God as One

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Fork, Sep 16, 2013.

  1. PsychoticEpisode It is very dry in here today Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,452
    Is this your thinking also, that man formulated a god without prior knowledge of one or did God introduce himself first? Why isn't it written in Genesis that Adam's first words upon meeting God were, "Hey, I figured you had to exist"?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,419
    Simply because Adam is a part of God within a human form. God breathed life into the body He created from nature.
    There is simply no existence without God, and the original sin is, forgetting that and acting upon it.

    jan.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    It is mentioned in Genesis that there was a time when men started praying to God. Before that maybe they didn't care.


    Genesis 4:26 "King James Bible
    And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. PsychoticEpisode It is very dry in here today Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,452
    I think it may be more of a favorable argument for those who support theism to actually know that man thought of God before meeting Him. One could argue that all the events that occurred on Earth were part of God's plan, IOW's He doesn't introduce Himself until someone rationalizes He's there. I think that is more sound than Biblical accounts. Surprised no one has ever picked up on that in your camp.
     
  8. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,419
    wegs,

    I don't think so, and I don't see how you think that.
    If you allow yourself to think so, then it would seem that the systematic process of deletion, of God (One without a second) has begun in your mind.

    I understand that your need to doggedly stick to the idea of one microscopic aspect of 'religion', a process that in it's pure form, is the only way for a conditioned soul to realize him/herself, and him/herself in relation to the ''One'' (God), that does not conduct itself in such a way that one can achieve this goa, is integral in maintaining your idea. Because by such an elimination you can rest assured, in your mindset that the world is a place that corresponds to how you would like it to be, as opposed to how it is.
    If there are enough of you (which at some point there will be), the only redeeming factor of life (God/self-realization) will become so faint, that for the majority of souls, there will be no chance, or hope of redemption. This world will become a very dark place.

    jan.
     
  9. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,419
    Can you explain how it is possible for man to think of God, to the point that it permeates every single human consciousness up to this very day, and will continue to do so unless forcibly removed by human endeavour?
    Everything that man has created either changes drastically, to the point of non-recognition or memory, or becomes wiped out due to changing circumstances. Nothing we do, lasts. That is not only our trademark, but it is the very characteristic of nature. Everything is constantly changing.

    Of course God has introduced Himself. We wouldn't be wasting our time talking about whether or not God exists if He hadn't.
    Rationalizing God is what atheistic entities do (of course if they have the capacity). There has to be a number one for all the other numbers, and divisions of numbers to exist. There has to be something from which everything comes from. There has to be a beginning in order to understand how it is that we exist with certain abilities. This doesn't even come into question unless we ourselves bring it. But why do we bring it? Rationalizing God is us clinging on to our humanity, but we are effectively all in the same boat.

    Are you prepared to listen to other accounts of the Bible, than the current Christian one?
    Or are you satisfied with the Christian account, only?

    jan.
     
  10. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    Sure. First just go convert all of those people to your personal belief. Then you'l be able say it's one big happy club. In the mean time, some of them are killing each other based on the conviction that's it's not the same God. Besides some of the ones you mention are polytheists. There probably are very few surviving American Indians who retain their ancestral religion after centuries of meddling and atrocities against them by Christians. However suppose you found one who told you the Great Wolf scattered the stars across the sky and the River Spirit gave life to the corn seed. And so on. Then bring us the Hindu who will connect the thousands of gods and goddesses they worship as your "God". Suppose they choose Brahman for your creator God. But then there are the other two aspects of Brahman-Shiva and Vishnu. Are you going to tell us these are the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? No way! You're not seriously going to tell us these people all believe in the same God. That would be ludicrous.

    These are all pieces of cultural baggage from ancient and usu. primitive cultures who were dumb as dirt. And all of these billions of modern folks who have so much knowledge available to inform them are so sure that following some old numbskull beliefs from before the Dark Ages is going to bring them closer to truth? It's ludicrous. The whole thing is one enormous sham.
     
  11. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    That's enshrining the logic of Aristotle (a scientist*, be careful) which is one of the man-made ideas that's worn itself out.

    During the last century it's gradually become evident that time is created in the Big Bang. This means there can be no cause for creation. Not even God can act outside of time, since any action would be suspended indefinitely without the tick of the clock. You could tell us God simply starts the clock when he wants to create, but that won't cut it either, since that requires the concurrent creation of space, and if that's the case, the expansion you call creation has already begun. You can't place God before the event no matter how hard you try.

    ----
    *and known to consort with atheists
     
  12. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,733
    At the end of the day, you are welcome to think my "version" of faith is in error. But, this site has rules and one of them is to not be dogmatic and "preachy." You can start a website of your own if you choose. But, it is preaching when you tell posters, atheists and believers alike, that what they believe is "wrong."

    One thing to have a healthy exchange but when it becomes a lecture on the part of one or some posters in hopes of leading people to convert their thinking, that is evangelism. And this site has a rule against that.
     
  13. Fork Banned Banned

    Messages:
    319
    Reality is the cause of reality. I.e. it is self-caused.

    Yes, it does. Time is created the moment God creates Himself.
     
  14. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,430
    LOL. So, you don't even know the meaning of the word 'preaching'? :bravo:
     
  15. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,733
    This is why preaching is ill advised here. I believe in God, and what you say here, is not believed by all believers.
    Define...'creates Himself?'

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. Fork Banned Banned

    Messages:
    319
    The moment or instant God thought Himself into existence space and time were created. There was no other before Him.
     
  17. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,733
    To those who are attempting to evangelize:

    What you may fail to realize is…this site doesn’t need to have an open section for ‘religion discussion.’ The fact that it does is a hospitable thing, so that people can freely discuss (within reason) …various faiths, and have healthy discussions. But, what often happens is that when people continue to push the envelope or cross well-defined boundaries, secular sites will often omit religious discussion, completely. (It becomes therefore a bannable offense to discuss it) So, be thankful you have a site that welcomes diversity of opinion, but don’t be so arrogant that you think this is your personal pulpit.
     
  18. PsychoticEpisode It is very dry in here today Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,452
    As I said in a previous post, god was once a nuclear furnace. I think originally God was the most logical scientific answer to that which could not be explained. I think that humans have had the question of 'how did we get here' on their minds longer than 'there is a god.' God(s) was the answer that fit for centuries and until recently was holding strong. Like Rob you can only hope you are right which does not allow you to judge anything connected to your beliefs as factual. Before you speak on God you must make the disclaimer that you only hope the information is correct.

    I can't believe that you believe in God because He introduced Himself. Scripture is not the primary belief, in reality it is another person's account that you believe first. You cannot believe in God unless you believe your fellow human beings. If you believe a theist then why can't you believe an atheist? I'm all for you believing what you want. I'm not for you when you try to pass it off as gospel.

    I've listened to many accounts of the Bible et al. I hear it regularly, I keep my thoughts to myself when around the people I am assisting but an open forum gives me a chance to exercise my right to speak. I'm not satisfied with any Biblical account because people are being led to think it's all factual when at best it's nothing more than a cute story.
     
  19. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,419
    weg,

    Oh really! You described posts 20 and 21 as ''preachy'' and ''evangelical'', and your definition of ''preachy and evangelical'' is .... ''But, it is preaching when you tell posters, atheists and believers alike, that what they believe is "wrong.'' So please explain in what way these two posts are as you described?

    Again, please explain how these two posts fall into your definition of preaching and/or evangelism?

    jan.
     
  20. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,419
    wegs,

    But it does, and it is called ''Religion'', meaning we discuss all aspects of ''Religion''.

    Which is exactly what this thread is proposing, the fact that it puts you and others in a vulnerable position (if you decide to just go with it instead of making false accusations), is not the fault of the thread starter. His perpective is entirely reasonable.


    Why, thank you kindly ma'am!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    jan.
     
  21. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    You might be considered a friend by the followers of Ra, Helios, Mithra, etc. etc.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Exactly. The cults of antiquity created gods to explain phenomena for which they had no science.

    There is also some evidence that primitive people consider the world around them sacred, powerful and dangerous. They will ascribe powers to the most innocuous objects and creatures because they seem to bring luck (robins being the harbingers of fertility perhaps) or they can kill (imagine early encounters with hemlock) or just because they form an integral part of the ecosystem. Evidently this gave rise to animism (giving a persona to the thing held sacred) and perhaps some of the anthropomorphic qualities of a vital being (the wind speaks, the water laughs). Once that's in place they've projected their sense of presence with nature into a pantheon of gods. The next logical thing is to notice how some powers compete with each other (the sun and moon kill each other) and some powers overwhelm all others (rain obscures the sun, but only briefly; the sun evaporates the water and prevails unoccluded most days of the month). Logic would dictate a pecking order, probably found to be similar to any hierarchy in their own tribe if they happened to be organized like that. Eventually the chief god would be the one that created the others. Thus the creation of the land, sea and sky could just as well have been imagined as the births of these gods/goddesses. That just leaves the question of everything else, plus humans. Imagine some tribe living in isolation for all of their collective memory until one day they encounter some other tribe that has entered their domain. It would require re-examining the method of how those other people were created. I like the way the Bible does this by creating patriarchs that father entire kingdoms (like the tribes of Israel) or the sons of Noah repopulating the world as if each son fathers an entire continent. I don't mean I literally like it, but I like the way it illustrates the primitive mind.

    Interesting to hear your position. You are expressing a logical mind, a respect for tolerance, some sense of being restrained from stating your view (because your clients/employers might not be as tolerant as you?) and a kind of tenacity or strength to prevail. Good for you.

    BTW I recall long ago there was apparently a widely held view that the (Sumerian? Akkadian?) people left some clay tablets containing a list of names of kings that had preceded their written history. Among these was a king named Adam. I have searched for this material recently and haven't found it. I don't know if the science behind that has changed or what. But I thought I'd mention it since it also shows how some very primary ideas on which a religion is founded can turn out to have been inherited from some older culture. Clearly the Canaanites were not the first civilization. They report to come from Ur which is not far from Baghdad. And indeed the Sumerians had established Ur as an important city long before we hear of any culture that might represent the ancestors of the Israelites. Just thought I'd mention these things since they crossed my mind as I was thinking about what you said.
     
  22. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,733
    My comment in post #49 was in direct reply to you.

    Again, you are welcome to think that my ‘version’ of faith is in error, but that is nothing but your opinion based on your own spiritual/faith beliefs. Period. You shouldn’t be telling me what to think, and what not to think. And you shouldn’t be asking me how I can arrive at certain conclusions. You and I have had very healthy (I think?) exchanges in your thread relating to evolution. But, we disagree on some things. Nothing wrong with that, but when you start posting that I’m wrong to think as I do, then you are preaching, and not ‘discussing,’ anymore.

    Relating to the two posts, it’s ‘wrong’ to illustrate spiritual/faith beliefs as facts. No offense to Fork, but that’s what posts 20 and 21 appear like, to be posting faith beliefs as facts. A simple way to correct that would be to merely state…’this is my belief…’ and then continue on.
     
  23. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,733
    okay



    It doesn't put me in a vulnerable position. This is YOU preaching now. See? Case in point.
    It is the fault of the thread starter, any thread starter, if he/she is posting spiritual BELIEFS as facts. That is called evangelizing. It is against forum rules.


    No problem.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page