Does Donald Trump Explain the Jesus Phenomenon?

OddTrader said:
4. When applying the established theory of Stoics during/prior Jesus' era, God is the universe/nature and everything/all-things is part of God/Universe/Nature, then Jesus said something like "Father God and I is One.", that's completely right and entirely correct, nothing wrong at all!
More...

The universe is everything that exists anywhere so no, its wrong to say God is the universe. Adding to or supplanting the word universe with the word God is not right.
"Father God and I is One".... very Trumpian.

OddTrader said:
5. imo, the historical Jesus (not the cannonised Jesus) could be just like many of today's secular person or atheist who is an independent/systems thinker - studying/following the law of nature/universe. Jesus also wanted his followers to become and do the same.
More...

Jesus just doesn't rate as a historical person and Bible Jesus is depicted as a supernatural deity and as such not feasible as reality within the law of nature.
 
Last edited:
stu said:
The universe is everything that exists anywhere so no, its wrong to say God is the universe. Adding to or supplanting the word universe with the word God is not right.
"Father God and I is One".... very Trumpian.



Jesus just doesn't rate as a historical person and Bible Jesus is depicted as a supernatural deity contrary to the law of nature.
More...

Thanks Stu.

1. Obviously everybody has her/his own perception/definition of a construct "God". Before (or even after) there is a universally agreed definition, everyone is entitled to define what her/his own God. And everyone can agree or disagree with others' definitions of God. I respect that.

2. I have tried to provide my understanding of defining God, according to Stoicism. (i.e. a/the Cosmic God, according to Stoic theology. Science is to understand God/Universe. Nothing superstition.)

I would be happy to know/learn other people's definitions of God, if anything new. I think I am quite willing to update my perception, if anything coming up better, more logical and reasonable.

Furthermore, I think it would be illogical for any atheist to say there is no God, while providing no definition of God.

3. Too much has been previously discussed with other threads. I have no intention to repeat the contents again and again, to save everyone's time.

I would agree with whatever disagreements that can be found here.

My personal experience has been, anytime one day in the future, I might totally change my previous mind by accepting a newly introduced definition (by someone else or from myself) that was once outright rejected by myself long time ago. Very unusual, but not impossible.

Perhaps it's just me. LOL



* Stoicism - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism - Cached - Similar
Stoicism is a school of Hellenistic philosophy that flourished throughout the Roman and Greek .... The universe itself is God and the universal outpouring of its soul; it is this same world's guiding principle, operating in mind and reason, together ...

* Why Modern Stoicism does not miss the point – How to Be a Stoic
https://howtobeastoic.wordpress.com/.../why-modern-stoicism-does-not-miss-the-point/ - Cached
27 Jun 2017 ... The Stoics were pantheists, so their “god” was immanent in the universe, and made of matter. Indeed god simply is the universe for the Stoics, ...

* The Stoic Tradition from Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages: ... - Google Books Result
https://books.google.com.au/books?isbn=9004093273
Marcía L. Colish - ‎1990 - 459 pages - History
God, or the universe, is not only its own cause; it is the one cause and explanation of all things.27 In explaining how the universe is organized, the Stoics draw ...

* How To Be A Stoic: Ancient Wisdom for Modern Living - Google Books Result
https://books.google.com.au/books?isbn=147352976X
Massimo Pigliucci - ‎2017 - 288 pages - Body, Mind & Spirit
panentheistic8)—that is, as believing that God is the universe itself and therefore we all partake in the divine nature. The only difference between human beings ...

* PL201: FINAL EXAM!!!! (Exam #3) - STOICISM - Quizlet
https://quizlet.com/.../pl201-final-exam-exam-3-stoicism-100-flash-cards/ - Cached
(PART OF STOICISM; key stoic idea) - Pantheism states that God is the universe and the universe is God. - God = Nature = Reason = Logos (rational principle) ...

* Stoics - The Temple of Nature
pantheist.weebly.com/stoics.html - Cached - Similar
The primary substance of the Universe is "fire" which may be understood as ... pantheistic beliefs: “The universe itself is god and the universal outpouring of its ...
More...
 
Last edited:
stu said:
The universe is everything that exists anywhere so no, its wrong to say God is the universe. Adding to or supplanting the word universe with the word God is not right.
"Father God and I is One".... very Trumpian.
More...

1. The God concept of Stoic theory, imo, was not without its oriental mates/twins.


The history of Taoism stretches throughout Chinese history. ... However, Taoism clearly predates Laozi (Lao Tzu) as he refers to "The Tao masters of antiquity" in Chapter 15 of the Daodejing (Tao Te Ching). Moreover, the Yellow Emperor, Huangdi (2697–2597 BCE) Is often associated with origin of the Tao.
History of Taoism - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Taoism
More...

One English author in philosophy has got several books on both Taoism and Stoicism, however nothing else. Accidentally.


https://www.amazon.com/Keith-Seddon/e/B001HPKNPY/ref=dp_byline_cont_book_2

* Stoic Serenity: A Practical Course on Finding Inner PeaceFeb 6, 2007
by Keith Seddon

* Lao Tzu: Tao Te ChingDec 2, 2006
by Lao Tzu and Keith Seddon
More...

In Taoism, Nature and Man is One. A very similar concept like Stoicism.

2. Mathematically speaking, when the universe/nature is infinitely large unknown to Man, while a man is relatively tiny small equating to almost nothing, should we say Nature and Man are 2?

It's just much much smaller than : 1.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000......000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001!

That means a man simply lives in the universe, while as part of the universe/nature.

Besides, the universe would exist almost forever, relatively. Man's life is very limited. Further proof that God and Man is just Not 2, even if not only one!

That's why I mentioned different people could have different interpretations on Jesus sayings. Different IQ levels, perhaps!

3. Separately:

How about if Trump is not wrong! - at least he Was not wrong?

By saying bravely what are the problems the nation has been sailing! While other major candidates dare not even mention, perhaps no any potential solutions can be seen yet. People and journalists would ask, once open a can of worms.

Trump bravely said that and even tried to offer solutions, rightly or wrongly! Whether Trump would not be the most qualified capable person in solving the foreseeable problems, at least he dare to mention the problems that really touched many voters to support him. imo

A MAGA dream!

4. Jesus ...

LOL
 
Last edited:
OddTrader said:
1. Obviously everybody has her/his own perception/definition of a construct "God". Before (or even after) there is a universally agreed definition, everyone is entitled to define what her/his own God. And everyone can agree or disagree with others' definitions of God. I respect that.
More...

But of course, anyone can define anything in anyway they want , but it doesn't mean a thing.
You can define a dog as a duck but it wont make it a duck same as defining God as the universe won't make it the universe.

OddTrader said:
Furthermore, I think it would be illogical for any atheist to say there is no God, while providing no definition of God.
More...
Why should an atheist even need define God when you say everyone is entitled to define it anyway they want.
If everyone is entitled to define God anyway they want, an atheist is logically entitled to define God as nonexistent.

OddTrader said:
Stoic Theology: Proof for the Existence of the Cosmic God and of the Traditional Gods
More...
You see that's what's wrong.
It is reasonable to say 'Proof for the Existence of the Universe'.
It is not reasonable to say 'Proof for the Existence of the Cosmic God and of the Traditional Gods'
There is absolutely nothing in the shape of corresponding proof between Universe and God.
The fundamental shortfall of overwhelming evidence for God and the abundance of it for the Universe makes them definitively unalike.
You cannot define God into existence. It is the universe which exists.
 
OddTrader said:
BTW, anything linking Jesus and Trump together would be just fun! :D
More...

Therefore, when many would think Jesus' saying "God and I are/is one." is far from humble. Out of mind! Now we might be rethink about it! One might be very much correct, by means of mathematical measures. :D

When people would think Jesus should have said, "God and I are two.", which is in fact very very far from humble - equating a worldly man to God. Size-wise and else. :D

Jesus' theory is also fun, Bigly! Ha! :D
 
stu said:
But of course, anyone can define anything in anyway they want , but it doesn't mean a thing.
You can define a dog as a duck but it wont make it a duck same as defining God as the universe won't make it the universe.


Why should an atheist even need define God when you say everyone is entitled to define it anyway they want.
If everyone is entitled to define God anyway they want, an atheist is logically entitled to define God as nonexistent.


You see that's what's wrong.
It is reasonable to say 'Proof for the Existence of the Universe'.
It is not reasonable to say 'Proof for the Existence of the Cosmic God and of the Traditional Gods'
There is absolutely nothing in the shape of corresponding proof between Universe and God.
The fundamental shortfall of overwhelming evidence for God and the abundance of it for the Universe makes them definitively unalike.
You cannot define God into existence. It is the universe which exists.
More...

Perhaps you're right - from an atheist's view!

Perhaps someone else is also right - from a non-atheist view! LOL

Perhaps both can be wrong - too! :D

As mentioned from previous thread in detail, I look forward to seeing anytime soon someone to set up a research department/group of atheism studies! I can't/don't see any good reason not to proceed this idea!
 
The word God is not the only word Stoics use.

Not using the word God at all is fine. As Stoics can still use other words, such as (God =) Nature = Reason = Logos (rational principle) = etc. covering a range of topics worth to understand for daily life. :)

There is a whole book about Stoic God and Cosmos in Stoicism Physics.



http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199556144.001.0001/acprof-9780199556144


God and Cosmos in Stoicism
Ricardo Salles
Abstract

This is a collective study, in nine chapters, of the close connection between theology and cosmology in Stoic philosophy. The Stoic god is best described as the single active physical principle that governs the whole cosmos. The first part of the book covers three essential topics in Stoic theology: the active and demiurgical character of god, his corporeal nature and irreducibility to matter, and fate as the network of causes through which god acts upon the cosmos. The second part turns to Stoic cosmology, and how it relates to other cosmologies of the time. The third part examines the ethica ... More

Keywords: theology, Stoic philosophy, cosmology, demiurgical, cosmos
More...
 
does saying you "think" excuse such treachery?
Piezoe pretends:

"despite his not mentioning Jesus Christ directly"
and

"But I think their are no direct references to Jesus or Christ in Paul's writing which makes the origins of what we know as the Christian religion all the more of a mystery."

but the truth takes one minute or shorter query:

1 Corinthians 15: 1-8...


Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.

I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, he appeared to Cephas (Peter), then to the twelve. James, then to all the apostles. he appeared also to me.



piezoe said:
actually I agree with you, but please don't tell jem. It is amazing however how narcissistic is the character of Jesus created by whoever wrote the New Testament. And from what we know about Paul he may himself had narcissistic tendencies. He was quite the promoter. But I think their are no direct references to Jesus or Christ in Paul's writing which makes the origins of what we know as the Christian religion all the more of a mystery. I think, though I don't know if I could back it up, of Paul as the real founder of the Christian Church, despite his not mentioning Jesus Christ directly. Isn't it claimed that in the early days, while Paul was trying to build a following and promoting his "church", that there is a connection between James, reputed to be the brother of Jesus, and Paul?
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top