A question about the honesty of the intelligence claims to be God!

TokiEl

Superstar
Joined
Dec 13, 2017
Messages
6,156
So the issue is while they waiting for the messiah (with a set of beliefs they had), Jesus was telling them an entirely different story.
While they were waiting for the Messiah they had time to come up with a lot of prejudices... so when Jesus came and did not conform to those prejudices.... Jesus had to go.

You can say they made the Messiah in their image... and Jesus did not fit their image of the Messiah.
 






DanRaleigh

Rookie
Joined
May 19, 2018
Messages
37
While they were waiting for the Messiah they had time to come up with a lot of prejudices... so when Jesus came and did not conform to those prejudices.... Jesus had to go.

You can say they made the Messiah in their image... and Jesus did not fit their image of the Messiah.
I think that's not how the story goes. Their (God who spoke to them earlier) God never spoke to them to clarify the issues in a logical/meaningful way. If their God (Yahweh) indeed spoke to Jesus, then God completely ignored Jewish people. If I was living during this time and if I was a Jewish person and if I believed Yahweh as the true God, I would have also rejected Jesus, because Jesus is telling me a story that goes against what God had told to our people earlier. From my perspective, I know that I cannot talk to God directly to clarify this issue. And I know that God had never spoken to any of our religious leaders to resolve the issue in a meaningful way (thoughts I would have during this situation). Even if the devil had confused us/our people, then God should have told us in a meaningful way that the devil confused us. So the reasons are clear. After all, you will know that Jewish people, Christians, or even Muslim people would never like to hold onto a belief that is entirely false but that could still happen without knowing the truth. If they know that their religious beliefs and practices are entirely false/delusional, they will not have a reason to hold onto the belief even a single day.

What I see from Abrahamic religions is that so many Jewish people suffered, so many Muslim people suffered and so many Christians suffered because of religious beliefs and conflicts. Having dedicated their whole lives to these beliefs, even up to this day, we cannot find this intelligence claims to be God, nor the angels to clarify a single word (this shouldn't be this way if the intelligence indeed created the universe and truly care human lives. So, something is wrong). And we are told that after an apocalypse (not even helping us to understand how to stop this war if it's true and save lives) that the Jesus/prophets will come back to Earth. By the way, this is not about you. Like I said in my original post, you all are great people. So, hope none of you would take me wrongly, but this is what Abrahamic religions are telling us when we closely analyze these events.
 






Last edited:

Mr.Anderson

Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2018
Messages
849
Regarding the OP

I'd like to point that there is a book by Derek Gilbert called "Bad Moon Rising" about this very subject.
 






Tidal

Star
Joined
Mar 4, 2020
Messages
2,732
.Dont argue back or I will have to get out the sad Jesus meme for you.

And if you keep trying to preach to us I shall have to get out this quote of Paul's about some noisy yapping women.. :p-

"Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." (1 Cor 14:34/35)

He had nothing against sensible women and said-
"I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church in Cenchrea..she has been a great help to many people, including me..
Greet Priscilla , my fellow worker in Christ Jesus, she risked her life for me.
Greet Mary, who worked very hard for you..
Greet Tryphena and Tryphosa and Persis, those women who work hard in the Lord.
Greet Rufus, chosen in the Lord, and his mother, who has been a mother to me, too.

Greet Julia.." (Romans ch 16)
 






Cintra

Star
Joined
Jan 11, 2020
Messages
2,587
And if you keep trying to preach to us I shall have to get out this quote of Paul's about some noisy yapping women.. :p-

"Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." (1 Cor 14:34/35)

He had nothing against sensible women and said-
"I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church in Cenchrea..she has been a great help to many people, including me..
Greet Priscilla , my fellow worker in Christ Jesus, she risked her life for me.
Greet Mary, who worked very hard for you..
Greet Tryphena and Tryphosa and Persis, those women who work hard in the Lord.
Greet Rufus, chosen in the Lord, and his mother, who has been a mother to me, too.

Greet Julia.." (Romans ch 16)

IMG_20210226_185629.jpg

You made jesus sad.
 






Last edited:

Aero

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
5,553
Does that mean you are claiming God(father of Jesus) created the conflict by knowing?
That's one way to put it.

Idk why you can't clarify what's your hangup over conflicts. It's like you are using the word as a label and taking a very shallow approach. Conflict and ignorance are God's creations.

One thought from a God is enough to reshape entire worlds. So when you think about God discovering an error, the consequences are huge. Now, if you think errors shouldn't exist, then I probably can't go further on this.
 






friend

Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2017
Messages
746
Assume on the very first day when Gabriel speaks to prophet Muhammad tells him that Jesus is not the Son of God. And Gabriel also states that Allah is the God. Since prophet Muhammad has no clue who this intelligence is, he goes to so many Christian leaders and tries to clarify this point (If prophet Muhammad was an educated person, he would know that Jesus is the son of God as per Christians, instead of a prophet. And he should know that an intelligence claims to be God spoke to them first by telling Jesus is his son. So they are the best people to clarify this point more than anyone else). So if Prophet Muhammad tells the Christian leaders that Jesus is not the son of God and also tells them that Allah is the true God, what kind of response we can expect to hear from the Christian leaders? Will they tell prophet Muhammad that the claim made by the intelligence is true?

Why this is an issue?

Based on recorded events we know that either Christian leaders would think that prophet Muhammad is crazy to think that Allah is the God or if not Christian leaders would think that an intelligence is deceiving prophet Muhammad (Cause by the 7th century, Christian leaders and Christians believed/know Jesus is the son of God. They knew this even before Prophet Muhammad was born to the world). Because of this controversy, a person could even ask from prophet Muhammad, that "what was the reason for you to conclude that Allah is the God and Jesus is just a prophet?" The evidence indicates that this conclusion was solely was due to the claim made by the intelligence who spoke to him and few people (how did they know Allah is the God and Jesus is not the son of God?). This conflict of beliefs/claims is a huge problem in Abrahamic religions(and you already know this).
you should know, first of all, that Arab Christians use the word Allah for God (ask any middle eastern Arab Christian for confirmation). And so did the Arab pagans.
 






Alanantic

Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Messages
519
you should know, first of all, that Arab Christians use the word Allah for God (ask any middle eastern Arab Christian for confirmation). And so did the Arab pagans.
"Say this, all one God in many names" (Rigveda, Book 1, Hymn 164, Verse 46) "Do not worship anyone besides him alone, praise him alone"(Rigveda, Book 8, Hymn 1,Verse 1) -- Hindu scripture
 






friend

Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2017
Messages
746
"Say this, all one God in many names" (Rigveda, Book 1, Hymn 164, Verse 46) "Do not worship anyone besides him alone, praise him alone"(Rigveda, Book 8, Hymn 1,Verse 1) -- Hindu scripture
Yes, many names in different languages but Only He is worthy of worship not anyone or anything else.
 






A Freeman

Star
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
2,763
I think that's not how the story goes. Their (God who spoke to them earlier) God never spoke to them to clarify the issues in a logical/meaningful way. If their God (Yahweh) indeed spoke to Jesus, then God completely ignored Jewish people. If I was living during this time and if I was a Jewish person and if I believed Yahweh as the true God, I would have also rejected Jesus, because Jesus is telling me a story that goes against what God had told to our people earlier. From my perspective, I know that I cannot talk to God directly to clarify this issue. And I know that God had never spoken to any of our religious leaders to resolve the issue in a meaningful way (thoughts I would have during this situation). Even if the devil had confused us/our people, then God should have told us in a meaningful way that the devil confused us. So the reasons are clear. After all, you will know that Jewish people, Christians, or even Muslim people would never like to hold onto a belief that is entirely false but that could still happen without knowing the truth. If they know that their religious beliefs and practices are entirely false/delusional, they will not have a reason to hold onto the belief even a single day.

What I see from Abrahamic religions is that so many Jewish people suffered, so many Muslim people suffered and so many Christians suffered because of religious beliefs and conflicts. Having dedicated their whole lives to these beliefs, even up to this day, we cannot find this intelligence claims to be God, nor the angels to clarify a single word (this shouldn't be this way if the intelligence indeed created the universe and truly care human lives. So, something is wrong). And we are told that after an apocalypse (not even helping us to understand how to stop this war if it's true and save lives) that the Jesus/prophets will come back to Earth. By the way, this is not about you. Like I said in my original post, you all are great people. So, hope none of you would take me wrongly, but this is what Abrahamic religions are telling us when we closely analyze these events.
It is, and always has been, a common misconception to equate organized religions with "God".

God has sent us His Message in multiple ways, e.g. telepathically, through His Prophets and Messengers, and in writing in His Holy Scriptures, which include the Old Covenant, New Covenant and the Koran.

We have been given His Law to provide us with the sole criterion for determining right from wrong. The Law includes the perfect form of government, the perfect system of justice, the perfect agricultural system, the perfect economic system and the perfect healthy diet. If we followed The Law, it would eliminate all poverty, crime and oppression and all conflict and war. In general, it would protect us from all of the evil, which has multiplied exponentially, precisely because we haven't kept The Law.

We have been sent all of the Prophets, Messengers/Apostles, and a flesh-and-blood example in Jesus, to remind us and help steer us back to true freedom and justice. And in the Message that they brought are countless prophecies, many made thousands of years in advance, >99% of which have already been fulfilled in exact and minute detail. Only a complete fool would look at that track record and fail to see the amazing intelligence behind it, or doubt that remaining <1% of the prophecies won't also be fulfilled in similar fashion.

We were sent the message again in the Koran, which confirms the Old Covenant and New Covenant that came before it.

It is Lucifer/Satan/Iblis who created ALL organized religion to conquer and divide us, and keep us arguing, fighting and murdering one another. Anyone who has taken the time to read and study the Holy Scripture with an open mind free of organized religion, should immediately recognize that it is replete with condemnations of the satanic organized religions, their places of business (churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, etc.) and their priests, pastors, rabbis and imams, etc.

At every single turn we have ignored these messages from our Creator, both those in writing and the ones He sends to each of us telepathically every single day (to every single human+Being on Earth). Why would anyone in their right-mind blame the manufacturer when they refuse to read and/or follow the instruction manual? Isn't that the height of arrogance and ignorance, both of which are co-dependent attributes we all learned from Lucifer/Satan/Iblis?
 






TokiEl

Superstar
Joined
Dec 13, 2017
Messages
6,156
I think that's not how the story goes. Their (God who spoke to them earlier) God never spoke to them to clarify the issues in a logical/meaningful way. If their God (Yahweh) indeed spoke to Jesus, then God completely ignored Jewish people. If I was living during this time and if I was a Jewish person and if I believed Yahweh as the true God, I would have also rejected Jesus, because Jesus is telling me a story that goes against what God had told to our people earlier.
The Messiah had to shed His blood to atone for our sins.





So if God made it abundantly clear that Jesus was the Messiah or Christ... then the jewish establishment would probably not want Him dead right. And that would be bad for everybody... since nobody would be forgiven for sins.

Now those who repent can be forgiven... not because of good birth or good works or good looks or etc etc but because of the Messiah's shed blood.


 






Last edited:

Alanantic

Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Messages
519
The Messiah had to shed His blood to atone for our sins.





So if God made it abundantly clear that Jesus was the Messiah or Christ... then the jewish establishment would probably not want Him dead right. And that would be bad for everybody... since nobody would be forgiven for sins.

Now those who repent can be forgiven... not because of good birth or good works or good looks or etc etc but because of the Messiah's shed blood.


That's the most sick & twisted view of the world I've ever heard. You're joking, right?

Why would any human being WANT to believe that????

"Belief in a cruel god makes a cruel man." -- Thomas Paine
 






TokiEl

Superstar
Joined
Dec 13, 2017
Messages
6,156
That's the most sick & twisted view of the world I've ever heard. You're joking, right?

Why would any human being WANT to believe that????

"Belief in a cruel god makes a cruel man." -- Thomas Paine
Why don't you come clean and tell us plainly that you're a govtroll ?
 






TokiEl

Superstar
Joined
Dec 13, 2017
Messages
6,156
It's not so hard to understand.


The Creator has the full responsibility for His creation.

It is He who pays the price for our chance of redemption.
 






Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
1,394
Our morality is simply the best way we think we should live our lives. Eventually we discover the more empathy we have for others, the longer and more fulfilled our lives are.
A moral system that is predicated on empathy is not a good system. To empathise is to put oneself in another person's place in order to understand their first person, subjective experience: their emotions, thoughts and motives. By doing this, it is expected that one would act towards them in a way that would most benefit their interest and needs. But why would it be desirable to achieve such a goal? One individual's needs and interests may conflict with those of another person. How then, can it be judged whose needs are to be favoured?

To consider empathy to be the highest virtue is also to assume that if a person's desires are actualized, the best outcome will result. But people desire things that do not benefit them, and do not benefit others. They may desire things that harm themselves, and harm others. In this case, judging by empathy would not produce the best outcome; it would be better to impose on that person a solution that they may not like, but that would produce a better outcome.

If we believe morality to be subjective, i.e. that one standard of morality can be practiced by one person, and another standard of morality can be practiced by another person, and that both are equally valid, how are we to judge between what is right or desirable, and wrong or undesirable? As a moral subjectivist you must give up your standard of morality as soon as you encounter a person with a different standard of morality, and if this standard conflicts with yours, you must tolerate it (and perhaps empathise with it), or you can no longer call yourself a moral subjectivist. This renders your standard of morality as worthless as anyone else's morality; your standard of morality is no better than any other.

(Moral subjectivism may also cause injustice if it becomes dominant/prevalent in a society. Because if anyone makes any absolute truth claims, this is viewed as impinging on the subjective morals of other persons; absolute claims to truth are seen as being narrow-minded, divisive and infleixble. Hence, relativism is enforced and pressure is exerted on those who make absolute truth claims to be tolerant and compromise with the views of others, and therefore to give up their objectivist moral positions/they are forced to admit that their moral standard does not apply to everyone.)

If Tony, an addict, is desperate for an injection of heroin, and Dave gives Tony this injection, Tony benefits in the short-term, and Dave is actualizing Tony's desires. This is an empathic act. The moment you say it is wrong, you are imposing a moral standard that is independent of a person's belief, and so you must give up your position of moral subjectivism and concede that a person's acts may be judged by an outside or more objective standard of morality.

But then you must ask, who determines this outside or collective standard of morality? If we ask 10 people this, we may be able to use all their answers to create an average, a use this as a standard for judgement. But if we ask 100,000 or 1,000,000 people, it is inevitable that they will all have different positions on different moral questions. Furthermore, answers to ambigious moral questions may change across space and time. For any given moral issue, it is hard to say what the definitive solution to any ambiguous problem is. Humans do not have full knowledge about everything, and they have conscious and unconscious biases. For this reason, humans can never to achieve laws and solutions to problems that will uphold absolute justice in society. We could only hope to achieve a definitive solution from a source that knows everything, i.e. God.

We can come to the rational conclusion that God exists from the following:
Everything that we can observe in the universe is material and changing. The universe itself is also material and changing. Therefore the universe is contingent just like everything in it is contingent, meaning that it depends on something. Since the universe is contingent it cannot exist by itself and must come from somewhere. We cannot say that it came from another universe or multiverse or whatever else because that would mean an infinite regress which isn't possible. Therefore there must be an uncaused cause which puts everything into motion. Ergo God. God is uncreated, eternally pre-existent and immaterial. The nature of reality requires the existence of such a creator.

From Hashir Shaikh's "Finding the Absolute Truth of our Existence"

Question 1 - What can explain the existence of the universe and ultimately our own existence?

Possible answers:
1) The universe is eternal or infinite
2) The universe created itself or came out of nothing
3) The universe was created by a dependent existence
4) The universe is a product of a multiverse
5) The universe was created by an independent existence

Rationalizing each answer

1) Is the universe eternal or infinite?
a. Time and space seem to be a reality of our universe. The universe is also measurable and contains measurable objects. Therefore, if the universe is bound by these finite limitations, it is not possible for the universe to be eternal or infinite. The universe is composed of finite things. If we make a sum of all finite things in the universe we will always reach a finite value because everything in the universe is finite. Therefore the universe is finite. If time exists there must have been a beginning to the universe.
b. The Red-shift observation - this is an observation made by astronomers which lends credence towards the expansion of the universe. If the universe is expanding with the passage of time then going back in time would show that the universe had a beginning, from which is derived the theory of the Big Bang. Nevertheless, the expansion of the universe alone exemplifies its limitation.
c. Infinite cannot exist in our known reality which is the universe because it is composed of limited things. Also infinity is a concept.
d. Additionally the universe is dependent as we do not have any evidence of something within this universe that does not require something else to exist (i.e self-subsisting) as this would violate certain laws of the universe. Everything in the observable universe is dependent on something else
e. The universe is always changing. Either it’s expanding. OR it has within it: stars dying or stars forming, nebulas forming, planets forming and blackholes forming and so on. This again lends credence to the fact that the universe is limited. We find a lot of change that occurs in the universe.
f. The universe is dependent, changing, finite, and limited.

2) The universe created itself or it came out of nothing
a. From the laws of nature and human observation, it is impossible for something to create itself. It is also impossible for something to come out of nothing. This is because it would go against the fundamental laws such as the first law of thermodynamics, newton’s third law, and laws of causality.

3) The universe is created from something dependent/finite
a. If what created the universe was dependent then that means it also needs a cause.
b. This leads to the paradox of infinite regression. In other words, the dependent being must have been created by another dependent being, who must have been created by another dependent being and so on in an infinite series of casual reactions. However, from the infinite regression, cause and effect are not possible as the cause would infinitely regress and thus prevent the effect from ever occurring. In other words, the universe would never be created by the dependent being. An example of the impossibility of infinite regression: If someone (A) wanted to jump, they require permission from someone else (B). B requires permission from someone else (C) to give permission for A to jump. This chain infinitely regresses backwards. Therefore, A will never be able to jump because he will never be able to receive permission to jump due to the infinite regression of permission. As such, an infinite regression can never lead to an effect and the universe would not exist. Another example is that of dominos. If there are infinite dominos then the “last” domino will never fall (i.e. the effect will never happen).
c. Due to infinite regression, the existence of the universe cannot be ultimately explained by a dependent being.

4) The universe is a product of a multiverse.
a. A possibility that is theorized by some scientists, although with no substantial evidence.
b. This answer to the beginning of the universe is another way of looking at the proposed answer which states a dependent being had caused the universe to exist. This answer does not solve the problem of infinite regression, and only raises the question: where did the multiverse come from (because the multiverse is also something with limitations/is finite)? Thus does not truly answer our question.

5) The universe was created by an independent/infinite existence
a. This cause would solve the paradox of infinite regression from happening because this being would be independent and infinite and therefore the first cause of existence. In other words, this being would not be created by anything else, nor would this being ever have an ending.
b. This being would not be dependent on the universe, but the universe would be dependent on it. Therefore this being would be independent of our universe. And the being would not be measurable (unlike the universe)
c. From philosophical reasoning it is possible to assume an independent being caused the universe. For example, the contingency argument claims that all things in nature depend on something else for their existence (i.e. are contingent), and that the whole cosmos must therefore itself depend on a being which exists independently or necessarily or else we face the problem of infinite regression. If this being never existed the universe would never exist.
d. Since the universe is composed of dependent parts, it is therefore entirely dependent. Therefore, an independent, infinite existence must exist for the dependent existence to exist or else we would face the problem of infinite regression. An Infinite being MUST exist to explain dependent beings observed in our universe.

Conclusion for Question 1:
An independent being is the most likely rational possibility for the existence of our universe. . It is necessary for there to be an independent, infinite being for the universe to exist to prevent infinite regression of dependency and causality. Some qualities of this being can be deduced from reasoning. For example, this being must be independent or self-subsisting to prevent the paradox of infinite regression, must be infinitely knowledgeable because it created the laws that govern our universe, must be infinitely powerful because it created the universe, must be unimaginable and unquantifiable to the human mind or else it would be finite, and must be unchanging as it is infinite.


Question 2 - How many independent beings are there?

Answer:
Logic dictates that there can only be One independent being for the following reasons:

1) More than one independent being would lead to a logical paradox or fallacy. If there were two independent beings, then what is to say there cannot be an infinite amount of independent beings?

2) Multiple independent/infinite beings would compete over superiority thus leading to the contradiction of dependency.

3) Infinite cannot be divided into separate parts in a mathematical point of view.

4) Multiple independent beings would necessitate one being being dependent on the other, which would go against the attribute of independence.

5) Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor) is a principle from philosophy. Suppose there exists two explanations for an occurrence. In this case the one that requires the least speculation is usually better. Another way of saying it is that the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation. As such, believing in One Creator is the most likely explanation.
 






Last edited:

Alanantic

Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Messages
519
People talk for hours & hours about "God" but rarely about the Mystery of themselves. Should not that be our starting point? Man has wondered for millennia if there's a God or not, without exploring their own sense of personal being, something real and tangible. The concept of "God" is just a catch all for things we don't understand. I feel no need to worship that, or anything else, for that matter.
 






Top