Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,102 Year: 5,359/9,624 Month: 384/323 Week: 24/204 Day: 24/21 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What are you? EvC poll
iano
Member (Idle past 2049 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 76 of 126 (309304)
05-05-2006 6:07 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by lfen
05-04-2006 10:58 PM


Re: He is the original I AM, we're derivative i am's
Not so sure Lfen.
Feynman on God writes:
"God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand. Now, when you finally discover how something works, you get some laws which you're taking away from God; you don't need him anymore.
A believer facing death and the prospect of meeting his maker might be thoughtful, pensive, or even say something along the lines of
quote:
Now comes the mystery. ~~ Henry Ward Beecher, evangelist, d. March 8, 1887
A convicted and consistant athiest has nothing at all to wonder about. For he knows that he will close his eyes and enter a void. I could see such a person finding the approach landing as boring as Feynman says he found it.
The only trouble is that he doesn't actually know that a void is what he will face. He possessed zero evidence as to death. He was referring to the process of dying, not dying itself. Thus the ignorance.
But I will retract the notion that the statement was vacuous. As a man who presumably found his lifes significance wherever he found it. And as a man for who all personal significance was about (he believed) to end, then a quip is as good a last word as any.
For other famous last words, this link might prove interesting:
http://www.corsinet.com/braincandy/dying.html

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by lfen, posted 05-04-2006 10:58 PM lfen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by lfen, posted 05-05-2006 1:06 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 2049 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 77 of 126 (309306)
05-05-2006 6:14 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by robinrohan
05-05-2006 5:53 AM


Re: He is the original I AM, we're derivative i am's
Actually, you make a good point, iano. This amateur philosophizing is rather ridiculous.
I can see little profit in going professional. Philosophy itself is ridiculous as a means to any end. There is no end proffered nor is there one possible.
Its a distraction, a noise designed to drown out a quiet call. Satan designed/man applied. As CS Lewis said.
"It does not matter how small the sins are, provided that their cumulative effect is to edge the man away from the Light and out into the Nothing. Murder is no better than cards if cards can do the trick. Indeed the safest road to Hell is the gradual one -the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts."
Philosophy: a gentle slope...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by robinrohan, posted 05-05-2006 5:53 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by robinrohan, posted 05-05-2006 6:22 AM iano has replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 126 (309307)
05-05-2006 6:22 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by iano
05-05-2006 6:14 AM


Re: He is the original I AM, we're derivative i am's
Philosophy itself is ridiculous as a means to any end
Yes, sometimes I think that all discourse is rhetoric.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by iano, posted 05-05-2006 6:14 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by iano, posted 05-05-2006 6:48 AM robinrohan has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 2049 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 79 of 126 (309308)
05-05-2006 6:48 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by robinrohan
05-05-2006 6:22 AM


Re: He is the original I AM, we're derivative i am's
I think there is more to it than that. That there is a point to it.
Either it seals ones fate or it seals ones faith..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by robinrohan, posted 05-05-2006 6:22 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by robinrohan, posted 05-05-2006 2:27 PM iano has replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4785 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 80 of 126 (309389)
05-05-2006 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by iano
05-05-2006 6:07 AM


Re: He is the original I AM, we're derivative i am's
Empty handed I entered the world.
Barefoot I leave it.
My coming, my going -
Two simple happenings
That got entangled.
Kozan Ichikyo, Death Poem
1583-1660

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by iano, posted 05-05-2006 6:07 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by iano, posted 05-05-2006 2:24 PM lfen has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 2049 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 81 of 126 (309410)
05-05-2006 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by lfen
05-05-2006 1:06 PM


Re: He is the original I AM, we're derivative i am's
Empty handed I entered the world.
Barefoot I leave it.
My coming, my going -
Two simple happenings
That got entangled.
The Christian perspective: Life is the result of Infinite complexity
Kozans conclusion: Life is a matter of distilling (perhaps) so as to arrive at Ireducible Simplicity (I don't mean that to read simpleton)
Would that be about right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by lfen, posted 05-05-2006 1:06 PM lfen has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 126 (309411)
05-05-2006 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by iano
05-05-2006 6:48 AM


Re: He is the original I AM, we're derivative i am's
I think there is more to it than that. That there is a point to it.
So your point is not that I'm wasting my time with pointless arguments, but that I'm doing something evil?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by iano, posted 05-05-2006 6:48 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by iano, posted 05-05-2006 2:38 PM robinrohan has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 2049 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 83 of 126 (309417)
05-05-2006 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by robinrohan
05-05-2006 2:27 PM


Re: He is the original I AM, we're derivative i am's
So your point is not that I'm wasting my time with pointless arguments, but that I'm doing something evil?
You engage in philosophy here and you engage with the gospel here. Tiring eventually of philosophies no-end-in-sight cycle might cause you to turn from it and perhaps towards the gospel (you could turn to Zen though). The gospel might draw you to it and turn you away from the philosophy and false religons. God will attempt to use all to turn you to him. He is not willing or wanting that you would perish.
Philosophy is one of the myriad of things which Satan uses to blind man for he hates man. Anything that holds a person from God is evil. It certainly isn't of God. Don't take too much offence though. I'm a kettle and I ain't calling you, the pot, black...
This message has been edited by iano, 05-May-2006 07:39 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by robinrohan, posted 05-05-2006 2:27 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by robinrohan, posted 05-05-2006 2:51 PM iano has replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 126 (309426)
05-05-2006 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by iano
05-05-2006 2:38 PM


Re: He is the original I AM, we're derivative i am's
Don't take too much offence though.
No, no, I'm not offended at all. I just wanted to get clear what you were telling me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by iano, posted 05-05-2006 2:38 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by iano, posted 05-05-2006 3:00 PM robinrohan has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 2049 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 85 of 126 (309430)
05-05-2006 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by robinrohan
05-05-2006 2:51 PM


Re: He is the original I AM, we're derivative i am's
I'm glad. Hopefully its clearer

"A Christian is just one beggar telling other beggars where to find bread."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by robinrohan, posted 05-05-2006 2:51 PM robinrohan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by AdminPhat, posted 05-05-2006 4:10 PM iano has not replied

  
AdminPhat
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 126 (309452)
05-05-2006 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by iano
05-05-2006 3:00 PM


Re: He is the original I AM, we're derivative i am's
Lets get back to the poll, and the O.P.
I was curious what the EvC members personally thought about whether or not there is separate substances that make up reality.
For instance if one believes that a spiritual world exist as well as a material world then they are a dualist, or believe in the metaphyical.
Then on the other side of the camp is the folks who believe that everything is just one stuff. The monist. So just for fun pick a camp: Dualist or Monist and explain your reasons why you think that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by iano, posted 05-05-2006 3:00 PM iano has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Rob, posted 06-02-2006 10:21 AM AdminPhat has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5957 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 87 of 126 (316802)
06-01-2006 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by 1.61803
04-24-2006 10:06 PM


How do we know 'what to be' when by deciding, we imply dualism either way ???
Unity of all vs. Separation of good and evil
By Robert S. Lockett
Genesis 1: 3-4 And God said, "Let there be light." And there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness...
It has long been known that the quantum realm reveals the possibilities, or duality of light in relationship to the observer (specifically the Niels Bohr interpretation). This denotes the observer’s ability to affect reality. I think it is a very interesting point, and believe that in as much as I am aware (I’m admittedly not as well read as some), that Christians have failed to consider it carefully enough. Bohr’s observations are a reasonable proof that we certainly do affect reality, and in some minds quantum potential suggests that we create it. Personally I do not suppose that manipulation is equal to creation. Either way, as the philosophically sound cliché says; ”no man is an island’.
I am going to keep this as simple as I am able and apologize for covering any sophomoric ground, but let us explore the implications by first recognizing that a photon exists both as a wave and a particle. However, once observed, a photon can no longer be both a particle and wave and looses it's 'duality', in one sense, becoming 'real' in relationship to the observer. This either / or relationship bears a striking resemblance to the either / or relationship in the fundamental principle of what is known as Aristotelian logic. What I would like to focus on is that in the same way, ”truth’, once observed and therefore affirmed, becomes real in relationship to the observer. As a result, the alternative potential or potentials are excluded.
I would like to assert that if we choose to observe these entities, we cannot have it both ways, either in the case of light in the physical sense, or logic (light in the metaphysical sense). If we choose to observe reality, be it physical or metaphysical, we will inherit the consequences of that decision. The consequences of manipulating physical light do not contain any discernable tragic ramifications. On the other hand, the consequences of observing truth as a light and thereby defining ”reality’ in the metaphysical realm carries some enormous implications for all of mankind. In the metaphysical sense, if we conform to reality as it is, we will by definition get the 'objective' reality. One of my assumptions is that the original purpose or design, the ”objective reality’, is what we are all seeking ( any contest to this assumption is for another discussion). We may only differ on 'the way' to get there. In any case, every assumption of justice or morality; and every affirmation of truth necessarily implies an objective reality and therefore an absolute reality. If we make absolute statements such as, ”all is one’, ”there are no absolutes’, ”truth is relative’ , or ”I am the truth’ (notice the affirming words ”is’, ”are’, and ”am’) without the knowledge that we are in fact making an absolute statement, then as G.K. Chesterton noted, we are undermining our own mind.
When one ponders the concept of 'truth' from an ambivalent vantage point, it seems the possibilities defy observation, for once observed and affirmed, the realm of possibilities is then reduced to mere perspective. Or is it? It is true that once truth is affirmed, the observer excludes it’s opposite, effectively closing the door on other alternatives. Let there be no deception that the decisive metaphysical observer is 'all inclusive' in his/her affirmation. However, just because every affirmation excludes its opposite, this does not mean that such a conclusion is always subjective. For example, 1+1 only equals 2. Once we use reason to establish that objective and universal reality, we have ourselves conformed to reality and have moved beyond open mindedness, yet we remain objective. For the record, I do not mean by moving beyond open-mindedness, that we cease to question a challenge to our reasonable conclusion. The question is really whether or not the challenge is reasonable. We should always be willing to entertain a question, if not questioning ourselves tortuously.
On the Monistic theme, if we choose to believe that we are God, we should not deceive ourselves that we have remained open-minded. Open-mindedness would not allow such a conclusion. This works as well with any affirmation that we are not God. Neither worldview can ultimately claim an unbiased vantage point. They are both fundamentalist positions and must exclude their opposite. As stated in the last paragraph, this does not necessarily mean that we are being subjective. Open-mindedness and objectivity are two distinct entities even though they do overlap at times. Objectivity and open-mindedness will lead to the conclusion that 1+1=2, but once affirmed we are rightly no longer open-minded and move forward with the ”objective’ of finding more of reality. It is a logical necessity to reject the alternative answers such as 1+1=3. The practical implication is that the truth (the objective) precedes us, and we must conform to it. At the beginning of our journey, objectivity and open-mindedness overlap. Once the objective is reached, all opposites are excluded.
Jesus claimed to be the wholeness of absolute reality and promised that if we give up our own subjective and relative ”realities’, we could exchange them for the ”absolute’ and ”objective’ reality. Mathew 10: 39 "He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it." John 14: 6 'I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the father except through me.'
It occurs to me that the will of the individual is given enormous latitude and power to interpret the duality of the information and make an affirmation. Another way to put it is that the observer is faced with an enormous test of his heart. It does appear that this test is of the observer’s deepest intentions. It is inevitable that ”truth’ is defined within the heart of the observer. The observer may perceive reality in any fashion he/she chooses (2+2=9), but to be certain, creating reality would involve more than believing he/she has the power to do so by shear will and subjection. One must be able to explain (logically show, or ”shed light’ on) why they believe that what may only begin in the heart, is indeed the objective reality. If the heart and mind do not converge into a coherent fabric, then he/she must attempt to achieve the presumed end in spite of reason. I assume we all believe that the end does not justify the means.
Assuming the power to create reality ultimately involves changing the cosmological constants and laws of physics. In the very least, such power should demonstrate mastery over them by essentially manifesting God Himself. Jesus is reliably documented to have done just this when He demonstrated the miraculous and these feats ended with the grandest of all conceivable miracles when He ultimately rose from the dead. If we are God (as some claim), then it is true that we should lay hold of our destiny even without the ability to reasonably explain our position and vigorously pursue our ends. If we are not God, then we are underestimating the consequences of our actions in the most dangerous and subjective fashion. We should have no ambivalence about making or denying such an utterly profound affirmation. Jesus made it plain when He said, "I came into this world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me" (John 18:37-38) His bold affirmation makes a black and white claim that if we are honest in our hearts, we will listen to Him and that our search is inevitably found in Him. The Bible says that in Him, all of reality consists. Colossians 1:17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
To be more specific, when contemplating the nature of divinity, only two possibilities exist. One of these is the possibility that ”all is one’, the classic pantheist philosophy of monism in which we and all of creation are God (Hinduism, Buddhism, New Age, etc.). The other is a very different divinity in the form of the Biblical all powerful and infinite God and His sovereignty over all his creatures and creation. One view defines man as divine, and the other acknowledges a separation from divinity as a result of man seeking divine power for himself (pride/ego). The attitude of the observer to the either / or decision in this regard, most assuredly hinges on the moral implications of the two views.
They are not compatible. Notice that the monistic worldview exists to separate itself from the ”narrow’ Christian orthodoxy, whereas the Christian exists to unite Himself with God within the narrow framework of truth. For the 'monistic' worldview to survive, they will inevitably have to argue against a part 'of the all' (Christians) who disagree. This is self defeating and exposes a contradiction in their presupposition that 'all is one'. The Christian is consistent, acknowledging the necessity of exclusivity in the nature of an objective reality. Matthew 7:13 "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.
It is a difficult concept to differentiate by any measure. It is like an optical illusion that shifts perspective as we look longer at its qualities. The temptations of Monism are intense and easy to believe; yet, the veracity and logic of Dualism demands consideration by the honest thinker because of its overwhelming conviction and the shear power of its coherence.
It is interesting that the classical concept of ”free will’, in the Biblical sense, is confirmed by the discovery of potential in quantum physics. As a follower of Christ, my observation of this connection is given as a means of illustrating the incredible coherence of a Biblical worldview. It is my opinion that such a connection is no mere coincidence. It is simply true. Conscious free will + potential = God given dignity. Have it your way or God's way. God does not impose Himself on us. For Him to do so would make Him a fascist. He would have to create a perfect world containing nothing but unthinking, uncaring, yet undeniably perfect nonliving robots. In a Monistic reality, we would have no power at all and would only do what is inevitable by evolution, chance and necessity. Ironically, it is the Monist that claims to create reality, which is the most powerful position one could have.
Truth remains undefined and unobserved until the potential observer makes a conscious decision to seek and observe it. Not seeking truth is inevitably a conscious decision as well. In this arena, remaining open-minded is really a decision to not make a decision and is therefore illogical. In regard to the two contradictory views of divinity, once defined by an act of the will, the implications of the affirmation into reality (even if only subjective) become immediate and apparent. One can choose to believe all is well and thereby attempt to keep his life by subjectively interpreting it as ”part of the evolving all’, or conform to the implication of his separation from divinity by seeking the help of the divine in order to become a person in the objective reality.
We are manipulating reality in a sense, as the quantum sciences prove, or rather, making real by way of consequences in the material, our decision to observe reality the way we choose. One should not confuse the reality that is perceived within, thereby confined to perception, with the reality that exists before and after the observer exists. Individually, we are not the only observers. Self can only define reality by the self’s DNA and experience (heart). But by the rejection of self and a repositioning into relationship with the divine, one can experience a new birth that transcends DNA and experience (subjection). Only the latter allows the self to exist in both states; as an individual (' I '), in relationship with the divine who is also a distinct being. Though some suggest that to call ones self ' I ' is an egoist response to the dilemma, it is interesting to note, that this negative (black and white) view is held as a way of avoiding conformity for the sake of the divine, and maintains the ego. It is the acknowledgement of the ' I ' that reveals the individuals responsibility to the whole and recognizes the power to alter reality. This sheds light on the need for individual rehabilitation if one is out of sorts with the objective (reality).
Stating fact or arguing with reason is not, by any means, necessarily egoic or fear based in nature. However, the denial of fact, or the inability to accept a reasonable and logical argument is always motivated by ego and fear. Some claims demand serious attention because the implications are so inescapably enormous.
That being said, the most offensive thing anyone could say to the fear and ego driven heart is, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except by me."
That is the ultimate, staggering, and exclusive claim to sovereignty. It is also a completely reasonable statement. Even so, such a statement is either motivated by the purest form of ego, and/or, it intends to manipulate by the most blatant use of fear, or such a statement is the most selfless expression and profound truth that any man will ever hear. It is a claim that only God can make consistently.
I believe that is precisely why C.S. Lewis wrote the following:
“I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: ”I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.’ That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic”on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg”or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.” *
The monistic worldview is nothing more than an attempt to escape from individual responsibility and the only way to maintain such a position consistently, albeit an obstinate and rebellious posture, is to declare 'one’s self' as God. For most monists, it is far less confrontational to speak without such clarity. They like to avoid the necessity and inevitability of the conflict. The monist prefers to say that we are evolving into the divine. But by implication this is a theology of default divinity be it evolving or not. As in the disagreement over Jesus Christ’s claims, this claim is either the greatest blasphemy, or the greatest truth. The stakes are enormous.
Since much of the quantum’s incredible properties involve light and the difficulty of putting a finger on its true nature, it is exceptionally noteworthy that Jesus said the following: 'I am the light of the world' (John 9; 5) ”I have come into the world as a light’ (John 12; 46). ”This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God (John 3; 19).
Monism can explain our unity but not our diversity. Evolution can explain our diversity but not our unity. We seek unity in diversity (University, Quintessence, E Pluribus Unum), and the only way to have unity in diversity in the effect (creation) is to have unity in diversity in the first cause (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). Only Christianity offers that. **
The Creator, the triune God, is a being that is also an eternal relationship. He is one though making up three distinct forms of Himself. With God’s plan, we are allowed to become sons of God, by denying ourselves as God, and accepting the wisdom of the only God. It is there that we awake and begin to understand the hymnist when he wrote, “I once was lost, but now I’m found, was blind, but now I see”.
According to Christ, there is unity in Him and Him alone. All is not unity, only that which is in Christ. Christ forces us to either accept Him, or reject Him. If we accept, then that begins with careful consideration of his words and their implications. He did not ask us to jump in blindly. Rather He warns us to weigh the issue with intensity and actually seems to attempt to talk us out of following Him by making it so clear. Luke 14: 27-33 And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple. "Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Will he not first sit down and estimate the cost to see if he has enough money to complete it? For if he lays the foundation and is not able to finish it, everyone who sees it will ridicule him, saying, 'This fellow began to build and was not able to finish.' "Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Will he not first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand? If he is not able, he will send a delegation while the other is still a long way off and will ask for terms of peace. In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple. "Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is fit neither for the soil nor for the manure pile; it is thrown out. "He who has ears to hear, let him hear."
If we reject Him, the only alternative is for man to claim himself and all of his conflicting and chaotic ambitions to be his and his life alone. Either Jesus is God, or we are. Matthew 12; 30 " He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me, scatters abroad." A monist cannot say this either because there is no ”against’, there are only different sides of the same one, and therefore Jesus was not a monist.
Look at the following verse and see how Jesus describes the Spirit that created all things coming to make His home in the heart of a mortal, thereby making known to him the immortal and eternal God. This is the 'real', personal, and daily relationship with divinity (Christ). John 14; 23 "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My words; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him."
He often expands on the depth of the spiritual rebirth and further confirms the differential between powers and perceptions. John 14;17-20 " The Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you." "I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. A little while longer and the world will see me no more, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. At that day you will know that I Am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you."
The monist proclaims that we cannot 'know' that these things are true lest we risk being controlled by the ego (because all is individually subjective); but, if you did not notice in these verses before, see that Jesus proclaims that ”you will know, or see’. "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (John 8; 32) It is just the same way as mentioned in the beginning of this article, that we may close our minds to alternatives while remaining objective, since what we have found is the objective reality.
The monist is forced to accept all that is as part of the evolving divine oneness. This allows them to see themselves as divine yet in a state not yet fully realized (and keep their sin without the internal conflict). Genesis 3; 5 Then Satan said, "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God . "
Only God can be God by logical necessity, even if we disagree as to who He is. That is one reason I put my life and faith in Jesus Christ, for He spoke plainly and in truth. Even the monist knows and is forced to say that God is one, they just misunderstand the implications of their philosophy. Many of them do so intentionally, constantly seeking to find a way out of the inevitable trap of logic.
Mark 12: 28-34 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?" "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: ”Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ”Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these." "Well said, teacher," the man replied. "You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices." When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." And from then on no one dared ask him any more questions.
Christ spoke no doubletalk about being all inclusive. We cannot have it both ways. 1+1 cannot = both 2 and 3 and 5 and 8 etc. To attempt such is to eat the fruit of ”the tree of knowledge of good and evil’. Jesus said, ”Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division’ (Luke 12:51). A monist cannot say this for their concept of deity only works to unite. The truth always divides and separates reality from subjection, which is why Monism cannot be true.
John 9:16 Some of the Pharisees said, "This man is not from God, for he does not keep the Sabbath." But others asked, "How can a sinner do such miraculous signs?" So they were divided.
Acts 23:7 When he said this, a dispute broke out between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided.
Psalm 78:13 He divided the sea and led them through; he made the water stand firm like a wall.
Matthew 25: 31 "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. 34 "Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.
John 8:43-45 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me!
In conclusion, I wish to point out that in the Biblical sense, Jesus was most assuredly not a monist. Now, many claim and make an interesting point now and then that Jesus’ words were manipulated and mistranslated. I disagree, for no texts have been protected like the Cannon of scripture. I believe that He did in fact say all of these outrageous and incredible things. It is why He was crucified and tortured more than any man who ever lived. You can believe all you want that He was a monist. You can even believe that he was a form of both. I am not the type who will tell you what you should believe. I think the evidence speaks for itself. I suppose I can agree with any philosopher that Jesus was a dualist, but more importantly, that He is God. He is good, and evil is evil. That is either true, or it isn’t. But we can’t have it both ways because in the very beginning God said, "Let there be light." And there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness (Genesis 1: 3-4)
* [CS Lewis, 'Mere Christianity']
** [Ravi Zacharius / Difficult Questions. Thoughtful Answers. | RZIM]

Doing the best I can with what I have at the moment...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by 1.61803, posted 04-24-2006 10:06 PM 1.61803 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by AdminNosy, posted 06-01-2006 10:40 AM Rob has not replied
 Message 89 by Rob, posted 06-01-2006 11:12 AM Rob has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 88 of 126 (316823)
06-01-2006 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Rob
06-01-2006 9:33 AM


W e l c o m e !
Welcome to EvC Rob. Thanks for taking the time to work on such a long post.
Now, please don't do it again. The post is too long for, perhaps, anyone to read it completely. I had a look over it and it doesn't appear to be connected to the topic of this discussion (a worse crime than length). Please try to maintain the topic and to allow the discussion to continue flowing. If you have a point to make you'll do better if you consider who your audience might be and give consideration to what will work for them.
Please do not respond to this post here. You can take it to discussions of moderation procedures. Thanks.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Introducing the new "Boot Camp" forum
Other useful links: Forum Guidelines, Observations about Evolution and This could be interesting....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Rob, posted 06-01-2006 9:33 AM Rob has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5957 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 89 of 126 (316829)
06-01-2006 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Rob
06-01-2006 9:33 AM


Re: How do we know 'what to be' when by deciding, we imply dualism either way ???
"it doesn't appear to be connected to the topic of this discussion (a worse crime than length)."
Appearences can be deceiving. Let your yes be yes and your no be no...
"If you have a point to make you'll do better if you consider who your audience might be and give consideration to what will work for them."
What will work for them? What does that mean? That I should preach to the choir. Would you then accuse me of playing cheerleader to the band?
...philosophy is either eternal or it is not philosophy. The modern habit of saying"This is my opinion, but I may be wrong" is entirely irrational. If I say that it may be wrong, I say that is not my opinion. The modern habit of saying "Every man has a different philosophy; this is my philosophy and it suits me" - the habit of saying this is mere weak-mindedness. A cosmic philosophy is not constructed to fit a man; a cosmic philosophy is constructed to fit a cosmos. A man can no more possess a private religion than he can possess a private sun and moon. -G.K. Chesterton 'introduction to the book of Job'-
Perhaps a contrary view is not welcome in this forum. That is your problem not mine. I don't censure the opposition. I am sorry about the length and understand, but such issues are weightier than most would like to know, and they prefer to simply play with fire and pretend it's a toy.
I simpy had to respond to your post, but will defer further discussion to those who are able to handle a challenge to their assumptions. Good luck with 'your reality'. I hope you like it...
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Rob, posted 06-01-2006 9:33 AM Rob has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by AdminNosy, posted 06-01-2006 11:18 AM Rob has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 90 of 126 (316830)
06-01-2006 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Rob
06-01-2006 11:12 AM


How to reply properly
Please use the little green button at the bottom right of the post you wish to reply to. This links them to make conversation easier to follow and, for those that use it, sends an email notification.
Perhaps a contrary view is not welcome in this forum.
Contrary views are very welcome in the forum. Have a look at posts over the last few days.
However, I have no idea if your view is contrary to anything or what you are trying to say. I'm simply pointing out that you may be wasting your time by overdoing it.
I also asked you NOT to post a reply in this forum. Both the original post and this one don't seem to be on topic. I will not be responding here again.
Edited by AdminNosy, : to correct author

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Rob, posted 06-01-2006 11:12 AM Rob has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024