Welcome to Gaia! ::

*~Let the Fire Fall ~* A Christian Guild

Back to Guilds

 

 

Reply Debate and Discussion
My Guardian Goto Page: [] [<] 1 2

Quick Reply

Submit

divineseraph

divineseraph's avatar

PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 12:11 pm
God is infinite in nature- He is Eternal and composes all things physically. This does not mean that he must also be sin, war and abortion- Those are all things corrupted from God, and done by beings with souls which are not God. God is perfection, and as such, must be infinite. Perfection that ends is hardly perfect.

Things like man and woman, night and day, black and white, are all corruptions (though not necessarily bad corruptions) of God. God goes beyond that, and is pure soul. Soul has no gender.

In the beginning, as we know through Kabbalah, Genesis and Science, there was nothing but one thing- God. God was perfect and outside of time. It was then that God expanded into space, corrupted into matter, and this corrupted into heavier elements, compounds, and eventually life. Point being, God existed well before gender, time, or space, and as such, is both both genders and neither genders- He held the components for both genders, yet was none of them.  
PostPosted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 9:01 am
divineseraph Wrote:
In the beginning, as we know through Kabbalah, Genesis and Science, there was nothing but one thing- God. God was perfect and outside of time. It was then that God expanded into space, corrupted into matter, and this corrupted into heavier elements, compounds, and eventually life. Point being, God existed well before gender, time, or space, and as such, is both both genders and neither genders- He held the components for both genders, yet was none of them.


Your description comes from neither Genesis nor science. I don't know if it's in Kabbalah, but as I said about the Sephirah, Kabbalah too carries no weight here. Anyway, you shouldn't claim that your description of creation comes from Genesis or science, because it doesn't.

You say God corrupted into matter, corrupted into elements, etc. But if you say God is perfect, how can you believe he's been corrupted? If something is perfect, it cannot become corrupted. Your statements sound inconsistent. Genesis says God simply created everything. He didn't corrupt and become everything. Maybe that's what Kabbalah teaches, but Genesis says the opposite, and science of course can't reveal these actions of God.

You also didn't respond to any discussions or issues I raised in my last post, so it's feeling rather pointless to discuss this.  

Crimson Raccoon

Crimson Raccoon's avatar


divineseraph

divineseraph's avatar

PostPosted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 5:20 pm
Crimson Raccoon Wrote:
divineseraph Wrote:
In the beginning, as we know through Kabbalah, Genesis and Science, there was nothing but one thing- God. God was perfect and outside of time. It was then that God expanded into space, corrupted into matter, and this corrupted into heavier elements, compounds, and eventually life. Point being, God existed well before gender, time, or space, and as such, is both both genders and neither genders- He held the components for both genders, yet was none of them.


Your description comes from neither Genesis nor science. I don't know if it's in Kabbalah, but as I said about the Sephirah, Kabbalah too carries no weight here. Anyway, you shouldn't claim that your description of creation comes from Genesis or science, because it doesn't.

You say God corrupted into matter, corrupted into elements, etc. But if you say God is perfect, how can you believe he's been corrupted? If something is perfect, it cannot become corrupted. Your statements sound inconsistent. Genesis says God simply created everything. He didn't corrupt and become everything. Maybe that's what Kabbalah teaches, but Genesis says the opposite, and science of course can't reveal these actions of God.

You also didn't respond to any discussions or issues I raised in my last post, so it's feeling rather pointless to discuss this.


You may be right about genesis- It seems it only discusses His action and not His being. However, I maintain that since God was there before the creation, and since He was this there before the invention of Gender, and since He invented BOTH genders, that He must therefore be be made of both but existing as neither.

In the beginning, there was nothing, not even time, but a singularity- this is the basic idea of science. It does not give the singularity a name or face, because it happened so long ago, and science cannot delve into the subjective. However, it maintains that before there was matter, there was this One Thing- and since it was there before night, fay and so forth, he must contain both but be neither.

Let me ask you- Is God Night or Day? Since, apparently, God must be ONE and ONLY ONE of His dualities now.

On one side, God is warm and bright, glowing with power like the sun during day. On the other, God is mysterious, beautiful, and sparkling, clearly infinite in scope, like the stars at night. Do you want to pick a time that God must be? A gender? A skin color? A language? As I am showing you through logic, God cannot have or be any of these- God transcends them, and is both of them.

Corruption is not necessarily bad. You could call it "evolution" if you want, but in reverse, since it gets less perfect. So, let's say you have water, and you want to make a solid. You have water and only water, so you can't mix it with anything. What do you do? You cool it and freeze it, and change the water itself. You alter the water to meet your needs. Of course, unlike your perfect, flowing water, ice can crack and shatter.

I am not calling God water, though he leaves an interesting signature in water. However, that is how it works- He altered soulstuff to become physical, which brings up unique problems such as chemical reaction and gravitation and all that. All things are from God, and made of God, but in a physical form. We also have souls, which are the same stuff as God, implanted into the physical world.

Why must Kabbalah be irrelevant? It comes from intense study of the holy texts, to get true understanding. God is not a literal being.

Genesis said "God Created", it did not say "Got assembled by hand" or "God poofed into existence the earth" or "God added 3 eggs to the mixture and put it into the oven, preheated at 375, for 15 minutes"- It does not tell HOW God created the earth.  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 2:56 pm
divineseraph Wrote:
You may be right about genesis- It seems it only discusses His action and not His being. However, I maintain that since God was there before the creation, and since He was this there before the invention of Gender, and since He invented BOTH genders, that He must therefore be be made of both but existing as neither.

In the beginning, there was nothing, not even time, but a singularity- this is the basic idea of science. It does not give the singularity a name or face, because it happened so long ago, and science cannot delve into the subjective. However, it maintains that before there was matter, there was this One Thing- and since it was there before night, fay and so forth, he must contain both but be neither.


I disagree that this is, as you say, a basic idea of science. The idea of an infinitely small, dense, and hot singularity which existed before the Big Bang is merely a supposition, it is not an essential part of Big Bang Theory. The parts of the Theory which are undisputed and have actual evidence do not make any claim as to what caused the Big Bang, where it came from, and what existed before it. It cannot possibly do so, because there cannot possibly be any evidence to support any such claims. The idea of a supposed singularity is one of several suggestions that scientists have put forward, but such suggestions are not a core part of the theory itself, and are certainly not basic ideas of science. Other suggestions include an eternal multiverse from which our universe sprouted out of. But, like the idea of a singularity, this cannot be studied nor included in any really scientific theory. It is outside the realm of science as we know it.

Big Bang Theory has evidence that the universe expanded from a single point, and this may be what you're thinking of as scientific fact. But that can't be used to say that science shows God corrupted into the universe, and that everything in the universe is a part of God.

So, your ideas come only from Kabbalah, and neither the Bible nor science do anything to support it.


divineseraph Wrote:
Let me ask you- Is God Night or Day? Since, apparently, God must be ONE and ONLY ONE of His dualities now.

On one side, God is warm and bright, glowing with power like the sun during day. On the other, God is mysterious, beautiful, and sparkling, clearly infinite in scope, like the stars at night. Do you want to pick a time that God must be? A gender? A skin color? A language? As I am showing you through logic, God cannot have or be any of these- God transcends them, and is both of them.

Corruption is not necessarily bad. You could call it "evolution" if you want, but in reverse, since it gets less perfect. So, let's say you have water, and you want to make a solid. You have water and only water, so you can't mix it with anything. What do you do? You cool it and freeze it, and change the water itself. You alter the water to meet your needs. Of course, unlike your perfect, flowing water, ice can crack and shatter.

I am not calling God water, though he leaves an interesting signature in water. However, that is how it works- He altered soulstuff to become physical, which brings up unique problems such as chemical reaction and gravitation and all that. All things are from God, and made of God, but in a physical form. We also have souls, which are the same stuff as God, implanted into the physical world.


Again, your conclusions do not come from the Bible and are only based on Kabbalah. The Bible clearly says that God is never corrupted; that he never changes form or substance or essence; and that he exists separately from his creation.

divineseraph Wrote:
I maintain that since God was there before the creation, and since He was this there before the invention of Gender, and since He invented BOTH genders, that He must therefore be be made of both but existing as neither.


God did not invent or create everything that exists, because God exists and he did not create himself. God did not create love, he did not create truth, nor did he create peace, unity, and so on. All of these things existed before God created anything, because all of these things are aspects and characteristics of God. If God says he is male, then that must mean that "maleness," or whatever we'd call it, is also not a creation of God, because like Love, it is an aspect of himself.

divineseraph Wrote:
Why must Kabbalah be irrelevant? It comes from intense study of the holy texts, to get true understanding. God is not a literal being.


It does not carry weight because it is from another religion. This is a Christian guild, and I am discussing the God of Christianity, and it is assumed that people come here because he is the God they want to discuss or debate. Although Kabbalah could possibly have some useful insight to offer, it is not an authoritative source here and certainly does not trump anything the Bible has to say about God or creation. As I said before, I am willing to agree with you that in Kabbalistic Jewish mysticism, God is genderless; and you should agree that in Christianity and "standard" Judaism, God is male.

I also assert that one could not possibly come to the conclusion that "God is not a literal being" by doing an "intense study of the holy texts." How could anyone possibly get that conclusion from the Bible? I don't know of even one verse that could give that impression. Interpreters and teachers who make such claims clearly have their own individually formed beliefs, and are twisting the meaning of texts to make it fit whatever they set out to teach. Be careful of such interpreters. We need to read the Bible for ourselves and see for ourselves what it teaches. The Bible was not made for a religious aristocracy or cabal to interpret and tell us its meanings, it is for all of us. Power to the people! Teachers can be immensely helpful, but we need to hold them accountable to the Bible and measure them against it; it is the highest authority God put on earth, not them.

divineseraph Wrote:
Genesis said "God Created", it did not say "Got assembled by hand" or "God poofed into existence the earth" or "God added 3 eggs to the mixture and put it into the oven, preheated at 375, for 15 minutes"- It does not tell HOW God created the earth.


There are several different words in the early passages of Genesis that describe God's work which resulted in the existence of the universe and everything in it, and it IS specific about what these words mean. Some of these words include: created, separated, made, set [up], and formed. Of course, each one means slightly different things; and when the word "created" is used, it means that God formed it out of nothing. When that is not the case, it uses a different word.

So, in a sense, Genesis does say that God "poofed into existence the earth." It says that he "created" the heavens and the earth, and the word "create" means to bring it into existence out of nothing.

For those who are curious, the word "create" is used for the origin of the universe, the origin of animal life, and the origin of human life. For everything else, such as stars, water, plants, etc.; it uses a different word, meaning that he formed these out of the material he had created in his first act of creation.  

Crimson Raccoon

Crimson Raccoon's avatar


divineseraph

divineseraph's avatar

PostPosted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 8:18 pm
Crimson Raccoon Wrote:
divineseraph Wrote:
You may be right about genesis- It seems it only discusses His action and not His being. However, I maintain that since God was there before the creation, and since He was this there before the invention of Gender, and since He invented BOTH genders, that He must therefore be be made of both but existing as neither.

In the beginning, there was nothing, not even time, but a singularity- this is the basic idea of science. It does not give the singularity a name or face, because it happened so long ago, and science cannot delve into the subjective. However, it maintains that before there was matter, there was this One Thing- and since it was there before night, fay and so forth, he must contain both but be neither.


I disagree that this is, as you say, a basic idea of science. The idea of an infinitely small, dense, and hot singularity which existed before the Big Bang is merely a supposition, it is not an essential part of Big Bang Theory. The parts of the Theory which are undisputed and have actual evidence do not make any claim as to what caused the Big Bang, where it came from, and what existed before it. It cannot possibly do so, because there cannot possibly be any evidence to support any such claims. The idea of a supposed singularity is one of several suggestions that scientists have put forward, but such suggestions are not a core part of the theory itself, and are certainly not basic ideas of science. Other suggestions include an eternal multiverse from which our universe sprouted out of. But, like the idea of a singularity, this cannot be studied nor included in any really scientific theory. It is outside the realm of science as we know it.

Big Bang Theory has evidence that the universe expanded from a single point, and this may be what you're thinking of as scientific fact. But that can't be used to say that science shows God corrupted into the universe, and that everything in the universe is a part of God.

So, your ideas come only from Kabbalah, and neither the Bible nor science do anything to support it.


divineseraph Wrote:
Let me ask you- Is God Night or Day? Since, apparently, God must be ONE and ONLY ONE of His dualities now.

On one side, God is warm and bright, glowing with power like the sun during day. On the other, God is mysterious, beautiful, and sparkling, clearly infinite in scope, like the stars at night. Do you want to pick a time that God must be? A gender? A skin color? A language? As I am showing you through logic, God cannot have or be any of these- God transcends them, and is both of them.

Corruption is not necessarily bad. You could call it "evolution" if you want, but in reverse, since it gets less perfect. So, let's say you have water, and you want to make a solid. You have water and only water, so you can't mix it with anything. What do you do? You cool it and freeze it, and change the water itself. You alter the water to meet your needs. Of course, unlike your perfect, flowing water, ice can crack and shatter.

I am not calling God water, though he leaves an interesting signature in water. However, that is how it works- He altered soulstuff to become physical, which brings up unique problems such as chemical reaction and gravitation and all that. All things are from God, and made of God, but in a physical form. We also have souls, which are the same stuff as God, implanted into the physical world.


Again, your conclusions do not come from the Bible and are only based on Kabbalah. The Bible clearly says that God is never corrupted; that he never changes form or substance or essence; and that he exists separately from his creation.

divineseraph Wrote:
I maintain that since God was there before the creation, and since He was this there before the invention of Gender, and since He invented BOTH genders, that He must therefore be be made of both but existing as neither.


God did not invent or create everything that exists, because God exists and he did not create himself. God did not create love, he did not create truth, nor did he create peace, unity, and so on. All of these things existed before God created anything, because all of these things are aspects and characteristics of God. If God says he is male, then that must mean that "maleness," or whatever we'd call it, is also not a creation of God, because like Love, it is an aspect of himself.

divineseraph Wrote:
Why must Kabbalah be irrelevant? It comes from intense study of the holy texts, to get true understanding. God is not a literal being.


It does not carry weight because it is from another religion. This is a Christian guild, and I am discussing the God of Christianity, and it is assumed that people come here because he is the God they want to discuss or debate. Although Kabbalah could possibly have some useful insight to offer, it is not an authoritative source here and certainly does not trump anything the Bible has to say about God or creation. As I said before, I am willing to agree with you that in Kabbalistic Jewish mysticism, God is genderless; and you should agree that in Christianity and "standard" Judaism, God is male.

I also assert that one could not possibly come to the conclusion that "God is not a literal being" by doing an "intense study of the holy texts." How could anyone possibly get that conclusion from the Bible? I don't know of even one verse that could give that impression. Interpreters and teachers who make such claims clearly have their own individually formed beliefs, and are twisting the meaning of texts to make it fit whatever they set out to teach. Be careful of such interpreters. We need to read the Bible for ourselves and see for ourselves what it teaches. The Bible was not made for a religious aristocracy or cabal to interpret and tell us its meanings, it is for all of us. Power to the people! Teachers can be immensely helpful, but we need to hold them accountable to the Bible and measure them against it; it is the highest authority God put on earth, not them.

divineseraph Wrote:
Genesis said "God Created", it did not say "Got assembled by hand" or "God poofed into existence the earth" or "God added 3 eggs to the mixture and put it into the oven, preheated at 375, for 15 minutes"- It does not tell HOW God created the earth.


There are several different words in the early passages of Genesis that describe God's work which resulted in the existence of the universe and everything in it, and it IS specific about what these words mean. Some of these words include: created, separated, made, set [up], and formed. Of course, each one means slightly different things; and when the word "created" is used, it means that God formed it out of nothing. When that is not the case, it uses a different word.

So, in a sense, Genesis does say that God "poofed into existence the earth." It says that he "created" the heavens and the earth, and the word "create" means to bring it into existence out of nothing.

For those who are curious, the word "create" is used for the origin of the universe, the origin of animal life, and the origin of human life. For everything else, such as stars, water, plants, etc.; it uses a different word, meaning that he formed these out of the material he had created in his first act of creation.


Which is my point in supporting science- It does not say anything against God, as it is objective and descriptive. But it does hold to an idea of a singularity which sparked creation, and that singularity could obviously not have the characteristics of it's creation as things such as space, time and matter had not yet been created. If everything came from this one thing, then logically, it is all, at it's essence, the same thing, but different in composition. This alteration of substance is a corruption, but not in the evil way corruption is usually portrayed. To a degree, of course, as this new matter does bring with it problems such as greed, death, and the likes, but the matter itself is neutral.

God does not corrupt, this is true. God does not change, but the physical stuff around which God utilizes creation does. Keep in mind, when I say that God "corrupted", I do not mean ALL of God changed, or that ANY of God changed- A finite portion of the stuff God is made of changed. And even a gigantic finite part of infinity is still 0%. So God DOES exist separate from creation, yet is part of it too. Also, this is an argument from logic, which may be considered Kabbalah, but to be technical, I am not making this argument by reading between the lines of a biblical text, I am using the basics that we know of God to prove more about God.

Love and truth are abstractions. Male and female, light and dark, day and night are physical, tangible things that come with, and only with the physical world. But does this mean then, that God must also be hate and fear and stupidity, if we are considering that emotions and states of mind must be now part of God?

It's from a different religion about the same God. That's like saying that gravity doesn't work in England because you're switching from standard to metric- It doesn't matter what arbitrary system of measurement you're using, the basic rules of the universe that are universal still apply. So it must be with God- The God of the Jews is the God of the Christians, and as we know, God does not change. So differing religions must them be irrelevant.

And intense study of the texts usually means finding the secret meanings between the lines. This is usually not a "God wants us to eat kittens" or "God hates gays and women" stuff, it goes to the fabric of the universe, to define natural law and the nature of God. It is not as petty as dogmatic law.

God gave us logic so that we cold question what is wrong. The bible is ancient, and has been rewritten and had part omitted and added so much, it's hard to tell what's true and what is false. It is also riddled with irrelevant human bullshit, such as petty squabbles between groups and tribes, or irrelevant ideas such as food safety. Our SOULS, being made of the same infinite stuff as God, are our highest authorities.

If you take that allegory literally, you may have problems.  
PostPosted: Sun Apr 19, 2009 12:55 pm
divineseraph Wrote:
Which is my point in supporting science- It does not say anything against God, as it is objective and descriptive. But it does hold to an idea of a singularity which sparked creation, and that singularity could obviously not have the characteristics of it's creation as things such as space, time and matter had not yet been created. If everything came from this one thing, then logically, it is all, at it's essence, the same thing, but different in composition. This alteration of substance is a corruption, but not in the evil way corruption is usually portrayed. To a degree, of course, as this new matter does bring with it problems such as greed, death, and the likes, but the matter itself is neutral.


But I just said that science does not hold to an idea of a singularity which sparked creation. It doesn't. My last post explains that. It offers it as a possibility, but it does not "hold" to it, and it is not supported by any evidence. It is only offered as one of several possibilities, and science will never be able to determine any of these possibilities because it is outside the realm of science.

divineseraph Wrote:
God does not corrupt, this is true. God does not change, but the physical stuff around which God utilizes creation does. Keep in mind, when I say that God "corrupted", I do not mean ALL of God changed, or that ANY of God changed- A finite portion of the stuff God is made of changed. And even a gigantic finite part of infinity is still 0%. So God DOES exist separate from creation, yet is part of it too. Also, this is an argument from logic, which may be considered Kabbalah, but to be technical, I am not making this argument by reading between the lines of a biblical text, I am using the basics that we know of God to prove more about God.


It is not an argument from logic; otherwise no one would be able to disagree with you. And, logic is not synonymous to Kabbalah. Your argument is only from logic in the sense that if a person accepts your faith-based beliefs, they can then follow them logically to get the same conclusions as you. But logic only comes into play after the faith-based beliefs have already been accepted.

Your belief that a single God created the universe is based on faith, not logic. Your belief that he made the creation out of his own essence is based on faith, not logic. Even your belief that God does not change is based on faith, as well as your belief that we have souls. And so on.

You and I share some of the same faith-based beliefs, but not all of them. If I believed all the same things as you, then yes, I could use pure logic to come to the same conclusions about the world and God and our relationship to it all. But the use of logic does not extend to convincing anyone of faith-based statements. As I said in a previous post, logic is limited and it can tell us only the most basic things about God; he has to reveal himself to us for us to know him in any personal way.

How much could I determine about you, using nothing but logic? Not very much at all. Everything personal that I know about you, I only know because you have revealed it to me; not because of logic. So if we are to know anything useful about God, he needs to reveal it to us; and Christians believe he has, in the Bible. You put logic in the place of the Bible, and it just doesn't work. If logic doesn't work for me knowing you, then it can't work any better for us knowing God. But reading your words does work for me knowing you, and in the same way it works for us knowing God.

divineseraph Wrote:
Love and truth are abstractions. Male and female, light and dark, day and night are physical, tangible things that come with, and only with the physical world. But does this mean then, that God must also be hate and fear and stupidity, if we are considering that emotions and states of mind must be now part of God?


No, God isn't hate and fear and stupidity. Where would you get that from what I was saying? Just because I said God is love, you say that, if he is love, he must also be hate? No, of course not. If I say an object is green, would you then argue that, if it has to be green, it must also be red? That is far from logical.

Logically, it sounds more like your statements are what would make it mean that God is hate and fear and stupidity. If you believe all creation and everything in it are actually God or part of God, then anyone who is hateful is a part of a God who is hateful. God includes the holocaust, and he carried out the holocaust. If it was done by parts of himself, then it was done by him. If my hand kills someone, I killed someone. You believe in a dramatically different God than I do.

divineseraph Wrote:
It's from a different religion about the same God. That's like saying that gravity doesn't work in England because you're switching from standard to metric- It doesn't matter what arbitrary system of measurement you're using, the basic rules of the universe that are universal still apply. So it must be with God- The God of the Jews is the God of the Christians, and as we know, God does not change. So differing religions must them be irrelevant.


It is a different religion, and it is a different God. I believe that Jesus Christ is God; if someone doesn't, then whatever God they believe in must be a different God because it is not Jesus Christ. Saying that two people who believe two different things about God really believe in the same God is similar to your reasoning that if God is love, he must also be hate. If I see an object and say it is completely green, and you see an object and say that it is completely red, then logic forces us to conclude that we are looking at two different objects. If you do not believe that Jesus Christ is God, then you believe in a different God than I do. If I do not believe that God used his own essence to make creation, then I believe in a different God than you.

You believe in pantheism, which is distinctly different from monotheism. You and I are not even talking about the same kind of God.

divineseraph Wrote:
And intense study of the texts usually means finding the secret meanings between the lines. This is usually not a "God wants us to eat kittens" or "God hates gays and women" stuff, it goes to the fabric of the universe, to define natural law and the nature of God. It is not as petty as dogmatic law.


There are no "secret" meanings between the lines of the Bible. If someone can claim that the Bible "secretly" says that God is not literally real, then I can claim that you "secretly" don't believe anything you're saying either. Can I study your writings intensely enough to find out that your secret intention is for everyone to disagree with what you're saying? Well, I'll try it, and let you know. =P

divineseraph Wrote:
God gave us logic so that we cold question what is wrong. The bible is ancient, and has been rewritten and had part omitted and added so much, it's hard to tell what's true and what is false. It is also riddled with irrelevant human bullshit, such as petty squabbles between groups and tribes, or irrelevant ideas such as food safety. Our SOULS, being made of the same infinite stuff as God, are our highest authorities.


Your belief that the Bible has been rewritten and that things have been left out and added, is entirely an assumption, there is no evidence to support it. In fact, as far as the New Testament goes, it is the most reliable and accurately kept-up document in existence, out of anything that was ever written before the the 1400's. The Old Testament is far older so we can't trace it as easily, but in any case we know beyond dispute that it hasn't been changed at all since 100 years before Christ was born, because we have complete copies of it which are at least as old as 100 BC. And we have no evidence that it was changed before then, so why should we just assume that it was? We don't hold that biased assumption for any other ancient documents.

divineseraph Wrote:
If you take that allegory literally, you may have problems.


You first try to use Genesis to support you argument, and then as soon as I prove that it disagrees with you, you dismiss it as a mere allegory.  

Crimson Raccoon

Crimson Raccoon's avatar


divineseraph

divineseraph's avatar

PostPosted: Mon Apr 20, 2009 9:12 am
No, it has evidence- It cites the expansion of the universe from a central point. While we cannot conclude indefinitely, we can also not conclude definitely on anything in science- Even the most obvious of things are but theories. This is why, rightly so, "The heavy has a tendency downwards" was a theory, and was replaced with a theory of particle attraction. By the same token, we may very well find out otherwise in the future.

The belief in God is based in science. Although there is, again, no proof, that doesn't matter to my following logical understandings of God. That's like decrying ideas of gravity because we cannot prove that atoms exist- While technically that's true, it doesn't change what would be true should the prerequisites be true. Science has evidence that the beginning of the universe, wether it is called a singularity, YHWH, Allah, God, Brahman or Aton, was a single, infinite point without mass, matter, space or time. From this, logic dictates that all that exists must have come from this, and thus must be an altered form of this singularity expanded.

And exactly- I can't claim to know God's favorite flavor of icecream or his favorite color. But I can figure out, with a certain degree of accuracy, what He is. For example, you could say with a certain degree of certainty that I am a human being, that I speak english, that I have a computer or access to one. You can figure this out through logic- If this message is getting to you, it must be because it is from a conscious agent. As computers do not yet exist that can type fluently in context, you can logically determine that I am a human being. Since the words are in english, you can determine that I am likely in Europe, Austrailia or America. And since this message is coming over a computer, you can guess that I have internet access and am not writing this by hand. This is all I have done with God- I have used that I know from various sources to extrapolate what God is most likely to be logically.

You said that God was comprised of the abstractions that do not exist as matter, and that have existed before matter, such as love and (apparently) gender. So why not hate? Surely if emotions and thoughts have existed before time, then hate must have existed too- If male and female, polarities of their own, existed before time, surely love and it's counterpart, hate, existed as well.


If you had said that something must be comprised of all colors, yes, I would have to. Ah, but there's the difference- God's matter brings forth problems that do not exist in soulstuff- Issues of greed, hate and death. God does not act through his matter any more than a miner acts through the gun his ores are made into. I do not believe differently than you do in that respect- The matter is, again, a CORRUPTION. The matter was once God, but now is not, exactly. It contains the essence of God. If a conscious agent decides to use matter, made by God, to commit a crime, then that has nothing to do with God, and it is not God acting through the material.

Then you are worshiping a false God, if you consider Jesus Christ to be God. God is YHWH, according the the Jews, and according to Christ Himself, who was a Jew, even until and after his death. He PRAYED to YHWH. You may want to look over your texts again, even your bible disagrees with you. This is not even a breech of logic, this is purely and simply incorrect. I sympathize with polytheists, and even still this is a terrible blaspheme.

I am not claiming that my texts are holy and divine. If I were, I would expect secret meanings to be present.

There's plenty of evidence. And I'm talking about the New Testament. IT was altered to remove objectionable passages or things that went against the divinity of Christ. Keep in mind, Christ being Divine does not make Christ God. To place Christ in such a position is to act as The Deceiver and with to place one over God.

Allegories have meanings and points anchored to reality.  
PostPosted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 3:00 pm
divineseraph Wrote:
No, it has evidence- It cites the expansion of the universe from a central point. While we cannot conclude indefinitely, we can also not conclude definitely on anything in science- Even the most obvious of things are but theories. This is why, rightly so, "The heavy has a tendency downwards" was a theory, and was replaced with a theory of particle attraction. By the same token, we may very well find out otherwise in the future.


Just because science says that the universe expanded outward from one point, doesn't mean that what it came from was an eternal "singularity" that was infinitely dense and infinitely hot. You're using scientific evidence of something to support a claim that goes beyond that evidence. That is called a hypothesis, or supposition, or possibility.

divineseraph Wrote:
The belief in God is based in science. Although there is, again, no proof, that doesn't matter to my following logical understandings of God. That's like decrying ideas of gravity because we cannot prove that atoms exist- While technically that's true, it doesn't change what would be true should the prerequisites be true. Science has evidence that the beginning of the universe, wether it is called a singularity, YHWH, Allah, God, Brahman or Aton, was a single, infinite point without mass, matter, space or time. From this, logic dictates that all that exists must have come from this, and thus must be an altered form of this singularity expanded.


What you're saying here is rather difficult to follow and understand. And what do you mean we can't prove that atoms exist? We can prove they exist just as well as we can prove you and I exist, and this planet exists.

A point is not a material thing, it is a location, which is nothing more than a designation made by an intelligence to determine something relative to something else. Saying that the universe expanded outward from a single point of location relative to the space in the universe itself doesn't mean that that "point" was an infinite and eternal object or being.

Nothing existed, then space and time existed in a point, which immediately expanded outward: "The Big Bang." Some scientists propose that the cause of this was that the point eternally existed in an essentially material way; but again, this is only a possibility and has no evidence. I believe that God exists separately from the universe, and separately from the point in the universe he made it expand outward from. I admit that I believe this based on faith, based on the Bible's teaching. Science has evidence that something must have started the universe, but if you are going to commit yourself to any one possibility of what it is that caused it, you are doing so on nothing else but faith, not science.

I don't have a problem that you believe that the singularity from which the universe came from existed eternally. The problem is that you seem to think your belief is entirely supported by science and is the only scientific possibility, and that it could not possibly be that God exists separately from whatever "singularity" he created to form the universe out of. Science does not support your belief any more than it does mine; you should accept and admit that.

divineseraph Wrote:
And exactly- I can't claim to know God's favorite flavor of icecream or his favorite color. But I can figure out, with a certain degree of accuracy, what He is. For example, you could say with a certain degree of certainty that I am a human being, that I speak english, that I have a computer or access to one. You can figure this out through logic- If this message is getting to you, it must be because it is from a conscious agent. As computers do not yet exist that can type fluently in context, you can logically determine that I am a human being. Since the words are in english, you can determine that I am likely in Europe, Austrailia or America. And since this message is coming over a computer, you can guess that I have internet access and am not writing this by hand. This is all I have done with God- I have used that I know from various sources to extrapolate what God is most likely to be logically.


Right, there are a few things that I can ascertain about you using nothing but logic. But all in all, they are very worthless things to know. I still don't know anything personal about you. As you said, I can know that you exist, are intelligent, are human, speak English, have a computer, and have internet access. OK, you and 500 million other people. It is trivial, relatively useless information.

Can I know where you live? No, and I can't even narrow it down to USA, Europe, or Australia, because people speak English all over the world, even if its not the official language. Can I know how to get in contact with you? No. Can I know if you want anything of me? No. Can I know if you can do anything for me? No. Can I know what your personality is like? No. Can I know anything that you've accomplished? No. I can't know anything about you beyond a few extremely basic facts.

With God, if he created us, it is important to know if he expects anything of us. But we can't know what it is if we're using only logic, just like I couldn't know if you expect anything of me using only logic. We also can't know how to find God or get in contact with him by mere logic, this is apparent because I could also never find you by only logic, without you telling me how. I can contact you in a PM through Gaia, but that is only because you haven't posted anonymously and have revealed your user name. That is a form of special revelation, even though it just happens to be a requirement on Gaia.

In short, logic does nothing to tell us how to get in touch with God, what he expects of us, what he may or may not be able to do for us, what we can do to reach him, and what he has to do with us at all. It falls far, far short of us being able to have a relationship with him. It is completely necessary that God reveals himself to us, otherwise there is no way for us to know him. Christians believe that God reveals himself in the Bible, and the Bible does answer all these essential questions about God. Someone may not believe the answers it gives, but at least it gives answers; logic does not.

divineseraph Wrote:
You said that God was comprised of the abstractions that do not exist as matter, and that have existed before matter, such as love and (apparently) gender. So why not hate? Surely if emotions and thoughts have existed before time, then hate must have existed too- If male and female, polarities of their own, existed before time, surely love and it's counterpart, hate, existed as well.


If you want to call them abstractions; love and truth aren't usually described as abstractions, but whatever. If that's the word we'll use, then I said that there are some abstractions which God is; these abstractions do not exist as matter; of course, love and truth are not material things, we all know that. But there are numerous problems with what you're saying about my claim.

One: I said God has some "abstractions," and I named a few specific ones. That does not mean that he has all abstractions, as you make it seem I said. There is no reason to assume he does. In pantheism, which you adhere to, it is necessary, but not in monotheism. You say that if some emotions and thoughts existed before time, then all of them must have, but there is no basis for that being necessary.

Two: Hate does not really exist in the same sense that love does. Hate is really just an absence of love. Much the way that cold does not exist, but heat does. Cold is not something that comes from a source, it does not radiate outward, it cannot be contained or utilized; it does not exist. Cold is merely the absence of heat. In a similar way, darkness does not exist in the same way that light does. There are no "dark stars" that shine darkness out into the universe and produce all the shadows. But light does exist, it can be produced, it can be measured, it can be utilized. So, the supposed "negative abstractions" do not really exist the same way the "positive abstractions" do, and it is not true that if God is love, he must also be hate, no more so than if the Sun must have light and heat, it must also have darkness and cold.

Three: The claim that male and female are somehow polar opposites has no basis. Male and female are two things, yes, but there is no reason why that must mean they are opposite things. Particularly since male and female aspects are complimentary, whereas love and hate are not complimentary at all. Masculinity and femininity have many things in common, and many things different, and the differences are not always opposite, but just different. But clearly, a male child and a female child are far from being polar opposites, they have far more in common with each other than they do differences.


divineseraph Wrote:
If you had said that something must be comprised of all colors, yes, I would have to. Ah, but there's the difference- God's matter brings forth problems that do not exist in soulstuff- Issues of greed, hate and death. God does not act through his matter any more than a miner acts through the gun his ores are made into. I do not believe differently than you do in that respect- The matter is, again, a CORRUPTION. The matter was once God, but now is not, exactly. It contains the essence of God. If a conscious agent decides to use matter, made by God, to commit a crime, then that has nothing to do with God, and it is not God acting through the material.


Again, forgive me but I am finding it difficult to understand what you're trying to say. "If you had said that something must be comprised of all colors, yes, I would have to." Did I say something like that? You would have to what? If you mean I said God must be comprised of all "abstractions," then no, I never said that. "I do not believe differently than you do in that respect- The matter is, again, a CORRUPTION." But, I think we do believe differently, because I don't believe matter is a corruption; I just believe it's something God created.

"God does not act through his matter any more than a miner acts through the gun his ores are made into." But the way you describe God, the analogy would have to go this way: The ores are part of the miner, and the person who makes the gun out of the ores is part of the miner. So, of course the miner would then be acting through the murder carried out using the gun If all material is part of God, who is infinite, and every part of God is equally God with any other part (such is the nature of infinity), then the miner is God, the ore is God, the gun is God, and the killer is God. So it really does have quite a lot to do with God. How can it be that it's not God acting through the material? God is the material, and God is the thoughts of the killer, as well as his hand and the gun. Or, the other option is that God exists separately from the universe, fully and independently.

divineseraph Wrote:
Then you are worshiping a false God, if you consider Jesus Christ to be God. God is YHWH, according the the Jews, and according to Christ Himself, who was a Jew, even until and after his death. He PRAYED to YHWH. You may want to look over your texts again, even your bible disagrees with you. This is not even a breech of logic, this is purely and simply incorrect. I sympathize with polytheists, and even still this is a terrible blaspheme.


Don't be so arrogant. Christians believe that Jesus is God, YHWH if you prefer, as a human. YHWH appeared as a human several times in the Old Testament. Christ made the claim of being God, that's why people wanted him put to death. If Christ hadn't been God, his sacrifice would have accomplished nothing. Many people have been martyred, but no one believes their sacrifice pays anyone else's penalty of sin; but Christians from the beginning believed that Christ's sacrifice was enough to pay the penalty for us, for no other reason than that Christ is God. Yes, Jesus was a Jew, and Jews made up a hugely significant portion of the early Christians. The earliest Christian writings, even before the Gospels were written, show that his followers believed he was God. The concept of the Trinity is one of the most fundamental, basic beliefs of Christianity. Just because Jesus prayed doesn't mean he couldn't have been God; God takes counsel with himself several times even throughout the Old Testament. If he could do it then, he could do it as Jesus.

Your statement that my belief in Christ as God disagrees with the Bible is ridiculous, and you word your accusation very arrogantly and antagonistically. The New Testament makes it clear, from first book to last, that Christ is God. Otherwise, there would be a lot more Christians who didn't believe he's God. But, 99.99% of all Christians for all time have believed that he is, so there you go. If you have a question about any verse that may seem to indicate otherwise, I would be happy to explain it to you.

divineseraph Wrote:
I am not claiming that my texts are holy and divine. If I were, I would expect secret meanings to be present.


So you believe that if a text is divine, then it must have secret meanings? What do you base this belief on? And besides, I thought you didn't believe the Bible was divine, so how could anyone find secret meanings in it anyway? And why is it that only certain people can find the secret meanings, but I can't? And how can we know they're telling the truth? Doesn't this open the door for a group of elite "interpreters of secret meanings" who would have complete influence over the beliefs of a sacred text's followers? Why would God use such a roundabout way to reveal himself? Why would he do it this way instead of just saying it plainly in the text?

divineseraph Wrote:
There's plenty of evidence. And I'm talking about the New Testament. IT was altered to remove objectionable passages or things that went against the divinity of Christ. Keep in mind, Christ being Divine does not make Christ God. To place Christ in such a position is to act as The Deceiver and with to place one over God.


Ok, so show the evidence. I have already said that the New Testament is the most reliable document ever written before the 1400's, in that we have the most evidence that it was never changed in any way. So what evidence do you have that the New Testament was altered and had passages removed from it?

divineseraph Wrote:
Allegories have meanings and points anchored to reality.


So you use the allegory when it supports your own belief, and reject it when it does not support your belief. You say it has meanings and points anchored in reality, but who can decide which points are real and which aren't? You believe the ones that agree with you are real, and the ones that disagree with you aren't. So then, what's the point of the book, or any text at all, if you are only going to believe the things that you already believed anyway? What's the point of a discussion, if the only evidence you'll consider are the ones that support your beliefs?  

Crimson Raccoon

Crimson Raccoon's avatar


divineseraph

divineseraph's avatar

PostPosted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 4:57 pm
Crimson Raccoon Wrote:
divineseraph Wrote:
No, it has evidence- It cites the expansion of the universe from a central point. While we cannot conclude indefinitely, we can also not conclude definitely on anything in science- Even the most obvious of things are but theories. This is why, rightly so, "The heavy has a tendency downwards" was a theory, and was replaced with a theory of particle attraction. By the same token, we may very well find out otherwise in the future.


Just because science says that the universe expanded outward from one point, doesn't mean that what it came from was an eternal "singularity" that was infinitely dense and infinitely hot. You're using scientific evidence of something to support a claim that goes beyond that evidence. That is called a hypothesis, or supposition, or possibility.

divineseraph Wrote:
The belief in God is based in science. Although there is, again, no proof, that doesn't matter to my following logical understandings of God. That's like decrying ideas of gravity because we cannot prove that atoms exist- While technically that's true, it doesn't change what would be true should the prerequisites be true. Science has evidence that the beginning of the universe, wether it is called a singularity, YHWH, Allah, God, Brahman or Aton, was a single, infinite point without mass, matter, space or time. From this, logic dictates that all that exists must have come from this, and thus must be an altered form of this singularity expanded.


What you're saying here is rather difficult to follow and understand. And what do you mean we can't prove that atoms exist? We can prove they exist just as well as we can prove you and I exist, and this planet exists.

A point is not a material thing, it is a location, which is nothing more than a designation made by an intelligence to determine something relative to something else. Saying that the universe expanded outward from a single point of location relative to the space in the universe itself doesn't mean that that "point" was an infinite and eternal object or being.

Nothing existed, then space and time existed in a point, which immediately expanded outward: "The Big Bang." Some scientists propose that the cause of this was that the point eternally existed in an essentially material way; but again, this is only a possibility and has no evidence. I believe that God exists separately from the universe, and separately from the point in the universe he made it expand outward from. I admit that I believe this based on faith, based on the Bible's teaching. Science has evidence that something must have started the universe, but if you are going to commit yourself to any one possibility of what it is that caused it, you are doing so on nothing else but faith, not science.

I don't have a problem that you believe that the singularity from which the universe came from existed eternally. The problem is that you seem to think your belief is entirely supported by science and is the only scientific possibility, and that it could not possibly be that God exists separately from whatever "singularity" he created to form the universe out of. Science does not support your belief any more than it does mine; you should accept and admit that.

divineseraph Wrote:
And exactly- I can't claim to know God's favorite flavor of icecream or his favorite color. But I can figure out, with a certain degree of accuracy, what He is. For example, you could say with a certain degree of certainty that I am a human being, that I speak english, that I have a computer or access to one. You can figure this out through logic- If this message is getting to you, it must be because it is from a conscious agent. As computers do not yet exist that can type fluently in context, you can logically determine that I am a human being. Since the words are in english, you can determine that I am likely in Europe, Austrailia or America. And since this message is coming over a computer, you can guess that I have internet access and am not writing this by hand. This is all I have done with God- I have used that I know from various sources to extrapolate what God is most likely to be logically.


Right, there are a few things that I can ascertain about you using nothing but logic. But all in all, they are very worthless things to know. I still don't know anything personal about you. As you said, I can know that you exist, are intelligent, are human, speak English, have a computer, and have internet access. OK, you and 500 million other people. It is trivial, relatively useless information.

Can I know where you live? No, and I can't even narrow it down to USA, Europe, or Australia, because people speak English all over the world, even if its not the official language. Can I know how to get in contact with you? No. Can I know if you want anything of me? No. Can I know if you can do anything for me? No. Can I know what your personality is like? No. Can I know anything that you've accomplished? No. I can't know anything about you beyond a few extremely basic facts.

With God, if he created us, it is important to know if he expects anything of us. But we can't know what it is if we're using only logic, just like I couldn't know if you expect anything of me using only logic. We also can't know how to find God or get in contact with him by mere logic, this is apparent because I could also never find you by only logic, without you telling me how. I can contact you in a PM through Gaia, but that is only because you haven't posted anonymously and have revealed your user name. That is a form of special revelation, even though it just happens to be a requirement on Gaia.

In short, logic does nothing to tell us how to get in touch with God, what he expects of us, what he may or may not be able to do for us, what we can do to reach him, and what he has to do with us at all. It falls far, far short of us being able to have a relationship with him. It is completely necessary that God reveals himself to us, otherwise there is no way for us to know him. Christians believe that God reveals himself in the Bible, and the Bible does answer all these essential questions about God. Someone may not believe the answers it gives, but at least it gives answers; logic does not.

divineseraph Wrote:
You said that God was comprised of the abstractions that do not exist as matter, and that have existed before matter, such as love and (apparently) gender. So why not hate? Surely if emotions and thoughts have existed before time, then hate must have existed too- If male and female, polarities of their own, existed before time, surely love and it's counterpart, hate, existed as well.


If you want to call them abstractions; love and truth aren't usually described as abstractions, but whatever. If that's the word we'll use, then I said that there are some abstractions which God is; these abstractions do not exist as matter; of course, love and truth are not material things, we all know that. But there are numerous problems with what you're saying about my claim.

One: I said God has some "abstractions," and I named a few specific ones. That does not mean that he has all abstractions, as you make it seem I said. There is no reason to assume he does. In pantheism, which you adhere to, it is necessary, but not in monotheism. You say that if some emotions and thoughts existed before time, then all of them must have, but there is no basis for that being necessary.

Two: Hate does not really exist in the same sense that love does. Hate is really just an absence of love. Much the way that cold does not exist, but heat does. Cold is not something that comes from a source, it does not radiate outward, it cannot be contained or utilized; it does not exist. Cold is merely the absence of heat. In a similar way, darkness does not exist in the same way that light does. There are no "dark stars" that shine darkness out into the universe and produce all the shadows. But light does exist, it can be produced, it can be measured, it can be utilized. So, the supposed "negative abstractions" do not really exist the same way the "positive abstractions" do, and it is not true that if God is love, he must also be hate, no more so than if the Sun must have light and heat, it must also have darkness and cold.

Three: The claim that male and female are somehow polar opposites has no basis. Male and female are two things, yes, but there is no reason why that must mean they are opposite things. Particularly since male and female aspects are complimentary, whereas love and hate are not complimentary at all. Masculinity and femininity have many things in common, and many things different, and the differences are not always opposite, but just different. But clearly, a male child and a female child are far from being polar opposites, they have far more in common with each other than they do differences.


divineseraph Wrote:
If you had said that something must be comprised of all colors, yes, I would have to. Ah, but there's the difference- God's matter brings forth problems that do not exist in soulstuff- Issues of greed, hate and death. God does not act through his matter any more than a miner acts through the gun his ores are made into. I do not believe differently than you do in that respect- The matter is, again, a CORRUPTION. The matter was once God, but now is not, exactly. It contains the essence of God. If a conscious agent decides to use matter, made by God, to commit a crime, then that has nothing to do with God, and it is not God acting through the material.


Again, forgive me but I am finding it difficult to understand what you're trying to say. "If you had said that something must be comprised of all colors, yes, I would have to." Did I say something like that? You would have to what? If you mean I said God must be comprised of all "abstractions," then no, I never said that. "I do not believe differently than you do in that respect- The matter is, again, a CORRUPTION." But, I think we do believe differently, because I don't believe matter is a corruption; I just believe it's something God created.

"God does not act through his matter any more than a miner acts through the gun his ores are made into." But the way you describe God, the analogy would have to go this way: The ores are part of the miner, and the person who makes the gun out of the ores is part of the miner. So, of course the miner would then be acting through the murder carried out using the gun If all material is part of God, who is infinite, and every part of God is equally God with any other part (such is the nature of infinity), then the miner is God, the ore is God, the gun is God, and the killer is God. So it really does have quite a lot to do with God. How can it be that it's not God acting through the material? God is the material, and God is the thoughts of the killer, as well as his hand and the gun. Or, the other option is that God exists separately from the universe, fully and independently.

divineseraph Wrote:
Then you are worshiping a false God, if you consider Jesus Christ to be God. God is YHWH, according the the Jews, and according to Christ Himself, who was a Jew, even until and after his death. He PRAYED to YHWH. You may want to look over your texts again, even your bible disagrees with you. This is not even a breech of logic, this is purely and simply incorrect. I sympathize with polytheists, and even still this is a terrible blaspheme.


Don't be so arrogant. Christians believe that Jesus is God, YHWH if you prefer, as a human. YHWH appeared as a human several times in the Old Testament. Christ made the claim of being God, that's why people wanted him put to death. If Christ hadn't been God, his sacrifice would have accomplished nothing. Many people have been martyred, but no one believes their sacrifice pays anyone else's penalty of sin; but Christians from the beginning believed that Christ's sacrifice was enough to pay the penalty for us, for no other reason than that Christ is God. Yes, Jesus was a Jew, and Jews made up a hugely significant portion of the early Christians. The earliest Christian writings, even before the Gospels were written, show that his followers believed he was God. The concept of the Trinity is one of the most fundamental, basic beliefs of Christianity. Just because Jesus prayed doesn't mean he couldn't have been God; God takes counsel with himself several times even throughout the Old Testament. If he could do it then, he could do it as Jesus.

Your statement that my belief in Christ as God disagrees with the Bible is ridiculous, and you word your accusation very arrogantly and antagonistically. The New Testament makes it clear, from first book to last, that Christ is God. Otherwise, there would be a lot more Christians who didn't believe he's God. But, 99.99% of all Christians for all time have believed that he is, so there you go. If you have a question about any verse that may seem to indicate otherwise, I would be happy to explain it to you.

divineseraph Wrote:
I am not claiming that my texts are holy and divine. If I were, I would expect secret meanings to be present.


So you believe that if a text is divine, then it must have secret meanings? What do you base this belief on? And besides, I thought you didn't believe the Bible was divine, so how could anyone find secret meanings in it anyway? And why is it that only certain people can find the secret meanings, but I can't? And how can we know they're telling the truth? Doesn't this open the door for a group of elite "interpreters of secret meanings" who would have complete influence over the beliefs of a sacred text's followers? Why would God use such a roundabout way to reveal himself? Why would he do it this way instead of just saying it plainly in the text?

divineseraph Wrote:
There's plenty of evidence. And I'm talking about the New Testament. IT was altered to remove objectionable passages or things that went against the divinity of Christ. Keep in mind, Christ being Divine does not make Christ God. To place Christ in such a position is to act as The Deceiver and with to place one over God.


Ok, so show the evidence. I have already said that the New Testament is the most reliable document ever written before the 1400's, in that we have the most evidence that it was never changed in any way. So what evidence do you have that the New Testament was altered and had passages removed from it?

divineseraph Wrote:
Allegories have meanings and points anchored to reality.


So you use the allegory when it supports your own belief, and reject it when it does not support your belief. You say it has meanings and points anchored in reality, but who can decide which points are real and which aren't? You believe the ones that agree with you are real, and the ones that disagree with you aren't. So then, what's the point of the book, or any text at all, if you are only going to believe the things that you already believed anyway? What's the point of a discussion, if the only evidence you'll consider are the ones that support your beliefs?


And one based in fact.

You can prove that I exist? Do so. Considering the subjective nature of experience, it is technically impossible to prove ANYTHING with 100% objective accuracy. Have you ever seen an atom? Can you prove that the scientist who has claimed to really did so, and that what he saw was true, and that even if it was true to him, it was really the objective reality?
If the singularity was eternal, then this means that it was the One Thing. If something existed before it, it was not eternal, and this "new" eternal thing takes on the position of God as it IS the true eternal entity.

Now we're getting to the point. You cannot learn anything personally about me, but that does not matter- You can tell enough for what I am asking, and I can tell that through logic, God has no gender. He existed before gender, and though he comprises what they are essentially, he does not prescribe to any. You cannot tell my gender either, but that is because I have a gender to be told of, and your lack of evidence leaves ambiguity. However, God is different in this regard as He was before there was such a thing as gender, and thus cannot have one. The lack of true evidence here concludes that God must hold no gender by default.

And we need to use logic and reasoning to think through which parts of God's revelations are true and false. There are falsities in holy texts, as they were written in times where cultures were all over the place, and there's a bunch of pointless human drama where it's not needed, and hygiene rules mistaken for holy rules and things of that nature. I have no doubt that God gives us messengers, but they are human and can be flawed. Furthermore, after thousands of years, we miss, omit, add or corrupt parts of what we got right the first time.

I may have to agree with you here. God is perfection, and is made of all that is nonphysical. I am not sure where we came into this, I was arguing as devil's advocate, of course I do not believe that God is hate. God may be made with this abstraction, but maleness is not nonphysical. If this is the case, are females simply males lacking their holiness and divine tendencies toward maleness? I do hope to God that you say no.

God created it from what, now? And how did this soulstuff get here if not through expansion? And how did the vibrations of the elements and the cosmos come into play if matter is purely separate from the divine?

He was the prophet of peace and love, he came to bring an end to the corruption of the current church. His sacrifice was important because firstly, it showed the corruption firsthand. Secondly, it allowed Christ to ressurect. Of course, we're not back to being corrupt. So was his sacrifice useless? It seems so. It was our choice, and we made it.

Christ was not God, he never made such a claim. Those who came well after him did. To claim that Christ is actually God is like claiming that Gandhi or Buddha are God- It is Idolatry.

The romans altered and omitted parts of the bible to best suit their wants and needs- this is where the "divinity" of christ was added- rather, the parts which stood against his divinity were removed.  
PostPosted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 6:32 pm
divineseraph Wrote:
And one based in fact.

You can prove that I exist? Do so. Considering the subjective nature of experience, it is technically impossible to prove ANYTHING with 100% objective accuracy. Have you ever seen an atom? Can you prove that the scientist who has claimed to really did so, and that what he saw was true, and that even if it was true to him, it was really the objective reality?
If the singularity was eternal, then this means that it was the One Thing. If something existed before it, it was not eternal, and this "new" eternal thing takes on the position of God as it IS the true eternal entity.


Of course if we reject what our senses, reason, and rationality tell us as being conclusively real, then nothing can be proven. But I said that "we can prove atoms exist just as well as we can prove you and I exist, and this planet exists," which is true. We can prove one thing just as well as the other. If we reject any objective reality, then we can't prove either of them, but what I said is still true: that proving one is "just as well" as proving the other.

If you want to reject any provable reality, then you'll need to reject all science as well, and all experience and rational thought, including logic which is what you claim to base your understanding of God on.

What got us into this discussion was that you said science supports your belief, and I said science does nothing more to prove your beliefs than it does mine. Then you said, basically, that proof doesn't matter and can't really exist anyway. But if you don't believe in proof, then you can't claim science supports your beliefs, because you can't really believe in science. Similar to the way you said Genesis supports your belief, and when I showed it didn't, you brushed it off too.

divineseraph Wrote:
Now we're getting to the point. You cannot learn anything personally about me, but that does not matter- You can tell enough for what I am asking, and I can tell that through logic, God has no gender. He existed before gender, and though he comprises what they are essentially, he does not prescribe to any. You cannot tell my gender either, but that is because I have a gender to be told of, and your lack of evidence leaves ambiguity. However, God is different in this regard as He was before there was such a thing as gender, and thus cannot have one. The lack of true evidence here concludes that God must hold no gender by default.


But there isn't a lack of evidence if God himself says that he is male.

What can we know about God using nothing but logic? That he exists and is the originator of the universe; is that it? How does that knowledge help us or affect us in any way? Those most basic facts are so useless that we might as well not believe in God anyway, because if that's all there is to God, then he has no effect on our lives.

Or, God expects us to go beyond mere logic and has revealed himself in some way so that he can be known by us. But if he hasn't, then there is no point to believing or not believing. I can understand why an agnostic might believe the way they do; but believing that knowledge of God shouldn't be based on anything but logic is pointless. The farthest logic gets us is that God exists; and I hope he doesn't hold me to any standards, because I have no way of knowing what they are.

divineseraph Wrote:
And we need to use logic and reasoning to think through which parts of God's revelations are true and false. There are falsities in holy texts, as they were written in times where cultures were all over the place, and there's a bunch of pointless human drama where it's not needed, and hygiene rules mistaken for holy rules and things of that nature. I have no doubt that God gives us messengers, but they are human and can be flawed. Furthermore, after thousands of years, we miss, omit, add or corrupt parts of what we got right the first time.


A person should use logic and reason when looking at the Bible, but logic and reason are not perfect, and they should not be what determines which parts of the revelation are true. If those are what we had to go by, then there really would be no way to know if any of it were true; we'd really have to throw the whole thing out. Two people, both using logic, can come to entirely different conclusions. It only depends on what beliefs they start out with, and as I already showed you, most of your beliefs about God are based on faith and not logic. If logic was perfect and was enough to base everything on, then people would not be able to come to different conclusions, no one would ever be able to disagree on anything, there would be no use to a person's point of view or opinion on anything. We might as well be robots instead of human.

You claimed there are falsities in the Bible. Could you point any in particular out, so they can be discussed? I don't believe there are any falsities, and the burden of proof lies with the one making the challenge. There is no evidence that the Bible was ever changed or omitted or added to.

divineseraph Wrote:
I may have to agree with you here. God is perfection, and is made of all that is nonphysical. I am not sure where we came into this, I was arguing as devil's advocate, of course I do not believe that God is hate. God may be made with this abstraction, but maleness is not nonphysical. If this is the case, are females simply males lacking their holiness and divine tendencies toward maleness? I do hope to God that you say no.


We came into this when you said that God created everything, and I said he didn't, because there are some things that are a part of who God is, such as Love, that didn't need to be created. I guess you agree with this after all? And what also go us into it, was when you said that God couldn't be only one of the "dualities." I guess you believe he can now? So why were we disagreeing? If there are some things that existed with God before creation, why can't "maleness" be one of them? If "dualities" can come into creation when only one of them originally existed, why can't it be the case with male and female?

As far as creation goes, if God says he is male, then that also must not be a created thing, like love, because God does not change and did not "become" male after he created "maleness."

You say maleness is not nonphysical, but I disagree. There is a lot more to a person's gender than just their physical organs. Men and women think differently, feel differently, fulfill roles differently, and so on. Gender has a lot to do with personality, and if God has a personality, it is not illogical to believe it's possible that he has a gender.

"If this is the case, are females simply males lacking their holiness and divine tendencies toward maleness? I do hope to God that you say no." Of course there's nothing wrong with being female. Holiness has nothing to do with gender. Different personalities, characteristics, etc., have nothing to do with superiority. God looked on Adam and Eve, and said they were "very good." Male and female are just different, that's all. Neither is more holy.

divineseraph Wrote:
God created it from what, now? And how did this soulstuff get here if not through expansion? And how did the vibrations of the elements and the cosmos come into play if matter is purely separate from the divine?


Honestly dude I really don't know what you mean here. How did soulstuff get here if not through expansion?? It is beyond me.

divineseraph Wrote:
He was the prophet of peace and love, he came to bring an end to the corruption of the current church. His sacrifice was important because firstly, it showed the corruption firsthand. Secondly, it allowed Christ to ressurect. Of course, we're not back to being corrupt. So was his sacrifice useless? It seems so. It was our choice, and we made it.

Christ was not God, he never made such a claim. Those who came well after him did. To claim that Christ is actually God is like claiming that Gandhi or Buddha are God- It is Idolatry.


Jesus did make the claim. To be the Christ means to be God. The concept of the "Christ" or "Messiah" is in the Old Testament, and many prophesies are made about why he is needed, what he will do when he comes, and who he will be. These prophesies do indeed say that the coming Messiah was God.

Jesus never came out and said directly, "I am God," nor did he directly say, "I am the Christ." He was too humble to do that. Instead, he let his actions speak for him, he let the prophesies which had already been made in scripture speak for him, and he let his followers speak for him. You challenge this, and people such as the Pharisees in Jesus's day challenged him on it as well. Here is how he answered them, in John 10:

At that time the Feast of Dedication took place at Jerusalem. It was winter, and Jesus was walking in the temple, in the colonnade of Solomon. So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.”

They were trying to trap him into answering. If he said he was not the Christ, then he would lose all his followers. But if he said he was the Christ, then they could condemn him for blasphemy. So how did he answer, did he come out and say "I am the Christ"? No, but he said his actions have already spoken for him:

Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one.”

Jesus's actions clearly speak that he was the Christ, and the prophesies about Christ state the he would be God. Also in that passage, Jesus says: "I and the Father are one." There is no difference between God the Father and God the Son; they are both God. It is not idolatry to worship the Son, because the Son and the Father are one.

There are many passages of the New Testament that show that Jesus was the Christ and God. These were written by people who Jesus specifically chose and commanded to spread the word about him. But even limiting it to the words of Christ himself, there are clear indicators. Here is a significant one from John 8:

"Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death.” The Jews said to him, “Now we know that you have a demon! Abraham died, as did the prophets, yet you say, ‘If anyone keeps my word, he will never taste death.’ Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? And the prophets died! Who do you make yourself out to be?” Jesus answered, “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God.’ But you have not known him. I know him. If I were to say that I do not know him, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and I keep his word. Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.” So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”

That is grammatically incorrect. If he wanted to say that he has existed since before Abraham, he should have said, "Before Abraham was, I was." But there is a deeper significance here: The name of God in Hebrew, usually written in English as YHWH or Yahweh or Jehovah, means "I am." This was the proper name of God used throughout the Old Testament, and revealed to Moses at the burning bush. When Christ said, "Before Abraham was, I am," he was asserting himself to be YHWH.

How did the people he was speaking to react to this? Were they confused over what he meant? Did they correct his grammatical error? Or did they know full well that he was making himself out to be God?

Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.

They tried to stone him because they believed he was blaspheming. It would have been blasphemy, if he had not been telling the truth, if he wasn't really God. But they clearly knew what he meant by what he said, and the Pharisees' accusations against Jesus were continually that "He has made himself out to be God."

So, of course Jesus claimed to be God. I wouldn't believe him to be God if he hadn't. The men that he hand picked and spent years with and commanded to spread the word wouldn't have claimed he was if he hadn't.

divineseraph Wrote:
The romans altered and omitted parts of the bible to best suit their wants and needs- this is where the "divinity" of christ was added- rather, the parts which stood against his divinity were removed.


Ok, so show the evidence. lol, you keep saying the New Testament was changed, I keep asking for evidence, and you respond by saying the New Testament was changed. I can't argue against something that isn't here. If there is evidence somewhere, and you bring it here, we can discuss it. But till then, insisting that it was changed doesn't make it so.

I think it would be extremely difficult for the Romans to change the Bible. First off, I don't know whether you're referring to the Roman Empire or the Roman Catholic Church, but either way, the Bible was beyond their control to change. The Empire really didn't care what the Bible said, and would've had no interest in changing it, nor is there any evidence that they ever tried to do so. The Roman Catholic Church didn't exist until the Christians had been around for centuries and their texts had been spread all over the known world and copied thousands of times, so it would have been impossible for them to change it, particularly without leaving any evidence of their attempts at doing so.  

Crimson Raccoon

Crimson Raccoon's avatar


`apple dumpling

`apple dumpling's avatar

PostPosted: Tue Apr 28, 2009 5:43 pm
Sybil Unrest Wrote:
Interesting, considering that angels are male, biblically.


Actually, angels are traditionally genderless. They are given male names but are not identified as having a gender. Much of Christian lore of angels comes from the Zoroastrians.  
Reply
Debate and Discussion

Goto Page: [] [<] 1 2
 
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games