Messages

"Hey look at this square" "WTF ITS A CUBE"

The purpose of life is to experience, and when done experiencing, realize that experience is false. Simple as that.

You're kidding right, of course there's no personal man-deity that's also infinite. The infinite is the infinite, the deity is the deity, stop confusing them Christianity/Judaism/Islam.

Brahma is the only one true God. But of course only symbolically []

They are all illusions, all but the un-changing and thus un-existing, the infinity behind the backdrop.

Whoops I just submitted one today but I cropped it to 64x46 not thinking it would be resized to the full 64x64. I re-submitted a correct one.. so I guess if you can get rid of the stretched one and approve the right one it'd be good [] thanks

quote:Originally posted by exothen

Why not?  How are they incompatible?  Free will in no way contradicts the the idea of omnipotence.  God has sovereignly given man free will, but this free will is limited in that we cannot become God ourselves.  I really don't see how having free will takes power from God.

Of course it does. Giving humans the ability to make choices ultimately restricts God's power over his creation. Power is control. By giving the created control of their own, his control is naturally subtracted from. The pot may very well be nothing but the creation of the potter, as the analogy goes, but the pot has no power and no will of it's own, unlike us.

You say that you believe the finite cannot comprehend the infinite. By what standpoint, then, do you assume that the infinite can comprehend the finite? You can't logically make that conclusion. Infinity is not a superset of finity, it is the total absence of finity. Yet you still apply finite traits to your infinite God. The only way to reconcile this would be to say that God is both finity and infinity. But by THAT logic, you lead yourself into another intrinsic flaw, because then it could be said that God is both good and evil, light and dark, so on and so forth.

quote:By being perfect forever does not mean that an afterlife in heaven will be meaningless. It means that there will be an eternity to explore and learn and just to be in the presence of God. I suspect your idea comes from cartoons that show that people in heaven just sit around and play harps all day/eternity. The Bible says that there will be a new heaven and a new earth (kind of like how science has found that the universe is winding down and will crash someday), so one can only speculate at the infinite possbilities at life in heaven.

Does eternal punishment have to have some sort of final purpose? Maybe that will be what hell is like - an eternal "life" with absolutely no purpose, just meaningless existence. Eternal torment - torment comes from within, not from without (torture), at what could have been but what now is. What could be worse than that?

You're thinking on too basic a level here and opening new very basic contradictions. First of all, there is nothing you could *do* in heaven except exist. Anything that can be done, learning, exploring, would eventually become moot, there would eventually be nothing more to learn, nothing more to do. The only way to prevent this, would be to introduce change, and with that, it is no longer infinite. By introducing change, you may as well have just re-created the physical universe, because that is what it is. A place of finity and constant change, allowing for "doing".
Second, you're missing the point about hell. I do not mean it is meaningless to the sufferer, but meaningless in general, to God, to the sufferer, to any logical observer. Even an eternal existance of meaningless existance is still, above the one suffering, meaningless. There is no reason for God to create a set of beings, and then filter them systematically into a world of infinite good and a world of infinite bad. Ultimately, it serves no logical purpose.

quote:Similarities do not mean that all religions borrowed from one another. That conclusion simply does not follow. It would first have to be proven that they all did borrow from one another and that hasn't been done. I would argue that some similarities may reflect God's revelation to man, but from there, man takes them and makes something out of them that was never intended.

Of course there is proof. Sumerian tales are identical with those of the early Hebrews. The creations of Zoroaster are proven to have assimilated into Judaism during the Babylonian captivity. Mithraism and other forms of Paganism are proven to have been included into the practices and beliefs of Christianity.
And again, how can you possibly believe that all but one group of men distorted the same godly revelation?

quote:No, it is more like saying because my skin is white, that I am a sheet of paper. You are saying that religions are the fundamentally the same, just different on the outside, but most similiarites are on the outside, while fundamentally they are worlds apart.

O contraire. The analogy of because skin is white, skin is paper is not at all compatible with what I am saying. My point is they were all inhereted from the same origin, and you cannot refute this yourself, saying that divine revelation was presented to all and merely misinterpreted by most.
They APPEAR to be different, but when you dig out the DNA, it is similar, in some cases the same.

quote:And just how is that "the illogical stripping of God from his seat as creator and ruler of all?" To say that God did create them all is to say that either he didn't know what he was doing, that he didn't care, or that he is not a rational being. Each of those options undermines God to the point that he is no longer God, in the sense of being omnipotent and omniscient.

No, to say that humans could create other religions arbitrarily takes away God's power. To say that he created them all is in no way irrational. It is to say that he was the origin of all, as the only divine truth, and that the many faceted spinoffs are corruptions of man. At the same time, they are all yet facets, and in some way, however painted over, reflect and constitute his true nature. Nothing is outside of God. That is omnipotence. That is more logical than the chances of one odd spinoff being the only one to be true and uncorrupted, especially when it intermixed with others as much as it did.

quote:What is interesting to note is that those who are outside of these religions seem to have some special revelation that those inside of them don't, namely, that they are all essentially the same. Whereas if you asked adherents of these religions (and not just Christians), they would agree that they are very different

That's logically obvious. The reason those 'outside of these religions' are the only ones that see the similarities, are because those who have realized them have thusly made themselves so. Those inside one religion, do not fully understand the religion of their own and that of the others.

quote:Hmm....From a Christian standpoint, God is perfectly good and as such he cannot be evil. Since he has always existed, good has always existed. But God created beings with free will which gave them the capacity to choose to do good, or go against that good. Satan (yes, such a thing exists ) chose to do wrong thereby rejecting the good and creating, or introducing, evil.

You just caught yourself on a huge technicality. If the creation of light facilitated the creation of darkness, than the creation, or existance of good, must (both logically and by your example) accompany evil. That's simple law of polarities. If evil does not exist to distinguish good, good is nothing, it is undefined as such.
Thus, by your reasoning, good must have always existed, AND evil must have always existed! This again insinuates that evil is at least as eternal as good.
As for god creating creatures and in that allowing them to choose to go against good. They cannot choose something that does not exist. So, evil would have had to have existed before creation, unless god created it.

You shouldn't deal with the church and play with God and stuff, cause it is actually tricks from man.

quote:Originally posted by Makaveli


No, but since this is just a setup for you to preach I'll make it easy on you so pretend I said yes.  Now what criticisms would you like to throw at me since we are pretending I said yes and what would you like to preach now so we can stop all these games and you can get it over with.

Yeah really, Ben, I have a simple question too, why do you want to know this? Curiosity is a nonsensical answer, because just knowing if some people believe we are the product of aliens is almost entirely useless unless you're doing some kind of survey for some other reason. Still, that requires another motive. So what is your motive?

Christians using logic, that's great.
It would take innumerable amounts of time to go through all the inherent and obvious contradictions and logical flaws with Christian dogma.
First of all, God cannot possibly be omnipotent, all powerful, and still give us free will. That is, if you assume as the Christians do, that god is a seperate being from yourself. Our having free will takes power from God and gives it to us. You cannot believe in both the omipotence and perfection of God while still believing in free will of humans.
I'll take the time to point out another large and very logically obvious problem with God. Let's assume he is, indeed, a rational being. This rational being makes life and the afterlife meaningless. He does not support progress in any way. He has some sort of almighty cutoff, in which one set of people are going to a place of eternal punishment to suffer - but without purpose (no result comes from this suffering, as it is eternal), whereas the other group are to be accepted into his heaven of perfection, where they shall remain in perfection forever - but without purpose (no progress, no nothing. Just perpetual perfection). In a simplistic mind this seems reasonable and even favorable, but contemplated on with just an average amount of rationale shows that god's afterlife makes no sense. And not in an awe inspiring, cosmic, too large to grasp non-sense way, in a 'wow, that's so pointless it's stupid' non-sense.

At any rate.

quote:all major religions are fundamentally different to a point at which they cannot be reconciled or considered on even ground

1. How can they possibly be unrelated when it is quite historically and factually obvious that they have all borrowed and copied from one another to varying extents? This is like saying because human skin color is different their genetics are impossibly unrelated.
2. How do you know that they cannot be reconciled? What research have you done into the many different religions, past and present form? What are you basing this on?

quote:God did not create all religions, this is a logical impossiblity based on my previous statement. What God did was create the possiblity for man to create these religions, it is a logical result of free will.

that is the illogical stripping of God from his seat as creator and ruler of all. I won't even mention how illogical it is to conclude that all of the innumerable religions of the ages were constructed by man while one just happened to be constructed by the true God.
You simply can not stand to christian dogma and argue logic, at least without making use of extreme rationalizations, distortions of dogmas, and assumptions.

quote:As an example, did God create darkness? Not really. He created light and darkness is the absence of light. Did God create evil? No, it is the absence of good.

Interesting. What does God creating light imply? Does it imply that darkness existed BEFORE God created light? This indicates darkness as being more eternal and higher than light and god. Or, does it imply that nothing existed before god created light, but that as a result of God's creation, darkness came into existance? This raises the question of responsibility. As God caused darkness to be created, is he not the creator of darkness? Or is the responsibility shirked to some natural phenomenon? Either way, he is the creator of darkness, indirectly or directly. In a universe created by God, nothing can simply 'come to be' outside of God's will. Or, again, he is neither omnipotent, nor the creator.

Be careful when throwing around things like logic.


[edit]
In addition, there is another logical problem with "evil is the absence of good". This is true, but at the same time the converse is also true. Good is the absence of evil. With that remark, you might argue that Satan (if such a thing existed []) created the universe. On the other hand, indifference is the absence, and at the same time combination, of both. That last thing is something to ponder.

I'm in PA and I gotta work from 4-10. Hopefully the power will get knocked out or it'll be bad enough that people will stop coming, so we can close early
I want off from school tomorrow

quote:THE ABSENCE OF RELIGION IS THE REALIZATION OF GOD?

I don't believe in any anthropomorphic bastardizations of 'im that's for sure.

I am currently in the process of learning. I have learned a lot in the past, but there is infinitely more to learn always. My beliefs are largely mine on the basis of I have researched many many a religious doctrine (doctrine and philosophy to me is the interesting and most meaningful part of religion. After all, it's purpose is to explain our place in the universe.) and I have contemplated on the subject a lot. Thus, my beliefs are a combination of all that I have learned and the digging and truth-seeking in that.

In that way my beliefs are really irreplicable and cannot be contained in any single doctrine or teaching. However, if you want the best overview that exists, you should pick up a copy of The Secret Doctrine and read it cover to cover. It's that, plus the study of the seperate doctrines of each religion, plus my conclusions therein. That's the best explanation I could give you in one place and the most I'm willing to expend for it energy and time wise.

Hell no. That's ridiculous. But if I ever did realize I was Jesus, it's pretty safe to assume that instead of posting this I would have shot myself for what the world did to my teaching.

Once when my mom was 21 though and on a manic swing she met a guy and thought he was Jesus.

quote:Originally posted by timeless

He will mow all down in his path

pfft, hardly, I haven't seen Ben come up with one solid response to the many many of his posts that I've delightfully refuted. He really is quite fun to observe and respond to though.

Why are you picking on Beth? Couldn't it have been a general question?

Sorry no_leaf, but the concept of humans borne of aliens is rubbish. As for Sumer, Judaism is the only religion I know of that directly ripped off Sumerian cosmogony. As for serpent, I don't know how or why this relates to aliens, but the Serpent of antiquity was a wise man or initiate.

I don't see where you find any truth in the doctrine of hell, or sense for that matter. I guess you missed that post.

And btw, Sodom and Gomorrah had nothing to do with denying/believing in hell, mostly because the Zoroastrian concept of hell wouldn't be introduced to the Jews for another few centuries. It did however result directly from the villagers trying to rape the angels. Never taught me that part in catholic school.

Fnn rdng ths, cnsdrng w jst lrnd in hstry clss hw vwls rn't mprtnt n wrtng, nly n prnnctn.

Lngg s s cl

... fool

Considering the similar stories of going into hell and rising again that predate Jesus, and the number of other beliefs that were integrated into Christianity, I'm inclined to conclude the answer from the trend. But, I don't know if Jesus' claimed ressurection was a feat of spiritual masterism, an allegory, or a plagiarism. Neither do you.

Question. Isn't it true that cult christianity (I.E. pre-Constantine) subscribed to the doctrine of reincarnation? In addition, that Constantine's wife persuaded him to eject it from Roman Catholicism?

According to Ellie,

quote:The Roman Emperor Constantine married his way into power. His wife mysteriously disappeared. His second wife was his ticket to the thorne. Then he had her killed. His third wife was a prostitute who had risen to the throne in the same diabolical ways Constantine had and who lived to have a devestating effect on the belief in reincarnation. She feared that her sins would follow from lifetime to lifetime infuriated her. She did not like the idea of Karma. Her life was filled with lies and treachery. She was not interested in advocated any religion that would demote her in another life. Thus she persuaded Emperor Constantine to remove reincarnation from Christainity.

Constantine, for all reports was vain and fearful for his many sins. He considered himself on one hand to be the incarnation of the Gods Apollo, Mytha, Jupiter, and Christ. On the other hand he was afraid that when he died he would anger these Gods in heaven.

He was the first Roman Emperor to support complete religious freedom of all faiths so that when he got to heaven no God would want to take venegence on him personally.

Awesome, thanks Beth! Will keep me from my homework for awhile. Too bad religious doctrine isn't a class

Well, you might want to try www.dictionary.com some time, since you've clearly no concept of what theosophy or esotericism are and are just throwing around terms because you can't properly classify us heathens according to your backwards beliefs.

quote:Religious validity weights on a very personal and subjective scale, what makes a set of beliefs valid to one person could be totally different from what makes it valid to another.

My language must be too colorful or something, because what I said here has nothing to do with relativism or any of that copypaste satanist job.
What I said, in "mind as a child" terms, was this. Different people have different ways of deciding whether a certain religion is right or not. Some choose based on the laws of the system. Some choose based on the ethnic background of the system. Some choose based on the scientific probability of the system. Not that hard to understand, I'd think, different people see different aspects of religion more or less important. That's no satanist feature®, that's simple psychology.

quote:It seems to me that people are people no matter what religion they follow. Generally, the morals and behaviors are universal. In that way, I don't put too much in the practitioners (unless they're obscenely evil or something).

Again here, this is far from being related to that satanist junk. It's obvious, simple truth that everyone is different. Christ, if you think people being different is a satanist concept, you're definitely not living in my society o.O
Thus, there are christians who molest children, there are buddhists who.. well.. there are.. uh..
Okay, to be honest, you don't hear of too many hindu and buddhist atrocities. So let's stay corrupt west for the sake of the point. There are Jews who rape kids, there are Christians who rape kids. There are Jews who are infinitely kind, there are christians who are infinitely kind. No belief system has a specific set of nicer or worse followers, people will be bastards anywhere they go. Simple fact.

Well, here I am to debunk another one of your wet dream anthropomorphic fantasies. Will you ever learn?
You believe in the God of LIGHT and the God of DARKNESS. You name them Jehovah and Satan. You subscribe to Jehovah, because he is light, he is pleasure, goodness, happiness. That is the only reason you subscribe to Jehova instead of Satan. In order to satisfy your material, self-centered concept of pleasure. My belief, ancient belief, does not think in these terms when it speaks of GOD. To do so would be utter defilation of what GOD is (was, before the semites). On those terms, GOD is ALL. GOD is not a point opposing another point known as Satan. GOD is the point above the line, which creates the sacred triangle and the trinity of ALL THAT IS. This is a facet of the dogma, if it can be called that, of differentiation.
Our GOD, produced and created your Jehovah and Satan as opposing poles in the universal self to create the illusion of awareness, the illusion of separatedness.
You, in your materialistic and self gratifying folly, have mistaken the positive, energetically-providing, the 'good' pleasureful pole for the one true GOD and have sworn to him. In doing so, you have been completely defiled by your materialism and lost the concept of what you really are. You have anthropomorphized and perverted the meaning of GOD in order to suit your limited physical concept of good.
Some day, you shall come to realize that your gods, the one you worship for blessing you with pleasure in your mind, and the one you curse for inflicting you with suffering in your mind, are nothing but an illusion which you were meant to realize and break through. Transcend as to become one with the true GOD.


What the hell did I just write o.O

Yeesh, if I were you christians, I would be ecstatic to know that my belief system still holds some truth and esoteric meaning and isn't just a complete bunch of confused dogma.
Well, whatever floats your boat I guess. :/

She's referring to the "Man created God in his image" quote which flew right over your head. Maybe that flew over your head too. Apparently a lot of things do. Like the scripture. :3