-->
@Mopac
The Ultimate Reality exists. The Ultimate Reality is The One True God.
This is an opinion.
...it is you who choose not to believe God
Posts
Total:
113
-->
@Mopac
As I stated very recently in a separate thread.
Call it God if you wish, that's your prerogative.
I for now will label the possible enabler of a possible ultimate reality as G.O.D. Which is an acronym.
D. probably is data.
But I haven't got my head around the G and the O yet.
Though the only reason I choose G.O.D. is because it is an acronym relative to many popular mythological hypotheses.
Of course the word God could easily be a corruption of something else, that has long since been lost in translation.
-->
@zedvictor4
"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."
-->
@Mopac
It's hilarious how you people take quotes from a book full of lies, have you heard the one about the flood fifty feet higher than Mt Everest?
-->
@zedvictor4
I for now will label the possible enabler of a possible ultimate reality as G.O.D. Which is an acronym.
I call it NOUMENON.
Or, "NTURTTGgTS" = "Noumenon, The Ultimate Reality, The Truth, [G]god, The Source".
-->
@Athias
We share basic hardware (biological, instinctual) similarities and basic firmware (primary childhood experience) similarities.This is evidenced by our ability to communicate. These (inter-subjective) similarities are prerequisite to our intellectual interaction.Are we really communicating? What is it that we're communicating? Isn't everything you've read concerning my response filtered through the prism of your personal set of conditioned data? What is the difference between my statements and figments of your experience?
I believe we are communicating and I believe you would abandon the conversation if you did not believe we were communicating.
Your typed words are verifiable data points.
-->
@Athias
Psychology is based on this idea (other minds) and its EFFICACY is established by PROPAGANDA/MARKETING/PUBLIC RELATIONS techniques."Established" is too indulgent. And if psychology is efficacious in manipulating the formulation of decisions and experiences defined personally conditioned data (e.g. Propaganda, Marketing, Public Relations, etc.) then does this not undermine the subjectivity of individual experience? Or better yet, individuality?
Although efficacious, it is not 100% fool-proof. That's why marketers are ever so interested in children (basically fish-in-a-barrel) and the magical "18-24" (idiots with money) demographic. Most people develop some immunity to NEW propaganda after graduating although many retain the commercial jingles and other prejudices acquired in their youth for the rest of their lives (that's why nostalgia is so powerful).
-->
@Athias
You've been "conditioned" (inculcated, programmed by instinct and primary childhood experiences) similarly to myself (inter-subjectively).How were we conditioned similarly?
Presumably you're a human who speaks English and knows how to use a computer. You remember being a helpless child. You have certain foods that you prefer over others. You are intelligent and thoughtful.
-->
@Athias
Because I'm communicating with you. This logically means our brains must necessarily share basic similarities.Once again, are we? I could be a figment of your imagination especially if one is going to argue that belief is a personal set of conditioned data. Your response is subject to that which you believe to be true about the "human" brain.
You could be a figment of my imagination, however, you are a very persistent and scientifically verifiable figment of my imagination, which makes you functionally identical to a REAL-TRUE-FACT.
-->
@Athias
For example, What significance does the statement, "what significance does this bear to anyone other than you?" bear to anyone other than you?Except that I'm not the one arguing that belief is intrasubjective. I'm using his premise to demonstrate contradiction.
The only thing you've proven is that you find significance in this conversation (which answers your own question).
Your participation is de facto acknowledgement of your interest.
-->
@Athias
Ultimately, yes. Yes, the issue IS whether you find it interesting.No it isn't. I do find it interesting, and my participation conveys as much. But that's what I meant by "significance."
Please feel free to explain.
-->
@Athias
Generally speaking. There may be a few exceptions, but those exceptions are incapable of intellectual interaction (self-excluding).How is this a general rule when the rule is also subject to its own description? And there are exceptions that are incapable of intellectual interaction, then how are you aware of them?
Have you ever seen an ant? Or a newborn infant?
-->
@Athias
It seems to reasonably reflect my experiences as well, and from what I can gather, it does not conflict with the data I've accumulated on "others".But all that data consists of your personally conditioned data.
You can debug a program by running the program. That's what I'm doing here. You're assisting me. Error checking. Testing for logical coherence.
-->
@zedvictor4
You are mistaken to postulate an enabler of ultimate reality. The Ultimate Reality is not contingent on anything.
@Mopac
That's easy to say.
But impossible to prove.
-->
@3RU7AL
Lacks panache.NTURTTGgTS
And NOUMENON's not much better.
You can see why the choose GOD.
G.O.D. could be something like the Genesis Originating Data.
G.O.D. Would look good on the side of the Data Delivery Vehicle. D.D.V.
NTURTTGgTS would just look stupid.
-->
@zedvictor4
The Ultimate Reality is not contingent on anything.That's easy to say.But impossible to prove.
If we are talking about The Ultimate Reality, it cannot be subject to another reality. The Ultimate Reality is the source of all existence. It neither came to be or changes. If this was the case, time would be lord over God. This is nonsense. God is Lord over time.
These are things that can be inferred from contemplating what ultimate reality means, and understanding the implications.
-->
@zedvictor4
NTURTTGgTSLacks panache.And NOUMENON's not much better.You can see why the choose GOD.G.O.D. could be something like the Genesis Originating Data.G.O.D. Would look good on the side of the Data Delivery Vehicle. D.D.V.NTURTTGgTS would just look stupid.
Both are a product of an arbitrary sense of aesthetics and an aversion to the word "God".
The point here is to create strife and confusion, not a common understanding.
The way to see God is to purify the heart, not embracing absurdity.
-->
@Mopac
If we are talking about The Ultimate Reality, it cannot be subject to another reality. The Ultimate Reality is the source of all existence. It neither came to be or changes. If this was the case, time would be lord over God. This is nonsense. God is Lord over time.These are things that can be inferred from contemplating what ultimate reality means, and understanding the implications.
Hallelujah!
-->
@Mopac
If we are talking about The Ultimate Reality,
But you're not.
You are talking about a fictional character created thousands of years ago as a member of the Canaanite Pantheon.
-->
@Mopac
The point here is to create strife and confusion, not a common understanding.
I see.
So as long as everyone agrees with you, there will be no strife or confusion?
Because everyone who DISagrees with you is evil and loves strife and confusion?
-->
@disgusted
If we are talking about The Ultimate Reality,But you're not.You are talking about a fictional character created thousands of years ago as a member of the Canaanite Pantheon.
Mopac uses the word "God" differently than most Christians.
Mopac doesn't believe "The Bible" is literal and infallible.
-->
@3RU7AL
I see.So as long as everyone agrees with you, there will be no strife or confusion?Because everyone who DISagrees with you is evil and loves strife and confusion?
Me?
Try all of human history. It is this nihilistic individualist philosophy that is the aberration.
What you all don't realize is that this is no accident. There are legitimately evil forces at work creating this confusion, because the end goal is to eradicate Christianity. This can not be done if we are engaged honestly.
Mopac uses the word "God" differently than most Christians.Mopac doesn't believe "The Bible" is literal and infallible.
Most Christians you know. What you don't realize is that none of the "Christianity" you are exposed to has been around for more than a couple hundred years at most.
My understanding of God is in line with the mind of The Church. We have always understood God this way, and every heterodox confession can be traced back to its deviation from orthodoxy.
To protestants I say, the fulfillment of your schism with Rome is reunion with the church Rome broke away from. The Orthodox Catholic Church.
The Bible is not intended to be seperated from the church. That being the case, what you should believe about it is what the church teaches.
-->
@Mopac
Mopac uses the word "God" differently than most Christians.Most Christians you know.
50% of people who call themselves "Christians" follow the Roman Catholic Church (not your EO Church).
Your interpretation of "true Christianity" is different than most Christians.
-->
@3RU7AL
Well, it can be demonstrated through Church history that the Roman Catholic Church is in heresy, and is not represenative of the ORTHODOX(or true) Christian position if there is any difference between what we teach.
But even The Roman Cathllic Church recognizes that God is The Ultimate Reality.
-->
@Mopac
But even The Roman Cathllic Church recognizes that God is The Ultimate Reality.
Perhaps they simply choose not to harp on the point.
-->
@3RU7AL
Well, I assure you that even in contemporary Orthodox literature written in English, you will find those two words even "Ultimate Reality".
If I remember correctly, because it has been nearly half a decade since I read it, but I think the catechism of the Roman Catholic Church does refer to God this way, as The Ultimate Reality.
This is not a modern innovation. I was able to discern that God was The Ultimate Reality after studying the bible for years. After finding nothing but frustration in this regard in protestant churches, I found that this always how the historical church has understood God. I have read an awful lot of the church fatjers, saints, and theologians that have lived in the last 2000 years. I see the consistency.
The point is, I am not expressing my opinion, but what the church itself professes.
-->
@Mopac
The point is, I am not expressing my opinion, but what the church itself professes.
Back to your "personal experience" point, I've encountered literally hundreds of Christians (and Christian music and Christian television shows and Christian movies) in my lifetime and you're the first one who ever made a point out of using the term, "Ultimate Reality".
And I have trouble believing that's sheer coincidence.
It may very well be buried in ancient doctrine, but I've never heard anyone mention it before meeting you.
Mopac uses the word "God" differently than most Christians.
-->
@3RU7AL
Well, I didn't make it up. In fact, I just finished a really good book by fr. Thomas Hopko called "The fulness of God" where he uses this expression.
He is a native English speaker. I'd like to point out that most of Church's writings over the millennia are in Greek, and sometimes these concepts we use don't translate well.
For example, we use the concepts of ousia and hypostasis to describe The Trinity. Words like "substance", "person", and "essence" are translations that I don't think really capture what these words mean.
I don't really want to get polemical, but The Orthodox Church practices historical Christianity. The Christianity you are exposed to is not orthodox. What that means is, whether or not it is even truly Christianity at all is debatable.
Unfortunately, this creates a confusing situation for people who want to learn the faith, because to be blunt, heresy is a great deal more common in evangelical/protestant churches than sound doctrine. The Roman Church is... I mean, they haven't been orthodox for over a thousand years now. It isn't like they have corrected course since then either. In fact, both Vatican 1 and Vatican 2 pretty much sealed the deal as far as reconciliation between our churches is concerned.
Protestantism was in itself a reaction against a Roman church that deviated from orthodoxy. They never got to reconnect with the true church though, because historical circumstances made that impossible.
What can I say? I found the Orthodox Church through studying the historical church, and I realized that the Orthodox Church has best preserved the faith. The fact that they are the original church simply reinforced what were already my observations based on the doctrine they teach.
Have you ever heard any Christian talk about theosis or deification? Well, this is what the church has always understood salvation to be. Never even heard of these concepts in any other church, yet this is how the church fathers understood things.
The Christianity that you and most people in the west are exposed to is corrupt and unenlightened besides. They have something, but it isn't complete. It isn't catholic. What they are missing is the true church.
But that all said, heresy is bad theology. Someone can have bad theology and practice good religion. Unfortunately, bad theology tends to lead to bad religion. Are there real Christians among the heretical churches? Undoubtedly, and they will be reunited with us in the world to come. But The Orthodox Catholic Church is the definitive Christian Church, and that is my witness. Take it or leave it.
-->
@Mopac
As I continue to state. The ultimate reality is what it is and no one can actually do anything other than speculate.
Call it God, if that is what you have been conditioned to do. I certainly do not wish to deny you that right.
For now I will refer to it as G.O.D as this fit's nicely with my current way of thinking.
As you've probably surmised, I was never strictly conditioned with any of the many religious variants, so I am therefore able to retain a very flexible approach towards matters concerning the big question.
Though what this proves to me is, that the reason that we continue to differ and to debate is not because one of us is right and one of us is wrong, it's simply because you and I were brought up differently.