Do you believe in The Merciful God/The Most High Jesus prayed to on The Cross or another god (wrathf

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: TzarChasm

What does wearing a magic amulet have to do with anything?

Is there some kind of power in magic amulets and talismen? Some people think there is but as King Hezekiah said about the Serpent of bronze on the pole, Nehushtan!, it's just a piece of bronze.

Do you believe in the possibility of magic?

my point was that there is no proof jesus was in possession of supernatural powers. perhaps we are just mundane creatures who have yet to uncover the gifts he displayed. if of course he actually did display them.

i believe in the possibility of manipulating the underlying forces of this universe through methods both obscure and delicate.

Did we converse on another thread about this?

But how does this relate to the OP?

Did Jesus manipulate the OT God in some manner? If God is perceived to be an underlying force, why would He specifically call out to that God? I think people in the system that you describe (very obliquely) don't usually call out on names unless they believe that entity actually exists, as more than just an underlying force.

did i mention the OT god in any way at all? then no, the OT god isnt in the picture as far as what i have explained is concerned. its reasonable to suggest that he was delirious at the time. i would be talking to all sorts of dead relatives and imaginary characters if i was on a cross. any dream world to beat the pain.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: TzarChasm

What does wearing a magic amulet have to do with anything?

Is there some kind of power in magic amulets and talismen? Some people think there is but as King Hezekiah said about the Serpent of bronze on the pole, Nehushtan!, it's just a piece of bronze.

Do you believe in the possibility of magic?

my point was that there is no proof jesus was in possession of supernatural powers. perhaps we are just mundane creatures who have yet to uncover the gifts he displayed. if of course he actually did display them.

i believe in the possibility of manipulating the underlying forces of this universe through methods both obscure and delicate.

Did we converse on another thread about this?

But how does this relate to the OP?

Did Jesus manipulate the OT God in some manner? If God is perceived to be an underlying force, why would He specifically call out to that God? I think people in the system that you describe (very obliquely) don't usually call out on names unless they believe that entity actually exists, as more than just an underlying force.

did i mention the OT god in any way at all? then no, the OT god isnt in the picture as far as what i have explained is concerned. its reasonable to suggest that he was delirious at the time. i would be talking to all sorts of dead relatives and imaginary characters if i was on a cross. any dream world to beat the pain.

We have to stick with the topic in the OP, that's why I steered it back to it.

Delirium, that's interesting. Why then did those who heard Him ask why He called on Eli? The Bible says that He cried out in Hebrew, not Aramaic. "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani"

But He had enough presence of mind to coherently say "Father forgive them for they know not what they do". The things uttered on the cross...

1: When offered vinegar and gall to ease His pain, He said no. Vinegar and gall would produce a delirious state and He didn't take it. But He did say "I thirst"

2: When the soldiers were casting lots for His robe, " Father forgive them, for they know not what they do".

3: Eli, Eli lama sabachthani "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

4: "It is finished", then He died.

It doesn't sound to me like a delirious person, He was very coherent until the end.

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: TzarChasm

What does wearing a magic amulet have to do with anything?

Is there some kind of power in magic amulets and talismen? Some people think there is but as King Hezekiah said about the Serpent of bronze on the pole, Nehushtan!, it's just a piece of bronze.

Do you believe in the possibility of magic?

my point was that there is no proof jesus was in possession of supernatural powers. perhaps we are just mundane creatures who have yet to uncover the gifts he displayed. if of course he actually did display them.

i believe in the possibility of manipulating the underlying forces of this universe through methods both obscure and delicate.

Did we converse on another thread about this?

But how does this relate to the OP?

Did Jesus manipulate the OT God in some manner? If God is perceived to be an underlying force, why would He specifically call out to that God? I think people in the system that you describe (very obliquely) don't usually call out on names unless they believe that entity actually exists, as more than just an underlying force.

did i mention the OT god in any way at all? then no, the OT god isnt in the picture as far as what i have explained is concerned. its reasonable to suggest that he was delirious at the time. i would be talking to all sorts of dead relatives and imaginary characters if i was on a cross. any dream world to beat the pain.

We have to stick with the topic in the OP, that's why I steered it back to it.

Delirium, that's interesting. Why then did those who heard Him ask why He called on Eli? The Bible says that He cried out in Hebrew, not Aramaic. "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani"

But He had enough presence of mind to coherently say "Father forgive them for they know not what they do". The things uttered on the cross...

1: When offered vinegar and gall to ease His pain, He said no. Vinegar and gall would produce a delirious state and He didn't take it. But He did say "I thirst"

2: When the soldiers were casting lots for His robe, " Father forgive them, for they know not what they do".

3: Eli, Eli lama sabachthani "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

4: "It is finished", then He died.

It doesn't sound to me like a delirious person, He was very coherent until the end.

i dont know. all i know is that i have seen no evidence to suggest that his sacrifice did any good whatsoever other than an inspiring anecdote that encourages compassion and humility. i cant really even say its a sacrifice because he traded up from a model t to the star trek enterprise, figuratively speaking.

long and short of it - no, i dont believe in an all powerful all knowing egocentric invisible sky wizard. if i learn of a new definition of god, a definition corroborated by scientific devices and methodologies that i know for a fact work very well, my opinion will change.

but not until.

a reply to: TzarChasm

That is what happens when you try to have a civilized discussion with uncivilized people. It rapidly degrades into insults and temper tantrums. You can tell by reading the posts closely. Its obvious the person is apoplectic with anger. And there is no option that allows for a different opinion or even the suggestion of one. They bang on and on about one view and one only and if you don't see it, then you have some kind of problem. I choose to stop responding and move on. There are plenty of very sharp people here to enjoy an energetic debate with and not have to worry about descending into the mud pits of incivility.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: TzarChasm

That is what happens when you try to have a civilized discussion with uncivilized people. It rapidly degrades into insults and temper tantrums. You can tell by reading the posts closely. Its obvious the person is apoplectic with anger. And there is no option that allows for a different opinion or even the suggestion of one. They bang on and on about one view and one only and if you don't see it, then you have some kind of problem. I choose to stop responding and move on. There are plenty of very sharp people here to enjoy an energetic debate with and not have to worry about descending into the mud pits of incivility.

Technically I would only be apoplectic, you don't have to say "with anger" because that is what apoplectic means.

Do you realize that for some people God is on trial? I have the right of defense. Unfortunately some people want God to be put on the stand so they can charge Him for crimes. Intellectually, He is on the stand.

They are charging a God they don't believe in. How ironic is that?

a reply to: WarminIndy

My apologies. I was not referring to you. I realize now in my attempt to avoid names I left open the possibility that I may offend someone whom I was not referring to.

You are correct about apoplectic, but I often see "apoplectic with anger or apoplectic anger". I got comfortable with using it that way.

I am a Christian and I do realize God is on trial. I have wondered many times why atheists feel right filing civil actions against Christians but not muslims, bhuddists, wickens, whatever. If it is God they are opposed to why just the One?

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: TzarChasm

That is what happens when you try to have a civilized discussion with uncivilized people. It rapidly degrades into insults and temper tantrums. You can tell by reading the posts closely. Its obvious the person is apoplectic with anger. And there is no option that allows for a different opinion or even the suggestion of one. They bang on and on about one view and one only and if you don't see it, then you have some kind of problem. I choose to stop responding and move on. There are plenty of very sharp people here to enjoy an energetic debate with and not have to worry about descending into the mud pits of incivility.

Technically I would only be apoplectic, you don't have to say "with anger" because that is what apoplectic means.

Do you realize that for some people God is on trial? I have the right of defense. Unfortunately some people want God to be put on the stand so they can charge Him for crimes. Intellectually, He is on the stand.

They are charging a God they don't believe in. How ironic is that?

in putting god on trial, you put peoples values on trial. and sometimes that is necessary. the part of them that adores certain qualities in a god is the part we put on trial and its not really a trial more of an examination and analysis. like therapy. i think that some people do come here for theraputic reasons. and every single person on this forum or in this thread is here because they chose to be. they have submitted themselves for inquiry so dont be surprised if i decide to see if i can break your boat. quite literally that is how science works. and the rational response is to work on the weak spots so really i am doing you a favor here. you know you are right...in a sense yes, god is on the stand. and you are representing him so be sure to bring a good case hehe.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: WarminIndy

My apologies. I was not referring to you. I realize now in my attempt to avoid names I left open the possibility that I may offend someone whom I was not referring to.

You are correct about apoplectic, but I often see "apoplectic with anger or apoplectic anger". I got comfortable with using it that way.

I am a Christian and I do realize God is on trial. I have wondered many times why atheists feel right filing civil actions against Christians but not muslims, bhuddists, wickens, whatever. If it is God they are opposed to why just the One?

not putting a label on myself but maybe you will fnd my previous post enlightening.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: TzarChasm

That is what happens when you try to have a civilized discussion with uncivilized people. It rapidly degrades into insults and temper tantrums. You can tell by reading the posts closely. Its obvious the person is apoplectic with anger. And there is no option that allows for a different opinion or even the suggestion of one. They bang on and on about one view and one only and if you don't see it, then you have some kind of problem. I choose to stop responding and move on. There are plenty of very sharp people here to enjoy an energetic debate with and not have to worry about descending into the mud pits of incivility.

Technically I would only be apoplectic, you don't have to say "with anger" because that is what apoplectic means.

Do you realize that for some people God is on trial? I have the right of defense. Unfortunately some people want God to be put on the stand so they can charge Him for crimes. Intellectually, He is on the stand.

They are charging a God they don't believe in. How ironic is that?

in putting god on trial, you put peoples values on trial. and sometimes that is necessary. the part of them that adores certain qualities in a god is the part we put on trial and its not really a trial more of an examination and analysis. like therapy. i think that some people do come here for theraputic reasons. and every single person on this forum or in this thread is here because they chose to be. they have submitted themselves for inquiry so dont be surprised if i decide to see if i can break your boat. quite literally that is how science works. and the rational response is to work on the weak spots so really i am doing you a favor here. you know you are right...in a sense yes, god is on the stand. and you are representing him so be sure to bring a good case hehe.

Well, it is impossible to put God on trial if He does not exist, because it isn't us you have on trial, it is God because you referred to God as egotistical. How do you put a human emotion onto a God that you don't believe in?

See, it is impossible to not mention God for you. If God doesn't exist, then you could not assign anything human, see the conundrum? And no, that wasn't enlightening.

You haven't broken my boat yet, but is that what you really want to do? Are you intent on converting me to nothingness?

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: WarminIndy

My apologies. I was not referring to you. I realize now in my attempt to avoid names I left open the possibility that I may offend someone whom I was not referring to.

You are correct about apoplectic, but I often see "apoplectic with anger or apoplectic anger". I got comfortable with using it that way.

I am a Christian and I do realize God is on trial. I have wondered many times why atheists feel right filing civil actions against Christians but not muslims, bhuddists, wickens, whatever. If it is God they are opposed to why just the One?

I understand, you are ok.

I think it is funny that they attempt to do this, as though by doing this it will remove God from existence. We could argue that the nothing doesn't exist either, but to do that, nothing would have to not exist and since something can never come from nothing, there can only be empty space yet it is surrounded by something.

But something can never come from nothing, because nothing has nothing to offer. No information, no energy, nothing. Nothing means nothing. But yet there is something. So something offered something, something gave information, because information is something.

a reply to: WarminIndy

How do you seek truth if you arent willing to shatter illusions? That's why its therpeutic. If such an examainqtion were to take place, I suspect it would be more an examination of us. That part of us I mentioned before.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: WarminIndy

How do you seek truth if you arent willing to shatter illusions? That's why its therpeutic. If such an examainqtion were to take place, I suspect it would be more an examination of us. That part of us I mentioned before.

Are you trying to convince me or you?

Gold Dust Woman

Did she make you cry, make you break down, shatter your illusions of love?

You have to prove it is an illusion in someone else's experience. The illusion that something comes from nothing, is an illusion in itself, because nothing is nothing. As you say that God does not exist, means that God is nothing, because nothing that exists is nothing. And yet information is something, so information never comes from nothing. How does information get into the universe? Does information come from nothing? Nay, information is something.

In your mind, where does the information come from that feeds your imagination? Your imagination is not nothing, because it is something. You have thoughts of superiority, and if you are superior is that your imagination or an illusion? But an illusion is something, because it is still information.

Truth is something because it is information, while you are seeking truth can you show me empirical truth? Where does truth exist? Where does truth reside? What color is truth? What does it smell like? Can you juggle truth or throw knives at it in the great illusionist act? Can you cut truth in half with swords?

Truth is information and information is something, yet you seek something that cannot be held in your hand.

a reply to: WarminIndy

You have to prove it is an illusion in someone else's experience. The illusion that something comes from nothing, is an illusion in itself, because nothing is nothing. As you say that God does not exist, means that God is nothing, because nothing that exists is nothing. And yet information is something, so information never comes from nothing. How does information get into the universe? Does information come from nothing? Nay, information is something.

no such thing as nothing. and i never said gods were nothing. from where i sit, they are constructs. the flag at the top of the mountain signifying that you have reached your destination. what i dont believe is that there will not then be another taller mountain in the distance.

information is a curious subject. a chinese man could read a book in his language that you would find to be simple chickenscratch. he explored another world and lived for hours at a time in someone else's shoes. you got...nothing. that makes me ponder what information is. information isnt symbols. information isnt acids. information is an idea or a raw impression. kind of like instincts. they dont require a thought process. they only require that the most basic impressions be met. a certain raw input that doesnt require translation. hunger, fear, anger. in some cases the simple pull and push of fundamental force. electromagnetism, gravity, etc. perhaps what you attribute to information, i attribute to instinct. natural mechanism. in a way, i would put us on the same boat as the universe because even if we cant make planets, we make things that dont naturally come to the universe. we can bend the laws of the universe to the point that "meant to be" rarely has meaning any more. we are forever changing our own fate because we no longer answer strictly to the whims of these subatomic instincts. we are capable of breaking the bonds that hold this world together or repurposing them whether the entrails read certain doom or not. doesnt that make us gods?

but not everyone thinks so because that isnt the mountain they want to climb. they choose the mountain and in so doing, they choose their god. but they dont realize that because the mountain is in front of them and they think it is their obligation to climb it. its not. its a choice. you dont choose to obey gravity, but you choose to climb that mountain and you choose that particular mountain to climb. you want something from that mountain. that means something to me.

Truth is something because it is information, while you are seeking truth can you show me empirical truth? Where does truth exist? Where does truth reside? What color is truth? What does it smell like? Can you juggle truth or throw knives at it in the great illusionist act? Can you cut truth in half with swords?

truth is a contruct in much the same way as i just described above. it is an ideal, a result of our evolution in the late hominid line. more neurons means greater ability to process and translate emotions into detailed depictions. which means that weird "rightness" you feel sometimes suddenly has a name and a purpose. well not suddenly it was a slow development from our persective. truth is the same as love and beauty. things that change in meaning and significance from person to person because these are ideas molded by what society thinks and what you think personally. the jihadists believe that truth is allah and allah demands death to all infidels even if at the cost of your own life. is that what you call truth? what makes your truth more right? can you explain it to them?

my grasp on truth and its nature is not complete. but i do know that truth is no more straight forward than the maze with the bullman. which is why we are helping each other to shatter illusions and find the heart of the maze...and whatever lies there.

a reply to: TzarChasm

From what is truth constructed?

There are eternal truths that are not constructed by people. For instance, there is what you believe is a truth that is called Laws of Thermodynamics. Are those truths? What constructed that truth?

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: TzarChasm

From what is truth constructed?

There are eternal truths that are not constructed by people. For instance, there is what you believe is a truth that is called Laws of Thermodynamics. Are those truths? What constructed that truth?

the instincts i was talkng about before. universal instincts at the subatomic level. i know its weird to talk about a universe as having instincts but thats how i see it. or maybe reflexes. the universe is in a constant state of reflex. hows that for an anser?

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: TzarChasm

From what is truth constructed?

There are eternal truths that are not constructed by people. For instance, there is what you believe is a truth that is called Laws of Thermodynamics. Are those truths? What constructed that truth?

the instincts i was talkng about before. universal instincts at the subatomic level. i know its weird to talk about a universe as having instincts but thats how i see it. or maybe reflexes. the universe is in a constant state of reflex. hows that for an anser?

Then you do believe in the mystical.

That wasn't so hard to admit that you believe in the instinctual response of the universe, so that is mystical. OK, if that's what you believe.

Why would you think it is weird to talk about? Nothing weird to me.

No gods for me. Believe in yourself.

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: TzarChasm

From what is truth constructed?

There are eternal truths that are not constructed by people. For instance, there is what you believe is a truth that is called Laws of Thermodynamics. Are those truths? What constructed that truth?

the instincts i was talkng about before. universal instincts at the subatomic level. i know its weird to talk about a universe as having instincts but thats how i see it. or maybe reflexes. the universe is in a constant state of reflex. hows that for an anser?

Then you do believe in the mystical.

That wasn't so hard to admit that you believe in the instinctual response of the universe, so that is mystical. OK, if that's what you believe.

Why would you think it is weird to talk about? Nothing weird to me.

mystical...no. i dont see anything mystical about reflexes.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: TzarChasm

From what is truth constructed?

There are eternal truths that are not constructed by people. For instance, there is what you believe is a truth that is called Laws of Thermodynamics. Are those truths? What constructed that truth?

Anyway, you mentioned instincts and that it was weird to think that way. That's mystical.



the instincts i was talkng about before. universal instincts at the subatomic level. i know its weird to talk about a universe as having instincts but thats how i see it. or maybe reflexes. the universe is in a constant state of reflex. hows that for an anser?

Then you do believe in the mystical.

That wasn't so hard to admit that you believe in the instinctual response of the universe, so that is mystical. OK, if that's what you believe.

Why would you think it is weird to talk about? Nothing weird to me.

mystical...no. i dont see anything mystical about reflexes.

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: TzarChasm

From what is truth constructed?

There are eternal truths that are not constructed by people. For instance, there is what you believe is a truth that is called Laws of Thermodynamics. Are those truths? What constructed that truth?

Anyway, you mentioned instincts and that it was weird to think that way. That's mystical.



the instincts i was talkng about before. universal instincts at the subatomic level. i know its weird to talk about a universe as having instincts but thats how i see it. or maybe reflexes. the universe is in a constant state of reflex. hows that for an anser?

Then you do believe in the mystical.

That wasn't so hard to admit that you believe in the instinctual response of the universe, so that is mystical. OK, if that's what you believe.

Why would you think it is weird to talk about? Nothing weird to me.

mystical...no. i dont see anything mystical about reflexes.

Okay?