Are God's Creations Real?

JDawg said:
By who?
Click to expand...
it is repeatedly referenced in the vedas

eg

SB 7.3.34 Let me offer my respectful obeisances unto the Supreme, who in his unlimited, unmanifested form has expanded the cosmic manifestation, the form of the totality of the universe. He possesses external and internal energies and the mixed energy called the marginal potency, which consists of all the living entities.
 
lightgigantic said:
it is repeatedly referenced in the vedas

eg

SB 7.3.34 Let me offer my respectful obeisances unto the Supreme, who in his unlimited, unmanifested form has expanded the cosmic manifestation, the form of the totality of the universe. He possesses external and internal energies and the mixed energy called the marginal potency, which consists of all the living entities.
Click to expand...

Well, geez, who's going to take the word of the skeptic when its written down so eloquently in an ancient manuscript. To be honest, the old parchment is God's surrogate, since God doesn't bother making personal appearances. That shouldn't detract from the fact that He must have taken the time to scratch out His words of wisdom on a slab of stone somewhere. That should be sufficient to erase any doubts one may have of the validity of such documents. :rolleyes:

Makes no sense for God to enter the technological age of mass media since one should be able to believe the age old truths as gospel, despite the enormous opportunity to end any doubt whatsoever. We don't need any help deciding who our God is because the Holy One has made it so clear, just so we can avoid confusion. :rolleyes:

As for those who study the stained papyra, translating text as if they were the Rosetta Stone of scripture, a special honor for being allowed to be so close to God. Surely such dedication automatically qualifies them as the purveyor of divine intelligence. We should be humbled to be in such company. :rolleyes:
 
StrangerInAStrangeLa said:
There's an old movie about god speaking to humanity thru their TVs.
Click to expand...

Not sure of how people perceived TV back in its inception. I can see those who railed against it in such a way that it was a tool of the devil. There would also be those who saw it as a great opportunity for God to take advantage of this new technology.
 
Our simplistic bantering reveals the danger of entrusting religious authority with the job of deciphering religious text. For many, their word is as if God Himself was at the podium. It is just mindboggling to think of how many people in the world take their words to heart. If the Pope were suddenly to decree that TV's or radios were really the 'burning bushes' I wonder how many people would believe it.

We're really off topic. But in some ways the 'burning bush-tv' comparison is microcosmic of how we view reality. If I were to venture back in time and stand beside someone listening to a burning bush talk would I be as eager as he to accept it as something divine. Not a chance. Is it really on fire, is there no source of sound evident, plus a number of things I would check and even then I would be skeptical because I know that the mind can be fooled.

I am in the same reality as the other guy but we view it totally different. In this case I would assume that I am correct in my being dubious. My fellow witness would claim God and I could be relatively certain it isn't. My knowledge, gained through scientific endeavor, has enabled me to see our reality in more clear detail than that of the ancient. I would have no doubt that if it was God performing these antics than He is in my reality or vice versa. When God connects to our reality is He is not really connecting because He, me & we are all in this together. Other realities should they exist have no bearing on this one since neither God nor we can leave it.
 
PsychoticEpisode said:
Well, geez, who's going to take the word of the skeptic when its written down so eloquently in an ancient manuscript.
Click to expand...
kind of bizarre how you cannot even join a discussion about the how aspects of god's nature are categorized according to scripture without drumming home your party line.

To be honest, the old parchment is God's surrogate, since God doesn't bother making personal appearances.
Click to expand...
To be honest, the only way you can say that statement with full confidence is if you having positive evidence (or even simply the means for verifying the positive evidence) that god does not exist.
So do you have it?
Yes or No?

That shouldn't detract from the fact that He must have taken the time to scratch out His words of wisdom on a slab of stone somewhere. That should be sufficient to erase any doubts one may have of the validity of such documents.
Click to expand...
I don't think that you are so much an atheist but a person who has unresolved anger issues with christians.
:eek:

Makes no sense for God to enter the technological age of mass media since one should be able to believe the age old truths as gospel, despite the enormous opportunity to end any doubt whatsoever. We don't need any help deciding who our God is because the Holy One has made it so clear, just so we can avoid confusion.
Click to expand...
ironically, its called the information age, as opposed to, say, knowledge age

As for those who study the stained papyra, translating text as if they were the Rosetta Stone of scripture, a special honor for being allowed to be so close to God.
Click to expand...
I think you would be hard pressed to find a scriptural quote that equates mere skills of translation with comprehension.

Surely such dedication automatically qualifies them as the purveyor of divine intelligence. We should be humbled to be in such company. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I think you would be hard pressed to find a scriptural quote that suggests those who can translate scripture are (more) dear to god.
 
Last edited:
lightgigantic said:
kind of bizarre how you cannot even join a discussion about the how aspects of god's nature are categorized according to scripture without drumming home your party line.
Click to expand...

I think my position on scripture is abundantly clear.

To be honest, the old parchment is God's surrogate, since God doesn't bother making personal appearances. ”

To be honest, the only way you can say that statement with full confidence is if you having positive evidence (or even simply the means for verifying the positive evidence) that god does not exist.
So do you have it?
Yes or No?
Click to expand...

To a God or a surrogate God? I see God as parchment. Is that a yes?

don't think that you are so much an atheist but a person who has unresolved anger issues with christians.
Click to expand...

Are you the guru of psychoanalysis? You're deciphering my words as if they were my surrogate.:D I know once you start it's hard to stop.

I think you would be hard pressed to find a scriptural quote that equates mere skills of translation with comprehension
Click to expand...

If my religion depended on it, I would find one in no time.

I think you would be hard pressed to find a scriptural quote that suggests those who can translate scripture are (more) dear to god.
Click to expand...

same as above
 
Psychotic Episode
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
kind of bizarre how you cannot even join a discussion about the how aspects of god's nature are categorized according to scripture without drumming home your party line.
”
I think my position on scripture is abundantly clear.
Click to expand...
sure
but what is bizarre is how you bring it to bear when its not an issue of the discussion at hand
“
To be honest, the old parchment is God's surrogate, since God doesn't bother making personal appearances.

To be honest, the only way you can say that statement with full confidence is if you having positive evidence (or even simply the means for verifying the positive evidence) that god does not exist.
So do you have it?
Yes or No?
”
To a God or a surrogate God? I see God as parchment. Is that a yes?
Click to expand...
unfortunately corrupting the terms of definition (eg "god = parchment") doesn't qualify as positive evidence .....
“
don't think that you are so much an atheist but a person who has unresolved anger issues with christians.
”
Are you the guru of psychoanalysis? You're deciphering my words as if they were my surrogate. I know once you start it's hard to stop.
Click to expand...
no great introspection required
just merely noting how your talks of the pitfalls of religion more often than not wind up being beratings of xtianity

“
I think you would be hard pressed to find a scriptural quote that equates mere skills of translation with comprehension
”
If my religion depended on it, I would find one in no time.

“
I think you would be hard pressed to find a scriptural quote that suggests those who can translate scripture are (more) dear to god.
”
same as above
Click to expand...
given that your atheist argument against religion (whether or not that is your "religion" ... well we will save that topic for another occasion perhaps ....) depends on it, it seems you are offering some sort of strawman argument, since your notion of theism is not even one theists advocate.
:shrug:
 
lightgigantic said:
sure
but what is bizarre is how you bring it to bear when its not an issue of the discussion at hand
Click to expand...

I'm not the scripture quoting type. I believe you started it.

unfortunately corrupting the terms of definition (eg "god = parchment") doesn't qualify as positive evidence .....
Click to expand...

Maybe not but it is the only thing you've got. God speaks to you about life via ink so He is closer to being parchment than anything else.

just merely noting how your talks of the pitfalls of religion more often than not wind up being beratings of xtianity
Click to expand...

And yours compliment your religion. Not really sure of yours really. Sorry, never bothered to ask. Are you in some offshoot sect, a cow worshipper, untouchable perhaps?

given that your atheist argument against religion depends on it, it seems you are offering some sort of strawman argument, since your notion of theism is not even one theists advocate.
Click to expand...

If I had a religion with a bible I could find a quote for any topic. Religious folk do it all the time. What's so unusual?
 
lightgigantic said:
Psychotic Episode

sure
but what is bizarre is how you bring it to bear when its not an issue of the discussion at hand

unfortunately corrupting the terms of definition (eg "god = parchment") doesn't qualify as positive evidence .....

no great introspection required
just merely noting how your talks of the pitfalls of religion more often than not wind up being beratings of xtianity


given that your atheist argument against religion (whether or not that is your "religion" ... well we will save that topic for another occasion perhaps ....) depends on it, it seems you are offering some sort of strawman argument, since your notion of theism is not even one theists advocate.
Click to expand...

just merely noting how your talks of the pitfalls of The Society Of MakeBelieve more often than not wind up being beratings of cruel & ridiculous fairy tales

since your notion of makebelieve is not even one makebelievists advocate.
 
Pscychotic episode
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
sure
but what is bizarre is how you bring it to bear when its not an issue of the discussion at hand
”
I'm not the scripture quoting type. I believe you started it.
Click to expand...
for as long as you want to launch arguments against the conclusions of scripture, it could be in your interests to be a bit more familiar with them
“
unfortunately corrupting the terms of definition (eg "god = parchment") doesn't qualify as positive evidence .....
”
Maybe not but it is the only thing you've got. .
Click to expand...
what makes you say that?
“
just merely noting how your talks of the pitfalls of religion more often than not wind up being beratings of xtianity
”
And yours compliment your religion.
Click to expand...
actually 9 times out of 10 I merely talk of general guidelines for theism

Not really sure of yours really. Sorry, never bothered to ask. Are you in some offshoot sect, a cow worshipper, untouchable perhaps?
Click to expand...
its not so important to discuss at this point
we're talking about theism in general

“
given that your atheist argument against religion depends on it, it seems you are offering some sort of strawman argument, since your notion of theism is not even one theists advocate.
”
If I had a religion with a bible I could find a quote for any topic. Religious folk do it all the time. What's so unusual?
Click to expand...
hence persons of close to astute intelligence tend to valid scriptural opinions with not only scripture but scriptural commentary
 
lightgigantic said:
for as long as you want to launch arguments against the conclusions of scripture, it could be in your interests to be a bit more familiar with them
Click to expand...

Give me a library of scripture and it wouldn't make a difference. I merely criticize their use and the high likelihood of the user finding whatever they want to discern from a passage.

hence persons of close to astute** intelligence tend to valid scriptural opinions with not only scripture but scriptural commentary
Click to expand...

**LG...you spelled statue wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top