Jump to content

The Pre-Mortal Existance Refutes the Assertion that Intelligence is Genetically Determined.


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Eschaton said:

I'm not sure how this passage is relevant?

It was relevant because I was talking about the pre-existence of spirits. When Jesus said that the man born blind wasn't born blind because of his sins, he was referring to the man's pre-existence, which is what Jesus's disciples were asking about. If he didn't have a pre-mortal existence, then he could hardly have sinned in it, could he? And so the question and answer would be illogical. So, ergo, he had a pre-mortal existence. And what logically follows from that is that after his mortal existence he had a post-mortal existence. 

 

 

Edited by Stargazer
Link to comment
4 hours ago, Eschaton said:

In any case, the gospel of John is not a source for the sayings of Jesus - all sayings of Jesus in John can be safely attributed to the author of the gospel, writing in the 10th decade of the first century. 

I think I got a little confused by what you've written here. I get that you feel the Gospel of John wasn't actually written by John the Beloved. Do you also understand that the Gospel of John is a forgery and whatever it attributes to Jesus is falsely attributed? 

Link to comment
17 hours ago, Stargazer said:

It was relevant because I was talking about the pre-existence of spirits. When Jesus said that the man born blind wasn't born blind because of his sins, he was referring to the man's pre-existence, which is what Jesus's disciples were asking about. If he didn't have a pre-mortal existence, then he could hardly have sinned in it, could he? And so the question and answer would be illogical. So, ergo, he had a pre-mortal existence. And what logically follows from that is that after his mortal existence he had a post-mortal existence. 

 

 

What makes you think anyone was speaking of the pre-existence in that passage, and not, say, reincarnation? Reincarnation was a popular Hellenistic idea. 

Link to comment
17 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I think I got a little confused by what you've written here. I get that you feel the Gospel of John wasn't actually written by John the Beloved.

 

Yes, no one thinks GJohn was actually written by John. Nor does it claim to be written by John - it's anonymous. 

17 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Do you also understand that the Gospel of John is a forgery and whatever it attributes to Jesus is falsely attributed? 

No, not a forgery. But it's very late, and the sayings material in John is completely alien to the sayings material in our earlier synoptic sources. The writing style of John's sayings material matches the writing style of the narrator, indicating it is the creation of the narrator. 

 

 

Link to comment
21 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Eisegesis. Interesting.

"Scholar don't think..." What do the scholars think? Is that whom you rely upon, then? Seems a particularly slim reed upon which to lean.

I lean on mainstream Biblical scholarship. Which is really just about a very careful and methodical reading of the text in textual and historical context. 

 

21 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Proverbs 3:5 - "Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding."

I suppose the next challenge with this is determining what the Lord is saying. Usually people reference this to mean "what I am saying is identical with what the Lord is saying" which seems too convenient by half.  

 

21 hours ago, Stargazer said:

But be sure to lean unto the understanding of the scholars. Or is Proverbs merely a book of poetry and is likewise not to be trusted?

 

Is that better or worse than leaning on your own understanding? Why would an anti-intellectual approach to scripture yield better results than an intellectual one? 

21 hours ago, Stargazer said:

You've demonstrated very clearly in this response that you don't depend upon canonized scripture. That some books accepted as such are not to be trusted. Fine. Where is your wisdom coming from, then? Scholars? 

"Canonized scripture" doesn't have univocality. It's not a monolith with a single voice. Different writers of scripture have often very different views. So it's actually impossible just to follow that without imposing your own rewrites (conscious or unconscious) to the texts. 

Link to comment
19 hours ago, Stargazer said:

 

Even the pagans had a notion of an afterlife. Or still have, since I guess pagans still exist.

Yes, we got our ideas about the afterlife from the pagans, actually (assuming "we" means Christians). (Not to say Christians didn't modify those ideas, and not say they haven't evolved further in the LDS tradition)

19 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Religion without an afterlife is actually pretty close to Marxism. Marx wanted a heaven on earth because that was all there was. So why is this guy Eschaton bothering to advocate for anything? If there's no afterlife, then there's no reason to behave yourself at all. Except to achieve a heaven on earth. Or in other words, an impossibility. 

 

I'm not advocating FOR anything. I'm not claiming there is or is not an afterlife. But in Judaism at least "no afterlife" is the more ancient idea. 

Edited by Eschaton
Link to comment
On 11/24/2022 at 10:56 AM, Eschaton said:

I'm sorry, I'm still not following you. I'm not finding an argument or a point in this. 

You asked, “How can you disprove an assertion with another assertion?” I explained that the discussion is really over a clarification of doctrine, not proving it. Yet you keep trying to use other semantics and methods to test a religious doctrine (pre-mortality) you evidently cannot accept.

Link to comment
On 11/24/2022 at 11:05 AM, Eschaton said:

All of early Israelite religion is "religion without an afterlife." Instead of looking to God to help them live forever or get rewarded in heaven, they looked to god to bless them with good crop yields, or to defeat their enemies. That's what salvation means in the Hebrew Bible. Ordinary people didn't go to heaven (heaven was for the gods). They went to the grave. 

A few hundred years before Jesus, the idea of resurrection of the dead is developed. This STILL didn't feature the doctrine of an immortal human soul, but it they did have a sort of afterlife - basically the ability to live a second life on earth. Resurrection was a reward for righteousness, since it appeared to Jewish thinkers that God wouldn't necessarily bless them with temporal blessings in life after all, even if they were righteous. In fact they experienced suffering as a result of keeping the law. What a knock to the old way of thinking in Isaiah that God would only punish them for being wicked. The solution: evil cosmic forces in opposition to God were to blame for suffering!

In Greek thought there developed a system of rewards and punishments in the afterlife - from which we eventually get heaven and hell for humans in Christianity. 

So yes, you can have religion without an afterlife. But as always, people seem to think religion is only worth having if they get some kind of reward from God from it - whether that's a good crop yield or resurrection from the dead or eternal paradise. I guess our relationship with God is always transactional, which is a sad commentary on the human condition. 

This early Israelite religion without an afterlife was an apostate version. Correctly practiced, this religion correctly conceptualized the immediate temporal blessings (children and descendants, crops, herds, fields, protection from enemies, etc.) as having a spiritual parallel, and a parallel that extended beyond this life. To these ancients, time was not linear; neither was their experience, nor the described events, taking place within it. The Book of Mormon gets into this whenever we find descriptions of the "manner of the Jews" -- God's commands were both temporal and spiritual to the righteous (rather, all things are spiritual in the long run), temporal only to the apostate. So, pre-mortality, mortality and post-mortality would all be on the same non-linear continuum (eternal round).

Link to comment
22 hours ago, CV75 said:

You asked, “How can you disprove an assertion with another assertion?” I explained that the discussion is really over a clarification of doctrine, not proving it. Yet you keep trying to use other semantics and methods to test a religious doctrine (pre-mortality) you evidently cannot accept.

One cannot "prove" anything about anything- one can only put out a reasonable paradigm that might work for a while, at best.  Who except our friend thinks that you cannot prove an assertion with another one?  One would need an entire metaphysics and definition (not a theory) of "truth" and epistemology to "prove" anything about anything.

"I hereby assert that I can jump 3 inches above the ground".

Does it.

Assertion "proven"- in a layman's way,depending on your definition of "proof" and truth, and metaphysics of reality- (example: Was my successful jump based on your misperception?  Was it a magic trick devised to please an audience?...... thousands of possibilities...) but still proven perfectly well for most folks.

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
On 11/24/2022 at 1:21 PM, Stargazer said:

Religion without an afterlife is actually pretty close to Marxism. Marx wanted a heaven on earth because that was all there was. So why is this guy Eschaton bothering to advocate for anything? If there's no afterlife, then there's no reason to behave yourself at all. Except to achieve a heaven on earth. Or in other words, an impossibility. 

I am scared of people who say that if they doubt their faith they intend to go hog wild with sin. I am not saying this is you but I have met people who assume that people who don’t believe in God are all just monsters who are kept from rape, pillage, and murder only by fear of getting caught.

Link to comment
18 hours ago, CV75 said:

This early Israelite religion without an afterlife was an apostate version. Correctly practiced, this religion correctly conceptualized the immediate temporal blessings (children and descendants, crops, herds, fields, protection from enemies, etc.) as having a spiritual parallel, and a parallel that extended beyond this life. To these ancients, time was not linear; neither was their experience, nor the described events, taking place within it. The Book of Mormon gets into this whenever we find descriptions of the "manner of the Jews" -- God's commands were both temporal and spiritual to the righteous (rather, all things are spiritual in the long run), temporal only to the apostate. So, pre-mortality, mortality and post-mortality would all be on the same non-linear continuum (eternal round).

Ancient Israelites didn't have the concept of "apostacy" - their religion was based on proper action (following the law), not proper beliefs. But the most ancient form of Israelite religion had no afterlife, so the change came much later when the afterlife evolved within the tradition. Typically we think of apostasy as a change to ancient ways of thinking about things.  So if anything is apostate it would seem that the idea of life after death qualifies. That's why the Sadducees didn't believe in the resurrection - they held to the more ancient Jewish belief. They were traditionalists. 

Edited by Eschaton
Link to comment
19 hours ago, CV75 said:

You asked, “How can you disprove an assertion with another assertion?” I explained that the discussion is really over a clarification of doctrine, not proving it. Yet you keep trying to use other semantics and methods to test a religious doctrine (pre-mortality) you evidently cannot accept.

Yeah, this just doesn't follow. Sorry. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Eschaton said:

Ancient Israelites didn't have the concept of "apostacy" - their religion was based on proper action (following the law), not proper beliefs. But the most ancient form of Israelite religion had no afterlife, so the change came much later when the afterlife evolved within the tradition. Typically we think of apostasy as a change to ancient ways of thinking about things.  So if anything is apostate it would seem that the idea of life after death qualifies. That's why the Sadducees didn't believe in the resurrection - they held to the more ancient Jewish belief. They were traditionalists. 

No, but we use that word for the same concept, which the ancient Israelites referred to in other terms. Since the ancient Israelites originally conceptualized the before-, during- and after- life as events within a non-linear time/event continuum, some schools of doctrine and practice were able to parse things out as time went on and they adopted more linear concepts from other cultures.

1 hour ago, Eschaton said:

Yeah, this just doesn't follow. Sorry. 

I don't understand unless you explain what "it" is, and how it just doesn't follow.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, CV75 said:

No, but we use that word for the same concept, which the ancient Israelites referred to in other terms

This is what they call "presentism". There are plenty of things they believed for which we have no modern equivalent, and plenty of things we believe for which there is no ancient equivalent. 

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

 Since the ancient Israelites originally conceptualized the before-, during- and after- life as events within a non-linear time/event continuum, some schools of doctrine and practice were able to parse things out as time went on and they adopted more linear concepts from other cultures.

Again I'm not following your grammar here, it's like three different thoughts and none of them are followed through to completion.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Eschaton said:

This is what they call "presentism". There are plenty of things they believed for which we have no modern equivalent, and plenty of things we believe for which there is no ancient equivalent. 

Again I'm not following your grammar here, it's like three different thoughts and none of them are followed through to completion.

It seems you are suffering from a form of presentism that includes a truncated and disjointed segmentation of the past timeline. So there! :D 

A sentence diagram might help with the grammar and concepts.

Since... [x, then] some schools [did y and z].

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Eschaton said:

This is what they call "presentism". There are plenty of things they believed for which we have no modern equivalent, and plenty of things we believe for which there is no ancient equivalent. 

Again I'm not following your grammar here, it's like three different thoughts and none of them are followed through to completion.

I had no problem, it's the "eternal present" https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/eternity/

"It is the common judgement, then, of all creatures that live by reason that God is eternal. So let us consider the nature of eternity, for this will make clear to us both the nature of God and his manner of knowing. Eternity, then, is the complete, simultaneous and perfect possession of everlasting life; this will be clear from a comparison with creatures that exist in time.

…for it is one thing to progress like the world in Plato’s theory through everlasting life, and another thing to have embraced the whole of everlasting life in one simultaneous present. (Boethius Consolation, V.VI., transl. V. E. Watts 1969)"

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment

We can sort of do a little of that right here now.  Think of a memory of the past. In a sense, we can "be" back there mentally remembering almost like re-living it, the "past" can almost become the "present"- we can almost re-experience those moments. So in dealing with the past at least, it becomes experientially "present" to us.

If experience IS reality - a view supported by many contemporary philosophers, the difference at that moment is negligible, and the past really becomes present to us.

So to God, even as embodied, He can BE anywhere and experience all that any human can. This is essential, as I see it, for us to see Him as omniscient and omnipresent.

Simple child level analogy: suppose all humans are connected to a spiritual "internet" with constant "streaming" from every consciousness, and God's intelligence IS that internet. (Light of Christ?) Every eyeball is a spiritual camera. Just a child's analogy.

"God hears every prayer". 

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Simple child level analogy: suppose all humans are connected to a spiritual "internet" with constant "streaming" from every consciousness, and God's intelligence IS that internet. (Light of Christ?) Every eyeball is a spiritual camera. Just a child's analogy.

I like this analogy. 

I think "separation" is the illusion we experience because of the Veil, and "connection" (or perhaps even "union") is the reality.  

Perhaps in an earlier age the analogy might have gone something like this:  "I am the vine, and ye are the branches." 

Edited by manol
Link to comment
6 hours ago, manol said:

I like this analogy. 

I think "separation" is the illusion we experience because of the Veil, and "connection" (or perhaps even "union") is the reality.  

Perhaps in an earlier age the analogy might have gone something like this:  "I am the vine, and ye are the branches." 

Good one, never thought of that one!!

Link to comment
On 11/25/2022 at 9:07 PM, The Nehor said:

If there's no afterlife, then there's no reason to behave yourself at all.

It will make your mommie happy! 🤒

Link to comment
On 11/24/2022 at 11:21 AM, Stargazer said:

That's what struck me as particularly squirrely.

squirrel-holding-nut-cartoon.jpg

Even the pagans had a notion of an afterlife. Or still have, since I guess pagans still exist.

Religion without an afterlife is actually pretty close to Marxism. Marx wanted a heaven on earth because that was all there was. So why is this guy Eschaton bothering to advocate for anything? If there's no afterlife, then there's no reason to behave yourself at all. Except to achieve a heaven on earth. Or in other words, an impossibility. 

 

Yeah, but seriously these quotes are all messed up, we keep quoting someone's reply as the original, making it look like the words of person A are actually from person B.

My pet peeve, and yet I do it all the time.

See what happens without religion?

 

Link to comment
14 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

We can sort of do a little of that right here now.  Think of a memory of the past. In a sense, we can "be" back there mentally remembering almost like re-living it, the "past" can almost become the "present"- we can almost re-experience those moments. So in dealing with the past at least, it becomes experientially "present" to us.

If experience IS reality - a view supported by many contemporary philosophers, the difference at that moment is negligible, and the past really becomes present to us.

So to God, even as embodied, He can BE anywhere and experience all that any human can. This is essential, as I see it, for us to see Him as omniscient and omnipresent.

Simple child level analogy: suppose all humans are connected to a spiritual "internet" with constant "streaming" from every consciousness, and God's intelligence IS that internet. (Light of Christ?) Every eyeball is a spiritual camera. Just a child's analogy.

"God hears every prayer". 

Not me, I have near complete aphantasia. I can’t relive memories. Or very rarely can. Possibly when I dream.

Link to comment
46 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Not me, I have near complete aphantasia. I can’t relive memories. Or very rarely can. Possibly when I dream.

I've never considered this, as a thing.

edit: Son 3 says he's mostly like this, figures it's why he doesn't dream. I knew he didn't dream. I probably would have connected the two eventually.

Edited by Chum
Link to comment
On 11/24/2022 at 11:21 AM, Stargazer said:

That's what struck me as particularly squirrely.

squirrel-holding-nut-cartoon.jpg

Even the pagans had a notion of an afterlife. Or still have, since I guess pagans still exist.

Religion without an afterlife is actually pretty close to Marxism. Marx wanted a heaven on earth because that was all there was. So why is this guy Eschaton bothering to advocate for anything? If there's no afterlife, then there's no reason to behave yourself at all. Except to achieve a heaven on earth. Or in other words, an impossibility. 

 

Yeah, but seriously these quotes are all messed up, we keep quoting someone's reply as the original, making it look like the words of person A are actually from person B.

My pet peeve, and yet I do it all the time.

See what happens without religion?

 

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...