Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Religion IS crazy!

Jump to new
Give me something a bit harder GB, you're insulting my intelligence with simple ones like that.

I'm off for now though so have fun guys!

Some of us have got money to make on the FTSE!
 
pavilion103 said:
No it's because I just saw it.

My quote was "something that begins to exist must have a cause"

God is eternal
God did not BEGIN to exist
Therefore God does not have to have a cause

God is not nothing. God is outside of time. God can create something inside time that didn't exist previously.

CHECKMATE!!!
Click to expand...

So if God is outside of time (and space presumably), then it can't take any form.... right? And if it has no form, what is it? Is it Nothingness? Is it, as I have previously explained to you, the great Void? The Abyss?

I think it got a bit hot in the kitchen for you to run off like that. I was just getting started. Weak!
 
I answered your question. My logic makes perfect sense. I believe in a personal God.

How can I explain an eternal form? No one can. If they could there would be an award named after them.

My thoughts are that an eternal uncaused cause outside of time makes the most (only) sense.

God is God. He can exist in whatever form he wants and do whatever he wants or create whatever he wants.

I'm not sure what else there is to discuss in relation to your previous question. I've explained my position and the logic is sound.
 
pavilion103 said:
I answered your question. My logic makes perfect sense. I believe in a personal God.

How can I explain an eternal form? No one can. If they could there would be an award named after them.

My thoughts are that an eternal uncaused cause outside of time makes the most (only) sense.

God is God. He can exist in whatever form he wants and do whatever he wants or create whatever he wants.

I'm not sure what else there is to discuss in relation to your previous question. I've explained my position and the logic is sound.
Click to expand...

You've got me a little curious now Pav, what does your god look like in your mind? We all have images in our mind of people we have not met (on forums etc too.), i even recall having an image of god in my head at one time. Or is there no particular image that comes to mind when you think of your god?
 
CanOz said:
You've got me a little curious now Pav, what does your god look like in your mind? We all have images in our mind of people we have not met (on forums etc too.), i even recall having an image of god in my head at one time. Or is there no particular image that comes to mind when you think of your god?
Click to expand...

Fascinating question.
I guess the "personality traits" or qualities are very clear in my mind. Christ as the "human representation" of God.

In terms of appearance. I don't know. I believe that we were created in God's imagine but more so of being creative beings with a free will. Whether that means he appears "human like" in appearance or not I'm not sure. I'd be leaning towards it. I guess this comes from me believing in a personal God.
 
This is such a big area, GB, and good to see you sitting in the middle.
As you mentioned in another post, the angels and so much more..

So what would you categorize yourself as?
Just curious.
 
pavilion103 said:
How can I explain an eternal form? No one can. If they could there would be an award named after them.

My thoughts are that an eternal uncaused cause outside of time makes the most (only) sense.

God is God. He can exist in whatever form he wants and do whatever he wants or create whatever he wants.
Click to expand...

You god can exist in any form, do whatever he wants and create whatever he wants..? Isn't that the exact opposite of what a theists premise is :confused::confused::confused: i.e. that god can be known on a definite and personal level???
 
pavilion103 said:
Matthew and John are eye witness accounts. They were both referred to as the authors from the beginning. This is not a myth that sprung up later in time. Reports of the death of the apostles were also recorded by secular sources. People die for what they believe to be a lie. But no one dies for what they KNOW to be a lie. They either saw Him rise or they didn't.
They were willing to die for it despite prior to the resurrection thinking Jesus was a fake and running away.
Do some historical research.


The virgin birth myth and others in other religions did not appear prior to the first century. Some have claimed that they were from ancient cultures but the first accounts did not appear until AFTER Christ. This is evident with a little research. People bring this up but it simply is not accurate.
Click to expand...

Pav, I'm afraid you are way behind here! Scholars agree (and I am assuming you are not a scholar of ancient texts) that Mark was the first of the synoptic gospels written - around 70AD - and that Matthew, Luke, and John borrowed heavily from that and other documents. Anyone who was around at the time Jesus was alive was long dead by the time Mark was written.

As for virgin birth....... yes, it was quite a while before the virgin birth was adopted into christianity (yet another embellishment), but once again your ignorance is on show. Ancient mythologies and religions are rich with stories of virgin births. In Tibetan mythology there is Indra; from India we have Krishna; some of the Pharaohs claimed virgin birth, as did Alexander the great; and Greek and Roman myths abound with virgin births.

You suggest we do some historical research. Perhaps you should take your own advice. What you are claiming is not based on any historical research, but on a few badly written, inconsistent, ancient documents, which can't even agree with one another.
 
Ruby said:
Pav, I'm afraid you are way behind here! Scholars agree (and I am assuming you are not a scholar of ancient texts) that Mark was the first of the synoptic gospels written - around 70AD - and that Matthew, Luke, and John borrowed heavily from that and other documents. Anyone who was around at the time Jesus was alive was long dead by the time Mark was written.

As for virgin birth....... yes, it was quite a while before the virgin birth was adopted into christianity (yet another embellishment), but once again your ignorance is on show. Ancient mythologies and religions are rich with stories of virgin births. In Tibetan mythology there is Indra; from India we have Krishna; some of the Pharaohs claimed virgin birth, as did Alexander the great; and Greek and Roman myths abound with virgin births.

You suggest we do some historical research. Perhaps you should take your own advice. What you are claiming is not based on any historical research, but on a few badly written, inconsistent, ancient documents, which can't even agree with one another.
Click to expand...

This post is completely false.

I can post post when I get home tonight. 1st Corinthians was the first book written around 55 AD. Mark written around 55-60 AD (within the lifetime of the apostles). John was the latest written in around 90AD when he was an old man.
20-30 years after the event is EXTREMELY soon after the event in ancient times. Compare it to any other text. Oral tradition was the main, reliable form of communication. As the apostles got older the texts were written IN THEIR LIFETIME.

And of course they compared notes. Who wouldn't when writing a biography/any book? But it was written in the LIFETIME of eye witnesses, so a myth could not evolve in this time.
Not only this but the very first writings contain virgin birth, bodily resurrection etc so this isn't a story of a natural Jesus that evolved over time. This was the original version from the start.

I'm very well researched in this. There probably isn't anything you can correct me on in terms of this historic stuff.
Your misconception is a very common one until people investigate some of these facts.
 
If you're serious about truth just do a quick search on the net about why Jesus virgin birth claim is completely in contrast to the ancient ones that have been claimed. If you're not interested in doing that then I have nothing further to add on this. It's not at all a contentious point.
 
Tink said:
This is such a big area, GB, and good to see you sitting in the middle.
As you mentioned in another post, the angels and so much more..

So what would you categorize yourself as?
Just curious.
Click to expand...

I'm glad you see me as sitting in the middle Tink, because I wouldn't want to come across as being on one side or the other. That's not because I fear opposition, but because both 'sides' on this argument are untenable.

I see myself as a body. I am fully identified with my body, and to a lesser extent, my mind. I believe I am this body sitting typing at a computer screen. This is the definition of ego. So I am in an egoic state of consciousness. I am in the dreamstate - there ain't no enlightenment here. Few people throughout history have escaped egoic consciousness, but for those who have, they all speak roughly the same way regardless of cultural context, time frame or nationality.

If someone was to say to me "GB your beliefs are rubbish", I'd have to agree. But there has to be some communication in order to express what can't possibly be expressed in words. The old finger/moon thing that I keep on about.

I don't have a religion. But I do lean towards neo-Advaita stuff because it seems to add up. If someone was to trash-talk Advaita, I wouldn't be too fussed at all, because I view it as a tool only. The idea is that you discard the tool when it's no longer needed, so I try not to be attached to it. The only real test is in the doing, so I "do" certain practices every day and notice what happens. The more I do them, the clearer things become. It's like I can get a deep appreciation for what they're saying in these religious texts, whereas before it was just like reading a bit of flowery prose. It's like learning a new language. But the proof is in the doing, not the speculation. Speculation is too easy.



Pavillion, if your God has a humanoid form with arms legs and a head then it has form. Form cannot exist outside of space-time. Well, that's what I've heard. Probably up for debate too.
 
We have no idea what can exist outside of space and time. If God is an all powerful being he can exist in any form he wants.

We cannot grasp eternal perspectives with our mind either. Think about describing colour to a blind person. Think about how futile trying to explain the Internet to an ant is. Then think that the gap in intelligence between us and God is infinitely greater than this!!

We put God in such a small box with our puny human minds!
 
pavilion103 said:
We have no idea what can exist outside of space and time. If God is an all powerful being he can exist in any form he wants.

We cannot grasp eternal perspectives with our mind either. Think about describing colour to a blind person. Think about how futile trying to explain the Internet to an ant is. Then think that the gap in intelligence between us and God is infinitely greater than this!!

We put God in such a small box with our puny human minds!
Click to expand...

What is that saying about his supposed character if he created something too stupid to comprehend him :eek:?
Was he incapable of creating a creature that could comprehend him or was he sadistic enough to be ok with the apparent infinite inferiority of his creation?
 
I personally have problems with something that creates
organisms from single cell to Black holes to Cancer to Animals to humans.
That devour other organisms to exist!

The God "level" then must be purely Consciousness without form.

Consciousness with form must surely be hell!
 
pavilion103 said:
We have no idea what can exist outside of space and time. If God is an all powerful being he can exist in any form he wants.

We cannot grasp eternal perspectives with our mind either. Think about describing colour to a blind person. Think about how futile trying to explain the Internet to an ant is. Then think that the gap in intelligence between us and God is infinitely greater than this!!

We put God in such a small box with our puny human minds!
Click to expand...

Here's a famous prove that God exists.
The ontological argument has been formulated by philosophers including St. Anselm and René Descartes. The argument proposes that God's existence is self-evident. The logic, depending on the formulation, reads roughly as follows:
1. God is the greatest conceivable being.
2. It is greater to exist than not to exist.
3. Therefore, God exists
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God#Empirical_arguments

Read on the above Wiki page and see how Kant reputed the above argument on logic grounds.
 
Yeh that reasoning makes no sense to me either lol.


We all might not agree on everything but I tell you I'd much rather be in here having an interesting discussion than in front of the TV each night like most, dead to everything else around them.

This conversation is much better had in person. I can talk to people for hours about it. Follow a line of thinking, and challenge each other hard. A but disjointed in here but that's ok.
 
Most people that I speak to will leave the conversation concluding that it is much more logical that some form of God exists (well the only logical position).

The second question then of "Who is God" is a whole another issue.

It's silly to discuss both in one discussion/debate because its first imperative to establish that there is a God. Without that, no specific type of God will make any sense.
 
pavilion103 said:
This post is completely false.

I can post post when I get home tonight. 1st Corinthians was the first book written around 55 AD. Mark written around 55-60 AD (within the lifetime of the apostles). John was the latest written in around 90AD when he was an old man.
20-30 years after the event is EXTREMELY soon after the event in ancient times. Compare it to any other text. Oral tradition was the main, reliable form of communication. As the apostles got older the texts were written IN THEIR LIFETIME.

And of course they compared notes. Who wouldn't when writing a biography/any book? But it was written in the LIFETIME of eye witnesses, so a myth could not evolve in this time.

Not only this but the very first writings contain virgin birth, bodily resurrection etc so this isn't a story of a natural Jesus that evolved over time. This was the original version from the start.

I'm very well researched in this. There probably isn't anything you can correct me on in terms of this historic stuff.
Your misconception is a very common one until people investigate some of these facts.
Click to expand...

You keep shooting yourself in the foot Pav. Oral tradition is the most notoriously unreliable form of communication if you want the facts to be correct! You are not well researched at all.

And the apostles compared notes??? O spare me, please. Do you really imagine that fishermen in the first century were literate? And got together to write a book? You clearly believe you know more about this matter than the world's best scholars on the subject. And I reiterate - this is not historical stuff as you claim - it is myth. There is nothing, anywhere, to substantiate your claims. You need to be able to differentiate.

My bolds.
 
You need to look into oral tradition more in terms of these types of societies.

Expert scholars? The ones that share your opinion? There are many that share mine. Many who went out to full on disprove these views and ended up believing because the evidence was irrefutable.

You are intellectually dishonest throwing the blanket statement "experts" over the people who agree with you and ignoring the ones who agree with me as "Christian opinions". Of course anyone who agrees with my thinking is a Christian lol. But that is simply because they investigated and came to that conclusion.

It's so stupid when people use the term "experts" and "scientists" for stupid generalizations. But the Christian experts and scientist's opinions are ignored.
Some people are very clever in being deceptive. It doesn't deceive me one bit though.
 
I have provided compelling evidence already about the crucifixion and resurrection. I've mentioned disciples willing to die for testimony that they KNEW to be true (not thought was true). Manuscripts written in the lifetime of eye-witnesses who could refute this if untrue. Writing by eye-witnesses so close to the events compared to anything else in antiquity (Buddha was about 600 years later I think).
5,200 Greek manuscripts, an abundance of evidence also showing myth was not added later, the original was of a supernatural Jesus, not a natural one.

You are using a different standard if evidence to other events in antiquity if you conclude that the resurrection did not occur. If you are being consistent then you cannot say that Buddha existed, or Alexander the Great. In fact there is more evidence for Christ than for Caesar (about 10 manuscript).

Luckadoo I think it was. The lawyer of 255 consecutive murder acquittals investigated the evidence from a court of law standard and concluded by this standard it is beyond any doubt at all.

But hey your faceless "scholars" all think otherwise lol.
 
Top