The Physics of Christ

Theology, Religious Studies, religion, god, faith and other topics of a spiritual nature.

The Physics of Christ

Postby Brent696 on July 13th, 2018, 10:13 am 

True Christianity

To begin with I would like you to think about the mathematical reality and attributes that define the difference between the Infinite, as opposed to the Finite for these two do not exist at the same level of reality. Within the Finite there is Time, and Space, and most importantly Form, and above all this there is a Beginning and an End. The Heavenly realm, in which we tend to picture angels and the Heavenly throne, belong to the “Heavens” that were created along with the Earth. So in this Creation, there appears two distinct realms, and the qualities of Finitude, Time, Space, and Form, and likewise a Beginning and an End, are manifest within both, even though the created Heavenly realm is far superior in nature over that of the Earth’s. Similarly, as the Universal Dynamic Realities of Time and Space are superior over the Material (Matter) they house, we know that they also came into existence with the material Universe, and so will they also disappear when the Universe inevitably collapses.

God the Father, as the Creator, exists beyond all these Finite distinctions. I often describe Him as the Sum and Substance of the Infinite. In His realm of existence, there is simply nothing else that can exist, He alone is the sole occupant and Being of that Infinite reality and there is no space wherein anything other than Him can exist, as if to stand beside Him. We cannot say "Here is God and next to Him is some other thing". The Infinite exists solely unto itself, to understand the Father, you must understand that all of Creation is, as it were, a dream to Him, the Finite is a Potential reality, but it does not possess the same reality of Being that God does. The Infinite is One, and there is simply no room or space for something else to exist.

You can see this in mathematics as the Finite has no equivalent relation to the Infinite, but they are rather contrary to one another, anything Finite will instantly become absorbed into the Infinite where only Infinity is left. Whether we count to ten thousand or ten trillion, neither number is actually closer to the Infinite because infinity cannot ever be reached within the realm of Finitude as they are wholly distinct from one another. Likewise anything multiplied by Infinity loses its value of existence as only Infinity remains, so if you tried to combine God’s Infinite nature with all of the Creation, only God would remain. In our Finite Creation, the Infinite seems to exist only as a “Potential Reality”, but from the Infinite’s POV, From God’s POV, He is the true reality, and we are the “Potential”. Yet in between the two, the Finite and the Infinite, the Infinite can be the only one true Reality, and the Creation, whether speaking of the Heavenly or Earthly realm, and using a Biblical metaphor, exists merely an image or refraction upon the surface of the deep, that which is formless, void, the nothingness upon which God’s Breathed to create this Finite construct.

This is why Jesus, speaking from the Divine Nature from which He alone was begotten, spoke to those of us who are but mere creations, as being dead as our experience of existence lies only within this temporal structure of Time and Space. His statement was not an analogy, it was simply a true statement from His perspective since we do not, by dent of our created nature, possess the Divine nature which would impart to us the same reality of Being that God possesses.

Yet God is not static, rather He is in the “Process” of creating even at this very moment. As the Father is beyond Time, what He does is continuous from our POV, when He spoke the Creation into existence, so is His voice still active as it maintains the structure and universal laws upon which this Creation is suspended. The Beginning might seem like a Past event to us as our sense of consciousness in dependent upon its movement through time, but from God's Infinite POV, there is no past or future, it is as it were, all happening at once, the Alpha and the Omega, simultaneously, together and complete. So this Creation only remains as it is maintained, as long as the words are vibrating from His lips, metaphorically speaking. The vibrations of His voice over the surface of the deep continues to instill the form and structure of this Creation upon that ocean of nothingness, the refraction of which has produced this present Creation with those structural dynamics of Time and Space and along with all the Forms present within it, from the soul of man to the atom or quark, etc.

This “Song of Creation” as God maintains this Creation, poses that His breath, as a vehicle of His Will, is the mediator God and the Nothingness, that is impressing upon that Nothingness to produce this structuring of Time and Space, etc. which provides the context for our existence, in effect making Nothing appears, as if Something. This can be easily understood as the air around us, although formless and devoid of sound, by the action of our breath and will to speak, begins to resonate with our vocal cords, and the air takes on a form which carries that word, via compression waves, through that formless medium. Another person’s ear might hear that word but if you are speaking to a bowl of still water on the table in front of you, so too will that water resonate as it vibrates to the force of your Will and Breath, and yet leaving the water untouched by your physical self, even the glass of your window panes vibrates when you talk so that a microphone can receive it some distance away.

The Breath that is proceeding from God as He is in the process of creating, is what we perceive as the Holy Spirit, both imposing upon and directing this Nothingness, according to the Will of the Father, to maintain the structural integrity of this universe. As that Breath carries forth, it also enters into this Creation and in our dimension that allows for Form, so it takes on a distinct Form of its own, and this is the Word of God as His Breath is manifest within our creation. Just as our breath forms a word as we desire to communicate, So God’s Breath, given Form, produces the Heavenly Identity we know as YHWH, so God is manifesting Himself also within this Creation though His Breath (Holy Spirit) and Word.

In Genesis as we look at that Week of Creation, where everything arises out of nothing, it is Elohim, the Father, who creates (Bara), as He creates everything out of Nothing. But later, as we the scriptures telescope inside this Creation, do we see YHWH planting a Garden, Forming (Yatsar) Adam from the dust, walking in the Garden with Adam, talking with Abraham on the way to Sodom and Gomorrah, and it is this YHWH who spoke to Moses from the burning bush on Mount Sanai and calling and protected Israel ever since. The Identity or personhood of YHWH is the Form of God and the Word of God projected into His own Creation. In this way God has seeded His own Divine Nature into the realm of Time and Space. Even in Ezekiel’s vision it is this YHWH as the person Ezekiel saw sitting upon the Heavenly Throne in his vision. (The only time the Father’s presence is aligned with the presence of man is at the end of Revelations with the descent of the New Jerusalem, and it can be noted at that time that the sun and moon and waters are no more, the very nature of this universe having been dissolved.)

This is the relationship wherein YHWH “sits at the right hand of the Father”, not in a spatial relationship as if they were standing side by side in the same realm of existence, but rather as Elohim who transcends this Creation as the Infinite, and YHWH standing within this Finite universe as His representative and sitting upon this Heavenly Throne. But wait, are you thinking, "No, that was Jesus who is said to sit at the right hand of God", that is because even as YHWH was the Word formed from the Breath of God as He is maintaining this Creation, so has YHWH further descended into the body of flesh that was provided by Mary. And so in speaking of Jesus, as the physical embodiment of YHWH, likewise is He also conceived of the Holy Spirit as that same Divine Nature has now entered into the womb of Mary to take birth and thus appear in the image of a man.

(Thoughts to consider) So far I have paralleled to some degree the beginning of John’s Gospel as John has placed Jesus as the Creative Word that existed prior to and above the Waters, Waters which are representative of the Nothingness from which Creation arose. Then I placed YHWH, who is also known as the “Angel (messenger) of God” into His Heavenly role that He occupies throughout the duration of this Creation, and then YHWH’s descent into the incarnation of Jesus the Christ. These positions can be understood as John comes to verses 10 and 11 if we read them carefully. 10 “He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him.” And 11 “He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him.” Verse 10 places Jesus “through whom” as the Creative Word involved in Creations and then with verse 11, “was His own” places Jesus as YHWH as YHWH was the Lord over Israel, His special possession. Christian commentators might often tend to think of “His own” as if referring to us as Gentile believers and Christians, but if you accept that then you have to accept Gentiles in this context as being the ones who rejected Him. Jesus was not given out to the Gentiles until after His crucifixion, and so “His own” refers to the Jews as His chosen possession at this time.

So in order to understand what many call the Trinity, we can see there is and has always been “One” Divine nature, but in the ongoing PROCESS of Creating, as God continues to intone (Sing), thus maintaining this Creation, making that which is Nothing appear as if Something, and from our POV within this realm of Time and Space, does that “One Nature” appear as three. First as the Transcendent Father who [Wills] from His Infinite estate, yet never directly in contact with the Nothingness or the Finitude of His Creation, Secondly His Breath as the mediator and enforcer of His Will as it communicate structure and context to the Nothingness, and thirdly His Word, as the Father communicates both His desire in structuring the dynamics that give context to His Creation, and as the carrier for His own Nature as He impregnates into the Creation a Seed of His own Nature. And so in this way we perceive what is known as the Trinity as it is one nature, yet only appears as three as God is in the process of speaking (singing), both creating and sustaining this universe.

The ancient creeds are wrong to say “three persons” as they did not truly or fully comprehend the transcendent Nature of the Infinite Father and imaging the “Son” and “Father” as if both existed side by side within the Creation, this understanding also stops the critics who point out that Jesus is praying to the Father as they are both one and separate. And as for the Holy Spirit being represented as a “He”, the “He” always should point to the Father as the Spirit is His Breath being projected from the Father Himself, much the same way that Jesus said “If you have seen me you have seen the Father”. There is one Spirit, manifesting within different contexts of the Creation process. And we can see how it is that Jesus, as YHWH in the flesh, is also manifesting God’s Nature, in the form of His identity as He moves within the context of Time and Space. Now that we possibly have some understanding of the cosmological arrangement of this Creation, we can focus on how all that adds up to what we call “Salvation”, and how God’s Nature plays a part in it, basically “How are we saved and from what”.

God created the Creation as if it were a womb, the context of Time and Space allowing for the potential existence of other Forms outside of Himself, one or many of which are those created identities known as souls. This present context in which we exist also is meant to protect us from God’s all pervasive Oneness of Being, just as a mother’s womb protects a child from the elements until it can take breath for itself. This same idea is given figuratively as Eve was brought forth from the “side” of Adam, and then Adam impregnates Eve so as to bring forth children in his own likeness, so God, through His own Seed, has entered into the Creation in order impregnate those created souls with His own Divine nature. Thus using the Creation as a gestation place so as to beget children for Himself.

That Seed takes the form first as YHWH, then “in the fullness of time” YHWH incarnates into the flesh as the Christ. Then through Christ and the spilling of His blood, that Divine nature is broken, so that it might become bonded to the created souls that are bound by their own created nature and the finite limitations of the Creation. The Eucharist and the symbolic drinking of blood and eating of flesh, is a ritual representation of the flow of the Divine Nature into those who would become His children. To be “Born of the Spirit” is NOT simply an analogy for adopting a different or Christian life style, it is a true impregnation of God’s Divine Nature within us, and it is by this same Divine Spirit that we have become saved, having received Eternal Life and Being. And so as we come to the issue of “Salvation”, and in addressing this topic, I will have to make a distinction between knowing Jesus after the flesh and through the mind of flesh, and knowing Jesus after the Spirit with the renewed mind of the Spirit.

According to the flesh, most Christians perceive Salvation as if it is merely a “Moral” dilemma simply involving obedience, obedience being their will to belief, so they think in terms of forgiveness, and God knows He has to address us it this milk like way because the mind of the flesh is our natural state. But for those who have renewed their minds as to value God’s Spirit as the true Reality and their own created existence as a shadow, arising from nothing and returning to nothing, so have they come to understand Salvation as a question of Being. So that when the scriptures imply “Christ died [for] us”, it is not so much a “substitute” as it is “on our behalf” even as His death was followed by the “pouring out” of His Divine Spirit and Nature. This is why The Law, which can only deal with Actions, cannot save us as actions are a secondary manifestation arising from our nature, thus it is often said “we sin because we are sinners”. Actions can merely manifest what we are, they cannot change the nature of our Being as it is bound with our created nature. And ultimately “Substitution” is a legal arrangement, also incapable of begetting children. But this is how the mind of the flesh tends to interpret Salvation, and the “Spirit” is demoted to a mere voice of inspiration or branding, and the true purpose of the Spirit to instill in us God’s own righteous and Divine Nature goes unvalued (Blasphemed).

In the “moral” dilemma, the soul is assumed to be eternal, and thus Salvation is merely a contract whereby God might not punish our disobedient “actions”. The first problem that becomes apparent with the immortality of created souls is that God loses His place as the One Infinite and Eternal Being. God is no longer the Oneness of the Infinite and Eternal realm but now He must share it with not only the saved, but apparently with the lost as well. This misunderstanding arises from our fleshly subjective experience within this body, in the body we experience reality as a duality of equal competing factors, these factors being “Pleasure” or “Pain”, each seem to exist with equal being as they are both experienced by the flesh to equal degrees. When the mind of the flesh is imposed upon Doctrine, we can only see our Salvation as a choice between the two, and so Hell becomes the greatest Pain, and Heaven by contrast the greatest pleasure, although usually contextualized as God’s presence, or lack thereof.

But beyond the direct subjective experience of the body and flesh, as we observe God’s Creation objectively and rationally, we see the Creation presents a different duality, one in which there is “Something” or “Nothing”. This different duality is expressed in all aspects of the Creation from Light and Dark, to Heat and Cold, Sound and Silence, or even Knowledge and Ignorance or Truth and Lies. This is because this Creation reflects the fact that God is the only true “Something”, and this Creation, both Heavenly as well as Earthly, exists as merely a Potential that has arisen from Nothing. To renew the Mind is to understand the scriptures through the knowledge that God has reflected in His Creation, in this way the universe itself, the same universe that God made also by the way, becomes a witness for the scriptures. According to the Mind of the Spirit, we can perceive the Nothingness of our own Being wherein even our righteousness is still as filthy rags, where we are dead even though we appear as alive, and Salvation becomes a question of Being rather than Actions.

And so Salvation necessitates the need of an infusion or God's eternal nature and Being, God’s Spirit, and then when God ceases to sing His song of Creation, and everything once created dissolves back into the nothingness and formlessness from which it arose, when the surface of the deep that is represented symbolically by water returns to its still, static, and formless state, then those who share in God's nature, having been merged into the indestructible nature that Christ has supplied, can transcend the collapse of this Creation, both of the Heavens and the Earth, and then to transcend into the presence of the Father and His eternal and infinite realm. This transcendence is what is meant by the word Resurrection, a word that is misunderstood in its English translation because the “re”, as in expressing a context of “again”, does not exist in the original language just as doesn’t with the word Revelation but rather the word simply means “lifted up” as the very nature of a soul is lifted up being infused with a higher nature, an incorruptible nature, one that death cannot touch.

One Father, one nature, one seed, having descended from the highest Heaven, even into the flesh of the Earth, and wrapping us in the cloak of His own Divine Nature, will again ascend back into the Father’s presence, God’s Word returning unto Himself, and presenting the Father with the children whom have been born to Him, of His own Divine and Eternal Nature. So God’s own Divine Nature, having become the source of our identities as we are shielded within the anointed one, has directly become the source of our Being, and we are His begotten children by dent of our Spiritual and Second Birth.

So now let me expand a bit as I explore exactly what is God’s Infinite and Divine Nature and it’s attributes, for it does not express the same attributes as that nature of what has been created, in this universe there is always a diminishing effect, you tear paper in half and the whole is destroyed, everything in this Creation eating something else from the dinner on your plate to the sun as it consumes hydrogen, like the ancient representation of Ouroboros (a serpent eating its own tail), so the Creation consumes itself. But God’s divine nature is represented as a cup “full and overflowing”. God is ever expanding and yet He is always the “Omni”, always the “All”.

This “Divine Nature”, described as “Ever full and overflowing” can also be seen as it is infused into our Creation, so it becomes the dynamic force within the Miracles that Jesus performed, healing and feeding the multitudes, even turning water into wine and opening the eyes of the blind. As Jesus possessed this nature within Himself, so could He diffuse it when needed, and as it could change the nature of those things in which He infused it, so does it also change the nature of the soul even as Christ, God’s Seed, will bear the harvest of many souls for God’s Kingdom as they all share the Nature of God.

It can also be noted that whatever God does, He does eternally and Infinitely, so even as He is creating our particular universe presently, so is it likely possible He is creating other universes, and ever expanding Himself into all such Creations as He is always in the process of bearing Children for His Kingdom, and yes, this staggers the mind even more. When theologians speak of the word “Elohim”, they often note its plurality, and assume this to refer to the Trinity, but even more likely I would think this plurality is in the fact that God, is never without His Children as He is ever expanding, the Infinite always “becoming” more Infinite, and this is very difficult to understand from our level of existence and conditioning within a Finite Universe. We can see the “Trinity” as we observe Him at work in sustaining our own particular Creation, Singing the song as it were, but when He is not Singing us into existence, does not mean He stops singing altogether.
User avatar
Brent696
Member
 
Posts: 204
Joined: 12 Jul 2018


Re: The Physics of Christ

Postby mitchellmckain on July 13th, 2018, 9:33 pm 

As an added reflection in response to this I would ask you to consider what it means in the Bible when it says that God created us in His own image. An image is not a duplication but a reflection - not a likeness of nature in every way but a likeness in some way that serves a particular purpose -- not an equivalence but a relationship. Here is how I see this principle realized between us and God and it has very much to do with why God created us.

The God I believe in is infinite actuality. There is no limit to Him by nature but only those limits He places upon Himself by His own choices. The God I believe in has chosen to value love and freedom rather than power and control. And so He has created something other than Himself to which He can give His love. But does He create something to which He can give only a small portion of His love or to which He can give it all? And how can such a thing even be. The answer is to create something which grows -- something that can become more. In short, the image of Himself which God has created is infinite potentiality. And thus God seeks an eternal relationship where there is no end to what He can give and no end to what we can receive if we are willing. This is the meaning of eternal life.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Active Member
 
Posts: 1327
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


Re: The Physics of Christ

Postby Brent696 on July 13th, 2018, 10:35 pm 

You quantified your statement as an "added reflection", should I assume that means you are unwilling for a rebuttal?
User avatar
Brent696
Member
 
Posts: 204
Joined: 12 Jul 2018


Re: The Physics of Christ

Postby mitchellmckain on July 14th, 2018, 1:33 am 

If that is the way you want to do things then let me begin with a rebuttal of what you said above.

Brent696 » July 13th, 2018, 9:13 am wrote:True Christianity

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
Your Christianity is not true Christianity.
I cannot even imagine stooping to such arrogance. I would be ashamed to say such words.
If Christianity is of God then why in the world would it be limited to the thinking of one finite being (or human organization)

Brent696 » July 13th, 2018, 9:13 am wrote:To begin with I would like you to think about the mathematical reality and attributes that define the difference between the Infinite, as opposed to the Finite for these two do not exist at the same level of reality. Within the Finite there is Time, and Space, and most importantly Form, and above all this there is a Beginning and an End. The Heavenly realm, in which we tend to picture angels and the Heavenly throne, belong to the “Heavens” that were created along with the Earth. So in this Creation, there appears two distinct realms, and the qualities of Finitude, Time, Space, and Form, and likewise a Beginning and an End, are manifest within both, even though the created Heavenly realm is far superior in nature over that of the Earth’s. Similarly, as the Universal Dynamic Realities of Time and Space are superior over the Material (Matter) they house, we know that they also came into existence with the material Universe, and so will they also disappear when the Universe inevitably collapses.

Luke 17:21 "The Kingdom of Heaven is within you."
Do you really believe that difference between heaven and hell is found in such things as scenery and location?
Is it any wonder that non-believers often say that they would prefer the company in hell, when all the self-righteous so called Xtians they know make the world around them into a hellish place? The difference is indeed found in the people not the scenery. You can indeed see heaven and hell in people, who create heaven and hell around them no matter where they go. The one thing you can never escape is yourself.

Thus I do indeed believe in a heaven and hell because I see it in the world around us. But the reality is simply natural dichotomy in the ultimate destiny of people due to the competition between forces of creation and destruction within us, i.e. between the self-destructive habits of sin and the self-creative habits of learning and growth. The scenery is irrelevant. In fact, I can guarantee that opposite of what people imagine, it is hell which is the comfortable place and heaven which is excruciating. For it is in heaven where we must cut away from us all our bad habits and going the easy comfortable way can only end in our sins devouring us.

Brent696 » July 13th, 2018, 9:13 am wrote:God the Father, as the Creator, exists beyond all these Finite distinctions. I often describe Him as the Sum and Substance of the Infinite. In His realm of existence, there is simply nothing else that can exist, He alone is the sole occupant and Being of that Infinite reality and there is no space wherein anything other than Him can exist, as if to stand beside Him. We cannot say "Here is God and next to Him is some other thing". The Infinite exists solely unto itself, to understand the Father, you must understand that all of Creation is, as it were, a dream to Him, the Finite is a Potential reality, but it does not possess the same reality of Being that God does. The Infinite is One, and there is simply no room or space for something else to exist.

Thus you recreate God in your own image hemmed in and bound by your own limitations. An infinite God has no such limitations -- not confined to his own world but is everywhere omnipresent. Unlike the god of those who worship power and control, a god of love and freedom has plenty of room because He is willing to limit Himself to make the room. He CAN make a rock so heavy He cannot lift it. He CAN give freedom of will to others in the creation of life. He CAN set aside infinite power to become a helpless human infant. He CAN make sacrifices. He CAN take risks. He CAN give privacy to others. He CAN because what really defines God as defines everyone is not their nature but their choices and God chooses LOVE not power.

Brent696 » July 13th, 2018, 9:13 am wrote:You can see this in mathematics as the Finite has no equivalent relation to the Infinite, but they are rather contrary to one another, anything Finite will instantly become absorbed into the Infinite where only Infinity is left. Whether we count to ten thousand or ten trillion, neither number is actually closer to the Infinite because infinity cannot ever be reached within the realm of Finitude as they are wholly distinct from one another. Likewise anything multiplied by Infinity loses its value of existence as only Infinity remains, so if you tried to combine God’s Infinite nature with all of the Creation, only God would remain. In our Finite Creation, the Infinite seems to exist only as a “Potential Reality”, but from the Infinite’s POV, From God’s POV, He is the true reality, and we are the “Potential”. Yet in between the two, the Finite and the Infinite, the Infinite can be the only one true Reality, and the Creation, whether speaking of the Heavenly or Earthly realm, and using a Biblical metaphor, exists merely an image or refraction upon the surface of the deep, that which is formless, void, the nothingness upon which God’s Breathed to create this Finite construct.

An infinite being who chooses power and control accepting no limitation will indeed be as you say -- alone. But I clearly do not believe in your god of power and control, which I think only reflect a persons own obsession with power and control themselves.

Brent696 » July 13th, 2018, 9:13 am wrote:This is why Jesus, speaking from the Divine Nature from which He alone was begotten, spoke to those of us who are but mere creations, as being dead as our experience of existence lies only within this temporal structure of Time and Space. His statement was not an analogy, it was simply a true statement from His perspective since we do not, by dent of our created nature, possess the Divine nature which would impart to us the same reality of Being that God possesses.

Jesus came that we may have life and have it more abundantly (John 10). And just as life came to Adam and Eve when God spoke to them so also did the words of Jesus bring life to those who listened and took what He said into their hearts. So yes, He said, "Let the dead bury their own dead," for there is indeed another kind of life in the Bible that biological life. The tree of life and the bread of life is a relationship with the living God. But that relationship is not what many religious people imagine. If they think it means being obedient to God, following His laws, performing his rituals, having God's truth, having God's favor/love, having God on their side,... having God in their pocket LOL, then they couldn't be more mistaken. The living relationship with God is a sharing of His own thirst for love and righteousness so that one does what is right for its own sake (having the law of God written on their hearts, Romans 2:12-15)

Brent696 » July 13th, 2018, 9:13 am wrote:Yet God is not static, rather He is in the “Process” of creating even at this very moment. As the Father is beyond Time, what He does is continuous from our POV, when He spoke the Creation into existence, so is His voice still active as it maintains the structure and universal laws upon which this Creation is suspended. The Beginning might seem like a Past event to us as our sense of consciousness in dependent upon its movement through time, but from God's Infinite POV, there is no past or future, it is as it were, all happening at once, the Alpha and the Omega, simultaneously, together and complete. So this Creation only remains as it is maintained, as long as the words are vibrating from His lips, metaphorically speaking. The vibrations of His voice over the surface of the deep continues to instill the form and structure of this Creation upon that ocean of nothingness, the refraction of which has produced this present Creation with those structural dynamics of Time and Space and along with all the Forms present within it, from the soul of man to the atom or quark, etc.

Very good! I always thought this aspect of traditional Xtian theology, that God was immutable and cannot change is complete nonsense. A God which cannot change is a God which is dead, irrelevant, and unable to love. Some think this because time is a part of the universe and so God is outside of time, but that is stuck in an absolute understanding of time. Once you get beyond that you realize there can be any number of temporal orderings. So to imagine that God is without anything including time makes no sense. To be sure God is not limited by time but there is no reason why God cannot use time whenever and however He wants.

Brent696 » July 13th, 2018, 9:13 am wrote:This “Song of Creation” as God maintains this Creation, poses that His breath, as a vehicle of His Will, is the mediator God and the Nothingness, that is impressing upon that Nothingness to produce this structuring of Time and Space, etc. which provides the context for our existence, in effect making Nothing appears, as if Something. This can be easily understood as the air around us, although formless and devoid of sound, by the action of our breath and will to speak, begins to resonate with our vocal cords, and the air takes on a form which carries that word, via compression waves, through that formless medium. Another person’s ear might hear that word but if you are speaking to a bowl of still water on the table in front of you, so too will that water resonate as it vibrates to the force of your Will and Breath, and yet leaving the water untouched by your physical self, even the glass of your window panes vibrates when you talk so that a microphone can receive it some distance away.

This is the sort of pathetic creation that a god of power and control would undertake. All his creations would never be more than dreams in His own head with Him as the author of everything that happens. But God of love and freedom is much more daring and adventurous, creating something real and apart from Himself, existing by its own laws and not requiring Him to maintain it. To be sure He would make it something He can participate in and thus would act to keep his creations safe enough to grow and learn. But that is the only "maintaining" I can believe wouldn't make God too pathetic to inspire my worship.

Brent696 » July 13th, 2018, 9:13 am wrote:The Breath that is proceeding from God as He is in the process of creating, is what we perceive as the Holy Spirit, both imposing upon and directing this Nothingness, according to the Will of the Father, to maintain the structural integrity of this universe. As that Breath carries forth, it also enters into this Creation and in our dimension that allows for Form, so it takes on a distinct Form of its own, and this is the Word of God as His Breath is manifest within our creation. Just as our breath forms a word as we desire to communicate, So God’s Breath, given Form, produces the Heavenly Identity we know as YHWH, so God is manifesting Himself also within this Creation though His Breath (Holy Spirit) and Word.

The breath of God in the Bible is most often a metaphor for His word. And thus while others believe in an ancient necromancer breathing life by magic into golems of dust and bone, I believe in a God who created life. And life is the opposite of design, for life grows and learns things for itself. Thus life evolved in in millions of direction and then God adopted two homo sapiens Adam and Eve as His children speaking to them and teaching them things people were not yet able to imagine.

Brent696 » July 13th, 2018, 9:13 am wrote: In Genesis as we look at that Week of Creation, where everything arises out of nothing,

The cool thing about energy in physics is that it dissolves the difference between substance and action, for not only is matter a form of energy but so is motion. Thus if we ask where all the matter of the universe came from it makes perfect sense to say that it came from God action in creating it.


Brent696 » July 13th, 2018, 9:13 am wrote: it is Elohim, the Father, who creates (Bara), as He creates everything out of Nothing. But later, as we the scriptures telescope inside this Creation, do we see YHWH planting a Garden, Forming (Yatsar) Adam from the dust, walking in the Garden with Adam, talking with Abraham on the way to Sodom and Gomorrah, and it is this YHWH who spoke to Moses from the burning bush on Mount Sanai and calling and protected Israel ever since. The Identity or personhood of YHWH is the Form of God and the Word of God projected into His own Creation. In this way God has seeded His own Divine Nature into the realm of Time and Space. Even in Ezekiel’s vision it is this YHWH as the person Ezekiel saw sitting upon the Heavenly Throne in his vision. (The only time the Father’s presence is aligned with the presence of man is at the end of Revelations with the descent of the New Jerusalem, and it can be noted at that time that the sun and moon and waters are no more, the very nature of this universe having been dissolved.)

This is the relationship wherein YHWH “sits at the right hand of the Father”, not in a spatial relationship as if they were standing side by side in the same realm of existence, but rather as Elohim who transcends this Creation as the Infinite, and YHWH standing within this Finite universe as His representative and sitting upon this Heavenly Throne. But wait, are you thinking, "No, that was Jesus who is said to sit at the right hand of God", that is because even as YHWH was the Word formed from the Breath of God as He is maintaining this Creation, so has YHWH further descended into the body of flesh that was provided by Mary. And so in speaking of Jesus, as the physical embodiment of YHWH, likewise is He also conceived of the Holy Spirit as that same Divine Nature has now entered into the womb of Mary to take birth and thus appear in the image of a man.

Elohim is God. YHWH is God. The Father is God. The Holy Spirit is God. Jesus is God. But God is one. There is a multiplicity of person but there is still only one God. This simply means that God is not created in our image. We are limited to a singularity of personhood but God is not. Yes I am a Christian. Not Muslim. Not Jehova Witness. Not Mormon. So I believe Jesus is fully God and fully man, always with Father, always God and not created. To be sure, many others cannot understand this and they choose to believe differently. But I like it, because it is messy and because it is hard to understand -- changing it to make it seem more logical would be a mistake.

Brent696 » July 13th, 2018, 9:13 am wrote:(Thoughts to consider) So far I have paralleled to some degree the beginning of John’s Gospel as John has placed Jesus as the Creative Word that existed prior to and above the Waters, Waters which are representative of the Nothingness from which Creation arose. Then I placed YHWH, who is also known as the “Angel (messenger) of God” into His Heavenly role that He occupies throughout the duration of this Creation, and then YHWH’s descent into the incarnation of Jesus the Christ. These positions can be understood as John comes to verses 10 and 11 if we read them carefully. 10 “He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him.” And 11 “He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him.” Verse 10 places Jesus “through whom” as the Creative Word involved in Creations and then with verse 11, “was His own” places Jesus as YHWH as YHWH was the Lord over Israel, His special possession. Christian commentators might often tend to think of “His own” as if referring to us as Gentile believers and Christians, but if you accept that then you have to accept Gentiles in this context as being the ones who rejected Him. Jesus was not given out to the Gentiles until after His crucifixion, and so “His own” refers to the Jews as His chosen possession at this time.

Ah yes, this is like the Jehova Witnesses and the Mormons who changed things to make things seem more logical to them, even if they had to rewrite the Bible to do so. No thank you. I will not say they and other pseduo-Christian groups are all bad. Indeed they are like most religions with both good things and bad. I can admire the JWs for their pacifism and the Mormons for their family focus, but then like most groups there are also many things wrong. They both warp the gospel with an authoritarian agenda which ultimately makes it about gaining power and control over others. I don't like JW intolerance and I don't like the attitudes of either toward women. And the services of both are dry, dead and without life. But there are worse groups out there.

Brent696 » July 13th, 2018, 9:13 am wrote:So in order to understand what many call the Trinity, we can see there is and has always been “One” Divine nature, but in the ongoing PROCESS of Creating, as God continues to intone (Sing), thus maintaining this Creation, making that which is Nothing appear as if Something, and from our POV within this realm of Time and Space, does that “One Nature” appear as three. First as the Transcendent Father who [Wills] from His Infinite estate, yet never directly in contact with the Nothingness or the Finitude of His Creation, Secondly His Breath as the mediator and enforcer of His Will as it communicate structure and context to the Nothingness, and thirdly His Word, as the Father communicates both His desire in structuring the dynamics that give context to His Creation, and as the carrier for His own Nature as He impregnates into the Creation a Seed of His own Nature. And so in this way we perceive what is known as the Trinity as it is one nature, yet only appears as three as God is in the process of speaking (singing), both creating and sustaining this universe.

The first part sounds like Sabellianism or Modalism and the latter like Arianism (the JWs), which just means it isn't "Christianity" by the oldest definition of the word distinguishing it from other religions like Islam.

Brent696 » July 13th, 2018, 9:13 am wrote:The ancient creeds are wrong to say “three persons” as they did not truly or fully comprehend the transcendent Nature of the Infinite Father and imaging the “Son” and “Father” as if both existed side by side within the Creation, this understanding also stops the critics who point out that Jesus is praying to the Father as they are both one and separate. And as for the Holy Spirit being represented as a “He”, the “He” always should point to the Father as the Spirit is His Breath being projected from the Father Himself, much the same way that Jesus said “If you have seen me you have seen the Father”. There is one Spirit, manifesting within different contexts of the Creation process. And we can see how it is that Jesus, as YHWH in the flesh, is also manifesting God’s Nature, in the form of His identity as He moves within the context of Time and Space. Now that we possibly have some understanding of the cosmological arrangement of this Creation, we can focus on how all that adds up to what we call “Salvation”, and how God’s Nature plays a part in it, basically “How are we saved and from what”.

The earliest creed of Nicea 325AD did not say "three persons" or even "Trinity." The offical doctrine of the Trinity was simply that Jesus is God, the Father is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, all distinct persons but only one God.

Brent696 » July 13th, 2018, 9:13 am wrote:God created the Creation as if it were a womb, the context of Time and Space allowing for the potential existence of other Forms outside of Himself, one or many of which are those created identities known as souls. This present context in which we exist also is meant to protect us from God’s all pervasive Oneness of Being, just as a mother’s womb protects a child from the elements until it can take breath for itself. This same idea is given figuratively as Eve was brought forth from the “side” of Adam, and then Adam impregnates Eve so as to bring forth children in his own likeness, so God, through His own Seed, has entered into the Creation in order impregnate those created souls with His own Divine nature. Thus using the Creation as a gestation place so as to beget children for Himself.

Yes I think the universe is like a womb which is limited in order to protect the life that grows within it. This is the purpose of the laws of Nature and it is why I do not believe that God breaks these laws. But we are children not tools -- an end in ourselves not a means to an end and thus created for a purpose as tools are.

But Adam and Eve are not golems created by magic. They are living beings and that means that they come from growth not design. Machines and tools made for an end are designed. Living things grow and make choices and deciding for themselves the meaning of their lives as children do. They evolve. Creationist theism is a dead end which can only believe in a god of power and control -- a demon which rules by threats and turning cowardice into a virtue. It is like worshiping Voldemort or the devil, whose followers are either craven or greedy for power and control themselves.

Brent696 » July 13th, 2018, 9:13 am wrote:That Seed takes the form first as YHWH, then “in the fullness of time” YHWH incarnates into the flesh as the Christ. Then through Christ and the spilling of His blood, that Divine nature is broken, so that it might become bonded to the created souls that are bound by their own created nature and the finite limitations of the Creation. The Eucharist and the symbolic drinking of blood and eating of flesh, is a ritual representation of the flow of the Divine Nature into those who would become His children. To be “Born of the Spirit” is NOT simply an analogy for adopting a different or Christian life style, it is a true impregnation of God’s Divine Nature within us, and it is by this same Divine Spirit that we have become saved, having received Eternal Life and Being. And so as we come to the issue of “Salvation”, and in addressing this topic, I will have to make a distinction between knowing Jesus after the flesh and through the mind of flesh, and knowing Jesus after the Spirit with the renewed mind of the Spirit.

But human beings are more than animals because they also have a mind which is alive in its own right with its own (memetic) inheritance. So while all the living organisms of the earth are the genetic bretheren of our biological bodies, the memetic seed of the human mind comes from the word of God Himself. It may habe been corrupted by self-destructive habits from Adam and Eve, but we have been given inheritance through the example and words of Jesus as the second Adam.

Brent696 » July 13th, 2018, 9:13 am wrote:According to the flesh, most Christians perceive Salvation as if it is merely a “Moral” dilemma simply involving obedience, obedience being their will to belief, so they think in terms of forgiveness, and God knows He has to address us it this milk like way because the mind of the flesh is our natural state. But for those who have renewed their minds as to value God’s Spirit as the true Reality and their own created existence as a shadow, arising from nothing and returning to nothing, so have they come to understand Salvation as a question of Being. So that when the scriptures imply “Christ died [for] us”, it is not so much a “substitute” as it is “on our behalf” even as His death was followed by the “pouring out” of His Divine Spirit and Nature. This is why The Law, which can only deal with Actions, cannot save us as actions are a secondary manifestation arising from our nature, thus it is often said “we sin because we are sinners”. Actions can merely manifest what we are, they cannot change the nature of our Being as it is bound with our created nature. And ultimately “Substitution” is a legal arrangement, also incapable of begetting children. But this is how the mind of the flesh tends to interpret Salvation, and the “Spirit” is demoted to a mere voice of inspiration or branding, and the true purpose of the Spirit to instill in us God’s own righteous and Divine Nature goes unvalued (Blasphemed).

I also reject substitutionary atonement which is an exaggeration of the judicial metaphor for the atonement in the Bible. The innocent do not literally pay for our sins, rather they suffer because of our sins and seeing that often makes us want to change. Jesus death on the cross can change us if we take responsibility for being a part of it. He died because of us. Our self-destructive habits are such that we will even destroy that which is perfectly good and only wants to help us. This is the beginning of a change in thinking that can make way for a relationship with God that can actually do us good. Because that is what went wrong thin the beginning with Adam and Eve and separated us from God -- it made the relationship do more harm than good. That is indeed the only thing that can come between loving parents and their children.

Brent696 » July 13th, 2018, 9:13 am wrote:In the “moral” dilemma, the soul is assumed to be eternal, and thus Salvation is merely a contract whereby God might not punish our disobedient “actions”. The first problem that becomes apparent with the immortality of created souls is that God loses His place as the One Infinite and Eternal Being. God is no longer the Oneness of the Infinite and Eternal realm but now He must share it with not only the saved, but apparently with the lost as well. This misunderstanding arises from our fleshly subjective experience within this body, in the body we experience reality as a duality of equal competing factors, these factors being “Pleasure” or “Pain”, each seem to exist with equal being as they are both experienced by the flesh to equal degrees. When the mind of the flesh is imposed upon Doctrine, we can only see our Salvation as a choice between the two, and so Hell becomes the greatest Pain, and Heaven by contrast the greatest pleasure, although usually contextualized as God’s presence, or lack thereof.

Unlike the body, which exists by the laws of nature, the spirit exists by its own nature created by its own choices. But these choices can be destructive and thus the spirit can die. It is an eternal death, whether conscious or oblivious, consisting of an existence without that which makes existence worthwhile. It may not be a fiery torture chamber but an eternity without that which makes it worthwhile is enough to identify it as hell.

Thus the idea that heaven and hell is about the reward or punishment for actions or obedience to God is all nonsense. We shall indeed have cause to regret every evil and be grateful for every good in both heaven and hell. But what really makes these different is our ultimate destiny. Do we overcome the evil with in and grow or to we let that evil consume us. I like to say that hell is our heart's desire and heaven is God's desire for us. This sounds good to those who do not understand that the heart's desire of fallen man isn't such a good thing. It is the desire of God for us to change and leave our self-destructive habits behind us, however difficult and painful (even humiliating) that may be.

As for the rest, I will only say that I believe in the salvation of the gospel of Jesus Christ which is a salvation by the grace of God (Matthew 19:16-26), and all God asks of us is faith (Romans 10:5-7), which is dead without works (James 2:14-26), and the works which interests God is not ritual sacrifices and religious assembly but "learn to do good, seek justice, correct oppression, defend the fatherless, plead for the widow." (Isaiha 1:11-17). Or as it says in James 1:27, "Religion which is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world." This comes from a time when widows and orphans were completely destitute, with no means to survive. So in this day and age that translates to helping those who need help. Or as it says in Mathew chapter 25,
31 “When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, 33 and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. 34 Then the King will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35 for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? 38 And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? 39 And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.’ 41 Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44 Then they also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?’ 45 Then he will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.’ 46 And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
Last edited by mitchellmckain on July 14th, 2018, 2:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Active Member
 
Posts: 1327
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


Re: The Physics of Christ

Postby Brent696 on July 14th, 2018, 1:43 am 

I'm sorry, there was one too many Lols, therefore I knew it would be a waste to read anything you wrote. Have a wonderful evening
User avatar
Brent696
Member
 
Posts: 204
Joined: 12 Jul 2018


Re: The Physics of Christ

Postby mitchellmckain on July 14th, 2018, 2:06 am 

Brent696 » July 14th, 2018, 12:43 am wrote:I'm sorry, there was one too many Lols, therefore I knew it would be a waste to read anything you wrote. Have a wonderful evening


I not only removed one, but half of them. Not that I think what you say here can be taken seriously. I think this is more about you simply wanting to dictate "truth" to others rather than listen to what they say about truth.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Active Member
 
Posts: 1327
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


Re: The Physics of Christ

Postby Brent696 on July 14th, 2018, 2:09 am 

I guess you can think whatever you want to.
User avatar
Brent696
Member
 
Posts: 204
Joined: 12 Jul 2018


Re: The Physics of Christ

Postby mitchellmckain on July 14th, 2018, 10:47 pm 

Brent696 » July 14th, 2018, 1:09 am wrote:I guess you can think whatever you want to.


Of course I can. I am glad you understand this.

I however am interested in what you (Brent Hurst perhaps?) think -- not that I will ever agree, probably won't even understand all that much of it.

So... Unarian Wisdom by Ernest Norman. Surely that is at least one source of your ideas. Hmmm....

I am not much into rewriting things, like ...history ...Christianity ...science

I am more into taking them as they are and seeing what value can be found in them as is.

It is more of a balanced approach, I think -- neither mired in tradition, nor so far out on the fringe that it is like being disconnected from the known world.

But I am fascinated by the whole phenomenon of religion and I am always interested when encountering a new one. But I give the most serious examination of the oldest religions, while from the legion of newer religions I am more interested in the trends and the process by which they are created and develop. I rejoice in the diversity of human thought and believe it is an asset to human civilization. So it seems tragic to me that so many of these groups take such a negative direction in condemning the ideas of everyone else and indulging in the absurd conceit that they are the one truth. It boggles my mind.

Of course, it is only natural to think they are right. And in that I am no different. It's just that I think more than 90% of this is just language, and insisting that theirs is the only true religion is a bit like insisting that French is the only true language, which is very strange, don't you think?

But then, without this exclusive bent to them then why would they create a new religion rather than looking for the truth and value to be found in those which are already out there?
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Active Member
 
Posts: 1327
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


Re: The Physics of Christ

Postby Brent696 on July 14th, 2018, 11:25 pm 

fab·ri·ca·tion
ˌfabrəˈkāSH(ə)n/Submit
noun
noun: fabrication; plural noun: fabrications
the action or process of manufacturing or inventing something.
"the assembly and fabrication of electronic products"
synonyms: invention, concoction, (piece of) fiction, falsification, lie, untruth, falsehood, fib, myth, made-up story, fairy story/tale, cock-and-bull story; white lie, half-truth, exaggeration; informaltall tale, whopper
"the story was a complete fabrication"
User avatar
Brent696
Member
 
Posts: 204
Joined: 12 Jul 2018


Re: The Physics of Christ

Postby mitchellmckain on July 15th, 2018, 12:37 am 

I don't think that Earnest Norman is a fabrication or the fact that he wrote a number of publications. The website is real enough, though whether this is more than just one person it harder to substantiate. It certainly seems quite possible that the content of Norman's writings are a fabrication, but in that I don't think they are any different than the Dianetics, The Book of Mormon, or even the Quran. The Bible is collection of quite a few different things, and some of them are no doubt fabrications, like Jonah which sounds much more like a homiletic tale than anything even remotely historical.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Active Member
 
Posts: 1327
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


Re: The Physics of Christ

Postby Brent696 on July 15th, 2018, 1:01 am 

The "fabrications" are all the categories you are trying to peg me with, never heard of Earnest, read one sentence on his site and thought it was buggy. Feel free to stop posting me.
User avatar
Brent696
Member
 
Posts: 204
Joined: 12 Jul 2018


Re: The Physics of Christ

Postby mitchellmckain on July 15th, 2018, 1:44 am 

Brent696 » July 15th, 2018, 12:01 am wrote:The "fabrications" are all the categories you are trying to peg me with, never heard of Earnest, read one sentence on his site and thought it was buggy. Feel free to stop posting me.

Ok, so it is just a coincidence that you use some similar terminology, such as "Song of Creation" and "Sum and Substance of the Infinite." Usually language is a big clue about where a person's ideas come from. I make no secret about where my ideas come from. Though sometimes people sound similar for other reasons. For example, once someone thought I sounded like John Polkinghorne, but I had never heard of him. In that case it was easily explained that we both had a background in theoretical physics, and we both liked open theism. Likewise, I didn't know it, but "Song of Creation" appears to be a common term used by people trying to connect the Bible with the science. Where did you hear this term?

So why are you here? Perhaps we need to add to the list of troll types to include those using the forums as a means of solicitation but with no desire to actually communicate with other people.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Active Member
 
Posts: 1327
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


Re: The Physics of Christ

Postby mitchellmckain on July 15th, 2018, 2:30 pm 

Frankly people who simply pontificate and do not engage are more like faucets than teachers. They are more enamored with their own imagined brilliance than motivated by a desire to share wisdom with others. The latter requires communication which cannot happen without a back-and-forth dialogue. Think about the teachers you have had. Do you admire those who just stand before the class giving a presentation without even answering questions and objections? To be sure there is a balance, and if this goes to far then it descends to the level of bar room ramblings. So a good teacher makes time for both his presentation AND an exchange with his students.

Just saying... You can of course do whatever you want according to what YOU value.

Though what I am suggesting does require a little more humility and a more realistic understanding of what a teacher can accomplish. The image of being one who pours knowledge into a lot of empty brains is not an adequate comprehension of the task. A more realistic goal to hope for is that you will inspire new ideas of their own in the pursuit of their own life and philosophy.

So why do I keep pushing? Because I AM interested in communication, and I have learned that most tasks require persistence where you keep trying over and over again until you break through obstacles and make some progress.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Active Member
 
Posts: 1327
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


Re: The Physics of Christ

Postby davidm on July 15th, 2018, 11:01 pm 

Brent696 » July 13th, 2018, 8:13 am wrote:True Christianity


Fail right off the bat, as is the thread title.

As to infinity v. finitude, it is perfectly possible that the universe is both infinite in space and time. There can be an infinite number of finitely distant spatial locations, and an infinite number of finitely distant past and future events.

The rest of the OP is just boring lucubrations on a tedious fairy tale. Failure to engage with responses is noted, and unsurprising. The OP is not about the philosophy of religion. It is just long-winded bilge.
davidm
Member
 
Posts: 382
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: The Physics of Christ

Postby Brent696 on July 15th, 2018, 11:43 pm 

>>>>>Fail right off the bat, as is the thread title.

As to infinity v. finitude, it is perfectly possible<<<<<<<

Sorry, your rebuttal failed, right off the bat, probabilities are no more certain that probabilities, but at least you got a chance to be dismissively cliche', yawn, how very trite. Run along now.
User avatar
Brent696
Member
 
Posts: 204
Joined: 12 Jul 2018


Re: The Physics of Christ

Postby davidm on July 16th, 2018, 11:02 am 

Brent696 » July 15th, 2018, 9:43 pm wrote:... probabilities are no more certain that probabilities ...


What does that even mean?

While you're at its, tell us how you get to decide what "true Christianity" is.
davidm
Member
 
Posts: 382
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: The Physics of Christ

Postby Brent696 on July 16th, 2018, 12:48 pm 

>>>>>What does that even mean?<<<<<<

All in all it means this

"""""While you're at its, tell us how you get to decide what "true Christianity" is."""""""

Is an emotional response based on envy, much like Cain's argument, and demonstrates your disqualifications for any type of true or intelligent rebuttal.

And you are mistaken in the assumption I "decided" anything, when people search for truth, they do not decide, they open their eyes.

But as I said, this appears to be an emotional issue for you, even as you are driven to be so insulting when you clear has the option of simply not commenting, which is what normally happens when people come across "bilge" and "boring lucubrations on a tedious fairy tale", and since I am not being paid to be your therapist, I decline to deal with your obvious issues.

As for "failure to engage response", I have yet to have a response. I have had dismissals and insults, these are not intelligent responses but childish insecurities.

And as for "probabilities", you stated "As to infinity v. finitude, it is perfectly possible......" which is to use a probabilities to rebut what could just as easily be a counter probabilities. The only way you can do this is to be self deceived to the point you think your probabilities are more certain that someone else's probabilities. And the fact that I have to explain this to you makes it all the more unlikely you can perform a proper rebuttal of anything.

Now, if you think no one can possess more spiritual truth than you, then you have no reason to talk to me. If you consider anyone that believes in God to have his brain possessed by superstitions and thus logically impaired, then you have no reason to talk to me. If you think all of this is just bilge, you have no reason to talk to me. If you just skimmed over it, and did not consider its depth long enough to truly understand it, then you have no reason to talk to me. You cannot rebut what you have not understood, and perhaps you don't have the theological experience to tie it all in with Christianity. Perhaps the only Christianity you know is that hype on TV which is easily rebuffed, even by me.

I am not looking to convert you or anyone else, I wrote it for those who are interested, not for those feel some need to be mulishly dismissive.
User avatar
Brent696
Member
 
Posts: 204
Joined: 12 Jul 2018


Re: The Physics of Christ

Postby davidm on July 16th, 2018, 1:12 pm 

This person does not understand.

When I said it was “perfectly possible” that the universe was infinite in space and time, I was not speaking in terms of probabilities. Whether the universe is spatially and temporally infinite is an empirical matter, yet to be determined, though the evidence points to infinitude, as opposed to a differing model in which the universe is finite but unbounded.

The fact that it is possible, in the yet-to-be-fully determined empirical sense, for the universe to be infinite in space and time, is a decisive rebuttal to your claim that actual infinites are not possible.

It is mathematically and logically possible for there to be an infinite number of past and future events, each of them finitely distant from the indexical present.

As to the rest, when you claim the mantle of “true Christian,” you do so without foundation or explanation of why you are right and others are wrong. There are very many competing claims for what constitutes “true Christianity.” How does one decide among them?

Unlike in science and to a lesser extent philosophy, there is no way to adjudicate these matters.
davidm
Member
 
Posts: 382
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: The Physics of Christ

Postby mitchellmckain on July 16th, 2018, 1:26 pm 

If you do a search of "Sum and Substance of the Infinite" (a phrase he used above), you get only this site called Unarian wisdom (with a bunch of publications by Ernest Norman) and some posts by a Brent Hurst on crossexamined.org. The Unarian wisdom site also uses his phrase "Song of Creation," so you might take that as a confirmation. If you google "unarian" you get comments by people calling this the most bad UFO cult ever, so perhaps this is not an influence on his thinking that brent696 wants to acknowledge, even though I am not as contemptuous as he fears. New religious groups are a part of human nature and I have more contempt for those who behave intolerantly to them and I am quite capable of acknowledging that Christianity is not on any more solid ground than a UFO cult. At least, it would be something new. I think I tend to be a little less friendly to Jehovah Witnesses, who can be a bit annoying.

He claims this similar flavor and terminology is just a coincidence. I am willing to accept this in stride, for after all who knows how oblique the connection might be if there is one. But you know, he behaves a LOT like someone ingrained in a particular religious tradition. He likes to act like he is being persecuted by enemies, so he will quickly jump defensively from any criticism to the idea he is talking to "anti-theists" or people hostile to his thinking. And yet, ironically, his is also eager to launch attacks on others as well. It all suggests an habitual battle mentality of us against the world. Is their any hope he can drop this defensive mentality and join the rest of the world in all its diversity of thought?
Last edited by mitchellmckain on July 16th, 2018, 2:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Active Member
 
Posts: 1327
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


Re: The Physics of Christ

Postby mitchellmckain on July 16th, 2018, 1:42 pm 

davidm » July 16th, 2018, 12:12 pm wrote:This person does not understand.

When I said it was “perfectly possible” that the universe was infinite in space and time, I was not speaking in terms of probabilities. Whether the universe is spatially and temporally infinite is an empirical matter, yet to be determined, though the evidence points to infinitude, as opposed to a differing model in which the universe is finite but unbounded.

The fact that it is possible, in the yet-to-be-fully determined empirical sense, for the universe to be infinite in space and time, is a decisive rebuttal to your claim that actual infinites are not possible.

As a physicist I will confirm this. Whether the universe is finite or infinite is not something which is known. The Big Bang theory can go either way. It is not about probabilities but about what science can determine objectively.

davidm » July 16th, 2018, 12:12 pm wrote:It is mathematically and logically possible for there to be an infinite number of past and future events, each of them finitely distant from the indexical present.

I will point out, however, that there are different orders of infinity, and that this must not be taken to mean that all possible past and future events have occurred somewhere in the universe. This does not follow in the slightest -- very different order of infinity. I know you did not say this, but sometimes people do that, and I wanted to make sure this is understood.

davidm » July 16th, 2018, 12:12 pm wrote:As to the rest, when you claim the mantle of “true Christian,” you do so without foundation or explanation of why you are right and others are wrong. There are very many competing claims for what constitutes “true Christianity.”

Indeed, so much so that this is a consistent pattern of behavior and would be a good topic for both the philosophy and psychology of religion.

davidm » July 16th, 2018, 12:12 pm wrote:How does one decide among them?

Unlike in science and to a lesser extent philosophy, there is no way to adjudicate these matters.

There is no objective means whatsoever and thus this must be consigned to the category of personal opinion, fetishes, hangups, and fantasy. And that, of course, includes all my Christian ideas also.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Active Member
 
Posts: 1327
Joined: 27 Oct 2016
davidm liked this post


Re: The Physics of Christ

Postby Braininvat on July 16th, 2018, 3:19 pm 

Brent, every thread you've started or joined seems to have you and another member snarking at each other. It stops now. I just had to delete about 6-8 posts that were off-topic and/or ad hominem, in another thread. I have no more time to mop these things up. Everyone play nice or I temp ban all involved and delete the threads.
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 6780
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: The Physics of Christ

Postby Brent696 on July 16th, 2018, 3:42 pm 

David, >>>>>When I said it was “perfectly possible” that the universe was infinite in space and time, I was not speaking in terms of probabilities. Whether the universe is spatially and temporally infinite is an empirical matter, yet to be determined,.............The fact that it is possible, in the yet-to-be-fully determined empirical sense, for the universe to be infinite in space and time, is a decisive rebuttal to your claim that actual infinites are not possible.<<<<<<<

You know it's funny, religious people are often criticized for professing something of blind faith, where they take something like oh, a creator let's say, which is a possibility, and then they take that possibility and stretch it into an actually. Who can ever reasonably debate a person who claims the bible is the word of God and they just believe it, never even considering the fact that even if the bible was thus inspired, their ability to comprehend it accurately is still a deciding factor.

Now here I am, speaking with someone who presumably claims to be more capable of rational thought, who is trying to convince me that a "perfectly possible" is somehow more certain than a simple "possibility". If we are going to merely throw around beliefs then I guess I find the existence of God as perfectly possible, though "yet-to-be-fully determined empirical sense".

I don't care if you have a belief, even strong leanings, but don't add an absolute adjective and expect it to carry the weight of factual evidence, or even relatively so.

>>>>>>>It is mathematically and logically possible for there to be an infinite number of past and future events, each of them finitely distant from the indexical present.<<<<<<

So you are saying O.J. didn't kill Nicole because anything is possible in an infinite number of time lines or alternate universal outcomes. Once again referring to something as "mathematically and logically possible" does not change the fact it is still merely a possibility. Logically all you are doing is dissolving Ketchup in hot water and trying to convince me it is Tomato Bisque. Lets try again.

>>>>>>>Unlike in science and to a lesser extent philosophy, there is no way to adjudicate these matters.<<<<<<<

And yet, you have attempted to by using what you call science but all I saw was the postulations of a belief system that was passing itself off as more truthful than it was.

Ok, infinity, the speed of light, as a constant, generates the effect or dimension of time for this universe. This constant did not come about as an extension, where light was still, and as it moves this is as fast as a photon can travel. If that were the case then the headlight on a train traveling at 20, 000 MPH would be giving off light that would be travelling at C+20, 000 MPH.

So Light speed is better understood as a limitation upon infinity, basically without the speed of light, everything would happen at once and thus consciousness, as it depends upon the flow of time, could not exist.

Space, and spatial expansion works the same way, space is generated by the continual expansion of it, not in the way it widens out spatially as we tend to think of space, but that the motion of expansion itself, like a wave, brings about our dimension of space. In a sense the expansion keep everywhere from being here at once.

Whereas science minded people supposedly like you start from a finite base, and try to see infinity through the finite, my mind starts from the infinite base, and looks back upon our finite condition. So I understand if my thinking is confusing to you.

Now let's continual at least philosophically, this universe expresses itself in a duality of "something verse nothing", which you would have seen in my article. Hopefully we can agree on this as Light/darkness, Heat/zero point, sound/silence, truth/lies, knowledge/ignorance, so in a sense, as with knowledge and ignorance, or order and chaos, the universe can be intricately divided into information and nothingness.

So in creating, in the big bang and following expansion, everything here that is something, has arisen from nothing. What this means is that as we search for the foundations of matter, particles, waves, energy, we eventually come down to "nothing". And "nothing" bears an Infinity all its own. So no we move the universe aside, all that has come into being even in a temporal sense, and there is foundationally an infinity of nothingness.

But one step beyond this, since nothing cannot energize and information-ize itself, there is an Infinity of Something. And this seems like a good stopping point.

Now, can I prove all of this in a laboratory, probably not, or maybe it's just "yet-to-be-fully determined empirical sense" that is if math and logic can prove something. Math in our universe is limited to this universe, if there is a five dimensional universe it would have its own math different from ours. So math ultimately must stop at the big bang for lack of a better concept.

So I am perfectly free to theorize beyond the nature of this universe as long as my logic is consistent and I don't have to listen to those bluster when they cannot go where I go only because of the limitation they have set for themselves.
User avatar
Brent696
Member
 
Posts: 204
Joined: 12 Jul 2018


Re: The Physics of Christ

Postby davidm on July 16th, 2018, 4:22 pm 

“Perfectly” possible is just an idiom. Let’s get real here.

It is possible — metaphysically possible — that an infinite number of finitely distant past and future events exist. I am not talking about an “infinite number of timelines or alternate universe outcomes.” I am talking about an infinite number of sequential events in this universe, in this time line. I was addressing your claim, or what certainly seemed to be your claim, that this single physical universe cannot be spatio-temporally infinite because, for some unknown reason, it must be subsumed under some larger infinite context that you label God, and, moreover, the Christian God, and moreover, your particular conception of that God.

As to the existence of some God or Gods, of course it is metaphysically possible that such an entity or entities exist. If we were to define God as is usually done among Christian thinkers, as being necessary, then it follows that if God exists at some possible world (modal logic) then he must exist at all possible worlds. This would mean that God necessarily exists. However, the converse is also true: if God, as defined above, fails to exist at some modally possible world, then it follows that he fails to exist at any modally possible world, and hence necessarily fails to exist.

As to the rest, to me it’s a Teal Deer.
davidm
Member
 
Posts: 382
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: The Physics of Christ

Postby davidm on July 16th, 2018, 4:36 pm 

Here are two claims:

1. It is metaphysically possible that there are an infinite number of finitely distant past events. And again, I am speaking of events in this time line only. I am not talking about alternate universes or different time lines or any such thing.

2. It is metaphysically possible that God exists.

The first claim can be verified mathematically and logically — contra William Lane Craig, who has argued that it is metaphysically impossible that there be an infinite number of finitely distant past events (one of his arguments for a first cause and hence for God), it is possible that there should be such events. But, just because it’s metaphysically possible, does not mean it’s true. Whether it’s true or not is an empirical matter.

As to the second claim, that it is metaphysically possible that God exists, this is of course true, but, there is no logical, mathematical, or empirical demonstration that this proposition is in fact true.
davidm
Member
 
Posts: 382
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: The Physics of Christ

Postby mitchellmckain on July 16th, 2018, 6:47 pm 

davidm » July 16th, 2018, 3:36 pm wrote:Here are two claims:

1. It is metaphysically possible that there are an infinite number of finitely distant past events. And again, I am speaking of events in this time line only. I am not talking about alternate universes or different time lines or any such thing.

2. It is metaphysically possible that God exists.

The first claim can be verified mathematically and logically — contra William Lane Craig, who has argued that it is metaphysically impossible that there be an infinite number of finitely distant past events (one of his arguments for a first cause and hence for God), it is possible that there should be such events. But, just because it’s metaphysically possible, does not mean it’s true. Whether it’s true or not is an empirical matter.

As to the second claim, that it is metaphysically possible that God exists, this is of course true, but, there is no logical, mathematical, or empirical demonstration that this proposition is in fact true.

What proposition would you be referring to in that last statement???

I hate to do this but you have played just a little fast and loose here. I mean take a close look at what you are saying here....
1. I can be verified mathematically and logically that it is metaphysically possible that there an an infinite number of finitely past events.
2. But it cannot be verified mathematically and logically that God exists.

The contrast only works if you leave out the metaphysically possible on the second one. I can understand why you want to make a contrast between the two. But I think the difference may only be that the first one is at least falsifiable. We may never get an answer on the first one but it is at possible that we may one day rule out the possibility that the universe is infinite (even ruling out a finite universe is conceivable if considerably harder to imagine). The prospects for the second regarding God are much less hopeful especially with a lot of stubborn believers who are ready to modify their claims to fit any evidence which comes along (and yeah I am one of them).
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Active Member
 
Posts: 1327
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


Re: The Physics of Christ

Postby Brent696 on July 16th, 2018, 6:52 pm 

>>>>>>1. It is metaphysically possible that there are an infinite number of finitely distant past events. And again, I am speaking of events in this time line only.<<<<<<<

So the question is do you have an established theory in mind to wit I am supposed to guess at by this description. Perhaps you are referring to multiple expansions and collapses, but over all the trouble I see with this sentence is that you have placed an Infinite (number of event)(even if they themselves are finite), upon a singly timeline, a timeline which could not be infinite as we are still upon it.

And if I add to this that Time, only came into effect along with this universe, where then is the infinity past.

I mean "metaphysical" as it refers to beyond the physical, but still reference some reality of some dimension unless you are speaking of "possibilities" that never actually manifested, which would just make them non-realities and not metaphysical possibilities. But then you say of this

>>>>>>>The first claim can be verified mathematically and logically<<<<<<<

Ok, by your description of your 1st point, that a metaphysical possibility can be verified mathematically and logically, I am going to need more than your description. So if you can direct me somewhere that spells it out because I am finding your description in-congruent. then after I figure what you are proposing we can look at what I say, not what Craig says because he is not me and I think for myself. I've never been all that impressed with Christian apologeticists and I don't know of any today that understand how salvation works.

So if we can keep the "teal deer" comments aside as they are meant only to mock or ignore, give me a chance to better understand what you are proposing as proven or verifiable.
User avatar
Brent696
Member
 
Posts: 204
Joined: 12 Jul 2018


Re: The Physics of Christ

Postby mitchellmckain on July 16th, 2018, 9:34 pm 

Brent696 » July 16th, 2018, 5:52 pm wrote:I've never been all that impressed with Christian apologeticists and I don't know of any today that understand how salvation works.

This is another statement filled with more of Brent's rather naive arrogance, and likely to evoke some laughter or scorn by those who read it. BUT it did cause me to take a second look at the OP to try and nail down what is his understanding of salvation is after all (a lot of which I skipped in my "rebuttal" above getting tired after reading the first half). So this is basically a continuation of my examination of the OP.

I think I would classify his religious ideas as what "I call next generation Christianity." It is a concept which I introduced in discussion with modern day pagans, when I suggested to them that they must eventually confront a situation when their own children decide to go for some form of Christianity. I said that we can at least hope their children might go for an understanding of Christianity that isn't quite so hostile to pagan religion. This after all, would describe me as well -- I am a pagan friendly Christian myself. But this can be generalized to a new generation of people coming out of backgrounds from a whole range of new religions to "rediscover" Christianity. It is possible that they will be considerably less "hide-bound" or intolerant in many ways -- at least I hope so.

AND I am not finding much in common with what is found on the Unarian website beyond these few similarities of language.

Brent696 » July 13th, 2018, 9:13 am wrote: Now that we possibly have some understanding of the cosmological arrangement of this Creation, we can focus on how all that adds up to what we call “Salvation”, and how God’s Nature plays a part in it, basically “How are we saved and from what”.

Both are good questions and so I will take a stab at digging these out. The answers I hear too often from Xtians are rather attrocious: what amounts to be saved from God's wrath, and being saved by buying into a set of doctrines. This sound much more like the religion of Gnosticism than what I see being taught by Jesus and Paul in the Bible.

Brent696 » July 13th, 2018, 9:13 am wrote:God created the Creation as if it were a womb, the context of Time and Space allowing for the potential existence of other Forms outside of Himself, one or many of which are those created identities known as souls. This present context in which we exist also is meant to protect us from God’s all pervasive Oneness of Being, just as a mother’s womb protects a child from the elements until it can take breath for itself. This same idea is given figuratively as Eve was brought forth from the “side” of Adam, and then Adam impregnates Eve so as to bring forth children in his own likeness, so God, through His own Seed, has entered into the Creation in order impregnate those created souls with His own Divine nature. Thus using the Creation as a gestation place so as to beget children for Himself.

I have already applauded this idea of looking at the physical universe as a womb for I have said the same thing many times myself. However I do not believe in created souls. I believe the essence of life and children is that of self-organization and existence before essence (creating our own spirit). I am also not going to be a fan of any kind of supernatural/magical impregnation for imparting a Divine nature which is also a lot like Gnosticism. Instead I will emphasize the meme nature of the human mind and suggest that our transformation is via the communication of ideas. And while I will insist that the mind is a wholly physical existence, I also believe in an epiphomenal spiritual existence deriving wholly from our choices in life.

Brent696 » July 13th, 2018, 9:13 am wrote:That Seed takes the form first as YHWH, then “in the fullness of time” YHWH incarnates into the flesh as the Christ. Then through Christ and the spilling of His blood, that Divine nature is broken, so that it might become bonded to the created souls that are bound by their own created nature and the finite limitations of the Creation. The Eucharist and the symbolic drinking of blood and eating of flesh, is a ritual representation of the flow of the Divine Nature into those who would become His children. To be “Born of the Spirit” is NOT simply an analogy for adopting a different or Christian life style, it is a true impregnation of God’s Divine Nature within us, and it is by this same Divine Spirit that we have become saved, having received Eternal Life and Being. And so as we come to the issue of “Salvation”, and in addressing this topic, I will have to make a distinction between knowing Jesus after the flesh and through the mind of flesh, and knowing Jesus after the Spirit with the renewed mind of the Spirit.

Again this sounds like even more of Gnosicism added to a Christianity which I think already has too much of Gnosticism in it. I see salvation (transformation of the spirit) as coming about by a change in the human heart and values where we do what is right for its own sake and help those in need out of empathy for them. Thus it can quite ironically be the case that atheists doing good for its own sake are more in tune with God than theists who keep doing things for heavenly rewards.

Brent696 » July 13th, 2018, 9:13 am wrote:According to the flesh, most Christians perceive Salvation as if it is merely a “Moral” dilemma simply involving obedience, obedience being their will to belief, so they think in terms of forgiveness, and God knows He has to address us it this milk like way because the mind of the flesh is our natural state. But for those who have renewed their minds as to value God’s Spirit as the true Reality and their own created existence as a shadow, arising from nothing and returning to nothing, so have they come to understand Salvation as a question of Being. So that when the scriptures imply “Christ died [for] us”, it is not so much a “substitute” as it is “on our behalf” even as His death was followed by the “pouring out” of His Divine Spirit and Nature. This is why The Law, which can only deal with Actions, cannot save us as actions are a secondary manifestation arising from our nature, thus it is often said “we sin because we are sinners”. Actions can merely manifest what we are, they cannot change the nature of our Being as it is bound with our created nature. And ultimately “Substitution” is a legal arrangement, also incapable of begetting children. But this is how the mind of the flesh tends to interpret Salvation, and the “Spirit” is demoted to a mere voice of inspiration or branding, and the true purpose of the Spirit to instill in us God’s own righteous and Divine Nature goes unvalued (Blasphemed).

I also would turn from the idea of salvation as a reward doing good (what brent calls a "moral dilemma") to one of being. But I won't buy into his idea of this consisting of magical/metaphysical substance injection. I believe that our being, our essence, or our spirit derives from the choices we make. This is what defines our being. One way I put this is to say that while the physical exists by laws of nature (mathematical equations of time and space), the spiritual exists by its own nature alone created by the choices of the physical living organism (body and mind). Thus the efficacy of Christ dying for us can only be found in how it affects the choices we make. I would quite agree that the whole point is to instill God's own righteous, what the Bible refers to as having the "law of God written on our hearts," but I won't buy in the idea of this happening by some "divine nature" magically added to us from outside. I will put it down to the grace of God but only because He is the ultimate manipulator who makes things happen.

Brent696 » July 13th, 2018, 9:13 am wrote:In the “moral” dilemma, the soul is assumed to be eternal, and thus Salvation is merely a contract whereby God might not punish our disobedient “actions”. The first problem that becomes apparent with the immortality of created souls is that God loses His place as the One Infinite and Eternal Being. God is no longer the Oneness of the Infinite and Eternal realm but now He must share it with not only the saved, but apparently with the lost as well. This misunderstanding arises from our fleshly subjective experience within this body, in the body we experience reality as a duality of equal competing factors, these factors being “Pleasure” or “Pain”, each seem to exist with equal being as they are both experienced by the flesh to equal degrees. When the mind of the flesh is imposed upon Doctrine, we can only see our Salvation as a choice between the two, and so Hell becomes the greatest Pain, and Heaven by contrast the greatest pleasure, although usually contextualized as God’s presence, or lack thereof.

While Brent sees God losing "His place as the One Infinite and Eternal Being" as a problem, I see God choice of love and freedom over power and control as a measure of His greatness that He would take the risks and make the sacrifices of power and control by limiting Himself and making room for the eternal existence of children apart from Himself. The God who only dreams the universe is not an admirable being to me, for in that, how is He any different than any of us when we dream at night or imagine worlds for our books and movies?

Brent696 » July 13th, 2018, 9:13 am wrote:But beyond the direct subjective experience of the body and flesh, as we observe God’s Creation objectively and rationally, we see the Creation presents a different duality, one in which there is “Something” or “Nothing”. This different duality is expressed in all aspects of the Creation from Light and Dark, to Heat and Cold, Sound and Silence, or even Knowledge and Ignorance or Truth and Lies. This is because this Creation reflects the fact that God is the only true “Something”, and this Creation, both Heavenly as well as Earthly, exists as merely a Potential that has arisen from Nothing. To renew the Mind is to understand the scriptures through the knowledge that God has reflected in His Creation, in this way the universe itself, the same universe that God made also by the way, becomes a witness for the scriptures. According to the Mind of the Spirit, we can perceive the Nothingness of our own Being wherein even our righteousness is still as filthy rags, where we are dead even though we appear as alive, and Salvation becomes a question of Being rather than Actions.

Obviously I am not going to agree with this sort of empty rhetoric which calls us nothing. It is one thing to call ourselves "filthy rags" because of our own choices to prostitute ourselves with self destructive behavior and quite a different thing to devalue God's work of creation to the point where He is nothing I can even admire let alone worship. In fact, I would see this rhetoric as a dodge from our responsibility rather than an acceptance of it. With this kind of thinking it is only natural that we would be filthy rags because we are nothing anyway and it is really all down to this God who dreamt us this way. No I cannot agree with any of this.

Brent696 » July 13th, 2018, 9:13 am wrote:And so Salvation necessitates the need of an infusion or God's eternal nature and Being, God’s Spirit, and then when God ceases to sing His song of Creation, and everything once created dissolves back into the nothingness and formlessness from which it arose, when the surface of the deep that is represented symbolically by water returns to its still, static, and formless state, then those who share in God's nature, having been merged into the indestructible nature that Christ has supplied, can transcend the collapse of this Creation, both of the Heavens and the Earth, and then to transcend into the presence of the Father and His eternal and infinite realm. This transcendence is what is meant by the word Resurrection, a word that is misunderstood in its English translation because the “re”, as in expressing a context of “again”, does not exist in the original language just as doesn’t with the word Revelation but rather the word simply means “lifted up” as the very nature of a soul is lifted up being infused with a higher nature, an incorruptible nature, one that death cannot touch.

Salvation requires the new life of spirit which comes from a turning of the human heart from self-destructive habits such as blaming everyone and everything but ourselves for our problems to embracing the challenge of life to learn and improve ourselves as people who make the world a better place, because that kind of character will go with us wherever we go to make every place better rather than worse.

Brent696 » July 13th, 2018, 9:13 am wrote:One Father, one nature, one seed, having descended from the highest Heaven, even into the flesh of the Earth, and wrapping us in the cloak of His own Divine Nature, will again ascend back into the Father’s presence, God’s Word returning unto Himself, and presenting the Father with the children whom have been born to Him, of His own Divine and Eternal Nature. So God’s own Divine Nature, having become the source of our identities as we are shielded within the anointed one, has directly become the source of our Being, and we are His begotten children by dent of our Spiritual and Second Birth.

In biology we have learned the true nature of a seed is in the genetic inheritance which passes on to us all that has been learned by previous generations in the trial and error process of evolution. But there is an obvious analogy to the developments of human beings in a memetic inheritance which passes a way of thinking to the next generation via the media of human communication. Now perhaps this inheritance has evolved in much the same way as atheists would believe, but if you believe in a God who has communicated with people in the past, then there is another possible source for this memetic inheritance and that is a of seed from God which can transform human behavior with nothing magical involved. In other words, the seed of God which Christians believe can transform the human spirit is found in God's Word. Though as one of what I call second generation Christianity, I am far from inclined to think that the Bible is the only communication of God to man.

Brent696 » July 13th, 2018, 9:13 am wrote:So now let me expand a bit as I explore exactly what is God’s Infinite and Divine Nature and it’s attributes, for it does not express the same attributes as that nature of what has been created, in this universe there is always a diminishing effect, you tear paper in half and the whole is destroyed, everything in this Creation eating something else from the dinner on your plate to the sun as it consumes hydrogen, like the ancient representation of Ouroboros (a serpent eating its own tail), so the Creation consumes itself. But God’s divine nature is represented as a cup “full and overflowing”. God is ever expanding and yet He is always the “Omni”, always the “All”.

This “Divine Nature”, described as “Ever full and overflowing” can also be seen as it is infused into our Creation, so it becomes the dynamic force within the Miracles that Jesus performed, healing and feeding the multitudes, even turning water into wine and opening the eyes of the blind. As Jesus possessed this nature within Himself, so could He diffuse it when needed, and as it could change the nature of those things in which He infused it, so does it also change the nature of the soul even as Christ, God’s Seed, will bear the harvest of many souls for God’s Kingdom as they all share the Nature of God.

Hmmm... the only point of contact I am seeing here is my own idea about the nature of human wealth. Not only is there the communist idea that wealth came from human labor but it is a pretty pervasive historical idea that there is only so much to go around and thus there must be the "haves" and the "have-nots." But I think all of this is terribly wrong. I believe that wealth ultimately comes from human creativity and much of the difference between the past and modern times is the unlocking of human creativity (especially that of women and underprivileged classes). The point is that by changing human habits of thought and behavior derived from a dog eat dog mentality we can create an endless fountain that produces more and more instead of greedily grabbing at limited resources.

As for the last paragraph I don't have any important criticisms other than what I have already said before about this idea of turning the universe into a dream nothing with no independent existence, which I cannot agree with.

Maybe now I have gone all the way through his presentation in the OP, Brent can feel free to present his "rebuttal" of my first post in this thread. LOL What is the point? Is he going to succeed in "correcting" me? LOL No. But he might succeed in clarifying the differences between his thinking and mine.


But wait... almost forgot I was going to dig out the answers to his questions: what are we being saved from and how? So what are Brent's answers?
1. From what? We are being saved from the dissolving of creation when God stops singing -- sounds a lot like the usual Xtian answer that we are being saved from God.
2. How? We are saved by an infusion of Divine Nature that comes to us large from the blood sacrifice of Jesus.

At least that is what I am getting from his OP. If he manages to engage then perhaps he can correct any misunderstandings on my part.

My answers in the simplest terms are these. We are being saved from ourselves and our own self-destructive habits and God accomplishes this by His participation in our lives such as through a torrent of inspiration from an endless number of sources. As a Christian I would see Jesus and the Bible as particularly important, but that just me, for no one should try to limit the power of God to say how He can change people.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Active Member
 
Posts: 1327
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


Re: The Physics of Christ

Postby Brent696 on July 16th, 2018, 10:45 pm 

>>>>>BUT it did cause me to take a second look at the OP to try and nail down what is his understanding of salvation is after all (a lot of which I skipped in my "rebuttal" above getting tired after reading the first half)<<<<<<<

Mmmmm

>>>>>AND I am not finding much in common with what is found on the Unarian website beyond these few similarities of language.<<<<<<


Yep, never been there

>>>>>>Again this sounds like even more of Gnosicism added to a Christianity which I think already has too much of Gnosticism in it.<<<<<<

""""""Wiki (Gnosticism) This divine spark could be liberated by gnosis. Some of the core teachings include the following:

1All matter is evil, and the non-material, spirit-realm is good.
2 There is an unknowable God, who gave rise to many lesser spirit beings called Aeons.
3 One evil, lower spirit being is the creator who made the universe.
4 Gnosticism does not deal with 'sin', only ignorance.
5 To achieve salvation, one needs to get in touch with secret knowledge..........

Pleroma (Greek πληρωμα, "fullness") refers to the totality of God's powers. The heavenly pleroma is the center of divine life, a region of light "above" (the term is not to be understood spatially) our world, occupied by spiritual beings such as aeons (eternal beings) and sometimes archons. Jesus is interpreted as an intermediary aeon who was sent from the pleroma, with whose aid humanity can recover the lost knowledge of the divine origins of humanity. The term is thus a central element of Gnostic cosmology..........

In Gnostic tradition, the term Sophia (Σoφíα, Greek for "wisdom") refers to the final and lowest emanation of God. In most if not all versions of the gnostic myth, Sophia births the demiurge, who in turn brings about the creation of materiality. The positive or negative depiction of materiality thus resides a great deal on mythic depictions of Sophia's actions. She is occasionally referred to by the Hebrew equivalent of Achamoth (this is a feature of Ptolemy's version of the Valentinian gnostic myth). Jewish Gnosticism with a focus on Sophia was active by 90 AD"""""""""

Other than the fact Gnosticism denotes mystical knowledge, I don't see much of any kind of similarity between me and them, the most glaring difference in that I address "Being", while they seem to agree with you that one can be saved by "knowledge". Plus they have that weird automatic writing thing where they trance out and try to write their own gospels, literally making up new events in Jesus' life, I don't much care for all that.

>>>>>> I am far from inclined to think that the Bible is the only communication of God to man.<<<<<

Neither do I think this at all,

>>>>>>>(Mitchell's view) Salvation requires the new life of spirit which comes from a turning of the human heart from self-destructive habits such as blaming everyone and everything but ourselves for our problems to embracing the challenge of life to learn and improve ourselves as people who make the world a better place, because that kind of character will go with us wherever we go to make every place better rather than worse.<<<<<<<

The Salvation I speak of does not stop at the door of physical death, nor even the door of the collapse of the Creation (Universe). Mathematically you just can't throw the values and attributes back and forth, we are dealing with an Infinity, which is what God would be as a Creator, and the Finite which is what all "things" created would be, even individual identities. Salvation, for the finite to reconcile with the Infinite, you must satisfy the math, "believing' one way or another has no effect on Being.

And Being always manifest actions accordingly, but the change of actions cannot change Being, that would be against the tide of existence.
User avatar
Brent696
Member
 
Posts: 204
Joined: 12 Jul 2018


Re: The Physics of Christ

Postby mitchellmckain on July 17th, 2018, 12:10 am 

Brent696 » July 16th, 2018, 9:45 pm wrote:>>>>>>Again this sounds like even more of Gnosicism added to a Christianity which I think already has too much of Gnosticism in it.<<<<<<

""""""Wiki (Gnosticism) This divine spark could be liberated by gnosis. Some of the core teachings include the following:

1All matter is evil, and the non-material, spirit-realm is good.
2 There is an unknowable God, who gave rise to many lesser spirit beings called Aeons.
3 One evil, lower spirit being is the creator who made the universe.
4 Gnosticism does not deal with 'sin', only ignorance.
5 To achieve salvation, one needs to get in touch with secret knowledge..........

Other than the fact Gnosticism denotes mystical knowledge, I don't see much of any kind of similarity between me and them, the most glaring difference in that I address "Being", while they seem to agree with you that one can be saved by "knowledge". Plus they have that weird automatic writing thing where they trance out and try to write their own gospels, literally making up new events in Jesus' life, I don't much care for all that.

Gnosticism was a large and varied group. In my post above I said that I saw various aspects of Gnosticism both in lots of Christianity and in some of the stuff Brent was saying. I did not say that either were completely the same as Gnosticism.

What I see of Gnosticism in much of Christianity is the idea of salvation by correct doctrine. This is frankly a gospel of salvation by knowledge and mental works rather than Jesus and Paul's gospel of salvation by the grace of God. There is also similarity in this idea of salvation from a wrathful God which is comparable to the Gnostic belief in an evil creator called the Demiurge.

However I should modify what I said about Brent because these two Gnostic aspects I see in a lot of Christianity may not be quite so strong in his case. Even if his answer to the question of what we are being saved from is largely the same, it is being saved from a dreamer God rather than from a wrathful God. But I so said he added some things which also seem a bit Gnostic to me and this is the idea of some sort of mystical insertion of a Divine nature into us. But I am not sure if this has much more content than the fact that I do not like the idea.

Brent696 » July 16th, 2018, 9:45 pm wrote:>>>>>> I am far from inclined to think that the Bible is the only communication of God to man.<<<<<

Neither do I think this at all,

This strongly agrees with my identification of his ideas with what I call "next Generation Christianity." (a compliment by the way)

Brent696 » July 16th, 2018, 9:45 pm wrote:>>>>>>>(Mitchell's view) Salvation requires the new life of spirit which comes from a turning of the human heart from self-destructive habits such as blaming everyone and everything but ourselves for our problems to embracing the challenge of life to learn and improve ourselves as people who make the world a better place, because that kind of character will go with us wherever we go to make every place better rather than worse.<<<<<<<

The Salvation I speak of does not stop at the door of physical death, nor even the door of the collapse of the Creation (Universe). Mathematically you just can't throw the values and attributes back and forth, we are dealing with an Infinity, which is what God would be as a Creator, and the Finite which is what all "things" created would be, even individual identities.

What I am talking about does not stop at death either. I would consider this one of the more indispensable parts of Christianity that there is existence after death. Certainly Paul made this pretty clear in 1 Cor 15 and while Jesus is less explicit on the topic it seems to be presumed in many things he said.

The difference in our views seems to be that I believe that ALL living things have an eternal spirit which arises from the process of life itself as living organisms make choices. Brent seems to believe that our only eternal nature only comes from an act of God creating a soul or infusing a Divine nature into us. One difference this makes is probably that Brent may not believe in an eternal hell as I do, but like the JWs hold to annihilationism instead, not because the wicked are thrown into a fire but because they simply do not survive the dissolution of the universe when God stops singing.

Brent696 » July 16th, 2018, 9:45 pm wrote:Salvation, for the finite to reconcile with the Infinite, you must satisfy the math, "believing' one way or another has no effect on Being.

And Being always manifest actions accordingly, but the change of actions cannot change Being, that would be against the tide of existence.

This is another thing on which we agree. I also think that belief is irrelevant and will even say that Christians (including myself) have no advantage just because of what we believe. This is not what the majority of Christians think, so this is something on which both Brent and myself have parted ways with a lot of Christians. This is another good reason for saying Brent is what I call "next generation Christianity." It should follow from this that the fact that we disagree on so many things isn't such a big deal as it is with most Christians. So we disagree. Big deal! Why should we expect everyone to think the same?

The rest sounds like some of the usual formulation which I gave before: Salvation by the grace of God, who asks us to have faith, which is only real when it is part of what we do, and the sort of things God expects us to do is to "seek justice, correct oppression, defend" those without defenders, and help those who need help (Isaiha 1:17, modified at the end according to modern circumstances).
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Active Member
 
Posts: 1327
Joined: 27 Oct 2016



Return to Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests