jacksonsprat22
Verified User
Far away from here. She did know a lot, I enjoyed having discussion with her.
Isn't that the person who tried to say Aristotle wrote after Jesus lived? Don't miss that ignorance.
Far away from here. She did know a lot, I enjoyed having discussion with her.
No, I don’t believe she made that statement, but I miss some posts.Isn't that the person who tried to say Aristotle wrote after Jesus lived? Don't miss that ignorance.
Your monosyllabic responses and attempts at pithy retorts provide no indication you have any profound knowlege of scripture, theology" and Christian history.
At least Owl and Pendryn are capable of demonstrating they have thought this topic through
I have never seen you write more than three sentences of cogent English. In fact most of the time I ignore you because you are tepid, boring, and utterly mediocre.They are capable of cut-n-paste directed dialogs which it s all well and good for their purposes.
I am aiming higher.
If everyone genuinely modeled their conduct on lives on Siddhartha Gautama, Jesus, Muhammad (at least the ethical principals they taught) the world would be in pretty good shape, imo.
Irrespective of whether one accepts the divinity of Jesus, the NT in it's historical context is one of the most important and radical pieces of literature ever written. And everyone in western civilization - agnostic, atheist, and devout - have been fundamentally influenced by it's ethical code, social critiques, and principal of spritual equality.
So you believe we're all ambulatory meat computers responding solely to biochemical programming and of no more value than the sum of our basic components? That death is no more than a meat robot burning out like an incandescent light bulb?
I disagree but understand it's a common atheist belief. It allows Socialist Atheists like Mao and Stalin to murder millions of human beings without a second thought.
Wrong again. Back to google for you.
Buggered if I know: I just point to what the evidence suggests. You don't half live for competitive aggression - your masters give out prizes or something? The behaviour of state capitalist dictators is your game, not mine, kid. Gods seem unlikely, but if capitalism has managed to survive so long all things are possible!
Buddhism says: No Nirvana until Samsara is stopped.
Samsara = the repetious cycle of birth & Death & birth & Death & birth & Death & birth & Death & birth & Death & birth & Death*** et al.
Nirvana = extinction of one's own soul [atma becomes annatma]
***due to duality as basis of material natures' ying-yang structure...it's called "duality" ---ya can't have one opposite without the constant presence of it's concomitant (other) opposite.
duality = the constant inseparable presence of opposites [ie protons and electrons]
IF YOU TAKE A BIRTH AGAIN YOU ARE CARRYING THE KARMA [works] FROM THE PROCEEDING LIFETIME.
IF YOU TAKE A BIRTH AGAIN IN FUTURE, YOU ARE NOT YET WITHOUT SIN [KARMA].
Damn atheists think they will achieve nirvana simply by their dying, out-doing years of a monk's journey.
I really cannot accept the Calvinist Protestant interpretation of humans bearing the guilt and stain of original sin, the theology of predestination, and their generally negative view of humanity the human condition. I will always actually feel like Eastern Christianity generally has a more positive perspective on the human condition, a more tenable theology on the question of free will.
Eastern Orthodox Christians say the goal of human life is union with the divine, a process they call theosis. The essence of this process is the ongoing effort to be like Christ. For most, it will take an entire life’s work. Monks have an audacious calling to seek this divine union as a mystical state in this life. But complete theosis can still only come upon death, when one’s bodily existence is subsumed within the life of God.
Most Western Christians, on the other hand, imagine an insurmountable distance between humans and God. Maybe God can touch someone across that gap, but a person can’t become one with God, in part because of the stain of original sin.
In the West, Augustine came up with the predominant way of talking about original sin: as a permanent defect that all humans inherited through Adam and Eve’s mistakes in the Garden of Eden. But most of his writings were not available in Greek until the 13th century and the Orthodox came up with a different take on things.
The Orthodox say Adam and Eve’s disobedience interrupted the process of spiritual maturation that God had planned for them. Other people might deserve God’s punishment, but that’s because of their own sins, not because the inherited the stain of original sin. And the natural human tendency is to move toward God, not to turn away from him.
The Orthodox don’t have as much angst about the paradox of divine sovereignty and free will. To them, free will is actually a sign of our imperfection; if we were perfect, we wouldn’t need any choice, because we would always know what is good.
These differences help explain the intellectual reasons why the Eastern Orthodox world has never had a Reformation. Eastern Christians do fight over theology, but in general, they are more comfortable with paradox and mystery.
Source credit: Molly Worthen, PhD. Religious Historian, University of North Carolina
NOTHING is free in this life, sadly. Not even your will.
We have free will as an individual soul.
If the soul accrues sin [bad-karma] by past works you cannot escape a future birth.
You take a new birth due to your burden of bad-karma [via past acts] ---ergo "Original Sin"
Only when the soul rids itself of both good and bad karma along with the ego's conceits does the aspirant approach a Nirvana state of existence.
Read the above quote for Buddhist talking points inre the soul takes another birth due to the burden of karma-payback.
I am a Hindu, I know very much about Buddhist's goals.
Most people have accepted 'The Theory of Evolution' and don't spend a lot of time wasting it on your concept of 'Original Sin'.
You'd have to be REAL STUPID to teach your children that they are Sinners.
You're a sinner Jack
Hmmmm ...
Let's see ... go Upstairs and spend Eternity with Mason and CrocMan, ... or take the Down Escalator and spend it with Porn Stars, Hookers, and Loose Women. (yeah, tough call on that one)
Hmmmm ...
Let's see ... go Upstairs and spend Eternity with Mason and CrocMan, ... or take the Down Escalator and spend it with Porn Stars, Hookers, and Loose Women. (yeah, tough call on that one)
Free will and determinism are perhaps mutually compatible.
●● An alternative approach is to reject the dilemma itself: Maybe, once we really understand the philosophical issues involved, we will see that free will and determinism are compatible. Not surprisingly, this is known as a compatibilist approach.
● ● The basic idea is well captured in a quote from the American philosopher John Dewey: “What men have esteemed and fought for in the name of liberty is varied and complex—but certainly it has never been a metaphysical freedom of will.”
●● Dewey is emphasizing that metaphysical freedom—freedom from chains of causality—is not the freedom that we care about. What we care about is freedom from tyranny, from oppression, from chains of iron. It may also be freedom from addiction and compulsion. To want those kinds of freedom isn’t to want to be metaphysically independent of cause and effect. Freedom in the sense worth caring about is freedom from coercion, not freedom from causality.
Source credit: Patrick Grimm, professor of philosophy, State University of New York
Hmmmm ...
Let's see ... go Upstairs and spend Eternity with Mason and CrocMan, ... or take the Down Escalator and spend it with Porn Stars, Hookers, and Loose Women. (yeah, tough call on that one)