1. It was perfect.
2. Something went wrong. What exactly this wrong is, no one is certain.
3. God wanted to restart everything, but conceded to "redeem", and so destroyed some, chose some, and had a plan, executed the contingency.
4. When the thing in #2 finally reaches its ultimate, God will make things new. In between here lies all the 1000 years of reign and wars, etc.
This produces a whole lot of issues as well, but the primary question lingers: "Why are things the way they are?"
Science and reason gives an answer. Theology gives another. Ancient Aliens give another. New age movement gives another.
I mean, why do I have to poop? Why go thirsty? Why is man made to be dependent on things the earth provide, and yet humans can't seem to make things abundant for each other? Why does humans have to go to war based on ideologies? What do humans really want? Why are we so afraid of each other that we can't trust each other and therefore must put laws against each other and ourselves?
Why are we so greedy? Why do we hate, and lose sleep over such anguish? Why do we spend billions over blasting people dead instead of spending billions to speed up research that could benefit us all?
Why do we have to struggle in a single planet that can't seem to grow rice or corn or whatever in a day? Why is everything is so easily destroyed and corrupted that we humans have to make things in order to ensure our abundance and prosperity and well being?
Why is our global economy as such today when it's obvious we can make 10000 years worth of products in debt?
Why is the human dominion so terrible, even to itself?
Who started this madness? How do we end it? Why should we? Why do we care so much?
And lastly, why is the chatroom smiley called "pedoSmile"?
When you read the Gospels, you really don't feel anything? Do you feel like the words echo inside you, or do you feel nothing but just like reading any other book?
Or do you feel some form of resistance in your perception or some kind of blockage or difficulty?
Honestly please.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
Is it possible to break down a hydrogen atom without causing nasty things? I'm asking to understand if it's possible to collapse the universe and still preserve the laws we have now.
Also, the Higgs field, I've always felt there has to be this kind of "sea" where everything "floats". But can you guys explain what this is in a "for dummies" kind of way?
In any case, whatever you do, do not permit the UN to pass the anti-blasphemy bullshit. Or is it too late?
And please, defend the constitution of the USA. Your heroes have aided us in the past because of what you guys stand for back then. Do not allow it to go into the drain.
Thanks.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
Doesn't natural selection mean that the way nature is formed, in order to provide suitable conditions, must first presuppose an outcome in order to predict that the initial law and subsequent laws that function along the initial law and all prior laws such that the process would create the exact process (as a whole) so that the earth would become as it is and was and all subsequent ages of the earth?
Doesn't this then have to extend towards the entire cosmos so that what the laws operate on must always be there in the first place and must exactly be at an exact amount, so that the law itself will not break any subsequent forms the law itself should assemble?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Problem with persistent laws/Preexisting laws either hierarchical or communal, or both and the big bang:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The idea that laws existed as eternal when the universe was still a small compact sphere or something like that, is that the laws cannot be there because it cannot operate. Laws are laws because they are observed through the operation of things (or how things are going). And this is only true if the said operations are operating as they are (or in this case, should).
Therefore, the laws must have "evolved" as well, so that at every generation of the universe, the laws operating in those spans were supporting the stages and subsequent stages after them, where every subsequent form comes along a new law or another form of the previous law.
If the laws then are seen to be taking in functions as variables, then we must say that the fundamental law must create these functions so that it can take them and process them.
In other words, either I am terrible at speaking mathematically, or there's something I want you to know...
Nah, there's no separation going on. It's a mental exercise, and probably more beneficial in the long run. Passions expressed have not actually gone into extremes just yet. :)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
Very true, they are not the same and are contrary to each other.
Regarding your question:
"Your God deliberately chooses an inefficient path to reveal himself in a manner that prefers the unreasonable."
Not so. Becoming human is the most efficient way to describe Himself. Miracles to display power and authority over things (Jesus said something about this through saying something like, take note that these miracles have been done so you will believe. Or something in those lines). His character and person to display God's character and person. His ministry to describe his intentions. etc. Most importantly his Resurrection to display rightful position and ultimate authority over what binds everything.
The occurring inefficacy of said things (or perception thereof at least) also attests to the "reasonableness" that others see.
God, in my view, chooses to not persistently show people "magic tricks" because people will say, "aha! God is limited to the laws!" Instead, he always shows to be the driver of things from a position hidden from the surface. Take note that Jesus' miracles were once put up against him as Satanic powers being employed.
On 1/3 only:
Doesn't really matter how many will believe. In fact, many of the 1/3 will at least turn away at some point. But those who trust in Him, as He said, He will never cast aside/abandon.
On revelation lying:
It is said that if a prophet says something and it doesn't come to pass then the said prophet is false. My advice on the things that on this line of thinking is simple:
It's dangerous to trust in "miracles and signs", especially in our times, as it was before. Gold dust, Kundalini, proofs, etc. and more that are said to be so convincing people will turn away from believing. (you know what I'm talking about).
Keep trusting on Jesus, and be vigilant. Watch and gain affirmation as the world takes the path it takes.
Also, take note that the idea, "God is the Universe; The Universe is God" is as old as paganism is. I think Gnosticism took this path. Please be careful and check that you are not following pagan paths. There are reasons why God chose simple people to deliver a simple truth.
"I have some imaginary dice in my hands. I decide what properties they have.
Explain to me the difference between your view of God and my imaginary dice and the difference in properties that something "not bound by definition" is different from "imaginary".
I'm not really expecting an answer to be honest. If you openly state that you make things up about your god as you go along, you're outside the realm of reason and discussion about it is futile."
---------------------------------------------
The truth about the matter is obvious. In a general consensus, no one has an exact idea what God is. My point is what I have said posts ago:
Since no one has an exact picture and must only rely on "revealed" things about Him, and if everything is created by Him, then as we know things, our definition of God will always go back as it has began long ago which is "revelation". The idea that He is beyond all and is unbound and undefinable in our terms have been spoken of ever since.
And I have to say, against all odds, it is God who does the first move to "reveal Himself".
Therefore, you are absolutely right in saying that what I describe of God is 99% wrong, and I admit this. The truth is, I want to know God as well, and meet His Son Jesus Christ and ask all the questions I have.
But I will stand to the end that there is God, and everyone will see this eventually.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
Grad,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Doesn't this just say that God doesn't exist?"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. But only in part. God is not bound by definitions of existing and non-existing (as we perceive it at least). Our definition of existence is bound by what we know. This is why it is hard for us to understand things in the quantum level at the moment.
But in philosophical terms "to exist" meaning "to be" then yes. But still in part.
One way to define God is the "living God". I don't have the exact Aramaic text and translations for these. Those who study the original books may be a good source for this investigation into what really the guys back in those days were talking about.
In our present time, "Emmanuel" or God with us, is our "interaction". There's scuffles about this as well. The youtube of 2000 years ago was as convoluted as our present day youtube.
The best way to conceive of this "existence" is only through the interactions our realm gets with this God. This is where the troubles come from presently. The search of this "interactions" or proof of God's existence.
I believe there will come a time when Jesus' words, the ones where he spoke about the "sign of the end", will become so clear to humanity (though still not all will believe) that it is clear that God does interact on a scale beyond the limitations we are under.
I'm closely looking at the Iran vs Israel trouble, and the eventual unification of the Islamic world. I wish to post a series of videos on youtube about the Anti-Christ in this line of thought, but instead I will leave it up to you guys to decide.
It's ridiculous, but I'll be damned if this thing blows up in our faces with us left unawares:
This is a condensed version:
If you have time, search: "Walid Shoebat End Times Today - Part1" on youtube
I'm not convinced yet, but hey, anything's possible.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
Grad:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"No. If you take away the universe and anything is left over, then you have a multiverse, by definition. In which case, you can take away the following extraneous and redundant properties from your god:
1) Intelligence (god can be a rube-goldberg machine for all we know)
2) Jealousy
3) Genocidal mania
4) Desire for believers to worship you
5) etc."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was speaking of everything (universe or "the heavens and the earth") so yeah, include the multi-verse if necessary. I have to point out though that I haven't subscribed to this concept of multi-verse just yet.
In any case, my point can be appreciated if you take it in the form of visualization like this: Say, we know everything that could possibly be working or at work within the realms we know or do not know, and we take that out, what is left is God.
God is not nothing, as we would perceive. It is important to admit that what we appreciate to be "existing" has at least these attributes:
1. Works and can be defined by functional law
2. Must follow a process or must take time, eternity or infinity is still a concept that assumes time as a function above it.
3. Must have energy (neg or pos) or must have an effect or involvement
4. etc.
(pls forgive my lack of proper terminologies, but I assume what I'm talking about is obvious)
God is "outside" of this. By outside, I mean something like this: when we take out the very foundation of all that could possibly exist (by definition of what we know to be "existing") all that "IS" is God.
This "IS" or this "I AM" then can be understood. Example, you are God, then everything is taken out: your body, time, space, dimension, up, down, left, right, here, there, when, how, etc. and you are left and there is no concept of dimension, thought, feeling, etc.
The concept "all by yourself" or "all is you" then can only be defined given because of the parameters by which our minds and intuition are capable of and are "bound under". When you then would say "I AM", in response to, "who are you?" then makes sense from the perspective of the person you are talking to, and since this conversation is taking place under the realm that we call "where existence takes place".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On properties of God:
Those attributes are, to my current view, perceptions of man. I don't want to write down my explanations on this. I'm still figuring things out. All I know is the new testament apostles do not see Jealousy as a virtue.
Worship and all this stuff has been clarified by Jesus and the apostles. The current understanding of worship and practices are more in the form of paganistic principles rather than what Jesus seems to imply and what the apostles seem to hint at.
In all cases, this area of doctrinal study is widely contested, and it something I am careful not to take from current views.
I can't stand up for God in defense. If people curse God for what he has done (speaking in human terms), then I would say, each people must ultimately bring himself low and wish to not exist. This is why disbelief counts for something.
Regardless, I would live as best I can for the very reason that I have and possible could have, and hope that one day all these struggles and memories of good times, the years and days of how I seem to stride to be more alive each day, etc. will not just vanish and be nothing. And Jesus, Lord, the One who holds the key, who is from the beginning to the end, who came and became one of us, and was risen from the dead by God, can spare my existence from annihilation and give me new life, either it be here in this world today, or in another.
When you strip away all these redundant properties, you are left with a naturalistic multiverse theory. "God" is synonymous with the universe and the laws of nature. "God" could be the impersonal higher dimensional branes. This is the same way that Einstein (an agnostic) used the term "god". I know you guys like to think that god is above space & time & the multiverse & the universe & everything & blah blah blah, but you know what, at this point, you're just making up your own laws of logic that nobody but you subscribes to. This is why God adds nothing to our understanding. You're back at your starting point, that "it's magic".
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My above explanation would argue against this. I hope one day I can explain this view a bit better.
Start at 35 mins.
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
I just want to thank you guys for answering my previous query. Much appreciated.
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
The theology I know about this goes like this:
1. It was perfect.
2. Something went wrong. What exactly this wrong is, no one is certain.
3. God wanted to restart everything, but conceded to "redeem", and so destroyed some, chose some, and had a plan, executed the contingency.
4. When the thing in #2 finally reaches its ultimate, God will make things new. In between here lies all the 1000 years of reign and wars, etc.
This produces a whole lot of issues as well, but the primary question lingers: "Why are things the way they are?"
Science and reason gives an answer. Theology gives another. Ancient Aliens give another. New age movement gives another.
I mean, why do I have to poop? Why go thirsty? Why is man made to be dependent on things the earth provide, and yet humans can't seem to make things abundant for each other? Why does humans have to go to war based on ideologies? What do humans really want? Why are we so afraid of each other that we can't trust each other and therefore must put laws against each other and ourselves?
Why are we so greedy? Why do we hate, and lose sleep over such anguish? Why do we spend billions over blasting people dead instead of spending billions to speed up research that could benefit us all?
Why do we have to struggle in a single planet that can't seem to grow rice or corn or whatever in a day? Why is everything is so easily destroyed and corrupted that we humans have to make things in order to ensure our abundance and prosperity and well being?
Why is our global economy as such today when it's obvious we can make 10000 years worth of products in debt?
Why is the human dominion so terrible, even to itself?
Who started this madness? How do we end it? Why should we? Why do we care so much?
And lastly, why is the chatroom smiley called "pedoSmile"?
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
Question to non-believers:
When you read the Gospels, you really don't feel anything? Do you feel like the words echo inside you, or do you feel nothing but just like reading any other book?
Or do you feel some form of resistance in your perception or some kind of blockage or difficulty?
Honestly please.
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
Debate this guy if you want:
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
"God is limited. Could he make a stone so heavy that he can't lift it? One way or the other, he's limited."
He can but only if he subjects himself to a realm where there is weight and strength and etc. Or our universe for example.
Jesus falls 3x carrying a cross.
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
Is it possible to break down a hydrogen atom without causing nasty things? I'm asking to understand if it's possible to collapse the universe and still preserve the laws we have now.
Also, the Higgs field, I've always felt there has to be this kind of "sea" where everything "floats". But can you guys explain what this is in a "for dummies" kind of way?
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
In any case, whatever you do, do not permit the UN to pass the anti-blasphemy bullshit. Or is it too late?
And please, defend the constitution of the USA. Your heroes have aided us in the past because of what you guys stand for back then. Do not allow it to go into the drain.
Thanks.
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
Doesn't natural selection mean that the way nature is formed, in order to provide suitable conditions, must first presuppose an outcome in order to predict that the initial law and subsequent laws that function along the initial law and all prior laws such that the process would create the exact process (as a whole) so that the earth would become as it is and was and all subsequent ages of the earth?
Doesn't this then have to extend towards the entire cosmos so that what the laws operate on must always be there in the first place and must exactly be at an exact amount, so that the law itself will not break any subsequent forms the law itself should assemble?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Problem with persistent laws/Preexisting laws either hierarchical or communal, or both and the big bang:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The idea that laws existed as eternal when the universe was still a small compact sphere or something like that, is that the laws cannot be there because it cannot operate. Laws are laws because they are observed through the operation of things (or how things are going). And this is only true if the said operations are operating as they are (or in this case, should).
Therefore, the laws must have "evolved" as well, so that at every generation of the universe, the laws operating in those spans were supporting the stages and subsequent stages after them, where every subsequent form comes along a new law or another form of the previous law.
If the laws then are seen to be taking in functions as variables, then we must say that the fundamental law must create these functions so that it can take them and process them.
In other words, either I am terrible at speaking mathematically, or there's something I want you to know...
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
Nah, there's no separation going on. It's a mental exercise, and probably more beneficial in the long run. Passions expressed have not actually gone into extremes just yet. :)
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
Very true, they are not the same and are contrary to each other.
Regarding your question:
"Your God deliberately chooses an inefficient path to reveal himself in a manner that prefers the unreasonable."
Not so. Becoming human is the most efficient way to describe Himself. Miracles to display power and authority over things (Jesus said something about this through saying something like, take note that these miracles have been done so you will believe. Or something in those lines). His character and person to display God's character and person. His ministry to describe his intentions. etc. Most importantly his Resurrection to display rightful position and ultimate authority over what binds everything.
The occurring inefficacy of said things (or perception thereof at least) also attests to the "reasonableness" that others see.
God, in my view, chooses to not persistently show people "magic tricks" because people will say, "aha! God is limited to the laws!" Instead, he always shows to be the driver of things from a position hidden from the surface. Take note that Jesus' miracles were once put up against him as Satanic powers being employed.
On 1/3 only:
Doesn't really matter how many will believe. In fact, many of the 1/3 will at least turn away at some point. But those who trust in Him, as He said, He will never cast aside/abandon.
On revelation lying:
It is said that if a prophet says something and it doesn't come to pass then the said prophet is false. My advice on the things that on this line of thinking is simple:
It's dangerous to trust in "miracles and signs", especially in our times, as it was before. Gold dust, Kundalini, proofs, etc. and more that are said to be so convincing people will turn away from believing. (you know what I'm talking about).
Keep trusting on Jesus, and be vigilant. Watch and gain affirmation as the world takes the path it takes.
Also, take note that the idea, "God is the Universe; The Universe is God" is as old as paganism is. I think Gnosticism took this path. Please be careful and check that you are not following pagan paths. There are reasons why God chose simple people to deliver a simple truth.
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
Eiviyn,
"I have some imaginary dice in my hands. I decide what properties they have.
Explain to me the difference between your view of God and my imaginary dice and the difference in properties that something "not bound by definition" is different from "imaginary".
I'm not really expecting an answer to be honest. If you openly state that you make things up about your god as you go along, you're outside the realm of reason and discussion about it is futile."
---------------------------------------------
The truth about the matter is obvious. In a general consensus, no one has an exact idea what God is. My point is what I have said posts ago:
Since no one has an exact picture and must only rely on "revealed" things about Him, and if everything is created by Him, then as we know things, our definition of God will always go back as it has began long ago which is "revelation". The idea that He is beyond all and is unbound and undefinable in our terms have been spoken of ever since.
And I have to say, against all odds, it is God who does the first move to "reveal Himself".
Therefore, you are absolutely right in saying that what I describe of God is 99% wrong, and I admit this. The truth is, I want to know God as well, and meet His Son Jesus Christ and ask all the questions I have.
But I will stand to the end that there is God, and everyone will see this eventually.
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
Grad,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Doesn't this just say that God doesn't exist?"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. But only in part. God is not bound by definitions of existing and non-existing (as we perceive it at least). Our definition of existence is bound by what we know. This is why it is hard for us to understand things in the quantum level at the moment.
But in philosophical terms "to exist" meaning "to be" then yes. But still in part.
One way to define God is the "living God". I don't have the exact Aramaic text and translations for these. Those who study the original books may be a good source for this investigation into what really the guys back in those days were talking about.
In our present time, "Emmanuel" or God with us, is our "interaction". There's scuffles about this as well. The youtube of 2000 years ago was as convoluted as our present day youtube.
The best way to conceive of this "existence" is only through the interactions our realm gets with this God. This is where the troubles come from presently. The search of this "interactions" or proof of God's existence.
I believe there will come a time when Jesus' words, the ones where he spoke about the "sign of the end", will become so clear to humanity (though still not all will believe) that it is clear that God does interact on a scale beyond the limitations we are under.
I'm closely looking at the Iran vs Israel trouble, and the eventual unification of the Islamic world. I wish to post a series of videos on youtube about the Anti-Christ in this line of thought, but instead I will leave it up to you guys to decide.
It's ridiculous, but I'll be damned if this thing blows up in our faces with us left unawares:
This is a condensed version:
If you have time, search: "Walid Shoebat End Times Today - Part1" on youtube
I'm not convinced yet, but hey, anything's possible.
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
Grad:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"No. If you take away the universe and anything is left over, then you have a multiverse, by definition. In which case, you can take away the following extraneous and redundant properties from your god:
1) Intelligence (god can be a rube-goldberg machine for all we know)
2) Jealousy
3) Genocidal mania
4) Desire for believers to worship you
5) etc."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was speaking of everything (universe or "the heavens and the earth") so yeah, include the multi-verse if necessary. I have to point out though that I haven't subscribed to this concept of multi-verse just yet.
In any case, my point can be appreciated if you take it in the form of visualization like this: Say, we know everything that could possibly be working or at work within the realms we know or do not know, and we take that out, what is left is God.
God is not nothing, as we would perceive. It is important to admit that what we appreciate to be "existing" has at least these attributes:
1. Works and can be defined by functional law
2. Must follow a process or must take time, eternity or infinity is still a concept that assumes time as a function above it.
3. Must have energy (neg or pos) or must have an effect or involvement
4. etc.
(pls forgive my lack of proper terminologies, but I assume what I'm talking about is obvious)
God is "outside" of this. By outside, I mean something like this: when we take out the very foundation of all that could possibly exist (by definition of what we know to be "existing") all that "IS" is God.
This "IS" or this "I AM" then can be understood. Example, you are God, then everything is taken out: your body, time, space, dimension, up, down, left, right, here, there, when, how, etc. and you are left and there is no concept of dimension, thought, feeling, etc.
The concept "all by yourself" or "all is you" then can only be defined given because of the parameters by which our minds and intuition are capable of and are "bound under". When you then would say "I AM", in response to, "who are you?" then makes sense from the perspective of the person you are talking to, and since this conversation is taking place under the realm that we call "where existence takes place".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On properties of God:
Those attributes are, to my current view, perceptions of man. I don't want to write down my explanations on this. I'm still figuring things out. All I know is the new testament apostles do not see Jealousy as a virtue.
Worship and all this stuff has been clarified by Jesus and the apostles. The current understanding of worship and practices are more in the form of paganistic principles rather than what Jesus seems to imply and what the apostles seem to hint at.
In all cases, this area of doctrinal study is widely contested, and it something I am careful not to take from current views.
I can't stand up for God in defense. If people curse God for what he has done (speaking in human terms), then I would say, each people must ultimately bring himself low and wish to not exist. This is why disbelief counts for something.
Regardless, I would live as best I can for the very reason that I have and possible could have, and hope that one day all these struggles and memories of good times, the years and days of how I seem to stride to be more alive each day, etc. will not just vanish and be nothing. And Jesus, Lord, the One who holds the key, who is from the beginning to the end, who came and became one of us, and was risen from the dead by God, can spare my existence from annihilation and give me new life, either it be here in this world today, or in another.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When you strip away all these redundant properties, you are left with a naturalistic multiverse theory. "God" is synonymous with the universe and the laws of nature. "God" could be the impersonal higher dimensional branes. This is the same way that Einstein (an agnostic) used the term "god". I know you guys like to think that god is above space & time & the multiverse & the universe & everything & blah blah blah, but you know what, at this point, you're just making up your own laws of logic that nobody but you subscribes to. This is why God adds nothing to our understanding. You're back at your starting point, that "it's magic".
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My above explanation would argue against this. I hope one day I can explain this view a bit better.
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.