If ? is everything, what's ? not?
Options
BiblicalAtheist
Members Posts: 15,668 ✭✭✭✭✭
Seems like a simple question, with a simple answer for sure.
Oddly enough though, there seems to be a lot of things ? is not.
So what is ? and what is ? not?
And why can't/don't we all agree?
Oddly enough though, there seems to be a lot of things ? is not.
So what is ? and what is ? not?
And why can't/don't we all agree?
Comments
-
Maybe its that ? is capable of everythng, but only does some things?
? is a safety net for those who fear death and need to know the meaning of life
? is not your saviour or a magical being somewhere
? if real is angry ? who dont give a ? about us
? is not a loving old man with flowers and birds throughout his kingdom
The reason we cannot agree is because some people need that feeling of something more, some are brainwashed into their way of belief, everyone thinks they know the answer, few are willing to say I just dont know but I do know that religion is not the answer. -
ThaChozenWun wrote: »few are willing to say I just dont know but I do know that religion is not the answer.
Denominations are not the answer, true religion is feeding the hungry, giving to the poor, "taking care of the widowed", loving your neighbor, forgiving your brother and giving thanks. -
BiblicalAtheist wrote: »Denominations are not the answer, true religion is feeding the hungry, giving to the poor, "taking care of the widowed", loving your neighbor, forgiving your brother and giving thanks.
But do you really need religion for that to happen? -
ThaChozenWun wrote: »But do you really need religion for that to happen?
No you don't need denominations for that kind of religion. -
BiblicalAtheist wrote: »No you don't need denominations for that kind of religion.
So your religion would be what, the religion of life? The religion of self? I assume you are going by Christianity, Islam, Hinduism etc.. as denominations rather then their sub branches so what would you consider the "main" religion. -
ThaChozenWun wrote: »So your religion would be what, the religion of life? The religion of self?
I assume you are going by Christianity, Islam, Hinduism etc.. as denominations rather then their sub branches so what would you consider the "main" religion.
I don't know if it could be called the religion of anything.
True religion is feeding the hungry, giving to the poor, "taking care of the widowed", loving your neighbor, forgiving your brother and giving thanks. -
Is satan is ? ? Is ? evil, murderous, thieving, lying, greedy, wrathful etc?
If not why not or how not?
I figured more people would be posting on this :unno -
If the bible, if, it was 100% facual and what it says it acually how everything is then yes I believe that Satan would really be ? , and ? really be Satan. Throughout life it seems a good bit who rely on ? are often treated harsh, have terrible lives, and themselves are some very hateful people. Not all but alot. On the other side, if you look at people who are athiest, agnostic, Satanist w.e doesnt associate with a religious text based ? , often are living great lives. People say "well thats because satan wants you to live good so he influenced you, ? makes you have problems so that he can test your faith." That's fine, but I dont believe in a caring ? making people suffer during life. The bible also speaks of Satan being a great deciever, that he has the ability to and will try to decieve the world. Well what better option is there than to create a religion based upon you being the real ? and naming the "Good ? " as an evil being. Maybe Jesus' meeting with Satan in the desert wasnt as much temptation as it was reviewing the game plan.
Give it another 10 hours though and more people will post in here, Race and Religion is slow now unless its a race issue or an alien issue. -
But what I'm saying is, if ? is everything, then ? would be ? , and satan would be ? , jesus would be ? , good would ? , evil would be ? , compassion would be ? , wrath would be ? , everything IS ? . Meaning there isn't anything that ? isn't. Not that the bible has it mixed it up and the ? of the bible is actually satan and vice versa. Because everything is ? and from ? came everything, so there is nothing that is not ? and not of ? .
-
Lol my bad I thought you was askin a whole new question.
I think they already are, Satan, Jesus, etc.. all have great powers. Some claim Jesus is ? and its obvious the power that a Satan type being would have. We humans have great powers, we are able to do anything given the time to think it. Animals have powers that excedes man in certain areas. Everything you see is ? , not the magical man but the real ? . This is why I say Energy is the ultimate ? , because everything is derived from energy, there is negative energy, there is positive energy. Life can be created and destroyed by energy. People claim ? always was, well energy also always was and always will be. -
T.S. what is ? not? serious ? I heard He or She were all things and No-things at the same time.
-
evil
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
melanated khemist wrote: »T.S. what is ? not? serious ? I heard He or She were all things and No-things at the same time.
Never mind i see your answer. good thread! -
ThaChozenWun wrote: »People claim ? always was, well energy also always was and always will be.
Is it really though? Maybe that is only the level of our current understanding of energy. Maybe there is a way to destroy or create energy, we just have not the capacity to understand how at this time. Science knows what it knows with our current level of understanding. Subject to change if greater understanding is achieved. -
BiblicalAtheist wrote: »Is it really though? Maybe that is only the level of our current understanding of energy. Maybe there is a way to destroy or create energy, we just have not the capacity to understand how at this time. Science knows what it knows with our current level of understanding. Subject to change if greater understanding is achieved.
Yes its possible, but to our current knowledge that is what we percieve as the answer. The concept of ? was also all we could percieve certain things to be because of our knowledge at that time. Is the advancement of knowledge not why we have so many people who are turning athiest now? -
ether-i-am wrote: »There one thing a true ? can't be.............nothing. - ether circa 2010.
But if ? is everything, would that not include nothing. Nothing is still something. It's the something of nothing.ThaChozenWun wrote: »Yes its possible, but to our current knowledge that is what we percieve as the answer. The concept of ? was also all we could percieve certain things to be because of our knowledge at that time. Is the advancement of knowledge not why we have so many people who are turning athiest now?
Idk, science seems to be saying the same things too. I just think we are confounded between the languages they use. -
What things does science say that are the same?
-
ThaChozenWun wrote: »What things does science say that are the same?
Religion calls the 'thing' that started everything, ? . Science, for now, calls that 'thing' the big bang. Mathematics, insofar as we have gotten, points to a singular cause. They also see the human body as a miniature universe. From my perspective, the things written in some of the religious texts echos some of the things said by psychology. They just use different language. Idk, maybe I am just seeing a connection where there isn't one. -
The Bible answers all those questions asked.
One critical point in understanding ? - He is not literally everything. -
BiblicalAtheist wrote: »Religion calls the 'thing' that started everything, ? . Science, for now, calls that 'thing' the big bang. Mathematics, insofar as we have gotten, points to a singular cause. They also see the human body as a miniature universe. From my perspective, the things written in some of the religious texts echos some of the things said by psychology. They just use different language. Idk, maybe I am just seeing a connection where there isn't one.
Oh I got you, I though you ment science also made the claim theres a super being somewhere outside of our range of view with a working mind and all. Back to the energy thing though, the big bang would have been started as a blast of energy, the human spectrum is nothing but energy, its definently possible that its a psychological thing because for energy to survive it does need to feed from something. But I think there are also explanations that can be explored and are plausible outside of the mind and outside of a superbeing creator who has a working mind inside of it. Truthfully though the concept of life, the universe, and energy is so broad and vast that we will probably never be able to grasp it all and understand it. It would take another billions of years for us to even gain a general understanding of it all. -
solid analysis wrote: »The Bible answers all those questions asked.
One critical point in understanding ? - He is not literally everything.
Ya'll need to decide on your biblical ? , one minute its "Oh not thats literally what it means" then the next its "Oh come on! Dont take it all so literally". You cant claim to take it literally on the parts that make sense and then claim its not literal on anything with a ounce of questionability. -
solid analysis wrote: »The Bible answers all those questions asked.
One critical point in understanding ? - He is not literally everything.
So then if ? is not literally everything, things have the ability to create themselves and bring themselves into existence? -
ThaChozenWun wrote: »Oh I got you, Back to the energy thing though, the big bang would have been started as a blast of energy, the human spectrum is nothing but energy, its definently possible that its a psychological thing because for energy to survive it does need to feed from something. But I think there are also explanations that can be explored and are plausible outside of the mind and outside of a superbeing creator who has a working mind inside of it. Truthfully though the concept of life, the universe, and energy is so broad and vast that we will probably never be able to grasp it all and understand it. It would take another billions of years for us to even gain a general understanding of it all.
I see what you're saying too. So maybe what religion calls ? and all ? 's aspects, science calls energy and all it's forms? -
ThaChozenWun wrote: »Ya'll need to decide on your biblical ? , one minute its "Oh not thats literally what it means" then the next its "Oh come on! Dont take it all so literally". You cant claim to take it literally on the parts that make sense and then claim its not literal on anything with a ounce of questionability.
What you said is fair.
But it doesn't apply to parts that are clearly established to be taken literal and others are clearly established to be figurative.
Plus, where in the Bible does it say ? is everything?? Ooohhhh! -
BiblicalAtheist wrote: »So then if ? is not literally everything, things have the ability to create themselves and bring themselves into existence?
NO, no, no
A distinction must be made between creating everything and being everything.
It's too simple to say ? is everything.
