« Unbelievable? Two Reasons Why Some People Reject the Reliability of the Gospels | Main | The Challenges Facing Young Christians »

August 26, 2013

Comments

It doesn't matter. Neither one ever existed.

Is there any sort of policy on troll behavior on this blog? Boris adds nothing to the discussion.

I add truth to the discussion.

Before John 3:16, inequality, bloodshed, dark.

Before Genesis 3:16, equality, life, light.

I have no desire of this. Prepare for me a Body.

Love comes.

"I add truth to the discussion"

Uhhh...no! Far from it, you...Bore-us.

I was just wondering how it is that an atheist, like Boris, could add truth to the discussion since, as such atheists are very fond of reminding us, they make no claims.

Boris,

There is a large degree of difference between offering intellectual insights and merely being dismissive. Having read some of your prior posts, you handle the philosophical arguments, the insights of C.S. Lewis, or any argument involving apologetical thought with a "pffft."

There is a dishonest skepticism of which one would be entitled to be worth being skeptical. If you are better than this, welcome to the party. If not, realize you have been noted as lacking.

Law.

Seperation.

Lines.

The ministry of death.

Love.

Nothing shall seperate us.

E Pluribus Unum.

No lines.

Ministry of Love's Eternally Sacrificed Self.

There is in Love's Triune everlasting dying, death, and in reciprocity, everlasting restoration, resurrection, there amid Self-Other within Love and Beloved as these beget, necessarily, love's third: E Pluribus Unum. There is no door in Eden by which Man will not taste Him, and in tasting, in seeing, become like Him. In-Sufficiency can only rise, can be but glorified. All-Sufficiency can only fall, can be but debased. In-Sufficiency therein finds within itself an All Sufficiency of which it had not formally known. After such motion, immutable touches mutable, and the dance we think to be a first is but that which has no first, and has no end. My Beloved glorifies Me, and I Her, worlds without end.

Anyone who reads Eden or the OT "as if" the NT is non-entity does not take Scripture on His own Terms, His own stated End Points.

I too used to struggle with the Old Testament wrath of God when compared to the Sermon on the Mount, and the pacifism taught therein.

My present understanding of God shows only a difference between the role of Old Testament Israel as His kingdom in this world, and the role of New Testament Israel (the Church) where our kingdom is no longer of this world but in Heaven.

In the old, we fought wars and were instruments of His wrath. In the new, we do not fight war but are instruments of His mercy.

It doesn't matter. Neither one ever existed.

Yes, he did.

Ha! I'll bet you weren't prepared for that crushing come back!

Genesis 3:16 and John 3:16 shows us Male-Female inequality as the dark outside as Ransom is His Own Means to declare, anew, equality. Just as Leviticus and Hebrews show us the inside-outside of Sons and Foreigners and Slaves and Servants there within the Ministry of Death and the Ministry of Life as in God all are again equal sharers in Him. There are no differences in God here. There are mammoth differences in Man, though, in the cold outside, sliced to death amid lines upon lines, and in love's interior void of lines inside E Pluribus Unum. The Dying God will be our End and our Means.
We will die. We will rise. As will He. It cannot be otherwise. Love is not otherwise within its Triune thus Love cannot be otherwise. He Himself is His Own Means. He Himself is His Own End. He is Love. He is my means. He is my end. Of the cold outside He utters no delight - prepare for Me a Body falls from His lips, and Love pours Himself out. All-Sufficiency and In-Sufficiency could never otherwise touch.

"It doesn't matter. Neither one ever existed."

If it truly doesn't matter, then why have an opinion?

Darth Dutch

Yes it doesn't matter if there is a God because there are no verifiable consequences either way.

What exactly do you mean by verifiable and/or falsifiable Boris?

WL,

Boris seems more in motion out of raw heat than pure logic. Existential, Intellectual, and so on. He seems to linger in the former.


Of course:

1) If Logic is at the end of ad infinitum, then God.

2) If Love is at the end of ad infinitum, then God.


End-Points determine everything for those of us here within Time. In the Time-Less there is no Begin/End. But for us in Time we find that Scripture's own self-stated [A to Z] and self-described End Points about the Old and the New, about the Whole-Show, and so on, matter, and cherry-picking along the way is merely begging the question, or some other fancy term for violation of logic's necessary steps as one then begins offering a descriptive of some non-scriptural straw-man.


Boris' heat of existential anger is either going to end in immutable incoherence and immutable indifference there at the end of ad infinitum, or, it will discover it actually has a point worth making for Immutable Love is found there at the end of ad infinitum.

WL,

Boris speaks of observational reality, in "verifiable". That is why he knows all mass/energy came from the Immaterial and, thus, materialism cannot be valid. Logic and Love do, after all, reach into the Timeless for sight out-paces observation.

The self-evident casually ebbs and flows atop such ships.....

Wrong again. Mass-energy has always existed in one for or another.

"By predicating a First Cause [God the uncaused Cause], the theist removes the mystery a stage further back… Such a belief is a logical absurdity, and is an example of the ancient custom of creating a mystery to explain a mystery… Moreover, if it is reasonable to assume a First Cause as having always existed, why is it unreasonable to assume that the materials of the universe always existed? To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy.” – David Brooks (1902-1994)

Boris needs prayer.

> Wrong again. Mass-energy has always
> existed in one form or another.

If so, then why hasn't it reached a state of maximum entropy yet?

The thread here under "A Simple Explanation Of The Cosmological Argument" looks into that more fully.

Boris speaks of observational reality, in "verifiable".
I'd assumed that Boris meant by "verifiable", "capable of being shown true by observation" or some such. Ditto for "falsifiable". So I think you are right about that scblhrm.

Of course, there's a bit of a hitch regarding what is meant by "capable of being shown true". Obviously, no one has any capability today of showing whether there is an exact copy of the Eiffel Tower on the third planet of Alpha Centauri. But were someone there, they would be able to look and see...etc. The idea is that in principle, you could show the statement to be true. Even if in practice, it is impossible.

What Boris, characteristically, overlooks is that the vast bulk of religious claims are perfectly verifiable in that sense. If you die and find your self in flames and sulfur with your flesh constantly being burned away painfully only to be regenerated for another burning, you've verified, by observation, that Hell exists. The proposition that Hell exists is as observationaly verifiable as propositions come.

Back in the early 20th century, the Logical Positivists thought they had come up with the magic bullet to kill all religion. By their verifiability criterion, they thought that they could rule out all religious claims as unverifiable and, so, meaningless.

But Logical Positivism has gone the way of the dodo and religion is still alive and well. This is because most religious claims are perfectly verifiable, but the verifiability criterion itself (and Logical Positivism with it) is not.

Still, the ghost of Logical Positivism wanders around like the unshriven spectre of Hamlet's father. We see sightings of it now and then. Whether it be in the writings of a very bright guy like Brian Skyrms (Pragmatics and Empiricism) or aimless blog posts by folks under the delusion that their atheism automatically confers upon then extraordinary logical insight.

Needless to say, there is no need to worry about that spook's wailing.

"Wrong again. Mass-energy has always existed in one form or another."

This is hardly a settled matter in physics. Don't pretend that it is.

Even if it were true, and I doubt it, the question is not whether matter has always existed. The question is whether it must always have existed. And the answer to that question is surely "no".

On the other hand, the question whether a Necessary Being must always have existed answers itself.

He Who Alone is that Necessary Being changes not. It seems an odd thing that some ask, "Why is He so different there and here?". The answer is found in two avenues. First, it is we the Mutable where change of such a sort is found. Second, we mistake for change what is simply Love's Motions amid Delight (Perfection houses such) among Self, Other, and love's third, E Pluribus Unum. The isolated Self is for all but One-I-AM a necessary In-Sufficiency for Power cannot create God. In these Motions in-to / out-of Self/Other there inside the triune landscape of Uncreated Love we find the business of change within, not the Uncreated, but the Created. In Love's triune there is everlasting dying, death and, in reciprocity, everlasting restoration, resurrection amid Love and the Beloved, amid Bride and Groom and there within we find the Begotten E Pluribus Unum. To know the God Who is Love is to know, taste, behold, and become like love's Eternally Sacrificed Self. The Dying God is necessarily, through all choices there in Eden, our Means and our End. If we have not seen the death of Self we have not seen Love, and if we have not seen Love we have not seen God. Within Him we spy these motions as He in Himself forever Dies, forever Rises as the Beloved forever glorifies Her Groom and the Groom forever glorifies His Bride and all this is that Unchanging Dance which appeares, tastes to us as Change but is simply Love's everlasting Motion which yet Changes-Not.

"What Boris, characteristically, overlooks is that the vast bulk of religious claims are perfectly verifiable in that sense."

Oh sure they are. Verify for me if you will, that dead people came back to life, unburied themselves, climbed out of their graves and then walked into Jerusalem and appeared to many other people. Verify for me, if you will, that every first born child and animal in Egypt all died in one night. Okay, we all know you can't verify those tales. So name it and claim it. Verify just one religious claim of your choice. Then prepare to be humiliated. Again.

Boris needs prayer and more prayer. A hard and bitter heart can only be penetrated by the love of God.

Verify physical stuff demonstrating non-contingency.

If the collection of data-points echoing "resurrection" in historicity's sets and in love's necessary geography is, say, tiny, it is yet orders of magnitude higher than the zero demonstrations of physical stuff behaving that way.

Also:

The arena of Certainty.

Also:

Logical positivism's arena.


Boris-

Every one of the claims you mention is totally verifiable.

You confuse verified with verifiable.

It is sad for you, but not terribly surprising to me that you wouldn't understand that distinction.

This is, of course, typical of leftover concepts from dead theories.

People continue to use them without knowing what the concepts are about.

That's what you are doing now with that relic of Logical Positivism. Lacking the knowledge and cleverness of the positivists you continue to pretend you know what the concept of verifiability means, but with your every word you make it abundantly clear that you haven't got a clue.

Raw, sheer epericism demands we drop materialism. Not a bit of it self-accounts. None. Zero. Ever. Anywhere.

The materialist will here begin to see why LP died?

Logic & Love outreach the Eye.

Don't they, Boris?

As for death, as for resurrection, there is no love void of these.

None. Zero. Ever. Anywhere.

Correction of typo:

Raw, sheer empiricism demands we drop materialism.

We find no changes in God. Though we find changes in Man.


To clarify on the notion of the Triune God eternally demonstrating both Death and Resurrection within love’s interior: Inside of that Everlasting Love that is the Triune composite of “I and You and the Singular-We”, which is the Self, the Other, and the singular Self-Other we call E Pluribus Unum, we find, even before "creation" of any kind, (not that there are tenses in God) that perpetual death and that perpetual resurrection that just is found inside of Love.

How is that?


There is no Love void of Death. There is no Love void of Resurrection. There is no Love void of Self. There is no Love void of Other. There is no Love void of Self-Other within unity's embrace by which the perpetual Resurrection of each Distinct is forever begotten within E Pluribus Unum, by which embrace each is found, having utterly died, now Alive Again. “I am He who was dead and yet lives” is found eternally within Love’s interior.


In Love’s Triune we find that Self does die and utterly so. Self is lost. Not in mere gesture, not in jest, but actually. I die. Self dies. Death. Self shouts utterly, "Thine and not Mine! You and not I! Other and not Self!".


Now, in God we mean here to avoid any notion of jest, for Love is Actuality within Love’s topography of I-You amid the begotten E Pluribus Unum.


This is that Motion which Self makes, takes, does, into Other which we call the Self's Death. It is not a simple gesture but is, rather, raw actuality. Self glorifies Other. Praises Other. Honors Other. Self is debased. And in God this Motion is to the uttermost such that all our attempts at comparisons here within our tattered and frayed Now cannot by the Mind encompass its raw distance. The Timeless on His end makes nonsense out of Time’s tenses on our end.


In Everlasting Love’s interior we find that the Self is, in this Eternal Sacrifice, in this Pouring-Out, thus received by the Beloved who in loving return, in reciprocity, also, then, Dies. With arms open wide She receives this Offering, Love's Sacrifice, and this Beloved, this Other, now Lifted-Up, now Made-Full, now Poured-Into, is herein Glorified. She is Alive and to the Full and not with Her own life alone but also, now, with that Life that is both Her life and that Sacrificed Life poured into Her.


This is that Motion by which Love does Glorify not Self but Other. It is not simple gesture. Nor jest. It is Actuality. She is Glorified. Other is Glorified. Self is lost. Self is no more. And in God this Motion is to the uttermost such that all our attempts at comparisons here within our tattered and frayed Now cannot by the Mind encompass its raw distance. The Timeless on His end makes nonsense out of Time’s tenses on our end.


And in this Fullness She too now does, having been thus Glorified, also offer Her Perpetual Sacrifice and in like manner, in reciprocity pours Herself out. And here we find Two Deaths and now a Third, fully Alive. And in these Deaths we find that which is perpetually Begotten via these embraces, that which was no more, which was Dead, yet is now Alive for in this Third and Perfect Distinct we find Love's Fruition as that which was offered in Full, that which was Debased, which was Lost, which was Dead not in gesture nor in jest but in sheer Actuality, is now found Alive Again there within this Singular-We, this E Pluribus Unum thus Begotten for this Us is that very I and that very You, that very Self and that very Other which had by Love's Eternal Sacrifice thus Poured Out and Lifted-Up, had thus Debased and Glorified, Who had thus Died and Who now are found quite Alive Again in the Begotten-We though they had tasted of Death and all these things are no mere gesture but are Utter Actuality and to the Full. And in the Triune God Who is Love's I-You-We all these Motions are to the uttermost such that all our attempts at comparisons here within our tattered and frayed Now cannot by the Mind encompass their raw breadth, nor height, nor depth. The vividness of all these motions are not less-than anything we here in Time can experience but are to the Nth degree more dense, more opaque, more costly than anything within Time can ever spy.


In all these Motions which are Unchanging we begin to peer into Ultimate Actuality and discover that within the Everlasting God Love just is Eternal Dying, just is Eternal Resurrecting, just is Eternal Debasement, just is Eternal Glorifying. And we find too that Love is Eternal Begetting. My Beloved gives Herself to Me, and I to Her. A Begotten We is birthed and that Third Distinct yet lives: E Pluribus Unum. My Beloved glorifies Me, and I Her. These Two. E Pluribus Unum. Now Three. And She to I, and I to Her. You my love and not I! Gethsemane’s Thine and not Mine is from the foundation uncreated. Reciprocity’s worlds without end in motions which yet never change. Love spreads its arms wide and pours itself out, is eternally sacrificed, is forever poured-out, is forever filled-up, is forever poured-into, is forever dying, forever rising, is forever debased, forever glorified. -Tis thee I love!.

This is what Everlasting Love looks like.

This is what God looks like. God is Love. When Love Manifests, He looks like this. If we have not seen these everlasting motions we have not seen the Unchanging God, for God is everlasting love.


There are no changes in God. There is an exhaustive anthology of changes in Man who it seems will taste, or behold, or become all of love’s motions. Though we find two doors in Eden, we find none which provide Man with any Means but Love Himself, with any End but Love Himself. For a species fated to be made in Love’s Image, and no other species, it is true that there just is no such condition as God-And. The word vivid here in our isolation within the privatized Self finds a far weightier density within His Self-Other amid the Triune’s E Pluribus Unum.


To quote another:


“We need not suppose that the necessity for something analogous to self-conquest will ever be ended, or that eternal life will not also be eternal dying………. For in self-giving, if anywhere, we touch a rhythm not only of all creation but of all being. For the Eternal Word also gives Himself in sacrifice; and that not only on Calvary. For when He was crucified He 'did that in the wild weather of His outlying provinces which He had done at home in glory and gladness'. From before the foundation of the world He surrenders begotten Deity back to begetting Deity in obedience. And as the Son glorifies the Father, so also the Father glorifies the Son [and the Spirit proceeds]…....... From the highest to the lowest, self exists to be abdicated and, by that abdication, becomes the more truly self, to be thereupon yet the more abdicated, and so forever. This is not a heavenly law which we can escape by remaining earthly, nor an earthly law which we can escape by being saved. What is outside the system of self-giving is not earth, nor nature, nor 'ordinary life', but simply and solely hell………..

The golden apple of selfhood, thrown among the false gods, became an apple of discord because they scrambled for it. They did not know the first rule of the holy game, which is that every player must by all means touch the ball and then immediately pass it on. To be found with it in your hands is a fault: to cling to it, death. But when it flies to and fro among the players too swift for eye to follow, and the great master Himself leads the revelry, giving Himself eternally to His creatures in the generation, and back to Himself in the sacrifice, of the Word, then indeed the eternal dance 'makes heaven drowsy with the harmony'. All pains and pleasures we have known on earth are early initiations in the movements of that dance: but the dance itself is strictly incomparable with the sufferings of this present time. As we draw nearer to its uncreated rhythm, pain and pleasure sink almost out of sight…………

As our Earth is to all the stars, so doubtless are we men and our concerns to all creation; as all the stars are to space itself, so are all creatures, all thrones and powers and mightiest of the created gods, to the abyss of the self-existing Being, who is to us Father and Redeemer and indwelling Comforter, but of whom no man nor angel can say nor conceive what He is in and for Himself, or what is the work that He 'makes from the beginning to the end', for they are all derived and unsubstantial things. Their vision fails them and they cover their eyes from the intolerable light of utter actuality, which was and is and shall be, which never could have been otherwise, which has no opposite.” (C.S. Lewis)

It's an interesting observation that those who cherry pick rather than take scripture's [A to Z] on its own terms often claim these "differences" in God, and it seems to be the same who ask of Love's Eternally Sacrificed Self high on that Hill, "Why not just forgive?" This stems from the flawed reasoning that vacuums need no filling, that vacuums have a sort of magical property to self-fill in non-contingent fashions. Ransom is Motion, not magic.

There is no magic in Genesis 2:7


There is Motion amid Love's Word and Corporeal's Body. -Tis Life poured out ~ -Tis Corporeal filled up ~ Worlds without end Love begets love.


God never changes, though He changes Man ~ Ransom never changes, though He changes Man ~


He is Himself the Means. He is Himself the End.


This never changes.


"Why not just forgive?" thinks of Genesis 2:7 all the hollowness of atheism's magical vacuums.


"Every one of the claims you mention is totally verifiable."

This is the kind of smoke and mirrors we always get from the Bible believers. He claims to be able to verify the stories in the Bible with independent sources but notice he doesn't even try. Just one more empty claim. It doesn't get any sillier than that.

Raw, sheer empiricism demands we drop materialism.


Definitions of empiric / verified make quite a bit of difference and reveal just why it is that materialism is merely a false fixed belief.


Love's incoherencey within materialism is yet more evidence as to why such is the case.

The comments to this entry are closed.