universal salvation makes no sense without reincarnation

[Link]

When someone drops the physical body they do a review of their past life. Those who have led positive lives have the experience which is called heaven. Those whose lives are on balance negative experience the pain of their mistakes which is called hell. The learning is complete once these experiences have concluded. Then a future life reflects the learning of the past one.

If I am injured the pain consumes me and often seems that it lasts a long time when in fact the actual time is shorter. So when people think of heaven and hell being eternal, it's the subjective experience which seems eternal and not an objective eternity.

When a nasty, self-centered, manipulative person experiences the pain he's inflicted on others in magnified form and then also experiences the great joy of living a positive life in other lives, the person naturally will learn and improve over time.

So the mechanism is the past life review.

This would make sense if good and evil were just about learning and that's all that is needed to fix. But to me it's about being true to yourself and God. If you fail that the first time, the habits kick over and the lying nature increases. I don't think the review would make a soul more honest. They had better chances of getting it right when they had not failed yet.

I can tell myself, I don't always act to what I know. So knowledge does not mean you will be more true to it. Also, the mechanism is faulty in that we are born as babies. This means we forget past lives in this case. The ingrained nature would be from deeds, not review. The deeds that make us return in worse state and less sincere, would bound us to failure.

The first promise if we don't fulfill it, I don't see us ever being true to it after.

 

[danieldemol]

I'm not interested in the rest of what you posted. Not yet. All I'm seeing is choosing *wink-wink* to exclude phenomena which are within the category of free-will choices. It's not that free-will has not been demonstrated. A choice *wink-wink* is being made to define free-will in a way which permits a pre-conceived point of view. Putting the cart before the horse.

Free will has to be defined in a manner that is relevant to the accusation of the Bible interpreters who insist we have a will that is free. They say that man has a will which is under his control such that he can be blamed for his choices. But if that will is constrained (whether internally or externally) by factors outside of man's control it is not free in my view.

I dont see the relevance to the accusation of calling other things free-will.

I scrolled down and saw multiple YouTubes, even though I asked that you extract the content demonstrating that you know and understand the content and are willing to discuss them.

I'm not a professional apologist with relatively unlimited time to post on RF *wink wink*, I have to post within time constraints.

Therefore instead of extracting all points I simply extracted the points relevant to our discussion at the present moment. If other points come up during our discussion I'll extract them then. But I don't have to extract all points for you to have failed to refute the points i extracted - the genetic fallacy does not count as a refutation in my view.

The fact that you either didn't read what I wrote, or chose *wink-wink* to to ignore it indicates to me that this debate is over. It's not over because I have conceded, nor that you have made any convincing arguments. It's over because you have stopped listening if you ever were in the first place. You seemed to have stopped responding to what I have written several posts prior to the most recent one. And this is the confirmation of that.

I have pretty much provided a line by line refutation of your posts, calling that as having, "stopped listening" comes across as outright untrue in my view. It is also ironic considering you admitted to scrolling over most of my post - which is a form of not listening as I see it.

That said, I refer you to what I wrote previously:



It is actually perfectly fine with me if you have **chosen** to ignore the scientific evidence I have brought.

you could define free-will as a horse then provide scientific evidence of horses and claim I'm ignoring the "scientific evidence" of free will, it would be equally relevant to the accusation of the bible interpreters in my view.

 

[idea]

I believe that universal salvation, the belief that all humans is saved in the end makes no sense without reincarnation

I believe that if hell is temporary and reincarnation is false then there is no true justice. And many people may think that their actions does not matter since they only will suffer temporary in hell

Any thoughts?

The problem with believing in reincarnation is thinking those in bad situations "earned" their plight, when they did not. Class systems, untouchables, shrugging and thinking - that poor kid must have just been evil in their last life - this is not true, or healthy. Can you remember your last life? I do not remember any previous lives. If you cannot remember, cannot learn from it - then it would be pointless. Only if everyone could remember their past lives would it make any sense.

We do not have any past lives.
Those in poverty/war did not "earn" their hell in a last life, nor did those who are privileged earn their life.
It's a roll of the dice and the rules of nature for all of us. Nature makes sense.
There is no hell, no heaven, no salvation except what you can do for yourself and others around you.

 

[dybmh]

Free will has to be defined in a manner that is relevant to the accusation of the Bible interpreters

~sigh~

We've been through this, recently, actually: Free will in that context means, a person has an inclination towards sin, but they have the opportunity to turn away from it. And since you want to shift this from science to the bible's "accusations". The bible does not expect perfection, only improvement.

I'm not a professional apologist with relatively unlimited time to post on RF *wink wink*,

Daniel, wow, just wow. Not only are you trying to insult me for being too successful, but, this is possibly one of the worst things to say in this specific debate. I was working in hypotheticals, but if you want to talk about my life and the free-will choices I've made, dude. The reason I'm sucessful is because of my free-will choices. I didn't come from money, my wife didn't come from money. ( yes we're both white americans so we do have that priviledge, but ) we're not richy-richy Jews. Guess what my dad did? *wink wink* HVAC tech. Guess what my mom did? Stayed at home with the kids. Guess what my wife's dad did? Social worker. Guess what her Mom did? Stayed home with the kids.

I sacrificed, I struggled, a lot. You have no clue. And, I made wise **choices**, consistently. Took calculated risks, consistently. I seized opportunity, anytime I saw them. And, when it's important, I never quit. Never. Those are some of the strongest examples of free-will choices. Why? Because the contraints you're arguing about, I push past them.

That proves free-will exists because the constraints you claim prohibit free-will, demonstrably didn't stop me. Not me, not any sucessful entrepreneur. Moving beyond the hypothetic sinks your argument, Daniel. That was not a smart **choice** trying to insult me for being as successful as I am.

Therefore instead of extracting all points I simply extracted the points relevant

This is simply not true. You did not extract any points.

I have pretty much provided a line by line refutation of your posts

Not true. I gave two examples of free-will choices and you never addressed them.

Your argument to the best of knowledge is, if there is any possible constraint on any of the options then no choice is free--will. In other words, if a person is not able to fly like super man, then free will doesn't exist. If they are not omni-potent, then they there is no free-will.

Absurd.

it would be equally relevant to the accusation of the bible interpreters in my view.

OK. Bye Daniel. You seem to need this. I don't care any more. What ever struggle you have with the bible's accusations, they're yours. As far as I'm concerned you own them. They don't have anything to do with what's actually written in the bible or what's demonstrable in science. You seem to be stuck, and I'm leaving to you it.

 

[danieldemol]

~sigh~

We've been through this, recently, actually: Free will in that context means, a person has an inclination towards sin, but they have the opportunity to turn away from it. And since you want to shift this from science to the bible's "accusations". The bible does not expect perfection, only improvement.

I'm not shifting it, I'm providing a critical examination of the Bible interpreters accusations using logic tools including science.

Daniel, wow, just wow. Not only are you trying to insult me for being too successful, but, this is possibly one of the worst things to say in this specific debate.

Neither did I know you are successful nor did I mention it, I only implied that as a profesional apologist you have a relatively large amoount of time to post that i do not have, hence the need for me to keep my posts brief.

I was working in hypotheticals, but if you want to talk about my life and the free-will choices I've made, dude. The reason I'm sucessful is because of my free-will choices. I didn't come from money, my wife didn't come from money. ( yes we're both white americans so we do have that priviledge, but ) we're not richy-richy Jews. Guess what my dad did? *wink wink* HVAC tech. Guess what my mom did? Stayed at home with the kids. Guess what my wife's dad did? Social worker. Guess what her Mom did? Stayed home with the kids.

I sacrificed, I struggled, a lot. You have no clue. And, I made wise **choices**, consistently. Took calculated risks, consistently. I seized opportunity, anytime I saw them. And, when it's important, I never quit. Never. Those are some of the strongest examples of free-will choices. Why? Because the contraints you're arguing about, I push past them.

In summary you are saying that you chose by free will to be successful. I suppose you think this guy made a free will choice to be poor;

https://s.abcnews.com/images/International/yemen-hunger-child-ap-ps-181121_hpMain_16x9_992.jpg?w=992

Here is what I think really happened.
You wanted to be succesful (but as pointed out by Alex Oconnor you don't control your wants, for example you couldn't choose to want to punch your mother in the face in the abscence of her doing something to provoke you). So thats one factor outside your control.
Then you happened to grow up in a society that educated you enough to pursue your primary source of income (which again is just a circumstance outside your control).
Then when you made calculated risks (the element of chance is involved here) they happened to pay off sufficiently (but being the recipient of chance in your favour is a factor outside your control).

In summary in my view there was nothing free about your success.

This is simply not true. You did not extract any points.

To the contrary;
extracted point 1

wants dictate choices

extracted point 2

Sam Harris essentially makes a similar point that the brain generates thoughts and the conscious observer observes them

extracted point 3

"Psychiatry is the branch of medicine focused on the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of mental, emotional and behavioral disorders."

Not true. I gave two examples of free-will choices and you never addressed them.

You gave 2 highly similar examples of choices that you considered examples of free-will. Since they were similar I addressed one of them due to being pressed for time;

Take your example of choosing to select a the path less travelled. One person who gets a thrill out of exploration or is bored of always taking the same path chooses based on this want to explore a new path to find out if it's good, another person who is happy with the existing path or has fear of the unknown doesn't want to select the path less travelled so doesn't. But brains generate wants, the concious individual simply realises the want and acts accordingly.

Your argument to the best of knowledge is, if there is any possible constraint on any of the options then no choice is free--will. In other words, if a person is not able to fly like super man, then free will doesn't exist. If they are not omni-potent, then they there is no free-will.

Absurd.

I'm actually arguing that the choices are entirely constrained.

OK. Bye Daniel. You seem to need this. I don't care any more. What ever struggle you have with the bible's accusations, they're yours. As far as I'm concerned you own them. They don't have anything to do with what's actually written in the bible or what's demonstrable in science. You seem to be stuck, and I'm leaving to you it.

So a person murders somone, as a Bible interpreter do you say they are to blame or the combination of insufficient grey matter in the regions of the brain associated with emotional processing, behavioural control, and social cognition (which are outside the murderers control) and circumstances (which are outside the murderers control) are to blame?

If its the former then in my view you have confirmed my summation of what I say the Bible writers accuse people of.

Anyhow if that truly was your last post on the topic then Goodbye.

 

[Muffled]

Justice? The world is what it is. Everything is as God intended, why would any of us be punished for what God intended?

I believe free will allows people to do things contrary to God's intentions and those things have to be punished.

 

[Muffled]

Universal salvation is the belief that all humans in the end go to heaven. So it is to be saved from hell

I believe Heaven and Hell are just repositories. Salvation is from sin.

 

[Muffled]

No, I don't believe that your God is just and loving.

I believe your concept of God is contrary to what He says about Himself.