The Gospel of Thomas

[Geeko Sportivo]

There’s a common refrain among liberal scholars that says the church suppressed dozens of Gospels. The reason they say? It’s because those books share scandalous information about Jesus that the church wanted to hide. They didn’t want the world to know sketchy details like Jesus tortured other kids as a child or that he had a wife.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I'm an atheist on JPP which proves your contention incorrect. I hope I have clarified that for you.

That is just semantics. It doesn't really resolve the issue per se.

Are you legitimately asking this question? Have you never heard the phrase or have any familiarity with the concept? Because it is EXTREMELY common.

It doesn't apply to any particular religion. Since almost all religions suggest that God is in control.

You and I can agree to disagree on your waffling.

When you can prove good and evil exist, then it's semantics. Until then, it's belief and philosophy.

Nice dodge, but it's just more proof of your waffling. You're free to run from the question. You made a statement, and now you are running from it. Fine. Your choice.

Disagreed. I'd ask for your evidence but expect you'll just run from that one too.

 

[Jarod]

Yep, we all have thousands of thoughts a day. In fact, if you ever really pay attention, you'll notice that we are constantly talking to ourselves in the form of a conscious stream of thought that we can't stop. "Where did I put my keys? I just had them this morning and I always put them in the drawer with my wallet..... Oh, there they are! Why are they on the table? I don't remember putting them there."

Who are we talking to? Are we telling ourselves what we already know?

"I have a few thoughts a day that I decide to take action on... is that not free will?"

A thought to do something, and then a counter thought that results in you not taking action, is still all based on thoughts that you didn't consciously create. We aren't able to sit outside of our stream of thought. Thoughts/counter thoughts just arise in consciousness and we take, or don't take, action based on those thoughts. There is no separate "self" that is able to think our thoughts before we think them.

I see your point and it is true. I guess what I imagine is different levels of thoughts, in most of us, to one degree to another there is an executive brain that filters the random thoughts and decides "thinks to" take action or not.

Then there is the "Shadow brain" that is thoughts we are not even conscious of.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

You and I can agree to disagree on your waffling.

How am I "waffling"?

When you can prove good and evil exist, then it's semantics. Until then, it's belief and philosophy.

It is possible (and quite common) for things to be unproven and semantics.

Nice dodge, but it's just more proof of your waffling.

Just because you lack sufficient experience in philosophical discussions does not make my position "waffling".

You're free to run from the question.

And you are free to completely miss the point of everything I wrote.

You made a statement, and now you are running from it. Fine. Your choice.

I am most certainly not. You will find few people more capable and willing to discuss a philosophical or theological point than I am. But it DOES require that you have sufficient understanding, intellect and reading comprehension to actually "grok" what I have said.

Disagreed. I'd ask for your evidence but expect you'll just run from that one too.

Evidence for what?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

... because you lack sufficient experience in philosophical discussions does not make my position "waffling".

I'm surprised liberals even want to talk to me. LOL

 

[Saint Guinefort]

I'm surprised liberals even want to talk to me. LOL

I accidentally thought you were a rational debater and might want to actually discuss something in detail. Now I see you are little more than another semi-literate on this forum.

Sorry you wasted my time.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

It took me many decades to find the path that I am on. This resonates closely with what I feel is my own spiritual truth.

Thanks, Lefty.

it took me less than two decades to realize that the entire universe [and all that exists/occurs within it] is merely the random and indifferent confluence of sub-atomic particles in the infinite vacuum of space.
From the time of the first sentient life form, no problem has ever been addressed without creating another in the process. Not one. Not even close.

I stand in awe of my own offspring who recognized that this existence was not one into which they should drag innocent new souls.
They don't openly damn the Gestapo and I for dragging them onto this shabby rock of a planet, but I know for damn sure that they're thinking it,
just as I think it of my own parents...and, of course, myself.

And where could we find better proof of the overall universal clusterfuck than by sampling the offers of JPP contributors?
For every one of us that almost approaches neutral on the scale of morality and intellectual acuity,
there are at least ten who could only come into being in a full-blown dystopia.
This is self-evident and undeniable.

 

[ZenMode]

I see your point and it is true. I guess what I imagine is different levels of thoughts, in most of us, to one degree to another there is an executive brain that filters the random thoughts and decides "thinks to" take action or not.

Then there is the "Shadow brain" that is thoughts we are not even conscious of.

To a point, there are different levels of thought in as much as we're either conscious of them or we aren't. Nobody has to "think" their heart to beat or their body to metabolize energy, but it's safe to say that our brain is "thinking" to monitor and make these things happen. But, in the end, we have no control over what thoughts/counter-thoughts make it into our consciousness, yet it's those thoughts that drive our actions and intentions.

As far as a shadow brain... if there were a shadow brain, that was functioning without your awareness and making you do things, would that be free will?

 

[PostmodernProphet]

What was your level of education? I assume you graduated high school. Curious how far you were able to make it beyond.

you've already been told......

 

[PostmodernProphet]

I don’t believe free will is possible if a god is omniscient, my opinion.

incorrectly so......

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I accidentally thought you were a rational debater and might want to actually discuss something in detail. Now I see you are little more than another semi-literate on this forum.

Sorry you wasted my time.

Ahh, how Liberal of you; you feign admitting fallibility couched in assigning blame on me.
According to you, it's all my fault. The insult of being "semi-literate" is also typical of the "tolerant modern liberal". LOL

The last comment is very feminine. Are you gay or female?

I asked you what was the flaw in "God's Design" and you went ballistic. I find the reaction to be both interesting and very defensive. If you aren't female, then I think you are under 35 and unsure of your sexuality.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

you've already been told......

...needless to say if it didn't include "topped out at the GED" I didn't believe it.

But then you DO have a tendency to bear false witness and lie. A LOT.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Ahh, how Liberal of you; you feign admitting fallibility couched in assigning blame on me.

No, you wasted my time. You weren't willing to have an actual discussion and you aren't particularly up on the topic. You simply don't seem worth any more effort.

According to you, it's all my fault. The insult of being "semi-literate" is also typical of the "tolerant modern liberal". LOL

I actually did for a brief moment think you were smarter than many on here. Apparently I was wrong.

Thanks but I'm bored with you.

The last comment is very feminine. Are you gay or female?

Do you sleep with your mom?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

No, you wasted my time....

QED on making me responsible for your time. Do you always blame others when things don't go your way, Perry?

If so, I can understand why you'd become upset when asked to explain "the flaw in God's Design".

 

[Saint Guinefort]

If so, I can understand why you'd become upset when asked to explain "the flaw in God's Design".

Then perhaps you can tell me what you think God's relationship is to the universe and the world and reality.

Did he not create it? Is he not in control? If he is not in control what does that say about his Omnipotence?

(See how this works?)

 

[PostmodernProphet]

...needless to say if it didn't include "topped out at the GED" I didn't believe it.

But then you DO have a tendency to bear false witness and lie. A LOT.

your fly is open again.....feel free to post when you figure out what the topic is.......

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Then perhaps you can tell me what you think God's relationship is to the universe and the world and reality.

Did he not create it? Is he not in control? If he is not in control what does that say about his Omnipotence?

(See how this works?)

I favor a Deist POV; Watchmaker Theory.

All evidence points to a One-Shot Universe, not an Oscillating Universe. An Oscillating Universe needs no original beginning, it just "is". A One-Shot Universe begs the question, "Why?"

Our Universe suddenly pops into existence, seemingly out of nowhere, about 13.7B years ago and is predicted to die of Heat Death in the end...but all life would have died well before then.

Re Omnipotence: it fits with "just because one can doesn't mean one should". What is the purpose of giving elementary school students all the answers to tests? Why not just give them all A's and send them home? Answer: because they wouldn't learn anything.

If we accept that the Universe is God's creation, that means all the rules of the Universe are God's creation. Why would God be so dishonest as to cheat and violate those rules? Answer: God wouldn't. Truth doesn't cheat.

Now that I've answered your question, why can't you answer the "flaw in God's design"? Why does the question scare and/or confuse you so much?

https://astronomy.com/news/magazine...the-universe-the-big-crunch-vs-the-big-freeze

 

[Saint Guinefort]

I favor a Deist POV; Watchmaker Theory.

I suspected as much. So you aren't here arguing that Jesus is the sole route to salvation?

As a deist what do you think God's reasons for creation are? Just for the funzies?

While it is a rational approach (certainly comports with the facts of reality) to theorize a God who is so hands-off as to be effectively meaningless to individuals because that makes him nearly impossible to pin down in any real way.

If we accept that the Universe is God's creation, that means all the rules of the Universe are God's creation. Why would God be so dishonest as to cheat and violate those rules? Answer: God wouldn't. Truth doesn't cheat.

If God is hands-off and has no "plan" (not even as an omnipotent being who can see all of time unfolding) and just wants to watch the pieces move around the board that's cool. It is effectively meaningless and not of much "spiritual" value, but it definitely resolves the "first uncaused cause" of Aquinas by simply decreeing one arbitrarily (aka "God").

The deist god is certainly more to the liking of our Founding Fathers and many enlightenment thinkers. I always felt it was a stop gap for those unwilling to admit that God doesn't seem to present any real evidence of his existence. So they hypothesized a God who simply chooses not to be involved.

Does this God require "worship"? Seems like the concept of "salvation" is also rendered moot. If God is not in control and doesn't really seem to care one way or the other where people wind up it sounds like there's no actual point to any religion.

Now that I've answered your question, why can't you answer the "flaw in God's design"? Why does the question scare and/or confuse you so much?

Hopefully this post has clarified my position for you now.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I suspected as much. So you aren't here arguing that Jesus is the sole route to salvation?

As a deist what do you think God's reasons for creation are? Just for the funzies?...

Proof you're a liberal: You jump to conclusions and persecute someone until they prove their innocence. LOL

Entertainment is one theory. Some people would think of that as being cruel, but those who believe everyone is a little piece of God believe it's for fun. Once we shuffle off this mortal coil, then we each "become one with God". Think of it as the ultimate version of "The Sims".

It's for this reason that I don't believe in reincarnation. Reincarnation implies our souls remain separate identities, instead of joining God in a single identity, then pieces breaking off to become new mortal souls...for the game. LOL

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Entertainment is one theory. Some people would think of that as being cruel, but those who believe everyone is a little piece of God believe it's for fun. Once we shuffle off this mortal coil, then we each "become one with God". Think of it as the ultimate version of "The Sims".

It's for this reason that I don't believe in reincarnation. Reincarnation implies our souls remain separate identities, instead of joining God in a single identity, then pieces breaking off to become new mortal souls...for the game. LOL

Sounds like you have made up a fine religion. Does it have any "rules"?

Is there any role for "Jesus" or his sacrifice in your version of this religion? (It sounds like it can't, because that would imply God has a "plan", so I'm still unclear what role God has if any in your daily life or in the lives of anyone anywhere at any time).

Are you familiar with the concept of "Unfalsifiability"?

A Deistic god is really good for that kind of thing. It posits a God who doesn't necessarily provide ANY evidence of his actual existence so that solves the problem of God not being obvious to all.

It also seems you have a problem with the "First Uncaused Cause" critiques. Usually when one wishes to argue against Aquinas' "First Uncaused Cause" (that's the argument where it suggests that all things in the universe have a cause except for God who is the first uncaused cause). That is usually dealt with as a case of "special pleading" without any evidence of it's necessity. It just is because some HUMAN decreed it at some point. This is completely indifferentiable from a universe that has NO CAUSE. It just shifts the concept you find unappealing of an "eternal" or "uncaused universe" over to an "eternal" or "uncaused God". It's not an improvement in terms of explanations.

Sounds like you have made for yourself a great religion. As deist you never have to wonder why God never feels real to many, many, many people and you never have to worry about explaining god as a theologically rational concept since you are eternally able to draw on "special pleading" for God.

Sounds cool.

How is it different from simply assuming God doesn't exist?