Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

So what am I ?

13

Comments

  • #62
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    To compare the instinctual application of intelligence to the issues involved in instinctually-driven living (chimp) with the endlessly creative expression of intelligence - often for the sheer fun of it (humans) would be to compare apples and pears. The suggestion: we endlessly creative/exhuberance because he is endlessly creative and exhuberant would be closer to the mark intended.

    Nail on the head, with regards the apples and pears distinction since both are of the order Rosales, and even of the same family Rosaceae. What this suggests is that it is the tiny differences that set an Apple and a Pear apart, which is the same as humans and our ape/chimp relatives. But I know that's not what you intended. I would rather depart from this line of reasoning, as I feel I no longer need to finish my point, and it has strayed from the overarching discussion.



    antiskeptic wrote: »
    A verse springs to mind..

    "And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit."

    It would be the case, it seems to me, that in the measure we are transformed from common (if I might use the term) image and likeness into full likeness (ie: brought to the point of most intimate sharing of the divine nature) so too will we come to know and understand God.

    Which would mean it can happen by degree. Bit by bit.

    I understand the verse well enough, but it really fails to get a the nub of the issue here.

    Omniscience - How can Man truly know a being which possesses all knowledge, past, future and present; given the vastness of ignorance that Man possesses?

    Omnipotence - How can Man truly know a being who can create universes by thinking them into being, when we have extremely (relative) limited power ourselves, to the point of being infinitesimally small?

    Omnipresence - How can Man truly know a being who is everywhere, at all times, when Man is trapped within his space, which on a universal scale, is infinitesimally small?

    Even if we look like him, and act like him, we are not comparable to him; that's the only veil that remains in this story; the barrier between what makes a God and what makes a Man. Unless Man can possess what lays behind this veil, then he cannot know this being, no matter how well he may mimic it's behaviour.


  • #63
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Flamed Diving wrote: »
    Nail on the head, with regards the apples and pears distinction since both are of the order Rosales, and even of the same family Rosaceae. What this suggests is that it is the tiny differences that set an Apple and a Pear apart

    :)
    I understand the verse well enough, but it really fails to get a the nub of the issue here.

    Omniscience - How can Man truly know a being which possesses all knowledge, past, future and present; given the vastness of ignorance that Man possesses?

    The verse goes a ways to declaring it..:
    "And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit."

    The 'we' in question are a specific group who have been translated out of commoner-garden "image and likeness" territory and are part of conversion programme whereby they become children of God in the fullest sense (indicating like-order).

    Ever-increasing transformation means that God can be grasped in increasing part now (or as Paul say, viewed "through a glass darkly (or dimly/hazily)"). A time comes (or better said, time ends) at which point the transformation is completed. Man partakes of the divine nature completely.

    Ditto for the other obstacles you mentioned.


    Even if we look like him, and act like him, we are not comparable to him; that's the only veil that remains in this story; the barrier between what makes a God and what makes a Man. Unless Man can possess what lays behind this veil, then he cannot know this being, no matter how well he may mimic it's behaviour.

    Paul isn't talking about commoner garden image and likeness (in which all men are made). He's referring to that which occurs post translation out of the realm of sin and into the realm of God. The 'we' being referred to are a specific group and it is they and they only he is addressing. Not mankind at large.

    I'd agree that man as he is can have no communion with God - image and likeness or no. It's a drumbeat message of the Bible in fact: the blindness/deafness/deadness of man in the matter of his communication with God. He must be transformed first..

    Leaving aside the Bible 'study', have you a problem with the principle whereby men are transformed out of their humanity and into divinity? And if not, could you accept not only communication and comprehension, but perfect communion and inter-comprehension?


  • #64
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    :)



    The verse goes a ways to declaring it..:



    The 'we' in question are a specific group who have been translated out of commoner-garden "image and likeness" territory and are part of conversion programme whereby they become children of God in the fullest sense (indicating like-order).

    Ever-increasing transformation means that God can be grasped in increasing part now (or as Paul say, viewed "through a glass darkly (or dimly/hazily)"). A time comes (or better said, time ends) at which point the transformation is completed. Man partakes of the divine nature completely.

    Ditto for the other obstacles you mentioned.





    Paul isn't talking about commoner garden image and likeness (in which all men are made). He's referring to that which occurs post translation out of the realm of sin and into the realm of God. The 'we' being referred to are a specific group and it is they and they only he is addressing. Not mankind at large.

    I'd agree that man as he is can have no communion with God - image and likeness or no. It's a drumbeat message of the Bible in fact: the blindness/deafness/deadness of man in the matter of his communication with God. He must be transformed first..

    Leaving aside the Bible 'study', have you a problem with the principle whereby men are transformed out of their humanity and into divinity? And if not, could you accept not only communication and comprehension, but perfect communion and inter-comprehension?

    I have no problem comprehending what you are saying, but, if Man eventually partakes in divine nature completely (all the omnis), then he is also God. Yahweh was the God that created the universe, but there are many others who now share his powers. The only way we can differentiate him from the others is by the fact that he was there first?


  • #65
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Flamed Diving wrote: »
    I have no problem comprehending what you are saying, but, if Man eventually partakes in divine nature completely (all the omnis), then he is also God.

    Supposing myself taken (as it were) everywhere by him doesn't require that I be him. You've a carrier and a carried in this case. A sustainer and a sustainee. And although I've become at one with his nature, I remain my own person.

    The picture given is father/child. The like-orderness means communication is possible but the child doesn't occupy the same position as the father - not that impinges on 'power' but, as in the case of Jesus, this God-ability is submitted to the will of the Father.


  • #66
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Supposing myself taken (as it were) everywhere by him doesn't require that I be him. You've a carrier and a carried in this case. A sustainer and a sustainee. And although I've become at one with his nature, I remain my own person.

    The picture given is father/child. The like-orderness means communication is possible but the child doesn't occupy the same position as the father - not that impinges on 'power' but, as in the case of Jesus, this God-ability is submitted to the will of the Father.

    Ok, but the difference between father & son is merely time/experience. But once both are dead, it is very likely that both will have shared next to identical lives, save for cultural changes. While I understand the appeal of the father/son relationship with respect to God/Man, I don't believe it to be a complete analogy. Son can hope to become Father one day, but until then, he cannot know what it is to be a man. Communication is possible, sure, but we have both spoken to children as adults. We both know that this is not truly communicating. Finally, the analogy breaks down further because Man cannot hope to become God and fully understand what it is to be this way. I mean this with no disrespect, I hope, but it sounds more like a Man/Pet relationship, which brings me neatly back to my Lion analogy. :)


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    iMax
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,489 ✭✭✭iMax


    Yeah, I'm gonna go & unsubscribe from my own thread now....


  • #68
    Erren Music
    Closed Accounts Posts: 384 ✭✭Erren Music


    Flamed Diving wrote: »
    Either you are dodging my point or you accept that your logic of:

    We cannot test for dark matter.

    is wrong then?

    OK ... to repeat myself

    hopefully cern will provide us with answers in 2 or 3 years.


    Flamed Diving wrote: »
    I have already explained to you why agnosticism has nothing to do with your above rant. I don't feel the need to cover it again.

    Only in relation to the religious idea of a god existing.

    That is totally seperate to the idea of an initial pre big bang creator.


  • #69
    Erren Music
    Closed Accounts Posts: 384 ✭✭Erren Music


    Flamed Diving wrote: »

    Even if we look like him, and act like him, we are not comparable to him; that's the only veil that remains in this story; the barrier between what makes a God and what makes a Man. Unless Man can possess what lays behind this veil, then he cannot know this being, no matter how well he may mimic it's behaviour.


    Unless we invented god


  • #70
    Erren Music
    Closed Accounts Posts: 384 ✭✭Erren Music


    Flamed Diving wrote: »

    I have already explained to you why agnosticism has nothing to do with your above rant. I don't feel the need to cover it again.


    Flamed Diving wrote:
    That this has little to do with agnosticism, perhaps even atheism.

    Sorry is this what you meant by explaining to me?


  • #71
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Erren Music wrote: »
    OK ... to repeat myself

    hopefully cern will provide us with answers in 2 or 3 years.


    Hopefully Jesus will return before then and demonstrate the existance of light matterlessness.

    :)


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,458 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Hopefully Jesus will return before then and demonstrate the existance of light matterlessness.
    Let me make a prediction -- Jesus will not come back to Earth during the next ten years.

    If I'm accurate in this prediction about god, does that mean that I have god-level powers of prediction? I think it does.

    Bow down and worship me folks -- I've a headache today and I'm in the mood for some smiting.


  • #73
    Glenster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,626 ✭✭✭Glenster


    Why do you want to be something?

    Do you think by screaming "I AM ________" at the top of your voice will change anything about who you are now?

    What you are isn't important, what you do is important.

    If you want to find out what you are, your starting point shouldnt be what people have called you in the past or even what you have called yourself in the past, it should what you have done with your life, what you are doing right now.


  • #74
    Glenster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,626 ✭✭✭Glenster


    robindch wrote: »
    Let me make a prediction -- Jesus will not come back to Earth during the next ten years.

    If I'm accurate in this prediction about god, does that mean that I have god-level powers of prediction? I think it does.

    Bow down and worship me folks -- I've a headache today and I'm in the mood for some smiting.


    Funny.

    If I put a random liquid on to some litmus paper and predict correctly whether it's an acid or a base does that make me King of PH Levels? I think it does.


  • #75
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    Erren Music wrote: »
    OK ... to repeat myself

    hopefully cern will provide us with answers in 2 or 3 years.

    So dark matter exists in the unknown. Just like any notion of a creator. This is my point. Try to understand this.




    Erren Music wrote: »
    Only in relation to the religious idea of a god existing.

    That is totally seperate to the idea of an initial pre big bang creator.

    No, agnosticism deals primarily with the notion of a creator, and only becomes associated with positions on religious god/s, by their association with creators. However, agnosticism doesn't have a position on all religions, because not all religions have god/s. Atheism is exactly the same. You claim to be one, but I am somewhat sceptical, because you have no understanding of what being one is.


  • #76
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    Erren Music wrote: »
    Unless we invented god

    No, because you have not been following the discussion properly. Even if god is a fictional character, my point is still correct.


  • #77
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    Erren Music wrote: »
    Sorry is this what you meant by explaining to me?

    I have explained it again, above.


  • #78
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,458 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Glenster wrote: »
    Why do you want to be something? Do you think by screaming "I AM ________" at the top of your voice will change anything about who you are now? What you are isn't important, what you do is important. If you want to find out what you are, your starting point shouldnt be what people have called you in the past or even what you have called yourself in the past, it should what you have done with your life, what you are doing right now.
    Glenster wrote: »
    If I put a random liquid on to some litmus paper and predict correctly whether it's an acid or a base does that make me King of PH Levels? I think it does.
    Have you been shooting up on something? If so, then stop -- it's doing your writing no favours.


  • #79
    Glenster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,626 ✭✭✭Glenster


    robindch wrote: »
    Have you been shooting up on something? If so, then stop -- it's doing your writing no favours.


    Ouch.

    I see two extraneous commas, not grammatically incorrect but unnecessary. Is that what you mean?

    Is this about something else?



    Attack the post meh-meh meh-meh.



    GRAMMATICAL MISTAKE -- INCOHERANT LANGUAGE -- ERROR ERROR -- FATAL SYSTEM DUMP -- ENGAGE JERK1 RESPONSE

    How do you shoot up on something? Do you mean do a drug while on another drug? Are you having sex with a dog or something? It's affecting your writing style.


  • #80
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    Glenster wrote: »
    If I put a random liquid on to some litmus paper and predict correctly whether it's an acid or a base does that make me King of PH Levels? I think it does.

    No, because you are not making a prediction.


  • #81
    Glenster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,626 ✭✭✭Glenster


    doctoremma wrote: »
    No, because you are not making a prediction.

    Yeah I am.

    I predicted before I put it on the paper. That's what predict means. pre-.

    My string of words wasn't linear. Sometimes I refer back to things not in sequence.

    For example.

    I went to the bank today and I was born in the 80's. Magic huh?


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    Glenster wrote: »
    Yeah I am.

    A litmus test is a test, not a prediction.

    You don't look at someone tall and say "I predict you are tall". Same way you don't "look" at an acid and say "I predict this is an acid".


  • #83
    Glenster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,626 ✭✭✭Glenster


    doctoremma wrote: »
    You don't look at someone tall and say "I predict you are tall". Same way you don't "look" at an acid and say "I predict this is an acid".

    True, but if you say "you have a mole on your belly" and they lift up their shirt and there is a mole on their belly that is a prediction.

    That's what I was doing, except

    1. instead of a mole it was ph levels
    2. instead of a belly it was acid
    3. instead of lifting up a shirt it was litmus paper.


  • #84
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    Glenster wrote: »
    My sentence wasn't linear. Sometimes I refer back to things not in sequence.

    For example.

    I went to the bank today and I was born in the 80's. Magic huh?

    Oh sorry. I'm not sure I can be expected to keep up with the meanderings of someone not speaking in a conventional pattern. Perhaps normally-structured language is too much to ask of someone wishing to participate in a debate?


  • #85
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    Glenster wrote: »
    True, but if you say "you have a mole on your belly" and they lift up their shirt and there is a mole on their belly that is a prediction.

    That's what I was doing, except

    1. instead of a mole it was ph levels
    2. instead of a belly it was acid
    3. instead of lifting up a shirt it was litmus paper.

    Eh? So what you meant was:

    True, but if you say "You have a pH levels on your acid" and they lift up their litmus paper and there is a pH levels on their acid, that is a prediction.

    Right-o.

    Edit: the term "pH levels" is meaningless. You don't measure the level of pH.


  • #86
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,458 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Glenster wrote: »
    I see two extraneous commas, not grammatically incorrect but unnecessary. Is that what you mean?
    Nope.

    As moderator, I'm asking you to take part as a mature human being in the ongoing discussion here in A+A, or else to take your good cdfm-style self elsewhere.


  • #87
    MikeC101
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,707 ✭✭✭MikeC101


    Glenster wrote: »
    GRAMMATICAL MISTAKE -- INCOHERANT LANGUAGE -- ERROR ERROR -- FATAL SYSTEM DUMP -- ENGAGE JERK1 RESPONSE

    :)


  • #88
    Glenster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,626 ✭✭✭Glenster


    doctoremma wrote: »
    Eh? So what you meant was:

    True, but if you say "You have a pH levels on your acid" and they lift up their litmus paper and there is a pH levels on their acid, that is a prediction.

    Right-o.

    Edit: the term "pH levels" is meaningless. You don't measure the level of pH.


    You're right, my whole house of cards just came crashing down around me.

    I knew I should have opened with the belly mole analogy.

    Is Ph levels not a thing? I was sure it was. What are the grades on the Ph scale-thing called then


  • #89
    Glenster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,626 ✭✭✭Glenster


    doctoremma wrote: »
    Oh sorry. I'm not sure I can be expected to keep up with the meanderings of someone not speaking in a conventional pattern. Perhaps normally-structured language is too much to ask of someone wishing to participate in a debate?

    Apologies.

    From now on I'll speak simply.


  • #90
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    Glenster wrote: »
    Is Ph levels not a thing? I was sure it was. What are the grades on the Ph scale-thing called then

    pH is a measure of the level of acidity/basicity. There are no levels of pH, it's just pH.

    Edit: Anyway, this is way off topic. I'm done.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Glenster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,626 ✭✭✭Glenster


    robindch wrote: »
    Let me make a prediction -- Jesus will not come back to Earth during the next ten years.

    If I'm accurate in this prediction about god, does that mean that I have god-level powers of prediction? I think it does.
    Glenster wrote: »

    If I put a random liquid on to some litmus paper and predict correctly whether it's an acid or a base does that make me King of PH Levels? I think it does.

    Double standard??????? Much????????? DUDES??????????


    robindch wrote: »
    As moderator, I'm asking you to take part as a mature human being in the ongoing discussion here in A+A, or else to take your good cdfm-style self elsewhere.

    Scary. What does the Christian Dance Fellowship of Malaysia have to do with all this?

    Besides I made my point already, it's self indulgent to go around asking "what am I?" all the time.


Advertisement