Who is Jesus?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
181

[quote]forlife wrote:
pat wrote:
It is possible, I suppose. But there is no precedence for that in our physical universe. Everything came from something else. There are no physical constants, all constants are the “rules” or laws on which the physical operates.

Einstein showed that the total sum of mass and energy in the universe is a constant, and that this sum of mass and energy cannot be added to or subtracted from. It is impossible, by the laws of the universe, to create or destroy matter/energy.
[/quote]
The result is constant, not that which created it. Nevertheless, you’ll like these articles…

[quote]
Thus, there is strong evidence that the universe, and the matter/energy which comprise it, has always existed. The idea of infinity boggles the mind, but both deists and agnostics/atheists accept it. The only difference is that deists believe god(s) have always existed, while agnostics/atheists see no need for a supernatural explanation, since evidence strongly supports the infinite nature of the natural universe.

It’s almost as if He doesn’t want us to know, or something doesn’t.

Or, it is possible that there are no god(s), and that the universe is entirely natural.[/quote]

Then the problem would be or could be, solved, but it is not. That’s the problem it isn’t and it cannot. Not with out current limitations.

182

[quote]Makavali wrote:
I like how people assign a gender to a hypothetical being of such immense power that it created this universe.[/quote]

It is the limitation of the English language, but we are better than spanish. Everything has gender in spanish.

183

[quote]Makavali wrote:
I like how people assign a gender to a hypothetical being of such immense power that it created this universe.[/quote]

Seriously? That is the height of your theological inquiry?

I will answer for my faith and let others worry about theirs.

We in the High Daoist Buddhist Pagan Baptist Church of Ron the Magnificent . . . HDBPBCORTM for short - j/k

The Divine exists beyond our comprehension except for what He was revealed of Himself to us - we use the masculine pronouns because He revealed Himself as the Father of us all - thus common sense would be to apply a masculine pronoun when speaking of Him. If He had wanted us to use a feminine pronoun He could have revealed Himself as the mother of us all - it may or may not bear an actual direct correlation to an actual gender - when I meet Him face to face, I’ll ask for you.

In all reality - this is merely an aspect of our limited language - not a definitive thesis on the gender identity of the Divine

OK, now you can stop worrying about anything theological and go back to your life unfettered by any concerns of the Divine or Its nature.

184

[quote]pat wrote:
Makavali wrote:
I like how people assign a gender to a hypothetical being of such immense power that it created this universe.

It is the limitation of the English language, but we are better than spanish. Everything has gender in spanish. [/quote]

it

185

[quote]pat wrote:
The result is constant, not that which created it.[/quote]

That which created it? The evidence clearly shows that nothing created it, because the total sum of matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed. That is the whole point.

I did enjoy the articles you cited.

I agree, which is why to me the most honest answer to such questions is simply that we don’t know, and that rather than blindly choosing to believe in a particular brand of religion, or in atheism, it is wiser to withhold judgment.

186

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Makavali wrote:
I like how people assign a gender to a hypothetical being of such immense power that it created this universe.

Seriously? That is the height of your theological inquiry?

I will answer for my faith and let others worry about theirs.

We in the High Daoist Buddhist Pagan Baptist Church of Ron the Magnificent . . . HDBPBCORTM for short - j/k

The Divine exists beyond our comprehension except for what He was revealed of Himself to us - we use the masculine pronouns because He revealed Himself as the Father of us all - thus common sense would be to apply a masculine pronoun when speaking of Him. If He had wanted us to use a feminine pronoun He could have revealed Himself as the mother of us all - it may or may not bear an actual direct correlation to an actual gender - when I meet Him face to face, I’ll ask for you.

In all reality - this is merely an aspect of our limited language - not a definitive thesis on the gender identity of the Divine

OK, now you can stop worrying about anything theological and go back to your life unfettered by any concerns of the Divine or Its nature. [/quote]

Actually, other religions refer to the Divine Mother, what say you to that?

They’re all wrong, right? To those who claim God revealed “Himself” to them I say - Cocaine’s a hell of a drug.

187

[quote]Makavali wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
Makavali wrote:
I like how people assign a gender to a hypothetical being of such immense power that it created this universe.

Seriously? That is the height of your theological inquiry?

I will answer for my faith and let others worry about theirs.

We in the High Daoist Buddhist Pagan Baptist Church of Ron the Magnificent . . . HDBPBCORTM for short - j/k

The Divine exists beyond our comprehension except for what He was revealed of Himself to us - we use the masculine pronouns because He revealed Himself as the Father of us all - thus common sense would be to apply a masculine pronoun when speaking of Him. If He had wanted us to use a feminine pronoun He could have revealed Himself as the mother of us all - it may or may not bear an actual direct correlation to an actual gender - when I meet Him face to face, I’ll ask for you.

In all reality - this is merely an aspect of our limited language - not a definitive thesis on the gender identity of the Divine

OK, now you can stop worrying about anything theological and go back to your life unfettered by any concerns of the Divine or Its nature.

Actually, other religions refer to the Divine Mother, what say you to that?

They’re all wrong, right? To those who claim God revealed “Himself” to them I say - Cocaine’s a hell of a drug.[/quote]

Single click is all you need.

188

[quote]pat wrote:
Single click is all you need.[/quote]

Yeah it’s pretty annoying on this end too.

189

[quote]Makavali wrote:

Actually, other religions refer to the Divine Mother, what say you to that?

They’re all wrong, right? To those who claim God revealed “Himself” to them I say - Cocaine’s a hell of a drug.[/quote]

I say that it is fan-freaking-tastic for them.

What, are you prejudiced against religions that assign female attributes to their God? Does it bother you to think that after trying to avoid women running your life this whole time the ultimate female actually has been?

Why do you expect me to give an answer for a faith that is not mine? Why do you expect me to have a judgment call on whether or not the deity they worship is the true one or not? It is not up to me to explain, rationalize or defend some other person’s belief.

You posed a statement mocking why some faiths assign masculine pronouns to their specific deity- I explained the rationale for my faith (since we do assign masculine pronouns) - is that not an appropriate enough answer for you? Was I expected to answer and defend every religion on the planet? In fact - I do believe i started my response with the statement: “I will answer for my faith and let others worry about theirs.”

If you don’t believe any deity has ever revealed himself, herself or itself to mankind - great for you! I’m glad you have your own belief system too. Don’t flaunt it - it’s a normal thing to have one. Doesn’t mean you have to be denigrating and belittling to the rest of humanity who don’t happen to share your beliefs.

I do believe you have committed what is termed transference - since you like to mock people who don’t believe what you believe - you assumed the rest of us will want to behave like you and mock others who might believe something different than we do. That is a very bigoted and hateful point of view.

190

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Makavali wrote:

Actually, other religions refer to the Divine Mother, what say you to that?

They’re all wrong, right? To those who claim God revealed “Himself” to them I say - Cocaine’s a hell of a drug.

I say that it is fan-freaking-tastic for them.

What, are you prejudiced against religions that assign female attributes to their God? Does it bother you to think that after trying to avoid women running your life this whole time the ultimate female actually has been?[/quote]

Um no, actually that’s what I was raised to believe under my family’s interpretation of Hinduism. Of course I don’t believe in any God(s) now in any human sense. I see God as nature and the unexplainable. Because there are always going to be things we can’t explain.

[quote]Why do you expect me to give an answer for a faith that is not mine? Why do you expect me to have a judgment call on whether or not the deity they worship is the true one or not? It is not up to me to explain, rationalize or defend some other person’s belief.

You posed a statement mocking why some faiths assign masculine pronouns to their specific deity- I explained the rationale for my faith (since we do assign masculine pronouns) - is that not an appropriate enough answer for you? Was I expected to answer and defend every religion on the planet? In fact - I do believe i started my response with the statement: “I will answer for my faith and let others worry about theirs.”

If you don’t believe any deity has ever revealed himself, herself or itself to mankind - great for you! I’m glad you have your own belief system too. Don’t flaunt it - it’s a normal thing to have one. Doesn’t mean you have to be denigrating and belittling to the rest of humanity who don’t happen to share your beliefs.

I do believe you have committed what is termed transference - since you like to mock people who don’t believe what you believe - you assumed the rest of us will want to behave like you and mock others who might believe something different than we do. That is a very bigoted and hateful point of view.[/quote]

ROFL. You’re starting to turn into Sloth, trying making me out to be a bigot.

I’m wondering why you take your faith at face value instead of questioning it. Have you actually gone in depth into the history of your chosen religion? Was the religion even your choice, or did your parents decide for you? Note: I’m not insulting your parents here, most try and do what they deem to be best for their kids.

All of this pales in comparison to the fact that I really do NOT care what your faith is. You could believe in the flying spaghetti monster for all I care, just make sure your faith doesn’t get in the way of my life. I don’t want to hear RELIGIOUS justification for why something should be this way/is wrong/is sinful/should be taught etc.

The only law I follow is natural law. I don’t kill because I’m pretty sure that wouldn’t be good for mankind. I don’t steal because I don’t need to have someone come and beat the shit out of me in retaliation. Catch my drift?

You believe in God? Hey, that’s great. You think I should have to do something because it’s part of your faith (not saying that you personally have done this)? Fuck off.

191

[quote]Makavali wrote:

Um no, actually that’s what I was raised to believe under my family’s interpretation of Hinduism. Of course I don’t believe in any God(s) now in any human sense. I see God as nature and the unexplainable. Because there are always going to be things we can’t explain.

ROFL. You’re starting to turn into Sloth, trying making me out to be a bigot.

I’m wondering why you take your faith at face value instead of questioning it. Have you actually gone in depth into the history of your chosen religion? Was the religion even your choice, or did your parents decide for you? Note: I’m not insulting your parents here, most try and do what they deem to be best for their kids.

All of this pales in comparison to the fact that I really do NOT care what your faith is. You could believe in the flying spaghetti monster for all I care, just make sure your faith doesn’t get in the way of my life. I don’t want to hear RELIGIOUS justification for why something should be this way/is wrong/is sinful/should be taught etc.

The only law I follow is natural law. I don’t kill because I’m pretty sure that wouldn’t be good for mankind. I don’t steal because I don’t need to have someone come and beat the shit out of me in retaliation. Catch my drift?

You believe in God? Hey, that’s great. You think I should have to do something because it’s part of your faith (not saying that you personally have done this)? Fuck off.[/quote]

Would you be referring to the consorts, Sarasvati, Lakshmi and Durga or to the mother goddess Shakti? Durga was always my favorite - DURGA the demon slayer!!! Has a kick-ass sound to it - I think some of the t-vixens should use her as an avatar!

I understand where you are coming from - you are in pretty decent company - Plato came to the point where he realized there was a force, principle, cause, natural law (whatever nomenclature you prefer) - but could not bring himself to assign this primary source a personality (which would by default have made it a deity in the classical definition). Our basic difference is where we place our faith - I place my in a Deity and you place yours basically in your reason (that was not meant derogatorily either.)

OHH, you hadn’t read one of my other long winded retorts regarding my search for ultimate truth, self-discovery and rational belief system construction so I won’t flame you on this question. Suffice it to say - you will not find a more reasoned believer in God anywhere on this planet - and it was a long long road with challenges and investigations aplenty. So, just a word of advice - don’t assume everyone who believes in a deity got there because of their parents (I won’t rant about transference here)

I am a firm believer in each person being allowed to follow their own belief systems- I do not force my beliefs on to anyone - now before that gets taken too far - let me also say that in a republic such as ours I will vote according to my beliefs just as everyone else does - but that is another thread, and I think we have already agreed upon that.

You accept a morality based on your understanding of cause and effect - that’s great, I’m glad you have reasoned this out for yourself.

Well that was enough mutual niceness, where’s Lixy? I need to annoy the hell out of someone now . . . .

192

[quote]pat wrote:
Makavali wrote:
I like how people assign a gender to a hypothetical being of such immense power that it created this universe.

It is the limitation of the English language, but we are better than spanish. Everything has gender in spanish. [/quote]

Tell me about it. And they make no sense, why would a skirt be female and a dress male?

193

[quote]forlife wrote:
pat wrote:
The result is constant, not that which created it.

That which created it? The evidence clearly shows that nothing created it, because the total sum of matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed. That is the whole point.

I did enjoy the articles you cited.

Then the problem would be or could be, solved, but it is not. That’s the problem it isn’t and it cannot. Not with out current limitations.

I agree, which is why to me the most honest answer to such questions is simply that we don’t know, and that rather than blindly choosing to believe in a particular brand of religion, or in atheism, it is wiser to withhold judgment.
[/quote]

Actually energy and matter are being created and destroyed all of the time. It just seems so far that it happens evenly to keep the totals balanced. Read up on quantum tunneling effects if you want some really freaky shit.

Einstein didn’t prove anything. He theorised and on the scale at which we usually look at the universe within the parts of the universe that we are able to observe under the constraints of our ability to observe his theories hold true.

Take things down to the subatomic level and it all goes strange. (which is a incidentally one of the flavors that quarks come in, along with up, down, top and bottom.)

194

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Would you be referring to the consorts, Sarasvati, Lakshmi and Durga or to the mother goddess Shakti? Durga was always my favorite - DURGA the demon slayer!!! Has a kick-ass sound to it - I think some of the t-vixens should use her as an avatar![/quote]

Kali rocks my world.

195

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Actually energy and matter are being created and destroyed all of the time. It just seems so far that it happens evenly to keep the totals balanced.[/quote]

That’s why I said it was impossible to change the total sum of energy/matter in the universe. You can change matter to energy or vice versa, but you can’t create or destroy the sum of energy/matter.

I find quantum physics fascinating, but again nothing to date (at least not to my limited layman’s knowledge) has provided objective evidence against the idea that the sum of energy/matter cannot be added to or subtracted from. It is a fixed, finite quantity and since nothing can change it, the logical conclusion is that it has always existed. If nothing else, integrity requires at least admitting the possibility that the universe has always existed, without requiring a primal cause (which begs the ultimate question: what caused the cause?).

196

[quote]forlife wrote:
pat wrote:
The result is constant, not that which created it.

That which created it? The evidence clearly shows that nothing created it, because the total sum of matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed. That is the whole point.

I did enjoy the articles you cited.

Then the problem would be or could be, solved, but it is not. That’s the problem it isn’t and it cannot. Not with out current limitations.

I agree, which is why to me the most honest answer to such questions is simply that we don’t know, and that rather than blindly choosing to believe in a particular brand of religion, or in atheism, it is wiser to withhold judgment.
[/quote]

Well, as in the immortal words of Rush “In Choosing not to decide, you still have made a choice.”
But aside from the philosophical, I have a whole host of unprovable reasons to believe, so I do. I won’t lay them out for the slaughter but sometimes you have to trust your instincts.

197

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
forlife wrote:
pat wrote:
The result is constant, not that which created it.

That which created it? The evidence clearly shows that nothing created it, because the total sum of matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed. That is the whole point.

I did enjoy the articles you cited.

Then the problem would be or could be, solved, but it is not. That’s the problem it isn’t and it cannot. Not with out current limitations.

I agree, which is why to me the most honest answer to such questions is simply that we don’t know, and that rather than blindly choosing to believe in a particular brand of religion, or in atheism, it is wiser to withhold judgment.

Actually energy and matter are being created and destroyed all of the time. It just seems so far that it happens evenly to keep the totals balanced. Read up on quantum tunneling effects if you want some really freaky shit.

Einstein didn’t prove anything. He theorised and on the scale at which we usually look at the universe within the parts of the universe that we are able to observe under the constraints of our ability to observe his theories hold true.

Take things down to the subatomic level and it all goes strange. (which is a incidentally one of the flavors that quarks come in, along with up, down, top and bottom.)[/quote]

You know it’s kind of weird, but it has been my observation, that Newtonian physics only applies to matter that contains mass and is with a certain size range. The very smallest objects and the very largest objects (black holes and stuff) don’t obey newtonian physics, but behave similarly to each other.

198

[quote]pat wrote:
Well, as in the immortal words of Rush “In Choosing not to decide, you still have made a choice.”[/quote]

Yes, it is a choice…but the difference between this and the other choices is that it is the only one justified by currently available objective evidence. The other choices require believing in something without evidence to back up that belief.

Fair enough. I used to say the same, but then I realized that people of other belief systems have their own “unprovable reasons and instincts” for believing as they do, and thus logically these “unprovable reasons and instincts”, no matter how devoutly held, are not a reliable touchstone for truth.