Jump to content


Photo

So, You Think You Are Not Religious?


  • Please log in to reply
78 replies to this topic

#41 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,025 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 11 April 2017 - 03:03 PM

Seems to me he is saying that he wants the spirituality that comes from God, but wants to ditch God.

i believe he is in the same position as the 80% that believe they are more than what physical laws can explain.

but his post does have a subtler meaning.
"eradicating religion" will be a useless endeavor, because the people WILL replace it
atheism is not the majority that some propaganda would have you to believe.

#42 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,078 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 11 April 2017 - 05:37 PM

Goku, it's not that believers think they are high and mighty and above all other stupid non-believing people by declaring they can understand the Bible and no others can. It's that God himself says that things of the spirit are foolishness to those without the spirit.

 

I can see saying that things of the spirit are useless to those without it, but I don't buy that spiritual things are intellectually incomprehensible to the nonbeliever on the mere basis of their unbelief.

 

Doesn't that sound right to you? How many times are we believers told that the Bible is a fairy tale, or a man-made book of stories written for the ignorant, uneducated masses? How many times are we called names for believing what the skeptics openly declare and admit is foolishness. You might not like it, or agree with it, but I think God nailed it.

 

And this is not the same thing as arguing evolution unless you are willing to admit that belief in evolution is a spiritual or religious thing, in which case I will happily admit that I don't understand that foolishness.

 

I think, as far as interpreting the Bible, once you understand the culture and the metaphors belief is irrelevant to understanding what the text is saying.
 

Take what Jesus said to Nicodemus: "you must be born again", and Jesus said he was speaking of "heavenly" things not "earthly" things; well I can understand Jesus just fine - it's a rather simple metaphor of being born again of the spirit. I don't have to be a believer to understand the teachings of Jesus or what any text in the Bible means. Application, however, is more dependent on belief.

 

Goku, your argument here is a red herring. I've scoured my posts in the two topics where this subject is debated, and I overwhelmingly state that the writers of the Bible books were inspired by God, and were not merely automatons receiving dictation. There's one place where I could have given the impression of dictation, and here it is from an earlier post in this topic:

 

"Scripture was penned by men inspired by God to write down everything that God told them to write ... word for word, letter by letter, even the little jots and tittles."

 

And I stand by that statement. You notice I said "inspired by God." Yes, each author's individual style comes through in his writing. Yes, each author chose what he was going to write. Matthew, for example, was a tax collector, a government employee, so his rendering of the genealogy of Jesus Christ was from the legal, but not physical, point of view. Luke, on the other hand, was a physician. His genealogy was relating the physical lineage of Christ through his mother's side of the family.

 

These differences in the recounting of Christ's ancestry did not happen by chance, or merely by the whims of each of the authors because of their background and training. Each man wrote exactly what God inspired them to write. There's a fascinating story behind why God engineered this genealogical divergence. I encourage you to look it up. God used (inspired) these men to tell the story exactly the way he wanted it told.

 

To understand how an author of Scripture could write freely in his own style, reflecting his personal background, education and training, but write something that was word-for-word inspired by God you'd have to be able to solve the unsolvable mystery of free will vs predestination.

 

And that's where 1 Cor 2:14 comes in. Without the spirit, such a mystery is foolishness to the natural man. To those of us who are in the spirit it makes perfect sense. We don't understand how it works that way, but we believe it by faith. Again, you might not like it or agree with it, but it's just plain true.

 

The first part of your quote also said that the "early Hebrews did not write the Bible" (post #11). How does "not writing the Bible" combined with being "inspired to write everything God told them word for word" different from dictation theory?

 

Saying the 'authors' chose the words, but those words were the exact words God wanted to the point that it contains hidden numeric codes and structure that no mortal could write, to me sounds like a round-about dictation theory. To me that is something beyond "inspiration". I can accept, for purposes of discussion, that God inspired the authors and the authors wrote the Bible exactly the way the Bible was supposed to be written without invoking dictation theory (which can branch off into free will vs predestination). But, once you say that the numeric code and structure is so great and precise that no human could do it, that crosses the dictation line in my view due to the contradiction. If every word must be exact to give this numeric code, and no human could write this due to the code, then the authors necessarily wrote the Bible through some form of dictation. If it was not dictation, then it contradicts the premises that every word must be exact for the numeric code and that no human could write the code.

 

To bring this back to the original disagreement about whether or not Numbers 5 is a text about induced abortion: If God freely allows the writers to use their "own style, reflecting his personal background, education and training", then wouldn't it be prudent to read such texts through the cultural lens in which those words were written? - i.e. Judaic understanding? For example the "thigh" rotting and falling out ought to be understood as the "fetus" rotting and falling out; an abortion.

 

A couple of comments:

 

First, your cut and pastes were from skeptics' websites, researched by skeptics, written by skeptics and written for skeptics. So, no surprise there. And, yes, there are "Christian" skeptics.

 

There are many more websites authenticating Panin's work of a lifetime.

 

Second, you could discount huge portions of Panin's immense work, and still be overwhelmed by the undeniable heptatic phenomenons underlying the rest of the entire Bible.

 

Third, please refer to my earlier comparison of God's heptatic structure in Scripture to checksums written into software code to prove its integrity and authenticity. What does the software engineer do when a checksum returns an error in a portion of code? Does he say the checksum code is faulty, and then accept the corrupted software code? Or does he trust the checksum and admit the software code is corrupted?

 

In a nutshell, you have the explanation as to why Panin used various manuscripts in his heptatic work. The heptatic code proves the manuscript. A faulty manuscript would break the heptatic feature.

 

Of course, this is foolishness to those who cannot believe and cannot understand it.

 

Goku, I am impressed by the scholarship and effort you put into attempting to debunk God's word. I would be extremely more impressed if you would apply the same dedication, effort and scholarship to debunking something that's orders of magnitude more impossible to believe ... the story of evolution.

 

Your source supporting Panin's research obviously has a bias too; pot calling kettle black. 

 

I am not convinced a heptatic structure as asserted even exists.

 

In a nutshell, you have the explanation as to why Panin used various manuscripts in his heptatic work. The heptatic code proves the manuscript. A faulty manuscript would break the heptatic feature.

 

That's a bit circular, especially since Panin invented his own manuscripts in order to get the structure he desired as seen in the last 12 verses of Mark. A heptatic code proves its divine origin, so let's go out and find the manuscript that is closest to the code we want, alter it to match up with the code we are looking for, and declare that we found the true manuscript due to this code which proves its divine origin. There is nothing remarkable about that.

 

From a "skeptic" website (Australian National University): http://users.cecs.an.../mccormack.html

 

One of the best-known examples of Ivan Panin's work concerns the first part of the New Testament, namely the first one or two chapters of the Gospel of Matthew....... Ivan Panin was not the only writer to undertake this study. In 1923, R. McCormack published The Heptadic Structure of Scripture (Marshall Brothers), which also showed a great many features of the number 7 in the first two chapters of Matthew.......

 

Let's look at the texts used by Panin and McCormack.

 

 

matt1.gif

 

 

 

Yes folks, these two mathematically proven texts are different!

 

Each of the two authors gave multiple features of 7 that do not exist in the text used by the other.

In order to produce these patterns, they modified the text using the many variant readings that appear in old manuscripts. In addition to this deliberate cooking of the data, they presented some of the vast number of features of 7 that appear in any text by pure chance.

 

 

Third, please refer to my earlier comparison of God's heptatic structure in Scripture to checksums written into software code to prove its integrity and authenticity. What does the software engineer do when a checksum returns an error in a portion of code? Does he say the checksum code is faulty, and then accept the corrupted software code? Or does he trust the checksum and admit the software code is corrupted?

 

What do you do when two different versions of scripture contain a heptatic structure unique to each respective version? How do you decide which one is faulty?



#43 philosophik

philosophik

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 149 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:I'm not agnostic. There wasn't a label for my worldeview, so I had to pick one. My worldview: I am You.
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • CA

Posted 12 April 2017 - 10:00 AM

Hi Philosophik,

Nice to hear from you again! As you have probably figured out, we are thiking beings (creators). Intersting experience you have created for yourself.
 

Yes Mike. You hit the nail on the head. This exactly what we are. The creators of our ouwn experience. Awesome!

The human mind is creative almost beyond belief. As a man thinketh so is he. We are made in the image of God. That means we are also made in the image of each other. I'm stuck with what you create for me and you are stuck with what I create for you! The question is what's it going to be. Number 1. I am glad you exist! We are equals and you are as valuable as I am to myself.

 

Mike I can't believe I didn't recognize how wise you were. That just goes to show how blind I was. I agree with all this truth. The only thing I'd change is the word 'God' to 'One,' and I wouldn't do it because I want to, but because the word God carries so much stigma with people who don't recognize we are a manifestion of Divine Consciousness.

If you lookl around you will notice billions of other beings made in our image. It seems to me that our issues are how to interface with each other and not end up trying to kill each other. I sometimes refer to this as conflicts of creativity. We have chosen all to often to be adversary and make the things we create, ideas and the physical much more important than our fellow creators. If it's ever going to work, a fellow creator must be more important to us than what we can create. When we violate this axiom we produce the world we have around us.

 

Wow! Such powerful stuff. Now that I'm aware of this subtle truth that get's overlooked by the average person everyday, I can't believe I was living life in such a low vibration this whole time. I was so negative because that's what I chose to see in the world, and in doing so, that is what the world became. It's feels so good to know you get it!

The way we are designed (our software) triggerss emotions which are built in for certain ways of thinking. We are capable of desiireable and undesireable emotions. If we experiencee undesireable emotions we are thinking incorectly. We are self rewarding and selfpunishing beings by design.
 

I agree with this to a certain point. Yes you are right about everything. Our thinking directly controls our emotion and we can tell if we like it or not based on this emotion. We are designed this way. All of this is true.

 

But are you aware of a feeling that is not an emotion? A feeling that is the ultimate compass to truth? You can't think you know this feeling, because if you do think you know it, then you really don't.

I think our cumlative abuse is the abuse of free will and creativity. I think we are in a training program to learn to self-limit. Certain things we could create but best not because they have undesireable effects. Though we can create anything somethings are best left not created such as lies, hate, survival of the fit (which implies some are unfit), etc.

 

You should write a book, lol. Awesome stuff man! Unfortunately, today's society is set up to program limiting beliefs in each one of us. We grow up thinking stuff happens to us and makes us the way we are. Cause and effect. That's what we are taught. The universe is a dangerous, chaotic wonder that can kill you at any moment.

 

This is the biggest lie ever!! A person that is always sick, and thinks he is that way because that's what's always happened in their life in the past, will continue to always get sick. It is until they realize, it is because they think that they always get sick, is the reason they always get sick. It is not the other way around. Life doesn't make you think a certain way, thinking a certain way makes life happen!

 

When I realized this, I had to change myself completely. Mind, Body, and Spirit. I had to transform into a higher being to begin creating love and gratitude and beauty in my thoughts and everything around me. Let me tell you, it has changed my life. I love life. I love nature. I love the planet. I love you.

To worship somonme is to create affection for them. Affection is to a relationship what gas is to an automobile. Suppose I say I like you a whole ot (I would be worshipping you). Them, I will feel the emotion of affection which causes me to want to pursue an enjoyable relationship with you. The reason God tells us to worship Him is because doing so will cause us to like and want to be arround him. I create affection for just about everyone I meet. It's an enjoyable emotion to know you like someone.

 

I appreciate this point of view, I choose to look at it slightly different. Our end goal is the same. Love and affection. For me, I skip the worship and go straight to the love and affection. At this point Mike, it's all semamtics. You and I are saying the same thing with a slighlty different perspective. We know where the truth is and how to get it. I think the only difference is in our perspective, we vary slightly on how we percieve the divine. But that doesn't matter, we both want to be connected to God, the One, the Source, Absolute consciousness. Because there is no better feeling!

 

One of the reasons I am not an atheist is because I have decided to accept all beings as I meet them.  Why limit who can exist? :)

 

 

MIKE YOU ARE AMAZING!

 



#44 philosophik

philosophik

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 149 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:I'm not agnostic. There wasn't a label for my worldeview, so I had to pick one. My worldview: I am You.
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • CA

Posted 12 April 2017 - 01:00 PM

And yet me, Mike and Dave would all say that nobody can come to a transforming knowledge of Christ and later say something like this for this very thought or "belief" you next describe, is anti-Christian;

 

I'm not anti-christian. I'm not anti anything anymore. I see everything as absolutely incredible, because it is.

 

There are lots of things that don't make sense to Christians, but because we have received a knowledge of the truth, and have experienced the power of the Holy Spirit, which has nothing to do with, "organised religion", but is a genuine, transforming, personal experience of the "life of God" of which many are, "ignorant", you being one of the many, since you think the gospel is something it isn't.

 

You're right. That power you've experienced has nothing to do with organised religion. So why have it?

 

Indeed, for someone like me, Dave or Mike to become atheist, when we became atheist we could only say something like this; "God clearly revealed Himself to me on a personal level when I was a Christian, and specifically answered prayer, sometimes in an incredible way, and I knew God, and He was true, as a witness I can tell you that Christianity isn't false and I experienced those things, but now I am an atheist."

 

I try not to label myself anymore.  You should try it too. Instead of saying I am Christian, just say I Am. Because when you are Being the Moment, all labels vanish.

 

That is how I know that the common "I grew up Christian" is a 100% false and common argument. Nobody can "grow up Christian", as the gospel message totally contradicts such a statement - you have to come to a saving knowledge of Christ,  before even seeing what the Kingdom of God is, as Christ said. It's not something you just inherit. 

 

Let me rephrase that, I grew up in a Christian household.

 

I don't say these things to offend you. I say these things because many people don't know that they were never a Christian. 

 

Don't worry, I care about you too much to be offended.

 

It is like a person being an expert in a certain field, perhaps for the sake of analogy, an expert scientist, and then someone comes along and says, "I used to be a scientist." There is just an immediate instinct from the genuine expert, that the person wasn't a scientist, because he says things which give him away.

 

EXHIBIT A:

 

 

You see the problem is - when you are born again you receive a fullfilment, which only God can give, all people born again Christian, can testify to this. That you say, "I knew there was something more", means you did not receive anything to begin with.

 

So how could you have been Christian like us, unless you grew up with that fullfilment we have spiritually, then lost it when you became an atheist?

 

So had you been a Christian before you would have said this instead; "the fullfilment I experienced in receiving the knowledge of Christ, and the Holy Spirit, connected me with God, like nothing could, but then I became atheist."

 

You're right. I was never truly Christian like you are. I didn't mean to make it sound like I was.

 

What truth is that?

 

Who I truly Am and what My Purpose is.

 

Anything built on an experiential philosophy is shallow, compared to the life-changing gospel of Jesus Christ, the Messiah who gave His life for us - the wonderful saviour, who already sums up all of the wonderful things which have a true foundation in God, in the fruit of the spirit which is love, joy, peace, gentleness, self-control, patience. Things which are actually real, as part of God's creation, but shallow and false phantoms under atheism, for all such things would be the product of space-dust and would only have meaning to humans, and that love would just be a warm fuzzy feeling.

 

All  shallow philosophies float in space, because they have no foundation, clearly being invented. But the foundation of our faith is to know the Lord, the Creator of all things. Your philosophy doesn't point to the one Who founded the earth, or created the birds that fly, but is based on a falsehood, that a creation created itself. Nor is there any hope for an eternal value of life, which goes beyond this temporary system of things which is, "vanishing away".

 

What true hope does such philosophy bring? No offence but you juxtapose your belief with ours which gives me permission to dispute yours, since you trample on God. Such philosophy has no foundation. You say love, and experience. Is that it? Does that love come from space dust created by an accidental universe? What is "love" anyway, in that context of shallow experiential philosophlegm

 

I'm sorry, I didn't realise you would take it this way. I'm not trampling on anything especially that which you hold dear. I'm not subscribing to any philosophy or idea. That's what I'm trying to tell you. I'm Being One. There's no thinking involved. Just Connecting and Feeling (not to be confused with thinking your connected and feeling emotions).

 

Disclaimer; I am not attacking you. I won't try and stop you having your philosophy. But I do have the right to reveal all such beliefs for what they are when compared with the gospel, for they represent a shallow second best. Notice they are all the same - they are based on concepts which FLOAT, with no foundation - such as "love" but not knowing where it comes from, and they all are similar in that they tend to concentrate on some type of experiential notion, be it a peace or a meditative contemplation, or what not. Yet they don't have any root in that they seem to just be invented creeds that all serve the same purpose of attempting to fill the God-shaped hole the atheist has created in rejecting God. They offer no true meaning to life, no answers to life, and no hope. They don't answer why people exist either.

 

Honestly, my new perspective has given me everything you've highlighted in bold plus so much more.

 

Those who are truly Christian, have something genuine to hope for - a wonderful hope, and the greatest and truest love which can only come from God, "for God is love". 

 

Your right, God is Love. But why hope for that Love when it's already Here. It's inside You. It's inside all of Us. We just tell ourselves that it's not, and project that negative feeling. If you Love Everything you project the Divine.



#45 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,078 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 12 April 2017 - 02:08 PM

 

I try not to label myself anymore.  You should try it too. Instead of saying I am Christian, just say I Am. Because when you are Being the Moment, all labels vanish.

 

 

Just want to point out that "I Am" is another name of Yahweh (Exodus 3:13-14, John 8:57-59), the God Mike subscribes to. IOW Mike cannot call himself "I Am" unless he wants to say that he *is* God. That may not be a problem for you since you don't seem to subscribe to Judeo-Christian theology and seem to believe that we are all manifestations of the divine, but that would be a problem for Mike since (standard) Christianity has a clear doctrine that the creation is separate from the creator.

 

I have pantheistic leanings myself, so when you say "we are a manifestation of divine consciousness" do you mean all of reality is a manifestation of the divine, or something more along the lines of dualism where you have the physical and the spiritual in which the spiritual/divine is manifest in certain things like ourselves but not other things like a rock?


  • mike the wiz likes this

#46 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,509 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 12 April 2017 - 09:11 PM

Philosophik

Our thinking directly controls our emotion and we can tell if we like it or not based on this emotion. We are designed this way. All of this is true.

The anticedent of emotion is cognition. Emotions follow thoughts like baby ducks follow their mother. But just because the baby ducks follow their mother does not mean the mother knows where she is going (David Burns 1980)

 

You should write a book, lol. Awesome stuff man! Unfortunately, today's society is set up to program limiting beliefs in each one of us. We grow up thinking stuff happens to us and makes us the way we are. Cause and effect. That's what we are taught.

Exactly! We are autonmous self experienccing beings. We live in our minds. If our mind is not a pleasant place we will export our self generated hostilty to others.


  • philosophik likes this

#47 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,509 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 12 April 2017 - 09:24 PM

Goku,

Perhaps you can explain what you mean by pantheistic leanings?



#48 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,418 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 13 April 2017 - 07:54 AM

 

 

Philosophik: Your right, God is Love. But why hope for that Love when it's already Here. It's inside You. It's inside all of Us. We just tell ourselves that it's not, and project that negative feeling. If you Love Everything you project the Divine.

 

"He who does not love does not know God, for God is love".

 

But God hates sin. I can't "love everything", because murder isn't love. "he who hates his brother is in darkness, and walks in darkness."

 

I cannot accept the concept which says that all things are permissible and equal. For example Brady the child murderer preached that he believed that "everything is lawful".

 

He only believed that so he could indulge his terrible sins/crimes.

 

I appreciate some other things you said in your post, like correcting that part about being Christian, etc, and I can see you are discussing things in a reasonable way without confrontation. But I can't accept that your philosophy is actually what the bible meant, we are in fact warned about philosophies such as oneness, where they try and take a portion of what the bible says and turn it into a philosophy and then say, "ahh, this is really what God meant".



#49 philosophik

philosophik

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 149 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:I'm not agnostic. There wasn't a label for my worldeview, so I had to pick one. My worldview: I am You.
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • CA

Posted 15 April 2017 - 02:27 AM

Just want to point out that "I Am" is another name of Yahweh (Exodus 3:13-14, John 8:57-59), the God Mike subscribes to. IOW Mike cannot call himself "I Am" unless he wants to say that he *is* God. That may not be a problem for you since you don't seem to subscribe to Judeo-Christian theology and seem to believe that we are all manifestations of the divine, but that would be a problem for Mike since (standard) Christianity has a clear doctrine that the creation is separate from the creator.

 

I have pantheistic leanings myself, so when you say "we are a manifestation of divine consciousness" do you mean all of reality is a manifestation of the divine, or something more along the lines of dualism where you have the physical and the spiritual in which the spiritual/divine is manifest in certain things like ourselves but not other things like a rock?

I mean All of Reality is Divine Consciousness manifesting into physical worlds, and non physical worlds. When you realise Everything is Consiousness manifesting, you regain that creative power and can cocreate amazing things through love and gratitutde and start mamifesting abundance. It's so amazing!

Oh yeah, you must meditate.and realise chakras are real. You have to try it with an open mind. If you can't picture them, they are blocked, trust me.



#50 philosophik

philosophik

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 149 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:I'm not agnostic. There wasn't a label for my worldeview, so I had to pick one. My worldview: I am You.
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • CA

Posted 15 April 2017 - 02:48 AM

"He who does not love does not know God, for God is love".

 

Truer words have never been spoken.

 

But God hates sin. I can't "love everything", because murder isn't love. "he who hates his brother is in darkness, and walks in darkness."

 

Why would God hate? If God is Love, how can He be hate? Murder isn't love, but that doesn't mean you can't be love at all times. Love the sinner and not the sin. Jesus got it. That's why I Love Him so much. Notice how Jesus never said anything negaitive. He never said He hates sin, He said love the sinner and basically ignore the sin. He knew what You Think and and Feel get's projected and becomes. That's why He always forgave, turned the other cheek, Loved His Neighbor like unto Himself. And preached Be like unto a Child, full of Wonder and Love when You are in the Presence of Love and all this Wonder. (Not His words exactly, but it was His message)

 

I cannot accept the concept which says that all things are permissible and equal. For example Brady the child murderer preached that he believed that "everything is lawful".

 

The only things that are premissible are the thing we create. Which starts with our thoughts and feelings. How we think and how we feel is projected into the universe and becomes. If you are vibrating high, you project love, gratitude, kindness, and beauty into the universe, and that's what it becomes in your experience. I'm telling you, I couldn't believe I didn't realise this sooner. It's so obvious now why the world is this way it is. Because people are unaware if this power we have. But I'm here to let you know, when you shift your perspective, you want to be Christ like so badly because Everything becomes more Beautiful!

 

 

He only believed that so he could indulge his terrible sins/crimes.

 

I appreciate some other things you said in your post, like correcting that part about being Christian, etc, and I can see you are discussing things in a reasonable way without confrontation. But I can't accept that your philosophy is actually what the bible meant, we are in fact warned about philosophies such as oneness, where they try and take a portion of what the bible says and turn it into a philosophy and then say, "ahh, this is really what God meant".

 

Thank you. I'm so glad you appreciate some things I say. I'm so grateful that you understand what feels good about some of the things I write. We want the same thing trust me. God's Love. I'm letting you know you don't have to wait, together we can literally transform the Universe into that  Connecection to Divinity and Meaning We all seek. It all starts with Positive-Uplifting-Thoughts and feeling Love in the Moment. 

 

If you can't control your thoughts at all times, you are unbalanced and vibrating low, and must transform your being into a Higher-Vibration through meditation, diet change, and a change in your daily routine. I can help. I'm going to post my Spiritual journal here and that should give you some insight on my worldview. Thanks in advance if you read it.

 

 



#51 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,509 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 16 April 2017 - 04:32 PM

Philosophik,
you may want to use a different color type so that we can figure out who is saying what?



#52 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,418 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 17 April 2017 - 03:00 AM

 

 

Philosophik: Why would God hate? If God is Love, how can He be hate? 

 

I didn't say God is hate. I quoted the bible which says, "for God is love". God doesn't become hate if He hates sin, I think that's a bit of a non-sequitur. (doesn't follow).

 

 God's attributes are part of a union, this is why it says "the Lord our God is one". This is why Jesus said, "I and the Father are one", because they are united in purpose.

 

So then all of God's attributes are non-contradictory. This means if God hates it is because He is judicious, but He also is merciful, He is love, He is sovereign, immutable, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. These characteristics all unite together.

 

Nor does the bible say that God is 'all loving', which is a misnomer among many people. God cannot be, "not love", and injustice, and sin, is, "not love" so the real contradiction would be if God loved evil/sin. So your logic is wrong, as your philosophy teaches a contradiction if it says God loves all the bad stuff. So the bible does not say God is all loving, otherwise it would be a contradiction, because He has clearly stated He hates things. (below scriptures).

 

Philosophy doesn't make logical sense it seems to me, a lot of the time, the reason being because men invent it. But the Christian gospel from God, makes sense and doesn't lead to contradiction.

 

The love described in the bible, from God, only is given to those who are in Christ, it is the love of God, but your philosophy is saying it is common to all, and that Hitler had it. So when we say, "love" it is unfortunate there is only one word in english when in greek it can be eros or agape, philia and storge. Usually "agape" is almost an exclusive term for God's love. It comes from God's spirit, and only those with the Holy Spirit can have the love of God.

 

 

 

philosophik: Love the sinner and not the sin. Jesus got it. That's why I Love Him so much. Notice how Jesus never said anything negaitive. He never said He hates sin, He said love the sinner and basically ignore the sin.

 

My argument was that God hates sin, not that He hates the sinner. Christ came to die on the cross FOR sinners.

 

Also Jesus didn't ignore the sin, and had to pay a terrible price for it, somebody did because God is just. 

 

I think one of the main tactics of philosophists when they approach the bible, is sometimes to say that because a portion of the bible seems to be in line with the philosophy they believe in, they tend to quote or mention those parts of the bible that seem to agree with the philosophy, and then they argue like this; "see! The bible is preaching oneness, this is what Jesus was all about!"

 

But that only works if you deliberately or unwittingly OMIT the parts that don't agree with your philosophy. For example you omitted the fact that Jesus, when He healed or forgave someone, would commonly say, "go your way and sin no more". So Jesus most certainly wasn't ignoring sin, it's just that God through Christ has mercy, very great mercy towards us, for "His mercy endures forever".

 

I think the danger of philosophy is that it's a way of circumventing the true problem, which is the sinful nature. If you say that all have love and all acts are okay, then that's a neat way of carrying on in your sins, isn't it? It's easy to just say, "oh well, I'm vibrating like a tuning fork, I'll blame it on that, and try and improve."

 

Notice your philosophy is man-centric, you recommend doing things in order to stop sinning, which is the essence and common theme with all man-made religion, that works can justify you, but the gospel says that "men aren't justified by works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ". 

 

 

 

Philosophik: If you can't control your thoughts at all times, you are unbalanced and vibrating low, and must transform your being into a Higher-Vibration through meditation, diet change, and a change in your daily routine

 

But where does this teaching come from? This is the thing - everything we believe as Christians doesn't come from ideas or inventions, but comes from the teachings given to us by the scriptures, collected over centuries, and written thousands of years ago. Therefore I don't accept there is a high vibration that can save me from my sins. I appreciate this is your belief, but you seem to just be stating your belief, whereas the Christian faith is an evidence-based faith. 

 

Nor did you prove that sometimes we aren't responsible for our thoughts. That is certainly a falsehood, no matter how depressed I am today, if I murder someone it very much was a freewill choice and I will have to answer to God. I don't believe Ted Bundy couldn't control his thoughts well, or any other serial killer, I believe they were responsible for what they did, not bad vibrations. 

 

 

 

 

Philosophik: Why would God hate?

 

 

Deut:16:22: and do not erect a sacred stone, for these the Lord your God hates.

 
Proverbs 8: 13: To fear the Lord is to hate evil; I hate pride and arrogance, evil behavior and perverse speech
 
Isaiah 61: 8; For I, the Lord, love justice; I hate robbery and wrongdoing.
 

 

amos 5:15: Hate evil, love good; maintain justice in the courts
 
(Blue and red, to show  a clear contradiction, showing that you can't marry evil and good, when it comes to God's character, He very clearly stands against evil and sin if you read the bible properly without quote-mining it.
 

 

 

 Philosophik: I can help.

 

 

While I believe your belief is false I appreciate that your motive is benevolent. I do believe many people, though they have false beliefs, are basically well meaning people that are mostly nice people. But they don't address their sin nature, they invent beliefs so as to justify it, so that they can perform cognitive dissonance by deceiving themselves into believing they aren't doing anything wrong and God is happy with them for their sin and it's okay to just accept it as it's not you doing it. That is a deception of the enemy. Only the enemy can deceive your mind into making you believe in a philosophy which tells you you aren't responsible for your sins.



#53 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,509 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 18 April 2017 - 03:07 PM

  1.  When I read something others write, I am reading their religion (their philosophy) and contrasting it with my own.
  2. As the scripture says out of the abundance of the heart (mind) the mouth speaks.
  3.  
  4. Thinking we belong to a group is the same as believing a religion controls us! Religion is a collection of beliefs and not a concious entity! Ideas (beliefs) are created by people and belong to us not us to them.
  5.  
  6. Every event (cause and effect unit) that happens requires cognition on our part. We mediate and thherefore control which philosophical concept we use from our huge repitore of preconcious beliefs. If beliefs controlled us a some seem to think we would always respond to the same stimuli with the same belief.
  7.  
  8. I think we are individuals capable of unilateral fucntion. I accpet full responsibility for my response to the stimuli in my environment. Because I do that, I control (well mostly) any emotional response I have.
  9.  
  10.  
  11. Moreover, I think this is true of the 7.5 billion other beings like me that walk this planet though they don't seem to realize that most of their internal (is there any other kind?) turmoil is triggered by their own cognition.
  12.  
  13. So, not only can we think but we can think about our thinking. That ability imparts some degree of objetivity about our thinking. I encourage people to think about their thinking.
  14.  
  15. By constantly blaming, objectifying non existant things and others we blind oursellves to our own participation in a "deception". Our cognition makes "it" true to us! But, "We are dong it to oursellves! And the only way to stop is to quit."
     
  16. And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. Gen 3:22

  17. Having assumed alot before reading this scripppture, I became cvurious how someone totally good could know evil. Did God create evil?
  18.  
  19. According to the Biblical Scenario God created an Angel called Lucifer. He gave him free choice (which seems to a necessity for creativity). Lucifer created evil (and became the adversary of God in doing so). God began to know evil after Lucifer whose name he Changed to Satan (which means adversary) created it.
  20.  
  21. When someone comes here with the "us" vs. them attitude, it's hard not to remember what happend to the relationship between God and Lucifer. If you come here as an equal and a fellow creator-brother that's a good attitdue. If not, you represent Satan's attitude (spirit).
  22.  
  23. That points out how powerful creativity is and that it can be abused. Creativty by definition is the ability to bring something into existence that hasn't existed before!
  24.  
  25. As a fellow creator, I have decided that what I create can not be deemed by me as more important than a fellow creator. I call this self limiting. God does not create evil and therfore self limits! Go create love, peace--good thing for all of us to enjoy! By all means rule yuourself with love. Even as Shakeapheare said, "This above to thine own self be true. Then thou can'st not be false to any man!"
     


#54 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,078 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 24 April 2017 - 10:03 PM

Goku,

Perhaps you can explain what you mean by pantheistic leanings?

 

 

The word pantheism is derived from Greek: "pan" meaning "all", and "theism" meaning "God"; put it together and pantheism is the belief that "all is God", or "all is within God" for the panentheism variant.

 

I believe we are all connected to each other, and to the universe itself - and when I say "universe" in this context I mean the "totality of existence" which includes any supernatural existence. To borrow the language of Bishop Spong, I accept that there is a "ground of all being" that ties the universe to us and us to the universe and all that is within.

 

There are lots of variants of pantheism, and they can go from very religious and esoteric to essentially an atheistic world-view where "nature" or the "laws of nature" are "God". I am clearly more towards the latter group, and while I find human religions largely absurd, I find myself agnostic to the existence of the supernatural.



#55 philosophik

philosophik

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 149 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:I'm not agnostic. There wasn't a label for my worldeview, so I had to pick one. My worldview: I am You.
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • CA

Posted 25 April 2017 - 01:56 AM

 

  1. Thinking we belong to a group is the same as believing a religion controls us! Religion is a collection of beliefs and not a concious entity! Ideas (beliefs) are created by people and belong to us not us to them.
  2.  Religion is a collection of beliefs until it becomes institutionalized. When it does, religion becomes an entity with global impact. Econmically, policy wise, and on a personal level for so many people. Just look at the Catholic and Mormon churches. Two of the richest 'entity's' in the world and as such, they affect the world like powerful beings..
  3. Every event (cause and effect unit) that happens requires cognition on our part. We mediate and thherefore control which philosophical concept we use from our huge repitore of preconcious beliefs. If beliefs controlled us a some seem to think we would always respond to the same stimuli with the same belief.
  4.  I agree. Every event does require cognition on our part. My question to you is this: Which happens first, the cognition or the event? And how do you know?
  5. I think we are individuals capable of unilateral fucntion. I accpet full responsibility for my response to the stimuli in my environment. Because I do that, I control (well mostly) any emotional response I have.
  6. I take it a step further, and attempt to unilaterally respond to my environment with love and appreciation. Because I do that, the only emotion I'm trying to have is gratitude for being connected.
  7.  
  8. Moreover, I think this is true of the 7.5 billion other beings like me that walk this planet though they don't seem to realize that most of their internal (is there any other kind?) turmoil is triggered by their own cognition.
  9. Amen.
  10. So, not only can we think but we can think about our thinking. That ability imparts some degree of objetivity about our thinking. I encourage people to think about their thinking.
  11.  Question: Who is the 'me' who is thinking about 'my' thinking?
  12. By constantly blaming, objectifying non existant things and others we blind oursellves to our own participation in a "deception". Our cognition makes "it" true to us! But, "We are dong it to oursellves! And the only way to stop is to quit."
  13. Our cognition does more than that. It affect those around us as well. If you think negative about someone, they feel it and it makes it true for them too. Think about it, how many times have you thought some guy acts like a jerk, and then every time you see him he acts like a jerk. That's not a coincidence. He can feel you thinking about him that way and makes your perception of him true in your experience.
     
  14. And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. Gen 3:22

  15. Having assumed alot before reading this scripppture, I became cvurious how someone totally good could know evil. Did God create evil?
  16.  No, we did by the way we think about each other. Particularly how unquestioning, devout followers of organised religion think and feel about 'sinners/satan/nonbelievers'. Those who are not righteous enough to be part of the flock, are evil, or at the very least, sinners. That self righteousness gives rise to evil.
  17. According to the Biblical Scenario God created an Angel called Lucifer. He gave him free choice (which seems to a necessity for creativity). Lucifer created evil (and became the adversary of God in doing so). God began to know evil after Lucifer whose name he Changed to Satan (which means adversary) created it.
  18. I'm not sure I agree with this. I feel like this is the misperception of Christianity. Why believe there is evil? Why not see the good in all things and see evil for what it is? Lost souls looking for purpose in all the wrong ways. Why look at Lucifer as someone to despise and avoid, when you can look at him as someone to love and help from his supposed 'evilness?'
  19. When someone comes here with the "us" vs. them attitude, it's hard not to remember what happend to the relationship between God and Lucifer. If you come here as an equal and a fellow creator-brother that's a good attitdue. If not, you represent Satan's attitude (spirit).
  20.  There is no 'us'  vs. them. There is no 'me' vs environment. There is only I Am. There is only One.
  21. That points out how powerful creativity is and that it can be abused. Creativty by definition is the ability to bring something into existence that hasn't existed before!
  22. Which is the power that is in all of us.
  23. As a fellow creator, I have decided that what I create can not be deemed by me as more important than a fellow creator. I call this self limiting. God does not create evil and therfore self limits! Go create love, peace--good thing for all of us to enjoy! By all means rule yuourself with love. Even as Shakeapheare said, "This above to thine own self be true. Then thou can'st not be false to any man!"
  24. Yes Mike, love is the key. When we create with love, life becomes effortless and we all progress towards our higher purpose.
     

 



#56 philosophik

philosophik

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 149 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:I'm not agnostic. There wasn't a label for my worldeview, so I had to pick one. My worldview: I am You.
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • CA

Posted 25 April 2017 - 03:08 AM

I didn't say God is hate. I quoted the bible which says, "for God is love". God doesn't become hate if He hates sin, I think that's a bit of a non-sequitur. (doesn't follow).

 

Let me ask you this: In the moment, how is it possible for god to hate sin while simultaneously BEING love? Love is love. Love cannot hate. "God is love" that's your quote from the bible.

 

 God's attributes are part of a union, this is why it says "the Lord our God is one". This is why Jesus said, "I and the Father are one", because they are united in purpose.

 

Are you sure that's all? Just purpose? Are you sure they are not saying they are One literally? You take everythtimg else in the bible literally, why not this?

 

So then all of God's attributes are non-contradictory. This means if God hates it is because He is judicious, but He also is merciful, He is love, He is sovereign, immutable, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. These characteristics all unite together.

 

All of it except for the hating part. And God is beyond genders. The Supreme is that which nothing can contain, and contains all. It is One.

 

Nor does the bible say that God is 'all loving', which is a misnomer among many people. God cannot be, "not love", and injustice, and sin, is, "not love" so the real contradiction would be if God loved evil/sin. So your logic is wrong, as your philosophy teaches a contradiction if it says God loves all the bad stuff. So the bible does not say God is all loving, otherwise it would be a contradiction, because He has clearly stated He hates things. (below scriptures).

 

You misunderstand if you think I believe God loves all the bad stuff. No, that's not the case. God is love, and love only. God is beyond good and evil. Love doesn't know good and evil in the sense that it dwells on it before it loves something, love only knows how to love. GOD IS LOVE. You said so yourself.

 

Philosophy doesn't make logical sense it seems to me, a lot of the time, the reason being because men invent it. But the Christian gospel from God, makes sense and doesn't lead to contradiction.

 

Technically, men wrote the bible too. You just give these men you've never met more credit than other men you'ver never met who don't believe the same thing. Either way, your believing that men didn't invent the bible doesn't make it so. Or does it?

 

The love described in the bible, from God, only is given to those who are in Christ, it is the love of God, but your philosophy is saying it is common to all, and that Hitler had it. So when we say, "love" it is unfortunate there is only one word in english when in greek it can be eros or agape, philia and storge. Usually "agape" is almost an exclusive term for God's love. It comes from God's spirit, and only those with the Holy Spirit can have the love of God.

 

Just because it is common in all of us it doesn't mean people know how to express it. As long as people are unaware of how their thoughts and feelings affect their  ability to project this love, then they will be unable to express God's love with any sort of conviction especially if they feel negative towrds anything.

 

My argument was that God hates sin, not that He hates the sinner. Christ came to die on the cross FOR sinners.

 

And I say God doesn't hate anything ever. The Absolute is beyond such trivial emotions.

 

Also Jesus didn't ignore the sin, and had to pay a terrible price for it, somebody did because God is just. 

 

He did ignore the sin when it came to loving the sinner. And God making Jesus pay for the sins of others by crucifying him seems to be the biggest injustice in the history of mankind! Why worship a God who thinks this is just?

 

I think one of the main tactics of philosophists when they approach the bible, is sometimes to say that because a portion of the bible seems to be in line with the philosophy they believe in, they tend to quote or mention those parts of the bible that seem to agree with the philosophy, and then they argue like this; "see! The bible is preaching oneness, this is what Jesus was all about!"

 

I never said the bible was preaching oneness. After all, man wrote the bible. I said Jesus was preaching oneness and religion watered down his message in order to form the church and collect MONEY.

 

But that only works if you deliberately or unwittingly OMIT the parts that don't agree with your philosophy. For example you omitted the fact that Jesus, when He healed or forgave someone, would commonly say, "go your way and sin no more". So Jesus most certainly wasn't ignoring sin, it's just that God through Christ has mercy, very great mercy towards us, for "His mercy endures forever".

 

I didn't deliberately or unwittingly omit anything. When you love the sinner and not the sin, it is implied you don't want them sinning anymore.

 

I think the danger of philosophy is that it's a way of circumventing the true problem, which is the sinful nature. If you say that all have love and all acts are okay, then that's a neat way of carrying on in your sins, isn't it? It's easy to just say, "oh well, I'm vibrating like a tuning fork, I'll blame it on that, and try and improve."

 

Who said all acts are ok? I said if all acts are done out of God's love, then there is no sin. There is no evil. This is Oneness. Only love and gratitude for being connected to God's love in the moment, and acting upon that high vibration to create positive experiences only.

 

Notice your philosophy is man-centric, you recommend doing things in order to stop sinning, which is the essence and common theme with all man-made religion, that works can justify you, but the gospel says that "men aren't justified by works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ". 

 

I'm not doing things to stop sinning. That's what Christians do. I'm doing things to become love only. Starting by being grateful and controlling my thoughts and feelings towards all things in a positive way. Jesus wanted you to emulate him more than to have faith in him. He wanted both, but cared more that you became like him.

 

 

But where does this teaching come from? This is the thing - everything we believe as Christians doesn't come from ideas or inventions, but comes from the teachings given to us by the scriptures, collected over centuries, and written thousands of years ago. Therefore I don't accept there is a high vibration that can save me from my sins. I appreciate this is your belief, but you seem to just be stating your belief, whereas the Christian faith is an evidence-based faith. 

 

It's not a belief if I've experienced the feeling of Oneness. Just like it's not a belief that you've experienced your childhood. It's not a philosophy either because I don't think about the truth of Oneness. I don't 'think' it's true. I FEEL it's true when I'm connected. That feeling is the only thing that's real. That feeling is God's love.

 

Nor did you prove that sometimes we aren't responsible for our thoughts. That is certainly a falsehood, no matter how depressed I am today, if I murder someone it very much was a freewill choice and I will have to answer to God. I don't believe Ted Bundy couldn't control his thoughts well, or any other serial killer, I believe they were responsible for what they did, not bad vibrations. 

 

Ted Bundy couldn't control his thoughts, that's why he delved into depravity. He entertained uglyness and perversions and thus was vibrating low and did what he did. He was undisciplined.

 

 

 

Deut:16:22: and do not erect a sacred stone, for these the Lord your God hates.

 
Proverbs 8: 13: To fear the Lord is to hate evil; I hate pride and arrogance, evil behavior and perverse speech
 
Isaiah 61: 8; For I, the Lord, love justice; I hate robbery and wrongdoing.
 

 

amos 5:15: Hate evil, love good; maintain justice in the courts
 
(Blue and red, to show  a clear contradiction, showing that you can't marry evil and good, when it comes to God's character, He very clearly stands against evil and sin if you read the bible properly without quote-mining it.
 
Notice who wrote those qoutes. Any of those scriptures say 'God chapter X verse X'? Nope, each verse was written by a man for the sake of expressing his interpretation of the divine.

 

 

While I believe your belief is false I appreciate that your motive is benevolent. I do believe many people, though they have false beliefs, are basically well meaning people that are mostly nice people. But they don't address their sin nature, they invent beliefs so as to justify it, so that they can perform cognitive dissonance by deceiving themselves into believing they aren't doing anything wrong and God is happy with them for their sin and it's okay to just accept it as it's not you doing it. That is a deception of the enemy. Only the enemy can deceive your mind into making you believe in a philosophy which tells you you aren't responsible for your sins.

 

When One awakens and becomes enlightened, sin loses meaning because a Realised man behaves according to god's love and does no wrong.



#57 philosophik

philosophik

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 149 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:I'm not agnostic. There wasn't a label for my worldeview, so I had to pick one. My worldview: I am You.
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • CA

Posted 25 April 2017 - 03:30 AM

The word pantheism is derived from Greek: "pan" meaning "all", and "theism" meaning "God"; put it together and pantheism is the belief that "all is God", or "all is within God" for the panentheism variant.

 

I believe we are all connected to each other, and to the universe itself - and when I say "universe" in this context I mean the "totality of existence" which includes any supernatural existence. To borrow the language of Bishop Spong, I accept that there is a "ground of all being" that ties the universe to us and us to the universe and all that is within.

 

There are lots of variants of pantheism, and they can go from very religious and esoteric to essentially an atheistic world-view where "nature" or the "laws of nature" are "God". I am clearly more towards the latter group, and while I find human religions largely absurd, I find myself agnostic to the existence of the supernatural.

What is the supernatural in pantheism if not you and me? If the universe is god, and we are connected to the universe in such a way that we cannot be seperated from it, then are we not god too? If we are god too, then why don't we feel like it, right? Why do we feel so insignificant in the grand scheme of things? It's because people forgot they are the universe and don't know how to connect to their Absolute Being.The Infinite Love. The Supreme Awareness/Creator. I Am.



#58 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,418 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 25 April 2017 - 06:20 AM

 

 

Philosophik: Let me ask you this: In the moment, how is it possible for god to hate sin while simultaneously BEING love? Love is love. Love cannot hate. "God is love" that's your quote from the bible.

 

Because according to logical rules, it isn't a true contradiction. It is only a contradiction if the bible says God is "all loving". We also must define the term, "hate". It should be understood that God hates sin because sin is anti-love. Therefore for God to hate, "not love" is actually in line with the law of non-contradiction. He hates that which comes from "not love".

 

So God is love, but that isn't the only thing God is. God has many characteristics, the bible isn't saying, "God is ONLY love". When God says He hates sin it is a deep displeasure and righteous anger because sin is anti-love. It would make no sense for God to love sin, and to enjoy it when people sadistically murder others for pleasure. Imagine if God was only love of all things, the feeling love. That would be terrible, that would mean he loved everything Hitler done and thought of it as fine. But like I said, God is also just, and holy and righteous, which you ignored.

 

 

 

Philosophik: All of it except for the hating part. And God is beyond genders. The Supreme is that which nothing can contain, and contains all. It is One.

 

I don't accept this saying just because you state it.

 

 

 

You misunderstand if you think I believe God loves all the bad stuff. No, that's not the case. God is love, and love only. God is beyond good and evil. Love doesn't know good and evil in the sense that it dwells on it before it loves something, love only knows how to love. GOD IS LOVE. You said so yourself.

 

No you are perversely twisting it around again. I specifically said that the bible, God's word, says that God is love, it does not say God is love, as some kind of subtance in and of itself, I explained that it means agape love in the greek, the love of God. God is love but not love only as that is your philosophy, I am stating that the bible says something else, and you are equivocating by trying to say that I am saying what you are saying. I am saying what the bible says, and it doesn't only say that God is love, it also describes many of God's characteristics as I told you before.

 

 

 

Philosophik: Technically, men wrote the bible too. You just give these men you've never met more credit than other men you'ver never met who don't believe the same thing. Either way, your believing that men didn't invent the bible doesn't make it so. Or does it?

 

 

But we don't accept that the bible is only the work of men. Your claim is it is just writings of men but I have shown those writings are consistent, your beliefs just seem to be contrived. It's true that you can basically argue pluralism, that one can believe whatever one believes, but we believe what Jesus Christ said and done is a true and meaningful message. We have lived the life of God the bible says is real and we can testify as witnesses that we have received from God, revelation. How could we if the bible was all made up? How could we speak in tongues or receive gifts of the spirit or be healed? All of the Christian testimonies are all congruent with each other, we all report the same things that the bible says are true, the same types of experiences. I know a man on Christian TV that describes the same type of experience of God's presence coming down upon him, that I also experienced. His was greater but we have the same experiences, basically. 

 

 

 

Just because it is common in all of us it doesn't mean people know how to express it. As long as people are unaware of how their thoughts and feelings affect their  ability to project this love, then they will be unable to express God's love with any sort of conviction especially if they feel negative towrds anything.

 

But this is the begging-the-question fallacy, because you are assuming the truth of your claim that love from God is in all men, by saying, "just because it is common". It isn't enough to simply SAY all people have the love of God. You said yourself, how can love hate? How can Hitler murder, how can Bundy murder? The true contradiction to love is acts of sinful hate. But God only hates evil, wickedness and sin, God Himself doesn't sin, meaning your philosophy is a contradiction, for how can people have the love of God and do things of hate? That is the true contradiction, not to hate sin.

 

 

 

And I say God doesn't hate anything ever. The Absolute is beyond such trivial emotions.

 

No offense, but who cares what you say, your aren't Jesus Christ, and don't offer salvation. You speak from guesswork, but Christ is God incarnate. He is not, hating in the sense you seem to understand, so you have committed anthropathism fallacy. God is a person, a being, a spirit, but He is not a man. We have emotions because we are made in God's image but we aren't in control of them. God is fully in control, but to say emotions are trivial is not realistic to any ideology. Emotions are real, God is not, "beyond" His own nature. If He states He is love then that love is also not merely an emotion. God's "emotions" is a simplistic anthropopathism fallacy, for what God feels is far beyond the ordinary human emotion. God is the epitome of all good things. You guess yet again, and speak as though you alone know what God is and what he feels.

 

 

 

Philosophik: He did ignore the sin when it came to loving the sinner. And God making Jesus pay for the sins of others by crucifying him seems to be the biggest injustice in the history of mankind! Why worship a God who thinks this is just?

 

Because God really is the Lord God, I know He exists and He has revealed Himself to me. It is not injust for God Himself to lay down His life as God incarnate. Funny how you say that Jesus said He was one with God and use that to bolster your philosophy, but now imply that there is some kind of disconnet between God the Father's will, and Christ's. What a silly error. Christ was one with God, and is God, He said, "I AM before Abraham". To take on the sins of the world, onto Himself is the Christian Gospel, not your error-filled interpretation of the gospel which pretends God the Father is a haete-filled tyrant Christ got bullied into obeying.

 

 

 

Philosophik: I never said the bible was preaching oneness. After all, man wrote the bible. I said Jesus was preaching oneness and religion watered down his message in order to form the church and collect MONEY.

 

I realise why people like to USURP Jesus. I get that because they think Christ was a great figure, rather than doubting Him they would instead like to USE Him in some way to fit with their false philosophy. This way you PRETEND Christ's actions and words were disparate with the rest of the bible. Yet you use Christ's words to basically quote-mine the portions of the bible you think favours your philosophy.

 

It doesn't work - you can't just omit the parts of the Christian gospel that don't tie in with your philosophy and say, "I know Jesus's thoughts, they were really all to do with the oneness philosophy".

 

 

 

 

Philosophik: I didn't deliberately or unwittingly omit anything. When you love the sinner and not the sin, it is implied you don't want them sinning anymore.

 

If you repeat a strawman fallacy it becomes argumentum ad nauseam. A double whammy. For my entire Christian life I have argued that Christ loves the sinner, making out I am saying he hates the sinner, was your own strawman fallacy right from the start. Any readers can go back and see where you committed that error if they so choose, they will never find me utter the words that Christ doesn't love the sinner.

 

 

 

Philosophik: Who said all acts are ok? I said if all acts are done out of God's love, then there is no sin. There is no evil. This is Oneness. Only love and gratitude for being connected to God's love in the moment, and acting upon that high vibration to create positive experiences only.

 

Fair enough, if that's what you believe you have freewill and I am not going to stop you from believing it.

 

 

 

Philosophik: Jesus wanted you to emulate him more than to have faith in him. He wanted both, but cared more that you became like him.

 

Again you seem to presume you know what Jesus wanted. Christians know what Jesus Christ wanted, we have obeyed His message to believe on Him, and we know His words from scripture. You put yourself in the position of knowing what Christ wanted, and you say He wanted oneness, but we don't find that in the bible, we find the Christian gospel. Nor do you have the knowledge of what Christ wants. You are basically asserting things baldly, with every statement. I don't accept oneness, and I don't accept you know what Christ wants/wanted.

 

 

 

P: Ted Bundy couldn't control his thoughts, that's why he delved into depravity. He entertained uglyness and perversions and thus was vibrating low and did what he did. He was undisciplined.

 

Codswallop. Although you are right he couldn't control his thoughts. Nor did he want to, as he was given over to his sinful, nature and was wicked. He tried to blame what he done on p*rn*gr*phy. Others try and blame it on bad vibrations, it is a DECEPTION of the enemy - who wants you to think you aren't responsible for your sins. 

 

 

 

 

P: Notice who wrote those qoutes. Any of those scriptures say 'God chapter X verse X'? Nope, each verse was written by a man for the sake of expressing his interpretation of the divine.

 

Again, because you say so, because you say it out loud, we are to take your argument as granted. LOL. Funny how you use the bible to say Jesus wanted oneness but ditch it as men's words when it doesn't suit you. But Jesus Himself approved of the scriptures, He said the law was without fault, He referred to Genesis as history, to Abraham as history, He accepted the authority of the scriptures and preached how they taught about Him. Like I said, Christ and the Father are one.

 

 

 

When One awakens and becomes enlightened, sin loses meaning because a Realised man behaves according to god's love and does no wrong.

 

If that was true then all people of oneness would be perfect. They aren't, they have sin like everyone else, a sinful nature. Sin doesn't lose meaning because you pretend it isn't sin.

 

What is, "wrong" in this concept anyway? Who defines which acts are wrong? If sin loses meaning then who is to say it is wrong? How can you do no wrong, if there is no such thing as wrong?

 

A lot of contradictory codswaffle of the highest poppycock proportions. :get_a_clue: It seems you have proven this philosophy is a contradicting MESS, beyond all description. Sin loses meaning yet you no longer do wrong? Then what is wrong? Not wrong is it? Meaning it is also okay to sin, if it's not wrong.

 

Studying a course in the most basic logic, might help you to arrive at better conclusions. It seems all you have is a feeling, a "feeling" of oneness and you use the epithet, "reality" but if it's reality, then just the feeling is a real emotion, not the philosophy that comes from it, which isn't a reality.

 

For example I could meditate like a buddhist, and then say, "budhism is a reality" but in fact only the meditation would be reality. Yes, you have had a feeling, an experience of some sort which is subjectively real, but this doesn't mean all of the teachings you have argued are also real, for that is to conflate a REAL emotion, with a CONTRIVED creed.

 

Not the same thing at all, so nice try when you tried to argue that an experience you had was real, therefore your philosophy is. 

 

You also insult Christ, because He said He lays down His "life of His own accord" yet you say he was unjustly killed, proving logically that you don't know what Christ's desires were. If Christ agrees with you, why do you disagree with Christ? So that's one massive hole in your argument that you know what Christ wants. He said He wants all men to believe, and that this is to obey, that He who believes in Christ will receive salvation and, "never die". This is what He wanted, but you have just said He was unjustly killed, meaning you are going against what Christ taught, and therefore falsely claim to represent Christ and what He wanted. When Christ returned He told the apostles to go into the world and preach the gospel of salvation, the great commission. You have just said that is false, meaning you want the opposite of what Christ wanted, His last wishes on earth. So then how can you pretend to represent what Christ wanted when you contradict everything he said?

 

:gotcha:



#59 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,078 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 25 April 2017 - 10:42 AM

What is the supernatural in pantheism if not you and me? If the universe is god, and we are connected to the universe in such a way that we cannot be seperated from it, then are we not god too? If we are god too, then why don't we feel like it, right? Why do we feel so insignificant in the grand scheme of things? It's because people forgot they are the universe and don't know how to connect to their Absolute Being.The Infinite Love. The Supreme Awareness/Creator. I Am.

 

The supernatural, as the name suggests, means "above the natural". The problem I have is that "natural" is poorly defined. People have debated things like monism and dualism (i.e. physical and spiritual), and we might be tempted to say that if some form of cosmic dualism exists this represents the divide between natural and supernatural. But, going back to the ground of all being from which all things manifest from, would it be appropriate to distinguish between natural and supernatural if they both emanate from the same source and are merely different manifestations of the same phenomena? As an analogy water can be both liquid and solid, sure they are different and have different properties, but they are the same substance manifest differently - in this case due to the surrounding temperature and pressure of the water. For the more scientifically inclined I like the analogy of the four fundamental forces of nature: gravity, electromagnetism, weak, and strong nuclear forces, and how each of them are thought to be a single force, the same phenomena, only manifested differently due to the properties of the current universe. In the early universe for example it is thought that originally all four fundamental forces were united into one and then were broken apart as the universe changed from a near-singularity to what we see today. All that to say even if there are two 'worlds' with different properties, that doesn't necessarily mean they are under different 'laws of nature', but perhaps they are different manifestations of the same underlying reality, and in such a case I'm not sure it is appropriate to say one is "above" the other by denoting it as supernatural.

 

I don't see humans as supernatural; I don't see anything that really suggests that we are anything more than what the laws of nature allow.

 

In pantheism everything from the trees to the Sun to us are manifestations of the divine. I agree people often feel insignificant to the grandeur of reality, and in a very real sense we are insignificant, but I also agree most people are unaware of how connected and interconnected they are to the universe, and that we are a part of the universe just as the universe is part of us.



#60 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,025 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 28 April 2017 - 01:07 AM

For the more scientifically inclined I like the analogy of the four fundamental forces of nature: gravity, electromagnetism, weak, and strong nuclear forces, and how each of them are thought to be a single force, the same phenomena, only manifested differently due to the properties of the current universe.

wait a minute, "gravity" is not a fundamental force of atoms.
atoms do not posses a force called gravity.

and you forgot one, electrostatics.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users