POLL: A shared existence?

Remove all ads!

I dont get the question, where does the matter of creator or divinity enter into the question? I am tempted to answer 1 because I am very skeptic towarsd the whole idea of free will and autonomy and think that we really have very much to do about anything really. That doesnt make me believe that there is a conscious entity running the show.

We are almost exclusively what we are made to be and we have very little control over that.

 

Upsi so simple translation

My point is WHO makes the law? I always interpreted the Categorical Imperative as it only can be you. ( Making a law that could count for everybody )

But I might get something wrong here...


By the way I agree with joacqin

 

Hi Joacqin
The creator aspect is there because I was afraid of leaving it out. I may believe in free will to some extent and this will vary from time to time depending on how lost in my own ego I am or other factors, I may not believe in free will due to a mystic transcendence or shall it be called a form of mental delusion? Was Jesus Christ a fruitcake with delusion or the "Son of God"? (aren't we all the Son of God? - or at least the son of man as I think the New Testament also has it at some point or other.)
The creator aspect is there because it is a possibility that the universe is created and us with it: if we are considering what it means to be a part - subject to a greater whole, then the concept cannot be ignored. As we are just a microscopic part we can only feel the order emanating from the source, we cannot see the source directly. Therefore the balance of probability would have it that the source is orderly and therefore created; (it would be a lower probability to have an orderly source of law from a random/chance event). Add the fear factor implicit in being a microscopic part and yet ignoring the creator - if there is one - and you have my dilemma. As option one is about order and service I decided it should have a creator element. Option 2 being the opposite choice has the disclaimer whether there is a creator or not, because this seems to have logic to it IMO.
I found the question hard to phrase and I am sorry that it couldn't satisfy those who believe in free will but would like to "vote" for a creator. Others may consider themselves subject to universal (energy) law in some manner, but not believe. Those who would have wanted to vote 1 may have been put off due to its inclusion. (for example those that consider existence to be created by chance but still consider themselves subject to the laws inherent). Obviously there is a middle ground possibility and "I" made a decision to push people towards one extreme or the other; the danger of a middle option would have been that it sucked up every vote.
Spare a thought for my predicament; you wouldn't want me to be ticked off at the day of Judgement because I left off a creator ref, now would you? Now that's a subject for another poll, although I wouldn't expect to get too much interest here on my potential damnation. Sorry I digress.
Perhaps the main reason this poll ended up on this site is because of playing these games and reading the posts of those who say I'm a lawful good paladin and I must play in character. I couldn't help being struck by Keldorn and his view of service, I ended up wondering how many people who find themselves playing lawful good characters (for example) and saying things like "I am a lawful good character it is my duty to help these people." actually believe this ethos in their "real life". I would like to argue that anyone who plays a lawful good character and says such a thing should be voting for option 1 in the poll. Then again perhaps I just like causing trouble...

(edit of bad spelling and garbled sentence structure)

[ March 16, 2005, 03:58: Message edited by: Ik ]

 

No matter how much free will we have, I believe we are still subject to the basic fundamental laws governing this particular universe and its dimensions. The presence or absence of a Creator changes nothing. We will all still die someday.

ie - I agree mostly with Joacqin.

 

some recent support for joacqin's point of view but still many more votes for option 2. I'm looking for the views of those lawful good players on this one too.
@ chevalier; hi, I see you have God as a strange person, do you really think God is a person? i.e. a humanoid - or in what way? Are we then made in his image in some respect? I have heard it suggested that man is a battleground in this universe, his soul a "place" where polarities are played out and resolved.

 

Kelvon, In Canada, we have laws. If I break the Law I go to prison. By your logic, this is unfair.

Adam and Eve were cast out of the Garden of Eden and out of God's presence for disobedience. That was Justice. Mercy is where someone steps in and absorbs the debt on your behalf, and binds you to his terms. This is the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on our behalf. He will absorb the punishment that Justice demands for our sins and asks us to live the commandments as best we can and to care for those less fortunate...

 

@CHEV: What I'm saying is that 'compulsion' and 'choice and consequence' is the same thing. In the second case, you are indirectly obliged to follow the rules. In fact, that's exactly the way that God obliges or tries to oblige us to do the "right" things.

'Compulsion' and 'Choice + Consequence' is the same thing!

And about doing evil without consequence: evil can and is viewed differently by different people.

A few questions: Why must we obey someone? Why must we think of someone more superrior than us?

And do you know what I think believing in God is? And I realised it just now: It's a "mature" way of saying "Oh mommy, I've peed on me. Help me, mommy!" All this religious idea is based on the fact that man (from primitive times to the present) is consantly confrunted by a lack of safety. And for this reason he tries to find someone or something to whom he can turn to when he feels unsafe. Why can't people just be stronger than that and believe in themselves? Why do people need and exterior "force" to turn to when in need of help? Just think about it, Chev, if you want to

From what I know, jesus christ sacrificed himself for the forgiveness of man's sins, right? In my oppinion, the sarcrifice (if there was any) was for nothing, because the world got worse and worse. In my sincere oppinion, if god exists, he is merely a sadistic, careless child, thta plays with his puppets in his toybox. As unacceptable my oppinion is (due to your BLIND beliefs), please try and have some real fairness in you and respect my oppinion!

 

I believe in the God of the Bible. I believe in Jesus Christ.

I don't think anyone should accept my beliefs because I tell them to or because I somehow convinced them to. If someone is going to share my beliefs it should be because someone came to the same conclusion as myself. Not everyone will agree with me on my conclusion, and I don't think they have to.

That said, I believe God created the universe and all within it. I'm pretty sure some people will question why God would create such a massive expanse only to have a microscopic section of it inhabited with life. My personal belief is that he wanted to demonstrate his infinite power so that all who walked the Earth could decide for themselves if he's real or not. Honestly I don't know how anyone can look at the (night) sky, the ocean, the mountains, the complexity of life (ie. the different species, races, the miniscule differences between each and every living creature) and come to the conclusion that there is no God and it's all just a product of random chance. That's just me and every other Christian who walks this earth though.

I believe we have free will. Some argue that if a God exists then free will is all an illusion. I believe that God allows us to decide what path in life we take. I don't think people are predetermined to suffer eternal damnation or frollick in everlasting paradise (yes, I said frollick) — I think we subject ourselves to one or the other by whichever path in life we take. Thus we have free will. You're welcome to respond to this however you want, but it's my belief and you'll just have to accept that. Or is tolerance a non-existant ideal preached for the piece-of-mind of the unbelieving masses?

I hear people say that evil is different everywhere you go. Well, if this is so true then kindly explain to me what people on the other side of the world consider murder to be. Is it evil? Is it good? Is it in-between? I don't know about you but I think it's a universal truth that murder is evil.

On the matter of truth, I'm quite certain someone will point out that truth is relative. Ok then, if truth is relative, then I can simply jump off a bridge and expect to be able to fly. I can't you say? Because of gravity you say? Is that a universal truth? Well, I thought truth was relative? I should be able to jump off the bridge and be able to fly because it's my truth.

Feel free to respond in whatever way you feel necessary.

 

@Kelvon:

Do you want to say that 'Free will = Choice without Consequence'?

I choose to jump off the bridge and do that (choice) and what happen? Nothing (no consequence)!

EDIT: I just want to say that every choice has a consequence.

 

The whole thing translates as "IMHO your religion sucks. Please respect this." That doesn't quite sound serious. Honestly, it only looks like you feel disrespected just because someone believes in something you don't. Far far away from fairness, I would say. Your beliefs seem to be more blind than those of any religious person in this thread. "Your beliefs are blind. Have the fairness to accept that mine are superior". Brilliant. Sorry, it's going to take more effort. Things don't come this easily.

But how?

Exceptions don't invalidate a rule. No conclusion as to the whole can be derived from a mere exception, either.

I believe God is a person but doesn't have a body. He doesn't need one.

No, it isn't. With compulsion you wouldn't have free will. With choice and consequence, this free will exists. What do you think would be better? To take out "not" from the Decalogue and turn it into "thou shalt murder/steal/commit adultery/bear false witness if thou likest"? People already say God isn't good because He "allows" such things to happen.

So is God evil for allowing and evil for forbidding at the same time? Something looks wrong here.

Imagine a world where everyone decides what he thinks is right and makes the rules for himself.
No government, no police, no compulsion of any kind. How long is this "paradise" going to last before a group forms up to terrorise the others?

So there's nothing inherently wrong in the idea of someone shooting you in the chest or filing a false claim against you in the court? It's just a culture thing?

Abolish all forms of government and disband all armies and police and see how long we will last.

The idea of strong people who are gods for themselves is as old as the world. In Christianity, this is essentially how evil originated (the fall of Lucifer). Another example was WW2 and the Holocaust plus cold war afterwards and all the totalitarisms of the Soviet block and post-fascist dictators. This is where people end up when they start believing they are gods for themselves and can make the rules.

For nothing? And for how much would it be if it were forced on you without an option to accept or refuse? Would it still be a sacrifice, in the first place? After all, God could have sent a legion of angels and put Romans and Pharisees to sword. Why not.

...and dies for them?

 

How does an omnipotent being die, exactly?

 

he's referring to jesus

for an omnipotent being it is a matter of choice

trickery

 

True, my flaw in expression. And no more in the AoDA.

The thing is that without evil, there wouldn't be no good. And vice versa. Without Satan, there wouldn't be no God. Without nonbelievers, there wouldn't be believers. It's all a thing of ballance.

When I said "no rules" I meant no religious rules. Murder is certainly a crime, but you don't need to get punished religiously (e.g. thou shall go to hell). It's enouth that you get punished by the police. Why do we need imaginary creators?

I told you it's not about RL, but about the imaginary creator. I'm not an anarchist who hates all rules, hates all governments, bla, bla, bla. I just hate these imaginary rules and imaginary masters. When someone whill prove to me the existence of god, hence when i see god with my one eyes, I shall be convinced of his existence and I shall stop bugging people that i consider blind. 'Till the, people, wake up and smell the reality and the fact that nobody can never be sure of anything.

 

Darkthrone, remind me to add smilies to sarcastic jokes in the future

My tongue in cheek point was that Jesus != God. At least, he didn't when I was last in Sunday school.

 

How do you know that:

a) Jesus ever existed?
b) Jesus is the son of God?
c) Jesus was crucified?
d) Jesus died?
e) Jesus was reborn?
f) etc.

Chev, what makes you so sure of these things? I'll make a bet you can't answer my question.

 

AMaster, I think Jesus = God, Holy Ghost=God and God Father=God. But: Jesus != God Father, Holy Ghost != Jesus and God Father!= Holy Ghost. That's Trinity as far as I understand it. It is easy, if you know exactly what you're doing!

And smilies would be appreciated, I'm a bit slow on the uptake. Thanks.

Kelvon, how do you know that chevalier exists? And yet you're talking to him.

 

I'm talking to chevalier! I'm NOT talking to Jesus! That's how I know chevalier exists. But, does chevalier talk to Jesus?

 

@Kelvon

How do you know that chevalier isn't Jesus?

 

I was no kiding. Jathszu, if you're gonna start with those kinds of comments (not that I'm offended by blasphemy, it's just you beeing too sarcastic), you can go to the Whatnots section and post a new thread called "is chev jesus?", or something like that.

 

Sorry Kelvon. I maybe was too sarcastic.

You know that chevalier exists because you're talking to him.
You know that I exist because you're talking to me.
But what do you know about me? Who am I? Or what am I?

If someone tells you:' I'm Rob and I have a cat.', you would know that Rob who has a cat exists.
But if someone tells you:' I'm your God.', would you know that God exists? Would you even belive that God exists and he is God?

So what make you so sure that chev(or anybody else on SP) isn't Jesus/God? Just because he didn't say that he is? Or maybe because you don't believe that Jesus exists?

What if he says that he does. Would that be the proof that Jesus exists? Would you believe chev? Would you know that Jesus exists?

EDIT: I hope I'm not too sarcastic or insulting.

[ March 22, 2005, 02:40: Message edited by: Jathszu Khatharua ]