Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
there is a difference between blame and responsibility.
Blame and responsibility are two sides of the same coin. If a crime is committed, the criminal is responsible AND to blame. They bear the responsibility to make restitution to society ... because they are at fault (to blame).
I take full responsibility for things I am actually to blame for ... and expect all other actors to do the same. I also choose to honor commitments I've entered into such as providing for my children or honoring contracts. These are also my responsibility. And other actors have their chosen / stated commitments as well, and need to honor them.
But this all has little to do with the points I actually made. You seem more interested in suggesting that I'm eluding legitimate personal responsibilities (which I'm not) or trying to shift personal blame onto others (which I'm not). This amounts to an ad hominem deflection from addressing the actual points of my posts. Such as, how do you substantiate your claim that each person's reality is mentally produced? All you have done to this point -- rather than (ahem) take responsibility for your claims -- is simply to assert them. You claim that your reality (for example) is literally produced by you. From being chosen by you in the pre-life, to being created by your thoughts in the present.
By that logic you are my creator. Because I'm part of your reality, and you're having this doubtless uncomfortable conversation with me. So in what sense can I create my reality, when I am part of YOUR reality?
your reality (for example) is literally produced by you. From being chosen by you in the pre-life, to being created by your thoughts in the present.
By that logic you are my creator. Because I'm part of your reality, and you're having this doubtless uncomfortable conversation with me. So in what sense can I create my reality, when I am part of YOUR reality?
free will again
our interactions are orchestrated by Divine intelligence, and at the soul level you and i agreed to have this conversation. by voluntary agreement, using free will.
i don't find this conversation uncomfortable at all.
whatever comes into my life is from God. you are just the messenger of the moment employed by God.
free will again
our interactions are orchestrated by Divine intelligence, and at the soul level you and i agreed to have this conversation. by voluntary agreement, using free will.
i don't find this conversation uncomfortable at all.
whatever comes into my life is from God. you are just the messenger of the moment employed by God.
It seems to me that we agreed in reality to have this conversation. I don't see a need for bolting on a concept of "soul level" (whatever that even is) when our decision to engage here is perfectly explicable without it.
It seems to me that we agreed in reality to have this conversation. I don't see a need for bolting on a concept of "soul level" (whatever that even is) when our decision to engage here is perfectly explicable without it.
Knowing her from the Judaism forum, Tzaphkiel is likely referring to a concept of "soul" as taught in Jewish mysticism. (Correct me if I am wrong, Tzaph). It's very complex stuff.
It seems to me that we agreed in reality to have this conversation. I don't see a need for bolting on a concept of "soul level" (whatever that even is) when our decision to engage here is perfectly explicable without it.
that too, at the physical level we are also voluntarily engaging.
my response was to answer your question about how you could show up in my reality and did i create you. no i did not create you. no one is coerced or forced into doing anything. it's like putting in an order in a restaurant, and God is in the back in the kitchen filling orders, and they are delivered by this or that waiter or waitress. they are simply delivering what God has for me.
It seems to me that we agreed in reality to have this conversation. I don't see a need for bolting on a concept of "soul level" (whatever that even is) when our decision to engage here is perfectly explicable without it.
It does present as a very solipsistic view of reality and the role God plays in it, mordant.
It does present as a very solipsistic view of reality and the role God plays in it, mordant.
i don't do philosophy and i have no interest in discussing solipsism.
the soul is the part of us that is the interface between our human self and God.
part of being created in the image and likeness of God, is to learn and use our ability to create. We work in partnership with God. It is a relationship.
So we have a couple of faith - claims without anything to back them up:- God and a soul ..and an accusation of blinkered thinking if you don't accept them without question. Isn't that good enough for you, Mordant?
If the creator created an intelligent being, like unto Himself, and the process of doing so could only be carried out under the consequence of separation, because of its independence means, then He alone is responsible for the redeeming of it.
SEPARATION IN THIS CASE MEANT DEATH.
That was His responsibility.
Ours, is in regards to our fleshly management.
Stated better than I can word it :Gal_6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
It does present as a very solipsistic view of reality and the role God plays in it, mordant.
Ah. That was the reference to Solipsism. In fact, I don't see it as Solipsistic at all. Isn't that just a way of making a suggestion of limited thinking? It's not a new ploy (and Damn' if I don't recall saying this to you before) and many ways of saying "science is Limited" have been refuted by pointing out that there is no value in going beyond what is reasonably known into speculation presented as reliable fact. And indeed, tha is Limiting (Solipsistic) in that it discourages investigation because it supposes it has the answer on Faith and must discourage any looking further that might undermine that Faith.
I always took Solipsism as meaning the suggestion that everything exists only in the imagination of one individual, but it may have wider applications...let's see.
Solipsism (i/ˈsɒlᵻpsɪzəm/; from Latinsolus, meaning "alone", and ipse, meaning "self")[1] is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside of the mind. As a metaphysical position, solipsism goes further to the conclusion that the world and other minds do not exist.
I'm surprised (though I ought not to be) that you are using the term in such an odd way without explaining what you mean.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
