I was once an atheist, because of religion.

[crimresearch]

Quote:

Originally posted by lifegazer
I want to re-emphasise the importance of these passages from John, KJV...

11: Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.
12: Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth (WHOMEVER!!) on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
13: And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
14: If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.


Whose name is he talking about?
Clearly he's talking about 'God', since he reports that he and the Father are One. God must be Jesus. Therefore, Jesus is who God is [internally] experiencing itself to be.
But here, he says that whomever asks for something in the name of God will get what he ordains. Know what Jesus knew and be as Jesus was, is the message.
Elsewhere, he says "Ye are Gods".

Now tell me why Christianity ignores the significance of such passages? Why can Jesus call us Gods but not we ourselves?

Let me re-emphasize the importance of these passages:

" Moreover the Lord God let me see, when I was brought up into his image in righteousness and holiness, and into the paradise of God, the state how Adam was made a living soul, and also, the stature of Christ, the mystery, that had been hid from ages and generations, which things are hard to be uttered and cannot be borne by many. For, of all the sects in Christendom (so called) that I discoursed withal I found none that could bear to be told that any should come to Adam's perfection, into that image of God and righteousness and holiness that Adam was in before he fell, to be so clear and pure without sin, as he was. Therefore how should they be able to bear being told that any should grow up to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, when they cannot bear to hear that any should come, whilst upon earth, into the same power and Spirit that the prophets and apostles were in? Though it be a certain truth, that none can understand their writings aright without the same Spirit by which they were written."

[FreeChile]

Quote:

Originally posted by lifegazer
I want to re-emphasise the importance of these passages from John, KJV...

11: Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.
12: Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth (WHOMEVER!!) on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
13: And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
14: If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

Whose name is he talking about?
Clearly he's talking about 'God', since he reports that he and the Father are One. God must be Jesus. Therefore, Jesus is who God is [internally] experiencing itself to be.
But here, he says that whomever asks for something in the name of God will get what he ordains. Know what Jesus knew and be as Jesus was, is the message.
Elsewhere, he says "Ye are Gods".

Now tell me why Christianity ignores the significance of such passages? Why can Jesus call us Gods but not we ourselves?

You accuse others of taking a literal definition of words in the bible and you seem to be the most fundamentalist of all. Or perhaps this is not what you are saying and you may agree with my interpretation here.

All of 11-14 above are metaphors and can not be taken literally.

For example, the word "in" in 11, could be taken to mean "in his thoughts or affection." For example, my mother is always in my thoughts; so are my children. So in a way they are in me. Grant it, being in God's thoughts to a believer is significantly different from being in anyone else's.

In 12, Jesus is basically telling his followers, "I'm gonna die, mother... So you're on your own after that. I know where I'm going. How about you?" As to the works (or miracles) you could perform just like Jesus, he does not really say when you would have such power.

My comment is that anyone who performs any kind of mystical excercise, or anyone with a good dose of morphine, can perform some tricks and have unusual experiences. I've done some meditation and enough drinking to notice this. Perhaps he is telling them to get high on God like him and they will have all sorts of experiences. Addicts and saints do this all the time.

You have also taken 13 literally. The scenario is that the father sends the son as a messenger. You can receive the son as a messenger of the father or reject the son and kill him. What you do to the son, you are really commiting for or against the father. This is simply because the son is a messenger and not the message. This is a very simple down-to-earth metaphor. There is nothing mistycal in this. This is related to kingdoms and the way they send messages to other kingdoms. It is known that how you treat such messengers is highly important to the relationships between the kingdoms. Therefore, you glorify God by glorifying Jesus. Of course, 13 is a reverse of that. The idea is that what the son does reflects the father. So whatever miracles or deeds Jesus performs, show what his father is like. This is also a very down-to-earth father-son metaphor. This metaphor is one of the most important ones in reading the new testament. Also, in the old testament, it is a commandment to "honor thy mother and father." It is for the same reason. Because the deeds of the children reflect the goodness of the parents.

[lifegazer]

Quote:

Originally posted by FreeChile
All of 11-14 above are metaphors and can not be taken literally.

Are you a Christian?

Quote:

For example, the word "in" in 11, could be taken to mean "in his thoughts or affection." For example, my mother is always in my thoughts; so are my children. So in a way they are in me. Grant it, being in God's thoughts to a believer is significantly different from being in anyone else's.

Why are you doing this? Do you realise how much you are adding to the scripture in order to make it fit your interpretation?

Quote:

My comment is that anyone who performs any kind of mystical excercise, or anyone with a good dose of morphine, can perform some tricks and have unusual experiences. I've done some meditation and enough drinking to notice this. Perhaps he is telling them to get high on God like him and they will have all sorts of experiences. Addicts and saints do this all the time.

You have also taken 13 literally. The scenario is that the father sends the son as a messenger. You can receive the son as a messenger of the father or reject the son and kill him.

This is nonsense. Jesus categorically states that I and the Father are One [John 10:30]

You cannot dance around this. By proclaiming this, Jesus was proclaiming the fact that he was really God.
"I am in the Father and the Father in me" does not relate to being in his thoughts. Why you would wish to deny this can only be a consequence of fear. Sobeit.

[uruk]

Quote:

Why are you doing this? Do you realise how much you are adding to the scripture in order to make it fit your interpretation?

Do not point out the mote in anothers eye when you ignore the beam in your own.....or something like that.

[lifegazer]

Quote:

Originally posted by uruk
Do not point out the mote in anothers eye when you ignore the beam in your own.....or something like that.

Please note that I haven't added to the scripture presented to present my own case.
Please note that FreeChile added to the scripture presented in order to change the obvious meaning of that scripture.
Please note the all-important statement, the meaning of which is beyond all doubt:
"I and the Father are One."

[crimresearch]

Quote:

Originally posted by lifegazer
....You cannot dance around this. By proclaiming this, Jesus was proclaiming the fact that he was really God.
"I am in the Father and the Father in me" does not relate to being in his thoughts. Why you would wish to deny this can only be a consequence of fear. Sobeit.

The kind of fear that drives you to tapdance around the truth?

[lifegazer]

Quote:

Originally posted by crimresearch
The kind of fear that drives you to tapdance around the truth?

What is "the truth"?
The forum awaits your response.

Whilst you're at it, demonstrate your skills of manipulation by explaining to this forum why "I and the Father are One" does not equate to saying that "I am God".

... I'm all for exposing the "tapdancers" around here.

[Upchurch]

Quote:

Originally posted by lifegazer
What is "the truth"?

The truth is that you are basing your argument on a highly suspect interpretation of a questionable source. An argument is only as good as its premise and the Bible isn't a very sound premise.

[crimresearch]

I've already posted it...
Why can't you just deal with it straightforwardly?


Challenging me to prove a claim that *you* fabricated is boring old news around here....

[FreeChile]

Quote:

Originally posted by lifegazer
[b]Are you a Christian?

Why are you doing this? Do you realise how much you are adding to the scripture in order to make it fit your interpretation?

Assuming I was a Christian, why would what I have said be so horrendous? Have I blasphemed?

[uruk]

Quote:

Please note that FreeChile added to the scripture presented in order to change the obvious meaning of that scripture.
Please note the all-important statement, the meaning of which is beyond all doubt:
"I and the Father are One."

Here's a good site that shows how many different interpretations of scripture there are.

http://www.gospelrevolution.com/new_testament/

[lifegazer]

Quote:

Originally posted by Upchurch
The truth is that you are basing your argument on a highly suspect interpretation of a questionable source. An argument is only as good as its premise and the Bible isn't a very sound premise.

I have said that my philosophy mirrors the testament reported to have been given by a man named Jesus. Namely, that only God exists.
The issue isn't one of whether you believe Jesus to have existed. The issue is whether the words attributed to him mirror my own philosophy.
So do they?

You can start by answering the question I posed to crimesearch. A question - as I've just noticed - he won't answer.

Whilst you're at it, demonstrate your skills of manipulation by explaining to this forum why "I and the Father are One" does not equate to saying that "I am God".

The floor is yours.

[lifegazer]

Quote:

Originally posted by FreeChile
Assuming I was a Christian, why would what I have said be so horrendous? Have I blasphemed?

Well if you're a Christian then you're brainwashed to believe whatever your church has told you to believe, lest you burn.
There's more chance of you seeing reason if you aren't a Christian.

So, I've challenged two others, so I might as well challenge you.

... Demonstrate your skills of manipulation by explaining to this forum why "I and the Father are One" does not equate to saying that "I am God".

[FreeChile]

Quote:

Originally posted by lifegazer
Well if you're a Christian then you're brainwashed to believe whatever your church has told you to believe, lest you burn.
There's more chance of you seeing reason if you aren't a Christian.

So, I've challenged two others, so I might as well challenge you.

The reason I asked: Changing the scriptures as you have accused me, is a capital offense in Christianity. You go to hell for that. I thought for a minute you were trying to intimidate me that way. Good we clear that up. To me it is irrelevant what you call yourself. So you can call me FreeChile or if you want call me what you must.

Quote:

... Demonstrate your skills of manipulation by explaining to this forum why "I and the Father are One" does not equate to saying that "I am God".

Let me quote for this:

"But Jesus himself showed what he meant by his being "one" with the Father. At John 17:21, 22, he prayed to God that his disciples "may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us, . . . that they may be one just as we are one." Was Jesus praying that all his disciples would become a single entity? No, obviously Jesus was praying that they would be united in thought and purpose, as he and God were.—See also 1 Corinthians 1:10"

[FreeChile]

Quote:

Originally posted by lifegazer
Well if you're a Christian then you're brainwashed to believe whatever your church has told you to believe, lest you burn.
There's more chance of you seeing reason if you aren't a Christian.

So, I've challenged two others, so I might as well challenge you.

... Demonstrate your skills of manipulation by explaining to this forum why "I and the Father are One" does not equate to saying that "I am God".

If you need more,

At 1 Corinthians 3:6, 8, Paul says: "I planted, Apollos watered . . . He that plants and he that waters are one." Paul did not mean that he and Apollos were two persons in one; he meant that they were unified in purpose. The Greek word that Paul used here for "one" (hen) is neuter, literally "one (thing)," indicating oneness in cooperation. It is the same word that Jesus used at John 10:30 to describe his relationship with his Father. It is also the same word that Jesus used at John 17:21, 22. So when he used the word "one" (hen) in these cases, he was talking about unity of thought and purpose.

Regarding John 10:30, John Calvin (who was a Trinitarian) said in the book Commentary on the Gospel According to John: "The ancients made a wrong use of this passage to prove that Christ is . . . of the same essence with the Father. For Christ does not argue about the unity of substance, but about the agreement which he has with the Father."

Right in the context of the verses after John 10:30, Jesus forcefully argued that his words were not a claim to be God. He asked the Jews who wrongly drew that conclusion and wanted to stone him: "Why do you charge me with blasphemy because I, consecrated and sent into the world by the Father, said, 'I am God's son'?" (John 10:31-36, NE) No, Jesus claimed that he was, not God the Son, but the Son of God.

[uruk]

Freechile beat me to it, but when you take John 17:21 in context with John 17:20, 17:22 and 17:23 you get the impression that that Jesus was asking for the apostles to get thier act together.
Here it is in three different translations (from the site I posted erlier):

20 (GRK) ou peri toutwn de erwtw monon alla kai peri twn pisteusontwn dia tou logou autwn eiv eme
(YLT) `And not in regard to these alone do I ask, but also in regard to those who shall be believing, through their word, in me;
(KJV) Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
(ASV) Neither for these only do I pray, but for them also that believe on me through their word;




21 (GRK) ina pantev en wsin kaywv su pater en emoi kagw en soi ina kai autoi en hmin en wsin ina o kosmov pisteush oti su me apesteilav
(YLT) that they all may be one, as Thou Father art in me, and I in Thee; that they also in us may be one, that the world may believe that Thou didst send me.
(KJV) That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
(ASV) that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us: that the world may believe that thou didst send me.




22 (GRK) kai egw thn doxan hn dedwkav moi dedwka autoiv ina wsin en kaywv hmeiv en esmen
(YLT) `And I, the glory that thou hast given to me, have given to them, that they may be one as we are one;
(KJV) And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
(ASV) And the glory which thou hast given me I have given unto them; that they may be one, even as we are one;




23 (GRK) egw en autoiv kai su en emoi ina wsin teteleiwmenoi eiv en kai ina ginwskh o kosmov oti su me apesteilav kai hgaphsav autouv kaywv eme hgaphsav
(YLT) I in them, and Thou in me, that they may be perfected into one, and that the world may know that Thou didst send me, and didst love them as Thou didst love me.
(KJV) I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
(ASV) I in them, and thou in me, that they may be perfected into one; that the world may know that thou didst send me, and lovedst them, even as thou lovedst me.

GRK = greek
YLT = Young's literal translation
KJV = king James version
ASV = American standard version

[rumblefish]

Quote:

Originally posted by lifegazer
I now 'believe' in Jesus - because of the profundity and wiseness of the words attributed to him and because those words (not to mention the actions!) seem to mirror - to me, anyway - the very philosophy I have come to espouse myself. Yet I cannot classify myself as "a Christian" because Christianity has never recognised the unity of existence which I believe (think/reason) Jesus was trying to report to the masses.

unity eh? like so:

Jesus On Peace And Love...

"Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother- in-law...."
..........Matthew 10:34

"Do you think I have to come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division; for henceforth in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three; they will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against her mother, mother- in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against her mother-in- law.
..........Luke 12:51
seems like you havent read your bible cover to cover..

Quote:

13: And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
14: If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

so does it work?
just by praying to Jesus your wishes will come true,God will somehow arrange that,right?
wouldnt that interfere with your free will?
or with His Divine Plan that God has written..you know at the begining of time..and you want to mess up His plan?

and if it wont happen...you aint just praying hard enough,comes the reply ,or you arent True Christian..or God should not be tested or He works in mysterious ways..etc etc..

Id suggest that when you need a helping hand, use the one at the end of your arm

Quote:

20: At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. (Bleedin obvious, innit?)

not really could've been reffering to his homosexual practises perhaps

Quote:

For those that sincerely look, they will find the words (in the bible)that tell them that God is man.

unfortunately bible is just some silly old book
full of contradictions btw,written by ancient folks who invented stories about how world happened b/c they really had no clue!
www.skepticsannotatedbible.com]

Quote:

If God exists, then God embraces everything = God is everything.

and if he doesnt ...and I surely dont see ANY he is just a figment of your imagination

[FreeChile]

LG,

Are you ready to admit that the teachings of Jesus do not mirror your philosophy and that you have misunderstood them? Did you come to misunderstand Jesus due to your philosophy? Also, what are the implications of this misunderstanding on your part? Does it mean you are not enlightened—or at least you need to work on your God-to-LG transitioning powers for these kinds of musings?

Accepting your philosophy as true, the only conclusion I can arrive at is that the God of the Bible is false, that Jesus was false (he did not know he was his God, and his God did not perceive himself to be Jesus). Also, on the part that most attracts you about Jesus, he does not tell others that they are God. How could he, if he cannot tell himself that he is God?

Here’s more,

The Bible is clear and consistent about the relationship of God to Jesus. God alone is Almighty. He created the pre-human Jesus directly. Thus, Jesus had a beginning and could never be coequal with God in power or eternity. In fact, one of the biggest sins in the bible is wanting to be like God—the original sin and the fall of man.

Colossians 1:15-17.

“15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist,�

What this tells me is that we are not even close to being equal to Jesus, much less God. As to reach God, we must go through Jesus first. I think you missed all this in comparing your philosophy to Jesus.

[Ratman_tf]

Quote:

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yeah, but you got it bass-ackwards, if the mystery of God and the mystery of man are both "intertwined."

Whatever helps you get through the day, poppet.

[RandFan]

Quote:

Originally posted by lifegazer
Whilst you're at it, demonstrate your skills of manipulation by explaining to this forum why "I and the Father are One" does not equate to saying that "I am God".

He was god. So was his father. They were one in purpose.

Quote:

Holy Father, protect them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one, as we are one."

"As we are one" He wanted them also to be one in purpose.

[Upchurch]

Quote:

Originally posted by lifegazer
I have said that my philosophy mirrors the testament reported to have been given by a man named Jesus. Namely, that only God exists.
The issue isn't one of whether you believe Jesus to have existed. The issue is whether the words attributed to him mirror my own philosophy.
So do they?

Some do, most do not. You are doing the same thing that all theists have done for millennia. You are taking those portions of scripture that agree with what you want to believe in your faith and disregarding the rest. It is called cherry-picking and it can be used to draw parallels between any two ideas, not just yours and Christianity.

So, do the words of Jesus when taken in their entirety mirror your philosophy? No.

[lifegazer]

Quote:

Originally posted by Upchurch
Some do, most do not.

First of all, I must thank you for having the sincerity - unlike everyone else here - for acknowledging that some of the passages I have posted are a clear reflection of my own philosophy.

Secondly, I would be pleased to see you post some words attributed to Jesus which CLEARLY illustrate that Jesus was not saying that only God exists.

Thirdly, since you have accepted that some text seems to mirror my own philosophy yet also seem to think that some text opposes that philosophy, perhaps you could discuss why you think the writers of the NT (or Jesus himself) couldn't decide whether only God exists, or not.

[RandFan]

Quote:

Originally posted by lifegazer
First of all, I must thank you for having the sincerity - unlike everyone else here - for acknowledging that some of the passages I have posted are a clear reflection of my own philosophy.

Secondly, I would be pleased to see you post some words attributed to Jesus which CLEARLY illustrate that Jesus was not saying that only God exists.

Thirdly, since you have accepted that some text seems to mirror my own philosophy yet also seem to think that some text opposes that philosophy, perhaps you could discuss why you think the writers of the NT (or Jesus himself) couldn't decide whether only God exists, or not.

Upchurch said "most do not". I would be less generous with my analysis. In any event your question is silly. The NT is a disparate collection of writings. Much of it conflicts. As Upchurch has said you are just one more of thousands who have tried to fit the Bible to their philosophy. Jim Jones, Joseph Smith, David Koresh, Mary Baker Eddy, Ellen White, CT Russell, etc., etc. The thing is that there is so much there that it is easy to find something to fit your beliefs. Even politics. Many see Christ as a liberal others see him as a conservative. All have scriptures to prove their point.

As source of truth or logic or proof of anything other than confusion it is very poor. Actually it has been a good source of infections (see this weeks commentary by James Randi).

[Meadmaker]

Quote:

Originally posted by lifegazer

You're a buddhist and have accepted that "All is an illusion.". You don't even believe in the existence of 'self'.

Well, actually, Buddhism doesn't really teach the non-existence of self. Buddhism teaches the non-existence of a self that is distinct from the rest of the universe. The doctrine of anatta (no-self or no soul) does not say that we do not exist. It says that we cannot separate ourselves from the rest of the universe. It says that we do not exist by ourselves, but only as part of this much greater thing that makes up the whole universe.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that exactly what your philosophy teaches, lifegazer?

Welcome to the Sangha.

[Iacchus]

Quote:

Originally posted by Meadmaker
Well, actually, Buddhism doesn't really teach the non-existence of self. Buddhism teaches the non-existence of a self that is distinct from the rest of the universe. The doctrine of anatta (no-self or no soul) does not say that we do not exist. It says that we cannot separate ourselves from the rest of the universe. It says that we do not exist by ourselves, but only as part of this much greater thing that makes up the whole universe.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that exactly what your philosophy teaches, lifegazer?

Welcome to the Sangha.

If everything was so copacetic, then why the pain? If I stub my toe on a rock, does that mean the rock is going to feel the same thing? After all, the rock and I are both "one" with the Universe.

[lifegazer]

Quote:

Originally posted by Meadmaker
Well, actually, Buddhism doesn't really teach the non-existence of self. Buddhism teaches the non-existence of a self that is distinct from the rest of the universe. The doctrine of anatta (no-self or no soul) does not say that we do not exist. It says that we cannot separate ourselves from the rest of the universe. It says that we do not exist by ourselves, but only as part of this much greater thing that makes up the whole universe.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that exactly what your philosophy teaches, lifegazer?

Welcome to the Sangha.

No, that falls short of what my philosophy teaches, since my philosophy states that the ~thing~ which is the whole, is God.
Buddhists don't acknowledge existence to be alive, willful and intelligent.

[Jekyll]

Lifegazer made me an athiest.

[Meadmaker]

Quote:

Originally posted by lifegazer
No, that falls short of what my philosophy teaches, since my philosophy states that the ~thing~ which is the whole, is God.
Buddhists don't acknowledge existence to be alive, willful and intelligent.

This link describes a Buddhist view of God, that is suspiciously like yours.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/zfa/zfa04.htm

I haven't had a whole lot to say about your philosophy as I have read it, but it's pretty close to Buddhist.

[Pahansiri]

Quote:

Originally posted by Meadmaker
Well, actually, Buddhism doesn't really teach the non-existence of self. Buddhism teaches the non-existence of a self that is distinct from the rest of the universe. The doctrine of anatta (no-self or no soul) does not say that we do not exist. It says that we cannot separate ourselves from the rest of the universe. It says that we do not exist by ourselves, but only as part of this much greater thing that makes up the whole universe.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that exactly what your philosophy teaches, lifegazer?

Welcome to the Sangha.

Greetings Meadmaker

Great post, what is a better term then “no self� is “ not self�

Here is a like written by Thanissaro Bhikkhu titled ‘No-self or Not-self?’

I have told lifegazer that his beliefs are very close to Buddhist thought, he rejects that as I believe he craves to feel unique in what he believes he discovered.

[Pahansiri]

Quote:

Originally posted by Iacchus
If everything was so copacetic, then why the pain? If I stub my toe on a rock, does that mean the rock is going to feel the same thing? After all, the rock and I are both "one" with the Universe.

If you believe the rock is Sentient it will. Do you believe that a rock is Sentient?

[Pahansiri]

Quote:

Originally posted by lifegazer
No, that falls short of what my philosophy teaches, since my philosophy states that the ~thing~ which is the whole, is God.

Not falls short at all, just falls short of what you want it to be. Your desire to be "right" . You need what is to be call God, that is fine, call it what you wish.

Quote:

Buddhists don't acknowledge existence to be alive, willful and intelligent.

That would be very wrong, you need to read and understand what you speak of.

But, is it not your belief that thinks, that? You believe we are but thoughts in a Gods mind and that all is fully an illusion ( without a physical reality". You believe that ONLY God suffers and NOT humans as you have told me.

Remember you said you were going to save God, free him from his suffering that "we" his thoughts were causing him.

This is of course fully illogical As you as a thought of this God, his only thought ever in all this time which knows the truth and will at last save him. How can an all knowing all powerful being need a thought to free him from his “confusion� can a God be confused?

[Upchurch]

Quote:

Originally posted by lifegazer

Secondly, I would be pleased to see you post some words attributed to Jesus which CLEARLY illustrate that Jesus was not saying that only God exists.

Whoop. Slow down. I never agreed that some words attributed to Jesus which CLEARLY illustrate that Jesus was not saying that only God exists. I was merely agreeing that some passages could be interpreted to mean that Jesus was God only.

Although, I must admit that it is, at least, consistant of you (if not somewhat humorous) to cherry-pick my post about your cherry-picking.

Quote:

Thirdly, since you have accepted that some text seems to mirror my own philosophy yet also seem to think that some text opposes that philosophy, perhaps you could discuss why you think the writers of the NT (or Jesus himself) couldn't decide whether only God exists, or not.

Ah, so words attributed to Jesus that say what you want to say are actually from Jesus, but those that contradict what you want to say are due to the indecision of the authors or Jesus. Another double standard. Your consistancy persists.

Maybe you need to discuss why the words of Jesus do not, in total, agree with your philosophy. After all, it is your claim that Jesus understood your philosophy.

[lifegazer]

Quote:

Originally posted by Pahansiri
I have told lifegazer that his beliefs are very close to Buddhist thought, he rejects that as I believe he craves to feel unique in what he believes he discovered.

Stop telling porkies.
Do you believe that an all-knowing, willful being (God), is the essence of existence?
No you don't. So stop saying that our beliefs are very close. They are gulfs apart.

[Z]

Quote:

Originally posted by lifegazer
Stop telling porkies.
Do you believe that an all-knowing, willful being (God), is the essence of existence?
No you don't. So stop saying that our beliefs are very close. They are gulfs apart.

I do, but with a huge difference: God exists in physical, real space AS the Universe. All-that-is, and all that. And we are equally real as a part of God like the atoms are real and parts of the body.

The funny thing is, your 'acosmist' point of view isn't so different from what I believe, except I believe that all-we-perceive is real as well as being part of God.

I wonder, though, why you can't address this possibility? Of course, my replies to your posts are worthless (you have said so, on numerous occasions) so I can understand you basically ignoring me - but is it really so hard to adjust your POV to accept that God is all that exists, and we exist as well, as parts of God? That the physical world is real, and a part of God? That our individual lives and individual perceptions are real as well as being part of God? And that therefore it is safe to say that I am not God, and you are not God, but we are part of God???

Sorry, I'm derailing. Please ignore.

[Pahansiri]

Quote:

Originally posted by lifegazer
Stop telling porkies.
Do you believe that an all-knowing, willful being (God), is the essence of existence?
No you don't. So stop saying that our beliefs are very close. They are gulfs apart.

Poor man, so closed minded.

Your belief is solely rooted your ego.

Be well as I explained in the other thread something have come up and I will be away for awhile..


By the way you do not believe in an all knowing determined God, you believe he is confused, weak and controled by his thoughts and suffering and YOU are here to save him.

This is too easy....lol Be well;

[lifegazer]

Quote:

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
but is it really so hard to adjust your POV to accept that God is all that exists, and we exist as well, as parts of God? That the physical world is real, and a part of God? That our individual lives and individual perceptions are real as well as being part of God? And that therefore it is safe to say that I am not God, and you are not God, but we are part of God???

Existence cannot be fragmented by non-existence = existence is not really fragmented = God (being existence in this instance) is absolutely singular.
God is not a fragmented being. How can God be fragmented? What can it be fragmented by?

Furthermore, I do not suscribe to the idea that 'God' can be a finite entity with finite knowledge and finite power. This would indeed be the case if God were not to be absolutely omnipresent and the totality of existence. Such a limiting definition of God enables that definition to be applied to ANY creature in existence.
As I've said elsewhere and in greater detail than this - 'reason' must accept the meaning of God to be the totality of existence or else reason cannot identify what God is.

[Moliere]

Quote:

Originally posted by lifegazer
This is nonsense. Jesus categorically states that I and the Father are One [John 10:30]

You cannot dance around this. By proclaiming this, Jesus was proclaiming the fact that he was really God.
"I am in the Father and the Father in me" does not relate to being in his thoughts. Why you would wish to deny this can only be a consequence of fear. Sobeit.

I just wrote down on a piece of paper that God and Jesus are not One. Oh, and by the way, it was Godly inspired so therefore it's true. You can trust me on that. Why? Because you're trusting these unknown writers to have gotten it right so why not me. All of these Bible quotes are quite irrelevant if we can't trust the source material. What makes you think we can use the Bible for anything besides something to balance the kitchen table legs with? Show me the evidence other then circular argument that the Bible said so. Do you really base your entire religious philosophy on a quote passed down a few generations in oral tradition, finally written down, hand copied for a few more generations and translated between 2-3 very different languages? I would want a little more evidence before I commit my life to that path.

[Z]

Quote:

Originally posted by lifegazer
Existence cannot be fragmented by non-existence = existence is not really fragmented = God (being existence in this instance) is absolutely singular.
God is not a fragmented being. How can God be fragmented? What can it be fragmented by?

Furthermore, I do not suscribe to the idea that 'God' can be a finite entity with finite knowledge and finite power. This would indeed be the case if God were not to be absolutely omnipresent and the totality of existence. Such a limiting definition of God enables that definition to be applied to ANY creature in existence.
As I've said elsewhere and in greater detail than this - 'reason' must accept the meaning of God to be the totality of existence or else reason cannot identify what God is.

This does not address the question presented, Darren. I am not claiming that God, as the totality of reality, is fragmented by non-existence. I am saying that God is all of existence - and that we are the component bits of God-ness.

Wherein nothing else exists, spacetime exists (within this reality) - ergo, no separation at all within the fabric of Godhood. Only state-changes in the nature of his fabric.

Nor have I claimed that God is a finite entity with finite knowledge or finite power. Only that God is the All-That-Is, totally.... and that we are all real, solid, and finite parts of that God.

Now, will you address this issue, or will you continue placing falsehoods into my expressions?

[lifegazer]

Quote:

Originally posted by Moliere
I just wrote down on a piece of paper that God and Jesus are not One. Oh, and by the way, it was Godly inspired so therefore it's true. You can trust me on that. Why? Because you're trusting these unknown writers to have gotten it right so why not me. All of these Bible quotes are quite irrelevant if we can't trust the source material.

My claim is that the text of the NT (specifically the words attributed to the man named Jesus) mirrors my own philosophy.
It doesn't matter if Bugs Bunny wrote the NT after OD'ing on carrot juice. The issue I have been raising recently is that the text mirrors my philosophy.

[lifegazer]

Quote:

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
This does not address the question presented, Darren. I am not claiming that God, as the totality of reality, is fragmented by non-existence. I am saying that God is all of existence - and that we are the component bits of God-ness.

In the words of my good buddy Pahansiri: Think man think!
You see, if God/existence cannot be fragmented by non-existence, then God/existence simply cannot be fragmented.
Consequently, there cannot really be separate or fragmented parts of existence. Hence, there cannot really be "component parts" of existence... meaning that there cannot be separate entities - namely 'we'.

Quote:

Nor have I claimed that God is a finite entity with finite knowledge or finite power. Only that God is the All-That-Is, totally.... and that we are all real, solid, and finite parts of that God.

If God is the totality of existence, then there can be no thing that is not God, nor any corner where God, in it's totality, does not exist.
Rationally, the existence of God is incompatible with existence external to God's being.

Quote:

Now, will you address this issue, or will you continue placing falsehoods into my expressions?

LOL. Great line.