Utopia Temple
Main Forum Page Register an Account for Free! Calendar Frequently Asked Questions about this Board View New Posts Advanced Search Login
  Utopia Temple Forums > General Discussions > Respectable General Discussions > Religious Discussions

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Post New Thread Reply
Author Thread
Posts: 404/898
(06-Feb-2004 at 10:33)


Quote:
(Originally posted by MAPS)

You stated that if God didn't create EVERYTHING, he would not be God. So by that logic we can assume that God was before everything. But if God was before everything, how does he exist since he is made of SOMETHING(Essence)? He didn't create that essence. He didn't create himself. So saying God created everything is wrong.
three types of essence exist in the universe, according to a philosophy. "God" has the highest essence. you cannot compare it to humans and you cannot understand it either. it is eternal, but not eternal in terms of time. time is only the consciousness of change.
#261  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Aletheia Add Aletheia to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 688/728
(06-Feb-2004 at 13:00)
Quote:
Perhaps he has told you and you just wont accept it.
nah he hasn't...or if he has then he knows he's told me in such a way that i won't understand.

_-^-_ OH NO! MY WOOLEN SUIT HAS NYLON IN IT! BETTER FIRE UP THE INCINERATOR AND GET MYSELF A GOAT! A female one...god doesn't want a male one...
#262  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Rabbousamai Add Rabbousamai to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 235/1288
(06-Feb-2004 at 19:55)


Quote:
(Originally posted by Aletheia)

three types of essence exist in the universe, according to a philosophy. "God" has the highest essence. you cannot compare it to humans and you cannot understand it either. it is eternal, but not eternal in terms of time. time is only the consciousness of change.
Maybe you're just thinking to hard.
God is not a God of confusion.

(\ /)
( . .)
c('')('')
#263  
View Public Profile Find more posts by MAPS Add MAPS to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 102/152
(07-Feb-2004 at 05:38)
And God is not a God of uncertain truths. Therefore he cannot be your God.

---
Those that choose not to open their eyes, will expect to see me once they do.
#264  
View Public Profile Find more posts by EgAMaD BoD Add EgAMaD BoD to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 244/1288
(07-Feb-2004 at 05:41)


Quote:
(Originally posted by EgAMaD BoD)

And God is not a God of uncertain truths. Therefore he cannot be your God.
What uncertain truths?

(\ /)
( . .)
c('')('')
#265  
View Public Profile Find more posts by MAPS Add MAPS to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 407/898
(08-Feb-2004 at 01:54)


Quote:
(Originally posted by MAPS)

Maybe you're just thinking to hard.
God is not a God of confusion.
i'm sorry, i was thinking of metaphysical bases of God's existence/substance. and you are talking from a religious point of view. but let me see if we can reconcile them.

but first: "God of confusion"... you are saying you have a clear idea of what God is (?). i should hope not because when Ravemaster posted the same idea, you objected.

when i wrote "create" it does not mean the same as creationists, for instance, would put it regarding the "beginning of time." i meant, everything traces its existence from that god, whose substance is eternal (this is also why, in one philosophical thought, some have thought the universe, along with everything in it, is eternal as well). if all substances do not trace
their existence to this god, he would not be a god at all. that is why, going back to our earlier argument, evil cannot have substance because if it does, it would trace its existence back to God, meaning God has an element of evil in himself. if this is true, God cannot be all "good" (and when i say "good" i don't mean in terms of morality, i mean in terms of transcendental good). and if an absolute being cannot be all "good", it would not be absolute in the first place. therefore, there wouldn't be a god. maybe an evil god (assuming evil is a substance) but that would also mean he wouldn't have the element of good in him, and so on and so forth.
#266  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Aletheia Add Aletheia to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 249/1288
(08-Feb-2004 at 03:43)


Quote:
(Originally posted by Aletheia)

i'm sorry, i was thinking of metaphysical bases of God's existence/substance. and you are talking from a religious point of view. but let me see if we can reconcile them.

but first: "God of confusion"... you are saying you have a clear idea of what God is (?). i should hope not because when Ravemaster posted the same idea, you objected.

when i wrote "create" it does not mean the same as creationists, for instance, would put it regarding the "beginning of time." i meant, everything traces its existence from that god, whose substance is eternal (this is also why, in one philosophical thought, some have thought the universe, along with everything in it, is eternal as well). if all substances do not trace
their existence to this god, he would not be a god at all. that is why, going back to our earlier argument, evil cannot have substance because if it does, it would trace its existence back to God, meaning God has an element of evil in himself. if this is true, God cannot be all "good" (and when i say "good" i don't mean in terms of morality, i mean in terms of transcendental good). and if an absolute being cannot be all "good", it would not be absolute in the first place. therefore, there wouldn't be a god. maybe an evil god (assuming evil is a substance) but that would also mean he wouldn't have the element of good in him, and so on and so forth.
I believe creation is not creation but rather organization. Matter has always been but just in different forms.

In a way evil was created by God. This all goes back to the arguement I was discussing earlier. God is the way things should be. It is neither good nor bad. It just IS. But when compared to evil (a different path than the way it should be), the way God IS is preferable to evil and is therefore considered good.

You must have death to appreciate life.

I may not understand God fully, but I do understand enough to know that a perfect God wouldn't just leave his creations in the dark. He gives us the knowledge we need. That's why I can say I understand him.

(\ /)
( . .)
c('')('')
#267  
View Public Profile Find more posts by MAPS Add MAPS to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 105/152
(08-Feb-2004 at 09:07)
Quote:
(Originally posted by MAPS)

I may not understand God fully, but I do understand enough to know that a perfect God wouldn't just leave his creations in the dark. He gives us the knowledge we need. That's why I can say I understand him.
Your God must not be the Perfect God, because "he", has left you with absolute truths which may not exist, and is simply misleading you in a path of extremes, which only causes chaos in our world. You don't understand him, because you only understand the text which was left to you by some alleged "higher power".

Whether or not there's a higher power playing devil's advocate out there somewhere, doesn't really matter to me, because the Perfect God, would never have left you a book that fills itself with such contradictory conclusions, and strays away from any known path of balance. And shouldn't perfection be of absolute balance?

If your God is the Perfect God, then you would be able to live a balanced and righteous life without needing the knowledge that Heaven or God is on the other end. Reply when you can tell me so.

Quote:
What uncertain truths?
The bible states such absoluteness and contradictions within itself. If your god is truly the "God", then he wouldn't have let such prophets and writers desecrate his own "sacred" book. You are imagining "God" in the wrong context, because whatever God exists out there is beyond the comprehension you claim to hold.

---
Those that choose not to open their eyes, will expect to see me once they do.

Last edited by EgAMaD BoD, 08-Feb-2004 at 09:10.
#268  
View Public Profile Find more posts by EgAMaD BoD Add EgAMaD BoD to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 546/2162
(08-Feb-2004 at 13:56)


By: EgAMaD BoD
Quote:
whatever God exists out there is beyond the comprehension you claim to hold.
Even though I think this statement was ment to be a slam at Maps; I think it is a correct statement when directed at the basic ability of we humans to really understand God!


But then your comments as to what a "perfect" god should be, or that the God of the Bible is not perfect because of this or that, are made from a human perspective which includes that same lack of understanding!

Work like you will live forever and live like you will die tommorrow!
#269  
View Public Profile Find more posts by PatrioticSpirit Add PatrioticSpirit to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1312/1421
(08-Feb-2004 at 15:35)


Ive looked, and I cant find it..but I remeber MAPS saying that we as a human creation cannot understand God. Then how can you claim to understand him 'enough'?

As stated by ReMaRQaBLe,

Quote:
Maps explanation wasn't sufficient, I agree. I will explain. God can do this because he can judge his creation, an example of this is the flood. Think of it this way, you just spent hours building this huge sandcastle, if you wanted, you have the right to destroy it. Make sense? Oh and, before you go "Well humans are living things and a sandcastle is not a living thing, humans are though so that isn't fair for God to do the flood because they are alive and sandcastles are not!!!11" you must realise that we are NOT alive... well to God anyway. We are dead in our sins. That was the whole purpose for the flood in the first place.
So you are saying we are all pawns in a very big game of chess, to God?

Yes, If I build a sandcastle, I CAN destroy it. But If I have a child, AN INNOCENT BABY, does that give me the right to kill it? After all, I created it.

(`._.[ ]._.)
.: :. Lord Anubis .: :.
R.I.P. Kayla Renee Winterfeldt; born 28th of October 2004, died 28th of October 2004
I am for freedom of religion and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another. ~ Thomas Jefferson
#270  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Lord Anubis Add Lord Anubis to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 109/152
(08-Feb-2004 at 18:08)
I have nothing against anyone of any religious alignment, however, many people who believe completely in their self-righteousness and their own blind absolute truth disgrace their own religion.

---
Those that choose not to open their eyes, will expect to see me once they do.
#271  
View Public Profile Find more posts by EgAMaD BoD Add EgAMaD BoD to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 409/898
(09-Feb-2004 at 07:45)


Quote:
(Originally posted by MAPS)
In a way evil was created by God. This all goes back to the arguement I was discussing earlier. God is the way things should be. It is neither good nor bad. It just IS. But when compared to evil (a different path than the way it should be), the way God IS is preferable to evil and is therefore considered good.
your definition of evil is from an ethical point of view. mine is metaphysical . there isn't a way after all to reconcile the two.

but i really don't know how you came up with this conclusion because the pieces of your puzzle do not fit. does this have basis in the Christian religion that i just don't see or is it God's personal revelation to you (in religious terms)? if it is God's "personal revelation" to you then i can't argue, because it's your opinion, your reflection on this matter. i just hope you have a basis, that is all.

Quote:
You must have death to appreciate life.
you never really know if what makes a man love living is how good it feels to live, or the death and suffering around him.

Quote:
I may not understand God fully, but I do understand enough to know that a perfect God wouldn't just leave his creations in the dark. He gives us the knowledge we need. That's why I can say I understand him.
you're right, we have a partial understanding of God, but it is never enough. we can only speculate, and this is the reason i've presented thoughts to you which i hope you would reflect on. they're not even my own theories , i just wanted you to look at them, maybe find flaws in the reasoning and make a better judgment. but it seems you haven't made a critique on them yet.

regarding "leaving us in the dark"... the faculties of a human being are so limited. you cannot aim to grasp something which is not the same as your level of thinking. even if God showers us with the knowledge we need to understand him fully, we would not be able to contain it. to think that one can understand the absolute in some sort of finality is just arrogance.
#272  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Aletheia Add Aletheia to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 251/1288
(10-Feb-2004 at 21:37)


It's very simple what I am saying. I'm saying that men cannot comprehend God in his fulness but we can understand Him to an extent. That is all we need. We don't need to grasp every detail of what God is. But we can grasp the main idea. If we can't do this then I can't even see a reason for existance. Why live life when we can't learn anything about God from it?

What I said about creation and existance is partially church belief and partially my own "revelation". I'm trying to expand on the things I've been told.

(\ /)
( . .)
c('')('')
#273  
View Public Profile Find more posts by MAPS Add MAPS to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 252/1288
(10-Feb-2004 at 21:41)


Quote:
(Originally posted by Lord Anubis)
Yes, If I build a sandcastle, I CAN destroy it. But If I have a child, AN INNOCENT BABY, does that give me the right to kill it? After all, I created it.
God was sitting in heaven when a scientist prayed to Him. "God, we don't need you anymore. Science has finally figured out a way to create life out of nothing - in other words, we can now do what you did in the beginning."

"Oh, is that so? Tell Me more about it" replied God.

"Well," said the scientist, "we can take dirt and form it into the likeness of you and breath life into it, thus creating man."

"Well, that's very interesting, show Me."

So the scientist bent down to the earth and started to mold the soil into the shape of a man.

No, no, no," interrupted God, "Get your own dirt."

You may create something, but the materials you made it from were God's in the first place.

(\ /)
( . .)
c('')('')
#274  
View Public Profile Find more posts by MAPS Add MAPS to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 552/2162
(10-Feb-2004 at 21:44)


Quote:
(Originally posted by MAPS)

God was sitting in heaven when a scientist prayed to Him. "God, we don't need you anymore. Science has finally figured out a way to create life out of nothing - in other words, we can now do what you did in the beginning."

"Oh, is that so? Tell Me more about it" replied God.

"Well," said the scientist, "we can take dirt and form it into the likeness of you and breath life into it, thus creating man."

"Well, that's very interesting, show Me."

So the scientist bent down to the earth and started to mold the soil into the shape of a man.

No, no, no," interrupted God, "Get your own dirt."

You may create something, but the materials you made it from were God's in the first place.
Great, simply Great!
Maps you are a treasure!

Work like you will live forever and live like you will die tommorrow!
#275  
View Public Profile Find more posts by PatrioticSpirit Add PatrioticSpirit to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1443/4773
Donated $9.31
(10-Feb-2004 at 21:54)


Quote:
(Originally posted by MAPS)

God was sitting in heaven when a scientist prayed to Him. "God, we don't need you anymore. Science has finally figured out a way to create life out of nothing - in other words, we can now do what you did in the beginning."

"Oh, is that so? Tell Me more about it" replied God.

"Well," said the scientist, "we can take dirt and form it into the likeness of you and breath life into it, thus creating man."

"Well, that's very interesting, show Me."

So the scientist bent down to the earth and started to mold the soil into the shape of a man.

No, no, no," interrupted God, "Get your own dirt."

You may create something, but the materials you made it from were God's in the first place.
That was a silly attempt of avoiding to answer the question, and you did not answer it. Please try to put more actuall content into your posts. He asked if he had the right to kill something if he created it, he did not claim to have created anything, which seems to be what you thought, since you had to give that poor explenation.

My MSN is still [email protected].
My Skype is kapteindynetrekk
#276  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Nimon Add Nimon to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 253/1288
(10-Feb-2004 at 23:08)


Nimon, you fail to grasp the point I was making. I answered the question by showing that humans can't own what they create because they can't truly create anything. You are making something out of the elements that belong to God.

Give unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's. Give unto God that which is God's.

Just as we put faces on the money we own, God has put faces on what he owns. Us. We belong to him and have been made for his own purposes. We cannot change the color of a hair on our head, (and I mean at our command not with hair dye or genetics or soemthing) so how can we say we own ourselves?

(\ /)
( . .)
c('')('')
#277  
View Public Profile Find more posts by MAPS Add MAPS to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 118/152
(10-Feb-2004 at 23:27)
MAPS, he made his statement of the sandcastle and the baby with the assumption that God DOESN'T own everything. Further, his argument was also one of morality, on whether or not it is acceptable to believe in a higher power controlling your lives, and literally owning you.

Now, you can't assume and simply say: "He owns us, no matter what." Because that is simply a statement of assumptions of which you have no proof.

You have to go by the specifications of his argument, because you are defending against his argument, and are not defending your own.

I would like to see a proper reply, which isn't evasive, and actually relates to the point at hand.

---
Those that choose not to open their eyes, will expect to see me once they do.
#278  
View Public Profile Find more posts by EgAMaD BoD Add EgAMaD BoD to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 255/1288
(10-Feb-2004 at 23:48)


Saying God doesn't own everything has no more proof than saying he does. But under the assumption he doesn't, then no one can really say the "own" anything. If no one owns anything, then no one has any more right over anyone else over what can be done and what can not be done.

It's like owning land. Why should you have any say over what is supposed to be done with that land? You didn't create the land yet legally it is said it belongs to you. But who made the laws that make that legal? Men certainly don't have any say over what belongs to who. So if there is no higher power, then no one owns anything. So you have no more right to say I can't kill someone than I do to say I can. Neither of us owns that person and we can't say what should be done with them. Morals are non-existent until someone holds the control and says "You can do this but you can't do this."

(\ /)
( . .)
c('')('')

Last edited by MAPS, 10-Feb-2004 at 23:54.
#279  
View Public Profile Find more posts by MAPS Add MAPS to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 123/152
(11-Feb-2004 at 01:20)
He said this:

"...If I have a child, AN INNOCENT BABY, does that give me the right to kill it? After all, I created it."

Assuming he made this child, and assuming the God you speak of didn't make everything, then would he have the right to kill it?

---
Those that choose not to open their eyes, will expect to see me once they do.
#280  
View Public Profile Find more posts by EgAMaD BoD Add EgAMaD BoD to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump:


All times are GMT+1. The time now is 21:20.

Powered by vBulletin (modified)
Copyright ©2000-2006, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.