Total posts: 2,193
-->
@ethang5
Would not an appropriate title have been, "Yeshuabought does not have the right to life."? Instead of a death threat?
No either way... she asked for the debate therefore Wylted wasn't trying to offend by creating it. All i have seen from her as she has joined this site is divisiveness and starting trouble by putting other people that don't agree with her down. In my opinion, for her health, she should just stop using the internet. Doesn't look like she can handle criticism very well. In law we would call her an eggshell plaintiff. Very easily broken, offended, etc.
Created:
-->
@bsh1
That's actually pretty funny :')
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I'm not talking about a cap at all. A cap wouldn't be the answer and it does punish successful people and i am against that. Then i would agree it's stealing from them. I think the answer would be more in redistribution. How exactly i'm not sure bc i would have to crunch numbers. But in my example above... if someone is making 10 million a year and only pays its workers 20k a year, shave off a million and give the workers that are qualified a 20k raise (more or less depending on where they live). I imagine this system would work if one figures out what the ratio should be. If x employer makes y amount the qualified workers should be making z amount. You know what does this kind of system best... video games. You know if you put in x amount of time you will get that time rewarded. So i mean, this is one idea and of course it has a lot of caveats that i'm looking over... but it explains the idea i think is better than a straight up cap. A cap would be unfair and very detrimental to our progress.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
That's an extreme example. I'm not talking about anything that would amount to living like the Amish.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Common man... you're better than the deflection talking point from the right vs. left debates. I'm not talking about punishing anyone. I still want people to be rich... filthy rich even. You are putting too much stock into humanity. This line of thinking is what the filthy rich hope for which is why they make it seem they deserve it. Yeah... we all benefit from the fruits of creativity. And there is an incentive to do so which i am not talking about taking away.Setting aside feelings of jealousy: culling or punishing productive people in society on the basis of being "too rich" is disastrous for a nation's economy.
The key word here is balance. There needs to be balance. This balance i don't see happening from competition. I don't see it happening through charity. I don't see it happening through more jobs. Nothing will fix human greed. And the problem with greed is even good people are greedy. Therefore, they'll take in 10 million a year and still pay their staff 20k a year. That's the free market right? Anyone can do it so apply yourself and get there... i call bs on that too. It isn't an upside triangle market. It's essentially a pyramid scheme... it's a pyramid. There are only so many people that can get to the top (and yeah luck has a lot to do with it). What i'm saying is good... let people get to that top, keep the pyramid scheme for all i care. But, if the people on the top of that pyramid are not going to help the people under them willingly... then yes, they're stealing from them, enslaving them basically, and someone needs to force that to stop... that someone is government in this case. If you can tell me any other thing that can fix this issue other than the government i'm willing to listen. Bc i do find this issue to be theft, i do find this issue to be enslaving people just bc you can, and i don't see it fixing itself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
1) please don't say things like "It's a good system it just wasn't implemented correctly"...there is a reason the system fails multiple times over hundreds of years, and it's not due to implementation.
Implementation is important though. The way you set something up to try and minimize as much negative as possible. Maybe we haven't done it right, all i'm saying is there most likely can be a way to do things a little better... always. I'm not of the belief concepts always lead to the same outcome. I'm sure i can look up certain things that worked in one place and failed in another. But i'm not bc the concept of rent control has never been done statewide. So... we really don't know what will happen. I imagine the negatives of having it in certain places is way different. You can't really compare localized vs. statewide. The supply and demand will be worlds different.
There is no such thing as "too rich." There is no rational reason why you should put a cap on the productivity of anyone in a free market economy. None of these producers are swimming in vaults of gold like Scrooge McDuck. Nearly all the wealth is invested in the community. We have laws to incarcerate people from abusing government power to steal wealth from people, so we don't need additional laws to punish people who never stole a dime from anyone while accumulating wealth from their productivity in a free market where people can choose to buy or not to buy.
There is no such thing? There most def. are people that could be categorized as too rich. When you have enough wealth that 100 generations in your family are going to be rich for there entire lives...i'd call that too rich. Look i have no problem with people being rich. There just needs to be a balance (however you get that and keep people rich). But.. 50% of our population makes less than 30K a year. That's just bs. I don't care about people that are rich and are good people. There are a lot of them. But i think there are a lot more bad people. You know at one time humans actually enjoyed watching other humans die... get tortured, get raped. That's humanity. People aren't kind... to me it sounds like you're defending these people, which is why i just don't agree with that. There are way too many sick people in this world that don't give two craps if someone is dying bc they can't pay their bills. That's what the governments for... to speak for every citizen, especially the ones that can't do it themselves. If there is one issue government should be involved in is this.
"People that never stole a dime from anyone" Lol really... i don't get why you see it like that. Not everyone obviously... but when 50% are making less than 30k a year.. that is theft (a good portion of it)... i don't get why you are defending the ones that are stacking their pockets without an inch of empathy for the people making them that money. Human nature is dark man. It's just not going to fix itself.
Edit: Oh, and i forgot to mention (i sorta did with the 'good portion of it' comment) i'm not talking about the poor. That's a different issue. Minimum wage earners are sorta part of it bc i think they can get paid a little more... but mainly it's people that are trying to have careers, have degrees, are doing something, that i am talking about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Really? for being a panentheist that is quite the ridiculous question. I mean, i am a pantheist but that isn't much different. Human me is human me... the source of where i come from is? The pantheistic entity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I think i understand this god better than you do, to be honest. Seeing that you can't justify your god... or even make it clear, i would say me not understanding YOUR god is all on you.You don't actually understand the "Christian god(sic)", so I can't really respect your opinion on this matter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I'm pretty sure I compared your beliefs to Satanism too.
No... you said witchcraft. I remember these ad homs, it's actually rather amusing to me. But to give you credit you "agreed" with me that it's satanic... i'm the one that brought it up. I have a pretty darn good memory.
Just saying. You make it sound like you worship yourself as God.
Then you don't understand my belief. Start with pantheism since that's a big part... how is that worshiping myself? I just believe i am god bc everything is god. That is a different entity than human me.
Your god is fabrication rather than The Ultimate Reality.
"Pantheism" By definition this higher power is the ultimate reality lmao. You are trying to say the Biblical god is this being... nice interpretation i'll give you that.. but i know a couple Christian's that will call you a pagan lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Whatever... believe in panentheism... it's better than the commonly referred to Christian god anyways. I'm actually proud that you have a slightly better interpretation of god. Now you have to explain how we all aren't god in such a model... Or we can just let that go unanswered too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Not at all. Anything that is self-contradictory is illogical.
I am essentially a pantheist... how is that self-contradictory?
And, what do i find contradictory with the Bible... heaven. I think heaven as described in the Bible would be hell. Maybe you might have a different take on it that i might not find deathly horrifying... i'll see.
Mopac, or I, are logical as long as we remain aligned with the ultimate truth. Stray and we go into error like anyone else.
I'll start with the above questions, I cannot remember our conversations... only that it ended in me being satanic (mopac said witchcraft) lol... but, in any case, don't put yourself in the same boat as Mopac. You justify yourself to a point you can... Mopac doesn't and runs away.
That's about the size, where you put your eyes, that's bout the size of it.
I just hope you are more "logical" than Mopac is...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
A pantheist doesn't know what he's talking about Lmao. Seeing that there are christian witches, christian agnostics, christian atheists, christian deists, christian pantheists, etc. (times infinity) You can believe whatever you want. You are incapable of seeing the implications. I'll just let my questions stack up in the list of questions you can't answer.
Created:
-->
@bsh1
I didn't read your other posts. I was only focusing and what you were discussing with me. That is where my observations came from. If you did apologize... that is something uncomfortable to do so good job.
I can take pride in the fact that I am striving to be the best mod I can.
As long as you listen to every side's concerns. My concern was in regards to micro-managing... that is usually correlative to abuse of power. That's all i was trying to get across. I'm sure this incident gave you some things to think about... and if you do think about it, you're doing good. I mean no ill will only to show you a point of view that may not have been in your purview.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Mopac is, by logic, arriving at his definition of God. It isn't by whim, it's by logic. Any other definition of God falls to illogic. But defined correctly, all other bits of reality can be logically subsumed into the concept of God.He isn't making things up, he is discovering truth.
Everything is illogical if it isn't in the Bible? Or what Mopac says? That seems anything but logical man.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Theism and panentheism are not mutually exclusive. Panentheism is a type of theism.
I disagree. I've told you implications of a pantheistic platform and you've called it witchcraft. Panentheism is basically the same thing just that god goes beyond the physical. The universe is his body basically. They both say everything is god. If everything is god, so are we and the important part is that we all become god when we die in these platforms. The Bible does not portray a pantheistic god in that sense... we don't become a god. In both the pan-views we become god. Panentheism is a little more like the theistic version bc it can interact with the universe as an outside force, but the end result is the same as pantheism. In the Bible, god isn't a part of creation. In panentheism creation is part of god.
I can't say that God isn't in the universe, because to say that would to deny Jesus Christ come in the flesh.
Not only would Jesus be god so is everyone else. Theism explains the Bible's god better. Theism being that god created the universe and isn't the universe itself. Therefore, god can also create an individual and be that individual, Jesus, while others aren't god. That is a god separate to the universe. The pan-views make less sense with the Bible's version of god.
Here is something to think about... How is it that when you eat, you eat the body of Christ and when you drink, you eat the blood of Christ?
I don't do any of that bc i am god. In pan-views Jesus isn't an extra god. He would be just as godly as anyone else bc everyone is god... How could he preform miracles? The more you tap into being god... the closer you get to your higher self, the more you have experiences. Explains how he likely could perform miracles if any of his story is true at all. That is why i think i've had so many experiences myself. God is suppose to be with all of us bc the Biblical god is all the Omni's... You can construe this god being a panentheistic god... that would just make you a fringe Christian. I'd also wonder why you wouldn't believe you are god bc that is what it means.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Btw... Cox is insane too... He wants to impeach judges that don't bar legislator prayers to Jesus and make us teach scientific facts relating to creationism... like there are any. I really worry for our country if we continue with this two pick system. Especially since it's always either blue or red. I can't wait for the day green or black wins.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
It's sucks for me either way. I want to vote for a Democrat that wants to do something about housing prices or wages, but then i don't want to vote for said Democrat for wanting to take my first Amendment rights or touch my second Amendment rights. It sucks being in the middle. I lose either way. Plus, i live in California so i really can't do anything about it anyways. We'll see this time... looks like Cox had a heads up on Newsom on some polls, so it will be interesting to see what happens. At this point, i'd rather Cox win. I've seen what the Dems are doing, lets see what a Reb. can do.
Created:
Posted in:
Theism = God is outside the universe or the multi-verse. Created it, but not a part of it.
Pantheism = God is the universe and/or the multi-verse.
Panentheism = God is the universe and/or the multi-verse and beyond. It's like the multi-verse has a head.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Whaaaaat? So you think the Bible is indicative of a pantheistic / Panentheistic god?My view is closer to panentheism.
Created:
-->
@bsh1
Me, me, me... your inability to understand where i am coming from and take responsibility speaks volumes about your personality. All i see is excuses to justify why you are allowed to micro-manage. I'll just let others judge you for that, i'm done. You know where i stand. And here is my notice... if i ever get "talked to" for saying something is stupid or idiotic... i will make that public in protest to micro-managing and a push to turn this site into being called RateGDebates... Alright children behave.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Did they tell you when it had happened? Who won?god "cast down satan", If so when and what for?Who started the war? What was the war over?
Actually, i think they alluded to the war being either World War 1 or 2. To be honest, i just remembered that... they were saying this Revelation was a human war. I think i remember her saying they aren't exactly sure which war it was, could have been earlier than WW2, but she said she personally thinks it was WW2 the Revelation is talking about.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
JW's have told me this war already happened... the one in Revelation. Plus, it would make more sense in regards to Satan's influence on our world if he is already here.
Created:
-->
@bsh1
That's obviously not what I am saying. I am saying that users--and people in general--should be able to control their anger. Rage is not an excuse for misconduct. Period.
Basically you're saying everyone needs to be like you. Besides that your just not getting it. If someone is mad at you, even if it isn't rage just mad, it is a weird request for them to give you a respectful message. Really, all you have to do is be respectful and mindful and you'll never run into this again. But if you do... don't expect someone you offended to be cordial.
"to preempt the disclosure ONLY in the event that such a disclosure would jeopardize the safety or privacy rights of another user."
You can't stop this from happening if it's going to happen. I would agree with you that a ban should ensue if someone does this. That's all you can do. Not expect someone mentioned above will be cordial. Everything else you can do once you see the thread. And since you are responsibly warning people, a rebuttal to their concern should be easy. You know you have time to respond once you see it right? A heads up makes no sense and only comes off as i'm in charge so do my bidding. It's abuse of your position.
I am getting your point. I don't think you're getting mine--in fact, you fundamentally misconstrued what I said regarding triangle.
God here you go again, no you're not getting it. I am not misconstruing what you said. I'm telling you even if you make it known it wasn't a warning... to a user that isn't your friend... it will always come off as a warning. In this case, a bias one at that. So you think micro-managing is a good precedent? Do you have time to warn everyone that says "idiot" ... no i don't think you do and what happens is you start choosing people you disagree with. I don't respond to this stuff when i don't see a problem, there is def. a problem with this precedent.
Created:
-->
@bsh1
You shouldn't have to think of a response. You should have already done that before the warning. And now you are saying if someone is mad that they were treated unfairly it's on them... that's insensitive man."The purpose is to give a moderator time to marshal a response
By indicating that it wasn't an official warning, I believe I did just that.
I can't believe you aren't getting my whole point... it isn't just that, it will never come across as just that. For you to even have thought that sentence needs a warning has me concerned at this point bc it really looks like it personally offended you which is why you thought to say something. This is a precedent you think is okay to set?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I'm sure your experience should be heeded, but i don't buy into the logic that since it didn't work years ago, there isn't a way to do it for it to work. How it's done i am open to discuss. I personally don't like the rent control prop for California. But we need somewhere to start. My hands are tied, it's almost the same as picking bw two evils. On one hand, nothing will get better if we don't... on the other, we risk negatives. I guess i'm just a risk taker in that i am willing to risk it. Especially since it is up to the cities to implement it... i think that gives it better chance in one doing it right and the others follow. Plus, if it is truly a detriment we can just toss the law. That is one thing about conservatism i personally don't like... the leave it alone type of mentality. The world is growing and we must grow with it. Maybe we will fail, but not trying will get us nowhere. In any case, from the polls, it doesn't look like it will pass anyways. I'll vote for it, so i guess we'll just have to wait and see.
This article explains how artificial prices create artificial shortages, and no amount of demand can rectify the shortage problem, because basic economics will always tell you that supply is dictated by price and price is dictated by demand. There is no bypass where demand creates supply without a change in price.
I hear what you are talking about but it is up to the price. Just bc we have price control or increase in wages doesn't mean the price will be in a spot where it creates no incentive. I'm not the type to say i don't want anyone to be rich anymore... i'm just of the opinion that very few people are getting too rich. In which case, it has turned into them stealing from us. I am against stealing from them... but that's just not the case. People are taking too much for housing and wages bc they can. Human nature is always towards greed... you don't care about anyone not in your circle. I mean you might, but a vast majority don't. That's why i don't see any other way to force their hands to give back than regulation. Maybe you can convince me of an alternative, but i am pretty sure the alternatives are what we already have.
Created:
-->
@bsh1
In regards to the regular ole users spreading PM's of others i'm a bit ambivalent. I don't think one should befriend someone than stab them in the back by spreading private stuff they got in confidence. So... i'm with you there. Other than that it wouldn't be a problem anyways. Mods should be held to a different standard which you are saying they are... that's a good thing. But to expect someone to give you a heads up once you've done something to offend them is a little too much. Think about it... he's super mad you did that, but you want him to say "hello, i'm going to share this now." That just sounds unrealistic to me. You shouldn't say anything that would embarrass you anyways. If you are afraid of them sharing your PM, it just sounds like to me you have something to hide. That is why i found it to be a weird request.
In regards to your just giving him a heads up. You should know that you are a mod. You can punish people on this site for what they write. If you would have sent me that message, i would have thought it's serious even if it's not. That's the effect you have, it's your position. I don't want to tell you how to do your job, but i urge you to warn people when it is serious... when you don't, it looks like you''re flexing your muscles and power. Unless of course the user is your friend and you just want to give him/her a heads up. But in this case it doesn't look like you two are on the level of friendship. Anything you say comes off as a warning even if you say it isn't. You are the mod of this site that has the power to have people banned. In my humble opinion, you didn't use that responsibly in specific regard that you don't seem to understand how others view your position on this site. It was insensitive ironically, since you may have thought you are doing him a favor... that's just not how it works.
Created:
-->
@bsh1
I see. So he's going to be warned on this too. I don't like these rules. It is all stacked to give power to moderators that they do not deserve any more than any other user to be able to harass those they disagree with for non-problems. You made a bad move warning the user for the subject sentence. I hope you can see how it comes off as bias and abuse of power. That was as innocuous a sentence can be.It does. From the COC: "Posting the contents, in part or in whole, of private messages (PMs) in a public venue without the consent of all parties to the PM is strictly prohibited." This rule also applies on DDO. Private messages are "private" for a reason.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Come on man, supply for the poor won't completely stop. There will always be people willing to help the poor. I live in the OC in California. The new construction already is nothing but wealthy homes that mainly rich Chinese people are buying up. Look... housing is already broken. Even though there are detriments to rent control... it is much better to have that as the base line and work to make it better than do nothing and let these overlords screw all of us every chance they get. When you have rent control as it is now... in very few places, the negatives are exacerbated. But if you have it state wide it will balance itself out. I can't be sure of that, but i'd rather see where that goes. As it stands, the housing in California is ridiculous. Something needs to be done and the only way i can see forcing people's hands in the matter is through regulation... they won't do it from the kindness of their hearts. Maybe if 50% of the country didn't make less than 30k a year i wouldn't be worrying about rent control... but the fact is this is reality. Something needs to give.
Created:
-->
@bsh1
Why does he have to? He felt unfairly targeted, and for good reason, and made it known. Does it say somewhere that we can't share our own PM's? If someone decides to talk to me or warn me of something i can do whatever i want with that. If he wanted to make it public he can... This is abuse of power in my eyes all bc it makes you feel uncomfortable. A police officer feels uncomfortable when people record them... this is the same case. You may feel uncomfortable but it is in his right to speak out... if he wants to have extra courtesy, he can give you a heads up. But i imagine he was upset and giving the person that just made him upset that courtesy isn't automatically deserved.In future, give moderation due notice that you are planning to disclose moderation PMs. This is non-negotiable.
Created:
-->
@triangle.128k
Wow... this was a problematic sentence?? Are you F88888 kidding me. This has liberal bias written all over it. I'm disappointed in moderation."Just include an option called 'other' for idiots who can't align with the binary. There's only two genders lol."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I'm acknowledging these negatives. I just don't believe it is as profound as you are making it out to be. People still want to make money. It may not be as much as they were making before, but they will still make money. Supply isn't going to just magically stop. Same with jobs. They are in the business of making money. They may hire less people, but they still need people to run the business and will continue on... it's not just going to stop. In regards to poor people, yeah rent control will hurt them... in my opinion they shouldn't be renting a house or apartment if they can't afford it anyways. There should be other types of housing for the poor that come with programs to rehabilitate, get them working, then they can rent when they are on their feet and have a strong job. I care more about people that have a strong job but still can't make their way... those are the one's i care about more, not the poor.The end result is the same. Less supply of apartments and jobs with more demand for both. The end result is the poor get the shaft. End of discussion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DBlaze
I haven't done the math... but, i do know quite a bit of top earners since most of my family is rich. They all worked hard to get to their level... especially the doctors in my family.How many of these top earners do you know? And how do you know how hard they work or have worked for their money?
Did you know that 1400 people in the US paid for about 50% of all taxes in 2016? You think they should pay more than that? Also, you do know that to balance out a UBI like that would raise prices for everything, and we would still be in the same situation.
Well it's really complicated and depends on each individual. I would have to know how much these 1400 people make. If they are still rich for 1000s of generations, then yeah... maybe they should pay more. But i don't know the exact numbers so i can't make a blind call. Especially if other factors come into play.
Like this factor you mentioned next. Prices going up bc our wages are up. If prices are going to go back up and put us in the same place before the raise then we must think about regulating these business' or giving them incentive not to do this raise. I haven't figured it out... but, i think we can figure this one issue out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yeah, minimum wage is my least favorite bc it doesn't address some other important areas or does it have the effect i hope for some kind of living wages to have. However, i don't think it is as detrimental as you paint it. Yeah, some may loss a job bc companies have to have less people but they'll make it work. If a company goes bankrupt bc they can't pay the increase... i am very curious when they were going down. It doesn't seem that company was doing very well to begin with. Of course it would have some negative effects, but it will also have positive effects. I do not think the negative effects are more.
It's the same thing as rent control. It will have negative effects but it really depends on how the city implements it. I would rather it pass in California so that it's up to the cities to mess up or not. Plus, if it is implemented state wide... worrying about getting an apartment is gone. Rent control isn't going to get rid of competition. It may have an effect on supply, it may have an effect on what kind of buildings are being built, but people will find a way to make money, and others will find a way to find a home. I think that will happen more than not. And if something positively effects more people than not especially when implemented correctly... i think it's a good idea.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
But don't you think having that position is far fetched? There is a lot more evidence the earth is round than the latter. You would have to say a lot of people are lying. All space travel, all engineers, all pilots, etc.
Created:
Posted in:
So... i'm a centrist and one thing that leans me left is the idea of universal basic income (UBI). If not UBI, i would say minimum wages need to increase. And if not that, some kind of living wages needs to be implemented. Now i don't know how it would work. Maybe we can have higher taxes on corporations and top earners. In any case, i believe out of all the issues the left is preaching, this is the only one that is doable and should be done. I do not find the right's argument of stealing money from wealthy people is immoral. I actually think it is immoral that wealthy people don't redistribute their wealth back to the bottom earners. It's the people making them rich. It is people working harder than any executive making them rich. At this point, the higher brackets are stealing money from their workers. I've never found the right's argument that they "worked hard to get there" "it would be stealing money" "you can get there too" (no you can't). The system is rigged to be like a pyramid scheme. There is only so many allowed at the top... therefore, i would say luck had more to do with it than hard work. The higher earners are stealing from the people making them rich/wealthy. Now... i haven't defined higher earners and what tax rate they should be hit with bc i think there needs to be a discussion on who these people are. But as it stands... i honestly think these higher earners are not only stealing from people under them, this theft also makes them even closer to being their slaves. UBI or some kind of living wage needs to happen.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
It's says more lies in your OP... flat earth is just one of those lies. It can tie into your OP's lies. So, i'm not off base... i haven't even started. With that, mind your own business.
Created:
Posted in:
Dance with me in the rain under the pale moonlight
for the wolves are howling our melody tonight
her graceful bow lit by the moonlights spell
cast a lovely silhouette of a ballerina in her music box
our hands lightly touch the milky way in her eye
she softly tunes my heart to the sound of the tinkle bells
so then i prayed stars in the sky i pray to you tonight
hear my prayers so she can eternally be mine
then in one swift dizzying movement to her eyes
the winds gentle whisper in the night sky
i kissed her neck and stopped all time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Do you really believe the earth is flat? If so, why?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
- Does Earth's apparent uniqueness as a life bearing planet imply a creator intended for us to be here?
I don't think it implies it, although for life to be real in general is a very curious thing. To have our type of imagination and mind proven to be something real kinda blows me away. This is bc i believe the space which we are in, and beyond, is infinite per se... or unlimited. The implications of our type of creativity to be something real could have some very crazy implications in a infinite type setting.
- Mass extinction is inevitable for every life form on Earth. Why were we created just to be destroyed?
Another thing that's curious. If we are spiritual beings, and/or, some kind of / from some kind of eternal entities... then, we must die. Death would be the reset back to said entity. It looks like even if we can find a way to live forever... at some point, this reset is inevitable. Spiritually, that makes sense if we must die to become our true selves again.
- Are the Earth's purpose and humanity's purpose two different things, or is the purpose of our planet bound to us in some way?
To me our earth is the TV and we are the movie (spiritually speaking). Earth is the platform to allow for our experiences. I think that makes the purpose bound to us in some way in regards to your question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
A spiritual answer for me personally is: To have a human experience enjoying the things you love about this reality. I don't think it is for spiritual growth. It's just one reality out of many your spiritual self visits. The reasons are many since they are all subjective to the person. For me, it's being here with my family, friends and enjoying the other things i love to do in this reality. For this is the only type of reality i can enjoy the things i love for how they are. Any other type of reality would be a different experience than this one... in essence, this is currently paradise or hell, most of the time both. It's just an experience out of the sea of experiences. It's the same thing if you asked what is the purpose of a movie... or more specifically to your op, the CD of a movie. To put it in the video player and watch it.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
That's a cool belief. So, you believe in it in a more cosmic computer type of premise? It sounds like it with the 0 and 1 type stuff.
So are we the characters in this source's imagination? I can call the source god if you'd like btw. I assume you believe there is only one supreme being worthy of a god title?
Also you left out how this god came to be... i personally concede i don't know. It can either have always been or born, but do you hold either or to be true?
How did we come to be from this god? Or are we from this god?
In regards to the simulation... do you mean a programmed computer type simulation? Or, we are a dream type simulation? Or other of course?
I'll say a brief overview of what i believe so you can ask me questions if you'd like. But like i said, there are two ways i think a god could be born... i'll just pick one for now. I'll use the one where god is everything and has always been. This is the less logical one bc it doesn't follow our logic, but i think if one is going to be true... it's likely the one that's less logical. It's just a hunch in any case.
Even with this god however it was either born or always been. If it was born then everything came into existence when it woke up. It's hard for me to rap my mind around it wasn't born and has always been so i'll go with born. If it was born, it has had eons and/or technically infinite time to evolve. It's likely at its eons age at this point. With that said, it's not truly infinite. It is just eternal in that it can't die. But it's finite up until the end of its imagination which may seem infinite. To me, this fixes both a finite space and infinite space paradox. It's as if we could never die... what would you call your imagination at that point? Infinite or finite? It's a little of both i guess. The implication of this sort of source is that we are all a character that it has imagined over its time. And since it's incorporeal and cannot die... it knows everything at once, therefore everything exists within it. It knows the beginnings and ends of everything. It can piece a human together one atom at a time. It's infinitely intelligent at this point.
The best way to describe how we got here is a sand analogy. This source is correlative to if you think about infinite sand. Everything exists in this sand even without having created it. But, if you want to experience something and make it "real" in a sense, you make say a sandcastle. Now the sandcastle is physical and real i.e. experiencing. Then it crumbles and becomes one with the sea of sand again. As you can see, when it becomes one with the infinite sand... it technically still exists, everything does. But it experiences once it is physical. That's the same with us i believe. In a sea of this source we manifest in the physical to experience. So... that's it with my platform... or at least, one of them. Most the other ones have the same implications in the end anyways.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Yeah i noticed a thread where you said you are gnostic. I know briefly what that implies, but i would rather you describe this god to me. Everyone interprets it a little different so i'd like to know what you think. If you can add to it... do you think this god has always been or manifested from material that has always been?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
See i don't know even if that's what he believes. The reason i want to have him define even one attribute is to see how this god correlates to the Bible, which he also thinks is a part of this truth. There are two ways a ultimate reality god are possible. It always has been or somehow manifested.
You brought up the next point i needed clarification too in regards to the manifestation of god(s). It's actually a really simple answer to your concern of how a god could come up without another. I'll touch on the alternative however... i don't want to give the latter away bc i'm waiting for him to figure it out. But if it comes up bw us, whatever i'll touch on it.
There is a chance that our universal materials are infinite. They always been and forever will remain to be. Therefore, the thing that created a higher consciousness and/or a god or even gods is this material being infinite. Given enough time, space, energy etc (the cause)... In some space in a far far away multiverse... this material could be the cause of an incorporeal mind. This incorporeal mind could have evolved or just was born super intelligent... therefore, it would be correlative to a god. From our observation as humans and how the laws work, although this god is a leap in logic, it's more logical than everything being god from the start. Although... i have an answer to how that is also possible and i actually favor it kinda a little more now. The implications of both these types of gods are the same.... so i don't really care how they manifested. It's more important to try an understand how it relates to us in my opinion.. the implications.
I'll go over it more if you are interested in my opinion, but lets get to the simulation thing. So there is two possibilities to look at. One if everything is a part of a huge mind. And two, if we are a manifestation of the physical form of one of these manifested universal minds. I'm going to call them both "source" to make it more simple. If everything is the source, then we are the "physical" manifestations of this incorporeal mind. But the important thing is that this mind would literally be everything and everyone. This wouldn't be a simulation. This would be the physical manifestation of what this source already knows. It would be the reverse of our dreams. Our dreams would be physical and our bodies would be incorporeal.
If we are a part of a source that manifested through the eternal materials than there is no reason to say there is only one of these sources. All of us could have been first born as an incorporeal mind and given years of evolving we have learned how to manifest ourselves into physical vessels.
So those are the two ways i find to be the most logical if we are going to say universal minds or everything is a mind. I'm curious if there is some other route i didn't think about... that is why i usually ask. But as you can see.. i'm detailing what i mean, and i can detail even more if we get there, mopac doesn't. Therefore, i also don't understand how either of these situations leads to a Christian god... or any religious god for that matter. Both scenarios implicate everyone is divine and no specific religion. That's why i ask for clarification. I've found that no one that is religious can answer questions that come with these situations. If one can i seriously would reconsider my beliefs.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I'm curious how you know what he means when he is unwilling or incapable of describing what he means... But okay, i'll give you a chance to explain your belief. I understand the concept of all realities being god. My first question is why would you jump to the conclusion that all realities are a mind vs. not being a mind? By mind i mean an incorporeal mind or more specifically whatever it is that gives this god any cognitive abilities. If your god doesn't have this mind just let me know.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
I don't know why everyone is humoring you on this thread... I tried... but i have better things to do than wait for you to make sense.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
I get all that... what makes you think the Ultimate Reality is God and not just natural space, time, matter, etc.?
Created:
-->
@Mopac
What other god do you think i'm talking about? You're acting like the child adults that get offended if i miss pronoun them... I'm obviously talking about your capital G god... Why do you keep deflecting? I'm asking the most simple question i can think of... why do you believe your God is the Ultimate Reality? Why wouldn't it just be natural space, time, matter, etc.?
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Fine maybe i should have said earthly consciousness to include all animals and critters. It is a jump to say there is anything beyond this world's conscious animals bc there is no proof of it... so we jump. Now i don't think consciousness is only here on earth, but this isn't about my belief. I'm wondering why you would think there is any beyond our earth. I mean, we can start out at Alien level then get to your god... but, i'd rather hear why you think there is a conscious god that is this Ultimate Reality.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Then it is a jump... why do you think their is another form of consciousness other then human consciousness?
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Does this God have any level of consciousness?
Created: