What's god's higher purpose? What's the meaning

God is beyond the principles of existence and non-existence.

>>613616

Probably something bigger and more important than telling a bunch of lowly lifeforms on some rock hurtling through space what they ought to be thinking.

>>613616
Impossible to know.

Perhaps begetting existence is his way of entertaining himself.

>>613616
>>613623
Now this is /rel/ tier shitposting

>>613630

Thus we've discerned the true nature of God: he's a sadist.

>>613633
How is this shitposting, I wonder about these things.

>>613623
What does that even mean?

>>613636
Perhaps, but I enjoy living, so I'd give thanks even to a sadist who begot me.

/rel/ board when?

>inb4 fedora shitposting

>>613648
Probably something along the lines of the idea that a God must wither create himself or have always existed.

That has always been an interesting idea to me, can something, even existence itself, have always been?

>>613629
>lowly lifeforms
but we are the most advanced species we know of
does that not inherently prove that god created us as the first specie?

>>613648
It means the Absolute cannot belong to a category because it is, by definition, what conditions categories in the first place. Else God would still owe his
existence to Being if he was this or that, he would just be another being, although perfect, and not what is beyond Being in the first place

>>613616
He is trying to obey the commands of the higher god above him.

>>613616
Sure as hell not to worry or give a shit about us. No matter what it is, we wouldn't be able to comprehend

>>613665
Maybe YOU wouldn't

The meaning of his existence is creating sycophants to blow him and worship him. This makes him very happy.

>>613616
>What's god's higher purpose? What's the meaning of his existence?
To create the world.

If there's something shared by all religious belief is that there's always a myth of creation caused by a supernatural being or event.

>>613657
>does that not inherently prove that god created us as the first specie?

Simply put, no. That's not how logic works.

>>613696
So the need to create the world precedes God himself?

File: _40594185_sparkler.jpg (13KB, 220x300px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 220x300px

>>613616

He exists to provide an easy explanation for the big, scary things humans can't find the will or intelligence to easily explain.

>>613783
>posted from a starbucks

>>613657
>Was the electronic calculator created before the abacus because it is a superior tool for resolving arithmetic operations?
That logic makes no sense, Anon.

There are several creation myths in which a god (or gods), create other non-human sentient beings as prototypes for humanity.

We wouldn't understand it to begin with, so it ultimately doesn't matter.

File: ZjRoh1E.jpg (528KB, 2975x1959px) Image search: [Google]

528KB, 2975x1959px

>>613616
I serve himself.
"I'm here to serve, not get served."

>people actually wanting a /rel/ board because they don't like philosophical questions if they deal with certain things.

>>613616
Depends on what you mean by God. For the conceptions of the Abrahamic god it is no so easy as at that level you are not given meaning from on high but rather is a law onto himself. God simply creates and sustains according to his nature.

>>614579
We want a /rel/ board because of the abundance of /rel/ threads on /his/

>>614579
>>614610
What the is this theoretical /rel/ board everyone talks about?

I'm new to /his/.

>>614646
/his/ is history and humanities. Some people don't like the religious discussion in humanities and want to not let it have threads here anymore and give it a containment board.

Very "There a lot and I don't like it do make it go away"

>>613783
If you aren't frightened, you aren't grasping the mystery. Maybe I am being arrogant but often what I might think lightly of at first, comes crashing after a little time.

I often think how people are able to naturally distance themselves from issues like these. They will say that the universe is extremely big, sure, but I don't think they grasp the sheer massivity of it. Not that I do either, but to even contemplate it sure gives me a sinking feeling. To contemplate such things as consciousness do too. The very fact that most people don't take these things to themselves (in an emotional sense) or outright reject them with religion often leaves me feeling alienated.

Which is to say I override my feelings, I am too curious by nature. But they are there. The mystery and doubt do bite at me.

I don't reject the idea of a creator in the total sense, I can at best vaguely promote it as well.

Any anons that can relate?

>>615136
Ever looked at humans and seen them for what they truly are? To take away all the superficial facets of what it looks to be human; clothes, technology they may be busy with, their hairstyles etc. Undress them in your mind and see the base creature that lies underneath it all?

Then you do that with your family members.

Then yourself.

>>613661
my head hurts

>>613616
God is the true Ubermensch (Ubergott?) in that, being the absolute creator of all things, he gets to decide what has purpose and what does not. His creations, being merely reflections of His own essence, can never find contentment in any values they embrace that does not parallel the values of God to a T. God is the only truly free being in all of reality.

>>613616
If God is eternal, the idea of man should've been since forever been present with God.

So a part, an aspect of yourself will always survive in God because He is eternal.
And we are eternally conceived inside the eternal Creator.

God's "purpose" is to provide humans with a higher entity to look to; I posit that it's literally human nature to tend towards theism or deism. But humans projecting their characteristics thus creating a supreme being that has human attributes such as agency because they don't realize their cognitive bias towards themselves and life is getting old at this point.

>>613616
Purpose implies He "needs" something, He doesnt, He just is.

>>615696
Do people "need" purpose, or just want it?

>>615169
How can God be "free" if he is unable to change and grow?

>>615717
I'm not sure I understand the question. "Change and grow" how exactly?

>>613616
The meaning of His existence IS existence. He EXISTS.
>inb4 fedora demanding "muh empirical evidence"

Not like that, though as a Christian I do believe He does, God exists in the sense that He IS. He is the Primal Existance. Existance personified, Existence perfected, cosmic and more ancient than time.

>>615733
dude weed lmao

>>615714
we need it

>>615733
Nice dubs, shame about the circular reasoning.

>>615717
Because He doesn't need to. He is free from the need to change and develop. Free from the bonds of creation and the limits of it. For Gld created everything and can do everything and know everything and every possible outcome of everything and what is the best course of action from before time began.

Humility is the name of the game friend, don't think so mighty of man and trust in the Father.

>>615744
The dubs keep coming.

>>615738
I was hoping for a response of more substance than a blunt assertion.

>>615733
Is God's only attribute "primal, perfect existence". If so, why be a Christian

>>615751
for us to "want" a purpose, we must be able to lack a purpose in the first place, which is false due to our nature as created beings. It is necessary that we have a purpose, and our purpose is to be happy, we literally cant change it.

>>615810
>for us to "want" a purpose, we must be able to lack a purpose in the first place
Unless your contesting the individual's freedom to choose, we can lack a purpose merely by rejecting a purpose given to us by any external being, including a Creator.
>It is necessary that we have a purpose, and our purpose is to be happy, we literally cant change it.
You're conflating Purpose with Desire. You're essentially saying we need to want, that there is no meaningful distinction between the two.

>>615858
>Unless your contesting the individual's freedom to choose
we cant choose our purpose, there

>>615869
>we cant choose our purpose, there
Yes we can. It can only be argued that rejecting the purpose given by a Creator in lieu of our own will always lead to suffering.

>>615882
>Yes we can.
No we cant, that "rejecting" our purpose will always lead to suffering shows that we cant actually change it. To change it, you must replace it by another thing.

>>615696
Then why did he create us?

>>615900
> that "rejecting" our purpose will always lead to suffering shows that we cant actually change it.
No, it shows that are Creator refuses to consent to a creation's decision to change. The suffering emerges from the contention between the Creator and creation.
> that "rejecting" our purpose will always lead to suffering shows that we cant actually change it.
When we actively pursue a purpose that contradicts the Creator's, we've done exactly that.

Love

>>616272
Surely he'd get bored after a while.

>>613623
AYYYYY
>>613661
>my main man
>>613616
>What's the meaning of meaning?
Yes.

>>616277
Love is his being, so not really.

>>614579
and here is a prime example of cancer that deserves to be locked away.

The reason you do not want a religious board is because the vast majority of religious posters are not interested in genuine discussion but in spreading their beleifs like a virus. A religious board would be an echoe-chamber and so there would be no new hosts for your spook to infest. Even though it would lead to better discussion, the board would be disastrous for proselytizing.

>>616319
How can love think?

>>616379
You're thinking about it wrong. Love does not describe him, he describes love. The same way as thinking of how to define honor. You don't think of the abstract concept, but of the actual actions which we ascribe the descriptor honor to. God is love incarnate, yet love exists due to his actions. He is both the descriptor and the concept, but that's not something we can truly understand. So we simply say he loves us.

>>616505
And therefore we ascribe love to his actions. Forgot to add that.

>>616319
>making such absolute statements about the nature of God
I shiggy diggy, mate. Only he knows.

>>616540
1 John 4:8

>>616505
Holy shit. Love is simply a combination of emotions and behaviors a bunch of animals display.

>>616644
Animals don't display agape.

>>613616
To provide order out of the chaos and randomness that is nature

>>616660
That may be because agape is defined in Christian theology as not including nonhuman animals

>>615155
That's straight forward enough, but the desire to use your own power to define yourself as a particular "something" is also a deeply human characteristic. We don't end up being the way we are, doing the things we do our dressing the eat we dress by accident, or happenstance, you know.

>>616699
idk what's an example of a charitable animal that is not for the purpose of survival?

>>616644
You trust your emotions to tell you that love is an emotion? Are you some type of hypocrite? Either realise that that form of argumentation is invalid and self defeating, or recognize that love can be more.
Also, fuck your empirical ass.

>>616742
There's plenty of examples where the goal is reproduction rather than survival.

>>616785
that is survival though
i mean charity as in charity because its a nice thing to do

File: 1448290360606.png (120KB, 735x657px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 735x657px

>>613616
To serve God aka Egoism

Hello and welcome to Max Stirner

>>616797
The post you're replying to was my first, but the individual survival in some cases comes second to reproduction.

And for something to be a nice thing to do, you need to have a concept of nice, rather than mutual assistance.

>>616776
No fuck your feels that say love is something more. And stop saying I said things I didn't.

>>613616
"I am that I am"

God exists for his own sake.

>>616806
by survival I mean survival of the species
I mean something nice as in it doesn't have to be necessarily warranted but it envokes a pleasant reaction
like gift giving

>>616823
Refer to

>>616803

File: book-of-job.jpg (97KB, 800x570px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 800x570px

>78 posts
>no mention yet of the Book of Job

God exists beyond our capacity to question it, much like many other things about him that are totally beyond our comprehension. You should be grateful that he has repeatedly expressed his love for humanity and the universe, that we exist purely out of superabundant love, and that God doesn't just up and decide to make us utterly nonexistent.

Pray, fuckers, pray.

File: Satin-Bower-Bird-Nest.jpg (200KB, 915x606px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 915x606px

>>616827
Bower birds 'give' the gift of an artistic bower to the females.

>>616842
but they do that because that sweet bird puss

>>616840
Zero relevance to the OP, well done

>>616699
No, it's because agape is unconditional, unlimited love.

>>616864
So a behavior a bunch of animals display scaled up to infinity

>>616864
For all I care this could just be plain old mania, not that you believe in psychology :^)
Anyone who gets deep into the wank of introspection and emotional self-indulgence can convince themselves they've entered mystical states. It's the Christian equivalent of New Age bullshit.

>>616827
Chimps and other great apes have an empathic reflex and a sense of fairness much like ours. If you give a chimp two candies, often it will try to share one with you.

I don't know where you religious morons get off saying human empathy is magical, it's just an extension of what already exists in the animal kingdom.

>>616878
Not really, since agape is not a hormonal love.

File: 6564565436.jpg (69KB, 640x364px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 640x364px

He simply Is.

Don't be afraid.

Love.

his 'purpose' is self-directed -- he wants to dwell within us

>>617085
And where do you get off saying there's such a thing as love that doesn't exist as a brain state?

>>617085
>
Proof? I don't even disagree with you, I think animals (which we are one) can act from influences other than purely hormones, and that love isn't purely hormonal, that doesn't mean that love is unconditional, or that 'unconditional' is just semantics.

>>617100
I'm not saying it doesn't, I'm saying brain state known as "love" is far from identical from the spiritual state known as "love", though they can be highly complementary. English doesn't have distinguishing terms (we used to, "charity" meant the spiritual state, but its meaning today is basically giving money to people--see Johnson's dictionary, giving money is only the fourth definition of Charity), so it's more difficult to express.

>>617110
Isn't just semantics*

>>617110
You want material proof for the spiritual? You have to cultivate spiritual capacity first, or else it's like proving colors to the blind

>>617081
Do you think that gift giving is an extension of sharing food?

>>617100
>>616644

>he thinks material vestiges of love is what love actually is at the metaphysical level
We didn't created love, m8, we can only perceive/feel something that always existed in reality.

>>617121
>didn't create
Fixed.

>>617112
>spiritual state known as "love"
Define spiritual, define love.

>>617121
We didn't create love, that's for sure, but all the evidence points to it being a basic property of social animals.

>always existed
Really? Did it exist in the quark soup of the early universe?

>>617118
Well honestly, i've experienced manic states as >>616937 mentions, this is undeniably a 'spiritual experience' as least in my opinion. Why is it impossible for spirituality to be material?

>>617120
Yes. It's an extension of "want" from something basic like sustenance, to a more complex commodity.

>>617141
And I might be mentioning it flippantly, but it was by far the most significant experience in my life.

>>617140
>Define spiritual, define love.
"Spiritual" is the non-material dimension of reality.

Love is the spiritual force which sustains reality, as oxygen is to our survival, love is to everything, except more so since nothing could exist without being sustained by love constantly, not even for an instance. Love is the root sustainer, the linchpin of everything.

>>617140
>basic property of social animals
Yes, and it has special properties in human beings, because we can perceive reality in a higher state of being.

>Did it exist in the quark soup of the early universe?
Before it. It is eternal, just like God.

>>617151
>"Spiritual" is the non-material dimension of reality.
And now provide evidence there is such a thing.

>Love is the spiritual force which sustains reality, as oxygen is to our survival, love is to everything, except more so since nothing could exist without being sustained by love constantly, not even for an instance. Love is the root sustainer, the linchpin of everything.
Same for this.

>>617141
As the Way of the Pilgrim mentions, manic states are going to be encountered in spiritual searches, either from epiphanies or the intoxication of discipline, but they aren't the same thing as spiritual bliss. They will probably appear so to the novice, though.

The spiritual and the material are two different dimensions. They are complementary, but not synonymous. But to try to exclude the material is Gnostic, whereas trying to exclude the spiritual as Masonic.

>>617156
What would qualify as such evidence, for you?

>>617154
>because we can perceive reality in a higher state of being

What is a higher state of being? is it a different yet subjectively better state of being (i'd argue that it being subjective is correct, yet as a hypocrite agree with what you're saying)

>>617154
>Yes, and it has special properties in human beings, because we can perceive reality in a higher state of being.
What are these special properties you speak of?

You do understand that as much as our social interactions are more complex than an ape's, an ape's capacity for social experience is more complex than a lion's, and so on?

I don't see where's the justification for saying
>wolf packs have more complicated social bonds than rabbits, that's perfectly explainable
>chimps have more complicated social bonds than wolves, that's perfectly explainable
>humans have more complicated social bonds than chimps, therefore magic

>Before it. It is eternal, just like God.
Prove it.

>>617156
>>617166

You're an illiterate. Get a fucking education, or stop talking about things you compeltely ignore.

I will not translate all religious or philosophical terms just for an autist, empirist faggot like you. If you are blind, it's impossible to explain exactly what seeing is like.

>>617156
I don't know mate, I'm not the one proposing ludicrous claims.

>>617168
How can you talk to people like this, but claim to have spiritual sight? Such words are as jarring as nails on a chalkboard to utter, for one who has any spiritual sense.

>>617169
meant for >>617159

>>617168
Bald assertions and emotional appeals are completely vapid. Provide proof or fuck off.
>M-M-MUH UNFOUNDED METAPHYSICS
The universe created for me, after I die I'm going back to the fifth dimension and you're all going to rot and consciously feel it.

you can't define love the same as you can't define pain, it's a feeling and you have to experience it

>>617169
You have to know, since what evidence is sufficient for me is not necessarily sufficient for you, after all.

tell me what pain feels like assuming i have never felt it before, you can't get much further then it hurts

>>617177
I'll know if it's sufficient or not as you propose it.

>>617183
That's not going to be productive for either of us, and could go on and on and on without my knowing what to look for

File: 1353553864740.png (63KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 400x400px

>>616375
That's shit, though.
I have a problem with the discussion simply being locked away and not compared to other systems of belief in philosophy. Giving certain forms of philosophy their own board seems like a way to simply lock away real discussion simply because some people are shitposters on the topic and some others disdain the topic in principle. This has nothing to do with trying to proselytize, this is just giving religious belief systems and same room as other belief systems.
Fuck you for wanting to lock that shit away. You know damn well thats not going to benefit discussion at large. Thats just going to make a containment board so to lock any serious discussion on the matter away from other boards that would otherwise have them.

I get there are shitposters on the topic but giving shitposters a room does not make less shitposters. /pol/ should prove that to you already.

>>617190
If you believe something, you have to have reasons for it. Your reasons are about as close to evidence as we're going to get.

You can't honestly expect me to tell you in advance what the evidence for an abstract concept "existing" in some form should be.

>>617173
Spirituality has nothing to do with social norms. To offend stupid people is to help them.

>>617174
The only unfounded thing here is your stupid materialistic belief. Don't be afraid, truth can find a way to tear down your walls
.
But ok, I will try to explain it to you:

>What are these special properties you speak of?
Humans have free-will, and free-will is what makes true love being true.
Humans can willfully choose to be determined by higher instances of reality.


It's not about being "complicated'', it's about being real, and we humans have a more intimate relationship with reality than irrational animals.

>>617198
Well, yes, I experience in a very real sense. As real as experiencing my own existence.

>>617200
>Spirituality has nothing to do with social norms. To offend stupid people is to help them.
Matthew 5:22

>>617207
Shut the fuck up, protestant scum.
Fake moralism is where the devil hides.

>>617158
That's an interesting interpretation, and form me it certainly felt blissful for about 4 days before transitioning into an alternating state between blissful and hellish for about 2 weeks. obviously i'm more stem biased, but there were the physiological effects such as having 'unlimited' energy, as in waking up and not being tired at all and only sleeping because I felt it was better to sleep than not, as opposed to being tired. also the dilated pupils to dimensions similar to psychedelic drugs, whilst being completely sober.

>But to try to exclude the material is Gnostic, whereas trying to exclude the spiritual as Masonic.

I don't agree with this dichotomy however.

>>617213
For me*

>>617213
This isn't a dichotomy. The point is that the material is a gift from God, a toy almost. It is not something to be shunned. Your body is as much "you" as your spirit is.

>>617200
>Spirituality has nothing to do with social norms. To offend stupid people is to help them.
Spirituality is an ill-defined term that means different things for different people, but that aside people, insulting a genuinely stupid person is not going to help anything if the person is incapable of rational thought.

>The only unfounded thing here is your stupid materialistic belief. Don't be afraid, truth can find a way to tear down your walls
Materialism, not as the end-all-be-all, but as the basis for existence, is perfectly well founded. If you want to assert something other than the material, the existence of which I do not deny with absolute certainty, by the way, you have to provide evidence for it. Mere assertion is not enough.

If you think it's enough, refer back to me being a fifth-dimensional being that decided to create and intersect with this four-dimensional universe, and how you in particular are not looking at a happy life after death.

>Humans have free-will, and free-will is what makes true love being true.
Three problems with this:
-Nothing has free will because free will is an incoherent concept. Not just empirically, it's literally logically unsound.
-If humans have free will, I don't see your justification that animals don't.
-A higher instance of reality is word salad. Define it, and then give evidence why these human delusions have any mapping to reality.

>It's not about being "complicated'', it's about being real, and we humans have a more intimate relationship with reality than irrational animals.
We have a firmer grasp on reality, that much we can agree on.

>>617207
Schizophrenic people experience demons, this isn't good evidence they exist. Try again.

>>617225
Do you consider your experience of yourself, valid evidence that you exist?

>>617221
>Spirituality is an ill-defined term that means different things for different people, but that aside people, insulting a genuinely stupid person is not going to help anything if the person is incapable of rational thought.
We should burn them. Saying harsh words is being charitable.

I will not talk to you anymore, because you don't deserve it, and because you simply deny the real world.

Matter can't create itself, it was created by another order of reality.

>>617217
How can you claim to know that the best interpretation of spiritual states is through a christian (let alone orthodox christian) perspective and that any possible understanding (if an understanding is even possible at all, even for a hypothetical God figure) would likely be restricted to the currently developed understandings of the 'spiritual' aspect of humanity.

>>617141
Just because something felt profound to you, doesn't mean it was beamed into your head from some spooky ghost dimension. Real wisdom is clear and concise, not some vague feeling of sublimity brought about by religious roleplaying, mental illness or drugs that you can write 100,000 rambling nonsense words about.

>>617236
Well, I consider Jesus Christ to be God, so I think he'd be the expert.

>>617234
>you simply deny the real world
Mate, I'm not the one asserting extra dimensions and refusing to provide proof for it.

>Matter can't create itself, it was created by another order of reality.
Who said anything about creation?

>you don't deserve it
I am unworthy! Woe is me!

>>617230
Yes.

>>617243
>Yes.
Do you think someone could convince you that your existence is an illusion?

>>617230
That's a universal experience. Not comparable.

>>617239
>beamed into your head from some spooky ghost dimension

I don't claim this at all, I'm an atheist, metal illness is the most likely explanation. Yet the understanding i had before this experience does seem more immature compared to afterwards (btw i was pretty fucked up for like a year and a half following this). But I think that the manic experience may have some relation to the origin of many other religions and the origin of their beliefs, do you think that neurotransmitters play a role in mental states and that a temporary influx might not result in epiphanies and 'bliss'. Is everybody who ever mentions this making it up?

>>617252
Your existence and consciousness is not a universal experience, it is peculiar to you.

>>617249
If you mean existence as in temporal existence, then yes. All it would take is to prove that the entirety of spacetime of our universe is a static image in the fifth dimension. That would mean the passage of time is an illusion.

If you mean existence period, then I can hardly think of how to disprove it. Even if the universe is a four-dimensional image, I would exist as a part of it.

>>617243
Everything that exists in the material or physical world is a perfect image of the metaphysical dimension. Love is only an example.

The more you understand that, the firmer you grasp on reality. But you're naturally too afraid of some magic words because you was hacked (by other magic words), like most people was.

>>617260
How can you be such a dipshit? I meant experience and consciousness is a universal experience (inb4 you try to argue there are p-zombies running around). Not that my own is. Goddamn, are you fucking defective in the head? Is this just a product of the mental gymnastics you had to put yourself through to think Orthodoxy is the objective truth?

>>617270
No, actually, everything exists because I created it. Then I inhabited this body just to live a life for shits and giggles because hyperdimensional existence is boring.

>>617278
Actually, you are a bunch of matter put in a certain order, and then magic happens. This order is not sustained by matter itself, for it's eternal.

>>617286
What you think is order is merely my will, puny human. I could put you into disorder if I didn't find you so amusing.

>>617288
You woud be right, if you were God.

>>617292
>would be
I am many gods.

>>617298
Can you resurrect?

>>617301
I could if I wanted to, but human life is already boring me so I'll probably make some other universe to live in after this one.

>>613616

You mean the Demiurge or Pleroma?

>>617259
>I don't claim this at all, I'm an atheist, metal illness is the most likely explanation. Yet the understanding i had before this experience does seem more immature compared to afterwards (btw i was pretty fucked up for like a year and a half following this). But I think that the manic experience may have some relation to the origin of many other religions and the origin of their beliefs, do you think that neurotransmitters play a role in mental states and that a temporary influx might not result in epiphanies and 'bliss'.

So it wasn't really "spiritual" at all, it was mental. Of course mental experiences can lead to enlightenment. I'm not saying there is zero wisdom to come from religion, just that the whole kit and caboodle comes with some more questionable notions like the aforementioned ghost dimension.

Being atheist isn't mutually exclusive with spirituality, by the way. I think 50% of Sweden believes in spirits, despite being over 80% atheist. Atheism does not mean monist materialism.

>Is everybody who ever mentions this making it up?

You seem to be questioning the veracity of it yourself. Why don't you have the same doubt with everyday experiences, like seeing a tree?

Yes, I do believe falsehoods can persist across millions of different people throughout centuries of history. I would be stupid not to. Just because a type of mental experience is frequent doesn't mean it represents some mystic truth. Everyone has dreams, but this doesn't imply the reality of some Lovecraftian dream dimension.

>>617328
>So it wasn't really "spiritual" at all, it was mental

I was using spiritual in the secular meaning, I don't think there is any supernatural dimension in the slightest, definition related everything that occurs is natural , not supernatural. Just that extreme subjective experiences can occur, whilst simultaneously not being explained established by religious/theistic ideas.

>>617267
I mean your sense of self

File: HP-Lovecraft-DeathDay.jpg (110KB, 510x765px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 510x765px

>>617275
Just ignore the shitposting slav. As a result of his ancestors being raped by Asiatic hordes, his mongoloid admixture manifests today as superstitious thinking. Similar to the effects of negroid genetic remnants turning Irishmen into alcoholic perma-pagans that speak in degenerate poetry.

>>617342
Mindfulness meditation disproves some part of it, I guess. It depends on what you mean.

>>617275
What truthful rebuke did you just righteously utter of me, you worthiest of souls? I’ll have you know I failed God to the deepest of the pit in my class of worldly sinners, and I’ve been involved in numerous shameful transgressions on God's forgiveness, and I have over 300 confirmed faults. I am depraved in wicked thoughts and I’m the top coveter in the entire legions of the damned. I am nothing to thee but just another Satan. I will praise you to heaven and back with the most contrite of hearts the likes of which has been seen all too often from the sinner, mark my unworthy lips. You think you can serve away with your words of wisdom to me over the Internet? God bless, brother. As we speak I am contacting my holy communion of saints across heaven and your love is being traced right now so you better prepare for the Theosis, militant. The mercy that sustains the shining little thing you call your soul. You’re God's gift, kid. I can be all things at all times to all men, and I can bow to you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just while kissing your hand. Not only am I extensively corrupted by unnameable vileness, but I have betrayed to the entire covenant of the Orthodox Body of Christ, and I will plead her to her full benevolence to sanctify your virtuous spirit off the face of the lie, you little star. If only you could have known what holy gratitude your little “meek” correction was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have blessed your benign tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re reaping the harvest, you God fearing joy. I will weep thanks all over you and you will drown in it. You've found life, kiddo.

>>617340
>I was using spiritual in the secular meaning, I don't think there is any supernatural dimension in the slightest

There is no such thing as spirituality without supernatural elements. At best, that's philosophy with obfuscating metaphors, like referring to consciousness as the "soul".

>Just that extreme subjective experiences can occur, whilst simultaneously not being explained established by religious/theistic ideas.

I'm not denying the existence of extreme subjective experiences, although I would question what qualifies as "extreme". Religious ideas add no real explanatory content to this psychological framework, and often actually harm further knowledge because they openly embrace cognitive biases and fixed beliefs that muddle introspection and encourage "draw evidence for preconceive conclusions" assbackwards fuckery.

>>617342
I've had my sense of self completely erased by hallucinogens, albeit temporarily. While I don't usually think there is wisdom in such experiences, I find it hard to believe a resilient soul-self could be so easily overridden by chemical intoxication.

>>617360
Spiritual sense is hampered by hamartia, that is why many people are blind to God to begin with

>>617355
Nice. you seriously made my night with that. I still prefer the version of that copypasta that was about men cooking.

Also, I shouldn't have been so rude there. I think it should have been at least reasonable to assume I wasn't implying that my own inner experiences are universal, as that would be fundamentally absurd, just that inner experience is something everyone experiences.

>>617366
>I just think*

I feel that's necessarily to properly convey my sentiment there.

>>617366
But could you drugged to such an extent that it would be inaccessible to you, such as with
>>617360
?

>>617363
I don't agree, but let's say I give you the benefit of the doubt. Why did God make human souls so flimsy? Considering the only sinless human was literally his Son, who was also God. I mean, it just seems like he set his spiritual standards ridiculously high compared to the capacity of his creation.

>>617357
>consciousness as the "soul"

This is exactly what I meant. It's just that rather than excluding a particular term based on definitions I'd rather try to recognise the similarity, instead of exacerbating the distance between the ideas.

I'm highly opposed to creationism being involved with the teaching of evolution for example though.

>>617355
I really like this.

>>617382
>This is exactly what I meant. It's just that rather than excluding a particular term based on definitions I'd rather try to recognise the similarity, instead of exacerbating the distance between the ideas.

The only similarity is that they both believe in consciousness, but the monist and dualist concept of it is entirely different. The word "soul" comes with so many implications and supernatural baggage that using it synonymously in such a manner is really just obfuscating, as evidenced by the fact that I had to ask you for clarification.

>I'm highly opposed to creationism being involved with the teaching of evolution for example though.

What you're doing is analogous to referring to biological evolution as "creation", because it lead to the origin of existing species.

>>617378
>But could you drugged to such an extent that it would be inaccessible to you, such as with

Maybe, but that's certainly not the default.

>>617379
It's not exactly that he set his standards ridiculously high. Hamartia is juridical but only applied to oneself (that is, you should see yourself as a criminal, but the general idea of it and applied to other people, it shouldn't be considered in such terms). Hamartia is lie, it's deception (Satan is the father of it). So it's not so much that God is so demanding, it's that lie veils truth, and God is pure truth. But God cannot be dimmed, the veil is just a deception. The standards of truth are truth, it can't bear a "little deception", not because it's too harsh, but just because lie and truth don't mix (although Satan will try to mix them to confuse people, that is what heresies are, after all, distorted truth--The Master and Margarita is a great book to grasp the nature of Satan and sin as fundamentally lie that tricks people into believing it is the truth).

>>617387
God bless.

>>617397
No, but from a Christian perspective, the fall sort of makes that the default when it comes to the spiritual.

>>617393
>What you're doing is analogous to referring to biological evolution as "creation", because it lead to the origin of existing species

No because abiogenisis isn't evolutionary theory. I only mentioned this because I went to a protestant creationist school, where many terms were mistakenly assumed to be synonymous with others. the origin of life is largely unrelated to the process of evolution which occurs after life originates.

File: 20150228_112037.jpg (2MB, 2560x1920px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2560x1920px

I need your help to translate this message. I've found it in the Nietzsche's tomb

>>615136
>If you aren't frightened, you aren't grasping the mystery

Don't impose your own limitations on others.