Social Question

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Did God strike a deal with the Devil?

Asked by RealEyesRealizeRealLies (29278 points ) November 7th, 2010

The way I see it, God struck a deal with the Devil. Now keep in mind that I’m speaking completely metaphorically, because I don’t believe in the traditional concepts, but going with it…

Satan rebelled in Pride.

God allows free will, yet could not allow Heaven to be tainted with the impurity of Pride.

What to do? What to do?

Bingo! Create an entirely new realm of existence where Satan could exist with Pride, yet did not affect the Purity of Heaven.

Binga Bam Boom… Big Bang creates the Material Realm!

It has everything needed, energy/matter, space/time, to be a medium which can express the notion of Pride. Yet Satan had no control over the physicality. He is, after all, an immaterial being. Thus a new being, humans, were created, half Material (flesh and blood), and half Immaterial (thought).

We, as humans, are therefor the mechanism which allows either God (Truth) or Satan (Deception) to become manifest in the physical realm.

Maybe we should just keep our mouths shut.

Did God strike a deal with the Devil? And thus, do we really have Satan to thank for our existence?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

32 Answers

anartist's avatar

Read Job.
God’s a betting man.

Winters's avatar

Depends all on your perspective on the matter.

iamthemob's avatar

Are we talking about the Lucifer depiction of the devil?

The roots of what you’re addressing seem to be in Judeo-Christian mythology – but the concept of the devil is more an inference, and there isn’t a character of the devil in the bible that really coincides with the character of Lucifer.

We also need to consider whether we’re talking about what we traditionally conceive of as angels. Angels are traditionally thought not to have free will. Free will originated in mankind. The most commonly understood story featuring the devil as an actual character is generally that of Job – but that was actually a member of God’s “court” – who was sent to Job based on God’s command. The serpent is commonly understood to be the devil – but again, this is an inference.

Interesting concept…but it requires us to think of God as a being that didn’t really want to create free will because it would create all this negative stuff up in his house…so he just pushed it out of his house so it could happen. But if God didn’t want it around, why would it be created – unless it was inevitable. It feels contradictory – because if we imagine God as a creator God, then there is no way that something could create itself in this manner.

Personally, if I have to conceive of something that is the devil, basically, the adversary – it is free will itself. Faith is generally described as the way to know god. Faith requires the submission of free will. Therefore, free will is that which acts in opposition to God.

Fyrius's avatar

“Now keep in mind that I’m speaking completely metaphorically, because I don’t believe in the traditional concepts”
So, translating this from the metaphor to the real meaning…
You’re saying that Deception – a word describing the act of making an intelligent being believe something that doesn’t correspond to the real world – can want and like things, and it likes intelligent life forms to have a certain state of mind that we call pride. Furthermore, since before the universe existed, Truth – a word describing the resemblance of information to the real world – has had a place where intelligent beings could exist, but that would be affected in some way if they had the state of mind called “pride” while being in this place, and the accuracy of information, which is also able to want things, didn’t want the place to be affected that way.
So then the act of fooling someone and the accuracy of information made an agreement and decided to create the universe together.

Sorry, you lost me.

And who the hell upvotes this thread?

iamthemob's avatar

why would anyone respond on a thread they didn’t believe even deserved an “upvote” ;-)

Fyrius's avatar

Same reason why people throw tomatoes at really bad actors.

Or maybe the same reason why a cook pours olive oil into a salad that doesn’t have any yet. Except the salad is a thread and the olive oil is words that are not batshit insane.

JustmeAman's avatar

All things are as they should be. This has been done many times over and both concepts of God and Satan are necessary to our existance The Laws of the Universe dictate all there is and there is not anyone God included that can go against those laws.

Russell_D_SpacePoet's avatar

@anartist The whole Job thing always bothered me when I held Christian beliefs when I was younger. If “God” is all knowing, he knew Job would keep his faith. Therefore he had Job suffer for nothing. Doesn’t seem very omnipotent nor caring to me.

Self_Consuming_Cannibal's avatar

I don’t think so, but it’s an interesting and creative thought so I gave you some lurve for it.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@Russell_D_SpacePoet @anartist I’ve heard that Job isn’t really a Hebrew text. Some scholars believe it is actually a Muslim text that was accidentally included in the Canons, as it goes against what scholars label as the conventional wisdom we find in the book of Proverbs.

Regardless, it’s an interesting poem nonetheless, wherever it came from.

@iamthemob ”...it requires us to think of God as a being that didn’t really want to create free will because it would create all this negative stuff up in his house”

I break from the traditional God concepts. I don’t think God created Pride any more than he created my Macintosh computer. As a being of Free Will, God’s Purity of Heaven included Free Will for all of his creation. Therefor, the Creation (Lucifer) was free to create Pride.

And yes, I understand the differences between Satan, Devil, and Lucifer. But for this discussion, I’m simplifying those agents as encompassing the embodiment of Deception.

@Fyrius I thank you for carefully considering my comments and relating them back to confirm your clear understanding of my playful dissertation.

Now consider that we have, in the past, disagreed upon the definition of Information. Thus my comments must be considered under my definition. As well, please understand that I don’t consider Heaven a “place” as much as a realm. The word “place” has such materialistic connotations. The realm I speak of is quite immaterial, and non-physical.

And lastly, and most critically, the use of the term “being” must be defined as well. Personally, I don’t consider God (or Truth) so much as a “being”, as much as it is an Agent or Entity. Again, “being” drags baggage of materialism along with it, and I just want to make sure that you understand I’m not talking about a physical being whatsoever.

Thus, your comment…
”...a place where intelligent beings could exist, but that would be affected in some way if they had the state of mind called “pride”...”

The “being” you refer to IS the state of mind called “pride”. That’s why I capitalize it.

This realm of God, the realm of Truth, is a realm of pure thought, pure mind. It is not a place. And it does not have beings with minds. At best, they are Mind/Entity. Thus, our concepts of Purity, Deception, Pride, Lust, Greed, Hope, Happiness… are in themselves, Entities. Spirits if you will. That’s why we can so easily adapt these emotions as The Spirit of Hope, or the Spirit of Empathy.

Consider then, that a realm of Pure Truth could in no way afford to deny Free Will, nor accept Pride and Deception. A new realm, a place must be created to accommodate them. And a way to express them must have been devised as well.

But I’m not suggesting that Truth and Deception created the Universe together. Truth created the Universe for Deception.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

In fact, not only did Truth create this “place” for Deception, but this entire place IS Deception. It is nothing more than random particles acting as static, noise on the line, entropy. It’s only function is to decay, thereby placing entropic noise upon any communication from Mind.

It could be said, that our physical realm is the very thing that prevents us from knowing, becoming, being… Truth.

iamthemob's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies – I don’t really understand why you’re working with deception as the analogy – instead of just the idea of free will.

The issue is that free will without perfect knowledge is problematic – I think that your characterization of it as entropy is fair. But this doesn’t mean that it’s pure entropy – free will is the ability to seek out answers for ourselves and so necessarily entails mistake and even delusion. If we leave open the possibility to achieve perfect knowledge (a full and complete understanding of the nature of the universe), then entropy stops.

JustmeAman's avatar

There are two descriptions of entropy a thermodynamic definition and the statistical definition. The concept is explaining why some processes are spontaneous and some are not thou the entropy always seems to increase in a system. We are all on a journey to finding the answers of the Universe and the laws that govern the Universe. Free will is inherent to all of us and we can choose to find and discover or not. Trying to understand and describe the Universe in the limitations we are under is nearly impossible. When one finds answers outside of our mortal limitations then our understanding and minds will expand and we can become a higher being.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

I’m not attempting to characterize Free Will as Entropy @iamthemob. I make a case that Noise/Static is Entropy, and that Entropy is Deception.

As well, I don’t equate “mistakes” with Deception. An honest mistake is not a Deception. Though I would consider “delusion” as Entropic Deception.

Your last statement is very interesting to me…
“If we leave open the possibility to achieve perfect knowledge (a full and complete understanding of the nature of the universe), then entropy stops.”

Don’t we have that “possibility” even in the midst of our current entropic state? Aren’t we consistently attempting to overcome entropy? How may we do this? By improving our communication protocols… with better more concise definition of terms, greater adherence to error correction, and applicable redundancy when necessary. The mission is to get the message (Truth/God) from probability space A to probability space B with as little Entropic (Deception/Satan) effect as possible.

Whether it’s possible or not remains to be seen. But this entire physical realm is the only barrier that prevents two thoughts from unifying as one. Remove the physical barrier, and thoughts mingle effortlessly.

This is evident in the proto-languages of laughter, moaning, sigh, and crying. No alphabet or code is required to relate the essence of meaning from one mind to another. No code mapping from alphabet A to alphabet B is necessary. It transcends space and time.

Free Will is only applicable when considering our Heavenly Nature… so to speak. As an agent of purity, Free Will is available to any entity with the capacity for expressing thought. It may be the very mechanistic explanation, the tool we use to express either Truth/God or Deception/Satan into existence in our physical realm.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Interesting comments @JustmeAman. Please say more if you can.

josie's avatar

The question supposes two things.
There are two realms, one material, one not.
The material realm is not as good as the other one.

It is not apparent that either of these suppositions is true.
Thus, the deal was not struck.

iamthemob's avatar

Don’t we have that “possibility” even in the midst of our current entropic state? Aren’t we consistently attempting to overcome entropy? How may we do this? By improving our communication protocols… with better more concise definition of terms, greater adherence to error correction, and applicable redundancy when necessary. The mission is to get the message (Truth/God) from probability space A to probability space B with as little Entropic (Deception/Satan) effect as possible.

Absolutely. I was just stating it as the assumption from which I was working.

I’m interested in how you consider free will an agent of purity. For me, the ability to choose, in whatever state, implies the ability to be mistaken…or to consciously make the wrong choice. I relate purity to a state that requires consistency.

JustmeAman's avatar

There was no deal made the entities spoken of are doing what they are supposed to be doing. When Adam was placed in the garden he was given two commands. One command was to multiply and replenish the Earth and the other not to eat of the forbidden fruit. One of the two commands had to be broken there was no choice in the matter it was how it was supposed to be. Adam did not have the knowledge to reproduce he didn’t even know he was naked. Without the fruit from the tree of knowledge he didn’t have the understanding needed to obey the other law. So Eve did exactly what she was supposed to do. She ate of the fruit and then gave it to Adam and Adam took of the fruit so that man could be. It all was as it was supposed to be.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Good points @josie. Are you sure that material realm isn’t as “good” as the immaterial realm? The material realm would be actually be better for those who desire to express deception.

Free Will is an agent of purity @iamthemob because anything less would require hard determinism. I believe in a soft determinism, in that nothing may be determined without a code to determine it upon. Yet when authoring that code, there is no guiding force requiring one to author it one way or another. That would be redundant, and in the spirit of parsimony, I suggest the universe is much more efficient, and much less thoughtful than that.

We must also come to an agreement that “mistakes” are bad. I don’t believe they are. For ultimately, they bring us closer to the Truth. The entire Scientific Method is based upon this principle.

I can kind of go with you there @JustmeAman. Though I’d revise “supposed to be” with how “God knew it would be”. God’s propensity for middle knowledge would have every potential outcome completely in Mind. Thus, any choice would have worked out just the way it was “supposed to be”.

Rarebear's avatar

There is a good fantasy book that I love, called “To Reign In Hell” by Steven Brust that is all about Satan’s rebellion.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

How interesting. I’ll have to get it.

I call this thesis, God’s Evil Plan.

Fyrius's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies
Please do refresh my memory – what definition of information are you using? (Does this definition make sense of the notion that actions and correspondence relations can have a humanoid mind of their own?)

Bending normal words into vague spiritual-y terms seems to be a passion of yours. Maybe you should consider a carreer in that direction. It’s rather impressive, how you can introduce a term and then skillfully sneak past the part where you explain what it means. If I weren’t so boringly hung up on understanding what I read, I bet I wouldn’t even have noticed.
So, a “realm” is not a place, since it’s not material and not physical? Intriguing. And are there also things that a realm is?

It’s also rather amazing how you explain your view of the non-place you call by the same name as the ancient biblical heaven.
So it’s a place – pardon me, a “realm” – where there are no beings, only disembodied minds, and the concepts a mind can think about are “Entities” in themselves which, presumably, have a mind of their own the same way “Truth” does. Setting common sense loose on that wonderful semantic Escher painting would turn up annoying questions like whether the Spirit of Loneliness can feel Pride while that feeling of Pride simultaneously feels Gloomy, which in turn feels Indifferent which in turn feels Confused; or if not, what happens to Spirits when they do or don’t get their way. Or how minds can be disembodied. Or how a disembodied mind could feel Lust, a state of mind directly caused by physical hormones, or Happiness, which involves a release of physical endorphins. Or where Truth and Deception came from, before there were humans who could have models of the world which can be true or false.
But when you say it, none of that paradoxical jabberwocky sounds confusing at all, and someone in a hurry might not even think of consulting with their common sense. That’s an impressive skill.

As a concluding note on the subject of playfulness, rest assured – my replies to you at this moment aren’t much more serious than your own musings. They’re more of an exercise in disentangling semantic cobwebs than an actual attempt to exchange ideas. It’s been a while since I gave up on expecting olive oil in your word salads.

lloydbird's avatar

I’m not sure, but I think that the concept of a Demiurge might fit somewhere in the answer to this.

lazydaisy's avatar

This is a very Masonic notion, as I understand it.

lazydaisy's avatar

ok. wait.
I spun off into my own theory

I responded to the chain reaction in my head instead of the actual question

MaryW's avatar

The Devil’s own evilness comes back on him. He is his worst enemy.He does not create he trys to destroy.
God created us as he is always thinking and thought we would be interesting if give free will. AND we sure are.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Certainly you don’t think that I put this out expecting everyone to automatically agree @Fyrius? Do you? I put this out with the specific expectation for disagreement. I desire it. This forum is an excellent source of disagreement. May we use it as a tool to help work out the thoughts in our heads. Your attempt to “dismantle” is a gift to me, a reason to speak deeper on the subject, and a source of materialist criticism that needs to be addressed, and that I may otherwise have overlooked. Please keep it up. I will only be the better for it.

I adhere to A Discipline Independent Definition of Information, as set forth by the American Society for Information Science, where Information is a description of observable phenomenon, and not the phenomenon itself.

It takes into account all disciplines from Information Theory, to Biology, to Physics, and seeks to unify them with a hierarchical model for defining Information.

Information, therefor, is not to be considered synonymous with any observable phenomenon (as modern physics would have us believe). As a description, Information is created when a phenomenon is described through codification. It is literally the process of manifesting thought in-to-form.

Now, you seem quite bent upon exposing my “skillfulness” at “bending words” and “sneak(ing) past” explanations. Yet all one must do is ask me for clarification, as I have attempted to provide answer to anyone who requests it. I even preempted my comments to you with specific clarification of words such as “being, place, realm” among others. It is my desire to communicate with you professionally, sans any perceived “vagueness”. Please lay down your guns for a moment and address my thoughts with some degree of respect, as you would have me address yours. Skepticism is fine, and understandable. But attitude serves only to reveal entrenched dogmatic cynicism.

The points you raise are valid and deserve addressing. And though I risk “boring” you further, it is my privilege to offer an apologetic to your concerns.

“So, a “realm” is not a place, since it’s not material and not physical? Intriguing. And are there also things that a realm is?”

If by “things”, you mean physical things, then no, there are no physical things in an immaterial realm. Likewise, an immaterial realm cannot be considered as a physical thing. But if you consider an immaterial thought to be a thing, then yes, we can allow that under the condition of noting the difference between physical and nonphysical things.

I prefer to think of immaterialism as nothing… a no-thing.

It is extremely difficult to discuss notions of immaterialism with a materialistic vernacular. Metaphor and analogy are common tools which allow us to “bend words” in order to fit the concepts we attempt to relate. I used the term “realm” specifically to denote a disembodiment of mind/thought. I avoided the term dimension, for that seems to me, more akin to a separate, yet synonymous physical dimension, with notions of height, width, and so on, including perhaps other dimensions that we are currently incapable of detecting.

”...amazing how you explain your view of the non-place you call by the same name as the ancient biblical heaven. ”

How is that amazing? I’m unfamiliar with any doctrine which promotes Heaven as a physical place. Whether it be Christian or Taoist, Heaven is consistently considered to be sans any notions of materialism, energy/matter, space/time. Christianity specifically notes that God and his Heavenly Kingdom is beyond space/time and that creation is within space/time. Whilst at the same time, Christ depicts the Kingdom of Heaven within us. Taoists specifically note that Heaven/Hell concepts are states of Mind. Neither present any materialistic baggage to describe Heaven.

I find this to be a consistent source of contention for Hard Marxist Dialectic Materialist Atheists to digest, often spouting the suffering argument as justification to claim that an all loving God does not, and could not possibly exist. They seem to believe if that were the case, then our physical existence on earth should be equal to a Heavenly existence. This holds the Theist to an unfair advantage, for I know of know religion which promotes life on earth to be comparable to existence in Heaven. They are very different from each other, and the Atheist does everyone a great disservice by conflating them as being remotely comparable.

This should not be so difficult to accept in our age of Information. Where is CyberSpace? Shall we deny it exists? You sit at your computer and I sit at mine… physically. But we are both (metaphorically here), and shall stay here long after we’ve physically left our computer terminals for our comments remain, and they represent our thoughts, even beyond the grave. Where is this place that represents our thoughts and where are the thoughts this place represents?

”...a “realm” – where there are no beings, only disembodied minds, and the concepts a mind can think about are “Entities” in themselves which, presumably, have a mind of their own the same way “Truth” does.”

First off, I don’t, and cannot possibly know. But I can follow a trail of logic crumbs and infer an educated guess. And this is where (where is this?)... ahem, and this is where your skepticism will provide great rationale, challenging us both to inspect the logic of the premise.

”...where there are no beings…”

Right. No physical beings. We may refer to them as “beings” if you like, but must denote them as non-physical. That’s why I call them Entities, or Agents.

”...only disembodied minds…”

I’m not sure. I don’t know if they are disembodied minds, or disembodied thoughts, or if the immaterial realm co-joins them as one in the same… I don’t know. But here’s what I’ve put together so far…

I believe that the relationship between Thought and Mind is the very same concept as Spirit and Soul. One term from science, the other from theology. But in essence, they are synonymous and completely interchangeable. It is unfortunate that neither science or religion can see this. Failure to see this is a source of dogmatic blindness, as far as I’m concerned, and only serves to put another barrier between the two disciplines.

So, the way I see it, Thought/Spirit are like building blocks which are used to create a Mind/Soul. Yes I know, the Theist raises red flags because ultimately that means that the Mind/Soul of an adult is more developed than the Mind/Soul of an infant. Not more important mind you, just more developed. The hard swallow is understanding that unless one can demonstrate an ounce of Thought for the embryo in the womb, then one cannot therefor make a case against abortion on the basis of destroying a Spirit or a Soul.

So, if a quantity of thought/spirit builds a mind/soul, then not only should this premise be mathematically calculable, but it also suggests many possible meanings that “disembodied minds” could have.

If one is to consider Krisna Consciousness or One with God, then a case could be made that we are only capable of thought/spirit by accessing the Proto-Mind of that one Immaterial Agent. As a Linguist, you might appreciate Bhartrihari’s Sphota Theory of Language, for it suggests that is the case. We manifest Brahman into the physical realm with every spoken word that falls from our mouths. It is very similar to Biblical principles of The Word, though most Christians would never accept or admit that, and even then, mostly out of ignorance about their own religion.

Do we actually have Minds of Our Own or are we accessing the greater Proto-Mind of God? I have absolutely no idea. But the “I” in that statement suggests that we have our own individual minds, separate and apart from God, and therefor have a legitimate shot at true Free Will through the Dualistic mechanism of autonomous thought expressed via codified description, even if only within our own minds.

”...and the concepts a mind can think about are “Entities” which, presumably, have a mind of their own…”

Perhaps it is as you describe. I prefer to believe that Thought/Spirit is “the concepts a mind can think about”, and they accumulate to build an “Entity” that I call Mind/Soul.

So perhaps I misled you earlier with my loose tongued description suggesting ”...Lust, Greed, Hope, Happiness… are in themselves, Entities. Spirits if you will….” My mistake. I should have been more precise. Thanks for pointing that out. It helps.

This leaves us (me) with a quandary. Though I cannot deny the existence of Thought/Spirit, I can neither claim them as “Entities” in their own right, unless of course I resolve the issue by adhering to Bhartrihari’s Proto-Thought God.

But where I’m leaning with this is the possibility that Thought/Spirit is a different type of entity altogether, perhaps a pseudo or quasi-entity. Not necessarily with “a mind of their own”, but with needs (so to speak), like a virus needs a host.

Was it not Dawkins who coined the term “meme”, to describe an essence of meaning like a mutation that catches on and permeates throughout a society. It’s not such a conceptual leap to apply the same logic to Thought/Spirit, where a person can get overwhelmed with that feeling of desire for a new car, or become infatuated with a hobby or charitable pursuit. If this is so, then Thought/Spirit can be a very dangerous bugger, infecting some with addictions and detrimental psychosis.

Admittedly, I’ve wrestled with this notion for a while, never having resolved it to my satisfaction. What seems as “paradoxical jabberwocky” to you, is a great deal of interest to me.

”...a mind of their own the same way “Truth” does.”

There are a number of free thinkers who, like me, are coming to the conclusion that Truth, is in fact, an intelligent Entity. It’s a sorted affair. Briefly, Truth is so beyond us, as humans, that it often seems as a horrific monster. We will avoid it at any costs, preferring instead to manifest our own personal truth as a personal god, a creed, a code to live by. As Jack Nicholson says, You can’t handle the Truth!, and neither could the poor slobs in Plato’s Cave.

Yet we claim to want it… the Truth. Every endeavor of humanity is consumed by this one desire. It cannot be destroyed, for even if we destroyed it then it would be True that we destroyed it. Even if we lived in an entirely deceptive universe, one that had no mechanism for expressing Truth, then it would be True that we lived there. Truth remains. It is the chasm we cannot cross. It is the very edge of the abyss.

Yet we can glean a few insights about its intelligent nature. You very well know I believe that an author is necessary to create a codified representation of Information. Yet we are left with an anonymous author to account for the Information represented by our genetic code. Considering that Information is the process of manifesting thought in-to-form, and there is no physical author to be found, and if there was it would only push the question back further, then I must conclude to infer the existence of an Immaterial Intelligent Agent to account for the genetic code, at least.

I call this agent Truth.

And whether we consider the Prosentential Theory, the Performative Theory, a Semantic Theory, Pragmatic, be them redundant or deflationary, they are all based upon principles of The Word.

I cannot genuinely claim however that this Truth/God is responsible for creating the Universe. For I have found no code which describes the Universe before its manifestation into physical reality. There are many arguments to suggest the Universe was created, but few pass the mustard of science, and I need not drag them into this discussion.

It is interesting to note however, that increasingly physicists are promoting the notion that observation plays a huge role in the quantum state. It is not out of line to consider this quantum state as a playground, of which Truth/God created for us to define our own physical existence the way we see it, and not how it would have us see it. In this manner, we are free to express ourselves, to discover Deception for what it is, and overcome it by defining our individual realities, yet still with the relentless pursuit of Truth first and foremost on our minds.

It could be said, that Truth Loves us so much, that it allows us to approach it on our terms, at our pace, without forcing itself upon us. We are incapable of seeing it in its entirety. And even if we were, it would be too horrific to gaze upon, crushing everything we know, everything we are into nothingness. I suggest Truth only presents itself to the degree we can handle it in order to preserve our individual nature, allowing us to mature and grow as each person is best suited for.

”...annoying questions like whether the Spirit of Loneliness can feel Pride while that feeling of Pride simultaneously feels Gloomy…”

This must be considered in light of my earlier comments about Thought/Spirit Dawkins Meme. If Thought/Spirit is indeed like a quasi-Entity, an immaterial Virus Meme, then a Mind/Soul should have no problem entertaining many of them simultaneously. But I don’t believe that a virus could have another virus… I don’t know really. Interesting. And like a virus, a thought can mutate into something entirely different than what it originally was. This happens individually, leaving the original virus intact, with another new virus that’s been created. Thought does the same thing.

The only difference between thought and virus is that one is non physical, and the other physical. Well, there is another difference actually. A codified thought can be duplicated just by looking at it, or hearing it. Viruses can’t do that.

“Or how minds can be disembodied.”

There is no evidence to suggest that a Mind was ever “embodied” in the first place. Unless again, of course, one take the Hard Marxist Dialectic Materialist approach to conflate Mind with Brain. Surely that notion is becoming quite antiquated by now.

“Or how a disembodied mind could feel Lust, a state of mind directly caused by physical hormones, or Happiness, which involves a release of physical endorphins.”

Hormones are chemical messengers. All messages come from a Mind. Therefor the Hormones do not cause the Mind to be Lustful. The Mind causes the Hormones to be released. The Mind may send a message which cannot be acted upon because of low hormone levels, but the Mind has sent the message nonetheless. Hormone therapy allows the messages to once again be carried out.

This is akin to the research of Wes Warren from Washington University’s Genome Sequencing Center, as illustrated in April 2010 issue of Nature Journal. Although not directly involved with hormones, it demonstrates a Mind First principle which accounts for Desire to initiate a gene sequence, rather than the other way around, being a gene sequence thought to initiate a desire.

It seems that when the Zebra Finch expresses a desire to sing, that desire causes a change in sequence of the “long non-coding RNAs, microRNAs, transcription factors and their targets.” And thereby, a change in that sequence, is the very mechanism which causes the “interactions of neurons within the brain”. The genes are instructing the brain, rather than the brain instructing the genes. The genes are a codified representation of thought. Thought first, then the physical mechanism can act upon them accordingly. And it also demonstrates that the brain is not necessarily the only physical medium which can manifest a thought. Logically, thought seems related to genes now more than ever. This makes sense because thought needs a code to become manifest into physicality.

As well, it is not necessary the case that endorphins induce a thought of happiness. Again, there is evidence to suggest that thoughts of happiness are what engages the endorphins to emerge. Dr. Joel Fuhrman MD suggests, When people take a placebo and they believe something’s helpful, it often works,, and gives it an endorphin factor of 2. Key term here is “believe”. Beliefs are thoughts, and therefor thought alone can release endorphins.

Fuhrman goes on to say, A person who gets pleasure in life, from whatever source, will keep endorphins at a healthy level,, and suggest that a simple viewing of beautiful art or a dramatic scene in a movie is a valid cause for releasing endorphins. People are moved to tears create more endorphins than those who are not. Feelings beyond words, proto-thought, is what triggers endorphins. Again, it is thought which controls the body, not the other way around.

“Or where Truth and Deception came from, before there were humans…”

I don’t suppose that an immaterial realm is subject to or shackled by the materialistic notions of “from” or “before”. The whole premise of a God, a Heaven, an Immaterial realm is that they are beyond physical energy/matter space/time. That’s a hard swallow for the Materialist, I know.

“But when you say it, none of that paradoxical jabberwocky sounds confusing at all…”

Thanks

”...someone in a hurry might not even think of consulting with their common sense”

We would all do well to slow down a bit and offer thoughtful consideration to the issues that concern us most.

“It’s been a while since I gave up on expecting olive oil in your word salads.”

I just tossed a new one for us. Please sit down and enjoy it with me.

anartist's avatar

@Russell_D_SpacePoet and @RealEyesRealizeRealLies
You are very right in noting the peculiarity of the book of Job. That book, like the book of Esther features the duality of good and evil; Esther struggles against Haman [Zoroastrian Ahriman].
Since I look at Christianity, Judaism, and Islam as three religions that survived almost by accident out of many evolving in the area, each borrowing from the other, it is no wondered that stories were shared. Noah’s great flood came from Gilgamesh.

Actually the first monotheism was of Persian origin Zoroastrianism [Mazdaism] and featured a struggle between good and evil, Manichaeism evolved in Persia along similar lines. One theory, that religious ideas were spread along the Silk Road, would account for this cross fertilization.

See Iranian influence on Judaism in these conference proceedings “Eschatological ideas such as warnings of the “last days” and belief in a messianic savior, a bodily resurrection, and a last judgement, are just some of the notions that Judaism (and subsequently Christianity and Islam) seems to have borrowed from the Persians. The concepts of a heavenly paradise (Old Pers. paira daeza) and a hell of punishment for the wicked are also seen in ancient Iranian religion, but not in Israelite sources prior to the Babylonian period. The Iranian evil spirit Angra Mainyu, or Ahriman, evolves into the Christian and Muslim devil, who first appears in the book of Job as ha-satan, “the accuser”.”

also see the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Old_Testament_canon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_the_Bible
http://www.historycooperative.org/proceedings/interactions/foltz.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manichaeism

Fyrius's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies
Phew, that’s a hefty word salad. You could feed six people with that.
I’ll sit down and have some later, after I’ve worked up some appetite.

mattbrowne's avatar

The theology behind Christianity is the following:

The world is not perfect, therefore sin is normal and we have to struggle our whole life trying to avoid it. But even if we try our best, the complete absence of sin is very unlikely. But if we don’t even try, this makes our lives a lot worse.

Some denominations use the Satan metaphor e.g. the Christian Right and others don’t e.g. European Protestants.

GODincenter's avatar

There ias no such thing as Good and Evil. God himself gives us good and bad as per our wishes and wants. He created Fire, but we asked to smoke it, he did not, so he provided as high – turbulant dangerous smoking substances and devices per our asking. He is simply Giver and Provider. It is in each individual, to decide what is Good and Evil for their own soul. Ask and wish according. Soul is just pure, pious, joyful, heavenly. He does not get fooled, we just pretend he is fool and cant see or hear. He keeps up to date records of every seconds on mind, body and action. In short what we think, wish and how we act. GOD is PURE. It is like GOLD. If you mix other mettle it becomes 22K, 18K, 14K, 8 K GOLD. It is still called GOLD but GOLD is Deception of Pure Gold., You can not call it PURE GOLD my friend…

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther