tevinsolt:


Morality is embodiment of God's character. God is good, holy, omniscient just and so on but these are the ones that pertain to morality. what we are expected by God to morally carry out is what God himself can never break. subjective morality would be looking a murderer in the face and saying "from my perspective you are wrong, but i understand that in your perspective you are right" in that case there's no such thing as right or wrong. Because if there's no God, then human life is not any more valuable than any other life or substance found in the universe, so killing, cheating or any other actions we consider bad when done to further your endeavors is neither wrong nor right, it's just what it is. Survival of the fittest.

So God defines morality and He is bound by it.

Is He bound by it the same way man is? What do you say would happen to God if He pays no heed to a moral law?

I don't imagine there would be any consequences.

Dopeyomi:
I would rather live my life as if there
is a God and die to find out there isn't,than live my
life as if there isn't and die to find out there is!

This seems reasonable on its face but I'm sure you are aware that somebody who wants to put this advice into practice is very likely to choose the wrong God. I heard the likelihood is above 95 percent. So it's good advice if luck favours you and you make the right choice.

For real? Obese Rick Ross also stage dives? That is heartless.

Wow. That's $20,000 per kilo of its meat. We couldn't afford such luxury here.

sinequanon:


You know what I say? We've understood each other's point of view, and we make our choice. There is no problem having difference of opinion.

It is not as if either of us has no choice because we fail to understand the options.

We can continue to debate and explore other options/differences/similarities of opinion.

True. One just has to work with a limited understanding.

More effective perception with reduced brain function is what intrigues me. I was even more intrigued to hear the psychiatrist in the video say that the function of the brain's frontal lobe is to inhibit the rest of the brain.

It is intriguing. If its true you have to wonder what nature could have meant by it. Developing a brain which it then inhibits. That's assuming nature can mean anything.

Yes, that is my perspective. Logic is about filling in gaps. The more you know, the fewer gaps, and the less logic you need. If you were omniscient, there would be no gaps and no need for logic.

Perhaps. But "why" questions are not ones you can answer by seeing things.

Time exists, but no longer as a passage. In an omniscient state, perhaps we could reflect on time only as a tool we once used to organize fragments of perception. That's my take on it.

The fact would remain though that there was some point at which we did not know the whole. I suppose we can explain this away as a sort of relation between events.

I think "human mind" is mind in human condition -- hence an implied link. But I think the mind's condition migrates and survives the human condition. I equate the mind with consciousness, which I take to be fundamental -- nothing came before it or factored it.

I suspected this. I was just wondering if we, all 7 billion plus humans, are actually the same consciousness with the one that precedes us, if any.

I think the only rules are the rules the mind makes up and chooses to follow.

By way of conjecture, the mind could not follow a rule that says the existence of a mind is impossible.

Hope I got your points.

You did.

Where would you say the "mind" and the "human mind" came from?

I actually don't know. As things stand though, given that we haven't seen a mind existing without a brain, I would say minds come from brains.

Of course one can say a spirit has no brain but it has a mind. Then I'll just hold my peace. I haven't seen a spirit.

@tevinsolt. I understand that you may have a lot on your plate right now, but I'd love to hear your take on this.

undercat:
This issue of objective morality...

The way I see it, its either God defines morality or he doesn't. If he does not define morality, then objective morality can exist without God.

Where morality is defined by God, he is not bound by it anymore than man is bound by a man defined morality. In other words, such a morality is not absolute since it is not binding on God.

For example, if it so happened that there were two true Gods of equal power (something like the holy trinity), and they both happened to have differing morals, would the moral laws of the one be binding on the other?

I don't think so.

As far as God has to define morality for us, such a morality seems subjective to me. I may have the issue upside down tho.

sinequanon:


Another perspective is that it is the process of recall which organizes our experience, using time. I use the dream example. I don't know if you have woken up and recalled a "long" dream, only to look at the clock and realize that the clock disagrees with you?

However, my point is not to claim that we can humanly divest ourselves of time, but that we can move in that direction if we paid attention to what is involved in these apparent fluctuations.

I have. It could be the process of recall. It's also been suggested that a difference in the perception of time, particularly during a dream, could be down to a change in the speed of brain processing such that the faster the brain acts the slower time appears to be. You can experience more in a given time than you normally would. This suggestion sits better with me, but then I'm nobody.

It has the effect though of explaining away perceived time distortions as being caused by the brain, not that the brain momentarily gave way to a more effective perception tool.
I agree that we need to pay more attention to the fluctuations.

Agreed. I am saying that omnipotence totally dissolves passage of time.

But I am also saying that the more open our perception (the less constrained by dogma and certain mental interference) the LESS we experience the passage of time.

Sorry, I meant to say "omniscience" where I said "omnipotence". Looks like you understood anyway.

That is, the more we are able to bypass logical thinking, right?

(I don't follow particular philosophies, but the closest thing I could find is "idealism".)

Essentially, I am saying that the mind or consciousness exists outside of space and time, and that space and time supervene on consciousness. i.e they are a result or perception within conscious state -- e.g elements of human consciousness.

Materialism says the reverse, that consciousness emerged from a particular complex state of matter/configuration of space and time.

So, I am saying that consciousness cannot be factored into causal elements. It is that elusive thing that just IS, and on which all else supervenes.

I think I get it. I hope this doesn't sound nonsensical.

In the first place, it is clear that our human consciousness as yet does not comprehend the whole. In the event that we are able to remove the obstruction caused by the brain and then comprehend the whole, can we still be said to be omniscient in light of the fact that we once did not comprehend? And if we eventually comprehend, what does that say about time, given that we went from not knowing to knowing?

Secondly, would you say that the human mind is inextricably linked to the brain? I ask because we humans were not always here (perhaps this is also up for debate) and in order for us to be, another mind must have thought (comprehended?) us up. Whose mind could that be?

Finally, I assume that consciousness would have to operate in a certain way, according to certain rules. Assuming it does, would it supervene on these rules? This might be irrelevant anyway.

@sinequanon

We do have periods of changed time perception. However, we still perceive time during these periods, though it maybe be faster or slower.

The issue I'm having difficulty with is, as you hinted at when you referred to known and unknown, that to perceive the whole would require you to have all the information at once, or to know everything. Omnipotence. It's either that or you learn new things, in which case we can see the operation of time as you go from not knowing something to knowing it.

Can the human brain as it is even come close to knowing everything? I believe the answer is no, but of course you don't think we would use the brain to perceive the whole.

Instead, you say consciousness is fundamental. I don't think I can find your particular line of thought elsewhere so I'll be happy if you can elucidate. For starters, what is consciousness fundamental to?

sinequanon:


Learning to relax the physical brain. It is the brain that is aliased to TIME.

This sounds to me like you are able to access memories quicker. I agree that memory recall is easier when the brain is relaxed but I don't see how this has any effect on time perception.

Also, to what extent do you think our perception of time will change, once we are able to comprehend the whole? Would we no longer experience the passage of time?

For me, assuming the whole refers to the entire universe and we would still require our eyes and ears to perceive, I don't think it is possible not to experience the passage of time.

sinequanon:

The answer is to transcend our perceptual limitations, and to comprehend outside the envelope of time.

How?

This issue of objective morality...

The way I see it, its either God defines morality or he doesn't. If he does not define morality, then objective morality can exist without God.

Where morality is defined by God, he is not bound by it anymore than man is bound by a man defined morality. In other words, such a morality is not absolute since it is not binding on God.

For example, if it so happened that there were two true Gods of equal power (something like the holy trinity), and they both happened to have differing morals, would the moral laws of the one be binding on the other?

I don't think so.

As far as God has to define morality for us, such a morality seems subjective to me. I may have the issue upside down tho.

No, God did not sink the Titanic. It was sunk by man, who sailed it into an iceberg. Why do you think God will kill so many people on board the ship, including children, by drowning them in freezing waters, just because one man under rated him? Please, God is not a human being that can be blinded by emotions.

Man built the Titanic, and man ruined it.

Pr0ton:


But He was a man.

He was God in human form. God's laws are meant for man alone to follow.

Pr0ton:



What is he? a woman?

He is more than a man; he is GOD.

Jesus is not a man.

@OP, I have the same issue. Older women just make so much more sense! I think the prettiest women are between 27 to 40.

Why is the guy in the pic in chains? Surely he cannot escape otherwise. Or can he?

And why is he clothed? Is there decency in hell? I think clothes are meant for earth alone, since they only became necessary after Mr and Mrs ate the fruit.

Anyway the shame of hell is that it exists. It makes the God of love look like an eternal grudge bearer. Why can't he just forgive and forget?

Well we have to praise other members of the trinity as well.

I don't think Jesus can remove your sinful nature tho.

EroticAngelina:
Lets shed more light on this personally, i wouldnt want that! FASHION BUSINESS WOULD BE CLOSED!

Fashion would still be present. People can paint their bodies instead. A sun rising out of the valley between booobs would be nice. Also, there won't be heartbreak, so that's another advantage

pacesetter939:
Op, when you have your own daughters, send them all out to satisfy the sexual urges of men.

Girls have sexuality urges too.

jearile:

I only tried to quote a context from one of Paul's epistle. When you marry a wife you can get all the sex you need if promiscuity seems to be a daunting task.
Ps: Please nobody should marry mainly for sex

True. Nobody should marry for sex. But the idea in the op will reduce pre marital heartbreak.

Cholls:
My brother money answeth all things

Your head dey there! But it's not everybody that has money.

AfricanApple:
doesn't apply to all women, I don't get crazy

Babe, you are wife material. Make I hold one yard. Where have you kept your number?

blessedvisky:
Hello people, some questions have been disturbing for sometime and I would like you people to answer them for me. According to the New testament, the Rapture will take place, then the Anti-Christ will take over, then Christ will return again with the raptured saints and fight the Beast, the devil and false prophet and triumph. the devil will be locked up in the bottomless pit for 1000years, during which time Christ will rule and reign over the Earth. MY question now is WHY IN HEAVEN OR ON EARTH WILL CHRIST WANT TO RULE EARTH(which is filled with corruption). For you to understand what am saying, look at it this way, WHY WOULD THE SON OF A PERFECT GOD LEAVE HIS KINGDOM IN HEAVEN AND COME TO RULE A FAR LESSER KINGDOM WHICH WOULD HAVE APPARENTLY REJECTED HIM WHEN HE WILL COME TO THAT KINGDOM.? I once asked a pastor this question and he said that how God wants it and it will happen like that. I want to hear tour own opinions pls.

It is better for Christ to be our ruler, than man. A Kingdom with Christ is better than one without.

ibkonekt:
Issue for the gods

Leave that one first. We need your support.

jearile:

Simply ask yourself if this your proposition sounds honourable... Your emotions (hormones) are meant to be controlled by you and not you being totally subject to it. Apostle Paul said if you cannot hold body, go and look for a wife.

That's bad advice bro. Marriage is not magic. If you cannot hold body, getting married will lead you to break a vow.

aristocrazzy:
Sometimes I wonder if u no post u go die .haba.
I know say u go like am if ur daughter go done dey wasted and messed up b4 marriage but not me oo.
Man na Man, Woman na Woman. All those equality shit no go change am. I rest my case.

You think women are delicate princesses abi?

samflexxy:
puberty

Eunuch

Everybody is well aware that there are double standards for girls when it comes to sexual activity. Girls are required to have fewer sexual partners than guys.

I never questioned this for so long, but recently my libido has gone into overdrive and I've found myself wanting more girls to have a fling with.

I couldn't help noticing that a good number of girls refuse to shag me unless I've told them that I'm looking for a serious relationship. At first I just assumed this was because I'm the ultimate relationship material, but on deeper thought I realized that this could be because a girl has it at the back of her mind that she'd come under fire for having flings.

Whereas a guy can keep as many fxck buddies as he wants, a girl is required to be chaste and possibly untouched (virgin). A girl is expected to stick to one guy and to ensure that she meets this requirement, a girl holds out until a guy shows seriousness.

I resent this greatly and I've started to take issue with guys who go about saying that they want to marry a virgin, or a belgium rather than fairly used girl. This is demeaning, and it reduces the number of girls available for flings, because girls will try to meet these expectations by denying you sex.

I've seen many girls who are feeling very "hot", but won't complete the act because they have become conditioned to not appreciate a fling.

I advocate for a less judgmental society, where women are not shamed for having as many sexual partners as they see fit, or at least at the same rate as the average guy. Every guy who is interested in a society with more girls that "understand" should support this. Thank you.

OP, just know that if you die today, you are going to hell. God has not changed his mind.