[John]

Well said Levi, but do everything for the Lord. If you are in the dishwasher or bed making businesses make the best one you can and be honorable in your business. Stand behind your product and results because people will observe you and if you are honorable, you will affect others in a Godly way. Be a Godly example for everything you do and your actions will be noted by others and will have an effect on eternity.

[Levi]

Thank you!

[Ebby (Christian)]

Agreed, well said! I agree with you too, John.

• This reply was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by  Ebby (Christian).

[Levi]

Thank you.

[Mammal]

Imo God will not last beyond the human tendency to believe. Having said that I am keen to see how AI deals with it.. I may be wrong if AI also converts..

[Levi]

Can you unpack that a little?

[Mammal]

The way I look at it, God has always been a concept formed by man’s beliefs. Our ancestors at some point in our evolutionary past started to believe in the supernatural, at some later point the people of ancient Mesopotamia had developed a religion whereby they all believed in the same pantheon of gods and mythology. There is evidence in the Bible, as numerous scholars have since identified, that the Yahweh of the OT, the creation and flood narratives all had their origins in, or were inspired by this earlier set of beliefs and myths. The Jesus religion was obviously founded on the premise that Yahweh was the almighty God and that Jesus was an extension of that (without going into the details of how this relationship was subsequently defined by Nicean Christianity).

It is clear, to me at least, and by looking at ancient Mesopotamian, Hebrew, later Jewish and Christian beliefs, even Islam, that these were brought about by the development and branching of human schools of religious thought.

Assuming this is true, God is a product of said human schools of thought and God’s existence is tied to how long such a school of thought would last (this is evident from the disappearance of once revered gods of the past).

Seeing that personal beliefs are said to be a product of how one’s genetic make-up interacts with one’s environment and that there currently exist very strong AI algorithms predicting and feeding on- and from human alliances (meta groups with similar preferences and beliefs), it is possible that AI might be influenced by their human counterparts and that should a next gen AI emerge with its own “conscious” mind, it may follow this religious trend. This is the interesting and yet unknown part of it.

[Levi]

So this is related to what I posted?

[Mammal]

It is. Both within the grey area of what was implied by what you posted, and at least one part thereof on a very direct level. Let’s just say I was stretching your cognitive comfort zone somewhat, which is why you asked, twice. Clear sign we are going to talk past each other, so best we stop. I am happy to do that. All the best.

• This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by  Mammal.

[Levi]

Can you state your point in one sentence? I would like to be able to respond to that.

[Mammal]

When I did, you asked me to unpack. When I unpacked you failed to see the point. When I opted out, you asked to compact it again. It is either cognitive dissonance, or trolling. Either way, let’s rather end it. Cheers.

[Levi]

So God is an imaginary story? Why do you believe that? How can you know?

[Mammal]

Thank you for reading my post. I did, however, not rule out God altogether. I said that man’s God, iow mostly the God of religion, is probably not real – and I gave reasons for why I hold that opinion.

You argued that only things that will continue forever is worth of honor, that these things are probably all immaterial as everything material will cease to exist, that even nature’s tenure has been cut short by the fall.

I disagree. All that stems from your particular worldview, which is driven by a rather fundamental religious belief. Which I don’t share.

I don’t think nature will cease to exist. Earth will, our sun, our galaxy will. We will. Not (all) the information though, and not nature. So I am convinced that materialism, and naturalism in the sense that there is nothing supernatural, will continue to exist in one shape or the other. If there is a God, then that God can only be along pantheistic lines.

PS. I am pre-empting a response along the lines of your beliefs vs mine, whoever is right is subject to personal opinion. You believe you are right .. because the Bible say so, or something like that.

Difference between our opinions is that I could insert the words “to the best of our knowledge” (meaning this is the stuff that we study at school, college and university) infront of what I claimed, but not with yours.

• This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by  Mammal.

[Levi]

“Thank you for reading my post.”

You’re welcome.

“I did, however, not rule out God altogether. I said that man’s God, iow mostly the God of religion, is probably not real – and I gave reasons for why I hold that opinion.”

You said “man’s God”. Does that mean you ruled out man’s religions (with pictures of God)? I hope I got that right.

“You argued that only things that will continue forever is worth of honor…All that stems from your particular worldview, which is driven by a rather fundamental religious belief. Which I don’t share.”

I know that. I was just giving that mainly to Christians. By the way, what is the “fundamental religious belief” you are talking about?

“Not (all) the information though, and not nature. So I am convinced that materialism, and naturalism in the sense that there is nothing supernatural, will continue to exist in one shape or the other. If there is a God, then that God can only be along pantheistic lines.”

So, in your worldview, no one will survive but matter will?

“PS. I am pre-empting a response along the lines of your beliefs vs mine, whoever is right is subject to personal opinion. You believe you are right .. because the Bible say so, or something like that.”

That depends if the Bible is trustworthy. But yes…it is your worldview vs. my worldview. How about you? How do you define “honor”?

[Mammal]

Let’s just say I share many of Spinoza’s views about God (of man / religion and of nature).

I actually wrote that nature and most of the information might remain. Nature is not only matter, but okay, at its most fundamental level it is some form of informational energy material. This could become a rather complicated discussion, which I don’t want to bore you with.

If you believe the Bible is the ultimate truth that should shape our knowledge (like the age of Earth), you are a fundamentalist (Bible) believer, the same as e.g. a Muslim sharia law fundamentalist. There is little point in having meaningful discussions when we are so far apart.

PS. As for honor, what is worthy of honor? I actually agree with you. We only differ about the kind of things that will outlast us.

• This reply was modified 1 month ago by  Mammal.

[Levi]

“PS. As for honor, what is worthy of honor? I actually agree with you. We
only differ about the kind of things that will outlast us.”

I’m glad we agree on what is worthy of honor. I’ll need to understand something from you: Did you say what would outlast us? Was it nature and the universe?

[Fred]

“Saving people from starvation, saving people from deadly diseases, etc.
Why? Because they will live forever when they die (I’m a Christian). If
we save lives, like those in the womb, we make a difference for
eternity.”

According to your Christian belief, people who die from starvation will also live forever – so the mere fact that someone extended their earthly life doesn’t meet your definition of honor (“Honor is doing something that will last beyond this world”).

[Levi]

I don’t believe people will starve forever–unless you’re talking about conditions in Hell.

[jayceeii]

It seems as if you have no problems, unless God has a nose for flattery. In that case He might steer a wide path around all this.

I go biking in the country, and going past certain farms the stench from manure can become unbearable. I wouldn’t want to live in those places.

Yet what you exhibit here, hubris in the extreme, is also found in the extant world religions, with their pomp and circumstance. They think they’ve got God in a corner.

[Levi]

What are you saying? How is this relevant to what I said?

[jayceeii]

There’s nothing but pomp and emptiness in anything you said, although this is also the typical situation in the extant religions. You chuck a little food at some starving ones and expect God to accept this as a virtuous life. You have no real plan to address any problem.

Honor to you looks like hypocrisy to me, in other words. Like other Christians you ask WWJD? and then do what you would do. Give an example of what you think will last forever. As Fred began to point out, feeding some of the hungry merely changes bodies.

[Levi]

It keeps them alive, helping us to share the gospel with them.

[jayceeii]

Indeed such is my complaint, Christian charity is similar to how animals are treated. But humans need more than the crust of bread you toss to a dog. You’d make them slaves.

[Levi]

First, you are complaining about us sharing the gospel? Don’t think so. No, you are complaining about our “crust-of-bread” charity.

Do you know we do much more? Look at Feed My Starving Children, SEAPC, and others you can find. What do we do? Not a crust of bread. If you can, please don’t downgrade that.

Finally, what is meant that “we’d make them slaves”?

[jayceeii]

I don’t complain about sharing the gospel, only that it’s not enough for a civilized world. You do what Jesus set you to doing, and which the Holy Spirit supports within your minds. Nonetheless the Christian standards don’t reach God’s lowest threshold for intelligent entities. For charity to be charitable the whole life of every earnest worker must be supported. “Crust of bread” points with derision at mere food offerings, as these feed the body but neglect medical and dental care, shelter, and education, all things everyone supplies to their children, which is as close as humans come to loving someone as themselves. The early disciples upheld this standard, but it only went about two yards.

As I’ve said I’d expect minimally that some church would be an economic sanctuary to its members, but only the Hutterites come close. I thus say no Christian churches are acceptable in my sight. I laugh when I hear that song, “They will know we are Christians by our love,” since the most rudimentary marks of loving, supporting the neighbor’s joy, are totally missing. Jesus asked you to love one another as He has loved you, but why doesn’t anyone accept God wanted all in human bodies to have all of life’s necessities? The slavery business is you make it demeaning to be poor, wanting to see them begging at your feet so that you can be proud to give them some bread and think you win Heaven.

[Levi]

“Crust of bread” points with derision at mere food offerings, as these feed the body but neglect medical and dental care, shelter, and education, all things everyone supplies to their children, which is as close as humans come to loving someone as themselves.”

There is more than bread that is offered. There are organization giving medical care, shelter, and education. For the education part, check out SEAPC. They are in Cambodia, and what their goal is for the country: Education, parenting, economic development, and healthcare. There are organizations out there, Jay, you just have to look.

“I laugh when I hear that song, “They will know we are Christians by our love,” since the most rudimentary marks of loving, supporting the neighbor’s joy, are totally missing.”

Is that song by Jason Upton? If so, I have heard that.

You are right, Jay. Love is missing. Where is our love? You know what, Jay, we can help do that very thing if you want. Give tips.

“Jesus asked you to love one another as He has loved you, but why doesn’t anyone accept God wanted all in human bodies to have all of life’s necessities? The slavery business is you make it demeaning to be poor, wanting to see them begging at your feet so that you can be proud to give them some bread and think you win Heaven.”

I know. Many Christians aren’t Christians. I will work on that too.

All love starts with loving God, who is love. Once we love him, we love his creation. When we love his creation, we help his creation.

[jayceeii]

JC1: “Crust of bread” points with derision at mere food offerings, as these feed the body but neglect medical and dental care, shelter, and education, all things everyone supplies to their children, which is as close as humans come to loving someone as themselves.”

LV: There is more than bread that is offered. There are organization giving medical care, shelter, and education. For the education part, check out SEAPC. They are in Cambodia, and what their goal is for the country: Education, parenting, economic development, and healthcare. There are organizations out there, Jay, you just have to look.

JC2: You act as if you are someone desperate to convince me there is some genuine good in Christianity, so that I might intercede for you with the Invisible God at Judgment, like Abraham saying, “Hold off, I see some who are justified.” But you are not rising that high. The programs like you describe which Christians develop are done to flatter God, not to actually eliminate poverty. You do just enough to think you’ve met the law’s letter. In particular here, there will be many poor persons, facing eviction and bankruptcy, in the very congregations that are sending aid to foreign countries since it is very cheap to do so. Christian charity does not begin at home, with the very ones Jesus said to love. If all the local congregations are secure the whole world is secure; instead it is all just flattery.

Although I stated my standard your mind was unable to interpret or integrate it. I’ll repeat it, but you still will look with blind eyes, your mind unable to conform to its words. For charity to be charitable the whole life of every earnest worker must be supported. Show me the Christian church where you can show up with no money but an earnest desire to work and know that the people will treat you as well as they treat their children, meeting every physical need, then I would intercede. The Hutterites are close, but not quite there.

JC1: “I laugh when I hear that song, “They will know we are Christians by our love,” since the most rudimentary marks of loving, supporting the neighbor’s joy, are totally missing.”

LV: Is that song by Jason Upton? If so, I have heard that.

JC2: It is a very old song Christians chant around campfires, but feeling no love thereby. This is what Jesus warned against, hypocrisy, words of love with no reality behind them.

LV: You are right, Jay. Love is missing. Where is our love? You know what, Jay, we can help do that very thing if you want. Give tips.

JC2: This is the attitude alright, take the lion’s share of money for yourself and donate a little off the top, saying, “Every drop in the bucket counts.” The real aphorism should have been, “Too tiny drops no buckets fill.” God is left holding the “bucket” of the poor.

JC1: “Jesus asked you to love one another as He has loved you, but why doesn’t anyone accept God wanted all in human bodies to have all of life’s necessities? The slavery business is you make it demeaning to be poor, wanting to see them begging at your feet so that you can be proud to give them some bread and think you win Heaven.”

LV: I know. Many Christians aren’t Christians. I will work on that too.

JC2: There are no justified churches, nor Christian individuals, in my sight. Say what you want, but I’m looking for actions which prove the people actually care about one another.

LV: All love starts with loving God, who is love. Once we love him, we love his creation. When we love his creation, we help his creation.

JC2: Hypocrisy, hypocrisy, hypocrisy, words without action. Put a sign by a manure pit, “This is sure some sweet-smelling stuff.” Instead the pit deserves a warning to stay away.

[Levi]

JC2: …The programs like you describe which Christians develop are done to flatter God, not to actually eliminate poverty. LV2: That’s interesting. Why do you believe that?

JC2: For charity to be charitable the whole life of every earnest worker must be supported. Show me the Christian church where you can show up with no money but an earnest desire to work and know that the people will treat you as well as they treat their children, meeting every physical need, then I would intercede. LV2: The standard: Charity is the desire to work and know people will treat you well, since (you or someone else?) are meeting every physical need. Did I get that right?

JC2: This is the attitude alright, take the lion’s share of money for yourself and donate a little off the top, saying, “Every drop in the bucket counts.” The real aphorism should have been, “Too tiny drops no buckets fill.” God is left holding the “bucket” of the poor. LV2: So maybe Christians should donate more? Is that the point? Or is it that Christians should give more out of their savings?

JC2: There are no justified churches, nor Christian individuals, in my sight. Say what you want, but I’m looking for actions which prove the people actually care about one another. LV2: Then look online. Look for something. If you can’t, I’ll try. If nothing from any of us, then you are correct. Want the challenge?

LV: All love starts with loving God, who is love. Once we love him, we love his creation. When we love his creation, we help his creation.

JC2: Hypocrisy, hypocrisy, hypocrisy, words without action. Put a sign by a manure pit, “This is sure some sweet-smelling stuff.” Instead the pit deserves a warning to stay away. LV2: I was only giving the right way to have love. Not that everyone does it.

[John]

Levi, you are debating with atheists that have no desire to learn the truth. They have their baseless opinions and will not vary from them. Opinions are great….as long as people sharing their opinions with others are open and eager to listen to other opinions and review their supporting data. Opinions, whether political, theological, or focused on some other subject, are not the truth–they are what a person believes to be true.

Opinions can be proven to be right or wrong–but only with open minds. An open-minded person with an opinion should be given the opportunity to support their claim. However, it is impossible to have an intelligent conversation or debate with closed minded people, and their opinions are worthless.

[jayceeii]

@Jaz

I take this post as a keepsake, proving every closed mind regards itself to be fully open. You for instance are not open to the fallacy you commit, begging the question regarding the opinions of atheists. You presume these are baseless, but your opinions are baseless too. Apply this to yourself now, for it fits. Admit you don’t have the truth, or can’t prove it.

Opinions, whether political, theological, or focused on some other subject, are not the truth–they are what a person believes to be true.

Even when you categorize all “close-minded people” as having “worthless” opinions, you show a lack of discrimination. Better scholars have said there is often some truth in every opinion, and this is what can make untangling them difficult, not a simplistic task as you say. And what is your standard of a “closed mind,” but someone who won’t agree with you?

[John]

More baseless opinions from an atheist. Facts are that the Gospels claim Jesus resurrected. Nobody but God can resurrect a dead body. Jesus claimed he was God and he resurrected himself. These are all recorded in the Gospel of John, but it could be considered an opinion. John stated in his Gospel that he wrote his testimony (John 21:24). That’s an eyewitness statement not an opinion.

What do you have that reputes an eyewitness account and statement? Facts please….

[jayceeii]

@Jaz

You posit a scenario where open minds can convince each other, but the forum is not such a situation. You then accuse those whom you cannot convince of having closed minds, as they accuse you of having a closed mind. It seems open-mindedness as you define it is not enough. The atheists can step in too, but here you show yourself closed-minded by failing to admit you have a secondhand account, which is not real evidence like a video might be. For your closed mind, “someone wrote it down” is convincing, when it is not.

You don’t really know that God can resurrect a body. You have a secondhand account of such a claim, no more. Today the internet is flooded by secondhand accounts of such things as UFOs and yetis. Your doctrine is that if someone wrote it down, it must be true. Or perhaps you are convinced by the crowd of Christian believers, but Sai Baba in India has his crowds too, fanatically claiming he was God embodied, and doing miracles too. It is all too easy to punch holes in your ideas but your closed mind can’t see these are holes.

[John]

“You posit a scenario where open minds can convince each other, but the forum is not such a situation.”

***What?? You try to convince others that the atheists have all the answers and Jesus is a phony story, then you claim this forum is not about open minds convincing each other. Get real.

“You then accuse those whom you cannot convince of having closed minds, as they accuse you of having a closed mind.”

***I never stated you had a closed mind. I don’t know even know you. But I do know the facts of Jesus you dispute.

“The atheists can step in too, but here you show yourself closed-minded by failing to admit you have a secondhand account, which is not real evidence like a video might be.”

***Where’s the data to prove it’s a secondhand account? The proof is on you, not me. The writing in it proves that it’s an eyewitness statement.

“You don’t really know that God can resurrect a body.”

***Where is the evidence that anyone else can resurrect a person?

“…but Sai Baba in India has his crowds too, fanatically claiming he was God embodied, and doing miracles too.”

***Like I said, I’m open to facts. What data do you have supporting Sai Baba’s claim? I’ll be glad to take a look at it.

[jayceeii]

JC1: “You posit a scenario where open minds can convince each other, but the forum is not such a situation.”

JN: ***What?? You try to convince others that the atheists have all the answers and Jesus is a phony story, then you claim this forum is not about open minds convincing each other. Get real.

JC2: I’ve stated repeatedly I’m not here to convince, instead to investigate the truth. Over my years here I have never seen anyone admit he was wrong, or concede to an argument.

The atheists and theists are poised across a divide that says more about man than truth. Each has the germ of a good argument, but the devil is in the details they can’t get past.

JC1: “You then accuse those whom you cannot convince of having closed minds, as they accuse you of having a closed mind.”

JN: ***I never stated you had a closed mind. I don’t know even know you. But I do know the facts of Jesus you dispute.

JC2: You called me an atheist, and said the opinions of atheists are baseless and worthless. You demonstrate just what I said, undue reverence for secondhand accounts. Here is why you can’t get across to anyone, you believe in a secondhand account which doesn’t gibe with what science has found or what anyone experiences in everyday life.

JC1: “The atheists can step in too, but here you show yourself closed-minded by failing to admit you have a secondhand account, which is not real evidence like a video might be.”

JN: ***Where’s the data to prove it’s a secondhand account? The proof is on you, not me. The writing in it proves that it’s an eyewitness statement.

JC2: This is the fog in your mind, deciding since someone claimed to be an eyewitness, it is equivalent to video footage. The proof is on you yetis and UFOs don’t exist by this line of reasoning, since many have recorded testimony claiming to be eyewitnesses to these. Many have recorded testimony of Sai Baba’s supposed miracles, so prove them wrong! In all this you still say you have an open mind though giving objective signs of a closed one.

JC1: “You don’t really know that God can resurrect a body.”

JN: ***Where is the evidence that anyone else can resurrect a person?

JC2: My point is that it is impossible for God too. You don’t know He can do this. If God can’t do it of course none of His creatures can. The same goes for any claimed occult power, as humans vainly imagine clairvoyance and teleportation. If God can’t, none can.

JC1: “…but Sai Baba in India has his crowds too, fanatically claiming he was God embodied, and doing miracles too.”

JN: ***Like I said, I’m open to facts. What data do you have supporting Sai Baba’s claim? I’ll be glad to take a look at it.

JC2: Here is personal testimony from 23 people who happened to post on Quora, sounding more or less exactly like the testimony from the Bible:

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-miracles-of-Sai-Baba-in-your-life

Here is a link describing the documentation, and listing a book where some are collected:

http://saibaba.ws/miracles/raisingfromthedead.htm

Documented accounts of Sai Baba's powers must number in the thousands. Many have been collected in Howard Murphet's exciting and informative book "Man of Miracles". 

Here’s an Amazon Book, “Miracles Are My Visiting Cards: An Investigative Report on Psychic Phenomena Associated with Sathya Sai Baba”

https://www.amazon.com/Miracles-are-Visiting-Cards-Investigative/dp/8186822321

JC2: But will you actually look with an open mind as you claim, or were you just being boastful, sure I could come up with nothing? You could have googled this easily yourself.

saibaba.ws

Sri Sathya Sai Baba Miracles - Rising from the dead

Sri Sathya Sai Baba Miracles - Rising from the dead

[Mammal]

John 21:24 should not necessarily be understood in isolation; there are scholarly explanations that point to this verse indicating that it was written by scholars of John (the “we”), after his death, when the Jesus movement (the early church) found itself in a crisis of faith as John was expected to have lived until the return of Jesus. Read with the preceding verses. It is believed that this is a post script by those (followers of John) who compiled this gospel. You won’t agree, and that is fine, but this is a well established scholarly opinion.

[John]

What was John supposed to claim after telling the world that he was the witness who wrote this testimony, “I know that his witness is true” or, “YOU know that his witness is true,” or “WE know that his witness is true–meaning everyone who reads this? We don’t have the original Aramac it was written in, so there are of course going to be questions, but taken into context, John is telling the world that he wrote it and everyone should believe that he did. Saying scholars generally agree sounds like an pharmaceutical advertisement.

[jayceeii]

Mammal was bringing up a secondary point, that it is not known for certain that John made the claim of eyewitness. Speaking of the opinions of scholars invokes the authority of many minds, against which you place your single mind seemingly without warrant. But the primary point is that to make a claim to be an eyewitness is no kind of proof. All kinds of wild things are said. Humans realize claiming to be an eyewitness grants fame.

[Mammal]

You are free to share your opinion, but it remains to be your personal opinion of what the verse means against the backdrop of the context of the rest and against scholarly opinion, which by the way is even conveyed in a foot note in some online translations.

I am also not convinced the disciples actually believed Jesus was God and resurrected himself. The Nician statement of faith for example stated he was resurrected. They seem to have believed that he was the son. Something very explicit that started with John the Baptist and ended with the gospel according to John, as per the famous opening. Jesus presumably being an “agent” / son of Man, son of God, angel-like at the right hand of God is typical of the messianic beliefs that Jesus and his followers were born and raised in. As per prominent biblical scholarly opinions.

PS. The issue highlighted here was the expectation that Jesus would have returned. And he did not. Which might explain why the original Jesus movement never took off where it all started.

• This reply was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by  Mammal.

[John]

More opinions and no
data. I didn’t say atheists claims are worthless–those are your words. I just stated you speak without proof. The fact is, John claims he was an eyewitness
to Jesus resurrection and his words in the Gospel prove he is an
eyewitness. You have the evidence, so why are you asking for more. Focus on the task at hand and quit trying to sidetrack this exchange. Nothing
in that article you presented is evidence of that Indian resurrecting from the dead.

[jayceeii]

How fascinating, you present the test of an open mind but won’t take it. You won’t follow your own standard. In fact the claims of miracles of Sai Baba are much more descriptive and voluminous than those surrounding Jesus. These are scientists and workers of today giving honest testimony. It looks like you spent thirty seconds which is not an open mind!

You repeat the absurd idea that if someone makes a claim to have seen, it is a proof. But you can’t integrate the logical opposition I have raised even in small measure, that there is all kinds of that same stuff going on today, and you’d have to accept every claim like that. There seems to be no meaning behind your words, that a logical argument can reach.

I gave you three links and you only looked at a fragment of one. Yet the one you denounce contains this, an account of resurrection with witnesses and documentation:

"Walter's body was taken to the hospital by ambulance. Later that day, when Elsie and her friend Mrs. Ratan Lal went to the hospital, they found that Sai Baba had already been there as well. To their utter amazement they found Walter alive."

Recognizing the need for documentation of Walter's death in the form of medical reports and witnesses' testimony, Dr. Hislop investigated the matter fully. "At my request, Judge Damadar Rao of Madras interviewed the doctor who had attended Walter when he arrived at the hospital. The doctor's statement was that Walter was indeed dead when he examined him, shortly after the ambulance arrived at the hospital. There was no sign of life.

"He pronounced Walter dead, then stuffed his ears and nose with cotton. The body was covered with a sheet and moved to an empty room. The doctor then left the hospital and missed seeing Sai Baba while he was there. Upon returning to the hospital after Sai Baba had left, the doctor found Walter alive. He was unable to explain this.

"Later that day Sai Baba informed his devotees that he had indeed brought Waiter back to life. He did not disclose the reasons for doing so, however; this remains a mystery he has not yet chosen to explain.  

[John]

Nice story–there isn’t any evidence to prove a resurrection in that account. The guy was misdiagnosed as dead by another doctor than somebody who never saw him dead investigated the matter. Dr. Hislop took the doctors statement as evidence? Where’s the proof? How long was the guy dead in that room? Who else witnessed him dead?

Jesus was dead for three days and John captured details of his account going to the grave, then witnessing Jesus resurrected with the his wounds. The story is full of eyewitness details proving John was there in case you want to go through some of the evidence. What about the detailed story of Lazarus that John provided? The stench of the decayed body that was dead for over three days…

Feel free to describe the evidence chain for this guy you state is a proven resurrection, because I don’t see it anywhere in the documentation they reference.

[jayceeii]

JC: You are providing a veritable documentary of the closed reasoning of a closed mind.

JN: Nice story–there isn’t any evidence to prove a resurrection in that account.

JC: So what evidence are you citing there is no evidence? The article did not include this.

JN: The guy was misdiagnosed as dead by another doctor than somebody who never saw him dead investigated the matter.

JC: Suddenly you are critical, but about the story of Jesus you are not critical. Could it be you are prejudiced against dark-skinned races? But Jesus was also of a dark-skinned race.

JN: Dr. Hislop took the doctors statement as evidence? Where’s the proof? How long was the guy dead in that room? Who else witnessed him dead?

JC: You wouldn’t even read it until I supplied the quote and haven’t read it carefully yet. The account is conflicting with your private desires, so your mind closes down to see it. Clearly many must have witnessed the heart attack at the hotel. Walter’s wife Elsie is listed as a witness. There is a claim medical reports and witness testimony were taken down. You seem to expect I would have that on me! No, you’d have to contact these people with such questions, but just as in the Bible the claim is presented as if reliable. A judge was involved, a medical doctor, and Hislop, a professor and corporate executive.

JN: Jesus was dead for three days and John captured details of his account going to the grave, then witnessing Jesus resurrected with the his wounds.

JC: See, your mind was so full of what it already had in it, you had no room for more, the very definition of a mind which is closed. I thought it remarkable you claimed it is open. What, are you going to admit Sai Baba raised someone from the dead, but since he was dead only a few hours Jesus must be greater? Are there competing resurrectionists here? Otherwise your statement shows no difference from the claims regarding Walter. And this wasn’t the resurrection of the Messiah but may instead be likened to events with Lazarus.

JN: The story is full of eyewitness details proving John was there in case you want to go through some of the evidence.

JC: So is the story of Walter in case you want to go through some of the evidence. In fact you promised that you were ready, even eager to do so! And then your mind closed down.

JN: What about the detailed story of Lazarus that John provided? The stench of the decayed body that was dead for over three days…

JC: What? You don’t think someone could concoct a story mentioning odors of corpses? Oh, my, yes, that must take some kind of genius. Say the corpse stank, they’ll believe it!

JN: Feel free to describe the evidence chain for this guy you state is a proven resurrection, because I don’t see it anywhere in the documentation they reference.

JC: I thought it was clearly referenced, but it is upon you to investigate since the evidence is of similar quality to that in the Bible. Aren’t you the one with an open mind looking everywhere equally for the truth? Just use your friend google, you’ll find thousands of links about Sai Baba’s miracles. Or admit your mind is not open and you aren’t looking.

[Fred]

Wow! Reports from named eyewitnesses of a dead man coming back to life! This is considerably better evidence than anything in the New Testament (e.g. a vague reference to Jesus “appearing” to some disciples after dying, and Gospel stories written decades later by unknown authors relating hearsay (at best).

[jayceeii]

Hey, Fred and I are nearly on the same page (for once). Just don’t leave me alone at the forum with John. Indeed, the social forces behind Sai Baba as Avatar are far stronger than those around Jesus this close to his death. The West never looks at the East, or vice-versa.

[jayceeii]

@Jaz

It’s weird when you say you are ready to look at anything with an open mind, but then can’t bring yourself to do so. With Sai Baba there is a more convincing parallel to Jesus as it is in the modern age with thousands testifying similarly to the few Gospel accounts.

Maybe you should amend your claim to an open mind to, “open when it wants to look.” In any case the standard you claim as part of your “logical position” by which you hope to convince others, that someone testified to an eyewitness experience, is well-met here.

[John]

I told you my problems with it and it is your evidence, so present it–list it out. I don’t see any evidence in those links.

[jayceeii]

What you are not getting is that the claim not to see or understand something, can also be admission seeing and understanding are not in the capacity of the individual. What you really mean is that you’ll use your physical might against it, not that you’ve truly looked.

The problems you listed were only derived from ignoring what was written, as your mind closed down since it didn’t mesh with your desires. Hundreds of millions believe Sai Baba was the Avatar. You have no respect for your human peers, thus little for yourself.

[John]

Your open mind has you looking for conclusions that fit your preconceived desires. My training and experience in document analysis and interrogation has me looking for the facts. I don’t need an OPINION from a “scholar” to tell me what I can read from numerous interpretations of the verses. I emphasize opinions because there all the original documents written in native language around AD 30 have been destroyed. The only evidence we have from the days of Jesus are in the Gospels. This is a fact at least until someone checks the Vatican Vault.

In regards to Sai Baba supposed resurrection, where is the documentation validating that the resurrected person was in fact clearly and undeniably dead?

[jayceeii]

Citing your training just leaves us with a mystery how a closed mind can learn all that.

What you don’t understand is that you have counterparts, in these scholars who are also looking, as well as millions in the camp of Sai Baba, just as eager of miracles as you are!

The links I can give to you, and the thousands more you would find with a single google search with your “open mind,” will open the doors you need for the evidence you seek. I listed two books. Have you ordered these now, to verify the evidence that they contain?

I don’t think you know what an open mind is, as you offered a definition you can’t meet. Oh, you are eager to read evidence of Sai Baba. But you expect me to gather it for you?

You are a human, the scholars are human, the followers of Sai Baba are human. You conclude each of them has a closed mind but yourself, thereby not respecting humans.

[John]

There’s evidence and there’s opinions. It’s always the same with you atheists when data is requested…you provide no evidence and many opinions. You point to scholars that support your claims as though they have the answers, but their conclusions are not based on evidence either. In other words you base your opinions on the opinions of others you consider to be smart because they support your conclusions.

The only evidence in existence for Jesus and the resurrection is in the Gospels–everything else is opinions based on studies. I challenge you to prove that last statement wrong. I’ll ask again, where is the evidence to support your Sai Baba resurrection fairytale?

[jayceeii]

It’s like you expect to be spoon-fed by your mother. You haven’t done a single internet search, have you? A hundred million believe Sai Baba is the Avatar, but you cannot look! It’s not that you won’t, you literally can’t. It conflicts with desire, so your mind freezes.

You do indeed offer a textbook case of a closed mind. Say, in your intense training in research, didn’t they tell you there are others doing the same thing, and worthy of as much respect as you expect? You conclude every mind in the world is closed, but yours.

[John]

<div>It’s exactly opposite of your claim; you are the one that needs spoon feeding. You need to get the big picture before moving into the weeds where you are now. You are following the herd into believing in Sai Baba and that’s a ridiculous belief system. Reviewing Sai Baba doesn’t warrant my more of my time because I’ve already spent 10 minutes analyzing it to find nothing to merit any more effort. You haven’t provided me any additional info that would change my mind. That’s puzzling because you believe it, but yet you can’t provide any justification for it. Have you ever researched anything to the root cause, or pulled the string until it is complete unraveled? If not, to get to the truth you will need to start. A good place to start with theology is with the Gospel authors. </div>

[jayceeii]

JN: It’s exactly opposite of your claim; you are the one that needs spoon feeding.

JC: You claim to be a scholar but have no urge to investigate. Instead of doing some internet searches and searching for evidence, you demand that I hand it to you. It’s hard to throw down a hundred million humans, each of them as fervent in their beliefs as you.

JN: You need to get the big picture before moving into the weeds where you are now.

JC: Your “big picture” is ignoring details that could actually give you a big picture. It’s another lesson in a closed mind, you define any term in a way that benefits you privately. Whatever you hear, you decide it must be something you already found a long time ago.

JN: You are following the herd into believing in Sai Baba and that’s a ridiculous belief system.

JC: Whoever said I believe in Sai Baba? My point is that the claims swirling around him appear even more potent than those that swirled around Jesus at this point from his death. You again clearly define all others with whom you disagree, of having a closed mind. That is a hundred million humans, all of them just as fervent and intelligent as yourself.

JN: Reviewing Sai Baba doesn’t warrant my more of my time because I’ve already spent 10 minutes analyzing it to find nothing to merit any more effort.

JC: Ah, you admit your mind froze, and could not investigate in an objective manner! It’s the same for the believers in Sai Baba. They don’t listen to you, in fact can’t listen to you. I’d say it’s closed minds all around. And not only closed but unready for certain concepts.

JN: You haven’t provided me any additional info that would change my mind.

JC: You again seem to crave your mother’s spoon-feeding, and she will bring it to you. You admit right out that the google search to find thousands of Sai Baba pages was too much for you. You would scan for ten minutes, then complain where the data can be! “There’s no evidence here, just these thousands of web pages claiming there’s evidence.”

JN: That’s puzzling because you believe it, but yet you can’t provide any justification for it.

JC: I really can’t convince you that your argument is not with me, but with the adherents of Sai Baba, whom you are neglecting although they are fellow humans. There’s a big world out there and you aren’t looking, and like I said it is not possible for you to look.

JN: Have you ever researched anything to the root cause, or pulled the string until it is complete unraveled?

JC: Sure, and you’re helping me document the exact anatomy of a closed mind, the way it twists definitions until everything seems under its control, as the real world moves along.

JN: If not, to get to the truth you will need to start.

JC: Keep going. This has opened a lot of doors of insight, how the human mind operates.

JN: A good place to start with theology is with the Gospel authors.

JC: You have given me no reason to think those authors are better than the disciples and followers of Sai Baba. You haven’t even looked over his amazing quotations, have you?

https://www.srisathyasai.org/pages/sai-his-messages-quotes.html

Maybe you’d care to go over some of these, and explain how Jesus gave greater truths. To generate an aphorism is not that easy; and many millions are repeating Sai Baba’s.

srisathyasai.org

SSSCT - His Messages - Quotes

Sri Sathya Sai Central Trust was founded by Bhagawan Sri Sathya Sai Baba on 2nd September, 1972. Under Bhagawan's guidance, the Trust has been undertaking a number of welfare activities such as providing free education at school and university levels, … Continue reading

[John]

Your judgements mean nothing and I don’t have time to waste reviewing the quotes of someone you seem to be fascinated with. Have you forgotten that this whole debate is about a resurrection? John’s account of Jesus and his execution and resurrection, his claim that he was an eyewitness who wrote the Gospel, and validation of his eyewitness claim through document analysis together prove the story of Jesus to be true. I’m still waiting for you to show the proof of Ali Baba’s resurrection. Once you do, I’ll take a look at it, but your reluctance to provide any evidence indicates you don’t have anything to back up your claims.

[jayceeii]

JN: Your judgements mean nothing and I don’t have time to waste reviewing the quotes of someone you seem to be fascinated with.

JC: It is apparent the phrase “hundred million” means absolutely nothing to you. To you, those hundred million Indians fully convinced Sai Baba is the Avatar, claiming and documenting miracles far better than anything which surrounded Jesus after death, are a hundred million “nothings.” You don’t respect their intellects, regarding these to be vastly inferior to your own, allowing you to judge them by snapping your fingers instead of scholarly review you promised you would do, when you claimed your mind was open.

You also demonstrate an attribute of the human mind critical to understand, that any remonstrance is turned back and reflected against the one giving remonstrance, even were this the Lord or the Invisible Holy Spirit acting from within. The mind twists the logic back, defining all concepts favorably to itself, concluding itself to have full rationality. It is from this tendency such minds cannot break out of their “shell,” which Socrates described as like being bound in a cave. To make progress, they must go indirect routes.

JN: Have you forgotten that this whole debate is about a resurrection? John’s account of Jesus and his execution and resurrection, his claim that he was an eyewitness who wrote the Gospel, and validation of his eyewitness claim through document analysis together prove the story of Jesus to be true. I’m still waiting for you to show the proof of Ali Baba’s resurrection. Once you do, I’ll take a look at it, but your reluctance to provide any evidence indicates you don’t have anything to back up your claims.

JC: Your mind is unable even to focus on the account of a modern resurrection which was put before you to read. Here is a fallacy of man, believing he has a mind that could be persuaded. Instead of logical persuasion something else is occurring as the mind changes. I noticed you were unable to interpret my sentence that your mind is freezing because my request conflicts with desire. As you tried to turn this back against me, your logic broke and you revealed the concepts were unclear to you. Even so, it is desire which drives your mind, but you cannot see this. A man is totally blind to inner workings of his own mind.

I would characterize you again here as trumpeting, “I can’t find any evidence among all this evidence.” Your mind won’t allow you to do one internet search, instead begging me like you beg your mother to spoon feed you. You think you have me over a barrel as you falsely categorize me as believing in Sai Baba even after I clearly stated this is not the case. You think my mind is driven by desire like yours and that your role is only to accuse another desire-driven one of wrong desire. Instead I see both East and West are blind to one another, those in the East sharing all of your faults, leading to a divided community.

[John]

You keep making claims about Ali Baba, and I keep asking you for your supporting data of his resurrection, but you reject. I needed ten valuable minutes to prove he’s a phony. Why is it taking you so long?

[jayceeii]

@Jaz

Your decision to be done with something may be an admission you couldn’t do it. Let’s see your proof, or is that only in your fantasies? Sure, show us how you disproved him and then explain how those same proofs wouldn’t apply to similar claims made of Jesus.

To me all miracles are unreal, because I can’t do one. And I say no one else can either. Thus the proofs between Sai Baba and Jesus are in remarks, which is why I asked you to show how Jesus gave greater truths. You apply a false standard of miracles for authority.

[jayceeii]

@Jaz

This is extra interesting in the context of your having claimed to be a modern-day prophet, the only one fit to interpret Revelation. It seems you make this claim not from actual authority, but from an authority derived by denying the minds of other humans. That’s a fascinating thing, to see the mode of a false prophet, how that sort of thing arises.

It might be said to be the general case of all false gurus. Each arises with his supposedly unique message, but at the core of each the guru is thinking, “I alone am relevant and the rest are nothings.” He pursues his teaching with a full feeling that he is following the usual track of all those who have attained lasting fame, and the rest will be forgotten.

[John]

So you lost the battle for Ali Baba versus Jesus and are on to new material? Gotcha… I claim to be anything but a modern day prophet. Is God in my life? Yes and I’m proud and very happy about it.

So you have read my book on Revelation and compared it to other interpretations? I’m very interested in your comparison of my interpretation to others.

[jayceeii]

JN: So you lost the battle for Ali Baba versus Jesus and are on to new material?

JC: Sai is an honorific term, so paradoxical you’d dishonor it in a thread about honor. I lost the battle for your mind; or more properly proved such a battle is completely futile.

JN: Gotcha…

JC: You look down every direction, don’t you? You’d look down at Jesus too, I’m sure.

JN: I claim to be anything but a modern day prophet.

JC: You claim experiences like those of Daniel, and attempt to prophecy on this basis. In this you simultaneously disregard all biblical scholars, calling yours the only open mind.

JN: Is God in my life?

JC: If He were, He could make no dent in your pride, your mind not amenable to change.

JN: Yes and I’m proud and very happy about it.

JC: That’s a strong claim, but I dispute that you were favored or are honored by the Lord.

JN: So you have read my book on Revelation and compared it to other interpretations?

JC: You ask me for scholarship I never promised, as you promised to review the evidence about Sai Baba. I have disputed you numerous times at the forum about your exact claims. I have not seen one fully logical statement from you, instead repeated fallacies. Revelation at best is part of a smoke screen, certainly not a useful predictor of the future.

JN: I’m very interested in your comparison of my interpretation to others.

JC: This statement can have no more weight than your claim to be very interested in reviewing the evidence regarding Sai Baba, existing in thousands of internet pages and published books. Yet you can’t even recognize this is one more empty promise of yours. You say things like this to keep up a social face, unable to move from self-centeredness.

[John]

Again, full of accusations and nothing in the way of data supporting anything you bring up. From what you’ve written thus far I can conclude that you know nothing about the book of Revelation, you don’t have a clue about the Gospels authors, and you don’t have any evidence to support your belief in Ali Baba. It took me 10 minutes to figure out that there is nothing to believe about Ali Baba, but you support him. Shouldn’t you be able to rattle off all the reasons for why I should believe in him too? Where is the data Jayceeii?

[jayceeii]

JN: Again, full of accusations and nothing in the way of data supporting anything you bring up.

JC: You still haven’t done that internet search, have you? Your mind freezes, since it means admitting humans in another part of the world might share your intelligence, their opinions as worthy of reference as your own. The data is there, as a hundred million proclaim, which is a much stronger social force than attended Jesus this soon after death.

JN: From what you’ve written thus far I can conclude that you know nothing about the book of Revelation, you don’t have a clue about the Gospels authors, and you don’t have any evidence to support your belief in Ali Baba.

JC: I have a very low opinion of the book of Revelation, as it’s too vague to be useful. There isn’t anything to “know” about it, that’s the problem. It’s like a circus nightmare. The Gospels authors are not important to me, except for their living presence, since the Bible is a sand foundation, upon which nothing solid can be built. This is the third time I state I don’t believe in Sai Baba, and the third time there is no register within your mind.

JN: It took me 10 minutes to figure out that there is nothing to believe about Ali Baba, but you support him.

JC: You keep repeating this fact like it is a boast, but a good scholar would look longer. You can’t share with us how you “figured it out,” since anything you’d try would be in the same blind alley with your “evidential support” for the nonexistent miracles of Jesus.

JN: Shouldn’t you be able to rattle off all the reasons for why I should believe in him too?

JC: You can contact a hundred million in India who will do just that. You will be able to find many pages on the internet about this. I won’t do it for you, since you wouldn’t look.

JN: Where is the data Jayceeii?

JC: Where is your browser’s link to Google? So we learn you really do not have a proof Sai Baba is a phony, although you stated you had a proof that Sai Baba is a phony. Phony.

[HB (Unorthodox Agnostic)]

Consciousness is magnifique. My deepest level of graditude to its creator.

[Jabberwock]

What about creator’s consciousness? Is it not even more magnifique? Yet it somehow does not require an even greater creator…

[HB (Unorthodox Agnostic)]

Consciousness is a very deep and complex subject. It’s fundamental; therefore impossible to understand. For directing my gratitude, I try to keep it simple. It might be better understood if I say that I am grateful for the reason that my consciousness exists.

[Jabberwock]

If consciousness is fundamental, then it exists uncaused and for no reason. Does that warrant gratitude?

[HB (Unorthodox Agnostic)]

I am grateful for consciousness as well.

[James]

So what is worthy of honor? What is? Here is what I think: “Honor is doing something that will last beyond this world.” The dishwasher won’t last. It will die with this world. The bed won’t last. It will die with this world. So ultimately, any invention that dies with this world and does not affect something eternally is not worth recognizing, even if it helps your comfort life.

That anything lacking eternal impact is just not worth recognizing is your personal opinion though and does not reflect how, in reality, we value things. Things being rare and transient often causes us to assign them even greater value. The antiques industry exists because we understand that those items are transient and easily lost. Once the item is gone, it is gone forever and this known fact increases the value of the item. Things that are numerous and easily come by, we tend to treat as having less of a value. Even if we assume that humans are here today and gone tomorrow, why would or should we assign them and their actions less value than we do a piece of furniture?

[jayceeii]

I would add to this that when one’s personal relation to the supposed thing of honor is unknown, there is no meaning to say it lasts a day or longer. The mayflies leave behind their dung and carcasses, but where are the mayflies to appreciate that which they left? It isn’t just being alive in some form forever that can bestow meaning either. The meaning is lost if there is no consciousness aware of it, even should the item in question remain. Shakespeare’s plays seem like they will last forever, but it’s also possible they’d be regarded as R-rated by distant future generations, who move on to more relevant poetry. It is only when some element that was present in Shakespeare can remember those plays, that Shakespeare derives meaning from having written them. You can’t just dump things and say, “It was great honor, goodbye, I hope you remember it because I certainly won’t.”

[lancia]

You said, “The mayflies leave behind their dung and carcasses, but where are the mayflies to appreciate that which they left?”

What is it about mayflies that led to your mentioning them? Is it the ephemeral nature of adults, living for only a day or two? If so, note that adult mayflies have no mouthparts, cannot eat, and thus do not produce dung, i.e., waste from undigested food.

But immature mayflies do eat for a year or more, as they develop in their aquatic habitats before becoming ephemeral adults. So, they do leave both carcasses and dung.

[jayceeii]

So here’s the question for you, are those mayflies the same individuals in these life stages, and if so on what basis? For, this is a question humans have not yet answered.

For an event to be meaningful in eternity, it must be remembered in eternity. For an event to be remembered in eternity, requires substantial power it is not in human theory to possess.

You do not know if you have a soul, or if mayflies have souls, and if so what are the powers. Here Hinduism offers hope Christianity does not, a mind that can remember long.

If Hinduism is wrong and Christianity right, you were made just before birth, and no power to remember long is listed in your Bible. In all this time, Christians have been craving Heaven and eternity, without once asking how they could find meaning there.

[lancia]

You said, “So here’s the question for you, are those mayflies the same individuals in these life stages, and if so on what basis? For, this is a question humans have not yet answered.”

I have not worked directly with mayflies. I have worked with other insects and water mites that parasitize these insects. But it seems that these mayflies, like all other insects, are the same individuals in all of their various stages. This can be seen, for example, in an immature insect with a malformed morphology, which becomes an adult insect with a malformed morphology in the same morphological area.

You said, “For an event to be meaningful in eternity, it must be remembered in eternity. For an event to be remembered in eternity, requires substantial power it is not in human theory to possess.”

Although there is a scriptural foundation in Isaiah 65:16-17 for God not remembering our sins (meaning of course that God will not hold those sins against us), there is no biblical basis for our not remembering our past, e.g., our sins. wherever we end up.

You said, “You do not know if you have a soul, or if mayflies have souls, and if so what are the powers. Here Hinduism offers hope Christianity does not, a mind that can remember long.

If Hinduism is wrong and Christianity right, you were made just before birth, and no power to remember long is listed in your Bible. In all this time, Christians have been craving Heaven and eternity, without once asking how they could find meaning there.”

That doesn’t agree with what the Bible has to say, but one must be vigilant for relevant clues. David said he would meet his son in heaven (2 Samuel 12:23). That claim establishes that David thought he would remember and thus carry memories of his son in heaven. More importantly, Paul said he would know others in heaven as he would be known, e.g., “Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known” (see 1 Corinthians 13:9-12). Remembering identities of others would seem to be retained in heaven.

[jayceeii]

JC1 “So here’s the question for you, are those mayflies the same individuals in these life stages, and if so on what basis? For, this is a question humans have not yet answered.”

LC: I have not worked directly with mayflies. I have worked with other insects and water mites that parasitize these insects. But it seems that these mayflies, like all other insects, are the same individuals in all of their various stages. This can be seen, for example, in an immature insect with a malformed morphology, which becomes an adult insect with a malformed morphology in the same morphological area.

JC2: This illustrates one of my chief objections to the idea Christianity is a saving religion. The remarks are essentially materialistic. Your mind looks at physical structure only. And this is how the Bible presents things and most Christians think about it, there’s an expectation of physical reanimation. After all, this is what Jesus is said to have proved. As you think, “individual,” you think of physical structure, and about other humans also. These are elements that impinge on your senses. But the spirit, if any, does not impinge. Nor has Christianity given you any kind of idea what could be beyond the physical for you. This is why both theists and atheists at the forum fight me, when I mention I can see the souls of those around me. There would be no objection were you able to see these too.

JC1: You said, “For an event to be meaningful in eternity, it must be remembered in eternity. For an event to be remembered in eternity, requires substantial power it is not in human theory to possess.”

LC: Although there is a scriptural foundation in Isaiah 65:16-17 for God not remembering our sins (meaning of course that God will not hold those sins against us), there is no biblical basis for our not remembering our past, e.g., our sins. wherever we end up.

JC2: Where is your logic? An omission of telling you that you will forget could never be construed as a promise you’d remember. So, the Bible didn’t tell you that you don’t have those powers, means you must? You could construct a long list of powers it did not grant.

Besides the quotation works against you. It bespeaks God remembering, you forgetting.

17 "For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth, and the former things shall not be remembered or come into mind.

JC1: “You do not know if you have a soul, or if mayflies have souls, and if so what are the powers. Here Hinduism offers hope Christianity does not, a mind that can remember long.

If Hinduism is wrong and Christianity right, you were made just before birth, and no power to remember long is listed in your Bible. In all this time, Christians have been craving Heaven and eternity, without once asking how they could find meaning there.”

LC: That doesn’t agree with what the Bible has to say, but one must be vigilant for relevant clues. David said he would meet his son in heaven (2 Samuel 12:23). That claim establishes that David thought he would remember and thus carry memories of his son in heaven.

JC2: Similarly to when you think “individual” you think materially, when you think “eternity” you think of only short time spans like in your everyday life. You are really scraping the bottom of the barrel for facts which aren’t there. And if David is your hero I wonder, killing thousands without mercy as he did. He couldn’t even recall his fidelity!

LC: More importantly, Paul said he would know others in heaven as he would be known, e.g., “Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known” (see 1 Corinthians 13:9-12). Remembering identities of others would seem to be retained in heaven.

JC2: You sure have an impoverished notion of the thinking process, satisfied with one or two bits of sense observations. I am amazed you have a mind which can scrape the bottom of an empty barrel so carefully, but not a mind which could look farther for truth. One would think curiosity and a passion for knowledge would attend such intense barrel scraping. Instead you are trapped in the West and couldn’t get out even to save your soul.

[lancia]

You said, “So here’s the question for you, are those mayflies the same individuals in these life stages, and if so on what basis? For, this is a question humans have not yet answered.”

I answered, “I have not worked directly with mayflies. I have worked with other insects and water mites that parasitize these insects. But it seems that these mayflies, like all other insects, are the same individuals in all of their various stages. This can be seen, for example, in an immature insect with a malformed morphology, which becomes an adult insect with a malformed morphology in the same morphological area.”

You then replied, “This illustrates one of my chief objections to the idea Christianity is a saving religion. The remarks are essentially materialistic. Your mind looks at physical structure only. And this is how the Bible presents things and most Christians think about it, there’s an expectation of physical reanimation. After all, this is what Jesus is said to have proved. As you think, “individual,” you think of physical structure, and about other humans also. These are elements that impinge on your senses. But the spirit, if any, does not impinge. Nor has Christianity given you any kind of idea what could be beyond the physical for you. This is why both theists and atheists at the forum fight me, when I mention I can see the souls of those around me. There would be no objection were you able to see these too.”

Why in the world would I assume a mayfly has a soul when I am not convinced that any creatures, including me and other humans, have a soul?

But, despite that, my answer does not assume mayflies do not have souls. They may, for all I know. I simply answered in a straightforward way based on what I definitely know as opposed to what I definitely do not know. If you know that I have a soul, let alone that a mayfly has a soul, please explain it rationally.

You said, “For an event to be meaningful in eternity, it must be remembered in eternity. For an event to be remembered in eternity, requires substantial power it is not in human theory to possess.”

I said, “Although there is a scriptural foundation in Isaiah 65:16-17 for God not remembering our sins (meaning of course that God will not hold those sins against us), there is no biblical basis for our not remembering our past, e.g., our sins. wherever we end up.”

You said, “Where is your logic? An omission of telling you that you will forget could never be construed as a promise you’d remember. So, the Bible didn’t tell you that you don’t have those powers, means you must?”

No, from what I said, it doesn’t follow that I am saying we must not forget the past. It follows just that the Bible doesn’t say we forget the past.

You said, “Besides the quotation works against you. It bespeaks God remembering, you forgetting.”

I disagree. I see no hint that God is saying anything about our forgetting. It is all about God “forgetting,” as in God not holding those former things against us.

You said, “You do not know if you have a soul, or if mayflies have souls, and if so what are the powers. Here Hinduism offers hope Christianity does not, a mind that can remember long.”

I like that about Hinduism. But Hinduism seems more fantasy-driven than does Christianity. That doesn’t mean Hinduism is wrong. It’s just that it’s easy to reject, even easier to reject than Christianity.

You said, “You are really scraping the bottom of the barrel for facts which aren’t there. And if David is your hero I wonder, killing thousands without mercy as he did. He couldn’t even recall his fidelity!”

You, like many others, succumb to the genetic fallacy. David’s violent past has little bearing on the truth of his claims. That he thought he would meet his son in heaven bears repeating when the idea of memories retained after death is raised, whether or not he was a killer.

You said, “You sure have an impoverished notion of the thinking process, satisfied with one or two bits of sense observations.”

What has been written in the Bible is not under my control, so if it’s lacking in data to answer your questions, it’s not my fault. I can deal only with the hand I have been dealt here, and given that hand, I answered. You should be grateful that you got any answers at all to your difficult and sometimes impossible-to-answer questions.

[jayceeii]

JC1: “This illustrates one of my chief objections to the idea Christianity is a saving religion. The remarks are essentially materialistic. Your mind looks at physical structure only. And this is how the Bible presents things and most Christians think about it, there’s an expectation of physical reanimation. After all, this is what Jesus is said to have proved. As you think, “individual,” you think of physical structure, and about other humans also. These are elements that impinge on your senses. But the spirit, if any, does not impinge. Nor has Christianity given you any kind of idea what could be beyond the physical for you. This is why both theists and atheists at the forum fight me, when I mention I can see the souls of those around me. There would be no objection were you able to see these too.”

LC: Why in the world would I assume a mayfly has a soul when I am not convinced that any creatures, including me and other humans, have a soul?

JC2: Why in the world would you assume I thought mayflies have souls, when it is not contained in the text I gave to you? It’s actually a huge question where the souls begin on the continuum of being. Many say that plants have souls. I disagree. I do not think bacteria have souls. But picking up a pregnant preying mantis on a long bike ride of mine, I thought I could see anger in its tiny frame, which is a trait of a soul. If the insects have souls it speaks of God’s glory, for to maintain these quintillions is beyond belief.

LC: But, despite that, my answer does not assume mayflies do not have souls.

JC2: Oh yes, you displayed your natural thought patterns, captured in the text. You were going to think about bodies, but only now after I prompted you, do you speak of souls. The soul can only enter your mind as an empty theory, for you know only the senses.

LC: They may, for all I know.

JC2: Well, who does know, then, and how would they know? Is mankind doomed to everlasting speculation about what must inherently remain far beyond his experience?

LC: I simply answered in a straightforward way based on what I definitely know as opposed to what I definitely do not know.

JC2: Yes, you displayed your natural thoughts, and only now begin empty speculation.

LC: If you know that I have a soul, let alone that a mayfly has a soul, please explain it rationally.

JC2: I have done so numerous times at the forum but it draws no response. The reason is you are not aware of your own soul’s depths, and my telling you, “It has depths,” is not something you can investigate. If you could, you’d be able to watch the traits of your children carried forward from past lives, and no longer wonder about nature vs. nurture.

LC0: I said, “Although there is a scriptural foundation in Isaiah 65:16-17 for God not remembering our sins (meaning of course that God will not hold those sins against us), there is no biblical basis for our not remembering our past, e.g., our sins. wherever we end up.”

JC1: “Where is your logic? An omission of telling you that you will forget could never be construed as a promise you’d remember. So, the Bible didn’t tell you that you don’t have those powers, means you must?”

LC: No, from what I said, it doesn’t follow that I am saying we must not forget the past. It follows just that the Bible doesn’t say we forget the past.

JC2: Hence I accuse you of scraping the bottom of an empty barrel, offering the weakest of all possible arguments, that the Bible does not forbid it. Or why else did you bring it up? Hinduism gives hints about a profound soul that can remember countless lifetimes.

JC1: You said, “Besides the quotation works against you. It bespeaks God remembering, you forgetting.”

LC: I disagree. I see no hint that God is saying anything about our forgetting. It is all about God “forgetting,” as in God not holding those former things against us.

JC2: The quote again is, “17 For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth, and the former things shall not be remembered or come into mind.” You give one possible interpretation of a vague verse, but it is also easily interpreted that humans will forget. This is called scraping the bottom of am empty barrel, for it is by no means clearly stated.

JC1: You said, “You do not know if you have a soul, or if mayflies have souls, and if so what are the powers. Here Hinduism offers hope Christianity does not, a mind that can remember long.”

LC: I like that about Hinduism. But Hinduism seems more fantasy-driven than does Christianity. That doesn’t mean Hinduism is wrong. It’s just that it’s easy to reject, even easier to reject than Christianity.

JC2: I think you have not even understood my reasoning about a “mind that can remember long,” and then try to become my instructor. For Hinduism doesn’t teach it that way. I bring a new emphasis from a different perspective. The point, which Hinduism does not emphasize, is that carrying the samskaras or negative tendencies from myriad former lifetimes bespeaks a power of memory which, when purified, has higher uses.

JC1: You said, “You are really scraping the bottom of the barrel for facts which aren’t there. And if David is your hero I wonder, killing thousands without mercy as he did. He couldn’t even recall his fidelity!”

LC: You, like many others, succumb to the genetic fallacy.

JC2: Nay, nay. I judge a violent and remorseless man on individual terms, not from his lineage. That David is hero to Christians reflects that violence is natural to them. It is another of the chief objections to the idea Christianity is saving, that violence is glorified.

LC: David’s violent past has little bearing on the truth of his claims.

JC2: It has direct bearing. A man still subject to samskaras has not purified his mind, therefore his reasoning cannot be sound or perfect. He has shown us what he is by his deeds. We know him to be metaphysically incompetent, rendering his teachings empty. You have an idea an impure mind can hold and declare truth; from spiritual ignorance.

LC: That he thought he would meet his son in heaven bears repeating when the idea of memories retained after death is raised, whether or not he was a killer.

JC2: He could be totally deluded, about heaven and about meeting his son there. Only what Jesus called the pure in heart can be trusted when it comes to metaphysical truths. This is a big trouble of the Bible, an impossible marriage of violence and knowledge. Maybe you should go gain the counsel of inmates on death row, as your chosen teachers.

JC1: You said, “You sure have an impoverished notion of the thinking process, satisfied with one or two bits of sense observations.”

LC: What has been written in the Bible is not under my control, so if it’s lacking in data to answer your questions, it’s not my fault. I can deal only with the hand I have been dealt here, and given that hand, I answered. You should be grateful that you got any answers at all to your difficult and sometimes impossible-to-answer questions.

JC2: Well, now you admit the Bible is indeed an empty barrel with respect to the question of the essence of existence. If you are logical you should now divorce yourself from it, instead of continuing to rely on its vague sorcery to buttress notions of universal salvation, a salvation that you now admit you were not told will be physical or spiritual. My purpose here is not fully answered by the people who respond, but those who don’t.

[lancia]

You said, “Well, now you admit the Bible is indeed an empty barrel with respect to the question of the essence of existence. If you are logical you should now divorce yourself from it, instead of continuing to rely on its vague sorcery to buttress notions of universal salvation, a salvation that you now admit you were not told will be physical or spiritual.”

I made no such admission, so no such logic can be derived from it. What motivated me at that point in my response was more a criticism of the nature of your questions than of the emptiness of the Bible.

Furthermore, there is no reason for such an admission, for Paul speaks of the resurrection of each person and describes those resurrected as having an imperishable and spiritual body (1 Corinthians 15:42-44). Thus, why would one reading and understanding the Bible admit he or she was not told salvation–which includes resurrection–will be physical or spiritual?

[jayceeii]

JC1: “Well, now you admit the Bible is indeed an empty barrel with respect to the question of the essence of existence. If you are logical you should now divorce yourself from it, instead of continuing to rely on its vague sorcery to buttress notions of universal salvation, a salvation that you now admit you were not told will be physical or spiritual.”

LC: I made no such admission, so no such logic can be derived from it.

JC2: You said, “What has been written in the Bible is not under my control, so if it’s lacking in data to answer your questions, it’s not my fault.” This is an admission the Bible is lacking in data regarding existential essence, in other words that it is an empty barrel. You should go forward with awareness the Bible did not offer specificity in this regard. The Bible does not address existential issues or expect human minds to care about this.

LC: What motivated me at that point in my response was more a criticism of the nature of your questions than of the emptiness of the Bible.

JC2: This provides justification for the Bible’s authors not to address existential issues. You admit the Bible is empty but also have no existential query, so you do not miss this. Here you pose as an attacker against the very idea anyone might expect such information. You do not like it if I point out the Bible is empty; but this dislike by no means can fill it.

LC: Furthermore, there is no reason for such an admission, for Paul speaks of the resurrection of each person and describes those resurrected as having an imperishable and spiritual body (1 Corinthians 15:42-44).

JC2: You sink your ship by including this quotation, from a number of points of view.

42 So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. 43 It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual.

First, Paul puts the nail in the Christian coffin, as it were, insisting things begin with the material. If this verse is to be taken seriously there can be no talk about a spiritual soul, instead a material body to be replaced by a spiritual body. The natural, e.g. the physical body, must come first, then and only then can the spiritual come by some transformation.

Second, this is a really rotten way to convey critical existential information. It’s like a stray thought went through Paul’s mind, “Oh, I’d better mention this too,” when if it is existential information that is important one might expect statements such as, “I will now address the critical issue of the essence of man and the other creatures here. Here is the reason I can be trusted (whatever that is), this is something I know, not something I guess.” Instead it is “stray thought pontificating,” a thunderous voice from no one knows where. I suppose you’ll say it is the wind of the Holy Spirit moving through Paul’s mind. Even so this is a pretty lousy way for God to inform humanity of a most important topic.

Third, the nature of the spiritual is by no means described, except to promise it is imperishable. I’d ask natural questions no Christian ever has, what is the source and nature of this spirit, how does God assemble it instead of atoms, and if He can assemble a spiritual body from spiritual atoms why couldn’t He generate new bodies anytime He felt like it, without relying on reproduction? Also, why didn’t Paul ask any of these questions? Why did he let the Holy Spirit wander through his mind, not hearing what he said? The teacher hasn’t asked, the students don’t ask, and it seems there’s no knowledge.

LC: Thus, why would one reading and understanding the Bible admit he or she was not told salvation–which includes resurrection–will be physical or spiritual?

JC2: You have used the term “spiritual” but it seems the term is completely empty except for “something imperishable,” that you heard from a teacher who gave the appearance of one who likes to thunder and gets carried away sometimes, not verifying his knowledge or justifying his qualifications to be the one declaring except for Holy Spirit rumors that might make God ashamed. Surely if God speaks it will be more than mere stray thoughts.

[lancia]

When I said, “What has been written in the Bible is not under my control, so if it’s lacking in data to answer your questions, it’s not my fault,” it was not so much an admission the Bible is an empty barrel. It was more an admission that your questions are otherworldly and often difficult or impossible to answer.

Note that this is not to say that asking such questions is necessarily a bad thing.

[jayceeii]

Your mind does not care about the exact nature of your existence, your essence, as it were. The Bible does not tell you, but that never bothered you before my “questions.” My point is religion is a barrel that should be full of substantial answers to vital questions; but it is empty, as you admit. You’re still uncomfortable calling it empty though finding it so.

[lancia]

You said, “Nay, nay. I judge a violent and remorseless man on individual terms, not from his lineage. That David is hero to Christians reflects that violence is natural to them. It is another of the chief objections to the idea Christianity is saving, that violence is glorified.”

You also said, “It has direct bearing. A man still subject to samskaras has not purified his mind, therefore his reasoning cannot be sound or perfect. He has shown us what he is by his deeds. We know him to be metaphysically incompetent, rendering his teachings empty. You have an idea an impure mind can hold and declare truth; from spiritual ignorance.”

Finally, you also said, “He could be totally deluded, about heaven and about meeting his son there. Only what Jesus called the pure in heart can be trusted when it comes to metaphysical truths. This is a big trouble of the Bible, an impossible marriage of violence and knowledge. Maybe you should go gain the counsel of inmates on death row, as your chosen teachers.”

This all means you still committed the genetic fallacy. You rejected a simple statement David made only because it was David making it and apparently not because of anything in the statement.

[jayceeii]

I see. The fallacy was unfamiliar to me, not having appeared in my logic textbooks, and it is perhaps not best to conflate reproduction and logic. Nonetheless I am introducing something new and it is not a fallacy, a violent man shows his mind is impure and this means he cannot be trusted in metaphysical discourse. The only way David could be saved from this is if every violent act attributed him was a legend put there for the sake of popularity in the religion. Maybe an actual shepherd poet was thought too uninteresting.

You can ask this question too, that when he claimed he would see his son in Heaven, he has already shown infidelity to his spouse, which means he has little regard for persons. So how is someone who can hardly see and value his own wife, be expected to know what occurs after death? As a matter of fact it seems he had a ton of wives, which would mean he could not focus on a single girl’s personality, to truly value it next to his own.

So it seems I must break the ill-named genetic fallacy in the name of obvious truths. A man is known by his deeds and if they be foul he proves himself to be unqualified as an authority about higher things. One might wonder this about Paul too, said to be a sinner. If this is not so I’d again suggest the inmates on death row, might have all your answers.

[lancia]

You said, “One might wonder this about Paul too, said to be a sinner.”

Yes, Paul was said to be a sinner . . . by Paul, himself!

But Paul was not just your average, everyday sinner. No, he said he was the FOREMOST sinner! (1 Timothy 1:15)

[jayceeii]

I don’t think he really was, but he said this for the sake of popularity and having an influence. If so it is a lesson that humans expect violence, falsely calling it glorious.

My point about the death row inmates is that it is taken to be obvious these are not prophets. If the Holy Spirit blows Its wind through one of them, does he become Paul?

[lancia]

You said, “Why in the world would you assume I thought mayflies have souls, when it is not contained in the text I gave to you?”

But it is contained in the text you gave me. And that is why in the world it could be reasonably concluded that you at least pretended to think of the possibility that mayflies have souls.

First, you alluded to the concept of mayfly souls earlier in this thread when you said, “You do not know if you have a soul, or if mayflies have souls, and if so what are the powers.”

Second, and more significantly, you also asked me if mayflies were the same individual in the various stages. When I gave an answer that focused on morphology (the physical part of the mayfly), you chided me for neglecting the non-physical aspects of these insects and made the following relevant statements. “This illustrates one of my chief objections to the idea Christianity is a saving religion. The remarks are essentially materialistic. Your mind looks at physical structure only. And this is how the Bible presents things and most Christians think about it, there’s an expectation of physical reanimation. After all, this is what Jesus is said to have proved. As you think, “individual,” you think of physical structure, and about other humans also. These are elements that impinge on your senses. But the spirit, if any, does not impinge. Nor has Christianity given you any kind of idea what could be beyond the physical for you. This is why both theists and atheists at the forum fight me, when I mention I can see the souls of those around me.”

Why would you chide me for talking about the physical aspects of mayflies to answer your question if you were not entertaining the possibility that there were other aspects, such as spiritual aspects like souls, in mayflies?

[jayceeii]

JC1: “Why in the world would you assume I thought mayflies have souls, when it is not contained in the text I gave to you?”

LC: But it is contained in the text you gave me.

JC2: No, it isn’t. And the reason it is not, is that I was not thinking that. You leapt to a presumption by dualistic reasoning, “Oh, if he isn’t speaking of body, he must mean soul.” That’s also your only idea about a soul, something other than body. Nothing more. In fact I was drawing a larger comparison, wondering if humans are far above mayflies.

LC: And that is why in the world it could be reasonably concluded that you at least pretended to think of the possibility that mayflies have souls.

JC2: You can’t trace the workings of my mind by following your own. This is true between friends as well, not just between you and myself. What is apparent is that as you thought about mayflies, it was only bodies that came to mind, until I lodged an objection. In fact if mayflies have no souls then they are not individuals at any point in their lives.

LC: First, you alluded to the concept of mayfly souls earlier in this thread when you said, “You do not know if you have a soul, or if mayflies have souls, and if so what are the powers.”

JC2: In this text I do not assert that I think mayflies have souls. I point out you aren’t thinking about that. The point is to think about an individual with no soul is not valid. I did not render my conclusions about mayflies, but noted that you thought only of bodies.

LC: Second, and more significantly, you also asked me if mayflies were the same individual in the various stages. When I gave an answer that focused on morphology (the physical part of the mayfly), you chided me for neglecting the non-physical aspects of these insects and made the following relevant statements. “This illustrates one of my chief objections to the idea Christianity is a saving religion. The remarks are essentially materialistic. Your mind looks at physical structure only. And this is how the Bible presents things and most Christians think about it, there’s an expectation of physical reanimation. After all, this is what Jesus is said to have proved. As you think, “individual,” you think of physical structure, and about other humans also. These are elements that impinge on your senses. But the spirit, if any, does not impinge. Nor has Christianity given you any kind of idea what could be beyond the physical for you. This is why both theists and atheists at the forum fight me, when I mention I can see the souls of those around me.”

Why would you chide me for talking about the physical aspects of mayflies to answer your question if you were not entertaining the possibility that there were other aspects, such as spiritual aspects like souls, in mayflies?

JC2: My point is you were not entertaining such possibilities as a native function of mind. But this is an expected trait of the human being, whose mind is comported only to senses. To speak of spirit authentically there must be experience of it; but no one in history cites it except for the ancient Hindu sages. And these related nothing clear regarding the soul. You can use the term “soul” as most humans do, but you cannot use it authentically without experience of it. Without experience the term is blank, just “what is not body.” Maybe we should both be entertaining a possibility there is more than body to mayfly. It happens I went there first and you seem to try to follow; but I do not think this is valid. If you want to talk more about it that would be great; are you or mayflies living spirits?

[lancia]

This is just silly, replete with almost indecipherable quasi-doublespeak, e.g., “My point is you were not entertaining such possibilities as a native function of mind. But this is an expected trait of the human being, whose mind is comported only to senses.”

You have clearly implied in your writing, in this and previous threads, at least the possibility that animals have souls. I seem to have remembered your writing on the subject previously and that set my expectations, which were reinforced in this thread.

To check on my recollection, I searched the archives and found this reinforcing sample of your writing in this forum on the subject from February 5, 2020, at 01:20:28 PM.

“In Hinduism they teach men are arising from the animals, and this fits Christianity too. That is to say, the souls are on a path to greater purity, starting from an impure state.”

The thought that animals have souls is worthy of serious consideration. I don’t understand why one would deny holding such a thought if one actually held it.

[jayceeii]

LC: This is just silly, replete with almost indecipherable quasi-doublespeak, e.g., “My point is you were not entertaining such possibilities as a native function of mind. But this is an expected trait of the human being, whose mind is comported only to senses.”

JC: What’s silly, or one might say macabre, is a religion that purports to forge a bond between the Creator and His creatures, where the people don’t love one another enough to take care of each other, or revere their Creator or their situation enough to preserve it.

It is true none are puzzling over my assertions and attempting to understand them as yet. While I am here I might explain it better. But I don’t think I’m here to offer explanations. This has been true throughout history, none has spoken of soul, for none has experienced it. I can observe these souls, in fact sometimes I see too much, that I could never reveal.

LC: You have clearly implied in your writing, in this and previous threads, at least the possibility that animals have souls. I seem to have remembered your writing on the subject previously and that set my expectations, which were reinforced in this thread.

JC: What have animals to do with insects? I wrote there is a question of where the souls appear in the chain of being, but your mind did not register the assertion. It’s a matter now for conjecture and speculation, that I think is more fun than a flat-out revelation. I’m not one to boast, but if forced I must. I’d rather toy with what can be learned if one looks.

LC: To check on my recollection, I searched the archives and found this reinforcing sample of your writing in this forum on the subject from February 5, 2020, at 01:20:28 PM.

“In Hinduism they teach men are arising from the animals, and this fits Christianity too. That is to say, the souls are on a path to greater purity, starting from an impure state.”

JC: Well, your mind evidently cannot make a distinction between animals and insects, nor am I certain mine can make a distinction here, as Hinduism insists humans bring their animal side right with them into these bodies, that I’d say are fit for gods and goddesses.

LC: The thought that animals have souls is worthy of serious consideration. I don’t understand why one would deny holding such a thought if one actually held it.

JC: I am emphasizing something new and different, as humans use the term “soul” it is without meaning besides, “other than body,” casting their imagination into emptiness. In fact as humans try to think of “nothingness” it is an almost equivalent false abstraction, they think of sense experience and try to pretend it’s gone, although it never really is for them. But in the higher experiences cited in Hindu scripture, the sages have seen the Self.

[lancia]

You asked, “What have animals to do with insects?”

A lot!

Insects are members of the class Insecta, the phylum Arthropoda, and the kingdom Animalia. As such, insects share many characteristics with the other animals because they ARE animals.

Thus, if animals have souls, insects (including mayflies, of course) have souls.

If you want to revise your claim and say, among the animals, only mammals have souls; or only mammals and reptiles have souls; or only mammals, reptiles, and amphibians have souls; or only mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and fish have souls, then go ahead.

But don’t blame me for knowing animal classification and for acting appropriately, given that knowledge.

[jayceeii]

You show another egregious human fault, which I have found to be universal, which is total inability to correlate size and function of body with the size and power of the soul. You make a technical point, but I said animal, not Animalia, referencing the typical use of this term and not the technical one. Who can you find on the street who will not say animals are different from insects? I say it is an egregious fault because they will say they wish they were birds, or in another life they might come back as tadpoles or worms. Instead as Jesus said, human souls are more valuable than the souls of sparrows in God’s sight. Nonetheless they are not valuable to Him as friends, and have no knowledge of spirit. As they muse they might come back as tiny creatures, they prove their ignorance.

There was an episode of “Bewitched” where Tabatha changed a schoolgirl into a butterfly, and she came back saying she wished she could have stayed that way. There were no protests in the streets over this egregious episode, as there would have been from spiritually cognizant people, or even those especially curious, who were wondering about their own existence. Hinduism teaches there is a progression from animal to human, but this can go both directions, which they don’t emphasize. Up to now the population has only been expanding, so it seems a one-way street. In any case when I use the term animal I mean this upper region of the lower creation, certainly not its tiniest denizens. People don’t understand this because without experience of spirit it seems unreal to them.

[lancia]

You said, “You make a technical point, but I said animal, not Animalia, referencing the typical use of this term and not the technical one. Who can you find on the street who will not say animals are different from insects?”

Well, the typical use of the term in my circle is the technical one. The typical use you allude to is much too imprecise for serious discussions, which I hope we are having here. If by animals you mean mammals and birds, for example, then why not just say mammals and birds and avoid the ambiguity?

But you started all of this by raising the issue of mayfly souls when you said to me, “You do not know if you have a soul, or if mayflies have souls.” So, I interpreted, from then on, your use of animal in the context of that claim about mayflies and thus used the technical meaning of animal since I knew that technically mayflies are animals.

[jayceeii]

This is a most fascinating moment from several perspectives. I used the word “tadpole” with meaning, for there is a reminiscence to a scene with Ramakrishna, where “M.” said his frog had croaked. Here instead though, the frog still croaks, but in another sense. It shows we know Jesus did not impress with mere authority, nor Ramakrishna, in his day.

First I would point out you are ignoring the majority of my points and focusing on one, which is a presumption of domination by parts where the whole is ignored. This is a sign of fragmentation. Second, you demonstrate exclusionary or elitist thinking, deciding a scientific classification scheme trumps normal discourse among the vast majority. Third, by clinging to this scheme despite my alerting you to the basic fault, you demonstrate that even if told to expect real properties in the soul, the soul is still unreal to you and all you see is the material form, in practice. Fourth, you are ungenerous, for having described my use of the word animal, you should notice the English language supplies no other words for a similar meaning. Fifth, this classification system may be faulted as too material in its orientation, ripping the word animal away from its normal use and applying it to all manner of moving organisms with absolutely no consideration of the spiritual underpinning. Sixth, the system reflects the truth that men do not consider themselves in a better place than the animals, content to call themselves that. I don’t see it that way. The human form offers many quantum leaps beyond animal experience, and should not be called animal. However as Hinduism relates, souls normally animal may be found here.

[lancia]

“This is a most fascinating moment from several perspectives.”

Glad to have been in the moment.

[James]

I would like to amplify Jayceeii’s point made in reply to me.

An eternity spent stood in a bucket of water wearing only a tea cosy on one’s head is just as meaningless as one minute spent in that activity. On the other hand, our ideas of what activities would give meaning to an eternal existence also provide meaning to a temporary one. Indeed, the latter arguably gives those activities more meaning than if they were eternal. Image you are told that you will be watching all the episodes of “Friends” over and over again, for all eternity. Would you still consider watching “Friends” a meaningful activity that is worthy of your time?

That some things (eg, works of art) are transient and easily lost is the very reason some are prepared to pay large sums of money for them and place them in collections where they are protected. That temporary things are of lesser value are of lesser value and just because they are temporary is demonstrably just not how most people think. If we really thought that, temporary works of art would be destroyed.

[jayceeii]

The longing that things would not end appears to be beyond human ken. The attitude expressed here, that the disappearing things are better valued, is missing any substantial presence to enjoy. You mention a show about friends, but the heavenly scene is eternal friends, whose personalities grow more and more complex, extending the challenges to know them well. All this takes power both to perpetuate and enjoy, where you say “Meh.”

I enjoy my bicycle. It is temporary but I wish it weren’t. One day it will wear out and I’d need a new one, hopefully as durable as can be made. I have found a few television shows that I can watch tirelessly, because the complexity and beauty therein has been impossible to fathom in short time. Leonardo’s paintings are beautiful but temporary, but where is Leonardo? If Hinduism is correct he is still with us, and could paint some more.