|
|
Post by Julie Art on Mar 17, 2010 14:55:36 GMT -5
OK, Vudu, if you say so. I do believe your interpretations on things are very far fetch (like what you tried to do with what Damie was saying) but hey, that is you. I'm not going to debate your interpretations, but I'm not seeing what you seeing. No where near it. Not far fetched at all. Show me in the bible where the Leopard and Ethiopian are shown in a good light. Can you? Justify your stance. lol . Just saying "Well I don't see it or that interpretation is far fetched" isn't saying much. Here is where I stand concerning Ethiopians Isa 45:14 Thus saith the LORD, The labour of Egypt, and merchandise of Ethiopia and of the Sabeans, men of stature, shall come over unto thee, and they shall be thine: they shall come after thee; in chains they shall come over, and they shall fall down unto thee, they shall make supplication unto thee, saying, Surely God is in thee; and there is none else, there is no God.We can go on all day pulling verses from your bible showing the Ethiopians in a bad light. Show me otherwise. Actually, it says alot. Like Damie says, how a person interprets things (not just the Bible) says more about you then the Bible or anything else going on around you. I have already gone over the versus you yourself pulled and read it in it's entire context and came to a different conclusion then you, so there is no need to go and pull more to show that you and I aren't comprehending the same thing. Why waste the time. |
|
|
|
Post by Gee-Are on Mar 17, 2010 15:07:27 GMT -5
Ok...so I've taken a few days to think about this and read other responses all to come up with a conclusion that pisses me off, because it is not definitive. However, I will share it anyway. My answer to the original question, "Who created the Creator?" is the Creator. Bear with me... I believe something or someone is created when someone is aware of it. "The Starry Night" was created when Van Gogh had knowledge of it, or saw it in his mind's eye and it was manifested when he painted it. "I'm in Love with a Stripper" was created in T-Pain's brain and it manifested when he laid down the tracks. So which point are you telling this from? Are you a Christian? If so when did Jehovah become aware of his Godship? How about Jesus? Is that relevant to the original question? The original question referenced a Creator, not one with a specific name. I've tried to answer in an agnostic way as to not contaminate the response. Okay I can agree with that Not that we've disagreed much, but it's always good to have this quote as a reference in the future ;D Kinda but then we must ask ourselves the purpose of the creator existing. If the Creator created itself then that gives the inclination there was a time when the creator didn't exist. This is why the question has problems. If you believe the creator is self created then we must also ask about the purpose. Why did he/she create themselves. Where did the power come from to self create? This will only be a problem for those who feel there is only one creator or one universe. If we feel the creator always existed then this question is irrelevant all together. You make great points and bring up good questions. The problem with the question as I see it is if you believe in a Creator, then you most probably believe that Creator is eternal or not defined by time. So asking a question that references time with an eternal entity and expecting a realistic answer is damn near impossible, but many people have made an attempt including myself. So what does that tell you? |
|
|
|
Post by Vudu_Prince on Mar 17, 2010 15:25:13 GMT -5
Damie I call bullchit. You stated and I quote "It never seems to work in reverse though. People note that the Bible was used to justify slavery, but make no mention that the Bible was also used by Abolitionists." I stated your point gave the PREDISPOSITION (yanno inclination) that abolitionist were the only ones who were against slavery. It's coming at the thought that it was Christians who used the bible to free people from Slavery.
1. How one interprets the Bible usually says more about that person than the actual Bible
2. When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
Do you understand that that predisposition you are talking about is yours? I never said abolitionist were the only ones who were against slavery. Never said anything about the undertanding of freedom of our ancestors. These ideas result, literally, out of YOUR own predisposition. You are jousting with phantoms and arguing things that you are thinking, but that no one else was actually saying. Rhetoric Damie lol. Again stop the BS you came in here with the bible complaining that Christians were not getting there just due. You mentioned Abolitionist using the bible (which they really didn't but I'll let you slide on that) to abolish slavery. Never did you mention anything before Abolitionist and frankly I do not think you know or care about insurrections that took place before abolitionist came on the scene. Lets go read your words. Mind you I raised that point and never did you find a problem with it until ya girl tried to bail you out. LOL Okay so you jump on her parachute cool. Lets look at your words.... So the Church abolished slavery Damie? Again I made the charge that you were implying twice (because of exclusion) that our ancestors didn't have the inherent knowledge that they were suppose to be free. Twice you didn't deny that. Nowwwwwww so the parachute comes you wanna jump on that? lol Funny. IF you would've stated " Naw bruh I'm not saying that I understand about the rebellions before abolitionist came on the scene" you would have an argument.... but you didn't . Furthermore it will be pointless for you to expound on that now because you have shown during the time of the argument you didn't point out I was in error. Were you afraid to agree with me then, then now since someone else brings it up you jump on their band wagon with the Kadeem Hardison"That's Right Goddammit" mantra while standing behind Larry Fishburne outside of the burger spot in School Daze?  Lets look further to show your methodology... Here is what I said.... Here is your response.... Now did you only quote my first sentence for this response because you didn't read the rest OR you couldn't formulate an argument against the rest because it was the truth about your thoughts? Yall Kill me... This was fun. Thanx for the laugh and as always... Gotcha |
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Mar 17, 2010 17:12:05 GMT -5
Uh yeah... they did.
docsouth.unc.edu/church/bourne/bourne.html
memory.loc.gov/ammem/aaohtml/exhibit/aopart3.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_slavery#Christian_abolitionism
www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=3403
www.jstor.org/pss/2714078
www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/bassr/heath/syllabuild/iguide/grimkesa.html
creation.com/anti-slavery-activist-william-wilberforce-christian-hero
medicolegal.tripod.com/weldbas.htm
No I didn't mention anything about what happened prior to the abolitionist, I also didn't mention that Michael Jordan was picked 3rd in 84 NBA draft, and why would I? They are both irrelevant to what I said. What happened before abolitionist has nothing to do with this statement: People note that the Bible was used to justify slavery, but make no mention that the Bible was also used by Abolitionists.. If there were a 1000 slave rebellions prior to any abolitionist making arguing against slavery using the Bible - it STILL would not change the fact that they DID argue against slavery using the Bible. And THAT is what I said.
Sometimes I wonder if it's more than one person posting under your screen name and if each one of you is unaware of what the other one is posting. The FIRST time you mentioned your "Ancestors-Freedom" strawman I said: Team let me stop you there. You arguing a point that no one made. I said NOTHING about what our ancestors did or didn't know about the concept of freedom. What else did I say? I make no implications about our ancestors at all. The examples I used extended well beyond slavery and do not imply anything about our ancestors capacity to understand freedom. Don't think people haven't noticed that you haven't refuted that the Church was used in the Underground Railroad, or the use of the Church during Civil Rights, or where many of those leaders came from. The silence was deafening. What I want everyone else to see is that you continue to argue a point that was never implied or one that could even be logically inferred EXCEPT via your own bias. Our ancestors capacity to understand freedom has NOTHING to do with whether or not abolitionist used the bible to argue against slavery.
You do realize that abolitionist didn't just live in America right? William Wilberforce for example lived in England. So how do you explain him? What? He saw the power of Vudu across the Atlantic and figured that there'd be no place for them in England if they failed to oppose it? LOL. Your thesis is bankrupt. Is this really the sum of your argument? I honestly wasn't assuming that you were unfamiliar with the Second Great Awakening, but perhaps I was mistaken. Maybe it was the power of Vudu in Haiti that also led to prohibition too. LOL. I'm glad you're done. I wouldn't want this "thesis" to unravel any further. Happy St. Patrick's Day |
|
|
|
Post by Vudu_Prince on Mar 17, 2010 18:24:52 GMT -5
This is a epic fail. An argument which we are having right now is NOT synonymous with Abolishing something. Lets go down your list which I have numbered. 1. Nice argument hell I wrote on a report about injustices 10 years ago and they are still happening. This argument doesn't lead to the Abolishment of Slavery. Nice try. Oh and also lets see what the Presbyterian Church did to ya boy.. In 1818, George Bourne, a fiery anti-slavery preacher, insisted on slavery's cessation. Bourne's Presbytery felt his attitudes degraded the minister's office and they removed him. Bourne appealed to the General Assembly. Pro-slavery men loaded the Assembly and saw Bourne expelled but that same Assembly resolved that slavery was "inconsistent with God's law." Well I'll be damned this ninja got expelled from the church... Lukewarm like a mofo too. damn. He had to hook up with who.... The Quakers. You getting better still just not good enough. You didn't see that coming now did ya? We knew you'd go here... Lets continue lol 2. Already spoke on the Quakers but I will lay the boom about this later. 3. Though I hate wikipedia your source states verbatim "Although many abolitionists opposed slavery on purely philosophical reasons, anti-slavery movements attracted strong religious elements. Throughout Europe and the United States, Christians, usually from 'un-institutional' Christian faith movements, not directly connected with traditional state churches, or "non-conformist" believers within established churches, were to be found at the forefront of the abolitionist movements." lol Think your reference backfired on ya huh. This is what I already said. moving on.. 4. David Barrow owned slaves which it is now stated he freed (this is in dispute) and sought to debate at the end of his life. Basically fuck that peckerwood and his end of life work. You making this easy. Research your research bruh. lol 5. Uh... really don't know how to place this reference but again Richard Fuller owned slaves. Research your Research. 6. Okay so you bring up matriarch of the white girls who are down for the struggle even though your family benefits from injustices? Angelina Grimké was from a prominent Slave owning family. She could have started abolition at home not run away in rebellion and become a Quaker. lol Okay I'll give you this one just because...smh BUT research your research 7. I bet you thought... HOT damn I got him now.. NO. It is arbitrary to mention the British outlawing the transatlantic slave trade in 1807 NOT because they thought it was inhumane but in reality they were no longer making money from the colonies. You do remember that thing called the Revolutionary War right? 1775 or so? lol This is like the Emancipation Proclamation when the south was like fuck outta hea. Well America was like okay yall have the best Navy right now cool... We still gonna do this cotton thing here though. We'll just switch the game up and start breeding our slaves. THIS was not about us but about Money or the lack there of that Britain was getting. Oh and this guy >>>>> William Wilberforce  REEKS of pure Sweetness. If I was enslaved and he came for me I'd be like NO THANX. Research your research lol 8. I'm getting kinda tired now so I'll use wiki. Beriah Green was vehemently against the ACR. Now who was the ACR? Lets see "The American Colonization Society (in full: The Society for the Colonization of Free People of Color of America) was the primary vehicle for proposals to return free African Americans to what was considered greater freedom in Africa. It helped to found the colony of Liberia in 1821–22, as a place for freedmen." damn I wonder what Marcus Garvey would think of this guy? I HOPE this wasn't your best effort. But like I said I figured you would go here after the fact. FAIL I raised the point that you were not giving credence to our ancestors planning before hand and you said NOTHING. Now you do. You argument lacks merit. It's revisionist. Monday morning quarterbacking. Like you had a breakaway DUNK TWICE but you did a finger roll instead. lol Nice try RHETORIC you had the chance twice to speak out and you didn't Your argument lacks merit. [/color][/quote] You do realize that George Fox was born in England around 1624 right? Do you also realize he founded The Religious Society of Friends in England right? You do realize the Quakers established an abolitionist movement in the Caribbean around 1724 right? I mean damn do we have to go over the Plymouth rock stuff... Geez They are the original "travelers" but that's another convo. Listen in all Research your Research. |
|
|
|
Post by Gee-Are on Mar 18, 2010 10:13:14 GMT -5
I really enjoyed reading this that I read it several times. I like the way you think about things and arrive at your conclusions. I may have more to say later, but I have to go for now. Exalt!  Ok...so I've taken a few days to think about this and read other responses all to come up with a conclusion that pisses me off, because it is not definitive. However, I will share it anyway. My answer to the original question, "Who created the Creator?" is the Creator. Bear with me... I believe something or someone is created when someone is aware of it. "The Starry Night" was created when Van Gogh had knowledge of it, or saw it in his mind's eye and it was manifested when he painted it. "I'm in Love with a Stripper" was created in T-Pain's brain and it manifested when he laid down the tracks. In that same vein, let's start with you and go back. You could say that you were created when you were aware of yourself, but that would be wrong. You could point to your parents who were aware of you much longer before you could be aware of yourself. So you could say that you were created when they had knowledge of you and you were manifested in the womb. However, believing in a spiritual realm and Creator who had knowledge of you way before any of that, you could argue that you were created when that Creator was aware of you, at an infinite time in the past. So, with that in mind who was first aware of the Creator? This is where it can go into an infinite loop, so let's say the Ultimate Creator, no one higher than that. That Creator had to become aware of him/herself, and that is when he was created. He was made manifest however when he created the universe. Make sense? If not, ask questions and maybe I can make myself more clear. Thanks for the exalt. I wouldn't normally participate in this conversation, but it is the philosophical world I'm living in right now, so I thought I would chime in. I'm interested to know what more you have to say. |
|
|
|
Post by Vudu_Prince on Mar 18, 2010 11:19:50 GMT -5
Actually, it says alot. Like Damie says, how a person interprets things (not just the Bible) says more about you then the Bible or anything else going on around you. I have already gone over the versus you yourself pulled and read it in it's entire context and came to a different conclusion then you, so there is no need to go and pull more to show that you and I aren't comprehending the same thing. Why waste the time. Hot damn I missed this.. Like Damie says but what do you think though? Let me catch you up to speed since you didn't realize what has happened here. Do you realize I made your debate which you circle jerked with Outtie irrelevant? Remember when you said this?>>> Well she didn't know where to look but I did. I gave them to you. Matthew 10 and also Luke. lol Like you didn't even realize that at all. Went clean over your head. Jesus only loves those who love him. Period. This is by the book. The Jesus you put forth is a romanticized Jesus. Just as I pointed out before you were not living up to the duties of being a christian. You also lack the understanding of who Jesus was as it pertains to the story. Remember I have stood where you now stand. I grew up in the church. While I was studying the bible you were just listening and it seems you are still just listening. Jesus isn't your homie or boyfriend sistah. Preachers really need to stop that foolishness. The people in Haiti feel they are doing what Jesus would do by the book. I showed you the verses. You don't have the fundamentals of your faith down to involve yourself in conversations such as these. You didn't understand your duties as a christian which I already pointed out and you also don' t understand who Jesus actually was as it pertains to the story. Embrace that first and then we can dialogue on a level playing field. Your charges of my wrong interpretations are indeed null and void. Even in unbelief I'm a better more informed Christian than you are. lol |
|
|
|
Post by Vudu_Prince on Mar 18, 2010 11:40:19 GMT -5
You make great points and bring up good questions. The problem with the question as I see it is if you believe in a Creator, then you most probably believe that Creator is eternal or not defined by time. So asking a question that references time with an eternal entity and expecting a realistic answer is damn near impossible, but many people have made an attempt including myself. So what does that tell you? Well the reason I asked if you were a Christian was to get a point of reference concerning when did the creator know he /she was a creator. As an example catering to our audience lets use the Book of Genesis for a second. Now The first verse of Genesis gives an overview of what is about to happen. It states Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earthOkay so now it has prepared the reader for the events which are about to take place. Following your logic lets go further Gen 1:2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.NOW this shows that the EARTH was already here THOUGH formless and void. But the earth itself already existed. The spirit of God as the story states was hovering over the waters. Never does it show when "God" made the waters. Never does it show where "God" made the formless void. It does show that the "God" noticed it. Lets see what "God" did next.. 3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day. Now most Christians think this is a physical light. THIS is when the "God" becomes aware of himself. This "Light" is higher thought. It is consciousness. It is the beginning of the first day and first night. The first time of consciousness and unconsciousness. The Knowing and Unknowing. Mind you the sun, moon and stars were not created until the fourth day. So this again was an inner light while still standing in complete darkness.... So did the "God" not know he was "God" before then? Let me stop here to see if you are getting where I'm coming from. |
|
|
|
Post by Julie Art on Mar 18, 2010 12:11:27 GMT -5
Actually, it says alot. Like Damie says, how a person interprets things (not just the Bible) says more about you then the Bible or anything else going on around you. I have already gone over the versus you yourself pulled and read it in it's entire context and came to a different conclusion then you, so there is no need to go and pull more to show that you and I aren't comprehending the same thing. Why waste the time. Hot damn I missed this.. Like Damie says but what do you think though? Let me catch you up to speed since you didn't realize what has happened here. Do you realize I made your debate which you circle jerked with Outtie irrelevant? Remember when you said this?>>> Well she didn't know where to look but I did. I gave them to you. Matthew 10 and also Luke. lol Like you didn't even realize that at all. Went clean over your head. Jesus only loves those who love him. Period. This is by the book. The Jesus you put forth is a romanticized Jesus. Just as I pointed out before you were not living up to the duties of being a christian. You also lack the understanding of who Jesus was as it pertains to the story. Remember I have stood where you now stand. I grew up in the church. While I was studying the bible you were just listening and it seems you are still just listening. Jesus isn't your homie or boyfriend sistah. Preachers really need to stop that foolishness. The people in Haiti feel they are doing what Jesus would do by the book. I showed you the verses. You don't have the fundamentals of your faith down to involve yourself in conversations such as these. You didn't understand your duties as a christian which I already pointed out and you also don' t understand who Jesus actually was as it pertains to the story. Embrace that first and then we can dialogue on a level playing field. Your charges of my wrong interpretations are indeed null and void. Even in unbelief I'm a better more informed Christian than you are. lol Believe what you want to believe, say what you want to say, etc. I've already proven to myself that because you are so jaded with your perception on things, you will take any and everything and warp it to fit that jaded perception (that's why I don't take anything you type seriously, and based off others' responses on here, seems others don't either, lol!). And that's cool for you, do you. To each their own.  |
|
|
|
Post by Mrs. Eyes on Mar 18, 2010 12:28:56 GMT -5
@ the slavery comment: We all know that ppl will use the Word of God to make their point valid.
|
|
|
|
Post by Julie Art on Mar 18, 2010 12:32:52 GMT -5
@ the slavery comment: We all know that ppl will use the Word of God to make their point valid. *head nods* Like I learned in my African and African American Studies classes in ug, slavery was a scientific invention, and the Bible was misused to make the institution of slavery seem like moral justification for those imposing that institution. But Christanity wasn't the only religion used to take over other cultures and countries. Islam was used as well, heck we can see how folks take Islam and misuse it today to further their own agenda. |
|
|
|
Post by Mrs. Eyes on Mar 18, 2010 12:44:59 GMT -5
@ the slavery comment: We all know that ppl will use the Word of God to make their point valid. *head nods* Like I learned in my African and African American Studies classes in ug, slavery was a scientific invention, and the Bible was misused to make the institution of slavery seem like moral justification for those imposing that institution. But Christanity wasn't the only religion used to take over other cultures and countries. Islam was used as well, heck we can see how folks take Islam and misuse it today to further their own agenda. Exactly, when ppl misuse religion for their own agenda.....it'll backfire on them in the end. |
|
|
|
Post by Vudu_Prince on Mar 18, 2010 14:13:03 GMT -5
*head nods* Like I learned in my African and African American Studies classes in ug, slavery was a scientific invention, and the Bible was misused to make the institution of slavery seem like moral justification for those imposing that institution. Show in the bible how it was misused? Show me anywhere in the bible where Slaves who would not repent and give up their Gods are delivered? Show me where it says u can rise up against your slave master. What you don't know is the biblical argument against slavery was preached from the standpoint of the Gospel and NOT what the bible stated as it pertained to slaves. THIS is why Christians sought to convert Africans because then if they accepted Jesus according to the Gospel and old testament they couldn't be slaves. If not they were seen as heathens and not delivered. So regardless of your "interpretation" according to the bible the people in Haiti were justified. It's really crystal clear on what the bible says. Anyone who is jaded its you and the lack of a fundamental understanding on what it means to be a Christian and who Jesus was by the book. Again even in my unbelief I'm more of an informed Christian than you are. Reason? Because I read the bible with an open mind for myself. And this means what? I have spoken on Islam and its terrible . The Koran just as the bible justifies slavery of unbelievers. Have you read it before? Do you own one? I have a Bible, Koran and had a Latin Vulgate. Please stop regurgitating what someone taught you. Islam isn't misused at all based on the book to the letter as it concerns non-believers. Furthermore Islam is but a continuation of the Old Testament. The New Testament is told from the side of Issac, the Koran is told from the side of Ishmael. You do know who Ishmael and Issac are right? You do know Abraham was stated to build the Kaaba in Mecca with his son Ishmael right? lol Inform yourselves because ye are the teachers. |
|
|
|
Post by Julie Art on Mar 18, 2010 14:41:59 GMT -5
*head nods* Like I learned in my African and African American Studies classes in ug, slavery was a scientific invention, and the Bible was misused to make the institution of slavery seem like moral justification for those imposing that institution. But Christanity wasn't the only religion used to take over other cultures and countries. Islam was used as well, heck we can see how folks take Islam and misuse it today to further their own agenda. Exactly, when ppl misuse religion for their own agenda.....it'll backfire on them in the end. LOL! Yes, and I say that for ANY religion, simply because I feel all religions, when you get down to the core and main principle of it, is about peace. When you take anything meant for peace and use it to promote non-peace, your outcome will back fire sooner or later. |
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Mar 18, 2010 14:54:57 GMT -5
Exactly, when ppl misuse religion for their own agenda.....it'll backfire on them in the end. LOL! Yes, and I say that for ANY religion, simply because I feel all religions, when you get down to the core and main principle of it, is about peace. When you take anything meant for peace and use it to promote non-peace, your outcome will back fire sooner or later. |
|
|
|
Post by Mrs. Eyes on Mar 18, 2010 15:32:07 GMT -5
Exactly, when ppl misuse religion for their own agenda.....it'll backfire on them in the end. LOL! Yes, and I say that for ANY religion, simply because I feel all religions, when you get down to the core and main principle of it, is about peace. When you take anything meant for peace and use it to promote non-peace, your outcome will back fire sooner or later. *throwback* We are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>HERE<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< |
|
|
|
Post by Gee-Are on Mar 19, 2010 9:41:54 GMT -5
Ok...I see where you're coming from, but taking that same passage. I see it a bit differently. Follow me... You make great points and bring up good questions. The problem with the question as I see it is if you believe in a Creator, then you most probably believe that Creator is eternal or not defined by time. So asking a question that references time with an eternal entity and expecting a realistic answer is damn near impossible, but many people have made an attempt including myself. So what does that tell you? Well the reason I asked if you were a Christian was to get a point of reference concerning when did the creator know he /she was a creator. As an example catering to our audience lets use the Book of Genesis for a second. Now The first verse of Genesis gives an overview of what is about to happen. It states Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earthOkay so now it has prepared the reader for the events which are about to take place. Following your logic lets go further Genesis 1:1 KJV 1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Ok, stop right there. According to this scripture that's where I would reference the earliest moment of awareness. In the beginning... Remember the theory I held was that basically God had a finite experience in an infinite environment, not very probable, but he became aware of himself as God. The very first words state in the beginning God. So the writer has established that God was aware of himself as God. The next word is "created," so there it's established that he is a creator, for these purposes, THE Creator. The creation became manifest THERE, which in turn made him manifest as the Creator. What did he create? the heaven and the earth. So using that passage, I would like to end the discussion of the ORIGINAL question there. The god of the bible was aware of himself as God in the beginning and created in the beginning. For my theory to hold true he would have had to have his awareness sometime before then, right? Ok...let's move on. Ok...hold on. I just want to clarify that based upon my theory, we've moved into a new discussion. I feel that was settled with verse 1. According to the writer, the heaven and earth were complete and the Creator created them - period. So, again, he's had his revelation of being the creator before that, because it was manifested in verse 1. So, moving onto verse 2, here's how I see it. Something happened. The verse says, "NOW" the earth was without form and void, there was darkness and God was hovering, like 'everything was fine, but now...' Writer still calling him God, and this was still the creation he created, right? So why would the creation have been made without form and in darkness? Why wouldn't the creation have been made whole and in order? Isn't that for the most part how things are created, with the lowest entropy and least amount of instability? So if you believe that is the case, what would make the earth of verse 2 so unstable? Long theory, but not necessary to explain here. 3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day. Now most Christians think this is a physical light. THIS is when the "God" becomes aware of himself. This "Light" is higher thought. It is consciousness. It is the beginning of the first day and first night. The first time of consciousness and unconsciousness. The Knowing and Unknowing. Mind you the sun, moon and stars were not created until the fourth day. So this again was an inner light while still standing in complete darkness.... So did the "God" not know he was "God" before then? Let me stop here to see if you are getting where I'm coming from. Again, I see what you're saying, and I think some of this is right, the heavenly bodies were not revealed to the reader until later in Genesis, so yes that "light" it refers to is probably not the sun or stars. It is something else. I don't know, however, that it pertains in particular to the Creator's own consciousness. |
|
|
|
Post by BlackPrincess on Mar 19, 2010 11:55:45 GMT -5
*sheesh, I gots to catch up...you all are gettin it in!!*
|
|
|
|
Post by Vudu_Prince on Mar 19, 2010 12:56:53 GMT -5
Ok...I see where you're coming from, but taking that same passage. I see it a bit differently. Follow me... Genesis 1:1 KJV 1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Ok, stop right there. According to this scripture that's where I would reference the earliest moment of awareness. In the beginning... Remember the theory I held was that basically God had a finite experience in an infinite environment, not very probable, but he became aware of himself as God. The very first words state in the beginning God. So the writer has established that God was aware of himself as God. The next word is "created," so there it's established that he is a creator, for these purposes, THE Creator. The creation became manifest THERE, which in turn made him manifest as the Creator. What did he create? the heaven and the earth. So using that passage, I would like to end the discussion of the ORIGINAL question there. The god of the bible was aware of himself as God in the beginning and created in the beginning. For my theory to hold true he would have had to have his awareness sometime before then, right? Ok...let's move on. I have to disagree. That is an introductory sentence that gives an overview of this Narrative we call Genesis. That's not the denotation that the Character has awareness from "his/her" beginning. It is rather giving the reader an overview of what the "God" supposedly did. It then goes step by step how the "God" did it WHICH includes coming into his own awareness first. Remember before you can create anything you must first have thought. Furthermore we must ask ourselves does "God" live up to the introductory sentence put forth if we are following your interpretation. If I were a writer and I said
"In the beginning Grrrr created the basketball and the court"Then the first sentence I say "Grrr came upon the basketball and it was flat and the court was torn up. The baskets were in horrible shape. His spirit hovered over the court"I have just contradicted myself. I have shown you didn't create the basketball nor the court you merely fixed them. I have shown that they existed but were imperfect. I mean that sounds good but show me where the God of Genesis made water? Did not Water exist before he fashioned the earth? Did not the spirit of God as it pertains to the story hover over the face of the waters? This all happened before any creation took place. Yeah something happened alright and as I highlighted earlier it was a contradiction. Where does it say " God created the earth but it was formless and void." Does it say that anywhere? No it doesn't. What it does show that your God saw an imperfect earth covered with water and sitting in complete darkness. Your God hovered above these waters. This is stated verbatim. Can you show where your God created the water? Basically you have to realize the writer contradicted himself from the very beginning. If we are to believe that the sentence denotes Earth being created imperfectly from the beginning then we must also say the same for Heaven. Lets see what the verses say...
]6And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
Now following your logic this would show up to this point that the Earth was created before the Heaven as it is shown verbatim that Heaven isn't created until the second day. I say your logic is false. What I feel the narrative is stating is that on the first day the "God" became aware with thought. The second Day Heaven was created and the third day Earth was in the beginning stages of being taken from its imperfect state to perfect by first clearing the waters that covered it and having dry land in one place. Planting Seeds. etc. Lets see what the verses say. Gen 1:3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. Gen 1:6And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. 9And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. 11And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 12And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13And the evening and the morning were the third daySo first day is Awareness, Second Day is Heaven, Third Day is Earth. All done in complete darkness. Now you see where the 3 day symbolism which is used by many comes from. No the Heavenly bodies are not just revealed they are created on the fourth day. It states
Gen 1:14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day
So the Sun Moon and Stars were not created until the 4 day. This is the beginning of the is the light we see now. Before the light being spoken about was thought, consciousness and awareness. The evening was non thinking, unconsciousness and unawareness. Now we can consider this point. Considering how the narrative is written it must be asked If the earth was formless, void and covered with water where was the relative difference which allowed the "God" to know the earth was imperfect? Meaning was there another Earth somewhere else that let him know "Hey wait a minute something is wrong here?" OR If we are stating that the God of Genesis made the Earth in the beginning then that means Heaven didn't exist per the story until after earth on the second day. Who will agree with that? We must also ask if Earth did indeed exist before Heaven then what was holding Earth? Is it the same that holds Heaven? Does Heaven and Earth both exist inside the same sanctum? Could this Sanctum be "God" itself? Kinda not cut and dry as it seems huh? |
|
|
|
Post by Gee-Are on Mar 19, 2010 14:49:42 GMT -5
Ok...I see where you're coming from, but taking that same passage. I see it a bit differently. Follow me... Genesis 1:1 KJV 1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Ok, stop right there. According to this scripture that's where I would reference the earliest moment of awareness. In the beginning... Remember the theory I held was that basically God had a finite experience in an infinite environment, not very probable, but he became aware of himself as God. The very first words state in the beginning God. So the writer has established that God was aware of himself as God. The next word is "created," so there it's established that he is a creator, for these purposes, THE Creator. The creation became manifest THERE, which in turn made him manifest as the Creator. What did he create? the heaven and the earth. So using that passage, I would like to end the discussion of the ORIGINAL question there. The god of the bible was aware of himself as God in the beginning and created in the beginning. For my theory to hold true he would have had to have his awareness sometime before then, right? Ok...let's move on. I have to disagree. That is an introductory sentence that gives an overview of this Narrative we call Genesis. Not if it is a chronological account of the event itself. That first verse could be a statement of fact not necessarily an FM dj setting the mood for the quiet storm, per se. That's not the denotation that the Character has awareness from "his/her" beginning. It is rather giving the reader an overview of what the "God" supposedly did. It then goes step by step how the "God" did it WHICH includes coming into his own awareness first. Remember before you can create anything you must first have thought. Ok, we've established that a creation exists before it is manifested in the creator's vision, but using that logic, the creator becomes a creator even before the creation is manifest? correct? Also, let's say your identification of the structure of the passage is correct. That doesn't liberate you from the fact that the writer refers to the God as creator and vice versa. The rest of this post, I feel is a new discussion, but see responses below. Furthermore we must ask ourselves does "God" live up to the introductory sentence put forth if we are following your interpretation. If I were a writer and I said
"In the beginning Grrrr created the basketball and the court"Then the first sentence I say "Grrr came upon the basketball and it was flat and the court was torn up. The baskets were in horrible shape. His spirit hovered over the court"I have just contradicted myself. I have shown you didn't create the basketball nor the court you merely fixed them. I have shown that they existed but were imperfect. Maybe if YOU were writing, but you can't deny that there could also be missing information there. So while you could write
"In the beginning Grrrr created the basketball and the court"and the next sentence says... "Grrr came upon the basketball and it was flat and the court was torn up. The baskets were in horrible shape. His spirit hovered over the court"There could be some information omitted like this...
"Vudu came through and destroyed the court. He had hoes and superhoes and a gang of vandals with him living it up like there was no tomorrow."then that next sentence makes sense, right? "Grrr came upon the basketball and it was flat and the court was torn up. The baskets were in horrible shape. His spirit hovered over the court" I mean that sounds good but show me where the God of Genesis made water? Did not Water exist before he fashioned the earth? Did not the spirit of God as it pertains to the story hover over the face of the waters? This all happened before any creation took place. Yeah something happened alright and as I highlighted earlier it was a contradiction. Where does it say " God created the earth but it was formless and void." Does it say that anywhere? No it doesn't. What it does show that your God STOP...you make an inference about my GOD, but I never said the God referenced in Genesis is MY God. I just wanted to make that clear. back to regularly scheduled programming. What it does show that your God saw an imperfect earth covered with water and sitting in complete darkness. Your God hovered above these waters. This is stated verbatim. Can you show where your God created the water? Basically you have to realize the writer contradicted himself from the very beginning. If we are to believe that the sentence denotes Earth being created imperfectly from the beginning then we must also say the same for Heaven. I don't believe the writer is saying earth was created imperfectly here. In fact, I stated that I believe when you create something that outcome was highly unlikely. I don't have an answer for your question about water... Lets see what the verses say...
]6And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
Now following your logic Not my logic. this would show up to this point that the Earth was created before the Heaven as it is shown verbatim that Heaven isn't created until the second day. I say your logic is false. I guess you would, but it's not my logic. Actually verse 1 states God created heaven and earth. So heaven comes 2nd, right? What I feel the narrative is stating is that on the first day the "God" became aware with thought. The second Day Heaven was created and the third day Earth was in the beginning stages of being taken from its imperfect state to perfect by first clearing the waters that covered it and having dry land in one place. Planting Seeds. etc. Lets see what the verses say. Gen 1:3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. Gen 1:6And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. 9And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. 11And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 12And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13And the evening and the morning were the third daySo first day is Awareness, Second Day is Heaven, Third Day is Earth. All done in complete darkness. Now you see where the 3 day symbolism which is used by many comes from. Yes, I believe there is definitely a method behind the madness of the Genesis account of creation. The writer had reason to write that in that order for whatever reason, that's how it was revealed to him/her...that's how it happened...or to reinforce a larger theme or symbolism. No the Heavenly bodies are not just revealed they are created on the fourth day. It states
Gen 1:14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day
So the Sun Moon and Stars were not created until the 4 day. This is the beginning of the is the light we see now. Before the light being spoken about was thought, consciousness and awareness. The evening was non thinking, unconsciousness and unawareness. Now we can consider this point. Considering how the narrative is written it must be asked If the earth was formless, void and covered with water where was the relative difference which allowed the "God" to know the earth was imperfect? Meaning was there another Earth somewhere else that let him know "Hey wait a minute something is wrong here?" OR If we are stating that the God of Genesis made the Earth in the beginning then that means Heaven didn't exist per the story until after earth on the second day. Who will agree with that? We must also ask if Earth did indeed exist before Heaven then what was holding Earth? Is it the same that holds Heaven? Does Heaven and Earth both exist inside the same sanctum? Could this Sanctum be "God" itself? Kinda not cut and dry as it seems huh? I don't think all of those questions are necessarily relevant, definitely not for this particular conversation, but let me think on them and respond later. |
|
|
|
Post by Vudu_Prince on Mar 19, 2010 16:27:47 GMT -5
Not if it is a chronological account of the event itself. That first verse could be a statement of fact not necessarily an FM dj setting the mood for the quiet storm, per se. Ok, we've established that a creation exists before it is manifested in the creator's vision, but using that logic, the creator becomes a creator even before the creation is manifest? correct? Also, let's say your identification of the structure of the passage is correct. That doesn't liberate you from the fact that the writer refers to the God as creator and vice versa. The rest of this post, I feel is a new discussion, but see responses below. So are you stating there existed Earth before Heaven? Are you stating the Physical existed before the non physical? So using your logic (your system of reasoning you have applied thus far on this topic) Are we to believe the "God" of the bible made the earth imperfect on the first day and also said let there be light as well? Remember you stated "Isn't that for the most part how things are created, with the lowest entropy and least amount of instability? "
as akin to the earth. I say again no. I say the "God" didn't create the earth in its totality but fixed it. If I create (To cause to exist; bring into being. but also means To produce through artistic or imaginative effort) /build a house does that mean I also created the materials used to build it? I created the stone? I created the metals? I created the land it sits on? lol Then explain why did you highlight (Maybe if YOU were writing) in contrast of the biblical writer. Do you hold him in higher accord? What point were you trying to make? Explain with clarity where you stand. Okay you gotta pick either or homie. if you believe the first sentence is saying God created the Earth then we must look at the next step it was formless and void. That is the opposite of being with form and having life. So the beginning stages of the Earth were indeed imperfect. Now why would you state the writer is saying otherwise if we are following again your logic((your system of reasoning you have applied thus far on this topic). Can we say if we use again your logic that the Earth's creation starts here it will show that the God was not perfect. It would show that God needed time. It would make "God" normal. Remember you stated ("Isn't that for the most part how things are created, with the lowest entropy and least amount of instability? ". Now yes this is applicable to man but are you saying this is also applicable to "God" The creator of all things who most think can do stuff at the drop of a finger is bound by the laws of creation as it applies to man? My entire post was in response to your interpretation of Genesis. Therefore yes this is and we are following your Logic (your system of reasoning you have applied thus far on this topic) I have asked the question following your logic which is again (your system of reasoning you have applied thus far on this topic) that Heaven comes 2nd after Earth. I have shown that I don't agree. Or maybe it never happened at all but thats another convo. Every question was valid again following your logic (your system of reasoning you have applied thus far on this topic) when you stated "Again, I see what you're saying, and I think some of this is right, the heavenly bodies were not revealed to the reader until later in Genesis, so yes that "light" it refers to is probably not the sun or stars. It is something else. I don't know, however, that it pertains in particular to the Creator's own consciousness. " or especially when you said this "So, with that in mind who was first aware of the Creator? This is where it can go into an infinite loop, so let's say the Ultimate Creator, no one higher than that. That Creator had to become aware of him/herself, and that is when he was created. He was made manifest however when he created the universe.
So again following your logic (your system of reasoning you have applied thus far on this topic) We must ask when did the Creator in genesis become aware of himself and when was he made manifest. These are your words now. I say according to the story The creator became aware of himself according to the story when it stated Gen 1:3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. The creator became manifest according to the story when it stated Gen 1: 6And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. |
|
|
|
Post by Vudu_Prince on Mar 19, 2010 16:45:29 GMT -5
Also here is something for you to ponder. This is a quote from one of my old dusty occult books. It states
" If there is no thinker, there can be no thought and if there is no thought there can be no denial. Therefore where there is no change, no relative conditions, there can be no consciousness"
|
|
|
|
Post by Gee-Are on Mar 19, 2010 17:17:47 GMT -5
Not if it is a chronological account of the event itself. That first verse could be a statement of fact not necessarily an FM dj setting the mood for the quiet storm, per se. Ok, we've established that a creation exists before it is manifested in the creator's vision, but using that logic, the creator becomes a creator even before the creation is manifest? correct? Also, let's say your identification of the structure of the passage is correct. That doesn't liberate you from the fact that the writer refers to the God as creator and vice versa. The rest of this post, I feel is a new discussion, but see responses below. So are you stating there existed Earth before Heaven? No. No No. I don't understand how you arrived at the conclusion that I said or believed any of that. Yes. So you believe there was a dirt creator, and a water creator, and a leaf creator, and an air creator, but the God referenced in Genesis was just a project manager, saying, "thanks boys! I'll take over from here!" Okay... No, that highlight was in reference to your statement here (emphasis added by me): Furthermore we must ask ourselves does "God" live up to the introductory sentence put forth if we are following your interpretation. If I were a writer and I said
"In the beginning Grrrr created the basketball and the court" etc... You do the same. Again there could be an omission, whether you acknowledge it or not. Not necessarily Again, not if something was omitted between verse 1 and 2. Does it show he needed time, or that he took time? You could make a ham sandwich in 45 seconds, or you could make it in about 5 minutes. not necessarily. You lost me there. My original statement doesn't necessarily lead down your path of logic to reach that conclusion. However, man could or could not create in a similar way that the God of Genesis does. In fact, it might make sense if they were similar, because later the chapter states that God says "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness..." emphasis added by me For whatever reason I don't believe we are. I haven't given a complete interpretation of Genesis. We were using Genesis to establish when the Creator was manifest. To be short, I think that answer was given in verse 1 "in the beginning God..." So either the Creator became aware then, or it was at some time before. I never said that heaven comes after earth or applied any logic to arrive at that conclusion, but what does that have to do with who created the Creator? I've made 2 statments during this topic, and I feel only one is directly related to the conversation: 1. Understanding the improbability of applying finite rules to an infinite entity, the Creator most likely created by him/herself when he was aware of himself. 2. Most things created are created in order at a state of stability. agreed. Every question was valid again following your logic (your system of reasoning you have applied thus far on this topic) when you stated "Again, I see what you're saying, and I think some of this is right, the heavenly bodies were not revealed to the reader until later in Genesis, so yes that "light" it refers to is probably not the sun or stars. It is something else. I don't know, however, that it pertains in particular to the Creator's own consciousness. " or especially when you said this "So, with that in mind who was first aware of the Creator? This is where it can go into an infinite loop, so let's say the Ultimate Creator, no one higher than that. That Creator had to become aware of him/herself, and that is when he was created. He was made manifest however when he created the universe.
So again following your logic (your system of reasoning you have applied thus far on this topic) We must ask when did the Creator in genesis become aware of himself and when was he made manifest?[/quote] I've given my answer to that question numerous times at this point. Are you sure? Based on what you just asserted, how had the Creator created all of these things, light, darkness, night, day, [evening, morning (time)], but he's not made manifest until he made the firmament and divided the waters? My statement has been the creator becomes manifest when the creation is manifest. I just listed 6 things that were manifested in the passage, that you're not giving the Creator credit for... |
|
|
|
Post by Gee-Are on Mar 19, 2010 17:19:21 GMT -5
Also here is something for you to ponder. This is a quote from one of my old dusty occult books. It states " If there is no thinker, there can be no thought and if there is no thought there can be no denial. Therefore where there is no change, no relative conditions, there can be no consciousness"Pondering... |
|
|
|
Post by Vudu_Prince on Mar 19, 2010 18:40:39 GMT -5
So are you stating there existed Earth before Heaven?
Dude then WHAT are you saying? lol Stand by your words or just say that you were in error. IF you believe GOD was manifest from "In the Beginning. IF you believe that it's shows as you stated " So, moving onto verse 2, here's how I see it. Something happened. The verse says, "NOW" the earth was without form and void, there was darkness and God was hovering, like 'everything was fine, but now...' Writer still calling him God, and this was still the creation he created, right? as the start of the creation for the God then dude you just backed yourself into a corner. You have just stated that the Earth was indeed "created" before heaven as I have shown Heavens creation wasn't done until the second day. Would you like to recant your former statements? smh See above Uh did you not state this? "So why would the creation have been made without form and in darkness? Why wouldn't the creation have been made whole and in order? Isn't that for the most part how things are created, with the lowest entropy and least amount of instability? "
Again would you like to recant? Like dude you HAVE to stand by your words man. Don't circle jerk because I'm ripping them to shreds. Stand firm or don't stand at all. IF you also believe that "Ok...hold on. I just want to clarify that based upon my theory, we've moved into a new discussion. I feel that was settled with verse 1. According to the writer, the heaven and earth were complete and the Creator created them - period. So, again, he's had his revelation of being the creator before that, because it was manifested in verse 1." then staying with verse 1 this all HAS to happen in the first day which doesn't end until Verse 3 after Let there be light is said. Again would you like to recant? Again you have to stand firm. See above Hell it could be its a possibility but still in all the Earth was without form and void. The first sentence is an introductory sentence. If I write since the beginning Micheal Jordan was the greatest Basketball player ever and then they give a chronology of how he became it.... you CAN'T denote the Narrators feelings for the character and ignore what the character states. Yes the Narrator says that but when does the character come into that realization? So again are you saying that the "Creator" is bound by the same laws of creation as man? Like you can't say "So why would the creation have been made without form and in darkness? Why wouldn't the creation have been made whole and in order? Isn't that for the most part how things are created, with the lowest entropy and least amount of instability? " then when I raise the point of contention you have just gave a explanation of why the earth was without form and void is indicative of imperfection you then state naw I'm not saying that. It shows the "creator" based on YOUR reasoning that he is bound to the same laws that man is. Thing is according to the story I don't agree. Again I will state that the Earth existed already and was imperfect. The creator in the story fixed it. You have a problem with that because it shows proof that maybe.... this creator isn't a creator after all. lol Again would you like to recant? If there is an omission and this is supposed to be a perfect book then again what are you saying? (I hope you stand by these words because I will hammer you on this point next go around lol) Dudeeee lol then what are you saying? Are you saying that the formless void was perfect? lol If so why continue to build on it again using your logic that the creator of the bible built the Earth. OR are you saying "Isn't that for the most part how things are created, with the lowest entropy and least amount of instability? " So is the bible fallible? Can you prove this IF? So what are you implying here? Expound. Uh why not according to your logic "Isn't that for the most part how things are created, with the lowest entropy and least amount of instability? " You said that not me.... Hey listen we can all read here. I stated "NOW this shows that the EARTH was already here THOUGH formless and void. But the earth itself already existed. The spirit of God as the story states was hovering over the waters. Never does it show when "God" made the waters. Never does it show where "God" made the formless void. It does show that the "God" noticed it. Lets see what "God" did next.." YOU respond "So, moving onto verse 2, here's how I see it. Something happened. The verse says, "NOW" the earth was without form and void, there was darkness and God was hovering, like 'everything was fine, but now...'Writer still calling him God, and this was still the creation he created, right? So why would the creation have been made without form and in darkness? Why wouldn't the creation have been made whole and in order? Isn't that for the most part how things are created, with the lowest entropy and least amount of instability? "ROFL again would you like to recant? Okay I guess we need to discuss the foundation for narration. Your logic goes against the fundamentals of second person objective narratives as this is told from. You would have an argument if the first sentence stated "In the Beginning I Created the Heaven and the Earth" so sayeth the Lord. But it doesn't. The narrator isn't writing from the first person therefore whether you agree or not your point is mute. AGAIN then what are you saying? If you are stating that the creator created the Earth and it was without form and void because of the NOW as you put emphasis on using chronology of the storyline that puts the creation of the Earth before Heaven. Heaven isn't created until the second day FROM the waters that existed on the formless earth. "6And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day." Are we reading the same thing here?  So again when is the creator aware of himself. Remember this isn't written in the first person so using Verse 1 is null and void. |
|
|
|
Post by Gee-Are on Mar 20, 2010 7:53:37 GMT -5
Also here is something for you to ponder. This is a quote from one of my old dusty occult books. It states " If there is no thinker, there can be no thought and if there is no thought there can be no denial. Therefore where there is no change, no relative conditions, there can be no consciousness"Pondering...are you introducing new texts into the conversation? |
|
|
|
Post by Gee-Are on Mar 20, 2010 9:07:07 GMT -5
Dude then WHAT are you saying? lol Stand by your words or just say that you were in error. IF you believe GOD was manifest from "In the Beginning. IF you believe that it's shows as you stated " So, moving onto verse 2, here's how I see it. Something happened. The verse says, "NOW" the earth was without form and void, there was darkness and God was hovering, like 'everything was fine, but now...' Writer still calling him God, and this was still the creation he created, right? as the start of the creation for the God then dude you just backed yourself into a corner. You have just stated that the Earth was indeed "created" before heaven as I have shown Heavens creation wasn't done until the second day. Would you like to recant your former statements? smh No, I wouldn't like to recant. It might seem frustrating for you that I'm not answering all of your questions or expounding my theory, but I honestly feel that we've moved onto another discussion without coming to a conclusion on the original one. Who created the creator? I'd like to know your thoughts on the Creator. You've made it clear that you don't believe the God of Genesis created the earth he merely 'fixed' it. That's an interesting point, not one that I totally disagree with, but we'll stick a pin in it for later. If you believe that he came upon a mass of materials and fixed, regenerated, repaired the earth, whatever you want to call it, then what energy, power, force, person, god, created those materials? Because the question posed to you would then be, who or what created that? You're spending time beating up the God of Genesis, about things that in your view aren't relevant to the conversation. What does it matter if he only fixed it, if the god or gods you believe in existed before that? The question asked was 'Who created the Creator?' So for you it would be the force/s that created the materials you say were floating in space, while the God of Genesis rolled up on them in his 'holy hooptie.' YOU introduced Genesis into our thread of conversation. Was that only because you wanted to rip it to shreds? Why not introduce a text that supports your universal view? No, again according to this passage, I don't totally disagree with all of that statement, and I don't believe I've said anything to contradict that. LOL! Are you suggesting that you're NOT hammering me this go round? According to you I thought you've obliterated my statements and logic. Not relevant to this convo...you answer the original question. Correct. I did say that. No, you are recalling the conversation correctly. Again, you introduced the text, and I gave a possible interpretation of the text. You saw an opportunity to extend the conversation down other paths and trails, that are relevant to the Genesis creation story, but not to the essence of who created the creator? You claim that the god of Genesis became Creator on the first day, when he said 'Let there be Light." right? But you also claim that there were created materials existing. So obviously to you, this god is not the Creator to whom the original question refers. Who or what is that, and how did it/he/she come into being? ROTFL! Seriously! No need to discuss the foundation for narration, because you failed that test miserably. This passage was NOT written in 2nd person objective narrative. There is no reference to 'you.' The writer is not telling a story which breaks the 4th wall, as you might say in television. Maybe if it started with..."Imagine that you are in a vacuum, there's rocks, water and other stuff around you, and suddenly something appears and starts to move the rocks and water around. You assume it must be God. So let's see what happens next..." It's not written that way. I would argue this passage was written in third person omniscient. The narrator is aware of the thoughts of the characters contained in the passage. Refers to characters as he/she/it, etc... Anyway, even if it was written in 2nd person narrative, the entity that you encountered would have still been the creator, whether the author identified him as such or not. So according to you, who or what created him? Again, I don't answer all of your questions here, because I believe they are outside the context of the original conversation. You can start another thread and we discuss these issues, but the question still remains for you, who created the elements that the god of Genesis used to 'repair' the earth, and who or what created him/her/shim? For the record, I also think the God of Genesis 1:2 could be repairing or fixing the earth. The questions are is that the same God of Genesis 1:1? and/or If it is the same god, why did he have to repair it? Based upon the text you introduced, I claim that the Creator created shimself either in verse 1 or before that. So for me, the rest of the verses don't apply. You obviously don't feel they apply, so why are we talking about them? |
|
|
|
Post by Vudu_Prince on Mar 20, 2010 12:55:01 GMT -5
No, I wouldn't like to recant. It might seem frustrating for you that I'm not answering all of your questions or expounding my theory, but I honestly feel that we've moved onto another discussion without coming to a conclusion on the original one. Who created the creator? Not frustrating at all. You offered commentary on the Haiti situation citing the bible so before I dialogued with you I needed clarification of where you stood. You made the statement that you felt the Heaven and the Earth were complete in Genesis 1:1. I disagreed and though it was an introductory statement. I raised the point that if you believe that following the story line you are saying that Earth existed before heaven. You then say you're not saying that. I ask again if you feel the Heaven and Earth were made complete by the God of the story in Verse 1:1 then how can you not see your own error when it shows verbatim that Heaven didn't exist until the second day...... My thoughts were made crystal clear 4 pages ago I don't think we can use the biblical account for this discussion because it has major holes. I can remember when I was watching this show called Beyond the Big Bang. It was showing how the universe was expanding. I remember thinking " If the Universe is expanding...What the fuck is it expanding in?" Therefore I believe we live in a multiverse but even then I still arrive at a problem. If we exist in a mulitverse that is being held by a something... what is outside of that? Its like if you really think about this question... it will send you down a deep deep worm hole with no bottom. Leave it be I say lol This was spoken after the bible was brought up not by me but by others...... Let me take it a step further for you staying within the framework of the story. Who created the light? He saw the light he asked for the light but did he create the light? It's like you're asking a question now that I raised earlier which you felt had no place in the discussion. Remember when I said... Now we can consider this point. Considering how the narrative is written it must be asked
If the earth was formless, void and covered with water where was the relative difference which allowed the "God" to know the earth was imperfect? Meaning was there another Earth somewhere else that let him know "Hey wait a minute something is wrong here?" and you replied >>> I don't think all of those questions are necessarily relevant, definitely not for this particular conversation, but let me think on them and respond later. So can we have clarification are these questions relevant now or are you just responding later? lol How you gonna raise a point of contention which I raised earlier that you refused to answer? Only if the hooptie was on Dubs.. Naw seriously here are the beginning of my thoughts again I don't think we can use the biblical account for this discussion because it has major holes. I can remember when I was watching this show called Beyond the Big Bang. It was showing how the universe was expanding. I remember thinking " If the Universe is expanding...What the fuck is it expanding in?" Therefore I believe we live in a multiverse but even then I still arrive at a problem. If we exist in a mulitverse that is being held by a something... what is outside of that? Its like if you really think about this question... it will send you down a deep deep worm hole with no bottom. Leave it be I say lol What say you? See above references According to the writer, the heaven and earth were complete and the Creator created them - period.So, again, he's had his revelation of being the creator before that, because it was manifested in verse 1. <<<<I beg to differ. Again would you like to recant? Once we get you to stand by your statements even when they are shown to be invalid. Not a problem being wrong nobodies perfect. I'll show you below. Okay you said this before... are you sure you won't raise these questions later? lol Naw I used your framework and gave my interpretation. First day was Thought, Second Day was Heaven, Third Day was Earth. You stated that a God isn't God until he is first aware of himself. A god doesn't manifest until he creates. When I raised the point of the light you went away from your stance to say the God created that light when I felt the light was his awareness. It was very simple. Your conjecture afterward caused the trail. Stand firm on your words even when you are found in error. Ah now we finally get to the Rabbit hole. Where did the light come from? The 'God" just said Let there Be Light. He noticed the light and separated it but never does it say he made the light. So who is the maker of this light? Of thought? Of Consciousness? Of Awareness? I will stand my stance though not purposely done but nonetheless no excuses it was in error. That mode of narration isn' t employed until the "God" of the story makes man. I feel the the passage is written in the third person objective mode. You only arrive at this notion because there is a God like figure used. Question.... If you watch someone do something do you know why they did it? Using your stance you are implying that the Narrator knows the thoughts of God and he doesn't. The narrator is using third person objective telling what he either saw or was revealed to him. You are in error. They were relevant and with merit. So much so that you reworded them as your own question as stated above. How can you ask a question again which you already answered. Remember when you stated - "Isn't that for the most part how things are created, with the lowest entropy and least amount of instability?" Furthermore I thought the other verses didn't matter? Is this relevant to the convo? See how your conjecture causes the conversation to sway? I just wanted to highlight this before I offer any commentary before you say that my response to your opinions have nothing to do with the convo..lol I think the logic you have employed above doesn't make any sense. The reason is you are mistaking an introductory sentence for a definitive action that took place within the sentence. Once you come to the realization that you are in error then maybe we can move forward. The text was introduced into the discussion 4 pages ago by someone else. So now you say the rest of the verses don't apply? You just stated you feel the "god" fixed the earth in Verse 1:2 did you not? lol.... Listen your above logic is totally flawed. Again the only way you can arrive at your point is IF verse 1:1 says "In the beginning I created the heaven and the earth" but it does NOT. So your logic is in error. Period. You have to separate the narrator from the Character. You admit the passage is written in the third person but you continue to use first person logic. Again if I'm writing about a omnipresent being in a narrative that being doesn't come to life until it speaks. You're not allowing the character to exist with your logic. You are sticking to Verse 1 and ignoring the first words of the "God" in the story. Those first words were 'Let there be light". When the "God" see's the light and separates the light which mind you according to the story he did not create.... it is then he is conscious of himself. It is then he understands through THOUGHT and CONSCIOUSNESS one comes into self awareness. I THINK therefore I AM Period. not I Am therefore I think. I could break this down further but I'll stop here for now. Your move.... |
|
|
|
Post by Gee-Are on Mar 21, 2010 0:59:57 GMT -5
Not frustrating at all. You offered commentary on the Haiti situation citing the bible so before I dialogued with you I needed clarification of where you stood. You made the statement that you felt the Heaven and the Earth were complete in Genesis 1:1. I disagreed and though it was an introductory statement. I raised the point that if you believe that following the story line you are saying that Earth existed before heaven. You then say you're not saying that. I ask again if you feel the Heaven and Earth were made complete by the God of the story in Verse 1:1 then how can you not see your own error when it shows verbatim that Heaven didn't exist until the second day...... My thoughts were made crystal clear 4 pages ago I don't think we can use the biblical account for this discussion because it has major holes. I can remember when I was watching this show called Beyond the Big Bang. It was showing how the universe was expanding. I remember thinking " If the Universe is expanding...What the fuck is it expanding in?" Therefore I believe we live in a multiverse but even then I still arrive at a problem. If we exist in a mulitverse that is being held by a something... what is outside of that? Its like if you really think about this question... it will send you down a deep deep worm hole with no bottom. Leave it be I say lol This was spoken after the bible was brought up not by me but by others...... Thank you for restating your position, because I think it is necessary to reset again. You said what is quoted above. I said (with spelling errors):
I never said that heaven comes after earth or applied any logic to arrive at that conclusion, but what does that have to do with who created the Creator?
I've made 2 statments during this topic, and I feel only one is directly related to the conversation:
1. Understanding the improbability of applying finite rules to an infinite entity, the Creator most likely created by him/herself when he was aware of himself.
2. Most things created are created in order at a state of stability. Amemba dat? So, we both made similar statements regarding the nature of the original question and the improbability of gaining a satisfactory answer. I, however, went against yours and even my own advice and attempted to answer the question, while you only raised more questions. I don't think we can use the biblical account for this discussion because it has major holes. I can remember when I was watching this show called Beyond the Big Bang. It was showing how the universe was expanding. I remember thinking " If the Universe is expanding...What the fuck is it expanding in?" Therefore I believe we live in a multiverse but even then I still arrive at a problem. If we exist in a mulitverse that is being held by a something... what is outside of that? Its like if you really think about this question... it will send you down a deep deep worm hole with no bottom. Leave it be I say lol See what you did there? You didn't really state a hypothesis for an answer to the question did you? And when I did state one without reference to a text, you applied a text to it, and that's where the breakdown happens. I agree that in this forum, with such a variety of beliefs, it could be problematic to use a specific text like the bible to discuss this issue, because as demonstrated by both of us in this thread and most others in different threads, interpretation is in the mind of the scholar, lol. Which is why I attempted to postulate without a net. Using the text of Genesis, you bring one interpretation of the verses, which I'll admit is held by the majority of people who read this thing, and I bring another one. That's why there is a disconnect. I argue that Genesis 1:1 shows that there is a creator...manifested by the creation of heaven first and then earth - period. If that creator was created, a foolish notion by both of our standards, he was created at that moment or sometime before. Because of that, the idea that materials were floating in an ether that the god in verse 1 happened upon is foolish. This god created all of that in completion. This is why I describe your questions pertaining to the rest of the text irrelevant when applied to MY hypothesis for THIS conversation of the original question of who created the creator. I also argued that everything described later, verse 2 and beyond, is regarding someone who repaired the earth and universe. My point is, if that someone was the same god as in verse 1, then he is the creator and my earlier logic applies. there might be missing information that accounts for the catastrophic state the world is found in verse 2. If it is a different god, from the verse 1 god, then most likely the verse 1 god created this being who came upon the scene in verse 2, and earlier logic applies, make sense? And do you see now how those questions aren't relevant to my hypothesis of who created the creator? However, they are relevant to your hypothesis regarding the text, which is why I posed them to you. YOU, as you state in regards to the text, believe the first verse is just an intro sentence to the whole narrative and the following is an exposition of the verse 1 assertion. As you've pointed out our interpretations diverge, however, I of course differ with your allegation that I'm in error. Taking the bible in more context, you might see that if you do like Mama Odie told you and "dig deeper?"  But let's for a minute assume that you are right in your interpretation of the presentation of the text; verse 1 is only an mood setter for the holy goodness of the creator to come. Your hypothesis about the verse 2 and beyond passage, could be valid. I have issues even with that hypothesis, but that's another discussion. For me the discussion of the original question, "who created the Creator?" when applied to the bible is settled in Genesis 1:1. No need to move onto verse 2. It only confuses things. I hope that makes things clearer See above No, see above. I've doubled down I believe. I didn't say a god isn't god until he is aware of himself. I made a statement regarding creators and creation only, which I scaled to apply to the notion of THE CREATOR. Got it? Maybe I didn't make that as clear as I should have earlier, sorry for any confusion that may have caused, however, reading comprehension is crucial and in that I say the error is yours. As you see, I still stand firm. For this text, according to me, the god of verse 1. According to you, I'm not quite sure. Still not true, see below. I reiterate that this is not relevant to my hypothesis regarding the genesis of the Creator, or my interpretation of the presentation of the text of Genesis 1. I only respond because your attempt to call me out is still wrong. You are correct in the sense that I am implying that the narrator knows the thoughts of god. You are wrong that the narrator does not do that. I will move for only the 2nd time past verse 2 and point to this (emphasis mine): Genesis 1:4 KJV 4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. Genesis 1:4 Amplified Bible 4And God saw that the light was good (suitable, pleasant) and He approved it; and God separated the light from the darkness.(A)It appears that the narrator is explaining the thoughts of the god character. That would make him omniscient, no? Otherwise, how could he tell the reader that god saw that something was good? God didn't say that out loud, right? You've already acknowledged that it is 3rd person. The text referenced above shows that the narrator IS omniscient, and there are other examples later in the text if you need them. Never in this passage does the style of narrative move to 2nd person, not even when the creation of man is discussed. I would argue that the creation of man passage only reinforces my notion that the style is 3rd person omniscient. Please stop. You are wrong in this regard, and it doesn't even help your argument. Let's move on. The questions are relevant to your hypothesis not mine, see above. You're projecting your hypothesis which is incompatible with mine by asking these questions. If my assertion holds true, those questions are irrelevant. I only ask them because of your stance on the issue. By all means I welcome your commentary and and response, no need to hold back. Hopefully, you are clearer on my position and understand why I respond to those questions the way I do. You haven't presented anything to me yet that would make that likely to happen. So, I won't. If the text was written in 3rd person omniscient narrative, as settled earlier (see above), doesn't the reader have someone in the narrator who speaks with authority to identify the character as God or Creator? Therefore when identifying the person in verse 1 as God and making the claim that he created heaven and earth, isn't there some validity for the reader to also identify that character as such? So I do recant. ;D Maybe the discussion of narrative style is relevant to my hypothesis! thanks.  Correct me if I'm wrong, which I'm sure you will, but I believe I've addressed these questions earlier in the post. It's unfortunate that it takes so many words to tackle this question, but I acknowledge that we can't do this telepathically. So, I guess I should be thankful we didn't have to kill trees in the process. My move has been made. now it's yours homie. |
|
|
|
Post by Vudu_Prince on Mar 21, 2010 15:10:04 GMT -5
Thank you for restating your position, because I think it is necessary to reset again. You said what is quoted above. I said (with spelling errors):
I never said that heaven comes after earth or applied any logic to arrive at that conclusion, but what does that have to do with who created the Creator?
I've made 2 statments during this topic, and I feel only one is directly related to the conversation:
1. Understanding the improbability of applying finite rules to an infinite entity, the Creator most likely created by him/herself when he was aware of himself.
2. Most things created are created in order at a state of stability. Amemba dat? So, we both made similar statements regarding the nature of the original question and the improbability of gaining a satisfactory answer. I, however, went against yours and even my own advice and attempted to answer the question, while you only raised more questions. Yes but you also stated a God isn't God until he is aware of himself and isn't manifest until he creates. Again you're not separating the narrator from the character. Is not a character within a narrative not a character until it has self awareness? When does that self awareness manifest? In my estimation that happens when the character speaks. Have you ever seen something in someone that they didn't see in themselves? Did they come unto this realization later which you saw from the beginning? Thats a negative I stated we live in a multiverse but I still have a problem because what is holding the multi-verses and what is outside of that. If we can't get to a beginning point of creation then so to shall be the same for the creator. Kinda simple. Ok Ummm I disagree I think most share the opinion you have put forth. Again I disagree. Unless verse 1 states " In the beginning I created the Heaven and the Earth" so sayeth the lord. BUT the earth was without form and void.. You'd have an argument but it doesn't. Lets move forward. Let me ask you a question. Wouldn't it make sense for the Heavens which is the Universe in my interpretation to be created first? The universe is what holds everything correct? Now looking at the text it shows that the Heaven and the Earth were created out of the same primordial soup the formless void. My question is what was holding it? It couldn't have been Heaven because it shows heaven wasn't created until the second day. See how my multiverse hypothesis applies? lol Verse 2 and beyond is the making of heaven and earth from the primordial soup that existed already. Period So the bible has two Gods? lol Okay explain more. Furthermore, I don't see how they are relevant because again you are using first person logic. Sorry I surely do yup that kinda sums it up I'd implore you to do the same lol I'd like to hear this lol Not true even you said when we come into self awareness doesn't denote the beginning of our existence. YOU stated earlier that our parents knew of us since the womb which is correct. Stating that the narrators knows this is GOD because the Narrator has the story in its totality. You acting like it was written in real time and if it was and the narrator was there then thats also another convo. Who is this Holy Scribe ? Um naw you're still in error  Nothing different Yeah you sure have lol So, with that in mind who was first aware of the Creator? This is where it can go into an infinite loop, so let's say the Ultimate Creator, no one higher than that. That Creator had to become aware of him/herself, and that is when he was created. He was made manifest however when he created the universe.Soo I guess this is when you say God is different that the creator? Is that your escape hatch used when it is found you did indeed say the creator isn't created until him/herself becomes aware of them self? lol Is that God in Verse 1 a creator? Is the God thereafter a creator too? So where did the other god go? lol ok.... Thank you for going here lol. I was hoping you would. The narrator is writing about an expression but he doesn't know WHY the "God" thought the light was good. Did you not notice that? I was HOPING you went here. Lets give some examples. IF I see a person watching television and they laugh... do I know why they are laughing? Could I conclude if I hear a joke you are laughing at it for the same reason that I am? I know you find it funny because of your expression but I don't know why you found it funny. IF we both see a chick walking and both of us say 'damn she fine as shit" Do I know why you think she is fine? Hell I maybe enamored with her phat ass and you like her breast. So staying with that logic just because the narrator writes " And he saw the light and it was good" doesn't mean he knows WHY he thought it was good. Just because when he made things and the narrator writes he saw it was good doesn't say WHY he thought it was good. The first time the God of the bible reveals its thoughts was when it punishes Adam and Eve. We know that the God didn't want Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil. We don't learn WHY the God didn't want that until he states it verbatim. You're in error lol. No it doesn't the narrator uses description. Description can be used for thoughts but in this instance it's used for expression. It also uses Cause and Effect but the narrator never reveals the PURPOSE of him finding the light good. This is what we are debating now. Furthermore we still don't know WHY the God created this place to begin with. For what reason? Ninja just needed some company? lol Gen 1:29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. smh Well we must first understand what your hypothesis is. If you are going to stand by your aforementioned assertion that a Creator isn't a creator until he is first aware of himself and doesn't manifest until he creates then I think using the text I have shown that. Thing is now you're saying either you didn't say that or maybe its many gods or different creators. Or there is a difference between God and Creator. Now this maybe true BUT it doesn't fit within the framework of this story. Sure it hasnt because you keep flip flopping. If you challenge me in basketball an I arrive to the gym ready to hoop but you show up in football gear saying "Naw cuz I meant football" then my actions wouldn't be relevant. If I then go change into football gear and I come back out now seeing you with a tennis racket its like wtf. lol No I don't see it that way. What I see is someone revealing a story to a person or persons. They have ingested the story in its an entirety, have knowledge of its ending beforehand and they write it. Using your logic you're making it seem as if this story was written in real time. If it was.... who is this Scribe that was there during this creation? Naw you didn't answer the questions at all. The process used for your hypothesis is flawed. |
|
{=}http://s2.images.proboards.com/cool.gif{/=}
