God is not to Mock

  • Thread starter Thread starter Shibolet
  • Start date Start date
SatyamAbhidi said:
1 - You understand you're adding your own meaning to that?

2 - For what it's worth though, the Hindu's have a similar thing: Bhagwan: Son; Brahman: Father; Paramatma: Holy Spirit

3 - The difference? They don't pretend there is only one Bhagwan.

It is sort of the whole point of the religion.

4 - I am simply saying that it is also the point of Christianity.
Click to expand...

1 - Why? You don't feel like reading? If you read the texts and did not understand, too bad!

2 - So had the Greeks: Zeus, Posseidon and Hades.

3 - Probably, they do not understand Logic.

4 - And Islam.
 
1 - Noah, Sodom and Gomorrah, the whole thing about being a jealous God.

2 - God killed EVERY human being and every animal except those Noah saved... please read your Bible.

3 - The Bible says God did it...

4 - Luckily, it is unlikely people will think it is the work of God anymore.

5 - I was not there, neither were the guys writing your scripture. I do not think it is useful to pretend I know. For me, it is about knowing what is here now, how this is coming into being. I tell you creation has not stopped, nor destruction. Every moment, every atom is dying and being born. To have any meaning, the creator must have stopped creating.

This is the idea of meditation, venturing into ones own source and seeing how you come into being. Once you know how you have - and you came from nothing! the result of sperm and egg meeting - then you know how all has.
 
SatyamAbhidi said:
God is not a spirit :/

God is THE spirit... there are not two.

Souls are separate, the idea is to merge soul back into spirit.
Click to expand...

According to Genesis 2:7, when HaShem formed man from the dust of the earth, He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul. To become is to be. Hence, we are souls; we don't have a separate soul. With death, that combination is undone and the soul is gone as if it never existed. Soul = person.
 
1 - Umm, I read it and did not draw the same conclusion.

2 - Not really the same, but ok...

3 - I suggest you look into Jnani Yoga if you are interested in Logic. Nothing climbs higher! Indeed the Greeks went to India to learn their logics.

4 - Yes, I said that.
 
Shibolet said:
According to Genesis 2:7, when HaShem formed man from the dust of the earth, He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul. To become is to be. Hence, we are souls; we don't have a separate soul. With death, that combination is undone and the soul is gone as if it never existed. Soul = person.
Click to expand...

"According to"...

I am telling you what is so in my experience, trying to use your terminology.
 
It is neat that we're changing Greek words to suit ourselves though...

Not like it's an actual language or something.
 
It is the actuality of most people though, to be fair.

Most do think they are their mind.
 
SatyamAbhidi said:
I do not believe in God or Satan or any stupid notion that pretends to give you answers.
Click to expand...

Hahaha, you're hilarious! What do you call yourself then? Every post is a truth that needs to be told, I don't think I've seen a single question from you. Much comes out and little goes it, I want to make a joke about how empty it must be in there but I don't want to offend. From over here you do come across as a self proclaimed prophet though.
 
A Cup Of Tea said:
Hahaha, you're hilarious! What do you call yourself then? Every post is a truth that needs to be told, I don't think I've seen a single question from you. Much comes out and little goes it, I want to make a joke about how empty it must be in there but I don't want to offend. From over here you do come across as a self proclaimed prophet though.
Click to expand...

Why do I need to call myself anything?

And, oh look, a question.

Do you think you can give me something?

Why will I try to "gain" anything?

I am fulfilled.

Why would emptiness offend though?

I am that emptiness, most of mans stupidity is performed because he is running from it.

For me, that you want to fill me with crap is offensive.

If you want to call me a prophet, go ahead, for me it is sad that you are not interested in knowing what they knew. That you think somehow you'll benefit from their words without encountering their reality.

We look at religion as history, as something you can study.

Foolish, it is intended to be transformative, but people act like it's just study material for a test...

You see me as something special because you see yourself as a nobody.

That is the truly sad thing about these belief systems.
 
Do not misunderstand, again, I do not make myself anything.

Much has happened to me, I am interested in sharing.

The very purpose of sharing is to show it is also true of you.

This requires my knowing I am not special, that you are exactly like me.

Why depend on others when you can know for yourself?

I wish to convey something of the how.

That is all.
 
I do not wish to teach some notion.

I want to bring you to the place of knowing.

From there, all is available, I will be wasting my time to say it to you.

You will already have it.
 
SatyamAbhidi said:
Why do I need to call myself anything?

And, oh look, a question.

Do you think you can give me something?

Why will I try to "gain" anything?

I am fulfilled.

Why would emptiness offend though?

I am that emptiness, most of mans stupidity is performed because he is running from it.

For me, that you want to fill me with crap is offensive.

If you want to call me a prophet, go ahead, for me it is sad that you are not interested in knowing what they knew. That you think somehow you'll benefit from their words without encountering their reality.

We look at religion as history, as something you can study.

Foolish, it is intended to be transformative, but people act like it's just study material for a test...

You see me as something special because you see yourself as a nobody.

That is the truly sad thing about these belief systems.
Click to expand...

Rhetorical don't count, silly!

And you've made so many assumptions about me it...a lot, I don't know that I can have a meaningful discourse with someone who's talking to someone I don't recognize. You do so remind me of Lunitik, you should search him and his many alias, you'd probably hate him or love him.
 
A Cup Of Tea said:
Rhetorical don't count, silly!

And you've made so many assumptions about me it...a lot, I don't know that I can have a meaningful discourse with someone who's talking to someone I don't recognize. You do so remind me of Lunitik, you should search him and his many alias, you'd probably hate him or love him.
Click to expand...

What is the Bible other than rhetoric? There is no scripture that isn't rhetoric in nature.

Why are those texts valid when rhetoric doesn't count?

Please inform me of the assumptions I have made, I have not even been talking about you, I have been commenting about this notion that knowing means I am a self proclaimed prophet. No, I simply throw away the whole notion of prophet because I see nothing worthwhile about them.

For me, the only thing that is important is what is so NOW.

Not what the mind thinks about it, not where the mind thinks it has come form, or where it is trying to go. What is actually here this moment?

I say this is the narrow gate to God.

God is nowhere else.

Cannot be, because there is nothing else.

The rest is just mental, imagination.
 
I am speaking to you, certainly, but I do not know you... why would you assume I am talking about you?

This is the whole problem really though, you have identified, and thus seem to have become offended.

Your projection has offended, not my words.

Try to understand the words, don't involve yourself.

Look in yourself to see whether it feels right, that can be helpful.

I cannot speak about you though.

You are "A Cup Of Tea" on interfaith.org... I know nothing else of you.
 
SatyamAbhidi said:
What is the Bible other than rhetoric? There is no scripture that isn't rhetoric in nature.

Why are those texts valid when rhetoric doesn't count?

Please inform me of the assumptions I have made, I have not even been talking about you, I have been commenting about this notion that knowing means I am a self proclaimed prophet. No, I simply throw away the whole notion of prophet because I see nothing worthwhile about them.

For me, the only thing that is important is what is so NOW.

Not what the mind thinks about it, not where the mind thinks it has come form, or where it is trying to go. What is actually here this moment?

I say this is the narrow gate to God.

God is nowhere else.

Cannot be, because there is nothing else.

The rest is just mental, imagination.
Click to expand...
Rhetoric - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
So you are claiming all religious texts skilled writing to influence people to an idea? Or that it is intended to trick people into believing something of questionable sincerity? Either one is a tall order to prove. The Tanach is largely a series of books about law and history (whether you believe that history of not is not the point) written not to pursuade people to follow it, but to remind people what they are supposed to be doing (it is a series for the Jews). The NT is partly Rhetoric IMHO mostly in the books of Paul and the Gospel of John contains a bit. The rest is an account of a historical figure, telling his followers the correct ways to follow and which man-made laws to ignore (since they are man-made... again although most Christians feel the NT is for all, the Gospels are pretty clear they are meant for astray Christians, The books of Paul do direct that it is for all and for all to come to it). The Quran does call people to follow it and could in part be claimed the first definition, the other is a tall order to fill since you are debating against a book that calls for nearly all things we call Humane today. From what I've read of the Veda, It doesn't call people to follow it, but rather gives info on its version of history and Laws associated with its God.

But please go on telling the world how all religions other than your view are valueless... It shows most people you don't know much about religion, or even the religious texts.
 
Hi BigJoeNobody -

I rather think you've touched on a good point. What is on display here is a good example of the kind of rhetoric as picked out by the MW definition, which in this case I might paraphrase as 'an empty speech or empty words reflecting an ideology'.

But please don't dismiss rhetoric on the basis of abuses evidenced here. Take a look at the larger definition on wiki.

In Aristotle (as yet unsurpassed on these matters, and still a rich seam to be mined) rhetoric rests on three means of persuasion:
1 the character of the speaker,
2 the character of the listener,
3 the logic of the argument itself.

Suffice to say, there's a lot of claims re the speaker, a lot of assumption re the listener, and a notable lack of argument, logical or otherwise.

There does seem an abundance of opinion, however ...

... I would suggest rather than rhetoric, which I think has a place in discourse, what we have here is sophistry, as it is commonly understood.
 
BigJoeNobody said:
Rhetoric - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
So you are claiming all religious texts skilled writing to influence people to an idea? Or that it is intended to trick people into believing something of questionable sincerity? Either one is a tall order to prove. The Tanach is largely a series of books about law and history (whether you believe that history of not is not the point) written not to pursuade people to follow it, but to remind people what they are supposed to be doing (it is a series for the Jews). The NT is partly Rhetoric IMHO mostly in the books of Paul and the Gospel of John contains a bit. The rest is an account of a historical figure, telling his followers the correct ways to follow and which man-made laws to ignore (since they are man-made... again although most Christians feel the NT is for all, the Gospels are pretty clear they are meant for astray Christians, The books of Paul do direct that it is for all and for all to come to it). The Quran does call people to follow it and could in part be claimed the first definition, the other is a tall order to fill since you are debating against a book that calls for nearly all things we call Humane today. From what I've read of the Veda, It doesn't call people to follow it, but rather gives info on its version of history and Laws associated with its God.

But please go on telling the world how all religions other than your view are valueless... It shows most people you don't know much about religion, or even the religious texts.
Click to expand...

You are actually trying to say that the miracles aren't rhetoric? The very idea that Jesus is the Messiah is rhetoric, because now he is a guy that Jews have been waiting a long time for, they are bound to be influenced towards excitement.

The Old Testament is rhetoric because it has these people talking to and pretending to know the plans of God. This will seem impressive to the people of those days.

Muhammad is again rhetoric, many of his stories like flying to Jerusalem on the way to heaven are utter nonsense.

God is not a person, it is more like energy and the source thereof. Pretending you are having conversations with this is utterly insane and completely dishonest.

Other faiths, like the Bhakti of the Hindu's, are also quite rhetoric, it is not particularly rare for people to know and even dissolve into this energy field - no more functioning as separate entities. Yet, this doesn't allow for much devotional worship, so now we add miracles and make him more unique and voila you have a religion.

Buddha, too, has many miracles about him that are pure rhetoric. Even Lao Tzu is made something special and unique, total rhetoric.

I don't think there is a single religion that tries to stand firmly to truth.

Now, all I am claiming is that what happened to them, it has happened to me. It looks rhetoric BECAUSE of them! These insane traditions make it impossible to look at a man that knows the same without thinking something special has happened.

For me, it is the purpose of human existence, all are born with this potentiality. For me, man is so warped and in many ways disgusting because he has utterly lost the notion that this is his potential.

I blame these religions for that, their rhetoric that is utterly unrealistic. These men are made to look other-worldly, and so how can you possibly hope to be like them?

And so we kill in their name, we do anything and everything to get to heaven or whatever else these men can't possibly know of because they are alive.

Man is utterly unnatural because he is trying to be like something that is painted as supernatural.
 
Further, I suggest you look into the historicity of Jesus.

The only proofs come to us from Rome, who are the only source of any notion about a literal Jesus.

You cannot find anything else on this guy, he is another solar savior, this time attempting to bring the Jews under Rome's control as they were being a nuisance.

If Jesus ever really lived, you'd expect a little more evidence. Some of the people that saw miracles should have written down some accounts. The Jews should have been making more of a fuss during his life.

Instead, we have vague statements about Christi's - which probably weren't what we think of today as Christians, and may not have even been Jews. We have nothing about this man, except what others have said about these groups... strange.

It is entirely reasonable to conclude Jesus is just another myth.

Indeed, until the Council of Nicea, many texts make no attempt to insist Jesus ever actually existed. Even Paul seems to make no attempt to say he was a real man.

Rather, it is more like a principle, an ideal.
 
SatyamAbhidi said:
1 - Umm, I read it and did not draw the same conclusion.

2 - Not really the same, but ok...

3 - I suggest you look into Jnani Yoga if you are interested in Logic. Nothing climbs higher! Indeed the Greeks went to India to learn their logics.

4 - Yes, I said that.
Click to expand...

Thanks but I don't think I need to go to India to learn their Logic. I have here at home. The Logic of Judaism, at least in my opinion, excels all others as Logic is concerned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top