07 Dec 10
Originally posted by jaywillBig world Jay. Jesus helps many. Jesus seems to be a reality for many. But not all.
[b]============================
But all the while God was just in the process of expanding His territory. We, as God's agents, are here to colonize this part of the universe.By colonize I mean bring more Light into this part of the cosmos. Gods Light. We are all here together to raise this planet from her slumber and take up our immutable posts as et ...[text shortened]...
Seems to be that you would more closely examine the only One who can take us there.
And never will be all. Indeed I acknowledge Jesus on some level and am influenced by his example, but I am equally and more influenced by other "holy people". Thats just me Jay, always will be.
08 Dec 10
Originally posted by avalanchethecat“...This sounds to me like a statement of belief. ...”
[b]...'nothingness' cannot exist...
This sounds to me like a statement of belief. Nothing could quite conceivably have existed prior to the inception of the universe, could it not?[/b]
all assertions express beliefs. But not all belief is religious/superstitious/irrational/baseless etc.
The reason I believe that 'nothingness' cannot exist is similar to why I believe that you cannot have q and not q.
'nothingness' is just an abstraction because even a vacuum is something and to talk about pure 'nothing' existing makes no sense.
If 'nothing' once existed, then when or where did that 'nothing' exist? Whatever answer you give to that, you have to specify a place or a time but then that means you are saying time or space existed then so 'nothing didn't exist then because time and space existed then.
08 Dec 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI disagree. There is no need to specify a place where nothing existed, nor a time save to suggest that it may have existed prior to the existence of time or space-time. Perhaps 'nothing' exists beyond the expanding boundary (assuming such a thing exists) of the universe. This seems a perfectly reasonable speculation to me. Until such a time as the mechanism for the creation of the universe is known, any belief as to what preceded it, if indeed anything did, seems entirely baseless to me. I do not understand the relevance of q, perhaps you could elucidate.
“...This sounds to me like a statement of belief. ...”
all assertions express beliefs. But not all belief is religious/superstitious/irrational/baseless etc.
The reason I believe that 'nothingness' cannot exist is similar to why I believe that you cannot have q and not q.
'nothingness' is just an abstraction because even a vacuum is something pace existed then so 'nothing didn't exist then because time and space existed then.
08 Dec 10
Originally posted by Agerg...it was most certainly not "nothing"...
I doubt it; whether or not one can define what existed prior to the conception of the universe (and I doubt they ever will - at least in any valid sense); it was most certainly not "nothing" - some mechanism gave rise to it...something existed.
An empty box is still a box!
Really? And how do you arrive at this certainty?
09 Dec 10
1 edit
Originally posted by avalanchethecat“...There is no need to specify a place where nothing existed, ...”
I disagree. There is no need to specify a place where nothing existed, nor a time save to suggest that it may have existed prior to the existence of time or space-time. Perhaps 'nothing' exists beyond the expanding boundary (assuming such a thing exists) of the universe. This seems a perfectly reasonable speculation to me. Until such a time as th ...[text shortened]... entirely baseless to me. I do not understand the relevance of q, perhaps you could elucidate.
how can something have existed if it existed at NO time and at NO place?
Surely, by any reasonable definition of the word “existed”, if you say something never existed at any time nor at any place, that is the same as saying it never existed? (for the sake of argument, I am using the past tense here. But I could just as easily use the future or present tense)
I mean, if I say “at no time nor at no place did a blue cat exist” then, regardless of whether that assertion is correct, it is just another way of saying “there never existed a blue cat”; right?
09 Dec 10
2 edits
Originally posted by karoly aczel==================================
Big world Jay. Jesus helps many. Jesus seems to be a reality for many. But not all.
And never will be all. Indeed I acknowledge Jesus on some level and am influenced by his example, but I am equally and more influenced by other "holy people". Thats just me Jay, always will be.
Big world Jay. Jesus helps many. Jesus seems to be a reality for many. But not all.
And never will be all. Indeed I acknowledge Jesus on some level and am influenced by his example, but I am equally and more influenced by other "holy people". Thats just me Jay, always will be.
==================================
Considering those whom you consider, can you find them making such claims for themselves as what Christ made ? If not then you may be exalting them beyond what they themselves would agree.
For example can you locate similar sentences in your other "holy men"?
"All authority has been given to Me in heaven and earth." (Matt. 28:18)
Did you other "holy men" teach that all authority in heaven and earth had been given to one of them ?
"For just as the Father has life in Himself, so He gave to the Son to also have life in Himself; And He gave Him authority to execute judgment because He is the Son of Man." (John 5:26,27)
Did any of your candidates teach that they were the a very source of divine life? Did any of them claim that all mankind is to be judged by them ?
"Do not marvel at this, for an houir is coming in which all in the tombs will hear His voice and will come forth: those who have done good, to the resurrection of life; and those who have practiced evil, to the resurrection of judgment." (John 5:28,29)
Jesus said ALL dead lying in tombs would hear His voice and be resurrected unto some kind of judgment by Him.
Did any one of your other "holy men" make such a claim ? If not I'd like to know why not.
"For neither does the Father judge anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son, in order that all may honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him." (John 5:22,23)
Is there another "holy man" you know that claimed that God has placed the responsibility to judge all mankind into his hands ?
"Truly, truly, I say to you, He who bears My word and believes Him who sent Me has eternal life, and does not come into jugdment but has passed out of death into life." (John 5:24)
Is there another "holy man" you know who made such a universal claim ? Whoever believes in him has passed out of death into divine and eternal life. And such a one will not come into judgment.
Who else made such a claim ?
"I can do nothing from Myself; as I hear, I judge, and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will but the will of Him who sent Me." (John 5:20)
What other "holy man" taught of such total oneness with the will of God ?
09 Dec 10
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonFine logic, however I did not suggest that nothing may have existed, but rather that nothing may have existed. I suggest that there may have been no time and no place. If so, then of course, nothing existed. Ain't English grand...
“...There is no need to specify a place where nothing existed, ...”
how can something have existed if it existed at NO time and at NO place?
Surely, by any reasonable definition of the word “existed”, if you say something never existed at any time nor at any place, that is the same as saying it never existed? (for the sake of argument, I am using ...[text shortened]... assertion is correct, it is just another way of saying “there never existed a blue cat”; right?
10 Dec 10
2 edits
Originally posted by avalanchethecatOh sorry; I had misunderstood your meaning 🙂
Fine logic, however I did not suggest that nothing may have existed, but rather that nothing may have existed. I suggest that there may have been no time and no place. If so, then of course, nothing existed. Ain't English grand...
The English language is inadvertently designed to give rise to such misunderstandings.
Perhaps, in the future, there may be a kind of universal 'metric' language invented that is designed so that it is literally impossible to make an ambiguous statement of any kind in that language including any a statement with more than one possible interpretation so that each statement can only be interpreted in one way.
12 Dec 10
Originally posted by jaywillThe Zen Patriarchs, the Sufi Masters.
[b]==================================
Big world Jay. Jesus helps many. Jesus seems to be a reality for many. But not all.
And never will be all. Indeed I acknowledge Jesus on some level and am influenced by his example, but I am equally and more influenced by other "holy people". Thats just me Jay, always will be.
================================= ...[text shortened]... other "holy man" taught of such total oneness with the will of God ?
Look,not all "holy men" said the same things-but a lot of them said similar things.
If they all said exactly the same thing then it would just be a matter of who said it first.
And the greatest holy men probably didn't say nothing at all.
I've sat with a guy at a park bench at 4am for about 2hours and while I was with him he said nothing. I could just feel the energy. It became light all around, but the sun was not coming up. He was helping me see a higher dimension.
Words would,ve ruined the experience.