>>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
>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.
>>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.
>>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?
>>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.
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 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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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?
>>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.
>>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?
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
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.
>>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.
>>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).
>>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.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.