Puzzling belief

[bunny]

Hi - a puzzling thought occurred to me earlier today. Lestat has recently convinced me that I should believe in an afterlife, given that I believe in a benevolent God who allows evil to exist in the world. The afterlife (real or imagined) is something I have no experience of and no feeling for either way - it's never really interested me.

What I find strange is that I have now been convinced by rational argument to adopt a new belief in order to keep my worldview consistent. However, I feel no certainty at all for this new belief - certainly nothing close to the certainty I feel for theism (which rests on slender, though rational, grounds).

This seems almost a paradox to me - I have two beliefs one of which I am sure of with fairly weak evidence for, the other of which I am quite ambivalent about, despite having much better grounds for believing it. I figure I must be missing something (Chez - I'm hoping you'll read it as you're pretty good at pointing out where I've missed the obvious).

Cheers

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
This seems almost a paradox to me - I have two beliefs one of which I am sure of with fairly weak evidence for, the other of which I am quite ambivalent about, despite having much better grounds for believing it. I figure I must be missing something (Chez - I'm hoping you'll read it as you're pretty good at pointing out where I've missed the obvious).

[/ QUOTE ]
Minor nitpick - you can't have better grounds for believing in an after-life than for believing in god as your belief in an after-life is totally grounded in your belief in god.

Other than that its hard to see why you don't believe in an after-life with the same strength you believe in a benevelent god. Maybe less than 100% convinced by LeStat's argument or I guess more likely, your belief in a benevelent god is partly supported by feel and only the rational part of your belief in god carries forward into belief in an afterlife.

Another possibility is that you just care more about the question of existence of a benevelent god and cant trouble your brain to concern itself with forming beliefs about the after-life.

chez

[AceofSpades]

I'd be willing to bet that you have seen certain circumstances that confirm your belief in a benevolent God. However, you probably had that belief before getting the experiences that confirmed it. So (some)evidence you see confirms the view you have, but the view doesn't directly result from the evidence. Evil existing would be evidence against that view, but could be explained away by having an afterlife. So you have to have an afterlife for a benevolent God to exist with the evidence you have seen.

but it is pretty much impossible to have confirming or non-confirming evidence of an afterlife(with the exception of near death experiences). So you don't have a strong belief in it.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Minor nitpick - you can't have better grounds for believing in an after-life than for believing in god as your belief in an after-life is totally grounded in your belief in god.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah I'd just thought of this myself - however well justified my belief in the afterlife is, it must be less than or equal to how well justified my belief in God.

[ QUOTE ]
Other than that its hard to see why you don't believe in an after-life with the same strength you believe in a benevelent god. Maybe less than 100% convinced by LeStat's argument or I guess more likely, your belief in a benevelent god is partly supported by feel and only the rational part of your belief in god carries forward into belief in an afterlife.

Another possibility is that you just care more about the question of existence of a benevelent god and cant trouble your brain to concern itself with forming beliefs about the after-life.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
I think both of these are correct. 1 - I dont care if there is an afterlife. 2 - there is an irrational element as well strengthening my belief in God.

Thanks

[bunny]

I agree - I think it's that personal experiences I've had are more convincing to me than rational argument (even though it should be the other way around for everyone else).

[Lestat]

Bunny,

I just tried to provide an argument for why an after-life logically follows from your belief in God.

But as a Christian, the "certainty" of this belief must surely come through Jesus.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Minor nitpick - you can't have better grounds for believing in an after-life than for believing in god as your belief in an after-life is totally grounded in your belief in god.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah I'd just thought of this myself - however well justified my belief in the afterlife is, it must be less than or equal to how well justified my belief in God.

[ QUOTE ]
Other than that its hard to see why you don't believe in an after-life with the same strength you believe in a benevelent god. Maybe less than 100% convinced by LeStat's argument or I guess more likely, your belief in a benevelent god is partly supported by feel and only the rational part of your belief in god carries forward into belief in an afterlife.

Another possibility is that you just care more about the question of existence of a benevelent god and cant trouble your brain to concern itself with forming beliefs about the after-life.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
I think both of these are correct. 1 - I dont care if there is an afterlife. 2 - there is an irrational element as well strengthening my belief in God.

Thanks

[/ QUOTE ]
Much more succinctly put.

I think it follows that its entirely reasonable to have weak belief of the truth of the logical consequences of strong beliefs. It would only become unreasonable if you believed there wasn't an afterlife given your other beliefs.

chez

[bunny]

Perhaps this is true - I dont think I'm a very good Christian. It still seemed odd to me because you persuaded me that it must be true (there's always the possibility of something you or I are too dumb to work out of course) and it certainly doesnt contradict any of my other beliefs. Nonetheless, my internal feelings seemed unchanged at the end of the debate.

It doesnt seem paradoxical now - just a little odd. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[MidGe]

Maybe I am missing something here, but I don't think that atheism and belief in afterlife are mutually exclusive, neither do I think that theism (dependent of the theistic framework, of course) and no belief in afterlife are either.

PS To make things clear /images/graemlins/smile.gif I don't believe in either.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe I am missing something here, but I don't think that atheism and belief in afterlife are mutually exclusive, neither do I think that theism (dependent of the theistic framework, of course) and no belief in afterlife are either.

[/ QUOTE ]
The problem of evil is a cinch unless you include an after-life, so suffering + benevolent god implies after-life.

Edit: I assume that was LeStat's argument
chez

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem of evil is a cinch unless you include an after-life, so suffering + benevelent god implies after-life.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe so in the case for a benevolnnt god, but surely not in other cases that empirical evidence make more likely if there was a god.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problem of evil is a cinch unless you include an after-life, so suffering + benevelent god implies after-life.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe so in the case for a benevolnnt god, but surely not in other cases that empirical evidence make more likely if there was a god.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure which is more likey, hard for me to say as I see no evidence for a god either way, but the OP specified a benevolent god.

chez

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
but the OP specified a benevolent god.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ah Ok, sorry about that, I was responding to later posts where the "benevolent" wasn't reiterated. My bad.

That being said maybe a benevolent god would make sure that there is no afterlife, just in case, life as it i, is the expression of his benevolence, and the best he can do. I would not want it to go on forever! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but the OP specified a benevolent god.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ah Ok, sorry about that, I was responding to later posts where the "benevolent" wasn't reiterated. My bad.

That being said maybe a benevolent god would make sure that there is no afterlife, just in case, life as it i, is the expression of his benevolence, and the best he can do. I would not want it to go on forever! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
surely it's not compulsory /images/graemlins/grin.gif

chez

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
surely it's not compulsory

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I sincerely hope so. Knowing that there is an end is what gets me thru the trouble spots... /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Lestat]

I don't understand. You are Christian, right? Even if you don't take the bible literally, you must believe in Jesus. Is that correct, or am I missing something? Jesus not only spoke of life after death, he arose from the dead. How does this not dispel your uncertainty?

Of course, I'm sure it has more to do with the perception of having "seen" evidence of God in your lifetime, but not life after death. Unfortunately, you never will. Jesus is your evidence and you must trust and follow Him with all your heart.

I don't mean to throw another curve ball toward your axioms, but if you don't the bible and the story of Jesus... What makes you so sure about Christianity at all?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps this is true - I dont think I'm a very good Christian. It still seemed odd to me because you persuaded me that it must be true (there's always the possibility of something you or I are too dumb to work out of course) and it certainly doesnt contradict any of my other beliefs. Nonetheless, my internal feelings seemed unchanged at the end of the debate.

It doesnt seem paradoxical now - just a little odd. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
Another possibility is you have some conception of god to believe in but although you accept that means some sort of afterlife you have no conception of the nature of this afterlife and so cant form a proper belief about it.

This would, to some extent, resolve the christian dilemma put to you by LeStat.

[To fit in more with my view would say that you believe you have some conception of god and that supports a believe in god but you don't belive you have any conception of an afterlife and that undermines your belief in it].

chez

[HLMencken]

Why does an afterlife follow from a benevolent god?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Why does an afterlife follow from a benevolent god?

[/ QUOTE ]
said earlier that its a cinch but there's always some wriggle room. However, how could a benevelent god allow someone to be born, suffer a lot and then die horribly. Can there be any answer that doesn't involve some sort of afterlife?

chez

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why does an afterlife follow from a benevolent god?

[/ QUOTE ]
said earlier that its a cinch but there's always some wriggle room. However, how could a benevelent god allow someone to be born, suffer a lot and then die horribly. Can there be any answer that doesn't involve some sort of afterlife?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
Even with an afterlife is that really possible from a "benevolent" god (ie make them suffer so that they can enjoy later)???

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why does an afterlife follow from a benevolent god?

[/ QUOTE ]
said earlier that its a cinch but there's always some wriggle room. However, how could a benevelent god allow someone to be born, suffer a lot and then die horribly. Can there be any answer that doesn't involve some sort of afterlife?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
Even with an afterlife is that really possible from a "benevolent" god (ie make them suffer so that they can enjoy later)???

[/ QUOTE ]
There seem several solutions, once ou include some afterlife.

1. If someone suffered for a second then had a very good life, the suffering would look insignificant. Make the afterlife eternal and the finite suffering becomes zero.

2. The main problem wih suffering is that there seems no payback to the sufferer. If the suffering teaches them something important or allows them to appreciate it more to the extent that later they look back and see it as a good thing then I dont see that anything bad happened. this is only possible with an afterlife, given how unfairly unpleasant some peoples existence is. [i have to give an example: I've suffered, my god I've suffered, the misery cause by constantly losing the ashes to you lot BUT the deep satisfying joy this summer simply couldn't have existed without that suffering and looking back I'm glad i suffered - it was well worth it /images/graemlins/smile.gif]

3. Maybe the 'afterlife' is something people exist in and freely chose to enter this domain for some purpose in that life. They know they wont remember until they die and return to the 'afterlife' and they know the ground rules of this life. Now there is no problem of suffering at all.

I'm sure they're others.

chez

[AceofSpades]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree - I think it's that personal experiences I've had are more convincing to me than rational argument (even though it should be the other way around for everyone else).

[/ QUOTE ]

As a former christian, I understand this. However, dealing with the aspects of belief in christianity that did not reflect reality caused me to realize that while the personal experiences I had could not be denied, the meaning I ascribed to those experiences could not be correct because the beliefs I had were clearly shown to be false by reality. In other words, I had the experience, but gave it a false meaning.

Joseph

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
However, how could a benevelent god allow someone to be born, suffer a lot and then die horribly. Can there be any answer that doesn't involve some sort of afterlife?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Lots of them. And if you think this about life, then how could you allow yourself or anyone else or even an animal to reproduce, just to bring another life into this world to suffer a lot and then die horribly? If someone were to *really* believe the rationale above and also not believe in a benevolent god, then they would try their damndest to prevent new lives coming into the world.

If that was really the jist for how an afterlife follows from a benevolent god, then I think everyone supporting that train of thought took a huge misstep.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However, how could a benevelent god allow someone to be born, suffer a lot and then die horribly. Can there be any answer that doesn't involve some sort of afterlife?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Lots of them. And if you think this about life, then how could you allow yourself or anyone else or even an animal to reproduce, just to bring another life into this world to suffer a lot and then die horribly? If someone were to *really* believe the rationale above and also not believe in a benevolent god, then they would try their damndest to prevent new lives coming into the world.

If that was really the jist for how an afterlife follows from a benevolent god, then I think everyone supporting that train of thought took a huge misstep.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not suggesting that everyone suffers in this way, I think you misuderstood me.

Anyway, if you have an argument that makes a benevolent god consistent with someone who suffers a lot before dieing horribly with no after life then lets have it.

chez

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However, how could a benevelent god allow someone to be born, suffer a lot and then die horribly. Can there be any answer that doesn't involve some sort of afterlife?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Lots of them. And if you think this about life, then how could you allow yourself or anyone else or even an animal to reproduce, just to bring another life into this world to suffer a lot and then die horribly? If someone were to *really* believe the rationale above and also not believe in a benevolent god, then they would try their damndest to prevent new lives coming into the world.

If that was really the jist for how an afterlife follows from a benevolent god, then I think everyone supporting that train of thought took a huge misstep.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not suggesting that everyone suffers in this way, I think you misuderstood me.

Anyway, if you have an argument that makes a benevolent god consistent with someone who suffers a lot before dieing horribly with no after life then lets have it.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Sh1t happens.

Honestly, that is a possible explanation if it is possible that a benevolent god would not necessarily step in to interfere with people's lives... or maybe this rules out the "benevolent" part. I'd have to see the definition for a benevolent god i guess.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">If someone were to *really* believe the rationale above and also not believe in a benevolent god, then they would try their damndest to prevent new lives coming into the world.
</font>

Only if the new lives were sure to suffer. And this is already the case. I have friends who had an autistic child. Of course, they will not have another child. So prople do try to prevent new life if they have reason to believe that life will suffer. Otherwise it is our genetic obligation to spread our genes.



<font color="blue"> If that was really the jist for how an afterlife follows from a benevolent god, then I think everyone supporting that train of thought took a huge misstep. </font>

I very much disagree. Give me some reasons for why a loving God who is also omnipotent would allow a baby (His child that He loves), into the world only to die of SIDS if there is no afterlife? What would be the sense of this child's birth if it had no immortal soul?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Sh1t happens.

Honestly, that is a possible explanation if it is possible that a benevolent god would not necessarily step in to interfere with people's lives... or maybe this rules out the "benevolent" part. I'd have to see the definition for a benevolent god i guess.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thats the core of it. I don't offer a precise definition but if god was benevolent then sh1t wouldn't just happen to innoncent people, at least not in overwheming quantities. I'm assuming the usual all-powerful, all-knowing god.

chez

[MidGe]

Regarding your earlier answer to me, and this last post of yours, I still have a problem. A split second of suffering for an eternity of orgasmic joy, seem to indicate a contradiction between benevolent and omnipotent.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand. You are Christian, right? Even if you don't take the bible literally, you must believe in Jesus. Is that correct, or am I missing something? Jesus not only spoke of life after death, he arose from the dead. How does this not dispel your uncertainty?

[/ QUOTE ]
This is all reason to believe, yes. I didnt mean to say that I dont believe in an afterlife - there is more a qualitative difference in that belief. The afterlife I say "yes it exists, here's all the evidence" with God I "just know" at a much deeper level and it's hard to state the evidence cogently.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't mean to throw another curve ball toward your axioms, but if you don't the bible and the story of Jesus... What makes you so sure about Christianity at all?

[/ QUOTE ]
A strange position to adopt perhaps, but I dont think there is a rational way to decide which religion is right. I include this in theology rather than philosophy so it almost doesnt feel right to talk about here. Basically, I have a rational belief in God but it doesnt extend to telling me how he wants me to relate to him (if indeed he does). Nonetheless, given my belief, I have to adopt some position - so I am forced into making a choice with very little rational basis.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont think there is a rational way to decide which religion is right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nor is there a rational way to decide that reason is right.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I dont think there is a rational way to decide which religion is right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nor is there a rational way to decide that reason is right.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, surely not for you sharkey.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Nor is there a rational way to decide that reason is right.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, I agree. The only thing you can say is that reason, rationality and evidence minimises error with the cost of narrowing what you can talk about. The particular "mix" of rationality vs irrationality that you pick is pretty much a personal choice as far as I can see.

[HLMencken]

I love animals and used to have an aquarium. Did I needlessly cause the fish to suffer? Frankly, I did.

[AceofSpades]

[ QUOTE ]
I love animals and used to have an aquarium. Did I needlessly cause the fish to suffer? Frankly, I did.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly if you tortured/forgot to provide for the fish, then you are not benevolent or all-powerful. If you were all powerful then you could make the fish not suffer. Life itself is not suffering.

[AceofSpades]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I dont think there is a rational way to decide which religion is right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nor is there a rational way to decide that reason is right.

[/ QUOTE ]
or:
Nor is there a true way to decide that truth is true.

The argument that you can't know anything, is pointless.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
The argument that you can't know anything, is pointless.

[/ QUOTE ]

A good reason to avoid making such an argument.

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I love animals and used to have an aquarium. Did I needlessly cause the fish to suffer? Frankly, I did.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly if you tortured/forgot to provide for the fish, then you are not benevolent or all-powerful. If you were all powerful then you could make the fish not suffer. Life itself is not suffering.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is that if a benevolent god exists, who are mortals to say what he *must* do to allieve the struggle for life? W/o life being a struggle, would our species have evolved in the first place? Without the struggle for life, life might be in itself meaningless or never have evolved beyond protozoa. What is the suffering of an autistic child in the grand scheme of the universe? Maybe it was meant to be that there would be that suffering. Even stars have violent deaths--do they "suffer"? We are a mass of atoms with this wonderful gift of consciousness--who is to say that there is something "wrong" because our nerve impulses transmit a pain response? It is suffering from our perspective, but is it really suffering in an objective sense? I view things this way because I really view life in these terms to a large degree. It is only "suffering" because you are defining it that way. In fact, it is just a natural process. Do flowers suffer when they wilt? Can you still love the beauty that a flower brings to your existence even if it eventually wilts? I am rambling, but I think it is incredibly near-sighted to view all of nature by human standards of suffering. I disagree that if a benevolent god exists (which I don't know and can never know, so don't really care), we *must* have an afterlife as some reward or compensation for any suffering on earth.

[AceofSpades]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The argument that you can't know anything, is pointless.

[/ QUOTE ]

A good reason to avoid making such an argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then we are agreed! Can you tell me what your definition of reason is? Because based on the post I responded to, that is the argument I thought you made?

[AceofSpades]

[ QUOTE ]
The point is that if a benevolent god exists, who are mortals to say what he *must* do to allieve the struggle for life? W/o life being a struggle, would our species have evolved in the first place?

[/ QUOTE ]

If God made it so, then yes.


I think the viewpoint you bring up is interesting. However I would argue that the idea of a benevolent God implies a caring nature directed towards humanity. If God was only bevenolent towards the ants, then it wouldn't be considered benevolent to us. Also death is not suffering though it may cause it.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The argument that you can't know anything, is pointless.

[/ QUOTE ]

A good reason to avoid making such an argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then we are agreed! Can you tell me what your definition of reason is? Because based on the post I responded to, that is the argument I thought you made?

[/ QUOTE ]

Reason means proceeding by syllogism.

[bearly]

sure...........god doesn't make explicit why every single thing happens............b

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
sure...........god doesn't make explicit why every single thing happens............b

[/ QUOTE ]
It makes no difference why god makes these things happen.

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Regarding your earlier answer to me, and this last post of yours, I still have a problem. A split second of suffering for an eternity of orgasmic joy, seem to indicate a contradiction between benevolent and omnipotent.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe but the significance of the suffering tends to zero as eternity tends to um er well eternity. Can't we reconcile a benevolent god with a totally insignificant amount of suffering - if we add some value to the suffering (the ashes analogy) then I think we could let god off the hook.

chez

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
I think we could let god off the hook.

[/ QUOTE ]
If he was omnipotent.. no way I would leave him off the hook. /images/graemlins/smile.gif I am on the side of the small guy. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I dont think there is a rational way to decide which religion is right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nor is there a rational way to decide that reason is right.

[/ QUOTE ]

One for sharkey from The Edge (http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge178.html)

Social-constructionist 'intellectuals,' [and maybe pseudo intellectuals like sharkey] and perhaps even the 'radical ism-ists' culture warriors of The New York Times Book Review might counter that science itself is but one more 'superstition.' But as Sir John Krebs points out below, Dawkins won't have any of this cultural relativism. Krebs quotes one of his favorite passages, not out of The Selfish Gene but from the book River Out of Eden:

Show me a cultural relativist at thirty thousand feet and I'll show you a hypocrite. Airplanes are built according to scientific principles and they work. They stay aloft and they get you to a chosen destination. Airplanes built to tribal or mythological specifications such as the dummy planes of the Cargo cults in jungle clearings or the bees-waxed wings of Icarus don't.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think we could let god off the hook.

[/ QUOTE ]
If he was omnipotent.. no way I would leave him off the hook. /images/graemlins/smile.gif I am on the side of the small guy. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
In the ashes analogy the small guy has to be the one who in retrospect appreciated the suffering. Its not god saying 'stop your whinging look how great eternity is' but the small guy appreciating that in retrospect the suffering was well worth it.

chez

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
In the ashes analogy the small guy has to be the one who in retrospect appreciated the suffering. Its not god saying 'stop your whinging look how great eternity is' but the small guy appreciating that in retrospect the suffering was well worth it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Smacks to much of S&amp;M. It seems a pornographic view of omnipotence, to me. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
I am on the side of the small guy.

[/ QUOTE ]

God made the small guy.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am on the side of the small guy.

[/ QUOTE ]

God made the small guy.

[/ QUOTE ]

From my viewpoint, the small guy invented god when he knew no better.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In the ashes analogy the small guy has to be the one who in retrospect appreciated the suffering. Its not god saying 'stop your whinging look how great eternity is' but the small guy appreciating that in retrospect the suffering was well worth it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Smacks to much of S&amp;M. It seems a pornographic view of omnipotence, to me. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
What's wrong with that /images/graemlins/smile.gif

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am on the side of the small guy.

[/ QUOTE ]

God made the small guy.

[/ QUOTE ]
but the area of a circle is PI r squared.

chez

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In the ashes analogy the small guy has to be the one who in retrospect appreciated the suffering. Its not god saying 'stop your whinging look how great eternity is' but the small guy appreciating that in retrospect the suffering was well worth it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Smacks to much of S&amp;M. It seems a pornographic view of omnipotence, to me. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
What's wrong with that /images/graemlins/smile.gif

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I am just not into S&amp;M.. but hey if it is between consenting parties... LOL

[bearly]

please re-read the last line of your question..........b

[bearly]

also, very carefully re-read the first few chapters of genesis...............b

[bearly]

chez............your usually ahead of the curve, you're really doggin' it on this one..............c'mon push your brain past where you feel comfortable................b

[bearly]

study the story of nicodemus.................b

[bearly]

it doesn't...........necessarily. please, extra special please, turn your attention to the matter of faith.........b

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
please re-read the last line of your question..........b

[/ QUOTE ]
Just read the whole thread, you've missed the point. If you want to engage in analysis of the point then that would be great. If you just gonna bung in these pointless snippets then why bother?

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
also, very carefully re-read the first few chapters of genesis...............b

[/ QUOTE ]
not relevent, another pointles snippet. Thanks.

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
chez............your usually ahead of the curve, you're really doggin' it on this one..............c'mon push your brain past where you feel comfortable................b

[/ QUOTE ]
Analysis please.

chez

[bearly]

that you see them as "pointless" only shows that you have not "seen" the point. sometimes gaining knowledge is like having a door opened for you...........b

[bearly]

only in bars and coffee houses do people settle complex issues over a couple drinks. chez, i misjudged you. you want things to be easy. my "snippets" as you call them may represent 5 years of thinking about a particular aspect of a problem............b

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
that you see them as "pointless" only shows that you have not "seen" the point. sometimes gaining knowledge is like having a door opened for you...........b

[/ QUOTE ]
Sadly, your snippets are pointless because even if you have a point you're not willing to say what it is.

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
only in bars and coffee houses do people settle complex issues over a couple drinks. chez, i misjudged you. you want things to be easy. my "snippets" as you call them may represent 5 years of thinking about a particular aspect of a problem............b

[/ QUOTE ]
No, the point you have in mind may represent years of thinking but none of that is contained in your snippets.

chez

[bearly]

when the matter is "coming to see" you can't analyze. after all, your mind is going through a process. how else do you come to a thought you never knew you could have? dammit chez, i know you have the stuff. it's like other things our body does, you have to strain and grunt a little (or a lot). i am far from slow and i will admit there are ideas that folks toss about that have taken me 30 years to get into the context of an integrated mind..............b

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
when the matter is "coming to see" you can't analyze. after all, your mind is going through a process. how else do you come to a thought you never knew you could have? dammit chez, i know you have the stuff. it's like other things our body does, you have to strain and grunt a little (or a lot). i am far from slow and i will admit there are ideas that folks toss about that have taken me 30 years to get into the context of an integrated mind..............b

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry Bearly I think you have a lot of expertise and contribute a lot to my understanding but somehow you have to a least outline the point you're trying to get across.

How can I 'come to see' your point by thinking about it when I've no idea what it is.

Its very frustating.

chez

[bearly]

truth seeking is hard work. unfortunately, many give up. i hope the necessary ammount of peace of mind visits all of us who stick around................b

[madnak]

Don't you need concrete beliefs in order to function in the world?