Question for the Athiests
- Thread starter athlonmank8
- Start date
Consider "the universe" to have been made simultaneously...if at all. And yes, consider it to be magic. Magic, traditionally understood, would be if stu learned something. Properly understood, magic is an attempt to combine what is irreconcilable together. Opposites are irreconcilable, so the attempt to combine "good and evil" together is the basic formula for the paradox that is "the universe". As such, "the universe" cannot add to, or be reconciled with what is already perfect: The "Kingdom of God". So, the universe must pass away by its own volition...and it will...already has ["it is finished"].
Reality has no opposite. Reality can be understood to mean "the Kingdom of God", "Son of God, or "Christ". "The universe" is a concept which postulates that Christ and the opposite of Christ [anti-christ] can be combined into one. This cannot be more than a concept, which would combine, for example:
good and nOt good [evil]
knowledge and ignorance
life and death
true and false
equality and inequality
power and powerlessness
infinite and finite
unlimited and limited
creation and destruction
one and many
love and hate
peace and war
joy and sadness
bliss and pain
magnitude and littleness
eternity and temporary
always and change
safety and danger
home and away
sane and insane
certainty and doubt
awake and asleep
knowledge and learning
surety and chance
everything and nothing
same and different
whole and unholy
truth and lie
reality and illusion
holy and unholy
spirit and flesh
mind and mindlessness
unity and separation
innocence and nOt innocence
without beginning or end...and...beginnings and endings.
abundance and scarcity
wealth and poverty
treasure and trash
Whatever attributes are natural to the Son of God, these, by magic, are mocked [mimicked] and superimposed with an opposite, and strewn along a continuum. The end effect adulterates the meaning of everything in the left hand column, producing an entirely meaningless experience. It can't be more than a joke. As such, "the universe" is entirely a meaningless paradox both comic and tragic. If it could be more than nothing, it would be a distraction. It is so insignificant that the Kingdom of God has not been disturbed in the least, entirely unbroken in its continuity. Whatever the universe is, it is a picture...a moving picture of a crucified Christ, mocked, and mangled beyond recognition, "slain before the foundation of the world".
Look around and verify the way these combinations manifest in "the universe". When you can accept that what you see must be a mockery of Creation, you are ready to accept Creation as *Our Father* made it. How many Creations does our Father need? He has only one, and it is perfect. To know it is to know thy Self.
Christ!
I learned a long time ago trolling volumes of meaningless gobbledygook hippy talk is what appeals to you.
Something not to be understood - unexplainable ideas - including your own contradictory double speak pseudo poetic flower child tripe. Trying to pass utter balderdash off as truth, but in truth only to produce a place for your own version of a God to surreptitiously creep about.
Boils down to nothing more than deceit.
No offense, just saying what it is.
You completely missed the point.
God is not a substantive reason for something popping out of nothing any more than Goldilocks is. So why would anyone want to speculate either of them fit in any gap where knowledge does not ?
Science adds to knowledge, by continuously providing overwhelming substantial evidence and fact associated with understanding the Universe. Over billions of years down to the tiniest infinitesimal fraction of a second .
So all you do is postulate a gaping cavern. For no other reason but for your God to sit somewhere. Which explains nothing, adds no further knowledge, and does no more but beg further questions.
Good morning....
These arguments and positions that I reference, are not "mine" in the sense that I have furthered a concept or work of another, I am simply stating the positions and thoughts, which I have read and agree with, of the great theologians and doctors of the Christian faith.
This "restraint" that is before any who would seek knowledge of, and fellowship with the G-D who proclaims Himself in the scripture, would be as follows:
"..The knowledge of God is wholly and utterly His own readiness to be known by us, grounded in His being and activity. Real man is the man who stands before God because God stands before him....."
The knowability of G-D is not the knowability of G-D if finally, even considered from man's side, it is something other than a work of G-D Himself.
He is the Lord of the event which we call the knowledge of G-D.
He is also the substance of the possibility, presuppositions and conditions of this event.
Once our minds start to determine that this ability to have knowledge of G-D, or extend the knowability beyond that which He Himself has provided us......then we have "jumped" the fence, and are running in the fertile ground of our imaginations, bias, lust and self promotion, and, if I may, any god or no-god, found on the other side of that fence, is built in our own image.
This is the case for christian or skeptic, alike.
"...We can know God in consequence of God knowing Himself - the Father knowing the Son and the Son the Father by the Holy Spirit of the Father and the Son. Because He is first and foremost knowable to Himself as the triune God, He is knowable to us as well. We cannot speak of the knowability of God as an abstract possibility. For it is concretely realised by God Himself, in the Father and in the Son by the Holy Spirit. And by God's revelation we, too, receive and have a part both in His self-knowledge and also in His self-knowability......"
The restraint I speak of, is further clarified:
"...The beginning of our knowledge of God - of this God -is not a beginning which we can make with Him. It can be only the beginning which He has made with us. The sufficiency of our thought-form, and of the perception presupposed in it, and of the word-form based on it, collapses altogether in relation to this God. We are not master of God. Of ourselves we do not resemble God. We are not one with God. We are not capable of conceiving Him. But this means, with a backward reference so to speak, in respect of the views to which our concepts must be related, that no man has ever seen God. What "any man" has seen of himself has always been something other than God. God is invisible. He is invisible to the physical eye of man; He is also invisible to the so-called spiritual. He is not identical with any of the objects which can become the content of our external or inner perception...............No one has ever said, or can say, of himself, in virtue of the dynamic of his words, what God is; God is inexpressible...........For then indeed, as all philosophies and outlooks shew, there is no lack of images of concept, perception or expressions there would have to be if man really knew he had no power to apprehend these quantities.........
But God is invisible and inexpressible because He is not present as the physical and spiritual world created by Him is present, but is present in this world created by Him in His revelation, in Jesus Christ, in the proclamation of His name, in His witness and sacraments. He is , therefore, visible only to faith and can be attested only by faith............"
Quotes are from "Church Dogmatics, Karl Barth, Zurich, 1957"
Well, as I am not familiar with the above referenced handles, I don't know if I should be insulted or impressed !
As far as being a "hippie", I would hope your trading instincts are better
No, in one way it's impressive, but it's impressive at not making a good impression. For example.....Quote from Barth Vader:
Well, as I am not familiar with the above referenced handles, I don't know if I should be insulted or impressed !
As far as being a "hippie", I would hope your trading instincts are better
- "The knowability of G-D is not the knowability of G-D if finally, even considered from man's side, it is something other than a work of G-D Himself.â
Silly because you might just as well say "The knowability of Goldilocks is not the knowability of Goldilocks unless it is the work of Goldilocks Herself."
Frivolous because God (or G-D whatever) has the same value as Goldilocks( or should it be G-LDIL-CKS) or anything else whatsoever you care to simply say has ânot the knowabilityâ.
You are categorizing stuff as unknowable for no real reason as if that adds value to it. Doing so diminishes it to the trivial.
Your argument for God is an absurd and meaningless contrivance .. Hippy as in ..Gobbledegook hippy speak - as in producing an oratory of meaningless drivel. Not as in - besheveled non conformist .
No offesnse intended!