|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 30, 2019 12:28:02 GMT
There is not an easy question how to define God in terms of simplicity, or to answer - is God Simple?
Is it enough to say that He's a person, and He's omnibenevolent, omniscience, and omnipotent? Has He been changing through the history? And if He has, what is that history then?
|
|
|
|
Post by greatestiam on Sept 8, 2019 14:30:32 GMT
There is not an easy question how to define God in terms of simplicity, or to answer - is God Simple? Is it enough to say that He's a person, and He's omnibenevolent, omniscience, and omnipotent? Has He been changing through the history? And if He has, what is that history then? The ancient intelligentsia knew that nothing could be known of the supernatural and rejected all descriptions as they would be putting limits on god.
If you say he is a person, for example, then he is subject to a human nature and you see all the evil that can come out of that.
The ancients and Gnostic Christians had it right way back when.
God is to be thought of as unknowable, unfathomable and a worker of mysterious things.
Even Christianity says that, just before starting to lie of what they know of the unknowable, fathom of the unfathomable and understand of god's mysterious ways.
Not surprising for an immoral religion based on lies and the supernatural.
The ancients, knowing god could not be defined, concentrated on good laws and did not idol worship a genocidal prick of a god the way modern Christians do.
I hope you can see how intelligent the ancients were as compared to the mental trash that modern preachers and theists are using with the literal reading of myths.
bigthink.com/videos/what-is-god-2-2
Further.
www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03132009/watch.html
Rabbi Hillel, the older contemporary of Jesus, said that when asked to sum up the whole of Jewish teaching, while he stood on one leg, said, "The Golden Rule. That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the Torah. And everything else is only commentary. Now, go and study it."
Please listen as to what is said about the literal reading of myths.
"Origen, the great second or third century Greek commentator on the Bible said that it is absolutely impossible to take these texts literally. You simply cannot do so. And he said, "God has put these sort of conundrums and paradoxes in so that we are forced to seek a deeper meaning."
Matt 7;12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
This is how early Gnostic Christians view the transition from reading myths properly to destructive literal reading and idol worship.
Regards
DL
|
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Sept 8, 2019 17:50:13 GMT
God is very much complex. We cannot understand all that He does or understand His deep thoughts. He's on a whole other level we can't reach.
O LORD, how great are thy works! and thy thoughts are very deep.
Psalm:92:5
A brutish man knoweth not; neither doth a fool understand this.
Psalm:92:6
We can't even imagine what God prepared for His children.
But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
1 Corinthians:2:9
Imaginations can be wild but even they can't imagine what God has made for us.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Sept 8, 2019 19:36:43 GMT
There is not an easy question how to define God in terms of simplicity, or to answer - is God Simple? Is it enough to say that He's a person, and He's omnibenevolent, omniscience, and omnipotent? Has He been changing through the history? And if He has, what is that history then? God certainly is a mix of simple and complex, and often seems one when the Truth is the other. The laws of physics are often much simpler than some folk realize, though it is easy for sophists and other liars to hide behind fake complexity and thus pretend they understand 'complex' ideas. Deceivers thrive on the notion that the universe appears very complex and thus people often idol-worship ideas that appear too complex to understand when in fact those ideas reduce to contradictions. The deceiver simply ignores this and invokes other ideas which are promises to explain the contradiction but never do; relying on the patience of the audience, and the suspension of belief as a basic politeness. On they fillibuster without tiring. We see this all the time, most especially by the Relativists like Einstein, Feynman, & Hawking, who do all they can to pretend advanced knowledge, which is easily disproved through simple logic and basic geometry. All you have to do is google "instant gravity proof" and note the article of mine that currently ranks 1st out of 10 million to see how easy it is for 'complexity' to attain the veneer of knowledge. The simplicity of Truth from Newtonian gravity: g=  /r^2 trumps the last 400 years and countless academics who have never been able to improve on it; though clearly admitting this would be virtually impossible for their egos. And thus we see how vivid is the complexity that builds up in the minds of the Godless. And here is the key-word: complex - A psychological disorder is a 'complex' of false beliefs all which are held together by fear and cowardice. Very simple ideas, yes? Oh but the complexity of the falsehoods has no end. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 9, 2019 0:55:47 GMT
There is not an easy question how to define God in terms of simplicity, or to answer - is God Simple? Is it enough to say that He's a person, and He's omnibenevolent, omniscience, and omnipotent? Has He been changing through the history? And if He has, what is that history then? If God is a Circle and all of nature is grounded in cycles, God is both omnipresent through space as divine mind and as simple as you want him to be. Golden Rule, another cycle, is pretty simple.... |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 9, 2019 0:58:48 GMT
There is not an easy question how to define God in terms of simplicity, or to answer - is God Simple? Is it enough to say that He's a person, and He's omnibenevolent, omniscience, and omnipotent? Has He been changing through the history? And if He has, what is that history then? The ancient intelligentsia knew that nothing could be known of the supernatural and rejected all descriptions as they would be putting limits on god.
If you say he is a person, for example, then he is subject to a human nature and you see all the evil that can come out of that.
The ancients and Gnostic Christians had it right way back when.
God is to be thought of as unknowable, unfathomable and a worker of mysterious things.
Even Christianity says that, just before starting to lie of what they know of the unknowable, fathom of the unfathomable and understand of god's mysterious ways.
Not surprising for an immoral religion based on lies and the supernatural.
The ancients, knowing god could not be defined, concentrated on good laws and did not idol worship a genocidal prick of a god the way modern Christians do.
I hope you can see how intelligent the ancients were as compared to the mental trash that modern preachers and theists are using with the literal reading of myths.
bigthink.com/videos/what-is-god-2-2
Further.
www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03132009/watch.html
Rabbi Hillel, the older contemporary of Jesus, said that when asked to sum up the whole of Jewish teaching, while he stood on one leg, said, "The Golden Rule. That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the Torah. And everything else is only commentary. Now, go and study it."
Please listen as to what is said about the literal reading of myths.
"Origen, the great second or third century Greek commentator on the Bible said that it is absolutely impossible to take these texts literally. You simply cannot do so. And he said, "God has put these sort of conundrums and paradoxes in so that we are forced to seek a deeper meaning."
Matt 7;12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
This is how early Gnostic Christians view the transition from reading myths properly to destructive literal reading and idol worship.
Regards
DL
False, the circle was thought divine by many cultures and the "point" is referenced in Buddhism, Pythagorean and loosely implied in Egyptian religion as being Divine. Gnosticism failure is in "knowledge alone" considering we are left with assumption, infinity regress, and circularity as not only contradicting we can "know our ways to salvation" but also that God does not Express himself through absolute forms. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 9, 2019 1:02:25 GMT
There is not an easy question how to define God in terms of simplicity, or to answer - is God Simple? Is it enough to say that He's a person, and He's omnibenevolent, omniscience, and omnipotent? Has He been changing through the history? And if He has, what is that history then? God certainly is a mix of simple and complex, and often seems one when the Truth is the other. The laws of physics are often much simpler than some folk realize, though it is easy for sophists and other liars to hide behind fake complexity and thus pretend they understand 'complex' ideas. Deceivers thrive on the notion that the universe appears very complex and thus people often idol-worship ideas that appear too complex to understand when in fact those ideas reduce to contradictions. The deceiver simply ignores this and invokes other ideas which are promises to explain the contradiction but never do; relying on the patience of the audience, and the suspension of belief as a basic politeness. On they fillibuster without tiring. We see this all the time, most especially by the Relativists like Einstein, Feynman, & Hawking, who do all they can to pretend advanced knowledge, which is easily disproved through simple logic and basic geometry. All you have to do is google "instant gravity proof" and note the article of mine that currently ranks 1st out of 10 million to see how easy it is for 'complexity' to attain the veneer of knowledge. The simplicity of Truth from Newtonian gravity: g= /r^2 trumps the last 400 years and countless academics who have never been able to improve on it; though clearly admitting this would be virtually impossible for their egos. And thus we see how vivid is the complexity that builds up in the minds of the Godless. And here is the key-word: complex - A psychological disorder is a 'complex' of false beliefs all which are held together by fear and cowardice. Very simple ideas, yes? Oh but the complexity of the falsehoods has no end. The theory of gravity is a proposition (assumed assertion) meant to provide a point of measurement in how to categorize and measure the forces of the universe. Entropy is another example, but fails to take into account "negentropy" as well. It is this categorization that sets much of the percievable problems in physics. If I replace entropy and negentropy, with "inversion" I have a hold new manner of measuring reality with a different measuring point as a beginning concept. |
|
|
|
Post by greatestiam on Sept 9, 2019 17:19:51 GMT
He's on a whole other level we can't reach. Wow. I can agree with you for a change.
If none of us can reach that level, that would mean that all that is said of that realm and god is either speculative nonsense or a lie. Right?
Regards DL
|
|
|
|
Post by greatestiam on Sept 9, 2019 17:24:04 GMT
Oh but the complexity of the falsehoods has no end.
Indeed, Christianity and it's falsehoods on god has no end.
Even Christians know this as shown by their poor apologetics.
Regards DL |
|
|
|
Post by greatestiam on Sept 9, 2019 17:28:33 GMT
God does not Express himself through absolute forms. You know how God expresses himself?
Then tell us how he expresses himself.
Through these abominations perhaps?
Regards DL
|
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Sept 9, 2019 19:21:56 GMT
Simple or not? What is the source for your answer, or for your contentions about Christians, Jews, and Gnostics? Let's start all over again: Is there a deity? Or: Is there one or are there many gods? What about the polytheism of the Cananites (in the Ugarit religion, which is reflected in Genesis-1? The polytheism of the ancient Greeks (Ouranos and Gea, or Ana-Zeus and Hekate [the one below, Earth/Khthonie])? The polytheism (the Good One and the Evil one) of the ancient Persians) -- just to mention the polytheism we are acquainted with? I love the linguistic contraposition of Ana- and Kata`, since it is closest to the visual experiences of humans, which is a sine qua non of theism and/or religion. All of those polytheisms rely on experiences and reject the idea that a god is spacially and timely separate from the world, the Cosmos in which we move, live, and have our being (as some Stoics and Paul of Tarsus have said). |
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Sept 9, 2019 21:35:24 GMT
He's on a whole other level we can't reach. Wow. I can agree with you for a change.
If none of us can reach that level, that would mean that all that is said of that realm and god is either speculative nonsense or a lie. Right?
Regards DL
No it's just a genius level and an idiot level. Some idiots end up going to smart level but most stay at idiot level. Smart level ones can never rise to genius because that's beyond our capacity. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 9, 2019 21:48:52 GMT
You know how God expresses himself?
Then tell us how he expresses himself.
Through these abominations perhaps?
Regards DL
GOD IS THE OPPOSITION TO NOTHINGNESS (L: OPPOSITES) BY MEDIATION OF BEING.
This definition creates the image of God being a sphere, in the centre of which nothing (L: he) is emprisoned. And the divine sphere is continuously acting the divine work through which it detains eternally nothing to be in it, from which through exuberance of its goodness it calls into being the thing which is as if it (the thing which is as if it] L: As he) existed around the centre. If (L: Either) it attracts it (L: is attracted) to being, the sphere remains, if to potential being, it goes back to nothing.
We Know God Exists Because of the Eyes of Men and Women as the eye is an embodiment of the inherent nature of cycles which permeate the various facets of empirical external being as well as the internal abstract rational and intuitive degrees in which man reflects and operates.
This knowing is the manner of assumption as a means, where we assume all phenomenon through an inherent loop between the subject and object, but also with assumption itself determined by the inherent patterns we filter information through....the most universal of these patterns (or perpsectives) is the circle as evidence by the nature of assumption assuming itself, void...voiding itself into pure "being".
This "void", the grounding of all "assumption" as assumptions are fundamentally "void" reflects:
GOD IS DARKNESS LEFT BEHIND IN THE SOUL AFTER ALL LIGHT.
The forms of things (L: which are) at the soul which reveal what is in her, because of that it is said of her (that is said of her] L: God) that she is somehow all, (somehow all] L: the soul), itself illuminates the soul (L: something of the soul). But after the detachment of all those (all those] L: the communion of) forms, the divinity is contemplated. Through abnegation and removal (. Through abnegation and removal] L: , through abnegation and removal. The removal) of all forms of things von herself, she turns herself beyond herself and wants to see the first cause. And the intellect of the soul is overshadowed, because it is not apt for that uncreated light. Therefore, when it turns towards itself, it says: This is darkness for me (Therefore ... me] L: om.).
This recursion of the basic "cycle" necessitates a variation of "one" through "many" fundamentally assumed within the nature of the eye as being an embodiment of these cycles.
The eye is as a sphere effectively "captures" change and inverts it into a static memory within the mind or heart. It takes the constant flow of reality and inverts it in a static form...an image through which we assume and integrate into how we percieve the world.
This perception, as the dynamic way in which we assume reality, in turn filters how we assume reality. We assume basic "self-evident truth" (assumed assumptions) and process reality through the filter of this lens. We percieve through the axioms we embody with this embodiment acting as a system of values that determining how we assume. This cycling, is reflected further within the cycles of nature as well as the cycles of reasoning and intuition inherent within man thus necessitating "one cycle" non moving and static reflected in how we "absolutize" truth through the conversion of the dynamic into static memories or "axioms". This Cycle as Universal observes:
GOD IS AN INFINITE SPHERE WHOSE
CENTRE IS EVERYWHERE AND HIS CIRCUMFERENCE (L: INDEED) NOWHERE
This definition is given as a way of imagining that the continuum (L: centre) is the very first cause in its own life. Namely the end (L: circle) of its extension lies above the ‘where’, terminating outside. Therefore, its centre is everywhere, and has no common dimension. Asked for the circumference of its sphere, he states that it is elevated into infinity, as what is without dimension, was like the creator, is (L: also) the beginning and so (L: its) the end is nowhere. From which the proposition is clear.
The eye observes the basic form of "the circle", reflected within the cycles of both external empirical nature and the internal intellectual and intuitive nature of man, with this circle containing "Nothingness" or "Void" in its center. This void, the "pupil", acts much in the same manner as "void"...it inverts one thing (as steady flow of information through light waves).
The encapsulation of the formless (potential) is represented within the nature of the void being encapsulated through a sphere through its own self opposition negating itself. Where this inherent void, reflected from an abstraction into an empirical reality within the eye of man, negates itself into form much in the same manner the pupil negates the dynamic formless light waves into static forms interpreted within the cycles of man's natural reason and intuition.
GOD IS THE OPPOSITION TO NOTHINGNESS (L: OPPOSITES) BY MEDIATION OF BEING.
This definition creates the image of God being a sphere, in the centre of which nothing (L: he) is emprisoned. And the divine sphere is continuously acting the divine work through which it detains eternally nothing to be in it, from which through exuberance of its goodness it calls into being the thing which is as if it (the thing which is as if it] L: As he) existed around the centre. If (L: Either) it attracts it (L: is attracted) to being, the sphere remains, if to potential being, it goes back to nothing.
|
|
|
|
Post by greatestiam on Sept 9, 2019 22:42:45 GMT
xxxxxxxxx
Read the findings on the eye that had the courts throw out intelligent design from schools due to their lying.
Thanks for the post though.
It shows that you have no way of knowing about or accessing the supernatural realm.
That being said, tell me why, even if you were right, why you think a genocidal and infanticidal god is worthy of your idol worship.
Tell me as well why your god would create the abominations in that link.
Regards
DL
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 11, 2019 4:05:54 GMT
xxxxxxxxx
Read the findings on the eye that had the courts throw out intelligent design from schools due to their lying.
Thanks for the post though.
We are left with a repitition of cycles inherent within nature (the human body and how it operates in this case) as well as how the nature of reason and intuition operate. God as omnipresent through form necessitates a simultaneous knowability and unknowabilty...there is no contradiction here.
It shows that you have no way of knowing about or accessing the supernatural realm.
It is observed in stillness of though an mind, as this emptiness is the manner through which all being exists and is recycled. Even the emptiness of assumption, as pure embracing reality for what it is necessitates a reflection of the creators embracement of all reality.
That being said, tell me why, even if you were right, why you think a genocidal and infanticidal god is worthy of your idol worship.
You are the one trying to kill him...who are you too judge?
Tell me as well why your god would create the abominations in that link.
All being relative to Nothingness, as it effectively is empty, it perfect. Judgement, imposed through our rational causes gradation. "I AM" being angry with the Jews and gentiles in the old testament is strictly man suffering through his own self judgement. God as emotional is strictly a mirror of the peoples state of mind reflected back upon themselves as omnipresence requires a penetration into the deepest depths of the subjective state.
Regards
DL
|
|
/r^2 
