Parables: The Way to Heaven

Debates: 4

Posts: 8,050

3

4

7

02.08.2019 01:00AM

3

4

7

02.08.2019 01:00AM

-->

@Discipulus_Didicit

I don't think you are wrong about God, I know you are wrong. I know this very clearly. That is why I can't believe that your lack of belief in God comes knowing God is.

The Ultimate Reality is God.

Why is this distinction between reality and ultimate reality important?

We are not talking about a reality or realities. We are talking about THE Reality. The very reality that makes any other reality possible. It is a way of identifying the subject matter with precision, not an attempt at woo or confusion.

And yes, this is what we accept as being God, and Orthodox spirituality cannot make sense without this understanding, because Orthodox Spirituality is about purifying the heart(Nous). You cannot purify your heart towards a false god, because idolatry is by nature a defilement of the heart.

The problem with spirituality in western thinking is that it is more concerned with formulating and getting things down into precise terms, logic, reasoning, etc.. It is a type of attitude that was inherited from Rome. Latins think like engineers.

Orthodoxy understands that you can build a tree of logic off of faulty premises and every conclusion you build off of this will technically be logical. We are more concerned with purifying our intentions and making our vision clear than to intelectualize everything.

The western church, both Roman Catholicism and the thousands of reformation churches have descended into heresy and chaos because they don't really get it. Secularism is really the natural progression of the wests dropping the ball.

So you have to understand, I am an Orthodox Christian. I would say that it is probably not very likely that your exposure to Christianity has been through Orthodoxy. We are very different.

And we are also the original church descended from Jesus and the Apostles, who have been very faithful in keeping what was passed down to us.

So if I sound different than the Christians you are accustomed to, that is why.

#92

Debates: 0

Posts: 4,959

2

3

02.08.2019 04:45AM

2

3

02.08.2019 04:45AM

-->

@Mopac

We are not talking about a reality or realities.

You have argued incessantly that the other realities are not your ultimate reality, how many realities do you have? I've only got one and your man made god doesn't exist in it.

#93

Polytheist-Witch

Debates: 1

Posts: 4,188

3

6

Polytheist-Witch

02.08.2019 01:13PM

3

6

02.08.2019 01:13PM

-->

@Discipulus_Didicit

All theists are murderers. Keep up.

Topic's author

#94

Debates: 9

Posts: 5,294

3

4

10

02.08.2019 03:43PM

3

4

10

02.08.2019 03:43PM

-->

@Polytheist-Witch

All theists are murderers. Keep up.

That seems unlikely given how many theists there are in the world. If they were are murderers I doubt society would be able to function at all. Do you have any evidence for that?

Topic's author

#95

Debates: 9

Posts: 5,294

3

4

10

02.08.2019 04:05PM

3

4

10

02.08.2019 04:05PM

-->

@Mopac

We are not talking about a reality or realities. We are talking about THE Reality. The very reality that makes any other reality possible. It is a way of identifying the subject matter with precision, not an attempt at woo or confusion.

...

The problem with spirituality in western thinking is that it is more concerned with formulating and getting things down into precise terms, logic, reasoning, etc.. It is a type of attitude that was inherited from Rome. Latins think like engineers.

What other realities? I am only aware of one. What makes you think that multiple realities exist?

Also, reading through your post with special attention to the bolded/underlined portion...

1) I agree with the first bolded/underlined portion in which you imply that "identifying the subject matter with precision" is a good thing.

2) I disagree with the second bolded/underlined poration in which you imply that "identifying the subject matter with precision" is a bad thing.

It is hard to tell whether you think identifying the subject matter with precision" is a good or bad thing. I would guess by the way you usually talk that you think it is a bad thing but the first bolded/underlined portion in the quote above says otherwise. Please clarify.

You can build a tree of logic off of faulty premises and every conclusion you build off of this will technically be logical

This statement is clearly false. If a premise is faulty then the conclusion is faulty by definition. I now believe based on you making this statement that you do not have a complete understanding of how logical reasoning works.

So if I sound different than the Christians you are accustomed to, that is why.

Not really, no. Your apologetics are pretty similar to many others I have heard many times before. Your post-modernist style of thinking is annoying but not unique.

#96

Debates: 4

Posts: 8,050

3

4

7

02.08.2019 05:48PM

3

4

7

02.08.2019 05:48PM

What other realities? I am only aware of one. What makes you think that multiple realities exist?

That One Reality is what I am refering to. I was born of a woman. This is a reality. I am not talking about this reality, I am talking very specifically about The One Reality.

Also, reading through your post with special attention to the bolded/underlined portion...

1) I agree with the first bolded/underlined portion in which you imply that "identifying the subject matter with precision" is a good thing.

2) I disagree with the second bolded/underlined poration in which you imply that "identifying the subject matter with precision" is a bad thing.

It is hard to tell whether you think identifying the subject matter with precision" is a good or bad thing. I would guess by the way you usually talk that you think it is a bad thing but the first bolded/underlined portion in the quote above says otherwise. Please clarify

Precision is not a bad thing. Reason is not a bad thing. None of these things are bad, and we should exercise them. When it comes to seeing God, the way to do it is not through education or reason(the scholastic method) but through purifying the heart(the hesychast method). That is the point I am trying to make, and this is the difference in approach that Orthodox Christianity has with Roman Papalism and mainline protestantism.

If a premise is faulty then the conclusion is faulty by definition.

That is precisely my point. And surely, people use reason to justify many things that are false. Logical does not mean true, even if logic when used properly aims for that goal. The influences on one's heart and what they are working in relation to has a great deal to do with what they consider rational or logical.

Your post-modernist style of thinking is annoying but not unique.

Could not be further. than the truth, post modern thinking is arbitrary and comes from the nihilism inherent to atheism. When you come to understand what it is I am actually saying, you will find that it couldn't be further from postmodern thinking. Postmodern thinking doesn't truly allow room for an Ultimate Reality.

I am representing the Orthodox Christian position.

Jesus said, "Blessed are the pure in heart, they will see God"

Not

"Blessed are those who believe the right things through mental gymnastics, they will see God."

Orthodox Christianity is very different from what they call Christianity in the west.

Topic's author

#97

Debates: 9

Posts: 5,294

3

4

10

02.08.2019 06:08PM

3

4

10

02.08.2019 06:08PM

-->

@Mopac

I was born of a woman. This is a reality.

You have a different definition of the word 'reality' than everyone else then. I shouldn't be suprised. The statement quoted above is a statement of fact. It accurately describes reality and is therefore a true statement of fact.

A fact is not a reality onto itself, it is a description of reality. That is just how those words work.

#98

Debates: 4

Posts: 8,050

3

4

7

02.08.2019 06:38PM

3

4

7

02.08.2019 06:38PM

-->

@Discipulus_Didicit

I am not budging on The Ultimate Reality, so if you don't see the point in it, I would appreciate it if you understood that just because you don't see the point doesn't mean that the point is invalidated.

If nothing else, respect the fact that this is what is written in merriam-webster's collegiate dictionary, and leave it at that.

The supreme or ultimate reality.

If you are not willing to accept this, I will have to give you a lesson in the English language, and I would prefer not to make this a topic about you presuming to know English better than you really do.

Topic's author

#99

Debates: 9

Posts: 5,294

3

4

10

02.08.2019 07:10PM

3

4

10

02.08.2019 07:10PM

-->

@Mopac

Okay, I think I get it. By 'ultimate reality' you mean like something that is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily, is that it?

#100

Debates: 4

Posts: 8,050

3

4

7

02.08.2019 07:16PM

3

4

7

02.08.2019 07:16PM

-->

@Discipulus_Didicit

I would not say "something", but other than that little nitpick, yes. The Ultimate Reality is neither derivative nor dependent and certainly exists necessarily.

Topic's author

#101

Debates: 9

Posts: 5,294

3

4

10

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reality

02.08.2019 07:30PM

3

4

10

02.08.2019 07:30PM

Okay, I think I get it. By 'ultimate reality' you mean like something that is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily, is that it?

I would not say "something", but other than that little nitpick, yes. The Ultimate Reality is neither derivative nor dependent and certainly exists necessarily.

Okay, I understand and accept that.

The problem is that 'something that is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily' is a direct copy-paste of Merriam-Webster's definition of the word 'reality'

So now we have to decide whether Merriam-Webster's is a reliable source for what words mean. I think it is, what do you think?

Edit: I looked up 'ultimate reality' in there also. Have you done this too or did you just see the term 'ultimate reality' under the definition for God and stop there? You see, there is a reason I have been trying to get you to describe the term with more than saying "that is what God is" and I suspect it is the same reason that you have refused to do so.

#102

Debates: 4

Posts: 8,050

3

4

7

02.08.2019 07:44PM

3

4

7

02.08.2019 07:44PM

-->

@Discipulus_Didicit

And you will note that just as "God" means something different than "god", so are there other ways of using the word reality.

So for me to say "Ultimate Reality" is a clarification of the reality that is being discussed.

Maybe you will like this definition as well, as it is applicable..

Full Definition of Superstition

1 a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation

b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition

2 : a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary

As God is The Ultimate Reality, God by definition exists. To deny the existence of God is superstitious.

Topic's author

#103

Debates: 9

Posts: 5,294

3

4

10

02.08.2019 07:51PM

3

4

10

02.08.2019 07:51PM

-->

@Mopac

So... I looked up 'ultimate reality' in there also. Have you done this too or did you just see the term 'ultimate reality' under the definition for God and stop there?

#104

Debates: 4

Posts: 8,050

3

4

7

02.08.2019 08:03PM

3

4

7

02.08.2019 08:03PM

-->

@Discipulus_Didicit

Yes, that is certainly in the unabridged dictionary.

I probably posted that definition even on these forums several months ago.

Topic's author

#105

Debates: 9

Posts: 5,294

3

4

10

02.08.2019 08:09PM

3

4

10

02.08.2019 08:09PM

-->

@disgusted

You have argued incessantly that the other realities are not your ultimate reality, how many realities do you have? I've only got one and your man made god doesn't exist in it.

Mopac has now stated that Merriam-Webster's is his source for what words mean, thus limiting him to that one source. The word 'reality' has two definitions in there. Mopac has essentially been using the first definition to mean 'reality' and the second definition to mean 'ultimate reality'. In truth the two definitions are different from eachother (a word can have multiple meanings after all) but Merriam-Webster's does also have an entry for 'ultimate reality', and it is in fact a third completely different definition. Go look up 'ultimate reality' in Merriam-Webster's online dictionary and see if you can figure out why I almost died from laughter when I did so given Mopacs assertion that "the ultimate reality must by definition exist"

Edit: when I say "the first definition of reality" I mean definition 2a, when I say "the second definition of reality" I mean definition 2b. I think everyone here agrees that definitions 1 and 3 are not what anyone here is referring to.

#106

Debates: 4

Posts: 8,050

3

4

7

02.08.2019 08:27PM

3

4

7

02.08.2019 08:27PM

-->

@Discipulus_Didicit

I will do it for you.

"Something that is the supreme, final, and fundamental power in all reality"

I know what I believe, and my faith is older than English.

Instead of believing me when I tell you what I believe, you instead are trying to wiggle around it semantically in order that you can appear to be right without actually being right.

I know what I believe, and my faith is older than English.

But the dictionary certainly does back up my position. You are simply being haughty.

There is no argument that stands against God. Your invincible ignorance is not a valid argument.

Topic's author

#107

Debates: 9

Posts: 5,294

3

4

10

02.08.2019 09:38PM

3

4

10

02.08.2019 09:38PM

-->

@Mopac

I will do it for you.

"Something that is the supreme, final, and fundamental power in all reality"

Okay. I will accept this as your new definition for the ultimate reality.

You have previously said that everyone accepts that the ultimate reality is real but not everyone accepts that the ultimate reality is god. Do you maintain that this is the case?

#108

Debates: 4

Posts: 8,050

3

4

7

02.08.2019 10:15PM

3

4

7

02.08.2019 10:15PM

-->

@Discipulus_Didicit

To those that know God but do not acknowledge God as being God, Saint Paul in his epistle to the Romans writes...

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things."

What is the supreme, final, and fundamental power to all reality?

The Truth. Existence. Actuality. The way things actually are. Clearly this has the greatest authority in all reality.

And I challenge you to find anything else that fulfills this, because you can't. You trying to semantically make God something other than God is a vain thing, because there is a cloud of witnesses, thousands of years worth of writings from the saints that back what I am saying, older than the English language itself, and all you have is your cleverness.

No amount of cleverness is going to invalidate God, and no amount of semantic jimmying is going to justify your lack of reverence for The Truth if you should decide to argue semantics in order to confuse the subject matter and justify your denial of reality.

How does Oxford define God? The Supreme Being.

The Supreme Being means the exact same thing as The Ultimate Reality.

What does Oxford say Being means?

Existence.

The Supreme Being and The Ultimate Reality are the same thing.

Do you understand or are you going to contradict me on this?

#109

Debates: 5

Posts: 354

0

1

2

02.08.2019 11:21PM

0

1

2

02.08.2019 11:21PM

-->

@keithprosser

Well that settles it...all of the JESUS and ALLAH vomiting Parasite Vampires are going to HELL !

WRONG......they are here now creating HELL ON EARTH.....War-Death-Destruction-Torture-

Hanging-Burning-beatings-Raping-Corruption-Conflict-Fear-Intimidation-Violence- ++++

so many atrocities committed in the name of JESUS and ALLAH it makes HITLER-STALIN-MAO

laughable Comic Book characters....

HEAVEN ? the grand ILLUSION...the Disneyland for the Jesus parasites...and what do the Allah

parasites get ? some crappy low end parking lot carnival ! why not it matches the absurdity of

Muslim/islam DOGMA....

Accept JESUS and the ALLAH Vampires want to murder YOU

Accept ALLAH and the JESUS Psychopath child rapist preachers want you dead..

regardless with the Middle East Jesus or Allah...everyone DIES !

praise JESUS ! it's GOD's WILL the ALLAH Vampires shout !

SOLUTION ? YES flush jesus and Allah along with their Comic Book dogma down the TOILET

#110

Debates: 0

Posts: 4,959

2

3

02.09.2019 02:25AM

2

3

02.09.2019 02:25AM

-->

@Mopac

"Something that is the supreme, final, and fundamental power in all reality"

By this definition your ultimate reality is contingent on reality, it is a part of reality. That contradicts everything you've written and it comes from your holiest of holy books Merriam-Webster.

I know what I believe, and my faith is older than English.

Then why do you rely so heavily on an English dictionary in your arguments. The same book proves your claims false.The ultimate reality does not mean god unless you belong to certain religions, making your claim dishonest at best.

#111

keithprosser

Debates: 0

Posts: 3,052

3

keithprosser

02.09.2019 06:36AM

3

02.09.2019 06:36AM

-->

@Mopac

How does Oxford define God? The Supreme Being.
The Supreme Being means the exact same thing as The Ultimate Reality.
What does Oxford say Being means?
Existence.
The Supreme Being and The Ultimate Reality are the same thing.

but 'Human being' is not the same thing as 'human existence', is it?

#112

Debates: 4

Posts: 8,050

3

4

7

02.09.2019 06:50AM

3

4

7

02.09.2019 06:50AM

-->

@keithprosser

Use your good sense.

The Ultimate Reality

The Supreme Being

How can these definitions mean the same thing?

Must I reiterate that my religion is older than the English language and I know what I believe?

Topic's author

#113

Debates: 9

Posts: 5,294

3

4

10

02.11.2019 02:33AM

3

4

10

02.11.2019 02:33AM

What is the supreme, final, and fundamental power to all reality?

The Truth. Existence. Actuality. The way things actually are. Clearly this has the greatest authority in all reality.

Existence itself does not posses 'fundamental power' over itself.

I told you that I accepted "Something that is the supreme, final, and fundamental power in all reality" as your new definition of ultimate reality to replace your old definition of "Something that is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily". By this new definition no, I do not think any 'ultimate reality' exists. I don't think there is any single entity or force with power over all of reality. I think reality is affected by numerous different forces, causes and effects, etc.

All of that is just word play though, which is why you hold on to that and ignore my more important question, which was when I repeatedly ask you to go into detail about what you believe to be the nature of this ultimate reality you speak of.

You avoid doing so because you want to hold on to the argument that everyone here secretly does believe what you are saying but does not want to admit it or somehow doesn't know that they agree with you. If you ever went into any detail about what you believed about the nature of reality and/or your ultimate reality then this would be a claim that could actually be examined, which is something you don't want.

I could go on for hours and hours about minute details on how I think reality works but I choose not to because I know you don't care in the least what I or anyone that disagrees with you thinks about anything so my doing so would be just a huge waste of time.

You have no such excuse however, as I have repeatedly asked you to go into detail about such things numerous times now. Prayer, sin, the afterlife, the beginning of the universe, or even just the supernatural in general are just a few things you could talk about in detail (there are dozens of other things, you could pick anything!) in order to paint a picture of how you see the world beyond simply reiterating "God is ultimate reality, ultimate reality is god, you believe it too if you think about it." That doesn't say anything. Yes I know you believe reality exists, we all do. That does not say anything at all about what you believe about how it works.

Tell us what you think too, not just some copy-paste quote from some person that has been dead for hundreds of years. Even if you agree with that person try to have some originality of thought by putting your ideas into your own words. I care about what some guy that has been dead for hundreds of years thinks about the world as much as you care about what I think about the world... not at all. I would rather hear what you think.

Why would you not want to do so after all this time? The only reason I can think of is because you want to hold on to your proto-ontological apologetics as described above. If this isn't the case then please... prove me wrong.

#114

Debates: 4

Posts: 8,050

3

4

7

02.11.2019 05:18PM

3

4

7

02.11.2019 05:18PM

-->

@Discipulus_Didicit

You are the only one playing word games, don't kid yourself.

I know what I believe. You are being arrogant.

The Ultimate Reality is God. The Supreme Being is God.

I know my God. You don't. You are superstitious.

So instead of trying to argue dictionary with me, why don't you believe what I am telling you instead? Mine isn't a semantic argument. The Orthodox Church teaches that The Truth is God. This has been understood for thousands of years. The monastics have been writing about it for thousands of years. If you think that any created force in the universe can overpower The Supremacy of The Truth, you are a fool.

You denying God amounts to little more than denying reality itself.

And I until we get this straight, there is not much else to discuss, because you are trying to jump from kindergarten to 4th grade. You want to argue around this, and this is the essential most important thing!

#115

Goldtop

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,706

2

1

2

Goldtop

02.11.2019 05:49PM

2

1

2

02.11.2019 05:49PM

until we get this straight, there is not much else to discuss

You have a one dimensional mind that does not allow discussion, you're only interested in spreading hatred and lies, your mind has rotted from religion. You need serious professional help.

#116

Debates: 4

Posts: 8,050

3

4

7

02.11.2019 06:42PM

3

4

7

02.11.2019 06:42PM

-->

@Goldtop

The only God I acknowledge, the only thing I acknowledge as being God is The Ultimate Reality. The Truth.

If you don't accept that my God is The God of Truth, there is nothing else that can make sense. Everything else comes from this.

But I am unfortunately dealing with people who falsely believe they understand my faith better than I do.

Topic's author

#117

Debates: 9

Posts: 5,294

3

4

10

02.11.2019 06:44PM

3

4

10

02.11.2019 06:44PM

You denying God amounts to little more than denying reality itself.

And I until we get this straight, there is not much else to discuss,

Reality itself? Did you mean to say ultimate reality? You have said so many times that the two are completely different, it would be a shame for you to change your mind on that point so soon after I state that I agree with you on it.

We already got this straight back in post 107 anyway when I fully accepted your definition of God and ultimate reality.

Are you going to actually respond to anything in post 113 or just hope that nobody notices you ignored it completely? One would think that you would jump at the chance to explain your beliefs (since that is what I am asking of you in post 113) after all the dozens of times you have accused people of misunderstanding and misrepresenting you.

My money is on you choosing the 'ignore' option but please... prove me wrong.

#118

Debates: 4

Posts: 8,050

3

4

7

02.11.2019 08:00PM

3

4

7

02.11.2019 08:00PM

-->

@Discipulus_Didicit

Reality itself? Did you mean to say ultimate reality? You have said so many times that the two are completely different, it would be a shame for you to change your mind on that point so soon after I state that I agree with you on it.

Stopping you right there.

No, I have been very consistent. The issue here was that not just any reality is The Ultimate Reality. It is Reality itself, reality as it truly is. Not "It is reality that Dallas is a city in Texas."

And this is what Orthodoxy believes, that God is The Eternally Existing One. You attempting to make this into a semantic argument is vain, because making a straw man god to replace God is not a valid argument. Besides that, it isn't honest because instead of trying to understand what it is you are dismissing, you are simply trying to justify your own rejection of that which you are wholly ignorant of.

Topic's author

#119

Debates: 9

Posts: 5,294

3

4

10

02.11.2019 08:34PM

3

4

10

02.11.2019 08:34PM

And this is what Orthodoxy believes, that God is The Eternally Existing One. You attempting to make this into a semantic argument is vain, because making a straw man god to replace God is not a valid argument. Besides that, it isn't honest because instead of trying to understand what it is you are dismissing, you are simply trying to justify your own rejection of that which you are wholly ignorant of.

Dismissing what? My exact words were:

I fully accept your definition of God and ultimate reality.

This is my fourth time saying it now, I fully and unconditionally accept that your definition of God matches Merriam-Webster's definition of 'ultimate reality'

Now... everyone here can see that I asked in post 113 for you to explain in detail what you believe. If you say that I am "wholly ignorant" of what you believe then that is fine, but would a neutral observer conclude that it is reasonable for me to understand what you have not explained? I think not.

In light of this I am going to ask once again that you respond to post 113. I doubt that you will but please... prove me wrong.

#120

Debates: 5

Posts: 354

0

1

2