Guidance

[Thomas]

Here we go with the Christian apologetics. Why is it Christians don't even know their own book?

Oh, forgive me. I'm Catholic, we're notorious for never having read the Bible.

A Satanist shouldn't have to explain this to them.

Actually, although it was not an explanation, one of the most profound statements (in terms of its effect on me) was in an essay by a Tibetan Buddhist. I take my inspirations where I find them and have come to realise that indeed, the Lord moves in mysterious ways.

These are direct declarations, but there are other verses that allude to his declaration as King of Jews.

Ah, sadly you're hoist on your own petard, as they say, and my hopes for enlightenment dashed. Neither Matthew 21:5 nor Revelations 19:16 are direct declarations.

Matthew 21:5 is the scribe quoting the prophet Zechariah (9:9), not Jesus. Revelation 19:16 is a prophecy of future events ...
Quite simple errors, really ... you should check your facts before adopting such a high-handed tone.

According to the Gospels, the Sanhedrin ... dragged him before Pilate to be tried for blasphemy—for claiming, they said, to be King of the Jews

Ah, again, let me correct you here:
Technical point – blasphemy is specifically an offence in the religious sphere, and this indeed was what the trial before the Sanhedrin was about – but the blasphemy was claiming divine status, not the kingship of the Jews. When the Jews took Him to Pilate, it was not for claiming divinity, the accusation is that Jesus claims to be King of the Jews, the implication being He'll lead a revolt against Roman rule. He refutes that accusation to Pilate's satisfaction, hence Pilate sends Him back to the Sanhedrin.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..When the Jews took Him to Pilate, it was not for claiming divinity, the accusation is that Jesus claims to be King of the Jews, the implication being He'll lead a revolt against Roman rule..

Yes, I agree with that.

 

[wil]

Well we'd have to discuss the particular heresies Jesus is purported to preach.

Lol...not to Christians!

You would probably have to convert to understand.

 

['Amir Alzzalam]

Oh, forgive me. I'm Catholic, we're notorious for never having read the Bible.


Actually, although it was not an explanation, one of the most profound statements (in terms of its effect on me) was in an essay by a Tibetan Buddhist. I take my inspirations where I find them and have come to realise that indeed, the Lord moves in mysterious ways.

Ha! On both of those . . . ok

Ah, sadly you're hoist on your own petard, as they say, and my hopes for enlightenment dashed. Neither Matthew 21:5 nor Revelations 19:16 are direct declarations.

Matthew 21:5 is the scribe quoting the prophet Zechariah (9:9), not Jesus. Revelation 19:16 is a prophecy of future events ...
Quite simple errors, really ... you should check your facts before adopting such a high-handed tone.

If you want to be technical about it, there is not one letter in any version of the Christian bible that is 'directly' from the Naz. The entire book is hearsay.

 

[Ella S.]

If you want to be technical about it, there is not one letter in any version of the Christian bible that is 'directly' from the Naz. The entire book is hearsay.

Bait and switch and shift those goalposts

 

['Amir Alzzalam]

Bait and switch and shift those goalposts

More like a fact

 

[Thomas]

If you want to be technical about it, there is not one letter in any version of the Christian bible that is 'directly' from the Naz.

Well that's one scholars labour over.

The entire book is hearsay.

Somewhat a pejorative reading, testimony is fairer, I'd say.

And really, if you think about it, no-one's sacra doctrina is beyond such criticisms.

 

[Cino]

Well that's one scholars labour over.


Somewhat a pejorative reading, testimony is fairer, I'd say.

And really, if you think about it, no-one's sacra doctrina is beyond such criticisms.

A counter-example would be the central text of the Thelemites. They require a faksimile of the original manuscript to accompany any "valid" edition.

 

['Amir Alzzalam]

Somewhat a pejorative reading, testimony is fairer, I'd say.
And really, if you think about it, no-one's sacra doctrina is beyond such criticisms.

That's not really an answer/explanation now is it? You would think such a huge god would supply clearer comprehension of its existence.

 

[RJM]

You would think such a huge god would supply clearer comprehension of its existence.

Perhaps such a huge God knows that a person looking at even a single blade of grass, and to the web of life and whirling of galaxies, is left in no doubt it did not bring itself into being by cosmic accident from 'nothing' -- regardless?

Why is another question?

 

['Amir Alzzalam]

Perhaps such a huge God knows that a person looking at even a single blade of grass, and to the web of life and whirling of galaxies, is left in no doubt it did not bring itself into being by cosmic accident from 'nothing' -- regardless?

Why is another question?

I think that is just wishful thinking bordering on ignorance.

 

[Thomas]

That's not really an answer/explanation now is it? You would think such a huge god would supply clearer comprehension of its existence.

Actually, I wouldn't. If God proved His existence beyond doubt, human freedom would be stripped away in an instant.

 

[RJM]

I think that is just wishful thinking bordering on ignorance.

Well, I am not ignorant of the science, if that's what you mean? I'm at odds with the current push of science, which has moved on from quite rightly not allowing 'religion' to influence scientific findings or questions -- to aggressive and militant atheism.

Science unravels the how. There is a vast amount that science does not know, and I believe there will always be far more to know. The universe remains a mystery. We unravel around the edges. The great scientists like Newton and Einstein and Pauli (and keep adding names) were theists who although they opposed conventional religion, nevertheless believed they were unravelling the 'mind of God'. Now we have Richard Dawkings.

Anyway, we will continue to disagree. But I do believe my opinion is not really grounded in ignorance of the science ...

 

[Cino]

Do things or entities have to exist to be causal in our everyday lives?

Take money... it doesn't exist, only representations of it exist such as bank notes or figures in a bank's accounting books. But it is undeniably causal to us modern-day human beings.

Our meaning-making capacity is not to be underestimated. It shapes our world in very tangible ways.

After all, it was us who came up with ideas like "nothing" and "cosmic accident".

 

[RJM]

Our meaning-making capacity is not to be underestimated. It shapes our world in very tangible ways.

Yes, of course. But a lot of stuff comes in from out there, imo. It cannot all be dismissed. I would like to know your reaction to @Namaste Jesus post #9 in the 'Delusion' thread
https://www.interfaith.org/community/threads/20158/#post-359665

 

[RJM]

After all, it was us who came up with ideas like "nothing" and "cosmic accident".

It is also us who come up with concepts like 'electron'. We have no idea of what it really is, just that it works.

To me it's like choosing 'middle C' as the (quantum) basis for western music, and extending the whole of the rest of it from there. It works as a pattern -- but it is not the final definition of what music is: there are many other sorts of music, that may sound 'weird' to the ear trained in the western scale and pattern, but which are entirely valid. It's like watching a game without knowing the rules. We have our Standard Model based on the quantum of light that works for us, but it could all be seen differently by someone with a view starting from a different 'middle C'

We only have our own experience on which to base any concept. The Standard Model does not define reality? It is one posdible take on reality

Does that make any sense?

 

[Cino]

Yes, of course. But a lot of stuff comes in from out there, imo. It cannot all be dismissed. I would like to know your reaction to @Namaste Jesus post #9 in the 'Delusion' thread
https://www.interfaith.org/community/threads/20158/#post-359665

I liked that one a lot! Dreams are fascinating. Meaningful events are fascinating. I think it is us who create the meaning of such events. But that doesn't make them less meaningful.

We only have our own experience on which to base any concept
The Standard Model does not define reality?
Does that make any sense?

Yes, I agree fully. Some experiences follow strict, predictable patterns, such as the ones we use to formulate the standard model. Others are not really predictable, such as dreams which in hindsight were precognitive.

In both cases it's us who assign the meaning to the events, I believe.

 

[powessy]

Perhaps such a huge God knows that a person looking at even a single blade of grass, and to the web of life and whirling of galaxies, is left in no doubt it did not bring itself into being by cosmic accident from 'nothing' -- regardless?

Why is another question?

As I try to dig deeper and deeper into my mind, I find it is more likely “ALL” did start from nothing. I think we can even see this within ourselves as a function of the brain . I see it as two distinct thoughts that arose. What is nothing? And, what is something? As thoughts became something they were very sporadic only getting time(god) once and awhile to figure themselves out. As gods mind grew all thoughts wanted time but god was time only and not all minds got time all the time, so he taught all his thoughts inside of nothing to become something all the time. This allowed nothing to become nothing only with something inside of it. Basically it seems god created nothing so we could become something here all the time.

Just thoughts about thoughts.

powessy

 

[RJM]

As I try to dig deeper and deeper into my mind, I find it is more likely “ALL” did start from nothing. I think we can even see this within ourselves as a function of the brain . I see it as two distinct thoughts that arose. What is nothing? And, what is something? As thoughts became something they were very sporadic only getting time(god) once and awhile to figure themselves out. As gods mind grew all thoughts wanted time but god was time only and not all minds got time all the time, so he taught all his thoughts inside of nothing to become something all the time. This allowed nothing to become nothing only with something inside of it. Basically it seems god created nothing so we could become something here all the time.

Just thoughts about thoughts.

powessy

Nothing can ever come from nothing because nothingness isn't emptiness or lack of something. Nothing is not a womb or a hole or a void in existence -- it can't give rise to anything because it is just not there, imo.

 

[RJM]

The nothing inside an empty jug is a void that can be filled. The nothingness between planets is empty space, but it still can be travelled and measured. Even an invisible pink unicorn is a description of an imaginary quality. But nothing has no abilities or qualities; it cannot be described in any way because it is just not there. And therefore (in nature) something can never come from nothing, nor can something ever replace or fill nothing, imo