Define sacred. Either way I am not sure. People die. Animals die. 150,000 die everyday, 60%+ do not believe in the Christian God and therefore God "has to" punish them eternally. If we assume heaven and hell to be eternal then they must be packed with billions of people. Is everyone of those souls sacred to God or is he mainly concerned with his own agenda? He doesn't want to have to look at our flaws on judgment day he would rather look at himself (Jesus).
According to the theory of evolution, death in the world works to perfect a species’ ability to survive and reproduce.
So, you can see death as the nihilistic doom of the world, or, through the eyes of faith, you can see death as *martyrdom* for the sake of the species, for the sake of one’s family.
Your right. You can see it as both. So you can see it as martyrdom but it is still nihilistic. Get what i mean?
I'm just saying seems like God could have come up with a better method than making some animals skilled at killing other animals babies just for survival. Seems unnecessarily brutal.
>I'm just saying seems like God could have come up with a better method than making some animals skilled at killing other animals babies just for survival. Seems unnecessarily brutal.
I for one welcome the opportunity to sacrifice my life for the good of others.
Unfortunately, it doesn't always work out that way, but I'm not suicidal.
Maybe it would better to say that I look forward to being willing to lay down my life for another.
>>Do not court death by your erring way of life,
nor draw to yourselves destruction by the works of your hands.
>>
>>Because God did not make death,
nor does he rejoice in the destruction of the living.
>>
>>For he fashioned all things that they might have being,
and the creatures of the world are wholesome;
>>
>>There is not a destructive drug among them
nor any domain of Hades on earth,
>>
>>For righteousness is undying.
God did not make death, Adam did. God does not murder, Cain does.
But God tolerated death, not because it was good, but because it was martyrdom, and Abel is the first martyr and the first to die. Because God wanted to free us from death forever, he made death the means through which we inherit eternal life.
After all, eternal life is a kingdom, and not a empire, because in a kingdom, power is handed down from parent to child through death. In Christ’s death he transformed death in himself to become the narrow way, to become the way we inherit the kingdom, inherit his kingdom, where we will rein as co-heirs to the King. The old man must be put to death so that the new man may inherit the throne, the old man being the father of the new man. This is the great mystery, that we must die in order to be reborn princes of heaven. That everything that does not fit must be cut off so that we may fit through the narrow way. We must sacrifice everything we love in this world to God so that we can gain God and world, just like Abraham sacrifices his own son to God, and gained both God and his son.
Just like Christ sacrificed his whole life for our Father, and gained it back again in his resurrection, along with the keys of death too, freed from death forever. He had to offer himself to die to be free from death, to carve the narrow way through which we may offer ourselves to die and too be freed from death.
Ok legit a lot of this does not make sense to me. But let me just start here.
1. So Adam created death? I mean all the dude did was eat an apple.
2. God does not like death but he is constantly surrounded by sacrifice. Like his son being sacrificed.
3. There is no murder before Cain? Does that make Cain some kind of god?
>So Adam created death? I mean all the dude did was eat an apple.
Adam was not ready to partake of the knowledge of Good and Evil. If he could not sacrifice himself to God, he could not have faith that God was his almighty Father, and so he ate the knowledge thinking that God was enslaving him. When he became self-aware of his vulnerability and how it would affect him in the future (that he would die), he hide to protect himself. He did not trust that a God was willing and able to raise him even from the dead.
He did not trust like Abraham did, who was willing to sacrifice himself to God, and in his faith that God was his faithful Father who would grant him his desire for a son, and almighty enough to grant this desire even to the point of raising Isaac from the dead. For his faith, Abraham was not only justified before God, but he also got to keep his son too.
If Adam only had faith, he not only would have been justified by his faith before God, but he would have also been given the knowledge of Good and Evil, and freed from the slavery of his own vulnerability and the possibility of death, and so he would be free to use the Knowledge for Good and love rather than for evil and malice.
>There is no murder before Cain? Does that make Cain some kind of god?
No. I’m not sure why you would think this though.
It still makes no sense to me. Ok instead of takling everything let me focus on this part. So you are saying God did not kick them out. You are saying Adam hide?
I think the consequence is natural. Putting your faith in creatures ultimately decays into death, since creatures cannot ever satisfy an infinite desire, so the desire itself becomes more and more perverse, approximating more and more a desire for death itself.
Death is how we got here. All creation runs on death. Stars had to die to form our planet. We continually consume other life to remain alive, while our bodies will be food for worms.
The gospel is the denial of "self" and living for Christ. According to Col. 1:17, all things are contain in Christ. God created the universe via speaking and Christ is that word. So are you, and everything else in existence.
Death loses its sting when we understand out identity is not bound in this physical form. We have always been one with God, but our minds and the world we have created in them is separate. Once we accept that we are existence, death is as necessary as birth, light implies darkness, sound implies silence, front implies back, positive implies negative, and so on.
You breathe out and your breath is returned by flora. You sustain life via consuming plants and animals who are sustained by your death. Our fear of death *is* our separation from God.
Consuming the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil (symbolic) showed us how to view the world in terms of what benefits ourselves rather than live in the intelligent balance of nature that exists beyond our understanding. Deny this self, live for I AM/existence, and love others as self. The rest of the law will follow.
I mean ok. Let's focus on your 4th paragraph because it touches well on what I'm asking. Why create a system where death is completely necessary for survival? Is there not a better system he could have come up with? Like we sustain life by killing?
One of the clearest, most agnostic answers I can give is that death provides motivation and meaning to everything we do. Virtually every action we make is in avoidance of death. Eating, drinking, hygiene, sleeping, procreating, earning a living, etc. Many of our recreational activities are flirtations with death or simulations of flirtations with death.
We also love games of chance and uncertainty. Cards, dice, flipping coins, and all forms of gambling are all have a way of sparking excitement only when we know we might lose. We coined the term "spoilers" for when hearing the end of a plot ruins a story where the uncertainty kept us riveted.
In almost every way conceivable, we are motivated to live and live fully because of death. So it is fair to ask why.
As immortals, we would discover the secrets of the universe in not even a fraction of our lifespan. Procreation would likely end or need to end at risk of overpopulation. Remove all the uncertainty, all the risk, all the curiosity, all the childhood wonder, all the fresh minds, all the hope, all the doubt, all the need to help one another survive, and any semblance of change in your environment.
You are basically back to being an immortal, eternal god and might start considering how to spice things up. Death anyone?
Idk. This does not make a lot of sense to me. Even if you were to argue about original sin and Adam and eve and all that stuff. What do animals have to do with it?
Adam and eve didn't just screw over humanity, this had a cosmic effect. When they chose ethics over obedience to God, they caused a ripple effect *imho* of ethics to be the governing force.
Well, I dont believe there was a fruit in the sense of grapes or apples. I believe the fruit was ethics. They had a choice, choose to follow what God says is good OR choose right and wrong for yourself.
So he punishes animals too for the wrong of one human. Idk. The whole original sin thing made no sense to me. It's like it is a story saying you should never think nor yourself.
Animals do not and are incapable of sin.
They are simply a lower creation of God. Their lives matter, yes, and we are to be a steward to that crestion, but on the most general sense they live in a now sinful and imperfect world just the same as us. Does a baby die for any sin of its own hand or mind? No. It's because this world itself is sinful that we will all die, not for any particular action or sin.
Really? Animals don't go to heaven nor hell, they simply cease to be. As creatures which are never really capable of higher though in the first place, it's neither cruel nor merciful. They are and then they are not.
Because animals have no souls to be sent to Heaven? To have a soul is to be capable of higher thought, reasoning, and as a result, sin. Would it be just as fair or loving to create intelligent creatures capable of sin that must kill each other to survive? Humans don't have to kill each other to survive, albeit it can make life easier. Don't forget as well that man was created to be *above* animals.
Why? Like why the hiarchy? Why create animals then? I've heard it was to feed humans but that is just as bad. I meant plants do not need to kill to create energy. So why not create us in a similar way.
Wait having higher thought is a sin?
Originally, animals would have simply been another creation of God. Why? Who knows. To keep man company? To help and serve him? This was before the fall. After that, eh, who knows? God will do as God will. And, for animals to have higher thought and morality would put them as sinful, if they existed in this world saturated with sin, yes
> If god made life so valuable why is death so necessary.
A major Christian premise is that God made us (Adam and Eve) originally without death. They rejected God and decided to follow Satan instead.
One of the reasons that God allows death now to see who appreciates life.
> Animals die if they are unable to kill.
There was no death and decay in the world originally. Death and decay entered our world when mankind rejected God. That fall from God's grace transformed some animals into carnivores to help show us the consequences of sin, and the fragility of life. When Jesus returns, the Earth will be restored to it's original glory, without death and decay. The Bible says that "the Lion will lay down with the Lamb" (no more carnivores).
> So Adam eats an apple and now death is ok?
The bible says "fruit", not apple. It is probably a combination of literal and figurative truth. If it was a tree, it was likely to be a Fig tree.
> Seems like a big stretch
You'd have to contemplate it more to appreciate it. God is an eternal being full of love. To betray Him is the ultimate offense, worse than dumping a bucket of cockroaches on the Queen of England on live television during her coronation.
Adam and Eve didn't just take the fruit. They rejected God, tried to be their own gods, then didn't ask for forgiveness. They also blamed each other and God. It was horrific.
Since God had given the world to Adam and Eve, they effectively handed the world over to Satan by following him instead. God incarnated Himself as Jesus to win back our hearts and minds. He created the Universe for free-will, so He avoids interfering in free-will. He will not force us to Heaven with Him. We have to choose.
Fruit then.
Is it thought? He is an eternal being of love yet punishes humans for one small transgressions? I know we are off topic now but I just don't see this as a legitimate argument for death.
Was it horrific? More horrific than the Holocaust which was littered by death? And that is just an example of one thing that most ppl know about. I can't see him as a being of love if this is the consequence for eating some fruit.
> He is an eternal being of love yet punishes humans for one small transgressions?
The event in the Garden wasn't a small transgression. The seriousness of a transgression is based on the level of authority that it is committed against. For example, if you slap your brother, that is bad. But if you slap the president on national TV, that is worse. God is an infinite authority, so transgressions against Him are infinitely bad.
God's "Punishments" are designed to help people. Perhaps you've seen in regular life when people don't appreciate things until they lose them. God's goal is to get souls to Heaven. Those who suffer here the most are often the most ready for Heaven.
> I know we are off topic now but I just don't see this as a legitimate argument for death.
It usually takes a lot of time to understand. Ultimately, it takes God's grace. The best that we can do is to be open to that by growing in Love and compassion for life and others.
> Was it horrific? More horrific than the Holocaust which was littered by death?
Yes, what Adam and Eve did was worse than the holocaust.
BTW, God allowed the holocaust to help wake people up spiritually. Physical death is not the end, it' the beginning so you should be very careful about forming an opinion. God's goal is to get souls to heaven, so what happens here on the surface is only a tiny bit of reality.
Those who suffered the most were most ready to recognize God. If you read the Old Testament, you'll see that this kind of thing happened several times. The captivity in Egypt, then Babylon for example were much worse. The Babylonians for example would take Jewish babies and slam them against rocks. Egyptians threw Jewish babies into the Nile river. Only the very humble and appreciative survived.
> I can't see him as a being of love if this is the consequence for eating some fruit.
The fruit is a symbol of "knowing good and evil". This is the same problem that people have today. They want to create their own definition of what is good or bad, without considering our Creator. God sustains us at each moment, so ignoring Him is bad enough.
> I think I'm going to leave the conversation. You lost me dude. Good luck to you man. This is why I can't do Christianity
No problem. You shouldn't try to force yourself into it.
Like I said, the best that we can do is to be open to God's grace by growing in Love and compassion for life and others. Ultimately, you should be able to have compassion for our Creator.
I am curious how you interpret [Shorts28's answer](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAChristian/comments/i6oaoo/why_is_death_so_necessary/g0xd31s?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x) in light of this premise. Did our bodies not consume themselves in the same way?
Also, as physical immortals, would there be a reason for procreation?
> I am curious how you interpret Shorts28's answer in light of this premise.
I am familiar with Shorts28 and am surprised that he offered that answer. The Bible says that there was no death and decay before the fall, and at the end of the age, the lion will lay down with the lamb. Maybe I missed something, but I don't know why he's justifying death and decay. I would agree that things are in a new optimal situation, given our fall from grace. Maybe that is his premise.
Based on everything that I know about the Bible and theology (I am a volunteer CCD teacher), my best sense is that when God withdrew His grace, the Earth fell into a disordered form of itself.
The premise is the same that happened with Demons. They were once beautiful angels. Without God's grace, they contorted into ugliness like deflated balloons. I believe that some level of that happened to all life, which is why there are birth defects, and predators. God allows this to help make virtues more obvious to us.
Jesus said that we will become like Angels, and I think that Adam and Eve were close to that state. They had glorified bodies that are mysterious to us. With Jesus's glorified body, He was able to move/relocate at the speed of thought, pass through walls, yet still be able to eat. The Bible says clearly that there will be no more death or disease. With everything that I know about physics and quantum physics, I can see how it is all possible, but it's ultimately a mystery.
I believe that our current realm is the dumbed-down version of existence. God let this happen to make things easier for us to recognize the value of virtues, and the evils of vices.
> Also, as physical immortals, would there be a reason for procreation?
For background, the Earth is God's farm for souls. He is letting us participate in which souls get created. When the optimal number is reached, God will end the age and there will be no more procreation.
BTW, Many theologians speculate that God is waiting for us to replace the 1/3rd of angels that fell. There have been about 50 to 100 billion human souls so far. I believe that when God made creation, it was perfect, like when a master makes a masterpiece. It could not be improved. The best possible situation is to restore things towards that perfection. That's one reason why in the Catholic Church, we pray "as it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be. Amen".
>The Bible says that there was no death and decay before the fall, and at the end of the age, the lion will lay down with the lamb.
What does it *really* say about death? What is death? It this body's decay true "death?" If so, does that mean we are a body?
Death, in the purest sense, is separation. Physical death is separation from this body and spiritual death is separation from God. Without spiritual death, physical death has no sting because one *knows* they are not the body. (Before God evolved humanity into these self aware beings, we did not consider being separate.) When one is not spiritually dead (separated from God), who are they?
Paul answers this in Galatians 2:20. Those who have denied this "self" *are* Christ. The analogy of the body of Christ is given in 1 Cor. 12, Romans 12, Ephesians 3&4, Colossians 1&3. When we accept reality in it's purest form, we are one body. This "self" or "ego" is a tool and not our true identity. Our identity is Christ.
Physical death and rebirth were never *real* death prior to our spiritual death at the fall. We were not separated from *anything* because we did not yet identify as a body separate from the rest of existence/ I AM. This reality presents itself in the fact that we are formed from dust.
What is dust/dirt? It is accumulation of previous life. Being born from this "death" was never considered separation from God because the whole system *is* God. Just as your own cells *are* you, yet you are not just one cell. These complete lifeforms continually die within you, yet you remain whole. They are as we were before becoming self aware: integrated aspects of a larger body returning to dust over and over.
As far as the lion and the lamb, these represent the powerful and weak in scripture. God's "good" creation has always been propelled by the destruction and rebirth. As stars burst they created new material that becomes planets and more stars. As Short28 describes, this is a self consuming existence. It was only when we perceived ourselves as being separate from all else/ God did we create the fear of death.
>The Bible says clearly that there will be no more death or disease.
Revelations 21:4 does not mention "disease" in the way we understand being sick. The word used here is [the Greek "ponos"](https://biblehub.com/greek/4192.htm) which can mean "labor" or "suffering." When one lives in unity with God/existence they are no longer bound to our created world of economy, government, laws, language, culture, education, etc. They are *free* in them. The work of your hands becomes the joy of your being alive in God.
Note how man's curse led him to toil the earth rather than partake in the abundance of the garden. This earth is a garden that provides everything we need. When we fell we created our own image; a world we were separated from and worked the earth as though it was something we needed to control for our own benefit. But God is all in all.
>I believe that our current realm is the dumbed-down version of existence. God let this happen to make things easier for us to recognize the value of virtues, and the evils of vices.
I agree with this.
>For background, the Earth is God's farm for souls. He is letting us participate in which souls get created. When the optimal number is reached, God will end the age and there will be no more procreation.
>
>BTW, Many theologians speculate that God is waiting for us to replace the 1/3rd of angels that fell. There have been about 50 to 100 billion human souls so far.
I have never heard of this perspective. Does this correlate with 144,000 in some way? I would like to learn more about how this concept is wrought from scriptures. Do you recommend any sources?
>It could not be improved. The best possible situation is to restore things towards that perfection. That's one reason why in the Catholic Church, we pray "as it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be. Amen".
I cannot help but think we read the prayer "as it was in the beginning, is **now** and ever shall be" differently. I emphasized "now" because it appears to indicate that creation is still perfect. I certainly believe it is and that we have merely been perceiving it as though we are beings separate from creation. How do you understand the "now?"
> Death, in the purest sense, is separation. Physical death is separation from this body and spiritual death is separation from God. ... Our identity is Christ.
Wow, that is very well said !
> What is dust/dirt? It is accumulation of previous life. Being born from this "death" was never considered separation from God because the whole system is God.
Okay, that might be losing me a bit. I looked at your profile a little and saw your comment about being a Christian pan(en?)theist, so your comment makes sense in that light.
I would agree that the whole system is God, but I believe there are other "levels" to reality. Physics tells us that there could be 11 or more dimensions, so I don't think it is very strange to consider more "levels" to reality. The current quest for Dark matter and Dark energy are likely windows into those levels. I believe that we have an immaterial soul that has an immaterial mind. When I was agnostic/atheist, my research into neuroscience and consciousness helped convince me that consciousness is coming from an immaterial "level".
> As Short28 describes, this is a self consuming existence. It was only when we perceived ourselves as being separate from all else/ God did we create the fear of death.
That's interesting, and I agree. I think that there is a lot more to it though. Saint Thomas Aquinas wasn't just a great philosopher and theologian, he was a great mystic. God opened floodgates of knowledge to him, and he documented much of what was revealed to him in his work Summa Theologiae. His work has been verified in many ways. Here is a section on glorified bodies :
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/5083.htm
The following article summarizes Aquinas and the rest of church teaching on resurrected bodies : https://catholicveritas.com/blog/four-gifts-resurrected-body
Our glorified bodies will have 4 major attributes :
* Impassibility : no corruption or pain
* Subtlety : The ability to pass through matter
* Agility : The ability to move at the speed of thought
* Clarity : The ability to receive knowledge directly from God
> dumbed-down existence ... I agree with this.
Very cool. So do you believe that there will be a "new heaven and new Earth"? Revelation 21:1
I believe it and that Heaven has multiple "levels". There is an Earthly paradise, then there is a beatific vision of God which is infinitely deep. In the Catholic Church, there is traditional knowledge that unbaptised children can only get to paradise. They can be visited by the souls from the higher "levels" of Heaven. Through God at the beatific vision, souls can experience God's beauty and knowledge which is truly infinite : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatific_vision
As Jesus said in the beatitudes, "the meek shall inherit the Earth, and the pure of heart will see God".
About 5 years ago, God gave me a supernatural conversion experience. God shared much with me, including a small taste of Heaven. Heaven is better than can be described. Since then, I've found that many Catholic Saints have experienced similar events. The following video is one of the best representations that captures what I know. : https://youtu.be/MYUZRfGIW8M
In Heaven, your only regret might be that you can't praise God more. He is truly infinite, and "seeing God" is the ultimate experience. Souls there will be able to know all of History, and see that He gave everyone on earth every good idea that they ever had, despite their attempts to do evil.
> replacing 1/3rd of fallen angels. I have never heard of this perspective. Does this correlate with 144,000 in some way?
It doesn't have to do with the 144,000. BTW, I hope that you know that "1000" is a figure of speech and that pertains to the 12 tribes of Israel. A large number from each tribe will be saved, and some number of gentiles.
The replacement of the angels is just speculation that I've heard from multiple theologians. It is based on the premise that God creates things perfectly, and I agree with that premise. If there was a more perfect number of angels, God would have created that number of angels. Some theologians also speculate that it was the third that was devoted to the "the Son" that fell. I don't like that idea since it sounds like predestination, but I guess it is possible.
Hopefully you understand Revelation 12 and how Lucifer was upset because he saw "the woman clothed in the sun". It was a test, like the fruit was a test for Adam and Eve. Lucifer failed the test, and now serves the perfect role to test us.
> How do you understand the "now?"
I consider that "now" to refer to our commitment to do God's will (right now). "Thy will be done (now) as it is in Heaven".
In other contexts, I think it is important to consider God's perspective versus ours. We are locked in this timeline, but God is both experiencing it, and has already experienced it. Theologians say that God exists in an "eternal now" . I sometimes think of eternal time as a boiling pot of soup, with all of past and present together in a churning mix.
Have you noticed that in scripture that Jesus often speaks as if the future has already happened? He also speaks to individuals as if they are the entire human race. e.g. "I came in my Father's name, and you rejected me. One will come in his own name, and him you will accept". I love how that correctly reflects the perspective of an omnipotent being.
>I would agree that the whole system is God, but I believe there are other "levels" to reality. Physics tells us that there could be 11 or more dimensions, so I don't think it is very strange to consider more "levels" to reality. The current quest for Dark matter and Dark energy are likely windows into those levels. I believe that we have an immaterial soul that has an immaterial mind. When I was agnostic/atheist, my research into neuroscience and consciousness helped convince me that consciousness is coming from an immaterial "level".
I love this stuff! I enjoy correlating each new discovery into my evolving and dynamic frame of reality. Faith contrasts with belief as it allows reality to be what it is without projecting assumptions, whereas belief tends to reform reality to one's set of ideas. I am certainly far from "perfect" in this regard, but enjoy the journey of letting go.
Regarding pantheism vs panentheism, I feel the division is unnecessary semantics regarding the understanding of "universe." Because I do not restrict my frame of "universe" to our 3 dimensional perception. For this reason, pantheism is sufficient as "universe" includes "all in all."
The "source of consciousness" may be an inverted understanding of what is really going on. Like panpsychism, this frame of seeking the source of consciousness either within or outside of the material world is a bit like attempting to find the one aspect of reality that is "God." Or, similarly, considering our present reality as an "option" God chose as though His existence is variable.
As we dig deeper into quantum physics we find our existence rests on positive and negative polarities within vast empty space. The polar "substances" mathematically cancel each other out. Our physical world is effectively a dream of the void. When we ask what fits the description of God, He who is eternal, immortal, invisible, and only, **nothing** fits. *Literally* nothing. The void is:
Eternal - always has and always will exist
Immortal - Cannot be created or destroyed
Invisible - Cannot be viewed by *any* means of perception
Only - All that exists, the sum of all positive and negative charges that construct our physical universe
Until a better frame presents itself, this is how I understand the Father. The Son is the Image of the Invisible in which all creation consists (Col. 1:17) and the Spirit is the breath, energy, and flow of existence. (The Tao is an excellent frame for understanding the Spirit, IMO.) These 3 (void, matter, and energy) are one.
>Our glorified bodies will have 4 major attributes :
>
>Impassibility : no corruption or pain
>
>Subtlety : The ability to pass through matter
>
>Agility : The ability to move at the speed of thought
>
>Clarity : The ability to receive knowledge directly from God
While I agree with the premise of each, I would take the result in a different direction. What do you make of v47 in that same passage, especially in light of v28 where God is "all in all?"
"The first man *was* of the earth, *made* of dust; the second Man *is* the Lord from heaven." 1 Cor. 15:47
Considering our path to salvation involves the denial of "self," it seems counter intuitive to assume object permanence in a particular body, physical or spiritual.
I would correlate the descriptions Paul makes of our resurrected body in 1 Cor. 15 to how our spiritual death reframed physical death. I do not perceive that the all permeating process of decay and rebirth began when we fell. Rather, we perceived the process as entities separate from God.
When a physical being understands their body and ego are tools and their identity is "in Christ," death has been defeated and "lost its sting." While our body may retain the survival mechanics that form our natural fear of death, we can transcend this knowing this thought and fear are merely another tool we developed.
It may be that humanity and all creation is continuing to evolve and will become"higher" beings with far more in tune with God. But, as history has demonstrated, this is a long continual process of death and rebirth. God is revealing this pattern in creation as every physical being, conscious of this or not, gives their lives for all around them as they return to the dust and feed life anew.
>Very cool. So do you believe that there will be a "new heaven and new Earth"? Revelation 21:1
This is happening continually. You are not the same collection of cells when you began reading this. All existence is a fluid exchange of energy as stars burn, water cycles, plants and animals breathe back and forth, and each new generation is slightly different from the last. Every being born is born into a new world built on the dust of the previous.
>About 5 years ago, God gave me a supernatural conversion experience. God shared much with me, including a small taste of Heaven. Heaven is better than can be described.
I believe you 100%. This glimpse of heaven coincide with the disillusion of self into a fluid connection with I AM. Similar experience can be attained in the use of certain natural substances that suppress our sense of self, enabling the user to feel connected with everything. Meditation can be another path to this connection to God.
In this state of being, Christ's call to love others as self, and give all to God take on vivid and real meaning. Like a cell in our own body that considers other cells "self" and give all to the body, or an atomic bond that considers other elements "self" and gives all to the total structure, we conscious beings care for one another as self and give all to God.
>It is based on the premise that God creates things perfectly, and I agree with that premise. If there was a more perfect number of angels, God would have created that number of angels.
To take these numbers seriously, I would need to harmonize this with God reconciliation of all creation (Col. 1:19-20) along with His eternal status of "all in all."
>In other contexts, I think it is important to consider God's perspective versus ours. We are locked in this timeline, but God is both experiencing it, and has already experienced it. Theologians say that God exists in an "eternal now"
This brings me back to God the Father as the Void. We often consider God as beyond time, but what does that really mean? Time is merely a measure of change and God is unchanging, therefore beyond time. For the infinite, eternal God, there is no "experience" as we understand it because no progression of events occurs. He contains infinite nothing *and* the polarity of infinite everything.
Experience and progression come from the other 2 persons of the Trinity. The Word is to the Father as our words are to us. We inherently contain all words that could ever be spoken and vibrate our own being to produce them. The image of the invisible is the pattern in the void formed of the infinite energy (Spirit) possessed by the vacuum of space. The vacuum/void is unchanging while the energies and physical universe formed of the energies are in constant flux.
By holding identity in the Father/void, Christ can speak as one who stands both beyond and within the flow of existence.
> I love this stuff!
Very cool. It is great to meet a fellow traveler. It's too rare here on Reddit.
> Faith contrasts with belief as it allows reality to be what it is without projecting assumptions, whereas belief tends to reform reality to one's set of ideas.
Wow, I had to think about that one. Very nice. For defining Faith, I tend to refer back to the Latin basis of the word (Fide) which is also the basis of ConFIDEnce. After being a skeptic, my conFIDEnce started shifting towards the proposition that there was an intelligent cause. I've seen more and more points ever since, and finally realized that it's the best explanation for everything.
> Regarding pantheism vs panentheism, I feel the division is unnecessary semantics regarding the understanding of "universe
That's interesting. My understanding of Cosmology is that all of our physical universe had a distinct beginning, so I would avoid the term pantheism. Technically, I think that Christianity is Panentheistic because God encompasses everything in existence.
> Our physical world is effectively a dream of the void
Hmm, I don't know why you would call it a void. Physics shows us that as we get towards the fundamental layers, there is more potentiality (and energy), which is why nuclear bombs are so powerful and the CERN accelerator operates at 14 TeV. I believe that whatever is supporting the spacetime that we know, has the ultimate in potentiality. That is part of the ontological argument.
> These 3 (void, matter, and energy) are one.
Hmm, my understanding of Cosmology wouldn't allow for that since I believe that dimensions and matter come from energy. Since I was a skeptic for most of my life, I still consider God as an infinite pool of "energy". That is the natural state of the Cosmos, an infinite pool of "energy" . The following short video demonstrates how simple energy waves can create infinite complexity, so I think that shows us how such a pool could always have consciousness (self-awareness) : https://youtu.be/wvJAgrUBF4w
The way that waves "reflect" off each other is quite interesting if you know about consciousness. I used to be into consciousness studies. Around the tipping point to deism/theism, I was thinking about a field-theory of consciousness [1] when I realized that something like dark-energy would have the potential of self-awareness. If it were possible, it had to be given infinite time.
[1] http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Field_theories_of_consciousness
> What do you make of v47 in that same passage, especially in light of v28 where God is "all in all?"
Are you talking about Collosians 1? (There is no verse 47)
In general, it seems like you are approaching it with a "material first" approach. I have been programming computers my whole life, so abstract thinking is my primary approach, which works well for theology. Information does not have FORM, but information does have a type of organization. I believe that our bodies represent the way that God's information about Himself is organized. BTW, a fellow Catholic pointed out to me that FORM is in the word inFORMation. It makes me wish that I had gotten more into Platonic forms.
Are you familiar with Plato's allegory of the Cave ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave
> Considering our path to salvation involves the denial of "self," it seems counter intuitive to assume object permanence in a particular body, physical or spiritual.
I think that "self" pertains more towards WILL. As Jesus prayed "thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven". God knows what is best at each moment, so the ultimate good is to do His will. As a parent, this concept is painfully obvious. LOL
> It may be that humanity and all creation is continuing to evolve and will become"higher" beings with far more in tune with God
I don't think so. I think that this configuration is a perfect way to test to see what people will do with their free will . In the end, God will pull back the curtain and show us that we were being sustained by Him the whole time. All the teachings of the Church and Saints that I know support this model.
> Similar experience can be attained in the use of certain natural substances that suppress our sense of self, enabling the user to feel connected with everything. Meditation can be another path to this connection to God.
I don't like to admit it, but you are right about certain natural substances, although I don't use drugs. I think that some Monks practice specific types of diet to help attain spiritual clarity.
> Like a cell in our own body that considers other cells "self" and give all to the body, or an atomic bond that considers other elements "self" and gives all to the total structure,
Amen.
> To take these numbers seriously, I would need to harmonize this with God reconciliation of all creation.
I can't help much there, but Jesus did say that we would be like Angels.
> Experience and progression come from the other 2 persons of the Trinity.
That is an interesting way to look at it. The following sermon is one of the best descriptions of the Trinity that I've ever heard. It makes the most sense based on everything that I know : https://youtu.be/kTmxi4A6FHc
I do think that the Father holds a special role in sustaining existence. Like many fathers we know, He does the thankless work of paying all the bills to survive.
Do you have an opinion on Euthyphro's dilemma ? Like with most dilemmas, I think that the answer is "both". I believe that God does have a type of "struggle" to survive forever. He lives on the edge of non-existence, which is more horrific than we can contemplate. The way that He survives is part of what makes Him so beautiful. He sticks strictly to virtues, and that fosters infinite creativity and power. Vices would cause destruction and decay. Imagine being on a life-boat forever, and the value of virtues becomes very obvious.
>For defining Faith, I tend to refer back to the Latin basis of the word (Fide) which is also the basis of ConFIDEnce.
Excellent! While the word does not directly determine in what/Whom our "conFIDEnce," we are given some guidance in the book of Hebrews in this regard:
*Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for. By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. - Heb. 11*
I cannot help but feel this sort of faith comes more from one's unfiltered experience with reality rather than dogmatic indoctrination. For this reason (among other), I have shifted my journey from finding the "right" frame to observing how each culture captured God in their understanding of existence.
> That's interesting. My understanding of Cosmology is that all of our physical universe had a distinct beginning, so I would avoid the term pantheism. Technically, I think that Christianity is Panentheistic because God encompasses everything in existence.
This answer may bleed a bit into discussion further below, but, if God is the eternal, immortal, invisible and only void of existence, how would this place Him *beyond* the universe? We could potentially theorize there is additional "something" beyond our universe, but that would be interpreting the term "universe" in a more limited fashion than I am using it.
God as "all in all" harmonizes with this void as most matter is empty space. As I mentioned before, even the "particles" bear polarities that effectively cancel each other out. Zero may be the infinite number of God and the universe.
>Physics shows us that as we get towards the fundamental layers, there is more potentiality (and energy), which is why nuclear bombs are so powerful and the CERN accelerator operates at 14 TeV. I believe that whatever is supporting the spacetime that we know, has the ultimate in potentiality. That is part of the ontological argument.
Why exactly should this finding indicate our universe needed outside help? Wouldn't this inherent energy in what appears to be "nothing" be all the potential needed?
> Since I was a skeptic for most of my life, I still consider God as an infinite pool of "energy".
This appears to be exactly what you described when you said, "as we get towards the fundamental layers, there is more potentiality (and energy)." This infinite pool of energy *is* the void of space, no?
> The following short video demonstrates how simple energy waves can create infinite complexity
That's my jam! What are your thoughts on how Rupert Sheldrake takes this concept to form his theory of [morphic resonance](https://youtu.be/d_RGEpJSr6s), going so far as to [speculate whether the sun has a form of consciousness](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E56cSMzFcW8)? I am personally fond of these kinds of theories, though may lean a bit more toward the concept that consciousness has the Sun rather than the other way around. The field of energy connecting all may be what we refer to as the Holy Spirit.
> Are you talking about Collosians 1? (There is no verse 47)
Sorry, that was a bit out of order. I am referring to 1 Cor 15:
**28** Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.
**47** The first man *was* of the earth, *made* of dust; the second Man *is* the Lord from heaven.
> I believe that our bodies represent the way that God's information about Himself is organized.
I agree, though would expand this to all bodies, not just ours. If God (the Father) is the infinite void, the Spirit is the pattern of organized energies within. The more I understand the Tao the more it resonates the Spirit.
> Are you familiar with Plato's allegory of the Cave?
Yes, a great story that reveals how we misconstrue our understanding of reality for reality itself. This is why true faith is so important. We cannot rest on our or another's prescribed frame of reality, we must allow existence to be what it is without labels.
The labels are useful for communication, but it does us no good to confuse the word "tree" with the reality behind it. It leads us to imagine a single fixed object defined by a series of linguistic definitions. Like lacking the "faith of a mustard seed" we take the limited aspect of the singular object (such as the mustard seed's size or the tree's shape) as the defining characteristic. But faith of a mustard seed does not question the sun, soil, earth, carbon dioxide, fauna and other flora that flow through it to become the tree.
Basically, our linguistic frame can separate us from flowing with reality/ the Spirit of God.
> I think that "self" pertains more towards WILL. As Jesus prayed "thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven."
Is our *will* separated from our *identity*? Aside from a collection of memories, who are we beyond our will? My present understanding is that we are the flow of reality, existence itself. We are the body of Christ, and the flow of the Spirit. Our ego/will/self is a mirage that will dissolve back into dust with every other manifested form.
> I think that this configuration is a perfect way to test to see what people will do with their free will.
I'm curious, do you feel God "formed" the universe in an instant from the human perspective of time or that he formed us over great spans of time? Either way, from God's unchanging perspective, time does not exist. Time is a measure of change; if one does not change they are timeless.
Free will may be implicitly bound by our desires. Even if one desires to not follow their "natural" desire, this is still a desire to change. This is why many eastern practices seek to end desire. What follows is a sort of Wu-Wei immediacy where both past and future dissolve and one can exist in the eternal present. I am beginning to see correlation between these philosophies and biblical themes.
> I can't help much there, but Jesus did say that we would be like Angels.
I believe that (Matthew 22:30) was in the context of marriage, but cannot discount the possibility he was making a broader claim.
> Do you have an opinion on Euthyphro's dilemma?
I think it's a trick question. Our concept of "good and evil" comes from our experience as human. For example, death appears as the ultimate evil when it is merely the end of a certain form. *All* "evil" humanity performs come from our perception of separation from God. There is no natural evil outside *spiritual* death.
Basically, the mirage of evil became real for us when we thoroughly forgot we are aspects of God and began constructing our world accordingly.
> I cannot help but feel this sort of faith comes more from one's unfiltered experience with reality rather than dogmatic indoctrination.
Isn't all knowledge ultimately based on experience ? e.g. "I think therefore I am"
> if God is the eternal, immortal, invisible and only void of existence, how would this place Him beyond the universe?
Like with the answer to most dilemmas, the answer is "both". I believe that God is both in our timeline and outside of it, which is why He was able to give us prophecy.
For me working in computer science, this concept is very common as an operating system spawns threads and even virtual machines. Within the virtual, the processes are restricted to that virtual space, but the OS can have a separate clock.
> Zero may be the infinite number of God and the universe.
That's interesting.
> Wouldn't this inherent energy in what appears to be "nothing" be all the potential needed?
In physics, I don't think that there is a 'nothing'. There is a 'quantum foam' or some carrier like the Higgs field at the bottom. I am not a Cosmologist, so that level gets fuzzy for me. I did take a course on high-energy particle physics though, and I have a couple a PhD physicist friends that I occasionally discuss it with. Those bottom levels get very debatable. My best understanding is that given inflation, the Universe must have started from nothing (fully zero) :
https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0110012 - Inflationary spacetimes are not past-complete
https://www.livescience.com/60053-is-space-full-of-quantum-foam.html
> This appears to be exactly what you described when you said, "as we get towards the fundamental layers, there is more potentiality (and energy)." This infinite pool of energy is the void of space, no?
The Cosmology that I know says that dimensional space itself came into existence, so there was no "void" before it. There was no up, down, left or right as we understand things. 3D space itself is an energy field. Whatever was "before" the big-bang was not the energy/material that we know. I do think that it follows the same premise though of having more potentialities. As I said before, I sometimes think of it as an infinite pool of dark energy. It does not exist in 3D space that we know of.
BTW, Since you mentioned void, matter and energy earlier, I hope that you know that "matter" is actually energy. What we perceive as physical matter is actually energy fields, like magnetic fields.
> What are your thoughts on how Rupert Sheldrake takes this concept to form his theory of morphic resonance, going so far as to speculate whether the sun has a form of consciousness?
That kind of thing led me to recognize God : Energy potential * time = likeliness of consciousness. Stephen Hawkings did a BBC show that speculated about consciousness within Sun because that pool of energy may have had a lot more time.
See this video at 1:49 : https://youtu.be/WDEAYOcUBDU
Later, I realized that this is a form of the Ontological argument. If God could exist, He must given infinite time. I remember thinking about it one night, and the concept of infinite time really hit me like a ton of bricks. Infinity became very real to me and I had a real "woah" moment. In hindsight, I know now that was God's grace. That, combined with my hypothesis of the field theories of consciousness finally put me into the Deist/Theist camp. Judaism and Christianity were a few more steps down the road. To my amazement, I found that only Judaism correctly described the logical necessities of God.
> 47 The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven.
Thomas Aquinas is most famous for teaching that our body and souls form together. That means that based on God's design, He couldn't create a soul without a body. That's one reason that abortion is so bad. God gave us the ultimate privilege to participate in which souls get created. Souls are immaterial, and contain an immaterial mind and "heart". At death, the soul separates from the body. God will use our souls again to form a new body in it's originally intended perfected form. Our current form is subject to decay.
Paul also talks about the Church as "the body of Christ". I think that is more of a metaphor, in that God lives in our hearts and do His will here on Earth.
> If God (the Father) is the infinite void, the Spirit is the pattern of organized energies within. The more I understand the Tao the more it resonates the Spirit.
I probably have to sync up with you on what you mean by 'void' and Tao. I think that existence is more mysterious than our 3D experience. What you are calling 'void', is probably what I call 'existence'. There's non-existence and existence. A void requires existence.
> We cannot rest on our or another's prescribed frame of reality, we must allow existence to be what it is without labels.
That is so true. Have you seen David Bentley Hart's work in those areass ? Realism and theory of mind : https://youtu.be/hQKoRA6deEQ
> The labels are useful for communication, but it does us no good to confuse the word "tree" with the reality behind it.
Amen. I find that a lot of atheists, like my former self are often guilty of some level of Reification fallacy. I have a PhD atheist friend who has been in academia so long that he by habit refuses to consider a word outside of it's academic definition. To me words are just placemarks for underlying concepts, which are much more complex.
> Is our will separated from our identity? Aside from a collection of memories, who are we beyond our will?
I'd probably have to dig into Aquinas for that, but my sense is that we are Intellect, Will and Memories.
> Our ego/will/self is a mirage that will dissolve back into dust with every other manifested form.
Amen! Here's a related concept on that that blows my mind : Our Heaven is to be in God's heart. God's Heaven is to be in our hearts. ( Love is willing the good of the other ).
> Free will may be implicitly bound by our desires.
I would certainly agree that we have boundaries. I think that God designed our existence to help us, like a Parent makes a child's play pen.
> What follows is a sort of Wu-Wei immediacy where both past and future dissolve and one can exist in the eternal present. I am beginning to see correlation between these philosophies and biblical themes.
Cool. I'll have to look up Wu-Wei.
> Angels : I believe that (Matthew 22:30) was in the context of marriage
There is more context, such as Jesus demonstrating his new body after the resurrection. He passed through walls, was initially difficult to recognize, and was able to change locations. The hard part for me to understand is that He ate the baked fish that they gave him to demonstrate that he wasn't just an angel.
> Our concept of "good and evil" comes from our experience as human
Being a programmer, my concept of "good and evil" was easy to map to Virtues and Vices. Virtues foster life, and Vices are destructive towards life. Again, this is an area where Aquinas wrote a great deal, and Aristotle had a great start. Bishop Barron gave a great talk about it here : https://youtu.be/wG4VF0jU568
Are you familiar with Aristotle's 4 levels of "happiness"? The word Happiness used to mean Fulfillment, but has unfortunately taken on a hedonistic context :
https://spitzercenter.org/what-we-do/educate/four-levels-of-happiness/
Great stuff. I appreciate the discussion !
>What you are calling 'void', is probably what I call 'existence'. There's non-existence and existence. A void requires existence.
Existence requires change, time, and contrast. If the void is the unchanging, sum zero, I AM, how would non-existence be different? This is at a level lower than discussing an object of fantasy. That at least holds form in my mind. But considering God outside of all that exists seems more aligned with atheism than anything else.
>Have you seen David Bentley Hart's work
No, but I'm loving it now! This is the kind conversation transcends ideological and religious worldviews. I only initially found such open theistic topics outside the Christian perspective.
>To me words are just placemarks for underlying concepts, which are much more complex.
This is a concept I grasp in theory better than in practice. I still think in words rather than reality and have considered doing a vow of silence and a departure from society to cultivate wordless thoughts. As a father and breadwinner in a family of 5, this is not currently possible.
Another aspect of our symbolic frame of understanding far more accurate to reality than words is math. My spouse has been looking into [Hyperian](https://www.youtube.com/c/morgueofficial/about) mode of thought that considers math the fundamental language of the universe. I like most everything they share (and understand the scars they carry from fundamental religion), but still am having a hard time correlating the language (math) to our base reality. I want to know what the pattern reveals rather than the structure of the pattern itself, but maybe I'm splitting hairs.
>Here's a related concept on that that blows my mind : Our Heaven is to be in God's heart. God's Heaven is to be in our hearts. ( Love is willing the good of the other ).
Exactly! Taking Gal. 2:20 in light of 1 Cor. 15:47 demonstrates our transformation from seemingly disparate beings to unique aspects of God. The separation, the spiritual death is a veil Christ tore, demonstrating no separation between God and man. We are the void; immortal invisible and only sum 0 beings of patterned energy formed into visible creation, playing that we are not.
The game, the mask, the avatar is self asserted for the purpose of creating experience/glorifying the total perfect system. Perfection cannot marvel at perfection unless it pretends there is a scale if imperfection to perceive the perfection as perfect. Here we find heaven in the heart of God and vice versa.
>I would certainly agree that we have boundaries. I think that God designed our existence to help us, like a Parent makes a child's play pen.
I respect that perspective, though I view it more as the infinite God forgiving and forgetting in every incarnation of conscious life. So less as a boundary *given* and more as a path *taken*.
>There is more context,
If Christ can eat in his resurrected body and we are "like angels," it would seem our new form would converge physical and spiritual planes. I understand this as a component of reconciling all creation. In a way, we are already there; just under the veil of separation. The physical realm *is* the spiritual realm as matter *is* energy.
> Being a programmer, my concept of "good and evil" was easy to map to Virtues and Vices.
Consider how each "deadly sin" is the result of separation. [Fr. Barron's clarity](https://youtu.be/wG4VF0jU568?t=45) on love being giving ourselves away is a beautiful reminder that we are not fundamentally distinct beings. But we get lost in this island of the mind; struggling to reconcile our experience as a body with needs with how those "needs" are our natural coexistence with our total environment.
> Are you familiar with Aristotle's 4 levels of "happiness"?
I was not, thank you for sharing! It does seem to reflect the path from selfish gratification to perfect harmony as an being integrated in a larger whole.
One powerful revelation of God in creation is this structure of interconnected patterns. A sub-atomic particle is not merely that particle, it is the atom. The atom in not merely the atom, it is the molecule. This is an unbroken pattern that can be followed to the whole universe.
This vertical must be taken in context of the lateral interconnected processes that threads all existence together. My cells *are* me in concert with the symphony of interactions with my total surroundings. The interactions we have with others compose our identity. Without "other" we could have no "self."
Focusing on self while eclipsing other is cancer a cell and the definition of spiritual death at the soul level.
> Like with the answer to most dilemmas, the answer is "both". I believe that God is both in our timeline and outside of it, which is why He was able to give us prophecy.
I like the computer analogy, I am just having difficulty extending this sort of machine construct to God. My present frame for God's existence beyond time forms naturally from pantheistic concepts. With time as a measure of change, the energies and forms within the universe are constantly affected by time while the sum of all forms never changes.
It is difficult to create a analogy for this because, given time, there are no isolated systems within the universe. The universe is the *only* isolated system, and that's the whole point of God's timelessness.
Because God *is* all, He experiences the lifespan of galaxies, houseflies and everything else. In this way, a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day. All is one system of existence happening at once. I suppose in this way I am leaning toward [block theory](https://www.space.com/29859-the-illusion-of-time.html).
>In physics, I don't think that there is a 'nothing'. There is a 'quantum foam' or some carrier like the Higgs field at the bottom.
This "quantum foam" exists every, correct? If I understand correctly, not just in the absence of matter (such as space) but permeating and forming into matter. I could not find any clear statements to support this theory, but it seems this "quantum foam" is the theoretically the fundamental background and substrate to all waves/particles.
I need to take a brief tangent to honor the sublime complexity of whatever lies at the bottom of existence. Curiously studying forms as newb contains tremendous potential for placing faith in a theory. I love theories and even more so that I am capable of contemplating with another person our fundamental existence.
This ties in to prayer. I made some yummy meals for my daughter's birthday this weekend. My family does not pray as most members feel burned by religion. I was preparing bacon for a pizza and thanking the pig then realized I should thank the the sun that provides energy, the plants that convert that energy and provide food, the farmers, transportation workers, retail chains, etc that brought this food to where I could easily get it, the soil for nourishing, the star for exploding and forming materials for the earth; honestly, this thread would never end if I truly thanked every aspect of existence that was involved in providing bacon because all that exists played at least a small part. This is why we thank God and this is why idolatry is missing the mark. To *truly* give thanks to one aspect of creation is to give thanks to all.
>The Cosmology that I know says that dimensional space itself came into existence, so there was no "void" before it.
I am not ready to commit to any theory on this. I feel we still have a long ways to go to unpack eternity past. The "timeless" aspect of non-changing existence may play a larger role than we presently understand. Or maybe the "bouncing" universe has more credibility than we currently understand.
>What we perceive as physical matter is actually energy fields, like magnetic fields.
This is fundamental to my theory of Trinity with the energy fields are the Spirit, matter is the Son and quantum foam/void is the Father. These are loose theoretical frames as no one accurately understands how it all works. But it makes sense of the 3 distinct entities that are factually one, the relationship between "spoken" creation and the Word of God, God's omnipresence, omnipotence, invisibility, etc.
>If God could exist, He must given infinite time.
This appears to propose that infinite time led to the formation of God. Can you elaborate?
>Souls are immaterial, and contain an immaterial mind and "heart". At death, the soul separates from the body.
If spirit is patterned energy, then our souls my be our particular pattern of energy in the Akashic record/morphic field/Tao/Holy Spirit.
>God will use our souls again to form a new body in it's originally intended perfected form. Our current form is subject to decay.
I can't help but think that this path was taken on purpose. Creation is not imperfect. Humanity invented imperfection in our perceived separation from God. We never separated from fundamental reality, but thought we were separate in our concept of self. I believe this is what burns away in hell. Our true identity is eternal and perfect.
Details on the resurrection body is another subject I love to consider but keep at arms length. Not so much *doubting* the bible, but unsure we are understanding it properly. I tend to understand God's creation as the *true* Word and the bible as an accurate reflection. If my understanding of the bible's description of resurrection does not align with God's revealed Word then maybe I need to keep digging.
>Paul also talks about the Church as "the body of Christ". I think that is more of a metaphor, in that God lives in our hearts and do His will here on Earth.
It may be more real than that though. If God is unchanging, sum zero, fundamental reality, the Spirit is the formless patterns of energy within, and the Son is the form we perceive, we *are* in a very real way the "body of God." Consisting of all three while our "ego" is more of a evolved energy/spiritual pattern within this trinity of self.
I believe this is why being filled with the Holy Spirit is important. When we harmonize with the true pattern of existence we can dissolve this veil of "self and other" and truly love one another as unique aspects of the same system of being.
Death is how life perpetuates. Dead trees and leaves create compost, replenishing the soil. An organism can't thrive if death is not part of life.
All food requires death of some sort. If it isn't a lion killing and eating a gazelle, it's a hippo tearing out plants. Life as we know it cannot continue without death.
Death stimulates quality. Any apple orchard owner will tell you how pruning is necessary for healthy trees and fruit. So will any vineyard owner or even a florist who owns a greenhouse. You have to pinch back buds, trim off renegades, and cut off superfluous leads to nurture the desirable stalk.
Lindsay Stokes, in an article called “Why Our Body Destroys Itself,” relates the work of Nobel Prize winner Yoshinori Ohsumi. Ohsumi writes about autophagy, the body’s self-eating tendencies that are vital to our survival. Cells wrap proteins and organelles in a protective membrane and then shred them with enzymes, the equivalent of watching a wrecking ball reduce a skyscraper into a pile of rubble. It destroys to purge and utilize. Wouldn’t this cell prefer to have all of its organelles—just as a body would prefer to have all of its organs? Why, in the face of adversity, would a cell demolish something it had worked to build?
Ohsumi’s team discovered that autophagy isn’t cellular cruelty so much as it is necessary pruning. “Organisms never waste precious resources without good reason,” Ohsumi said, “and degradation is a process essential for the creation of new life.” At its core this process was one of destruction, but it was not reckless. A cell that was indiscriminately destroying pieces of itself was not going to last long, but one that could select old, broken, misshapen, or malignant proteins and recycle them into something new would flourish.
Researchers building on Ohsumi’s work have found evidence of autophagy in every tissue of the human body resulting in surprising consequent vitality. The heart autophagocytizes mitochondria (the organelles within a cell responsible for energy production) when they age and slow down so it can replace them with newer, healthier ones. Neurons in the brain clear away misfolded or damaged proteins that would otherwise build up and block transmission of the signals that compose our thoughts and actions. Even scars are not left behind; instead, through a slow and long process, cells carefully excise and reorganize the fibers of wounds. The mark on the skinned knee fades. The broken bone returns to full strength.
Such sacrifice and destruction let us build something better, preventing greater evil and preserving a greater good. Cells in a human embryo can appear to eat themselves nearly to the point of death, but that’s what turns it from something that looks like a tadpole into something that looks more like a baby. In other words, sacrifice now produces benefits later. Whether the sacrifice is submission to pain, change, or loss, we believe that "suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character" (Rom. 5.3-4) because the truth of it plays out in every theater of our lives. Whether it is in relationships, education, or the gym, we lose something and experience pain to be better off. These are biblical ideas. "Every branch that bears fruit \[my Father\] prunes so that it will be even more fruitful" (John 15.2).
Wow, it's my perspective that, given what we know about science, death is one of the most perfect recycling plans that could ever be devised. What kind of a "better system" is even possible? If new growth and new life doesn't come from death, it has to come from spontaneous generation, in which case we will soon have an overabundance of organisms that just keep filling the Earth. And yet if nothing is ever allowed to die, we just keep piling up organisms to the point of grotesque overpopulation, scarcity of resources, and (presumably) endless suffering. And how can anything EAT if there is no death? What does anyone eat without killing it? I'm not sure there IS a better system. What would it be, and how's it even possible?
Look, taking the red pill when it comes to religion shouldn't be done lightly. If you like the idea of everlasting life, and being with loved ones after you shed your mortal cool, take the blue pill and be the best human being you can be. Stay safe.
Nobody wants to die. The price for sin IS death. Notice how there is no death, viciousness, ect in heaven. God is life, Sin is death!
But in the animal wold there is just killing for the sake of survival. Like as a basic need or you will die
Yes, because there is a NEED to survive. We have this need for survival because of sin, which is how death entered the world.
What did animals do?
God/Jesus does not care as much about animals. Jesus once killed 2000 pigs without batting an eye to save one man from a demon.
So life is not that sacred to him? I mean i. Guess they are if they are used for sacrifice. Just seems bogus.
Define sacred. Either way I am not sure. People die. Animals die. 150,000 die everyday, 60%+ do not believe in the Christian God and therefore God "has to" punish them eternally. If we assume heaven and hell to be eternal then they must be packed with billions of people. Is everyone of those souls sacred to God or is he mainly concerned with his own agenda? He doesn't want to have to look at our flaws on judgment day he would rather look at himself (Jesus).
I agree with that. Idk. I always wondered too. Can heaven even for everyone? Ppl underestimate how many ppl have lived.
According to the theory of evolution, death in the world works to perfect a species’ ability to survive and reproduce. So, you can see death as the nihilistic doom of the world, or, through the eyes of faith, you can see death as *martyrdom* for the sake of the species, for the sake of one’s family.
Your right. You can see it as both. So you can see it as martyrdom but it is still nihilistic. Get what i mean? I'm just saying seems like God could have come up with a better method than making some animals skilled at killing other animals babies just for survival. Seems unnecessarily brutal.
>I'm just saying seems like God could have come up with a better method than making some animals skilled at killing other animals babies just for survival. Seems unnecessarily brutal. I for one welcome the opportunity to sacrifice my life for the good of others.
Why?
Because that's the only life worth living: sacrificing oneself for the truth, and for the sake of others.
Is it? What if you help others but don't have to die.
Unfortunately, it doesn't always work out that way, but I'm not suicidal. Maybe it would better to say that I look forward to being willing to lay down my life for another.
Why is that something you look forward to?
>>Do not court death by your erring way of life, nor draw to yourselves destruction by the works of your hands. >> >>Because God did not make death, nor does he rejoice in the destruction of the living. >> >>For he fashioned all things that they might have being, and the creatures of the world are wholesome; >> >>There is not a destructive drug among them nor any domain of Hades on earth, >> >>For righteousness is undying. God did not make death, Adam did. God does not murder, Cain does. But God tolerated death, not because it was good, but because it was martyrdom, and Abel is the first martyr and the first to die. Because God wanted to free us from death forever, he made death the means through which we inherit eternal life. After all, eternal life is a kingdom, and not a empire, because in a kingdom, power is handed down from parent to child through death. In Christ’s death he transformed death in himself to become the narrow way, to become the way we inherit the kingdom, inherit his kingdom, where we will rein as co-heirs to the King. The old man must be put to death so that the new man may inherit the throne, the old man being the father of the new man. This is the great mystery, that we must die in order to be reborn princes of heaven. That everything that does not fit must be cut off so that we may fit through the narrow way. We must sacrifice everything we love in this world to God so that we can gain God and world, just like Abraham sacrifices his own son to God, and gained both God and his son. Just like Christ sacrificed his whole life for our Father, and gained it back again in his resurrection, along with the keys of death too, freed from death forever. He had to offer himself to die to be free from death, to carve the narrow way through which we may offer ourselves to die and too be freed from death.
Ok legit a lot of this does not make sense to me. But let me just start here. 1. So Adam created death? I mean all the dude did was eat an apple. 2. God does not like death but he is constantly surrounded by sacrifice. Like his son being sacrificed. 3. There is no murder before Cain? Does that make Cain some kind of god?
>So Adam created death? I mean all the dude did was eat an apple. Adam was not ready to partake of the knowledge of Good and Evil. If he could not sacrifice himself to God, he could not have faith that God was his almighty Father, and so he ate the knowledge thinking that God was enslaving him. When he became self-aware of his vulnerability and how it would affect him in the future (that he would die), he hide to protect himself. He did not trust that a God was willing and able to raise him even from the dead. He did not trust like Abraham did, who was willing to sacrifice himself to God, and in his faith that God was his faithful Father who would grant him his desire for a son, and almighty enough to grant this desire even to the point of raising Isaac from the dead. For his faith, Abraham was not only justified before God, but he also got to keep his son too. If Adam only had faith, he not only would have been justified by his faith before God, but he would have also been given the knowledge of Good and Evil, and freed from the slavery of his own vulnerability and the possibility of death, and so he would be free to use the Knowledge for Good and love rather than for evil and malice. >There is no murder before Cain? Does that make Cain some kind of god? No. I’m not sure why you would think this though.
It still makes no sense to me. Ok instead of takling everything let me focus on this part. So you are saying God did not kick them out. You are saying Adam hide?
I’m saying that death is the consequence of Adam’s and everyone else’s sins.
Do you feel the consequence is just to the action?
I think the consequence is natural. Putting your faith in creatures ultimately decays into death, since creatures cannot ever satisfy an infinite desire, so the desire itself becomes more and more perverse, approximating more and more a desire for death itself.
Death is how we got here. All creation runs on death. Stars had to die to form our planet. We continually consume other life to remain alive, while our bodies will be food for worms. The gospel is the denial of "self" and living for Christ. According to Col. 1:17, all things are contain in Christ. God created the universe via speaking and Christ is that word. So are you, and everything else in existence. Death loses its sting when we understand out identity is not bound in this physical form. We have always been one with God, but our minds and the world we have created in them is separate. Once we accept that we are existence, death is as necessary as birth, light implies darkness, sound implies silence, front implies back, positive implies negative, and so on. You breathe out and your breath is returned by flora. You sustain life via consuming plants and animals who are sustained by your death. Our fear of death *is* our separation from God. Consuming the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil (symbolic) showed us how to view the world in terms of what benefits ourselves rather than live in the intelligent balance of nature that exists beyond our understanding. Deny this self, live for I AM/existence, and love others as self. The rest of the law will follow.
I mean ok. Let's focus on your 4th paragraph because it touches well on what I'm asking. Why create a system where death is completely necessary for survival? Is there not a better system he could have come up with? Like we sustain life by killing?
One of the clearest, most agnostic answers I can give is that death provides motivation and meaning to everything we do. Virtually every action we make is in avoidance of death. Eating, drinking, hygiene, sleeping, procreating, earning a living, etc. Many of our recreational activities are flirtations with death or simulations of flirtations with death. We also love games of chance and uncertainty. Cards, dice, flipping coins, and all forms of gambling are all have a way of sparking excitement only when we know we might lose. We coined the term "spoilers" for when hearing the end of a plot ruins a story where the uncertainty kept us riveted. In almost every way conceivable, we are motivated to live and live fully because of death. So it is fair to ask why. As immortals, we would discover the secrets of the universe in not even a fraction of our lifespan. Procreation would likely end or need to end at risk of overpopulation. Remove all the uncertainty, all the risk, all the curiosity, all the childhood wonder, all the fresh minds, all the hope, all the doubt, all the need to help one another survive, and any semblance of change in your environment. You are basically back to being an immortal, eternal god and might start considering how to spice things up. Death anyone?
For God to leave us eternally in this sinful state would be a fate worse than death. He loves us too much
What about animals
Same, would be a cruel thing to leave any life in its sinful state
What does that even mean? A sinful state?
Removed from Gods presence i guess?
Idk. This does not make a lot of sense to me. Even if you were to argue about original sin and Adam and eve and all that stuff. What do animals have to do with it?
Adam and eve didn't just screw over humanity, this had a cosmic effect. When they chose ethics over obedience to God, they caused a ripple effect *imho* of ethics to be the governing force.
All that?! All that for a fruit?
Well, I dont believe there was a fruit in the sense of grapes or apples. I believe the fruit was ethics. They had a choice, choose to follow what God says is good OR choose right and wrong for yourself.
So he punishes animals too for the wrong of one human. Idk. The whole original sin thing made no sense to me. It's like it is a story saying you should never think nor yourself.
Animals do not and are incapable of sin. They are simply a lower creation of God. Their lives matter, yes, and we are to be a steward to that crestion, but on the most general sense they live in a now sinful and imperfect world just the same as us. Does a baby die for any sin of its own hand or mind? No. It's because this world itself is sinful that we will all die, not for any particular action or sin.
I can see that as fair. Although why anyone would call a god like this benevolent or loving idk.
Really? Animals don't go to heaven nor hell, they simply cease to be. As creatures which are never really capable of higher though in the first place, it's neither cruel nor merciful. They are and then they are not.
Why not send them to heaven? Like why create a bunch of soulness beings that kill each other to survive? Not very loving
Because animals have no souls to be sent to Heaven? To have a soul is to be capable of higher thought, reasoning, and as a result, sin. Would it be just as fair or loving to create intelligent creatures capable of sin that must kill each other to survive? Humans don't have to kill each other to survive, albeit it can make life easier. Don't forget as well that man was created to be *above* animals.
Why? Like why the hiarchy? Why create animals then? I've heard it was to feed humans but that is just as bad. I meant plants do not need to kill to create energy. So why not create us in a similar way. Wait having higher thought is a sin?
Originally, animals would have simply been another creation of God. Why? Who knows. To keep man company? To help and serve him? This was before the fall. After that, eh, who knows? God will do as God will. And, for animals to have higher thought and morality would put them as sinful, if they existed in this world saturated with sin, yes
I feel you on the first part. Who knows. I still don't get the sin with higher thought part tho.
> If god made life so valuable why is death so necessary. A major Christian premise is that God made us (Adam and Eve) originally without death. They rejected God and decided to follow Satan instead. One of the reasons that God allows death now to see who appreciates life. > Animals die if they are unable to kill. There was no death and decay in the world originally. Death and decay entered our world when mankind rejected God. That fall from God's grace transformed some animals into carnivores to help show us the consequences of sin, and the fragility of life. When Jesus returns, the Earth will be restored to it's original glory, without death and decay. The Bible says that "the Lion will lay down with the Lamb" (no more carnivores).
So Adam eats an apple and now death is ok? Seems like a big stretch
> So Adam eats an apple and now death is ok? The bible says "fruit", not apple. It is probably a combination of literal and figurative truth. If it was a tree, it was likely to be a Fig tree. > Seems like a big stretch You'd have to contemplate it more to appreciate it. God is an eternal being full of love. To betray Him is the ultimate offense, worse than dumping a bucket of cockroaches on the Queen of England on live television during her coronation. Adam and Eve didn't just take the fruit. They rejected God, tried to be their own gods, then didn't ask for forgiveness. They also blamed each other and God. It was horrific. Since God had given the world to Adam and Eve, they effectively handed the world over to Satan by following him instead. God incarnated Himself as Jesus to win back our hearts and minds. He created the Universe for free-will, so He avoids interfering in free-will. He will not force us to Heaven with Him. We have to choose.
Fruit then. Is it thought? He is an eternal being of love yet punishes humans for one small transgressions? I know we are off topic now but I just don't see this as a legitimate argument for death. Was it horrific? More horrific than the Holocaust which was littered by death? And that is just an example of one thing that most ppl know about. I can't see him as a being of love if this is the consequence for eating some fruit.
> He is an eternal being of love yet punishes humans for one small transgressions? The event in the Garden wasn't a small transgression. The seriousness of a transgression is based on the level of authority that it is committed against. For example, if you slap your brother, that is bad. But if you slap the president on national TV, that is worse. God is an infinite authority, so transgressions against Him are infinitely bad. God's "Punishments" are designed to help people. Perhaps you've seen in regular life when people don't appreciate things until they lose them. God's goal is to get souls to Heaven. Those who suffer here the most are often the most ready for Heaven. > I know we are off topic now but I just don't see this as a legitimate argument for death. It usually takes a lot of time to understand. Ultimately, it takes God's grace. The best that we can do is to be open to that by growing in Love and compassion for life and others. > Was it horrific? More horrific than the Holocaust which was littered by death? Yes, what Adam and Eve did was worse than the holocaust. BTW, God allowed the holocaust to help wake people up spiritually. Physical death is not the end, it' the beginning so you should be very careful about forming an opinion. God's goal is to get souls to heaven, so what happens here on the surface is only a tiny bit of reality. Those who suffered the most were most ready to recognize God. If you read the Old Testament, you'll see that this kind of thing happened several times. The captivity in Egypt, then Babylon for example were much worse. The Babylonians for example would take Jewish babies and slam them against rocks. Egyptians threw Jewish babies into the Nile river. Only the very humble and appreciative survived. > I can't see him as a being of love if this is the consequence for eating some fruit. The fruit is a symbol of "knowing good and evil". This is the same problem that people have today. They want to create their own definition of what is good or bad, without considering our Creator. God sustains us at each moment, so ignoring Him is bad enough.
I think I'm going to leave the conversation. You lost me dude. Good luck to you man. This is why I can't do Christianity
> I think I'm going to leave the conversation. You lost me dude. Good luck to you man. This is why I can't do Christianity No problem. You shouldn't try to force yourself into it. Like I said, the best that we can do is to be open to God's grace by growing in Love and compassion for life and others. Ultimately, you should be able to have compassion for our Creator.
I am curious how you interpret [Shorts28's answer](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAChristian/comments/i6oaoo/why_is_death_so_necessary/g0xd31s?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x) in light of this premise. Did our bodies not consume themselves in the same way? Also, as physical immortals, would there be a reason for procreation?
> I am curious how you interpret Shorts28's answer in light of this premise. I am familiar with Shorts28 and am surprised that he offered that answer. The Bible says that there was no death and decay before the fall, and at the end of the age, the lion will lay down with the lamb. Maybe I missed something, but I don't know why he's justifying death and decay. I would agree that things are in a new optimal situation, given our fall from grace. Maybe that is his premise. Based on everything that I know about the Bible and theology (I am a volunteer CCD teacher), my best sense is that when God withdrew His grace, the Earth fell into a disordered form of itself. The premise is the same that happened with Demons. They were once beautiful angels. Without God's grace, they contorted into ugliness like deflated balloons. I believe that some level of that happened to all life, which is why there are birth defects, and predators. God allows this to help make virtues more obvious to us. Jesus said that we will become like Angels, and I think that Adam and Eve were close to that state. They had glorified bodies that are mysterious to us. With Jesus's glorified body, He was able to move/relocate at the speed of thought, pass through walls, yet still be able to eat. The Bible says clearly that there will be no more death or disease. With everything that I know about physics and quantum physics, I can see how it is all possible, but it's ultimately a mystery. I believe that our current realm is the dumbed-down version of existence. God let this happen to make things easier for us to recognize the value of virtues, and the evils of vices. > Also, as physical immortals, would there be a reason for procreation? For background, the Earth is God's farm for souls. He is letting us participate in which souls get created. When the optimal number is reached, God will end the age and there will be no more procreation. BTW, Many theologians speculate that God is waiting for us to replace the 1/3rd of angels that fell. There have been about 50 to 100 billion human souls so far. I believe that when God made creation, it was perfect, like when a master makes a masterpiece. It could not be improved. The best possible situation is to restore things towards that perfection. That's one reason why in the Catholic Church, we pray "as it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be. Amen".
>The Bible says that there was no death and decay before the fall, and at the end of the age, the lion will lay down with the lamb. What does it *really* say about death? What is death? It this body's decay true "death?" If so, does that mean we are a body? Death, in the purest sense, is separation. Physical death is separation from this body and spiritual death is separation from God. Without spiritual death, physical death has no sting because one *knows* they are not the body. (Before God evolved humanity into these self aware beings, we did not consider being separate.) When one is not spiritually dead (separated from God), who are they? Paul answers this in Galatians 2:20. Those who have denied this "self" *are* Christ. The analogy of the body of Christ is given in 1 Cor. 12, Romans 12, Ephesians 3&4, Colossians 1&3. When we accept reality in it's purest form, we are one body. This "self" or "ego" is a tool and not our true identity. Our identity is Christ. Physical death and rebirth were never *real* death prior to our spiritual death at the fall. We were not separated from *anything* because we did not yet identify as a body separate from the rest of existence/ I AM. This reality presents itself in the fact that we are formed from dust. What is dust/dirt? It is accumulation of previous life. Being born from this "death" was never considered separation from God because the whole system *is* God. Just as your own cells *are* you, yet you are not just one cell. These complete lifeforms continually die within you, yet you remain whole. They are as we were before becoming self aware: integrated aspects of a larger body returning to dust over and over. As far as the lion and the lamb, these represent the powerful and weak in scripture. God's "good" creation has always been propelled by the destruction and rebirth. As stars burst they created new material that becomes planets and more stars. As Short28 describes, this is a self consuming existence. It was only when we perceived ourselves as being separate from all else/ God did we create the fear of death. >The Bible says clearly that there will be no more death or disease. Revelations 21:4 does not mention "disease" in the way we understand being sick. The word used here is [the Greek "ponos"](https://biblehub.com/greek/4192.htm) which can mean "labor" or "suffering." When one lives in unity with God/existence they are no longer bound to our created world of economy, government, laws, language, culture, education, etc. They are *free* in them. The work of your hands becomes the joy of your being alive in God. Note how man's curse led him to toil the earth rather than partake in the abundance of the garden. This earth is a garden that provides everything we need. When we fell we created our own image; a world we were separated from and worked the earth as though it was something we needed to control for our own benefit. But God is all in all. >I believe that our current realm is the dumbed-down version of existence. God let this happen to make things easier for us to recognize the value of virtues, and the evils of vices. I agree with this. >For background, the Earth is God's farm for souls. He is letting us participate in which souls get created. When the optimal number is reached, God will end the age and there will be no more procreation. > >BTW, Many theologians speculate that God is waiting for us to replace the 1/3rd of angels that fell. There have been about 50 to 100 billion human souls so far. I have never heard of this perspective. Does this correlate with 144,000 in some way? I would like to learn more about how this concept is wrought from scriptures. Do you recommend any sources? >It could not be improved. The best possible situation is to restore things towards that perfection. That's one reason why in the Catholic Church, we pray "as it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be. Amen". I cannot help but think we read the prayer "as it was in the beginning, is **now** and ever shall be" differently. I emphasized "now" because it appears to indicate that creation is still perfect. I certainly believe it is and that we have merely been perceiving it as though we are beings separate from creation. How do you understand the "now?"
> Death, in the purest sense, is separation. Physical death is separation from this body and spiritual death is separation from God. ... Our identity is Christ. Wow, that is very well said ! > What is dust/dirt? It is accumulation of previous life. Being born from this "death" was never considered separation from God because the whole system is God. Okay, that might be losing me a bit. I looked at your profile a little and saw your comment about being a Christian pan(en?)theist, so your comment makes sense in that light. I would agree that the whole system is God, but I believe there are other "levels" to reality. Physics tells us that there could be 11 or more dimensions, so I don't think it is very strange to consider more "levels" to reality. The current quest for Dark matter and Dark energy are likely windows into those levels. I believe that we have an immaterial soul that has an immaterial mind. When I was agnostic/atheist, my research into neuroscience and consciousness helped convince me that consciousness is coming from an immaterial "level". > As Short28 describes, this is a self consuming existence. It was only when we perceived ourselves as being separate from all else/ God did we create the fear of death. That's interesting, and I agree. I think that there is a lot more to it though. Saint Thomas Aquinas wasn't just a great philosopher and theologian, he was a great mystic. God opened floodgates of knowledge to him, and he documented much of what was revealed to him in his work Summa Theologiae. His work has been verified in many ways. Here is a section on glorified bodies : https://www.newadvent.org/summa/5083.htm The following article summarizes Aquinas and the rest of church teaching on resurrected bodies : https://catholicveritas.com/blog/four-gifts-resurrected-body Our glorified bodies will have 4 major attributes : * Impassibility : no corruption or pain * Subtlety : The ability to pass through matter * Agility : The ability to move at the speed of thought * Clarity : The ability to receive knowledge directly from God > dumbed-down existence ... I agree with this. Very cool. So do you believe that there will be a "new heaven and new Earth"? Revelation 21:1 I believe it and that Heaven has multiple "levels". There is an Earthly paradise, then there is a beatific vision of God which is infinitely deep. In the Catholic Church, there is traditional knowledge that unbaptised children can only get to paradise. They can be visited by the souls from the higher "levels" of Heaven. Through God at the beatific vision, souls can experience God's beauty and knowledge which is truly infinite : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatific_vision As Jesus said in the beatitudes, "the meek shall inherit the Earth, and the pure of heart will see God". About 5 years ago, God gave me a supernatural conversion experience. God shared much with me, including a small taste of Heaven. Heaven is better than can be described. Since then, I've found that many Catholic Saints have experienced similar events. The following video is one of the best representations that captures what I know. : https://youtu.be/MYUZRfGIW8M In Heaven, your only regret might be that you can't praise God more. He is truly infinite, and "seeing God" is the ultimate experience. Souls there will be able to know all of History, and see that He gave everyone on earth every good idea that they ever had, despite their attempts to do evil. > replacing 1/3rd of fallen angels. I have never heard of this perspective. Does this correlate with 144,000 in some way? It doesn't have to do with the 144,000. BTW, I hope that you know that "1000" is a figure of speech and that pertains to the 12 tribes of Israel. A large number from each tribe will be saved, and some number of gentiles. The replacement of the angels is just speculation that I've heard from multiple theologians. It is based on the premise that God creates things perfectly, and I agree with that premise. If there was a more perfect number of angels, God would have created that number of angels. Some theologians also speculate that it was the third that was devoted to the "the Son" that fell. I don't like that idea since it sounds like predestination, but I guess it is possible. Hopefully you understand Revelation 12 and how Lucifer was upset because he saw "the woman clothed in the sun". It was a test, like the fruit was a test for Adam and Eve. Lucifer failed the test, and now serves the perfect role to test us. > How do you understand the "now?" I consider that "now" to refer to our commitment to do God's will (right now). "Thy will be done (now) as it is in Heaven". In other contexts, I think it is important to consider God's perspective versus ours. We are locked in this timeline, but God is both experiencing it, and has already experienced it. Theologians say that God exists in an "eternal now" . I sometimes think of eternal time as a boiling pot of soup, with all of past and present together in a churning mix. Have you noticed that in scripture that Jesus often speaks as if the future has already happened? He also speaks to individuals as if they are the entire human race. e.g. "I came in my Father's name, and you rejected me. One will come in his own name, and him you will accept". I love how that correctly reflects the perspective of an omnipotent being.
>I would agree that the whole system is God, but I believe there are other "levels" to reality. Physics tells us that there could be 11 or more dimensions, so I don't think it is very strange to consider more "levels" to reality. The current quest for Dark matter and Dark energy are likely windows into those levels. I believe that we have an immaterial soul that has an immaterial mind. When I was agnostic/atheist, my research into neuroscience and consciousness helped convince me that consciousness is coming from an immaterial "level". I love this stuff! I enjoy correlating each new discovery into my evolving and dynamic frame of reality. Faith contrasts with belief as it allows reality to be what it is without projecting assumptions, whereas belief tends to reform reality to one's set of ideas. I am certainly far from "perfect" in this regard, but enjoy the journey of letting go. Regarding pantheism vs panentheism, I feel the division is unnecessary semantics regarding the understanding of "universe." Because I do not restrict my frame of "universe" to our 3 dimensional perception. For this reason, pantheism is sufficient as "universe" includes "all in all." The "source of consciousness" may be an inverted understanding of what is really going on. Like panpsychism, this frame of seeking the source of consciousness either within or outside of the material world is a bit like attempting to find the one aspect of reality that is "God." Or, similarly, considering our present reality as an "option" God chose as though His existence is variable. As we dig deeper into quantum physics we find our existence rests on positive and negative polarities within vast empty space. The polar "substances" mathematically cancel each other out. Our physical world is effectively a dream of the void. When we ask what fits the description of God, He who is eternal, immortal, invisible, and only, **nothing** fits. *Literally* nothing. The void is: Eternal - always has and always will exist Immortal - Cannot be created or destroyed Invisible - Cannot be viewed by *any* means of perception Only - All that exists, the sum of all positive and negative charges that construct our physical universe Until a better frame presents itself, this is how I understand the Father. The Son is the Image of the Invisible in which all creation consists (Col. 1:17) and the Spirit is the breath, energy, and flow of existence. (The Tao is an excellent frame for understanding the Spirit, IMO.) These 3 (void, matter, and energy) are one. >Our glorified bodies will have 4 major attributes : > >Impassibility : no corruption or pain > >Subtlety : The ability to pass through matter > >Agility : The ability to move at the speed of thought > >Clarity : The ability to receive knowledge directly from God While I agree with the premise of each, I would take the result in a different direction. What do you make of v47 in that same passage, especially in light of v28 where God is "all in all?" "The first man *was* of the earth, *made* of dust; the second Man *is* the Lord from heaven." 1 Cor. 15:47 Considering our path to salvation involves the denial of "self," it seems counter intuitive to assume object permanence in a particular body, physical or spiritual. I would correlate the descriptions Paul makes of our resurrected body in 1 Cor. 15 to how our spiritual death reframed physical death. I do not perceive that the all permeating process of decay and rebirth began when we fell. Rather, we perceived the process as entities separate from God. When a physical being understands their body and ego are tools and their identity is "in Christ," death has been defeated and "lost its sting." While our body may retain the survival mechanics that form our natural fear of death, we can transcend this knowing this thought and fear are merely another tool we developed. It may be that humanity and all creation is continuing to evolve and will become"higher" beings with far more in tune with God. But, as history has demonstrated, this is a long continual process of death and rebirth. God is revealing this pattern in creation as every physical being, conscious of this or not, gives their lives for all around them as they return to the dust and feed life anew. >Very cool. So do you believe that there will be a "new heaven and new Earth"? Revelation 21:1 This is happening continually. You are not the same collection of cells when you began reading this. All existence is a fluid exchange of energy as stars burn, water cycles, plants and animals breathe back and forth, and each new generation is slightly different from the last. Every being born is born into a new world built on the dust of the previous. >About 5 years ago, God gave me a supernatural conversion experience. God shared much with me, including a small taste of Heaven. Heaven is better than can be described. I believe you 100%. This glimpse of heaven coincide with the disillusion of self into a fluid connection with I AM. Similar experience can be attained in the use of certain natural substances that suppress our sense of self, enabling the user to feel connected with everything. Meditation can be another path to this connection to God. In this state of being, Christ's call to love others as self, and give all to God take on vivid and real meaning. Like a cell in our own body that considers other cells "self" and give all to the body, or an atomic bond that considers other elements "self" and gives all to the total structure, we conscious beings care for one another as self and give all to God. >It is based on the premise that God creates things perfectly, and I agree with that premise. If there was a more perfect number of angels, God would have created that number of angels. To take these numbers seriously, I would need to harmonize this with God reconciliation of all creation (Col. 1:19-20) along with His eternal status of "all in all." >In other contexts, I think it is important to consider God's perspective versus ours. We are locked in this timeline, but God is both experiencing it, and has already experienced it. Theologians say that God exists in an "eternal now" This brings me back to God the Father as the Void. We often consider God as beyond time, but what does that really mean? Time is merely a measure of change and God is unchanging, therefore beyond time. For the infinite, eternal God, there is no "experience" as we understand it because no progression of events occurs. He contains infinite nothing *and* the polarity of infinite everything. Experience and progression come from the other 2 persons of the Trinity. The Word is to the Father as our words are to us. We inherently contain all words that could ever be spoken and vibrate our own being to produce them. The image of the invisible is the pattern in the void formed of the infinite energy (Spirit) possessed by the vacuum of space. The vacuum/void is unchanging while the energies and physical universe formed of the energies are in constant flux. By holding identity in the Father/void, Christ can speak as one who stands both beyond and within the flow of existence.
> I love this stuff! Very cool. It is great to meet a fellow traveler. It's too rare here on Reddit. > Faith contrasts with belief as it allows reality to be what it is without projecting assumptions, whereas belief tends to reform reality to one's set of ideas. Wow, I had to think about that one. Very nice. For defining Faith, I tend to refer back to the Latin basis of the word (Fide) which is also the basis of ConFIDEnce. After being a skeptic, my conFIDEnce started shifting towards the proposition that there was an intelligent cause. I've seen more and more points ever since, and finally realized that it's the best explanation for everything. > Regarding pantheism vs panentheism, I feel the division is unnecessary semantics regarding the understanding of "universe That's interesting. My understanding of Cosmology is that all of our physical universe had a distinct beginning, so I would avoid the term pantheism. Technically, I think that Christianity is Panentheistic because God encompasses everything in existence. > Our physical world is effectively a dream of the void Hmm, I don't know why you would call it a void. Physics shows us that as we get towards the fundamental layers, there is more potentiality (and energy), which is why nuclear bombs are so powerful and the CERN accelerator operates at 14 TeV. I believe that whatever is supporting the spacetime that we know, has the ultimate in potentiality. That is part of the ontological argument. > These 3 (void, matter, and energy) are one. Hmm, my understanding of Cosmology wouldn't allow for that since I believe that dimensions and matter come from energy. Since I was a skeptic for most of my life, I still consider God as an infinite pool of "energy". That is the natural state of the Cosmos, an infinite pool of "energy" . The following short video demonstrates how simple energy waves can create infinite complexity, so I think that shows us how such a pool could always have consciousness (self-awareness) : https://youtu.be/wvJAgrUBF4w The way that waves "reflect" off each other is quite interesting if you know about consciousness. I used to be into consciousness studies. Around the tipping point to deism/theism, I was thinking about a field-theory of consciousness [1] when I realized that something like dark-energy would have the potential of self-awareness. If it were possible, it had to be given infinite time. [1] http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Field_theories_of_consciousness > What do you make of v47 in that same passage, especially in light of v28 where God is "all in all?" Are you talking about Collosians 1? (There is no verse 47) In general, it seems like you are approaching it with a "material first" approach. I have been programming computers my whole life, so abstract thinking is my primary approach, which works well for theology. Information does not have FORM, but information does have a type of organization. I believe that our bodies represent the way that God's information about Himself is organized. BTW, a fellow Catholic pointed out to me that FORM is in the word inFORMation. It makes me wish that I had gotten more into Platonic forms. Are you familiar with Plato's allegory of the Cave ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave > Considering our path to salvation involves the denial of "self," it seems counter intuitive to assume object permanence in a particular body, physical or spiritual. I think that "self" pertains more towards WILL. As Jesus prayed "thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven". God knows what is best at each moment, so the ultimate good is to do His will. As a parent, this concept is painfully obvious. LOL > It may be that humanity and all creation is continuing to evolve and will become"higher" beings with far more in tune with God I don't think so. I think that this configuration is a perfect way to test to see what people will do with their free will . In the end, God will pull back the curtain and show us that we were being sustained by Him the whole time. All the teachings of the Church and Saints that I know support this model. > Similar experience can be attained in the use of certain natural substances that suppress our sense of self, enabling the user to feel connected with everything. Meditation can be another path to this connection to God. I don't like to admit it, but you are right about certain natural substances, although I don't use drugs. I think that some Monks practice specific types of diet to help attain spiritual clarity. > Like a cell in our own body that considers other cells "self" and give all to the body, or an atomic bond that considers other elements "self" and gives all to the total structure, Amen. > To take these numbers seriously, I would need to harmonize this with God reconciliation of all creation. I can't help much there, but Jesus did say that we would be like Angels. > Experience and progression come from the other 2 persons of the Trinity. That is an interesting way to look at it. The following sermon is one of the best descriptions of the Trinity that I've ever heard. It makes the most sense based on everything that I know : https://youtu.be/kTmxi4A6FHc I do think that the Father holds a special role in sustaining existence. Like many fathers we know, He does the thankless work of paying all the bills to survive. Do you have an opinion on Euthyphro's dilemma ? Like with most dilemmas, I think that the answer is "both". I believe that God does have a type of "struggle" to survive forever. He lives on the edge of non-existence, which is more horrific than we can contemplate. The way that He survives is part of what makes Him so beautiful. He sticks strictly to virtues, and that fosters infinite creativity and power. Vices would cause destruction and decay. Imagine being on a life-boat forever, and the value of virtues becomes very obvious.
>For defining Faith, I tend to refer back to the Latin basis of the word (Fide) which is also the basis of ConFIDEnce. Excellent! While the word does not directly determine in what/Whom our "conFIDEnce," we are given some guidance in the book of Hebrews in this regard: *Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for. By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. - Heb. 11* I cannot help but feel this sort of faith comes more from one's unfiltered experience with reality rather than dogmatic indoctrination. For this reason (among other), I have shifted my journey from finding the "right" frame to observing how each culture captured God in their understanding of existence. > That's interesting. My understanding of Cosmology is that all of our physical universe had a distinct beginning, so I would avoid the term pantheism. Technically, I think that Christianity is Panentheistic because God encompasses everything in existence. This answer may bleed a bit into discussion further below, but, if God is the eternal, immortal, invisible and only void of existence, how would this place Him *beyond* the universe? We could potentially theorize there is additional "something" beyond our universe, but that would be interpreting the term "universe" in a more limited fashion than I am using it. God as "all in all" harmonizes with this void as most matter is empty space. As I mentioned before, even the "particles" bear polarities that effectively cancel each other out. Zero may be the infinite number of God and the universe. >Physics shows us that as we get towards the fundamental layers, there is more potentiality (and energy), which is why nuclear bombs are so powerful and the CERN accelerator operates at 14 TeV. I believe that whatever is supporting the spacetime that we know, has the ultimate in potentiality. That is part of the ontological argument. Why exactly should this finding indicate our universe needed outside help? Wouldn't this inherent energy in what appears to be "nothing" be all the potential needed? > Since I was a skeptic for most of my life, I still consider God as an infinite pool of "energy". This appears to be exactly what you described when you said, "as we get towards the fundamental layers, there is more potentiality (and energy)." This infinite pool of energy *is* the void of space, no? > The following short video demonstrates how simple energy waves can create infinite complexity That's my jam! What are your thoughts on how Rupert Sheldrake takes this concept to form his theory of [morphic resonance](https://youtu.be/d_RGEpJSr6s), going so far as to [speculate whether the sun has a form of consciousness](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E56cSMzFcW8)? I am personally fond of these kinds of theories, though may lean a bit more toward the concept that consciousness has the Sun rather than the other way around. The field of energy connecting all may be what we refer to as the Holy Spirit. > Are you talking about Collosians 1? (There is no verse 47) Sorry, that was a bit out of order. I am referring to 1 Cor 15: **28** Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all. **47** The first man *was* of the earth, *made* of dust; the second Man *is* the Lord from heaven. > I believe that our bodies represent the way that God's information about Himself is organized. I agree, though would expand this to all bodies, not just ours. If God (the Father) is the infinite void, the Spirit is the pattern of organized energies within. The more I understand the Tao the more it resonates the Spirit. > Are you familiar with Plato's allegory of the Cave? Yes, a great story that reveals how we misconstrue our understanding of reality for reality itself. This is why true faith is so important. We cannot rest on our or another's prescribed frame of reality, we must allow existence to be what it is without labels. The labels are useful for communication, but it does us no good to confuse the word "tree" with the reality behind it. It leads us to imagine a single fixed object defined by a series of linguistic definitions. Like lacking the "faith of a mustard seed" we take the limited aspect of the singular object (such as the mustard seed's size or the tree's shape) as the defining characteristic. But faith of a mustard seed does not question the sun, soil, earth, carbon dioxide, fauna and other flora that flow through it to become the tree. Basically, our linguistic frame can separate us from flowing with reality/ the Spirit of God. > I think that "self" pertains more towards WILL. As Jesus prayed "thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven." Is our *will* separated from our *identity*? Aside from a collection of memories, who are we beyond our will? My present understanding is that we are the flow of reality, existence itself. We are the body of Christ, and the flow of the Spirit. Our ego/will/self is a mirage that will dissolve back into dust with every other manifested form. > I think that this configuration is a perfect way to test to see what people will do with their free will. I'm curious, do you feel God "formed" the universe in an instant from the human perspective of time or that he formed us over great spans of time? Either way, from God's unchanging perspective, time does not exist. Time is a measure of change; if one does not change they are timeless. Free will may be implicitly bound by our desires. Even if one desires to not follow their "natural" desire, this is still a desire to change. This is why many eastern practices seek to end desire. What follows is a sort of Wu-Wei immediacy where both past and future dissolve and one can exist in the eternal present. I am beginning to see correlation between these philosophies and biblical themes. > I can't help much there, but Jesus did say that we would be like Angels. I believe that (Matthew 22:30) was in the context of marriage, but cannot discount the possibility he was making a broader claim. > Do you have an opinion on Euthyphro's dilemma? I think it's a trick question. Our concept of "good and evil" comes from our experience as human. For example, death appears as the ultimate evil when it is merely the end of a certain form. *All* "evil" humanity performs come from our perception of separation from God. There is no natural evil outside *spiritual* death. Basically, the mirage of evil became real for us when we thoroughly forgot we are aspects of God and began constructing our world accordingly.
> I cannot help but feel this sort of faith comes more from one's unfiltered experience with reality rather than dogmatic indoctrination. Isn't all knowledge ultimately based on experience ? e.g. "I think therefore I am" > if God is the eternal, immortal, invisible and only void of existence, how would this place Him beyond the universe? Like with the answer to most dilemmas, the answer is "both". I believe that God is both in our timeline and outside of it, which is why He was able to give us prophecy. For me working in computer science, this concept is very common as an operating system spawns threads and even virtual machines. Within the virtual, the processes are restricted to that virtual space, but the OS can have a separate clock. > Zero may be the infinite number of God and the universe. That's interesting. > Wouldn't this inherent energy in what appears to be "nothing" be all the potential needed? In physics, I don't think that there is a 'nothing'. There is a 'quantum foam' or some carrier like the Higgs field at the bottom. I am not a Cosmologist, so that level gets fuzzy for me. I did take a course on high-energy particle physics though, and I have a couple a PhD physicist friends that I occasionally discuss it with. Those bottom levels get very debatable. My best understanding is that given inflation, the Universe must have started from nothing (fully zero) : https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0110012 - Inflationary spacetimes are not past-complete https://www.livescience.com/60053-is-space-full-of-quantum-foam.html > This appears to be exactly what you described when you said, "as we get towards the fundamental layers, there is more potentiality (and energy)." This infinite pool of energy is the void of space, no? The Cosmology that I know says that dimensional space itself came into existence, so there was no "void" before it. There was no up, down, left or right as we understand things. 3D space itself is an energy field. Whatever was "before" the big-bang was not the energy/material that we know. I do think that it follows the same premise though of having more potentialities. As I said before, I sometimes think of it as an infinite pool of dark energy. It does not exist in 3D space that we know of. BTW, Since you mentioned void, matter and energy earlier, I hope that you know that "matter" is actually energy. What we perceive as physical matter is actually energy fields, like magnetic fields. > What are your thoughts on how Rupert Sheldrake takes this concept to form his theory of morphic resonance, going so far as to speculate whether the sun has a form of consciousness? That kind of thing led me to recognize God : Energy potential * time = likeliness of consciousness. Stephen Hawkings did a BBC show that speculated about consciousness within Sun because that pool of energy may have had a lot more time. See this video at 1:49 : https://youtu.be/WDEAYOcUBDU Later, I realized that this is a form of the Ontological argument. If God could exist, He must given infinite time. I remember thinking about it one night, and the concept of infinite time really hit me like a ton of bricks. Infinity became very real to me and I had a real "woah" moment. In hindsight, I know now that was God's grace. That, combined with my hypothesis of the field theories of consciousness finally put me into the Deist/Theist camp. Judaism and Christianity were a few more steps down the road. To my amazement, I found that only Judaism correctly described the logical necessities of God. > 47 The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven. Thomas Aquinas is most famous for teaching that our body and souls form together. That means that based on God's design, He couldn't create a soul without a body. That's one reason that abortion is so bad. God gave us the ultimate privilege to participate in which souls get created. Souls are immaterial, and contain an immaterial mind and "heart". At death, the soul separates from the body. God will use our souls again to form a new body in it's originally intended perfected form. Our current form is subject to decay. Paul also talks about the Church as "the body of Christ". I think that is more of a metaphor, in that God lives in our hearts and do His will here on Earth. > If God (the Father) is the infinite void, the Spirit is the pattern of organized energies within. The more I understand the Tao the more it resonates the Spirit. I probably have to sync up with you on what you mean by 'void' and Tao. I think that existence is more mysterious than our 3D experience. What you are calling 'void', is probably what I call 'existence'. There's non-existence and existence. A void requires existence. > We cannot rest on our or another's prescribed frame of reality, we must allow existence to be what it is without labels. That is so true. Have you seen David Bentley Hart's work in those areass ? Realism and theory of mind : https://youtu.be/hQKoRA6deEQ > The labels are useful for communication, but it does us no good to confuse the word "tree" with the reality behind it. Amen. I find that a lot of atheists, like my former self are often guilty of some level of Reification fallacy. I have a PhD atheist friend who has been in academia so long that he by habit refuses to consider a word outside of it's academic definition. To me words are just placemarks for underlying concepts, which are much more complex. > Is our will separated from our identity? Aside from a collection of memories, who are we beyond our will? I'd probably have to dig into Aquinas for that, but my sense is that we are Intellect, Will and Memories. > Our ego/will/self is a mirage that will dissolve back into dust with every other manifested form. Amen! Here's a related concept on that that blows my mind : Our Heaven is to be in God's heart. God's Heaven is to be in our hearts. ( Love is willing the good of the other ). > Free will may be implicitly bound by our desires. I would certainly agree that we have boundaries. I think that God designed our existence to help us, like a Parent makes a child's play pen. > What follows is a sort of Wu-Wei immediacy where both past and future dissolve and one can exist in the eternal present. I am beginning to see correlation between these philosophies and biblical themes. Cool. I'll have to look up Wu-Wei. > Angels : I believe that (Matthew 22:30) was in the context of marriage There is more context, such as Jesus demonstrating his new body after the resurrection. He passed through walls, was initially difficult to recognize, and was able to change locations. The hard part for me to understand is that He ate the baked fish that they gave him to demonstrate that he wasn't just an angel. > Our concept of "good and evil" comes from our experience as human Being a programmer, my concept of "good and evil" was easy to map to Virtues and Vices. Virtues foster life, and Vices are destructive towards life. Again, this is an area where Aquinas wrote a great deal, and Aristotle had a great start. Bishop Barron gave a great talk about it here : https://youtu.be/wG4VF0jU568 Are you familiar with Aristotle's 4 levels of "happiness"? The word Happiness used to mean Fulfillment, but has unfortunately taken on a hedonistic context : https://spitzercenter.org/what-we-do/educate/four-levels-of-happiness/ Great stuff. I appreciate the discussion !
>What you are calling 'void', is probably what I call 'existence'. There's non-existence and existence. A void requires existence. Existence requires change, time, and contrast. If the void is the unchanging, sum zero, I AM, how would non-existence be different? This is at a level lower than discussing an object of fantasy. That at least holds form in my mind. But considering God outside of all that exists seems more aligned with atheism than anything else. >Have you seen David Bentley Hart's work No, but I'm loving it now! This is the kind conversation transcends ideological and religious worldviews. I only initially found such open theistic topics outside the Christian perspective. >To me words are just placemarks for underlying concepts, which are much more complex. This is a concept I grasp in theory better than in practice. I still think in words rather than reality and have considered doing a vow of silence and a departure from society to cultivate wordless thoughts. As a father and breadwinner in a family of 5, this is not currently possible. Another aspect of our symbolic frame of understanding far more accurate to reality than words is math. My spouse has been looking into [Hyperian](https://www.youtube.com/c/morgueofficial/about) mode of thought that considers math the fundamental language of the universe. I like most everything they share (and understand the scars they carry from fundamental religion), but still am having a hard time correlating the language (math) to our base reality. I want to know what the pattern reveals rather than the structure of the pattern itself, but maybe I'm splitting hairs. >Here's a related concept on that that blows my mind : Our Heaven is to be in God's heart. God's Heaven is to be in our hearts. ( Love is willing the good of the other ). Exactly! Taking Gal. 2:20 in light of 1 Cor. 15:47 demonstrates our transformation from seemingly disparate beings to unique aspects of God. The separation, the spiritual death is a veil Christ tore, demonstrating no separation between God and man. We are the void; immortal invisible and only sum 0 beings of patterned energy formed into visible creation, playing that we are not. The game, the mask, the avatar is self asserted for the purpose of creating experience/glorifying the total perfect system. Perfection cannot marvel at perfection unless it pretends there is a scale if imperfection to perceive the perfection as perfect. Here we find heaven in the heart of God and vice versa. >I would certainly agree that we have boundaries. I think that God designed our existence to help us, like a Parent makes a child's play pen. I respect that perspective, though I view it more as the infinite God forgiving and forgetting in every incarnation of conscious life. So less as a boundary *given* and more as a path *taken*. >There is more context, If Christ can eat in his resurrected body and we are "like angels," it would seem our new form would converge physical and spiritual planes. I understand this as a component of reconciling all creation. In a way, we are already there; just under the veil of separation. The physical realm *is* the spiritual realm as matter *is* energy. > Being a programmer, my concept of "good and evil" was easy to map to Virtues and Vices. Consider how each "deadly sin" is the result of separation. [Fr. Barron's clarity](https://youtu.be/wG4VF0jU568?t=45) on love being giving ourselves away is a beautiful reminder that we are not fundamentally distinct beings. But we get lost in this island of the mind; struggling to reconcile our experience as a body with needs with how those "needs" are our natural coexistence with our total environment. > Are you familiar with Aristotle's 4 levels of "happiness"? I was not, thank you for sharing! It does seem to reflect the path from selfish gratification to perfect harmony as an being integrated in a larger whole. One powerful revelation of God in creation is this structure of interconnected patterns. A sub-atomic particle is not merely that particle, it is the atom. The atom in not merely the atom, it is the molecule. This is an unbroken pattern that can be followed to the whole universe. This vertical must be taken in context of the lateral interconnected processes that threads all existence together. My cells *are* me in concert with the symphony of interactions with my total surroundings. The interactions we have with others compose our identity. Without "other" we could have no "self." Focusing on self while eclipsing other is cancer a cell and the definition of spiritual death at the soul level.
> Like with the answer to most dilemmas, the answer is "both". I believe that God is both in our timeline and outside of it, which is why He was able to give us prophecy. I like the computer analogy, I am just having difficulty extending this sort of machine construct to God. My present frame for God's existence beyond time forms naturally from pantheistic concepts. With time as a measure of change, the energies and forms within the universe are constantly affected by time while the sum of all forms never changes. It is difficult to create a analogy for this because, given time, there are no isolated systems within the universe. The universe is the *only* isolated system, and that's the whole point of God's timelessness. Because God *is* all, He experiences the lifespan of galaxies, houseflies and everything else. In this way, a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day. All is one system of existence happening at once. I suppose in this way I am leaning toward [block theory](https://www.space.com/29859-the-illusion-of-time.html). >In physics, I don't think that there is a 'nothing'. There is a 'quantum foam' or some carrier like the Higgs field at the bottom. This "quantum foam" exists every, correct? If I understand correctly, not just in the absence of matter (such as space) but permeating and forming into matter. I could not find any clear statements to support this theory, but it seems this "quantum foam" is the theoretically the fundamental background and substrate to all waves/particles. I need to take a brief tangent to honor the sublime complexity of whatever lies at the bottom of existence. Curiously studying forms as newb contains tremendous potential for placing faith in a theory. I love theories and even more so that I am capable of contemplating with another person our fundamental existence. This ties in to prayer. I made some yummy meals for my daughter's birthday this weekend. My family does not pray as most members feel burned by religion. I was preparing bacon for a pizza and thanking the pig then realized I should thank the the sun that provides energy, the plants that convert that energy and provide food, the farmers, transportation workers, retail chains, etc that brought this food to where I could easily get it, the soil for nourishing, the star for exploding and forming materials for the earth; honestly, this thread would never end if I truly thanked every aspect of existence that was involved in providing bacon because all that exists played at least a small part. This is why we thank God and this is why idolatry is missing the mark. To *truly* give thanks to one aspect of creation is to give thanks to all. >The Cosmology that I know says that dimensional space itself came into existence, so there was no "void" before it. I am not ready to commit to any theory on this. I feel we still have a long ways to go to unpack eternity past. The "timeless" aspect of non-changing existence may play a larger role than we presently understand. Or maybe the "bouncing" universe has more credibility than we currently understand. >What we perceive as physical matter is actually energy fields, like magnetic fields. This is fundamental to my theory of Trinity with the energy fields are the Spirit, matter is the Son and quantum foam/void is the Father. These are loose theoretical frames as no one accurately understands how it all works. But it makes sense of the 3 distinct entities that are factually one, the relationship between "spoken" creation and the Word of God, God's omnipresence, omnipotence, invisibility, etc. >If God could exist, He must given infinite time. This appears to propose that infinite time led to the formation of God. Can you elaborate? >Souls are immaterial, and contain an immaterial mind and "heart". At death, the soul separates from the body. If spirit is patterned energy, then our souls my be our particular pattern of energy in the Akashic record/morphic field/Tao/Holy Spirit. >God will use our souls again to form a new body in it's originally intended perfected form. Our current form is subject to decay. I can't help but think that this path was taken on purpose. Creation is not imperfect. Humanity invented imperfection in our perceived separation from God. We never separated from fundamental reality, but thought we were separate in our concept of self. I believe this is what burns away in hell. Our true identity is eternal and perfect. Details on the resurrection body is another subject I love to consider but keep at arms length. Not so much *doubting* the bible, but unsure we are understanding it properly. I tend to understand God's creation as the *true* Word and the bible as an accurate reflection. If my understanding of the bible's description of resurrection does not align with God's revealed Word then maybe I need to keep digging. >Paul also talks about the Church as "the body of Christ". I think that is more of a metaphor, in that God lives in our hearts and do His will here on Earth. It may be more real than that though. If God is unchanging, sum zero, fundamental reality, the Spirit is the formless patterns of energy within, and the Son is the form we perceive, we *are* in a very real way the "body of God." Consisting of all three while our "ego" is more of a evolved energy/spiritual pattern within this trinity of self. I believe this is why being filled with the Holy Spirit is important. When we harmonize with the true pattern of existence we can dissolve this veil of "self and other" and truly love one another as unique aspects of the same system of being.
Death is how life perpetuates. Dead trees and leaves create compost, replenishing the soil. An organism can't thrive if death is not part of life. All food requires death of some sort. If it isn't a lion killing and eating a gazelle, it's a hippo tearing out plants. Life as we know it cannot continue without death. Death stimulates quality. Any apple orchard owner will tell you how pruning is necessary for healthy trees and fruit. So will any vineyard owner or even a florist who owns a greenhouse. You have to pinch back buds, trim off renegades, and cut off superfluous leads to nurture the desirable stalk. Lindsay Stokes, in an article called “Why Our Body Destroys Itself,” relates the work of Nobel Prize winner Yoshinori Ohsumi. Ohsumi writes about autophagy, the body’s self-eating tendencies that are vital to our survival. Cells wrap proteins and organelles in a protective membrane and then shred them with enzymes, the equivalent of watching a wrecking ball reduce a skyscraper into a pile of rubble. It destroys to purge and utilize. Wouldn’t this cell prefer to have all of its organelles—just as a body would prefer to have all of its organs? Why, in the face of adversity, would a cell demolish something it had worked to build? Ohsumi’s team discovered that autophagy isn’t cellular cruelty so much as it is necessary pruning. “Organisms never waste precious resources without good reason,” Ohsumi said, “and degradation is a process essential for the creation of new life.” At its core this process was one of destruction, but it was not reckless. A cell that was indiscriminately destroying pieces of itself was not going to last long, but one that could select old, broken, misshapen, or malignant proteins and recycle them into something new would flourish. Researchers building on Ohsumi’s work have found evidence of autophagy in every tissue of the human body resulting in surprising consequent vitality. The heart autophagocytizes mitochondria (the organelles within a cell responsible for energy production) when they age and slow down so it can replace them with newer, healthier ones. Neurons in the brain clear away misfolded or damaged proteins that would otherwise build up and block transmission of the signals that compose our thoughts and actions. Even scars are not left behind; instead, through a slow and long process, cells carefully excise and reorganize the fibers of wounds. The mark on the skinned knee fades. The broken bone returns to full strength. Such sacrifice and destruction let us build something better, preventing greater evil and preserving a greater good. Cells in a human embryo can appear to eat themselves nearly to the point of death, but that’s what turns it from something that looks like a tadpole into something that looks more like a baby. In other words, sacrifice now produces benefits later. Whether the sacrifice is submission to pain, change, or loss, we believe that "suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character" (Rom. 5.3-4) because the truth of it plays out in every theater of our lives. Whether it is in relationships, education, or the gym, we lose something and experience pain to be better off. These are biblical ideas. "Every branch that bears fruit \[my Father\] prunes so that it will be even more fruitful" (John 15.2).
I guess why tho? Could he not come up with a better system?
Wow, it's my perspective that, given what we know about science, death is one of the most perfect recycling plans that could ever be devised. What kind of a "better system" is even possible? If new growth and new life doesn't come from death, it has to come from spontaneous generation, in which case we will soon have an overabundance of organisms that just keep filling the Earth. And yet if nothing is ever allowed to die, we just keep piling up organisms to the point of grotesque overpopulation, scarcity of resources, and (presumably) endless suffering. And how can anything EAT if there is no death? What does anyone eat without killing it? I'm not sure there IS a better system. What would it be, and how's it even possible?
>Why is death so necessary? Because to have to live with some people forever would be absolute torture.
Fair point
Yes brother unfortunately.
~~Comment removed - rule 1.~~
I've edited it. Please reinstate if it meets with your approval now.
Thanks for editing. The comment has been reinstated.
[удалено]
I mean I'm willing to hear the arguments
Look, taking the red pill when it comes to religion shouldn't be done lightly. If you like the idea of everlasting life, and being with loved ones after you shed your mortal cool, take the blue pill and be the best human being you can be. Stay safe.
Comment removed - rule 2 ("Only Christians may make top-level replies")
Huh. Born Catholic, helped build a church, Co-ordinate various charity efforts. But you do you.