea of a world to come is... yes, i can relate to the idea that it is a wild imaginative thing... but oblivion doesn't seem less odd to me than an afterlife when you consider how fork strange it is that anything exists at all. that's the only thing that blows my mind... the idea of ever having existed... not the idea of ceasing to or continuing to forever.


*where this came from: i wrote this as a response to some things michael was clarifying after i mentioned that if i'm right, he's been wasting too much time on rules and if he's right, i'm going to burn forever (eh.) because i don't believe this or that. actually it turns out he doesn't even think that...

i thought MAYBE (maybe) it was an idea that was interesting enough to share with this forum. it is just an idea, not a religion, and i checked to see if people talk about this sort of thing on here. according to the heading for "general discussion" it's possible. we'll see what you guys think.

michael and i get into these heated debates on the qbasic forum, and by some miracle (i credit him almost entirely) we manage to get along afterwords / after words...

this is uncommon when arguing about religion and politics, but he's that patient and kind. more so than i am, to be sure... i only wish i was as reasonable as he is during an argument. what i ultimately settle for, for myself, is to be reasonable after the fact and after an argument.

User avatar
{Nathan}
Veteran
Posts: 1169
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 6:08 pm
Location: The wetlands of central Ohio, USA
Contact:

Post by {Nathan} » Sat Jun 25, 2005 7:11 pm

I got bored 2 paragraphs in. Stopped reading, then stopped typing this crappy reply.
Image

mennonite

2 paragraphs in, that's a pity

Post by mennonite » Sat Jun 25, 2005 9:24 pm

so basically you hated the Preface and didn't read any of the body or idea at all.
i spend too much time on intro, but i find it hard to boil down my thoughts into something short and sweet... a flaw in my writings. at least you were honest.

User avatar
Levi
Veteran
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 11:44 pm
Location: Alone and forgotten
Contact:

Post by Levi » Sun Jun 26, 2005 12:29 am

Well it's interesting. I won't go into how I don't completely agree with it, because let's face it no one has the same ideas that I do and no two people can ever fully agree on one thing. Only partially to an extent.

I can however warn that you may be too lax in your beliefs. One philosophy that I've always held dear is that, yes you have your ideas and beliefs and I have mine, but we have to choose. You can't follow more than one, you can't fully combine ideas. You say yourself that you've very lax. That your ideas change. Well that's good, but they seem to follow a line that isn't meant to exist in the sense of belief. More like a way of calming or submitting, rather than trying to gain true understanding of what is.

Another thing that I think is an interesting observation (not to your post, just in general) is that no human is ever correct? We say 2+2 = 4. Well, that's right, but somehow it's wrong. This takes on an absolutionist perspective, because it says to be right you have to be 100% correct, not 99.99999999. You don't round up when you have an absolute belief. And so the idea of "I might be right, I might be wrong." ends up being I'm wrong. But it's how you're wrong that becomes important, not the fact that you are. Because even in saying this I'm wrong. So one must wonder, where did that last point fail? Where did I go wrong to make it wrong? That's what has to be known.

EDIT: Sorry, you've probably been told this next part a hundred times by other people. However, concerning what I believe. It seems like I wouldn't be doing right by you or anyone if I didn't express what I believe. This is because, we were commanded by God to go out and make diciples of many Nations. It's not me saying, I'm right you're wrong. It's me saying, here's what I belive and I think I would be wrong not to express it again. I do have a tendancy to get over zealous. So if I make any comments that might offend, I don't mean them in that fashion.
Continue if you wish.


Now let me see, the ideas of Heaven and Hell aren't too simple if you think about them. First Hell was never made for man. We were not meant to go to Hell. Hell was reserved for Lucifer and his angels. That was their destined eternity for they were in the presence of God and they rejected him. However with the fall of men, all of man kind became evil. This is expressed in, the four gospels when the Rich young man says "Good teacher, show me how to gain eternal life." and Jesus replies, "Why do you call me good? Do you not know that there is none who is good except the Lord our God?" So people were never meant for Hell, however those who reject God wind up there because they cannot enter a sinless place. Now this may seem simple, but here's the catch. Men can't be sinless on their own. Even in Jewish ideals God grants them the closest thing to paradise, but not actual admittance into Heaven. And this occurs by seeking God with their lives and attempting to remain pure. Giving the sacrifices to clense them from sin. They themselves never remain sinless. We always need God's help. Even if you live a life that many here consider great, loving, holy. If you're not saved by God. If you don't have his forgiveness. You're going to Hell. So it's not a simple question of who's wicked and who isn't. We're all wicked, and we'll all suffer the same fate, unless God helps us. Which he did through Jesus. At least this is what I believe. Matthew 1:21 "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. "
Later days,
Matthew

May those who love us love us
And those who don't
May the good Lord turn their hearts
And if he doesn't
May he turn their ankles
So we'll know them by their limping
-Irish prayer

User avatar
lurah-
Veteran
Posts: 206
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 10:47 am
Location: Finland
Contact:

Post by lurah- » Sun Jun 26, 2005 3:36 am

Interesting stuff, got to say. I liked to read your writings, there is a point. But do i believe for that point? No, sorry :)

I dont believe for heaven or hell. I usually "earn" the hate and other same kind of feelings by peoples when i say that i dont believe for God, Allah, Thor, Odin, Apollo, Aurora, Cupido, Minerva, Anubis, Horus, Gaia, Afrodite, Nu Kua, Gali or Durga.
Yes, they all are at least some kind of gods on some religions.(if i remember right now here)
I think that god(s) are one explanation from time when peoples couldnt explain certain things, so they needed gods for that.

Only god for me is nature. It has shown that it can create life in here, it can make that life to survive here and when it gets enough of us, it gets riddof of us.

Yeah, now someone asks that "what created nature, what started all of this what is in here and outer space?"
I dont know, and prolly no one else could either tell that.
Some ones explains that "god created this all, because god has been here allways"
Well, those ones who believes for that...they believe for that then.

But what happens after our time has come?
I think we go back where we originally came from some millions years ago.
Dust of mother nature 8)

mennonite

i don't mind

Post by mennonite » Sun Jun 26, 2005 3:49 am

before i get to the bit about jesus, i may misunderstand two of your paragraphs (prior to that) seem to have opposite messages:

you say you: "yes you have your ideas and beliefs and I have mine, but we have to choose. You can't follow more than one, you can't fully combine ideas."

which i see no reason to agree with, and then you say:

"Another thing that I think is an interesting observation (not to your post, just in general) is that no human is ever correct? We say 2+2 = 4. Well, that's right, but somehow it's wrong. "

which seems to support my stance of deciding not to decide 100%...

with regards to this:

"More like a way of calming or submitting, rather than trying to gain true understanding of what is."

i can say that i can find calming or submitting just as much (if not more) in either atheism or theism (which is why i reject the idea that agnostics are just "cowardly atheists") and that i have been both a strong atheist, and a strong believer in god (in the past) and that all my thinking about "what is" has lead to agnosticism as a logical stance.

as for jesus... i am very interetested in theology in general... i have a lot of reason to believe that jesus is NOT the messiah the jews spoke of, and in fact, i've read some pretty reasonable jewish interpretations of scripture that suggest it is god (Not the messiah) that provides redemption and forgiveness with regards to man's imperfection.

i don't mind you taking the opportunity to preach to me, you weren't offensive about it, but i've heard it all before and again and again. apart from being unconvinced, i absolutely refuse to spend eternity with a god that burns people for not believing in him.
so if those are the REAL criteria, (something i very much doubt) then i know where i'd go and i find it acceptable, of those two options.

michael believes in jesus, but according to him, his christian sect doesn't believe that people go to hell, they believe god is too merciful for that. they also have a very uniform interpretation of scripture, which like so many other entirely different secs, they refer to as "literal"... nevermind how many different "literal" interpretations there seem to be. i choose one that makes sense to me... the idea of burning non-believers is not one that makes sense imo.

thanks anyway for all your comments, i really do appreciate it. i'm just glad one person on the forum didn't find it Boring... for me that makes it worthwhile.

mennonite

thanks lurah!

Post by mennonite » Sun Jun 26, 2005 4:14 am

i don't expect anyone to believe what i do... i may not even believe this stuff (exactly as it is) in the future.
some of my beliefs have changed... i was a strong atheist, i once believed very strongly that there was a god... i am now an agnostic.

lots of my beliefs haven't changed... most have simply evolved.

but i have no trouble relating to the nature as a god idea... but then the universe could be a god too, if the earth could. or dolphins... they do supposedly have minds that are superior to ours.

or we could be gods and only suspect as much.

the root of my belief is simple: i believe there may or may not be a god or gods... and that it's ultimately impossible to know for certain. ditto afterlife: it may be possible to end up in the afterlife with no recall of this one. this life may BE an afterlife, and there may not be one at at all.

however just as complex life is possible without god (evolution) i started trying to figure out how an afterlife could exist without a god... essentially, how an afterlife could be as natural as the dirt outside. if you're interested in that, i posted those thoughts to the qbasic forum distractions subforum after i posted the op of the thread you're reading now.

by the way, i LOVE your site. i love ascii to um... bits :| and i'm so glad there's a site devoted to those 256^2000 combinations... (and that's just color 7 on black.)

User avatar
Nodtveidt
Veteran
Posts: 826
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2004 4:24 am
Location: Quebradillas, PR
Contact:

Post by Nodtveidt » Sun Jun 26, 2005 9:15 am

The true meaning of life is very simple...we exist to produce more of us. That's it. We are born knowing only two things: how to eat, and how to reproduce. Everything else is learned by us over the course of our lives. This isn't belief...this is fact.

MystikShadows
Veteran
Posts: 703
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2004 7:36 am
Contact:

Post by MystikShadows » Sun Jun 26, 2005 9:32 am

Yup and even God said so himself, "go and multiply yourselves" ;-).

He didn't mean to bring about the whole math concept when he said that ;-) lol.,
When God created light, so too was born, the first Shadow!

MystikShadows

Need hosting? http://www.jc-hosting.net

Interested in Text & ASCII development? Look no further!
http://www.ascii-world.com

mennonite

well, as long as we're running with it...

Post by mennonite » Sun Jun 26, 2005 9:34 am

fact and meaning are both subjective... there isn't *A* meaning of life, and besides, my post wasn't about this life that we're now on the subject of anyway.
i see you've taken a natural function as sole meaning approach... of course you can look at it any way you want (but so can anyone... i look at it the way i do.)

but you've limited your concept of natural meaning to the things we Consciously (know how to) do? why? we have natural functions we may not consider:

naturally speaking, we serve functions other than to reproduce... we contribute to the erosion (shaping) of earth just as wind and water do (much much faster than water, even)

we compete with other species for space and resources, which can produce a balance that left unchecked would allow species to reproduce into extinction (right now we are moving towards our own extinction by removing the things that balance our population...)

and speaking of balance, there was too much oxygen on the planet before mammals were here... plants and trees were covering the planet with their own exhalation to the point where they could have suffocated. we have shifted this, and even now with an overabundance of co2 i would say the imbalance is still not as bad as the overabundance of oxygen was. i'm not an expert on prehistoric biology though.

if you're going to argue that our natural functions constitute the ONLY meaning of our lives, at least list more than one of our natural functions. reproduction is a means to an end or ends, not an end. it is not all we do. THAT is a fact, regardless of what you or i believe.

mennonite

multiplying ourselves

Post by mennonite » Sun Jun 26, 2005 9:41 am

i would argue, half-heartedly, that if we only multiply our physical bodies we have not truly multiplied.

after all, we have minds with vast information stored within them. if we do not also multiply this information, we have only multiplied some of our factors.

i would argue that from your argument, one could derive the need to not only learn, but Teach.

by sharing the wisdom we contain, we multiply not only the body, but the mind.

i don't understand why someone would reduce the number of things we do to One anyway. it's like the goofy first-cause argument... there's no reason there couldn't have been several simultaneous First Causes... there's no reason to think we have Only one ultimate purpose either... i never intended to imply as much.

lurah(cant log...)

Post by lurah(cant log...) » Sun Jun 26, 2005 10:03 am

Meaning, purpose...what ever is to eat and reproduce...well...i enjoy both of em so much so its got to be that way 8) :lol:

mennonite

so if you're sterile...

Post by mennonite » Sun Jun 26, 2005 10:29 am

then the only meaning in life is eating and shitting? why do i find that unlikely? don't get me wrong... eating and shitting's great stuff... but... the universe is large and certainly queer enough without existing solely to serve the purpose of eating... or not...

User avatar
Levi
Veteran
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 11:44 pm
Location: Alone and forgotten
Contact:

Post by Levi » Mon Jun 27, 2005 12:50 am

To get back on topic with the whole after-life thing. Umm...I would like to explain a few things.
you say you: "yes you have your ideas and beliefs and I have mine, but we have to choose. You can't follow more than one, you can't fully combine ideas."

which i see no reason to agree with, and then you say:

"Another thing that I think is an interesting observation (not to your post, just in general) is that no human is ever correct? We say 2+2 = 4. Well, that's right, but somehow it's wrong. "

which seems to support my stance of deciding not to decide 100%...
As odd as this is going to sound, these work together. You see, you have to pick a belief or else you are arguing nothing andtherefore have nothing to say. However in a quest to continually update that base belief one must understand that they are not right. One must be willing to listen to others, to heed advice. I've met one or two people who are totally unwilling to think they're wrong and will fight totally against it. This hurts them. We still need the 100% base belief.
I think we go back where we originally came from some millions years ago.
Dust of mother nature
Genesis 3: 19 In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread Till you return to the ground, For out of it you were taken; For dust you are, And to dust you shall return."
as for jesus... i am very interetested in theology in general... i have a lot of reason to believe that jesus is NOT the messiah the jews spoke of, and in fact, i've read some pretty reasonable jewish interpretations of scripture that suggest it is god (Not the messiah) that provides redemption and forgiveness with regards to man's imperfection.
This next part gets long, but it all works together. Basic idea of these passages, Jesus is God.
John 1:1 - 14

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
He was in the beginning with God.
All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
absolutely refuse to spend eternity with a god that burns people for not believing in him.
First Hell was never made for man. We were not meant to go to Hell. Hell was reserved for Lucifer and his angels.
We aren't meant for Hell, Hell is for those who must pay the price for sin. For the wages of sin is death. All are guilty under the law, and so all are guilty of sin. Sin leads to Hell, not God sending them there. It's God being just. I like to think of it this way. A murderer stands before a judge and says, "I believe you are a just Judge, a merciful judge, and you will let me go." The Judge was just and was merciful but this is his reply. "You are right to say I am just, and also right to say I am merciful. You were given a way out, but you refused to take it. Therefore you fall under the law. And under that law I must punish you justly. You must pay for the crimes of your sin." The murderer is sent to Hell. Now, look at where he says the man was given a way out. In my belief that is Jesus. Jesus paid the price for our sins, we simply need to accept this payment. It was death that paid the wages of sin, and Jesus died therefore removing the need for payment for those who accept. If you don't accept, you reject and therefore it is not God but yourself who sends you to hell. This is a common misunderstanding amongst people.

Now I'm going to add something to my "Humans are always wrong" paragraph. Humans are wrong, God is not. Humans can have a right belief in God, if God reveals himself. Which I believe he has done, many times. And all of this stuff is in the Bible, read it cover to cover. Don't stop because you don't like what it's saying. That's a common thing amongst people I ask to read the bible. They get not even through Genesis and stop. That's not the way to go about anything. I mean, you wouldn't have your views if you just stopped half way would you?

I can't expect anyone to take my advice, my evidence, especially on a forum :D , I can however say that people continually talk about being agnostic as being in the middle, a center ground. However that's like saying your on the fence about the decision. When I can guarantee, that the Fence is owned by Satan, and Agnostics are simply athiests in the end. Jesus said it himeself, you cannot serve two masters. You either know God, or you don't. There is no inbetween.

I do however mean no disrespect to those who don't agree with me. I will continue to defend my beliefs if necessary, but I do have a tendancy to word things incorrectly and that can often come out wrong. I do not disprespect any belief system. To do so is foolishness, in my opinino any way.
Later days,
Matthew

May those who love us love us
And those who don't
May the good Lord turn their hearts
And if he doesn't
May he turn their ankles
So we'll know them by their limping
-Irish prayer

mennonite

so i would mention again ...

Post by mennonite » Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:27 am

that my beliefs are based on all i've read... and the bible is just something i've read. i don't give it too much credit, nor see any need to. i find torah/talmud much more interesting, (also better translated i would think.) and don't take it as gospel either. i'm also terribly fond of the tao de ching, which i see as a long poem with philosophy stuck in the pages. great stuff. another book i put up on the list is the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy... trilogy. when someone "proves" a point by quoting the bible, what i'm thinking is "so what? it's just the bible."

the semantic rearrangement of god burning us for not believing into us Choosing to be burned (by not believing) is silly (if you ask me) and dishonest (although i wouldn't say intentionally dishonest, i'm not accusing anyone of lying...) and i dismiss it entirely. it's another way of seeing it to be sure... sort of like seeing my ass as a thing designed to keep
chairs firmly on the ground... is another way of seeing things.

"hey why'd you shoot me?"

"i didn't shoot you, you chose not to get out of the way of my bullet!"

"oh, well that was stupid of me, i'm sorry."

i usually see the bible as metaphors, and i think the bible at least makes SOME sense that way. occasionally it even makes sense when taken, er, "literally..." but not too much.

also, i would continue to argue that if jesus claims to be the messiah, and there is (ample) evidence that he is certainly not... then the claim that he is actually GOD can be ignored as well... or at least discounted. i mean they said the same thing about Eric Clapton... so what?

> You see, you have to pick a belief or else you are arguing nothing

well, that certainly dispenses of every hypothetical argument and nearly every hypothesis that ever existed. i guess they count for nothing. no, i contend that you and anyone else can argue theory without ever committing to anything. in fact, the process of science is one of dispensing the ideas you obviously weren't committed to... or you couldn't change them, right? without this change, we would still be trying to let the Fire out of Earth and rocks... the old view of elements. but we kind of left that by the wayside with the periodic table.

> and therefore have nothing to say.

similar to the way that stephen hawking has nothing to say, i gather.

you're not talking about science, or belief, or thought, or theory. what you're describing is Dogma, the idea that you can ONLY take on new ideas when they fit the old ones without gaps in understanding. there are many ways to believe, they are not all dogmatic. i must respectfully suggest that you are wrong about what we can argue and believe in. the limits you're imposing are superficial... arbitrary.

> One must be willing to listen to others, to heed advice. I've met one or two people who are totally unwilling to think they're wrong and will fight totally against it. This hurts them.

yeah. that's Dogma. i'm not 1% in favor of Dogma.

> We still need the 100% base belief.
i don't.

by the way... "you cannot serve two masters" if i'm not mistaken, is not referring to god and not god, or one idea and the other... but God and Material Wealth. If, on the other hand, we are going to take it out of context, i would prefer to see it as saying you cannot serve materialism and spirituality, but i disagree... you Have to serve both to Balance them. i would say it is the focus on wealth that prevents spiritual progress, not the wealth or the serving of it. it's all about balance.

but this is all speculation of things i don't believe in dogmatically... which according to you, means nothing.

not that i mind... i just uh... well, what can i say? if it doesn't matter then there's no reason to type further.

thanks for joining the discussion again. oh, and you really don't *have to* defend your beliefs. i mean, they're in your head. i'm not. the only way i can hurt your beliefs is if you let go of them... i'm not telling you what to do with your beliefs... and you're welcome to them... whether they hurt you or not... the only person you have to defend your beliefs from is yourself... you're the only person that ultimately controls them. not that there isn't plenty of influence. it explains where you got them. but argue your points all you like: that's why pete made a site that's free.

User avatar
Nodtveidt
Veteran
Posts: 826
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2004 4:24 am
Location: Quebradillas, PR
Contact:

Post by Nodtveidt » Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:34 am

Levi wrote:We aren't meant for Hell, Hell is for those who must pay the price for sin. For the wages of sin is death. All are guilty under the law, and so all are guilty of sin. Sin leads to Hell, not God sending them there. It's God being just. I like to think of it this way. A murderer stands before a judge and says, "I believe you are a just Judge, a merciful judge, and you will let me go." The Judge was just and was merciful but this is his reply. "You are right to say I am just, and also right to say I am merciful. You were given a way out, but you refused to take it. Therefore you fall under the law. And under that law I must punish you justly. You must pay for the crimes of your sin." The murderer is sent to Hell. Now, look at where he says the man was given a way out. In my belief that is Jesus. Jesus paid the price for our sins, we simply need to accept this payment. It was death that paid the wages of sin, and Jesus died therefore removing the need for payment for those who accept. If you don't accept, you reject and therefore it is not God but yourself who sends you to hell. This is a common misunderstanding amongst people.
...and that's exactly where that ideal fails miserably. According to the Bible, all people are sinners. So by this logic, all people will go to Hell. Also according to the Bible, Jesus didn't really even die...what value is death when you are resurrected afterwards? Zero. So his "death" meant nothing. These are but only two of the massive flaws that make the Bible untrustworthy...common sense knows better than your dogma.

I'd write more, but you wouldn't listen anyways, and I'm sick of repeating myself to brick walls.

mennonite

supposedly it isn't possible to serve two masters...

Post by mennonite » Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:55 am

why put it in terms of serving masters at all? assuming the existence of a creator-god does not also need to assume that he owns us as slaves. i do not intend to Own my children... regardless of the word "my" that limits us via the english language.

"children from me" works fine, but would cause odd looks, and would not suggest ownership... merely relation. that is the way i prefer to think of god... rather than a Master than gave us free will...

imagine a slave owner who allows a slave to buy his freedom. "so that's it?"

"yeah, you're free now. do what you will with your own life"

"including come back and be your slave?"

"er, that defeats the purpose of buying your freedom, doesn't it?"

why serve ANY masters? i make the attempt to "serve" reason and humanity... but i refuse to be a slave, so long as i can help it. what's the point of free will if we're only going to sell ourselves? i don't trust the language being used here... "Serve..." "Master..." man makes god in his image... and man has some serious psychological baggage to take into
account.

it's like i said before, maybe on this forum... the bible's like a beatles song, some people here "love each other and get along and live" and some people hear a secret message to go kill people. how? oh, insanity, call it whatever.

you hear "free will" and think of serving a master, i hear "free will' and think of living as i see fit.

we swear we're reading the same thing. it's all perspective. that's why i don't give yours as much weight. i listen... i've listened, i will listen. but i've tried to become very careful what i believe in. call it a sin. call it whatever. call it like you see it.

i see it differently.

mennonite

The End Is Nigh

Post by mennonite » Mon Jun 27, 2005 4:18 am

just kidding. i'm talking about this thread.

i'm pretty satisfied with it... i had what i hoped was an interesting idea to share and maybe hear some other ideas... i'll try to keep reading it, too.

at some point in the near future i'm going to try very hard to simply walk away and disappear from this thread without ceremony... before it gets out of hand.

if i've made anyone ponder something... anything, COOL. if i gave anyone an idea that made them happy, cooler. i wasn't trying to "convert" people or anything... i Hate dogma! and besides, i'm not unaware that my thoughts are... weird. i like them anyway, they're um, they fit me personally.

but if this thread got too involved it could make people unhappy and bitter... and that's not what i had in mind. i was willing to take chances with it, yeah, but if i can quit before it gets too deep, i will.

thanks again to everyone that posted... and of course i don't "own" this thread, so you all talk amongst yourselves. i'll be here for a little, and then give up on it.

hopefully everyone will grow very bored of it eventually, and then it won't be any trouble. of course there is no doubt in my mind i'll have something to say in another thread soon. for one thing, i really like BASIC. sorry about the mess.

User avatar
Pete
Site Admin
Posts: 882
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2003 9:10 pm
Location: Candor, NY
Contact:

Post by Pete » Mon Jun 27, 2005 8:02 am

Just wondering, have you seen this thread?

http://www.petesqbsite.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=307

Anyway, the reason why I'm not gonna get involved in another "meaning of life" thread is exactly this:
Nekrophidius wrote:I'd write more, but you wouldn't listen anyways, and I'm sick of repeating myself to brick walls.

mennonite

yeah it's a tricky thing

Post by mennonite » Mon Jun 27, 2005 11:06 am

haven't mastered it either. but like i said, i didn't write it so we could all be pissy about it...
er... well, abandoning it early enough should do. i have a feeling that thread will be interesting... i haven't read it yet :)

Post Reply