Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 2

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Dontaskme
Posts: 9976
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 2

Post by Dontaskme »

Dontaskme wrote: But why would any sane rational intelligent person choose to want that imposed upon the self?
Immanuel Can Wrote: Nobody would choose it for himself.

"For one will hardly die for a righteous person; though perhaps for the good person someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." (Romans 5:7-8)
Nobody would choose it for themself, implies nobody would harm themself - including killing themself .... 🤷‍♀️ ?

We can see the freedom to choose violence to the self whether it be to themself or another is obviously available, but now you are saying nobody would choose it for themself, when they simply do.

My point is Immanuel, if we already know what the effects of pain and suffering is on ourself or another, then why would anybody choose to reincarnate into a reality where there is the freedom to choose to inflict pain and suffering either upon ourself or another ? why would they want to experience a reality like that?

Why would anyone want to reincarnate into a life of sin?

This is what I am trying to understand.
Belinda
Posts: 4786
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 2

Post by Belinda »

Dontaskme wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 10:48 am
Dontaskme wrote: But why would any sane rational intelligent person choose to want that imposed upon the self?
Immanuel Can Wrote: Nobody would choose it for himself.

"For one will hardly die for a righteous person; though perhaps for the good person someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." (Romans 5:7-8)
Nobody would choose it for themself, implies nobody would harm themself - including killing themself .... 🤷‍♀️ ?

We can see the freedom to choose violence to the self whether it be to themself or another is obviously available, but now you are saying nobody would choose it for themself, when they simply do.

My point is Immanuel, if we already know what the effects of pain and suffering is on ourself or another, then why would anybody choose to reincarnate into a reality where there is the freedom to choose to inflict pain and suffering either upon ourself or another ? why would they want to experience a reality like that?

Why would anyone want to reincarnate into a life of sin?

This is what I am trying to understand.
Even I understand it is because God so loved the world that He incarnated into it in order to rescue us.
tillingborn
Posts: 1073
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:15 pm

Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 2

Post by tillingborn »

Belinda wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 12:50 pmEven I understand it is because God so loved the world that He incarnated into it in order to rescue us.
Can you really explain why, in order to rescue us from his wrath, God had to subject himself to our wrath?
Dontaskme
Posts: 9976
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 2

Post by Dontaskme »

Belinda wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 12:50 pm Even I understand it is because God so loved the world that He incarnated into it in order to rescue us.
The rescue failed.
Do you understand WHY?
Belinda
Posts: 4786
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 2

Post by Belinda »

Dontaskme wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 1:30 pm
Belinda wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 12:50 pm Even I understand it is because God so loved the world that He incarnated into it in order to rescue us.
The rescue failed.
Do you understand WHY?
Whether or not the rescue failed depends on how you interpret what it is we need rescued from.

Here are some things people think we need rescued from:

Sin

Unbelief

Greed

Various sorts of 'immorality'

Ignorance

Unkindness and cruelty

Racism

Sexual license

Fear of death

Superstition

Everything The Bible attributes to Jesus is not what Jesus actually said. As far as I know (not a lot!) the parables , and the Sermon on the Mount are original Jesus.

Here is what one group of scholars ( Westar Institute) say is about the historical Jesus:
Other cheek (Q) Matt 5:39, Luke 6:29a
Coat & shirt (Q) Matt 5:40, Luke 6:29b
Congratulations, poor! (Q, Thomas) Luke 6:20, Thomas 54
Matt 5:3
Second mile (Q) Matt 5:41
Love of enemies (Q) Luke 6:27b, Matt 5:44b, Luke 6:32, 35a
Leaven (Q, Thomas) Luke 13:20-21, Matt 13:33, Thom 96:1-2
Emperor & God (Thomas, Mark) Thom 100:2b, Mark 12:17b, Luke 20:25b, Matt 22:21c
Give to beggars (Q) Matt 5:42a, Luke 6:30a
The Samaritan (L) Luke 10:30-35
Congratulations, hungry! (Q, Thomas) Luke 6:21a, Matt 5:6, Thom 69:2
Jesus Seminar Fellows also came to consensus on the following:

Jesus of Nazareth did not refer to himself as the Messiah, nor did he claim to be a divine being who descended to earth from heaven in order to die as a sacrifice for the sins of the world. These are claims that some people in the early church made about Jesus, not claims he made about himself.
At the heart of Jesus’ teaching and actions was a vision of a life under the reign of God (or, in the empire of God) in which God’s generosity and goodness is regarded as the model and measure of human life; everyone is accepted as a child of God and thus liberated both from the ethnocentric confines of traditional Judaism and from the secularizing servitude and meagerness of their lives under the rule of the empire of Rome.
Jesus did not hold an apocalyptic view of the reign (or kingdom) of God—that by direct intervention God was about to bring history to an end and bring a new, perfect order of life into being. Rather, in Jesus’ teaching the reign of God is a vision of what life in this world could be, not a vision of life in a future world that would soon be brought into being by a miraculous act of god.

Last edited by Belinda on Sat Jan 16, 2021 2:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Dontaskme
Posts: 9976
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 2

Post by Dontaskme »

Belinda wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 1:48 pmHere are some things people think we need rescued from:

Sin

Unbelief

Greed

Various sorts of 'immorality'

Ignorance

Unkindness and cruelty

Racism

Sexual license

Fear of death

Superstition
Have you, with your own eyes, SEEN all of the things you've listed happen for REAL?

Answer yes or no.

.
Belinda
Posts: 4786
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 2

Post by Belinda »

Dontaskme wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 1:53 pm
Belinda wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 1:48 pmHere are some things people think we need rescued from:

Sin

Unbelief

Greed

Various sorts of 'immorality'

Ignorance

Unkindness and cruelty

Racism

Sexual license

Fear of death

Superstition
Have you, with your own eyes, SEEN all of the things you've listed happen for REAL?

Answer yes or no.

.
No. I am trying hard to be objective. Please see my later edition of my last post.
Dontaskme
Posts: 9976
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 2

Post by Dontaskme »

Belinda wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 2:06 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 1:53 pm
Belinda wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 1:48 pmHere are some things people think we need rescued from:

Sin

Unbelief

Greed

Various sorts of 'immorality'

Ignorance

Unkindness and cruelty

Racism

Sexual license

Fear of death

Superstition
Have you, with your own eyes, SEEN all of the things you've listed happen for REAL?

Answer yes or no.

.
Belinda wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 2:06 pmNo.
Then no need to be rescued from things that you have never seen to happen for real.

Belinda wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 2:06 pm Please see my later edition of my last post.
I would like to hear answers from you in your own words, from the position of first witness account. So the later edition to the conversation would be irrelevant.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 11659
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 2

Post by Immanuel Can »

Oh, hey...I get my own "part II." I feel privileged. :wink:
Dontaskme wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 10:48 am My point is Immanuel,
IC will do. "Immanuel" is Christ. I'm don't propose to be that good. :wink:
if we already know what the effects of pain and suffering is on ourself or another, then why would anybody choose to reincarnate into a reality where there is the freedom to choose to inflict pain and suffering either upon ourself or another ? why would they want to experience a reality like that?
"RE-incarnate"? Or "Incarnate"?

If you mean "reincarnate," I really can't speak for that. I don't believe it.

I can tell you, though, that the whole rationale for believing in reincarnation, as per Hinduism and Buddhism is to try to explain samsara, suffering. Buddhism and Hinduism both come out of countries where suffering and inequality are very common features of life. And belief in reincarnation is a way of explaining how so many people appear to suffer unjustly or die without a reasonable chance to complete their dharma, their duty, in this life, or to receive good karma, payback, in this life.

The argument is that the justice that is not apparent in any one life will become apparent when we take into consideration the many, many cycles of life that the suffering beings have. Karma will equalize over multiple lifetimes, it is said.

But this belief also has multiple bad outcomes, such as caste, quietism, fatalism, resignation, contemptus mundi, despair, the inhibition of labour innovation, and institutionalized injustice.

So I think you must mean 'incarnate," no? Because nobody "chooses" re-incarnation, according to Hinduism or Buddhism. Reincarnation is said to be forced upon the individual by universal necessity of some kind.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 10711
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 2

Post by henry quirk »

Dontaskme wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 10:48 am
Dontaskme wrote: But why would any sane rational intelligent person choose to want that imposed upon the self?
Immanuel Can Wrote: Nobody would choose it for himself.

"For one will hardly die for a righteous person; though perhaps for the good person someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." (Romans 5:7-8)
Nobody would choose it for themself, implies nobody would harm themself - including killing themself .... 🤷‍♀️ ?

We can see the freedom to choose violence to the self whether it be to themself or another is obviously available, but now you are saying nobody would choose it for themself, when they simply do.

My point is Immanuel, if we already know what the effects of pain and suffering is on ourself or another, then why would anybody choose to reincarnate into a reality where there is the freedom to choose to inflict pain and suffering either upon ourself or another ? why would they want to experience a reality like that?

Why would anyone want to reincarnate into a life of sin?

This is what I am trying to understand.
become a parent and you will
Dontaskme
Posts: 9976
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 2

Post by Dontaskme »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 4:11 pm Oh, hey...I get my own "part II." I feel privileged. :wink:

IC will do. "Immanuel" is Christ. I'm don't propose to be that good. :wink:
:lol:

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 4:11 pm"RE-incarnate"? Or "Incarnate"?
Oh yes, I mean incarnate, sorry about that.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 4:11 pmIf you mean "reincarnate," I really can't speak for that. I don't believe it.
Nither do I, so sorry again for the confusion, yes you are right, I meant incarnate, in the embodied sense of the concept.


So now we come back to God knowing he would be tortured while in the flesh, so my point is why would the spirit embodied person want a life of suffering when it doesn't have to. It could just stop incarnating surely?
Last edited by Dontaskme on Sat Jan 16, 2021 5:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Dontaskme
Posts: 9976
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 2

Post by Dontaskme »

henry quirk wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 5:09 pm
become a parent and you will
This means nothing to me, sorry.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 11659
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 2

Post by Immanuel Can »

Dontaskme wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 5:30 pm So now we come back to God knowing he would be tortured while in the flesh, so my point is why would the spirit embodied person want a life of suffering when it doesn't have to. It could just stop incarnating surely?
"Stop incarnating"? That implies that somebody was incarnating, and then "stopped" it. I can't really deal with reincarnation, DAM.

So let's distinguish that from incarnation. Human beings are not "incarnated." They are always made of both flesh and spirit, and the spirit isn't past-eternal. So there is no point at which the human spirit is "put into" the flesh. That doesn't happen.

And we have to distinguish both of those two earlier erroneous ideas from what I'm speaking about as "the Incarnation." The Incarnation (with a capital "i") is that singular world event in which God became man in the person of Jesus Christ.

Now, with that all in view, can we frame your question? Perhaps. Do you mean, "Why would God undertake the Incarnation, since He knew His incarnate Son would be crucified?" Is that your question?
Dontaskme
Posts: 9976
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 2

Post by Dontaskme »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 4:11 pm
I can tell you, though, that the whole rationale for believing in reincarnation, as per Hinduism and Buddhism is to try to explain samsara, suffering. Buddhism and Hinduism both come out of countries where suffering and inequality are very common features of life. And belief in reincarnation is a way of explaining how so many people appear to suffer unjustly or die without a reasonable chance to complete their dharma, their duty, in this life, or to receive good karma, payback, in this life.

The argument is that the justice that is not apparent in any one life will become apparent when we take into consideration the many, many cycles of life that the suffering beings have. Karma will equalize over multiple lifetimes, it is said.

But this belief also has multiple bad outcomes, such as caste, quietism, fatalism, resignation, contemptus mundi, despair, the inhibition of labour innovation, and institutionalized injustice.

So I think you must mean 'incarnate," no? Because nobody "chooses" re-incarnation, according to Hinduism or Buddhism. Reincarnation is said to be forced upon the individual by universal necessity of some kind.
What you've mentioned here, is what I believe relates to the human condition, which is the cause and effects of the dream of I - albeit just a dream story, within the illusory dream of separation.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 10711
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 2

Post by henry quirk »

Dontaskme wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 5:31 pm
henry quirk wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 5:09 pm
become a parent and you will
This means nothing to me, sorry.
a parent worth his salt will sacrifice himself to preserve his child

man choose poorly...god said suffer the consequence...god sacrificed himself, as a man, to bear that consequence

the father took a bullet for the child, a bullet the child well-earned by way of his own poor choice

get it?
Post Reply