🚀 go-pugleaf

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> BuddyThunder wrote:
>> Antares 531 wrote:
>>> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 18:25:49 -0700 (PDT), hhyapster@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jul 14, 8:51 pm, Antares 531 <gordonlrDEL...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 20:38:36 -0700 (PDT), hhyaps...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> (snip)
>>>>> The primary purpose of our brief existence here in a mortal body is to
>>>>> learn about sin and rebellion. We learn by being directly involved and
>>>>> we learn by observation in those events with which we were not
>>>>> directly involved. We are expected to learn enough about sin and
>>>>> rebellion to assure God that none of us will ever want to go back and
>>>>> explore it any further, once we've been granted immortality and
>>>>> absolute sovereignty.
>>>>>
>>>>> Gordon
>>>> Well, I do not wish to dispute your line of thinking.
>>>> However, what I think is not right is that "sin", "rebellion" were
>>>> from your god.
>>>> How on earth did he created all these and get us to learn about it?
>>>> Surely, if he is all mighty, he should be able to prevent human from
>>>> those silly things, right?
>>>> Or, are you saying that he was actually non-mighty?
>>>> As I had said before, if your god really is the entity that can create
>>>> human, what did he wish to create all the calamities to kill living
>>>> things....?
>>>> All these believes do not match up and you did not provide convincing
>>>> arguments whatsoever.
>>>>
>>> I can see your point, but don't quite agree with all you've said. Of
>>> course I was wrong one time before...that time when I thought I was
>>> wrong but actually wasn't.    ;-)
>>>
>>> Would God's creation have been perfect had He left anything out? It
>>> seems to me that he had to create sin and rebellion along with all
>>> that is good, then separate them into their own domains. This process
>>> of separating of good from evil is what we are going through,
>>> presently, and we each get to make our choice as to which side of the
>>> line we will be on. It seems long and tedious from our temporal
>>> perspective, but from God's temporal perspective it is almost
>>> instantaneous.
>>
>> Can I ask where this idea comes from? I'd be interested to know how 
>> you formed this opinion.
> 
> It's not an uncommon view: its actually shared with many eastern 
> religions, and of course the Alchemical principles were based on this 
> sort of world view: the World as a spiritual distillery. It's based on 
> the observed fact that a mentalist approach to experience can lead to 
> changes in consciousness. Now in its proper form this is merely an 
> interesting fact. It took a culture infatuated with Purpose to decide 
> that this process was in fact What Life Was All About, and indeed, 
> enforce a way of life on everybody to Make Sure They Followed It.
> 
> 
> And of course 'God' left lots of stuff out of Earth's creation. He did 
> not, for example, include fluorescent green unicorns, which would have 
> been, I feel, an artistic touch.
> 
> I have no problems with the facts on which religion is (probably) based: 
> I have deep concerns about the reckless extrapolation that those facts 
> undergo in the construction of a religious THEORY.
> 
> One interesting philosophical question that you may care to ponder, is 
> how we can conceive of something that definitely does NOT exist. Never 
> mind things that MAY exist.

I was wondering about some scriptural basis? Non-Catholic 'thumpers 
often at least attempt to back up a doctrine with some kind of 
scriptural support. It sounds like a "this makes sense given my 
world-view" kind of idea, I was looking for any external support.

Not that I buy it! ;-)