RE: NO...not the spiritual trip...

RE: NO...not the spiritual trip... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

TheGentleDomme -> RE: NO...not the spiritual trip... (4/12/2006 10:18:19 PM)
quote: YHWH can and does have a rival for the throne. Quit talking jibberish. Elohim (specifically, the 'elohim' which is capitalised) is the God of gods, the King of kings. Yaweh (as distinc from yaweh-Elohim) is 'he who is' and refers to the personality of the Almighty who is without beginning and without end. And Jesus-Elohim doesn't resurrect himself. His body is resurrected. There is a distinct difference in the grammar. And noone ever claimed Jesus was wholly mortal. He simply had a mortal body. There's no jibberish. You can't have a pantheon in the christian tradition. Even if these "beings" as you separate them are different pieces, they still have to add up to one being.... or at least they are supposed to. Unless all of christendom is worshipping wrongly within their own dogma. I don't really buy that. Jesus being divine in mortal body as u say, part man, part god, does not change my point about he not being able to exist. Infinite can't exist within time.... more logical impossibilities.... I'm not really sure how u define divinity here. I think you really should do that since you are not using the philosophical definition. What do you say?

willowheart -> RE: NO...not the spiritual trip... (4/12/2006 11:15:10 PM)
Interesting thread -- sorry I missed it until now... Here's one way to view the "Infinite". Instead of the word "God", let's use the word "atom". Is "atom" infinite? yes? Even in the hydrogen-based theory of the Big Bang, "atom" existed. Is "atom" still in existance? yep. Any reason to believe "atom" will cease to exist? nope. Did other "atoms" come forth in the model or pattern of the original? yep. Does THE ORIGINAL "atom" still exist ? In some form - yes... So... even if the Original "atom" is not exactly the same as it once was, the "Being" of The Atom IS Eternal. On to the Elohim.... or Eloi-hiem Eloi = El -- the "The" = God. hiem = ohim = of many of same (gods). YHWH = Yahweh = Jehovah Adonai = Lord Funny thing... Not that I personally poured over the manuscripts, but when copies of the Hebrew before the skewed translations are read, one does NOT find these phrases: "Eloihiem / Elohim Yahweh", "Yahweh Elohim", "Elohim Adonai", or "Adonai Elohim" -- (various spellings). (the fem. form didn't apply then) BUT, one does find quite frequently "Adonai" with "Yahweh". Logical pause. Though a millenia of translations -- um, MIS-translations -- church "fathers" declared a "Lord God". However, the most accurate should have been "Lord Yahweh / Jehovah". The Elohim not ever being seen as "Lord", nor Jehovah in the original scrolls. Thus, Yahweh-Jehovah is Lord -- the one who became the in-flesh Jesus. (The couple of door-knocking Jehovah's Witnesses I've pointed this out to have left that demonination..., hmm??) Infinite means having no end. Yahwah / Jehovah / Jesus /Lord had, or will have, an "Alpha" and an "Omega" (a begining and an end). The contrary was stated of Elohim. Maybe if the early scholars hadn't decided to "dumb-down" the original doctrine to cram it down the throats of the conquered masses of Constantine's Empire, we'd all have been better off.... Yeah, I was raised Catholic too. Hung out with the Seminary students in college...... yikes!

willowheart -> RE: NO...not the spiritual trip... (4/12/2006 11:59:06 PM)
To TheGentleDomme: Certainly you are correct in that "the infinite" can not be CONTAINED within a moment of Time. However if one is given the definition of Time being a concept of continual cogniscence-capable progression ( IF a tree falls in the forest ... does it still make a sound .... ? ), then given enough "time" -- which runs parallel to "the infinite"-- they then DO co-exist. Time: = an eternal, unending chain of moments... Your post stated: "Infinite can't exist within time.... more logical impossibilities.... " Leave the phrase "'til the end of time" to the poets. Time had no beginning. No end. Without Time the very definition and comprehension of the Infinite can not exist... Observation: Physics and Philosophy don't employ the same meanings of those words, though scientists have become more philosophically "corrupted" over the past few decades. "Time" did not always mean a "finite presence", similar in meaning to "recorded history". "Pre-historic" is a cute little phrase, but in fact there was no "pre - History", only a "history" which was not recorded into our day -- for our egotistical observance. Just because "we" can't observe something as a tangible proof, does not mean that it does not exist...... Thus Infinity. Thus Time as also infinite. Thus an "awareness"... The Infinity of energy. Thus God...

CERCKL -> RE: NO...not the spiritual trip... (4/13/2006 12:07:01 AM)
Just a note...I saw this post of mine had reached 666 hits...that I found humorous. I have enjoyed watching this unfold, a lot of insightful people seeking from different viewpoints; from the spiritual, of course there is god...to the humanist, this is the only life we have views...and some in between. I applaud all. C

Enlightendgurl -> RE: NO...not the spiritual trip... (4/13/2006 12:15:24 AM)
Papa is the insight just known , IE rote? or Known as in Spiritually awake and aware of the definition as in life .... because I see some "book smart" ppl here , .... Knowing it and not being able to write big words is a whole lot better I think.... We are all part of the same energy ....I KNOW it.[:)]

meatcleaver -> RE: NO...not the spiritual trip... (4/13/2006 12:23:19 AM)
If we really had control over our belief systems, then the major religions wouldn't be divided into great geographical blocks. You would expect a more speckled pattern. I'm a nominal christian (I intellectually reject christianity) because I was born in a christian country. I don't find christianity difficult to reject because my parents didn't have me indoctrinated into christianity. However, even if I did believe in christianity and followed logic to support that belief, I would have had to come into contact with it in the first place. Add to that personal experiences and one wonders how freely we choose our beliefs. It seems to me observation is the only reliable form of collecting information to base our beliefs on and even that is fraught with difficulties.

Enlightendgurl -> RE: NO...not the spiritual trip... (4/13/2006 12:48:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: I'm a nominal christian (I intellectually reject christianity) because I was born in a christian country. I don't find christianity difficult to reject because my parents didn't have me indoctrinated into christianity. However, even if I did believe in christianity and followed logic to support that belief, I would have had to come into contact with it in the first place. Add to that personal experiences and one wonders how freely we choose our beliefs. It seems to me observation is the only reliable form of collecting information to base our beliefs on and even that is fraught with difficulties. I have argued with Priests , preachers reverends and whomever else since I was a kid being dropped off to attend Sunday service so my parents could be alone to argue for an hour....They tell you one thing and do another .... So I argued , and pointed things out to them explaining the contrast . I grew up in a funeral home , On the 3rd floor of an old victorian house , beautiful turn of the century victorian, My Dad owned it he is the proud owner of a funrl home and 3 young kids , so death stared me in the face daily , quite literally , ....made me question my belief system very young . I am also a 5th or 6th generation seer , in my family on moms side very strong but somehow am scattered sometimes , but learning about it more and more , I MAKE it a priority .... it is who I am afterall, thrown into it due to circumstances ....no, made to understand it No.... I am also part Native American Medicine people ... Cherokee and Blackfoot.... so.... energy ,,, we are all part of the universal energy source...NOT have to learn , because I was near it , it Drives me to KNOW it. Namaste'

cmatrix4761 -> RE: NO...not the spiritual trip... (4/13/2006 2:56:10 AM)
This is going to be where I end my discussion in this field. Clearly reason is not a benefactor here. But I close with these notes: 1) You cannot say that something that is infinity is a separate being that is omnipotent, omniscient or omnibenevolent. That is a theological connection made by monotheists and doesn't actually follow any line of sturdy logic. 2) Asking whether God can make a stone too heavy for himself to lift is in itself less than a paradox. The 'god', or more respectfully, God, is not bound by the physical realm and therefore could not make a stone too heavy to lift (because he would never actually lift it because he's not bound by the physical realm...following the logic here?) 3) Only particular denominations of Christians actually believe god to be omnipotent. There are no solid theological sources which state [explicitly] Elohim or YHWH can do anything he pleases. They all tiptoe around the theory by speaking cryptically (the Alpha and Omega, God of kings, King of kings, the One who Is, the Creator, etc). 4) Yahweh is NOT Elohim. Elohim is the title of the One True God. Yahweh is the substance of God, very close to the personal Name of God. 5) The point in citing the Quantum Theory was to point out established scientific principles which support practical application of bringing the infinite into the finite, thus abolishing the claim against it. 6) Yahweh is NOT the same as Jesus. The modern translation of the hebrew Tetragrammaton is Jehova (though that is not an accurate transliteration). In the actual scribes, Jesus is usually referred to as Jehova-Jesus (as dstinguished from Jehova/YHWH and Jesus alone), which indicates the facet theory; that is, that Jesus is a manifestation of the true Almighty form, not the almighty form changing its full self. The hostility I show is toward an individual who mocks men for their faith and doesn't apply significant thought to the philosophical underpinnings of theology. Philosophy major you may be, but Theology major you are not, nor have you yet established whether you are actually skilled in philosophical process.

cmatrix4761 -> RE: NO...not the spiritual trip... (4/13/2006 2:58:33 AM)
The light touch always commands the greater respect. I bow to the excellent analogy. quote: ORIGINAL: willowheart Interesting thread -- sorry I missed it until now... Here's one way to view the "Infinite". Instead of the word "God", let's use the word "atom". Is "atom" infinite? yes? Even in the hydrogen-based theory of the Big Bang, "atom" existed. Is "atom" still in existance? yep. Any reason to believe "atom" will cease to exist? nope. Did other "atoms" come forth in the model or pattern of the original? yep. Does THE ORIGINAL "atom" still exist ? In some form - yes... So... even if the Original "atom" is not exactly the same as it once was, the "Being" of The Atom IS Eternal. On to the Elohim.... or Eloi-hiem Eloi = El -- the "The" = God. hiem = ohim = of many of same (gods). YHWH = Yahweh = Jehovah Adonai = Lord Funny thing... Not that I personally poured over the manuscripts, but when copies of the Hebrew before the skewed translations are read, one does NOT find these phrases: "Eloihiem / Elohim Yahweh", "Yahweh Elohim", "Elohim Adonai", or "Adonai Elohim" -- (various spellings). (the fem. form didn't apply then) BUT, one does find quite frequently "Adonai" with "Yahweh". Logical pause. Though a millenia of translations -- um, MIS-translations -- church "fathers" declared a "Lord God". However, the most accurate should have been "Lord Yahweh / Jehovah". The Elohim not ever being seen as "Lord", nor Jehovah in the original scrolls. Thus, Yahweh-Jehovah is Lord -- the one who became the in-flesh Jesus. (The couple of door-knocking Jehovah's Witnesses I've pointed this out to have left that demonination..., hmm??) Infinite means having no end. Yahwah / Jehovah / Jesus /Lord had, or will have, an "Alpha" and an "Omega" (a begining and an end). The contrary was stated of Elohim. Maybe if the early scholars hadn't decided to "dumb-down" the original doctrine to cram it down the throats of the conquered masses of Constantine's Empire, we'd all have been better off.... Yeah, I was raised Catholic too. Hung out with the Seminary students in college...... yikes!

cmatrix4761 -> RE: NO...not the spiritual trip... (4/13/2006 3:03:46 AM)
I respect that; but please be careful not to connect modern religious systems with which you've had contact so far to all systems of faith. I firmly hold true to Taoism, which is flexible and impenetrable so far. It is based off of logic and allegory together and it never asks more of anyone than they can give. And yet it guides everyone on the path to enlightenment both through exploration of the self and through helping others. That is to be profoundly respected and has yet to be perverted into denominations like most religious systems today. quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver If we really had control over our belief systems, then the major religions wouldn't be divided into great geographical blocks. You would expect a more speckled pattern. I'm a nominal christian (I intellectually reject christianity) because I was born in a christian country. I don't find christianity difficult to reject because my parents didn't have me indoctrinated into christianity. However, even if I did believe in christianity and followed logic to support that belief, I would have had to come into contact with it in the first place. Add to that personal experiences and one wonders how freely we choose our beliefs. It seems to me observation is the only reliable form of collecting information to base our beliefs on and even that is fraught with difficulties.

TheGentleDomme -> RE: NO...not the spiritual trip... (4/13/2006 6:13:29 AM)
quote: This is going to be where I end my discussion in this field. Clearly reason is not a benefactor here. But I close with these notes: 1) You cannot say that something that is infinity is a separate being that is omnipotent, omniscient or omnibenevolent. That is a theological connection made by monotheists and doesn't actually follow any line of sturdy logic. 2) Asking whether God can make a stone too heavy for himself to lift is in itself less than a paradox. The 'god', or more respectfully, God, is not bound by the physical realm and therefore could not make a stone too heavy to lift (because he would never actually lift it because he's not bound by the physical realm...following the logic here?) 3) Only particular denominations of Christians actually believe god to be omnipotent. There are no solid theological sources which state [explicitly] Elohim or YHWH can do anything he pleases. They all tiptoe around the theory by speaking cryptically (the Alpha and Omega, God of kings, King of kings, the One who Is, the Creator, etc). 4) Yahweh is NOT Elohim. Elohim is the title of the One True God. Yahweh is the substance of God, very close to the personal Name of God. 5) The point in citing the Quantum Theory was to point out established scientific principles which support practical application of bringing the infinite into the finite, thus abolishing the claim against it. 6) Yahweh is NOT the same as Jesus. The modern translation of the hebrew Tetragrammaton is Jehova (though that is not an accurate transliteration). In the actual scribes, Jesus is usually referred to as Jehova-Jesus (as dstinguished from Jehova/YHWH and Jesus alone), which indicates the facet theory; that is, that Jesus is a manifestation of the true Almighty form, not the almighty form changing its full self. The hostility I show is toward an individual who mocks men for their faith and doesn't apply significant thought to the philosophical underpinnings of theology. Philosophy major you may be, but Theology major you are not, nor have you yet established whether you are actually skilled in philosophical process. I don't make the god arguments. I just refute them. I think those that believe in a god are, frankly, ignorant. Gods are simply archetypes of our own psyche. The sublime is often mistaken for a religious event when it is really an event in the brain. Some of us have found value in such books (the bible, the iliad, the epic of gilgamesh) without assigning them the previous value they had before. I only mock what I feel is beneath us at this point in our mental evolution. If you read myth as prose, you miss the poetry. I absolutely agree that the idea of an infinite god produces all kinds of paradoxes. That is the point about the stone paradox. Most christians will defend their right to believe that which is absurd.... usually with nonsense like "god can do anything." My point of mentioning that is that many christians by those words are trying to make god infinite and a paradox. You are correct. An infinite god is a logical impossibility and philosophers, even christian ones, today wouldn't support it. Kierkegaard isn't a recent philosopher. I just like the simplicity of kierkegaard.... and even more so, I like using a christian philosopher to refute christianity by his own words. Even if they are outdated. I do believe the head evangelical minister that heads my department said that god can only do what is logically possible (so no stone paradox, no square circles in the making, et cetera). But then he can't be omnipotent.... unless omnipotence doesn't include logical impossibilities? That's also subject for debate. Then there's the whole problem of evil too... but that is different thread all together. I'm not really sure how you ended up with a pantheon but it's definitely not one accepted by most christian institutions nor by almost two thousand years of western philosophy. Excuse me for scratching my head on this one. I just couldn't imagine you would choose to refute monotheism. I can't think of one god argument that doesn't come down to one creator. Maybe if you change the definition of god enough you will be able to prove him. lol No, I am definitely not a theology major. I look at biblical text two ways: one, as the surface prose that fundmentalists take literally and/or people who take it as "and the moral of the story is..." and two, as forementioned poetry of psychological imagery. The former may not reach the level of biblical scholar.... I really don't care to pursue it. So I retract any claims to be an expert.... maybe I should say learned amateur. However, I do know the myths and I know how they are understood by the lay people... and furthermore, how they effect society.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125