Oh, and I've just gotta point out: There is something bizarre and hilarious about Santa Claus saying he doesn't believe in God. Was that intentional?
Why would God send someone to hell over suicide?
- Thread starter Jayson
- Start date
Dude, nobody's bigger than Jesus.
The guy's been a key player in a book that's been a bestseller since the printing press started and was popular even before then.
And he's got this huge cult following. As in, you have no idea.
More Moral than God, though? Well, it depends whether or not you have a problem with killing babies. If you're against killing babies - even babies of a racial enemy - then you might make an argument for that.
A
Amaris
Guest
I've been slightly aware of the irony, yes.
Seriously, though, every year I choose "Santa Claus" because of what he represents. Giving, Kindness, love of children, a desire for peace and happiness. I love the idea of Kris Kringle, Santa Claus, whatever you want to call him.
J.
I've been slightly aware of the irony, yes.
Seriously, though, every year I choose "Santa Claus" because of what he represents. Giving, Kindness, love of children, a desire for peace and happiness. I love the idea of Kris Kringle, Santa Claus, whatever you want to call him.
J.
The "Holly King" is the origin of that character, a representation of the winter aspect of the pagan divine male principle. The Oak King kicks his ass, on Dec 21 I think, only to get ousted again by the Holly King in midsummer. Or something like that. Another classic case of Christianity grafting itself onto paganism in its historic effort to convert the masses.
One question, J. I too don't buy the old/new testament God concept, however, what do you think about the nature of consciousness itself?
A lot of my interest lies in personal experiences, and evidence of consciousness existing as a form of energy that appears to precede or be beyond the physical body.
And an underlying feeling that there is a creative force in the universe, that is comprised of love, and that our main purpose in this physical incarnation is to learn about it and expand/cultivate our consciousness along with it.
Such a "plane" could be like the myriad heavens, with each of us ending up (post linear-death) in correlation to the consciousness energy we cultivate. Likewise, there could be a myriad of "hells", but not inflicted by a vengeful God, but simply the reaping of what we sow.
I can appreciate that!
A
Amaris
Guest
Oh, I believe in love. Whether a chemical reaction or something more, love is beautiful. I still live by love.
As for consciousness, I believe that energy is neither created nor destroyed, only transferred. Like Zachary Smith, I sometimes wonder if over time our consciousness being a result of our experiences imprinted upon our brains becomes something greater. Maybe, maybe not. That is something worth exploring. The likelihood is that our energy simply dissipates into something else, although it is comforting to know that even when one passes on, they simply become a part of this wonderful universe in other ways.
You're never too old for Santa Claus.
J.
This is where I find myself, philosophically, and perhaps the strength in that belief is what I then call "spiritual". Spiritual cultivation, in Taoist terms.
Crossing over into ideas of quantum mechanics, and shamanism, also including pagan concepts such as "As above, so below", the sacredness of both the divine male and female aspects, the Taoist laws of energy response, and other things. The simple idea that mind-body-spirit are an integrated system.
One of the key concepts, I find, is the transcendence of dualism. So often I see even the most intelligent of people framing questions in dualistic ways that cannot bring about a satisfactory answer, such as: is reality subjective or objective? Or: are we spiritual beings, or physical beings?
With the implication always being that one thing being true must therefore make the other thing false.
I'm sure they're ALL made up.
I empathize with your frustration. I really do. But nobody is saying that they're ALL made up. Do you see anyone disputing that Alexander Hamilton was a Christian? No. And you won't because Hamilton WAS a Christian. No doubt about it. Anyone researching him will see that for themselves and have the sense to not challenge it. Not only would it be a losing battle, it would be dishonest as well.
On the other hand, Madison and Jefferson were definitely NOT Christians. Any non-biased person can easily discover this for themself. The internet has made it MUCH harder to spout BS and not get called on it. If you make an assertion on a BBS and there are people who doubt your assertion, you had better be right because Google is at everyone's fingertips.
TLS, I respect you in some ways. I don't know you personally but I get the impression that you would not knowingly spout BS. If I'm right about that, you need to objectively determine the validity of your sources - because most atheists WILL check up on it. That's what we do! We have exposed a number of liars and will continue doing so. I don't personally believe you are liar but i do think you have been duped by some. And some of them are very good.
I ask that you consider if the interests of die-hard Christians are best-served by telling lies - not morally but practically. We both know that Christianity is in decline in the U.S. and has been for some time. I won't pretend to know if that trend is reversible or not but I would bet huge money (if I actually had any) that it will only be reversed if Christians can honestly sell it to people for what it is actually worth - not try to snow them like a used car salesman. P.T. Barnum was right; A sucker is born every minute. But the suckers in his time didn't have Google at their fingertips.
You want American culture to move back toward the 50s? Fine. Sell it - honestly.
Google is like Santa Clause:
It knows if you're BSing
It knows if you are right
It knows if you are making up crap
So be truthful and goodnight!
TheLonelySquire
Vice Admiral
What's so shocking about your remarks is that you were sooooo convinced in your beliefs regarding God when you were on board. Now that you're not it seems like the idea of God is ludicrous to you. I'm just amazed you could get to that point so fast.
A
Amaris
Guest
When I accept something I follow it to it's conclusion. The truth may make me uncomfortable at times, but I do accept it with little resistance.
Each of us is different in how we assimilate new information and how we act upon it.
In my case, I process data rapidly and assimilate it into my understanding. From there, I adjust my analyses and postulations accordingly, making way for the new information and applying in the best way possible.
J.
TheLonelySquire
Vice Admiral
That's cool. Kind of like laying an extra hundred-timer on the Raiders because Clinton Portis just went on IR. Nice.
A
Amaris
Guest
I don't watch football very often.
Not enough to keep track of teams I don't like.
J.
A
Amaris
Guest
Oh, no, no. You have me confused with "dignity" and "good taste". They both died in Nemesis, but I'm alright.
J.
I've never said I know how it ALL works. And I cannot transfer that experience to anyone else, nor even if I'd been hooked to machines at the time, would there have been any way for you, being outside my mind and experience, to feel what I did for yourself. However, I do make a decision about what I experienced, and it squares with my faith.
The odd thing is this. I've read descriptions before--in literature and in the Bible, and once you HAVE an experience like that, you find that the words only offer a tiny hint of what happened. Paul speaks, for instance, of an experience that in retrospect seems very similar. And it's easy to dismiss it as nuts, or simply not have a frame of reference, but once it's happened to you, it sure looks different on rereading. The feeling and power of it were literally not imaginable to me until it happened.
Looking back now, on Generations, I understand Guinan's reactions in a way that I really couldn't before. I didn't understand the depth of the effect the Nexus had on them, figured it had to be some sort of species peculiarity, but now I can see what experiences the authors may have drawn on. I very much had the feeling of having just come from a senior reality, and even for the everyday world to feel quite "real" again took a few days. The emotional aftereffects took a long time to process, too, though unlike the Nexus I would not classify it as a negative experience in the end. Not by far.
Whereas when I speak of the universe, I am referring specifically to one of what could be a multiverse...basically, the physically observable and mathematically-definable space-time continuum in which we live. Other created continua could also exist, and at least personally, this would be no surprise, nor even slightly bothersome to me. I am not including any non-observable, non-quantifiable elements in that description...those I speak of in spiritual terms.
So yes, you are quite right about how even defining terms can be a very difficult matter for arguments like this.
First, thanks for your thoughts. I was going to mention the idea of the multiverse, and when I'm not so tired I might go into detail, but even if a person were to beleive in multiverses, than it still must be properly defined, and it would have to somehow go against the definition of universe, which is all that exists. In short there could be multiverse in the sense that there are different realities, but they would still be a part of the universe, because that is the sum of everything (even, perhaps, God, for those with an open mind).
Oh, the Nexus was not in and of itself negative, but instead it was so good it drove one guy to obsess over it.
I'll have to post tomorrow, I'm tired after traveling. I appreciate your thoughts. I know we disagree but it is very interesting to dig beneath the surface of what we disagree about.
Oh, the Nexus was not in and of itself negative, but instead it was so good it drove one guy to obsess over it.
I'll have to post tomorrow, I'm tired after traveling. I appreciate your thoughts. I know we disagree but it is very interesting to dig beneath the surface of what we disagree about.
I've seen more than one convincing arguments that Santa Clause on his sleigh is more or less a modern take on, I kid you not, Odin and his Wild Hunt. I find that quite awesome.
On the other hand, you are quite too old for Pedobear.You're never too old for Santa Claus.
J.
Ahh...I tend to refer to the entire set of existing things as Creation, simply because "universe" is a term I have seen defined scientifically as dealing specifically with the space-time continuum that we happen to be in right now (and, interestingly, not an infinite).
Now, God is imbued in existence, in Creation, in some manner. I actually think the way He named Himself is very telling, in the Book of Exodus--to name Himself as "I AM," a very specific present-tense form of the verb "to be" (or, you could say, "to exist"). I do think, though, that this still allows Him to see beyond our particular universe and not be bound by time's arrow as it exists in our universe, beyond the dimensions that we can detect, and does not preclude the existence of higher dimensions (some of which are only acessible to us in any permanent sense through death).
I think I addressed that naming issue in another post WAAAAAY upthread, though, so I'm not going to retype it all. But that does imply that He is somehow intertwined with all of existence even though He is also able to assume an outside perspective.
Of course, the Nexus was still not completely perfect...Picard seeing the echo of the dying Veridian star was proof enough of that. (Then again, you could also argue that Picard's conscience forced him back and he reflected that echo into his surroundings.)
I'm in for fleeting momen5ts today at best, but I will say that I think where we respectfully disagree then is on the terms, I believe the universe is the result of natural cumulative processes, and the word universe is an effective label for what I am talking about. The term you are using to describe essentially the same thing is creation, which, by it's very nature is a word that is more loaded, and it implies a creator. I also believe that the universe has always existed, even before TBB, all the matter and energy that comprised it was doing somnehting, and evventually formed the singularity which exploded. Scientists have no way at present to create a model as to what was happeneing before the planktime (less than a second after TBB occurred).
But by implying a creator, you've basically given a bigger mystery without scientific justifucation. So the creator created the universe, what created him? Did a higher power create the higher power. You might sai that God means "I am" and he doesn't need a creator, but someone like be would say "if God doesn't need a creator, than the universe doesn't either" and that we can only go by what we can know through observation and math, and those don't go anywhere near decribing the creator.
I would ask, with as much a straight face and respect as I can muster, but it is something I've never gotten an answer from, including from Matt slick (who uses logic to define god into existence ) and that is: Say the idea of creator can be established, and let's say that this creator is God, how does that say anything about the creator himself, and whether or not that matches with the god of the bible or whatever god you believe in?
Anyway more soon.
But by implying a creator, you've basically given a bigger mystery without scientific justifucation. So the creator created the universe, what created him? Did a higher power create the higher power. You might sai that God means "I am" and he doesn't need a creator, but someone like be would say "if God doesn't need a creator, than the universe doesn't either" and that we can only go by what we can know through observation and math, and those don't go anywhere near decribing the creator.
I would ask, with as much a straight face and respect as I can muster, but it is something I've never gotten an answer from, including from Matt slick (who uses logic to define god into existence ) and that is: Say the idea of creator can be established, and let's say that this creator is God, how does that say anything about the creator himself, and whether or not that matches with the god of the bible or whatever god you believe in?
Anyway more soon.
It doesn't say anything about him. And those of us who believe are OK with that. (Well, some of us, anyway!)
And even if it lined up 100% with the God of the Bible, I guarantee you there would be some limit as to what we knew about him, or could know. A God who can do things we can't (such as creating universes), and who apparently knows things we don't, represents a limit to our understanding.
You can increase your scientific knowledge and move the bar, but only just so far. Sooner or later we'd have to fall back on faith. I prefer sooner.
And even if it lined up 100% with the God of the Bible, I guarantee you there would be some limit as to what we knew about him, or could know. A God who can do things we can't (such as creating universes), and who apparently knows things we don't, represents a limit to our understanding.
You can increase your scientific knowledge and move the bar, but only just so far. Sooner or later we'd have to fall back on faith. I prefer sooner.
Similar threads
