Freethought & Rationalism Archive

09-07-2002, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Infinity Lover:
Amos keeps adding (no desire in heaven).

Does that mean there's also no fullfilment in heaven. (or at least his concept of heaven, to keep it clean and open to debate).

Without desire there is infinite bliss, peace and happiness. There is sex in heaven but not the enslavement to sex. There is beer in heaven but not the enslavement to beer. Heaven is when we can go through life and rely upon our intuition and know that all will be OK. Before this time arrives we will have to learn to walk on water and in this sense water is the Celestial sea or subconscious mind. This is made clear in Rev.14 where the first beast emerged from the sea and not from the land.

And isn't the afterlife a desire in itself?
Which makes it come full circle with desiring to not-desire.

Afterlife is a desire only during our first life. Once we have arrived there it can't exist. This is the same as that the book of Revelations is only futuristic until we arrive there and heaven is only supernatural until we arrive there. 

What do you fancy heaven to be Amos?

I really don't fancy much but just give you my philosophical opinion.

[/QB]

Heathen Dawn · 09-08-2002, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amos:

How about intelligent design instead of "accord" because "selection" implies awareness and since nature does not have a mind of its own it cannot select anything. "Evolution by natural selection" is an observation made out of ignorance

I didn't know you were a creationist, Amos. Anyways, creationism is a folk theory of the past, just like the Stork Theory of Reproduction.

Quote:

To be sure, the wind does not blow where it wills

The wind blows where it does. Of course, it acts with constraints; then again, so do we. In a universe of ricocheting natural forces, there is no unconstrained agent.

Quote:

Sorry, the neutral here is at peace or at rest without desire as if we are the centre of the universe. In this stage the whole world evolves around us while we are immovable and at rest (no desire in heaven).

We're still animals. And the whole world does not evolve around us in any way. You commit the same fallacy as do Buddhism and Christianity in their cosmology: the anthropocentric fallacy. It is like what I thought in past, that cats were created with fur so that I could have pleasure stroking them. No! The fur is for their warmth, and any enjoyment of mine is a by-product.

We're not geocentric anymore (at least not since Galileo's time), and there's no reason to keep being anthropocentric. The universe was not for us created.

(edited for typo fixing)

[ September 09, 2002: Message edited by: Heathen Dawn ]

09-09-2002, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Heathen Dawn:
[/qb]

We're still animals. And the whole world does not evolve around us in any way. You commit the same fallacy as do Buddhism and Christianity in their cosmology: the anthropocentric fallacy. It is like what I thought in past, that cats were created with fur so that I could have pleasure stroking them. No! The fur is for their warmth, and any enjoyment of mine is a by-product.

We're not geocentric anymore (at least not since Galileo's time), and there's no reason to keep being anthropocentric. The universe was not for us created.

(edited for typo fixing)

[ September 09, 2002: Message edited by: Heathen Dawn ]

Well yes I am in fact a "young earth" creationist in which the earth was juxtaposed with heaven about 6000 years age when our Genesis was first conjectured. Our Genesis (creation story) is mythology specific and is therefore not older than our mythology. That other myths pre-existed ours is not important nor does it matter how old the earth is or even how it came into existence. The question to be answered from Genesis is "who am I and what is my purpose on earth?"

The wind does not blow where it wills because it does not have a will and does not act because it is not an actor and has no constrains because it is not an agent to be in charge of anything. But I know what you mean by "the wind just blows where it wills."

In our ego identity we are not the centre of the universe but in our true idenity we are the centre of the universe because without me the universe would no longer be (for me).

The mistake you make is that the universe does not exist but only and all that which exists finds its existecne in what we call the universe (space) and in time for as long as we are (duration). Neither space nor time exist and if you have to point at the existence of the universe you will have to point at some thing that exist in the space we call the universe for a certain duration (time).

In your "anthropocentric fallacy" God was the centre of universe and all we need to do is become God to become the centre of the universe. I think maybe Gallileo was wrong after all, especially if you think that your cat's fur was for your cat and not your pleasure because without the cat the fur could not be.

hinduwoman · 09-10-2002, 05:55 PM

According to Upanishads, desire is the cause of creation. When Brahman looked around and saw he was alone the desire rose in him to be many. so he became many and the universe was created.that is why when men are alone they desire companionship.

luvluv · 09-10-2002, 06:10 PM

hinduwoman are you a believing hindu or is that just a name?

hinduwoman · 09-14-2002, 10:03 PM

a name luvluv. I was feeling very evangelistic and put onwhen I took that handle. Now it is too much of a bother changing it.
It confuses a lot of people (smirk)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-10-2002, 05:55 PM	#34
hinduwoman Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: India Posts: 6,977	According to Upanishads, desire is the cause of creation. When Brahman looked around and saw he was alone the desire rose in him to be many. so he became many and the universe was created.that is why when men are alone they desire companionship.

09-10-2002, 06:10 PM	#35
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	hinduwoman are you a believing hindu or is that just a name?

09-14-2002, 10:03 PM	#36
hinduwoman Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: India Posts: 6,977	a name luvluv. I was feeling very evangelistic and put onwhen I took that handle. Now it is too much of a bother changing it. It confuses a lot of people (smirk)

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.