UCTAA churchlight

Site Search via Google

Discussion 8 to Meditation 13
Re: Proofs of God's Existence (3)

by Thomas

To add to this discussion (or any other,) please use the Contact form. This discussion has been continued.

Addendum to a Laundry list (3 of 7)

"Just so that you don't feel that there are no proofs, despite the fact that you continue to ignore the proofs I have sent previously, there are others:"

Ad tedium ad infinitum, assumptions are thus!

It started with the Patriarchs – the Pharaohs of Egypt , and a creation myth: . . . out of the primordial deep waters of Nu, . . .  he gave being to the sun god  . . . Khepera at dawn, Ra at noon, and Tum at evening. . . Ra spoke at the beginning of creation, and made the Earth and the heavens - rise out of this deep . . . into existence the field of Aalu, and there he caused to assemble a multitude of beings which are in heaven, even the stars . . . and Earth god Atum came forth, and the Goddess of the  Sky . . . Then Israel came out of Egypt and with them something Egyptian; then encountered something Sumerian. The rest is mythical history – and even the myth of Osiris has been made flesh in the Bible (figuratively anyway). J   

Laundry list item 3; is nothing more than: “Whatever he said.” This thinking is the end result of 30 centuries of myth and revisionist bewilderment doctrines (no. 3; is mere brain-wash):

3.   Man's knowledge of God's perfect existence implies the reality of His existence. If mankind had imagined God, we would not have imagined the perfect and holy God of the Bible. We would have made one far less demanding, restrictive and hard to understand. Immoral finite men would have created immoral finite gods (much like you have in your estimation of what your god is like), such as the fickle and fleshly Greek and Roman gods. The God of the Bible has not only revealed Himself to mankind, He became flesh so you could see Him. He came. He died. He rose again so that you could know Him.

Man’s knowledge of God: Is this knowledge of God; or knowledge of a myth. Is it the same knowledge as yours? What is God to one man – is not God to another. The provincial parochial knowledge of a mythological God (or Gods) is aspect driven. What is your God like? It is the very quality of a parochial aspect; quality; or quality of being; ascribed to a mythological representation of a God; to be finite. These myths; traits; concepts; aspects are finite qualities of being; they are not infinite qualities of being; the Biblical myth of Yahweh; defines something finite. What is your God like? He is “demanding”; but this is a limiting factor; a binding of what supposedly is unbound. My God is “undemanding”; but that is a limiting factor as well; a quality; or aspect of being - that is bound to human idea(s).

God is a label, God is a word, God is question; all these statements are true - but man has demonstrated that he has no knowledge of God (in reality, or in concept) - especially in the imagined ontological fantasy world. Man has produced a label now known as God; even more so when we consider the “after the fact” Biblical construct of the Trinity. It is an evolved idea (concept) - it did not manifest itself in the form we are told (this Bible-Trinity Godhead concept). It was not fabricated just yesterday. It’s a case of “whatever he said” about God; and what he said; and what he said before.

If you look back (in time) to what the Bible Trinity Godhead concept is; it certainly was non-existent with the Jews during the time allotted to the God (concept) in the Old Testament Bible. The Holy Trinity concept was non-existent with Yeshua Netser (Jesus) when he was alleged to have lived; this so-called change-of-the-immutable into a “fleshy” living thing. Nor does the “anointed one” having the “holy spirit” descending unto him, from where it already was; makes sense. Was it there just waiting for John the Baptist to wake it up? Was it there but the immutable God(?) did not change into God-like until the age of 30? Whatever this finite-man-knowledge of a Biblical Trinity God concept you have is – it is for you; simply a case of “whatever they say it is.”  It is not manifest within; in concept or aspect. 

Christ, according to faith, is the 2nd person in the Trinity; the Father the 1st; the Holy Ghost 3rd.

Each of these persons is God. Christ is his own father and his own son. The Holy Ghost is neither father nor son, but both.

The son was begotten by the father, but existed before he was begotten-just the same before as after. Christ is just as old as his father, and the father is just as young as his son.

The Holy Ghost proceeded from the Father and Son, but was equal to the Father and Son before he proceeded, that is to say, before he existed, but he is of the same age as the other two.

So it is declared that the Father is God, and the Son and the Holy Ghost God, and these three Gods make one God.

According to the celestial multiplication table, once one is three, and three times one is one, and according to heavenly subtraction if we take two from three, three are left. The addition is equally peculiar: if we add two to one we have but one. Each one equal to himself and to the other two. Nothing ever was, nothing ever can be more perfectly idiotic and absurd than the dogma of the Trinity.

-Robert Ingersoll – “Ingersoll's Works,” Volume 4, pages 266-67.

Man's knowledge of God's perfect existence implies - reality: This sentence couldn’t be more absurd, flawed, assumptive, inane, and in error. It’s that silly ontological oxymoron argument again; conception of something “one can’t conceive of” means it exists. It’s a fallacy. An idea existing in your mind as a (temporary) thought does not equal anything in reality. Your perception and conception of an apple is less real than a REAL APPLE. Your perception and conception will be less real than a real God; if such a thing existed. Your perception and conception of the Universe is less real; than the REAL UNIVERSE; which is greater than can be held in both concept and aspect within your mind; which is always a temporary thought.

This God-label is merely an analytic construct. This is not knowledge per se; in terms of knowing something real; here in reality. The apple is real; the label “apple” and associated imagery are passing thoughts. I can conceive “in word” many non-real things (which is an infinity of possibilities; and thus an active imagination): hollow solids; tall short people; legless sprinters; a flat earth; a firmament in the sky with stars stuck to it; Zeus; zombies; the square-circle; Yahweh; Noah’s Ark; a bean-stalk that reaches a castle in the sky; it exists as story; on paper; as words - or it exists as thoughts (temporarily) when it is told to me or when I think about the “words” or imagery. 

And  . . . On and on “they go” with the consistent misuse of words. This time it is: “perfect” and “implies.”  There is no implied existence based upon a concept you can’t conceive of; as this thought temporarily crosses brain cell to brain cell; until the thought (the words; the imagery) ceases to exist and you think of something else; or go to sleep. No reality is implied external of your mind.

If mankind had imagined God, we would not have imagined the perfect and holy God of the Bible: The Bible’s grotesque depictions of Yahweh’s jealous nature; his vindictive nature; cruelty; creation of evil; and entirely contradictory nature – yields something utterly imperfect. This errant book portrays a god that embodies all the worst qualities a being could ever have. My nature is superior to this depicted God in every way - and almost all children have a natural un-instructed nature that is far superior to this being depicted in the Bible as well. But the Bible is just a book of myths, a construct for a priesthood.

We would have made one far less demanding, restrictive and hard to understand: The first part is true – for it implies the truth – that a book is made; that the contents are made; someone has made up a demanding God, how else would the priesthood survive; or more aptly thrive? Where is Gods’ gold, for God needs money, that which is the love - this need for offerings; this love of money is the root of all evil, so the Bible says. But where would tithings be without such a mad love; this need for money; this separation of man from real work; to Gods’ work; and thus the unreal job of being a priest. If you don’t love it; covet it; then don’t; accept it. But the priests can’t because God demands it.

It doesn’t take long before Yahweh takes a liking to gold:

Genesis 2:11: The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah , where there is gold; 2:12: And the gold of that land is good . . .

Many people actually criticize the Bible and say its “hard to understand”; which is contrary to your point; so why did you bring that up? I think it’s easy to understand – whatever is imperfect “it’s in the Bible.”

 Immoral finite men would have created immoral finite gods (much like you have in your estimation of what your god is like), such as the fickle and fleshly Greek and Roman gods: No comment – PRAISE ZEUS! Well actually agnostics don’t have Gods; but you knew that. Immoral and finite men – well this is true; that everyone is finite. This immoral trait you have pulled from thin air - does not stick. You have suggested - that you have “created”; in your mind; a God you call moral – yet I have not created any God. Your mental projections (and creations in mind) based upon Biblical mythology and 16 centuries of Christian doctrine; yields a God image that you don’t even understand – but that’s fine. Because it is exiting only temporarily in your mind; and as soon as you stop thinking about it, or go to sleep, it will cease to exist (as thoughts do); until you ponder this non-sense again – or better yet - never ponder this non-sense again.

The God of the Bible has not only revealed Himself to mankind, He became flesh so you could see Him. He came. He died. He rose again so that you could know Him: This male (sexual oriented) God concept has not revealed itself to anyone – ever. A book of words does not make anything real. Revelations = madness. Prophets literally eat dung (it’s in the Bible!). There is not any real testimony as to this: Essene-like Yeshua Netser character. It’s all hearsay mythology and after the fact fabrication. Mark is a Gospel of chosen sayings subscribed to a mouth named an appellation: Yeshua. It was written in its first unrevised form 40-70 years after the alleged crucifixion (no historical flesh or reveal here?). And Mark was the first fabrication - NOT Mathew.

Not one Gospel; not one word in the Bible; states what this Yeshua character looked like. Why is that? No one ever saw him (no historical flesh or reveal here?). He did not exist historically there is no mention of him in the real historical records, except for a known Christian forgery in Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews; which by the way is after the fact anyway (no Flesh here?). The Romans have no record of him - the Jews have no record of him. Nazareth (Netser: meaning “branch of”; is a word; not a name of a town); it never existed back then either (no flesh; not town; here either?). As far as rising from the dead; all 4 gospels are frauds - for all are different stories (no common ghost tale here?). And yet you say he has revealed himself – if so described his face to me in detail (please don’t it’s a rhetorical question).

You do not know him – I do not know him – no one knows him; it is mythology. All you have is a construct, doctrine, dogma, and an unreal emotional attachment based upon personal psychological pressures (from both: self and peers).

NEXT