• 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

Samantha Rinne

Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
Also agnostic but switch between deist/atheist daily. In my Deist version God created this universe to create an equal or equals, whether we are a cog in the wheel or to be the ultimate outcome is unknown. The purpose is to be an equal to God, the path and our part is unknown.

Your avatar really suits you then. Looks like a coin of some sort.

Personally, I'm a "all opinions are part of a greater whole" type (big into the blind ppl and elephant religion analogy). So watching atheist types being like "there's no God/afterlife and when we die we just rot", and theists/deists being all over the idea of an afterlife, and Hindus like "we reincarnate, duh" I can't help but think...

Well it's like some explosives. They're in a bottle but when you crack it open, BOOOM. It's all potential energy until it gets released and becomes actuality. So when we die it's more like what we want gets released and rewrites our reality.

But no, I'm not sure if life is a test so much as an adventure that most of us seem content not to have.

Btw, interestingly enough, human bodies do tend to explode if left in certain conditions.
 

`mud

Just old
Premium Member
hey Sam,
" ..So when we die it's more like what we want gets released and rewrites our reality.."
I really like this,
sans cognition !
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
I can't find what you're referring to.

I mean can you explain how it is that deism is life-affirming and world-affirming. I'm not seeing it, any more than I see how theism or atheism are either of those things (nor are they the converse):

Theism -> some deity is a thing
Athiesm -> some deity is not a thing
Deism -> deity is a thing, and it doesn't intervene in our world

None of this has much to do with being (or not) life-affirming or world-affirming. I'm trying to figure out how it is you see deism as taking some sort of stance on this.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
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.
Saying that "life is a test" implies that there are criteria for that test. I gave some of the very common results of people living by very mainstream notions of what those criteria would be, but any criteria can lend themselves to gaming the system.


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?
Empathy: because they care more about the reward or punishment of others than they care about their own.
 

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
I mean can you explain how it is that deism is life-affirming and world-affirming. I'm not seeing it, any more than I see how theism or atheism are either of those things (nor are they the converse):

Theism -> some deity is a thing
Athiesm -> some deity is not a thing
Deism -> deity is a thing, and it doesn't intervene in our world

None of this has much to do with being (or not) life-affirming or world-affirming. I'm trying to figure out how it is you see deism as taking some sort of stance on this.

Not so much a stance as a result. Theism has God putting us here in this rational universe and expects us to ignore its rationality and believe those who says God interacts with us in supernatural ways, with no verification other than ancient, anti-rational hearsay. And since God's omnipotence indicates to them that It must know what we will do in this life before we do it, how life affirming is it to be a sock puppet? There's no substance or accomplishment to it for us or God.

Deism says that God has provided us with moral free will, which is why God mustn't interact or even be evident. Our decisions and the results are totally our own without divine fetters or influence. That's life affirming, and it offers hope for something hereafter, especially for those who've lived a life in continual torment or destitution beyond their control.

Atheism is the exact same thing, without the hope. It still baffles me that geniuses like Steven Hawking can't see past the theist fog. I think he's just an angry, bitter old man because he couldn't come to grips with the facts that theism is a hoax, that life isn't fair, and can't see past the enormous gifts he does have (had)--and works to abolish any possible hope that might indicate something beyond.
 

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
Saying that "life is a test" implies that there are criteria for that test. I gave some of the very common results of people living by very mainstream notions of what those criteria would be, but any criteria can lend themselves to gaming the system.

How do you game the system when you're only competing with yourself?

Empathy: because they care more about the reward or punishment of others than they care about their own.

The only way for them to achieve the reward or avoid punishment, is to the them to use their free will to be moral. No one can suffer and/or die to correct your choices. Even Jesus and John the Baptist said the path to salvation was through repentance, not the sacrifice of some lamb, or Jesus. Of course the latter was backed in, or at least that's the only thing that makes sense.

Empathy and selfishness are two of the most misunderstood and abused concepts in the lexicon.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
Not so much a stance as a result. Theism has God putting us here in this rational universe and expects us to ignore its rationality and believe those who says God interacts with us in supernatural ways, with no verification other than ancient, anti-rational hearsay. And since God's omnipotence indicates to them that It must know what we will do in this life before we do it, how life affirming is it to be a sock puppet? There's no substance or accomplishment to it for us or God.

Perhaps I should clarify... by "theism" I never just mean the classical monotheism you're talking about here. I mean all types of theism (which technically includes deism). I also don't mean "theism" coupled with particular religious teachings about god(s). I can see what you say here makes sense if we assume classical monotheism coupled with specific religious teachings about God. Not seeing how theism by itself is life-affirming (or the converse).


Deism says that God has provided us with moral free will, which is why God mustn't interact or even be evident. Our decisions and the results are totally our own without divine fetters or influence. That's life affirming, and it offers hope for something hereafter, especially for those who've lived a life in continual torment or destitution beyond their control.

I think I'm still having trouble following here. How is existence without divine influence necessarily life-affirming (or the converse, for that matter)? Doesn't the insertion of free will mean personal torment/destitution isn't beyond someone's individual control? It is still sounding pretty neutral on the affair to me.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
How do you game the system when you're only competing with yourself?
I have no idea what your question is trying to ask.

By "game the system," I mean that people will try to do what - according to what they believe about the rules of the "test" - will maximize their chances of getting the outcome they want rather than what's the most moral.

The only way for them to achieve the reward or avoid punishment, is to the them to use their free will to be moral.
Hang on - it seems like you made quite a leap: how did you decide that the criteria for this test line up with what you've decided is moral or immoral? This seems arbitrary on your part.

No one can suffer and/or die to correct your choices. Even Jesus and John the Baptist said the path to salvation was through repentance, not the sacrifice of some lamb, or Jesus. Of course the latter was backed in, or at least that's the only thing that makes sense.

Empathy and selfishness are two of the most misunderstood and abused concepts in the lexicon.
I think you're misunderstanding me. I was talking about cases like Andrea Yates.

Imagine an entirely rational person who loves their children and thinks that their god is just.

One reasonable inference from all this - and it's a tenet of many religions - is that children have to be old enough to appreciate their actions for them to be judged for them. Until this point, they get a "free pass" on the "test."

As a rational parent, you realize that there's definitely a chance that one of your kids could do something over the course of their life that warrants Hell (setting aside the question of the morality of Hell for a moment). OTOH, because of that "free pass," you know that if they die now, they'll be guaranteed Heaven. In that situation, it's morally praiseworthy and completely rational to murder your kids. Yes, you may earn Hell for it, but if you value your kids' fate more than your own, then it's the logical choice.

... if life is a test.

Do you understand how a rational person can arrive at Andrea Yates's conclusion provided that they believe:

- life is a test
- the outcome of the test determines whether people end up in Heaven or Hell
- children who are too young to properly participate are exempt from the test
 

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
Perhaps I should clarify... by "theism" I never just mean the classical monotheism you're talking about here. I mean all types of theism (which technically includes deism). I also don't mean "theism" coupled with particular religious teachings about god(s). I can see what you say here makes sense if we assume classical monotheism coupled with specific religious teachings about God. Not seeing how theism by itself is life-affirming (or the converse).


One god or a jillion, you're still talking about divine revelation (which separates deism from the rest, technically or otherwise), and the completely non-evident violation of natural law.


I think I'm still having trouble following here. How is existence without divine influence necessarily life-affirming (or the converse, for that matter)? Doesn't the insertion of free will mean personal torment/destitution isn't beyond someone's individual control?
It is still sounding pretty neutral on the affair to me.

I'm talking about other people having the power to decide, using their free will, to cause you torment, death etc. As you rot in your chains, you can still say to yourself, that there's one small piece of you that you refuse to let them get to (if I may borrow from V for Vendetta). And you can use that one small piece of resistance to give your life a crumb of meaning, which you can nurture in the hope that your death will liberate you with that meaning, and see it flourish. Yes, it looks small from this side, but who knows what it could become. It's all you've got and that's better than nothing...oblivion.
 
An undying light of infinite possibility and capability can not be diminished or negatively impacted in any manner. Life is not a Test. Life is play, play only. That does mean though Transcendent realization which oddly does include experiences one could call painful. Transcendent is the key word.
 
Top