Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Wishing I was back at the South Atlantic, closer to ice than the sun
One of the things that frequently puzzles me about this type of debate is that sometimes it get posited that God requires faith without proof, and it is then directed to the various holy books as being the word of god. But if said books are the words of god, isn't that then concrete proof of the existence?
The bible is not the word of god, it is the work of a collection of authors, edited by man, translated by man, and used by man to advance mans cause. With a track record of corruption within the church why is it such a leap to say that there can be no god as that described by the church when the church acts so much against what it preaches?
It is fair to say that on the question of god, my answer is that I have insufficient evidence, on the church? I have no faith in any organised religion.
Cheers
Andrew
I don't care what the flag says, I'm SCOTTISH!!!
Best definition of the word Battleship?
Mr Nobody wrote:
Does a canoe with a machine gun count?
While I was (sort of) joking above, it is pretty much the same thing as what a lot of Christians say.
"This woman was dying and happened turned to Christ, and her cancer was healed!"
"There aren't any Frost Giants, therefore Thor is real!"
I personally am agnostic. Mostly because it's a little bit to far for me to outright say that there is no Gods, since I can't provide hard proof there isn't. However, I also can't believe in something without hard proof that it exists, therefore, religion and Gods don't hold any interest for me.
Even if I was tempted to be faithful to a religion, however, I remember some of the crazy things that my father and the Jehovah's Witnesses have to do/deal with. Such as not being allowed to watch Star Wars because of it's pseudo religion, or not allowed to play World of Warcraft/Warhammer because there are Demons in it. In the end, it makes me just shake my head and go back to not being interested.
My mother personally doesn't identify with any religions, and simply calls herself spiritual. Of course, she also believes things like tarot cards and spirits of the dead telling us things from beyond the grave, but some of that is more believable to me then what is printed in some of these religious texts.
Everyone should be able to believe what they want. Just keep your religion out of my face and out of politics, and we all should have no problems!
warboss wrote: Is there a permanent stickied thread for Chaos players to complain every time someone/anyone gets models or rules besides them? If not, there should be.
insaniak wrote: If prayer consistently achieved measurable results, it would be a different story... but it doesn't. For every religious person who prays for something awesome to happen and has their prayer 'answered', there are countless others who prayed and got nothing. And other non-religious people who didn't pray ... and had something awesome happen anyway.
Exactly. The common theme of healing miracles is that's a list of isolated one-time events out of a vast number of people praying for miracles, not any consistent trend of prayer accomplishing the impossible. And that makes it much more likely that religious people are attaching "god must have done it" explanations to the rare cases where someone does better than expected than any real supernatural events.
It is also, at least in my view, a bit of a Stockholm Syndrome going on with many/most religious people. Pray for miracle healing, gets healed: "praise the lord for rewarding my faith!" Prays for miracle healing, isn't healed: "Well, the lord must surely have something even better planned." or, "The lord works in mysterious ways."
The Stockholm bit really comes in to play when you consider that a supposedly loving god loves you... but if you don't live him back in the proscribed manner, you're gonna be literally, or figuratively (depending on your views) tormented for pretty much all of eternity. ... Sounds pretty fething Ike and Tina Turner to me.
If prayer consistently achieved measurable results, it would be a different story... but it doesn't. For every religious person who prays for something awesome to happen and has their prayer 'answered', there are countless others who prayed and got nothing. And other non-religious people who didn't pray ... and had something awesome happen anyway.
When put to some scientific testing, the power of prayer is pretty patchy. Focusing on singular examples of healing by people who prayed and then calling it proof of God skip several steps in logic and fair testing, before conclusions are drawn from anecdote and singular examples of people apparently feeling. In cases where people have apparently been cured of AIDS, have they undergone a full scientific and medical examination by experts? Is this available?
When scientific surveys are attempted, correlations are not consistently found to support prayer in healing. I would have thought placebo effect and positive thinking would have had a greater effect, but perhaps not.
I remember the argument against this from when I attended Sunday school as a child. You should not test your god.
God knows you are trying to test him, and will not participate, as faith is the most important thing.
You literally cannot argue with anyone who believes that logic.
Which is handy, as I do remember being instructed to avoid arguments with non-believers, spread the "good news" by all means, but don't engage in any arguments with non-believers.
A handy way to make sure the young and impressionable don't encounter any thought-crime.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
"m not religious. In Spain all 22 players make the sign of the cross before they enter the pitch. If it works all matches must therefore end in a draw." – Johan Cruyff
The best response to people who claim their god heals is simply to ask 'Why does your god hate amputees?' Oddly enough amputees are never, ever healed. Every amputee must be a bastard or something.
Mario wrote: Regarding the effectiveness of praying:
"m not religious. In Spain all 22 players make the sign of the cross before they enter the pitch. If it works all matches must therefore end in a draw." – Johan Cruyff
Perhaps one must account for what one is praying for, if prayer is to matter?
This argument is valid when leveled at someone making The Secret's argument for prayer, but usually, in most Western religious settings, prayer will not be used towards simple empirical gains with no relations to spiritual health. To the old Catholic me, that would be the very definition of invoking the Lord's name in vain.
Mario wrote: Regarding the effectiveness of praying:
"m not religious. In Spain all 22 players make the sign of the cross before they enter the pitch. If it works all matches must therefore end in a draw." – Johan Cruyff
Perhaps one must account for what one is praying for, if prayer is to matter?
This argument is valid when leveled at someone making The Secret's argument for prayer, but usually, in most Western religious settings, prayer will not be used towards simple empirical gains with no relations to spiritual health. To the old Catholic me, that would be the very definition of invoking the Lord's name in vain.
Mario wrote: Regarding the effectiveness of praying:
"m not religious. In Spain all 22 players make the sign of the cross before they enter the pitch. If it works all matches must therefore end in a draw." – Johan Cruyff
Perhaps one must account for what one is praying for, if prayer is to matter?
This argument is valid when leveled at someone making The Secret's argument for prayer, but usually, in most Western religious settings, prayer will not be used towards simple empirical gains with no relations to spiritual health. To the old Catholic me, that would be the very definition of invoking the Lord's name in vain.
Kojiro wrote: The best response to people who claim their god heals is simply to ask 'Why does your god hate amputees?' Oddly enough amputees are never, ever healed. Every amputee must be a bastard or something.
You echo my thoughts from years gone by with that statement. I would ask how it was that in spite of prayer, someone suffered from misfortune of varying degrees without relief while others seemingly had their prayers answered in a positive way. I had some especially
rough times and losses that left me bitter for several years, wondering what purpose there was to praying if I was going to be ignored. Over time I have come to the understanding first of all that our Heavenly Father is not a servent subject to our beck and call. If that were the case, there would be chaos with the natural order for our own learning and growth upset and useless since our every wish, whether it contributed to our spiritual growth and understanding or not, were granted.
When this planet was created, certain laws were put into place to keep order. Death, for instance, is a neccesary part of this existance that allows room for new generations, and the return of older generations of creatures, plants, and humans to our Creator and Father.
It would be chaos if just by the act of praying that everyone or everything prayed for were either spared or destroyed because someone asked for it.
I believe we are watched over and loved as children are by a parent with perfect understanding of our long term needs and we will get answers to those prayers, be they yes, no, or wait based on those needs. Many times we are encouraged to find the answers ourselves so that we may more fully gain wisdom and experience in order to best grow and reach the purpose we are in this Earthly existance to attain. Prayer with faith and honest intent, along with scripture study and living as best we can, will more fully put us in tune with our Heavenly Father. Just as a motor needs all of it's parts to function properly, so prayer is with the other gifts Heavenly Father has provided us with to live and learn in mortality.
I know this is probably an unsatisfactory answer, but this is what I have come to learn for myself.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/01 00:29:49
r_squared wrote: I remember the argument against this from when I attended Sunday school as a child. You should not test your god.
God knows you are trying to test him, and will not participate, as faith is the most important thing.
I mean no offense to anyone by saying this, but to me, such a thing sounds like a cop-out. To me, that's only the same level of idiocy as saying "You should not test a student. A student knows you're testing them, and will not participate in the exam. Faith that they know the material is the most important thing."
For the sake of all non-Christians in this following point - let's assume that the Christian God is real. Now, testing him/her/it/other for the sake of testing them is a bit of a silly thing to do, but testing them in order to have a basis for your faith is not (at least to my mind). So why would I have to take a leap of faith in order to kick-start my faith (if that makes sense)? Why can't God "earn" my faith via being tested?
r_squared wrote: A handy way to make sure the young and impressionable don't encounter any thought-crime.
I always thought it was entertainingly silly/stupid that it was ever even called a crime haha
This is also something that comes to mind when thinking about the efficacy of prayer. It's only short, 2 mins or so and worth a look.
There is a serious flaw in this man's position in that he presents only two reasons why all these children die. By the premise of his stand, he asserts God exists, but is either ineffectual or uncaring. I say both of his conclusions are wrong. In the first place, these children are not simply wiped from existence but are in a state of innocence which allows them salvation, or in other words, access into God's presence.
The rest of my answer is already in my earlier post just above yours.
This is also something that comes to mind when thinking about the efficacy of prayer. It's only short, 2 mins or so and worth a look.
There is a serious flaw in this man's position in that he presents only two reasons why all these children die. By the premise of his stand, he asserts God exists, but is either ineffectual or uncaring. I say both of his conclusions are wrong. In the first place, these children are not simply wiped from existence but are in a state of innocence which allows them salvation, or in other words, access into God's presence.
The rest of my answer is already in my earlier post just above yours.
Long answer short : Sam Harris is a dolt.
And I say this as someone who, in God debates, almost assuredly root for the atheist.
[...] for conflict is the great teacher, and pain, the perfect educator.
Relapse wrote: In the first place, these children ... are in a state of innocence which allows them salvation, or in other words, access into God's presence.
So the maintaining of their innocence and the fact that they achieve salvation is supposed is supposed to make up for the fact that they don't even get to reach their 5th Birthday and also (in many cases) die pretty badly? How can this be justified as God's plan? How is this fair on these children? Also, if life is supposed to be a gift from God, why would he choose to end it so prematurely and in such a way?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/01 01:25:58
Relapse wrote: In the first place, these children ... are in a state of innocence which allows them salvation, or in other words, access into God's presence.
So the maintaining of their innocence and the fact that they achieve salvation is supposed is supposed to make up for the fact that they don't even get to reach their 5th Birthday and also (in many cases) die pretty badly? How can this be justified as God's plan? How is this fair on these children? Also, if life is supposed to be a gift from God, why would he choose to end it so prematurely and in such a way?
What does it matter to their immortal souls, that they died at 5 or 50 or 500? That they spent 5 seconds, 5 minutes or 5 years suffering?
The framework of religious ontology is completely different from that of modern, western individualism. It is, in a sense, epic, cosmic, universal. An instance of suffering takes on a completely different meaning when interpreted through the hermeneutics of God's love for his Creation.
[...] for conflict is the great teacher, and pain, the perfect educator.
Kovnik Obama wrote: What does it matter to their immortal souls, that they died at 5 or 50 or 500? That they spent 5 seconds, 5 minutes or 5 years suffering?
The framework of religious ontology is completely different from that of modern, western individualism. It is, in a sense, epic, cosmic, universal. An instance of suffering takes on a completely different meaning when interpreted through the hermeneutics of God's love for his Creation.
And yet, over and over again, people pray to live, people pray for the people they love to live, etc. They don't celebrate how cancer is bringing them closer to their eternal fate and who cares about living a few more meaningless years out of eternity. It's almost like people know, on some level, that this life is all you get.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote: In the first place, these children are not simply wiped from existence but are in a state of innocence which allows them salvation, or in other words, access into God's presence.
IOW, if you care about your children you'd better murder them asap. Kill them in their state of innocence and get them to salvation before they have a chance to lose it. Who cares if they lose their mortal lives, eternal salvation is what matters, right?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/01 01:46:10
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Relapse wrote: In the first place, these children ... are in a state of innocence which allows them salvation, or in other words, access into God's presence.
So the maintaining of their innocence and the fact that they achieve salvation is supposed is supposed to make up for the fact that they don't even get to reach their 5th Birthday and also (in many cases) die pretty badly? How can this be justified as God's plan? How is this fair on these children? Also, if life is supposed to be a gift from God, why would he choose to end it so prematurely and in such a way?
What does it matter to their immortal souls, that they died at 5 or 50 or 500? That they spent 5 seconds, 5 minutes or 5 years suffering?
You're right in the sense that, ultimately, it's not going to matter, but I don't see the point. Take the following example:
I give you a physical gift (it could be a computer, a toy, a book; it doesn't matter) and say that you can use it for one day. Then, after half an hour, I punch you in the face so that I can take it back from you, then destroy the gift and take the pieces away when I leave. In this example, one of two questions can be asked: (1) What was the point of me doing that to you? Why couldn't I have let you enjoy the gift? -- OR -- (2) What was the point of giving you the gift if I planned to break the gift after a short time?
I take the same view on the whole people dying (sometimes, if not often, badly) before they even reach their 5th Birthday. Based on the assumption that this was God's plan or God's will, what was the point? Why put someone on this world and make spend a vast majority of it suffering and/or kill them before they're 5? What sort of plan/will is that? What type of being does that make God?
Kovnik Obama wrote: What does it matter to their immortal souls, that they died at 5 or 50 or 500? That they spent 5 seconds, 5 minutes or 5 years suffering?
The framework of religious ontology is completely different from that of modern, western individualism. It is, in a sense, epic, cosmic, universal. An instance of suffering takes on a completely different meaning when interpreted through the hermeneutics of God's love for his Creation.
And yet, over and over again, people pray to live, people pray for the people they love to live, etc. They don't celebrate how cancer is bringing them closer to their eternal fate and who cares about living a few more meaningless years out of eternity. It's almost like people know, on some level, that this life is all you get.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote: In the first place, these children are not simply wiped from existence but are in a state of innocence which allows them salvation, or in other words, access into God's presence.
IOW, if you care about your children you'd better murder them asap. Kill them in their state of innocence and get them to salvation before they have a chance to lose it. Who cares if they lose their mortal lives, eternal salvation is what matters, right?
We were put into this life with mortal bodies and trials in order to learn and gain experience in preparation for our immortal existence. Jesus is the ultimate example of someone enduring suffering since he experienced the pain of every one who either had or would exist in order to help us through his personal understanding of our own suffering.
Relapse wrote: We were put into this life with mortal bodies and trials in order to learn and gain experience in preparation for our immortal existence. Jesus is the ultimate example of someone enduring suffering since he experienced the pain of every one who either had or would exist in order to help us through his personal understanding of our own suffering.
Then shouldn't we feel that all the dead children are an enormous tragedy that god does nothing to stop? You can't simultaneously say that the mortal life is important and valuable and that children dying is ok because they're innocent and going straight to god.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Relapse wrote: We were put into this life with mortal bodies and trials in order to learn and gain experience in preparation for our immortal existence.
In addition to my directly preceding post, how much learning and how many experiences can a 4-year-old who dies at 5 gain? How can they prepare for an immortal existence? EDIT: I also echo Peregrine's post directly above this one.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/01 02:06:09
And yet, over and over again, people pray to live, people pray for the people they love to live, etc. They don't celebrate how cancer is bringing them closer to their eternal fate and who cares about living a few more meaningless years out of eternity. It's almost like people know, on some level, that this life is all you get.
Add a word or two, replace another, and you have the classical bandwagon fallacy to support belief into the immortality of the soul.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/08/01 04:45:24
[...] for conflict is the great teacher, and pain, the perfect educator.
Relapse wrote: In the first place, these children ... are in a state of innocence which allows them salvation, or in other words, access into God's presence.
So the maintaining of their innocence and the fact that they achieve salvation is supposed is supposed to make up for the fact that they don't even get to reach their 5th Birthday and also (in many cases) die pretty badly? How can this be justified as God's plan? How is this fair on these children? Also, if life is supposed to be a gift from God, why would he choose to end it so prematurely and in such a way?
What does it matter to their immortal souls, that they died at 5 or 50 or 500? That they spent 5 seconds, 5 minutes or 5 years suffering?
You're right in the sense that, ultimately, it's not going to matter, but I don't see the point. Take the following example:
I give you a physical gift (it could be a computer, a toy, a book; it doesn't matter) and say that you can use it for one day. Then, after half an hour, I punch you in the face so that I can take it back from you, then destroy the gift and take the pieces away when I leave. In this example, one of two questions can be asked: (1) What was the point of me doing that to you? Why couldn't I have let you enjoy the gift? -- OR -- (2) What was the point of giving you the gift if I planned to break the gift after a short time?
I take the same view on the whole people dying (sometimes, if not often, badly) before they even reach their 5th Birthday. Based on the assumption that this was God's plan or God's will, what was the point? Why put someone on this world and make spend a vast majority of it suffering and/or kill them before they're 5? What sort of plan/will is that? What type of being does that make God?
The point is that we existed before this planet was created and we will exist after it's transformation. During our time here we learn and experience those things we need for our personal eternal progression. After our time on Earth is done, however long that may be, we are then ready to learn more that we need to know on the other side.
Relapse wrote: The point is that we existed before this planet was created and we will exist after it's transformation. During our time here we learn and experience those things we need for our personal eternal progression. After our time on Earth is done, however long that may be, we are then ready to learn more that we need to know on the other side.
So let's assume that you're right (identifying as agnostic, I feel this is a necessary assumption), then I'll echo my previous post: How much can a person who died at the age of 5 learn that will prepare them in any way for Eternal Life? In addition: If they do learn anything, how much of it is material they didn't already have prior to being put on Earth?
Relapse wrote: We were put into this life with mortal bodies and trials in order to learn and gain experience in preparation for our immortal existence. Jesus is the ultimate example of someone enduring suffering since he experienced the pain of every one who either had or would exist in order to help us through his personal understanding of our own suffering.
Then shouldn't we feel that all the dead children are an enormous tragedy that god does nothing to stop? You can't simultaneously say that the mortal life is important and valuable and that children dying is ok because they're innocent and going straight to god.
Mortal life is important, but death and suffering has been with us since almost the beginning. I'm not saying to have a celebration when people of whatever age die, since it is a tragedy for those of us who go on living. We should also do what we can to alleviate suffering and make the world a better place for others because this is how we grow our capacity for love and compassion.
We were put into this life with mortal bodies and trials in order to learn and gain experience in preparation for our immortal existence.
If the Christian god is all knowing and all powerful, he could have imbued them with with this knowledge and experience from the get-go. There wouldn't be any need to 'test' them. Heck, theoretically he knows the answer to the test so why bother in the first place?
That leads to several possible conclusions.
a) That the Christian god is not real
b) That the Christian god is actually not all powerful
c) That the Christian god is actually not all knowing
d) That the Christian god is actually very cruel and petty. (Granted, that is pretty evident from if you take the theology of fundie Christians at face value).
Relapse wrote: The point is that we existed before this planet was created and we will exist after it's transformation. During our time here we learn and experience those things we need for our personal eternal progression. After our time on Earth is done, however long that may be, we are then ready to learn more that we need to know on the other side.
So let's assume that you're right (identifying as agnostic, I feel this is a necessary assumption), then I'll echo my previous post: How much can a person who died at the age of 5 learn that will prepare them in any way for Eternal Life? In addition: If they do learn anything, how much of it is material they didn't already have prior to being put on Earth?
You might not agree with this, but my religion, LDS, teaches us that we existed before coming to Earth as literal children of God. We were offered a chance to be born into mortality in order to receive a physical body and add whatever knowledge we needed to gain here, whatever that might be, to further our eternal progression when we leave this life.
We were put into this life with mortal bodies and trials in order to learn and gain experience in preparation for our immortal existence.
If the Christian god is all knowing and all powerful, he could have imbued them with with this knowledge and experience from the get-go. There wouldn't be any need to 'test' them. Heck, theoretically he knows the answer to the test so why bother in the first place?
That leads to several possible conclusions.
a) That the Christian god is not real
b) That the Christian god is actually not all powerful
c) That the Christian god is actually not all knowing
d) That the Christian god is actually very cruel and petty. (Granted, that is pretty evident from if you take the theology of fundie Christians at face value).
How much do you retain if someone tells you something versus learning an answer or subject by helping you study it out, analyze it, and work with it? I teach job instruction and can tell you there is a huge difference between giving someone an answer and leaving it at that compared to working with them to solidify their knowledge.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/08/01 02:29:43
Relapse wrote: In the first place, these children ... are in a state of innocence which allows them salvation, or in other words, access into God's presence.
So the maintaining of their innocence and the fact that they achieve salvation is supposed is supposed to make up for the fact that they don't even get to reach their 5th Birthday and also (in many cases) die pretty badly? How can this be justified as God's plan? How is this fair on these children? Also, if life is supposed to be a gift from God, why would he choose to end it so prematurely and in such a way?
What does it matter to their immortal souls, that they died at 5 or 50 or 500? That they spent 5 seconds, 5 minutes or 5 years suffering?
You're right in the sense that, ultimately, it's not going to matter, but I don't see the point. Take the following example:
I give you a physical gift (it could be a computer, a toy, a book; it doesn't matter) and say that you can use it for one day. Then, after half an hour, I punch you in the face so that I can take it back from you, then destroy the gift and take the pieces away when I leave. In this example, one of two questions can be asked: (1) What was the point of me doing that to you? Why couldn't I have let you enjoy the gift? -- OR -- (2) What was the point of giving you the gift if I planned to break the gift after a short time?
I take the same view on the whole people dying (sometimes, if not often, badly) before they even reach their 5th Birthday. Based on the assumption that this was God's plan or God's will, what was the point? Why put someone on this world and make spend a vast majority of it suffering and/or kill them before they're 5? What sort of plan/will is that? What type of being does that make God?
Disclaimer : I'm not a theist anymore. I never had much skill in believing-as-faith, for me believing was always a bet, something that came at a cost, at a risk. I grew dissatisfied with Catholicism very quickly, had a discussion with my father a few weeks before my confirmation, explaining that I felt it was an almost entirely pointless ritual, and he dropped me of the course. I think he was actually kind of proud, I remember him smiling when I told him that. Weird, considering he was himself a choir boy, was a strong believer that at some point even considered taking the robes.
Later on, in philosophy, I was introduced to the aristotelian concept of the Prime Mover, the metaphysical Creator, so to speak. I found the idea of speaking of God in non-subjective terms much more interesting. Little was lost in terms of evocative power : the Prime Mover induces mouvement by inciting love of itself in all other things in the universe by attraction. Still, what was gained in intelligibility was, I think, lost in the relation with the "Creator". But that stopped there. The idea was coopted by D'Aquinas, allowing for many to see Plato and Aristotle as the most Christians of all Pagans to have ever lived. The study of God as an ontological concept as we modern would understand it was generally ignored in favour for the exegesis of the divine texts. The Gnostic are perhaps an exception, and are intestesting, if only in the same way as an acid trip can be interesting.
In the last two years, after calling myself an atheist for the better of the decade, I've become accustomed to think in term of apatheism. I simply don't think the term and concept of God is capable of helping me. I don't want to take the hypermodernist approach yet, that we humans are absolutely terrible at judging the relevance of concepts, and constantly integrate ideas who'se "best before date" has long since past. But its tempting. I've already thrown out the idea of a subjective God. And throwing out seems to me at least different from disbelieving. I don't care to prove you wrong, or prove myself right in a context where I can simply ignore the question, and I think that,may be the more important aspect here, over and above any other factor of the debate, the value of those empirical questions about kids dying at 5 or Pascal's Wager, that in the end, this is the context in which we find ourselves, one where we can leave the question to the deepest of personal privacy. Then again, I've always found the idea of "group spirituality" to be entirely paradoxical, so I guess I was doomed to this judgement from the start.
edit reason : sorry, got cut short by the end of my shift.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/01 03:51:48
[...] for conflict is the great teacher, and pain, the perfect educator.
Relapse wrote: We were put into this life with mortal bodies and trials in order to learn and gain experience in preparation for our immortal existence.
In addition to my directly preceding post, how much learning and how many experiences can a 4-year-old who dies at 5 gain? How can they prepare for an immortal existence? EDIT: I also echo Peregrine's post directly above this one.
May I offer this in answer to some of your questions? There are several links contained that should give you a better idea of what my beliefs are concerning our pre mortal, mortal, and post mortal existence.
40IK - PP Conversion Project Files
