-->
@3RU7AL
That's true. Namely, "there is no compelling reason to subscribe to any particular ancient rule-book".
This isn't a theological supposition.
Be skeptical of atheism.
Posts
Total:
220
-->
@3RU7AL
You admit that The Ultimate Reality is God.
There is only One Ultimate Reality, and a conception of God is not God.
Deism is simply the belief that God exists. That is the simplest meaning of the word.
As you admit God is The Ultimste Reality, you are a theist, because God is THE IS. Get it?
-->
@Snoopy
That's true. Namely, "there is no compelling reason to subscribe to any particular ancient rule-book".This isn't a theological supposition.
You're right, I should have left out the word "theological".
A theological supposition would be, "there is a particular god or gods with particular attributes".
Atheism makes no such claims.
-->
@Mopac
Awesome, we both believe in the same god(s).As you admit God is The Ultimste Reality, you are a theist, because God is THE IS. Get it?
So when are you going to leave the church and throw away your bible?
-->
@3RU7AL
I think it would make more sense for you to humble yourself and make a sincere effort to be educated in what it is we actually believe, as we have thousands of years more experience in this matter and the oldest continuous organization on the planet.
-->
@Snoopy
According to your logic, a rock is also "not a police officer" and "not a criminal" and "not a baptist".It's not a fallacy (okay, its a sarcastic fallacy) because its analogous to what you are actually doing. You made the fallacy, comparing two different things and calling them the same. I pointed it out in English so that you can relate.
If we had a specific word for "not a baptist" then it would also apply, EXCEPT FOR THE OBVIOUS FACT that these words only refer to HUMANS.
A Deist is "not a theist" and as such is ALSO an Atheist.
-->
@Mopac
I refuse to join your cult until you explain exactly how you make the astronomical leap from "ultimate reality" to "YHWH".I think it would make more sense for you to humble yourself and make a sincere effort to be educated in what it is we actually believe, as we have thousands of years more experience in this matter and the oldest continuous organization on the planet.
I'm all ears.
-->
@3RU7AL
That's true. Namely, "there is no compelling reason to subscribe to any particular ancient rule-book".This isn't a theological supposition.A theological supposition would be, "there is a particular god or gods with particular attributes".Atheism makes no such claims.
Yes, that is a theological supposition. Yes, that would be excluded among the multitude of ideas not qualifying "I am without god"
-->
@3RU7AL
I refuse to join your cult until you explain exactly how you make the astronomical leap from "ultimate reality" to "YHWH".
"I AM" is not a leap.
-->
@Snoopy
I refuse to join your cult until you explain exactly how you make the astronomical leap from "ultimate reality" to "YHWH"."I AM"
So do you believe Popeye is a god too?
-->
@Snoopy
Yes, that would be excluded among the multitude of ideas not qualifying "I am without [A PARTICULAR THEISTIC] god"
-->
@3RU7AL
I refuse to join your cult until you explain exactly how you make the astronomical leap from "ultimate reality" to "YHWH"."I AM"So do you believe Popeye is a god too?
You are belittling your own imaginings and talking down to them, and its more disrespectful to yourself than Christians.
-->
@3RU7AL
They mean the same thing.
In fact, "The Ultimate Reality" is a legitimate English translation of the meaning of that name.
In the Greek it is "ειμι ο ων" which translates into English roughly as "I am who Exists".
So we have always understood God as The Ultimate Reality. This is effectively God's name in English.
-->
@Mopac
In the Greek it is "ειμι ο ων" which translates into English roughly as "I am who Exists".
This sounds a lot like "because I said so".
You're going to need slightly more than a naked assertion to bridge the gap.
-->
@3RU7AL
Well, I think you will find if you were to study the writings of the church that we have always understood God as being reality as it truly is, the truth, etc.
And this understanding is consistent with our discipline. After all, if we love The Truth above all things, purifying the intellect is a natural expression of this.
-->
@3RU7AL
I refuse to join your cult until you explain exactly how you make the astronomical leap from "ultimate reality" to "YHWH"."I AM"So do you believe Popeye is a god too?
You are belittling your own imaginings and talking down to them, and its more disrespectful to yourself than Christians.
I mean, you can't have an honest conversation about the nature of our existence or what have you if that's not what you want to talk about to begin with.
-->
@Mopac
Okay, so why do we still say the Sun is a thing that people respect even if we don't call it a god?
-->
@Snoopy
As I live in Texas, it is very difficult to deny my relationship with the sun, which in the summer seems to do a loop in the sky before setting.
If I did not respect the sun, I wouldn't take every opportunity available to pass through the shade while out walking.
-->
@Snoopy
Simply asserting "I AM" does nothing to strengthen your argument.I mean, you can't have an honest conversation about the nature of our existence or what have you if that's not what you want to talk about to begin with.
Any number of characters, real and imaginary can make the exact same claim.
-->
@3RU7AL
I mean, you can't have an honest conversation about the nature of our existence or what have you if that's not what you want to talk about to begin with.Simply asserting "I AM" does nothing to strengthen your argument.Any number of characters, real and imaginary can make the exact same claim.
You are starting off with the pretense of a character, so that is all you would be looking to discuss. Therefore you can't have an honest conversation about something with a basis in reality. Is that easier to understand?
-->
@Mopac
Well, I think you will find if you were to study the writings of the church that we have always understood God as being reality as it truly is, the truth, etc.
That part sounds great.
But what I'm asking is how you get from that to, "this old book is (mostly) true and all the other old books are false"?
-->
@Snoopy
You are starting off with the pretense of a character.... so that is all you would be discussing. Is that easier to understand?
I used an example to drive home a point.
Anybody can say "I AM". That statement, by itself, is not compelling.
-->
@3RU7AL
Not compelling what?
-->
@Snoopy
"I AM" is not a leap.
What makes you think that "the ultimate reality" is better described by "YHWH" than by Brahman for example?
-->
@3RU7AL
I think that is a very presumptuous question, because we Orthodox do not put nearly as much emphasis on the bible as protestants do. They do this because they are trying to recreate the church from the bible. We are the church, and we never went away. We did not create the church from the bible. We wrote the bible.
And truly, we read more scripture in our services than any protestant church I have ever been to, but we know what it is used for, and they don't.
The bible is a part of our church tradition. We use the scriptures in our liturgy. That isn't a judgement call on any other writings.
-->
@3RU7AL
"I AM" is not a leap.What makes you think that "the ultimate reality" is better described by "YHWH" than by Brahman for example?
I don't think like that.
-->
@Snoopy
Not compelling evidence supporting a bridge between "the ultimate reality" and "YHWH".Not compelling what?
-->
@Snoopy
What makes you think that "the ultimate reality" is better described by "YHWH" than by Brahman for example?I don't think like that.
How do you decide which god is "the one true god" when there are so many to choose from?
-->
@3RU7AL
Still characters, eh?
-->
@Mopac
We did not create the church from the bible. We wrote the bible.
So, you think its true because your church (people) wrote it?
Why would you choose to join that particular church instead of one of the thousands of other ancient truth seeking traditions?