Total posts: 2,869
Posted in:
-->
@Jarrett_Ludolph
Do you believe that the bible contain conntradictions?
At face value sure
If so, what does this mean?
It means there's no reason to look for perfection in the Bible, it does NOT mean that the works within the Bible can't be trusted or useful as a means to gain good insights and knowledge. It is one out of many spiritual pieces of literature and not the only book that contains good spiritual insights. But none of those sources of literature should be regarded or assumed to be perfect that's unrealistic. They should be valued for what they are and understood that there will be useful information as well as information that can be discarded.
Why or why not?
I don't think there are many, and most of the so-called contradictions people like to point out are not always good examples. There's a few I can think of, but TBH I wouldn't refer to them as contradictions depending on the perspective and context.
The main one that usually comes up is the ole Isaiah passage about God "creating evil" along with "I the Lord do all these things" (Isaiah 45:7), which is not a very good translation and even if it were it's a very misconstrued meaning. Because evil is not a thing to be created so it is nonsensical to start with, evil is the intentions and results of actions so this translation is misleading. It can be said God is responsible for evil existing, because nothing would exist had it not been for God but that is a different perspective altogether. One reads like God is some Puppet Master where He creates evil creatures and created them to do evil things or that anything bad that happens God personally did it. This of course gives the impression no one is truly responsible for their actions since God created it.
On the other hand there is co-responsibility because God created an environment where evil COULD take place, but the created being who chose to commit evil also has a responsibility of choosing that option.
The contradicting verse that counters that idea is in James 1-
13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
16 Do not err, my beloved brethren.
17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
There's nothing about the origin of humanity that requires magic as an explanation you Silly. God doesn't explain human origins, and fails as an explanation for anything else. So one can dive very little into the technical details of evolutionary theory to understand that supernatural intervention isn't required for human origins.
Keeping in mind I'm not speaking for Tradesecret nor have I read through this thread, but both atheism and theism are an interpretation of what we observe. Evolutionary theory included, so it's more your opinion that no Creator was required or better put it's your own interpretation. One of the biggest misconceptions that I see so often with Atheists is that they always assume theories of scientific research and study support atheism or materialism. Not so, science is a neutral study it makes no claims about God or a Creator. The moment you claim there is no need for "supernatural intervention" you've injected your own opinion.
I could look at the same observations of our universe and its productions and conclude a different interpretation, so what it basically comes down to is do you believe inanimate forces could produce intelligent processes? because there is no reason the details of evolutionary theory aren't compatible with Theism. If it can be compatible with Theism then your assumption that no God is necessary is your own assumption, not the claim of the theory of evolution nor any other scientific proposal based on the workings of our universe. So you of course can claim that God was never required for human origins but it's certainly no fact and it's not supported by scientific study. Scientific study is a neutral observation, meaning one can interpret it how they see fit, how it makes sense to whoever is considering it.
Materials, recipes and processes are associated with agency/intelligence. When you break down the materials, recipes and processes of our universe and can show what materials were utilized and the recipes involved in any given process you've only shown how the recipe came together. Whether or not you agree there was a maker involved is simply your own interpretation. So when science puts forth a recipe and shows what materials were involved in the evolution of that product it's simply revealing the recipe of how something comes together it's not making claims about whether or not there was a maker involved. It is simply a recipe of any given product, but we know just through commonsense recipes are associated with thought and minds.
To put it bluntly, Theists have every right to interpret scientific research and study just as Atheists do, so it doesn't come down to science is on the side of atheists or even materialism it comes down to who has the superior interpretation and which one makes more sense. So the "evidence" is up for grabs it doesn't belong to atheists nor theists. In light of what I just wrote indeed God explains why anything happens at all, why processes occur at all and why inanimate materials generate intelligent productions.
Now to add another dynamic, not only can theists interpret scientific evidence they also have a wide range of spiritual based evidence. There's more evidence for transcendental experiences and a transcendent reality than any other topic period, and spirituality has been recorded and observed longer than any other study. To claim that God fails as an explanation for anything is quite a limited opinion, and fails to acknowledge that God explains a whole lot of things actually.
The point is that through the process of wanting to understand the world as it is, god becomes less and less necessary as an explanation for things.
I think if you look again, and consider that processes are associated with intelligence God becomes more and more necessary as an explanation for why anything occurs at all and why inanimate forces including energy acts as an intelligent operation. Don't give me the old "God of the gaps" baloney either lol, the correlation is much more than guesswork, no one has to guess because there's strong indication. When you consider that mixed the abundant supply of spiritual observations we have a damn good shot at being correct. And I'm trying to be fair here without proclaiming I know I'm right because of course you have every right to interpret the productions of the universe as you see fit as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jarrett_Ludolph
Do you believe that the bible is compatible with the theory of Evolution?
Certainly.
Why or why not?
The Bible testifies about a Creator, creation is a process and evolution is a process, processes can be associated with intelligence so there is plenty of compatibility. Better put though, the proposition of a Creator is compatible with evolution (the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form) because the debate between evolution vs Genesis goes nowhere fast. If one assumes the creation account in Genesis to be a literal rendering rather than an idea of creation then the assumption that God just poofs things into existence without an actual process contradicts the theory of evolution.
But it is not necessary, there's no need to make the assumption that the first part of Genesis was the actual process of how God created our world. It's more like a picture play mixed with symbolism so that we get the basic idea. It just illustrates an idea of what God wanted, not really exactly how God did it. There's good indicators that the first few chapters are symbolic.....such as "God needed to rest.....man being created by the dust of the ground, woman being created with mans ribs, a talking snake, tree of knowledge of good and evil, a flying sword" ect ect...these are symbolic writings.
For God to bring something into existence there is a process for that to occur. Genesis was never meant to capture and record such a lengthy record of events, it's not supposed to be a scientific observation.
For example, "let there be light, and there was light" is the will of God (what God wanted) not necessarily how light was brought into existence. We know for light to exist there's a process that must take place for that to appear as light and we can show how that works.
6 "And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so."
Note it doesn't say HOW exactly the firmament appeared or HOW exactly the waters were divided, it just declares what God did not HOW God did it.
11 "And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so."
Again it just says what God wanted not how God did it..... it's like me writing "let there be cake" and "it was so" lol. Now if you were to take that at face value you might assume there was no process involved in making that cake but that's silly.
So by the time we get to "Adam" it's the same drill only the writers begin to use symbolism. Being created by the dust of the earth is another way of saying our physical bodies are made from the same elements as everything else. Eve being created by Adams ribs is another way of saying women and men were created to be paired. It's very simplistic not complicated at all. Of course the talking snake represents temptation, Adam and Eve are representative of mankind, the tree of knowledge of good and evil represents the mind and our participation in an environment of duality.
Generally speaking evolution is misconstrued to be a process that occurs as a means of its own doing, as well as all the processes that occur within the universe by the majority of atheists therefore generally speaking the religious oppose that notion. But no need to oppose that at all because creation is a process so the theory of materials evolving is compatible with Theism/creation.
The assumption though that processes (evolution) occur all by itself is foolish, to believe that inanimate forces could somehow begin to generate processes and bring forth intelligent productions as if they had minds is an absurdity. Materials are used and processes occur but as a result of thought and mind first, then the manipulation of energy, element, chemistry and physics. Look how these processes unfold and observe how energy acts within creation, it's very obvious that there is intention, an intention to bring about a desire effect. This of course indicates agency AKA God.
Created:
-->
@Juice
Your stand is backed up by a book written by peasants and strung together with faith.
Oh I see, I figured you were the type to make assumptions about my beliefs before you ask and learn. We can make these exchanges short and sweet, we can do that by you making no assumptions and by asking me if you wish to know something. Thanks.
To start with, my position is well thought out, carefully weighed and un-biased. I use the whole picture of what is available (religion as a whole, as well as what we know through science) to make the best conclusions. But thanks for asking.
My stance is supported by leading scientists and millions of years of evolution.
Science is not atheism, never was. It is a neutral study, did your boy Dawkins tell you that in his book lol? Theism and science are perfectly compatible. We can get to that, but you're going to have to start asking questions instead of making assumptions. Thanks.
I recommend you read some of Richard Dawkins books, they really do enlighten you.
Son, I've been in this game probably half your lifespan or more. I already know what is written just by debating Atheists for this long. Nothing enlightening about atheism or natural selection, but thanks for looking out for me.
I do not know that the creator does not exist, but I know enough not to be fooled.
Nobody in this conversation is trying to fool you, settle down we need to cover some ground before you get all this twisted.
Take the garden fairies for example.
Why? am I arguing in favor of fairies? no need to insult my intelligence, Theism is a well grounded proposition. We can get to that, but we obviously need to hash some things out.
What if I told you that there are faires in your garden which you cannot detect with any of your senses? What if I gave no evidence? What if I told you that it is real and that you have to "have faith" in order for it to work. True, I do not know with 100% conviction that the fairies do not exist, but I am pretty damn certain. I do not believe in God as certainly as I do not believe in garden fairies.
Have I told you anything yet?
Because I have something called facts. I have scientists. I have proof and as I said, I have millions of years worth of evolutionary science on my side. You have a book which is written by peasents and endorses slavery. I am not the arbiter of truth, I am simply a moth who is drawn to truth. I simply stand with truth.
Scientists are not on your side, you've placed them on your side. Evolution and the processes of our universe are intelligently produced and accomplished. Processes are associated with intelligence, intelligence with agency therefore the processes that take place within the universe are compatible with a Creator, creation is a process. Inanimate forces cannot generate processes and know how something should unfold to work, that requires thought and mind.
You're not the only one who loves truth and who would never put anything in between yourself and the truth, you've decided for whatever reason you are the arbiter of truth and I'm here to correct that. I've always been drawn to truth, that's why I engage in all of this.
"Athiest love to delude themselves". Funny coming from a religious lad from you, considering your life revolves around a musty old fictional book. I am a higher than you. My personal view is superior, because it can be backed up with facts. My views are supportable. My views can be proven. My views are testafiable. My views are logical. My views have withstood intense questioning. And yet they stand.Yet your stands, well, it is all faith. Blind belief. It really is pitiful how gulliable one can be.
You haven't shown anything at all yet, you're just patting yourself on the back, have made immature assumptions. Nothing new here, this is how you guys tout yourselves, whatever makes you feel special I suppose but let me know at any point if you're interested in a mature conversation with zero assumptions about my character.
One of RationalMadmans questions was how an athiest can be happy knowing that they are just a organism on a spinning ball in a void of nothing. That was my answer. As to you question of happiness between athiest and religious folks, I still stand by my statement.
What?
I am happy that I can face the world without needing to be wrapped in cotton. I am happy I can face the truth. I am happy that I don't need God to look over me in order to feel secure.
Sounds like you are happy to make assumptions more than anything else. But thanks for the warm sentiments lol. From here on out, I'm going to ignore your assumptions and insults and reply directly to any relevant content, which as it stands right now is not very much. When you decide you want to know about my beliefs, how they were formed or what I feel just ask.
Sure, spending early mornings in churches praying to what you believe loves you can be a great comforter. People want to be loved. People want to be cared about. People want to be noticed. But I do not want love from a fictional character. I am proud that I am strong enough to love myself without needing assistance from God.
Was all that necessary to answer a simple question? I'm not asking what you want or what I want, that wasn't the question. What I'm asking is what do you THINK about the implications if it were true.
BTW, stop lumping me in with all religious types and what you've decided to assume about them, thanks.
Karma is not real. When I say this, I mean the kind of karma which takes note of your evil and bites you back. Karma is just a label people put on unlucky events. Take this as an example. I hit a schoolmate in class and then fell over at lunch, breaking my leg. Karma did not snap my leg. Karma did not direct me to fall. I fell because of my own physical carelessness.
Lol.
If you need help escaping the arms of religion, I recommend you read the book God Delusion. It uses logic, facts and reasoning to convince one that God is not real.
No need to peddle atheist books here, I'm well informed. I'm not convinced at all given what I've encountered in my life from observation and weighing the facts. I use logic, facts and reasoning to know better again....you're not the superior thinker here, you've assumed yourself to be.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
First, there will never be ultimate proof of whether God exists or not.
Not because the evidence is not there, but because of the nature of God being immaterial (spiritual). Since the very nature of God eludes the immediate physical sense perceptions it becomes very hard to prove, if not impossible to prove collectively in a way where anyone could demonstrate it.
Spirituality is much more like radio waves and varying levels of frequencies of observations, where you have to "change your channel" or adjust your channel to pick up on other rates or ranges of frequencies. This is achieved through the practices of spirituality, so this claim is only true at one level of experience but not all levels of experience. So it may be true for you at this time in your life, but not true for everyone.
The argument for God is powered on faith
If your using the term faith as a means to believe in things with no reason or evidence no such thing exists (it's a misconception). The argument for a Creator is strong and upheld by good reasoning and commonsense. Faith was never meant as a vehicle to accept things with no reason, faith is trust and confidence and both of those things require evidence and good reason. I would go so far as to say faith is more an action than a belief.
and even then, you could not say that your god is the right one. Now we have a couple of religions, each one saying that their god is the correct one, so to speak: Whatever I believe, it becomes the correct one? How to prove it?
You first have to start with the notion that a Creator most likely exists with good reason, even better use your mind and the evidence to be confident that God most certainly exists. What religion and which claims are irrelevant. Don't start azz backwards, first be confident God exists and then research religion only to gain insights about that reality. You don't even have to believe this one or that one to believe a Creator exists that is nonsensical. There are good insights in many sources of religion but not everything is always true. Even when considering religious sources you never abandon good sense (commonsense). You believe in God first because of good reason and sound logic, then you can study religion as you develop your love and admiration for God and decide what is true and accurate.
If we are believing in the wrong God, then we are just making him madder and madder each day.
If you believe in God how can it ever be the wrong one lol???
I want the religious to prove why their god is correct.
You want a way to ignore your own participation is what it sounds like.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I understand what you're saying:
- Anyone (of any belief system) can experience depression.
- You believe Theism is a fact, not opinion.
While 1 is true, 2 is where most would debate you but I don't want to debate that because if you believe that who am I to disqualify your experience and comprehension of reality?
Yes, that's simply my own observations of life, it is my personal worldview but it is not what makes me "happy".
I am not sure that the form of depression I had (which wasn't so much insecurity and low self esteem as it was a deep emptiness, it was the kind of depression where you feel empty and angry rather than sad and insecure) is the kind of depression that Theists reach if they experience depression. If a true Theist experiences that kind of depression they are in the transition towards atheism because it almost always involves fury towards the god(s) they worship(ped) and a mixture of anger and emptiness as their faith is struggling to be maintained. That kind of emptiness and deep suffering is usually experienced when people feel absent of any true meaning and deeper reason to do anything good or long-lasting in life.
The point I was making is simply that atheistic beliefs don't necessarily make for a depressed person. So in this thread your argument won't go very far because it is not a unanimous claim. It can I agree, but not always. I think it depends more on the individual and what they have experienced in life. Like I said, there's ways to find purpose in life independent of Theistic beliefs. We could argue that they are ignoring the reality of what they are, but we can't argue they have found meaning in life. At least in the physical world.
I think in your case, it's possible it was your time to grow spiritually because souls usually start to have a sense that something is really missing about themselves when it is their time to move beyond just indulging in the immediate physical sense perception game.
This does not apply to everyone at all times is the mistake here, I think you are making a decent observation but not much of an argument.
Created:
-->
@Juice
Perhaps this is because atheists are more practical and are not blinded by the false hope of a next life in eternal bliss.
For starters one worldview is no more "practical" than the other in terms of what each person accepts as true. You also can't really label Theism a "false hope" unless you know for a fact a Creator does not exist and I see no reason to have such surety in that. It's simply your opinion which doesn't make for any real argument. Eternal life isn't really why people accept Theism that's irrelevant altogether, it just happens to be the implications of believing in God due to the nature of the Creator and the soul.
Being depressed because you are sane and in touch with reality is better than being happy while misled, deluded and clouded from the truth. As to how I am a happy atheist, despite knowing that I am just a small particle in an infinite space with no meaning, I am happy with truth, even though it may not be favourable.
Why do you get to be the arbiter of truth just because you're an atheist lol? again, it doesn't really matter what is favorable, it matters what exists. However, I do agree Theism is favorable, but not because it's a delusion or a false hope or even a promise of some eternal bliss. It's only favorable in the sense you get to understand the true nature of what you are and the implications of the soul existing without end. This again is not a fancy way to impart some form of hope, it is the very ramifications of an existing soul if God exists.
Actually, there's a good measure of comfort in an atheistic worldview as well, it's much easier to believe that we just vanish into nothing when the physical body perishes because of the dynamics of Theism. To have to face the reality that everything we do abides under the laws of cause and effect not just in the physical world but in the afterlife as well is not always easy. In many ways atheists get to take the easy way out, at least temporarily.... especially in a changing world where many times people are mocked because of their beliefs.
It is like the book 1984 by George Orwell. Would you rather be a happy mindless drone who is blinded from truth
This is where you lose any form of good conversation and often the path atheists love to delude themselves with, as if they are the higher species who are not in any way blinded to the truth lol. Let me remind you, your personal worldview is not superior, it's simply your personal choice of what you believe exists. That doesn't make you any less a mindless drone. Theism doesn't really equal happiness anyways, beliefs in and of themselves cannot produce such things. Happiness is derived from the quality of life one lives regardless of belief, so an atheist could be perfectly happy too and a Theist miserable.
or Winston (protagonist), who understands himself and the errors of his society? Though Winston bears the burden of truth, he is enlightened by it.
I am happy that my happiness does not come from a book written out by peasants centuries ago. I am happy because my happiness does not rely on eternal bliss. I am happy that I do not fear eternal burning. I am happy that I am not morally commanded by a superior being. I am happy that I have the freedom of thought.
The question is not "are you happy" (at least from my point of view). The question rather is are you reaching the full potential of what you truly are and the implications of that, have you accepted an error about reality..... You can be happy atheist or theist because beliefs will never make you happy, the truth can make you feel satisfied but you may not even know what truth is when you see or hear it. You believing atheism is truth may give you a sense of pride because you think it is true but you could be dead wrong. In this sense objective truth simply evades you. Just because you're an atheist doesn't mean you stand for truth.
I am happy that I am an atheist.
I believe that (to a certain extent), but have you considered what it means to be created by a Creator? and what would that mean for you personally?
BTW, you're not going to burn anyways that's a misconception. The universe is run by the laws of cause and effect (Karma) and beliefs are irrelevant to cause and effect. What's relevant to cause and effect are the things you actually do. The biggest lie told in religious circles is that non-believers burn in what they call hell lol. Most will be surprised to know Theists spend time in prisons located in the afterlife as well. That's because prisons are reserved for crimes committed not personal beliefs and Theists are not removed from the consequences of their actions just because of what they believe (although mercy does exist it is not a free ride to rewards). God is not so immature as to burn souls over beliefs and I don't care what any book says or what religions tell you, souls are only punished for the things they do and even those punishments correlate with the type of crimes done.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I get what you're saying but there's a different question to be asked here. But first let me say this, I don't think atheism or an Atheist are doomed to be depressed or even that their worldview must cause a worthless sense of self existence. A poster brought up a good point in this thread, people can find happiness, self worth and piece of mind finding their own purpose in this physical plane without the need for transcendental beliefs or aspirations. They can find that in family units, passions, hobbies, careers, romance ect ect...the term "purpose" in this sense is simply subjective.
You're targeting more or less personality types I believe, and this happens to be an independent issue of personal beliefs or worldviews meaning atheists, agnostics or even theists can posses the attributes you express in the OP. It's not just an issue specific to atheists. An atheistic worldview can cause depression as in your case of course, but it reflects more on personality type not necessarily the belief in and of itself, more of the person reflecting on those beliefs. It might not bother an atheist at all that there is no true transcendent purpose to life or themselves and they may not even dwell on that period. Their "purpose" would be what they make of it rather than something that must be fulfilled.
The question then becomes.... is the physical experience all that exists? does a soul really exist independent of the physical body? the question in my mind anyways is very significant because the evidence for spiritual/transcendent experience is remarkably abundant. As well the evidence that a soul survives a physical death is almost unanimous looking at the evidence that corresponds with that nature. At minimum, one should be considering the question and looking very intently at it.
If it's true that there indeed exists a transcendent reality then what we have is at least two distinct experiences. And because of this a person can partake in two distinct experiences, and even only one of the two experiences. So a person can find contentment (depending on who they are) in only one of those experiences. The discontentment then should only arise as a person begins to question the immediate reality that they experience and its limits, and what would be the ramifications/implications of a Creator and a parallel universe, is there good reason/evidence to consider that it could be true?
Now coming from a Theist, a person is created with a soul and then placed within a physical form/body. And since the soul exists independent of the physical body the souls origins exist with the Creator. So partaking in only the experience of the physical world the soul is doing an extreme injustice to itself not knowing the full scope of what exists and the implications thereof. Partaking of the physical experience alone is very limiting to ones conditioning and growth and so there is a level of concern.
So while a person can, and is free to find purpose in only the experience of the physical world they miss out on the better quality of their true self and purpose. At least in this life anyways, because even though they limited themselves and their purpose to the physical world they will leave the physical body at some point anyways. At that moment they will see for themselves that the soul truly does exist independent of the physical body, the question becomes then....what are the ramifications of indulging in only the physical world and its pleasures? and in that moment it will be too late to reflect on that.
So really it's just a matter of individual growth and experience not the mental state of the individual. In my eyes, there is some good things that can come of growing weary of the physical experience and questioning ones self worth or purpose. Because if one is truly a truth seeker they should be considering what I wrote above and taking it seriously. The soul will always ponder and be curious about its limited physical observations because in reality the true nature and origins of the soul are hidden with the Creator. And because of that the soul will never find full contentment with anything within the physical plane, at some point it will need more and want more (maybe even cause depression). The physical experience is very restrictive and only serves to satisfy the carnal nature of man, but it only panders to one limited level not the full scope of mans potential.
IMO a soul who finds contentment in only the physical experience is a soul who is also immature and that's not meant to insult anyone, it's just that once the soul wakes up from the illusion that this world is all its made up of it will begin to reach for more out of life. Until that moment however there's not much that a soul can do in terms of having greater observations. The soul must learn for itself the limitations and disappointments of the carnal world, then it will have the urge to seek out more.
Created:
Posted in:
Spirituality, or the process thereof helps the individual control not only what they do, but first what they think. If one can control the mind (thought), and even the emotions first...one can easily control their output, what they openly do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
If thought = crime, then it just furtherly proves that God is just a tyrant.
If you could first deal with the thought of a crime as it occurs in the mind, you've dealt with the crime before it was even perpetrated in the open. But in spirituality nothing is hidden from God, everything is in the open and seen, so thoughts are as crimes because they are one and the same to God as they are in the open. God knows that crimes happen in thought before they are done in the open. Which is why Ted Bundy warned the public that there are killers everywhere, some just haven't openly committed what they are already thinking.
I'm not even arguing for the Bible saying this, this is just truth as it pertains to human experience. And God's not a dummy, the Creator knows what we think and what we think we act on. This is why spirituality deals not with just actions alone, but with where they occur before they are openly committed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
THOUGHT = CRIME
Thoughts come before crimes, everything happens in the mind and through thought before it is accomplished and materialized in the flesh. Every time you've seen a crime it first came through the mind (thought). So in spirituality, the process of personal growth..... it takes you a step deeper than just committing an action, it takes you to the roots of all actions which originates in thought and reinforced through emotion.
So it is fair to target the cause of criminal activity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
GOD(S) = NOUMENON
You have this plastered all over the forum, I wonder if it's supposed to be your idea of an argument. I'll be the first to tell you that spirituality transcends the immediate physical sense perceptions but that in no way implies God is unknowable and or cannot be perceived at all. Not when you understand the nature of consciousness and the soul as it is proposed within the spiritual framework. In other words I don't agree with such an assertion, saying/claiming it is only an opinion. You have to actually make an argument as to why you assert or believe God is both unknowable and cannot be perceived at some level of experience. God is both knowable as well as perceived, this should be obvious when you look at the full scope of human experience. To say it's not so is to deny the history of human experience as it is.
The soul can experience phenomenon transcendent of the immediate physical sense perception due to the reality that the soul exists independent of them. In this light, you could compare the full scope of sense perception to channels or frequencies like that of radio waves and the immediate physical channel of perception is only one of many channels/frequencies.....and all levels of experience are still a phenomenon. This includes everything that can be experienced outside the immediate physical sense perception, within the whole arena of spirituality.
Knowing of God is simple, the information and facts have already been presented in many forms from many sources. Whether those forms have been accurate or even in error is irrelevant, what it comes down to is recovering the correct information which isn't so hard as it relates to anything else that makes sense.
Perceiving God or experiencing God is much more complicated I admit, at least in terms of demonstrating it but not at all in terms of explaining it and showing how it works. Each soul originates with the Creator, that is their true identity and all knowledge and experience that pertains to that reality can be obtained regardless of whether or not there exists obstacles.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
The existence of God is not dependent on the Bible being true or false. God exists independent of the Bible, no story can make that plausible or not plausible. There are many human conceptions of God and stories that reflect God's existence, if you were to go about it this way, you would have to prove that all stories and interpretations about God within all cultures are inaccurate, seems like a worthless effort.
Rather...if God makes sense to you, or the idea of creation in and of itself seems more plausible to you (which it is) then start with that alone, don't start with a story in some spiritual book and think you've somehow managed to disprove that premise. Creation as a legit proposition and God's existence are much more simplistic than you are making it out to be, you're just beating around the bush a bit hanging on to irrational ways of trying to find faults within a plausible concept.
Start with the reality that creation works first and foremost, then work your way out from there. You don't need a book to establish God exists, that's working azz backwards.
For example, read through this thread and get an idea of how creation could work without using any particular Holy Book to establish your proposition.
Once you've established a proposition using logic, evidence and common sense then you can use spiritual sources as a cross reference. Nothing more, that's all they are good for.
The order of operations should be more like this.....
A) Creation seems plausible to me, it's a very likely premise
B) I can make sense of it using my own mind/logic along with a wide variety of knowledge and information
C) There are many sources (religious/spiritual) that have come to the same conclusion
D) Those sources may reflect truth, but also may reflect error, they are human ideas and concepts
E) My conclusions and premises aren't hinged on whether or not religious sources contain truths or errors, they are first based on what I truly accept as plausible/true
F) If I see something within another religious source that I concur is rational and truthful, it is useful to me
G) If I see something within a religious source that I find silly or irrational it is not useful for me as legit information, I disregard it
H) My beliefs and acceptance of a Creator are based on solid ideas and concepts irrelevant of any religious sources, because first I have agreed that it is a useful/true proposition
I) Religion and spirituality as a whole.....are only useful for me to obtain useful bits of knowledge and information should I view them as concrete or accurate, they don't control my input or output of ideas and observations regarding God's existence
J) My belief/acceptance that God exists is solid, it is first based on what I believe and observe to be true.......no outside source can render that obsolete, outside sources could only ever attribute to what I already understand to be true
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Religious faith and trust are not synonymous. That's an equivocation. Trust is built on evidence, whereas faith is trust without warrant.
It is you who has this backwards.
Without arguing over definitions of faith, spiritual faith is confidence in something and or trust in something. Then...to have faith in something there must be a validation, good reason and or evidence. Are faith and confidence the same thing? yes they are, it's simply a word spiritual people use to define trust in spiritual things whether they be facts, principles, observations, experiences, witnesses ect ect. Belief in and of itself actually has very little to do with faith, because there first must be a level of trust and confidence. In other words a person could believe in something without any faith involved at all because they aren't the same meaning.
Both trust and confidence comes through evidence/reason, evidence through experience and experience through observation. You can't have faith without confidence, and one cannot have confidence without reason or justification. Blind faith (which is the least applicable form of faith) is nothing, it's simply a different meaning altogether....it's not the same principle as when faith is derived from justification and justification through reason. In this sense faith is a universal tool, it doesn't really belong to any one source of confidence.
Taking it a step further (since there is indeed levels of faith as Jesus of the Gospels points out) faith is more of an action than a belief. According to the Gospels (Jesus) faith is used to remove obstacles, but according to Jesus one must have confidence, which is the very foundation of faith. Putting ones "faith" to something is to accomplish something seemingly impossible without great levels of trust and confidence (faith) so it's more of a spiritual tool. You could say many people through history have used faith to accomplish great feats of all kinds.
Faith really was never meant to believe in things for no reason or justification, that's not what faith is used for and to be honest faith is not even applicable without confidence. Atheists though, tend to love to point out the weakest form of faith in an attempt to undermine spiritual ideas or concepts but they don't really get what it is really used for and how it works. Even after reading through the Gospels a nonbeliever would mock the passage where Jesus talks about moving mountains with faith not knowing Jesus wasn't saying to go around rearranging landscapes rather Jesus was saying faith is used to remove obstacles in ones life through trust and confidence. Note Jesus compares "great faith" to those who have "little faith" or no faith, and many times told an applicant it was their own faith (trust) that made something happen. Jesus had great faith and therefore a level of confidence that was also very effective and assured. That kind of faith is an action, and that faith was supported by the highest levels of confidence which again, is based on experience and observation.
Basically in a nutshell, there is no faith without warrant, it's a meaningless term.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
@fauxlaw
because eternity is not a ray, it is an infinite line in both directions,
Without arguing over definitions I would not debate the obvious concept that God is eternal, however I would argue the majority assumption that eternity suggests an infinite past. Don't get me wrong, I know it is assumed to mean that but as usual I challenge mainstream thought in ways that bring more clarity within concepts.
My thought or argument rests on the proposition that God actually exists in a fixed state of existence, a static Reality not an infinite amount of passing time. Without me knowing it at the moment I realized this, it actually addresses the infinite regression paradox in that there never was any infinite past rather eternity doesn't "move" in either direction for it is not linear, if anything cyclical but more accurately it is a fixed Reality.
Time then, would basically be an illusion and only relevant to the created universe which is nothing more than a moving picture play on top of a static unified constant state of Being. And that state of Being is not time, rather it is non located awareness or consciousness that permeates boundlessly like still water, then only the movement of the waves (created objects) on the surface of that water (awareness/energy) present the illusion of time as movement.
Since our perception of existence rests solely on the misconception or illusion of time we naively assume then that eternity is an infinite amount of time, a never-ending stretch of linear past and future.
Time is associated with matter, matter is associated with form and forms are associated with birth and death (beginning and ending)....in others words forms within creation exist linear due to the fact they have a starting point and then dissipate, so time then is only relative to the expiration of matter and form. But awareness (or God) exists independent of matter and form, and so also exists independent of time as we experience it within the universe.
If time as we observe it is only relevant in creation then time as we know it ceases to exist transcendent (outside) of creation. If time ceases to exist then there can't be an infinite past, existence then would inherently be more like a foundation not a linear experience.
Forms are objects that are brought into existence through the manipulation and isolation of energy, so forms are created things which exist simultaneous with decay (time) and God (awareness) precedes created objects, and exists independent of form and also time (decay). In other words God exists, then forms exist.....God exists and then creation appears.
Interestingly though the implication stays the same, God was never created and eternity has no need of an origin (it's fixed). Therefore it is erroneously implied that God is in need of a designer as Zed puts it. Either way he seems ignorant of what "eternal" insinuates.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Fine, but you understand that's not 'religion,' correct?
Elaborate please.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
and there doesn't seem to be any other dimension in which people's spirits live.
Well there is plenty of evidence that there is. If you wish to ignore the significance in the fact that there's more testimonial evidence and first hand witnesses for such a proposition that's up to you.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
My common sense tells me there's no reason to believe any one god is more likely to be real than the other
Then what is wrong with that exactly? I'm not pushing religion, I'm just trying to make sense of spiritual literature for you.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Not everything in the Bible is symbolic, I said it is both. Not everything in the Bible is right either, it reflects the culture it was written in. In other words, they may have stoned gay men to protect their ways of living, but you don't have to. What you want to pay attention to, is things that are useful for you personally.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
This I agree with entirely. It's just not what religious people, specifically Christians, will tell you.
This seems to be your biggest mistake in approaching the Bible and spirituality. It doesn't matter what they tell you, you have your own common sense, you also have your own ability to apply that which is actually applicable, as well as the choice not to.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
I'm not here to tell you that your common sense is right or wrong that's not the point, it's irrelevant to the point I've been making. But, common sense is defined as using good judgement, not being wrong. In other words you can use your own common sense when reading through the Bible, it won't matter whether you were right or wrong and it doesn't matter what someone else believes. Now acknowledge what I wrote about application, that's where things begin to matter.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
@MisterChris
The creation account in Genesis was never meant to be taken literally, it's an idea of creation meant to invoke imagery through the use of simplistic statements. It illustrates for you the concept of creation in your mind, it's not a detailed account of how God created the universe.
Adam and Eve are representative of mankind as a whole, so when you read the story it's relative to you personally rather than it being relative to two strangers. The talking serpent is representative of temptation and the nature of how it effects us all, so when you read this account it's relevant to you personally rather than to some strange woman, man and some random snake. The "curses" are related to the universal laws of cause and effect, that there are consequences for each action, the story isn't really why snakes slither and why women have pain during birth lol.
The tree of knowledge of good and evil is representative of the mind in duality and it's indulgence/participation in that environment (positive and negative, good and evil, light and darkness). Once man partook of that knowledge (tree) it meant that man was free to engage in either side of duality, notice when they ate of the tree they knew they were naked, they suddenly felt ashamed. They became aware of a contrasting environment. That's the nature of duality... that it causes contrast between a singular thing, or what was once a singular reality where no duality was present..... it creates separation. So when you partake of the mind in creation you're choosing and playing between two forces and everything in between. Everything begins in the mind and thoughts first, so when man partook of that he knew of good and evil, of dual forces. Souls originate out of a singular Reality, when the soul enters creation he is present within a contrasting environment and opposing forces.
Before that the soul was one with God, walked and talked with God as with oneness. It was when man was placed in creation and partook of the knowledge of good and evil (mind) that man was permitted to play between opposing natures. The "sword" that was to guard the "tree" was to warn you about the mind and the nature of opposing forces.
God didn't create man from "dust of the ground", that's a figurative statement meaning we are basically created (our physical bodies) by the same elements of everything else (to dust it returns). It's the same thing as atheists suggesting we are made from star dust, it's just figurative language with an element of truth. Woman being made from the ribs of man is another figurative statement just meaning man and woman are made to be together and fit together. All these metaphors in Genesis are symbolic, they aren't literal accounts. I could go on and on about symbolism but just wanted to point out the main things here and give examples of what that would look like. That's also not to say there are no literal ideas as well, but the gist of it is figurative. Actually spiritual texts in general are very symbolic not just the Bible. That's kind of the style they are written in, it's a means to communicate spiritual truths using analogies and illustrations.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Your lack of a response is pretty telling.
There's no lack of response at all, you're avoiding what I'm saying. There's no right or wrong answer and I explained why.
I'm in no way saying the bible or any other holy text is totally devoid of valuable principles. They're just not unique to religious texts, and religious people seem to think they are.
I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean entirely. If you wish to become anything in life you must apply what it is that makes you that. There's no difference in spirituality, if you wanted to become a guitar player like I explained you have to practice that which makes you one. It's not going to matter what you believe, but what you DO.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Let me know when you catch up.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
CAN.COMMON SENSE.BE.WRONG?
It wouldn't matter even if you were wrong, because beliefs don't change what you are, it's what you apply to yourself that matters. I tried to show you the distinction between beliefs and application, hopefully you're at least smart enough to get it.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
so you're saying use common sense to tell the difference.
Why wouldn't you is the question? do you use common sense in other affairs? why not now?
If you are applying that which is applicable and using common sense when reading spiritual literature where have you failed? who cares what other religious Joe's think or believe? I'm not asking you to think like Roderick, he's not you. He can believe whatever he wants, the question is...is what are you applying, what are you not applying?
Again, whether or not you "believe" that there was a worldwide flood is immaterial, but there are teachings and principles that you must apply to make spiritual progress. Beliefs and application are two different things, is that not very easy to understand? if I were to teach you how to play the guitar for example it is not going to make any difference whether you believe I can do this or that, or did this or that, what's going to matter is did you practice what I laid out that will make you able to play the guitar. For example, if I told you this incredible story about how I played this amazing unearthly solo at some concert and you decided to take my word for it what did it do for you as a learner of guitar playing?
Now, if I were to give you some guitar tabs of scales and cords for you to take home and apply/practice and you actually did them, which of the two examples is relevant to you being a guitar player as you progress?
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Maybe read what I wrote again, there's lots that you missed.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
VERY often wrong.
We've been over this, but I notice nothing ever sticks with you even if I'm right. You'll just keep repeating the same thing over and over. Actually that's the problem with atheists in general, they can't retain information that is useful and true in regards to Theism and spirituality, as well as spiritual literature and so they never apply it to themselves.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Common sense would dictate donkeys don't talk, there wasn't a flood that covered the earth for 40 days, and no one has ever risen from the dead after three days. Rod, do you think I should use common sense?
Yes
If the answer's no, which it is,
What do you think, did you understand what I wrote about applicable things or not?
This makes everything in it dubious at best
If you say so, I find it fascinating and simplistic.
Created:
-->
@MisterChris
Is Genesis Compatible With Science?
Absolutely, they work in harmony because there are two sperate objectives. You have the idea of creation in Genesis, a picture play meant to invoke imagery and spiritual undertones and then you have science, which lays out in detail how that imagery was manifested. One deals with the concept of creation, the other deals with how creation works through the processes of evolving. In order that the Creator brings things into existence there is a process for that to happen. So Genesis deals more with what God wanted or desired and science deals with more of how God did it.
In this way they actually go hand in hand, you get the best of both worlds.
Created:
Many Christians will tell you it's not that important, that the bible is full of these allegorical tales
That's true and I'll explain below why. But actually there are things that are imperative and there are things that are not.
So is the bible historically accurate and literal cover to cover? If the answer's no, then please tell me how to tell one from the other.
Of course it's not literal from cover to cover that is silly. The Bible is literally a mixture of figurative language and literal accounts throughout the entire book it doesn't have to be one or the other it is both, when you get to the Gospels the style changes a bit of course, but Jesus uses a lot of parables and illustrations to convey spiritual points. How to tell the difference though between literal and figurative? sometimes it's obvious and other times not so obvious (because many times stories are used to convey specific images or underlying principles, so it may come across as a literal story with real people), the main thing would be to use common sense, another way is who cares? it's not going to make any difference in the grand scheme of things as far as beliefs go or whether or not you interpret an account as metaphorical or actual. When you get to the meat of the Bible and what is to be actually applied that's where it matters. I tried to explain this in the other thread in the topic of resurrection, things that are applicable are things that one can apply to themselves. You can't apply what can't be applied, what is to be believed is different than what can actually be applied.
For example, I can "believe" that Jesus rose from the dead but I can apply "Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth"....or " For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting".....or another example...." Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind" ect ect there are literally endless spiritual principle that can be applied and have direct results. There are beliefs and then there is application, and only one of those things merits growth of the individual.
But back to the point, the opening Genesis account is obviously symbolic and figurative which conveys layers of meanings. A talking snake for example would be a good clue, God needing to take a nap (rest) after creating for six days is another lol.....those are obviously silly when rendering a literal interpretation. The trick is, there could be literal elements within any given figurative style of writing. The Bible literally weaves in and out of figurative and literal. I've been reading the Bible on my own since I was a kid so to me it's very simple to get but people want to make it much more complicated. But the plain truth of the matter is that it doesn't really matter, if you use good common sense and you apply what it is that needed then you have everything you need. In the end nothing will change if you decide to believe in the Noah's Ark tale, but it will make a difference whether or not you applied teachings and principles. Principles are things you actually work out within yourself, it may apply to how you live, think or act or even feel. These are the things that you want to take seriously and what makes you either a God-lover or not.
The Genesis story was meant to convey imagery by using very exaggerated hyperbole statements, it's more like an idea or a picture of creation rather than the literal way God created the universe. It was never meant to be a science journal, rather meant to invoke simplistically the idea of creation, mixed with symbolic overtones. The snake for instance is meant to convey the nature of temptation, not that there was literally a talking serpent. And even though God thought within God's mind and desires "let there be light" that's not how God brought into existence light within the universe.
There's a process involved into manifesting things into existence and Genesis skips through those processes. Rather it just gives you some imagery to ponder on, not to mention it would be very boring and tedious if the creation account was to be articulated in a scientific way, too long to read through. This way even a child could have fun reading it, and the funny thing is...as a child when I read it, it made perfect sense, at least to me.
The Bible is a spiritual book, that is what its main focus is. To argue over silly things like is it supposed to be literal is to miss the point behind it. Spiritual books are weird that way, they are like those painting you see where it has a scattered design but when you focus in for a minute a very clear image comes out. I forget what they call those, but anyways scripture and figurative language is much the same way, you have to read between the line or notice the underlying message.
Created:
-->
@wllws9
The irrefutable evidence is that life was formed through evolution
Fine no problem, but evolution in itself is an intelligent process, meaning it's compatible with the notion that that process requires a mind. Processes themselves have no mind, no ability to think and begin to evolve things into existence.
by natural selection
Depends on what you are asserting here, if you're pushing materialsm or atheism you have no evidence for such an assertion. That could be your personal interpretation of course, but not a superior one.
and there is no evidence whatsoever as to life being intended.
BS, this is where you get silly. There's every indicator that life was intended, the very processes themselves point straight to it.
The undisputed evidence that backs my claim is clearly and comprehensively tabled in the book by Richard Dawkins...The Greatest Show On Earth.
Lol sure, but as long as you or Richard try and push atheism just know it's an inferior interpretation.
Are you able to present any concrete evidence that contradicts such facts?
If you fully understand how evidence is defined (which most people appear not to) then yes (assuming you're pushing atheism). The indicators all point to creation through intelligent processes not atheism or materialism. Processes are associated with agency, inanimate materials don't evolve life just like bricks don't construct buildings by themselves.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
In a nutshell, what you cannot verify (or apply) is not required for you to accept or believe. You can believe anything you want of course, but the only thing required of you personally is that which is applicable to yourself. I know it may come across as if I'm opposing a resurrection but I'm not really (I don't oppose one, I just can't verify one), I'm only pointing out what is imperative. The deeper qualities of the Gospels are that which show you how to progress and improve your observations and experiences.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
verification that Jesus is the Messiah.
You know the term Messiah just means "expected king and deliverer" "a leader or savior". Even if a supposed resurrection never occurred Jesus would still be a Messiah, a resurrection doesn't make or break that reality. A savior is a higher spiritual being that descends from the higher worlds of creation down to the lower worlds to reach mankind, redeem mans wicked ways and show man better ways and higher ways of living. Often times the conscious state of souls battle with carnality and simple ways of thinking in the lower realms and they trap themselves in a lower state of consciousness and it takes a spiritual "savior" to come and break up that pattern of conscious awareness.
They willingly do this as they are beings of much higher qualities to subject themselves to the torments of a carnal world when they have already progressed much further than that. Often they are killed and persecuted but they are regarded as saviors of mankind, some like Jesus actually rule over Kingdoms. They exist in the higher more elevated realms of creation thought of as heavens, which they are heavens or paradises.
You don't need to verify a resurrection to come to the conclusion Jesus is a Messiah, Jesus is a redeemer with or without that.
What they come to offer isn't necessarily miracles or outrageous events, rather it is the truth and quality of their teachings that are the power they convey and it is the food for the souls trapped in these worlds. These elevated ways of thinking and teachings are used to break up patterns of thinking and conditioned minds, empowering weakened emotions. They are way-showers, Jesus is indeed a Messiah but it's not because there's a claim he rose from the grave, that really has little to do with it. The power is in the way he interacted with life, the example He left and the teachings that are recorded. The power for each soul is whether or not they apply such elevated teachings and ways of thinking, so believing he rose from the grave is a nice thought but it has nothing to do with your own salvation (redeemed states of consciousness). If Jesus can elevate your ways of living and thinking then that elevates your future experiences and observations.
To reach access to higher places of existence you must elevate the qualities of your core being, maximize them and know how to control your vessel. In other words a soul trapped in lower states of consciousness cannot exist in elevated places of creation, they are not compatible and for good reason. So when you leave this world the first thing you will notice is that many of the beings you will encounter are of much higher quality, their motives, intentions and actions correlate with where they exist.
Jesus is an incarnation (God in the flesh) but all souls come from the very heart of the Creator, He is just a much higher being who rules an advanced Kingdom in the created worlds. But if you pay close attention to what He teaches you'll see the hidden truth that not only is He one with the Father, but potentially so are you....
John 17
"that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. 22 And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: 23 I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me."
The core of all souls including Jesus are one and the same as where they all originate. What distinguishes you from that now is your current embodiment, your thought processes, your perceptions, your emotional states, your motives and intentions but the very core and soul of you came out of the very core of God and can be nothing else. Jesus is a good path to utilize to break the molds and conditioning of lower world consciousness. It brings you back to Divine qualities. Right now, in a world like the one we are in there are endless contrasting and opposing states of consciousness. The higher you get in creation the more those states of consciousness harmonize and exist in unity (oneness).
This may come across as a bit unorthodox (lol) but I can expand on any of it, if it resonates with you as it should because your true origins are exactly that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Spirituality is gained through a physiological response to a certain stimulus....That is to say, that you create spirituality inside your own head because you wish to create spirituality inside your own head.
Unfortunately you have no way to prove that lol, ironic ain't it?
I've given you the opportunity to understand the objective nature of spirituality, your conditioned mind won't allow you to consider it. However it doesn't really matter other than you've stunted your own progression, as you slip from this world and are present in the next you'll have the ability to observe it first hand so either way you learn now or later.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Yes, actually. Some people would be willing to die in order to galvanize their communities. Also, they believed in an eternal afterlife.
It seems easy for you to sit here and make such a claim that someone else would be willing to die over a tall tale! I think it is a bit short sighted to believe that, there's many things to consider besides they wanted some attention for whatever fill in the blank reasons. An eternal afterlife does not make getting murdered feel better, I don't care what anyone says. And don't give me the lame example of some Muslim loser who blows himself up (along with other innocent people) in the name of his religion, these guys didn't get the luxury of dying instantaneously, rather at the hands of another authority.
That's one way to look at it, not even to mention lying opposes the very message they wished to spread, or what their Master was teaching. Their Master had already shook up the world, resurfaced the face of religion singlehandedly, made a huge impact on the very people he interacted with, and now all the sudden they betray that reputation and integrity with a fib? Adding stories that weren't true was not necessary and just doesn't fit.
And I'm not even saying a resurrection happened, I'm just saying that what they said fits with what they believed. If you follow the Gospels and the personality types that made up the apostles I'm not seeing people that were liars or people that needed to lie to gain some unknown reason over a fakery, Jesus had to convince the men to follow Him the way they did and that happened without Jesus making up stories so it seems His influence was sufficient as well a powerful. Even the apostle Judas who betrayed Jesus killed himself for what he did, so even the worst of the group was enthralled with the integrity and influence of Jesus. That shows me how serious they took the whole experience. So the whole lying assumption in my opinion just isn't convincing, I think there could be a better argument if one exists. They obviously believed what they were saying.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
What do you mean by "platform?"
The Platform is what Outplayz and I refer to as the original Source. Some call that Source God, but It is basically the Source out of which everything has their existence, out of which all things originate.
It is this omnipresent, incorporeal universal ocean of consciousness that all Gods, demi-gods, incarnation, souls, creatures and of course the multiverse are thought of and formed.
The Hindus call this "Brahman", same concept really....
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
Thanks for that reply and clarification. I think your philosophy is one of the more compelling ones shared here. But I am wondering how your "be a doer" philosophy is compatible with the Biblical "you can't be saved apart from the Resurrection."
You'll have to provide verses or passages from Jesus' teachings so that we aren't muddling the accuracy of this topic with dogma. It's important that you are actually familiar with the Gospels if you want to have a meaningful discussion.
Here are some verses in line with what I'm saying, these are what make the difference between gaining the Kingdom of heaven and not.
“Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.”
“For whosoever shall DO the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.”
"I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."
"Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day."
"He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him."
"16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.
21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven."
And just so you know, Jesus isn't saying that you need to literally eat His flesh and drink His blood lol, these are analogous to the principle of application. When you "eat His flesh and drink His blood" you are applying that which he taught, in other words being a doer.
In the Bible, it is very clear that apart from the Resurrection, our debts for sin could never be paid.
Actually to be clear, it was His death not resurrection that paved a bridge. But again, I'm not saying there was no resurrection.
So in a way, all the effort you put means nothing. You will be a virtuous person if you try to follow Jesus' teachings, I think, but you will have opted out of saving if you reject the resurrection (or the idea that Jesus was God).So, I doubt Jesus will ask "do you believe I rose?" but I think he will ask "did you trust in me?"
No, the effort you put into application is the only thing that can be substantial, otherwise you're doing nothing, if you do nothing what have you gained? Again, I never said to ignore or opt out of the resurrection I only say it's not important for your progression, but you have no way to verify it. The only thing that qualifies you as Christian is what you do and how you live your life. Whether or not you believe in a resurrection is immaterial, you only need to apply that which is applicable. I thought I made that pretty clear with the guitar analogy.
Trust comes with confidence, confidence comes through experience and experience comes through application.
Anyway, how would you reconcile that apparent contradiction?
I don't think there is a contradiction in what I'm saying and the actual teachings of Jesus.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
do you think they would have pursued this at the cost of their lives?
They would only be guessing of course, and while I think Outplayz actually has a credible opinion on many spiritual topics he doesn't see the purpose of religious experience yet in his platform. Or maybe he does and just finds it a bit boring or inconsequential. There's a place for all these experiences within the universal Platform, they serve a purpose in the souls progression, but not all experiences are for every soul either.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Yep....Mythology...And you have no way of proving otherwise.
And you can't seem to get it through your conditioned pile of internal data that you have no way of knowing what are stories and what is factual, that is your own dilemma (not others). So basically you categorizing anything as "myths" is nothing but a guess on your part.
Application is where that dilemma ends and where experience/knowing begins. Expertise is how one "proves" otherwise, spirituality is gained through application and observation not guesswork or beliefs. Once you enter that arena through interaction and participation then you can voice an opinion, otherwise your posts are just worthless chatter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Crocodile
external and internal forces that we can't possibly interfere with.
These internal forces are the imagination (creativity), perception, emotions and the intellect (mind). And these are completely free and spontaneous, and far too dynamic to ever predetermine. They are in no way external to the will they are forever intertwined together actually so that everything you choose, think and do at any given moment is unique and fresh. Determinism is BS, predestination is BS and while there are some predetermined factors they are independent of our will. In other words we could actually exist within a predetermined environment with completely free will. And "free" is a bit of a misconception because everything we do has consequences because we exist under the laws of cause and effect so "our own" will is probably more accurately stated.
Once man was endowed with the creative imagination he became a co-creator of his own environment. The laws of cause and effect were then placed as a means to contain that endowment with a balance.
Now, if we're talking about God or a Creator it's the very same scenario. God's knowledge of what we "may" choose is not predestination. God is not a Puppet Master rather a good mind reader lol. Foreknowledge and predestination are not the same, one is insight and the other control. For example, you might get to know someone really well that you may even know what they might choose in any given situation but does that mean you predestined their choice? not at all, and actually they could have chose something entirely different. That's the dynamics and power of the imagination, perceptions, emotions and the mind....it's not controlled in any way. Having said that because of the weakness of those factors they can be manipulated by external factors. But to stay on point our own will is completely spontaneous and unplanned.
suggests that our minds are simply predictable, our behavior is literally determined from the start.
As I pointed out these two statements are not the same thing. The first has truth to it but the latter is untrue. Predictable and predetermined are entirely different concepts. I can predict an event external to my control because of say good insights or intuition but I can't predetermine an event external to my own control. I can predict you might do something but that never meant I made it or created it to happen.
If we're talking about God again, the Creator creates a soul, covers that soul with a mind, emotional sheath, creative imagination ect ect and that soul is sent into the created worlds as a seed to become and choose whatever it wants in a dualistic environment. It becomes its own individual through the perceptions of its experiences due to its environment and circumstances. God never predetermined that souls choices or perceptions, they were freely gained through observation and experience alone. And because of the unique and maximal understanding/knowledge of God as an omnipresent Force God might know/guess what a soul will do in a situation but that is independent of what God wants or does.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Does the fact that the men of the gospels were actively trying to spread the faith have any impact on the credibility of their testimonies?
I would say the fact that they were trying to spread the faith is what gives credibility to their testimonies. Actually it's the convictions they lived by is what makes them convincing, there was a powerful religious regime in control of that part of the world and the danger of them opposing that was very great. There was no reason for any ordinary men to make up some silly stories just to be persecuted. I don't buy that at all. But personally I think there is a deeper infrastructure to the Gospels than the miracles. So, they aren't really relevant to you guys in a meaningful way. It would be cool if we could prove them true but I think there's more to the Gospels that are useful.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
I like the take. I agree that it probably boils down to testimony. I am interested to hear arguments as to why the apostles could be lying, though.
This is where it gets interesting, I don't think with such convictions they lived their lives that they could be lying. Are they somehow mistaken? IDK but I'm sure they weren't lying.
I think your argument about Jesus' resurrection is interesting, especially the idea of taking what is useful and ignoring the rest
Not really ignoring the rest, that's not what I wrote, there's more of a process here so I'm trying to get you to focus on what counts. I'm not ignoring it, it's just not applicable so it doesn't matter if it happened and so doesn't really matter whether or not I accept it, at least not relevant to anything I could gain from it. Even if Jesus rose from the grave and we met Him in the afterlife do you really think He's gonna ask "DID YOU BELIEVE I ROSE FROM THE GRAVE"?......lol, no I don't think so, if anything He might ask "did you consider my teachings, and have you applied them". This goes back to my guitar teaching analogy. To become a guitar player it doesn't matter what you "believe", it matters whether or not you practiced (applied) that which would make you one. Then once you actually have become one (through application), then your belief about your playing is worth something. So if you're interested in the Gospels your focus should be on that which would produce results in your life.
but I'd argue that the most useful thing of all is the verification that Jesus is the Messiah. If that is true, then it means you have a pathway into an afterlife, and that seems useful as hell to me.
If you can't verify that Jesus rose from the grave how will you ever know whether He is the Messiah? this is my point, you may never know that it happened and so what is left? The only thing you can verify is the teachings and principles themselves and what they produce. So the only way to have a pathway into the Christians Kingdom of God is through application not trying to verify the resurrection. This is where the rubber meets the road, how you gain that pathway. To become a guitar player you actually have to do something to become one, to become a Christian you actually have to do something to become one.
It is not going to matter whether you believed He rose from the grave or not, what matters is did you apply what was applicable. We will never know whether it happened, all we have is belief in it. But if I wanted to get you interested in the Gospels I wouldn't say you need to believe Jesus rose from the grave, I would get you to look at the practicality of the teachings themselves and have you apply them to yourself so that you can observe something from them. Jesus is a teacher, so He will give you things to practice or apply, what He did is irrelevant to your own progression.
Religious sources would probably say you need to believe in this or that (without verification) to be a Christian but I say no....you need to first apply what is being taught (doer), learn from it and then you might have the confidence to believe other things later once you realize there's things to interact with, and so you learn to trust it.
The only way to verify Jesus is the Messiah would be to see if there's anything to what He taught, what do those teachings produce, what does Jesus claim you will get if you do this or that ect ect. You have to be a doer not a believer if you know what I mean by that, one is an application and produces something the other is just believing in something.
Again, I could "believe" Jesus walked on water so what? what does that do? how does that make me a follower of the Messiah?
But, I could also apply "But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." or "Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind."
Which one do you think would qualify you as a Christian? believing something or doing something? This goes back to the analogy I wrote, believing you are a guitar player doesn't make you one lol, only when you practice to become one are you one. That's a doer not just a believer. So I would get you to focus first on application not beliefs.
Anyway, thanks for the post!
You're welcome! you seem like a cool person....I'm just trying to get you interested in something deeper here or notice something different.
Just to add though, there's many pathways into the afterlife and creation has many layers so it depends on what you desire and what your interests are. But if it is the Kingdom of Heaven ("Christians" paradise) then you have to be an applier, a doer to gain access to that particular planet.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
I'm also not telling you to not believe it, what I'm saying is don't expend energy where it doesn't matter. Put your energy and trust on things that actually count, which are the things that make the difference to the self. It doesn't matter whether or not you believe that, what matter is did you apply that which was useful and that which helped you progress.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
Thanks, I've decided to try participating in the forums a bit and thought this would be an interesting little series of posts.
I know this is debatable especially within the Christian camp, but I think the truthfulness and factual nature of the message or meat of Jesus' teachings aren't dependent on the resurrection or a belief in it. I don't think a person needs to accept that in order that he apply His teachings. I think what is more important is what is applicable, beliefs come second if they have any real bearing at all. There are beliefs in claims and dogma, and then there is application of teachings. It is the latter that makes the true difference.
Granted, it is in the Bible but what I'm trying to say is that no one is forced to believe it....rather they are required to apply that which is applicable. For example if I were teaching you about something lets just say the guitar, and you wanted to learn how to play or become familiar with playing. Lets say I told you I could burn off 200 scales behind my back with just two fingers while eating a pizza in 10 seconds, then later I drew you a diagram of some guitar tabs that shows you what notes to play and finger placement to take home and practice. Which of the two would you find more useful? which of those two would get you closer to being where you want to get learning the guitar?
So if Jesus told you He walked on water, then told you to go love thy neighbor as thyself, which of those two would be more useful for you? or if one of the Apostles said Jesus rose from the grave, and another one told you seek ye first the Kingdom of God and all these things will be added unto you which would you find more useful?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
The "best" argument? I think the only argument or evidence for it is testimonial evidence (that I'm aware of). IMO testimonial evidence can be convincing, because the average person has no real reason to lie about something they are sure they observed. So I would say the argument or question against testimonial evidence is did they lie about it, did the authors just make it up and what motive did they have to lie..... are the witness accounts recorded in the Bible reliable, basically there's really only one argument and one counter argument lol, should we accept the testimonies as truth or did they lie and which of those stances are more convincing.
Apart from having a religious or spiritual epiphany all we really have is scriptural based claims that I'm aware of. I guess we could argue for an empty tomb and an unaccounted for corpse if we had such evidence or reliable records outside the Bible.
So far, I have yet to see anyone propose a good reason or motive to make up such claims. To me at least, the Authors and the Gospel/Epistle accounts come across as very genuine and honest but the nature of a spiritual man resurrecting from the grave is hard to process as believable even for a religious guy. So it's a very difficult topic to get around without just accepting the records as true.
I'd like to see some arguments for it as the thread gains some traction though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
moral brainwashing
Don't be such a belligerent azzhole. There's two areas of thought here not just one and neither one is a "newly constructed position". Morality AND health, eating fruits and vegetables has nothing to do with modern comforts genius. Perhaps go read my original post as to educate yourself on the topic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@simplybeourselves
I can't morally justify it
Smart guy, shows me you're a well rounded thinker despite your preferences. Being able to see all the angles involved adds dynamics to your thought processes. I do think there's two separate issues here, morality and health. I tend to get to the latter first. I think it's so culturally oriented for most people it's not a moral concern, it's just what people do, the norm.
but I don't consider myself to be a moral agent.
Okay, may I ask why? just curious about that statement...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Nope.....Theists figured out a hypothesis which cannot be unequivocally substantiated...
Maybe in your mind.
.Atheists also hypothesise, (god principle included) but without the necessity of religion....
That's fine, so you admit that there's good reason to consider creation as a worldview? was my argument good or not? that was the question at hand.
The difference is that theists will not admit that their hypothesis cannot be unequivocally substantiated
Because that's your opinion, if I thought it wasn't substantiated why would I support it? it's a matter of your own opinion. To me it is obvious, fully substantiated through a myriad of good evidence and reason.
whereas the atheist tends to remain sceptical about all hypotheses, including their own....
That's not the impression I get at all. And on top of that there's really only two options lol, either God exists (Theism) or God does not exist (Atheism). What are ALL these supposed hypotheses?
Prove to the atheist that your hypothesis is in fact wholly correct and the atheist will be happy to agree.
I can't force you to use common sense and good judgement that's on you. Out of the two worldviews only one is superior and I presented that premise above.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Common sense is wrong literally all the time
Lol oh is it? why is it when a Theist uses common sense it's then always wrong, but in other matters common sense is useful?? is that how common sense is understood? well let's check the term then and see how the term is defined....
Common sense-
"Common sense is sound practical judgement concerning everyday matters, or a basic ability to perceive, understand, and judge"
"good sense and sound judgment in practical matters"
"The first type of common sense, good sense, can be described as "the knack for seeing things as they are, and doing things as they ought to be done"
"sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts"
"plain ordinary good judgment; sound practical sense"
"Your common sense is your natural ability to make good judgments and to behave in a practical and sensible way"
"sound practical judgment that is independent of specialized knowledge, training, or the like; normal native intelligence"
Hmm, funny how the term is defined to lean towards being RIGHT rather than wrong. That's the whole point in using common sense in the first place, in this case when I see something as blatantly obvious I define it as common sense, sorry I know...it doesn't fit in your worldview but I'm still going with good ol common sense.
Now, I'm not being stupid either I get what you're saying coming from your point of view of course. Let me put it this way, if there's a slight chance I'm right that God exists then what I've said is absolutely true. Everything I said about the processes of the universe appearing as if there was an intelligent factor and inanimate forces acting as if they have awareness is by all means accurate. If we take the two main opposing worldviews (Theism vs Atheism, meaning either God exists or God doesn't) and say there's a 50/50 chance of me being right then my common sense judgement has a 1 in 2 chance of accuracy. I'm willing to say it's more likely than not, out of the two worldviews all the indicators are pointing towards intelligence being associated with such processes so why would I forfeit my good judgement?
it's a story you tell yourself and want everyone else to believe.
Did I? or is it an observation I presented to have you consider there's an argument in favor of creation? A story I tell myself? who's being arrogant now? how about a common sense judgment used to establish something worth considering rather than just handing you a Holy book? I don't need to make up little stories to tell myself when reality exists as a means to conclude the obvious.
All I'm asking is why I should believe it
Why should you believe inanimate materials have the ability to produce intelligent processes as if they had minds? do you also believe that a tube of paint can paint a picture all on its own? how about a stack of bricks putting together a blue print and building itself into existence? what else do you know of that manufactures itself into existence without agency? the fact that production is associated with a producer, construction is associated with a constructor and processes are associated with agency is unavoidable that's why I label it common sense. But of course you don't have to go that route because I'm assuming you have a much better scenario and reason why things exist.
I can't force you to use my own common sense, it's up to you to use that yourself.
Well at one time it was common sense the earth was the center of the universe.
Was it? or was it just accepted because people believed it and had no other options? I had no one tell me this and I'm aware of all the options, this is my own observations about our universe and no good reason to forfeit the idea. If you presented an option that was superior to mine I would gladly listen as was presented the concept of a spherical earth. I don't find materialism or atheism to be convincing at all, and I explained why.
I actually have reasons for my conclusions I don't "make up stories".
It's a simple assertion with nothing behind it.
No, it's an observation formed through common sense and weighing all things put forward. I'm not demanding that you believe it, I'm just presenting the idea so you have something to think about other than dogma.
Created: