Ep. 69: Cardinal virtues

[mitchellmckain]

So, when we die, our physical existence ceases, but our spiritual existence continues?

Yep.

This is one problem I have with the idea of a spiritual existence. Apart from the logical issues I see with it, I have a really hard time picturing what it could possibly be like to exist without my body.

Who said anything about existing without a body? 1 Cor 15:44 "It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body." How you picture yourself is most likely how you choose to see yourself and how you choose to be seen by others, and this is why you will be seen in this way because of your choices and not because of any atoms, molecules, cells and bodily organs.

Can you give me some examples of choices that our spiritual beings, after they are free of our physical bodies, can make?
...
What would I do? What can I choose?

Your choices are limited only by your own imagination, values and desires. The problem is that these are far greater limitations than most people realize. One of the reasons our imagination largely works so well because it is constantly inspired by the things around us. The physical world is like an umbilical cord that gives us a direct contact with the imagination and creativity of God.

It seems like belief in reincarnation would be a good fit with your ideas of heaven and hell. God could keep sending us back to try again to learn what we need to learn before we graduate to the spiritual-only existence where our choices are so powerful. The nature (and brevity) of some people's lives would make it very difficult for them to learn anything much at all, and it would seem unreasonable for God to allow them to go straight from those lives to the more dangerous spiritual existence.

I disagree. I think expressions about no going back and putting the worms back in the can are applicable here. It is like trying to put a plant back in the seed, a butterfly back in the cocoon or a baby back in the womb. We exist in this physical state for a purpose of limitation to provide a kind of protection that we need in this stage of our development, and once we are liberated from those constraints it becomes inconceivable that we would ever go back -- we just wouldn't fit anymore.

Besides I just don't think the connection between the physical and spiritual works that way. Its not like the physical is just a container that you can shove a spirit into. I see the spiritual as being more of an emanation of the physical life process.

[Angela]

This is one problem I have with the idea of a spiritual existence. Apart from the logical issues I see with it, I have a really hard time picturing what it could possibly be like to exist without my body.

Who said anything about existing without a body? 1 Cor 15:44 "It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body." How you picture yourself is most likely how you choose to see yourself and how you choose to be seen by others, and this is why you will be seen in this way because of your choices and not because of any atoms, molecules, cells and bodily organs.

Oops, yes, I should have said "my physical body." You've quoted that verse before. I'm sure it won't surprise you that to me "spiritual body" sounds like an oxymoron. So I guess that's what I have a hard time imagining--a "spiritual body." The closest I can get is something like a holographic projection. But even holographic projections have a physical source. Or, The Matrix comes to mind, but there too, the "spiritual" world the characters inhabit is dependant on the physical. It doesn't make sense without it.

So, help me understand what a "spiritual body" is. Does it have senses? Can it hear, see, etc.? Can it interact with other spiritual bodies, and if so, how?

I went and read the rest of the chapter in Corinthians. What does "the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable" mean to you? It's repeated several times.

Your choices are limited only by your own imagination, values and desires.

This sounds like a dreamworld, literally. This is how dreams are. But then, in dreams, I don't interact with any other real beings, only those in my imagination. In the spiritual world, wouldn't my choices also be limited by the values and desires of others? What happens if my choices conflict with another spiritual beings's choices?

It seems like belief in reincarnation would be a good fit with your ideas of heaven and hell. God could keep sending us back to try again to learn what we need to learn before we graduate to the spiritual-only existence where our choices are so powerful. The nature (and brevity) of some people's lives would make it very difficult for them to learn anything much at all, and it would seem unreasonable for God to allow them to go straight from those lives to the more dangerous spiritual existence.

I disagree. I think expressions about no going back and putting the worms back in the can are applicable here. It is like trying to put a plant back in the seed, a butterfly back in the cocoon or a baby back in the womb. We exist in this physical state for a purpose of limitation to provide a kind of protection that we need in this stage of our development, and once we are liberated from those constraints it becomes inconceivable that we would ever go back -- we just wouldn't fit anymore.

Seeds, caterpillars, embryoes, don't always develop correctly. And when they don't, they die. They don't go to the next stage, because they can't, they don't have what it takes to succeed.
But if a person doesn't learn what they need to learn in this life to succeed in the spiritual realm, they are "born" into it anyway? What about babies who die? If this physical existence is a womb, they are like 3 day old embryoes.

[mitchellmckain]

So I guess that's what I have a hard time imagining--a "spiritual body." The closest I can get is something like a holographic projection. But even holographic projections have a physical source. Or, The Matrix comes to mind, but there too, the "spiritual" world the characters inhabit is dependant on the physical. It doesn't make sense without it.

I think your difficulty is a consequence of your premises which are not mine. Your premise seems to be that the physical represents the limits of reality and so you try to find a places for the spiritual in the context of a physical reality. But it is the other way around -- the origin and greater reality is the spiritual not the physical, and so it is the physical that exists within the context of a spiritual reality. Thus it is the physical reality not the spiritual which is more like the artificial world of the matrix in that movie.

In the context of this greater spiritual reality the physical universe is a created object, whose structure includes all these mathematical relationships of space, time and physical law. A thing is physical by virtue of being a part of that structure. A spiritual thing is not a part of this structure and in the context of this greater spiritual reality is more like its own seperate universe, existing by and according to its own rules and nature.

So, help me understand what a "spiritual body" is. Does it have senses? Can it hear, see, etc.?

Only in the sense that it hears what it chooses to hear and sees what it chooses to see, and not in the sense that it has a means to gather information about the space time physical relationships which it is a part of.

Can it interact with other spiritual bodies, and if so, how?

Not by any necessity. As I have said before, any such connection between them must come from within them. Remember how I have said that the spiritual works, and think through the consequences. Our spiritual existence comes from the choices we make and thus these define its nature and it is by them alone that our spiritual existence is ruled. So what we interact with is entirely a question of what we choose -- so our values and desires are the window through which the spirit experiences reality.

I went and read the rest of the chapter in Corinthians. What does "the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable" mean to you? It's repeated several times.

Well you cannot take this too literally or it contradicts 1Cor 15:50. In 1Cor 15:36-41, it says that the physical body dies though the body to come does take on its own form in accordance with that physical form. Therefore this I think this talk of changing clothing is just a metaphor for the change of existence from physical to spiritual.

Your choices are limited only by your own imagination, values and desires.

This sounds like a dreamworld, literally. This is how dreams are. But then, in dreams, I don't interact with any other real beings, only those in my imagination.

Mostly that is the case to be sure, but whether it is always the case would be difficult to prove and may be a matter of contention. But in any case, the danger of ones spiritual existence being nothing more than than a dreamworld of your own making is quite extreme -- this is what comes of your desires and values being too wrapped up in yourself and disconnected from other people.

In the spiritual world, wouldn't my choices also be limited by the values and desires of others? What happens if my choices conflict with another spiritual beings's choices?

Your choices would indeed be limited by the values and desires of others in so far as your relationship with them is concerned. Since each spirit is a law unto Himself there really is no way of forcing ones own choices upon another. In fact it is ONLY by being sympathetic and in touch with the choices of others that you can have any real connection with them at all. Otherwise all you will perceive is a fabrication of your own desire.

Elsewhere I have defined evil as a pursuit of ones desires at expense of the well being of others. A habit of evil will thus result in a spiritual existence with no contact with real people because their choices and desires have made no room for their existences.

Seeds, caterpillars, embryoes, don't always develop correctly. And when they don't, they die. They don't go to the next stage, because they can't, they don't have what it takes to succeed.
But if a person doesn't learn what they need to learn in this life to succeed in the spiritual realm, they are "born" into it anyway? What about babies who die? If this physical existence is a womb, they are like 3 day old embryoes.

That is correct. I think a lot of lower forms of life have no independent spiritual existence apart from a kind of species spirit. And thus the question for babies is when do they really have an identity apart from their mother and thus an spiritual existence of their own. I think it is quite possible that the attitude and beliefs of the mother play some part in this, but generally I think that before the 20th week of pregancy there is no such independent identity apart from the mother. But that is a concervative lower bound (using science speak), and where is the upper bound after which we can be certain there is a independent identity, I do not know.

Assuming we are talking about after there is an independent human identity and spirit, whenever that may be, then there is no doubt that premature death is not desirable, no more than any other kind of birth defect or physical handicap. And yet responsibility goes together with whatever power and choices we do have, and so in this regard benefit and risk go hand in hand. Jesus suggests in the NT that the child usually has what it takes to connect with God by nature and perhaps this is to be found in the child's dependence upon others and orientation towards learning and thus we are encouraged to regain these in being "born-again". And yet as I said above, I am sure this does not come without the expense of some loss as well.

[Angela]

I think your difficulty is a consequence of your premises which are not mine. Your premise seems to be that the physical represents the limits of reality and so you try to find a places for the spiritual in the context of a physical reality.

I understand why you say this, but I can't agree. I don't have any illusion that I could possibly know what "the limits of reality" are. But in attempting to understand reality, all I have is what I experience. And everything that I experience depends on physical reality for it's existence. I have no experience of anything that does not.

But it is the other way around -- the origin and greater reality is the spiritual not the physical, and so it is the physical that exists within the context of a spiritual reality.

Interesting. In a sense, I do believe in a "spiritual reality." But in my understanding, it is dependent on the physical, which does not necessarily make the physical reality "greater." Actually, if anything, it's the other way around. It's an instance of the whole being greater than the sum of its parts. In a human brain, matter comes together in such a way that a "mind" arises from it, which, while completely dependent on the physical atoms that make up the brain, is also more than that, something greater. It is here that "spirituality" arises. But while the mind is more than the brain, it also cannot exist without the brain.

Thus it is the physical reality not the spiritual which is more like the artificial world of the matrix in that movie.

But you really have to turn the movie on its head to make that claim. In the context of the movie, the artificial world is not physical, but is the immaterial product of computer programming. This intangible world depends for its existence on physical computers and human minds.

In the context of this greater spiritual reality the physical universe is a created object, whose structure includes all these mathematical relationships of space, time and physical law. A thing is physical by virtue of being a part of that structure. A spiritual thing is not a part of this structure and in the context of this greater spiritual reality is more like its own seperate universe, existing by and according to its own rules and nature.

So is what is the difference in saying that this separate universe is a spiritual universe which exists according to spiritual laws, and saying that it is another (a whole nother? ) physical universe which exists according to a different set of physical laws. It seems that you are saying that choices basically the place of physical laws, but isn't there a mechanism by which choices create this spiritual reality? Of course I don't expect that you would be able to explain how exactly it works; I'm just asking if you think that it is in theory explainable.

I went and read the rest of the chapter in Corinthians. What does "the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable" mean to you? It's repeated several times.

Well you cannot take this too literally or it contradicts 1Cor 15:50. In 1Cor 15:36-41, it says that the physical body dies though the body to come does take on its own form in accordance with that physical form. Therefore this I think this talk of changing clothing is just a metaphor for the change of existence from physical to spiritual.

Makes sense.

Your choices are limited only by your own imagination, values and desires.

This sounds like a dreamworld, literally. This is how dreams are. But then, in dreams, I don't interact with any other real beings, only those in my imagination.

. . . any such connection between [spiritual beings] must come from within them. . . Our spiritual existence comes from the choices we make and thus these define its nature and it is by them alone that our spiritual existence is ruled. So what we interact with is entirely a question of what we choose -- so our values and desires are the window through which the spirit experiences reality.
. . . the danger of ones spiritual existence being nothing more than than a dreamworld of your own making is quite extreme -- this is what comes of your desires and values being too wrapped up in yourself and disconnected from other people. . . . Your choices would indeed be limited by the values and desires of others in so far as your relationship with them is concerned. Since each spirit is a law unto Himself there really is no way of forcing ones own choices upon another. In fact it is ONLY by being sympathetic and in touch with the choices of others that you can have any real connection with them at all. Otherwise all you will perceive is a fabrication of your own desire.

I think I understand. If our choices define the nature of our spiritual existence, then there would be no difference between spiritual existence and a dreamworld unless and until one spiritual being comes into contact with another. Which I understand both beings would have to choose before it could happen? I'm imagining two people dreaming, and somehow connecting their dreamworlds. They would have to agree on a lot of things in order to do this. Unless it is more like one dreamer/spirit entering the dream/world of the other, letting that dreamer/spirit for the most part determine the reality. Otherwise any connection would be extremely complicated. Basically each spirit exists in a separate reality, and in order to interact, two spirits would need to create a reality together in which to meet. I think the two spirits/minds would have to in effect merge into one spirit/mind in order to do this.

Seeds, caterpillars, embryoes, don't always develop correctly. And when they don't, they die. They don't go to the next stage, because they can't, they don't have what it takes to succeed.
But if a person doesn't learn what they need to learn in this life to succeed in the spiritual realm, they are "born" into it anyway? What about babies who die? If this physical existence is a womb, they are like 3 day old embryoes.

That is correct. I think a lot of lower forms of life have no independent spiritual existence apart from a kind of species spirit. And thus the question for babies is when do they really have an identity apart from their mother and thus an spiritual existence of their own. I think it is quite possible that the attitude and beliefs of the mother play some part in this, but generally I think that before the 20th week of pregancy there is no such independent identity apart from the mother. But that is a concervative lower bound (using science speak), and where is the upper bound after which we can be certain there is a independent identity, I do not know.

Assuming we are talking about after there is an independent human identity and spirit, whenever that may be, then there is no doubt that premature death is not desirable, no more than any other kind of birth defect or physical handicap. And yet responsibility goes together with whatever power and choices we do have, and so in this regard benefit and risk go hand in hand. Jesus suggests in the NT that the child usually has what it takes to connect with God by nature and perhaps this is to be found in the child's dependence upon others and orientation towards learning and thus we are encouraged to regain these in being "born-again". And yet as I said above, I am sure this does not come without the expense of some loss as well.

I am starting to wonder if in your theology hell is really all that bad. If the worst case scenario is that the soul exists in a dreamworld, "a fabrication of its own desire," that actually sounds like many people's idea of heaven. Unlike the Jesus' story of the rich man and Lazarus, where the rich man, suffering in hell, begs Abraham, whom he sees "far away" to send Lazarus from heaven to give him a drink of water, it sounds like in your idea of hell, the soul "in hell" won't know about the existence of heaven. The soul won't be aware of its less than ideal condition, like the dreamer doesn't know he's dreaming.

It also sounds like there may not be a clear line between heaven and hell. Souls create their own reality, and some realities will be better than others. Some spiritual beings will be better able to choose connection with others, some will be able to connect to some degree, but not as well, and some won't be able to connect at all. A child who dies before getting the chance to fully develop her spirit will exist eternally in a lesser state than a fully developed spirit, but I don't guess you would call that state hell.

[mitchellmckain]

Thus it is the physical reality not the spiritual which is more like the artificial world of the matrix in that movie.

But you really have to turn the movie on its head to make that claim. In the context of the movie, the artificial world is not physical, but is the immaterial product of computer programming. This intangible world depends for its existence on physical computers and human minds.

NO, you do not. One of the obvious implications of the film is that we have to ask ourselves whether this thing we take for reality - this physical universe - whether that is the reality or just an immitation dreamworld. The why of it - the hidden truth which the movie provides to explain this - the world taken over by AI in order to turn people into batteries - is just the silly answer that the movie supplies. That isn't the real appeal of the movie frankly.

In the context of this greater spiritual reality the physical universe is a created object, whose structure includes all these mathematical relationships of space, time and physical law. A thing is physical by virtue of being a part of that structure. A spiritual thing is not a part of this structure and in the context of this greater spiritual reality is more like its own seperate universe, existing by and according to its own rules and nature.

So is what is the difference in saying that this separate universe is a spiritual universe which exists according to spiritual laws, and saying that it is another (a whole nother? ) physical universe which exists according to a different set of physical laws.

No you misunderstand. I am not saying there is a seperate universe which is a spiritual universe. NOT AT ALL! I am saying that spiritual THINGS are like sepearte universes because they exist by their own rules/nature and not according to mathematical relationships with within a greater whole as is the case for physial things. Put it this way: The whole physical universe is a single spritual thing, and what differentiates physical things is that they are part of it -- bound within the web of mathematical laws and relationships are the structure of this single spiritual thing we call the physical universe.

It seems that you are saying that choices basically the place of physical laws, but isn't there a mechanism by which choices create this spiritual reality? Of course I don't expect that you would be able to explain how exactly it works; I'm just asking if you think that it is in theory explainable.

No its not mechanical. Just because the physical reality operates that way does not mean that all of reality operates that way. The basis of the spiritual existence is the infinite energy of God the nature of which is pure potentiality - a readiness to take on form according to the desire and will. Thus by interaction with living organisms in the physical universe, spritual energy takes on form, and thus every living thing has a spirit.

I think I understand. If our choices define the nature of our spiritual existence, then there would be no difference between spiritual existence and a dreamworld unless and until one spiritual being comes into contact with another. Which I understand both beings would have to choose before it could happen? I'm imagining two people dreaming, and somehow connecting their dreamworlds. They would have to agree on a lot of things in order to do this. Unless it is more like one dreamer/spirit entering the dream/world of the other, letting that dreamer/spirit for the most part determine the reality. Otherwise any connection would be extremely complicated. Basically each spirit exists in a separate reality, and in order to interact, two spirits would need to create a reality together in which to meet. I think the two spirits/minds would have to in effect merge into one spirit/mind in order to do this.

No I do not think there is any merging. I think it is just really complicated and confusing and even dangerous, where you cannot count on the way things seem to be. You are constantly challenged to look beneath the surface in order to see reality because the surface is just the dreamworld and if don't learn to see through them to the intangibles of personality, love, etc then you will become lost in your own dreamworld.

I am starting to wonder if in your theology hell is really all that bad.

Ah ha! In my theology appearances are deceiving. The way to hell looks very desirable and comfortable, while the way to heaven looks painful and difficult. Since you brought up the movie, I will use the analogy in a completely different way, hell and heaven is like the choice between the matrix and the real world.

If the worst case scenario is that the soul exists in a dreamworld, "a fabrication of its own desire," that actually sounds like many people's idea of heaven. Unlike the Jesus' story of the rich man and Lazarus, where the rich man, suffering in hell, begs Abraham, whom he sees "far away" to send Lazarus from heaven to give him a drink of water, it sounds like in your idea of hell, the soul "in hell" won't know about the existence of heaven. The soul won't be aware of its less than ideal condition, like the dreamer doesn't know he's dreaming.

That is true. I certainly don't think this parable should be taken as accurate picture of how things literally are. However the worst case senario is worse than you think. Ever hear the saying that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely? Well I think that this is 100% true and the problem with the dreamworld is that you do have absolute power. The downhill decent from there is inevitable.

I find the traditional conception of hell as a place of torture to be simply amusing rather than frightening. I think you will find this in previous post where I enumerate the various ideas of what will happen after death. I think my version of hell is much much scarier (and its appealing and seductive nature is part of this), where rather than torture ones fate is an inevitable corruption and becoming complete evil yourself -- by your own choices.

It also sounds like there may not be a clear line between heaven and hell. Souls create their own reality, and some realities will be better than others. Some spiritual beings will be better able to choose connection with others, some will be able to connect to some degree, but not as well, and some won't be able to connect at all. A child who dies before getting the chance to fully develop her spirit will exist eternally in a lesser state than a fully developed spirit, but I don't guess you would call that state hell.

That's because the difference isn't an external reality but an internal one. What you are missing is that the reality we create for ourselves cannot be static because are not static beings. It is almost like Einstein's field equation applies to our own spirits as well - there is no steady state solution. So there is an absolute polarization with respect to our ultimate destiny (what the world that we create for ourselves will eventually become) into only two possiblities: growth or self-destruction.

[JustJim]

I am not saying there is a seperate universe which is a spiritual universe. NOT AT ALL! I am saying that spiritual THINGS are like sepearte universes because they exist by their own rules/nature and not according to mathematical relationships with within a greater whole as is the case for physial things. Put it this way: The whole physical universe is a single spritual thing, and what differentiates physical things is that they are part of it -- bound within the web of mathematical laws and relationships are the structure of this single spiritual thing we call the physical universe.

I don't think it would be too far from the concepts you've laid out here to see the spiritual and physical realms of the universe as co-existing, mutually superimposed with one another, aspects of the same universe. To think of the physical universe, with all its laws and rules and structures, as a reflection or manifestation of the spiritual universe - God. Inseparable in terms of existence, but easily distinguishable in terms of qualities. The spiritual as the origin of the physical (through creation), but not dependent on it. The physical as a manifestation of the spiritual, and completely dependent on it. And so on....

Whatcha think?

Jim

[mitchellmckain]

I am not saying there is a seperate universe which is a spiritual universe. NOT AT ALL! I am saying that spiritual THINGS are like sepearte universes because they exist by their own rules/nature and not according to mathematical relationships with within a greater whole as is the case for physial things. Put it this way: The whole physical universe is a single spritual thing, and what differentiates physical things is that they are part of it -- bound within the web of mathematical laws and relationships are the structure of this single spiritual thing we call the physical universe.

I don't think it would be too far from the concepts you've laid out here to see the spiritual and physical realms of the universe as co-existing, mutually superimposed with one another, aspects of the same universe. To think of the physical universe, with all its laws and rules and structures, as a reflection or manifestation of the spiritual universe - God. Inseparable in terms of existence, but easily distinguishable in terms of qualities. The spiritual as the origin of the physical (through creation), but not dependent on it. The physical as a manifestation of the spiritual, and completely dependent on it. And so on....

Whatcha think?

Well all I can say that this is not the way I think of it. I don't think of the physical universe as coexisting or as a manifestation of the spiritual but something created for the specific purpose of giving birth to life, to be a way in which spiritual energy can take on the form of living spiritual beings that are born within the physical universe. The fact is that the physical universe is something which came into being 13.7 billion years ago.

Seeds, caterpillars, embryoes, don't always develop correctly. And when they don't, they die. They don't go to the next stage, because they can't, they don't have what it takes to succeed.
But if a person doesn't learn what they need to learn in this life to succeed in the spiritual realm, they are "born" into it anyway? What about babies who die? If this physical existence is a womb, they are like 3 day old embryoes.

A few more thoughts on this topic.

Although I don't see tragedies like the premature death as being of no consequence, there is still a very big difference between the victimizer and the victim and that is that the victimizer chooses what he has done and the victim has not. Therefore it is the victimizer who has made the choices and thus has the momentum in the wrong direction. The victimizer has made these choices the rules and nature of his own spiritual existence. The victim (whether there is a victimizer or not) did not choose what happened and can therefore overcome what has happened and put it behind him/her, and perhaps even be stronger as a result of it.

[Angela]

One of the obvious implications of the film is that we have to ask ourselves whether this thing we take for reality - this physical universe - whether that is the reality or just an immitation dreamworld. The why of it - the hidden truth which the movie provides to explain this - the world taken over by AI in order to turn people into batteries - is just the silly answer that the movie supplies. That isn't the real appeal of the movie frankly.

Hi Mitch, sorry it's taken me a while to respond to this. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about The Matrix. I'll just say that while I agree that the question you mention is an "obvious implication" of the film, that perhaps looking deeper than the obvious yields a less superficial and more interesting interpretation.

In the context of this greater spiritual reality the physical universe is a created object, whose structure includes all these mathematical relationships of space, time and physical law. A thing is physical by virtue of being a part of that structure. A spiritual thing is not a part of this structure and in the context of this greater spiritual reality is more like its own seperate universe, existing by and according to its own rules and nature.

So is what is the difference in saying that this separate universe is a spiritual universe which exists according to spiritual laws, and saying that it is another (a whole nother? ) physical universe which exists according to a different set of physical laws.

No you misunderstand. I am not saying there is a seperate universe which is a spiritual universe. NOT AT ALL! I am saying that spiritual THINGS are like sepearte universes because they exist by their own rules/nature and not according to mathematical relationships with within a greater whole as is the case for physial things. Put it this way: The whole physical universe is a single spritual thing, and what differentiates physical things is that they are part of it -- bound within the web of mathematical laws and relationships are the structure of this single spiritual thing we call the physical universe.

Yes, I see now that I did misunderstand you. But I'm afraid I still don't understand. How is the physical universe a spiritual thing? I'm trying, but I just can't find anything for my poor brain to grasp onto in that proposition.

It seems that you are saying that choices basically the place of physical laws, but isn't there a mechanism by which choices create this spiritual reality? Of course I don't expect that you would be able to explain how exactly it works; I'm just asking if you think that it is in theory explainable.

No its not mechanical. Just because the physical reality operates that way does not mean that all of reality operates that way. The basis of the spiritual existence is the infinite energy of God the nature of which is pure potentiality - a readiness to take on form according to the desire and will. Thus by interaction with living organisms in the physical universe, spritual energy takes on form, and thus every living thing has a spirit.

What if I had said "spiritual mechanism"? Or, perhaps, "spiritual process"? What I'm asking is could you theoretically explain how my choices will create my spiritual reality. I know how my choices affect my physical reality. If I choose to have french toast for breakfast, I can explain to you the process by which this choice creates the physical reality of my actual consumption of french toast for breakfast. So, after I die, and my spirit is free of the physical world, can I choose to have french toast for breakfast? If so, how would that choice create a spiritual reality? If not, what is an example of something I can choose, and is there a process by which that choice creates the spiritual reality?

p.s. Are you familiar with Deepak Chopra? The law of "pure potentiality" is one of his "Seven Spiritual Laws of Success." He seems to think we can tap into the power of our spiritual selves in this life, and that we don't have to wait for the next one to start seeing our choices directly affect our reality.

If the worst case scenario is that the soul exists in a dreamworld, "a fabrication of its own desire," that actually sounds like many people's idea of heaven. Unlike the Jesus' story of the rich man and Lazarus, where the rich man, suffering in hell, begs Abraham, whom he sees "far away" to send Lazarus from heaven to give him a drink of water, it sounds like in your idea of hell, the soul "in hell" won't know about the existence of heaven. The soul won't be aware of its less than ideal condition, like the dreamer doesn't know he's dreaming.

That is true. I certainly don't think this parable should be taken as accurate picture of how things literally are.

Do you think the parable is about hell at all? If so, what is Jesus trying to say about hell? If not, what is it about?

However the worst case senario is worse than you think. Ever hear the saying that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely? Well I think that this is 100% true and the problem with the dreamworld is that you do have absolute power. The downhill decent from there is inevitable.

Hmmmm. . . 100% true? Does God have absolute power?

I find the traditional conception of hell as a place of torture to be simply amusing rather than frightening. I think you will find this in previous post where I enumerate the various ideas of what will happen after death. I think my version of hell is much much scarier (and its appealing and seductive nature is part of this), where rather than torture ones fate is an inevitable corruption and becoming complete evil yourself -- by your own choices.

How can this fate be both "inevitable" and "by your own choices"?

What you are missing is that the reality we create for ourselves cannot be static because are not static beings. It is almost like Einstein's field equation applies to our own spirits as well - there is no steady state solution. So there is an absolute polarization with respect to our ultimate destiny (what the world that we create for ourselves will eventually become) into only two possiblities: growth or self-destruction.

Again, you seem to be contradicting yourself. The reality cannot be static, yet the ultimate destiny is absolute polarization. Once the poor soul in hell has through his choices completely corrupted himself and become entirely evil, is he not in a static state? Where can he go from there?

[mitchellmckain]

I'll just say that while I agree that the question you mention is an "obvious implication" of the film, that perhaps looking deeper than the obvious yields a less superficial and more interesting interpretation.

Obvious is not the same thing as superficial, I find what it suggests about reality to be the most interesting thing about the film, you are of course free to be interested in any part you like. Maybe you like the comparison of humanity to a disease. It hardly surprises me that our interests diverge.

Yes, I see now that I did misunderstand you. But I'm afraid I still don't understand. How is the physical universe a spiritual thing? I'm trying, but I just can't find anything for my poor brain to grasp onto in that proposition.

I said the physical universe is like a spiritual thing. The distinction between physical and spritual is that physical things have their existence by the part they have in the mathematical structure of the physical universe, but spiritual thing are not a part of the physical universe but exist by their their own nature. The physical universe as a whole is not a part of a greater whole and does not derive its existence from any relationship to a greater whole and in that sense it can be said to be more like a spiritual thing itself. This is simply the mirror image of my earlier explanation that spiritual things are like a seperate universe. It is a natural logical consequence that if A is like B then B is like A, don't you think?

But sorry Angela, again I find myself doubting your sincerity here. In order to communicate you have to want to understand, and I am beginning to think that you simply refuse to understand. Hey... that's ok. You don't have to think the way I do, but acting dumb and asking questions repeatedly like this is NOT going to make me think the way you do. Sorry. If that is your objective here then this discussion is pointless.

No its not mechanical. Just because the physical reality operates that way does not mean that all of reality operates that way. The basis of the spiritual existence is the infinite energy of God the nature of which is pure potentiality - a readiness to take on form according to the desire and will. Thus by interaction with living organisms in the physical universe, spritual energy takes on form, and thus every living thing has a spirit.

What if I had said "spiritual mechanism"? Or, perhaps, "spiritual process"? What I'm asking is could you theoretically explain how my choices will create my spiritual reality. I know how my choices affect my physical reality. If I choose to have french toast for breakfast, I can explain to you the process by which this choice creates the physical reality of my actual consumption of french toast for breakfast. So, after I die, and my spirit is free of the physical world, can I choose to have french toast for breakfast? If so, how would that choice create a spiritual reality? If not, what is an example of something I can choose, and is there a process by which that choice creates the spiritual reality?

Spiritual energy interacts with the physcial process to make a choice and so the direction of physical events are determined and the spiritual energy takes form from this by becoming the cause or owner of the choice which is made. Being responsible for how this choice affects the course of physical events gives definition and form to the spiritual energy which interacts with the physical process.

p.s. Are you familiar with Deepak Chopra? The law of "pure potentiality" is one of his "Seven Spiritual Laws of Success." He seems to think we can tap into the power of our spiritual selves in this life, and that we don't have to wait for the next one to start seeing our choices directly affect our reality.

No I am not familiar with this person.

Do you think the parable is about hell at all? If so, what is Jesus trying to say about hell? If not, what is it about?

Yes the parable is about the usual sort of karmic consequences of the things we do in our lives, where power (of which wealth is a form) is spiriutally dangerous because of the responsibilites that go with them. But anyway I think this is one of those cases where I should simply refuse your invitation to engage in a debate about this parable.

However the worst case senario is worse than you think. Ever hear the saying that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely? Well I think that this is 100% true and the problem with the dreamworld is that you do have absolute power. The downhill decent from there is inevitable.

Hmmmm. . . 100% true? Does God have absolute power?

Yes, but can you really not see the difference, or are you arguing for the sake of arguing again. Come on. Should a child have a gun to play with? Many things like matches, cars and guns are things that people must learn to use reponsponsibly and the same goes for all sorts of power. God is the parent. We are the children and so there is power which we have not learned to use responsibly.

I find the traditional conception of hell as a place of torture to be simply amusing rather than frightening. I think you will find this in previous post where I enumerate the various ideas of what will happen after death. I think my version of hell is much much scarier (and its appealing and seductive nature is part of this), where rather than torture ones fate is an inevitable corruption and becoming complete evil yourself -- by your own choices.

How can this fate be both "inevitable" and "by your own choices"?

I have answered this before. It is because our choices are what we do and what we value right now and not a choice of what the future shall be. But our choices have consequences for the future. Like a child that chooses candy and rejects vegitables. No the child does not choose to be sick and yet these choices have that consequence. Likewise what we want and what we pursue is often at odds with what is best for us. AND one of the consequences of our choices is an effect on what choices become available to us in the future. Our most significan choices are the habits we live by and there are good habits (like good study habits for example) which give greater choices in the future and there are bad habits which greatly limit the choices available to us in the future.

So we have this choice between the easy comfortable road to hell where the choices become narrower and narrower, and the rather difficult painful road to heaven where God helps us to acheive personal growth and better habits of thought and action so that our possibilites and choices increase.

What you are missing is that the reality we create for ourselves cannot be static because are not static beings. It is almost like Einstein's field equation applies to our own spirits as well - there is no steady state solution. So there is an absolute polarization with respect to our ultimate destiny (what the world that we create for ourselves will eventually become) into only two possiblities: growth or self-destruction.

The (spiritual) reality cannot be static, yet the ultimate destiny is absolute polarization.

No contradiction here. Growth or decay. That is the polarization. Its either one way or the other.

Once the poor soul in hell has through his choices completely corrupted himself and become entirely evil, is he not in a static state? Where can he go from there?

This is spiritual death. There is nowhere to go from there.

Again, you seem to be contradicting yourself.

No, I am not. You just want that to be the case, so you employ an idiotic literal mindedness and meaningless nitpicking to argue for the sake of arguing. Either you understand what I am describing or not.

So you don't believe any of this stuff. Do you really think that stupid games like this are going to convince me that I am wrong? If I wanted to play this ridiculous game I could describe exponential decay to you -- but REALLY!

[JustJim]

The distinction between physical and spritual is that physical things have their existence by the part they have in the mathematical structure of the physical universe, but spiritual thing are not a part of the physical universe but exist by their their own nature.

LOL!!

Spiritual energy interacts with the physcial process to make a choice and so the direction of physical events are determined and the spiritual energy takes form from this by becoming the cause or owner of the choice which is made. Being responsible for how this choice affects the course of physical events gives definition and form to the spiritual energy which interacts with the physical process.

ROTFLMAO!!

You just want that to be the case, so you employ an idiotic literal mindedness and meaningless nitpicking to argue for the sake of arguing.... Do you really think that stupid games like this are going to convince me that I am wrong?

Pot... meet Kettle.... I think it's really cool how every time Angela backs you into a corner and/or asks or says things for which you have no good answer, you do things like accuse her of arguing for argument's sake, or employing an idiotic literal mindedness, or playing stupid games. That's better than calling her an argumentative, stupid idiot -- I guess. I'm amazed at how restrained she is in ignoring all your thinly veiled vicious tripe and just goes on back to the issues and questions at hand, even admitting when she's misunderstood you or been wrong. That's so refreshing. And SO beyond my ability.



Jim

[Brad]

I'm amazed at how restrained she is in ignoring all your thinly veiled vicious tripe and just goes on back to the issues and questions at hand, even admitting when she's misunderstood you or been wrong. That's so refreshing. And SO beyond my ability.



Jim

+1 in all respects.
Amazing!

[mitchellmckain]

And since I do not have the patience to put up with Angela's tactics, I will not make the mistake of answering any more of her questions. If she wants the debate crown, I offer it to her freely. I never wanted any such thing. She is good at sneaking tactics in under the radar but I do not believe in her pretense to sincerity, not one bit.

You can imagine that she has "backed me into a corner", I am sure that serves you you well in what you prefer to believe. But I certainly do not feel backed into corner. Not one bit! If she is responsible for creating that impression then I congratulate her on her excellent skills of manipulating guillable listeners. But the result is that I no longer have any wish to participate in the farse that I believe that she makes of discussion.

Angela... your victory is declared! I leave in defeat -- the defeat of the purpose of communication. Enjoy your victory!

[Angela]

I'm amazed at how restrained she is in ignoring all your thinly veiled vicious tripe and just goes on back to the issues and questions at hand, even admitting when she's misunderstood you or been wrong. That's so refreshing. And SO beyond my ability.



Jim

+1 in all respects.
Amazing!

Thanks Jim and Brad. Glad you guys have noticed my restraint, lol. Sometimes it's not easy!! Actually the hardest part has been ignoring all his spelling mistakes. I don't think I can do it any more. Since I have given up all hope of any meaningful communication with him, I'll just correct the spelling in his last post. At least there's the possibility he might learn something as a result of my efforts.

I said the physical universe is like a spiritual thing. The distinction between physical and spritual (spiritual) is that physical things have their existence by the part they have in the mathematical structure of the physical universe, but spiritual thing (things) are not a part of the physical universe but exist by their their (2 theirs, oops!)own nature. The physical universe as a whole is not a part of a greater whole and does not derive its existence from any relationship to a greater whole and in that sense it can be said to be more like a spiritual thing itself. This is simply the mirror image of my earlier explanation that spiritual things are like a seperate (separate--He never spells that right) universe. It is a natural logical consequence that if A is like B then B is like A, don't you think?

No its not mechanical. Just because the physical reality operates that way does not mean that all of reality operates that way. The basis of the spiritual existence is the infinite energy of God the nature of which is pure potentiality - a readiness to take on form according to the desire and will. Thus by interaction with living organisms in the physical universe, spritual (spiritual) energy takes on form, and thus every living thing has a spirit.


Yes the parable is about the usual sort of karmic consequences of the things we do in our lives, where power (of which wealth is a form) is spiriutally (spiritually) dangerous because of the responsibilites that go with them. But anyway I think this is one of those cases where I should simply refuse your invitation to engage in a debate about this parable.



However the worst case senario (scenario) is worse than you think. Ever hear the saying that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely? Well I think that this is 100% true and the problem with the dreamworld is that you do have absolute power. The downhill decent from there is inevitable.

Yes, but can you really not see the difference, or are you arguing for the sake of arguing again. Come on. Should a child have a gun to play with? Many things like matches, cars and guns are things that people must learn to use reponsponsibly (responsibly) and the same goes for all sorts of power. God is the parent. We are the children and so there is power which we have not learned to use responsibly.

I have answered this before. It is because our choices are what we do and what we value right now and not a choice of what the future shall be. But our choices have consequences for the future. Like a child that chooses candy and rejects vegitables (vegetables). No the child does not choose to be sick and yet these choices have that consequence. Likewise what we want and what we pursue is often at odds with what is best for us. AND one of the consequences of our choices is an effect on what choices become available to us in the future. Our most significan (significant) choices are the habits we live by and there are good habits (like good study habits for example) which give greater choices in the future and there are bad habits which greatly limit the choices available to us in the future.

So we have this choice between the easy comfortable road to hell where the choices become narrower and narrower, and the rather difficult painful road to heaven where God helps us to acheive (achieve) personal growth and better habits of thought and action so that our possibilites and choices increase.

Mitch, I'll address you one last time; I don't intend to do it again. (No promises, but that is my intention.) Your arrogance and derision I could handle. It's the realization of your hypocrisy that leads me to the conclusion that communication with you is not worth my time. I'm pretty sure you aren't the soul-searching type, but if you are inclined, an open-minded, thoughtful consideration of the content of my "personal comments" on the other thread might be a good place to start.

[Angela]

And since I do not have the patience to put up with Angela's tactics, I will not make the mistake of answering any more of her questions. If she wants the debate crown, I offer it to her freely. I never wanted any such thing. She is good at sneaking tactics in under the radar but I do not believe in her pretense to sincerity, not one bit.

You can imagine that she has "backed me into a corner", I am sure that serves you you well in what you prefer to believe. But I certainly do not feel backed into corner. Not one bit! If she is responsible for creating that impression then I congratulate her on her excellent skills of manipulating guillable listeners. But the result is that I no longer have any wish to participate in the farse that I believe that she makes of discussion.

Angela... your victory is declared! I leave in defeat -- the defeat of the purpose of communication. Enjoy your victory!

gullible
farce

Yippee, I win, I win!!!!!