🚀 go-pugleaf

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.