You're going to heaven?

This is what I made the post for. You are TELLING people what they should believe. Did I say I didn't believe in god or the Christ
myself? I think that a person of another faith would be upset at you and that isn't fair. Besides, writing something which says if you don't YOU'RE GOING TO HELL, is pretty harsh when you don't know how that will affect everyone. THAT is why I said it can be a fear mechanism because it offends some, frightens some and angers some. I am truly sorry if I offended you but the quote thing, the points I made just proves NO ONE READS WHOLE POSTS BEFORE THEY TALK!!! I like to rile those who cave to emotional babble rather than enlist sensibility. Prove your point 4, so we can all know why you can speak for the human race.

Quote from Lucifer
Shall I find all of your posts and post all of the animosity and belittlement you have ever offered on a site that denies ignorance? For you see I have nothing but time as I live to learn and am obligated by situation to respond with a lesson. I will not post my results openly as I need no support in this matter, but a u2u list might help. I will never ask for moderato assistance but you really hurt the feelings of a righteous man trying to share his truth. Knowledge is ignorant when destroyed by opinion. I am not mean spirited, but I can play fair and clean if you like syntax battles.

Indeed all I ask is for you to qoute the postings which I made to which you allude. I stated a simple fact of Christian doctrine and you seem to fly into some U2U campaign. To you I award the AST 2.0 Raymond Babbitt Scholarship Award for the week.

Point 4 - To deny Jesus Christ as your Savior with full knowledge of His existence and the claims of Christ is indeed a one-way ticket to Hell (i.e., denial of the existence of God).

Ok so who are you the judge of what constitutes full knowledge of his existence?

What by definition is full knowledge?

Would it not be in reality, to have been alive when he was alive?

None of the membership of this forum is that old

Get real Jagd we are human beings not Gods.


Any thoughts?

Well Toltec:
Please interpret these passages for me:

John 3:34
3:34. For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God gives the Spirit without limit.
3:35. The Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his hands.
3:36. Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."

Man, the great compartmentalizer. Must label and name all the animals. A place for everything and everything in it's place. Must label and file and store. It must be "good or evil", "heaven or hell", "god or satan". It's right wing or left wing. Republican or democrat. Christain, Judiasm or Muslim. Silly men and their labels. (not speaking directly to anyone on this thread)

I really can't see the obsessionist fetish to having to split, slice and dice. Must man split a hair 99 times? Sounds like a bunch of busy work to me.

I can tell you only what I see but even I can't prove it. To me my ideas make more sense that say the Christian faith. But I can't say for sure. I can only know what is true for me and even that may change with new information. But the underlining problem I see is that man is close minded and close hearted.

Man has his head so far up his ass that his heart is beating his brains out.

Originally posted by jagdflieger
Well Toltec:
Please interpret these passages for me:

John 3:34
3:34. For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God gives the Spirit without limit.
3:35. The Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his hands.
3:36. Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."

Just for a moment (I promise it won't hurt) remember all the sriptures you have read and think of them as symbolism for something higher than this physical prison.

John:
3:34. For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God gives the Spirit without limit.

::God (the universe) which man is an integral part of has given the spirit to reside in the flesh per request. The spirit is given without limit. "For the one" is the individual that chooses to be the one (hopefully there will be many, but not yet it seem). They must open up and then they can speak the words of God (this includes jagdflieger ).::

John:
3:35. The Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his hands.

::The Father (prime source, universe, God) loves the Son (jagdflieger plus spirit) and has placed everything in his hands (if he could just open his mind and see it).::

3:36. Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."

::Whoever believes from within the Spirit (making that person one with the spirit) has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son (does not believe he is of the spirit) will not see life (true immortal living light), for God's wrath remains on him (he will become the poverty (physicality) that he believes only in.::

Any more?

1 Kg.8:46
"There is no man that sinneth not."
2 Chr.6:36
"There is no man which sinneth not."
Pr.20:9
"Who can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin."
Ec.7:20
"For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not."
Rom.3:23
"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God."
1 Jn.1:8
"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us."
1 Jn.1:10
"If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us." 1 Jn.3:6
"Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not."
1 Jn.3:9
"Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin."
1 Jn.5:18
"We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not."

Sounds like several contradictions but forget those for now can you explain this...

The problem with Paul

Again God is the Judge, not you or for that matter anyone else. While the bible is a very good book, I recommend everyone read at least once, its just a book, which certainly is not perfect.

Certanly not is it a book which should be applied by men, to pass judgement upon men, with respect to if they as individuals are going to hell.

Any thoughts?



[Edited on 24-9-2003 by Toltec]

I think the dual nature of the universe as perceived by human beings lends to the duality of everything. I.e. 0 or 1, cause and effect, yes or no, this or that. I am in agreement though it is a shame we are so limited in our capacities. It is not for man to decide the fate of other men, period. If someone is weak-minded, mentally ill, shy or just sensitive to influence, comments that hurt them or cause them fear are wrong.

I am not speaking for supreme divinity here, but, I cannot imagine any creator of a children race to want them to hate, argue, kill, fight and so on...That is what this post did and I am so sorry for the misinterpretations at the outset. Thanks for the support goes to those who know what I mean. I just created the post for 2 reasons:

1)I knew its title would get attention .

2)I wanted people to see that they are connected to their creator
regardless of any text, dogma, belief or whatnot. Why in this day and age do we need 'group' support for our spiritual connectedness? On the flip side in the past I suppose one needed
to find support in others as you could be killed or exiled for not following the rulemakers. I have no doubt in Heaven and God, but
I am comfortable with our relationship and I don't go to a building for worship. If the body is the temple, I feel that when those who appreciate like minds who share a deep fellowship, when we are together we are in church.

I can't imagine God sitting around on his throne for all of eternity listening to how great he is while choir music is piped in. Come on,
wouldn't that just drive anyone crazy? It doesn't matter what I believe I just try my best to honor those whom I respect and ignore rather than hate those who are unto like animals.

When I am in any culture's house of worship, I am as they are out of respect and THAT is what faith and love for God means to me. Synagogue, Mosque, Tabernacle, whatever, they are different
culture's ways of expressing divine gratitude to being and the one who made them. The soul is not of ethnicity. It is not defined by color of skin, genitalia, size or shape. We are all equal in being, with, the only differences in and of the physical nature. I am just tired of hearing such emotional corruption forged from such high spiritual love. It is one of my truths that God loves me and forgives opinions that were born of ignorance regarding love for him. With love, Lucifer.

***It just doesn't pay t hate, for think of the time wasted that could have been paid to hop, faith charity and love.***

Reply to Toltec:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the web page "The Problem of Paul" by Hyam Maccoby, a Talmudic scholar, makes the
following contentions:
1 Paul was never a Pharisee rabbi, but was an adventurer of undistinguished background.
2 Jesus and his immediate followers were Pharisees. Jesus had no intention of founding a
new religion.
3 The first followers of Jesus, under James and Peter, founded the Jerusalem Church after
Jesus's death.
4 Paul, not Jesus, was the founder of Christianity as a new religion which developed away
from both normal Judaism and the Nazarene variety of Judaism.
5 A source of information about Paul that has never been taken seriously enough is a
group called the Ebionites.
6 The Ebionites were stigmatized by the Church as heretics who failed to understand that
Jesus was a divine person and asserted instead that he was a human being who came to
inaugurate a new earthly age, as prophesied by the Jewish prophets of the Bible.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wow! That is quite of lot to say. Maccoby's argument can be summarized as this:
1. The New Testament is basically a pack of lies written by Paul.
2. The information presented by the writings of the Ebionites is pure truth (in a disguised
attack on Paul).
However from this pack of lies written by the Apostle Paul or influenced by the Apostle
Paul (the New Testament) and combined with the "disquised information" contained in the
Ebionite literature, Maccoby can construct his thesis. Now let me get this straight;
Maccoby wants us to believe that the New Testament is basically untrue except for the
portions of the New Testament which he can use to support his thesis. Also Maccoby
wants use to believe that the Ebionite writings are correct and are truthful reflections of
history while the New Testament is false (except for the portions Maccoby can use). Well
couple that with some innuendo and interpolations (adding to what was actually written)
we can make Jesus into Pharisee rabbi and Paul into a Hellenistic adventurer. Again we
have another writer who can read the minds of men and discern their motivations from a
few lines of text written nearly two thousand years ago.

Maccoby seems to discount anything in the New Testament except for the book of Acts
and the Epistles of Paul. He makes the statement �The disciples who knew Jesus best,
such as Peter, James and John, have left no writings behind them explaining how Jesus
seemed to them or what they considered his mission to have been.� Well we have the
Gospel of Mark (written by Mark under Peter�s direction), the Gospel of Matthew, the
Gospel of John, the Epistles of Peter (1 Peter, 2 Peter), the Epistles of John (1 John, 2
John, 3 John), the Epistle of James, Jude, and Revelation. Perhaps Maccoby wishes us to
accept that these documents were written by Paul�s henchmen and then ascribed to the
Apostles. Again Maccoby is practicing �selective scholarship� - he seems to be
contending that those documents ascribed to Paul were written by Paul while those
documents ascribed to the other Apostles were forgeries. Maccoby sums it up with the
statement �This means that the theories of Paul were already before the writers of the
Gospels and coloured their interpretations of Jesus' activities. Paul is, in a sense, present
from the very first word of the New Testament.� In short Maccoby contends that Peter,
James, John, etc. had absolutely nothing or very little to do with the generation of the
New Testament. It seems to me that if Paul was �spinning complicated theories about the
place of Jesus in the scheme of things�, could not the Apostles stop him, refute him, do
something? Maccoby builds this theory that Paul �a Hellenistic adventurer� comes to the
early church in Jerusalem consisting of Nazarenes who �in all their beliefs they were
indistinguishable from the Pharisees, except that they believed in the resurrection of Jesus,
and that Jesus was still the promised Messiah� and Paul literally hijacks to movement to
produce a new religion while these �Pharisees� stood by and do nothing. In fact these
�Pharisees� seem fit to finance Paul�s ministry to the Gentiles. Then in their life time,
these same �Pharisees� did nothing �when the Gospels were given their final editing, about
forty to eighty years after the death of Jesus�. Many of them were still alive when the
Gospels were initially written.
Another thing, Maccoby contends that:
1. Jesus and his immediate followers were Pharisees. Jesus had no intention of founding a
new religion, and that Peter, James, and John �in all their beliefs they were
indistinguishable from the Pharisees, except that they believed in the resurrection of Jesus,
and that Jesus was still the promised Messiah.�
2. �Paul was never a Pharisee rabbi, but was an adventurer of undistinguished
background. He was attached to the Sadducees, as a police officer under the authority of
the High Priest, before his conversion to belief in Jesus.

Okay, if Peter, James, and John were Pharisees and Paul was a cop (police officer), then
what was a Jewish cop doing chasing after what was basically just another Jewish sect?
Maccoby seems to want us to believe that the Sanhedrin and the Sadducees were
persecuting what amounted to a Jewish sect (Pharisees) while other members of the same
sect allowed it (the Sanhedrin was composed of mostly Pharisees). It just doesn�t make
sense. Also if Paul was a �Hellenistic adventurer� why would he waste his time with some
obscure Jewish Pharisee sect? Maccoby never addressed that question. Indeed if I were a
�Hellenistic adventurer� in the first century bent on self improvement, I would not even
waste my time with a obscure Pharisee sect except to con the people out of enough money
to get me to Corinth. There I would find the nearest Cult of Mithra temple and join up.
The Cult of Mithra was popular with the Roman Army and to a �Hellenistic adventurer�
that would most likely seem to be a better way of gaining privilege than working with
some obscure sect of Jewish Nazarenes. Membership in the Cult of Mithra could easily
have lead to association with the Roman general who decided who the next Roman
Emperor would be. I think any �Hellenistic adventurer� would find this option more
appealing than some strange new Jewish cult.

In conclusion, the writings of Hyam Maccoby will only impress the weak minded
individual who finds his contentions in agreement with their view point and these
individuals will not see the inconsistencies in Maccoby�s work:
1. The contention that the New Testament documents are unreliable except when they
can be used to support Maccoby�s thesis when suddenly they become reliable. This is a
common pratice among skeptics who come up with arguments such as: �The Gospels are
forgeries�; you then point out that these skeptics use the Gospels to prove a point, the
skeptics then reply, �Well that part of the Gospels is not a forgery�. Yet they do not see
the inconsistency in this.
2. Maccoby constructs contentions by reading into the documents more than what is
written. For example, he contends there was this vast difference in doctrine between Paul
and Peter, James, and John. If you read the Book of Acts, it was basically an issue on
whether Gentile males to Christianity would be required to have surgical modification.
Paul had enough sense to realize that idea would not prove to be beneficial to evangelizing
the Gentiles.
3. The skeptics always bring up the point that certain bits of information are missing in
the Epistles. They always fail to note that the Epistles were letters written to address
specific issues in the early churches. They were not meant to be a full blown Gospels or
the autobiography of the Apostles. What was Paul supposed to do? Send a resume with
every one of his letters?
4. Maccoby seems to be able to perform �historical channeling� and come up with
motivations for peoples actions based on nothing be a few lines of text �He deliberately
misrepresented his own biography in order to increase the effectiveness of missionary
activities� (comment about Paul). So Maccoby is able to read Paul�s mind after nearly
2000 years and this stuff comes from skeptics. Yet Maccoby never does address the most
important question about motivation in his thesis. Why would a �Hellenistic adventurer�
become involved with an obscure Jewish sect which would lead to danger his of life and
limb? Why would this �Hellenistic adventurer� form a new belief when there already
existed cults (Mithra) which could be used for both financial gain and societal
advancement and were more respected in the Roman Empire than a Jewish sect based on a
crucified man? Why would the members of this Jewish cult let this �Hellenistic
adventurer� become the chief spokesman for them to the Gentile and the Jews if his indeas
were so contrary to their beliefs? Why would the members of this Jewish cult finance this
�Hellenistic adventurer� to spread his �strange ideas�? Nothing these men did made
sense. It only makes sense if what they said was true. Indeed it makes sense that James
(the brother of Jesus) who is reputed to have believed that his brother was insane suddenly
became the leader of the church of Jerusalem after the Crucifixion if he saw something. It
does make sense that Peter and John just didn�t pack up and go back to Galilee to
continue their fishing business if they saw something. It does make sense that the
remaining Apostles did not disperse on their separate ways after the Crucifixion if they
saw something. It does make sense that Paul whether a Pharisee or a �Hellenistic
adventurer� became invovled with an apparently �going nowhere� Jewish sect if he saw
something. Indeed the thing the Apostles and James saw was a dead man (dead, gone,
kaput, terminated) who was put into a tomb when the nearest ICU was nearly 2000 years
away and a few days later they saw that man walking around. They saw that same man
ascend into the sky and disappear. Paul saw that same man and heard what He had to say.
When you accept what the Apostles saw and heard, then their actions are logical;
otherwise, you have no real explanation of why these men behaved the way they did.

Ok so basically you believe those who are skeptical of the bible are weak minded?

If they are weak minded then why would God place them in hell??

For the sake of argument Jagd weak minded can also be defined as disabled.


www.jesusneverexisted.com...

There are many reasons why people are not prepared to accept what you feel is superior and elitist the above is but one example.

Truth be known, people when confronted with the idea that someone believes they, because of what the think are superior get very suspicious of what are exactly the motivations. Much too much has happened in respect to history with respect to this type of mentality and as a result, when someone comes along and makes such claims. The general response is to conclude there behavior is not the result of a valid argument, but rather an inappropriate form of social indoctrination.

Any thoughts?

Well Toltec,
Post your address so I can send you an Industrial size box of Kleenex's. We could get into such things as the Punic Wars, the Persian Wars, your Shinto buddies excursion in China, China's excursion in Nepal, the Pol Phot regime, the tribal wars in Africa. You asked me to comment of Maccoby's writing and I did. Again it will only impress the weak minded because of its technical flaws. As a piece of work, it doesn't fly. You seem to think that anything written which criticizes Christianity is a work of great scholarship. You believed Kersey Graves stuff even though there are even atheist web sites which say that Graves work is bad scholarship and is worthless. You accepted Joeseph Wheless's book when even a causal read of the documents he referenced would have shown you that he misrepresented what was written in those documents (in short Wheless lied). Again you presented a document which had logical flaws which anyone who read the document should have immediately seen and realized.

I believe that the Bible is God's Word. If you have trouble with that belief then so be it. Certain claims are made in the Bible. If you believe the Book, then you believe those claims are true. The truth may sound elitist to you but it is obvious that you have never really made a study of the Gospel of Christ. If you had, you would have realized that the Grace of God is a gift that is obtained freely when one accepts Jesus Christ as their Savior. There are no theological hoops to jump through, no matras to chant, no secret rituals, no pilgrimages to Mecca, no payment required, no yoga required, no good works - Grace is free - all you have to do is to ask God to forgive your sins based on the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross. Yes - it is that simple. Now if you have a problem with that, feel free to believe whatever you want to believe. I basically don't give a damn. I simply cannot understand why anyone has a problem with the message of Grace. It doesn't require you to do anything but believe in Jesus. If you cannot accept it, then believe whatever you want to believe.

I minored in religion Jagd when I earned my BA.

No need for the kleenex though, but its becoming apparent what happend to those who used to hang out in airports

My main point is Jagd there is no reason for anyone to judge another, unless they are God The Uncreated

from Judaism
(Quotations from Yehuda Ashlag)

Isaac Luria:
Prior to the Four Worlds, there was only the Endless, in the Form of "He is One and His name is One", in a wondrous concealed unity... [Even the Angels] have no conception of the Endless, blessed be He. There is not intellect created which could conceive of Him, since He has no place, and no boundary, and no name.
(p. 89, Verses 30-31)

Yehuda L. Ashlag:
... all names and appellations discussed in the wisdom of the Kabbalah concern only the Light extended form the Creator's substance and not the substance itself, for truly speaking, we have neither word nor thought of expression by which to speak of His substance.
(p. 56)

... with one "Thought" of the Creator all existence was emanated and created, the upper worlds in conjunction with the lower worlds, including the evolutionary processes of development which creation will constantly undergo until all functions reach their final completion -- the Millennium...

Thus this unique Thought of the Creator is simultaneously:

the doer of everything;
the substance of all actions;
the toil and endeavor;
the achiever of the goal;
the perfection and full reward awaited by the created ones.
(p. 37)

... the Creator, the Thought and the Light are one and the same thing. In accordance with this condition, the Endless Light extending from the Creator's substance enveloped all existence within the abundance [where the abundance is this very Light]; while the word "Kingdom", within the Endless Light, comprises all the recipients of this abundance -- until it attains its destined future of absolute completion and perfection.

(p. 94)
This Upper Light always remains in a condition of absolute tranquillity... Since all we can grasp is the concept of reception of Light by the vessels, we call this knowledge the "wisdom of receiving."
(p. 110)

from Christianity
(Quotations from Cyril of Alexandria)

The divine transcendence
... the difference between Creator and created is incomparable...
(Cyril of Alexandria: Select Letters", p. 103, quoting Cyril's "On the Creed" 10)
[God is] incorporeal, immaterial, impalpable, beyond quantity and circumscription, beyond form and figure.
(The Image of God in Man according to Cyril of Alexandria, p. 22, quoting "Responsiones ad Teberium" 14)

Men of good sense who focus their minds' eyes sharply on the attributes of the ineffable Godhead, see it as existing beyond every created thing, transcending all acuity of intellect, being wholly outside bodily appearance and, as all-wise Paul says, "dwelling in light unapproachable" (1 Tim 6:16). But if the light surrounding it is unapproachable, how can one gaze on it? We see "in a glass darkly and know in part" (1 Cor 13:12). Deity, then, is wholly incorporeal, without dimensions or size and not bounded by shape.
(Cyril of Alexandria: Select Letters, p. 185, quoting "Doctrinal Questions and Answers" 1)


The incarnation of the Uncreated One
In Christ, our flesh achieved what was beyond the ability of our condition
... for the Only Begotten Word of God has saved us by putting on our likeness. Suffering in the flesh, and rising from the dead, he revealed our nature as greater than death or corruption. What he achieved was beyond the ability of our condition, and what seemed to have been worked out in human weakness and by suffering was really stronger than men and a demonstration of the power that pertains to God.
(On the Unity of Christ, p. 130)
The Only Begotten did not become man only to remain in the limits of the emptying. The point was that he who was God by nature should, in the act of self-emptying, assume everything that went along with it. This was how he would be revealed as ennobling the nature of man in himself by making [human nature] participate in his own sacred and divine honors.
(On the Unity of Christ, p. 101)


Christ accepted human limitations
[Christ did not] regard the economy as unacceptable by disdaining the limitations involved in the self-emptying.
(On the Unity of Christ, p. 76 )

[Christ was wearied (Jn 4:6), hungry (Mt 4:2) and required sleep (Mt 8:24).] Just as we say that the flesh [assumed in the incarnation] became his very own, in the same way the weakness of the flesh became his very own in an economic appropriation to the terms of the unification. So he is "made like his brethren in all things except sin alone" (Heb. 2:17).
(On the Unity of Christ, p. 107)


The paradox of Word's self-emptying
Indeed the mystery of Christ runs the risk of being disbelieved precisely because it is so incredibly wonderful. For God was in humanity. He who was above all creation was in our human condition; the invisible one was made visible in the flesh; he who is from the heavens and from on high was in the likeness of earthly things; the immaterial one could be touched; he who is free in his own nature came in the form of a slave; he who blesses all creation became accursed; he who is all righteousness was numbered among transgressors; life itself came in the appearance of death. All this followed because the body which tasted death belonged to no other but to him who is the Son by nature.

(On the Unity of Christ, p. 61)
[For the salvation of the whole world Christ] wished to suffer, even though he was beyond the power of suffering in his nature as God, then he wrapped himself in flesh that was capable of suffering, and revealed it as his very own, so that even the suffering might be said to be his because it was his own body which suffered... Since the manner of the economy allows him blamelessly to choose both to suffer in the flesh, and not to suffer in the Godhead (for the selfsame was at once God and man)...(cf. 1 Pet. 4:1).
(On the Unity of Christ, p. 118)


The divinity of the Word is undiminished
[Christ] did not cease to be God when he became man...

(On the Unity of Christ, p. 76 )
We must not think that he who descended into the limitation of manhood for our sake lost his inherent radiance and that transcendence that comes from his nature. No, he had this divine fullness even in the emptiness of our condition, and he enjoyed the highest eminence in humility, and held what belongs to him by nature (that is, to be worshipped by all) as a gift because of his humanity.
(On the Unity of Christ, p. 123)

The Word was alive even when his holy flesh was tasting death... The body which lay under corruption became a body of life so as to become beyond death and corruption.
(On the Unity of Christ, p. 115)

from Islam
(Quotations from Titus Burckhardt)

Muhyi-d-Din ibn 'Arabi in his Epistle on Unity, the Risalat al Ahadiyah:
... None grasps Him save He Himself. None knows Him but He Himself... He knows Himself by Himself... Other-than-He cannot grasp Him. His impenetrable veil is His own Oneness. Other-than-He does not cloak Him. His veil is His very existence. He is veiled by His Oneness in a manner that cannot be explained. Other-than-He does not see Him; whether prophet, envoy, or prefected saint or angel near unto Him. His prophet is He Himself. His envoy is He. His message is He. His word is He. He has sent word of His ipseity by Himself, from Himself to Himself, without intermediary or causality other than Himself...Other-than-He has no existence and so cannot bring itself to naught...
(pp. 28-29)

(Paraphrased: According to the fundamental formula of Islam, the 'testimony' known in Arabic as the shahadah

There is no divinity if it be not The Divinity
(la ilaha ill-Allah)

which, so to say, 'defines' the Divine Unity. This formula should be translated as here indicated and not, as usually the case, 'there is no god but Allah', for it is proper to retain in it the appearance of ... paradox.

Its first part, 'the negation'..., denies in a general manner the same idea of divinity which the second part, the 'affirmation'... affirms by isolation; in other words the formula as a whole postulates an idea -- that of divinity -- which at the same time it denies as a genus. This is the exact opposite of a 'definition', for to define something means first to determine its 'specific difference' and then to bring it to the 'nearest genus,' i.e. to general concepts. Now as the shahadah indicates, Divinity is 'defined' precisely by the fact that Its reality eludes ever category...

According to this 'testimony; God is distinct from all things and nothing can be compared to Him... Now perfect incomparability requires that nothing can be set face to face with the incomparable and have any relationship whatever with it; this amounts to saying that nothing exists in face of the Divine Reality so that, in It, all things are annihilated. 'God was and nothing with Him and He is now such as He was' (hadith qudsi).

Thus extreme 'remoteness' must imply its opposite. Since nothing can be opposed to God -- for it would then be another 'divinity' -- every reality can only be a reflection of the Divine Reality. Moreover, every positive meaning one might give to the expression ilah (divinity) will be transposed in divinis: 'there is no reality if it be not The Reality', 'there is no force if it be not The Force', 'there is no truth if it is not The Truth.' We must not seek to conceive of God by bringing Him down to the level of things; on the contrary, things are reabsorbed into God so soon as one recognizes the essential qualities of which they are constituted.
(pp. 53-54)

from Hinduism
(Quotations from The Bhagavad Gita)
... the beginningless Brahman, ... can be called neither being nor nonbeing... It is both near and far, both within and without every creature; it moves and is unmoving. In its subtlety it is beyond comprehension. It is indivisible, yet appears divided in separate creatures. Know it to be the creator, the preserver, and the destroyer. Dwelling in every heart, it is beyond darkness. It is called the light of lights, the object and goal of knowledge, and knowledge itself.
(BG 13:12, 15-17, pp. 170-171)

from Buddhism
(Quotations from Sogyal Rinpoche)
[Quoting Dudjom Rinpoche on the buddha-nature:]
No words can describe it
No example can point to it
Samsara does not make it worse
Nirvana does not make it better
It has never been born
It has never ceased
It has never been liberated
It has never been deluded
It has never existed
It has never been nonexistent
It has no limits at all
It does not fall into any kind of category
(p. 49)

from Zen
(Quotations from Bodhidharma)
... this mind, through endless kalpas without beginning, has never varied. It has never lived or died, appeared or disappeared, increased or decreased. It's not pure or impure, good or evil, past or future. It's not true or false. It's not male or female. It doesn't appear as a monk or a layman, an elder or a novice, a sage or a fool, a buddha or a mortal. It strives for no realization and suffers no karma. It has no strength or form. It's like space. You can't possess it and you can't lose it. Its movements can't be blocked by mountains, rivers, or rock walls... No karma can restrain this real body. But this mind is subtle and hard to see. It's not the same as the sensual mind. Everyone wants to see this mind, and those who move their hands and feet by its light are as many as the grains of sand along the Ganges, but when you ask them, they can't explain it. It's theirs to use. Why don't they see it?

... Only the wise know this mind, this mind called dharma-nature, this mind called liberation. Neither life nor death can restrain this mind. Nothing can. It's also called the Unstoppable Tathagata, the Incomprehensible, the Sacred Self, the Immortal, the Great Sage. Its names vary but not its essence.
(pp. 21-23)

All of these quotes are definitive
of the Uncreated God.

All Jokes aside, judge not lest ye be Judged

Any thoughts?

[Edited on 25-9-2003 by Toltec]

i have a thought, toltec.
you've been doing your homework.
i like the zen/buddhism descriptions the best.
the tao is my fave "religious" text.
freemasons wrote the bible.

(Quotations from Shui-ch'ing Tzu)

The Tao is supreme goodness. It has no form and is limitless. It is formless because there is no visible trace of its existence. The Tao is that energy that has existed from the beginning when there was neither structure nor differentiation. It is the source of life in heaven and on earth. It creates and nourishes all things.
(p. 4)

Roman Catholic

(Quotations from Author of "The cloud...")
God is neither soul nor angel ... nor can He be described or understood ... He neither stands still nor moves ... He is none of the things that have no being, none of the things that have being... Nor is there any way by which we can reach Him through reason or understanding...
(p. ?)

He comes down to our level, adapting His Godhead to our power to comprehend.
(p. 62)

I was looking for stuff lik that for this topic, Toltec...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.afterlife-knowledge.com...

Check this out, it's about a deceased man who realized that the "heaven" he was in was just a fake heaven. The author of the website met him during an astral projection. According to the story, people go to a heaven or a hell which coincides with their beliefs. Nothing else. Jesus helped him out of that fake heaven. Funny story at times, but interesting.

As to being kicked out of Heaven for doubting, that's not my belief, it's what I observed and learned about during other Afterlife explorations of what are called the 'Hollow Heaven's' of Focus 25. Maybe 'Fake Heavens' would be a better name to describe these places, but those I met in the Afterlife called them Hollow Heavens, so I stick with their label.

My tour guide this time had been a preacher in a small, rigid, fundamentalist, Christian religion during his most recent physical lifetime. When he died he found himself in a Hollow Heaven, populated only by people who had also been members of his earthly religion. When he entered he believed he was in the real Heaven since it fit his beliefs about what the real Heaven would be. Everything was free for the asking. No one was required to work or toil for food, clothing, a house, or anything. There was just one catch and it was that catch that led to his being kicked out of this Hollow Heaven.

The catch was that in order to remain in this land of plenty, this Hollow Heaven, you had to continue to espouse, practice and obey the rules and beliefs of this fundamentalist Christian religion as they had been taught during your earthly life. The penalty for breaking the rules, or doubting any of the religion's beliefs was to be cast out of this Hollow Heaven. Rule breakers were 'cast into outer darkness,' in other words, they were sent to Hell.

Hey Bandit I have head of that, it seems a common theme with respect to Out of Body experiences, when the person attempts to focus upon experiencing heaven.

The shamanic experiences also reflect such experiences in depth, from that perspective its very well documented (see my blog).



Any thoughts?

I agree Heelstone. Personally I believe if there is a heaven if your a good person then you'll go in. personally I'm agnostic so I tend to stick to every religion. If I dabble in every belief to make my own, I gotta be right!

But seriously if God is like the way he acts in the bible and will easily condemn you for not possibly believing in him, and at the same time places all of the people (most of the world) that dont believe in Christianity into hell, then I wouldn't want him as my god.

Originally posted by Toltec
Ok so basically you believe those who are skeptical of the bible are weak minded?

Personally I feel the opposite is true.
Those who accept what they are told without question are weak minded and easily led.

In response to the contradicting scriptures, you may have a few indignant christians point out that the wording in the latter ones say born of god, which refers not to salvation, but rather to Angels etc... the "sons of god" not the sons of man"
They would have a hole in that as well though, as it is also in the bible that the "sons of god" went against his wishes and took wives from the 'daughters of man" Thus sinning... so they were in fact not witout sin.

Hmmmm

I am enjoying this thread.

To be certain, there is not a culture in existence, which does not present the orientation of a heaven. Defined virtuous acts from the perspective of cultural and social positivism act for each as a means of entry.

Belief in a particular God as has well been a criterion.

But specifically, with respect to it being a notion considered realistic in respect to majorities within sub groups, that is another story.

Effectively, extremism as pervasive is an objective threat; otherwise, its existence can be considered as a neurosis, as of yet undiagnosed and as of today tolerated otherwise.

Within the context of Shakespeare "To label or not to label, that is the question?"

In my opinion that would depend on the extent to which disorganized thinking is prevalent and observed.

Any thoughts?