Imperishable Inheritance

The fol­low­ing is a debate I had with my friend over new age thought. He has been a great impact on my life, but we have recently gone dif­fer­ent directions.

chrispoteet2000: do you believe that “The Cre­ator” is a pre­des­tin­ing Cre­ator
rainsleeper31: clar­ify that alit­tle
chrispoteet2000: Does God pre­des­tine?
rainsleeper31: indi­vid­u­ally ?
chrispoteet2000: sure.
rainsleeper31: no
chrispoteet2000: why not
rainsleeper31: you cre­ate your real­ity
chrispoteet2000: so, self deter­mi­na­tion?
rainsleeper31: in a sense
rainsleeper31: not always aware of it like your state­ment sug­gests
chrispoteet2000: could it be that your thought of man­i­fest­ing your real­ity is only an illu­sion? How do you jus­tify your claim?
rainsleeper31: not describeable. prov­able in exper­ince
rainsleeper31: i can tell you how ral­ity is crated and how that works ifyou want
rainsleeper31: real­ity
chrispoteet2000: David Hume said if you base your truths on expe­ri­ences, it is one of the most illog­i­cal things you can do. For instance, I believe the sun will rise tomor­row (by a pri­ori deducion), but you have no proof besides your empir­i­cal evi­dence, when in fact your claim could be wrong.
rainsleeper31: damnit
chrispoteet2000: I’d like to know how real­ity is cre­ated.
rainsleeper31: i believe that sate­ment is illog­icl
rainsleeper31: ok here goes
rainsleeper31: what other proof do you need?
rainsleeper31: the sun rises
rainsleeper31: you saw it
rainsleeper31: it sets you saw it rise again
chrispoteet2000: But the fact I’m bas­ing future events on that past event is illog­i­cal
rainsleeper31: right
chrispoteet2000: so, then bas­ing your truths on experience/empricial evi­dence is illog­i­cal
rainsleeper31: not to say we cant learn fro events to grow and make fur­ther bet­ter choices
rainsleeper31: but any ways
rainsleeper31: …
rainsleeper31: real­ity is cre­ated from three parts of your body
chrispoteet2000: ok.…?
rainsleeper31: you can call these parts any­thing you want the have been called many things
rainsleeper31: we will call them thought word and deed or action
rainsleeper31: now… what you think of only and never speek of or do, cre­ates at one level.
chrispoteet2000: ok, but how do you know that you and you alone cre­ate those thoughts, deeds, and actions? For all you know, it could be an illu­sion. Where’s the hard logic?
rainsleeper31: what you think and speek, cre­ates at another level.
rainsleeper31: what you think speek and do, becomes made man­i­fest in your real­ity.
rainsleeper31: it is impos­si­ble to think speek and do some­thing that you do not trully beleive
chrispoteet2000: of course it is…how do you even know what you believe? Did you con­ciously decided one day to like spinache and hate cheese­cake. Or human inter­ac­tion? Where is the line between con­cious and uncon­cious deci­sions.
rainsleeper31: if you can­not define this to your self you have slef dis­cov­ery to under­take before you answer these que­sions to your­self
rainsleeper31: the answer is yes i deter­min what i am p[assinate about and if that which i am pas­sion­ate about seves me or not. givin who and what i want to be
chrispoteet2000: you’re com­mit­ting the log­i­cal fal­lacy: Fail­ure to Elu­ci­date
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/define/failure.htm
chrispoteet2000: Iden­tify the term being defined. Iden­tify the con­di­tions in the def­i­n­i­tion. Show that the con­di­tions are no more clearly defined than the term being defined.
rainsleeper31: only if you accept the con­di­tions being cre­ated by an out­side source
chrispoteet2000: but you haven’t sup­ported why or why not they are cre­ated by an out­side source (i love this stuff)
rainsleeper31: lol(me too) that is some­thing you have to prove to your­self though exper­inces. this is a tough one to prove to some­one who­does not believe in free will
chrispoteet2000: i believe in free wil
chrispoteet2000: will
chrispoteet2000: (in a com­pata­bilist sense)
rainsleeper31: you have to decide if you are a vic­tim ofthe world or the world is in your hands
chrispoteet2000: Now wait, what is your def­i­n­i­tion of “free” will
rainsleeper31: the ablity to exer­cise your will with in rea­son. by that i mean in the scope that it effects oth­ers
rainsleeper31: to make your own decisons
chrispoteet2000: if you are only able to excer­cise your will within rea­son that your will is lim­ited
rainsleeper31: well you can if you wish to endure con­se­quenses
chrispoteet2000: http://www.carm.org/open/free_will.htm
rainsleeper31: of con­fict­ing with another will
chrispoteet2000: read the def­i­n­i­tions of the two wills, which one do you believe in?
chrispoteet2000: lib­er­tar­ian vs com­pat­i­b­lism
rainsleeper31: i guess the first res­onates most colesly with my thoughts
chrispoteet2000: ya.
chrispoteet2000: ” The Lib­er­tar­i­ans would, I hope, agree that we are lim­ited by our natures to be able to make choices only between options of which we are aware. “
rainsleeper31: well i do believe that there is a sub­con­sions por­tion to free will
chrispoteet2000: as do I, do you believe the sub­con­cious affects the con­cious?
rainsleeper31: it can yes
rainsleeper31: not con­stantly if thats what you are ask­ing
chrispoteet2000: then in one sense, you aren’t a pro­po­nant of com­plete, automo­nous, self deter­min­ing free will
rainsleeper31: of the con­sios no.… of the whole per­son body sprit mind and what that entails yes
chrispoteet2000: What is sin?
rainsleeper31: cant define it dont belie it exists
chrispoteet2000: why not? There are obvi­ously polar opp­si­ties in human actions. Please clar­ify.
rainsleeper31: i guess some­thing that is labled sin­ful is some­thing agan­ist god. I dont beleive this is pos­si­ble
chrispoteet2000: so you don’t believe in God (cap­i­tal G)?
rainsleeper31: not in a seper­ate sense no
chrispoteet2000: so, we are gods (lit­tle g)?
rainsleeper31: in the cre­ative sense yes. we ae a micro­co­som of teh infinete cre­ator
chrispoteet2000: so in that sense, from the philo­soph­i­cal def­i­n­i­tion, we would be perfect…but we are in fact not per­fect. Explain your log­i­cal con­tra­dic­tion please.
rainsleeper31: you are prcep­tive.… we are infact per­fect in our pur­pose. it is only our pre­spec­tives taht our imper­fect.
rainsleeper31: liek a childs would be to an adults.
rainsleeper31: are
rainsleeper31: *
chrispoteet2000: So, if per­spec­tives would be imper­fect, then by log­i­cal analy­sis that would main­tain that we are not per­fect, despite the fact we might be per­fect in our pur­pose.
chrispoteet2000: I agree we are per­fect, in one sense, of our pur­pose. That being glo­ri­fy­ing to God.
rainsleeper31: well even this pre­cep­tion of our pre­spec­tives being imper­fect is an illu­sion. it is our choic to experice this apprent imper­fec­tion so that we may see past it. so the imper­fec­tion is per­fect in its pur­pose to.
chrispoteet2000: So you admit we live in illu­sions? Where does the line draw between our “illu­sion” of free will and self-determination>
rainsleeper31: yes self cre­ated and cho­sen. illu­sory in the true sense of real­ity (love/light being all there is.)
chrispoteet2000: So, do you main­tain there is no wrath in our Cre­ator? Only light that none live in dark­ness?
rainsleeper31: for the sec­ond aprt you are put­ing the line in the worng spot. free will is an illu­sion ofthe true sens ofre­al­ity but it is the first and most impor­tant “per­fect imper­fec­tions“
rainsleeper31: yes
rainsleeper31: well in a sense
chrispoteet2000: Bible verse:
chrispoteet2000: This is the mes­sage we have heard from him and pro­claim to you, that God is light, and in him is no dark­ness at all. If we say we have fel­low­ship with him while we walk in dark­ness, we lie and do not prac­tice the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fel­low­ship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say we have no sin, we deceive our­selves, and the truth is not in us.
1 John 1:5–8
rainsleeper31: dis­agree but only slightly
chrispoteet2000: slightly?
rainsleeper31: well there is a ONE TRUTH and then a per­sonal truth that one exper­inces in an incar­na­tion like this one we exper­ince. in this view it throughs the whloe thing off.
chrispoteet2000: If I could prove that the Bible is the only and absolute truth would you leave new age to the truth of the Bible?
rainsleeper31: not prov­able by words
rainsleeper31: alone
rainsleeper31: no truth by its very essence is prove­able by words thoughts or exper­inces alnoe
rainsleeper31: but a com­bi­na­tion ofthe threee
rainsleeper31: we talked about this
rainsleeper31: wthough word deed remem­ber
chrispoteet2000: so, you believe your truth isn’t prov­able by wodrs then either? If I could prove that Christ spoke those words, thought those thoughts, and had those expe­ri­ences then you would be forced, by your own logic, to accept it as truth.
rainsleeper31: yes i do. it is not prov­able by wrods alone I have said this. the christ is not my indi­vid­ual exper­ince so no
rainsleeper31: its dif­fer­ent for every one
chrispoteet2000: Yep that may be. God will cor­rect us though.
rainsleeper31: thats up to you my friend
chrispoteet2000: ok, it’s been fun, but I’m off to help pre­pare din­ner. enjoy your day off!
rainsleeper31: have fun iwll you know :)
chrispoteet2000: until next time…
rainsleeper31: till next time