Thoughts from a former Christian

page: 15
54
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by FaceLikeTheSun
 





And on your multiverse proposition, you are equating God as being a finite entity. As I mentioned in a previous post, you are simply rendering words like infinite and eternal to the universe itself which warrants a pantheistic or monistic view of reality. That's all I am saying.




This requires a re-definition of God. Again you are applying characteristics such as omnipresence, omnipotence, eternal, infinite etc and applying it to the universe itself. I don't understand why you don't see that. Replace "GOD" with goat and it would have the same proposition. Your statement can only be true if God was finite. This is the fallacy. God by definition is not finite.


Forgive me for stepping in here, but I have question. Isn't the "Universe" all that there is, by definition. Whether we believe that the universe is infinite or finite, it is the totality of all that exists, no?

So, doesn't the question of the existence of God ask whether or not God resides within the universe, as if the physical creation is a manifestation of the "mind of God? On the other hand, there is the belief that God stands outside of creation, and wills the universe into existence, occasionally reaching in and personally stirring the pot.

If we accept that later model of God, as being outside of the universe, which I reject, btw, what logic predicts that there is only one God in that "godly" environment? Who's to say that there aren't multiple Gods all participating in and creating multiple universes? Why do you assume that there is only one creator?

I would think, with my feeble mind, that logic would dictate that an environment that exists outside the universe, that houses your GOD, would be infinite with an infinite number of "GODS," not just one.




posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


How in the World are you getting from my statements that I am saying what you are asking me I am saying?

Huh?

What are you saying??
EDIT:
Sounds like White Goodman in Dodgeball; the "touche" scene....
edit on 30-12-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 




Forgive me for stepping in here, but I have question. Isn't the "Universe" all that there is, by definition. Whether we believe that the universe is infinite or finite, it is the totality of all that exists, no?


Good idea. Let's try to limit the assumptions in this discussion.


universe (n.)
1580s, "the whole world, cosmos," from O.Fr. univers (12c.), from L. universum "the universe," noun use of neuter of adj. universus "all together," lit. "turned into one," from unus "one" (see one) + versus, pp. of vertere "to turn"


www.etymonline.com...

It would HAVE to be infinite, otherwise, it isn't "all together". There would something outside and separate from the universe, making it something other than a universe. Unless, of course, it's a subjective label intended to define the large area of space from one angle in particular. Then we have to change the definition to reflect as much.


So, doesn't the question of the existence of God ask whether or not God resides within the universe, as if the physical creation is a manifestation of the "mind of God? On the other hand, there is the belief that God stands outside of creation, and wills the universe into existence, occasionally reaching in and personally stirring the pot.


Again, perhaps our definition of the term should be adjusted to reflect the reality of its being a definition of perspective rather than actuality.

So if he stands outside creation, what is it he is standing in?


If we accept that later model of God, as being outside of the universe, which I reject, btw, what logic predicts that there is only one God in that "godly" environment? Who's to say that there aren't multiple Gods all participating in and creating multiple universes? Why do you assume that there is only one creator?


Personally, I reject the idea of a conscious god controlling everything. Especially one that acts so damn human all the time. The rest of that is some pretty good stuff to play with, but don't get too attached to any one idea. My ideas mostly come from seeing how mechanical the universe seems to be at its most minute levels, and usually, everything that is mechanical has some form of intent behind it.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


So if he stands outside creation, what is it he is standing in?

Deep doodoo?
For all the horrible things "his" creation in creating HUMANS - warts and all - has wrought??
edit on 30-12-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


I agree that this universe is the only one we can account for in investigation. What we know about this universe is that it does have a beginning. What came before is left to speculation and difficult to wrap our mind around because what was there before time-space-matter? How do we even describe that?

But God would reside outside of space time being the creator of it. Thus, the attributes of infinite, eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent etc apply to God alone.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Rise27
 


How is “Paul’s Gospel” any more valid than Joseph Smith’s and Ellen White’s? All three of these individuals share the same premise for receiving instruction from their respective gods. They all saw visions through which Jesus, or “God the Father,” instructed them to preach, write books, create a new religion, etc.

I can hear George Carlin right now, talking about how god gave Moses the ten commandments. “Up on a mountain… when noooo one was around!” lol

If the original gospels weren’t difficult enough to understand, Paul’s musings on salvation only serve to further kick up the dust storm in Jesus’ wake.

Here’s the part where I really go off the rails and nobody takes me seriously. I have asked for understanding from the Source about the Christian gospels. This is the answer I got:

The story of Jesus, just like all the savior legends that came before, is telling a very simple story: The Sun’s journey through the procession of solstices and equinoxes. The gospel is an allegorical expression of Astrology. It’s Astrotheology. As above, so below. All of the great stories are based on this: good versus evil, light against darkness; the story of Jesus is no different. It's the sun, the seasons, and the constellations of the zodiac.

Here’s a few illustrations to get you started, if you’re interested in exploring further:









There's the "Son" on the "Cross." A ubiquitous symbol in western religion.

Still, I believe there is some wisdom to be found in the specific lessons Jesus was preaching during his ministry. The parables are classic lesson nuggets that beautifully convey ideas about morality, salvation, the kingdom of god, and so on. However, these lessons are not exclusive to Christianity. The same wisdom can be found in other philosophies like Egyptian Hermeticism or Taoism. (Even similar savior figures like Jesus.)

Just look at my signature. The Temples of Luxor were founded in 1400 B.C.E and it contains inscriptions of “Christian” proverbs. The wisdom of Christ and Solomon is not exclusive to them.

The problem I have with the Abrahamic faiths is their insistence that they present the sole truth and nothing but the truth. When in actuality they’ve borrowed nearly everything they believe from the pagans and shamans who came before them.

I wish Christians would stop looking down on the pagans. They have a lot more in common than they realize.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by FaceLikeTheSun
reply to post by windword
 


I agree that this universe is the only one we can account for in investigation.


By definition, the universe is all that exists. Nothing exists outside of existence.


What we know about this universe is that it does have a beginning. What came before is left to speculation and difficult to wrap our mind around because what was there before time-space-matter? How do we even describe that?


No, we don't "know" that the universe had a beginning. The Big Bang Theory is just that, a theory. It may well be true, but we don't that it was the beginning of the universe or the beginning of this phase of existence. It is possible that the Universe contracted on itself, creating the singularity hypothesis of the The Big Bang.


But God would reside outside of space time being the creator of it. Thus, the attributes of infinite, eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent etc apply to God alone.


That's your definition of God. Your definition only prolongs the conundrum, it doesn't solve it. There is not reason to assume that God exists outside of existence. Non exisstence doesn't exist!

God, in my mind, is the universe, the totality of everything that is, in a constant state of change. But, going with your model, if God is separate from existence and stands outside of existence, willing existence into being, who willed God into existence? You see? Your logic requires the same questions as the original dilemna; "Who created the universe?"

It's not enough to just stop there, at "God did it." "God always was." It's an even further stretch to assume that God, the one that exists outside of existence, in the same guy, who sat down and ate cakes and BBQ with Abraham in his tent, and hates foreskins and homosexuality.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


"God, in my mind, is the universe, the totality of everything that is, in a constant state of change. But, going with your model, if God is separate from existence and stands outside of existence, willing existence into being, who willed God into existence? You see? Your logic requires the same questions as the original dilemna; "Who created the universe?" "

so you hold onto pantheistic view, that God is the totality of everything.

The argument of If God created the universe, then who created God is a fallacious argument because an explanation doesn't need an explanation for one. All of science would fall apart if that was the case. Everything we find out would need an explanation, and that explanation would need and explanation ad infinitum.

Rather, you fail to understand the definition of God. The attributes of God are eternal and infinite. Those attributes don't warrant a beginning, or a creator because God always was. Why does something that never began to exist need an explanation for how it got there? It doesn't.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by FaceLikeTheSun
 


Everything we find out would need an explanation, and that explanation would need and explanation ad infinitum.

EXACTLY!

Everything we "find out" needs an explanation. Not just "blind faith" in some ancient person's scribings. (Was gonna type "scribblings", but I realize they were all very much in earnest. Maybe.)



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by FaceLikeTheSun
 





The argument of If God created the universe, then who created God is a fallacious argument because an explanation doesn't need an explanation for one. All of science would fall apart if that was the case.


Sorry? I don't understand what you're trying to say here?


Everything we find out would need an explanation, and that explanation would need and explanation ad infinitum.


You believe that the argument, or the line of questioning, should just end there. All philosophical discussion comes to an end when we say "God did it!" No further explanation is needed. All arguments from this point on are to be thrown out the window!


Rather, you fail to understand the definition of God. The attributes of God are eternal and infinite.


I fail to understand nothing. I just disagree with your definition. These attribute that you ascribe to God, are only true in the minds of those who believe.


Those attributes don't warrant a beginning, or a creator because God always was. Why does something that never began to exist need an explanation for how it got there? It doesn't.


Yes it does. When it comes to God, Christians always rely on the "Don't question God" route. Why shouldn't God need an explanation? How doesn't something that doesn't exist, exist always? Why should I simply accept that?

It's lazy and unethical to just stop all examination, abort curiosity and proposed explanations, tests and measures, placing the answer to all that's unknown on something that doesn't exist.

Christians ask scientists "How did matter come to be?" "How and when did the universe begin?" "Did life just evolve from inert matter?" "How can matter come from nothing?" as if those arguments lead to proof of a God that doesn't have a beginning or end, and doesn't "exist" in existence, and, that created the universe from nothing.

This line of thought just postpones the conundrum and transfers the questions to another realm, a realm outside of the universe of existence to another, non-existent, realm of fantasy and magic; to a realm of a supernatural being who stands outside of creation, willing it into existence from nothing with his magic wand.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


You believe that the argument, or the line of questioning, should just end there. All philosophical discussion comes to an end when we say "God did it!" No further explanation is needed. All arguments from this point on are to be thrown out the window!

Strange, is it not?

We are a curious species. To stop wondering what it's all about is to die......
in my opinion.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ddaniel
 


I have gone through the same thing, many people have called it the awakening. I was raised in a small village. completely Christian. the whole village was based around the church. my god mother is the was the second female priest in the UK so you can imagine the endless bible stories during baby sitting. but back then I did not mind, I believed. I educated myself in History, politics, and natural science and I realized that the Bible is not Gods words but the word of man, after jesus died there were 80 Gospels including Mary Magdalen, but it was Constantine that took only Four Gospels mathew mark luke and john to create the bible at the council of Nicea. Constantine is revered as a saint but he was an emperor who was obsessed with building his empire. He and others hand picked which words to give to the people. all the other gospels were outlawed and burned.

Constantine was a pagan and moved Xmas to the 25th Dec as this is the first day of the yearly sun cycle. and he moved the sabath day to sunday "SUN day" look into the yearly sun cycle and how it sits on the same position on the horizon between the 21st Dec and 25th Dec. The sun dies and is ressurected three days later.

I do believe in some source of creation but I cannot say what that is, I suppose thats what faith is? The true story of Jesus died with him and his name has been used by darker forces to manipulate and control mankind for 2000 years.

only the elite know the truth ands it has always been this way. alot went on in ancient times which has been hidden from us. Which is another reason why Constantine put into the bible that the world was only 10,000 years old, He didn't want people looking back that far. But why?

you are right to find god you have to look within. open your minds EYE and see what you find. I recommend learning to meditate and lucid dreaming. learning to activate your third eye is our window to the source of consciousness and creation. I highly recommend looking into sacrred geometry and the Fibinachi Spiral/square, also flower of life. This is the beginning to understanding the truth which has been hidden from us.

The very nature of our existence and relation to the Universe. It is all relative. I have a website which I am working on daily check it out and share it is you like it. some topics on there which may interest you.
New World New Age



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by AprenticeofLight
 


Lol. Where did you hear that? The Nicaean Council had nothing to do with the books of the Bible. Search any online Encyclopedia entry for the Council of Nicaea. It was called primarily to address the Arian heresy. And the other "gospels" you mentioned were long rejected before Constantine, they were Gnostic texts and were condemned by Irenaeus in the 2nd century, some 200 years before Nicaea.
edit on 30-12-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Lol. Where did you hear that? The Nicaean Council had nothing to do with the books of the Bible.

What? The council decided what to include and what to exclude from the Bible, and came up with the fantastical "Creed".

Where did Aprentice hear "what"???



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Lol. Where did you hear that? The Nicaean Council had nothing to do with the books of the Bible.

What? The council decided what to include and what to exclude from the Bible, and came up with the fantastical "Creed".

Where did Aprentice hear "what"???


Completely false. The Nicaean Council was convened to address the Arian heresy. They also took the occasion to nail down a common date for Easter.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


The Nicaean Council was convened to address the Arian heresy. They also took the occasion to nail down a common date for Easter.

Right. The First Sunday after the First Full Moon after the Vernal Equinox.

Very simple.
Constantine called the summit (Council) to get all the "bishops" together to decide on what would be "universally" accepted as "Christian."

This first ecumenical council was the first effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all of Christendom.[5][6]
Its main accomplishments were settlement of the Trinitarian issue of the nature of The Son and his relationship to God the Father,[3] the construction of the first part of the Creed of Nicaea, settling the calculation of the date of Easter,[2] and promulgation of early canon law.[4][7][8]

en.wikipedia.org... this is just wikipedia!



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


Keep reading your link under the subheadings "misconceptions" and "role of Constantine". What does it say?

edit on 30-12-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

Okay, just saw that.....
also, saw that the section of Wikipedia lacks credible references (right above that section).....

Misconceptions


This section's references may not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources. Please help by checking whether the references meet the criteria for reliable sources. (February 2012)


I'll concede they didn't discuss "biblical canon", but they CERTAINLY came up with the Nicene Creed, and set out the idea of the "Trinity"......
neither of which was ever, EVER, believable to me.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


And the other "gospels" you mentioned were long rejected before Constantine, they were Gnostic texts and were condemned by Irenaeus in the 2nd century, some 200 years before Nicaea.

...and some 150 years AFTER Jesus supposedly lived and died......

The earliest "Christians" were gnostics. I just don't get why you all dismiss them.


Okay, I have to sign off now and indulge in the blessings of the Creator who provided things that make life easier to deal with.
Luyva, though!

Hope your new career is measuring up!!!!



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


That means someone challenged the information. Look anywhere on the net for facts VS myth for the Council, they had nothing to do with the canon of scripture. And they didn't make Jesus God at the Council, they decided how to exactly define His deity which had long been accepted. The vote wasn't even close. Only Arius and his companion voted nay. Arius was teaching heresy, that was the primary reason the Council was convened.





new topics
top topics
 
54
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join