The nature of the Almighty

@Irishcop,

Irishcop,

Have you seen the error of your ways lad? Can we assume you have found safe harbour from the storm,or is he,he that has been lost at sea,warring against those princpalities of his soul.Shall I drop these flower"s petals into the dark waters of this distant ocean.Are you out there lad?

1 Reply

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Irishcop,

Have you seen the error of your ways lad? Can we assume you have found safe harbour from the storm,or is he,he that has been lost at sea,warring against those princpalities of his soul.Shall I drop these flower"s petals into the dark waters of this distant ocean.Are you out there lad?

Haha Boagie Longfellow, Touche'

Lo, another tangent and this one is on duality.

Art not there a duality, universal in us all, Sir Boagie? It doth not mean to confuse us, ye it can give us bearing, for without two points of reference how then canst we find our way? Doth not the sailor asea need the Pilot Star even as the Southern Cross?
Without a South, what then is North? Art they not connected, even out of our sight, though we perceive them to be unreconciled, even at odds? Verily, they art one and the same, though they appeareth opposites, wed one to the other, by lines deep in the Earth, then also far into the heavens. As in a lodestone, they are one and the same. Surely without it we would die, even as the Sun burneth. And, without it everything wouldst stop in its tracks.
What other marvels and revelations hideth from our eyes of understanding?
Praise the Lord, thy God for science, for it hath created us and suffered us to thrive, though we have foolish men at each pole with a raised voice to the world, declaring that the other existeth not.

1 Reply

@Irishcop,

Irishcop,

Actually I shall have to take your word for it,I am as familar with Longfellow as I am Christian doctrine,well not quite.Duality is indeed an interesting topic, obviously for Christians as well,for they made non-duality their Eden,from which they were force into the wilderness by God.He sure can carry a grudge can't he! I liked the punishment he put on the snake,something like,you will crawl around on your belly from now on-----------WOW! What was he doing before.

Actually most of the Christians that I know are not even aware of the meaning of Eden.In the East, their religions/displines are very much into non-duality considering duality the illusion,where Christians tend to focus on duality.It is a very significant point for quilt,judgement and payup time,Christianity has been refered to in the past as a shopkeepers religion,all debt and credit, now there is a duality! Actually there is a feeling for spirituality in the contemplation of this duality and non-duality it opens one to wonder,accept where the answer is already provided for you which of course is not to be questioned.Actually I think Science/physics is affirming the concept of non-duality,it seems apparent in general systems theory and hinted at through Process Philosophy.Irishcop,glad your back!!

1 Reply

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Irishcop,

Actually I shall have to take your word for it,I am as familar with Longfellow as I am Christian doctrine,well not quite.Duality is indeed an interesting topic, obviously for Christians as well,for they made non-duality their Eden,from which they were force into the wilderness by God.He sure can carry a grudge can't he! I liked the punishment he put on the snake,something like,you will crawl around on your belly from now on-----------WOW! What was he doing before.

Actually most of the Christians that I know are not even aware of the meaning of Eden.In the East, their religions/displines are very much into non-duality considering duality the illusion,where Christians tend to focus on duality.It is a very significant point for quilt,judgement and payup time,Christianity has been refered to in the past as a shopkeepers religion,all debt and credit, now there is a duality! Actually there is a feeling for spirituality in the contemplation of this duality and non-duality it opens one to wonder,accept where the answer is already provided for you which of course is not to be questioned.Actually I think Science/physics is affirming the concept of non-duality,it seems apparent in general systems theory and hinted at through Process Philosophy.Irishcop,glad your back!!

Again, I would have to disagree.
I think duality is a common fiber, Yen and Yang, Good and Evil, etc and etc.
Especially, in the religion of Science, duality abounds. Take the duality of light, is it a wave, or a beam? Even TRIPality is accepted, such as in dark box experiments; does the particle travel through this hole or that. Is schrodinger's cat alive or dead? The answers seem to be... not alive, not dead, and neither.
About your knowledge of Christian Doctrine, how can you be so fervently opposed to it, if you admittedly do not have familiarity with it? I detest Islam, but I have familiarized myself to it.
Just for the record, the Bible doesn't say Eve was tempted by a snake, it says Satan appeared to her as a serpent. Who knows what that is really supposed to mean? Is it an actual animal, is it a metaphor? The point seems to be lost in the details here.
I personally believe Eden and everything in it is a metaphor. Which is not heresy to say, because Jesus Himself explained things in parables. If Genesis is taken in that context, there are many profound things to be gleaned from it. The mistake, as I see it, is taking the metaphor literally, obviously the Earth is older than 6,000 years, and it wasn't created in 144 hours, but that's not to say the Bible is in error, merely the reader who takes it literally. It's a pity that clergy through the ages have never took up that cross, because it has needlessly provided fodder for opponents.

Do I believe in Science, of course I do. Do I believe in the Bible, that's obvious too. The key as I see it, is to read what it means.

Thanks for the welcome, but are you sure you're glad, aren't I always showing you that you're wrong? Very Happy

1 Reply

@Irishcop,

Irishcop

I am unsure what you disgree with, both are realities one more apparent than the other and true on the level of that consciousness pondering it.Science is not a religion.Duality abounds, is not a revealation.

"About your knowledge of Christian Doctrine, how can you be so fervently opposed to it, if you admittedly do not have familiarity with it? I detest Islam, but I have familiarized myself to it."

I grew up a baptist,that does not make me an authority on Christian doctrine,but enough to appreciate the absurdity. I am very happy to find a Christian able to read Christian symbolism,most of your Christian bothers and sisters are morons and insist on standing by the absurd.

"Do I believe in Science, of course I do. Do I believe in the Bible, that's obvious too. The key as I see it, is to read what it means."

Irish,you are not understanding on the level of the average Christian,literial interpretation is the norm and that is why it is impossiable to respect.

"Thanks for the welcome, but are you sure you're glad, aren't I always showing you that you're wrong?"

Irish,you certainly have your own perspective. Wink

1 Reply

@dpmartin,

Boagie
not to tag team you, but all I have been trying to get across is:

There is no religion in the Kingdom of God, only the wealth of His Righteousness handed down through Jesus the Christ. Words like "religion","Christian", and today's "church" are works of men. It doesn't take a profit to see that religion is use for the self righteous and those who seek to control and or manipulate others.
The Living God is to be worshiped (Loved, great admiration devotion for) in Spirit and in Truth. Not with pomp and circumstance. It is the Truth that stands between and individual and the Living God, everything else is a lie.

1 Reply

@dpmartin,

dpmartin,

You have an unusual stance,one I find some common ground with.Most Christians I believe would take you to task for stateing that its institutions are being used to manipulate.It is the secret of every atheist that he wishes he indeed could believe in what would be most pleasant to believe,it is a practicality some people just cannot manage on the evidence provided.I believe spirituality is innate to the nature of man and a positive quality,as long as it is not corrupted by the will to power.Spirituality is the business of the church,when it wishes control also over secular institutions its will to power is self-evident,and must be treated appropriately as a political entity/enemy.

Irish, Smile

That comment you made about the snake not actually corrupting Eve but that it was the devil possessing the snake which inabled him to talk and thus corrupt Eve--so the devil made him do it.Does that really sound sane to you? It is a sincere question.It is the old yes or no situtation.

"The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by 'God' one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... It does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity." Carl Sagan

1 Reply

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Irish,

That comment you made about the snake not actually corrupting Eve but that it was the devil possessing the snake which inabled him to talk and thus corrupt Eve--so the devil made him do it.Does that really sound sane to you? It is a sincere question.It is the old yes or no situtation.

"The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by 'God' one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... It does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity." Carl Sagan

I think you are still focused on the tree not the forrest. It was not my intention to envoke the ol' " The devil made me do it" cop-out. Rather, I intended to provoke a study in the metaphor.
The serpent appeared to Eve as a beautiful thing, and so it was. Eve percieved the serpent (sin) as an alluring option. Eve, choose from her own free will, and vanity, to partake in sin. The rest of the metaphor is very fitting, and just as telling of the human condition even today.

1 Reply

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Irishcop

I am unsure what you disgree with, both are realities one more apparent than the other and true on the level of that consciousness pondering it.Science is not a religion.Duality abounds, is not a revealation.

"About your knowledge of Christian Doctrine, how can you be so fervently opposed to it, if you admittedly do not have familiarity with it? I detest Islam, but I have familiarized myself to it."

I grew up a baptist,that does not make me an authority on Christian doctrine,but enough to appreciate the absurdity. I am very happy to find a Christian able to read Christian symbolism,most of your Christian bothers and sisters are morons and insist on standing by the absurd.

"Do I believe in Science, of course I do. Do I believe in the Bible, that's obvious too. The key as I see it, is to read what it means."

Irish,you are not understanding on the level of the average Christian,literial interpretation is the norm and that is why it is impossiable to respect.

"Thanks for the welcome, but are you sure you're glad, aren't I always showing you that you're wrong?"

Irish,you certainly have your own perspective.

I agree that literal interpretation of the obviously (to me) metaphoric portions of the Bible has provided fodder for the opponents which they have used against the faith. It has also dampened our scientific and technological progress.
That notwithstanding you should take care not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

BTW, in and of itself, Science is not a religion, but it is made one when it supplants religion as a believe system. According to Webster, by definition it becomes some people's god, when it is "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith" .

1 Reply

@Irishcop,

Irishcop wrote:

I think you are still focused on the tree not the forrest. It was not my intention to envoke the ol' " The devil made me do it" cop-out. Rather, I intended to provoke a study in the metaphor.
The serpent appeared to Eve as a beautiful thing, and so it was. Eve percieved the serpent (sin) as an alluring option. Eve, choose from her own free will, and vanity, to partake in sin. The rest of the metaphor is very fitting, and just as telling of the human condition even today.

Iriscop,

Actually this corruption of Eve is suppose to occur pior to the biteting of the apple of duality,which seems to make this interaction with snake impossiable,for in non-duality there is no other.Semantics perhaps,I suppose the eating of the apple could mean the birth of man and/or the coming of light into the world as consicousness.For innocence here,has to mean unawareness,and sin then,awareness.Well,all be smited!!Actually Eve could not have chosen from free will,again not possiable in a non-duality position.A metaphor is suppose to relate one concept to another, kind of like overlapping spheres if you know what I mean.Is this really a good metaphor? How much is there in it and how much might we mistakenly read into it.I suggest metaphor is something delightful which needs to be respected.

0 Replies

@Irishcop,

Irishcop,

Calling science or atheism a religon is a little like saying bald is a new hair colour.Science based on reason,religion based on faith.Reason based on evidence,faith based on--------------------?Faith?

At any rate if we chose to read the symbols of Christianity it will take a little work.Is there anyone out there well versed in this,we could use a master of metaphor here if we have such a beast among us!

1 Reply

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Irishcop,

Calling science or atheism a religon is a little like saying bald is a new hair colour.Science based on reason,religion based on faith.Reason based on evidence,faith based on--------------------?Faith?

At any rate if we chose to read the symbols of Christianity it will take a little work.Is there anyone out there well versed in this,we could use a master of metaphor here if we have such a beast among us!

I beg to differ. Science can indeed become a person's religion by definition, as I already stated, but i'll elaborate. Some fields of science are intrinsicly philosophical, and require a belief based on unprovable, untestable and unobservable phenomena.
"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1).

or....

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source

http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png

/rɪˈlɪdʒ

ən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ri-lij-uh

n] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation -noun 1.a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. 3.the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions. 6.something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

The only difference "Science" has with "Religion", is the absence of an omnipotent father or mother figure. However, consider Einstein, who believed in Spinoza's god.
Anyone who believes in an atom, phenomena at an Event Horizon, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, or the Big Bang, to name a few, are simply going on faith that the mind experiments of Scientists were correct and the our logic and reason can be tossed out the window, when those phenomena happen as predicted.
Science has its own philosophy, code of ethics, and belief in the unseen and unprovable. Therefore, when Science supplants God, it is by all definition that individual's religion.
Likewise with the Atheist, the belief that God does not exist, is what it is, a religious belief.

1 Reply

@Irishcop,

Hi Irishcop, Smile

Indeed for every IS there IS an IS NOT but the sum properties of IS NOT are nil,not, in the negative,zero.So Irish,would you say then that everyone is really religious wether they wish to be or not,wether they are aware or not,even against their will they are necessarily believers------by George,George said it was good and it was good!! If atheism,and science are religions,what are Christians getting all f k up about?They should be happy everyone is in the fold,following the straight and narrow path of righteousness.If those who don't believe really do belive than there is no disbelief, indeed disbelief is a phantasmagora,an illusion,the veil of Maya,I think I understand now Irish,life really is like a box of chocolates.

For new comers, be aware this is a Christian site.

1 Reply

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Hi Irishcop,

Indeed for every IS there IS an IS NOT but the sum properties of IS NOT are nil,not, in the negative,zero.So Irish,would you say then that everyone is really religious wether they wish to be or not,wether they are aware or not,even against their will they are necessarily believers------by George,George said it was good and it was good!! If atheism,and science are religions,what are Christians getting all f k up about?They should be happy everyone is in the fold,following the straight and narrow path of righteousness.If those who don't believe really do belive than there is no disbelief, indeed disbelief is a phantasmagora,an illusion,the veil of Maya,I think I understand now Irish,life really is like a box of chocolates.

If your free will leads you to look at it like that, then yes, everyone has a religious belief even if its against their will. The same way, in that context, that also against every one's will, they have a sex preference (straight, gay, or bi); or against their will they have to either like, dislike, or be apathetic to eating broccoli.
As in mathematics, 1 and -1, still have an absolute value of 1. If belief in God constitutes a religious condition, why would disbelief not constitute a religious condition as well?
In politics, Democracy and Dictatorships (for example) are diametrically opposed, but they are both still political views.
If Science (with some individuals) and atheism are not religions, can you explain how they are exempt?

To answer your question, "So Irish,would you say then that everyone is really religious wether they wish to be or not,wether they are aware or not,even against their will they are necessarily believers (?)", I would say yes, everybody with a mentality to consider what they believe are believers in some fashion about religion; whether that would be pro or con.

1 Reply

@Irishcop,

Irish,

"If your free will leads you to look at it like that",what kind of crap is this? Did you assume prior to this statement that I was functioning without free will or perhaps manipulated by a higher power/s,are our higher powers in conflict with on another Irish.If everyone has a religious belief why is Christianity so hostile to the antheist? Are they not in their natures believers.Actually Irish I do believe that humanity is compelled towards mythology,or as the late Joseph Campell put it,"All life is mythologically compelled," It is for me a matter of how healthy said religion/mythology is,and I do not see Christianity,Islam,or for that matter Judaism as healthy,they should be respectfully placed upon the shelf along with the Greek gods.

So,the believers of disbelief demand equal time in the churches of our commmunities.Your belief is obviously what substains our disbelief therefore you are in part responsiable for our disbelief,and we on the other hand are responsiable for your belief ------------ a check will do fine.Who is on first!

1 Reply

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Irish,

"If your free will leads you to look at it like that",what kind of crap is this? Did you assume prior to this statement that I was functioning without free will or perhaps manipulated by a higher power/s,are our higher powers in conflict with on another Irish.If everyone has a religious belief why is Christianity so hostile to the antheist? Are they not in their natures believers.Actually Irish I do believe that humanity is compelled towards mythology,or as the late Joseph Campell put it,"All life is mythologically compelled," It is for me a matter of how healthy said religion/mythology is,and I do not see Christianity,Islam,or for that matter Judaism as healthy,they should be respectfully placed upon the shelf along with the Greek gods.

So,the believers of disbelief demand equal time in the churches of our commmunities.Your belief is obviously what substains our disbelief therefore you are in part responsiable for our disbelief,and we on the other hand are responsiable for you belief ------------ a check will do fine.Who is on first!

That was merely a response to your own commentary on free will, or more precisely a lack of it, and apparently I made my point. That being, it is a non-issue, with respect to categorizing Disbelief as a religious conviction, or Science as a religious supplanting.
I assume only that you have preconceived notions about my beliefs, logic, and possibly my intelligence based upon some of your expressed notions about Christians, and your apparent propensity to lump Christian, Jew and Muslim alike into one totalitarian mold. I assume nothing else about your convictions or cognitive ability, but I am supposing you are intelligent and well meaning.
It seems to me, that it is the atheists who are fervently hostile to believers, or at a minimum, the churches. Atheists are always crying foul through ACLU lawyers and demand societal freedom from religion, as opposed to freedom of religion. It is atheists who force their beliefs on the majority, for example, demanding such things as nativity scenes being dismantled from public property but are mute about Santa Clause and Easter Bunny displays. They make an uproar about the Ten Commandments on the wall of an Arkansas courtroom, and win, in the Supreme Court, where the Justices still sit under ..... you guessed it, a display of the Ten Commandments.
If Atheists think the notion of God is hokey, that's their right. However, they are in the minority, and to attack symbols of the faith is pointless, and counter-productive on their merit. It merely serves to galvanize the majority.
I am Christian, and I know many Christians, but I have never heard a single one advocate teaching Creation in public schools, or creating the United Christian States of America, or any such theocractic institutions.
If you see Christians exercising their right, as citizens, to effect policy and the laws of the land, give credit where it is due .... the ACLU and prominent atheists who endeavor to eliminate or place limitation their rights to practice their religion too.
Additionally, you can't blame my personal religious beliefs for your own, anymore than you can blame my political Conservatism for Jane Fonda's treason.

You are skirting my question to you. Can you demonstrate definitively why Atheism and Science fail to meet the criteria of a religion?

1 Reply

@Irishcop,

Irishcop,

"You are skirting my question to you. Can you demonstrate definitively why Atheism and Science fail to meet the criteria of a religion?"

Their focal point is not faith,faith is willing yourself to believe something without any bases for belief.Your logic seems to despense with any distinction however,so what is there for you to protest,disbelievers are in fact believers,it would seem no effort was necessary to be religious,certainly it matters least what you think.It is the person I believe that presents a premise,belief ect..,to provide proof of his claim,the religious claim the presence of a personal god whom is actively working in the world.The atheist does not accept this,how would you prove to him the reality of this god? What is faith if not desire,desire for certainty and thus security.Please define how you understand faith,what is it, if not what I have already stated.

In order to investigate cognitive aspects of the experience of delusions, including onset and recovery,autobiographical accounts of schizophrenia were reviewed. results ---------------------just kidding!!!:p

1 Reply

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Their focal point is not faith,faith is willing yourself to believe something without any bases for belief.Your logic seems to despense with any distinction however,so what is there for you to protest,disbelievers are in fact believers,it would seem no effort was necessary to be religious,certainly it matters least what you think.It is the person I believe that presents a premise,belief ect..,to provide proof of his claim,the religious claim the presence of a personal god whom is actively working in the world.The atheist does not accept this,how would you prove to him the reality of this god? What is faith if not desire,desire for certainty and thus security.Please define how you understand faith,what is it, if not what I have already stated.

"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1).

In Science the things hoped for is knowledge, the conviction of things unseen I have already provided examples of, ie an Event Horizon, and phenomena at the quantum level, both of which are phenomena that seem absolutely bizarre to our senses, and both were deduced not from scientific method, but by thought experiments. The conclusions are inexorably entangled with pure philosophy.
The closest thing to scientific method to predict the behavior of an electron is derived by linear accelerators and Feinman graphs, however those scientists involved will tell you that by merely observing the electron it changes its behavior, even if the observation is indirect. If the observation consists of reading data after the fact, it still changes the behavior retroactively. Which is no big feat for an electron, because a Feinman Graph predicts electrons that can travel backward through time.
This is merely flakes off the tip of the iceberg, totally bizarre supernatural phenomena, universally accepted by the Science community, preached by folks at The Cavendish, Einstein, and et al. There are a plethora of other examples, all of which are unobservable, untestable, and defy our senses, and yet they enjoy a huge congregation of Scientists who believe.

About being an Atheist I can only introduce more conjecture. I surmise Atheists feel assurance there is no God, because if there is no God; no repentance is needed to avoid Hell, there is no need to ask a Father figure for help or forgiveness. I also guess that the conviction of things unseen for an Atheist is that he is the ultimate power and a source of enlightenment, having shed the concept of God, which has been plaguing Man since his first primordial dawn.

This tangent has caused us to stray far from the issue of the thread, but I must say, I am enjoying the dialogue.

1 Reply

@Irishcop,

Irishcop,

"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1)."

"faith is assurance of things hope for." In what way are they assured?" the conviction of things not seen." So how does one establish this conviction of things not seen,on what bases this conviction? You didn't really think this would pass for reasonable?

Irishcop I admire your resourcefulness but I think it is not reasonable to compare the speculations of science with the stated claims of certainty of religion.Science does not claim certainty but a perhaps temporal model of the most probable,certainty is the domain of religion,as shaky as that must be.

As to the topic of this thread, "The nature of the almighty. I imagine with all the Christians here it is intended to speak about the Christian concept,but there are as many concepts as there are peoples in the world.The gods do tend to have the characteristics given them by their worshippers.

New comers be aware this is a Christian site. :eek:

1 Reply

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Irishcop,

"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1)."

"faith is assurance of things hope for." In what way are they assured?" the conviction of things not seen." So how does one establish this conviction of things not seen,on what bases this conviction? You didn't really think this would pass for reasonable?

Irishcop I admire your resourcefulness but I think it is not reasonable to compare the speculations of science with the stated claims of certainty of religion.Science does not claim certainty but a perhaps temporal model of the most probable,certainty is the domain of religion,as shaky as that must be.

As to the topic of this thread, "The nature of the almighty. I imagine with all the Christians here it is intended to speak about the Christian concept,but there are as many concepts as there are peoples in the world.The gods do tend to have the characteristics given them by their worshippers.

Did I expect this to pass as reasonable? ....Sure did. It is afterall the Bible the source of the faith in question. I'm not likely to quote Stalin on this. Very Happy

I think it pretty well sums it up, from both of our perspectives.
You argue faith comes from thin air, just a conjuring of mythology, that its an illusion of assurances based on no evidence.
On the other hand, I see it as promises of the Christ of a place in the Kingdom of Heaven, based on His death, burial and resurrection, witnessed by thousands and recorded in the Gospels. .... So what's the problem?

Why is it not reasonable to compare Scientific speculation of absurd phenomena, and subsequent belief by the scientific community as satisfying a criteria for religion, to your supposition that religion is speculation of absurd phenomena and subsequent belief by a church community?
It took no resourcefulness to draw the comparisons. Do you really not see the obvious parallel?

1 Reply

The nature of the Almighty

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know