Believers, without apotheosis, you lie when saying that God exists.

[Greatest I am]

Believers, without apotheosis, you lie when saying that God exists.

Most believers always parrot their dogma as if it is a known truth to them. This hear sy they believe to be true.
Many claim a personal relationship with their God yet do not claim any apotheosis or personal contact with their God.
This means of course that they believe their WORD/Holy book to be completely true in terms of leading them to their God, although most do not really follow it completely.
Some read literally and begin their belief in God from the standpoint that He does all kids of miracles and is a creator God even though, in Christianity and Islam, this means that their beliefs begin with a talking snake and a God who seems to want to deny man the knowledge that gives us our moral sense.
The knowledge of good and evil.
They see man as somehow complete without a moral sense and see a fall in Genesis when actually it was a fall up to being truly human.
Some believers think that God actually speaks to them, some daily, but when questioned admit to not really hearing God.
Not surprising because the moment someone claims an actual contact, the names and labels start to fly. Ancient prophets were venerated and wrote scripture. Modern prophets are scorned as not quite running on all cylinders. I know this first hand. Oh well.

That aside, I have this pet peeve that says that I never lie. I do not do this for any altruistic reason. I do it because I am somewhat of an absent minded professor and have this fear of being caught in a lie or in saying something that I cannot prove.
Believers tend not to follow this philosophy and to me are lying all the time with their claims of what God is and what he can do, etc.
When I hear such I see that believers have given God all possible attribute taken to their maximums. God is now omni this and omni that and basically omni everything. Creator of all things except of course evil.
This seems to be the only thing that man is said to be omni at.
Better than having absolutely nothing attributed to our creative talent I guess.
This does not agree with sculpture but then many Christians have their own favorite interpretation to the point where Christianity is rather fragmented with many different sects. Oslam is following suite with a variety of cults and beliefs.
The point is that all these believers are saying things that, if in any court of law, would be told to only tell what they know to be absolutely true.
Without an apotheosis believers cannot be 100% sure.
Perhaps this is why no believer has yet to show his faith the way Jesus said they could.
And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.
The basic question that I would then like to ask is,
When you say that God exists, are you telling a truth that you would swear on a Bible to?
If so, then how can you be sure without an apotheosis?

Regards
DL

[calebprime]

Do you mean 'revelation' instead of 'apotheosis'?

[Greatest I am]

Originally Posted by calebprime

Do you mean 'revelation' instead of 'apotheosis'?

Ther is revelation in the contact for sure.

Contact with God automatically elevates one to be a perfect example.
One cannot touch the mind of God without taking on the attributes of that mind.
It also proves the existence of God. The prophets while--in the spirit--experienced apotheosis.
I would add to the above a rapprochement or getting to know the thinking of God.

Regards
DL

[kerikiwi]

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

One cannot touch the mind of God without taking on the attributes of that mind.

One cannot touch anything which does not exist, or take on the attributes of something which does not exist, since there are no attributes to take on.

[Elizabeth I]

OMG, another one has found a dictionary!

[kerikiwi]

Originally Posted by Elizabeth I

OMG, another one has found a dictionary!

Who? Me?

[Robin]

I have heard that antibiotics clears it right up.

[Elizabeth I]

Originally Posted by kerikiwi

Who? Me?

No, no, not you - the OP.

[kerikiwi]

Originally Posted by Elizabeth I

No, no, not you - the OP.

Oh.
It's hard to tell just what the OP has found.

[Greatest I am]

Originally Posted by kerikiwi

One cannot touch anything which does not exist, or take on the attributes of something which does not exist, since there are no attributes to take on.

Of course.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Originally Posted by Elizabeth I

No, no, not you - the OP.

Try noetic. That is a good one too.

Regards
DL

[Ethnikos]

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

Some read literally and begin their belief in God from the standpoint that He does all kids of miracles and is a creator God even though, in Christianity and Islam, this means that their beliefs begin with a talking snake and a God who seems to want to deny man the knowledge that gives us our moral sense.
The knowledge of good and evil.
They see man as somehow complete without a moral sense and see a fall in Genesis when actually it was a fall up to being truly human.

Adam had a moral sense already and knew he was wrong to disobey YHWH. The tree itself was not about morality. Good means "life sustaining" and evil is like the abyss, or the desert, that does not support human life. God knows everything about what makes the earth a good place. It was God who made the earth to come out of the sea (evil) and then become productive (good). The trees in the Garden should have been like a transmitter or a distribution center for the benefit of the earth, where maybe the tree of life gave actual life to everything, as in being a living organism, and the tree of knowledge was what made all the inanimate parts of the earth to be in a sort of neutral state that made it inert so that it did not just kill anything that came in contact with it. Eating of the wrong tree made Adam eventually an inert little pile of dust, the same dust every living thing is composed of when not animated by the other tree (life).

[Pure_Argent]

Originally Posted by Ethnikos

Adam had a moral sense already and knew he was wrong to disobey YHWH. The tree itself was not about morality. Good means "life sustaining" and evil is like the abyss, or the desert, that does not support human life. God knows everything about what makes the earth a good place. It was God who made the earth to come out of the sea (evil) and then become productive (good). The trees in the Garden should have been like a transmitter or a distribution center for the benefit of the earth, where maybe the tree of life gave actual life to everything, as in being a living organism, and the tree of knowledge was what made all the inanimate parts of the earth to be in a sort of neutral state that made it inert so that it did not just kill anything that came in contact with it. Eating of the wrong tree made Adam eventually an inert little pile of dust, the same dust every living thing is composed of when not animated by the other tree (life).

Whee! More nonsense translations from Ethnikos!

[Brattus]

Allow me to translate the OP.
My way or the highway and worship me because I know the real "truth".
Blah Blah Blah

[Greatest I am]

Originally Posted by Ethnikos

Adam had a moral sense already and knew he was wrong to disobey YHWH. The tree itself was not about morality. Good means "life sustaining" and evil is like the abyss, or the desert, that does not support human life. God knows everything about what makes the earth a good place. It was God who made the earth to come out of the sea (evil) and then become productive (good). The trees in the Garden should have been like a transmitter or a distribution center for the benefit of the earth, where maybe the tree of life gave actual life to everything, as in being a living organism, and the tree of knowledge was what made all the inanimate parts of the earth to be in a sort of neutral state that made it inert so that it did not just kill anything that came in contact with it. Eating of the wrong tree made Adam eventually an inert little pile of dust, the same dust every living thing is composed of when not animated by the other tree (life).

OK.

1 Corinthians 13:11
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Originally Posted by Brattus

Allow me to translate the OP.
My way or the highway and worship me because I know the real "truth".
Blah Blah Blah

Worshipping anything or anyone is idol worship.

I do not believe in doing so.

Regards
DL

[Beerina]

apotheosis, definition 2.

[Ethnikos]

Originally Posted by Pure_Argent

Whee! More nonsense translations from Ethnikos!

It is slowly evolving.
I am actually working on this.
As in, reading books.
Not fiction, but serious academic stuff.
Not just making it up but, of course, I have to throw in my interpretation.

[Pure_Argent]

Congratulations. Have you accepted yet that you can't just switch definitions between words?

[Ethnikos]

Originally Posted by Pure_Argent

Congratulations. Have you accepted yet that you can't just switch definitions between words?

No.
I think I can, but it doesn't do much good unless you can find enough published material to back it up.
I'm working on accumulating the references.

[kerikiwi]

Originally Posted by Ethnikos

No.
I think I can, but it doesn't do much good unless you can find enough published material to back it up.
I'm working on accumulating the references.

No amount of published material or references will do any good if you use words in such a way that your audience has no idea what you mean.

[Pure_Argent]

Originally Posted by Ethnikos

No.

Then we have nothing to talk about. Your position is still as ludicrous as it ever was.

Good day to you sir.

[Greatest I am]

Originally Posted by Beerina

apotheosis, definition 2.

Did you have a point?

Regards
DL

[Ethnikos]

Originally Posted by kerikiwi

No amount of published material or references will do any good if you use words in such a way that your audience has no idea what you mean.

The earth was what people knew about, that there was a ground beneath their feet, and a sky above that. They also knew that the plants that supported life needed water that either, fell from the sky, or was something that flowed from springs, out of the earth. They were also aware of another kind of water that was in the sea, that supported fish, but was death to crops. After a period of experimentation, they realized health came by eating some sort of animal, either from the sea or that ate from the field, and from eating also from what grew out of the ground. A god would have been some sort of divine wisdom who understood all of this before man existed, and made the necessary changes to an otherwise dead planet, for man to be able to survive in this world. God, being a benevolent being, would have instructed the people on all these evident truths by creating a garden, as an example of everything good that he does for the people. In this garden would be placed the ideal man, and this man would have a position of honor, being the representative of God, and in the likeness of god. Also in this garden would be these great organisms, trees, representing the attributes of god, the life giving nature of god, and the wisdom of god in shaping the cosmos to accommodate life. So, two trees, each representing a different aspect of god.

[kerikiwi]

Originally Posted by Ethnikos

The earth was what people knew about, that there was a ground beneath their feet, and a sky above that. They also knew that the plants that supported life needed water that either, fell from the sky, or was something that flowed from springs, out of the earth. They were also aware of another kind of water that was in the sea, that supported fish, but was death to crops. After a period of experimentation, they realized health came by eating some sort of animal, either from the sea or that ate from the field, and from eating also from what grew out of the ground. A god would have been some sort of divine wisdom who understood all of this before man existed, and made the necessary changes to an otherwise dead planet, for man to be able to survive in this world. God, being a benevolent being, would have instructed the people on all these evident truths by creating a garden, as an example of everything good that he does for the people. In this garden would be placed the ideal man, and this man would have a position of honor, being the representative of God, and in the likeness of god. Also in this garden would be these great organisms, trees, representing the attributes of god, the life giving nature of god, and the wisdom of god in shaping the cosmos to accommodate life. So, two trees, each representing a different aspect of god.

Assuming that a deity exists and that humans suddenly appeared as humans. And that said deity created the wonderful life-giving earth for humans and not for all the other life which exists.
There is zero evidence of such an event and every evidence that humans, like all other organisms, evolved.

[Ethnikos]

Originally Posted by kerikiwi

Assuming that a deity exists and that humans suddenly appeared as humans. And that said deity created the wonderful life-giving earth for humans and not for all the other life which exists.
There is zero evidence of such an event and every evidence that humans, like all other organisms, evolved.

Whoever wrote the creation account would have included a garden into it because it was the culture of the time that kings would create gardens attached to their palaces that demonstrate how they are the providers of everything good to their kingdom.
If the writer wanted to promote a deity, he would have at least made him look as good as the kings that the desired audience of the story would have known of.

[kerikiwi]

Originally Posted by Ethnikos

Whoever wrote the creation account would have included a garden into it because it was the culture of the time that kings would create gardens attached to their palaces that demonstrate how they are the providers of everything good to their kingdom.
If the writer wanted to promote a deity, he would have at least made him look as good as the kings that the desired audience of the story would have known of.

My apologies. I thought you were telling this story as if it were true.
Yes, I know about myths.

[Ethnikos]

Originally Posted by kerikiwi

My apologies. I thought you were telling this story as if it were true.
Yes, I know about myths.

What seems like myth to us today, must have seemed like a very reasonable explanation, to the people who came up with them.

[kerikiwi]

Originally Posted by Ethnikos

What seems like myth to us today, must have seemed like a very reasonable explanation, to the people who came up with them.

Certainly. They were, of course, wrong to believe the myths literally, as are the people who do so now.

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by Ethnikos

What seems like myth to us today, must have seemed like a very reasonable explanation, to the people who came up with them.

Let me tell you a parable:

A newly-wed husband noticed that every time his wife cooked a ham, she would first cut off a quarter of it and put it in another pan. So he asks:
"Why do you cut the end off the pot roast like that?"
And she says:
"I've always done it that way, it has to be done that way, my mother taught me to do it that way".
And he says:
"Well, you don't have to cut the end of the pot roast off like that".
And she says:
"I've always done it that way, it has to be done that way, my mother taught me to do it that way".

So they argue a bit and she calls her mom to ask why it's done like that.

"Mom, why did you teach me to cut off the end of the pot roast like that?"
And her mom says
"I've always done it that way, it has to be done that way, my mother taught me to do it that way".
And she says:
"Well, Jeff says you don't have to do it that way."
And her mom says:
"I've always done it that way, it has to be done that way, my mother taught me to do it that way".

Now, totally confused, the girl calls her gran, and asks:
"Gran, why did you teach my mom, and she taught me, to cut off the end of the pot roast like that?"
Her gran thinks for a minute and says:
"I only had a small pan."

Sometimes myths can be like that. If you could trace them to the origin, you'd be more likely to find a tribesman with a tic, rather than some religious revelation.

E.g., since you mention gardens near palaces: yes, there was a reason for having a garden near the palace, but that tended to be either (A) decorative, or (B) a sacred garden, e.g., of Ba'al, where religious ceremonies would be held. In the area where the Hebrews were, the latter would be the case.

And it would be a delicious irony if their creation myth was ultimately based on a rite of a heathen deity they hated.

And if you went even further back in time, you'd probably find some animistic tribes with a sacred grove or such. It was a fairly common thing even in pre-christian Europe. And those wouldn't be based on anything even vaguely resembling a monotheistic cosmology, but merely as the resident place of some spirit out of bllions of spirits of nature.

[Darth Rotor]

Quote:

[indent][i]A newly-wed husband noticed that every time his wife cooked a ham, she would first cut off a quarter of it and put it in another pan. So he asks:
"Why do you cut the end off the pot roast like that?"

Pot roast is beef.

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

Let me tell you a parable:

A newly-wed husband noticed that every time his wife cooked a ham, she would first cut off a quarter of it and put it in another pan. So he asks:
"Why do you cut the end off the pot roast like that?"
And she says:
"I've always done it that way, it has to be done that way, my mother taught me to do it that way".
And he says:
"Well, you don't have to cut the end of the pot roast off like that".
And she says:
"I've always done it that way, it has to be done that way, my mother taught me to do it that way".

So they argue a bit and she calls her mom to ask why it's done like that.

"Mom, why did you teach me to cut off the end of the pot roast like that?"
And her mom says
"I've always done it that way, it has to be done that way, my mother taught me to do it that way".
And she says:
"Well, Jeff says you don't have to do it that way."
And her mom says:
"I've always done it that way, it has to be done that way, my mother taught me to do it that way".

Now, totally confused, the girl calls her gran, and asks:
"Gran, why did you teach my mom, and she taught me, to cut off the end of the pot roast like that?"
Her gran thinks for a minute and says:
"I only had a small pan."

A nice fable on how pantheism got started.

DR

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

Did you have a point?

Regards
DL

Nope! Just pointing out that your usage was, in fact, correct.


I assume definition 2 is what you had in mind.

[Greatest I am]

Originally Posted by Beerina

Nope! Just pointing out that your usage was, in fact, correct.


I assume definition 2 is what you had in mind.

Thanks.

Basically yes.

When a mind is exposed to another it picks up or assimilates what is there and what is there in this case is a perfect example of how to think.

The lessons are not learned instantly but the direction is known.
I try to evolve my perfection daily. We all do as we try to improve.

Regards
DL

[calebprime]

Originally Posted by Beerina

apotheosis, definition 2.

ah, I sit informed. thanks.

never had nuthin of neither apotheosis nor revelation, so who am I to correct anyone?

[Beerina]

As to the original question, just note that "faith", i.e. belief without proof, is upheld as a strong value in religion. Even when religion is contradicted by science, faith is so strong that followers literally suggest the proof against it is a lie planted by the Devil, or a test by God Himself, which He is wont to do from time to time.

So the question of a good example, or even argument, is non-applicable to the fundamentalist, at least.

[Greatest I am]

Originally Posted by Beerina

As to the original question, just note that "faith", i.e. belief without proof, is upheld as a strong value in religion. Even when religion is contradicted by science, faith is so strong that followers literally suggest the proof against it is a lie planted by the Devil, or a test by God Himself, which He is wont to do from time to time.

So the question of a good example, or even argument, is non-applicable to the fundamentalist, at least.

You are right.
They would rather idol worship their book and are too mentally lazy to seek our true God.

You should note that, in a sense, all of us our fundamental to our own beliefs and have a hard time in changing any of them without mental anguish.

Religions fundamentals happen to have the hardest time because of the peer pressure that they surround themselves with. Gotta stay in the gang.

Regards
DL