Do you believe in God?

[Imari]

How did I know someone would say that?

Because it's an obvious question when talking about the God of Christianity?

I agree.

Ah, so more in line with the Islamic view of Jesus.

 

[TenEightyOne]

But alas, they can't even agree on how to translate some verses on this issue: John 1:18

The King James translation seems closest to the original texts, later ones confuse "in his heart" or "in his bosom" with "by his side" or "the closest". The meaning changes are subtle but dramatic.

It's nice to use the KJ bible given that he was Britain's only openly gay king, a fact which really annoys Conservative Anglicans

 

[MaxAttack]

The King James translation seems closest to the original texts, later ones confuse "in his heart" or "in his bosom" with "by his side" or "the closest". The meaning changes are subtle but dramatic.

It's nice to use the KJ bible given that he was Britain's only openly gay king, a fact which really annoys Conservative Anglicans

Openly? Is that why he married a women and had multiple children?

He may have had a male lover, but openly gay is a stretch for a dude who had a penchant for burning witches.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Openly? Is that why he married a women and had multiple children?

Openly bi, if you prefer.

He may have had a male lover

Which is how it works, yes.

openly gay is a stretch for a dude who had a penchant for burning witches.

That makes zero sense.

 

[MaxAttack]

Openly bi, if you prefer.



Which is how it works, yes.



That makes zero sense.

He wasn't openly gay or bi - he might well have been gay and had no interest in women, but he absolutely was not open about that, and a fair amount of intriguing by Scottish nobles went into seperating him from his lover.

By my second point I kind of meant it would be rather odd for someone to do something so ultra progressive as to be an openly homosexual man in the 16th century, at the same time as doing something so backward as writing books about imaginary demonology and burning women alive for sending storms to sink his ships. Not, obviously, that there is any relationship between those two things, but it'd be pretty amusing if both were true.

King James I was gay just stinks to high heaven of revisionism to me. I highly highly doubt an openly gay Scottish King could have ruled England for over 20 years, gunpowder plot notwithstanding. It would have been a whole lot easier to remove the unpopular James had he been a sodomite.

 

[Denur]

The King James translation seems closest to the original texts, later ones confuse "in his heart" or "in his bosom" with "by his side" or "the closest". The meaning changes are subtle but dramatic.

Apparently the difference is already in the Greek translations of the verse:

Because that phrase is in some Greek scrolls and not others. They both used a bunch, but the KJV leaned most on the Textus Receptus, and the NIV leaned most on the Novum Testamentum Graece. No, it’s not as simple as one being “older” or “better.” The externalities (sic) are just too large, but they result in:

θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο [KJV]

θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο [NIV]

Uios means Son, Theos means God.

 

[Dotini]

IMHO, God was pure, infinite consciousness at the time of the Big Bang. Consciousness preceded and generated all physical matter, including the physical laws and constants. Jesus evolved to temporarily be one facet however large, of God's eyes, ears and voice - one of the plenitude of his experiences of physical form on Earth through shared consciousness. That's the whole idea, the purpose.

 

[Liquid]

Jesus evolved to temporarily be one facet however large, of God's eyes, ears and voice - one of the plenitude of his experiences of physical form on Earth through shared consciousness.

How did he evolve (skipping over the obvious connotations with that word) to becoming one of god's peripherals?
If god is or was infinite consciousness, why would he allow a peripheral to be created and why would he need one?

What about other religions? How does any non-Christian religion, and I include Judaism and Islam in that, match up with this peripheral hypothesis?

 

[TheCracker]

And why did he only arrive/appear on Earth 4.5 billion years after it's creation. What was so special about that particular time period that warranted his arrival?

 

[Dotini]

How did he evolve (skipping over the obvious connotations with that word) to becoming one of god's peripherals?
If god is or was infinite consciousness, why would he allow a peripheral to be created and why would he need one?

What about other religions? How does any non-Christian religion, and I include Judaism and Islam in that, match up with this peripheral hypothesis?

All excellent questions. Thank you. I can't answer all questions, but I'll take one man's humble shot at yours.

Earth is 4.6 billion years old. Man, including Jesus, evolved recently. God shares consciousness with all matter, from Jesus down to an earthworm, a rock or a photon. Being only of consciousness, God was like a man who had lots of money in the bank, but no body, clothes, wife, car, etc. He spent it on the universe so that he could experience physical reality in all its forms, from the disgusting to the sublime. All religions accept a higher form of consciousness, however imperfectly. Perhaps Buddhism is less imperfect than some others.

 

[TheGeologist]

Earth is 4.6 billion years old. Man, including Jesus, evolved recently. God shares consciousness with all matter, from Jesus down to an earthworm, a rock or a photon.

I find your combination of modern science and religion to be confusing. What do you mean by "God shares consciousness with matter"?

Consciousness -
noun

1. the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings.

A rock is not awake nor aware of its surroundings. It is not a conscious entity so consciousness cannot be given to it - it is not alive.

 

[Dotini]

I find your combination of modern science and religion to be confusing. What do you mean by "God shares consciousness with matter"?

Consciousness -
noun

1. the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings.

A rock is not awake nor aware of its surroundings. It is not a conscious entity so consciousness cannot be given to it - it is not alive.

Yes, I am attempting a synthesis of God and Science. If it were easy, everyone would be doing it.

I said consciousness precedes and generates matter. I might add that it sustains and maintains all physical matter. Matter could not exist without consciousness. Refer to the double slit experiment and quantum superposition. Or better yet, refer to the website or book(s) of astrophysicist Bernard Haisch, who created this theory.

 

[MaxAttack]

Yes, I am attempting a synthesis of God and Science. If it were easy, everyone would be doing it.

I said consciousness precedes and generates matter. I might add that it sustains and maintains all physical matter. Matter could not exist without consciousness. Refer to the double slit experiment and quantum superposition. Or better yet, refer to the website or book(s) of astrophysicist Bernard Haisch, who created this theory.

No disrespect, and I'm aware Theist scientists/physicists/very smart people exist, but to me the idea of a synthesis of God and science is as much use as mammaries on a boy.

To try and quantify the - by His very nature - infallible, unknowable, immaterial God, with the brutal pragmatism of true science, defies the nature of God.

The message of science, to me, is contrary to the idea that there is such an easy explanation for this universe, that some higher being set it all in motion. It reads to me like a story you tell a child when you know they cannot comprehend the real meaning of something.

 

[TheGeologist]

I said consciousness precedes and generates matter. I might add that it sustains and maintains all physical matter. Matter could not exist without consciousness.

How does consciousness generate anything beyond thought?

 

[Dotini]

comprehend the real meaning of something.

Please do tell what the real meaning is. Whatever it is, I'm glad it works fo you. The meaning this theory provides, the purpose this theory provides, is to experience life in all its manifold potential. What it avoids is meaningless nihilism and strict materialist reductionism.

Note: I'm getting ready for a weekend visit to my fishing cabin. If I don't get to your question, there's always next week.

 

[MaxAttack]

Please do tell what the real meaning is. Whatever it is, I'm glad it works fo you. The meaning this theory provides, the purpose this theory provides, is to experience life in all its manifold potential. What it avoids is meaningless nihilism and strict materialist reductionism.

Note: I'm getting ready for a weekend visit to my fishing cabin. If I don't get to your question, there's always next week.

I think it is perfectly possible to have a life of wonder, discovery, emotion and understanding through even the most coldly scientific of lenses.

It's a question I asked myself a lot, in my late teens when I was interested in these things - if there really is no meaning, structure or purpose of anything, no higher moral mission and no role in some larger machination of the universe - is that actually bad news?

Is it limiting, and inherently negative, to claim nothing has meaning and there is no purpose to life? That the universe simply came about and goes through these motions, and nothing that is done or happens changes anything?

I think, personally, that's good news and a positive revelation. Our meaninglessness allows us to create our own meaning, our own purpose, and the cold, uncaring universe has no say in the matter. We are free to care as much or as little as we want about or role in things, free to progress into the stars and populate the universe indefinitely (that would be nice) or simply to stagnate, destroy ourselves and have no impact on anything. It will affect nothing and no one will notice.

I find, traditionally, people equate Nihilism with negativity, close-mindedness, and a sort of wrathful "why are we even trying when nothing matters" attitude. I think this drives people away from accepting the possibility that we are alone (for now) and responsible only unto ourselves for what role we play in whatever it is that's unfolding. For me, having a Nihilistic worldview is liberating - no higher morality for us to misinterpret, no limit to what we can learn and understand.

I don't want to speak with any certainty - but for me, the less pre-determined and structured the universe is, the better a place it is for a sapient mind to exist.

I hope... Any of that makes sense. I'm not a theologist or philosopher or physicist, but that's "what i reckon".

 

[Dotini]

Is it limiting, and inherently negative, to claim nothing has meaning and there is no purpose to life? That the universe simply came about and goes through these motions, and nothing that is done or happens changes anything?

I think, personally, that's good news and a positive revelation. Our meaninglessness allows us to create our own meaning, our own purpose, and the cold, uncaring universe has no say in the matter. We are free to care as much or as little as we want about or role in things, free to progress into the stars and populate the universe indefinitely (that would be nice) or simply to stagnate, destroy ourselves and have no impact on anything. It will affect nothing and no one will notice.

I find, traditionally, people equate Nihilism with negativity, close-mindedness, and a sort of wrathful "why are we even trying when nothing matters" attitude. I think this drives people away from accepting the possibility that we are alone (for now) and responsible only unto ourselves for what role we play in whatever it is that's unfolding. For me, having a Nihilistic worldview is liberating - no higher morality for us to misinterpret, no limit to what we can learn and understand.

I don't want to speak with any certainty - but for me, the less pre-determined and structured the universe is, the better a place it is for a sapient mind to exist.

The universe has the purpose of allowing consciousness to experience material life and existence. You have the purpose of exploring your potential. If the universe has no inherent meaning, then it is more difficult - I do not say impossible - for the individual to have purpose and meaning. The universe is not predetermined. You have free will. But there is a law of karma: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". This is the essence of morality. People who experience NDEs sometimes report a 360 degree life review, wherein they see themselves as others have seen them.

 

[MaxAttack]

The universe has the purpose of allowing consciousness to experience material life and existence. You have the purpose of exploring your potential. If the universe has no inherent meaning, then it is more difficult - I do not say impossible - for the individual to have purpose and meaning. The universe is not predetermined. You have free will. But there is a law of karma: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". This is the essence of morality. People who experience NDEs sometimes report a 360 degree life review, wherein they see themselves as others have seen them.

this is interesting as I truly feel I see it the opposite way - a Godly, deterministic morality is far more limiting than an imaginary morality we impose upon ourselves - the latter being how I interpret morality. I don't think our morality or purpose comes from, or has anything to do with, the laws of nature and reality. I see morality and the behaviours it governs - as you say, treating others as we wish to be treated - as a part of our evolution as sapient, societal creatures. I believe you can see the roots of these behaviours in some of the animals on Earth that display societal behaviours - as the transition between prime breeding material and therefore societal status shifts away from being the biggest, strongest and smartest monkey to perhaps being more empathic, socially adept or with a similar outlook on life, which is more like how humans choose their mates.

Our morality is not something we always had, and is not a law of nature to which all things adhere, but an evolutionary result of our greater intelligence, and our understanding of the gravity of things such as death, injury and illness. We understand the connotations of these things and don't bring them upon others lest they be brought upon us. That allowed us to live longer, work together, and progress out of an understanding of mutual benefit that other animals have yet to evolve. If this were some divine gift, or governing rule of the universe, I doubt spiders would decapitate each other when they reproduce.

So I suppose my question is, if God's gift is the experience of life, why are some of us humans, that can do science, art etc, and why are a huge bunch of us mosquitos? Surely everything would be sapient, understanding and intelligent? What determines how conscious I get to be when I'm alive?

 

[Dotini]

So I suppose my question is, if God's gift is the experience of life, why are some of us humans, that can do science, art etc, and why are a huge bunch of us mosquitos? Surely everything would be sapient, understanding and intelligent? What determines how conscious I get to be when I'm alive?

Good questions! I may have something to say about them later, but now I must go make the ferry departure.

 

[MaxAttack]

Good questions! I may have something to say about them later, but now I must go make the ferry departure.

Have fun!

 

[Imari]

Matter could not exist without consciousness. Refer to the double slit experiment and quantum superposition.

That phenomena has nothing to do with consciousness, unless you want to explain why adding consciousness into the theory results in a superior explanation of observed experimental behaviour.

Or better yet, refer to the website or book(s) of astrophysicist Bernard Haisch, who created this theory.

Ah, this one again. As I recall last time you brought this up you failed entirely to explain why this hybrid god/science hypothesis was to be considered a superior candidate for how the universe works other than it appeals to your personal aesthetic.

If the universe has no inherent meaning, then it is more difficult - I do not say impossible - for the individual to have purpose and meaning.

Does an individual require purpose and meaning? Should an individual have purpose and meaning? Is it desirable for an individual to have purpose and meaning?

The universe is not predetermined.

Really?

That's a factual statement that you've just made. Explain to me how you know that the universe is not predetermined. What observation do you make that shows that it isn't predetermined, and what would the observation be if the universe were predetermined.

You have free will.

Really? See above. Explain how you know this to be so. "I think I have free will therefore I have free will" is insufficient.

 

[RalliArt/////]

If Jesus didn't know that his disciples would be questioned, then saying "if" is obviously the correct thing to say, and also suggests he wasn’t "all knowing" as you said.
You say.."if only He had used the word "when" in stead of "if".. But your argument is based on your assumption that Jesus knew, despite what the verse says.
So is Jesus "all knowing" all the time and unable to choose what he wants to know?

If only Christians would agree on something as fundamental as the Holy Trinity... *sigh*

But alas, they can't even agree on how to translate some verses on this issue: John 1:18

Regarding the story, the question still stands.

Ah, so more in line with the Islamic view of Jesus.

Ah no, the Bible's.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Ah no, the Bible's.

No, Jesus and God are the same in the bible. The koran says Jesus was a prophet, much like Moses/Moshe.

 

[Imari]

Ah no, the Bible's.

The Jesus of Islam was a prophet, a man inspired or sent by God, but ultimately human.

The Jesus of Christianity was a divine being in human form.

Is there something wrong with acknowledging that your view of Jesus is more similar to a Muslims than a Christians? Or is Christian simply the label you've chosen to give yourself regardless of what you believe?

 

[Denur]

So is Jesus "all knowing" all the time and unable to choose what he wants to know?

Regarding the story, the question still stands.

Since I don't believe that omniscience is real thing, you should address this questions to the Bible's authors. But, I'll humor you: If Jesus were able to choose what to know and what not, then He'd still know the choices He made. So He would still know. So my answer to the second part of your question is 'yes', if Jesus is all-knowing. Jesus could however, chose not to know at all and stop being a divine entity for a while.

It would make for an interesting new story if a god-like being (let's call it Q) were to lose its powers all together, for a limited time. Maybe with the title: "Q learns what it is like to be a mere human".

 

[RalliArt/////]

The Jesus of Islam was a prophet, a man inspired or sent by God, but ultimately human.

The Jesus of Christianity was a divine being in human form.

Is there something wrong with acknowledging that your view of Jesus is more similar to a Muslims than a Christians?

I don't believe in either statement, like I said, I go by the Bible.

Since I don't believe that omniscience is real thing, you should address this questions to the Bible's authors.

So why use it as the basis of your argument...

Again, Jesus knows all

Jesus, all knowing and all, wouldn't have bothered with that remark, if his disciples were going to ask first.

If only He had used the word "when" in stead of "if"

 

[Imari]

I don't believe in either statement, like I said, I go by the Bible.

OK, it feels a bit like you're avoiding the question, but sure. So in your opinion, what does the Bible say about the relationship between Jesus, God and divinity? Since you're referencing a specific book, you'll obviously have no difficulty in quoting and explaining what you think certain passages tell us about Jesus and why.

I mean, let's be honest, the Bible isn't exactly the most straightforward book in the world. At best it's very open to interpretation.

While we're at it, given that the Bible is the centrepiece of Christianity, why is what the Bible says not congruent with Christianity? That seems a bit odd for a religion to disagree with it's own holy text.

 

[Dotini]

Bibles and religions are the works of man, and are subject to all the errors and problems that accrue from humanity. If you are really interested in spirit, soul, or the mind of God, you're probably better off studying something along the lines of the Perennial Philosophy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perennial_philosophy

 

[TheGeologist]

How does consciousness generate anything beyond thought?

@Dotini I'd still love to hear an answer for this

 

[Dotini]

@Dotini I'd still love to hear an answer for this

The basic idea is that an infinite intelligent consciousness, call it The One, or God, existed all alone. Desiring to know itself through experiencing a physical world of matter and sentient beings, God ideated the physical laws and constants and initiated the Big Bang. With space, time, stars, planets, and life evolving over billions of years, God could actualize his potential and through sharing his consciousness, experience the physical actions, thoughts and feeling of all creation, all the plants, animals and people. So consciousness precedes, generates and sustains matter, reality, the physical universe. Then, now and for all time to come. Quantum physicists are generally okay with this idea. Nothing in this idea is incompatible with what we know of science, astrophysics, evolution, and the Perennial Philosophy. It has the beauty of giving intrinsic meaning and purpose to the universe and to every human life.