Supreme Irony?

[Elijah John]

Is it ironic is it that Jesus, the "incarnate Word of God" never wrote his down his words, but left that task for others, who may or may not have gotten it right?

If not a writer, was Jesus at least a good orator? Was he always clear, plain-spoken, effective and comprehensive?

Should the "incarnate Word of God" have been all these things in his communications?

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 15 by William]

There are extreme problems with a God who has supposedly "Always Existed"

And I'm not talking about any problems associated with how that could be possible.

Let's allow that a God has always existed. And then realize that our entire universe has only been around for a mere blink of an eye in comparison with eternity. The existence of human beings are even an extremely lesser blink of time. Not to mention the fact that humans were quite crude in the early going. We've only become technological in the extremely recent past.

So then we are faced with the question of why a God would bother created such a crude universe, and crude human beings if he's been doing this sort of thing for all of eternity?

Are we his first creation? Is so, how does that fit in with a God who has existed forever?

And if we aren't his first creation then why are we so crude? Shouldn't we think that since he's has an eternity to create universes he should have figured out how to create a really decent one by now?

The idea that a God has existed for all eternity into the past just to avoid having to explain how the God itself came to be is a pretty desperate argument I would think.

I just don't see that as being a reasonable hypothesis.

An infinitely old God should be able to do better at creating worlds by now.

He's still creating humans that are defective?

When will he ever learn how to create decent humans?

In fact, any God who can't create decent humans on his first true is necessarily inept anyway. This would need to be a God who experiments by trial & error because he doesn't know how to design a decent world in the first place.

So the apology that God has no beginning and therefore does not require a creator fails miserably.

Realize also that this type of desperate excuse is only required to hold up the hope of an imaginary eternal God.

Secularism doesn't have this problem at all. Therefore secularism is already a leg-up on this kind of theistic apology.

Even if secularists allow that the stuff the universe is made of has "always existed" at least they don't claim that it's a conscious entity that actually has a purpose and intent. So there's no need to ask why "godless stuff" would still be creating flawed universes.

But for an actual "God" to do this would be extremely problematic.

So secularism would automatically win this kind of debate.

[William]

[Replying to post 21 by Divine Insight]

Creation has a beginning which is the essential aspect of the evidence.

Now one can indeed argue that if an entity created this reality, then that entity may itself have been created and that would be true if that entity had a beginning. From a position within the creation an individuate consciousness cannot easily tell, but there are clues...

The infinite regress argument ends with the idea that a creator who never had a beginning is an entity not created. The First Source.

Even being the case that The First Source could indeed create other entities who could in turn create such wondrous things such as this universe we are currently experiencing - those entities can be regarded as GODs - that which is the creation is the result of the particular GOD/GODs which created it and will reflect the 'nature' of the GOD/GODs which created it, but not necessarily the 'nature' of The First Source.

This is the result of creativity and exploration...it removes one from The First Source Reality into the creations and even within the creations one can move further from The Source of that creation as one creates other worlds to explore.

The thread that connects all creations to The First Source Reality is never lost but can become hidden by the creations.

This is where those within the creations experiencing those creations tend to mistake The First Source for that which FS created;

[font=Comic Sans MS]That which I create is given the power to perform my role, thus I am hidden from your view because you have come to believe that I am that which I have created.[/font]~Excerpt from Chamber 23—One of three written elements from the body of work known as the WingMakers, ascribed to First Source.

Thus, while "creation is evidence for a creator", it is not necessarily evidence for the nature of The First Source.

The 'thread' I mentioned is the aspect of consciousness itself which we are (not which we have) and in that one can trace this back to First Source - effectively navigating through that which hides the true nature of the FS, stripping away all the creations in order to reveal the First Source.

This is essential why it is so important to regard oneself as an aspect of First Source Consciousness rather than some 'creation' of some 'creator'.

[font=Comic Sans MS]This is the feeling that you should seek to preserve in the face of life’s distractions. This is the revelation of my heart to your heart. Live in clarity. Live in purpose. Live in the knowledge that you are in me and I am in you, and that there is no place separate from our heart.[/font]~Excerpt from Chamber 23—One of three written elements from the body of work known as the WingMakers, ascribed to First Source.

There are extreme problems with a God who has supposedly "Always Existed"

I hadn't noticed that myself...

And I'm not talking about any problems associated with how that could be possible.

Well that eliminates some of the problems.

Let's allow that a God has always existed. And then realize that our entire universe has only been around for a mere blink of an eye in comparison with eternity. The existence of human beings are even an extremely lesser blink of time. Not to mention the fact that humans were quite crude in the early going. We've only become technological in the extremely recent past.

Yes. In essence we are like new born and so is this universe...

So then we are faced with the question of why a God would bother created such a crude universe, and crude human beings if he's been doing this sort of thing for all of eternity?

The First Source creates beings (GODs) which are able to accomplish this in innumerable ways depending on their own creativity and knowledge and particular limitations therein.

Are we his first creation?

Unlikely.

Is so, how does that fit in with a God who has existed forever?

Existing forever does not automatically mean one has created forever. Even if it did, all that this signifies is that there are infinite numbers of universes.

And if we aren't his first creation then why are we so crude?

In what way do you mean 'so crude'?

How do you know we will not eventually evolve into something so magnificent that the 'crude' we once were becomes a forgotten thing?

Shouldn't we think that since he's has an eternity to create universes he should have figured out how to create a really decent one by now?

How do you know that she hasn't created infinite universes which are 'decent'? What if this particular one was created specifically to venture away from decent into something less than, in order to experience the less than decent?

The idea that a God has existed for all eternity into the past just to avoid having to explain how the God itself came to be is a pretty desperate argument I would think.

Not at all. It is really more the instrument by which one can dispense with the ridiculous notion of infinite regression. "past' is only relevant to those experiencing time.
A great deal many individuals who experience NDEs report a 'place' where they understand it to be timeless but cannot explain it in any words which relay information whereby others in this universe can have an exact understanding - simply because this universe has time in it.

Also:

The Concept of Timelessness in Buddhism

There is no logical reason why something which is timeless cannot produce universes whereby time can be experienced.

I just don't see that as being a reasonable hypothesis.

An infinitely old God should be able to do better at creating worlds by now.

'Old' is simply a notion created by consciousnesses experiencing beginnings and ends, young and old, within time.

Obviously those of us existing within such a universe and experiencing it primarily as that, would struggle to accept such hypothesis as reasonable, but many who have had the experience of a different universe where time is not something to notice, are able to bring those ideas back into this one, which is why these ideas even exist. Really it should be considered unreasonable for anyone to be speaking about infinity and timelessness even as concepts, but this is not the case.

He's still creating humans that are defective?

Remember that 'seed' I wrote about to which you did not agree?

Here is the link where the reader can acquaint themselves with that discussion;

From chaos to complexity or always having been complexity?
Which is the truthful interpretation of the universe?

The program itself was meant to unfold as it did so it could be experienced as it is. Consciousness tweeks the program because it is able to and if all was 'perfect' (in the sense you are alluding to?) then this would not be possible.

One can look at this universe as 'perfect' for what it is, in relation to consciousness which is able to work with what it is, in the way that it does. It can be argued that this particular universe is indeed 'perfect' for what it was created to be experienced by and adapted within.

When will he ever learn how to create decent humans?

There are plenty of decent humans. Have we not read your own writ on this message board about your nice self and your nice family?

Decent humans also understand that there is much to learn from indecent humans. Even learning one is decent by observing what is indecent.

One can appreciate this more realistically if one understand we are new born relative to the universe which is newborn as well.
If a book has 50 chapters and you read the first line of the first chapter, do you claim to understand what the book is all about?

In fact, any God who can't create decent humans on his first true is necessarily inept anyway. This would need to be a God who experiments by trial & error because he doesn't know how to design a decent world in the first place.

This can be the case. If First Source creates creators, should FS make them all perfect creators or creators which can experiment and make mistakes and learn how to correct those mistakes etc? Learn how to be decent GODs, even within creations which make this a difficult task.

As a human with your own creative abilities would you rather have been born a perfect creator who knew how to create perfectly, or would you prefer to learn through experience, adjusting, recreating, going back to the drawing board, etc et al?

Lets say that you were the GOD that was created and then created this universe to experience it from within, divesting your wholeness into every conceivable aspect of that unfolding creation in order to experience it with perfect intimacy. Would you think of yourself as 'imperfect' or 'not good enough' or 'stupid' etc?

Perhaps for a while you would. Perhaps as you learned to adapt and appreciate, you would change your mind about yourself.

So the apology that God has no beginning and therefore does not require a creator fails miserably.

Not at all, due to my showing another way in which one is able to look at something.

I think your main problem - and the shared problem with those like yourself who argue in this manner is that you limit yourselves to expressing a distaste at one primary idea of 'GOD' which has dominated the theological landscape for so long through such large numbers that ya'll make the mistake of thinking that in arguing against this particular idea of GOD with such arguments, you effectively 'lay to rest' the whole 'problem'.

i am here to offer opportunity for such to 'think again' and to show that your arguments fail when set up against better ideas of GOD which are far more realistic in regard to what we do know and are experiencing.

Realize also that this type of desperate excuse is only required to hold up the hope of an imaginary eternal God.

For me personally it isn't about 'hope' or 'desperation'. It is about logic and personal experience and Love. It is why I have lately being encouraging the reader to explore ways in which they might be able to get evidence for themselves through personal experience with OOB.

Secularism doesn't have this problem at all. Therefore secularism is already a leg-up on this kind of theistic apology.

Secularism is babies dribbling. It is itself a form of desperate hope in the finality of death and all trace of GOD.

It is no better way/example for decent humans to conduct themselves than anything else us babies can think up and do.

Even if secularists allow that the stuff the universe is made of has "always existed" at least they don't claim that it's a conscious entity that actually has a purpose and intent. So there's no need to ask why "godless stuff" would still be creating flawed universes.

I am not sure whether you can see the absurdity in this statement in relation to my own arguments above but perhaps there will be those who will do.

But for an actual "God" to do this would be extremely problematic.

Well hopefully you may be able to consider my own expansion of the idea of GOD and perfect et al, and allow yourself to reexamine your criticisms in light of that.

So secularism would automatically win this kind of debate.

I do notice that 'this kind of debate' always depends upon terms and conditions and such things as 'what is acceptable re the OP subject matter under the spotlight and what is not.

It is kind of straw-man building imo - in this case, a particular idea of GOD is set up as the straw-man and then knocked down by a certain kind of argument. "whoop de do' on that one, but fails in relation to other ideas of GOD, as I have shown.

Basically put, we are speaking about different ideas of GOD and our arguments reflect that. Perhaps you as the secularist prefer to argue against the obviously flawed idea of GOD because it is easier and assures victory, hollow, but still victory.

*Hurrah!*

Biblical speaking, that is referred to as "Breastfeeding" rather than getting into the real meaty bits. Suckle away!!

Divine Insight
[font=Comic Sans MS]My plan for your ascendance embraces every creature in all dimensions of all worlds. I do this by divesting myself of every function that is possible for another of my creation to carry out. That which I create is given the power to perform my role, thus I am hidden from your view because you have come to believe that I am that which I have created.
I am First Source, and your knowing of me is a thousand times removed. I dwell in the Central Universe so distant from you as to make space an unfathomable abstraction, and yet, a fragment of my self is set within your personality like a diamond upon a ring, and it will endure as certainly as I will endure. While there are those who believe I am a myth, I express to you that my world is the beacon of all personalities in all times, and whether you believe in me or not, you are unerringly drawn to the source from whence you were created.[/font] ~ Excerpt from Chamber 23—One of three written elements from the body of work known as the WingMakers, ascribed to First Source.

[Neatras]

Divine Insight
[font=Comic Sans MS]My plan for your ascendance embraces every creature in all dimensions of all worlds. I do this by divesting myself of every function that is possible for another of my creation to carry out. That which I create is given the power to perform my role, thus I am hidden from your view because you have come to believe that I am that which I have created.
I am First Source, and your knowing of me is a thousand times removed. I dwell in the Central Universe so distant from you as to make space an unfathomable abstraction, and yet, a fragment of my self is set within your personality like a diamond upon a ring, and it will endure as certainly as I will endure. While there are those who believe I am a myth, I express to you that my world is the beacon of all personalities in all times, and whether you believe in me or not, you are unerringly drawn to the source from whence you were created.[/font] ~ Excerpt from Chamber 23—One of three written elements from the body of work known as the WingMakers, ascribed to First Source.

Well, I'm glad you're finally comfortable enough with this forum to bring your superstitions to the fore and give us a taste of what your religious predispositions actually are. Like Scientology or Mormonism, actual substance is withdrawn from the discussion until all parties involved are so thoroughly brainwashed that it makes even outlandish claims seem viable. Though despite the fact I don't think you've roped in anyone here, you still managed to go all the way with it. Maybe you think you can whip out dozens of links to your Member Notes in place of argumentation, or maybe you have some other criteria for when you bring us all this religious assertion with no substantial justification.

I believe it was the claim of L Ron Hubbard that the story of Xenu was one that had to be withheld until an initiate was "ready" to hear it. He claimed that if someone was not prepared, they would catch pneumonia upon hearing the myth.

So, William, any reason you delayed in giving us this purely fantastical excerpt of your religion? Better yet, can you provide a justification for why you brought this up that doesn't depend on the miles of text you've squirreled away in your Member Notes for just such an occasion, acting as if you've done anything to justify diving head-first into this... whatever it is? I'd adore if you didn't have to depend on miles of assumptions you've sprinkled over the months just so you can dismiss my skepticism out of hand.

[ttruscott]

If one is content with a general impression, it seems absurd that we would think Jesus came specially to pass on something important.

Pass on...? No, He came to die so His sinful elect sheep might be reborn free of the enslaving addiction to evil. Period.

[marco]

If one is content with a general impression, it seems absurd that we would think Jesus came specially to pass on something important.

Pass on...? No, He came to die so His sinful elect sheep might be reborn free of the enslaving addiction to evil. Period.

The problem I have with this, Ted, is the purpose clause: "so that his sinful sheep..."

There is no connection between some man from the Middle East, his death and world-wide misdemeanours. Which particular ovine sins would attract forgiveness? He was apparently executed for some local crime; why make it more? The grandiose dogmas and doctrines that the Church has generated are themselves worthy of wonder at the work of man. Man has always made good use of his imagination, not least in the shadowy life of Christ.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 17 by Walterbl]

The fact that all 4 independent eyewitness accounts, Paul, and the early church agree to a very high degree on Jesus words shows us that they got it right.

The facts are that we do not know who actually wrote the Gospels or when they were written, Paul never knew Jesus and the early church was much later than Jesus. Therefore, none of what we have has been authenticated. That shows us that they couldn't possibly know if they got it right or not.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 7 by bluethread]

That is why I visit my grandchildren and talk to them directly on occasion, so that they can be sure that they are learning how to think properly.

Can you tie this analogy into the subject for the reader...how does Jesus accomplish this?

Yeshua via the Ruach HaChedosh continues to communicate with His followers.

[marco]

Yeshua via the Ruach HaChedosh continues to communicate with His followers.

There is something terribly sad in the belief that Jesus communicates to people at number 43, or 78 or 186B in clandestine fashion. A man capable of walking on water and raising the dead and a God able to part the Red Sea would surely have advanced at least to pencil and paper.

[bluethread]

That is all good in the context of dad and his kids. You are not, I think, the incarnate son of God nor is your form of communication comparable with the one a favoured messenger of God would use.

I think you underestimate the importance of a parent and the awesome responsibility associated with it. I think the difference in communication is merely one of scale. I could insist that all my progeny live with me and be micromanaged by me moment by moment. However, this would only retard their development as independent moral agents.

If one is content with a general impression, it seems absurd that we would think Jesus came specially to pass on something important. Its precise description and the terms of use, stated exactly, would be essential. As it is we don't know if hell awaits those who can't make out the message or interpret the message in a way different from, say, the Pope in Rome. Have Mormons, Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses all misinterpreted?

One should not be content with a general impression. One should struggle as did Yacov and as the Shema states one should "Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up.". Personally, I do not believe in Dante's Inferno. However, if one does, it would behoove that one to take the directives of the Shema very seriously and make them a priority in one's life.

Your last sentence is surprising, suggesting if Jesus wanted to speak to people in the 21st century he'd have addressed them directly. So his words were for his time only.

The words were of the time, as are all words. However, the principles go beyond the specific time. If one were to insist on "timeless words" one would have to ask why Yeshua did not speak Latin, Hindi, Seminole, or even Fortran. The fact is that we have been endowed by our creator with the ability to rationally interact with the written word and receive enlightenment via the Ruach.

[bluethread]

Yeshua via the Ruach HaChedosh continues to communicate with His followers.

There is something terribly sad in the belief that Jesus communicates to people at number 43, or 78 or 186B in clandestine fashion. A man capable of walking on water and raising the dead and a God able to part the Red Sea would surely have advanced at least to pencil and paper.

I understand that would indeed be the judgement of a man of letters. However, there is enough trouble with hyperliteralism and relic idolotry as it is. One can only imagine the extent of those problems, if we had actual artifacts of the writings of Yeshua.