During my donkey's years in the Church, I heard Christians refer to the many Jewish names of God such as:
EL ELYON - The Most High God
ELOE YISRAEL - God of Israel
EL GIBBOR - The Mighty God
EL OLAM - The everlasting God
EL ROI - The God who sees
EL SHADDAI - Bountiful supplier full breasted One
EL YESHUAH - God my salvation
Not forgetting El Ohim. In Ugaritic the plural form meaning "Gods" is ʾilhm, equivalent to Hebrew ʾelōhîm "Gods". But in Hebrew this word is also regularly used for semantically singular "god" or "God"
What these names have in common is the semitic word 'El'. Now those clever people at universities who know know better than I do point out that 'El' was just one of many Gods in the semitic pantheon of the ancient Near East. Known by the Hebrews, Phoenicians, Ugarits, Syrians, 'El' simply means 'Deity', of which there were very many. 'El' was understood by these peoples to be the Father of humankind and all creatures, and the husband of the Goddess Asherah.
The noun ʾEl was found at the top of a list of Gods as the "Ancient of Gods" or the "Father of all Gods", in the ruins of the royal archive of the Ebla civilization, in the archaeological site of Tell Mardikh in Syria dated to 2300 BC. The bull was symbolic to Ēl and his son Baʻal Hadad, and they both wore bull horns on their headdress. He may have been a desert god at some point, as the myths say that he had two wives and built a sanctuary with them and his new children in the desert. Ēl had fathered many gods, but most important were Hadad, Yam, and Mot.
So do Christians worship this God by happenstance? Have we simply got a situation where the ancient Hebrews chose to venerate the top God 'El' above the others in the local pantheon, whilst the other Semitic peoples continued to venerate them all? Over time did the Hebrews change their thinking about these other gods, call them false gods or demons to worship the one God 'El', until such a time as Christianity inherited this God.
If this is the case, then should we assume that any civilisation that chose to narrow their pantheon down to a single supreme God are actually following the same God as Jews, Christians and Muslims, albeit their interpretation of that God is different?
Interesting, now you seem to drift from universalism down towards pantheism.... it's becoming a very interesting case study.
Not at all Agua, I do not believe that multiple gods exist anymore than demons or the Christian version of Satan. I just find it interesting that the historical origins of the belief in God, 'El' is something that the Church never teaches. Why do you think that is?
Great question..I'll wager that the universal answer to this question would be no.. But I think there might be something to it
"If this is the case, then should we assume that any civilisation that chose to narrow their pantheon down to a single supreme God are actually following the same God as Jews, Christians and Muslims, albeit their interpretation of that God is different?"
If is an interesting assumption, but I think incorrect.
We (humanity) have a mutual enemy who seeks to confuse, deceive and lead people away from God.
Throughout time this enemy has created false and replica religions designed to appeal to individual choices for the peoples personal god they seek.
Anyone reading the Torah, NT and Quran can clearly see that the authorship of the Quran is different than that of the other two books.
Same basic points, with subtle differences that deceive, but then all the best lies are founded 99% in truth, so that even the 'elect' would be deceived, "if that were possible".
But spotting counterfeits is not learned by studying counterfeits, but by KNOWING what the genuine item looks like in such detail that a counterfeit rings alarm bells very quickly.
My local shop sells Oreo biscuits, which being branded cost more than the shelf of look a like 'oreos' that are available. The replica products look much the same from the packaging design, and in truth do not taste that much different than the real thing, but when you examine the contents, one can see that the cost saving is in the quality of the product, a saving which means that although the eating experience may be sufficiently similar to woo the cost conscious purchaser, the long term effects of eating inferior produce would be bad for the consumer.
Of course nobody should live exclusively on a diet of Oreos, real or fake, but on a balanced diet, one consisting of natural food stuff, eaten as near to the way it was created (by God) rather than processed into a suitably profitable, but less nutritious processed food product, re created by man.
The names of God refer to His many facets and roles He is essential for in our lives.
The replica religions the enemy has seeded into humanity are just that: counterfeit religions which fail to deliver the sustenance that leads to eternal security.
Once again it comes down to choice in the market place, do we go with the low cost action that satisfies our senses but will not sustain our existence, or push to ensure that we only go for the real thing. It may be that we only learn to appreciate the genuine article by first trying the counterfeit, but once we know what the real thing is, we should ignore and warn folks about accepting substitutes, which not only have the ability to kill the body, but also kill the spirit.
You do realize that you are saying every God except one was made up by man? Including gods long preceding even the one from Judaism?
Even neanderthals (an animal species) apparently had a belief in a life after death, and very likely their own god(s) to go with it.
Yes, I realise that Wilderness, and I think it is a reasonable explanation.
Our enemy knew what Gods plan was before he was exiled with dominion over this planet. In fact I think that it was God explaining His plan for humanity that triggered the rebellion.
Knowing what God was intending to do, it's reasonable to assume that the enemy sought to gain an advantage by seeding false deceptive religions as soon as he took dominion over the earth and saw humanity starting to search for the God that we had been separated from.
The enemy sought to seed the earth with false trails, in order to try and stop folk reaching God.
God's whole plan was (and is) that humanity seeks Him and comes to Him of their free choice.
The enemy just sought to deceive as many as possible with his false trails leading to eternal damnation, not eternal life.
I believe it when Yeshua said "No man comes to the Father except though me"
John 14 6:7
Jesus said to him, I am the Way and the Truth and the Life; no one comes to the Father except by (through) Me. If you had known Me [had learned to recognize Me], you would also have known My Father. From now on, you know Him and have seen Him.
I know what I chose, having experienced what the enemy offers in reality, and seen through the deception and lies he offers.
Although I disagree, I can understand why you take that road. My only real objection would be that the vast majority of mankind through the millenia has never heard of either Judaism or Christianity, nor had any opportunity to do so. Without that opportunity the whole thing seems a trifle bit unfair.
Point taken, however as you said, humanity has always had those who sought to understand and therefore found a god as a reason for things, some will have found God, others gods of their creation (or the enemies deceptions) - however it is also apparent that those who NEVER heard of Yeshua are judged on their hearts (spiritual reality) thoughts, words and actions as to their righteousness and ability to stand before God in judgement and be found acceptable.
The standard seemingly was raised over the time that humanity was developing, and scripture tells us that to those whom much has been give, much is required, ergo to those who have received little (knowledge) of God, will have a lower standard to meet for acceptance.
With Abram we find God making His covenant with man, and signifying it by the name change to Abraham, forming the basis of Judaism that eventually flowed from the covenant. But the Judaic covenants were to show man that alone they could NEVER reach God, though they could be judged worthy by their righteous acts, not earned salvation, but salvation by Gods Grace and Mercy despite the recipients sins.
Yeshua came to introduce a new covenant, one which offered ALL humanity salvation through His divine exchange, His perfect life for our imperfect lives, his death to allow us to live, his wounds to allow our healing.... and a salvation open to everyone who chose to accept His atoning sacrifice.
Interestingly it is calculated that More people are alive today than have existed in all of recorded history previously, so in reality the majority of people ever to have been born will have the opportunity to accept or reject Yeshua, and God made provision for those who previously could not have had knowledge of Yeshua.
God is JUST not FAIR, and seems to have made provision for all mankind according to their knowledge of Him.
Ultimately it is what we do with that knowledge that determines our eternal destiny.
A couple of things: I have had others explain as well that those that never heard of God will be accepted. I have also heard far more often that they will not. Your reasoning (to whom much has been given, etc.) has never, in my experience, meant anything but material goods. If you have lots, give lots.
There may indeed be more people, say, in the last century than all the time prior. I would find that unlikely, but it could be true. What cannot under any circumstances be true is that there are more people alive today than ever lived. The last few centuries alone will make that untrue.
But even if true, there are a great many people today that have never heard any of the tenants of Christianity. The name, maybe, but not knowledge of the religion or what it believes in from a Christian. We tend to believe that in the US and most of Europe (for good reason), but that is a rather minor portion of the world's population. Christianity is rare in India, China and much of Africa; just those areas will outnumber North America and Europe by a considerable margin.
I do hope you are correct, though, and even further. That non-believers, having heard the word or not, will be judged on merit. Christians often seem totally convinced that anyone hearing of Christianity chooses whether to believe or not, but it is not so. Few people can consciously make a choice to believe in something. They can say the words, they can act the actions, but belief is not something that comes by deliberate choice.
I have found that nothing in scripture is specified to one reasoning alone, except perhaps the statement "No man comes to the Father except via me", but even that could be construed to mean that ALL men will be judged by Yeshua when the day comes, and the limitations of their knowledge of Him could then play a role in their eternal destiny.
I certainly have seen that all scripture has positive and negative meanings, i.e.
Do not withhold good from those to whom it is due,
When it is in your power to do it.
Do not say to your neighbour, “Go, and come back,
And tomorrow I will give it,” When you have it with you.
Is a clear instruction to pay our debts, but equally infers that one is not required to give to "those to whom it is due" when it is NOT within your power to do so (which would have changed dramatically the way the banksters crisis has been handled).
Looking into that I will revise what I stated (which was based upon statements I read years ago) to suggest that we look at the period 1AD until now, which is after all the period when believing in Yeshua would be most relevant:
Which clearly shows the rate of growth is mostly taking place well after the 'Gospel' has exploded out of the mid east with the use of the Roman Empire 'seed pod'.
The overall estimates of total population seem to be in the 100 billion range for all time, which would indicate 6-7% alive currently, still a high percentage as that estimate starts at 50,000 years ago... (which date alone many would argue against).
The relevant point is that if God judges people PRIOR to the appearance of Yeshua by their lives and actions, then even if we take into account the predictive verses that appear in Isaiah, there would be many who could not possibly have heard about the Gospel, and would be judged accordingly on the day yet to come.
Let's define what 'heard' actually means in evangelical terms. Believers are charged with taking the gospel to all ethnic groups (nations) and spreading the 'good news'. That does not mean we need to speak personally to every person alive and explain ALL that is required to find salvation, but it does mean that ALL will have heard who Yeshua is before God calls time, and likewise as population has increased, so have communication techniques.
In effect the 'spread the gospel to all the world' is understood evangelically to mean find believers in every nation (tribal group) after which it is their responsibility to reach their own people.
The two nations you quote, India and China are both countries that persecute evangelical endeavours, but still with modern technology (satellite TV) there are few people alive today who could not say they have heard some part of a gospel message. Once heard it is up to each individual to decide whether that message is relevant to them or not.
What I actually said was:
"however it is also apparent that those who NEVER heard of Yeshua are judged on their hearts (spiritual reality) thoughts, words and actions as to their righteousness and ability to stand before God in judgement and be found acceptable."
Not "non-believers, having heard the word or not, will be judged on merit"
Once someone has heard the word, they become liable to accept or reject it, and the eternal end result is up to them.
I dismissed 'the word' for 40 years of my life, then looked at what was said and made a conscious decision to prove or disprove the claims of Yeshua. Not being able to prove the scriptures wrong, I had to explore what this meant for me personally.
Had I been a fool, I could have dismissed the relevance of the scriptures and carried on with my own selfish ego driven existence. That alone would not mean that God would not have reached me via Yeshua and the Holy Spirit before my death, but it would have meant that had I died before coming to faith, my fate would have been sealed IF I had rejected the word.
If the warning signs tell you not to skate on the ice, and you then decide to skate on the ice and subsequently drown, you alone are culpable of your demise.
While I do like your explanation as it is one of the better ones I've read that attempts to unite the OT and NT, I still cannot put a couple of pieces of that puzzle together.
For example... "to show man that alone they could NEVER reach God" most likely refers to these verses...
"Have mercy upon me, O Jehovah; O Jehovah, heal me." Ps. 6:2. "Have mercy upon me, O God, . . . wash me, . . . cleanse me from my sin." Ps. 51:1,2. "It is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." Jer. 10:23. "Enter not into judgment with thy servant: for in thy sight shall no man living be justified." Ps. 143:2. "If thou, Lord, shouldest mark iniquities, who shall stand?" Ps. 130:3."
... however, that conflicts with the fact that both Job and Noah were granted salvation, not because they weren't sinless men, but because they were just men.
" Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God." Gen. 6:9. "And that man [Job] was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil." Job. 1:1. "Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me: then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression." Ps. 19:13."
And of course, in regards to the NT, the whole "his death to allow us to live" thingy should be taken out of the belief as it only serves to diminish the credibility of the religion. I think Christianity could still stand on it's own merit without that belief.
Just: adjective - guided by truth, reason, justice, and fairness.
Agua, the point is we in the West have inherited the Jewish El via a historical chain of events. Now let's go with the argument that God, the real one whatever he is called, revealed himself to a single man Abram and El became the God that Abram's family followed. Elsewhere in the World, Europe, America, China, India, Asia, Australia, El did not reveal himself.
Now as man appears to be disposed to religion, these other parts of the World developed their own religious systems. So you would argue that in the absence of God revealing himself, he allowed Satan to reveal himself to these other peoples instead. If these other peoples in the absence of the knowledge of the real God, unbeknowingly follow Satan instead, then this is hardly a demonstration of God's love for humanity is it.
Alternatively we have two other options. Either, these other peoples invented their own gods, or God also revealed himself to them under another name with different characteristics. What do you suppose Jesus meant when he said he had sheep in another fold, that is not the fold of Israel, but another fold somewhere else?
But has subsequently, which is more the point surely?
The enemy has legal dominion over this planet, therefore he has the possession of every soul born, until and unless that soul accepts yeshua and their saviour and rejects the dominion of the enemy.
In effect at rebirth they change from a citizen of the world to a citizen of the Kingdom of God, and as such from that point forward the enemy has no legal charge over them excepting those spiritual and temporal authorities the individual issues by unconfessed and repented sins they commit.
The "demonstration of God's love for humanity" was that despite this, God made a way via Yeshua's divine exchange, for all humanity to escape the enemies dominion and relocate their spiritual destiny.
The non Jewish people groups.
Firstly, it's amazing that you logically can't place your own religion in that category, because that is exactly what the other religions usually claim. Of course, it is an argument without content, simply due to the fact that both sides are invisible and undetectable entities, hence we can make up anything we want in regards to how they behave and act without providing a shred of proof.
Secondly, it's amazing that you answered the question with an excellent reasonable and logical response, surely unintentionally. Well done, nonetheless.
"religions (are) designed to appeal to individual choices for the peoples personal god they seek"
It's amazing that you claim to "KNOWING what the genuine item looks like in such detail" without providing anything other than a cookie story. The amazing part is that you go on to say that "when you examine the contents", but then provide nothing to substantiate the examination. What is it exactly that is so different within the contents? You also said, "The replica products look much the same from the packaging design, and in truth do not taste that much different than the real thing", which would indicate that without the "packaging design", referred earlier by you as the "appeal to individual choices for the peoples personal god they seek", you wouldn't have a clue as to which cookie, or god, was different from the other.
On the contrary, It is still possible to tell the difference without the packaging because most of the oreo cookies have the brand actually imprinted on the product itself. Even if you were blindfolded and did a taste test, you can still distinguish the differences in flavors (especially if you've eaten the actual oreo brand cookie for several years then are given a store brand)
You can't imagine the times I've spent looking for the brand, "Made By God" on all living things, but it just isn't there.
"Taste Test: Chocolate Sandwich Cookies
Back to Nature
Great Value (Walmart)
Joe-Joe's (Trader Joe's)
Market Pantry (Target)
Smart Sense (Kmart)
365 (Whole Foods)
Going in, we thought that the "Oreo" taste would be stamped in our tasters' heads pretty strongly. But only two of our ten tasters correctly identified an Oreo. These cookies were a lot more similar than we'd have thought!"
http://sweets.seriouseats.com/2011/07/t … okies.html
You are correct that God is "invisible and undetectable" to those who lack the understanding to see and detect the moves of God in their lives.
Understanding comes by faith, and faith by hearing and believing the word, unsurprisingly if someone is incapable or not prepared to start that process, then they will be unable to understand in the first place, that's just a fact that cannot be circumvented or denied, only proven when someone will start the process.
"What is it exactly that is so different within the contents? "
Buy a couple of boxes and look on the contents labels and you will see for yourself.
I always study content labels, and with some practise, one can note the differences.
Palm oil is a cheap substitute, corn oil also, especially as in the USA it's normally GM modified, hydrogenated vegetable fats rather than butter, and of course the quality of any cocoa mass included, as opposed to chocolate flavourings... but biscuits are not really the matter are they, after all if they look the same and taste the same to the less discerning palate, why stick to the original version?
Likewise those who have never tasted the real thing would easily be fooled, and not be able to understand what or why someone could tell the difference.
Try before you buy could be good advice.
No, I'm sorry, you cannot evoke that you are special.
Baloney. Anyone can use faith as their preferred worldview, that is very easy to do.
All you're saying is the difference between the one who understands that faith can lead to dishonesty.
Sorry, but the cookie taste test I provided above shows the "discerning palate" is easily fooled. And, if you actually looked at the labels on the boxes, you'll find the ingredients are all the same. They have to be in order for the cookies to taste the same.
I hope you realize that this statement could also apply to Christians as well as non believers and you could have basically passed a judgment on fellow believers that they do not understand that which they believe in.
If you're tying this in with your first statement, then again you have taken a shot (albeit unintentional, I assume) at your fellow believers. There are some Christians that have read the bible and have come to the conclusion that God is just as invisible and undetectable in the movements of God in their lives because they have embraced the principles of Universal reconciliation and as such God does not have to directly intervene and move in our lives because at the end we will all be in heaven anyway. There are also some that have read the bible and come to the conclusion that We operate on our own merits because for God to move in our lives and direct us would be to contradict the concept of free will. Again without divine intervention..
Another issue with this statement (which is popular with some atheists) is that if God is moving in everyone's life, then got is moving in the starvation of children in Africa as well as in the cancer wards of hospitals where children and adult Christians are dying daily
Stating a fact is not passing judgement, it's just stating a fact.
As scripture states, we cannot please God without faith.
Universalism is something I have explored, and cannot agree with as scripture tells me differently, however if I am wrong, then there is no problem..... the problems arise if one is wrong about UR.
Personally I like the concept a lot, but would not stake my eternal destiny on it.
Stating a "fact" without evidence to support it is passing judgment because it is not fact, merely opinion. I stated that there are some Christians that have faith and belief in God but do not believe that God interacts with the world presently.. So outside of scripture, how can you prove your statement for it to be "fact" and not simply your belief?
And why would the problems arise if one is wrong about UR? One that believes in UR still believes in God and Christ and as such they have nothing to worry about either. See, you cannot agree because scripture tells you differently as according to your beliefs, but a someone that believes in UR gets their information from the scripture as well. In fact, there is one who believes in UR that can give you 600 scriptures at least that supports his belief in UR.. So since it is in the bible just like your information is scriptural, the question becomes who is right? Either way, the word cannot return void and is the infallible written word of God, correct?
I gathered all my strength to post my opinion in this thread, I just normally read and enjoy hanging around and reading the topics here. My thought for this topic, Biblically speaking, the bible as I learned and remember was written in Hebrew or Greek language and the name of God is Jehovah or Yahweh on either of the translation and God's name was mentioned thousand of times. I just hope I had taken the time to learn more about the bible, so then I can explain more in detail, but my knowledge is very minimal but it didn't stop me to share this thought. Also, I don't know if this is relevant but the movie Indiana Jones part 2, there was a part there that Indi--Harrison Ford's father mentioned that the God's name is Jehovah, but instead the name starts with letter i, Iehovah. It was a good movie though.
I've come to the same conclusion; although not by the same avenue. I think, if God exists, each culture would view that entity differently, worship it differently and attempt to come to an understanding of what it was in a different manner. I always found the name given to Moses telling. I AM. And that's the gist of it. It is, or it isn't. Any personal evidence of the existence of a deity would point to those two words.
I do not specifically disagree with DH or yourself concerning whether God is shown in different guises to all people, however I would NOT base my eternal destiny upon the possibility that He does.
Even though, the messages and stories delivered to the various cultures are in stark contrast with each other? How does that work?
Primarily because the existence of God boils down to a yes or no question. If multiple cultures believe in another level of reality and multiple people throughout history have been led to believe that they have been touched by this other reality; the only way to resolve these to the reality we live in, where no one is shown to be favored by this other reality; is to assume that each culture perceived this deity in line with their understanding of the reality they existed in at the time the religion was formed. If one starts with a premise and then builds on it, and no other culture can provide evidence that your premise is flawed; that religion will continue to build.
It's kind of like recording history. We view the same events as other cultures; but we write it, from our perspective. Before you go to all the trouble of creating a whole bunch of laughing faces; I'm not saying religious texts are history books. I'm saying that each culture views experience differently and will synthesis the information available in a different manner.
In other words, reality is reality and ad such it is objective, but for the people observing it it becomes subjective to the thoughts, emotions, and ideals of the one observing it?
of course that begs the question.. Whose version of reality is the correct one??
The one reality presents, of course, is the correct one. No "one" has a version.
Here is where we disagree to a degree. Two people can go through the same experiences but look at them differently and see them as reality.
two siblings and how they each view their upbringing as it relates to their lives. One sibling could grow up bitter because his/her reality is that their upbringing was terrible while another sibling can view their upbringing as pretty good. Both of them are looking at the events of their upbringing but their reality of it (based on how they see it) are different.
Uh, that is because one had a terrible upbringing while the other did not. It is what happened to them that is reality.
They both grew up in the same house, with the same parents. How can one have a terrible upbringing and the other not?
I get that. I'm confused as to why it appears ATM doesn't.
Yep ... ATM thinks reality for the rabbit is the same as it is for the fox that ate the rabbit.
Yes, the reality is identical for both, the fox eats the rabbit, the rabbit is eaten by the fox. How many ways can we say it?
looking at it from the prospective of the survivers, the baby rabbits and baby foxes ???? Two entirely realities. the baby rabbits might starve to death if they are too young. And the baby foxes don't. Two different realities. The reality of one event creates new realities for everyone involved.
That is the simple out come of an event and same reality(a series of events). The fox ate the rabbit, the foxes survive while the rabbits do not. Where is the difference in 'reality'? Or are you meaning something else other than what 'happens' as reality?
Subjective feelings are not reality but objective events.
are you saying that the extinction of one species is the same reality as the preservation of another?The fox ate the rabbit! simple reality; ... though two different realities come out of one
Extinction of one species 'will change' future(hence not reality) reality, will not change 'the' event - rabbit died and fox lived - reality.
At that moment where the future and the past come together, every event has many potential outcomes. You can not separate the present from the future when they come together in that exact point in time.
The reality of that moment is that one species becomes extinct (reality in the moment) while another doesn't.
the beginning and the end standing in the same shoe. Two realities wearing the same sock
You can ignore the complexity of any event. In doing so, When you say the rabbit died,what you are really its heart stopped beating. Nothing else matters. The cause according to you belongs in the past and has no reality in the present .
I don't know ! I'm not awake yet.
Future and past stay in the same shoe only in poetry and fantasy. There is only one reality, the rabbit is dead and the fox got food. The baby rabbits died or will find another source of food. Or do you think depending on the opinion it is the rabbit that killed the fox or it's the fox kids that starved?
So an opinion is not reality in itself. Is that what I'm getting from this?
You can't be more clear, opinion is only opinion.
My opinion about Obama may not be yours but irrespective of our opinion he is the president.
Now we're getting somewhere. (Thanks for humoring me, by the way). If we have a differing opinion of the situation and at best our perception, understanding, and interpretation of information presented can only reinforce our opinion. Which of us would be right regarding a particular scenario?
Exactly and such reinforcement is called confirmation bias.
?? Right and wrong is also an opinion. As the example of cannibalism we have to compare with a pre-defined standard to say who is right. And all human interactions are subjective.
Correct, So how reasonable is it for one person to offer an opinion of another opinion as in stating that it is wrong, delusional, etc?
Based on the defined reality (eg: you say Obama is not president) it may be wrong (by the definition of wrong), delusion (by the definition of delusion) OR merely an opinion.
No, that is exactly the same reality, Jerami.
And, what is it exactly I'm suppose to get?
I see there are several pages of discussion past this point, so maybe this had been touched on. But, reality in this discussion is less about the concrete things which exist; but more about the actions we observe and our interaction; and our perception of those things.
None of us perceive anything in the exact same manner, nor do we take the sum total of the things we perceive and come to the same conclusions as to what the sum total means. The further apart we are in our perception of the meaning of individual experiences, the further apart we will be when we attempt to determine the ultimate meaning.
Reality is nothing more than the conclusions you have arrived at by filtering through all of the information you have access to. It has to filter through all of your senses, then your prejudices, preconceived notions, emotions and any blind spots. That goes for everyone. So, conclusions any of us come to are always unique to us. And real to each of us, whether that reality lines up with the reality of another, or not.
Reality is all those things and we all observe and interact with exactly the same reality.
What is that supposed to mean? How do you define "manner"? What other 'manners' are there in which we are supposed to perceive everything? Please explain those differences?
The conclusions we draw from our perception of reality does not change reality one iota from anyone else perception and conclusions.
You are free to speak for yourself in that regard, but it is entirely irrelevant as far as reality is concerned. It does not care about our conclusions, it will continue to do exactly as we all observe it to do.
No ATM. If all we were doing was sitting around a campfire quietly pondering a rock, we'd come to some semblance of agreement as to what life is. We would all be sitting in the same spot, looking at the same rock. Reality is more complex than that one rock. Reality is influenced by life interacting with life.
Our perception is determined by who we are. The example of the twins was a good one. My childhood, shared with my siblings is perceived in different ways by all of us. My eldest sister was traumatized by it. Why. How the hell should I know. We had the same experiences, the same parents, the same noodle salad life. But, the reality of it is that she perceived it differently than I did.
I get the impression that you think every person reacts exactly the same as every other to every stimuli. That there is a pat reaction to every action. That every observation should result in the same conclusion. That is not possible. Every conclusion from every observation is derived by adding to previous conclusions resulting from previous observations. And each person has a unique manner of coming to conclusions. And this is their reality. Through communication, we can understand why they perceive reality differently; but since it is all a matter of perception their take on the reality of their life is just as valid as ours.
I don't get the head and tail of your argument, and I was trying all these time.
You say reality is what a person "feels" about reality, am I correct?
Or as in the case of rose,
If you mean this by rose
You say this is not what it is, till everyone agrees what it is.
We aren't discussing concretes here riddle. I know this is difficult to follow, but a rose by any other name would only smell as sweet to those who perceive the smell as sweet. And we can easily discuss that. Because we are holding a rose.
You can't, as much as you may believe, crawl up into the mind of another and understand how they synthesize information gathered by their senses. Nor were you there at critical moments which caused them to reach certain conclusions about the nature of their reality. These conclusions from those moments would have to be addressed and resolved in line with your opinion of reality before both perceptions had a chance of intersecting. Being unable to do that is a disadvantage that cannot be ignored or overcome.
Again, we aren't talking about concrete objects.
Then, as you say, it is ones opinion, subjective feelings that has relevance only for the one that feelings occur.
Then lets take jerami's example, the fox killed the rabbit. The fox and rabbit both feel differently about it and you feel one thing while me another, but reality is the same-fox killed the rabbit.
So what is the point in discussing 'is my red same as your red'?
Reality is the same, to an extent. The ultimate reason we discuss is because we wonder what it means? If it means anything. Why is it different? How is it, that it is capable of being different? Cosmically, does this aberration resulting from processing information derived from our senses have meaning? Are we the only species synthesizing information into uniquely different understandings of reality? How does what we are fit into the fabric of the universe? Are we an integral part or a byproduct?
These questions, among others.
It isn't different, that's the point.
Those questions are all irrelevant to reality and how reality presents itself to all of us, which is identical.
Ok. You don't follow the point. That's OK. I agree that we all view the same things.
Reality is the 'same' for everyone, that is why it is called "reality" but the perception is different. And as meaning is attributed by us and as our perception is different it 'appears' different.
Our memory, perception and experiences are different, hence it is different. A leopard with a bad experience with a porcupine will be cautious and even avoid a porcupine but another with out such experience may not. See, the reality is the same a leopard encountering a porcupine, but the perception is different for different ones.
We may not be. For one thing we do not know anything about life outside earth. Second even on earth we have examples that individually there are differences. Say lions usually kill cheetahs(because cheetahs are a threat to their cubs and food) but there are lions that befriend leopards even gazelles.
As moving chemicals on the face of earth.
Neither we an integral part nor a by-product. That is our ego, our need to feel special. We are just like planets or stars, a formation because the right conditions were there.
A question pops into my head. And I'm not going to express it very well, this I know
When and where does reality begin. Reality ... the rabbit is eating clover, The Fox was hungry ? the fox kills the rabbit ? The fox is no longer hungry. The baby rabits die.
Which one of these statements "IS" reality?
We might say that the only reality is that the fox "IS" hungry and leave it at that... NO ... the only reality is that the fox ate the rabbit... NO... the reality is that the baby rabbits died... NO... reality is that the fox "IS Going to be" run over by a truck.
All of these are reality? None of these are reality?
Both of "these" two statements are reality?
neither statements represent reality?
Is what reality apears to be determined by which moment in time we choose to examine?
I'm SOooo confused.
I have another doubt Jerami, what do you mean by "reality"?
the rabbit is eating clover,- an event with two participants rabbit and clover(reality). The clover goes into the stomach of the rabbit
The Fox was hungry ? A subjective sensation of fox
the fox kills the rabbit ?reality, as we say a fact and we make it as a statement of fact the fox killed the rabbit
The fox is no longer hungry. - subjective feeling
The baby rabits die. reality.
Those examples are all part of reality, Jerami.
You are correct ... Some of these realities it seems are on one side of the fence while others are on the other side. If I am standing on one side or the other I do not see the whole picture.
When i do see the whole picture I become confused? Don't get me started talking about all of that which is beyond the horizon. head starts throbbing. LOL
Why, the fox do not kill the rabbit if you don't see it?
You are right !!! which means there was never any reality in the first place.
Yea right. When I close my eyes you disappear! You are not describing reality, but an immature child's view of the world.
There aren't many realities, there is just one. Being able to observe it all is just not possible. That doesn't preclude the fact that reality is still there, being real.
You are right dear...
there is only one hugely vast reality "thingie" which it seems you are attempting to divide into two sections. That which you see and understand and that which you don't.
You can not eleminate from reality everything that you don't understand as if it also is not real.
Yes, we are all holding a rose, each and every one of us, and if we all understand what a rose is, we will all agree we are holding a rose. See how reality works?
Sorry, but how someone synthesizes reality is completely irrelevant to how reality presents itself, which is not something different for anyone, just like holding a rose.
You just agreed with me by stating that we were all sitting around a campfire pondering life while looking at a rock. That's called reality and we all share that same reality of sitting around a campfire.
No, it isn't because it does not apply.
No, she didn't, she perceived it exactly the same way as everyone else. Her "feelings" towards reality were different, but that doesn't change her experience with reality, which was identical to everyone else.
Sorry, but that is not true, reality does not conform to peoples conclusions of it. Our reaction to reality may be different amongst each other, but reactions have nothing to do with how reality presents itself.
Sorry, but the only valid reality is reality itself.
How? From different angles? With their eyes shut? Through filters? What do you mean by that? How do peoples eyes differ so much they are unable to view the same event and agree upon the event?
Their opinion of the events is what makes the difference. So basically from what you're saying is that both of them are experiencing reality no matter how they see it? I mean both children feel that the other one was the favored child because the younger sibling was basically left to fend for himself while the elder was able to do whatever he wanted. The elder feels that everything was about the younger child while he had to put his life on the back burner. So Based on the events, the older child was put in a position to where he was supposed to look out for his younger siblings, but the older child didn't as much as he thinks he did.
They are not "seeing" reality any different, they are seeing it exactly the same. Reality is not changing itself to suit the agenda of others.
Sorry, but you're going to have to come up with something better than that. Feelings don't describe reality.
Aren't you confusing reality with perception of reality?
not at all, actually. For some, perception IS reality.. In this specific scenario, you have two different perspectives and perceptions.. the question becomes.. Who is right?
That's called delusion, not reality.
The one who is not deluded.
So.. In this case, which one would it be? the older sibling or the younger?
No idea, you haven't provided any details as to how reality is and is not being exhibited to either one of them. Just because one of them is happy about reality and the other is not doesn't mean they haven't both observed reality exactly the same.
So let me try it like this.. Let's say the reality of life when a parent leaves the home. The younger sibling views this reality as not being ideal, but life was still the best it could have been given the circumstances. The older sibling viewed it as horrible because he now is having to take care of younger sibling because the other parent had to work a lot more and now is bitter in spite of the fact that he really was gone as often as both parents and left the younger sibling home alone.
Sorry, that is not an example, there is nothing to indicate that any events occurred any differently.
Why not try using the claims so prevalent here.
God dunnit. This is a perfect example of how our world is perceived in which reality is showing us one thing and believers are claiming another.
Perception is NOT reality but perception only and that is why hallucinations and delusions are not reality. I'll give a simple example, I drop a stone from the moving train. The people inside the train sees it moving down while those standing outside sees it moving along with the train. So what is reality? The reality is only that the stone is dropped the itinerary is the subjective perception.
What you describe is human experiences, that is subjective feelings and an area where we have more scope for feelings (just like we say ones decision is clouded by emotions) and subjective feelings are merely that, opinions or perceptions, not reality.
And right and wrong is also an opinion say, eating a human is right for a cannibal while wrong for a modern man.
How are they seeing it the same when one is saying it was horrible but the other is saying it wasn't so bad?
Feelings and emotions are functions of the body, but can be triggered by reality.
It doesn't matter, the same events are occurring no matter how they feel, reality is not exhibiting anything different.
So what? They do nothing to change reality.
Seriously, you have to actually provide an example of how reality is not being exhibited for one but is for another under identical circumstances.
What people feel or imagine is irrelevant to how reality is being exhibited.
So what I'm gathering from this is that events are what they are regardless of our opinion of them. Do I have it summed up correctly?
BINGO!!! Welcome to the overall point.. Life happens the way it happens no matter how we feel about what's going on or what we think. With this in mind, how can you reasonably say that a theist's opinion of what is happening in life is not real but your opinion is? Now keep in mind before you jump back to the status quo answer of "evolution, science, and (my favorite) reality itself" that at this point there is no definitive answer one way or the other and as such at best anything that comes down the line can only reinforce an opinion.
Our opinions of reality may change, but that doesn't mean we have observed reality any different.
Because, a theist's opinion includes invisible sky daddies and all the other supernatural nonsense that goes along with it. That is not what reality exhibits, however.
Now I will answer this before you ask.
Theist's opinion about life is the confirmation bias we already discussed, for there is no creator.
About the creator, it is irrational and the theist contradict himself when positing a creator.
Let me ask you this. Since you don't think there was a creator, you think this stuff has always been here? or do you believe in the Big Bang?
If things cannot be created and as things are here, can you suggest any other option?
Don't you have to rephrase the question? Isn't "do you believe the scientists who propose the bang" more correct one?
Ok.. I'll take this as a you believe the universe has always existed with no creator
Fair enough.. Do you believe the scientists that propose the big bang?
What has my belief got to do with anything? It will be merely "my opinion" of whom to trust. Irrespective of my opinion, universe is either created or it was always there.
I'm no physicist and as many people say many things, I will first state what I understand by big bang and then tell you whether I believe or not.
Some time in the past all matter in the universe was concentrated into a single mass and it expanded to form the present one. We don't know what happened in the first few milli secs or before the expansion.
This may be a probable explanation for the present appearance if present universe and if they say so, I believe but if they say it 'originated'(hope you understood the difference) then I don't.
It was a simple question. no pressure to answer
I understand the difference.
You misunderstood me here. Give an example: I believe Obama when he says god exists or believe Dawkins when he says god doesn't exist. But that will be my opinion only, my opinion of whom to trust. But god's existence/absence is reality and is not subjective to my opinion.
Universe can either be created or it was always there. As it is a dichotomy, if one option is contradictory(hence impossible), then the one remaining, that is, universe is eternal, however improbable is the only possibility.
The question isn't what reality is exhibiting. Remember, we're still observing the same reality.. The difference is in our opinion the reality that is being exhibited. Regardless, reality continues. In both cases, the opinions of each side point to things that reinforce said opinion, but there is no actual concrete proof one way or the other.. as such, right now one opinion is almost as good as the other.. Keep in mind that atheists (such as yourself) look at evolution as the overall source of how reality operates. Some (not all) theists (reasonably) say that godunit and does it all (which I disagree with). Others also state that God started it, pushed play then walked away. Still others state that God created it all, started off trashing stuff directly. now sits back and watches since Jesus ensured all will go to heaven..
At the end of the day, Without any substantial proof of the existence (or lack thereof) of God, It is not as reasonable (nor intellectually honest) for you to state that a theist's opinion is invalid, delusional, etc while yours is correct any more than for a theist to state that their opinion (or belief) is the total absolute truth while yours is incorrect and invalid.
One child could be favored over the other. Is this something you've never heard of before?
True, but the funny thing is that in this case the more favored child is the one that states had the terrible childhood
I didn't figure that you would.. But believe it or not, This scenario, although worded hypothetically, is based on actual events.
So, the reality is in the events themselves, but not in the opinion or perception of the events?
As with all things, we all probably glimpse a piece of the truth. Our perception skews the whole. If you are asking about religion, then I would say where ideas intersect you find a better chance of seeing truth.
But One thing I've learned is that in the intersection of where the truth is two people disagree on how they arrived at that truth and which journey is the better one
But, that's the point, the other cultures did claim to provide evidence that the other religions were false in exactly the same way, through their holy books. How do you think religious wars started?
It was never a simple matter of the question boiling down to a yes or no answer. If that were true, there would be one religion with one common message for all. And, we would all know it.
Sorry, that doesn't fly. We can open up any given pair of holy books and find that is not the case at all. We will find stark contrast and completely different versions of gods and the fables that go along with them.
I don't agree. Other cultures can provide no more evidence to falsify evidence than you or I can. You look at reality and say there is no God. You can't prove it. Islam looks at reality and sees evidence of a god called Allah. They can't prove it. The same goes for Yahweh.
The walls of Jericho fell. Why? Our answer flavors history. Acceptance of that answer by others flavors history. It validated the beliefs of the Israelites. That validation proved their religion, to that point, true. The same goes for any event in any culture which is attributed to the interaction of a deity. That belief validates their perception of history. The only way you can change their history is to change their perception. To reach an agreement that actions contributed to things outside of this realm were misinterpreted. There is no common message because the message is created by the way events are perceived. If a culture has luck, that deity is pleased. Why is that deity pleased? Because that culture is doing what that religion said the deity wanted. Again, validating belief. Validating perception of that culture's religious beliefs.
None of this need have had anything to do with a deity. It is all perception. It is all belief that a deity is interested in the daily happenings within this reality. Skewed perception does not invalidate the existence of a deity. False conclusions would not negate the existence of a deity. Nothing anyone believes negates the possibility of a deity.
No two people look at any individual and see the same person. Does that mean they are looking at different individuals? No. So, if I can touch, feel, converse with and see an individual; and come to a completely different understanding of who that individual is, than the one you do; if God exists why would his nature be more easily understood?
Again, simply a different perception of events and conclusions drawn from that perception.
Of course, but that doesn't stop any of them believing or acting otherwise. That's the point.
No, I look at reality and find that everything contradicts the requirement and existence of gods.
No, it doesn't validate anything.
So what? That is irrelevant to history.
No one cares about their deluded perceptions because it is irrelevant to history.
In other words, the messages are conceived in the minds of the men of that culture. That is obvious.
Sorry, but the obvious and stark contradictions between religions goes well beyond perception of a common deity.
Yes, they do.
Baloney. You can take a person from every different culture on the planet, place them in a room and present God to them, who delivers the exact same message to all of them in their relative languages, and their perceptions will be almost identical of the deity and the message.
If this is the case then you are both a reasonable, rational person as well as a troll?
Now your observation was that two people can look at someone and see the same person.. The reason I asked my question is because based on our previous conversation, I stated that you are thought provoking and have good insight. There are other believers that see you as a troll who only seek to mock and ridicule.. So my question is, are we seeing the same person?
With my first statement, I was trying to be humorous more than sarcastic...lol
There are times of both insight and ridicule, based on the honesty of the posts. Nothing to confuse perception there.
But I'm saying that for some the insight is all that is seen and for others the ridicule is all that is seen. So my question remains
that even the 'elect' would be deceived, "if that were possible".
It seems as though you think that this prophesy has already been fulfilled, as do I. And if this one, what about many of the others?
It seems that when we find the answers we seek, another door opens, and behind then we find, ... why is that, and how can that be so? It is written that the wisest man ever went on the quest for the answers to lifes questions and finally concludes that ....it is all vanity.
When we search for answers to this statement, are we not following the same trail that Soloman went down that he concluded ... it is all vanity?
So what am I trying to say? .... I leave that to you to find the answer to that question.
Personally I am content to trust what scripture tells me, and gave up years ago seeking full understanding, because scripture also tells us that now we see through a glass darkly, by then we will see clearly, so I anticipate spending eternity getting to know all those answers, or at least some of eternity, the rest I would like to go out and create some universes myself!
Question, If you trust what scripture tells you without understanding it in context, then how can you be certain that you are following it correctly? There is some ambiguity in the scriptures and a word has a different definition in a different book in the bible as depending on context.
A Troubled Man I Appreciate the quality of these last three comments. These are the kind of comments which are worthy of consideration. keep up the good work.
+1.. It's a shame that others don't always pay attention to the posts to acknowledge good points that are made without feeling ridiculed
Everyone needs to be apreciated once in a while.
And once in a while we all deserve some.
I can appreciate all the appreciation given to the appreciation shown for appreciation here.
And I can appreciate this too..LOL
On a more serious note.. ATM, I really do appreciate what you bring to conversations (even when it is the laughter and ridicule). This conversation here shows a depth and added thought provoking material to the forum.
The thing is, Deepes, it's not that hard to bring this kind of stuff to the table. It actually is brought to the table far more than the consideration given here. However, what happens too often is when many points being made that are easily substantiated as facts are instantly dismissed simply because they might conflict with some aspect of ones belief system.
It is this blatant dishonesty which does not deserve any respect, consideration or acknowledgment to these conversations, which is why so often you don't see provoking material in response.
Are we so deluded and ignorant to accept lies as valid opinions in these discussions? Are we so adamant to acknowledge the ridiculous and absurd that simple offerings of fact are considered contemptuous and in reproach?
That is one of the reasons why you'll often see laughter and ridicule.
I agree with this assessment. It does lend itself to a difficulty for some when the foundations of their understanding is either shaken or challenged in a manner to make them fully expand their horizons to accommodate other perspectives. From my experiences with my newer outlook, I'm noticing it more and more as well.
I disagree here to an extent. Even the laughter you provide is thought provoking material if one is willing to go back and reexamine their statements and themselves.
There is a difference between telling a lie when there is truth and fact to contradict it and giving an honest opinion in the absence of said fact and truth. I think one of the biggest confusions (so to speak) is that sometimes when we examine both of them the line is so thin that it can almost be blurry and transparent to the point that there sometimes appears to be no line. Even the smallest difference makes a big difference
But, that is what we find primarily with belief systems, in that the line of reality is severely blurred beyond all recognition, that fact becomes fantasy and vice-verse. There are no bounds, no limits, nothing makes sense anymore.
Reality simply has no line to cross. It just is fact, it just is the truth. Beyond that, one is compelled to turn to dishonesty by creating a line to cross.
Good point, But then again the real question and separation between those is that not everyone basically ignores the current reality. Some actually embrace reality as it is now along with all of the current evidence, but are simply attempting to think and enter areas outside of our current reality into what has not been proven yet.
You know what? You'll probably not find a non-believer here or anywhere else that would argue your point, but in fact would support it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Many good ideas come from exactly that process.
Lets remember that something that "has not been proven yet" comes in all forms. As I said earlier, "there are no bounds, no limits" to faith, in exactly the same way that there are no bounds or limits our imaginations can lead us. We simply have to be careful as to what we claim from those which are "areas outside of our current reality" to those being absolute parts of our reality.
None of it is, as you say is, "what has not been proven yet", so it can't be part of our reality and is in no way worthy of consideration until it does.
thank you dear you are right. I apreciate your apreciation.
ATM posted "It was never a simple matter of the question boiling down to a yes or no answer. If that were true, there would be one religion with one common message for all. And, we would all know it".
me ... And if we all saw it the same way, ... We would return to the situation which brought about the "Tower of Bable" episode. Whatever the real story is behind that story.
I can't explain why I think it, but i don't think it would be a good thing for mankind if all of mankind was one minded concerning creation and the purposes of life and everything that goes with these two questions.
If we were all of one mind regarding creation, then these forums would basically be nonexistent
And who knows what other things our imaginations would come up with to argue about.
That would be a very good thing. Unity amongst mankind can't be anything but.
So, you're providing an example of a story you know nothing about nor can even spell correctly.
A Troubled Manposted
No idea what you're talking about. There's nothing to eliminate from reality that is part of reality. You're making no sense whatsoever.
me ...... I never would have expected for you to understand.
and as I said in that post, everything you don't understand is nonexistent! ...
what ever you say dear.
by Rabgix8 months ago
There are an extreme number of Religions in this world, some dead and some alive. How can the followers of one religion be so sure they are correct?I post this here because I come from a Christian family and they're...
by Kiss andTales5 years ago
There are so many religions in the world and yet there are those who believe in nothing but themselfs, and yet those that believe in God live as though they dont believe , just by the way they live, and the things they...
by RKHenry7 years ago
Good "God"- what is wrong with Christians? Fighting and killing people over nothing? Is this how your God acts? Is this what he expects? Is this the sacred road to heaven? Just in...
by haj33964 years ago
Religion, Christianity, what ever you want to call it, is about men attempt to add to God's narrative. The reason we have so many churches is because man want to have a response. Man is saying I have a mine, let me use...
by mischeviousme4 years ago
Would a loving parent not accept all of his/her/it's children?
by Yoleen Lucas3 years ago
You guys - I posted this in the Questions section, but because it turned into a full-blown discussion, HubPagers advised me to move it to Forums. Here it is:"Cult" is defined as a system of beliefs that...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.