The Truth About God.

[SpiritualSon]

The truth about God:

God is nothingness.

when an idea of nothingness enters a person, any idea of the essence of things perishes,and when an idea of the essence of things perishes, so does any idea of the thought,intellect,affection, love, or will in people and in angels, which are in every instance impossible in a state of nothingness.

Those who don't believe in God are cut off from communion with the angels of heaven, and by this exclusion he brings himself into communion with the satans of hell, and thinks exactly like them. All satans deny God and have foolish ideas about the spiritual side of the church, and a person who is linked with them does likewise.

When such a man is in his spirit, as he is left privately to himself, he suffers his thoughts to be led by the delights of evil and falsity which he has conceived and brought forth in himself.

He then thinks that God has no existence, but is merely a word uttered from the pulpit to hold the common people in obedience to the laws of justice, which are, the laws of society.

He also thinks the Word, from which ministers proclaim a God, to be a mass of missionary tales, which have been made holy by authority, and the Decalogue or catechism to be merely a little book to be thrown aside when it has been well worn by the hands of little boys, since it teaches that parents ought to be honored, forbids murder, adultery, theft, and false witness; and who does not learn the same things from civil law? He thinks of the church as an assembly of simple, credulous, and weak-minded people.

Harry

 

[Lightkeeper]

Nothingness allows the true essence to flow through.

 

[Thrasymachus]

The truth about God:

God is nothingness.

when an idea of nothingness enters a person, any idea of the essence of things perishes,and when an idea of the essence of things perishes, so does any idea of the thought,intellect,affection, love, or will in people and in angels, which are in every instance impossible in a state of nothingness.

This argument is completely fallacious and is obviously not logically held together. Nothingness is not an idea; it is nothingness. Once someone makes nothingness into an idea, it is no longer nothingess. . . .

And as for angels, you don't really believe in such things; you just force yourself to think that you do. Trust me, it's really not uncommon. Most people don't really believe in such things, in fact, it is most likely that they expect not to ever come across such things in their entire existence! Nobody expects to wake up one night and see some fictitious entity by their bedside. Sheer non-sense, I say.

Those who don't believe in God are cut off from communion with the angels of heaven, and by this exclusion he brings himself into communion with the satans of hell, and thinks exactly like them. All satans deny God and have foolish ideas about the spiritual side of the church, and a person who is linked with them does likewise.

And how do you claim to know such a thing? Is your assertion rationally or empirically founded, or is it simply an unjustified belief? If not, what evidence justifies such a belief? Have you discovered some new means of perception that the rest of humanity is currently unaware of? I won't limit you to the arbitrary five senses, however if you have discovered some new means, then you must support how it is that you discovered such means.

What is God? If I have been 'cut off' from 'God', then why do you bother to explain such things to me?

When such a man is in his spirit, as he is left privately to himself, he suffers his thoughts to be led by the delights of evil and falsity which he has conceived and brought forth in himself.

What is a spirit and how do you claim to know that we, indeed, have one?

He then thinks that God has no existence, but is merely a word uttered from the pulpit to hold the common people in obedience to the laws of justice, which are, the laws of society.

Again I ask, what is God? If you cannot offer a positive definition, then how are you able to affirm the existence of God?

He also thinks the Word, from which ministers proclaim a God, to be a mass of missionary tales, which have been made holy by authority, and the Decalogue or catechism to be merely a little book to be thrown aside when it has been well worn by the hands of little boys, since it teaches that parents ought to be honored, forbids murder, adultery, theft, and false witness; and who does not learn the same things from civil law? He thinks of the church as an assembly of simple, credulous, and weak-minded people.

You're missing a couple more important adjectives that should not be left out: GULLIBLE, IGNORANT, BOTCHED, INSECURE, BARBARIC, PRIMITIVE, UNINTELLIGENT, SUPERSTITIOUS, and INSIPID.

 

[Thrasymachus]

Nothingness allows the true essence to flow through.

That statement does not resonate with me. Please elaborate on what it is that you are trying to communicate.

Nothingness cannot have anything 'flowing' through it, nor can it consist of anything, for it is nothingness and nothing can be a part of nothing. Think about it. . . .

 

[SpiritualSon]

Nothingness allows the true essence to flow through.

God is Good itself and Truth itself, and these two constitute His Divine Essence. In the earliest ages it was seen that good and truth are the two essentials to which all the infinite things that are in God and proceed from God have reference.

In succeeding ages,as they withdrew their minds from heaven and immersed them in things worldly and corporeal, gradually became unable to see this, for they gradually ceased to know what love is in its essence, and what wisdom is in its essence, not knowing that love abstracted from a form is impossible, and that good operates in a human form and through a form. This means Jehovah God became Man in order to show us how to love.

Since, then, God is the Itself and the Only, and the first substance and form, the essence of which is good and truth, and since from Him were made all things that were made, it follows that He created the universe with each thing and all things of it from good by means of truth,and not from nothingness.From nothingness comes nothingness

Consequently the Divine Good, together with the Divine Truth, is in each and all created subjects. good, moreover, is not merely the essence that forms all things, it is also that which unites and conjoins them, and thus, when they are formed, holds them in connection.

Good is of love,and truth is of wisdom. Good and truth is also of the will and understanding. Without the will and understanding in man the mind goes into nothingness,and becomes like the beast,which has no will and understanding,but just lives and does its own thing.
Harry

 

[MarkT]

This is a good point. Technically nothing is ever 100% fact. We have our scientific laws, such as gravity, but even those are up for contestation any day of the week, that's what science is, after all-- proving and disproving theories. Ya gotta admit though-- the theory of gravity is pretty solid. Likewise, all other 'scientific facts' didn't obtain such status because we thought their names were pretty or something ridiculous like that.

No. Truth isn't a scientific term. It's a meaningless concept in science. Facts are observable. For example, fossils are laid down in layers. Ideas are induced and assumptions are made.

The effects of gravity are observable. What theory are you referring to?

The fact is, the existence of God can not be induced. It must be known a priori. The knowledge of God comes from God.

Since God can't be proven false, the existence of God is not a scientific hypothesis. I can't induce the knowledge of God into your mind.

This is a generation of inductive thinkers, wide open to Satan and his lies, who seem to have lost the ability to reason deductively because of the scientific method. The trouble is the scientific way of thinking never leads to the truth, only more questions.

Science is a world in which infinite sequences exist and hypothetical models are truth.

 

[MarkT]

Scientific "facts" or "knowledge" are often teleologically induced. The culture has alot to do with what people believe.

But the knowledge of God is revealed. His words are in the Bible.

 

[SpiritualSon]

Scientific "facts" or "knowledge" are often teleologically induced. The culture has alot to do with what people believe.

But the knowledge of God is revealed. His words are in the Bible.

Mark,

The unity of God is inmostly inscribed on the mind of every man, since it lies at the center of all that flows from God into the soul of man.

It has not descended into the human understanding, for the reason that the knowledges by which man must ascend to meet God have been lacking.

For everyone must prepare the way for God, that is, must prepare himself for reception.This is done by means of true knowledge.

The knowledge that have been lacking, and that enable the understanding to penetrate far enough to see that God is one,not three, and that more than one Divine Essence is impossible. More than one Divine Essence means a son of God born from eternity before creation. A son of God before creation contradicts the says of Jehovah God in Isaiah.

Am I not Jehovah, and there is no God beside Me? There is no righteous God and Saviour beside Me. Isa. 45:21, 22.

I am Jehovah, and there is no Saviour beside Me. Isa. 43:11.

It is said that the man understanding raises by true knowledge of God,but the truth is that his understanding is raised up by God,not by himself.

For in acquiring knowledges for himself man exercises his freedom of choice, but as he acquires for himself knowledges from the Word by means of his understanding he prepares the way by which God comes down and raises him up.

The knowledges by means of which the human understanding rises up to God, God holding it in His hand and leading it, may be likened to the steps of the ladder seen in a dream by Jacob, which was set upon the earth with the top of it reaching to heaven, by which the angels ascended while Jehovah stood above it (Gen. 28:12, 13).

Harry

 

[Ceridwen018]

Mark T,

No. Truth isn't a scientific term. It's a meaningless concept in science. Facts are observable. For example, fossils are laid down in layers. Ideas are induced and assumptions are made.

Agreed, but I don't think I'm catching your point here. I never said 'truth' was a scientific 'term'.

The effects of gravity are observable. What theory are you referring to?

I would assume that I was talking about the theory of gravity, derived from said observations.

The fact is, the existence of God can not be induced. It must be known a priori. The knowledge of God comes from God.

That's circular reasoning, aka, it doesn't hold water. That's like me saying that I'm Abraham Lincoln, my proof being because I say I am. In order to truly prove something you need an outside source. Good luck finding one though-- so far I've yet to meet someone who can.

'A priori' is just a fancy way to say 'gullible'. It really is: believing in something with no evidence to back it up. How is that supposed to work? Do you remember my unicorn analogy? Are you saying that you believe in unicorns, because technically they exist a priori. Seriously though-- if you allow yourself to believe in things a priori, then you must believe in everything, because if you don't, you are applying a selective acceptance which shoots to **** the validity of all of your other beliefs.

the existence of God is not a scientific hypothesis.

Amen to that, brother.

I can't induce the knowledge of God into your mind.

Actually, with the right evidence... ok, with any evidence, you probably could...

This is a generation of inductive thinkers, wide open to Satan and his lies

Soon they'll be dancing! mg:
Hey honey, if your doctrine and faith can't stand up to a little questioning, don't blame Satan. Ya know, you sound awfully like a Puritan in this quote. "There will be no deviation from THE PLAN!!"

who seem to have lost the ability to reason deductively because of the scientific method

Actually, the scientific method does allow for deductive reasoning to a certain degree, but you see, deductive reasoning is so much less reliable than inductive, and I think we'd both agree that reliability is of utmost importance...or not...

The trouble is the scientific way of thinking never leads to the truth, only more questions

Ah yes, but that's the beauty of it! There is always more to learn! Someday perhaps I suppose we could know all the answers, but for now, with our limited technology and knowledge, theories will have to do. But wait-- you seem to be speaking in a context which suggests you have an alternative source for obtaining truth...you wouldn't be thinking of the bible, would you? If you could clarify to me exactly what truths the bible reveals about the world (besides the sun revolving around the flat earth), that'd be super.

Science is a world in which infinite sequences exist and hypothetical models are truth.

In a sense, absolutely. What's your alternative?

Scientific "facts" or "knowledge" are often teleologically induced. The culture has alot to do with what people believe.

I'm not so sure about that. Science is an international language, like math. They theory of gravity is not altered through cultural influences. Religion on the other hand... well, just take a look around these forums.

But the knowledge of God is revealed. His words are in the Bible.

Again, you use circular reasoning.

 

[MarkT]

This has been done in the world since the time of the Council of Nicene in the year 325AD, which introduced the doctrine of three Divine persons from eternity, and thereby turned the church into a theater furnished with painted hangings, wherein the actors were representing new plays.

That's right. The Creeds actually separate people from the words in the Bible. The churches say you have to believe the Creed to be a Christian but of course they're wrong. The Nicene Creed, for example is a nice statement of faith but it's not the perfect light we see things in. Furthermore holding to a Creed instead of gaining understanding doesn't allow the Holy Spirit to led you and it doesn't allow the person to be corrected using scripture.

Christ is our authority. It was written we would be taught by God.

I would like to use the same tools Jesus used to make my understanding. Jesus used the analogy of a "cup" to describe man.

The outside, the inside and the content of it.

The Word became one of us, a "cup" in other words. He was a man in that respect. However he was conceived by the Holy Spirit.

The outside of the cup (flesh) was the image of God, so that seeing him was seeing God's image. The inside of the cup (soul) was the person of the Son of God, Christ. The content of the cup was the Spirit of God, the Holy Spirit.

Christ was raised in God's Word, a spiritual body, not a spirit but a body, an outside of the cup.

When we believe in his words we gain a spiritual body like his so that our soul can enter the kingdom.

 

[MarkT]

That's circular reasoning, aka, it doesn't hold water. That's like me saying that I'm Abraham Lincoln, my proof being because I say I am. In order to truly prove something you need an outside source. Good luck finding one though-- so far I've yet to meet someone who can.

Not at all. In order for someone to say they are Abraham Lincoln they would have to have a prior knowledge of Abraham Lincoln. They would have to know who he was.

The TOE for example isn't supported by any a priori knowledge.

It actually falls into the same category as Thor, unicorns, etc. They're all induced ideas, inventions.

For example, when people needed to explain lightening, they invented Thor. Necessity is the mother of invention. When they needed to explain a flat horizon, they invented a flat earth.

Actually your strawman argument was an argument against your belief. When people don't have enough information, they invent things from their imagination.

Christians, however, believe in the "words" of Jesus Christ who was the Word of God; in God Almighty the Creator and in His Holy Spirit and in the prophets who were sent to tell us of his coming.

So a Christian understanding comes from hearing or in this case reading the "words" Jesus said to the Apostles. The reason they make sense to us is because we are of God, we knew him a long time ago.

'A priori' is just a fancy way to say 'gullible'. It really is: believing in something with no evidence to back it up. How is that supposed to work? Do you remember my unicorn analogy? Are you saying that you believe in unicorns, because technically they exist a priori.

No they don't exist a priori. That's my point. I've never seen a unicorn so I'm like you in a way but I wouldn't accept "evidence" of a unicorn without knowing they exist/seeing one. If it's not evidence of anything I've seen or experienced, it's not "evidence" of anything in my book.

Seriously though-- if you allow yourself to believe in things a priori, then you must believe in everything, because if you don't, you are applying a selective acceptance which shoots to **** the validity of all of your other beliefs.

No a priori knowledge is something which is necessarily true. For instance, without the knowledge of 4 things it wouldn't occur to us to add 2 and 2 together.

 

[MarkT]

It could be the reason it doesn't occur to you to read the Bible is because you're not of God. You have no a priori knowledge of Him. If you did, you would be drawn to his words like a moth to the light.

 

[Ceridwen018]

Mark T,

Not at all. In order for someone to say they are Abraham Lincoln they would have to have a prior knowledge of Abraham Lincoln. They would have to know who he was.

Granted, bad example. But the point here is, that god cannot be proven by a book that he himself 'wrote'.

For example, when people needed to explain lightening, they invented Thor. Necessity is the mother of invention. When they needed to explain a flat horizon, they invented a flat earth.

I absolutely agree with this. This is how I think the concept of a higher power, and the resulting religion came about: people needed to fill in their gaps of understanding of their environments, as well as their emotional gaps. One question I have for you then, is this: how can you belive that mythological gods such as Thor were concieved in such a fashion, but not your own?

No they don't exist a priori. That's my point. I've never seen a unicorn so I'm like you in a way but I wouldn't accept "evidence" of a unicorn without knowing they exist/seeing one. If it's not evidence of anything I've seen or experienced, it's not "evidence" of anything in my book.

Perhaps i'm not fully understanding the term 'a priori' here. That aside, how have you 'seen' or 'experienced' your god? How can you be sure that these 'sights' and 'experiences' are the result of god and not something else?

It could be the reason it doesn't occur to you to read the Bible is because you're not of God. You have no a priori knowledge of Him. If you did, you would be drawn to his words like a moth to the light.

Let me tell you, I have read the bible. I used to be a diehard Catholic, and I feel that it was my intensive biblical study which eventually led to my present belief system.

 

[(Q)]

It actually falls into the same category as Thor, unicorns, etc. They're all induced ideas, inventions.

For example, when people needed to explain lightening, they invented Thor. Necessity is the mother of invention. When they needed to explain a flat horizon, they invented a flat earth.

… and when they needed answers for their existence they invented religion.

Actually your strawman argument was an argument against your belief. When people don't have enough information, they invent things from their imagination.

Why is not possible that God was merely a necessity of the times invented to explain the world around us?

 

[MarkT]

It actually falls into the same category as Thor, unicorns, etc. They're all induced ideas, inventions.

For example, when people needed to explain lightening, they invented Thor. Necessity is the mother of invention. When they needed to explain a flat horizon, they invented a flat earth.

… and when they needed answers for their existence they invented religion.

And when they needed answers to explain religion they invented an explanation.

I don't know that it follows that people without any knowledge of God would invent God to explain their existence. Perhaps that's what religion is to you and you're reasoning from this to interpret the cause.

But we know people used to worship many gods. But God didn't speak to them through his prophets. He didn't give them his Law. He didn't send his Son to them.

We believe in the Holy One of God who became one of us. Lucky for us Jesus wasn't invented. We were being taught by God.

Actually your strawman argument was an argument against your belief. When people don't have enough information, they invent things from their imagination.

Why is not possible that God was merely a necessity of the times invented to explain the world around us?

You mean like the TOE? I don't know.

I imagine there were alot of people like you who used to think God was invented. People didn't believe in God back then. They stopped listening to him and started practicing religion.

When Jesus was born they wanted to kill him. When he said he came from God, they wanted to stone him. Nobody in the synagogue wanted to hear his teaching. I guess they were too busy practicing their religion to want to hear from the Son of God.

But my argument was aimed at your belief. My belief comes from reading the Bible. I didn't invent anything.

 

[painted wolf]

But we know people used to worship many gods. But God didn't speak to them through his prophets. He didn't give them his Law. He didn't send his Son to them.

actually many people STILL worship many gods... Gods that sent/spoke through prophets (not a singularly jeudao-christian consept) and clame to have thier laws given to them by God/s and their are other religions that believe in a son/daughter of god visiting them and teaching them... so still nothing new...

How do you know that the prophets of other religions weren't sent by god?

wa:-do

 

[MarkT]

I absolutely agree with this. This is how I think the concept of a higher power, and the resulting religion came about: people needed to fill in their gaps of understanding of their environments, as well as their emotional gaps. One question I have for you then, is this: how can you belive that mythological gods such as Thor were concieved in such a fashion, but not your own?

I have an a priori knowledge of God.

I don't know why things aren't possible. I don't know the answers to hypothetical questions. I can't debate the meaning of unobserved facts.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I have an a priori knowledge of God.

You mean to say that you grew up in a family/culture that believes in God, and you inherited that belief. People do not have a priori knowledge of God anymore than they have a priori knowledge of Thor--we are not born with these beleifs.

 

[(Q)]

And when they needed answers to explain religion they invented an explanation.

Perhaps, or they simply turned to science for answers when none were available from religion.

I don't know that it follows that people without any knowledge of God would invent God to explain their existence.

But you said it yourself:

It actually falls into the same category as Thor, unicorns, etc. They're all induced ideas, inventions.

For example, when people needed to explain lightening, they invented Thor. Necessity is the mother of invention.

How did the Vikings have knowledge of Thor when they invented him? How did anyone have knowledge of unicorns?

You provided the reasoning and now you’re discarding the reasoning when it comes to your own beliefs.

In other words, you are contradicting yourself.

But God didn't speak to them through his prophets. He didn't give them his Law. He didn't send his Son to them.

Self-proclaimed prophets stand on street corners every day – do you believe what they have to say? Why or why not?

What about Muhammad? He was supposed to be a prophet.

Perhaps their gods DID give them their Law – how would you know otherwise?

A son? Are you talking about Jesus Christ? Did you know that was not his name? Did you know Jesus means ‘Messiah’ in Latin and Christ means ‘Messiah’ in Greek? How did he get that name?

You mean like the TOE? I don't know.

No, I mean your God.

But my argument was aimed at your belief. My belief comes from reading the Bible. I didn't invent anything.

No, it was all invented a long time ago and is now in print – it’s called the Bible. You are reading a book in which all the ideals contained within were invented from mans imagination.

Quite frankly, your arguments are hypocritical. On one hand you are perfectly willing to dismiss the beliefs of others as, ‘inventions born of necessity from the imagination’ while on the other hand refuse to apply your reasoning to your own beliefs.

You should therefore believe in Thor and unicorns with the same verve as you do your god.

You also didn’t answer my question. Is it because you can’t answer the question? I’ll post it again.

Why is not possible that God was merely a necessity of the times invented to explain the world around us?

 

[Ceridwen018]

Q, painted wolf-- I agree with all you've said!

Mark T,

And when they needed answers to explain religion they invented an explanation.

You can't 'invent' and explanation-- you must observe and study one.

I don't know that it follows that people without any knowledge of God would invent God to explain their existence.

You know what else is weird? That people with no knowledge of alternative means of transportaion could somehow invent a wheel...

But we know people used to worship many gods. But God didn't speak to them through his prophets. He didn't give them his Law. He didn't send his Son to them.

I am quite sure that those ancient peoples would disagree. After all, how is it that they could be as convinced of their religion as you are of yours without having similar 'experiences'.

I'd also like to point out to you, that the whole idea of the main god sending his son to Earth to mingle with the humans, and then that son dying somehow in an ultimate sacrifice is actually ridiculously common. Let's see here... we have Hercules, son of Zeus (Greek Mythology), Horus, son of Isis (Egyptian Mythology)... shall I go on?

As far as 'giving law' goes, to say that ancient religions did not have a written doctrine is very shortsighted indeed, for they absolutely did. How can you be so sure that your bible is from god, and their wall paintings or whatever, are not?

When Jesus was born they wanted to kill him. When he said he came from God, they wanted to stone him. Nobody in the synagogue wanted to hear his teaching. I guess they were too busy practicing their religion to want to hear from the Son of God.

Hey, he gets no sympathy from me. It was god himself who 'prophesied' that Jesus would be persecuted when he came. Lol, don't blame people for following directions!

I like what Mr. Spinkles said too: you weren't born with any 'special knowledge' of a higher power. Any knowledge you have comes from what you've been told, and how you've been told to interpret things. If you'd been born into a Muslim family, you'd be Muslim right now. It's really that simple.