Ex-Christian here.

[Orias]

firstly i think it was you who started off laughing at people, whihc is fine Im here on this forum to have fun and people can poke fun, but if tehy cant take it well..... a little sad my freind.

and id be very suprised if you understood much about what i believe considering chrisitanity is a diverse religion.

Who said I can't take it? I believe there is specific threads for 'poking fun at people'. I am here on serious manner, and I don't take lightly to insults.

And yes I was laughing, but I quoted UltraViolet and I was not speaking to you.

You consider Christianity a diverse religion, of course, it is world wide and there is many forms of Christianity that contradict each other. You can follow what you think you know, I have no problem with that. But all that needs to be understood is that religion advocates the use of all magics of manipulation and deceit.

You follow the flock.
I am my own redeemer.

 

[Peacewise]

My argument is this, however.

Explain to me why you do not believe in the Olympian Gods and I will explain to you why any "God" postulated cannot and logically should not exist.

ok, I'll not talk about Olympian Gods, but would you care to explain why Pantheism cannot logically exist.
Ie the belief that the universe is God.

 

[Orias]

ok, I'll not talk about Olympian Gods, but would you care to explain why Pantheism cannot logically exist.
Ie the belief that the universe is God.

Yes...or you could believe that your mind is God . Where would we be without it?

 

[Peacewise]

Just for fun...

Well Orias if the universe is God, and my mind is part of the universe, then it logically follows that my mind is also part of God and hence I am part of God. - stage 1.

Now I consider that the universe is infinite for to question "What is outside the universe" ignores that the universe is All, and hence the universe being All, it seems reasonable to assume that All is infinite - for within the universe is the concept of infinity and hence the universe must be at least as large as the concept of infinity, that being of course macroscopic infinity itself. - stage 2.

Now if I consider the decimal number system, which also exists inside the universe, it is known that there is no smallest number, for from 1 to 0.1, to 0.000001 and so on, numbers can always get smaller by simply adding more zeros in the appropriate place and hence the concept of infinitely small exists within the universe and hence within my mind. - stage 3.

Now applying a single integer to each of the points of the macroscopic universe and likewise applying a single integer to each of the points of my mind reveals that the ratio of the macroscopic to my mind is 1:1, therefore I am the universe, and hence equivalent to all of God.

Lets just ignore differing rates of infinity otherwise that very small arrow pointing to an insignificantly small dot, with infinitely small writing next to it saying "you are here - don't eat the cake" may reveal that I am not Zaphod.

 

[Orias]

Just for fun...

Well Orias if the universe is God, and my mind is part of the universe, then it logically follows that my mind is also part of God and hence I am part of God. - stage 1.

Now I consider that the universe is infinite for to question "What is outside the universe" ignores that the universe is All, and hence the universe being All, it seems reasonable to assume that All is infinite - for within the universe is the concept of infinity and hence the universe must be at least as large as the concept of infinity, that being of course macroscopic infinity itself. - stage 2.

Now if I consider the decimal number system, which also exists inside the universe, it is known that there is no smallest number, for from 1 to 0.1, to 0.000001 and so on, numbers can always get smaller by simply adding more zeros in the appropriate place and hence the concept of infinitely small exists within the universe and hence within my mind. - stage 3.

Now applying a single integer to each of the points of the macroscopic universe and likewise applying a single integer to each of the points of my mind reveals that the ratio of the macroscopic to my mind is 1:1, therefore I am the universe, and hence equivalent to all of God.

Lets just ignore differing rates of infinity otherwise that very small arrow pointing to an insignificantly small dot, with infinitely small writing next to it saying "you are here - don't eat the cake" may reveal that I am not Zaphod.

Aha, I see there. I am very glad you brought this up And I agree with you 100%

Well we are within the universe, but within our minds lay another universe of unparalelled dimensions, each is unique to every individual.

All of these concepts of infinity, and aeons exist because of what we believe it to be. So really they exist only to be truly non existant in physical dimensions, but in the mental dimensions they do exist, but within our mental dimensions also lies the physical and creative dimensions.

Colliding membranes create new universes, so in turn our 'divinity' creates more divine beings.

WE are God's for where would 'God' be without us?

I think that smart people realized this and used it to manipulate and controll the whole.

Peacewise you are of praise sir!

May you walk among the Gods.

 

[Copernicus]

ok, I'll not talk about Olympian Gods, but would you care to explain why Pantheism cannot logically exist.
Ie the belief that the universe is God.

It isn't a matter of logic, but of definition. Normally, people think of a god as a spiritual agency that can perceive, think, and act in the real world. Does the word still retain that meaning when you claim that the universe is God? Do you think of the universe as an independent agency that can interact with humans? It strikes me that discussions about the existence of gods often turn into questions of what we mean by the word "God". You might as well define God as the largest beanbag in the world. Then we could all agree that God exists.

 

[Riverwolf]

It isn't a matter of logic, but of definition. Normally, people think of a god as a spiritual agency that can perceive, think, and act in the real world. Does the word still retain that meaning when you claim that the universe is God? Do you think of the universe as an independent agency that can interact with humans? It strikes me that discussions about the existence of gods often turn into questions of what we mean by the word "God". You might as well define God as the largest beanbag in the world. Then we could all agree that God exists.

It's because different people have different definitions of the word "god," and apply it to different concepts. Because of this, it's not so easy to define.

 

[Orias]

It isn't a matter of logic, but of definition. Normally, people think of a god as a spiritual agency that can perceive, think, and act in the real world. Does the word still retain that meaning when you claim that the universe is God? Do you think of the universe as an independent agency that can interact with humans? It strikes me that discussions about the existence of gods often turn into questions of what we mean by the word "God". You might as well define God as the largest beanbag in the world. Then we could all agree that God exists.

The universe may or may not be an independent agency, but it is capable of interacting with us, since we are of it and it is within us. Though it may not be direct, our mind communicates with the silence in which all sleep.

I think it is more perceptible to define God as the mind, since we come up with all of these concepts.

I know what you mean though, people through around the word God. Though I chose not to speak of it in divinity since the mind dies with the body, but the thoughts and concepts it comes up with may create the unknown.

 

[Copernicus]

It's because different people have different definitions of the word "god," and apply it to different concepts. Because of this, it's not so easy to define.

I don't quite agree. I think that the word is as easy to define as most other words that we use to describe agents. I suspect that the word becomes difficult to define whenever the existence of gods gets called into question. Then the meaning becomes a greased pig, metaphorically speaking.

The universe may or may not be an independent agency, but it is capable of interacting with us, since we are of it and it is within us. Though it may not be direct, our mind communicates with the silence in which all sleep.

What you have just said shows how slippery these word games can become. Either the universe is or is not an independent agency, but you seem to want to have it both ways.

I think it is more perceptible to define God as the mind, since we come up with all of these concepts.

In that case, we can define every concept as the mind, but that does not seem to lead us to any interesting insights.

I know what you mean though, people through around the word God. Though I chose not to speak of it in divinity since the mind dies with the body, but the thoughts and concepts it comes up with may create the unknown.

The reason that conventional definitions of gods will never die is that people need to interact with their gods. They worship and pray to gods. They make sacrifices for which they expect something in return. Gods are essentially human beings that sit at the top of the social hierarchy. When you take that rather old-fashioned, conventional view of them, they also become less believable.

 

[Riverwolf]

I don't quite agree. I think that the word is as easy to define as most other words that we use to describe agents. I suspect that the word becomes difficult to define whenever the existence of gods gets called into question. Then the meaning becomes a greased pig, metaphorically speaking.

Not necessarily. Some use god to describe divine beings that rule over all existence, some use it to describe otherworldly beings that may or may not be worshiped, it can be used in the singular to describe a despotic ruler of the universe, some for spiritual teachers, real or not, some use it to describe all Reality, some use it to describe Absolute Truth, some for anything that's adored and admired by people, whether divine or not.

For example, under the definition of god that I use (which isn't dependent on actual existence) super-heroes are gods.

 

[Orias]

I don't quite agree. I think that the word is as easy to define as most other words that we use to describe agents. I suspect that the word becomes difficult to define whenever the existence of gods gets called into question. Then the meaning becomes a greased pig, metaphorically speaking.


What you have just said shows how slippery these word games can become. Either the universe is or is not an independent agency, but you seem to want to have it both ways.

But you see there is universes within universes, the mind and the parallel.

In that case, we can define every concept as the mind, but that does not seem to lead us to any interesting insights.

Well of course not, it is fact that man has what man created or improvised.

The reason that conventional definitions of gods will never die is that people need to interact with their gods. They worship and pray to gods. They make sacrifices for which they expect something in return. Gods are essentially human beings that sit at the top of the social hierarchy. When you take that rather old-fashioned, conventional view of them, they also become less believable.

Well alot of people tend to look at it that way.
But notice the sacrifices that people make to the Gods, they do gain in return, because they believe that they are communicating with the Gods and the Gods make what they want happen, when really it was them and nature that made it happen.

I really see no difference among that.

People worship the Gods that dwell within their mind, they mind as well just worship and praise themselves.

 

[tarasan]

Who said I can't take it? I believe there is specific threads for 'poking fun at people'. I am here on serious manner, and I don't take lightly to insults.

And yes I was laughing, but I quoted UltraViolet and I was not speaking to you.

You consider Christianity a diverse religion, of course, it is world wide and there is many forms of Christianity that contradict each other. You can follow what you think you know, I have no problem with that. But all that needs to be understood is that religion advocates the use of all magics of manipulation and deceit.

You follow the flock.
I am my own redeemer.

you were not speaking ot me but you certianly attacked what i was.
religion only advocates when God does Christians desire to follow him, manipulation and deciet are things my religion abhores.

ohhhh and to pursue your own ends....... you think that is somehow unique?

 

[blackout]

you were not speaking ot me but you certianly attacked what i was.
religion only advocates when God does Christians desire to follow him, manipulation and deciet are things my religion abhores.

ohhhh and to pursue your own ends....... you think that is somehow unique?

Of course it is unique.

Orias is a completely UNIQUE Being.

His ends, his means, his meanings and every'thing about him
will be completely unique TO him...
because his path is his own.
A becoming of his own Thelema.
His own true will.


Those who live by doctrine and indoctrination
truly are living a PRE'Scribed path.
They have handed over the author'ship/authority
of their own Being. Their own godhood.

 

[blackout]

Luckily for some people, like me, I have always found disgust among any theism or faithful religions like Christianity. I am glad my parents never forced any belief on me...

I was born in opposition and a contender to the creation.

I was born in opposition as well.


But the enemy is relentless.
My true Self was neither understood or supported
by my own family or anyone I knew.

We didn't even have the internet back then.
So I was truly alone.

The Religion of my childhood indoctrination
literally almost killed ME.
I was languishing and almost completely dead
before I finally picked MYSELF up,
and took my life
and my own path
back.

Sad all the wasted years,
and loss.

But there you go.

The casualties of war.

 

[blackout]

There is no 'deprogramming' there is just you realizing what is, instead of what is not. Everyone is embedded with moral and ethical right and wrongs, it is because of the world society. Just acknowledge you and you will be perfectly fine. Be the water instead of the sponge and you will understand all, slowly but surely.

While I understand and agree with your statement here in general,
I would say that purposeful deprogramming IS very often necessary.


Since the thread IS about x-christianity,
I'll focus there.

Christianity is just JAM PACKED with moral, spiritual, physical & mental TABOOS.

And they can be very insidious.

If one does not ACTIVELY COUNTER them...
they will always hold you in their grip.
If you do not ACTIVELY seek to recognize them
in your life....
they will always rule you...
subtly & even blatantly in ways so BIG
you can't even see them there in front of you.

To counter them heretically and sacraligously
is sometimes the best way to lay them low.

for example...

How do you begin countering lifelong repression of masterbation?
Masterbate.
How do you couner the RELIGOUS ban on masterbation?
Masterbate sacraligously

Purposeful and PERSONAL deprogramming.
Yes, only the TrueSelf can do it.
But depending on the amount of damage, repression, taboo
more or less vigilant and even ritual deprogramming
is necessary.

It frees the psyche.
(and sometimes it's fun besides. :flirt:)

 

[Beaudreaux]

I'm sorry, but your wrong its is man's fault that death and suffering has come to this world.
"For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Moreover the law entered, that the offense might abound. but where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord" Romans 5:19-21

Even if bad things happens it happens to everybody whether or not they deserve it or not.
"That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust." Mathew 5:45

If you are correct, then you cannot say that God is just.

 

[Peacewise]

I find it interesting that humans attempt to define the omnimax being, that of all knowing, all present and all powerful within their own constructs.

So many times i've heard, "I could create a better universe than that." - pure arrogance.

Or that an omnimax being is cruel because it doesn't stop all the suffering. - without suffering there is no respite from it.

Or that the concept is illogical, using the old rock too heavy to lift scenario, and ignoring that an omnimax being defies human logic and hence is capable of things we consider illogical, I mean come on, humans can be illogical surely God can choose to do something humanely illogical too since we can!

Or free will as a contradiction to omnimax, ignoring that an omnimax being could chose to limit itself by not effecting our free will.

 

[Copernicus]

I find it interesting that humans attempt to define the omnimax being, that of all knowing, all present and all powerful within their own constructs.

Those are the only constructs that humans have available to define anything in.

So many times i've heard, "I could create a better universe than that." - pure arrogance.

Actually, I don't think that I could create a universe at all, nor do I think the one we inhabit created. But the real arrogance is with those who think that the universe was essentially created for humans.

Or that an omnimax being is cruel because it doesn't stop all the suffering. - without suffering there is no respite from it.

I'll sign up for that. Why would I want to suffer just so that I could stop suffering? I'd much rather prefer not to have started in the first place.

Or that the concept is illogical, using the old rock too heavy to lift scenario, and ignoring that an omnimax being defies human logic and hence is capable of things we consider illogical, I mean come on, humans can be illogical surely God can choose to do something humanely illogical too since we can!

What makes God illogical is not that he can create rocks too heavy for him to lift. It is that he cannot create beings with free will whose future is known to him. Nor can he test people to find out what an omniscient being would know in the first place. Nor can he get angry or surprised at human behavior. Yet believers hold these inconsistent beliefs about their God as if they were perfectly compatible with each other.

Or free will as a contradiction to omnimax, ignoring that an omnimax being could chose to limit itself by not effecting our free will.

This is a good example of illogical thinking. An omniscient being cannot make itself ignorant without canceling out omniscience. An omnipotent being cannot make itself vulnerable without canceling out omnipotence. God cannot create beings whose futures he is ignorant of.

 

[tarasan]

Of course it is unique.

Orias is a completely UNIQUE Being.

His ends, his means, his meanings and every'thing about him
will be completely unique TO him...
because his path is his own.
A becoming of his own Thelema.
His own true will.


Those who live by doctrine and indoctrination
truly are living a PRE'Scribed path.
They have handed over the author'ship/authority
of their own Being. Their own godhood.

yep well I know plenty of people who Go their own "path". ultiamtely he is going his own way, which alot of people do, and yes he does live by doctrine and indoctrination, because he lives in society, ultiamtely people cannot helped to be influenced by it.

we are all as unique as ourselves, we all choose to prescribe to a certain way of living, and we all progress in understanding and change as we meet certain challenges.

I give my life a service to something else, while he gives his life up to primal urges and desires, The Want, act of selfishness etc.

they both bind you to a certain way, both drive you by a certain path, and blind you to others.

I understand that I cant helped but ultiamtely be controled by one thing or another.

unless you can prove differently.

 

[Orias]

you were not speaking ot me but you certianly attacked what i was.
religion only advocates when God does Christians desire to follow him, manipulation and deciet are things my religion abhores.

ohhhh and to pursue your own ends....... you think that is somehow unique?

But see the Christian God does desire followers. And the Church is a 'non-profit' organization yet it is very wealthy. If the churches in the U.S.A were taxed our national debt would be paid off and the churches would crumble due to their own obsolence.

All religion advocates the devil...but it is ok...plenty of people are willing to deny it.

When did I say natural pursuit of gratifacation was unique? Everyone looks for some form of gratifacation, by my own redeemer I mean, I am resiliant in the fact that I don't need others to cope or over come what obsticles I face.