About a deity full of love and compassion

[Willamena]

It used to Jay's posts, that took the cake for most misunderstood. Now, it would seem, Thief gets the cake.

 

[Willamena]

So, let us continue the debate:

How is that letting children die and "crossing over into the kingdom" are different things?
How can you separate them?

Both occur to the living, that is they occur to someone about someone else. The former is a loss, the latter a gain. The former is an action, the latter a relationship. The former is finality, the latter metaphor.

 

[Koldo]

It used to Jay's posts, that took the cake for most misunderstood. Now, it would seem, Thief gets the cake.

Could you quote what Jay's post are you talking about?

Thief is making a terrible work. He is just using the "argument by dismissal" fallacy.

 

[atanu]

Therefore, I humbly apologize to atanu.

Well. I am very materialistic. Frubals make me happy.

 

[atanu]

Yes, so what?
This part of your text is unrelated.
It is a reply to a different part of his statements.

If you want to make a connection between both then please go ahead.

Koldo

I sometimes wish that people will take more time before they pronounce some way or other.

What I wished to mean that the ego-body consciousness is different from the consciousness that drives the ego. For example, before a mind-body consciousness comes to being, there is a consciousness in a sperm that drives the sperm body, to acquire a resting place and grow up. Of this WILL-Consciousness the mind knows nothing. But the mind consciousness decides about many things without knowing its source.

 

[Koldo]

Both occur to the living, that is they occur to someone about someone else. The former is a loss, the latter a gain. The former is an action, the latter a relationship. The former is finality, the latter metaphor.

The child death happens to the child itself too. :sarcastic

Anyway, it is only possible to reach heavens after death. If reaching heavens is better than living in this world, then why not kill the child?

 

[Koldo]

Koldo

I sometimes wish that people will take more time before they pronounce some way or other.

What I wished to mean that the ego-body consciousness is different from the consciousness that drives the ego. For example, before a mind-body consciousness comes to being, there is a consciousness in a sperm that drives the sperm body, to acquire a resting place and grow up. Of this WILL-Consciousness the mind knows nothing. But the mind consciousness decides about many things without knowing its source.

Now make a connection between this and penguin's argument....
You need to explain how exactly this applies to what he said.

 

[atanu]

Now make a connection between this and penguin's argument....
You need to explain how exactly this applies to what he said.

Does the mind consciousness know the truth about birth and death? Mind consciousness does not know about the consciousness that was present in a sperm before it (the mind-body consciousness) came into being. For example, you tell me what takes birth and what dies?

(It should not be construed that I do not empathise with sorrow of death).

 

[Willamena]

The child death happens to the child itself too. :sarcastic

That's one way of looking at it... but I can guess that when the thought, "Oh, look, there's death," has occurred, it's not in the mind of the child. "Death" is a concept for the living.

Anyway, it is only possible to reach heavens after death. If reaching heavens is better than living in this world, then why not kill the child?

If you make that condition, then it's possible to make that conclusion. But it's not necessary to make that condition, and for some who say that they cannot make that conclusion, it's most likely that they have made other conditions.

 

[Koldo]

That's one way of looking at it... but I can guess that when the thought, "Oh, look, there's death," has occurred, it's not in the mind of the child. "Death" is a concept for the living.

Depends on your point of view.
If the consciousness remains after death, then death still exists for the dead, even if in a different manner.

If you make that condition, then it's possible to make that conclusion. But it's not necessary to make that condition, and for some who say that they cannot make that conclusion, it's most likely that they have made other conditions.

That is possible, but one has to be cautious because there is a very high risk of special pleading while taking such approach.

 

[Koldo]

Does the mind consciousness know the truth about birth and death? Mind consciousness does not know about the consciousness that was present in a sperm before it (the mind-body consciousness) came into being. For example, you tell me what takes birth and what dies?

(It should not be construed that I do not empathise with sorrow of death).

I feel like you are trying to say something, but i fail to see a connection between this and penguin's argument.

In an analogy, it is as if i were asking you :"When is your birthday?", and you reply : "Full moon". :areyoucra

 

[Willamena]

That is possible, but one has to be cautious because there is a very high risk of special pleading while taking such approach.

That goes both ways.

 

[Koldo]

That goes both ways.

Excuse me?
Would you care to further explain what do you mean by that?

 

[Willamena]

Excuse me?
Would you care to further explain what do you mean by that?

The view that of "heaven" is "a place" that people "reach" by "dying" is one view; there are other views. The view that "death" is "good" if "reaching heaven" is desirable is one view; there are other views.

Special pleading occurs when someone argues something that's an exception to a "generally accepted rule." Your "generally accepted" may not be the same as my "generally accepted" if we run in different circles. (Which, obviously, we do.)

 

[Koldo]

The view that of "heaven" is "a place" that people "reach" by "dying" is one view; there are other views. The view that "death" is "good" if "reaching heaven" is desirable is one view; there are other views.

Special pleading occurs when someone argues something that's an exception to a "generally accepted rule." Your "generally accepted" may not be the same as my "generally accepted" if we run in different circles. (Which, obviously, we do.)

You are pretty much correct. The odd part is that 'heavens', in the literal sense, is a term that is used almost exclusively by abrahamic religions. So if you want to give a non christian interpretation to it [or a different christian interpretation], as in death not being necessary to reach heavens and/or heavens not being a good place, you have to say from what background you are coming from.

If you can not make your case, for any religion, religious groups, or similar, that accept your interpretation as the correct one then you are doing special pleading.

 

[Willamena]

Does the mind consciousness know the truth about birth and death? Mind consciousness does not know about the consciousness that was present in a sperm before it (the mind-body consciousness) came into being. For example, you tell me what takes birth and what dies?

I feel like you are trying to say something, but i fail to see a connection between this and penguin's argument.

If I may...

What is it that we mourn the loss of when someone dies? Their body is still there, it hasn't gone anywhere. Their memories are still with us, they haven't gone. So what has "died"? We generally think that someone, a "self", a "being", has died, perhaps regarded in total as the sum of their thoughts. A sum-of-thoughts has "died"? Is that it? Where (what "place") does a sum-of-thoughts exist? And if we can't even answer that question, how can we tackle where a sum-of-thoughts should "go"?

 

[Willamena]

You are pretty much correct. The odd part is that 'heavens', in the literal sense, is a term that is used almost exclusively by abrahamic religions. So if you want to give a non christian interpretation to it [or a different christian interpretation], as in death not being necessary to reach heavens and/or heavens not being a good place, you have to say from what background you are coming from.

If you can not make your case, for any religion, religious groups, or similar, that accept your interpretation as the correct one then you are doing special pleading.

It's not necessary to step outside of the "Abrahamic" to find other interpretations. The monistic, most signficantly, and the gnostic.

 

[Koldo]

It's not necessary to step outside of the "Abrahamic" to find other interpretations. The monistic, most signficantly, and the gnostic.

What are their interpretations of heavens?

 

[PolyHedral]

A sum-of-thoughts has "died"? Is that it? Where (what "place") does a sum-of-thoughts exist? And if we can't even answer that question, how can we tackle where a sum-of-thoughts should "go"?

It becomes a lot clearer if we don't think of death as being destroyed, but as being dismantled. The thoughts don't go anywhere; they are merely a pattern we have recognised, and that pattern does not exist anymore.

 

[Koldo]

If I may...

What is it that we mourn the loss of when someone dies? Their body is still there, it hasn't gone anywhere. Their memories are still with us, they haven't gone. So what has "died"? We generally think that someone, a "self", a "being", has died, perhaps regarded in total as the sum of their thoughts. A sum-of-thoughts has "died"? Is that it? Where (what "place") does a sum-of-thoughts exist? And if we can't even answer that question, how can we tackle where a sum-of-thoughts should "go"?

Actually, spiritism answers all those questions...

Answers in order:

1)The spirit left its body.
2)The body died.
3)It is not a sum-of-thoughts, it is a consciousness that simply left its body.
4)No.
5)The spirit exists in a different plane of existence.
6)I can answer that question, and i did.

Anyway, this is somewhat off-topic.