Not better, just different. If you're not basing your story on what can be validated then what do you judge better or worse on other than what you'd like to be true?
I go with Multivac. Asimov's AI computer.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is This a Test
- Thread starter ThePainefulTruth
- Start date
Not better, just different. If you're not basing your story on what can be validated then what do you judge better or worse on other than what you'd like to be true?
I go with Multivac. Asimov's AI computer.
wheatpenny
Quaker/Independent Catholic (dual affiliation)
I believe life is not so much a test as a learning experience. A test is done in order to find out something. God is omniscient and as such has no need to find out anything. The creation of life and the universe is not for God's benefit but for ours. God intends for us to evolve spiritually. If a person does not attain Salvation (a.k.a Enlightenment) by the time he dies, he is reincarnated to try again. Thus life is like a school, where you have to keep coming back year after year until you get your diploma, in the same way in life you keep coming back until you reach the goal
I'm "agnostic" about a personal God, but the divine spark inside everyone is, IMO, a reality. As we become more closely attuned to that divine spark, through prayer and meditation, we eventually become one with it and attain Salvation/Enlightenment. The thing is, however, that the goal is not something you can work your way towards, or earn (Ephesians 2:8-9), it comes unexpectedly and suddenly. Something will happen and a second later you're Saved/Enlightened. Everyone's experience is different, so once you become enlightened you can't simply tell others what happened so they can copy your experience and become saved the same way you did. Everyone has to cultivate their own experience.
I'm "agnostic" about a personal God, but the divine spark inside everyone is, IMO, a reality. As we become more closely attuned to that divine spark, through prayer and meditation, we eventually become one with it and attain Salvation/Enlightenment. The thing is, however, that the goal is not something you can work your way towards, or earn (Ephesians 2:8-9), it comes unexpectedly and suddenly. Something will happen and a second later you're Saved/Enlightened. Everyone's experience is different, so once you become enlightened you can't simply tell others what happened so they can copy your experience and become saved the same way you did. Everyone has to cultivate their own experience.
Buddha Dharma
Dharma Practitioner
There are different approaches to Deism of course, but Epicurus's approach- one of the most ancient, would find the notion of a god testing someone absurd. Especially since these tests are usually thought to be tempered malevolence to push the believer. IE: Yahweh asking Abraham to sacrifice his beloved child.
Epicurus said that a perfect being has no trouble and brings no trouble on anything else. Such a being is free from anger and partiality, for they all imply weakness.
Epicurus said that a perfect being has no trouble and brings no trouble on anything else. Such a being is free from anger and partiality, for they all imply weakness.
osgart
Nothing my eye, Something for sure
Supposing there is a god, than god is a beggar in the universe, and so are we. If god is omnipotent than god creates life in a very cold, and cruel manner. I wouldnt have anything to do with such a god.
Rather we exist as eternal beggars in a sea of life consciousness that always was, and life is cursed to live on the fringes of all possible worlds.
The universe is a junkyard, and humans have done amazingly to make it an interesting place to live.
Rather we exist as eternal beggars in a sea of life consciousness that always was, and life is cursed to live on the fringes of all possible worlds.
The universe is a junkyard, and humans have done amazingly to make it an interesting place to live.
What real thing does the word 'God' denote, exactly?
And a 'test' for what, exactly?
ThePainefulTruth
Romantic-Cynic
No, that would be the agnostic contingent.
If there is a God, why would It create things so that there's no awareness of It's existence? If this isn't test, why not just create all of us to be eternally praising God 24/7/365, or for whatever God wants us to be doing? In fact, angels would be just that, God's yes men with a few rebellious Luciers or something. They'd all be nothing more than God's finger puppets.
ThePainefulTruth
Romantic-Cynic
Not better, just different. If you're not basing your story on what can be validated then what do you judge better or worse on other than what you'd like to be true?
I go with Multivac. Asimov's AI computer.
A God capable of creating this quantum universe, would be capable of foreseeing the problems of such a relatively simple construct, or at the very least, capable of vaporizing it. And that scenario offers no reason why God would create such a thing in the first place. Would God want it to have a will and mind of its own, if so then that's pretty much what we are.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I do not consider life in this world to be a test. Rather I view it as preparation for the afterlife. What we acquire here by way of character, or what I call spiritual attributes, is what we will have when we cross over to the afterlife. In thatsense it is pretty important that we acquire good character (spiritual virtues) here. That is not to say that we cannot acquire them in the afterlife, only that we will be where we land on the afterlife landing strip, and it will be a lot nicer landing of we have those attributes.
Within my Baha’i belief system there is some fuzziness regarding free will in the afterlife, whether we will have it or not. I have always heard that we will not have free will, but what does that mean? If it means the ability to choose between good and evil, we won’t need free will, because there will be no evil to choose. What will we do if we cannot make any choices? I have always worried I would be bored silly. Our Writings do say that we can be a service in both worlds so to me that means we can still assist others. I have no idea what else we will be “doing” for all of eternity.
The Baha’i Writings say that we can continue to progress spiritually and get closer to God throughout all of eternity, but how can we do that if we cannot make any choices?It is in our Writings that after we die we can only advance by the mercy of God and the prayers of others, which is one big reason it is best to make as much spiritual progress in this world as possible. I cannot say how that will all play out, as the afterlife is a mystery for the most part.
I found this article and below is an excerpt from an excerpt.The author says:
“The physical is not a preparation for the spiritual existence” and it also says...
“Life in this world does not prepare for afterlife but since the spiritual world is not detached from the physical world activity in this world influences that which continues in the spiritual one. Death does not mean movement into another life, but continuation of this life. It is simply another category or stage of existence. The best that a person can do in this world, therefore, is to achieve spiritual growth, if this is achieved in this world it will continue in the Abhā Kingdom as well.”
That seems like a contradiction; first saying this life is not preparation as if it is no big deal if we do not prepare, and then saying that we should achieve spiritual growth (prepare) here. Just because that spiritual growth continues does not mean it is not important to achieve it in this world, especially if as the author later says “Remoteness from God in the physical life means remoteness in the world to come.” Moreover, since remoteness is likened to a state of hell and nearness is heaven, that seems to be saying that there is a heaven and a hell, depending upon how close to God we are. That is confirmed by the statement that “Heaven and Hell exist everywhere in this world as well as in the world to come.”
Mind you, I really do not know how we can know if we are near or remote from God. Belief in God’s Messengers is a starting point but there is more to it than just that. I do not feel near to God but it is possible that I am, because only God knows who is near and far.
Maybe you can read the article you can come to some other conclusions.
“The effort to come nearer to God in the physical world continues with coming near God in the heaven of the mystical paradise.
The idea that this world is only the preparation for the world to come is an idea common to Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The reward and punishment awaiting the person after death is the outcome of his behaviour in his earthly life, and each of the former religions found ways to describe the pleasures of reward and the pains of punishment or simply the joy of Paradise and the fire of Hell.
These notions are completely absent from the Bahá’í Faith that regards the whole idea of Heaven and Hell as allegorical rather than real. The physical is not a preparation for the spiritual existence. The existential theories of the Bahá’í faith regard human life as moving between the two poles of the physical and the spiritual, and the two worlds are not separate from each other, they are rather interwoven with each other. The only difference is that the world of physical existence has the dimension of temporality whereas the world of spiritual existence is eternal. Life in this world does not prepare for afterlife but since the spiritual world is not detached from the physical world activity in this world influences that which continues in the spiritual one. Death does not mean movement into another life, but continuation of this life. It is simply another category or stage of existence. The best that a person can do in this world, therefore, is to achieve spiritual growth, if this is achieved in this world it will continue in the Abhā Kingdom as well.
Death is regarded as the shedding away of the physical frame but no more, the real part of the person is the soul, which is indestructible. In this there is nothing new, but the Bahá’í thought added another dimension to this idea. The soul is the sum total of the personality it is the person himself; the physical body is pure matter with no real identity. The person, having left his material side behind, remains the same person, and he continues the life he conducted in the physical world. His heaven therefore is the continuation of the pure life that he conducted in the physical world, and his hell is the continuation of the immoral life, which he conducted on earth. The effort to come nearer to God in the physical world continues with coming near God in the heaven of the mystical paradise. Remoteness from God in the physical life means remoteness in the world to come. Or, in the words of Bahá’u’lláh, Heaven is reunion with the Manifestation of God in the Abhā Kingdom, and hell is remaining with oneself. Heaven and Hell exist everywhere in this world as well as in the world to come. The difference between the two is the difference between the state of perfection achieved leading to the nearness of God here and hereafter, and the state of imperfection, which is caused by the failure to attain to virtue and the falling away from God.
The challenge of life in this world continues in the world of spiritual reality as well, only that in the latter the meeting of this challenge is easier because the person is free from physical needs.”
[ end of excerpt; download the full original at www.hum.huji.ac.il ]
Death and Dying in the Bahá'í Faith
ThePainefulTruth
Romantic-Cynic
The ultimate reality, Truth. God = Truth = God.
And a 'test' for what, exactly?[/QUOTE]
To see what we do with our lives regarding the moral choices we make, and the pursuit of Truth (worship of God) via It's aspects, knowledge, justice, love and beauty.
ThePainefulTruth
Romantic-Cynic
But that's the point. Neither we nor God would know for sure what choices we would make if we knew God existed and was constantly looking over our shoulder. Any qualities of such good character would be suspect if acquired under such conditions.
It means our choices were made by something other than our will. What good would it be for God to have worshipers that were pre-programmed. And if not, they would have to have free will.
Which is why we go through that process here.
ThePainefulTruth
Romantic-Cynic
A deist God, or any rational God, would never do what was done to Abraham. It's total fiction, and if it wasn't, he should have told God to take a hike rather that even consider murdering anyone--much lies his only child. Jesus as human sacrifice for our sins is just as absurd. No lamb or man can die for our lack of repentance.
ThePainefulTruth
Romantic-Cynic
Stop right there. If we are to make choices of our own, free will is an absolute requisite. It would necessarily be a gift or a sharing from God so that neither we nor God would know what we were going to choose. If not, there'd have been no reason to make the universe. Just make everybody fully formed that was going to pass the test, and never make those that wouldn't, no universe with it's pain, suffering and death, required. And the test IS to find something out, specifically what we would do if we had true free will.
That divine spark or soul, must certainly be our fully self-awareness consciousness. That is what is meant by being in the image of God.
Paul was a Roman Citizen, a Herodian and a pagan which he blended with Christianity--which should rightly be called "Paulism".
That's exactly what happened to me, only over a period of time. I realized that God (if It exists) is only watching, and that there is no prophesy, no fate, no karma, and no divine providence if we are to have free will, the mandatory central tenet of any rational philosophy.
I think in this case it's an argument against the supposition of an afterlife and of this being a test, neither of which are Deist positions, but rather extrapolations by a single Deist.
Not meaning that as a knock on you, but in your OP you talk about 'most philosophies' believing this life to be a test, but the way you present your position makes that dubious/reliant on an external test giver.
Just my take, happy for you to correct my mis-assumptions.
So the statement "As at this date Donald Trump is President of the USA" is God, you say.
We'll make moral choices whether there's a God or not, so why do we need a test?
Since that makes no sense to me, please tell me how your definition of truth will determine whether the statement "Pierre is the capital of South Dakota" is true or not/ Talk me through the reasoning.
If the bible is any example, my concepts of morality, justice and love are radically different to God's. I'm opposed to waging aggressive war, to the massacre of civilians, to the mass rape of captive women, to human sacrifice, to religious intolerance (let alone murderous religious intolerance), to the owning of slaves, to the subordination of women, and so on; and it would never occur to me that it was a moral act to drown every breathing creature on earth bar a boatload. Yet the bible makes it clear that God thinks all these things are perfectly proper.
No, I'm not. Why would you think that? Deism does not have a monopoly on such ideas. Pagans have been doing it since before deism was a thing.
In my scenario, there'd be no need for a "God".
ThePainefulTruth
Romantic-Cynic
Free will isn't a deist position, but it can only be extrapolated from the concept of a laissez-faire, deist God, or atheism.
Not necessarily external, but yeah. We can test ourselves, and we're the only animal that does.
If there's no God, no, we don't "need" one. If this veil of tears is only to be followed by oblivion, there could be no purpose for a test, or meaning that could be applied to our limited existence except as a soothing fable for our transient, fragile egos.
I don't get the question. I think you're trying to ask something without actually asking it.
The whole point here is that a deist God is the only rational God possible. Revealed Gods, including the one from the Bible, are artificial and irrational in this otherwise rational, natural universe.
[/quote]I'm opposed to waging aggressive war, to the massacre of civilians, to the mass rape of captive women, to human sacrifice, to religious intolerance (let alone murderous religious intolerance), to the owning of slaves, to the subordination of women, and so on; and it would never occur to me that it was a moral act to drown every breathing creature on earth bar a boatload. Yet the bible makes it clear that God thinks all these things are perfectly proper.[/QUOTE]
If I could only accomplish one thing in this life, it would be to get people using "revealed" gods as an argument against a deist God. It's so obviously bogus. But I guess hard atheists and socialists just gotta feed their hate because that's all they got.
You said, "Reading stuff like this makes me glad I'm part of a life-affirming, world-affirming religion." And I'm asking, what other life-affirming, world-affirming belief is there besides deism? At the very least, it is one.
To get to "this life is a test," you don't just need a god. You also need a god that:
- has awareness of people
- relates to people
- cares about people
- is motivated, above all other concerns, by trying to achieve an outcome that's ideal for people.
I see no reason whatsoever to assume a god. I see even less reason to assume that a god, if it did exist, would have all this baggage you seem to just assume without justification.
Actually, my claims are:
- I've seen no good reason to assume that any gods exist or are likely to exist.
- For many gods, I've seen reason to reject them or dismiss them as unlikely.
Do you think I said that?
ThePainefulTruth
Romantic-Cynic
Who said there was a need? The question is, IF there is a God, is this a test? The answer is that there would be no reason for God to create this natural (non-super natural) universe otherwise.
So you can't conceive of any scenario where God's purpose for the entire universe isn't focused on people?
I think your question suggests more about you than it does about God.