Religion II

[Light]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

Only the clueless would talk about something that is or was non-existent.

I'm sorry you don't understand.

I did not use the term "Non existence" You did. I said in Post #1026

Originally Posted by Light

"I am" is referring to. "I am" means "no self", "beyond duality".

In order to become one with God, your "self" which is an illusion anyway as you can see through time (birth till now, ever changing identity), must become non egoic or "non self". You also lose "duality" when this happens. Because ego is what separates us from others,our environment, and God. Of course you must be "existent", not "non existent" to experience oneness with all.

Easten traditions are loaded with the concept of "no self" and "non duality" such as Yin/Yang. Even in the Bible there are many references to the Ego's death.The term Ego was not available at the time of Jesus but this is what a phrase such as the following is referring to.

Luke 17:33 "Whoever seeks to preserve his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life will keep it."

In other words, if material possessions are your primary investment in this life, they will obviously perish and you have gained nothing. But if spiritual affairs are your primary investment then that will carry over to the next life. But in order to gain the perspective of the spiritual as primary, you must first lose yourself, your ego, must die into "no self", which is not non existence but the doorway to everything, 99% of which your ego cannot perceive within or without. So you actually gain not lose. Now when you look at the world, you view it through the intelligence of your heart, which is the same as viewing it through God's eyes. His will is now yours and yours is his. The quality of one's life is magnified to unimaginable levels.

As they say you cannot serve two masters: your Ego and God.

[Light]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Of course you don't. Your entire previous response was a non sequitur to my 1031, having absolutely nothing to do with the context of the passages I quoted and the arguments I presented.

This is a common pattern with you when you have no answer. You a change the subject.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by Light

I'm sorry you don't understand.

I did not use the term "Non existence" You did. I said in Post #1026

I didn't say non-existence either.
I responded to Post #1032 where you clearly said "non-existent."

Part of Post #1032 is below:

Originally Posted by Light

Yet you don't know what it means to become selfless, or non existent?

I have no problem with selfless acts.
I have nothing to say about non-existent.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

[emphasis added]

Agreed, Jesus rising from the dead. For he has risen, indeed.

So you wish to claim that the alleged resurrection of a dead human 2000 years ago has a scientific basis, viz., it was an instance of the lottery principle. Before examining that claim let’s consider another instance. According to quantum theory it is possible for a human being to walk through a solid wall. All the molecules in a human’s body are constantly in motion. So too are all the molecules in a solid wall constantly in motion. All that is necessary for the human to pass through the wall is for all the molecules to line up so that the slip right past one another. Any member of the faculty of the Physics Department of any university will confirm this. The question is how many times does a human have to attempt to walk through a solid wall before he has a reasonable chance of success? The calculations have been done and the result is that at a rate of one attempt per second there has not been enough time since the big bang 13.7 billion years ago to have any reasonable expectation of success.

Walking through a wall is much simpler than resurrecting the dead. The subject in question had supposedly lost a great deal of bodily fluid and was dead long enough for decomposition to be well under way. Thus you are positing that his bodily fluids randomly reentered his body, his blood de-coagulated, and his decomposition reversed itself, all through the lottery principle. So while resurrection could theoretically happen through sheer luck the probability of it happening is effectively zero.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Mr. Actor, sir: Atheistic Evolution (or Naturalism) has 0.00% probability because it's been falsified by the Law of Non-Contradiction.

The Law of Non Contradiction states that "contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time." You have never proven anything through the Law of Non Contradiction because you have never clearly cited two statements that are contradictory at the same time and in the same sense. You just rattle on with a bunch of mush and then pull the rabbit out of your hat, the rabbit being the Law of Non Contradiction. When you are ready, and able, to present a clear concise argument instead of just equivocating get back to me.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Light

This is a common pattern with you when you have no answer. You a change the subject.

You're projecting again! This is precisely what you did in your 1033 in order to avoid responding to the passages and my argument in 1031, since you could not answer the issues I raised therein.

And by the way, just for your info: The Trinity is intimated in Ex 3:14. Note how many times "I AM" is spoken by God:

Ex 3:14
14 And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM"; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'"
NASB

Also, I AM is God's name. I AM is not what God is, but as the passage says above WHO God is.

Ex 3:15
15 And God, furthermore, said to Moses, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'The Lord, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.' [b]This is My Name forever, and this is My memorial-name to all generations.
NASB

And once again, the Trinity is intimated in this passage with Eloheey ("God of") used three times after He claimed to be the God of the Hebrews' fathers.

Jesus also, on several occasions, claimed the Name for himself, claiming to be I AM -- who existed BEFORE Abraham and existed with the Father BEFORE the world was created. The Jews understood perfectly what He was saying and they wanted to kill him right on the spot in Jn 8:58 because they thought he was blaspheming God.

Jesus very clearly taught the Trinity in this passage:

Matt 28:19-20
19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in THE NAME of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age. "
NASB

Note carefully: The One Name is in Three Persons, which is another way of saving the One Divine Essence is in all Three Persons. Jesus is a person, His Father is a person and he Holy Spirit is a person. Because the Divine Essence is in all Three, the Three formed a perfect union. They were perfectly united. In this sense, therefore, They are One! This is why "Elohiym" (God) is a collective noun in Deut 6:4 and many other places in the OT. And collective nouns always mean more than one. Always. And collective nouns always take singular verb forms.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by boxcar

This is why "Elohiym" (God) is a collective noun in Deut 6:4 and many other places in the OT. And collective nouns always mean more than one. Always. And collective nouns always take singular verb forms.

What have you been smokin'? Or dropping into your morning coffee?

You can create whatever fantasy world you wish, as is your right.

But please don't rewrite the Hebrew Bible or lay claim on what you HOPE the Hebrew language is actually saying in these passages.

Do you think nobody is paying attention? Or maybe that's your hope.

Unreal you are.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

The Law of Non Contradiction states that "contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time." You have never proven anything through the Law of Non Contradiction because you have never clearly cited two statements that are contradictory at the same time and in the same sense. You just rattle on with a bunch of mush and then pull the rabbit out of your hat, the rabbit being the Law of Non Contradiction. When you are ready, and able, to present a clear concise argument instead of just equivocating get back to me.

Of course, I have. Try to pay attention. Focus. Take something for your ADD.

In an atheistic naturalism/evolution model, it is understood that natural causes account for the existence of the universe. In this kind of model or philosophy, the "crime scene" is restricted to "within the room", i.e. within the material universe itself. Therefore, in the final analysis, it is implicitly understood that the universe must have caused itself.. But this kind of conclusion is self-defeating (self-contradictory) because for a thing to cause itself it MUST exist and not exist at the same time and in the same sense. Atheistic Naturalism is busted for breaking the law.

Have a nice evening, sir.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

What have you been smokin'? Or dropping into your morning coffee?

You can create whatever fantasy world you wish, as is your right.

But please don't rewrite the Hebrew Bible or lay claim on what you HOPE the Hebrew language is actually saying in these passages.

Do you think nobody is paying attention? Or maybe that's your hope.

Unreal you are.

Before you get on your high horse to tell anyone how "unreal" they are and accuse them of being druggies, etc. what makes you think that the Hebrew language doesn't use collective nouns? Or perhaps you don't know what a collective noun is? Why don't you write to your rabbi buddy and ask him if collective nouns were in use in ancient Israel. I know for fact that they were used. See Num 36:8, Jud 6:15; Gen 12:16; Ex 14:24, etc, etc.

And, yes, I do know what the Hebrew passages are really saying! I have plenty of reference tools at my disposal to help me out, as well. All you're relying on is the word of the spiritually blind, deaf and dead!

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

In an atheistic naturalism/evolution model, it is understood that natural causes account for the existence of the universe.

Is it? Read my future posts on science. Try to understand.

[Lose The Juice]

Special props to Boxcar for knowing Jesus' bowling average, BMI, fave R & B songs, and take on the Missouri Compromise, while at the same time having not the slightest clue who Father Tiso was.

The mind boggles.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by Lose The Juice

Special props to Boxcar for knowing Jesus' bowling average, BMI, fave R & B songs, and take on the Missouri Compromise, while at the same time having not the slightest clue who Father Tiso was. The mind boggles.

Your mind boggles, "Juice?"
Why?
Why should boxcar have to defend a Priest of a Faith he doesn't ascribe to?
boxcar has never claimed to be a Catholic?
If your argument is against Christianity, state your case and why.
Otherwise, you are remiss in not reading the many thousands of posts that preceded the Religion II thread in the original Religion thread and should be given some forgiveness.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Of course, I have. Try to pay attention. Focus. Take something for your ADD.

In an atheistic naturalism/evolution model, it is understood that natural causes account for the existence of the universe. In this kind of model or philosophy, the "crime scene" is restricted to "within the room", i.e. within the material universe itself. Therefore, in the final analysis, it is implicitly understood that the universe must have caused itself.. But this kind of conclusion is self-defeating (self-contradictory) because for a thing to cause itself it MUST exist and not exist at the same time and in the same sense. Atheistic Naturalism is busted for breaking the law.

Have a nice evening, sir.

There is no evidence that the universe was created, by itself, or any other force or entity.... The universe has always existed and always will...

[Light]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

I didn't say non-existence either.
I responded to Post #1032 where you clearly said "non-existent."

Part of Post #1032 is below:

I have no problem with selfless acts.
I have nothing to say about non-existent.

I was referring to the Ego becoming non existent. Assumed that would be understood but my bad if it wasn't.

[Light]

Originally Posted by boxcar

And by the way, just for your info: The Trinity is intimated in Ex 3:14. Note how many times "I AM" is spoken by God:

Ex 3:14
14 And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM"; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'"
NASB

Also, I AM is God's name. I AM is not what God is, but as the passage says above WHO God is.

"I am" is NOT God's name. The opposite is true. God is saying that you cannot name or define him. Here's why.

Normally after someone says "I am" there is a blank to be filled in. Instead God repeats the "I am" part. God is saying his being is an infinite loop that has no definition because he does not complete the sentence with this or that, but adds the same words again, (I am), meaning "Being". As a literal translator of the Bible you don't understand this and naively say his name is "I am".

FYI there are many "I am" meditations in many practices. You prematurely condemned me to hell for assuming I didn't know what "I am" is. You are so late to the party. I've not only known what "I am" is for years, but meditate on it too. Do you see what a complete fool you look like to me? It is you who does not understand what "I am" means, but I won't condemn you to hell. What for? That would be so egotistic and anti God.

An "I am meditation" is a "mantra" form of meditation. In an "I am meditation"you don't fill in the blank just like God did not define himself in order to not identify with anything that the mind will create to take you away from your essence which also has no name. The mantra of "I am" is repeated and one is to pay attention to the stillness that the mantra begins to unfold within you. This is practicing what God said when he said "Be still and know I am God". You can only know God through the same essence that is the God within you.

Notice God also did NOT say "I am the Trinity". God is saying he is one with all.