News
news Antarctica's Ice Loss "Messing" With Earth's Gravity
news The Aral Sea was once the fourth-largest lake in the world. Now it's nearly gone.
news A 13-Year-Old Has Invented A Completely New Approach To Cleaning Up Oil Spills
news The Sound So Loud That It Circled the Earth Four Times
news On Jupiter, You Can See Neon Rain
news Crazy weather traced to Arctic's impact on jet stream
news Since 1970 Over 1/2 Of World's Animals Have Disappeared
news Japanese Firm Plans Space Elevator Construction by 2050
news Scientists help a paralyzed rat take computer-controlled steps
news Weird Space Bubbles May Have Caused US Battle Deaths
news A Wearable Camera That Would Turn Into a Drone and Fly Off Your Wrist

Advertisement



Poll: Public Poll: Do you believe in God? (don't answer until you read the post in my signature and then explain why you chose yes or not)
Yes, after reading post in your sig.
No, after reading post in your sig.
[Show Results]
Note: This is a public poll, other users will be able to see what you voted for.
Username:
Password: or Register
 
Thread Rating:
  • 278 Vote(s) - 1.62 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Easy Religion in a Nutshell
LoP Guest
lop guest
User ID: 14792
02-22-2012 02:52 PM

 



Post: #2791
RE: Easy Religion in a Nutshell
Advertisement
A bump and a minor correction on this sentence.

Quote:So why are children doing good out of his own will while it must be thought to make them do evil ?

out of his own will, means the will of the child not that of seabaoth.
Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement

FreedomStands
Registered User
User ID: 14247
02-22-2012 04:41 PM

Posts: 24,910



Post: #2792
RE: Easy Religion in a Nutshell
LoP Guest  Wrote: (02-22-2012 01:11 PM)
Quote:I don't think the Ultimate has emotions, like how we have emotions that are reactions. The Ultimate can't really have "reactions" in the way we do because there is nothing but it, it is doing the things itself, it is executing the actions, it is completely part of the process of anything happening, so it isn't like a surprise to it. It could make any system of rules by which to judge people, and even break those rules if it wanted to without any difficulty.

That makes me say that from our perspective it is void of emotions and as emotions lead our thought, anger -> agressive thoughts, it doesn't have thought. Atleast not as we know it and that means we need to shift our perspective to something we can not achieve to really understand it so all your explanations are not satisfieing, it never reaches the full and complete picture unless one goes out of his mind but then words have no more meaning. If we where subject to it we would be able to explain it to it's full and complete picture.
That it sustains everything is logic as it is the very first product but still it is like a domino that falls against another creating a chain of events. The first responsible for the second and the second responsible for the third and so on. As we need to leave the rational world, where words have no meaning, to understand it it is futile to talk about it for we are directly in connection with good or evil and that place does not even have good or evil. Our whole essence of that what we are has no meaning there, it is void of all that what we know. We do things with a meaning and that creates good and evil but that ultimate of yours, my void, does it without meaning like a machine that runs on it's own, endlessly computing it's algorithm's. So people thought shadow was first for shadow destroy's without meaning, meaningless destruction, but they where wrong because shadow does evil with a mean to do evil like good does good with the mean to do good. Go there, your ultimate my void, and it is like one cease to exist for existence itself has no meaning there, meaning came later. Which leads us to this: it's nothing but still something but that something is void of that what we know and feel and so it is still nothing. Nothing is something and something is nothing, a nice paradox is it not.
Rules: seabaoth made rules for us, commandments of you will and an instinctive way as in natural to handle them. Seabaoth is not subject to them but to be the example he has committed himself to that, religion told us that it is no good to tell people not to lie if the speaker lies himself. A children study showed that they do not help bully's and will even avoid them. So why are children doing good out of his own will while it must be thought to make them do evil ? Seabaoth has not other rules to listen to so he listens to his own set and so he made a promise on his own name, for there is no other god above him, for there are no rules above him.

Sea.

I agree that God or the Ultimate is like nothing, in that it is not made of information like we are, and has no form or shape or limitations or boundaries.

I don't think it is like an automatic thing though, because an automatic thing can't do anything on its own, it has to be programmed, so it has to have a conscious will and ability to decide and command production and all that happens is its ultimate will and thinking in action. So it is something, but like nothing at least in a visual sense, being devoid of color, which is information created later.

Things like a domino effect can't happen on their own, the possibilities and equations for what is available and possible has to be in place first or else nothing will happen. I think it is even more involved though, having to actually manually animate whatever happens in order for it to happen, and will it and all that.

So I think it is totally alive, the truly alive one, that is also thinking, and consciously deciding things but that it is not exactly the same as a human thinks and decides because our decisions are based on dependencies and needs and environmental concerns. For us, life is much more like a domino effect, the last thing leading to the next making us make the decisions we make. Very little seems to be free will, since our whole life is pressuring us into the directions we go, the way we were raised, the information we were exposed to, and whatever else.

So even though we can not visually imagine God because God is not made of anything and is not visual information, the idea or concept can at least be grasped to the point of understanding its place and function and why it has to be that way.

I don't like the 2 little gods model because neither of them is strong enough to utterly defeat the other, though Yalda Bahut appears stronger and nobody seems to be stopping Yalda Bahut in that model, which I believe makes the one not stopping evil seem either unable or evil too, like an accomplice who stands by and does nothing when people are being raped and victimized and stuff. So both are bad in that sense.

In the Ultimate model, the Ultimate is bad too, because it created bad, but it is simply an acceptance that it created everything, including evil, yet controls all harm and benefit, and will hopefully do justice in the end. It isn't omnibenevolent or all good, but clearly nothing seems to be.

If there was something omnibenevolent, it would never allow for the creation of suffering, or would wipe it away.

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
― Epicurus

EXPLAINING GOD THROUGH REASON
http://lunaticoutpost.com/Topic-Easy-Rel...a-Nutshell
[Image: E3D5_4F3F3AB2.gif]
(This post was last modified: 02-22-2012 04:42 PM by FreedomStands.) Quote this message in a reply
FreedomStands
Registered User
User ID: 14247
02-22-2012 04:41 PM

Posts: 24,910



Post: #2793
RE: Easy Religion in a Nutshell
SPIRIT OF TRUTH  Wrote: (02-22-2012 06:08 AM)
FreedomStands  Wrote: (02-22-2012 05:51 AM)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_l3wmMSJcU

Time for you and Jews to find out what elohiym means FS.

Are you seriously ready for truth and freedom?

If you were you would listen to me.

However, this thread is not about what the name Allah means or where it came from. We have gone over that old ground time and time again.

Know the difference between LORD and Lord.

The Kaaba was known as beit-Allah or “the house of Allah.” Even though it housed 360 idol gods, the Kaaba was ultimately the house of Allah, the supreme pagan god. As lord of the Kaaba, he was not represented by a tangible statue like the 360 idols inside the Kaaba were. Would Jehovah, the God of the Bible, dwell in a house along with 360 idol gods and goddesses?

http://www.engagingislam.org/articles/20...d-of-islam


Heartflowers

The "House of God" is mentioned in the Bible as located at Becca, which was the old name for Mecca. That is why there were Jewish communities hanging out there as well. Even people from India made pilgrimages there. I don't know if idols were housed inside the Kaaba or anything, I'm not sure the Qur'an even says that. That seems to be a story from later generations, hundreds of years after the actual events so who knows.

I just wanted to share the meaning of the word Allah so people realize it is the same as the Biblical words used too, they are all semitic words.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1xOMXr4NH4

EXPLAINING GOD THROUGH REASON
http://lunaticoutpost.com/Topic-Easy-Rel...a-Nutshell
[Image: E3D5_4F3F3AB2.gif]
Quote this message in a reply
FreedomStands
Registered User
User ID: 14247
02-22-2012 05:24 PM

Posts: 24,910



Post: #2794
RE: Easy Religion in a Nutshell
LoP Guest  Wrote: (02-22-2012 05:09 PM)
FreedomStands  Wrote: (02-22-2012 04:51 PM)
LoP Guest  Wrote: (02-22-2012 04:48 PM)
According to the laws of probabilities it's absolutely possible.
And what about aliens intervention? Isn't it equally, or even
more probable than the myth of creation?

Even if aliens made this or that, doesn't have anything to do with what some people are calling "God". You're probably imagining some old dude in a cloud, not that which sustains and animates reality and motion everywhere. Don't let retardo concepts like man-god symbolism blind you to what some others are talking about when they use the term "God".

I was talking about the origin of man with that statement,
and not the nature of god. I perfectly understand your points
but I don't see how they relate with what I was talking about.
It's another discussion altogether, don't you think?

Btw, I'm not an atheist stuck in the retarded concept of
"man-god symbolism". I see god as a unfeeling and unthinking
"force". In other words, not a sentient being, know what I mean?

We might be on the same page about this, you'll tell me. What I
find utterly retarded is the concept of a father figure judging his
"childrens",
the so called historicity of the bible and the creation myth.

Here's a little quote about "god" as I see it;

"I think we're part of a greater wisdom than we will ever understand. A
higher order. Call it what you want. Know what I call it? The Big Electron."
The Big Electron. It doesn't punish; it doesn't reward; it doesn't judge at
all. It just is. And so are we. For a little while." -George Carlin

Yeah, I don't believe that it is "unthinking" though, or "automatic" because automatic things need to be kind of programmed and animated and powered in order to operate and can't define anything for themselves or what operations happen or whatever.

So I agree mostly with you, but that it isn't automatic or robotic, and does "think" though not in the way we do which is based on dependencies on and things. I say that God is what sustains and animates all information, which it produced, and it encompasses everything and pervades through and behind everything inside and out. Its "will" is what it animates and is what happens. I go through how I come to this conclusion step by step in the posts linked in the first post on my thread.

I think that it produced all the information that exists, that includes all thoughts, possibilities, events, whatever, since everything is essentially information. So that would also include emotions and emotional reactions and things like that, which it sustains and animates in order for them to occur as well.

Yes, I agree the literal father thing is both linguistically false and a silly idea anyway. It is likely not even what was intended when the term Pater was first used, since God is also called the "Pater" of the stars and celestial bodies, and it generally seems to mean Master or Authority in the sense it is used.

In any case though, what you said reminded me of this quote from another religious book:

"Surat Al-Mā'idah (The Table Spread) - سورة المائدة This is a portion of the entire surah. View more context, or the entire surah.

Qur'an 5:18
But the Jews and the Christians say, "We are the children of Allah and His beloved." Say, "Then why does He punish you for your sins?" Rather, you are human beings from among those He has created. He forgives whom He wills, and He punishes whom He wills. And to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and whatever is between them, and to Him is the [final] destination."

jdfearl  Wrote: (02-22-2012 05:18 PM)
LoP Guest  Wrote: (02-22-2012 01:57 PM)
LoP Guest  Wrote: (02-22-2012 01:53 PM)
Vitamins are chemicals, therefore they can bee seen and our body reacts to them.

God is the universe. Just replace the word God with Universe in any scripture and it makes sense.

I like that

Yeah, that is good, but the Universe is kind of limited seeming, and most consider it "automatic" and stuff. The Universe is just one kind of thing, one kind of material, one kind of reality, there could be many others, so I consider God whatever is Utmost and most Ultimate, encompassing all the realities, even those entirely different from this universe or material.

EXPLAINING GOD THROUGH REASON
http://lunaticoutpost.com/Topic-Easy-Rel...a-Nutshell
[Image: E3D5_4F3F3AB2.gif]
Quote this message in a reply
FreedomStands
Registered User
User ID: 14247
02-22-2012 06:02 PM

Posts: 24,910



Post: #2795
RE: Easy Religion in a Nutshell

EXPLAINING GOD THROUGH REASON
http://lunaticoutpost.com/Topic-Easy-Rel...a-Nutshell
[Image: E3D5_4F3F3AB2.gif]
Quote this message in a reply
LoP Guest
lop guest
User ID: 14792
02-22-2012 06:19 PM

 



Post: #2796
RE: Easy Religion in a Nutshell
FreedomStands  Wrote: (02-22-2012 04:41 PM)
LoP Guest  Wrote: (02-22-2012 01:11 PM)
Quote:I don't think the Ultimate has emotions, like how we have emotions that are reactions. The Ultimate can't really have "reactions" in the way we do because there is nothing but it, it is doing the things itself, it is executing the actions, it is completely part of the process of anything happening, so it isn't like a surprise to it. It could make any system of rules by which to judge people, and even break those rules if it wanted to without any difficulty.

That makes me say that from our perspective it is void of emotions and as emotions lead our thought, anger -> agressive thoughts, it doesn't have thought. Atleast not as we know it and that means we need to shift our perspective to something we can not achieve to really understand it so all your explanations are not satisfieing, it never reaches the full and complete picture unless one goes out of his mind but then words have no more meaning. If we where subject to it we would be able to explain it to it's full and complete picture.
That it sustains everything is logic as it is the very first product but still it is like a domino that falls against another creating a chain of events. The first responsible for the second and the second responsible for the third and so on. As we need to leave the rational world, where words have no meaning, to understand it it is futile to talk about it for we are directly in connection with good or evil and that place does not even have good or evil. Our whole essence of that what we are has no meaning there, it is void of all that what we know. We do things with a meaning and that creates good and evil but that ultimate of yours, my void, does it without meaning like a machine that runs on it's own, endlessly computing it's algorithm's. So people thought shadow was first for shadow destroy's without meaning, meaningless destruction, but they where wrong because shadow does evil with a mean to do evil like good does good with the mean to do good. Go there, your ultimate my void, and it is like one cease to exist for existence itself has no meaning there, meaning came later. Which leads us to this: it's nothing but still something but that something is void of that what we know and feel and so it is still nothing. Nothing is something and something is nothing, a nice paradox is it not.
Rules: seabaoth made rules for us, commandments of you will and an instinctive way as in natural to handle them. Seabaoth is not subject to them but to be the example he has committed himself to that, religion told us that it is no good to tell people not to lie if the speaker lies himself. A children study showed that they do not help bully's and will even avoid them. So why are children doing good out of his own will while it must be thought to make them do evil ? Seabaoth has not other rules to listen to so he listens to his own set and so he made a promise on his own name, for there is no other god above him, for there are no rules above him.

Sea.

I agree that God or the Ultimate is like nothing, in that it is not made of information like we are, and has no form or shape or limitations or boundaries.

I don't think it is like an automatic thing though, because an automatic thing can't do anything on its own, it has to be programmed, so it has to have a conscious will and ability to decide and command production and all that happens is its ultimate will and thinking in action. So it is something, but like nothing at least in a visual sense, being devoid of color, which is information created later.

Things like a domino effect can't happen on their own, the possibilities and equations for what is available and possible has to be in place first or else nothing will happen. I think it is even more involved though, having to actually manually animate whatever happens in order for it to happen, and will it and all that.

So I think it is totally alive, the truly alive one, that is also thinking, and consciously deciding things but that it is not exactly the same as a human thinks and decides because our decisions are based on dependencies and needs and environmental concerns. For us, life is much more like a domino effect, the last thing leading to the next making us make the decisions we make. Very little seems to be free will, since our whole life is pressuring us into the directions we go, the way we were raised, the information we were exposed to, and whatever else.

So even though we can not visually imagine God because God is not made of anything and is not visual information, the idea or concept can at least be grasped to the point of understanding its place and function and why it has to be that way.

I don't like the 2 little gods model because neither of them is strong enough to utterly defeat the other, though Yalda Bahut appears stronger and nobody seems to be stopping Yalda Bahut in that model, which I believe makes the one not stopping evil seem either unable or evil too, like an accomplice who stands by and does nothing when people are being raped and victimized and stuff. So both are bad in that sense.

In the Ultimate model, the Ultimate is bad too, because it created bad, but it is simply an acceptance that it created everything, including evil, yet controls all harm and benefit, and will hopefully do justice in the end. It isn't omnibenevolent or all good, but clearly nothing seems to be.

If there was something omnibenevolent, it would never allow for the creation of suffering, or would wipe it away.

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
― Epicurus

You have missed my points completely, that is the old record you are playing. Plz adress my points.
Quote this message in a reply
FreedomStands
Registered User
User ID: 14247
02-22-2012 06:24 PM

Posts: 24,910



Post: #2797
RE: Easy Religion in a Nutshell
LoP Guest  Wrote: (02-22-2012 06:19 PM)
FreedomStands  Wrote: (02-22-2012 04:41 PM)
LoP Guest  Wrote: (02-22-2012 01:11 PM)
That makes me say that from our perspective it is void of emotions and as emotions lead our thought, anger -> agressive thoughts, it doesn't have thought. Atleast not as we know it and that means we need to shift our perspective to something we can not achieve to really understand it so all your explanations are not satisfieing, it never reaches the full and complete picture unless one goes out of his mind but then words have no more meaning. If we where subject to it we would be able to explain it to it's full and complete picture.
That it sustains everything is logic as it is the very first product but still it is like a domino that falls against another creating a chain of events. The first responsible for the second and the second responsible for the third and so on. As we need to leave the rational world, where words have no meaning, to understand it it is futile to talk about it for we are directly in connection with good or evil and that place does not even have good or evil. Our whole essence of that what we are has no meaning there, it is void of all that what we know. We do things with a meaning and that creates good and evil but that ultimate of yours, my void, does it without meaning like a machine that runs on it's own, endlessly computing it's algorithm's. So people thought shadow was first for shadow destroy's without meaning, meaningless destruction, but they where wrong because shadow does evil with a mean to do evil like good does good with the mean to do good. Go there, your ultimate my void, and it is like one cease to exist for existence itself has no meaning there, meaning came later. Which leads us to this: it's nothing but still something but that something is void of that what we know and feel and so it is still nothing. Nothing is something and something is nothing, a nice paradox is it not.
Rules: seabaoth made rules for us, commandments of you will and an instinctive way as in natural to handle them. Seabaoth is not subject to them but to be the example he has committed himself to that, religion told us that it is no good to tell people not to lie if the speaker lies himself. A children study showed that they do not help bully's and will even avoid them. So why are children doing good out of his own will while it must be thought to make them do evil ? Seabaoth has not other rules to listen to so he listens to his own set and so he made a promise on his own name, for there is no other god above him, for there are no rules above him.

Sea.

I agree that God or the Ultimate is like nothing, in that it is not made of information like we are, and has no form or shape or limitations or boundaries.

I don't think it is like an automatic thing though, because an automatic thing can't do anything on its own, it has to be programmed, so it has to have a conscious will and ability to decide and command production and all that happens is its ultimate will and thinking in action. So it is something, but like nothing at least in a visual sense, being devoid of color, which is information created later.

Things like a domino effect can't happen on their own, the possibilities and equations for what is available and possible has to be in place first or else nothing will happen. I think it is even more involved though, having to actually manually animate whatever happens in order for it to happen, and will it and all that.

So I think it is totally alive, the truly alive one, that is also thinking, and consciously deciding things but that it is not exactly the same as a human thinks and decides because our decisions are based on dependencies and needs and environmental concerns. For us, life is much more like a domino effect, the last thing leading to the next making us make the decisions we make. Very little seems to be free will, since our whole life is pressuring us into the directions we go, the way we were raised, the information we were exposed to, and whatever else.

So even though we can not visually imagine God because God is not made of anything and is not visual information, the idea or concept can at least be grasped to the point of understanding its place and function and why it has to be that way.

I don't like the 2 little gods model because neither of them is strong enough to utterly defeat the other, though Yalda Bahut appears stronger and nobody seems to be stopping Yalda Bahut in that model, which I believe makes the one not stopping evil seem either unable or evil too, like an accomplice who stands by and does nothing when people are being raped and victimized and stuff. So both are bad in that sense.

In the Ultimate model, the Ultimate is bad too, because it created bad, but it is simply an acceptance that it created everything, including evil, yet controls all harm and benefit, and will hopefully do justice in the end. It isn't omnibenevolent or all good, but clearly nothing seems to be.

If there was something omnibenevolent, it would never allow for the creation of suffering, or would wipe it away.

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
― Epicurus

You have missed my points completely, that is the old record you are playing. Plz adress my points.

Sorry, can you highlight them so I catch them, I didn't mean to miss them on purpose, I think I just didn't realize what you wanted me to comment on specifically.

EXPLAINING GOD THROUGH REASON
http://lunaticoutpost.com/Topic-Easy-Rel...a-Nutshell
[Image: E3D5_4F3F3AB2.gif]
Quote this message in a reply
FreedomStands
Registered User
User ID: 14247
02-22-2012 07:56 PM

Posts: 24,910



Post: #2798
RE: Easy Religion in a Nutshell
The Bible seems to support evolution as being under the control of God:

Isaiah 46:11
From the east I summon a bird of prey; from a far-off land, a man to fulfill my purpose. What I have said, that will I bring about; what I have planned, that will I do.

God controls every aspect of reality, according to the Bible, so all the processes of evolution and the things that happened would've ultimately been God's doing (don't imagine a man-god please).

Isaiah 45:7
I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.

Romans 1:19
since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.

Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Romans 1:21
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

Romans 1:22
Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools

Romans 1:23
and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like man and birds and animals and reptiles.

_______

As for the bad things in the Bible, that is likely because:

Jeremiah 8:8
"'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely by writing lies?

__________

In any case though, even the Early "Church Fathers" talked about a God based on reasoning, not blind faith.

Tatian the Syrian:
"Our God has no introduction in time. He alone is without beginning, and is himself the beginning of all things. God is a spirit, not attending upon matter, but the maker of material spirits and of the appearances which are in matter. He is invisible, being himself the Father of both sensible and invisible things" (Address to the Greeks 4 [A.D. 170]).

Athenagoras:
"I have sufficiently demonstrated that we are not atheists, since we acknowledge one God, unbegotten, eternal, invisible, incapable of being acted upon, incomprehensible, unbounded, who is known only by understanding and reason, who is encompassed by light and beauty and spirit and indescribable power, by whom all things, through his Word, have been produced and set in order and are kept in existence" (Plea for the Christians 10 [A.D. 177]).

Irenaeus:
"Far removed is the Master of all from those things which operate among men, the affections and passions. He is simple, not composed of parts, without structure, altogether like and equal to himself alone. He is all mind, all spirit, all thought, all intelligence, all reason . . . all light, all fountain of every good, and this is the manner in which the religious and the pious are accustomed to speak of God" (Against Heresies 2:13:3 [A.D. 189]).

Clement of Alexandria:
"Being is in God. God is divine being, eternal and without beginning, incorporeal and illimitable, and the cause of what exists. Being is that which wholly subsists. Nature is the truth of things, or the inner reality of them. According to others, it is the production of what has come to existence; and according to others, again, it is the providence of God, causing the being, and the manner of being, in the things which are produced" (ibid.).

"What is God? ‘God,’ as the Lord says, ‘is a spirit.’ Now spirit is properly substance, incorporeal, and uncircumscribed. And that is incorporeal which does not consist of a body, or whose existence is not according to breadth, length, and depth. And that is uncircumscribed which has no place, which is wholly in all, and in each entire, and the same in itself" (ibid.).

"No one can rightly express him wholly. For on account of his greatness he is ranked as the All, and is the Master of the universe. Nor are any parts to be predicated of him. For the One is indivisible; wherefore also it is infinite, not considered with reference to inscrutability, but with reference to its being without dimensions, and not having a limit. And therefore it is without form" (Miscellanies 5:12 [A.D. 208]).

Origen:
"Since our mind is in itself unable to behold God as he is, it knows the Master of the universe from the beauty of his works and from the elegance of his creatures. God, therefore, is not to be thought of as being either a body or as existing in a body, but as a simple intellectual being, admitting within himself no addition of any kind" (Fundamental Doctrines 1:1:6 [A.D. 225]).

"John says in the gospel, ‘No one has at any time seen God,’ clearly declaring to all who are able to understand, that there is no nature to which God is visible, not as if he were indeed visible by nature, and merely escaped or baffled the view of a frailer creature, but because he is by nature impossible to be seen" (ibid. 1:1:8).

-First Council of Nicaea AD 325-

Didymus the Blind:
"God is simple and of an incomposite and spiritual nature, having neither ears nor organs of speech. A solitary essence and illimitable, he is composed of no numbers and parts" (The Holy Spirit 35 [A.D. 362]).

Hilary of Poitiers:
"First it must be remembered that God is incorporeal. He does not consist of certain parts and distinct members, making up one body. For we read in the gospel that God is a spirit: invisible, therefore, and an eternal nature, immeasurable and self-sufficient. It is also written that a spirit does not have flesh and bones. For of these the members of a body consist, and of these the substance of God has no need. God, however, who is everywhere and in all things, is all-hearing, all-seeing, all-doing, and all-assisting" (Commentary on the Psalms 129[130]:3 [A.D. 365]).

Basil the Great:
"The operations of God are various, but his essence is simple" (Letters 234:1 [A.D. 367]).

Ambrose of Milan:
"God is of a simple nature, not conjoined nor composite. Nothing can be added to him. He has in his nature only what is divine, filling up everything, never himself confused with anything, penetrating everything, never himself being penetrated, everywhere complete, and present at the same time in heaven, on earth, and in the farthest reaches of the sea, incomprehensible to the sight" (The Faith 1:16:106 [A.D. 379]).

______________

Evagrius of Pontus:
"To those who accuse us of a doctrine of three gods, let it be stated that we confess one God, not in number but in nature. For all that is said to be one numerically is not one absolutely, nor is it simple in nature. It is universally confessed, however, that God is simple and not composite" (Dogmatic Letter on the Trinity 8:2 [A.D. 381]).

John Chrysostom:
"Why does John say, ‘No one has ever seen God’ [John 1:18]? So that you might learn that he is speaking about the perfect comprehension of God and about the precise knowledge of him. For that all those incidents [where people saw a vision of God] were condescensions and that none of those persons saw the pure essence of God is clear enough from the differences of what each did see. For God is simple and non-composite and without shape; but they all saw different shapes" (ibid., 4:3).

Augustine:
"In created and changeable things what is not said according to substance can only be said according to accident. . . . In God, however, certainly there is nothing that is said according to accident, because in him there is nothing that is changeable, but neither is everything that is said of him according to substance" (The Trinity 556 [A.D. 408]).

Cyril of Alexandria:
"We are not by nature simple; but the divine nature, perfectly simple and incomposite, has in itself the abundance of all perfection and is in need of nothing" (Dialogues on the Trinity 1 [A.D. 420]).

"The nature of the Godhead, which is simple and not composite, is never to be divided into two" (Treasury of the Holy Trinity 11 [A.D. 424]).

"When the divine Scripture presents sayings about God and remarks on corporeal parts, do not let the mind of those hearing it harbor thoughts of tangible things, but from those tangible things as if from things said figuratively let it ascend to the beauty of things intellectual, and rather than figures and quantity and circumscriptions and shapes and everything else that pertains to bodies, let it think on God, although he is above all understanding. We were speaking of him in a human way, for there is no other way in which we could think about the things that are above us" (Commentary on the Psalms 11[12]:3 [A.D. 429]).

Constantine V:
Constantine's position about iconoclasm was clear:

....He cannot be depicted. For what is depicted in one person, and he who circumscribes that person has plainly circumscribed the divine nature which is incapable of being circumscribed.
^ Nikephoros, Antiherreticus I, PG 100, 301C; trans. Bryer & Herrin


"NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004 "

EXPLAINING GOD THROUGH REASON
http://lunaticoutpost.com/Topic-Easy-Rel...a-Nutshell
[Image: E3D5_4F3F3AB2.gif]
(This post was last modified: 02-22-2012 08:28 PM by FreedomStands.) Quote this message in a reply
FreedomStands
Registered User
User ID: 14247
02-22-2012 08:16 PM

Posts: 24,910



Post: #2799
RE: Easy Religion in a Nutshell
hyp·o·crite   /ˈhɪpəkrɪt/ Show Spelled[hip-uh-krit] Show IPA
noun
1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

Yeah, I think basically it is practicing what you preach. One can only identify a hypocrite from their physical actions contradicting their stated beliefs or whatever, or if they say one thing to one person and another to another person that isn't compatible with the other thing they said.

If it is just about beliefs though, and no actions are really involved with those beliefs, then it is hard to identify them because one can't know for certain what anyone believes inside probably.

So like, a hypocrite would be someone who says they don't drink, and that other people shouldn't drink, but then drinks themselves.

Sometimes people use the term hypocrite to mean someone who teaches against something for other people but does it themselves, but it is especially true if they say they don't do something and then do it, or say they do something and don't do it.

Another word for a hypocrite could be a liar, but it usually relates to people who try to teach something to others or carry themselves in a certain way and then does things contrary to what is expected of them.

So one famous example might be all the stories about priests having sexual intercourse throughout medieval european history, or popes having children in secret and stuff.

LoP Guest  Wrote: (02-22-2012 08:09 PM)
Mr. Stone  Wrote: (02-22-2012 07:52 PM)
My belief system is to not be weighed down by beliefs.

As absurd as it may sound... THIS. Jhikpghf

"If you believe something, you're automatically precluded from believing
in the opposite, which means that a degree of your human freedom has
been forfeited in the act of this belief"

"We must begin to send out ideological visions rather than be the consumers
of them. We need to turn off the metaphorical televisions which are hooking
us into the network of cultural assumptions"

-Terrence Mckenna

I believe there is "something", therefor I don't believe there is "nothing".

I believe everyone has beliefs, even if they deny they have beliefs, believes are how we judge that there is a floor to walk on, before we step down on it. If we believed there was no floor, we might be afraid to step down, that is...if we believed that no floor would mean that we would fall.

Having no beliefs is having no way to express anything honestly. It is also pretty much impossible while being alive and operating in the world.

EXPLAINING GOD THROUGH REASON
http://lunaticoutpost.com/Topic-Easy-Rel...a-Nutshell
[Image: E3D5_4F3F3AB2.gif]
Quote this message in a reply
LoP Guest
lop guest
User ID: 14792
02-22-2012 08:23 PM

 



Post: #2800
RE: Easy Religion in a Nutshell
You talk like a politician. With a second look i must say that you have adressed some things but not all and you twisted what i said too. I now again think there maybe more than 1 person behind that name freedomstand.

Quote:I agree that God or the Ultimate is like nothing, in that it is not made of information like we are, and has no form or shape or limitations or boundaries.
I never said god is your ultimate. Stop twisting what i say, it works against you. The VOID is what i call it and i said before that it prolly torn itself appart because of conflicting emotions. It was there, then it vanished, now it is everywhere. That's the best discription i can make with my rational mind. Your ultimate gives information but how can it do that if it does not have information ? And if it does have information then where does it come from ? To create one must have the knowhow.

Quote:Things like a domino effect can't happen on their own
Quote:I don't think it is like an automatic thing though, because an automatic thing can't do anything on its own, it has to be programmed,
I did not say it happend on it's own, i said that it sustains everything is logic as it is the very first product but still it is LIKE a domino that falls against another creating a chain of events. The first responsible for the second and the second responsible for the third and so on. As we need to leave the rational world, where words have no meaning, to understand it it is futile to talk about it for we are directly in connection with good or evil and that place does not even have good or evil. Our whole essence of that what we are has no meaning there, it is void of all that what we know.
We do things with a meaning and that creates good and evil but that ultimate of yours, my void, does it without meaning like a machine that runs on it's own, endlessly computing it's algorithm's.

Quote:I don't like the 2 little gods model because neither of them is strong enough to utterly defeat the other, though Yalda Bahut appears stronger and nobody seems to be stopping Yalda Bahut in that model, which I believe makes the one not stopping evil seem either unable or evil too, like an accomplice who stands by and does nothing when people are being raped and victimized and stuff. So both are bad in that sense.
I said seabaoth defeated yaldabaoth, you keep forgetting that. Seabaoth sended his own son, the quran said that allah has send messengers. Freewill is what stops the work of god because people make the choice to be against them and so yaldabaoth is clearly working against him. This is not entirly true for yalda works with seabaoth. It is that i do not know te names of those working against the truth so i use yalda's name, that is also the curse he brought on himself. I believe in many gods.

Quote:If there was something omnibenevolent, it would never allow for the creation of suffering, or would wipe it away.
Your ultimate is not omnibenevolent. Seabaoth is, like allah from the quran.

Quote:In the Ultimate model, the Ultimate is bad too, because it created bad, but it is simply an acceptance that it created everything, including evil, yet controls all harm and benefit, and will hopefully do justice in the end. It isn't omnibenevolent or all good, but clearly nothing seems to be.
The void can not do justice because if you wanna do justice you must be good and the void is neither good or evil it merely sustains everthing. Your ultimate is good and evil so whenever it does justice it also does injustice it would both, not at the same time, by accident.

Epicurus makes no sense for he forgot to include freewill. As in one of the answer above. Seaboth is omnipotent but if he uses it he would rule out freewill which he gave us.
Quote this message in a reply
LoP Guest
lop guest
User ID: 14792
02-22-2012 08:26 PM

 



Post: #2801
RE: Easy Religion in a Nutshell
Let's do a poll for we can not judge our own work.
Those who keep an eye on this thread plz post which of us gives the best discription of the god you believe in !
Quote this message in a reply
FreedomStands
Registered User
User ID: 14247
02-22-2012 08:51 PM

Posts: 24,910



Post: #2802
RE: Easy Religion in a Nutshell
LoP Guest  Wrote: (02-22-2012 08:23 PM)
You talk like a politician. With a second look i must say that you have adressed some things but not all and you twisted what i said too. I now again think there maybe more than 1 person behind that name freedomstand.

Quote:I agree that God or the Ultimate is like nothing, in that it is not made of information like we are, and has no form or shape or limitations or boundaries.
I never said god is your ultimate. Stop twisting what i say, it works against you. The VOID is what i call it and i said before that it prolly torn itself appart because of conflicting emotions. It was there, then it vanished, now it is everywhere. That's the best discription i can make with my rational mind. Your ultimate gives information but how can it do that if it does not have information ? And if it does have information then where does it come from ? To create one must have the knowhow.

Quote:Things like a domino effect can't happen on their own
Quote:I don't think it is like an automatic thing though, because an automatic thing can't do anything on its own, it has to be programmed,
I did not say it happend on it's own, i said that it sustains everything is logic as it is the very first product but still it is LIKE a domino that falls against another creating a chain of events. The first responsible for the second and the second responsible for the third and so on. As we need to leave the rational world, where words have no meaning, to understand it it is futile to talk about it for we are directly in connection with good or evil and that place does not even have good or evil. Our whole essence of that what we are has no meaning there, it is void of all that what we know.
We do things with a meaning and that creates good and evil but that ultimate of yours, my void, does it without meaning like a machine that runs on it's own, endlessly computing it's algorithm's.

Quote:I don't like the 2 little gods model because neither of them is strong enough to utterly defeat the other, though Yalda Bahut appears stronger and nobody seems to be stopping Yalda Bahut in that model, which I believe makes the one not stopping evil seem either unable or evil too, like an accomplice who stands by and does nothing when people are being raped and victimized and stuff. So both are bad in that sense.
I said seabaoth defeated yaldabaoth, you keep forgetting that. Seabaoth sended his own son, the quran said that allah has send messengers. Freewill is what stops the work of god because people make the choice to be against them and so yaldabaoth is clearly working against him. This is not entirly true for yalda works with seabaoth. It is that i do not know te names of those working against the truth so i use yalda's name, that is also the curse he brought on himself. I believe in many gods.

Quote:If there was something omnibenevolent, it would never allow for the creation of suffering, or would wipe it away.
Your ultimate is not omnibenevolent. Seabaoth is, like allah from the quran.

Quote:In the Ultimate model, the Ultimate is bad too, because it created bad, but it is simply an acceptance that it created everything, including evil, yet controls all harm and benefit, and will hopefully do justice in the end. It isn't omnibenevolent or all good, but clearly nothing seems to be.
The void can not do justice because if you wanna do justice you must be good and the void is neither good or evil it merely sustains everthing. Your ultimate is good and evil so whenever it does justice it also does injustice it would both, not at the same time, by accident.

Epicurus makes no sense for he forgot to include freewill. As in one of the answer above. Seaboth is omnipotent but if he uses it he would rule out freewill which he gave us.

I can only think that "freewill" means the immediate sense of choice we seem to have, but this is a very poor kind of freewill, since we are born a babies and are constantly depending on the environment and very limited circumstances that appear to us, it doesn't seem very free is what I'm saying. We can't just walk through a wall if we wanted to, and we didn't make the wall to be there usually, and we can't just survive without hair, so we can't go some places or do some things, and we can't be without food, and we only have available to wear what is sold or what is possible to make for ourselves. I mean on every level we seem to not have much choice. To top it off, we can only make a choice at a time, so that is even more limited. To call it "free" is like a joke.

I'm only 1 person behind FreedomStands.

The Ultimate is unique in the ability that it creates information from nothing, or nothing but itself. It creates information that wasn't there prior. We can't create information, we can only use what information exists as either possibilities or whatever. This is what sets a creator apart from a creature. We can form things using information that already exists, but we can't manifest the information from nothing, or the very basis that the information relies on in order to exist, or support systems from nothing or whatever. We are bound to what is possible and available in this little reality of ours.

What I was saying about the domino thing is that:
1. A domino type effect has to be overall sustained and encompassed.
2. A domino type effect has to be possible, and the laws of what happens have to be there in place and also animated in order for them to occur.
3.The Ultimate is Infinite and All Encompassing, so the second thing, that which comes from it and depends on it can not be greater than it, but is instead lesser because it is finite and depending on it. If it is infinite as well, then it is the same as the first thing and nothing really happened.
_____

Omnibenevolent means "All Good" or "All Beneficial". This means that something omnibenevolent only does good. The reason I say that the God of the Bible and Qur'an isn't all good, is because it also does things that can be considered harmful, like causing people to die naturally. One could say "all that happens is good" but clearly, there is not all good, nor is harm being entirely prevented or healed.

Healing us would not interfere with our free will, just as sickness can interfere with our free will by leading us to death where we are disabled from making further use of our bodies.

So, the presence of all this suffering, seems to point to a power that is not entirely beneficial to us always, but causes or at least allows harm so it is not "omnibenevolent". Omnibenevolence would mean that nobody is poor, nobody is in need, nobody is in pain, everyone is safe, everyone is healthy, etc.

It clearly doesn't exist, one can see by just looking at the world. Forget humans even, just look at the suffering of animals, of plants even, of stars imploding.

Epicurus is just pointing out that:

1. If something is unable to help, it is unworthy of being called a God.
2. If something is unwilling to help, it is malevolent, meaning it wants the bad thing to go on.
3. If it is able and willing to help, then why isn't it helping?

and stuff like that.

Sorry if I missed some points again.

I'm not trying to purposefully twist your words or anything, I apologize if I'm making any mistakes with what you are saying.

I don't understand the "tearing itself apart" idea. It would only "tear itself apart" if it was predetermined by something that, "tearing apart" is the result of such and such.

It had nothing before it, nothing predetermined anything for it, it is entirely free and unbounded, so in order to do the "tearing apart" it would have to determine all these factors and stuff. I don't think it can really tear itself apart though, or would have a need to, it can tear anything within itself apart though, like a world or whatever, but that doesn't really influence it, because it is everywhere absolutely, like solid, nothing moves it, everything inside it is information it created from nothing. Any motion of the information inside it is animated by it and sustained by it, but it doesn't move itself.

So basically, if you must imagine something, you can imagine a screen. A screen is solid, but the images or information appearing on it can move around and stuff without the screen moving.

It isn't like a screen though, because a screen needs to be powered and doesn't have a will of its own. If the Ultimate didn't have a will, nothing would move or be produced, it would truly be a void then, it is the will of the Ultimate that produces and moves anything.

EXPLAINING GOD THROUGH REASON
http://lunaticoutpost.com/Topic-Easy-Rel...a-Nutshell
[Image: E3D5_4F3F3AB2.gif]
(This post was last modified: 02-22-2012 09:14 PM by FreedomStands.) Quote this message in a reply
FreedomStands
Registered User
User ID: 14247
02-22-2012 09:13 PM

Posts: 24,910



Post: #2803
RE: Easy Religion in a Nutshell
LoP Guest  Wrote: (02-22-2012 08:26 PM)
Let's do a poll for we can not judge our own work.
Those who keep an eye on this thread plz post which of us gives the best discription of the god you believe in !

I'd like that too!

I've moved my latest post to be the post before this.

EXPLAINING GOD THROUGH REASON
http://lunaticoutpost.com/Topic-Easy-Rel...a-Nutshell
[Image: E3D5_4F3F3AB2.gif]
(This post was last modified: 02-22-2012 09:14 PM by FreedomStands.) Quote this message in a reply
LoP Guest
lop guest
User ID: 14792
02-22-2012 09:57 PM

 



Post: #2804
RE: Easy Religion in a Nutshell
Quote:we can only make a choice at a time
Yes that is the nature of the rational mind, conscious, but the subconscious is not limited by words because it uses pictures and a picture can present multiple choices at once. Which is why you need to go out of your mind into the subconscious to understand the world of god, that is what i am saying again and again.

Quote:Omnibenevolent means "All Good" or "All Beneficial". This means that something omnibenevolent only does good. The reason I say that the God of the Bible and Qur'an isn't all good, is because it also does things that can be considered harmful, like causing people to die naturally. One could say "all that happens is good" but clearly, there is not all good, nor is harm being entirely prevented or healed.

Healing us would not interfere with our free will, just as sickness can interfere with our free will by leading us to death where we are disabled from making further use of our bodies.
You can not prove that we die because of god or that god causes us harm. The one presented in the bible is not seabaoth it is the bad one proving it however can not be done, you need faith. If we would not die our childeren could never rise and shine as the parent did that is why it is good that we die naturally, to give others a chance at being good. Healing would interferre because if we heal another we have done good which we no longer could do and we would not learn and progres into a human with better understanding. Which is why sickness and other disasters are there but to say that only seabaoth is responsible is something that can not be proven. There is evil and evil, good and good. Some evil is good and some good is evil, it is very hard to distinguish it with our current level of understanding. Would you believe that some disney movies, which most percieve as good for children, actual have a very evil essence !

Quote:I'm not trying to purposefully twist your words or anything, I apologize if I'm making any mistakes with what you are saying.
Do not apologise for we are human and make mistakes, by saying that you make mistakes you do good. Humans, and i am human too, are fallible. Apologis are done eye to eye not screen to screen.

Quote:I don't understand the "tearing itself apart" idea. It would only "tear itself apart" if it was predetermined by something that, "tearing apart" is the result of such and such.

It had nothing before it, nothing predetermined anything for it, it is entirely free and unbounded, so in order to do the "tearing apart" it would have to determine all these factors and stuff. I don't think it can really tear itself apart though, or would have a need to, it can tear anything within itself apart though, like a world or whatever, but that doesn't really influence it, because it is everywhere absolutely, like solid, nothing moves it, everything inside it is information it created from nothing. Any motion of the information inside it is animated by it and sustained by it, but it doesn't move itself.
You say that the ultimate is not void of thought/emotions. With thought/emotions comes conflict between good and bad, happiness and sadness are opposites you can not be both. With thought/emotions comes the such and such. Yet you say that the ultimate is both, good and bad, because both comes from it. Yet when he is good he is not bad and when bad he is not good, these two are opposites and can not exist in the same place at once and that is why it torn it self apart and became void as in nothing like a computer that computes it's algorithems endlessly. Brain dead is what you could call it to and by this i demonstrate, and so do you, that our words can not make a model of it that would fit it for a 100%.
Quote this message in a reply
Leopardsands
Goth Pug
User ID: 76478
02-22-2012 09:58 PM

Posts: 13,195



Post: #2805
RE: Easy Religion in a Nutshell
Religion fits inside no nutshell

Moran Inc.
[Image: skullbonesSkullBonesGenusDorkusDimw.jpg]

I plead the 5th Element since I'm from the 6th Dimension.
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied. -- tethys (Lop member)
Perfection is the child of time -- Joseph Hall
Quote this message in a reply












Contact UsConspiracy Forum. No reg. required! Return to TopReturn to ContentRSS Syndication

Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional Valid CSS 2.1