Do you ever...

reply to post by DeadFlagBlues


Jesus was a buddhist in the purest sense. He was deeply in touch with the governing principle of the universe. He could do anything he wanted because he had faith he could. He meditated, he manipulated the elements of thought and material. He taught those who would care to listen.

Buddhism - All that is, is. The wheel of life that will only stop turning once you surpass yourself I.E. become perfected. (cannot be done, our minds always open themselves up to mal-intent, sin.)

Jesus - I am, I AM. The water of life that cleanses without you having to surpass yourself, because, you cannot surpass yourself when sin has already overtaken you. Come as you are he says.

I take from the buddhist practices to supplement my life here on earth, to surpass, to catch thoughts before they even enter the seat of my mind. To guard my doors from assailing desire.

Yet I believe in what that man said 2000 years ago. I cannot be open to all things and still believe that Jesus was the saviour of man? I am. Science is the construct through the eyes of man. Science is not the enemy of Christ. The selfish mind is.


Edit: Shihulud, don't miss my last post!

[edit on 6-11-2007 by depth om]

Originally posted by depth om

My view of God is that he is truth, he is justice, the law, the true way things should be.

I have no problem that you have this view. The problem is that it is your view and not the view adhered to by everyone and also the fact that you cannot prove that your view is the correct one just as I cannot prove that my view is just as correct.

Scientists can create things that don't occur naturally. Yes a car isn't grown in the forest. My point is, we create no new matter. We really do merely shift and assemble particle and structure. I meant in saying, no one creates anything, that, well, no one creates anew. We remake. Yet we fail to copy the depth and perfection of the systems around us. Nanotech will clean up quite a few of these blemishes, but we still do not know how small "small" goes. Size is relative. There is no size, only ratio.

Underdstood and agree

Lastly, your idea of my idea. You know not the intricacies of my thoughts about God. Since I can not put into words all these things (Language needs to keep evolving), the whole of my argument cannot be recieved by others. I find I can do well enough with the words that currently exist though.

The thing is, your idea of my God, is not totally my idea of God.

As I said above your view is not the view of everyone but as you cannot prove any of it other than your personal experience (which I don't doubt reinforces your view) you cannot categorically state that your view is the correct one and that we (as atheists) will find out that we are wrong. It is only in your view that we are wrong but you insist anyway so by the same standards that you use i.e your right, we're wrong attitude I am well within my rights to disagree and use the same 'your're wrong, I'm right' attitude.

You make the claim that a god exists and that it is your god, that is two claims based on faith without any corroborating evidence other than your peronal view. My views are based on evidence that can tested again and again (although there is some faith in there as well when it comes to some Theories) but on the whole my views differ substantially from the religious.

The difference is that I use evidence while you profess the truth through your faith which cannot be proven.


G

You're right man. I'm not even supposed to argue about these things. I guess in some aspects it will always be futile, until. I like these discussions though and it was fun!

I feel the bit(as in, a horses bit) of science is slowly drawing man away by his ever-expanding head. We're on our way to finding new earths and whatnot. On netscape news an article read, "Planet discovery stuns astronomer, maybe we're not unique?"

We are unique though, we are special, we have a purpose. People say, "One man can't save the world... it will get worse and worse.." I believe in what a man said 2000 years ago. I believe much will be done to discredit him and his words.

Edit: Your scientific evidence does nothing more than show me how grand this construct is... God is not absent from such things. Just because we start to understand how certain systems operate, we can safely rule out the Christ? We can discount God? I don't see how that is proper procedure.

[edit on 7-11-2007 by depth om]

Originally posted by depth om
You're right man. I'm not even supposed to argue about these things. I guess in some aspects it will always be futile, until. I like these discussions though and it was fun!

Don't get me wrong I like the discussions as well, although we all know the futility in trying to dissuade everyone from their beliefs, it is fun and quite instructive and sometimes highly amusing (as they say "you learn something new every day"

I feel the bit(as in, a horses bit) of science is slowly drawing man away by his ever-expanding head. We're on our way to finding new earths and whatnot. On netscape news an article read, "Planet discovery stuns astronomer, maybe we're not unique?"

We are unique though, we are special, we have a purpose. People say, "One man can't save the world... it will get worse and worse.." I believe in what a man said 2000 years ago. I believe much will be done to discredit him and his words.

I agree that we are unique but special and purposeful only to those around us. Outwith this I can't see how we have any more purpose or be any more special than any other living creature.

Edit: Your scientific evidence does nothing more than show me how grand this construct is... God is not absent from such things. Just because we start to understand how certain systems operate, we can safely rule out the Christ? We can discount God? I don't see how that is proper procedure.

[edit on 7-11-2007 by depth om]

Of course we can't discount A GOD, but there is no presupposition that if such a being existed that it would be the one that you assume exists. However I see, IMO, no evidence of any such being existing - especially any of the religious deities that are supposed to exist. I don't see the necessity for such a being to exist as I believe all things can be explained through natural process, we are just not in a place to understand the whole picture at the moment and to attribute such unknowns to a supernatural creature is illogical.


G

Is it true to say, since every experienced thing in this construct is part of the whole.. there is no supernatural? I believe this. God is all-natural.

I accept reality itself as a glorious handprint of God.

Edit: Design... necessitates a designer. The "machine" of reality, if you will, was created by the Maker. The switch was flipped. The machine operates. Down to the smallest vibration. Here we are.

of is an extremely strange word if you keep thinking about it.


[edit on 7-11-2007 by depth om]

Originally posted by depth om
Is it true to say, since every experienced thing in this construct is part of the whole.. there is no supernatural? I believe this. God is all-natural.

Are you saying that your god is not the one related to in the bible or do you subscribe to the notion of christ and a god that is an omniwhatever being, able to suspend natural laws for its own devices i.e creating humans from dirt and a rib (which BTW is a translational error)?

Do you take the bible as the literal word of god? Or do you have a different view on the subject?

G

I believe every word of Jesus. I believe the Bible, in it's purest form, is the word God. It has obviously been tweaked, sculpted and manipulated though, with all the translations, certain word changes that can totally change a message. If some of Moses' precepts and ideologies were rebuked by Jesus, what does this mean? Some of the things that appear in the Bible (OT specifically) were false according to Jesus.

So, my God is the God Jesus spoke of. I believ Jesus was the Christ.

Originally posted by depth om
I believe every word of Jesus. I believe the Bible, in it's purest form, is the word God. It has obviously been tweaked, sculpted and manipulated though, with all the translations, certain word changes that can totally change a message. If some of Moses' precepts and ideologies were rebuked by Jesus, what does this mean? Some of the things that appear in the Bible (OT specifically) were false according to Jesus.

Thats a bit contradictory - If you believe that the bible is the inerrant word of god but jesus rebuked parts of the OT wouldn't that make the OT errant? (as it is supposed to the word of god). Therefore if the OT is errant why shouldn't the NT be errant, after all most of it was written by people who never even met nor knew the supposed jesus? ( And I'm being generous here with the word 'most' )


G

"I believe every word of Jesus. I believe the Bible, in it's purest form, is the word God". You have to cover different translations, line them up with the classical hebrew text, and asking for wisdom, study the results I believe.

Jesus rebuking behavior that was wrong. He taught love, instead of violent indignation.

Originally posted by depth om
"I believe every word of Jesus. I believe the Bible, in it's purest form, is the word God". You have to cover different translations, line them up with the classical hebrew text, and asking for wisdom, study the results I believe.

Jesus rebuking behavior that was wrong. He taught love, instead of violent indignation.

How do you know the classical hebrew texts haven't been manipulated as there is no originals to check. Plus the fact the older OT stories seem to be amalgamations of other older non hebrew stories i.e sumerian, babylonian etc. It is a well known that it was probabaly Ezra the collated most of the OT into the form it has today giving plenty of time for manipulation.

I don't know. My faith is not in the world and ways of man though. I believe jesus.

Originally posted by depth om
I don't know. My faith is not in the world and ways of man though. I believe jesus.

In that case how do you know that what was written about jesus was what actually happened and what was said? After all most of it was written after the supposed death of jesus. Stories can be and are mostly embellished with every telling.

G

I simply believe. I have faith in Christ.

Originally posted by depth om
I simply believe. I have faith in Christ.

Thats fair enough, I can understand that.
I on the other hand just can't 'simply believe', thats the problem for me - too many variables with unknowns.

I think we've dragged this way off topic, time to give it back I think.


G