Jesus chooses unlikely role models for His listeners

[Bishadi]

You cut your original statement short, again. You think you know more than others?

in areas that affect exactly how life works?

simply add, Einstein, Jesus, Darwin, Bohr, Confucius, Krsna, Buddha, Surgeon General and every professor you have know or read about, combine them; and we are real close.........

from how life began in the basic soup of life, to how the human brain works at the molecular level, combined with the physic of the cosmos, to Good and Bad, in definable words that combine with the math to perfect this understanding.......

Basically the knowledge to combine the sciences, religions and philosophies into a set of material called UNDERSTANDING; in which all mankind can be equal; is pretty much what this life was born for.

and guess what; none of it is mine!

all this 'i' did was observe enough to 'see' what is true within..... that's it!

Light is life; and it is a proven fact!

 

[Bishadi]

where do you think the arrogance comes from?

It ain't from being complacent. It is from climbing them mountains of pursuing knowledge to answer real questions and reaching the top on every summit attempted.

that is where the arrogance comes from; actually doing the work.

Not paid for it, not for a prize; but simply to know. The key is never being complacent and believing what someone says just because other do.

simply follow this rule:

"believe nothing no matter where you read it or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and common sense."

 

[Thomas]

Of mass and energy?; it is.
Zero DOUBT. Zero Possibility of ERROR.

OK ... but so what?

I don't know how you define God, but in my Tradition (Catholicism), and those I have dipped into, albeit lightly, it's evident that 'God' refers to something beyond the phenomenal universe (such as Hebrew, Christian, Moslem, Daoist, Brahmin, etc.,).

So I have no idea what 'God' means to you, but to me, and many, many others, God is not contained in nor governed by the laws of mass and energy, so I suggest the error is yours in failing to comprehend what Scripture is talking about in the first place.

(That does rather pose the question about scientists, who believe in the laws of science, and God ... how do you respond to them?)

I admire your faith in science by the way, but I cannot hold to it ... science has demonstrated to me that as it is totally dependent upon man, it is fallible, so I think your statement goes against reason and logic.

+++

As for me? a stoned cold brat. Where do you think the arrogance comes from?

Your ego? Your error? Delusion? As you seem to be operating on your own, how would you know ... it's the classic, "Look! Everybody's marching out of time, but me!"

It is the fact that from Hawking to Dawkins, from the Pope to Einstein; all were looking but it was right in front of them the whole time.

Yet you miss the point. It's not where man is looking ... it's what man sees. Two men, one microscope, one slide ... two different responses.

Hawkings is believed to be not entirely right, by many. I've seen someone use Dawkins' own argument to demonstrate that Richard Dawkins does not exist ... Einstein was proved wrong about Relativity and about Quantum Physics ... and the Pope is not infallible either ... but you seem to have infallible beliefs in a fallible discipline rendering infallible proofs.

And what is the best is no can OWN the truth; no one can stop it and this 'i' would just as soon kick the bucket then ever sell out.

Oh, heroic talk ... but actually says nothing ... if Hawking or Dawkins chooses to keep schtumm, then you're in the dark, aren't you, so you are utterly dependent upon others to provide you the data with which you determine your infallibility?

Something Buddha and Einstein have in common perhaps, they took what they knew to the grave. Where does that leave you?

it is why from Russia to China, the South Pacific to the north Atlantic and all the other countries and people on this globe; with the internet; the truth is spreading. It is growing and collectively the change will occur.

Oh please! They said that about the written word ... the printed word ... they say it about every new piece of technology that comes along.

And according to every measure of your science, the major benefit of the internet (as also the domestic video recorder) is the proliferation and spread of pornography ... but then science has no ethics nor morality, so what can you expect? But knowledge? No way ... you can find the 'truth' and 'fact' of anything you like on the internet ...

... it's not the spread of knowledge, it's the spread of noise, by which we trick ourselves into thinking its knowledge ...

Think of yourself in Ptolemy's time and Copernicus...

OK. Point taken. But think of the Big Bang, that was a theory by a Dominican Monk. So all you've shown is that man is fallible ... that's my point.

They can't spell science. If you said Hindu and removed the word Christianity, then maybe.

That's just blind ignorance and bigotry. I can name a raft of scientists who are/were Christians, and who have made major contributions to science.

But the whole 'forgiveness from God' idea established in Christianity was the most corrupt and disallusional frame on this earth.[/.quote]
Not if you understood the doctrine properly. It's founded on simple logic and pure reason — according to the data of Revelation:

God made the world.
God made the rules ... which are there for the good of all.
Man broke the rules.

Therefore the fault is with man,
the offence is against God.

It took responsibility from each person and made it a devil or some other entities fault for the actions people make.

Actually if you understood Scripture you'd know that's not the case.

No, I must revise that. Your knowledge of Christianity seems to rest on a teaching that's philosophically shallow, a common fault with denominations of the more recent era. You should study Orthodox or Catholic doctrine, it's far more philosophically thought through, and it's far more rigorous in its methods of procedure.

Suffice to say that in tradition Christianity, man is created free will, and therefore counted responsible for his own actions.

And then suggest; ah just ask Jesus to save you and ah.... you'll be saved....what a crock.

Again, shallow thinking.

But keep going, Bishadi, all you're doing is demonstrating how authoritatively you speak about things you don't really understand.

Evangelical and political entities created by Christianity are some of the most corrupt on this earth.

Oh please, not that old saw.

The only corrupt entity is man ... and he infects everything he touches. If you want a Church without sin, then OK. But it'll be empty.

Shall I go through the history of science, and its wonders? The gas chamber? The lobotomy programme in the US in the 50s and 60s ... eugenics ... or the Stalinist regime ... Pol Pot ...

As the poet said:
"After 2,000 years of Christian mass, we've come as far as poison gas."

Do not dare to criticise religion as if you are without fault — that's hypocrisy of a stellar magnitude.

Have you ever watched on TV where people are wiggling on the floor because some dude slapped on the forehead and said; 'in the name of Jesus'

have you ever watched on TV that scientist claiming he's developed cold fusion ... or Piltdown Man ... or the scientists today who fabricate cancer research experiments to divert millions of dollars towards their own bank accounts ... diversions that put the real research back decades?

I would bet if Jesus was here today, he would kill himself just by seeing all the corruption and abuse of his teaching by the hypocrites of this sect.

Then you don't know the man. He's got far more strength of character than that. He puts up with your sh*t, and will still welcome you as a long-lost son.

It's an old song, Bishadi, and its tired, and its a weak and it's threadbare.

Inspired by words left from many texts.

And so am I.

Secular in that the truth only operates ONE way.

I think even science would dispute that.

Empirical; in that sciences and phenomema combine.

Empirical phenomena ... not all phenomena ...

Spiritual in that; nothing can bend the truth.

I'd argue that one as well. Have you heard a politician in full flight. The good ones never lie, but it's not quite the truth, either.

I think truth 'bends' round politicians like light round a heavy object.

Knowledge from the four corners of the earth; not just from this continent as well not from the 'institutional' frame of scholarly complacency to paradigm.

And again the assumption that Christian philosophy or metaphysics comes from?

But the point is, I'm talking supernatural knowledge ... not natural knowledge.

It was when the work was shared in 82' and none of the institutions it was sent too, could comprehend the work; so all institutional pursuits were ended.

Ah ... or perhaps they all saw the flaw which hadn't been noticed ... or had been ignored?

The work, desire, and intent was all because of an absolute resolve to Understand, with or without, anyone's God, anyones teacher, and definitely without anyones money, compassion or trust; a single man made a commitment and the covenant is being fullfilled!

You mean, an absolute resolve to understand without reference to anything meaningful ... so you are the arbiter of what is real and true ...

Sorry Bishadi ... but if you're gonna dish it out, you gotta be able to take it ...

that's a law ...

Thomas

 

[Bishadi]

I don't know how you define God, but in my Tradition (Catholicism), and those I have dipped into, albeit lightly, it's evident that 'God' refers to something beyond the phenomenal universe (such as Hebrew, Christian, Moslem, Daoist, Brahmin, etc.,).

So I have no idea what 'God' means to you, but to me, and many, many others, God is not contained in nor governed by the laws of mass and energy, so I suggest the error is yours in failing to comprehend what Scripture is talking about in the first place.

All mass, all energy, all time: ONE; the total; the trinity comprising existence: God.

Alpha/Omega, the beginning the end. The indescribable. In you, of you, within you; at all times.

God is not some dude sitting on a thrown (Zeus) and when people began literature of such; God was a king but to know your religion as you suggest, then find God is that trinity and from Love to good and bad; the rules of nature; are actually revealed by God (existence).

And then to know God is the total of everything, then realize no ‘sin’ is ever undone. As well, know God’s face in all the faces (colors) of mankind. So each of HIS knowledge is EQUALLY important.

I admire your faith in science by the way, but I cannot hold to it ... science has demonstrated to me that as it is totally dependent upon man, it is fallible, so I think your statement goes against reason and logic.

And believing in magic, phenomenon and omnipotence is reasonable and logical?

Your ego? Your error? Delusion? As you seem to be operating on your own, how would you know ... it's the classic, "Look! Everybody's marching out of time, but me!"

And what happened to Moses; Why did Confucius spend so much time alone; how many disciples did Jesus have? Galileo, Copernicus, Darwin….. or even Bill Gates….

The list is huge as many of the greats are dead before their work is even recognized; all because People are so stuck on ‘their own minds’ that until someone else approves, most choose not to do the homework; it’s a common psychosis; lazy, complacent and care nothing for the understanding of even their own children; for the truth!


still reading yur post

 

[Bishadi]

Something Buddha and Einstein have in common perhaps, they took what they knew to the grave. Where does that leave you?

The same with you; do you intent to continue the quest for the truth, for the next generation or not?

Yes; good; to support life
No: Bad: a loss to the common……. (you’re wasting oxygen)

Your internet comments seem like a rant based on the media. Fact is more knowledge is available by the internet than you could find in the library of congress; with the ability to search and disseminate without having to turn paper pages.

More can be absorbed simply by doing (via internet) than in any other format on earth!

“””Think of yourself in Ptolemy's time and Copernicus”””’

was a comment to share the paradigm shift of thinking…. Maybe read a little on what happened

God made the world.
God made the rules ... which are there for the good of all.
Man broke the rules.

Therefore the fault is with man,
the offence is against God

Man wrote down everything man said God did. Once you realize that fact then you can realize your other comment

OK. Point taken. But think of the Big Bang, that was a theory by a Dominican Monk. So all you've shown is that man is fallible ... that's my point.

God made the world; Good the world existence within the ONE (trinity)

God made the rules: and in nature we can see them but men are fallible in comprehending ‘the rules’

Man broke the rules; yep, before ‘consciousness’ man was instinctive (like monkeys) and when man became ‘self’ (choice was born/adams apple story) then he covered himself (fig leaf/selfish pride) and was banished from the garden. (he began to think himself better or separate from nature)

Therefore the fault is with man,
the offence is against God ……… and therefore the religions are inconsistent with reality, sharing false realities that are now to a point in which the religious believers (Judaism/Islam) are about to begin global war based on the foolish beliefs of faith.

 

[Bishadi]

Originally Posted by Bishadi
Knowledge from the four corners of the earth; not just from this continent as well not from the 'institutional' frame of scholarly complacency to paradigm.

And again the assumption that Christian philosophy or metaphysics comes from?

But the point is, I'm talking supernatural knowledge ... not natural knowledge

What supernatural knowledge?

Does not exist!

That is what the comment “complacency to paradigm” and why to believe rather than know is simply ignorant!

Such that you need to read your own comment

You mean, an absolute resolve to understand without reference to anything meaningful ...

What is meaningful about suggesting magic, rapture or forgiveness by omnipotence has any meaning that can be honestly referenced?

All that is old timer knowledge… like a auto mechanic trying to build a rocket ship with a Nissan owners manual.

so you are the arbiter of what is real and true ...

Take your best shot!

Name a phenomenon that needs understanding…. If it can’t be answered then there is work to do, if it can, then try another until each and everyone are addressed but be certain; no one is coming through the clouds to save the day; a man walking made a choice and either you are up to find out for certain or you can simply remain the faithful and watch the world change right in front of you and them remember, you had your chance, directly, and chose the self and your own little world of beliefs rather than seeking the truth; by choice!

Do what I did; remember ‘light is life’ and from there forth never sway to a belief that cannot be physically proven; Trust GOD (the total of existence over the words of faith) and you will (I promise) see ‘the light’………..

 

[Thomas]

All mass, all energy, all time: ONE; the total; the trinity comprising existence: God.

That still falls short in our book — that's not God-as-God but God as apparent as the Cause of All. Your talking of existence, of being ... the God whom we know transcends all that ... God is 'beyond-being' or 'Absolute' (I prefer Anaximander's apeiron (Gk: 'boundless') or the Fathers' arche anarchos (Gk: 'principle without principle').

... the rules of nature; are actually revealed by God (existence).

Yes they are, but what they reveal is nature, not God. They intimate God, but some argue a nature this is itself God, or a mechanism of nature that does not require God — and nor do we declare them mad, ergo we accept that the nature of nature is revealed to the gaze of man by God, but not the nature of the supernatural.

And believing in magic, phenomenon and omnipotence is reasonable and logical?

With regard to magic: I understand the process behind certain phenomena which some declare 'magic' — enough to suggest that what I perceive as 'magic' either most probably has a process I cannot see/understand, or is an illusion.

With regard to omnipotence, as I am conscious of limitation or contingency, I can posit the idea of omnipotence.

A more obvious example is, one can posit omniscience from what one knows. If one allows that there is more to be known that one knows, and therefore one does not know all that there is that can be known, then one must allow that there is that which one does not know, and there is the possibility of that which knows all.

(With regard to phenomena — as the term means 'something perceptible to the senses' you'd have to clarify that, unless you're saying there is no such thing as sensory perception.)

And what happened to Moses; Why did Confucius spend so much time alone; how many disciples did Jesus have? Galileo, Copernicus, Darwin….. or even Bill Gates….

False argument. Alone-nes is no guarantor of truth or inspiration.

... all because People are so stuck on ‘their own minds’ ...

Yet you have no way of knowing if you yourself are 'stuck in your own mind'.

Thomas

 

[Bishadi]

Originally Posted by Bishadi
All mass, all energy, all time: ONE; the total; the trinity comprising existence: God

That still falls short in our book — that's not God-as-God but God as apparent as the Cause of All. Your talking of existence, of being ... the God whom we know transcends all that ... God is 'beyond-being' or 'Absolute' (I prefer Anaximander's apeiron (Gk: 'boundless') or the Fathers' arche anarchos (Gk: 'principle without principle').

Have you seen the boundless?

And then if all existence is within existence; then where is you isolated God.
It seems to think you are separate from God is Hell itself; per scripture of course.

Originally Posted by Bishadi
... the rules of nature; are actually revealed by God (existence).

Yes they are, but what they reveal is nature, not God.

again… talking God as other from existence; still isolating yourself and relying on ‘supernatural’ rather than truth or reality; just ‘hell’ by isolated oneself in faith..

You lie to yourself (and everyone on the forum) to maintain faith…..

A more obvious example is, one can posit omniscience from what one knows. If one allows that there is more to be known that one knows, and therefore one does not know all that there is that can be known, then one must allow that there is that which one does not know, and there is the possibility of that which knows all.

Everything ever done to ‘existence’ is forever imposed to existence; God knows all. In which if each generations has people experiencing and conveying into words, they the next generation has a little bit of the ‘realities’ of that period (knowledge transcends time). To comprehend that knowledge has evolved throughout the generations; then God is providing that knowledge.

And eventually in time; the revealing unfolds; By God!

(With regard to phenomena — as the term means 'something perceptible to the senses' you'd have to clarify that, unless you're saying there is no such thing as sensory perception.)

so the senses tell us all that once life leaves a body, that inanimate mass, will not walk again; seems good to trust perception.

The moon goes around the earth; but a long time ago it was not understood that way; knowledge evolves removing phenomena from understanding of reality.

Trust God, not the beliefs of men.

If you are supposed to know the truth By God, then you will be honest when you know it; otherwise, you are living in your own mind of beliefs.

Beliefs are for fools; truth only operates in ONE fashion and the total of existence (God) reveals it but who is willing to trust the very existence that we experience?

Sure is not the religious believers; they still believe the lies of men!


If someone was to walk and have knowledge that could assist; what question would you ask?

 

[Thomas]

The same with you; do you intent to continue the quest for the truth, for the next generation or not?

That's what I'm doing ... It's an integral aspect of the science of theology.

Your internet comments seem like a rant based on the media.

No. Just common sense.

Fact is more knowledge is available by the internet than you could find in the library of congress; with the ability to search and disseminate without having to turn paper pages.

And so is more falsehood, error and utter nonsense ... and all without any filter or discrimination ... so my local library, poor as it is, is more reliable than the internet because at least it tries to observe the difference between fact and fiction.

More can be absorbed simply by doing (via internet) than in any other format on earth!

It's not quantity that counts, but quality. I use it all the time in my studies, I contribute to it ... but I treat it with respect, which means I do not rely on it without reservation.

+++

Man wrote down everything man said God did. Once you realize that fact then you can realize your other comment

I'm fully aware that men wrote down what God said and did. We call it a testimony ... and Good News (gospel) ... we see no logical reason to assume a testimony is false because man is its author. If its testimony is true, then we also see it is guaranteed by that to which it testifies ... bit of a Catch 22 argument I know, but the point is that because man wrote something does not make it false, if you say that, then you must allow that what you say is equally false.

At the very least you are obliged to accept that because you are the human author then you might be wrong — by which you defeat yourself.

+++

God made the world; Good the world existence within the ONE (trinity)

That's not logical.

God made the world.
Therefore GFod is prior to His creation.
Ergo there was a time when God was, and the world was not.
Ergo the world is not God, any more than God is the world.

Here's a reasonable and logical deduction for you:
1 - There is that which is not created, and creates.
2 - There is that which is created, and creates.
3 - There is that which is created, and does not create.
4 - There is that which is not created, and does not create.
1 and 4, at least, lie beyond the scope of empirical determination, but not of reason. John Scottus Eriugena came up with that in the 9th century, based on the science of theology he had received.

God made the rules: and in nature we can see them but men are fallible in comprehending ‘the rules’

OK.

Man broke the rules; yep, before ‘consciousness’ man was instinctive (like monkeys) and when man became ‘self’ (choice was born

If man was not conscious he is not responsible nor is he culpable, so from a Christian point of view, I don't know where you got that from, but it's not an argument that can be applied to Christianity because from our point of view it's a false premise.

adams apple story)

No, that's not it. In the Adam story, it's blinding obvious that man is in possession of a rational intellect prior to the Fall.

then he covered himself (fig leaf/selfish pride)

The leaves symbolise shame, not pride. Pride was prior.

and was banished from the garden. (he began to think himself better or separate from nature)

The banishment, indeed the whole story, explains the cause of the separation, which cannot be discerned subsequently, by virtue of the fall itself.

Therefore the fault is with man,

That's the way the story goes.

the offence is against God ……… and therefore the religions are inconsistent with reality, sharing false realities that are now to a point in which the religious believers (Judaism/Islam) are about to begin global war based on the foolish beliefs of faith.

Not the religions ... the men ... global war is no part of the religion (not Christianity, anyway) ... but then men will always find reasons to go to war ...

A wisdom is a wisdom even on the tongue of a fool.
A foolishness is still a foolishness, even on the tongue of the wise.

Thomas

 

[Bishadi]

Originally Posted by Bishadi
The same with you; do you intent to continue the quest for the truth, for the next generation or not?

That's what I'm doing ... It's an integral aspect of the science of theology

If the religion has all the answers then there is nothing to improve.

Your science is in discrediting reality with faith observance; great for an inquisition.

Originally Posted by Bishadi

Fact is more knowledge is available by the internet than you could find in the library of congress; with the ability to search and disseminate without having to turn paper pages.

And so is more falsehood, error and utter nonsense ... and all without any filter or discrimination ... so my local library, poor as it is, is more reliable than the internet because at least it tries to observe the difference between fact and fiction

Now you are suggesting ‘you are the teacher’ when reality shares; your sense of compassion and trust for the human cause is bound to ill regard; which would simply perfect your intent. TO suggest that knowledge needs to be ‘discriminated’ is what a preacher would suggest or even the cause of book burning, witch burning and again the roll you seem to fit; an inquisitor from the cruel corruption of the old Christianic beliefs. Clearly put; that makes you a really bad man! I hate liars with such a passion; it will be nice to see the fibbers burn, rather than alchemist who wish to learn.

Let’s be clear; forgiveness can only occur between people as nothing a person imposes to existence is ever undone. You are continuing on a real bad path here on this thread and this ‘I’ is quite aware not even God himself can protect you from being judged by ‘we the people’……..

I'm fully aware that men wrote down what God said and did. We call it a testimony ... and Good News (gospel)

And if the words are misinterpreted who is responsible?

... we see no logical reason to assume a testimony is false because man is its author.

You should when it requires a person to fib. Such as Jesus was not God, nor conveyed that he was GOOD, but men said he was, men call a man God; you better start checking yourself

If its testimony is true, then we also see it is guaranteed

by what a faithful pledge? That is your guarantee; the words written by men?

bit of a Catch 22 argument I know, but the point is that because man wrote something does not make it false, if you say that, then you must allow that what you say is equally false.

the intent is what to observe as the final observance; the intent of religions are to share compassion; there was never an intent to isolate people and teach them fibs and call them truths.

or that a person must accept the fibs or die by God…… it’s a complete abuse of the very rules commandments of the religion itself.

ie….. thou shalt not false witness…..

SO unless you can back up your claim with tangibility, then you have a responsibility to God himself to make sure, you do not represent what you don’t know as fact!

Beliefs are for the complacent; hence the term…… ‘just believe me’ or ‘trust me’…

DO you believe me when I say, there is no such thing as a devil?

That you are living in heaven, right now!

That Jesus was not a god……

That as soon as the knowledge of Understanding (book of life) is shared upon the earth; that the religious beliefs in magic and omnipotence ‘will be over’…..

The children will know life and begin to teach the old; how it really works.

Equality will bring down the corruption of the religions; the first will be last, and the last first.

That means you would probably be unemployed with a bulls eye on your back for continuing to ‘fib’ as the atrocity is forever imposed to God and all of existence.

Forgiveness is from the other guy; this ‘I’ has no compassion for the liars!

 

[Bishadi]

Originally Posted by Bishadi
God made the world; Good the world existence within the ONE (trinity)

That's not logical.

Yes it is….

Evolution is not simply a rule of species, but all mass and energy evolved in time to ‘create’ the earth, the solar system…… and men from monkeys….

Shall we remember knowledge evolves….

God made the world.
Therefore GFod is prior to His creation.

Go to the east and look up the yin and yang…. As to comprehend such reasoning, you need to have a little more education from other points of view.

Here's a reasonable and logical deduction for you:
1 - There is that which is not created, and creates.

Man… as he can plant a tree or contribute of his seed and ‘create’ a new generation. Man created all words.

2 - There is that which is created, and creates.

Words; man created words and then creates a belief within.

3 - There is that which is created, and does not create.

The idea of God being omnipotent. Man created the idea; but ‘that’ idea does not created a thing.

4 - There is that which is not created, and does not create.

Instinct or the nature of existence. Alive, in reality, simply following its own rule; existence itself.

1 and 4, at least, lie beyond the scope of empirical determination, but not of reason. John Scottus Eriugena came up with that in the 9th century,

Easy stuff…. Next

 

[Thomas]

Have you seen the boundless?

Seen with the eye of the body, or the mind, or the soul? Yes, to all three, according to their capacity to see ... and I know enough to know that there is limitation in the perceiving subject, prior to its object. Because the perceiving subject is limited does not mean the object perceived is limited ... therefore one might reasonably see the infinite as underpinning the finite ... any finite.

And then if all existence is within existence; then where is you isolated God.

You see it as isolation, I don't ... I see existence as contingent, and God as Absolute ... so it's not a case of isolation, but of distinction.

Where is God in relation to the material world?
Above it, below it, before it, after it, with it ... As Aquinas demonstrated —
There are things that existed that no longer exist,
There are things that exist, and will exist but do not yet exist.

There is the possibility that everything, at some point, will exist.
There is the possibility that nothing, at some point, will exist.

It is not possible for something to come from nothing of its own accord,
But if nothing can exist,
Indeed if, as science can posit, there was a point of no existence, outside of space and time,
Then that which first causes something to exist is not of itself bound by the laws of existence.

The mystery then is, that That Which Causes All, chooses to make itself known, to 'exist' in some ineffable and utterly transcendent manner so it might be perceived by the senses.

That is a grace, not an obligation.
The obligation is upon us to accept that which is given, that which makes us greater than we are or could possibly be.

I don't see it as separation, but as an acknowledgment of a gift. The Mystery is that It choce to make Itself known, and in a most remarkable manner ... not as Other, but more intimately, as Father.

It seems to think you are separate from God is Hell itself; per scripture of course.

No, that's a subsequent and subjective determination.

... again... talking God as other from existence;

As demonstrated above, God is prior to ... therefore other than.

... still isolating yourself and relying on ‘supernatural’ rather than truth or reality;

The 'supernatural' is the foundation of truth and reality — one might argue that the Supernatural is the only Truth and the only Reality — a Brahmin certainly would.

Here's a conundrum:
What is Real is necessarily True
What is True is not necessarily Real.
Therefore what is 'True Absolutely' transcends reality (as does Absolute Reality), because reality is not Absolute, but by its nature subject to change.
So Absolute Reality is Supernatural.

You lie to yourself (and everyone on the forum) to maintain faith…..

That is beneath you.

+++

And eventually in time; the revealing unfolds; By God!

That's what we call Revelation. By the very fact of attributing it to God, you're attributing it to that which lies beyond the science you preach.

so the senses tell us all that once life leaves a body, that inanimate mass, will not walk again; seems good to trust perception.

Correct ... at the most base level ... but we know that life is not determined solely by its materiality — and a more perfect materiality is possible.

The moon goes around the earth; but a long time ago it was not understood that way; knowledge evolves removing phenomena from understanding of reality.

You seem to have a limited view of phenomena. By definition a phenomena is a thing that exists, wether or not it can be explained is subsequent and does not determine the phenomena itself. Also man's knowledge 'evolves' — but Truth doesn't — so the evolution is man's. And evolution as an ongoing perfection is not guaranteed ... so evolution could lead up a blind alley.

Trust God, not the beliefs of men.

Without men, you would not know of God with any certainty.
Without men, you ould not know a fraction of what you claim to be true — unless you're saying you have proved every fact for yourself.

I rather think you have proved enough from science to take the rest of faith ... you seem to deny faith, and yet it is apparent you live by it ... even if only in faith in your own certainty.

If you are supposed to know the truth By God, then you will be honest when you know it; otherwise, you are living in your own mind of beliefs.

If science itself readily admits it doesn't know all the answers ... on what do you base your certainty that you do? It's dishonest according to your own science.

Beliefs are for fools; ...

Yet you believe in what you believe.

As G.K. Chesterton said, "There's two kinds of people in the world, those with a creed and they know it, and those with a creed and they don't know it."

If someone was to walk and have knowledge that could assist; what question would you ask?

I don't seek knowledge ... I seek wisdom.

The last person I asked about knowledge was an electrician, when discussing the rewiring of my house.

Thomas

 

[Bishadi]

If science itself readily admits it doesn't know all the answers ... on what do you base your certainty that you do?

That since 82’ an idea was read that ‘light is life’…. And since then have completed the homework to find that the sciences have defined energy incorrectly and to simply observe em upon mass as energy itself, then the ‘mechanics’ of physics can unify. Light has no speed limit; t<0 at the individual exchange. Removes the uncertainties of current paradigm.

i.e… you came here to learn (wisdom).. with specific intent, albeit without any idea of what you will capture, the core intent was predetermined.

You see it as isolation, I don't ... I see existence as contingent, and God as Absolute ... so it's not a case of isolation, but of distinction.

Then it means you must be able to describe that ‘distinction’ of that contingent cause with that perception of God.

Or succinctly without identifying the cause, then you’re back to speculation based in belief, rather than truth.

It appears we both agree, the truth only operates ONE WAY.

Where is God in relation to the material world?
Above it, below it, before it, after it, with it ... As Aquinas demonstrated —
There are things that existed that no longer exist,

Name one.

There are things that exist, and will exist but do not yet exist.

The created idea of God.

There is the possibility that everything, at some point, will exist.
There is the possibility that nothing, at some point, will exist.

A circle jerk of words; since no definition of everything/nothing? Means nothing to everything

It is not possible for something to come from nothing of its own accord,

Such that words simply convey Ideas. Hence the word Love… 4 letters combined from nothing to define ‘no thing’ …. Yet having accord in all language.

Indeed if, as science can posit, there was a point of no existence, outside of space and time,
Then that which first causes something to exist is not of itself bound by the laws of existence.

2 points; one using science to defeat itself is foolish. Second; the current laws are incorrect… i.e… entropy…. So it seems to defeat current paradigm with itself can be achieved but if them laws are incorrect, then the pursuit is moot to define that which is true.

The mystery then is, that That Which Causes All, chooses to make itself known, to 'exist' in some ineffable and utterly transcendent manner so it might be perceived by the senses.

Now your talking……

existence (god) “chooses to make itself known, to 'exist' in some ineffable and utterly transcendent manner so it might be perceived by the senses. “

and that pinnacle is when mass comprehends itself. So basically we exist within God, with that ability to define itself…..

 

[Thomas]

If the religion has all the answers then there is nothing to improve.

That's as silly as saying as all truth exists, there's nothing more to be learnt.
Man is in need of improvement — not religion. Religion supplies the means, naturally and supernaturally.

The ancient Greeks postuluated atomic theory ... we continue to refine and improve that theory. It is we who evolve, in understanding ... atoms have not changed since the days of ancient Greece.

The Dalai Llama, when asked about conversion to Buddhism, observed that if Christianity does not work, then the fault lies with you, not Christianity. Swapping religions won't fix the fault, just mask it.

Your science is in discrediting reality with faith observance; great for an inquisition.

Utter nonsense. If you can't argue, don't sling wild accusations — it's a sign of ignorance.

Now you are suggesting ‘you are the teacher’ when reality shares;

More nonsense. If anything, I'm advising discrinmination when basing one's faith in something one read on the internet. Are you suggestion you should believe everything you read?

your sense of compassion and trust for the human cause is bound to ill regard ...

More ignorance.

TO suggest that knowledge needs to be ‘discriminated’ is what a preacher would suggest ...

So you suggest the suspension of the discriminative faculty?

... Clearly put; that makes you a really bad man! I hate liars with such a passion; it will be nice to see the fibbers burn

You accuse me of witch-burning in one breath (a common error, it was the Protestant churches of the Reformation, the Catholics hardly at all) then go on to say how you delight in buolding the pyres yourself for your own brand of 'witch' — nice hypocricy.

Let’s be clear ...

What is amply clear is you really do not have a grasp of the metaphysical aspects of Christian doctrine ... please do not lecture me from the standpoint of your own misinformed opinion.

And if the words are misinterpreted who is responsible?

Again, unless you claim infallibility, you should ask yourself that question before telling others they are wrong.

DO you believe me when I say, there is no such thing as a devil?

No, because you have demonstrated a lack of understanding.

Do you understand I am not obliged to believe in something just because you do? And do you further understand that I find your arguments about Christian doctrine ill-founded and unconvincing?

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

OK. Let's step back:
Let me offer two reasons why I do not accept what you say about Christian doctrine, theology, philosophy or metaphysics.

ONE:
You say: "God made the world; Good the world existence within the ONE (trinity)"

I say that's not logical — and offered my reasoning, which I shall flesh out and repeat:
God is One.
God made the world.

Therefore God — the One — is prior to creation.
Ergo there was a time when God — the One — was, and the world was not.
Ergo the world is not God — the One — any more than God — the One — is the world.

I am saying the creation and the creator are not One in an absolute sense, although they may be one in a secondary and relational sense.

Christian theology actually uses both senses, but the first, the absolute simplicity and integrity of God, is never compromised.

Your definition of God limited God to the manifesting universe — the totality of phenomena. I argue that God is not the phenomena, but the unseen cause.


+++

TWO:
Assuming the trinity to which you refer is the Christian Father, Son and Spirit ... then, the worlds is not part of the Trinity.

Again, assuming you are using Trinity in the Christian sense, a definition stands, so either you have to agree with it and retract that statement, demonstrate that the definition is wrong, or accept that your are wrong.

+++

Thomas

 

[Bishadi]

OK. Let's step back:
Let me offer two reasons why I do not accept what you say about Christian doctrine, theology, philosophy or metaphysics.

ONE:
You say: "God made the world; Good the world existence within the ONE (trinity)"

I say that's not logical — and offered my reasoning, which I shall flesh out and repeat:
God is One.
God made the world.

but that is not how it was written but how you interpret it

Genesis 1 (literal translation)


1In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth --
2the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness [is] on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters, 3and God saith, `Let light be;' and light is.

so to quit fighting logic and look at reality, then 'light' was the first creation...

now if you comprehended how we as consciousness upon mass 'creates' ideas by combining knowledge coupled with understanding that the brain is not an electrical entity but exchanges light within the neural and glial interactions, then you would see that an idea is simply a shade of 'light'....

Therefore God — the One — is prior to creation.

Nope as to now use your definitive style of logic; man existed before genisis was written

Which means (by using your logic) God was created by man.

Your definition of God limited God to the manifesting universe

as well the only definition you can use is what a book 'manifested' and the true fact is that book was written by man.

— the totality of phenomena. I argue that God is not the phenomena, but the unseen cause.

that non-local effect.... magic

or simply a 'spooky action at a distance'.....

Which is easy to comprhend if you understand the trinity as it truly is and then that spooky action is simply a nature occurrence (action) of entanglement

TWO:
Assuming the trinity to which you refer is the Christian Father, Son and Spirit ... then, the worlds is not part of the Trinity.

almost like earth, man and consciousness....... but for some reason, comprehending that all existence is within "mass, energy and time"; the true trinity of existence

does not compute because you still see God as "someone" separate from us, on a thrown, waiving a magic wand.... with, I guess Jesus as his feet and sheep all over the place in a pretty place called heaven, which apparently is not on earth as this place is not good enough to be happy....

I guess not enough supernatural here, since everyone with 2 feet on the ground knows supernatural does not exist, unless faith is involved.

Again, assuming you are using Trinity in the Christian sense, a definition stands,

So basically the nicene council of the 4th century CE is what governs your 'creed' of acceptance? That nothing of basic common sense like realizing mankind created his impression of GOD, willl help you with being honest?

so either you have to agree with it and retract that statement,

Not even remotely.... the trinity is Mass Energy Time.... it's the antiquainted comprehension of the nicene council along with your own 'observed' rendition of scripture, without any integrity to do the actual homework in a sterile environment without beliefs; that has you reasoning on logic biased in contradicting, as well complacent, illogical and most definitely misunderstood representations......

demonstrate that the definition is wrong, or accept that your are wrong.

Not going to happen; each line item reprsented has foundation in reality, knowledge and unbiased compassion for the truth; not a book created by religious right.

Your only argument is that a book by men is infallible and that no one will ever come to this earth who will comprehend more than what that book represents.

Think of this;

if life is light upon mass.

And since life evolved, more mass is combining for the life to impose more action to existence.

Each parent combines a share of their light to make the next generation.

so in a real sense you and your whole lineage from the beginnning of time is alive an within you.

So 2 things occurred;

one you now know you represent your mother and father

2... you now know all your ancestors since the beginning of time are 'alive and in the flesh' as you stand....

so life some good..... do no dishonor your mother and father, by fibbing and misrepresenting what may not be understood....

better still, when you find the one that can raise the fathers to the flesh;

change books and learn

 

[Thomas]

but that is not how it was written but how you interpret it

Well, for one I take issue with your translation, and two, my interpretation is in line with the Tradition that gave us the text in the first place — it's supported by the rest of traditoon, both written and oral. Your interpretation is how you interpret it.

So I compare over 2,000 years of exegesis, philosophy and metaphysics — that's two thousand years of accumulated and refined wisdom — refuted by one man.

Sorry, but for numerous reasons I've demonstrated, I find your thesis unconvinving.

so to quit fighting logic and look at reality, then 'light' was the first creation...

Yes it was. And it was created, by that which is necessarily Itself Uncreated. That's what we call "God".

....... but for some reason, comprehending that all existence is within "mass, energy and time"; the true trinity of existence

Your trinity, not mine. Yours is a trinity of 'how' existence exists, my Trinity is of 'why'. Understanding the why explains the triune nature of creation.

... because you still see God as "someone" separate from us, on a thrown, waiving a magic wand.... with, I guess Jesus as his feet and sheep all over the place in a pretty place called heaven, which apparently is not on earth as this place is not good enough to be happy....

Not my idea at all.

Again, you tell me what I know, and understand, and you are way off the mark. Why ever should I assume your other speculations are any more accurate?

You understand nothing of the doctrine you choose to criticise, you simply assume the most belittling position, and then you expect me to marvel and be converted ...

Thomas

 

[Bishadi]

Well, for one I take issue with your translation, and two, my interpretation is in line with the Tradition that gave us the text in the first place —

And traditions evolve.

Your interpretation is how you interpret it.

With reasoning, compassion and Love. Faith causes wars.

So I compare over 2,000 years of exegesis, philosophy and metaphysics — that's two thousand years of accumulated and refined wisdom — refuted by one man.

and if you go back to stone tablet of almost 7k years back you can find the story of Noah, was that God was said to have floaded the earth because mankind was 'too noisy"......

Sorry, but for numerous reasons I've demonstrated, I find your thesis unconvinving.

and as the sciriptures share; when the truth walks; the young will begin to teach the old....

Why? Because the old stopped seeking and maintained complacency while the truly compassionate continued within the evolution of knowledge (all of Gods works within mankind).....

God does not favor secularizations or the traditional minds that panicked when beliefs contradicted reality... See the inquisitions...

Your trinity, not mine. Yours is a trinity of 'how' existence exists, my Trinity is of 'why'. Understanding the why explains the triune nature of creation.

What is your "why"?

Some dude on a thrown; sitting like Zeus?

Love? Do you really understand what Love is? Unbiased compassion!

so let's step up the educational process here...

To comprehend the 'trinity' as in pure reality; then Love is simply the property of 'light' that combines all mass within existence; is entangled energy.

If 2 systems share exchanges of energy (casimir experiment), the potential increases; which now you can understand gravity and Love are literally entangled energy..

You understand nothing of the doctrine you choose to criticise, you simply assume the most belittling position, and then you expect me to marvel and be converted ...

Thomas

seems more doctrine from more periods in time, culture and creed has been observed; then many know exist.

remember this generation lives with an internet; so to really think about it, a person using this for 20 years now a days could have access to more material, more knowledge and absorb more data, then 500 people could have understood during their whole lifetime, 2000 years ago.

so why read from one book, where there is far more knowledge, BY GOD, now at our fingertips than ever before in all history.

the reality is; the truth will remove religions from being the focus of the education for ever.......

mankind can know they can create

can be resonsible

can create ever lasting life

all the while never needing to believe in magic every again...

OUR CHILDREN, OUR FUTURE.......... expect and deserve the truth......

not what the religious right suggests as reality; them days are over !

 

[cyberpi]

Bishadi, would you say that your knowledge of God, and of religion, and of politics, is on par with your elevated claimed knowledge of science? I have not read very much, but with what little I have... I sense that it is.

 

[Bishadi]

Bishadi, would you say that your knowledge of God, and of religion, and of politics, is on par with your elevated claimed knowledge of science? I have not read very much, but with what little I have... I sense that it is.

if you mentioned something about cardboard that didn't fit with understanding but had a foundation that needed to be addressed; that is what I would be learning today.

so for most of life; learning has been a quest

and with the internet; it does not matter which country, creed or culture; learning is kind of a life long hobby.... and nobody can stop the progression; no bias, teacher, government or preacher can corrupt a true seeker

and the very first subject that caused a 16 year old kid to make the promise of all promises was that 'life' and exactly 'how it works' was never completed in all of history; so I did the homework; nothing special just commtted with absolute integrity to the work.

the religions simply intrigue me with how much of what they said is true; if observed in the 'light' of understanding

which purely means to comprehend how light works upon mass, observing her properties as well how light combines all mass/time; then the esoteric parables and representations of the religions make real sense.

It is the most beautiful and wonderous thing any could ever wish for; to Understand.