15 Apr 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadI beleive that the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus is quite questionable, but that's another story.
I disagree. I believe most theists include somewhere in their definition of God, specific properties that can be either confirmed or disproved.
For example, a fairly large percentage of Christians claim that Jesus died and was resurrected. This claim is potentially provable or disprovable. We may lack the tools or the necessary evidence, but there is no ...[text shortened]... ed by theists, but it is most definitely not the complete definition given by most theists.
"God is the ground of all beings" means that the ultimate causation of the existence of the observer universe is attributed to God, and this claim is accepted by all the theists regardless of their religion
😵
15 Apr 10
Originally posted by black beetleOf course we must not leap to the conclusion that this causation is anchored to the end of a long thread spanning the gap from THEN to NOW. Cyclical causation is also a firm favourite among non Judaeo-Christian folks.
"God is the ground of all beings" means that the ultimate causation of the existence of the observer universe is attributed to God, and this claim is accepted by all the theists regardless of their religion
😵
I have heard, too, of occasionalism, both sacred -- every instant is divinely occasioned -- and secular -- objects occasion each other.
15 Apr 10
Originally posted by Bosse de NageWe agree😵
Of course we must not leap to the conclusion that this causation is anchored to the end of a long thread spanning the gap from THEN to NOW. Cyclical causation is also a firm favourite among non Judaeo-Christian folks.
I have heard, too, of occasionalism, both sacred -- every instant is divinely occasioned -- and secular -- objects occasion each other.
15 Apr 10
Originally posted by black beetleBut it is in principle provable one way or another is it not?
I beleive that the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus is quite questionable, but that's another story.
"God is the ground of all beings" means that the ultimate causation of the existence of the observer universe is attributed to God, and this claim is accepted by all the theists regardless of their religion
😵
It is not accepted by all theists.
It is also either a somewhat vague claim, or has the potential of being disproved.
I for one doubt the validity of a claim of causation of the universe on the basis that causation only has meaning within the universe ie it cannot be applied to the universe as a whole.
15 Apr 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadI beleive that Jesus' crucifixion is questioned because the pieces of information available in the Gospels are not in my opinion convincing.
But it is in principle provable one way or another is it not?
[b]"God is the ground of all beings" means that the ultimate causation of the existence of the observer universe is attributed to God, and this claim is accepted by all the theists regardless of their religion
😵
It is not accepted by all theists.
It is also either a somewhat vague ...[text shortened]... ation only has meaning within the universe ie it cannot be applied to the universe as a whole.[/b]
The core of this definition is accepted by the Abrahamic religions, by Hinduism and by many Buddhists amongst else, although the so called "God" / "Creator" has different properties from religion to religion all around the dial. And what do you mean when you say that this definition has meaning solely "within the universe"? "God" is understood either with dualist or with non-dualist terms/ properties, but remains in both cases the "ground of all beings".
According, for example to Bhagavad Gita, the observer universe is concidered "a dream of the God", whilst for Spinoza "God" is the universe itself;
the Brahmins beleive that Brahman is "the ground of all beings", and the meditator has to trancend his mind in order to become unified with Brahman using as interface his purified atman (soul), which is clearly considered different than his mind;
the Taoists have a sole aim: they want through meditation to promote their personal energy in a mind-only schema unified with the cosmic energy of the universe, which is considered "the ground of all beings";
the Sufis drink the Wine and swirling they are becoming one with "God", the "ground of all beings";
😵
15 Apr 10
Originally posted by black beetleThe crucifixion is also questionable. According to one version, which rapidly bifurcates, Jesus pulled a switcheroo and was never crucified at all, making off to France, India or elsewhere, possibly with Mary Magdalene, who possibly was the real ring leader of the insurrection, nobody would suspect a woman ...
Oh, I have to stand corrected regarding my above post -I meant "resurrection" and not "crucifixtion", so the correct phrase is the following:
"I beleive that Jesus' ressurection is questioned because the pieces of information available in the Gospels are not in my opinion convincing."
15 Apr 10
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThen let Lalla ease you:
Mind is whirling 😕
"I will weep and weep for you, O Mind;
The world has caught you in its spell.
Though you cling to them with the anchor of steel,
Not even the shadow of the things you love
Will go with you when you are dead.
Why then have you forgot your own true Self?"
😵
15 Apr 10
Originally posted by Bosse de NageYes indeed😵
The crucifixion is also questionable. According to one version, which rapidly bifurcates, Jesus pulled a switcheroo and was never crucified at all, making off to France, India or elsewhere, possibly with Mary Magdalene, who possibly was the real ring leader of the insurrection, nobody would suspect a woman ...
15 Apr 10
Originally posted by black beetleBut do you agree that there theoretically may exist solid evidence one way or the other that could be called "proof"? And that such evidence would therefore prove, or disprove the existence of the Christian God as commonly defined to include Jesus' resurrection?
I beleive that Jesus' crucifixion is questioned because the pieces of information available in the Gospels are not in my opinion convincing.
The core of this definition is accepted by the Abrahamic religions, by Hinduism and by many Buddhists amongst else,
Even if this is true, you still cannot claim that it: is accepted by all the theists regardless of their religion
The vast majority of theists wouldn't even know what you are talking about, as I did not until you explained it, and even now I am not sure what you mean. How can you claim that they accept something they don't understand?
15 Apr 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes.
But do you agree that there theoretically may exist solid evidence one way or the other that could be called "proof"? And that such evidence would therefore prove, or disprove the existence of the Christian God as commonly defined to include Jesus' resurrection?
[b]The core of this definition is accepted by the Abrahamic religions, by Hinduism and by m ...[text shortened]... not sure what you mean. How can you claim that they accept something they don't understand?
Methinks you are not well versed regarding the miscellaneous religious core beliefs of the religions I mentioned. These religions are followed by the majority of the theist community around the dial; once you study the core beliefs of each one of these religions you will see that all of them are based on the claim "God is the ground of all beings". This is the reason why I claim that all these theists, the believers of these different religions, they accept this specific belief, which they understand it as I told you regardless of the differences of the other doctrines of their respectful religions
😵
16 Apr 10
Originally posted by black beetleI used to be a Christian, yet I still don't understand what you mean. So my existence proves your claim false. The point I am making is that the vast majority of theists are not well versed regarding the supposedly core beliefs of their religions, and even when they are, they don't necessarily believe them.
Methinks you are not well versed regarding the miscellaneous religious core beliefs of the religions I mentioned.
For example I have seen the results of surveys where a significant number of people claiming to be Christian said they did not believe in an afterlife.