Re: Arguments of ...
Sep 05, 1995 05:37 PM
by Eldon B. Tucker
>>This is an essential teaching of Buddhism, which is also basically
>>sound. Everything is subject to continual change. There can exist
>>nothing that is immune from being subject to change.
It depends upon what is involved with *your* concept of God. If you
picture a being, with a body, emotions, thoughts, and personal
existence, than you are picturing something that *is* subject to
change. Even in paying attention to a single person's prayers,
such a being would have changed from the interaction.
>>There is no prime mover. Each of us is our own "prime mover", individually
>>responsible for our existence. It is our inner choice to come into
>>existence, made in a deep part of ourselves, that motivates our coming
>>out into manifestation in this world.
>You have slipped away from the law. Which is not possible. You cannot
>be responsible for your own existence. You cannot create yourself.
It is not only possible, but it is the only way that things could be.
Consciousness is *self-initiated.* No one else is responsible for you
and your existence -- or for me and my existence -- except ourselves.
>You cannot determine who your parents are.
If it were not for my coming into birth, and there were not someone
else wanting to be born, conception would not occur. The fact of birth
means that there is a life waiting to be born. Providing the opportunity
for birth does not create a life.
>You have no evidence whatsoever for such a declaration as to assume
>our choice to come into existence.
The preexistence of the soul is an ancient philosophical concept that
is found in both Christian and pre-Christian traditions.
>>The universe that we know from the big bang is but a grain of sand, a
>>speck of dust, an mere atom in yet a bigger universe. And that bigger
>>universe is part of a still bigger scheme of things. There is no top,
>>and we cannot find a "highest", no matter how high we try to go. There
>>are infinite levels or scales of being going upward, and *no top*.
>This is a declaration of the "Universe" being an actual infinite. This is
>outside the bounds of material logic. The universe is finite.
You're misreading my statement. I'm making the case that the "universe"
is very definitely an finite thing. And for it to exist, it has to be
hosted in a bigger finite thing, and that in something yet bigger. We
have an infinite series of bigger finite things, but no *infinite thing.*
>>Every religion and its sects have their holy books. Each tells in myth
>>and story grand spiritual truths. There are great truths hidden behind
>>the stories. The stories are not literally true. They hide deeper
>>truths for those with the proper "keys" to unlock them.
>So the bible's Creation account is a myth?
They are all "myths" in the exact same sense as the stories of
The Mahabarata, the Gita, and other religions. Some stories of the
life of Jesus, for instance, are illustrative of spiritual teachings
that were not intended to be spoken of to the masses.
>All mythical characters attempting to reveal hidden truth.
Some religious characters were literal historic personages. The
stories about them were embellished over the years to include
various spiritual teachings. All the stories of Jesus or of the
Buddha, for instance, were not literal, physical events.
>The LOUD error here is that the bible never maked claims
>of mythical foundations. Geneologies are presented in an
>effort to support ACTUAL people, places and times.
This is how the Bible *is taught* by some Christian sects. It is
not a literal truth. The Bible is but one of hundreds of religious
books, meant for spiritual study, and never intended to be
scientific accounts of the external world.
>Elohim is the plural form of Eloah (God). So, Elohim means, in fact,
>Gods. It is common in Biblical Hebrew, to express something eminent in
>the plural form. For example, the great beast in Job 40:15 is put in the
>plural, behemot; not because it are more beasts, but it is a great beast.
The "plural of majesty" argument has been used at times. It is the
same with Kings, when speaking in reference to themselves, use "we"
rather than "I". It is also obvious that *you* believe in a singular
God of Genesis. Your belief does not make it true.
>In all of the responses to the arguments that I have posed
>not one response has critically examined the validity of these
You are making a number of statements that would only be true if the
underlying assumptions are agreed to, which they are not. You have to
first argue and support those assumptions.
>God is independent.
Being independent means *non-existence*, unmanifest, outside this and
any universe, and not a personal being, nor in direct relationship with
any particular existing thing.
>God is unchangeable.
Unchangeable also means not-existing, because all existing things are
subject to change.
>God is Creator.
We all participate in creation, to the extent that we are totally
responsible for our own personal existences, and for our relationships
with others. There is no one outside and above us that is responsible
for our existence.
>Man is dependent.
All living things are inter-dependent, upon one another. Any being outside
of existence is by definition out of relationship with living things.
>Man is changeable.
All things that are subject to time are changeable. Even the ruling
"Archangels" of a spiritual multiplane ecosystem.
>Man is created.
Man is self-created, as are all beings. We all are rooted in divinity,
inseperable from the ultimate divine nature of things, and come forth
into existence on our own initiative, from tanha or "hunger for life".
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application