Go to Seeking Limits of Mankind, and Limits of God
- Add a comment
- Go to The Questions Of Immortality and Reincarnation
Katray
Thanks for your comment! I suppose I was overly broad with my use of the word liberals. I did not primarily mean the common or average liberal-minded folks. I meant the liberal professors of academia. They are largely liberal AND ATHEIST.
Over the years I have read books and articles by them, or news reports of their work. They conduct studies about all the things that affect the brain or body. Since they are atheist, they totally disregard the ability of the human spirit or soul to counteract ANY influence of hormones, genes, drugs, alcohol or rotten childhoods.
I think that we as spirit beings can overrule any such influences on our brains or bodies, if our soul's will is strong enough. I think you may agree with that. But most of us cannot completely overrule such influences, and some of the weaker among us cannot fight them at all, and so they are very important pieces of the puzzle.
My opposition is to the liberal atheist researchers who argue that these influences are all-important, with no soul or spirit to resist them.
posted by
GoldenMean
on January 31, 2017 at 6:25 PM
| link to this | reply
Quite interesting!
I believe in all 3 firmly but have not always done so. As far as liberals; well the word liberal basically means "open to new behavior or opinions." So in my view and instinct to search for the bigger picture or meaning, the effects of genes, hormones, the past good and bad and a person's experiences must have an influence on cognizance and the emotional and mental status of an human being and also on the evolution of soul - how could those internal and internal lives, for lack of a better word, not be an influence? That doesn't suggest or mean to me that a person is limited in any way; suggests quite the opposite!
Thank you for pointing this post out; well done, GoldenMean..
posted by
Katray2
on January 31, 2017 at 7:18 AM
| link to this | reply
Pendorin
Thanks for sharing that incredibly intimate moment when your mother passed away. Could it be that she was experiencing some final physical pain, rather than worrying about her spiritual fate? I have read many accounts of people dying who, in their final moment, become very happy and see relatives or "angels" coming to get them. But this does not happen to all, of course. My own father died alone, and was very unhappy in his circumstances. I wish I could have been with him in his final moments.
posted by
GoldenMean
on January 23, 2017 at 2:01 AM
| link to this | reply
This was very interesting! It amazes that the same thought can be either used for good or bad! sam
posted by
sam444
on January 22, 2017 at 7:25 PM
| link to this | reply
Two strong point of views. One thing I witness while watching my mom take her last breath of life...she seem to look at me, as if, she wonder had she done things right, as if worried about her immortality for the first time ever!
posted by
pendorin
on January 22, 2017 at 4:28 PM
| link to this | reply
Two strong point of views. One thing I witness while watching my mom take her last breath of life...she seem to look at me, as if, she wonder had she done things right, as if worried about her immortality for the first time ever!
posted by
pendorin
on January 22, 2017 at 4:28 PM
| link to this | reply
GoldenMean
We know from common experience and none will deny that human desire is never-ending, and therefore does not coincide in death with the death of the body. Unfulfilled desire, then becomes the cause, and a fresh body as a vehicle works in the attaining of those desires of past. From science we know that no effect can be there without a cause and that they all must in logical conclusion. Rebirths therefore are therefore a forgone conclusion. Otherwise, science would not be conducting numerous researches if they too ignored as not worth researching, through their personal beliefs. Lots of mysteries exist in the world as true. And truth does not care for anyone believing or non-believing. What the past 50 years (science) rejected as impossible, today we know them as true.
posted by
anib
on January 21, 2017 at 8:31 PM
| link to this | reply
Nautikos
Thanks for reading and thanks for your comment, which was entirely predictable. But here is something you may not have considered. Kant's logical arguments, and my arguments in part, spring from a simple sense of fairness that we all feel.
Life is not pleasant or fulfilling, unless we feel that we are being treated fairly by our fellows. You expressed this need yourself, in so many words, when you wrote about your adventures on the Japanese ship. You invested many lines describing how you established a mutual respect with the Japanese crew. You went out of your way to treat them with respect, so that they would feel that you were treating them fairly, and some of them responded by doing the same to you. Now I ask you, WHY did you feel compelled to go to such great lengths to gain the respect of the Japanese crew members, and appeal to their sense of fair play?? And why did some of them respond in kind? I would submit to you that fairness or Justice is the most important and most desired thing to all Life, that it is the most important moral value shared by all Life in the universe.
And yet, you insist that the universe is a cold and unfeeling place, that has no regard for our needs, or our universal sense of fairness.
How sad, that you cannot or will not see the moral tie that binds us all together, and binds us all to "God"..... with "God" here being a mere label for whatever or whoever set all of this in motion and created us, for we surely did not create ourselves.
Life is futile and pointless without a purpose. You have a strong sense of purpose, and a strong sense of fair play, but you will not acknowledge where these came from. Do you think they just bubbled up from lifeless chemicals in a random combination in your body? Not very likely, my friend..... 
posted by
GoldenMean
on January 21, 2017 at 7:51 PM
| link to this | reply
It is very interesting to read different perspectives on them.
posted by
FormerStudentIntern
on January 21, 2017 at 9:09 AM
| link to this | reply
GM
I am familiar with the 'Sage of Königsberg' (now Kaliningrad, since East Prussia was annexed by the USSR at the end of WWII), or at least with his writings, LOL.
Without getting too deeply into it, let me just point out the one fundamental flaw with the whole argument. Kant believed in the God of the Bible - to him His 'existence' was a 'given'. But it's a 'given' based on belief, on faith, not on knowledge! (And of course God's 'existence' has never been demonstrated by reason, by logic, in spite of all attempts!) There are other problems with the whole argument, but we need not examine the details - the whole thing crumbles if one does not accept the premise! But if one does accept it, one can of course erect almost anything on top, even immortality...
posted by
Nautikos
on January 21, 2017 at 6:46 AM
| link to this | reply