PaulS

Fundamental Christians usually justify life's troubles and the difficulties that can arise from making a living from the earth, as a result of our curse of Original Sin. That's why sometimes we suffer hardship in life, and ultimately why we all expire. But what about the animals God created? As far as I'm aware, the story doesn't suggest original sin was committed by animals, so why do they suffer slavery, violence, exploitation and abuse? Why do the die? Does God not care about them? Obviously coming from me this is a bit rhetorical because presently I don't believe there is a God that somehow demonstrates active love and compassion for humans and/or animals, but what might others have to say around this subject?

Rom, I would agree with you that Brand's belief "that we do not currently operate on a frequency of consciousness that is capable of interpreting the information required to understand the great mystery" could also be phrased as "seeing things in a new light" - it just doesn't have the same flair I think the whole point about seeing things in a new light though, points to the fact that things do often get seen as they never were once before. So my point would be who knows what we don't know about universal purpose. Perhaps there is no universal purpose. However, couldn't it also be possible that there is some universal purpose which we haven't yet seen in the right light? Can we say for certain, beyond all doubt, that universal purpose doesn't exist, or can we only say (as I would suggest) that based on what we know and the light in which we currently see things (i.e. using our current understanding of logic and evidence/data) there doesn't appear to be a universal purpose (putting aside individual beliefs that others might argue against)? Those video links do look interesting (but long) so I hope to get to them soon.

I think there are people who will do or encourage or turn a blind eye to 'bad' things no matter whether it's in a religion, in a political association, in a sports group, or even the scouts. Unfortunately there is a certain percentage of the human population that will cause harm, commit offences, and tarnish the good side of many of these organisations, clubs, etc etc. I'm not suggesting it should be acceptable, rather that it is currently a fact of our reality.

I believe in evolution. Subsequently I believe today's humans evolved from the earliest single-cell life forms through to the complex creatures we are today. That being the case, I see no room for 'original' sin. To me, clearly the life event of Adam and Eve sinning in a Garden of Eden, is either a folktale or a metaphor trying to explain why we don't live in a totally harmonious world.

Rom, Perhaps I should point out that Brand's book isn't about any spiritual purpose so to speak (he does say he believes in God but doesn't discuss what sort of God he envisages, although I get the picture it's not God in the traditional fundy sense). His book is definitely about the here and now and is a critique of the oppressive and unfair nature of the systems that our societies generally operate according to. I think he is suggesting 'new data' in the sense that once we start seeing things in a new light, that will trigger further thought around the subject mater and perhaps it will create a domino effect. Perhaps much like ancient Greek speculation and consideration lead to complete understanding that the earth was indeed round and not flat as was the accepted knowledge of the day. As far as 'purpose' to the universe, Brand hasn't really touched on it. He did ask the question about where did the energy come from to create the ingredients that led to the big bang, but provides no opinion on the issue.

It's what works for your pastor and has meaning for him, but that doesn't mean it must be the same for everybody else. I accept that some Christians feel they have been saved by Jesus and I am happy for them that they have found some meaning to their lives. Usually because of their cultural context and influences they then adopt dogma and other people's explanations and interpretations of the various works lumped together and regarded as God's final word. The two don't have to go hand in hand - I think Jesus can provide meaning to lives without all the biblical baggage often associated.

I read 'frequency of consciousness' to mean our way of thinking. Just like the flat earthers could only conceive the world as being flat, so to, on our current frequency of consciousness, humans can only conceive of our beginnings and the universe in certain ways. I think Brand is proposng of a different mindset that once we possess it, new avenues of thought and understanding will open up. As for the machinery of our brains, I don't think Brand means the machinery or mechanics of the brain shouldn't be there but rather that there is more to our mechanics and thinking than we currently understand. I don't know if Brand means things like ESP, psychic perception, telepathy, etc, but I'm interpreting what he's saying as there is probably more to the mechanics of our brain and bodies than we currently understand. He may be wrong - if we can look back in several thousand years and can see we didn't develop any currently unknown powers of our minds. But I don't think I could say right now that we know absolutely everything there is to know about how and why our brains work like they do.

Unfortunately Soma I've had too many six packs to have a six pack! ?

This from 'Revolution' by Russell Brand that I am currently reading (well listening to in the car via Audible.com) concerning the Big Bang: ....the spontaneous appearance of all matter, energy, phenomena, consciousness, and rules, in a single instant, which is preceded by and is surrounded by......Nothingness. Brand goes on to say his belief is that we do not currently operate on a frequency of consciousness that is capable of interpreting the information required to understand the great mystery. He believes the mechanical model for understanding nature is a metaphor that science has got stuck on. This prevailing idea that humans are machines, biological robots with computer-like brains. This belief will, to the advanced species that we're evolving into, seem as absurd as the flat earth theories that we scoff at now. Those flat earth folk weren't just pretending they though the earth was flat - they genuinely believed it. They looked down at the flat ground, at its flat appearance, and took that as empirical evidence of its flatness. They could not conceive of another way of seeing it. I do wonder if that is where we are at as humans when we consider universal purpose?

Maybe 'consequence' is a better word than 'judgement'. It would seem that as a consequence of not learning the right lessons in this life, something/someone causes you to have another crack at getting it right. In some instances, there is the belief that you are returned as a 'lower' life form (I see that as punishment but let's say it's just a consequence). Whilst it might not be necessary to remember our past lives, to me it would make a lot more sense if we did. If the ultimate goal in this karmic system is to achieve enlightenment and learn from our mistakes, I think building in knowledge of our past lives into this system would make it a lot more efficient.

Again though Joe, I don't see the point of karmic 'justice' if you don't know what it is in your past that you are being punished for, or what lesson you are meant to learn. Now if you knew the errors or misdeeds you carried out in a past life, that would make sense.

Love it, Rom ???

I haven't reasearched reincarnation much in early Christianity, but I do notice that people were questioning if Jesus was a reincarnated Elijah, so I guess the concept must have been around then. I don't believe in karma because I can't see how it is at all useful. To believe in karma, to me, would suggest 'the system' has somehow designated it as necessary, yet if we take previous life as a given, and most of us don't know anything about our previous lives from which to learn from, then it all seems rather pointless to me.

A purple duck ? ?

I am very happy to continue with what could possibly be an illusion, because it is all I know (i.e. think) without the certainty that is as you have said above because I simply can't be certain. Does that matter? No, in my opinion.

Yes, I loved Avatar too! It makes no sense to me that our existence 'needs' purpose, yet 'the source for all' doesn't need purpose. If you can be satisfied this source doesn't need/have a purpose, why can't our existence have no purpose? If the source can be all that ever was, why can't a bunch of gases and then our existence instead be all that ever was? I know, you just know I do practice my life as if it has a purpose, probably because that's all I know. I drive to work because that's what I grew up understanding. I care for my family because that seems like the logical and emotional thing to do. Can I be certain though that it is not all illusion or program - No. But I think I would probably go insane thinking that was the case, because I don't have an alternate explanation, just wondering. We can't know what we don't know. We can only think/believe we know, but perhaps we are mistaken.

Elen, I have briefly reviewed some literature and it seems certain that the English word hell was used to replace Gehenna in this text. Furthermore, Gehenna is cited in the OT as the Valley of Hinnon and a place where evil sacrifice was made to the God Malek, possibly child sacrifice. Jewish folklore associated Gehenna with fire and as a place of despair. Perhaps this is where the Hell myth grows from. I now see that there is some debate about whether Gehenna as a town tip did actually exist or not. I don't think it is dispute that it is/was a place near Jerusalem's southern wall, but it's actual purpose in Jesus' day is debated. Perhaps it was a tip, perhaps it was a place associated with misery and despair, perhaps Jesus meant it was a place of eternal damnation with no chance for redemption (however that last doesn't seem to fit Jesus' character in my opinion). In relation to divorce, I think the bureaucrats might have hijacked Jesus' message! To me it reads as way to vague to mean anything in particular and perhaps Jesus was just saying divorce is okay in a loveless marriage.

I think the fact that this discussion is so extended proves that opposites do not exist. If they did, everything would be clear cut, black and white. Obviously it's not. Morality is subject to opinions and societal 'agreements'. Perception comes from experiences, of which we have all had different ones. Sure, we can generally say a thing is good or bad, but how good or bad? Is a righteously moral act directly opposite to a unmoral act or, as I think, is it more a case of degrees?

Whilst most people don't 'operate' on the premise that we don't exist, there is a strong line of thought and many contemplate, whether we do in fact 'exist'. I might even say that it doesn't matter what we 'think', it will be what it will be. If we do exist then so be it. If we don't actually exist then so be it too. Whilst our existence appears to be evolving, have some order, and seems real enough to you, that doesn't mean that it is true. Have you seen The Matrix? Perhaps our 'existence' is like that, perhaps not. I think that to suggest purpose is to suggest some driving force. And of course man has been arguing since what we identify as the beginning of time, about what our purpose or this driving force may be. But if one can settle that there is some sort of driving force that created this 'purpose', then what created the purpose for the driving force. To me the question just goes around and around in circles until we stop at a point that we choose to settle on so that we are satisfied I guess. Currently I can't conceive of my existence having purpose, but that hardly drives me to despair and death. I feel like I exist whether I actually do or not. I will feel like I am living my life whether I actually I am or not. It's enough for me to rest in the understanding that quite possibly my existence has no purpose. It doesn't stop me from living though. Maybe I will find out the reality one day, maybe I won't.

Believing that my existence is evidence of a universal purpose, is always going to be subjective. I take your point about the difference between 'how' we exist on a day-to-day basis versus the 'fact' that we do exist (or not) regardless of whether we're conscious of that. I say or not because there are some realms of thought that we actually don't exist but are a part of something/someone else's dreams (and other versions thereof, such as The Matrix). 'Primary Cause' suggests to some (maybe you) that there was a 'reason' the big bang and eventually us, came into being. You suggest my mere existence is evidence of this, perhaps indefinable, purpose. But to me that would then suggest a 'creator' of sorts (whether personal, or a type of consciousness, or something else) which in turn must have been created by someone or something or else there would be no purpose to its existence, and on and on down the rabbit hole we go

Welcome Hudagph, I hope you enjoy the forum and participating here. May I ask if you are a Bangladeshi native or have you moved there? Have you found this forum through a search or something, or have you been directed here? Would love to know a little bit more about you and what has attracted you to this place. Enjoy. Cheers Paul

My understanding of biblical scholarship over the last few hundred years is that the term Hell has been translated from the oldest surviving texts from a number of words including Sheol and Gehenna. Gehenna was a very real place in Jesus' day which I understand was like the town tip. It was perpetually on fire or smouldering to diminish the waste that was put there. This waste included the bodies of people considered unworthy of appropriate burial/entombment, people such as criminals and enemies. Maybe we could call them the 'lowest of the low', at least I think that is how they may have been viewed by society then. Without checking my facts, I think this verse incorrectly translates Gehenna into Hell. If Jesus was referring to Gehenna then I think I could imagine a Jesus message like these verses: "It is better to lose a part of your body than be misled into a life of wickedness and misery which only repays you with isolation and despair and results in you being chucked onto the smouldering dump heap of Hell (Gehenna) because you don't have anybody who loves or cares for you because of who you became".

This is something that I think about a bit without ever coming to any firm conclusion. My thoughts always come back to "if there wasn't any purpose for me to exist, would I live any differently?" For me, there isn't any reason to change (from a macro perspective ignoring little things like where I live, what work I do, etc), so if I can remove any possible 'purpose' to my life and things don't change, then it would seem to me there is no specific purpose to my existence.

Okay, maybe 'happy' wasn't a good reference for good. Perhaps if I rephrase it to question what is 'good' and what is 'evil'. For instance, if it rains in my area I think it is 'good' because it fills up dams and reservoirs for the impending summer. However, if that same rain hits a farmer's grain crops that are ready for harvest and ruins his harvest, I'd be guessing the farmer feels that this rain was 'bad'. My point being, good and bad, happy and sad, hot and cold, are all subject to perspective and opinion, and subsequently are not 'set in stone' but rather are part of a continuum, in my opinion.

I think coining things as opposites may be a useful communication tool for our species taking into account our limitations, but i can't think of any opposites that are 'precisely' that. Some things may be termed good because they make us happy, whereas something else may be called bad because it makes us upset, however I don't usually see them as empirically opposite. I think opposites are most definitely based on our opinions and judgements.