We are part of the Universe. When we die we join with the rest of the Universe in a "universal mind" - or what makes us, us (our personality/self) is either deleted or doesn't join with the rest -this is "hell".
(edited out of my quote in your 1st post) I think we were created (and given free will) in order to entertain, teach, and add knowledge to God.
I repliedWhy (how) would we stop being joined with it by being alive? How would we even know if we have stopped?
you repliedYou're ignoring the part where I said we were here (alive) to gain knowledge and experience and bring it back to the group mind (God).
I guess I don't understand your question. I'll try again though.I wasn't asking what we were doing it for.
How?Then God should make growth possible without suffering. He is omnipotent after all.
What?? Huh??If no other choices exist other than those that are "approved" then how can we ever know of them? How can God ever know of them if he does not create them to torment us with?
Once again: while you can grow without suffering there is no impetus to do so without it. If all your needs are met without you needing to put out any effort all that your ever going to do is sit on your rear.Why not have us return to God without some kind of horrible experience? Can't we all just live with God?
Maybe a clearer version is 'what is it about being alive that prevents us from being connected with the higher consciousness/universal mind?'I guess I don't understand your question. I'll try again though.
My belief is that God is the Universe and everything in it (that includes us). However there are levels of being -i.e. the nerves in our little toe are part of us, but they aren't the nerves we think with (which most people consider more important).
It's my belief that when we die, we normally move to a higher level of consciousness*.
I believe we were placed here by God to learn, grow and then bring that experience back. We are God's attempt to learn about himself.
*not moving to a higher level after death is what I believe hell to be -I left this part of what I believe out of the above as I feel it is extraneous to what I was trying to say
I don't know. A person discussing God I guess?I apologize for being so blunt, but who are you to say what "God" should do?
I refer only to His omnipotence in the case of "He should" be able to do various things, and that the common interpretation of God would point towards Him being inclined to do these things, not that I believe that a god should be forced to act a certain way (that should also clear the above question up a bit).How?
You want answers besides "We can't explain it" and "You have to have faith" and yet you ask questions without any basis behind them besides "He should be able to do this."
Okay, you do have a point here. An omnipotent god could very well be limited to physical laws.Can God make a weight so heavy he can't lift it?"
Omnipotent actually means all-powerful (has all the power) instead of infinite power. There is a difference.
Even if you believe that God has infinite power and isn't limited by physical laws he would still have to totally remake the Universe and everything in it in order for what you want to be possible - at the very least he would have remake Earth and everything on it.
I thought the Bible was just a book?As the Bible says we're still in the seventh day of Creation and at the end of this day God will remake Heaven and Earth maybe you'll get your wish.
If an omnipotent being (with infinite power, as I have assumed up until this point that this is what you and others were referring to) decides to make something so, and makes it so, then it is so, correct? If God wants us all to not have the choice to harm each other and simply makes it physically impossible as well as eliminating the instinctual impulse to do harm, and on the side declaring that no human (or other creature) shall ever imagine the concept of harming another, then shouldn't it be so? Why does God have to make all these loopholes?What?? Huh??
But why does there have to be suffering? Can't God edit the rules so there is growth without suffering, and also without constant rear-sitting?Once again: while you can grow without suffering there is no impetus to do so without it. If all your needs are met without you needing to put out any effort all that your ever going to do is sit on your rear.
My feeling about the reason for that (in allegory) is the difference between telling a group of students to write individual papers on a subject and later telling the same group to write papers as a group effort. In one case you'll get many different views on the subject and differences in what they discovered about the subject. In the other case you'll get a group view with only slight differences, and they'll all be based on the same research.Maybe a clearer version is 'what is it about being alive that prevents us from being connected with the higher consciousness/universal mind?'
Possibly, but then he'd have to remake every living creature, and come up with a different driving force. Because as it stands every living thing on earth is driven by either the stick or the carrot in everything they do.But why does there have to be suffering? Can't God edit the rules so there is growth without suffering, and also without constant rear-sitting?
Living or dying isn't the point (though death might be considered a big stick). The point is that without suffering (the stick) and pleasure (the carrot) there would be no impetus towards growth and learning, all the organism would do is sit in one place. No learning, no evolution, no growth.Most things I think would keep living if suffering existed but was always avoidable; like how you might suffer for not eating.
Isn't the point of a 'stick' in that sense defeated by situations it is not in the sufferer's power to avoid? And why wouldn't they seek out pleasure simply to avoid a lack of it, like preferring an activity over boredom? I've always found suffering to be a very poor motivator. It's much easier to focus and learn about something I enjoy doing, than something I do to avoid negative consequences. It also comes naturally to me to choose a thing I like doing over nothing at all, even if I wouldn't suffer alternatively (a possible exception being sleep, but that's only semi-voluntary).Living or dying isn't the point (though death might be considered a big stick). The point is that without suffering (the stick) and pleasure (the carrot) there would be no impetus towards growth and learning, all the organism would do is sit in one place. No learning, no evolution, no growth.
-Before this is brought up again in relation to this post: You can't have pleasure without suffering, or suffering without pleasure - read prior posts for my reasoning on this.
People keep focusing on minutia which really makes no difference to the main points.Every emotion having an opposite is your opinion. I think that the entire concept of opposites, maybe aside from certain scientific energies, is entirely a social construct, but that's just me. Maybe to you "happy" and "sad" are polar opposites, but I think human emotion is a far more grey area than that, and I think it really only exists as a descendant of simple instincts which, serving little purpose in a world where most needs are met, are relegated to the back of the mind.
Basically what you seem to be saying is that God is some kind of omnipotent researcher, which is kind-of a cool theory.
I think it would have to be an extremely narrow definition to not include it.I actually can't think of anything in my range of senses besides pressure/vacuum and hot/cold that feel like they have an opposite (of course, this sense is subjective, as they are varying levels of a single thing). How do you decide if a thing is opposite another?
Also, I think it must be an extremely broad definition of suffering that includes boredom.