Is This a Test

[ThePainefulTruth]

Hmmmmmm… So what I hear you saying is that if we acquire good character just because we believe that God exists and is watching our every move, then those good character traits are suspect because we are only acquiring them out of fear? I do understand that but what we do should not be out of fear of punishment, but rather because it is the “right thing” to do. That is noble of you, but there really is no way to separate our knowing that there will be a reward in the afterlife from doing it out of a sense of what is right, unless we do not believe in God or an afterlife.

We don't know, and have no evidence, that God exists or there's an afterlife. We therefore make our moral decisions without divine fetters.

Moreover, I think that God designed it this way, that we know that what we do here will reap a future reward in heaven, because most people won’t sacrifice their selfish desires unless there is a reward of some kind.The thing is, taking God seriously and trying to meet the requirements is not that easy, so it is according to God’s consummate justice that there is a reward.

Again, we can't even know God exists. Religious hearsay is just that. God doesn't interact or communicate, It just watches, which you appear to understand, but you just can't get past the artificial "knowledge" of God via the various revealed religions.

“Were the mysteries, that are known to none except God, to be unraveled, the whole of mankind would witness the evidences of perfect and consummate justice. With a certitude that none can question, all men would cleave to His commandments, and would scrupulously observe them. We, verily, have decreed in Our Book a goodly and bountiful reward to whosoever will turn away from wickedness and lead a chaste and godly life. He, in truth, is the Great Giver, the All-Bountiful.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 117

??????

Those believers who believe they are saved and forgiven by the blood of Jesus without having to sacrifice any of their selfish desires will not get the same reward as those who did sacrifice. The whole system is pretty fair.

No human, or animal, can replace the need for our repentance with their sacrifice. It's a pagan concept.

You are right, there has to be something akin to free will in the afterlife because the only alternative is that God just moves us along a conveyor belt… That does not make sense, especially given we are told that the afterlife is just a continuation of this life, only without all the physical requirements we have here.

Proposing that God and an afterlife exist is presumption enough, given that there's no evidence for either. Further speculation on a description of that afterlife is 100% fantasy.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Hope of what?

Hope for our possible spiritual, for lack of a better word, continuation, instead of oblivion.

 

[blü 2]

It's an objective fact that the representatives of the people of S. Dakota chose the location and name for its capital, encoded that into law, and that information is contained in maps and Wiki articles on S. Dakota etc. I don't see where my definition of Truth fits in. What do you think that definition is?

But that doesn't address the question of how your definition of truth works.

My definition of 'truth' is 'correspondence with reality', so that for me facts are true.

I ask again, what test do you use to determine whether something is true or not? You're using my test now for the capital of South Dakota, for instance. Do we agree that a statement is true if it corresponds with objective reality, and not true if it doesn't?

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

In my scenario, there'd be no need for a "God".

I have no argument with agnostic-atheism. It's equally reasonable with agnostic-deism, given that there's no evidence for or against either. The only difference is hope, unless you're hoping for oblivion--which you could have anytime you want.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why is this life as being a test seemingly poisonous to you?

Because it can excuse any injustice and skew any judgement.

Convince someone that they'll get reward in Heaven for passing their "test" of life as a slave and you'll have a compliant slave.

Convince someone that the suffering of the people around them is just their "test" to see if they're worthy of something bigger and better and you can get them to ignore the suffering around them.

Convince someone that martyrdom is a way to "pass the test" and you'll get them throwing away their lives instead of trying to make things better.

If life is a test, then the actions of Andrea Yates - who murdered her 4 kids while they were too young to be "tested" so she'd be sure they'd "pass" - were the most selfless, rational act that could be. The idea that life is a test justifies atrocities.

Every sort of evil on Earth can be perpetuated if you can get people to believe that this life is just a test for something bigger.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Because it can excuse any injustice and skew any judgement.

Convince someone that they'll get reward in Heaven for passing their "test" of life as a slave and you'll have a compliant slave.

Convince someone that the suffering of the people around them is just their "test" to see if they're worthy of something bigger and better and you can get them to ignore the suffering around them.

Convince someone that martyrdom is a way to "pass the test" and you'll get them throwing away their lives instead of trying to make things better.

If life is a test, then the actions of Andrea Yates - who murdered her 4 kids while they were too young to be "tested" so she'd be sure they'd "pass" - were the most selfless, rational act that could be. The idea that life is a test justifies atrocities.

Every sort of evil on Earth can be perpetuated if you can get people to believe that this life is just a test for something bigger.

Everything that you just said we live that life every single moment of our lives without even knowing it. This is why freedom is an illusion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Everything that you just said we live that life every single moment of our lives without even knowing it. This is why freedom is an illusion.

Speak for yourself.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Speak for yourself.

I am

 

[`mud]

Like I've said...Life is Stuff....the Stuff is a test.
The thing is....who do we think grades the test.
Do we.....or the `gods` we worship.
Do we love ourselves, do we love our `gods`, does our `god` love us ?
From where did your `spirit` come, to where is it going, that's the test.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Because you've negated knowledge and thus any meaningful communication.

Really? How is it possible to negate knowledge? You have knowledge, I have knowledge, everyone on earth has knowledge. Knowledge arises from experience, and we all have experience--in fact, that is ALL we have to go on, except the conceptions we create, which happens in a social environment.

If you think I've negated knowledge (and somehow, therefore communication), then you have not understood anything I have written. Since you have decided that my speculations don't fit with yours, you just dismiss them.

From the first, this thread has been about "IF," about a hypothetical, about your 'hope,' in short, speculation:

So yes, if there is a God, this must be a test. And most philosophies (that don't believe in predestination) look at it that way, to at lest some degree. So what's the purpose of the test? It's already an enormous assumption, the existence of God, so any further supposition would be 100% pure speculation--but an afterlife would be more consistent with an existent God, than none.

I have been pointing out that there are other interpretations and possibilities, whether humans are able to know them for certain or not. That is, I have been speculating about the speculation you posted in your OP, and show that it's possible to speculate other solutions to what you're speculating about.

Beyond that, I'm apparently really not getting what you were expecting by posting this thread.

 

[`mud]

"Everyone has knowledge"...maybe not !
One has the ability to aquire knowledge, but what one does with it is important.
One must add the aquired nowledge to one's gnosis, to built it further and grow it.
Gnosis is part memory and `spirit` within one's mind form, called intelligence.
At my age....memory is spilling rapidly out the door, and the `spirit` is fadeing also.
On the whole...my cognizence is about the same, thanks for that.
But still....it's a test, and who's going to grade it ?
Now that's needing speculation !

 

[Twilight Hue]

As a agnostic-deist, it is more accurately my hope, as opposed to my belief, that there is a God and a Hereafter. And if there is, that raises the question, what's the purpose of going through the pain, strife and ultimate death in this world? I personally believe that God created the universe to spawn self-aware creatures to see how they handle free will in their lives here. That's the sole purpose of the universe, to provide us with a stage where we wouldn't be influenced by the knowledge of God's existence. An omnipotent God could do anything else instantly.

So yes, if there is a God, this must be a test. And most philosophies (that don't believe in predestination) look at it that way, to at lest some degree. So what's the purpose of the test? It's already an enormous assumption, the existence of God, so any further supposition would be 100% pure speculation--but an afterlife would be more consistent with an existent God, than none.

I'm thinking more along the lines of evil mad experiment

As a agnostic-deist, it is more accurately my hope, as opposed to my belief, that there is a God and a Hereafter. And if there is, that raises the question, what's the purpose of going through the pain, strife and ultimate death in this world? I personally believe that God created the universe to spawn self-aware creatures to see how they handle free will in their lives here. That's the sole purpose of the universe, to provide us with a stage where we wouldn't be influenced by the knowledge of God's existence. An omnipotent God could do anything else instantly.

So yes, if there is a God, this must be a test. And most philosophies (that don't believe in predestination) look at it that way, to at lest some degree. So what's the purpose of the test? It's already an enormous assumption, the existence of God, so any further supposition would be 100% pure speculation--but an afterlife would be more consistent with an existent God, than none.

Is this some kind of quality assurance or quality control? Not to mention what is to be had from all of it?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Hope for our possible spiritual, for lack of a better word, continuation, instead of oblivion.

Hmm...but that's not a facet of Deism. True, it's not denied by deism, but neither is it a Deist belief.
And (weird as it seems to me personally) atheism doesn't preclude an afterlife. Although I don't personally believe in one.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Because it can excuse any injustice and skew any judgement.

Convince someone that they'll get reward in Heaven for passing their "test" of life as a slave and you'll have a compliant slave.

That's self-enslavement, with only themselves to blame for being so gullible. It's not possible they could have been shown any evidence that there was a reward, except hearsay. Most likely they believed because they wanted to believe, or just to go along to get along--and they finally convinced themselves they were right after all rather than think of themselves as sellouts. It's amazing what the human mind can rationalize to protect its ego, or justify its evil.

Convince someone that the suffering of the people around them is just their "test" to see if they're worthy of something bigger and better and you can get them to ignore the suffering around them.

That's just another example of self-serving rationalization. But what about the worst case scenario, an innocent, locked up and tortured for life? He can go irrational crazy, or hope for some justice, and peace and joy hereafter. What would you tell him if they let you talk to him, but you couldn't save him?

Convince someone that martyrdom is a way to "pass the test" and you'll get them throwing away their lives instead of trying to make things better.

Take an extreme case, Jesus, it's a mixed bag. He let himself be fooled, but the courage and will he displayed in his attack on corruption were those of a man of extreme integrity. He knew the punishment for insurrection was crucifixion. It's why many of his followers, like Judas and Peter, abandoned him.

If life is a test, then the actions of Andrea Yates - who murdered her 4 kids while they were too young to be "tested" so she'd be sure they'd "pass" - were the most selfless, rational act that could be. The idea that life is a test justifies atrocities.

She, in her unsupervised psychotic state, was allowed to succumb to her indoctrination and delusions. But you have a point about the coming of moral age, if you will. We don't really know when that is. I think it's around the age of the terrible twos when children start to develop their self-awareness, accompanied by their realization of what they do to others from the other's viewpoint. We learn about and are taught to heed that realization, or not to. Each of us has a devil inside, the only devils there are.

In any case, death, naturally or otherwise, including abortion, I believe can only result in oblivion before that coming of moral age--or oblivion or a hereafter if there is one, after that age.

Every sort of evil on Earth can be perpetuated if you can get people to believe that this life is just a test for something bigger.

Why would a person who actually believes that this is test for which we are rewarded or punished in an afterlife, do that which would bring about his punishment? The only motivation for people to do evil or not in this life, is driven by our desires...desires for which we take action that violates the rights of others for our own benefit. Such a moral double standard is the only root (motivation) for ALL evil.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Really? How is it possible to negate knowledge?

(This is short so be sure and read the whole thing.)

It's not. But YOU said, "We can know things only provisionally. It is not All or Nothing. We know what we experience, but we do not know if that is an illusion, a delusion, a hallucination, a real complete experience, or only a partial experience.[/quote]

I did read what you wrote. Knowledge is that portion of reality that we possess, that portion we know. Now you can say that reality is the result of the result of the vision of a solipsist, but that would make you the figment of my imagination, and me God--with the latter being absurd, and the former, the result of a masochistic urge, which is also absurd. I pretty much like me, and would certainly not want to let one of my characters go off on some tangent chasing one logical fallacy after another.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

(This is short so be sure and read the whole thing.)

It's not. But YOU said, "We can know things only provisionally. It is not All or Nothing. We know what we experience, but we do not know if that is an illusion, a delusion, a hallucination, a real complete experience, or only a partial experience.

I did read what you wrote. Knowledge is that portion of reality that we possess, that portion we know. Now you can say that reality is the result of the result of the vision of a solipsist, but that would make you the figment of my imagination, and me God--with the latter being absurd, and the former, the result of a masochistic urge, which is also absurd. I pretty much like me, and would certainly not want to let one of my characters go off on some tangent chasing one logical fallacy after another. [/QUOTE]
No worries, then. I'll leave to chase after the one logical fallacy after another that you're already chasing.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I'm thinking more along the lines of evil mad experiment

If you're basing you conclusion on the revealed (i.e. man made) religions of the world, that would be a pretty solid conclusion. But while the universe may be full of ironies, we keep resolving those ironies, and the rest of the evidence we see shows a completely natural, rational universe--what you would expect from with a deist God.

Is this some kind of quality assurance or quality control?[/QUOTE/]

I know you're being snide, but as it turns out, if the reality of the chance between a deist God vs no God turns out to be the former, then yes, it is.

Not to mention what is to be had from all of it?

What's to be had? You mean like the chance for a positive hereafter vs. oblivion? Is that what you're reeeeeealy asking? Surely not.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I did read what you wrote. Knowledge is that portion of reality that we possess, that portion we know. Now you can say that reality is the result of the result of the vision of a solipsist, but that would make you the figment of my imagination, and me God--with the latter being absurd, and the former, the result of a masochistic urge, which is also absurd. I pretty much like me, and would certainly not want to let one of my characters go off on some tangent chasing one logical fallacy after another.

No worries, then. I'll leave to chase after the one logical fallacy after another.[/QUOTE]

That must be a Freudian typo-slip.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

No worries, then. I'll leave to chase after the one logical fallacy after another.

That must be a Freudian typo-slip.[/QUOTE]
Or, being ironic...

 

[Trailblazer]

We don't know, and have no evidence, that God exists or there's an afterlife. We therefore make our moral decisions without divine fetters.

Okay, that works, as long as you are moral.

Again, we can't even know God exists. Religious hearsay is just that. God doesn't interact or communicate, It just watches, which you appear to understand, but you just can't get past the artificial "knowledge" of God via the various revealed religions.

I understand, I really do. But I cannot help it if it makes sense to me that God speaks through Messengers that reveal the various religions, as opposed to speaking directly to everyone, or showing up in some other way.

Before I came here a couple of months ago, I had been discussing this for four years on other forums I was on, as those forums were mostly comprised of nonbelievers many of which are in the same ball park as you are. That is why I understand. I also have many Word documents I saved from posts I made where we debated direct communication to everyone vs. Messengers of God., so I think I have a lot of logical ground to stand on. I mean I do not “just believe” based upon my emotions.

“Were the mysteries, that are known to none except God, to be unraveled, the whole of mankind would witness the evidences of perfect and consummate justice. With a certitude that none can question, all men would cleave to His commandments, and would scrupulously observe them. We, verily, have decreed in Our Book a goodly and bountiful reward to whosoever will turn away from wickedness and lead a chaste and godly life. He, in truth, is the Great Giver, the All-Bountiful.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 117

??????

Sorry, let me explain the meaning of that passage. If we humans knew what God knows we would know what complete and perfect justice actually is because God’s justice is complete and perfect. If we knew what God knows, we would cleave to God’s commandments and observe them diligently.

Then Baha’u’llah switched gears and said that there is a bountiful reward for whoever lives a moral life as opposed to a wicked life. What is not in that passage (but is in other passages) is that God’s commandments (teachings and Laws) are revealed by God and that is how we know how to lead a moral life. That is not to say that you cannot know without those scriptures, because obviously many nonbelievers lead good and moral lives. It is only to say that the specifics of what that entails are revealed in the scriptures. People learn in many ways, but mostly they acquire a set of values in their family of origin. I was not raised in a religious family, both my parents had fallen away from Christianity they were raised with, but I had a sense of right and wrong before I ever became a Baha’i at age 17.

No human, or animal, can replace the need for our repentance with their sacrifice. It's a pagan concept.

I fully agree.

Proposing that God and an afterlife exist is presumption enough, given that there's no evidence for either. Further speculation on a description of that afterlife is 100% fantasy.

There is evidence that God exists although there is no proof. However, the evidence we have is not evidence to everyone. That is why some people remain nonbelievers.

There is some evidence for an afterlife from Near Death Experiences. What you call speculation as to the description of that afterlife is simply what is in the Baha’i Writings or Baha’is’ interpretations of what those might mean. It makes sense to me, but of course that is because I believe it, and one reason I believe it because it makes sense to me.

But I can understand how it sounds fantastical to a person who is not a Baha’i. It even sounds that way to Christians, but to a Baha’i what Christians believe sounds fantastic, that bodies will rise from graves and live forever on an earth that Jesus has restored to an Adam and Eve type paradise. It makes more sense to believe there is no afterlife at all and just wait and see what happens. I am not all that excited about any of it, so I do not believe it because I want to live forever, although admittedly I am not too keen on the prospect of ceasing to exist when I die. But it just makes no sense to me that there is no afterlife, as then I would not be able to understand why we have to endure this life, a storehouse of suffering.