It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A simple explanation of why Buddhism is correct.

page: 2
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by mkmasn
If God is everywhere, He must be in the smallest building block of creation, do you agree? Otherwise he wouldn't be everywhere... Then he wouldn't be omnipresent, as the bible claims he is.

Since nothing is smaller than the smallest building block of creation, God must comprise the whole of the smallest building block of creation, do you agree?


No, that is illogical. An equivalent of your statement is "I am in this room, ergo, I am this room." Even philosophically, that makes no sense.


The Hebrew concept is God everywhere in all directions. A 10th dimensional reality simply repeats after 10. 10 just becomes another dot to connect to the other to make the 1st dimension again. The Hebrew tradition says that God opened a void inside Himself and created division from unity. The divisions are rendered by Word in Time, occupying the space opened up. The same happens within us. A void opens and we seek to fill that void. Ultimately, the void cannot be filled for long and what is taken into it is expelled. The archetype for this is food and the stomach. What we gain from the experience is not the food, but what is in the food. We take in the light and what is gained? Truth. The only thing that satisfies is the truth that is gained that makes us grow.

God is infinity. Can infinity stop expanding?

Eat some Buddha but you will expel parts.


edit on 11-8-2012 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by mkmasn
If God is everywhere, He must be in the smallest building block of creation, do you agree? Otherwise he wouldn't be everywhere... Then he wouldn't be omnipresent, as the bible claims he is.

Since nothing is smaller than the smallest building block of creation, God must comprise the whole of the smallest building block of creation, do you agree?


No, that is illogical. An equivalent of your statement is "I am in this room, ergo, I am this room." Even philosophically, that makes no sense.


That's not equivalent at all. "I" in your statement is not an omnipotent being capable of being inside everything. I am a very finite individual who is limited by the physical theories of this world.

If you fill a hole with dirt, you no longer have a hole, only dirt.



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by mkmasn

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by mkmasn
If God is everywhere, He must be in the smallest building block of creation, do you agree? Otherwise he wouldn't be everywhere... Then he wouldn't be omnipresent, as the bible claims he is.

Since nothing is smaller than the smallest building block of creation, God must comprise the whole of the smallest building block of creation, do you agree?


No, that is illogical. An equivalent of your statement is "I am in this room, ergo, I am this room." Even philosophically, that makes no sense.


That's not equivalent at all. "I" in your statement is not an omnipotent being capable of being inside everything. I am a very finite individual who is limited by the physical theories of this world.

If you fill a hole with dirt, you no longer have a hole, only dirt.


Omnipotence has nothing to do with it, I don't understand why you think that it does. It means that he CAN do anything, not that he DOES do everything.

Why would God "being inside everything" somehow make "him everything"? That just doesn't make any sense.



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 11:44 PM
link   
But by your own equation( God = x, 100x=man, God=man) you are God and therefore omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. So by the fact that you are none of these is your equation wrong?



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by mkmasn
 




I am not Christian, but I have read the bible, almost every page, from cover to cover (Except the chapters on the blood lines. So boring). Personally, I don't think Jesus ever existed. My reasoning is this:

Jesus needed to die on the cross to become the last sacrificial lamb to God in order to save our sins. The reason was because in order for God to be just, he could not be merciful. He could not forgive everyone for their sins, some had been greater sinners than others. But He did not specify in His commandments the severity and circumstance of those sins against God (i.e. stealing to feed yourself as opposed to stealing out of greed).

In order to forgive everyone and grant them new guidelines within the frame of those commandments, He sent His son to die on the cross. He had shown His mercy towards the sinners and remained just at the same time.

The problem I have with this is He CAN be both just and merciful. That would be the whole omnipotent thing. All powerful. There was never any need to send Jesus to die on the cross. That's why I don't believe it happened.

If God does exist, as we're assuming in this discussion, God is both Good and Evil, Love and Hate, Peace and Suffering. He is everything. Not only did He create all those things, He is in the very fiber of that which makes those things real. Since God is all powerful, those things can each be independent of each other and one may not be needed for the other to exist.


Ohhh! You are almost there. Who died for our sins again? God did. Not just God, but the person of the Son in the Trinity. God only has the will to give and receive. Taking is out of the question. He gave so that we could receive. Once again, He demonstrated the law of love. We express the will to take. We did that in the garden and we reflect that as creatures learning to rise to love. The law was a guardian until faith arrived. Faith is something that arrives. Why?

He made a way where there was no way. Faith is hope. What does this sound like? It's the fifth dimensional space of indeterminate probability. Until we knew the determined outcome, there was none. We must collapse the wave function of the fifth dimension of probability to make the third dimension change states in time. Time is the thing that matters to the outcome. When God changed the covenant, His mercy was opened as a gate to collapsing the wave or our own salvation. Christ is the Wave / Word of particle and wave duality. The Trinity is Light. Father is Light. Son is Word / Wave. Holy Spirit is Consciousness. What does consciousness do and why does ours need to be Holy to achieve union with the divine? A holy consciousness can believe in what is not seen. FAITH. We can now collapse our own salvation through Christ by belief in it. You can't be bound and determined to do anything unless you can bind the indeterminate probability space and make it determined by choice. Can you collapse the wave apart form the wave itself. NO. Christ is the wave.

God made a way where there was no way. Law was a guardian until faith was ready. Can you believe it? Are you hearing me? Don't listen to me. Simply hear God.

Galatians 3

23 Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. 24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.

26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.


edit on 11-8-2012 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by mkmasn

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by mkmasn
If God is everywhere, He must be in the smallest building block of creation, do you agree? Otherwise he wouldn't be everywhere... Then he wouldn't be omnipresent, as the bible claims he is.

Since nothing is smaller than the smallest building block of creation, God must comprise the whole of the smallest building block of creation, do you agree?


No, that is illogical. An equivalent of your statement is "I am in this room, ergo, I am this room." Even philosophically, that makes no sense.


That's not equivalent at all. "I" in your statement is not an omnipotent being capable of being inside everything. I am a very finite individual who is limited by the physical theories of this world.

If you fill a hole with dirt, you no longer have a hole, only dirt.


Omnipotence has nothing to do with it, I don't understand why you think that it does. It means that he CAN do anything, not that he DOES do everything.

Why would God "being inside everything" somehow make "him everything"? That just doesn't make any sense.
See, you're looking at it from one side only and that's why you didn't figure out what he's talking about: you can't have an inside without an outside. That's completely logical and makes perfect sense. If it's inside you then it's outside you. The body is completely made of things found outside of it, and the breath of life, "spirit," is simply inhalation and exhalation, which is fundamentally rhythm - a pulse, a vibration, a pattern - and life cannot exist by only inhaling, otherwise you choke, likewise, you can't exhale without inhaling. If you try to hold on to it, you're gonna lose it. Nirvana itself means to "blow out," be mindful of the breath by letting it go (not cling to it) so it can come back. That's the thing people forget to do, and so they run around suffocating, and this suffocation is like falling off a cliff and frantically looking to grasp onto something, like the branch that fell too - what good does it do to panic and cling? Let go, blow out, like a cat that is calm when it falls from a great height, and lands gracefully. If it balled up and clung to itself it'd crash on the ground.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 





Why would God "being inside everything" somehow make "him everything"? That just doesn't make any sense.


Right, it makes no sense to someone who comes from where you are coming from, believing in duality and pragmatism. It's sad really, because you think we come from a state of separation, looking to achieve permission and atonement for a better spiritual state from someone else.

God is not separate from creation. God is the creation and we are all experiencing God's creation with the joy and sorrow that only we can experience it, as god.




posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by AdamsMurmur
See, you're looking at it from one side only and that's why you didn't figure out what he's talking about: you can't have an inside without an outside. That's completely logical and makes perfect sense. If it's inside you then it's outside you.


Sorry, that's about as far as I got through your wall of text. Organize your thoughts and use carriage returns next time, please.

"If it's inside you then it's outside you" makes absolutely no sense. If is inside me, then it is obviously NOT outside me.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by windword
God is not separate from creation. God is the creation and we are all experiencing God's creation with the joy and sorrow that only we can experience it, as god.


Logically, how can the creation include the creator?



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by mkmasn

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by mkmasn
If God is everywhere, He must be in the smallest building block of creation, do you agree? Otherwise he wouldn't be everywhere... Then he wouldn't be omnipresent, as the bible claims he is.

Since nothing is smaller than the smallest building block of creation, God must comprise the whole of the smallest building block of creation, do you agree?


No, that is illogical. An equivalent of your statement is "I am in this room, ergo, I am this room." Even philosophically, that makes no sense.


That's not equivalent at all. "I" in your statement is not an omnipotent being capable of being inside everything. I am a very finite individual who is limited by the physical theories of this world.

If you fill a hole with dirt, you no longer have a hole, only dirt.


Omnipotence has nothing to do with it, I don't understand why you think that it does. It means that he CAN do anything, not that he DOES do everything.

Why would God "being inside everything" somehow make "him everything"? That just doesn't make any sense.


Omnipresent is being everywhere at the same time. Do I really have to explain, again, how we've come to the conclusion he is everything by being everywhere? Did you read any of my post or just get stuck at the omnipresent thing?


Originally posted by Owl1991
But by your own equation( God = x, 100x=man, God=man) you are God and therefore omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. So by the fact that you are none of these is your equation wrong?


The premise of Buddhism is that you can become God. The equation states that God comprises the whole of man. There is a spiritual part of this whole thing, which is where the buddhism thing comes in...



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


I never said that God is the creator. But did you build your house? Do you live in the house that you built? Is it not you?



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by adjensen
 


I never said that God is the creator. But did you build your house?


Technically, yes, lol, but I suppose that's not what you're talking about.

Since the OP is discussing the Christian God, who is stated, in no uncertain terms, as the creator, your claim that "I never said that God is the creator" is of no relevance.

If God created something out of nothing, by definition, he cannot be that something.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by mkmasn
Omnipresent is being everywhere at the same time. Do I really have to explain, again, how we've come to the conclusion he is everything by being everywhere?


Well, apparently so, since, so far, you haven't made any progress along that route.

Omnipresence is not "being everything", period. Your leap in logic is unwarranted and invalid.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
reply to post by mkmasn
 




I am not Christian, but I have read the bible, almost every page, from cover to cover (Except the chapters on the blood lines. So boring). Personally, I don't think Jesus ever existed. My reasoning is this:

Jesus needed to die on the cross to become the last sacrificial lamb to God in order to save our sins. The reason was because in order for God to be just, he could not be merciful. He could not forgive everyone for their sins, some had been greater sinners than others. But He did not specify in His commandments the severity and circumstance of those sins against God (i.e. stealing to feed yourself as opposed to stealing out of greed).

In order to forgive everyone and grant them new guidelines within the frame of those commandments, He sent His son to die on the cross. He had shown His mercy towards the sinners and remained just at the same time.

The problem I have with this is He CAN be both just and merciful. That would be the whole omnipotent thing. All powerful. There was never any need to send Jesus to die on the cross. That's why I don't believe it happened.

If God does exist, as we're assuming in this discussion, God is both Good and Evil, Love and Hate, Peace and Suffering. He is everything. Not only did He create all those things, He is in the very fiber of that which makes those things real. Since God is all powerful, those things can each be independent of each other and one may not be needed for the other to exist.


Ohhh! You are almost there. Who died for our sins again? God did. Not just God, but the person of the Son in the Trinity. God only has the will to give and receive. Taking is out of the question. He gave so that we could receive. Once again, He demonstrated the law of love. We express the will to take. We did that in the garden and we reflect that as creatures learning to rise to love. The law was a guardian until faith arrived. Faith is something that arrives. Why?

He made a way where there was no way. Faith is hope. What does this sound like? It's the fifth dimensional space of indeterminate probability. Until we knew the determined outcome, there was none. We must collapse the wave function of the fifth dimension of probability to make the third dimension change states in time. Time is the thing that matters to the outcome. When God changed the covenant, His mercy was opened as a gate to collapsing the wave or our own salvation. Christ is the Wave / Word of particle and wave duality. The Trinity is Light. Father is Light. Son is Word / Wave. Holy Spirit is Consciousness. What does consciousness do and why does ours need to be Holy to achieve union with the divine? A holy consciousness can believe in what is not seen. FAITH. We can now collapse our own salvation through Christ by belief in it. You can't be bound and determined to do anything unless you can bind the indeterminate probability space and make it determined by choice. Can you collapse the wave apart form the wave itself. NO. Christ is the wave.

God made a way where there was no way. Law was a guardian until faith was ready. Can you believe it? Are you hearing me? Don't listen to me. Simply hear God.

Galatians 3

23 Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. 24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.

26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.


edit on 11-8-2012 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)


I understand you what you're saying, though I think it's still unnecessary for him to have taken the body of a man to do this, though. God could have forgiven us without the whole sacrificial lamb. God could have made each one of us understand and hear him without a Christ. Without a burning bush, without commandments, without prophets. He has the power to do these things.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by mkmasn
Omnipresent is being everywhere at the same time. Do I really have to explain, again, how we've come to the conclusion he is everything by being everywhere?


Well, apparently so, since, so far, you haven't made any progress along that route.

Omnipresence is not "being everything", period. Your leap in logic is unwarranted and invalid.


I've already given you the definition for omnipresence. Twice, in fact. Here it is a 3rd time:
om·ni·pres·ent   [om-nuh-prez-uhnt] Show IPA
adjective
present everywhere at the same time: the omnipresent God.

I've already shown how being everywhere equates to Him being everything. Here it is again:
x = smallest building block of the universe. There is nothing is smaller.

If God is everywhere, God is inside the smallest building block. If nothing is smaller, God comprises the whole. Therefore:

x = God

Everything is built from x. Theoretically, let's say it takes 100x to construct a man. Therefore:

100x = man
100x = God

man = God.

If you insist on claiming a leap of logic, without reading anything from my posts getting you from point a to point b, I will simply stop responding to you, since you have nothing to contribute to the discussion.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


The manifest is the creation, The spiritual is the creator. We are spiritual beings. We are all part of a collective body of spirituality, we call God.

It (god) is manifest, as our bodies, the earth, the sun, moon and stars are manifest, and unmanifest as our spiritual bodies and God are unmanifest.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by adjensen
 


I never said that God is the creator. But did you build your house?


Technically, yes, lol, but I suppose that's not what you're talking about.

Since the OP is discussing the Christian God, who is stated, in no uncertain terms, as the creator, your claim that "I never said that God is the creator" is of no relevance.

If God created something out of nothing, by definition, he cannot be that something.


Actually, he can... omnipotent, remember? He can do and be whatever he wants. In addition, God is nothing and everything, Alpha and Omega.
edit on 12-8-2012 by mkmasn because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by mkmasn

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by mkmasn
Omnipresent is being everywhere at the same time. Do I really have to explain, again, how we've come to the conclusion he is everything by being everywhere?


Well, apparently so, since, so far, you haven't made any progress along that route.

Omnipresence is not "being everything", period. Your leap in logic is unwarranted and invalid.


I've already given you the definition for omnipresence. Twice, in fact. Here it is a 3rd time:
om·ni·pres·ent   [om-nuh-prez-uhnt] Show IPA
adjective
present everywhere at the same time: the omnipresent God.


Yes, but you are making the illogical leap of saying that God's presence equates God's physical being.

They aren't the same thing, and your theory falls to pieces on the simple observation.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by mkmasn

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by mkmasn
Omnipresent is being everywhere at the same time. Do I really have to explain, again, how we've come to the conclusion he is everything by being everywhere?


Well, apparently so, since, so far, you haven't made any progress along that route.

Omnipresence is not "being everything", period. Your leap in logic is unwarranted and invalid.


I've already given you the definition for omnipresence. Twice, in fact. Here it is a 3rd time:
om·ni·pres·ent   [om-nuh-prez-uhnt] Show IPA
adjective
present everywhere at the same time: the omnipresent God.


Yes, but you are making the illogical leap of saying that God's presence equates God's physical being.

They aren't the same thing, and your theory falls to pieces on the simple observation.


Care to explain? Otherwise you're just tossing sentences out based on nothing.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by mkmasn
Care to explain? Otherwise you're just tossing sentences out based on nothing.


Prove that God is a physical object, and you will disprove my statement.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join