Jesus Said Hate Your Neighbour

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Mat 19:19 Honour thy father and [thy] mother: and,Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Luk 14:26 If any [man] come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by bewareofdogmas
Mat 19:19 Honour thy father and [thy] mother: and,Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Luk 14:26 If any [man] come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
Another example of how the text of the bible is misunderstood unless you understand the message behind it.
Jesus was saying that you should give all of your love to God and love everybody as God. Don't love people for being people.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Jesus was saying that you should give all of your love to God and love everybody as God. Don't love people for being people.



Where does the bible say this?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by bewareofdogmas




Where does the bible say this?
"Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself", but you must also know thyself. God (the kingdom of heaven) is within you, as Jesus said. Therefore, to love thyself is to love the glory that is within you... is to love God. Hence, love your neighbour as you love God.

"Luk 14:26 If any [man] come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."

Jesus doesn't just want you to love people who you think are special in worldly terms - like your mum, dad, brother, etc.. He wants you to love people no matter what they are (hence, love thy neighbour as thyself). Hence Jesus conveys anger towards society's prejudice pertaining to love.
The family of God is all people, according to Jesus. Not just the people living under one roof.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Originally posted by lifegazer

"Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself", but you must also know thyself. God (the kingdom of heaven) is within you, as Jesus said. Therefore, to love thyself is to love the glory that is within you... is to love God. Hence, love your neighbour as you love God.

"Luk 14:26 If any [man] come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."



Maybe I have to take the drugs you do to get it.

[evildave]

Invisible words "between the lines", like all the great "What Jesus really meant..." quotes.

MATT 10 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=MATT+10&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on) Has a lot of great stuff in it.


21"Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. 22All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. 23When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.


So, I wonder why those lazy Christians haven't gotten around to "going through all the cities of Israel", yet? You'd think they'd have been done with that a long time ago.

I know: they're too busy banging on my door some mornings trying to peddle their disease to me.



32"Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. 33But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.


Petty. So much for forgiving people their little quirks.


34"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35For I have come to turn
" 'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--
36a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'[5]

37"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.


Wants strife, just like the topic says.


40"He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives the one who sent me. 41Anyone who receives a prophet because he is a prophet will receive a prophet's reward, and anyone who receives a righteous man because he is a righteous man will receive a righteous man's reward. 42And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones because he is my disciple, I tell you the truth, he will certainly not lose his reward."


So, the way I read 40~42, those who well tolerate Christians and their little "ways" are "saved", too. Glory be. Of course, I'd just give people a cup of water (or soda, or whatever I have) because they're thirsty. So technically, for not having a selfish reason in my heart to do good, or because I just happened to give them a drink because I was nice, and it had nothing to do with what religion they had, I'm not "saved'.

Certainly gives low standards for "Pascal's Wager'. Why bother with the whole religion when you can just provide services (but ONLY to Christians) and receive 100% of the reward? And not even consistently: DO IT ONCE. One little cup of water. Only so long as you do the good deed seeking to do it for a Christian, mind you.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Okay, who knows the ancient Greek word that was translated to hate? Let's see ... miseo. Yup, it means hate or abhor.


~~ Paul

[sparklecat]

"But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven."


So Peter's screwed?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by bewareofdogmas




Maybe I have to take the drugs you do to get it.
Maybe you have to stop pretending you understand things about the bible when it is clear that you understand nothing. And you really should think twice about denouncing God until you know that one doesn't exist. And if you do know that, then post your proof so that you can save me wasting my own time.

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Maybe you have to stop pretending you understand things about the bible when it is clear that you understand nothing.

Nobody who critisizes it understands it apparently. But on the other hand, what is so bad about bewareofdogmas' interpretation? I agree with him. The Bible basically equates love with hate according to those two verses.

Originally posted by lifegazer
And you really should think twice about denouncing God until you know that one doesn't exist.

How does one denounce God? Will "fuc/< God" do?

Fuc/< God

Originally posted by lifegazer
And if you do know that, then post your proof so that you can save me wasting my own time.

What do you mean with God? That omnious Father/Son/Holy Spirit thingy supposedly having written a putatively inerrant book.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Lord Emsworth
Nobody who critisizes it understands it apparently. But on the other hand, what is so bad about bewareofdogmas' interpretation? I agree with him. The Bible basically equates love with hate according to those two verses.[/i]

No it does not. I explained why. Jesus wants us to love everyone the same. He doesn't want a hierarchy of love that begins with the family and dilutes to your countrymen or fellow christians/jews before dissipating into indifference for everyone else.
Hence, Jesus condemns "the family" as he might condemn nationality. He condemns the institution, as always. But he doesn't condemn humanity. Hence, love thy neighbour as thyself - with no less a love than you would have for those beneath your own roof. That is what Jesus wanted to convey.

How does one denounce God? Will "fuc/< God" do?

Fuc/< God

Do you think that this makes you look big?
Those who condemn God condemn the very essence of their lives.

[Some Friggin Guy]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Those who condemn God condemn the very essence of their lives.

I disagree. Those who condemn god condemn an idea which may or may not be false. Same as those who condemn santa clause, the tooth fairy or Iraq's WMDs.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy


I disagree. Those who condemn god condemn an idea which may or may not be false. Same as those who condemn santa clause, the tooth fairy or Iraq's WMDs.
Those who condemn santa, the tooth fairy or Iraq's wmd's, are condemning nonentities. Furthermore, none of them can be considered to be the essence of anyones lives.
Those that condemn God do not know that a God doesn't exist. And so, those that condemn God do so at their own peril, fully warned.

[Some Friggin Guy]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Those who condemn santa, the tooth fairy or Iraq's wmd's, are condemning nonentities. Furthermore, none of them can be considered to be the essence of anyones lives.
Those that condemn God do not know that a God doesn't exist. And so, those that condemn God do so at their own peril, fully warned.

Ah, but, using the WMD example, we don't KNOW they don't exist and we can't PROVE they don't exist. We can condemn them or mock them, but we do it at our own peril, since, if they do exist, they can destroy us.

[evildave]

OK, let me make a minor correction to set the record straight:

It's not:

"Those who condemn God condemn the very essence of their lives."

it's:

"Those who condemn God condemn the very essence of lifegazer's life."

Just because something like ancient fairy tales about demigods, or even "beany babies" or whatever fads you're into is the "most important thing" in your life, doesn't mean it's important to other people.

I'm a computer/technology/science geek.

You're a Jesus geek.

Recognize and get over the fact that not everybody is into the same fetishes that you are.

Talking to a in idol of a guy on a cross gets you off? Fine. I like technological development and space exploration far better.

Just because I don't see any reason to collect beany babies, or recognize in them any intrinsic value doesn't mean you won't be able to buy them from or sell them to some other people fixated on beany babies.

[lifegazer]

Hey guys. Condemn away. I did my job and I warned you.

[scribble]

Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself", but you must also know thyself.


Now, we've already cited the first assertation as coming from the Bible.

Why don't you tell us where this idea, "know thyself" comes from?

I never liked Shakespeare, but I think maybe you've got him confused with God (don't worry, lots of people do. ***** English majors). I can tell you for sure "know thyself" isn't anyplace in the Bible...


Maybe you have to stop pretending you understand things about the bible when it is clear that you understand nothing.


On top of that, show some respect, boy. Bible is to be capitalized.

[evildave]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Hey guys. Condemn away. I did my job and I warned you.

Beware the invisible monsters that may be stalking you, waiting for you to say the "forbidden word" out loud. They will give you such a wedgie!

Go ahead and call me "crazy". I did my job and warned you! You'll be sorry, you scoffers and nay-sayers!

[Some Friggin Guy]

Originally posted by evildave


Beware the invisible monsters that may be stalking you, waiting for you to say the "forbidden word" out loud. They will give you such a wedgie!

Go ahead and call me "crazy". I did my job and warned you! You'll be sorry, you scoffers and nay-sayers!

Dude! You weren't supposed to warn him of that!

[Kopji]

The context of the 'hate your family' verse of Luke 14:26 is resolved in Luke 14:33 "in the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple".

Not a command to go out and hate, but making the point that following involves a total commitment that encompasses both love and hate.

(There see, no drugs).

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
No it does not. I explained why.

You have?

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Jesus wants us to love everyone the same. He doesn't want a hierarchy of love that begins with the family and dilutes to your countrymen or fellow christians/jews before dissipating into indifference for everyone else.
Hence, Jesus condemns "the family" as he might condemn nationality. He condemns the institution, as always. But he doesn't condemn humanity. Hence, love thy neighbour as thyself - with no less a love than you would have for those beneath your own roof. That is what Jesus wanted to convey.

Perhaps you have missed a few crucial points of these verses. I will repost them again:

Mat 19:19 Honour thy father and [thy] mother: and,Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Luk 14:26 If any [man] come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

Let's bring them together: If you want to be a disciple of The Myth you have to hate your life and you are supposed to love your neighbor as you love yourself, i.e. you have to hate your neighbor.

Sure, The Myth basically equates love and hate. Or, he is preaching hate all along. Or, it is simply contradicting.

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Do you think that this makes you look big?
Those who condemn God condemn the very essence of their lives.


Isn't that what the the The Myth is requesting here? To hate my life and the very essence thereof?

Come to that if there is something that calls Herself rightfully a Supreme Being then I suppose that She is sort of a Big Girl and will hardly be offended at the names that I call the meek Father/Son/Holy Spirit thingy.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by lifegazer
And you really should think twice about denouncing God until you know that one doesn't exist. And if you do know that, then post your proof so that you can save me wasting my own time. Lifegazer, I'm high on Niquil (sp?) and vicodin so I might not be all that coherent at the moment.

I like you lifegazer (not the drugs talking). I find you articulate and patient in the face of opposition.

In any event, if someone told me I should reconsider making fun of the little people (leprechauns) because there might be negative consequences I would pay it no heed. Would you?

Lifegazer, it seems to me that you are suggesting a Pascal's wager. Problem is I don't know which god to avoid offending or which superstitions to follow.

I mix dairy and meat.
I don't avoid stepping on cracks.
I shave the hair on the side of my head.
I don't avoid opening umbrellas indoors.
I don't avoid walking under ladders.
I Eat pork.
I Eat meat on Friday.
I don't kneel toward mecca and pray.

Can you prove that Moslems are wrong?
Can you prove that the Jews are wrong?
Can you prove that Zeus does not exist?
Can you prove a negative?

Untill someone can I'm going to live my life as if none of them exist. And I am an agnostic that accepts that there could in fact be a god. But if he can't be a little less contradictory in his message to me then I see no reason in trying to guess which set of rules he wants me to follow and which god no to offend.

[Some Friggin Guy]

Lifegazer, I'm high on Niquil (sp?) and vicodin so I might not be all that coherent at the moment.

WHOA! I'm surprised you aren't seeing those leprechauns you were talking about right now!

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by scribble
Why don't you tell us where this idea, "know thyself" comes from?

It doesn't matter where it comes from. The point is that you cannot truly love yourself (or your neighbour as yourself) if you don't know who you are.

On top of that, show some respect, boy. Bible is to be capitalized.
Thankyou for correcting me.

[scribble]

Originally posted by lifegazer
[B]
It doesn't matter where it comes from. The point is that you cannot truly love yourself (or your neighbour as yourself) if you don't know who you are.


It does matter, see, that was your direct response to the question, "Where does the Bible say this?" You can't follow an argument for five minutes.


Thank you for correcting me.


I'd be a busy man if I made a habit of it.

[elliotfc]

http://ww2.forwilliam.org:8002/discernment/hate_your_mother.htm

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Those that condemn God do not know that a God doesn't exist. And so, those that condemn God do so at their own peril, fully warned.

Buwahahahahahahahaha!!

Oh, wait. You're serious.

Is that your best shot? Is fear all you can offer?

[triadboy]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Hey guys. Condemn away. I did my job and I warned you.

And there lies the crux of Christianity.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by elliotfc
http://ww2.forwilliam.org:8002/discernment/hate_your_mother.htm One shouldn't even need to read something like this in order to make sense of the passage.

This discussion is asinine, and for once lifegazer's contributions were not the most inane ones - props to BoD and Emsworth.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Ipecac


Buwahahahahahahahaha!!

Oh, wait. You're serious.

Is that your best shot? Is fear all you can offer?
Let's get one thing clear here: I'm offering advice. It's like I'd tell you not to walk across the road without looking both ways.
My philosophy is that God is the essence of your life. So, you condemn God you condemn life. So, I advise you not to do it.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Let's get one thing clear here: I'm offering advice. It's like I'd tell you not to walk across the road without looking both ways.
My philosophy is that God is the essence of your life. So, you condemn God you condemn life. So, I advise you not to do it.

Looking both ways before you cross the road is good advice. It's practical and the results of not looking are demonstrable.

The advice you're offering is nonsense. It's not practical, it's not proveable, it's silly. It may mean the entire universe to you, but it means nothing to those of us who have thought about the issue.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Ipecac


Looking both ways before you cross the road is good advice. It's practical and the results of not looking are demonstrable.

The advice you're offering is nonsense. It's not practical, it's not proveable, it's silly. It may mean the entire universe to you, but it means nothing to those of us who have thought about the issue.
I'm not forcing you to take my advice. But I must give it anyway.
We get what we give. Give condemnation to life and life will give...

[Bottle or the Gun]

At last I have permission to hate my neighbor! I always felt that his 3 all-darn-night barking dogs and hobby of walking around without clothes on while the drapes were open wasn't enough reason to dislike him.

[hgc]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I'm not forcing you to take my advice. But I must give it anyway.
... Uh oh. Another guru, compelled by mysterious forces to speak the Truth, witness for the masses. "It's not my choice to blab on endlessly, God-made-me-do-it."

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I'm not forcing you to take my advice. But I must give it anyway.
We get what we give. Give condemnation to life and life will give...

No one here was condemning life. You're the one who defined life as equal to "god". Not many here agree with that definition.

Most of us define god as equal to "fictional character".

[RandFan]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Let's get one thing clear here: I'm offering advice. It's like I'd tell you not to walk across the road without looking both ways.
My philosophy is that God is the essence of your life. So, you condemn God you condemn life. So, I advise you not to do it. What about the advice from the Taliban? According to some, preaching Christanity is an abomination to God? It offends God. So why don't you heed that advice?

Really lifegazer, in all sincerity, why should I listen to your advice when there is so much contradictory advice out there?

I would really like an answer to the question.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RandFan
What about the advice from the Taliban? According to some, preaching Christanity is an abomination to God? It offends God. So why don't you heed that advice?

I do, though not because of the Taliban. I'm not a Christian (or a Jew). I think christianity has misinterpreted the words of Jesus - not unlike the misinterpretation of the words we are getting in here.

Really lifegazer, in all sincerity, why should I listen to your advice when there is so much contradictory advice out there?

Because I give God its full glory. God is existence. Nothing else really exists. Let's face it: how can there be an omnipresent God if other entities exist?
God has all power in existence. God has all knowledge in existence. My God is unsurpassable.

[Krandal2]

For those actually intersted in the subject I'll add a link to elliotfc's which is a bit more ellaborate:

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/hhate.html

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Because I give God its full glory. God is existence. Nothing else really exists. Let's face it: how can there be an omnipresent God if other entities exist?
God has all power in existence. God has all knowledge in existence. My God is unsurpassable.

I'm sorry, Lifegazer, but this is gibberish.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I do, though not because of the Taliban. I'm not a Christian (or a Jew). I think christianity has misinterpreted the words of Jesus - not unlike the misinterpretation of the words we are getting in here.

Because I give God its full glory. God is existence. Nothing else really exists. Let's face it: how can there be an omnipresent God if other entities exist?
God has all power in existence. God has all knowledge in existence. My God is unsurpassable. But that simply isn't enough. God doesn't just want glory, he demands "obedience". Are you obedient? If so, obedient according to which set of rules?

[evildave]

So, what you're saying, lifegazer, is that we're all a god's dream, and nobody, not even YOU exists?

Basically, everybody BUT your God is a fictional character or prop in this scenario.

Fascinating.


In any event, if we're fictional characters acting out a fantasy play in your god's head/mind/whatever, then we don't have any will to follow or not follow your advice. It's all up to your "real" god (presuming he/she/it is not its self a fantasy of a bigger god) to decide who believes <s>you</s> your character.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by evildave
So, what you're saying, lifegazer, is that we're all a god's dream, and nobody, not even YOU exists?

Basically, everybody BUT your God is a fictional character or prop in this scenario.

Fascinating.


In any event, if we're fictional characters acting out a fantasy play in your god's head/mind/whatever, then we don't have any will to follow or not follow your advice. It's all up to your "real" god (presuming he/she/it is not its self a fantasy of a bigger god) to decide who believes <s>you</s> your character. This reminds me of the woman who tried to convince others as to the merits of solipsism. Imagine trying to convince a figment of your imagination that that figment is real and you in fact do not exist.

I think it is time for me to take some more codine and vicodin chased with alittle Niquil.

Rand{hic****Fan

[gnome]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Another example of how the text of the bible is misunderstood unless you understand the message behind it.
Jesus was saying that you should give all of your love to God and love everybody as God. Don't love people for being people.

I really don't mean to attack your beliefs... but what you're saying requires a bit of word twisting to get out of what was actually said in the bible.

Do you have reason to believe this is what the Bible meant, besides that you want it to be so?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by evildave
So, what you're saying, lifegazer, is that we're all a god's dream, and nobody, not even YOU exists?

Basically, everybody BUT your God is a fictional character or prop in this scenario.

Fascinating.


In any event, if we're fictional characters acting out a fantasy play in your god's head/mind/whatever, then we don't have any will to follow or not follow your advice. It's all up to your "real" god (presuming he/she/it is not its self a fantasy of a bigger god) to decide who believes <s>you</s> your character.
I have no idea why, but nobody ever understands my philosophy. It's true that I say only God exists, and it's true that I say that "we" are an illusion occuring within God's mind. But that doesn't obliterate our existence - it tells us that we are God having the dream of being us. Hence, the latter part of your post is incorrect - we do have will - but it belongs to God.
We are God.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RandFan
But that simply isn't enough. God doesn't just want glory, he demands "obedience". Are you obedient? If so, obedient according to which set of rules?
God demands nothing since there is nobody to demand anything of but God itself. God has free will. Life is a drama of choices. The end of days will see one set of choices vanquish all others.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by gnome
I really don't mean to attack your beliefs... but what you're saying requires a bit of word twisting to get out of what was actually said in the bible.

If you understand the base testimony of Jesus - that all people are children of God - then it's a simple process of reasoning which tells you that Jesus abhors the institutionalism of close-family since that institution betrays and dilutes the love for the greater family of Earth itself.
Jesus doesn't want you to hate your mum or dad. He just wants you to stop loving them merely because they are your mum or dad. And he wants you to love all people equally - as in love thy neighbour as thyself.

Do you have reason to believe this is what the Bible meant, besides that you want it to be so?
It's very obvious reason squire. Jesus abhors division and institution. He often attacked the ways of Jewry itself and was keen to open the door to all gentiles.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by lifegazer
God demands nothing since there is nobody to demand anything of but God itself. God has free will. Life is a drama of choices. The end of days will see one set of choices vanquish all others. So if we lock you in a room with no food, water or toilet, how long will it take for you to realize the absurdity of this idea?

[evildave]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I have no idea why, but nobody ever understands my philosophy. It's true that I say only God exists, and it's true that I say that "we" are an illusion occuring within God's mind. But that doesn't obliterate our existence - it tells us that we are God having the dream of being us. Hence, the latter part of your post is incorrect - we do have will - but it belongs to God.
We are God.

But once again, it's just "God" roleplaying, and no harm done if we don't believe your version of things. Because we're 'god', according to your own definition.

I have a similar thought model where all beings are the same being. If you step on an ant, you'll "get yours", because you will be that ant (or already have been that ant) in another life. Thus, going around deliberately causing pain is foolish, in that you are only doing it to yourself.

The difference is, I recognize this as a *model*. A framework within which onc may contemplate. Yes, it could be used as a perfectly valid device to derive 'morality' from, but so could many other things. It's useful without necessarily being in any way true at all.

I don't care whether you use my simple model, your similar model that deifies the "one being", or invent a more elaborate one involving legos and invisible elves.

It could simply be that this being is "trapped" in the cycle of 'reincarnation', like certain other faiths dictate, as well.

The point is, using any model, you can learn things. Forgetting that you are dealing with a model, and adapting it as some sort of 'gospel' prevents you from playing with the model, inventing more models, and learning other things based on better models.

[gnome]

Originally posted by lifegazer

If you understand the base testimony of Jesus - that all people are children of God - then it's a simple process of reasoning which tells you that Jesus abhors the institutionalism of close-family since that institution betrays and dilutes the love for the greater family of Earth itself.
Jesus doesn't want you to hate your mum or dad. He just wants you to stop loving them merely because they are your mum or dad. And he wants you to love all people equally - as in love thy neighbour as thyself.

It's very obvious reason squire. Jesus abhors division and institution. He often attacked the ways of Jewry itself and was keen to open the door to all gentiles.

I still don't get it. Yes, I understand what you're saying, but while your idea is beautiful and sensible, I see no reason why the bible had to positively state something very different and force you to change the meaning to make it consistent. Why didn't it just say what you said, instead of stating that you had to "hate" your family?

Especially since there are lots of people clamoring to take the bible at its literal word...

It's a "simple process of reasoning" that requires you to ignore a very strong word. Not to mention many people use what seems to be "simple reasoning" and come up with very different results. Why leave it ambiguous?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by gnome
I still don't get it. Yes, I understand what you're saying, but while your idea is beautiful and sensible, I see no reason why the bible had to positively state something very different and force you to change the meaning to make it consistent. Why didn't it just say what you said, instead of stating that you had to "hate" your family?

Especially since there are lots of people clamoring to take the bible at its literal word...

You are aware that Jesus also said something like "Don't cast your pearls before swine."?
In fact you must be aware that the whole testament of Jesus was conveyed with mystical parables, using symbolism?

Why leave it ambiguous?
Why indeed. But the fact is that he did. He lived 2000 years ago when the time was not right for the message to be clear to everyone, so he made sure that it was not clear to all but "those that have ears to hear". It was a deliberate ploy for Jesus - at that time - to be ambigious or confusing. But those that understood his base philosophy would understand his mystical testimony also.

The time is now right that everyone should understand. That is why I am explaining it to those that will listen.

[Beanbag]

Quoted from lifegazer:
In fact you must be aware that the whole testament of Jesus was conveyed with mystical parables, using symbolism?

It was a deliberate ploy for Jesus - at that time - to be ambigious or confusing. But those that understood his base philosophy would understand his mystical testimony also.

The time is now right that everyone should understand. That is why I am explaining it to those that will listen.

end quote

I find it VERY uncomfortable when someone has the ABSOLUTE GALL to take it upon themselves to "know" what God had in mind. You would think the all-powerful, all-knowing God that Christianity (and most other single diety religions) takes as the absolute foundation for their faith would be able to get His/Her/Its point across in a clear, unambiguous fashion.

God's not all He's cracked up to be. He lacks at least one of the basic skills for good mamagement: the ability to communicate clearly.

As George Carlin put it: "If you were God, would you want that guy talking for you?"

Regards;
Beanbag

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Beanbag
I find it VERY uncomfortable when someone has the ABSOLUTE GALL to take it upon themselves to "know" what God had in mind. You would think the all-powerful, all-knowing God that Christianity (and most other single diety religions) takes as the absolute foundation for their faith would be able to get His/Her/Its point across in a clear, unambiguous fashion.

God's not all He's cracked up to be. He lacks at least one of the basic skills for good mamagement: the ability to communicate clearly.
When I was a true believer, I found comfort in the fact that I could discern god's meaning. Parables were meant to confound those who were proudful in their supposed wisdom. "1Cor 1:25 (KJS) Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men."

Of course the obvious hit me one day. There is perhaps nothing that has caused more confusion and more contention than the bible. Learned men have been debating the meaning for thousands of years and there is no consensus on any single issue that can be found within it. Including what constitutes the bible? The Jews reject the OT. The Catholic bible is different from the Protestant. Is it ok to divorce? Is it ok for priests to marry? Is baptism to be performed by immersion or by sprinkling? Is it ok to eat pork? Is it ok to mix dairy and meat? Is it ok to own slaves? Is God one person or three????? Did Christ fulfill the law? If so and I don't have to count my steps on the Sabbath, can I covet my neighbors wife? I could go on for pages. And the answers? Who knows. It depends on who you ask. There are stories of people from every religion who have sacrificed their lives because they believed so strongly that their interpretation was correct.

Sorry, but the Bible as a concrete foundation of knowledge is anything but. Why an omniscient God would produce something so confusing and contradictory is beyond explanation. I spent 20 years studying the Bible. I still have the Bible from when I served my 2 year mission. I had 3 years of bible study, 1 month of intense missionary school and I read it every day for 24 months while I was proselytizing. What is the truth as it is told in the Bible? You got me.

[lifegazer]

Well I'm sorry, but it's a definite fact that the wisdom within the gospels (and probably the rest of the bible) was deliberately intended to be obscured to all but they that understood the base message therein.
Why? I figure that in that era, the time simply hadn't yet arrived to explain everything with full clarity. That moment was to be delayed, deliberately. The last 2000 years, at least, were meant to be as they were.
So, you can complain that it is obscure or ambigious, for it was meant to be so. But it is not so once you read it with an eye to the main message.

[gnome]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Well I'm sorry, but it's a definite fact that the wisdom within the gospels (and probably the rest of the bible) was deliberately intended to be obscured to all but they that understood the base message therein.
Why? I figure that in that era, the time simply hadn't yet arrived to explain everything with full clarity. That moment was to be delayed, deliberately. The last 2000 years, at least, were meant to be as they were.
So, you can complain that it is obscure or ambigious, for it was meant to be so. But it is not so once you read it with an eye to the main message.

I'm sorry. I don't say this about you, but most of the time I feel the message "you'd agree with me if you really understood" is right in line with most people's desire to have a smug feeling that they understand something in a way that others don't...

I'm not afraid to speculate that the material could be flawed... are you?

Can you tell me how to distinguish ideas distorted by that desire from the actual truth? Or do you claim that never happens?

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Well I'm sorry, but it's a definite fact that the wisdom within the gospels (and probably the rest of the bible) was deliberately intended to be obscured to all but they that understood the base message therein.
Why? I figure that in that era, the time simply hadn't yet arrived to explain everything with full clarity. That moment was to be delayed, deliberately. The last 2000 years, at least, were meant to be as they were.
So, you can complain that it is obscure or ambigious, for it was meant to be so. But it is not so once you read it with an eye to the main message.

So with eternal torture hanging over billions of people's heads, the all-loving, infinitely compassionate god chose to be obscure and ambiguous about how to avoid the torture?

Makes sense to me. Especially since he didn't even bother to get his message to billions of people (south americans, asians, etc.) until centuries later.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Ipecac


So with eternal torture hanging over billions of people's heads, the all-loving, infinitely compassionate god chose to be obscure and ambiguous about how to avoid the torture?

Makes sense to me. Especially since he didn't even bother to get his message to billions of people (south americans, asians, etc.) until centuries later.
Nobody suffers but God. Everything is God. To be honest, there can be no real joy without pain, no peace without war, no meaningful love without the experience of hate.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by gnome
I'm sorry. I don't say this about you, but most of the time I feel the message "you'd agree with me if you really understood" is right in line with most people's desire to have a smug feeling that they understand something in a way that others don't...

The truth is God's, not mine. lifegazer has nothing to gain from my philosophy. Smugness isn't something I would be proud to have.

I'm not afraid to speculate that the material could be flawed... are you?

I've read the gospels. They make perfect sense to me.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by lifegazer
So, you can complain that it is obscure or ambigious, for it was meant to be so. But it is not so once you read it with an eye to the main message. And who has done that? Logic would dictate that there must be a group somewhere who has a consensus as to the "real" meaning of the bible.

Please tell us, which group? Luthern, Episcipalian, Amish, Mennonite, Mormon, Jehovas Witness, Seventh Day Aventist, Catholic, Spirit filled, Baptists (which baptist), etc., etc..

lifegazer, the facts speak for themselves. You can claim that it is understood but it is not. I note that you did not answer the questions.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Maybe you have to stop pretending you understand things about the bible when it is clear that you understand nothing. ...

Translation:


" If what the Bible says sounds stupid or contradictory, it must really mean something else.. Here's my guess........ "

[RandFan]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I've read the gospels. They make perfect sense to me. Yeah, but then they make perfect sense to whomever reads them. But it is demonstrable that there is no consensus as to what "sense" there is to them.

Did Christ really talk to himself in Gethsemany? Did he really ask himself if he could avoid taking on the sins of the world and being crusified? Did he not know the answer to the question before he asked it?

Here is a question I am dying for someone to answer. If so many people are willing to die in support of their interpetation of the Bible and those interpetations are at odds. How do you know if your interpetation is correct. Just because you are "certain" is no reason to assume that you are right.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RandFan
Please tell us, which group? Luthern, Episcipalian, Amish, Mennonite, Mormon, Jehovas Witness, Seventh Day Aventist, Catholic, Spirit filled, Baptists (which baptist), etc., etc..

The church failed. The message of the Christ was that the kingdom of God resides within you. The church created a chasm between man and God whilst Jesus preached that we are unified with God, as God. Jesus bridged the gap between man and God and the church destroyed that bridge.

lifegazer, the facts speak for themselves. You can claim that it is understood but it is not. I note that you did not answer the questions.
Your questions were insignificant. Irrelevant to what I am saying.

[Ipecac]

It's like conversing with living Glurge. Yeesh.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by lifegazer
The church failed. How do you know the church failed? Wasn't it the church that brought the word of god to the masses? Without churches there would be no bible. It was churches that facilitated the copying and canonizing of the bible. Churches that printed it.

The message of the Christ was that the kingdom of God resides within you. How can we possibly know that this is the truth since it was the failed church who brought us to Christ in the first place. You are saying they gave us Christ and then separated us?

The church created a chasm between man and God whilst Jesus preached that we are unified with God, as God. Jesus bridged the gap between man and God and the church destroyed that bridge. Makes my point. Of what value is a book that everyone but you and perhaps a few others understand?

Religion is a direct result of the Bible. If there had been no Bible there would be no Christian religions. God managed to give people a confusing book that would cause hundreds of millions to be separated from god.

And how would we know about Jesus? Read the Bible? Should we have deacons, teachers and priests? Should we have a sacrament? Should we baptize? Do the gospels explicitly prohibit religion?

Your questions were insignificant. Irrelevant to what I am saying. Only that they are inconvenient to your thesis. There are specific rules of conduct in the bible. How does anyone know which to follow? You understand but how can you be trusted to know which is right?

Of what value is a book that tells us to conduct our selves in a specific manner if that is not relevant?

[EGarrett]

Interesting thread.

All I have to add is that we should all be thankful that lifegazer is willing to stay and and discuss his/her philosophy with us instead of pulling a Wu-Wu and running away.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RandFan
How do you know the church failed?

I've told you why it's failed: It enforced a chasm between man and God when Jesus told us that there is no chasm. Hence, the church failed miserably.

Wasn't it the church that brought the word of god to the masses? Without churches there would be no bible. It was churches that facilitated the copying and canonizing of the bible. Churches that printed it.

Of course. But success has to be judged on more than perpetuating biblical text into popular consciousness. The meaning of that text is paramount.

The message of the Christ was that the kingdom of God resides within you.

How can we possibly know that this is the truth since it was the failed church who brought us to Christ in the first place. You are saying they gave us Christ and then separated us?

Hold on... Christ gave himself. The church took what he gave us and dished out a distorted representation of everything. That's my point.
"The kingdom of God is within you" is written somewhere in the gospels, attributed to Jesus. Ask yourself why the church has ignored this hugely significant saying - and many like it - to concentrate on digging that chasm between man and God, thus denying man his inner treasure - his own birthright.

Makes my point. Of what value is a book that everyone but you and perhaps a few others understand?

I gave an answer to this earlier. The moment was not right to make things absolutely clear. The narrative of Jesus was deliberately obscure and would not be understood unless you first understood that only God exists. Understand that, and everything makes perfect sense. Did you not agree with my take on this hate the family thing, for example?

Religion is a direct result of the Bible. If there had been no Bible there would be no Christian religions.

The text of the bible does not necessitate Christian doctrine.

God managed to give people a confusing book that would cause hundreds of millions to be separated from god.

The absolute meaning of the gospels has always been clear to see. I challenge you to read the gospel of John again and you will see what I mean. The earlier the version, the better.

And how would we know about Jesus? Read the Bible? Should we have deacons, teachers and priests? Should we have a sacrament? Should we baptize? Do the gospels explicitly prohibit religion?

Jesus told us to worship within ourselves, peacefully. The human-being is the church and the God. If we have teachers, then let them present themselves without the flowing gowns and the fanfare.

Only that they are inconvenient to your thesis. There are specific rules of conduct in the bible. How does anyone know which to follow? You understand but how can you be trusted to know which is right?

Do unto others as you would have done unto yourself, speaks volumes. Love thy neighbour as thyself, speaks volumes. It's simple.
Here are your trivial questions, from earlier:-

Is it ok to divorce?

If you want to divorce, then divorce.

Is it ok for priests to marry?

If priests want to marry, then let 'em.

Is baptism to be performed by immersion or by sprinkling?

It takes more than a wet head to know thyself and thy God.

Is it ok to eat pork?

It's no okay for the pig, no. And it's not ok for your arteries.

Is it ok to mix dairy and meat?

God breathes life into all creatures. That we use animals is okay as long as we don't make them suffer. What we do to the animals, we do unto ourselves.

Is it ok to own slaves?

No.

Is God one person or three?????

Only God exists = One entity. But there is a trinity of perceived being, as God, Christ, and the son of man.

Did Christ fulfill the law? If so and I don't have to count my steps on the Sabbath, can I covet my neighbors wife?

Would you want your neighbour to covet your wife?

Of what value is a book that tells us to conduct our selves in a specific manner if that is not relevant?
Think of everything as God and the questions are easy to answer.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by EGarrett
Interesting thread.

All I have to add is that we should all be thankful that lifegazer is willing to stay and and discuss his/her philosophy with us instead of pulling a Wu-Wu and running away.

I would be thankful, provided that lifegazer was actually discussing, rather than issuing vague, new-ageish homilies to every question.

[spejic]

Originally posted by RandFan
Yeah, but then they make perfect sense to whomever reads them. But it is demonstrable that there is no consensus as to what "sense" there is to them. Lifegazer will never understand this point. He not only refuses to look at an issue in an objective manner, but considers it profound sin to do so. He cannot hold the belief that he might be wrong. He cannot hold the belief that other people's ideas matter. He cannot hold the idea that he needs some kind of evidence for his speculations to catch on in other minds. He is the most profoundly self-centered person I have ever heard of.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I've told you why it's failed: It enforced a chasm between man and God when Jesus told us that there is no chasm. Hence, the church failed miserably. This makes little sense in that if it were not for the church there would be no Bible. No one would no about Christ. ???????? Again, the whole concept is contradictory.

Of course. But success has to be judged on more than perpetuating biblical text into popular consciousness. The meaning of that text is paramount. It is of zero value and meaning if there is no biblical text.

Hold on... Christ gave himself. The church took what he gave us and dished out a distorted representation of everything. That's my point.
"The kingdom of God is within you" is written somewhere in the gospels, attributed to Jesus. Ask yourself why the church has ignored this hugely significant saying - and many like it - to concentrate on digging that chasm between man and God, thus denying man his inner treasure - his own birthright. A better question it confuses and confounds if one needs but read it?

I gave an answer to this earlier. The moment was not right to make things absolutely clear. The narrative of Jesus was deliberately obscure and would not be understood unless you first understood that only God exists. Understand that, and everything makes perfect sense. Did you not agree with my take on this hate the family thing, for example? No, understanding that only God exists does not at all clarify things. On the contrary. It brings up a whole host of other questions. It makes the notion of God deceptive. If you happen to stumble on some philosophical concept then it suddenly falls into place. That makes no sense.

The text of the bible does not necessitate Christian doctrine. Then it necessitates nothing.

The absolute meaning of the gospels has always been clear to see. I challenge you to read the gospel of John again and you will see what I mean. The earlier the version, the better. I have heard this allot and there is merit to it. If Mormons read the Book of Mormon in the right light they will understand its meaning better. If you read the Bible with the spirit of Christ having been born again and accepted him into your heart you will understand that Jack Chick is correct.

Jesus told us to worship within ourselves, peacefully. The human-being is the church and the God. If we have teachers, then let them present themselves without the flowing gowns and the fanfare. I fully understand Christs teachings. "Behold the lilys of the fields". It doesn't solve all of the contradictory teachings and ideas.

Do unto others as you would have done unto yourself, speaks volumes. Love thy neighbour as thyself, speaks volumes. It's simple. Then why put all of the other stuff in? Should I disregard anything that is at odds with this single statement?

If you want to divorce, then divorce. What God has joined together let no man put assunder

If priests want to marry, then let 'em. It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

It takes more than a wet head to know thyself and thy God. "Jesus said, "Go then, to all people everywhere and make them my disciples, baptize them in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you."

"For when you are baptized, you were buried with Christ, and in baptism you were also raised with Christ."

"Those who believed and accepted His message were baptized..."

Baptism seems pretty important. Sure it takes more than a wet head. That is a dodge though and doesn't answer the question.

It's no okay for the pig, no. And it's not ok for your arteries. It's no more harmful to the arteiries than beef. Eating cows isn't so okay for the cow. According to the Bible eating beef in moderation is ok. According to the American Heart association eating beef and pork in moderation is ok.

So again, your answer is not clear and neither is the Bible.

God breathes life into all creatures. That we use animals is okay as long as we don't make them suffer. What we do to the animals, we do unto ourselves. What does this mean? I don't exist according to you. I'm just a figmant of gods imagination. What do I care if some animal suffers?

No. Why not? Christ even gave instuctions as to the treatment of slaves. Who are you dispute with Christ?

Only God exists = One entity. But there is a trinity of perceived being, as God, Christ, and the son of man. And this means what?

Would you want your neighbour to covet your wife? I don't have a problem with it as long as he is keeps his distance.

Think of everything as God and the questions are easy to answer. Everything is easy to answer to the believer. Remeber EST? Everyone who got it, got it.

Those who know the truth are the least likely to find it.
--RandFan

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RandFan
This makes little sense in that if it were not for the church there would be no Bible. No one would no about Christ. ???????? Again, the whole concept is contradictory.

It is of zero value and meaning if there is no biblical text.

You're just playing games... you know what I mean. The church could hold aloft the text of the bible for an eternity, but if it doesn't understand that text then those that listen to that church are damned to separation from God. Hence, a church that misinterprets the text of the bible fails those that would hear that text in the church's understanding.
The church has failed everyone to date. Even the atheists who have mocked God via the church's mouth. Sure, it has preserved the text of the bible... but that is not enough to label religion a success.
Moreover, I tell you now that the prophecy of Jesus will not come to pass until the religions of this world abdicate their thrones of power and importance and fall at the feet of their flock, begging for forgiveness.
All religions shall fall, like all nations, before God's day shall come.

A better question it confuses and confounds if one needs but read it?

I don't understand this response... sorry.

No, understanding that only God exists does not at all clarify things. On the contrary. It brings up a whole host of other questions.

Then ask them.

It makes the notion of God deceptive.

To whom?
Do you understand that you and the father are One = you are God lost in the perception of being 'you'? There is no other than God.

If you happen to stumble on some philosophical concept then it suddenly falls into place. That makes no sense.

Only the philosophy that God exists, can make sense of the bible. Just that. Nothing else.

Then it necessitates nothing.

The text of the bible obviously has a meaning. What I said was that this text does not necessitate the meaning espoused by Christianity.

I have heard this allot and there is merit to it. If Mormons read the Book of Mormon in the right light they will understand its meaning better. If you read the Bible with the spirit of Christ having been born again and accepted him into your heart you will understand that Jack Chick is correct.

I can make sense of anything attributed to Jesus in the gospels when read within the context that God is existence. Man is God, being man.
No religion which leaves a chasm or distinction between man and God, can explain these things.

Should I disregard anything that is at odds with this single statement?

Like what?

What God has joined together let no man put assunder

By the time a couple wants a divorce, the marriage/love is already over anyway. So let them have the divorce rather than betray the significance of marriage and the union of love. What use a marriage without love, for God's sake?

It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

In the sense that a man shall not become besotted by the flesh, yes. For then he shall forget who he is and from whence he came and what is truly important between himself and that woman.

"Jesus said, "Go then, to all people everywhere and make them my disciples, baptize them in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you."

"For when you are baptized, you were buried with Christ, and in baptism you were also raised with Christ."

"Those who believed and accepted His message were baptized..."

Baptism seems pretty important. Sure it takes more than a wet head. That is a dodge though and doesn't answer the question.

Water represents the purest form of matter. Yet matter is the lowest form of God. To be baptised by water is to give ones body to God itself. It is powerful symbolism which mirrors a deep yearning to "be perfect, as our father in heaven is perfect".
Jesus was baptised for man's sake - not for God's sake. The message was to man, not to God.

It's no more harmful to the arteiries than beef. Eating cows isn't so okay for the cow. According to the Bible eating beef in moderation is ok.

Did Jesus usher those words?

According to the American Heart association eating beef and pork in moderation is ok.

Who gives a flying f*** what the American heart association has to say? And why does it matter?
Eating animals is both bad for the animal and the eater thereof.

So again, your answer is not clear and neither is the Bible.

My answer is perfectly clear. All things are God. Bestow suffering upon God and expect suffering in return from God. Cause and effect. Reap what you sow.

What does this mean? I don't exist according to you. I'm just a figmant of gods imagination. What do I care if some animal suffers?

The animal doesn't exist. But God exists, perceiving itself as that animal, and experiencing the suffering bestowed upon itself by you. You hurt an animal and you hurt God and God shall hurt you. Simple as that.

Why not? Christ even gave instuctions as to the treatment of slaves. Who are you dispute with Christ?

Present the evidence please, so that I may respond.

And this means what?

God is (aware of everything at once)... Father
God is just self-aware... Christ.
God is aware of itself in relation to things... Son of man.

I don't have a problem with it as long as he is keeps his distance.

Then you do have a problem with it. So don't covet your neighbour's wife either, for he has the same insecurities as you.

Everything is easy to answer to the believer. Remeber EST? Everyone who got it, got it.

I don't even know what EST is. So I don't gettit.

Those who know the truth are the least likely to find it.

What a rubbish quote, for in what sense can anyone find the truth without coming to know it?

[scribble]

Water represents the purest form of matter.


I'd sure love to hear the explanation for that one.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by scribble


I'd sure love to hear the explanation for that one.
It's just symbolism. The body is comprised mainly of water... water quenches thirst and sustains life... water cleanses the body... water is clear and pure-looking... water feeds the crops and sustains the animals. Water even descends from the lofty (heavenly) clouds.
It's not difficult to see why - from life's viewpoint - water "gets great press".

[RandFan]

I won't go on lifegazer. We will simply have to disagree.

RandFan
Those who know the truth are the least likely to find it.

Originally posted by lifegazer
What a rubbish quote, for in what sense can anyone find the truth without coming to know it? There was a time when people knew the world was flat.
There was a time when people knew that molecules could not be synthesized.
There was a time when people knew that the sun revolved around the earth.
There was a time when people knew that life could only be created inside of the womb. Then something happened. Someone realized that they might not actually know the truth and set out to find it. By refusing to be dogmatic in their beliefs they were able to discover truths that had been hidden from those who knew the truth for thousands of years.

Someone figured out the physics of flight and called it aerodynamics. Later someone figured out that our understanding of aerodynamics was incomplete. Had people accepted that they knew the truth about aerodynamics we might not have gone any further.

Science works when we accept that we don't KNOW the truth but only understand the foundation and workings of the natural world to a certain degree.

From Galileo to Newton to Einstein - ? Truth isn't a destination, it's a journey. Those who "find" it cease in their journey. I don't know the truth. I understand (to some small degree) our natural world. I refuse to be dogmatic. I want to learn all that I can. Otherwise, what's the point?

Sure, it can be come an argument of symantecs. But to turn it into one would miss a very important point. To really find the truth you have to be willing to accept that you might be wrong.

[scribble]

Originally posted by lifegazer

It's just symbolism. The... water... water... water is pure-looking...


Just as an exercise, I took everything out of your post except the part that answers why you think water represents the purest form of matter.

Hrm. I'm not sure that idea is even expressed in the Bible. I think the Bible says the water is to represent the washing away of your sins, and nothing to do with forms of matter at all. But what do I know? I'm not God like you are, no matter what you say, because I know damn well what I want and what you want isn't it. Maybe we're not all one God. Maybe we're all two Gods. Maybe some of us are God, like you, and maybe some of us are Satan, like me.

Maybe.

[lifegazer]

Rand: "Those who know the truth are the least likely to find it."

Lg: "What a rubbish quote, for in what sense can anyone find the truth without coming to know it?".

Either denounce all knowledge as false (which would also negate the value of your own denouncement!!), or accept that you are wrong. Or just forget about it, like you forgot about everything else I said.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by scribble
Maybe some of us are God, like you, and maybe some of us are Satan, like me.

God has choice. You mirror the negative side of that choice, by your own apparent admission.

[scribble]

Originally posted by lifegazer

God has choice. You mirror the negative side of that choice, by your own apparent admission.

Well, I'll tell you one thing for "damn" sure. If your idea of happiness is Unity with me, you have *no clue* what kind of a wild ride you're in for. But feel free to give it a try next time you're in my area.

If you think I want Unity with you - well, you'd probably have to lobotomize me before that idea even achieved the level of acceptability that I could consider it.

If the only way to achieve universal harmony is for everyone to become as irrational and ignorant as you are - then it's my sincere hope that harmony is never achieved.

I'd rather live in a struggle of wits than a complacency of idiocy.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Rand: "Those who know the truth are the least likely to find it."

Lg: "What a rubbish quote, for in what sense can anyone find the truth without coming to know it?".

Either denounce all knowledge as false (which would also negate the value of your own denouncement!!), or accept that you are wrong. Accept that I am wrong? I proved exactly why I am right? People did "know" that the world was round (at least they thought they knew). As long as they knew that they were right they could not find that they were wrong. Science and Skepticism holds that nothing can be known with absolute certainty.

As I said at the end of my last post. You can turn it into a semantics argument if you whish but then you miss the point.

Those who [think they] know the truth are the least likely to find it.

Like all people who think they "know" the truth, you are so dogmatic LG that it is impossible for you to find the truth. You have to be willing to admit that you might be wrong. Just like the people who had to admit that the world might not be flat.

If you are so upset with my ignoring your post I will answer it. But I'm not going to go on forever. You refuse to see the errors in your posts.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Either denounce all knowledge as false (which would also negate the value of your own denouncement!!), or accept that you are wrong. Or just forget about it, like you forgot about everything else I said. It's funny,

A figment of god's imagination would hold that it is possible to know the truth. By definition, such a philosophy would hold that nearly everything we "know" as truth is false.

There is no sky, no ocean, no earth, no life, just thoughts inside of some beings head. And one figment demands of the other figment to denounce all knowledge as false.

Assuming that you are right, and my philosophy holds that you could be, then the vast majority of knowledge is false. :D

I'm betting you miss the irony of your own demand.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RandFan
As I said at the end of my last post. You can turn it into a semantics argument if you whish but then you miss the point.

It's about logic. And it's completely irrational to say that he who knows the truth can never find it. I mean, what about the guy who does find the truth - can he even know it? LOL

Like all people who think they "know" the truth, you are so dogmatic LG that it is impossible for you to find the truth. You have to be willing to admit that you might be wrong. Just like the people who had to admit that the world might not be flat.

How silly. You ordain that doubt should be eternal. Therefore, you put the truth beyond grasp, forever.
Hence, in reality you proclaim that "No truth is truly knowable, ever!". And yet, in itself this proclamation is an absolute truth.
I now challenge you to tell this forum how you know for sure that nothing is knowable for sure. LOLOLolol

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by scribble
Well, I'll tell you one thing for "damn" sure. If your idea of happiness is Unity with me, you have *no clue* what kind of a wild ride you're in for. But feel free to give it a try next time you're in my area.

If you think I want Unity with you - well, you'd probably have to lobotomize me before that idea even achieved the level of acceptability that I could consider it.

If the only way to achieve universal harmony is for everyone to become as irrational and ignorant as you are - then it's my sincere hope that harmony is never achieved.

I'd rather live in a struggle of wits than a complacency of idiocy.
You have no idea what unity of being in God means, nor of the implications it has for the egos of individuals.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by lifegazer
It's about logic. And it's completely irrational to say that he who knows the truth can never find it. I mean, what about the guy who does find the truth - can he even know it? LOL You are laughing at me? You hold that nothing is real and that we are all figments of god's imagination and you laugh at me?:D

You fail to understand my meaning. Even after I have made it clear. What guy and what truth? No, not with absolute certainty. He can be reasonably certain but not 100%

I mean, what about the guy who does find the truth - can he even know it? LOL Not with absolute certainty. Goes to show that you don't pay attention. It also goes to show that you are ignorant of science and the scientific method.

You know nothing of the difference between validity and "knowing the truth".

...there are no objective truths in science, nothing which can be proved or disproved to 100% certainty based upon philosophical first principles, but this is not how scientists define validity, only how some philosophers have chosen to define it. Science works by progressing towards 100% certainty, while recognizing that in absolute terms it will never achieve it. In practical terms, however, we can rely upon 99.999% certainty, even if it does not represent absolute truth. Assuming that some individual found the truth, how would he know it was the truth? How do you know what is true? The only way that anyone can know what is true is through objective means (which is impossible in your world). So who are you to lecture me about truth.

How silly. You ordain that doubt should be eternal. Therefore, you put the truth beyond grasp, forever. By putting the absolute truth beyond grasp I gurantee that I will get closer to the truth than you. Closer to the truth than those who know that the sun revolves around the earth, closer to the truth than those who know the world is flat.

Hence, in reality you proclaim that "No truth is truly knowable, ever!". No, I proclaim that absolute truth is never truly knowable, ever!

And yet, in itself this proclamation is an absolute truth. First, the proclamation that you claim I hold is wrong. Furthermore what I do hold true is that we can't know the absolute truth of anything which I do not claim to be an absolute truth, just an understanding based on scientific study and our current understanding of the natural world.

I now challenge you to tell this forum how you know for sure that nothing is knowable for sure. LOLOLolol [/B] I can't. I can only tell you what science and my philosophy (skepticism) holds as true.

There may be no way for science to prove that all swans are white, but if a study observes 1000 sequential swans and notes all of them to be white, it is rational to acknowledge the tentative conclusion that all swans are white, recognizing that one day a black swan may turn up. Scientists also routinely assess the confidence of such statements by placing error bars on their data. We can state that all swans are white to a confidence interval of >99.9%. I hold that I am confidant of my "proclamation" to a high degree of likelyhood. >99.9999%

[evildave]

Originally posted by lifegazer

You have no idea what unity of being in God means, nor of the implications it has for the egos of individuals.

"Unity" would be the same as death. Not an 'afterlife', just an extra layer of conversion for your personal destruction.

Strip knowledge and experience from the victim, removing the individual identity and volition.

In other words, the individuals who merge with the deity will become part of it. Like cells, organs. You wouldn't want your fingers to have "minds of their own". People who suffer from conditions where they don't have direct control of what their body parts independently do are rightly called 'afflicted'. Why would an omnipotent 'god' put up with it?

All in all, I'd rather be independant than be a tiny cell in some "greater" being's little toe, hopelessly enslaved to its every whim, "forever".

[evildave]

As for "absolute truth", I'll settle for a very good and verifiable approximation over some goon's unverifiable 'ipse dixit' assertions to be taken "on faith" any day.

The difference is, with the approximation I know a little, and know I know a little.

With the so-called "absolute truth", based on faith, I would believe I know everything, while actually knowing nothing at all.

Basically, knowing a little bit, and knowing it's only a little bit is better than knowing nothing at all and believing I know everything.

[scribble]

Originally posted by lifegazer

You have no idea what unity of being in God means, nor of the implications it has for the egos of individuals.

You might think that. But you would be wrong. I happen to have spent a great many of my formative years in the same sort of youthful folly I see you participating in now.

Believe me, I understand *excactly* the implications for Ego in the system you describe. It's you who do not.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by scribble


You might think that. But you would be wrong. I happen to have spent a great many of my formative years in the same sort of youthful folly I see you participating in now.

Believe me, I understand *excactly* the implications for Ego in the system you describe. It's you who do not.
I don't believe you, for if you understood *exactly* the implications for ego in my philosophy, you wouldn't have made the silly remarks in the other post about sharing unity with me. But forget it... this aint going anywhere.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by evildave
"Unity" would be the same as death. Not an 'afterlife', just an extra layer of conversion for your personal destruction.

Strip knowledge and experience from the victim, removing the individual identity and volition.

You haven't got a clue what you're talking about Dave. Having unity of being in God is trying to be like God - selfless, loving, caring, etc.. That's not being dead Dave - it's being alive to the God in everyone, including the Self.

In other words, the individuals who merge with the deity will become part of it. Like cells, organs.

In my philosophy, there is no individual or "cell". There is just God, perceiving itself as a cell.
Losing the ego is not about losing life, as many mistakenly think. Rather, it is about transforming the self, to mirror ones true reality and persona.

All in all, I'd rather be independant than be a tiny cell in some "greater" being's little toe, hopelessly enslaved to its every whim, "forever".
Another ignorant comment. Those who become One with God are not like puppets without a will of their own. Rather, they realise that their will is that of the living God, and live accordingly.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Another ignorant comment. Those who become One with God are not like puppets without a will of their own. Rather, they realise that their will is that of the living God, and live accordingly. ?????? My will is someone else will? You use the word "realize" as if I will exist seperatly? Why is this philosophy so contradictory? And why is it so boring? I can't imagine anything I would rather not do than become one with god. I like chocolate Ice Cream. What if god doesn't like chocolate Ice Cream. It seems my will no longer exists and I am a puppet. There is a lot of logical inconsistency with this philosophy of yours, same but different, my will and his will or my will is his will. Don't I cease to exist if my old will is now a new will?

And how can you take exception to any of god's figments?

But forget it... this aint going anywhere. Are you suggesting that some of gods figments of his imagination are incapable of understanding?????? Hmmm........ Bizarre.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RandFan
My will is someone else will?

You are God but you do not know it. Your will belongs to God because you are God. You only think that it belongs to Randfan because you really believe you are Randfan.

I can't imagine anything I would rather not do than become one with god. I like choclate Ice Cream. What if god doesn't like choclate Ice Cream.

Well, I suggest that you wait until you realise that you are God before you know whether you will want to continue eating chocolate icecream as God.

There is a lot of logical inconsistency with this philosophy of yours,

No there aint - you just don't understand it because no matter how many times I tell you, you still don't understand that "you" is an illusion happening within your Mind, God.

[lifegazer]

"Are you suggesting that some of gods figments of his imagination are incapable of understanding?????? Hmmm........ Bizarre."

God is capable - and hence incapable - of all things. As you would expect of an omnipotent God.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by lifegazer
You are God but you do not know it. Your will belongs to God because you are God. You only think that it belongs to Randfan because you really believe you are Randfan. Right.

Well, I suggest that you wait until you realise that you are God before you know whether you will want to continue eating chocolate icecream as God. If I don't then there was no reason for my existence.

No there aint - you just don't understand it because no matter how many times I tell you, you still don't understand that "you" is an illusion happening within your Mind, God. As are the millions of people on earth. All with different imagined wants and desires. My interests are different than yours. When I die my wants and desires change and I become something else.

I think Solipsism is far superior to your philosophy. With solipsism I actually exist. That is interesting. A figment that becomes something else later is of no interest to me.

In the end I accept objective science and the material world. This life is all there is. When I die I die. I don't like it but them's the facts. Much better than becoming one with god. And how would you know whether I would like it?

Carry on,

[RandFan]

Originally posted by lifegazer
"God is capable - and hence incapable - of all things. As you would expect of an omnipotent God. That is simply not rational. And you berate me for being illogical. Wow.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RandFan
Originally posted by lifegazer
"God is capable - and hence incapable - of all things. As you would expect of an omnipotent God.

That is simply not rational. And you berate me for being illogical. Wow.
Of course it's logical. To be omnipotent, one must be able to do things and not to do those things. Think about it.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RandFan
As are the millions of people on earth. All with different imagined wants and desires. My interests are different than yours. When I die my wants and desires change and I become something else.

God has infinite potential of being - as you would expect of God.
What God wants to be and what God becomes is very much dependent upon many things, in this life of ours... especially since God is lost to being "we".

I think Solipsism is far superior to your philosophy.

Solipsism is a crock. How can I (lifegazer), proclaim to be the God of all existence, if I (lifegazer) don't have a clue how existence is manufactured? Solipsism only makes sense when understood within the context that God is the only being. EvilDave understood, so I'm sure that you can.

With solipsism I actually exist. That is interesting. A figment that becomes something else later is of no interest to me.

With my philosophy, you actually do exist. It's just that you do not know who you are.

In the end I accept objective science and the material world.

You was right about one thing. Science has never unveiled a single absolute truth in its 400 year history. Science is a cripple amongst philosophers.

This life is all there is. When I die I die. I don't like it but them's the facts. Much better than becoming one with god. And how would you know whether I would like it?

Carry on,
How would I know whether you would like to be God? You're havin a laff, right?

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer

You have no idea what unity of being in God means, nor of the implications it has for the egos of individuals.

Oh oh I know. You have to always defend your ego, be abusive to anyone who disagrees with you, and never admit you're wrong about anything.
Whew, glad that was an easy one.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Wudang


Oh oh I know. You have to always defend your ego, be abusive to anyone who disagrees with you, and never admit you're wrong about anything.
Whew, glad that was an easy one.
Wudang, my philosophy is not about unity of being with lifegazer.
Lifegazer does what he has to do to facilitate a growing awareness of God's impending fulfilment of time.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Of course it's logical. To be omnipotent, one must be able to do things and not to do those things. Think about it. There is nothing to think about. Either something is able to do something or it is not. It can't be said to be able to and not be able to at the same time. Such a statement is by defintion "irrational". Something that can do everything can't be said not be able to do everything. More if your contradictions.

Your statement can be summed up with the following equation.

A = not A

[RandFan]

Originally posted by lifegazer
You're havin a laff, right? Finally, a bit of understanding. Yes, I am. Sorry, nothing personal.

You have no evidence and little workable philosophical framework. All objective evidence and intelectual considertions tells me that you are wrong. My intuition tells me that you are wrong. The bible (which I don't believe), but in any event goes into great length to dispel your notions tells me that you are wrong.

My philosophy holds that you could be right, however, having given your notions some serious thought and weighing all available evidence I can find no reason whatsoever to suppose that you are indead right anymore than I might believe in solipsism or reincarnation or chaneling spirits on mars.

Thanks for the responses,

RandFan

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RandFan
Of course it's logical. To be omnipotent, one must be able to do things and not to do those things. Think about it.

There is nothing to think about. Either something is able to do something or it is not. It can't be said to be able to and not be able to at the same time. Such a statement is by defintion "irrational". Something that can do everything can't be said not be able to do everything. More if your contradictions.

Your statement can be summed up with the following equation.

A = not A
There has to be a duality of power for power to be considered as truly omnipotent. God must be both the best and the worst of everything or else God's power is limited. Hence, God must be capable of doing things to perfection and/or incapable of doing those things at all, lest God's omnipotence be exposed as a sham.

You simply didn't think about it, as I asked you to do. A God that can do extreme good or extreme bad is obviously more powerful than a God that just does extreme good. Likewise, a God that can do things or not do things is more powerful and useful than a God that can just do things.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RandFan
You have no evidence and little workable philosophical framework.

Not true. I've presented several threads here over the last few months.

All objective evidence and intelectual considertions tells me that you are wrong.

I laugh in the face of that evidence. I challenge you to list it that I may destroy it with a swift blow.

My intuition tells me that you are wrong.

Yawn.

The bible (which I don't believe), but in any event goes into great length to dispel your notions tells me that you are wrong.

Rather, your interpretation of the bible - obviously brainwashed by Christianity - tells you that I am wrong.

My philosophy holds that you could be right,

Actually, we discovered that your philosophy proclaimed everything as wrong except the proclamation that everything is wrong. LOL. Your philosophy is a sham.

however, having given your notions some serious thought and weighing all available evidence I can find no reason whatsoever to suppose that you are indead right anymore than I might believe in solipsism or reincarnation or chaneling spirits on mars.

Thanks for the responses,

RandFan
You have lost your life though since you still believe you are Randfan. Lifegazer has nothing to gain, whatever your decision.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Actually, we discovered that your philosophy proclaimed everything as wrong except the proclamation that everything is wrong. LOL. Your philosophy is a sham.Disingenous, straw man. My philosophy holds no such thing.

My philosophy is skepticism which is entirely consistent with science.

...there are no objective truths in science, nothing which can be proved or disproved to 100% certainty based upon philosophical first principles, but this is not how scientists define validity, only how some philosophers have chosen to define it. Science works by progressing towards 100% certainty, while recognizing that in absolute terms it will never achieve it. In practical terms, however, we can rely upon 99.999% certainty, even if it does not represent absolute truth.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by lifegazer
...a God that can do things or not do things is more powerful and useful than a God that can just do things. Irrational.

A = not A

Sorry, you can think about it all you want. It won't make it true.

[scribble]

Originally posted by RandFan
Irrational.


I think lifegazer is one of the lucky ones called out by name in my "an interesting game..." thread.

Now you see why "...the only winning move is not to play."

[RandFan]

Originally posted by scribble
I think lifegazer is one of the lucky ones called out by name in my "an interesting game..." thread.

Now you see why "...the only winning move is not to play." Question: What is the difference between the logic of fools and the wisom of sages?

Hint: Never argue with a fool - they will drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
--The Fool's Law

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Not true. I've presented several threads here over the last few months.

I laugh in the face of that evidence. I challenge you to list it that I may destroy it with a swift blow.


You have indeed presented several threads but then you just keep running away from those threads when your inconsistencies are exposed. Usually of course you resort to personal attacks on anyone who corrects your understanding of any of those subjects of which your grasp is shakey such as relativity, quantum mechanics, philosophy or the english language. All you have is your ego.

[lifegazer]

Actually Wudang, I just get bored of the same dumbass responses. Take this thread, for example.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RandFan
Irrational.

A = not A

Sorry, you can think about it all you want. It won't make it true.
I never said that A = not A.

I actually said that omnipotence = A + its opposite.
Omnipotence, for example, is good and evil. Or, the ability to do something as well as the inability to do that thing. This duality of doing-ness is apparent all around us.

An omnipotent God which cannot create an opposite effect of any effect, is not omnipotent. Hence the duality of the universe.

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Actually Wudang, I just get bored of the same dumbass responses. Take this thread, for example.

Perhaps you should read a little more and then you might be able to make some new responses then? Happy to help.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I never said that A = not A.

I actually said that omnipotence = A + its opposite. :D


Omnipotence, for example, is good and evil. Or, the ability to do something as well as the inability to do that thing. This duality of doing-ness is apparent all around us.

An omnipotent God which cannot create an opposite effect of any effect, is not omnipotent. Hence the duality of the universe. You are saying that god posseses the ability to both do something and the ability NOT to be able to do that same thing.

This is the simplest argument I have ever had to refute.

G = God
A = Walk on water
B = Not Walk on Water.

G = A
G = B
B = not A

If G = A and G = B and B = not A then, A = not A.

You cannot escape the logic. I'm sure you will try but you will not find a single mathmatician, educated philosopher, programer or anyone schooled in logic who will accept your contention as anything but illogical.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RandFan
G = God
A = Walk on water
B = Not Walk on Water.

G = A
G = B
B = not A

Hold on a minute. God doesn't = A. God = God. Saying that God can walk on water does not mean that God = A. Neither does G = B.

If G = A and G = B and B = not A then, A = not A.

Well G does not = A or B, therefore B does not = A, therefore A does not = not A.

You err by actually equating (=) God as the thing which God does.
You then proceed to get to your conclusion upon the back of this donkey.

You cannot escape the logic.

LOL

I'm sure you will try but you will not find a single mathmatician, educated philosopher, programer or anyone schooled in logic who will accept your contention as anything but illogical.
It's time for you to take a back seat and watch the show. You cannot insert God into a mathematical equation like that.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Hold on a minute. God doesn't = A. God = God. Saying that God can walk on water does not mean that God = A. Neither does G = B. The logic of fools.


It's time for you to take a back seat and watch the show. You cannot insert God into a mathematical equation like that. I'm going to take a moment to try and explain it to you.

To say that G=A is not to say that G is only A. A is a property of G.

In order to use logic it is useful to break items down to their constituent parts, attributes or properties.

R = RandFan
A="I win the lottery"
B="I am a rich person."

If R = A then R = B or R -> B

Another example

R = RandFan
A = Wet
B = Dry

If R = A then R = not B (R&ne;B).

However, if this ofends you for some reason then we can re write the equation.

G = God
A = a being that is able to do everything
B = a being that is NOT able to do everything.

G = A
G = B
If G = A and G = B then A = B or A -> B.

You are only making yourself look monumentally foolish if you insist that God is a being that is able to do everything and a being that is NOT able to do everything.

It is not logical!

[RandFan]

Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

O = omnitience
A = ability to do anything
B = ability do Not be able to do anything (not A)

If O = A and O = B the A = B
O = A
O = B
A -> B

If A = B and B = not A then A = not A (A &ne; A)

Lifegazer, can you give me any references where it is stated that omnitience is both the ability to do everything and the ability to NOT do everything?

[lifegazer]

I can't believe you ignored me and repeated your gaffe.
God &ne; anything. An act of God does not equate to what God is. God cannot be inserted into an equation to discover properties of other given entities or functions.
God = A? I'm afraid not... God does a thing A, but is not that thing A. Or God does a thing B, but is not that thing B. So God &ne; A or B.
But even more significant here, is the fact that just because God does A or God does B, doesn't imply that A = B.
God does good or God does evil, for example, does not impose equivalence upon good and evil.
Your reasoning is all over the place.

Lifegazer, can you give me any references where it is stated that omnitience is both the ability to do everything and the ability to NOT do everything?
Me, yesterday, in this thread.
I have my own philosophy Rand. I think for myself. I don't copy from other philosophers.

Use your head. A God that can do things and can also create a scenario whereby that God cannot do those same things, is a God which can create a very diverse population of humanity.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I can't believe you ignored me and repeated your gaffe.
God &ne; anything. An act of God does not equate to what God is. God cannot be inserted into an equation to discover properties of other given entities or functions.
God = A? I'm afraid not... God does a thing A, but is not that thing A. Or God does a thing B, but is not that thing B. So God &ne; A or B. Sorry, but I had anticipated this line of argument. It is wrong but doesn't mater. I changed the equation for you.

If you are dishonest you will ignore the equation.

O = omnipotence
A = ability to do anything
B = ability to Not be able to do anything (not A)

If O = A and O = B then A = B
O = A
O = B
A -> B

If A = B and B = not A then A = not A (A &ne; A)

But even more significant here, is the fact that just because God does A or God does B, doesn't imply that A = B. Straw man. This is not my contention.

You are stating that gods omnipotence makes him also impotent.

Lifegazer
God is capable - and hence incapable - of all things. A) God is capable of all things.

B) God is incapable of all things.

"A" is diametrically opposite of "B"

B is not A

God does good or God does evil, for example, does not impose equivalence upon good and evil. Straw Man, You are comparing things that can arguably (in some instances) coexist with things that can't.

Your reasoning is all over the place. How so? I make one claim and one claim only. A is not B.

I have my own philosophy Rand. I think for myself. I don't copy from other philosophers. Of what value is a notion that no other person can agree with? You have constructed a logically demonstrable paradox. If we can't use logic to find the truth then we are just thrashing about in the dark in a world where everyone is right and everyone is wrong.

Use your head. A God that can do things and can also create a scenario whereby that God cannot do those same things, is a God which can create a very diverse population of humanity. Non sequitur, it does not follow.

Stating that God can do everything and therefore is incapable of anything is meaningless. It's like infinite nothingness. It sounds interesting but it is a non-starter.

An omnipotent God could create a diverse population. PERIOD. Occam's Razor states that we don't need to insert impotence (the quality of not being able to do anything) into the equation.

Keep going though. I think that I have given you sufficient rope.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RandFan
If you are dishonest you will ignore the equation.

Forgive me. I actually missed that you had changed the equation all around. So let's have a look...

O = omnipotence
A = ability to do anything
B = ability to Not be able to do anything (not A)

If O = A and O = B then A = B
O = A
O = B
A -> B

If A = B and B = not A then A = not A (A �‚ A)

You are in error here. O is the sum of all things effected. I.e.:-
O = A + B + C (those things new which may be effected in the future).
So...
Omnipotence does not equal any one singular ability to effect things. Omnipotence is the sum of all things.
Hence there is no way to derive A = B from O = A + B [+C].

Thankyou.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by RandFan
Keep going though. I think that I have given you sufficient rope.

Randfan, Lifegazer used the rope a LONG time ago. I admire your persistence, but this is getting painful.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Forgive me. I actually missed that you had changed the equation all around. "Changed it all around?" Come on lifegazer, this is disingenous. My meaning has not changed at all. At least be fair with me.

So let's have a look...

You are in error here. O is the sum of all things effected. I.e.:-
O = A + B + C (those things new which may be effected in the future).
So...
Omnipotence does not equal any one singular ability to effect things. Omnipotence is the sum of all things.
Hence there is no way to derive A = B from O = A + B [+C].

Thankyou. Omnipotence is the sum of all things? Says who? Are you making this up as you go along?

Lifegazer, I'm not so dogmatic or so pedantic that I am unwilling to entertain a certain flexibility of defintion. Lord knows I have spent days arguing over some trivial hair splitting distinction with someone who didn't understand the difference between usage and defintion. But this is not such a case. You are trying to shoe horn two diametrically opposite meanings into one word. It doesn't work that way.

A By definition omnipotence is the power to do all things (capable of all things).

B Conversely, not-omnipotant is lacking the power to do all things (incapable of all things).

A is omnipotant

B is not-omnipotent

A &ne; B

om·nip·o·tent (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Omnipotence) ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-np-tnt)
adj.
Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful. See Usage Note at infinite (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=infinite) .

n.
One having unlimited power or authority: the bureaucratic omnipotents.
Omnipotent God. Used with the. in·fi·nite ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nf-nt)
adj.
Having no boundaries or limits. Omnipotent has no limit. To be incapable of a thing is to limit the capability of that thing.

You are in effect saying, God's power is limited because it is limitless. Infinity is NOT infinite because it is infinite. This is not logically possible.

Omnipotent = omnipotence + impotence -> Infinite = infinite + finite.

Hence there is no way to derive A = B from O = A + B [+C]. "C", what the hell is "C"? There is no "C". This is a dichotomy.

A = Pregnant
B = Not Pregnant

Fool's logic: A = A + B + "C". What the hell is "C"? You can't be sort of pregnant. You either are or you aren't. You can't be sort of Omnipotent. You either are or you aren't. There is no "C".


Lifegazer's answer to what is "C"?
(those things new which may be effected in the future)This has no meaning to a limitless concept.

Infinite = Finite + Infinite + (non delineated instances where infinite is finite) The very instant God becomes incapable of something he ceases to be capable of all things.

Lifegazer: Thank you sir may I have some more.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ipecac
Randfan, Lifegazer used the rope a LONG time ago. I admire your persistence, but this is getting painful. {sigh}

"Who's the bigger fool...?"

RandFan: Thank you sir may I have another.

Thaks Ipecac.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RandFan
"Changed it all around?" Come on lifegazer, this is disingenous. My meaning has not changed at all. At least be fair with me.

You changed 'God' to 'omnipotence'. It made a difference to my response.

Omnipotence is the sum of all things? Says who? Are you making this up as you go along?

Omnipotence is clearly the power or ability to effect everything and anything.
Omnipotence is not just A or just B, as you infered before:-
O = A
O = B

Clearly, omnipotence encompasses everything together:-
0 = A + B.

So, you cannot say O = (just)A or (just(B), as you did in your post. You are in error squire.
Hence, there's no way to derive A = B from O = A + B.
Simple.

Lifegazer, I'm not so dogmatic or so pedantic that I am unwilling to entertain a certain flexibility of defintion. Lord knows I have spent days arguing over some trivial hair splitting distinction with someone who didn't understand the difference between usage and defintion. But this is not such a case. You are trying to shoe horn two diametrically opposite meanings into one word. It doesn't work that way.

Whoa camel. Omnipotence clearly encompasses all action A + B + whatever.

A By definition omnipotence is the power to do all things (capable of all things).

I'm not arguing with that. "To do all things" though, must encompass the ability to do more than the positive. Hence the duality of the universe and the diversity of mankind.

B Conversely, not-omnipotant is lacking the power to do all things (incapable of all things).

Conversely to omnipotent, nothing has any power.

A is omnipotant

B is not-omnipotent

Following your most recent logic, there is no B.

Omnipotent has no limit. To be incapable of a thing is to limit the capability of that thing.

But I am saying that the entity (God) with omnipotence has BOTH the ability to do something or not to do something. Hence, there is no limit - there's just choice.

Furthermore, what I am saying here is perfectly consistent with the abilities we find within humanity, for example. I.e., some of us have certain abilities and some of us do not. Given that God is posited (by me) as the creator and experiencer of all human experience (only God exists), we see that God both has the ability and the inability to do certain things.
You, for example, cannot prove that God exists, whilst I can. LOL

Omnipotent = omnipotence + impotence

Impotence must be encompassed within omnipotence.

"C", what the hell is "C"? There is no "C". This is a dichotomy.

"C" represented those things which have not yet been created. Omnipotence can have no limitations. Hence, any omnipotent entity must have the ability to create new things, always. Thus "C". But it's not important. Let's stick to A & B.

This has no meaning to a limitless concept.

Alright, let's forget C. It's not relevant to the A + B argument anyway and is just complicating matters. I'll even yield to you on this point if it keeps you quiet. I really have no desire to have a big debate about "C". You win on this one.

The fact of the matter is squire, that G or O &ne; (just)A or (just)B.
So all this nonsense about A = B is absolutely incorrect.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RandFan
Thaks Ipecac.
95% of the people on this board will support you whoever is right. It means nothing to me though and it should mean nothing to you, when a halfwit like this chips in with (just) a pat on the back for you.
You're more sincere than most here. You actually engage me in serious chat and have yet to insult me in any serious manner. So I salute you. You're a decent human being. :th:

[RandFan]

Originally posted by lifegazer

95% of the people on this board will support you whoever is right. It means nothing to me though and it should mean nothing to you, when a halfwit like this chips in with (just) a pat on the back for you.
You're more sincere than most here. You actually engage me in serious chat and have yet to insult me in any serious manner. So I salute you. You're a decent human being. :th: We'll thank you. To be fair, the "fools" thing was a bit much. I appreciate your tone. I will withdraw the "fool" asertion and thank you for engaging me.

[scribble]

I dated a girl once with a similar inability to think in symbolic terms. The kind of person where you go, "That's a stupid idea..." and she says, "DID YOU CALL ME STUPID?" No. I said that IDEA was stupid. You might decide to infer from that that all your ideas are stupid and therefore you are, in fact stupid, but it sure doesn't follow logically. Stupid.

[lifegazer]

Perhaps you'd like to ask yourselves how an omnipotent God (who is all of existence, hence everything), might create itself with the inability to think in symbolic terms, unless that God was omnipotent.
Thankyou once again. I rest my case.

[RandFan]

Lifegazer,

I would really like to wind this down. You have made some statements that are not consistent. I suspect that the proplem you are having lies somewhere in your confusion of these concepts.

Statement #1
God is capable - and hence incapable - of all things.

Statement #2
Omnipotence is clearly the power or ability to effect everything and anything. I do not accept this definiton or the usage of the word "effect" as it applies to omnipotence. There is nothing in any definition that I can find that would suggest that omnipotence is synonmous with "effect". Everyone who is in the bike race can effect the bike race. Not everyone who is in the bike race WILL win the bike race.

Statement #3
But I am saying that the entity (God) with omnipotence has BOTHthe ability to do something or not to do something. Hence, there is no limit - there's just choice. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the original statement (#1). This is CHOOSING not to do something as opposed to being CAPABLE of doing something. Whether or not I choose to ride the bike or don't choose to ride the bike has no bearing on whethr or not I CAN ride the bike. Choice has nothing to do with "capability" (as it applies here). I ether have the "capability" or I don't

Let's apply bike riding to your statement.

Lifegazer
God is capable - and hence incapable - of all things. God is capable of riding a bike and god is incapable of riding a bike.

Impotence must be encompassed within omnipotence. This is a meaningless statement.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RandFan
Lifegazer,

I would really like to wind this down.]
Then let's not forget how this thing started.

"The fact of the matter is squire, that G or O &ne; (just)A or (just)B.
So all this nonsense about A = B is absolutely incorrect."

You have no case Rand. So what's the point of continuing?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Then let's not forget how this thing started.

"The fact of the matter is squire, that G or O �‚ (just)A or (just)B.
So all this nonsense about A = B is absolutely incorrect."

You have no case Rand. So what's the point of continuing? Hey gazer,

my equation is a simple extrapolation of your statement.

Lifegazer
God is capable - and hence incapable - of all things. God is "A" and hence god is "B". Since B is not A, A = Not A or A &ne; A

To see this better we can apply it to the bike argument. According to you god is both able and inable to ride a bike.

A is the ability of an omnipotent being to ride a bike.

B is the inability of an omnipotent being to ride a bike.

Since B is diametrically oppisite of A it can be said that B is not A.

If G = A and G = B then A = B.
G = A
G = B
A -> B
Since B = not A and A = B then A = Not A or A &ne; A

Lifegazer, I suspect that you might not be famliar with prepositional logic. I appologize if you are not.

[lifegazer]

I give up. That's not the same as concession, btw.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I give up. That's not the same as concession, btw. That's ok, you don't have to conceed anything. But my logic is correct. My statements might have been a bit shaky at times. I was trying to use symblogy and statements that you would understand.

Please forgive me for being pedantic but I got my head handed to me for sloppy statements in the past. I can just see some people reading my statements and shaking their heads.

lifegazer
God is capable - and hence incapable - of all things. This is a logically false sentence -- (false as determined by its form alone).

Let P = God
Let Q = Omnipotent

P &sup; Q, P &sup; &sim;Q conclude Q &sup; &sim;Q

Or

P &rarr; Q
&hellip;
P &rarr; &sim;Q
&there4; Q &rarr; &sim;Q

Invalid.

lifegazer
O = A + B. Would actually be written,

P &sup; Q & &sim;Q

Which is also invalid.

Thanks lifegazer, I hope you have a great weekend.

RandFan.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by bewareofdogmas
Mat 19:19 Honour thy father and [thy] mother: and,Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Luk 14:26 If any [man] come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. When we speak the truth it does tend to make distinctions and draw a line which others are unable to cross now doesn't it? :)

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by lifegazer
95% of the people on this board will support you whoever is right. It means nothing to me though and it should mean nothing to you, when a halfwit like this chips in with (just) a pat on the back for you.
You're more sincere than most here. You actually engage me in serious chat and have yet to insult me in any serious manner. So I salute you. You're a decent human being. :th:

Sorry, but your contention is untrue. I'm not supporting Randfan because he is who he is. I'm supporting Randfan because he has patiently tried to explain this to you over and over again and you just don't get it.

I support Randfan because HE IS RIGHT. He deserves the pat on the back.

Several of us engaged you in serious chat until it became apparent that you have no ability to understand anything outside of your bizarre worldview and no ability to articulate that worldview to the rest of humanity. That hardly makes us the halfwits.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Ipecac

Several of us engaged you in serious chat until it became apparent that you have no ability to understand anything outside of your bizarre worldview and no ability to articulate that worldview to the rest of humanity. That hardly makes us the halfwits. What do they say, that truth is stranger than fiction? Yeah, how bizzare ... ;)