Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 19, 2021 12:08 am
The thought resulting in another thought results in the original thought under a new form thus recursion.
That would imply a 'predictive' unfurling of events, based on what happened before to trigger what's happening in realtime, and so yes, I agree.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 19, 2021 12:08 am2. A gap cannot be observed except as the relationship of being as the absence of one being within another, thus there is no nothingness only being.
There has to be, both being and not being in the exact same instance. To be, requires a knowledge of being, but since knowledge is just the appearance of being itself. There cannot be knowledge to speak of in regards to not-being. Being is only known to be in the context of it's comlimentary opposite that must exist in the exact same instant. That's the nature of duality, which is knowing opposites as and through conceptual language. All knowledge of things are known as concept only, as and through the only knowing there is which is unknowable.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 19, 2021 12:08 am3. Nothing knowing itself is self negating as there is no nothing considering if all is void even the nature of void must be voided.
Things do not know anything. Things are known by the only knowing there is which is unknowable....think about that.
A thing, or concept is known...but a thing in and of itself does not know. A thing doesn't need to know, it's already being known.
Reality does not experience itself as the 'thing' it knows. Think about that... there is no thing knowing. There is only this immediate mysterious knowing... you are that knowing that cannot be known, and that's all that can be known about knowing.
.
1. Agreed, being and non being are simultaneous.
2. The totality of being as formless is pure conceptuality as formless. The divine mind is without form at is root point with all images being an approximation of this formlessness.
3. The observation of any phenomenon when observed as an observation in itself observes nothing lying behind the observation, so yes in agreement to your point.
God is not limited to humanity thus is not limited to the fittest human. God is the concept of "all" being and is not limited to this conceptualization of being as "all" given God as a concept is God as having limits to being a concept thus is not all powerful. God as all powerful necessitates God as dually existing as an absence of form.
Hard to read.
How can you know the limits of a god? Telepathy?
If made in our image, god is definitely limited just as the fittest human is.
If limited, why call it god? Who is this limited God?
Regards
DL
Limits are the boundary of forms, ie they are what allow forms to exist. God exists through forms, thus God exists through limits. Considering God is exists through the limits of man, but is not limited to man, God exists as beyond man.
God is not limited to humanity thus is not limited to the fittest human. God is the concept of "all" being and is not limited to this conceptualization of being as "all" given God as a concept is God as having limits to being a concept thus is not all powerful. God as all powerful necessitates God as dually existing as an absence of form.
Hard to read.
How can you know the limits of a god? Telepathy?
If made in our image, god is definitely limited just as the fittest human is.
If limited, why call it god? Who is this limited God?
Regards
DL
Limits are the boundary of forms, ie they are what allow forms to exist. God exists through forms, thus God exists through limits. Considering God is exists through the limits of man, but is not limited to man, God exists as beyond man.
You sound good, but say almost nothing.
If you cannot prove a god exists, you are lying.
Even if your god exists, why would you follow a god of such poor moral value?
If made in our image, god is definitely limited just as the fittest human is.
If limited, why call it god? Who is this limited God?
Regards
DL
Limits are the boundary of forms, ie they are what allow forms to exist. God exists through forms, thus God exists through limits. Considering God is exists through the limits of man, but is not limited to man, God exists as beyond man.
You sound good, but say almost nothing.
If you cannot prove a god exists, you are lying.
Even if your god exists, why would you follow a god of such poor moral value?
Regards
DL
To prove that God exists would make God as subject to proof and therefore not God. But considering God must be subject to creation if God is to be omnipresent then God would be proven through the totality of everything as the totality of being is omnipresence (which is a definition of God).
To say that God is of poor moral value is to imply that you are of moral value but this moral value would be of your own creation (ie does not come from God) thus subjective and not universal therefore negating the fact that you have the moral nature required to make such a moral judgement of whether God is moral or immoral.
Limits are the boundary of forms, ie they are what allow forms to exist. God exists through forms, thus God exists through limits. Considering God is exists through the limits of man, but is not limited to man, God exists as beyond man.
You sound good, but say almost nothing.
If you cannot prove a god exists, you are lying.
Even if your god exists, why would you follow a god of such poor moral value?
Regards
DL
To prove that God exists would make God as subject to proof and therefore not God. But considering God must be subject to creation if God is to be omnipresent then God would be proven through the totality of everything as the totality of being is omnipresence (which is a definition of God).
To say that God is of poor moral value is to imply that you are of moral value but this moral value would be of your own creation (ie does not come from God) thus subjective and not universal therefore negating the fact that you have the moral nature required to make such a moral judgement of whether God is moral or immoral.
How can one reply to so many assumptions that you give as facts.
Your bible calls out your main moral premise/lie with the following.
Gen3;22 Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil;
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.
You do not like that I judge god, yet you have and have found what I see as quite the genocidal p**** as good.
Justify your verdict and stop telling me to not do something you are doing. Judging.
Even if your god exists, why would you follow a god of such poor moral value?
Regards
DL
To prove that God exists would make God as subject to proof and therefore not God. But considering God must be subject to creation if God is to be omnipresent then God would be proven through the totality of everything as the totality of being is omnipresence (which is a definition of God).
To say that God is of poor moral value is to imply that you are of moral value but this moral value would be of your own creation (ie does not come from God) thus subjective and not universal therefore negating the fact that you have the moral nature required to make such a moral judgement of whether God is moral or immoral.
How can one reply to so many assumptions that you give as facts.
Your bible calls out your main moral premise/lie with the following.
Gen3;22 Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil;
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.
You do not like that I judge god, yet you have and have found what I see as quite the genocidal p**** as good.
Justify your verdict and stop telling me to not do something you are doing. Judging.
Regards
DL
1. The question is of context.
In regards to your Genesis quote God is referencing the ominpresence of the trinity as existing through all things (even as "hell" which is the manifestation of God's justice in giving what said being fully desires (ie lust, greed, etc.)).
In regards to Thessalonians the testing of all things is in reference to that which exists in time and space. Given that God cannot be fully subject to testing, as God exists outside of time and space, God is untestable.
2. Strawman, I never said "not to judge" but rather "negating the fact that you have the moral nature required to make such a moral judgement of whether God is moral or immoral." Your moral values are entirely of your own creation thus are subjective and not universal. As subjective and not universal they cannot by definition make any reflections upon what is objective and universal.
To prove that God exists would make God as subject to proof and therefore not God. But considering God must be subject to creation if God is to be omnipresent then God would be proven through the totality of everything as the totality of being is omnipresence (which is a definition of God).
To say that God is of poor moral value is to imply that you are of moral value but this moral value would be of your own creation (ie does not come from God) thus subjective and not universal therefore negating the fact that you have the moral nature required to make such a moral judgement of whether God is moral or immoral.
How can one reply to so many assumptions that you give as facts.
Your bible calls out your main moral premise/lie with the following.
Gen3;22 Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil;
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.
You do not like that I judge god, yet you have and have found what I see as quite the genocidal p**** as good.
Justify your verdict and stop telling me to not do something you are doing. Judging.
Regards
DL
1. The question is of context.
In regards to your Genesis quote God is referencing the ominpresence of the trinity as existing through all things (even as "hell" which is the manifestation of God's justice in giving what said being fully desires (ie lust, greed, etc.)).
In regards to Thessalonians the testing of all things is in reference to that which exists in time and space. Given that God cannot be fully subject to testing, as God exists outside of time and space, God is untestable.
2. Strawman, I never said "not to judge" but rather "negating the fact that you have the moral nature required to make such a moral judgement of whether God is moral or immoral." Your moral values are entirely of your own creation thus are subjective and not universal. As subjective and not universal they cannot by definition make any reflections upon what is objective and universal.
Tat being the case, you show that all believers then are all liars when they say that God is good.
Right?
If I cannot judge god to be evil, then no one can judge god to be good.
That makes all believers in a good god to be liars.
How can one reply to so many assumptions that you give as facts.
Your bible calls out your main moral premise/lie with the following.
Gen3;22 Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil;
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.
You do not like that I judge god, yet you have and have found what I see as quite the genocidal p**** as good.
Justify your verdict and stop telling me to not do something you are doing. Judging.
Regards
DL
1. The question is of context.
In regards to your Genesis quote God is referencing the ominpresence of the trinity as existing through all things (even as "hell" which is the manifestation of God's justice in giving what said being fully desires (ie lust, greed, etc.)).
In regards to Thessalonians the testing of all things is in reference to that which exists in time and space. Given that God cannot be fully subject to testing, as God exists outside of time and space, God is untestable.
2. Strawman, I never said "not to judge" but rather "negating the fact that you have the moral nature required to make such a moral judgement of whether God is moral or immoral." Your moral values are entirely of your own creation thus are subjective and not universal. As subjective and not universal they cannot by definition make any reflections upon what is objective and universal.
Tat being the case, you show that all believers then are all liars when they say that God is good.
Right?
If I cannot judge god to be evil, then no one can judge god to be good.
That makes all believers in a good god to be liars.
Right?
Regards
DL
Not when following an objective moral code with this objectivity necessitated by multiple people observing the same set of conditions.
Personal morality does not follow objective moral conditions given if it did it would not be personal.
Your morality is personal as Gnosticism is premised on personal choice.
In regards to your Genesis quote God is referencing the ominpresence of the trinity as existing through all things (even as "hell" which is the manifestation of God's justice in giving what said being fully desires (ie lust, greed, etc.)).
In regards to Thessalonians the testing of all things is in reference to that which exists in time and space. Given that God cannot be fully subject to testing, as God exists outside of time and space, God is untestable.
2. Strawman, I never said "not to judge" but rather "negating the fact that you have the moral nature required to make such a moral judgement of whether God is moral or immoral." Your moral values are entirely of your own creation thus are subjective and not universal. As subjective and not universal they cannot by definition make any reflections upon what is objective and universal.
Tat being the case, you show that all believers then are all liars when they say that God is good.
Right?
If I cannot judge god to be evil, then no one can judge god to be good.
That makes all believers in a good god to be liars.
Right?
Regards
DL
Not when following an objective moral code with this objectivity necessitated by multiple people observing the same set of conditions.
Personal morality does not follow objective moral conditions given if it did it would not be personal.
Your morality is personal as Gnosticism is premised on personal choice.
There are no objective moral codes.
That was just a deflection on your part.
The topic was the ability of believers to judge god, while denying others that same privilege.
They find a genocidal p**** good, somehow, while saying we cannot judge if we judge genocidal gods to be G D pricks.
Greatest I am wrote: ↑Tue Sep 14, 2021 8:27 pm
Not when following an objective moral code with this objectivity necessitated by multiple people observing the same set of conditions.
Too stupid to comment on, but, the S.S. followed the same fascist code as Christianity does.
Real moral that. Right?
Regards
DL
But the S.S. did not follow the same code as Christianity so your point is false. Objectivity requires an underlying common core amidst multiple perspectives. This can be construed as there being multiple objective truths which clash but is not the case considering there is an underlying shared sub qualities which exist under these multiple "objective" states.
Stealing is immoral across multiple cultures, so is blasphemy of a higher power. There is objective morality.