Do you believe in God and why

[Tippaporn]

7 hours ago, Skeptic7 said:

Who? 

Good morning, Skeptic 7.

A classic response from a staunch representative of the contingent of folks who ridicule religious fairy tales whilst devoutly subscribing to scientific fairy tales with utmost veneration.  LOL

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Good morning, Skeptic 7.

A classic response from a staunch representative of the contingent of folks who ridicule religious fairy tales whilst devoutly subscribing to scientific fairy tales with utmost veneration.  LOL

Interesting concept, 'a scientific fairy tale'. ????

 

Perhaps you mean, 'a scientific hypothesis' which is a speculative theory based upon some degree of evidence, but not yet confirmed.

[Tippaporn]

58 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Interesting concept, 'a scientific fairy tale'. ????

 

Perhaps you mean, 'a scientific hypothesis' which is a speculative theory based upon some degree of evidence, but not yet confirmed.

No, I mean exactly that . . . a scientific fairy tale.    Yes, science is full of "speculative theories" and many of them are, in truth, nothing more than fairy tales.  And it would be true to say that despite their grounding in a concocted blend of fact and imagination these "speculative theories" are accepted and believed as fact by those ardent and faithful, yes the term faithful is the appropriate term, followers of science.

P.S.

And again, lest anyone accuse me of being anti-science, I should mention that much of what science has uncovered is obviously beyond question quite valid.  And I cheer that expansion of knowledge.  Yet there is much that is still very much in the realm of the unknown where science likes to dabble in professing to "know" that which, if they were to be honest, they actually know less than next to nothing.  Perhaps it's due to ego.  Or perhaps it's due to needing to hold on dearly to their faith that only science can supply all of the answers to all of the questions of life.

But I do tend to especially rail against those instances where the acolytes of science pretend to be all-knowing such that they go around declaring unequivocally what is possible and what is not possible, and what is real and what is not real. 

 

[Sunmaster]

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Beautiful stuff there, Sunmaster.  What was the inspiration?  Was the art done whilst clearing your mind?  And what about the symbolism?

Thank you.
I drew this after about 2 years I  had started meditating again. 

It basically shows the progression from the top to bottom, or from the outside to the inside if you will.
Top is the beginning, when thoughts run amok in your mind (monkeys) and keep your attention away from pure awareness (octopus), making you run in endless, chaotic circles.
Middle part is the intermediate part, where you are starting to gain some focus and realize that there is a lot more potential in the process. Guided by intuition (eye), you start to spread your wings, although they are not yet fully formed and free. The text is an old alchemical saying (VITRIOL) "Visita interiora terrae, rectificando invenies occultum lapidem", which means "Visit the inner landscape, purify it and thus find the hidden stone (philosopher's stone".
The bottom section, the largest one, is the culmination of the process. Nothing has been "attained", but the realization that it has always been like this. Only our ignorance covered it and made us forget our true Self.
The Caduceus (winged staff with snakes) has many layers of meaning, but I use it in what I think is the original one: the energy that is within us, that rises as the kundalini, shooting up the spine and unfolds in the crown chakra.

In a nutshell. ???? 

[irishman25]

On 4/14/2019 at 7:38 AM, quandow said:

I believe life had some sort of intelligent design, and as I've pulled human remains out of a submerged plane crash and observed the lack of life, there is something about humans having a soul. It's even been weighed. As much as the method used to weigh the soul was sloppy science, I think the bible is sloppy narrative. Jesus was a short dark guy, not the European with flowing brown hair currently selling His book. It's been rewritten so many times with so many inconsistencies that it's difficult to fathom anyone taking it 100% seriously. There ARE many good parables, the lessons are good standards to apply to your walk through life. Do I believe we were created? Yes. Do I believe in the Judeo-Christian interpretation of God? No.

there are so many God's in this world so where your born there have a different God' now, what is the the answer when we kill each other over in the name of GOD

[mauGR1]

56 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

No, I mean exactly that . . . a scientific fairy tale.    Yes, science is full of "speculative theories" and many of them are, in truth, nothing more than fairy tales.  And ..

True.

In the age of ignorance you can call "science " almost everything, and some people actually are willing to buy anything which is labelled "science ".

There are plenty of posts here that are the proof of this theory ????

[Tippaporn]

1 minute ago, mauGR1 said:

True.

In the age of ignorance you can call "science " almost everything, and some people actually are willing to buy anything which is labelled "science ".

There are plenty of posts here that are the proof of this theory ????

Unfortunately, for those who have gone all in on their faith in the omnipotence of science now have the additional problem these days of sorting out "true" science from "false" science.   As an example, you have scientists claiming a regimen including Ivermectin is a valid and successful remedy against Covid-19 and then you have other scientists declaring the exact opposite, that it's harmful.  You have scientists claiming that climate change is real and other scientists claiming climate change is bunk.  Apparently even within their own ranks they're having an intolerable difficulty agreeing on what reality is.

The situation is deliciously burlesque in my humble opinion.

[mauGR1]

28 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Unfortunately, for those who have gone all in on their faith in the omnipotence of science now have the additional problem these days of sorting out "true" science from "false" science.   As an example, you have scientists claiming a regimen including Ivermectin is a valid and successful remedy against Covid-19 and then you have other scientists declaring the exact opposite, that it's harmful.  You have scientists claiming that climate change is real and other scientists claiming climate change is bunk.  Apparently even within their own ranks they're having an intolerable difficulty agreeing on what reality is.

The situation is deliciously burlesque in my humble opinion.

I surely agree with most of your post, and I'm not going to split hairs on some details which are not really significant to this thread.

I cannot bring any "scientific proof " of the existence of "God ", but the work of art posted by @Sunmaster, and art in general, are surely imho proof of the existence of parallel universes. 

One surely has to be in the deep mud of a purely materialistic sort of "view " , or perhaps I should say "blindness ", not to acknowledge that we can perceive just an infinitesimal fraction of " reality ".

If you say "consciousness ", those folks will describe it as " electrical impulses of the human brain "????

The ones who hide behind the word " science " to deny the existence of higher beings, are just the modern version of bigots.

[VincentRJ]

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Unfortunately, for those who have gone all in on their faith in the omnipotence of science now have the additional problem these days of sorting out "true" science from "false" science.   As an example, you have scientists claiming a regimen including Ivermectin is a valid and successful remedy against Covid-19 and then you have other scientists declaring the exact opposite, that it's harmful.  You have scientists claiming that climate change is real and other scientists claiming climate change is bunk.  Apparently even within their own ranks they're having an intolerable difficulty agreeing on what reality is.

The situation is deliciously burlesque in my humble opinion.

It's clear that there is great confusion about 'real' science (that is the 'methodology' of science) and the interpretation and reporting of scientific issues by people, such as journalists, politicians, and much of the population,  who appear to have little understanding of the true 'methodology of science'.

 

The climate-change issue is an excellent example of this confusion which is exploited by certain scientists who are political activists, and/or who see the opportunity to increase their wealth and fame by exploiting a fabricated alarm.

 

The concept of a 'scientific fairy tale' is no more than a false interpretation of the 'real' science by the scientifically illiterate.

[Tippaporn]

51 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

I surely agree with most of your post, and I'm not going to split hairs on some details which are not really significant to this thread.

I cannot bring any "scientific proof " of the existence of "God ", but the work of art posted by @Sunmaster, and art in general, are surely imho proof of the existence of parallel universes. 

One surely has to be in the deep mud of a purely materialistic sort of "view " , or perhaps I should say "blindness ", not to acknowledge that we can perceive just an infinitesimal fraction of " reality ".

If you say "consciousness ", those folks will describe it as " electrical impulses of the human brain "????

The ones who hide behind the word " science " to deny the existence of higher beings, are just the modern version of bigots.

I agree 100% with your post, mauGR1.  I also agree 100% with your taste in the music you had posted on Blasts From The Past a while back. 

To put the dilemma between the (basically) two opposing factions here on this thread as succinctly as I can is to say that the error science makes is to completely ignore subjective reality.  Or at least in denying it any validity and having any influence or role in the creation of objective reality.  It is an error so gross in my estimation that it is laughable.

I believe that science has adopted the stance of pure objectivity in order to avoid the potential of polluting, thus discrediting, any of their objective findings with "feelings" and other subjectivity.  Science demanded that it set itself apart from Religion.  Religion dealt directly with subjective reality, even to the point of, at times, ignoring objective reality (to their fault).  So science deals strictly with objective reality, and thus ignores subjective reality.  They've gone to the exact opposite extreme of religion in that sense.  Neither stance is the solution, in my opinion.

Agreeing with your statement that the existence of God (or other preferable term or other concept similarly symbolic in nature) can never be scientifically proven I'll add to it that there are many aspects of our dear and familiar reality which cannot be scientifically proven.  Science adamantly refuses to accept the idea that other realities exist which are not physical (objective) in nature.  So long as they stubbornly cling to the idea that only objective reality exists they will never be able to prove so many of life's "mysteries" in their terms and using their methodologies.  And I'll say, too, that there is harm in that.

[mauGR1]

19 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I agree 100% with your post, mauGR1.  I also agree 100% with your taste in the music you had posted on Blasts From The Past a while back. 

To put the dilemma between the (basically) two opposing factions here on this thread as succinctly as I can is to say that the error science makes is to completely ignore subjective reality.  Or at least in denying it any validity and having any influence or role in the creation of objective reality.  It is an error so gross in my estimation that it is laughable.

I believe that science has adopted the stance of pure objectivity in order to avoid the potential of polluting, thus discrediting, any of their objective findings with "feelings" and other subjectivity.  Science demanded that it set itself apart from Religion.  Religion dealt directly with subjective reality, even to the point of, at times, ignoring objective reality (to their fault).  So science deals strictly with objective reality, and thus ignores subjective reality.  They've gone to the exact opposite extreme of religion in that sense.  Neither stance is the solution, in my opinion.

Agreeing with your statement that the existence of God (or other preferable term or other concept similarly symbolic in nature) can never be scientifically proven I'll add to it that there are many aspects of our dear and familiar reality which cannot be scientifically proven.  Science adamantly refuses to accept the idea that other realities exist which are not physical (objective) in nature.  So long as they stubbornly cling to the idea that only objective reality exists they will never be able to prove so many of life's "mysteries" in their terms and using their methodologies.  And I'll say, too, that there is harm in that.

We're definitely on the same page, although we may differ semantically sometimes. 

..and while it's true that our dear leaders's historical aim is the control of the masses, and this sounds rather logical, we are apparently, since a few centuries, living a time in history where the worst of the bunch are in control.

More or less, it's like speeding on a mountain road with a drunk psychopath at the wheel ????

Some say this era of ignorance and darkness, "Kali Yuga" for the Hindu, is coming to an end soon, and the signs are there to see.. however, R.Steiner, who had some prophetic skills, said that we have to endure crazy times for 2 or 3 centuries more, before, as mankind, we have the chance to relax a bit. ????

[Tippaporn]

6 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

It's clear that there is great confusion about 'real' science (that is the 'methodology' of science) and the interpretation and reporting of scientific issues by people, such as journalists, politicians, and much of the population,  who appear to have little understanding of the true 'methodology of science'.

 

The climate-change issue is an excellent example of this confusion which is exploited by certain scientists who are political activists, and/or who see the opportunity to increase their wealth and fame by exploiting a fabricated alarm.

 

The concept of a 'scientific fairy tale' is no more than a false interpretation of the 'real' science by the scientifically illiterate.

I agree with you on the point that science is, sadly, being exploited and thus corrupted for political and monetary ends.  In both of my examples there assuredly exists a correct party.

I disagree with your evaluation of what I refer to as a scientific fairy tale.  It's not disagreement, really, as I believe you misunderstand the term as I use it.  Evolution, as it is presently understood and defined, is an example of a scientific fairy tale.  It is no more true than the Bible's story of the world being created in literally 7 days.  So the term in the sense that I mean it is not akin to a false interpretation of 'real' science.

BTW, I am not scientifically illiterate.  I took biology, chemistry and physics classes in high school. 

[owl sees all]

3 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Unfortunately, for those who have gone all in on their faith in the omnipotence of science now have the additional problem these days of sorting out "true" science from "false" science.   As an example, you have scientists claiming a regimen including Ivermectin is a valid and successful remedy against Covid-19 and then you have other scientists declaring the exact opposite, that it's harmful.  You have scientists claiming that climate change is real and other scientists claiming climate change is bunk.  Apparently even within their own ranks they're having an intolerable difficulty agreeing on what reality is.

The "White coat syndrome."

 

Put on a white coat and people will listen, believe and worship. In that order.

[Tippaporn]

7 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

We're definitely on the same page, although we may differ semantically sometimes. 

..and while it's true that our dear leaders's historical aim is the control of the masses, and this sounds rather logical, we are apparently, since a few centuries, living a time in history where the worst of the bunch are in control.

More or less, it's like speeding on a mountain road with a drunk psychopath at the wheel ????

Some say this era of ignorance and darkness, "Kali Yuga" for the Hindu, is coming to an end soon, and the signs are there to see.. however, R.Steiner, who had some prophetic skills, said that we have to endure crazy times for 2 or 3 centuries more, before, as mankind, we have the chance to relax a bit. ????

Anyone who has ever had to make something work in practical terms, which is all of us , understands that there are ideas that give intended, and desired, results and there are ideas which produce opposite results.  In my opinion the world is in the process of attempting to implement a slew of ideas, both old and new, which don't work.  We are witnessing the disastrous effects of those poor ideas.

To my way of thinking, the challenges which humankind has taken upon itself require an awakening of sorts.  The vogue term The Great Awakening has been coined to describe that great portion of humanity which is becoming aware of the hidden machinations of governments and others in esteemed positions and the deleterious effects this self-serving chicanery is having on the rest of humanity.  In my view there is required an even greater awakening if, as a species, we are to overcome and survive the challenges we've set forth for ourselves.  That type of awakening involves an awareness of how we create the reality in which we find ourselves in.

We all know that avoiding a problem doesn't make it go away but only makes it worse.  I expect the insanity of the world to get worse, and at an ever quickening pace.  Too often people are willing to change their ideas only when the pain of their current ideas becomes intolerable.

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, owl sees all said:

The "White coat syndrome."

 

Put on a white coat and people will listen, believe and worship. In that order.

Has anyone ever noticed when ordinary, common folk, just like anyone here, become rich and famous everyone flocks to hear their sage advice on all of life's issues?  It's the same principle at work.

People tend to cede their own authority to anyone who claims, or is perceived to have authority.

[Fat is a type of crazy]

Some here think there subjective experience is outside science. They feel or sense something. So it must have a physical manifestation or be something or somewhat. Maybe it is in some other category. 

But it should be able to be tested using scientific method. Maybe current technology cannot pick up certain things yet like dark matter. No problem.

I just don't get why some feel their belief is outside science. If there is some magical or spiritual thing science will eventually take it into account and rewrite the rules.

In the meantime if there is a spirituality believers can do there thing. At the same time, they have to cop that others don't concur with their ideas, if they are based only on  their individual experiences. Itwould be nice if they did not criticise or blame science which is just simply a way of seeing if a thing is a thing. 

Think I might have said the same thing before. Oh well. 

[ivor bigun]

hi boys.cant believe my thread has risen from the dead. now who did that ,oh yes Jesus.

glad to see that you are all back anyway .

[Tippaporn]

31 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Some here think there subjective experience is outside science. They feel or sense something. So it must have a physical manifestation or be something or somewhat. Maybe it is in some other category. 

But it should be able to be tested using scientific method. Maybe current technology cannot pick up certain things yet like dark matter. No problem.

I just don't get why some feel their belief is outside science. If there is some magical or spiritual thing science will eventually take it into account and rewrite the rules.

In the meantime if there is a spirituality believers can do there thing. At the same time, they have to cop that others don't concur with their ideas, if they are based only on  their individual experiences. Itwould be nice if they did not criticise or blame science which is just simply a way of seeing if a thing is a thing. 

Think I might have said the same thing before. Oh well. 

Supporters of science now playing defense?  What to expect next in this world?  LOL

From my perspective it has been science who has critised, blamed and ridiculed mercilessly those of faith and labeled them as ignorant in the lowest sense of the term.

 

[Tippaporn]

8 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Some here think there subjective experience is outside science. They feel or sense something. So it must have a physical manifestation or be something or somewhat. Maybe it is in some other category. 

But it should be able to be tested using scientific method. Maybe current technology cannot pick up certain things yet like dark matter. No problem.

I just don't get why some feel their belief is outside science. If there is some magical or spiritual thing science will eventually take it into account and rewrite the rules.

In the meantime if there is a spirituality believers can do there thing. At the same time, they have to cop that others don't concur with their ideas, if they are based only on  their individual experiences. Itwould be nice if they did not criticise or blame science which is just simply a way of seeing if a thing is a thing. 

Think I might have said the same thing before. Oh well. 

One other point, which i've made as recently as above.  I don't believe anyone here would attempt to be so ludicrous as to suggest that subjective reality does not exist.  So if we can all agree to accept the existence of subjective reality then by what physical, objective technology would we be able to probe and test subjective reality according to the methodology science currently limits itself to?

If I may make a prediction I would say that there isn't a single disciple of science here who can even begin to answer that question.

[VincentRJ]

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

I disagree with your evaluation of what I refer to as a scientific fairy tale.  It's not disagreement, really, as I believe you misunderstand the term as I use it.  Evolution, as it is presently understood and defined, is an example of a scientific fairy tale.  It is no more true than the Bible's story of the world being created in literally 7 days.  So the term in the sense that I mean it is not akin to a false interpretation of 'real' science.
 

Believing that the theory of Evolution is no more true than the Bible's story of the world being created in literally 7 days, is completely farcical and shows you have no respect for, or understanding of, the methodology of science.

 

"BTW, I am not scientifically illiterate.  I took biology, chemistry and physics classes in high school."

 

I don't wish to insult you, but your above comment on Evolution would imply that you must either have come close to the bottom of the class in those subjects or had a very poor teacher. ????

[Tippaporn]

1 minute ago, VincentRJ said:

Believing that the theory of Evolution is no more true than the Bible's story of the world being created in literally 7 days, is completely farcical and shows you have no respect for, or understanding of, the methodology of science.

 

"BTW, I am not scientifically illiterate.  I took biology, chemistry and physics classes in high school."

 

I don't wish to insult you, but your above comment on Evolution would imply that you must either have come close to the bottom of the class in those subjects or had a very poor teacher. ????

Then please do enlighten me, VincentRJ.  Or at least humour me.  How does the methodology of science prove that the Theory of Evolution is fact and truth?

[Hummin]

Oh my Budda. Deja vu

 

Welcome back ???? Im going to refrain from answering, since I believe everything have been said already thats worth saying.  Good luck

[Sunmaster]

I will present the rest of my drawings here step by step.

 

They try to illustrate the different stages of evolution, both on a macro (society) and micro (individual) level, as categorized by Ken Wilber and Don Becks' "Spiral Dynamics" system. 
Spiral Dynamics (SD) is a model of the evolutionary development of individuals, organizations, and societies. source

The model proposes a color system to categorize the different stages, as they emerge from simple existence (surviving mode) to more and more complex stages. Stages are not good or bad and one stage is not better or worse than another. They are simply responses to life conditions. However, each stage can have healthy and unhealthy manifestations.

There is a lot more to say about SD of course. For now, let's just say that we, as individuals, tend to gravitate around one color, but can also take other colors for specific topics in our lives. For example: a man is very religious and law-abiding, but is also a businessman. In SD terms, he would be centered at Blue and operate in Orange in regards to his business.

The bible thumpers we had here in the thread are Blue.
Materialists are usually Orange.
Environmentalists are generally Green.

Each stage develops out of the previous one, once the life conditions permit it. For example, Orange is a response to Blue and its rigid dogma. Green is a response to Orange and its exploitation of nature for personal gain.
The stages alternate between group/community strength and individual power. 
Purple: tribe
Red: the conqueror

Blue: religious community
Orange: the businessman/entrepreneur

Green: social movements
 

It's also important to understand that when life conditions change, then we will likely change with them. For example, if you are at Orange or Green and war breaks out, you will pretty quickly regress to Blue (safety of the community, longing for clear rules), or if the situation is more critical, back to Red (survival of the fittest) or even Beige (fighting for mere survival).

I'm sure each one of us can find the stage that most resonates with us.

[mauGR1]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Too often people are willing to change their ideas only when the pain of their current ideas becomes intolerable.

...But that's exactly how we evolve, isn't it ?

[Sunmaster]

I will start with Red (haven't finished Purple yet).

A quick recap of the previous stages. 
Beige was all about survival, the most basic instincts. Think babies or early humans.
Purple - Through time they understood that they would be stronger and more successful by forming groups. Rituals emerged, a strong sense of group thinking, but only for their own group. Other groups were seen as enemies and fought. We can see Purple today in Amazonian tribes for example, and on an individual level in early childhood (for the child, the family is the whole world).

RED then emerged from Purple and represents an expansion. The emergence of great leaders and conquerors such as Genghis Khan, Julius Ceasar, Attila the Hun, Ashoka the Great. 
- Red societies today: war lords in Africa, street gangs, prison environment...
- Children start to develop the ego, start to experiment and explore.

For more info, please visit: https://spiraldynamicsintegral.nl/en/red/

Core Values:
Egocentric, exploitative, impulsive.
Paradigm:
Power: “I determine”
Worldview:
The world is a jungle. Survival of the fittest.
Life Motto:
“I am taking charge without taking others into account.”
Life Theme:
Immediate gratification of impulses and senses and fight for my own interest.
Life Philosophy:
I only trust myself and what I want, I want now.

[Tippaporn]

36 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

...But that's exactly how we evolve, isn't it ?

If evolution is synonymous with growth then that does not require pain.  Ideally, growth happens without pain.

 

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

If evolution is synonymous with growth then that does not imply pain.  Ideally, growth happens without pain.

Then we've finally found a point where we disagree ????

Actually, in terms of evolution, or growth, pain is our best friend imho.

[Tippaporn]

5 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Then we've finally found a point where we disagree ????

Actually, in terms of evolution, or growth, pain is our best friend imho.

Ask yourself a simple question.  Does all growth come through pain?  If the answer is "No" then that is evidence that pain is not a requirement of growth.  Now answer another simple question for yourself.  If I could choose growth with pain or growth without pain which would I choose?

Now ask yourself, do we really disagree? 

 

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

Ask yourself a simple question.  Does all growth come through pain?  If the answer is "No" then that is evidence that pain is not requirement of growth.  Now answer another simple question for yourself.  If I could choose growth with pain or growth without pain which would I choose?

Now ask yourself, do we really disagree? 

Well, in a way you are right, but i am born a contrarian, so ,although i can concede that you may be able to evolve without pain, people in general get attached to material things; soon or later attachments create pain.

Moreover, it's rare for people to look deliberately for painful experiences, yet our spiritual self may create painful situations in order to evolve. 

I believe the trick is to be able not to see pain as negative, but as a useful and fruitful experience of the soul.

[Tippaporn]

9 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Well, in a way you are right, but i am born a contrarian, so ,although i can concede that you may be able to evolve without pain, people in general get attached to material things; soon or later attachments create pain.

Moreover, it's rare for people to look deliberately for painful experiences, yet our spiritual self may create painful situations in order to evolve. 

I believe the trick is to be able not to see pain as negative, but as a useful and fruitful experience of the soul.

As long as there exists a single instance of growth without pain then that becomes all the proof one needs to know that pain is not a requirement for growth.  Of course we can think of endless examples of growth without pain.  I'd venture to say that it is more the rule than the exception.

Now that's not to say that pain does not or cannot serve as a catalyst for growth.  It can indeed.  Yet all pain and all misery eventually leads to a better, say more evolved, place.  It cannot do otherwise.  Hence I would say you are correct to view pain as a positive.  Perhaps I should qualify that end result as 'an ultimate positive.'  But in no way would I ever recommend someone deliberately seek pain because it would eventually lead to growth.  It is true, though, that some folks hold martyrdom in high regard and place great value on it.  Not I.

People getting attached to material things, and even non-material things, which can then cause pain when a separation occurs is due to certain beliefs.  Sometimes one feels pain when something is "lost" and at other times a "loss" brings no pain at all.  The beliefs behind the emotions must then be examined.

As to whether your spiritual self would create a painful situation for you so that you may evolve, I believe, using your terms, your spiritual self would never dream up scenarios of pain and force them upon you for your own good.  Again, using your terms, your spiritual self I assume would be much more "evolved" than your much, much lower evolved earthly self <sarc> and so, being that much wiser, and certainly wise enough to know that pain is not a requirement of growth, would instead create an absolutely pleasant situation for you to grow.  Why not?  If it can force you to learn through pain then why can't it force you to learn through pleasure?

Aside from that, I don't believe your spiritual self would ever force an experience upon you, even if it were able to do so, which it can not.  The rule here is absolute free will which implies that there is no other entity which can create for you.  Influence you?  Absolutely.  Force you?  That runs contrary to free will, which is one of the unalterable aspects of all realities.

We may disagree, however, in how we view the self.  We talk as if there are definitive divisions between portions of ourselves but in reality there are none.  I would disagree that we have a spiritual self that is apart from our earthly self.  The common image of our earthly self is much maligned in my opinion.  There is nothing whatsoever subpar about who we see in the mirror.  It is not under any terms lesser in any way.  If it appears to be then that is due only to the beliefs one chooses to harbour.