₦airaland Forum

tctrills:
So are you saying that the sacrifice of Christ was unjust to Him or unjust to mankind?

Now, this is clearly your opinion and you adapted this opinion because of your dislike for the religion.

First, Jesus Christ's sacrifice was a willing sacrifice because of His love for us.

Secondly, in nature, it's very common to seen the actions of one having consequences for many.

Third, you are looking at death from a limited and narrow angle. This is what Jesus Christ said about His death.
No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again.

It seems you are just vigorously searching for a reason to fault Christianity.

Now if the wages of sin is death, it would have been unjust if that sin is forgiven without the wages paid? So you seem to have it completely mixed up.

Jesus Christ's sacrifice showed 2 things.
1. God's Justice in that the wages of sin was fully paid.
2. God's mercy in that through the atonement of Christ all mankind can be saved.

+
This will take us away from the intendment of this thread and I think deserves a thread of its own.

I have taken the liberty of creating one -

https://www.nairaland.com/8632938/tctrills-repugnant-aspects-christian-doctrine

DeepSight:
+
This will take us away from the intendment of this thread and I think deserves a thread of its own.

I have taken the liberty of creating one -

https://www.nairaland.com/8632938/tctrills-repugnant-aspects-christian-doctrine

I have moved the discussion to the new thread but if you are looking for excuses to hate Christianity, don't you realise that there are more holes in the doctrine you are entertaining.
The doctrine of man being God's cells.
If this is true, it means that we make up God and God is a summation of our personalities, actions, beliefs, weaknesses, strength, and morals.
It makes God imperfect, weak, jealous, full of hate, fearful and all other human traits both good and bad.

Is that your position on God? Let's discuss.

tctrills:
I have moved the discussion to the new thread but if you are looking for excuses to hate Christianity, don't you realise that there are more holes in the doctrine you are entertaining.
The doctrine of man being God's cells.
If this is true, it means that we make up God and God is a summation of our personalities, actions, beliefs, weaknesses, strength, and morals.
It makes God imperfect, weak, jealous, full of hate, fearful and all other human traits both good and bad.

Is that your position on God? Let's discuss.

I don't think Deepsght is saying we are literally cells in the body of God. That statement is metaphorical reference to something that is even contained in the Bible: "we were created in the image of God" that is, we all share the same attributes of that we were created from or are part of. "Ye are gods"

triplechoice:
I don't think Deepsght is saying we are literally cells in the body of God. That statement is metaphorical reference to something that is even contained in the Bible: "we were created in the image of God" that is, we all share the same attributes of that we were created from or are part of. "Ye are gods"

Actually that's not what he is saying. You can go back and review this thread, he isn't talking about being created in the image of God or that we share His attributes.

tctrills:
Actually that's not what he is saying. You can go back and review this thread, he isn't talking about being created in the image of God or that we share His attributes.

+
But your scripture gives credence to it -

"For in him we live and move and have our being; as even some of your own poets have said..." — Acts 17:28

In this, Paul was actually citing the Cretan philosopher Epimenides, and agreeing with him.

DeepSight:
+
But your scripture gives credence to it -

"For in him we live and move and have our being; as even some of your own poets have said..." — Acts 17:28

In this, Paul was actually citing the Cretan philosopher Epimenides, and agreeing with him.

So according to you, the bible teaches that we are the cells of God? The verse only states that God is the source of our live, strength and abilities that's actually the opposite of what your teach.
The cells give life to the organism.
The scripture you quoted is opposed to the doctrine you are teaching.

tctrills:
So according to you, the bible teaches that we are the cells of God? The verse only states that God is the source of our live, strength and abilities that's actually the opposite of what your teach.
The cells give life to the organism.
The scripture you quoted is opposed to the doctrine you are teaching.

+
Please and please I never said we are the cells in God's body. For heavens sake I don't even believe God has a body. I simply asked what you thought of it. These are philosophical ruminations and the idea that everything that exists is a part of the body of God is also an ancient one. It is called panentheism, to be distinguished from pantheism.

Having said that, the verse I quoted does not say God is our source it specifically indicates that we live and move and have our being in God.

DeepSight:
+
Please and please I never said we are the cells in God's body. For heavens sake I don't even believe God has a body. I simply asked what you thought of it. These are philosophical ruminations and the idea that everything that exists is a part of the body of God is also an ancient one. It is called panentheism, to be distinguished from pantheism.

Having said that, the verse I quoted does not say God is our source it specifically indicates that we live and move and have our being in God.

I understand you didn't outrightly say you believe in that but for now, you are the one defending that doctrine.

Now we live and move and have our being in God. Clearly means that it's God that makes us live and move and He created us. It doesn't mean or indicate that we are inside God or His cells.
How did you come to such conclusions?

DeepSight:
2. The Universe's "Pixel Rate" (The Planck Scale) In a digital world, you can only zoom in so far before you hit a pixel—a minimum unit of space. In our universe, there is a theoretical "smallest" possible length called the Planck Length.T he Sim Argument: If the universe were truly "natural" and analog, you should be able to divide space infinitely. The fact that there is a hard "resolution limit" suggests our reality may be discrete (made of bits) rather than continuous.
----Culled.

This is why I mentioned how our reality is pixelated. Zooming in one can see that it is so constructed in bits. This again is a pointer.

Sorry but the Planck Length is not the theoretical "smallest" possible length. It is the smallest length that is meaningful to our current understanding of the universe. It in no way says that lengths smaller than Planck length don't exist.

LordReed:
Sorry but the Planck Length is not the theoretical "smallest" possible length. It is the smallest length that is meaningful to our current understanding of the universe. It in no way says that lengths smaller than Planck length don't exist.

+
Do you think you can divide space infinitely.

DeepSight:
+
Do you think you can divide space infinitely.

Hypothetically, yes. Take a length and divide it by 2, then divide the half by 2, then again and again. You can do this infinitely.

LordReed:
Hypothetically, yes. Take a length and divide it by 2, then divide the half by 2, then again and again. You can do this infinitely.

+
Hypothetically, I concur. But in terms of this reality that we perceive about us, you must perforce agree that that we are limited to the building blocks of the pixels of the things we can see. There is the view that this thus discloses a formatted or programmed rendition of our reality. This is reinforced by the fact that the deeper you zoom into the images of things around you the more they lose form. Nonetheless I will not dwell too much on this argument not least because it is not the strongest one even for me. I just wanted to pass through and note it. Let us deal with the last two I mentioned in my OP before I proceed to my main argument, which I shall present to you. Ride on, I await.

DeepSight:
+
Hypothetically, I concur. But in terms of this reality that we perceive about us, you must perforce agree that that we are limited to the building blocks of the pixels of the things we can see. There is the view that this thus discloses a formatted or programmed rendition of our reality. This is reinforced by the fact that the deeper you zoom into the images of things around you the more they lose form. Nonetheless I will not dwell too much on this argument not least because it is not the strongest one even for me. I just wanted to pass through and note it. Let us deal with the last two I mentioned in my OP before I proceed to my main argument, which I shall present to you. Ride on, I await.

I thoroughly disagree. Pixels exist on screens not in the reality we share. The world around us is not pixelated, that's not a thing.

LordReed:
I thoroughly disagree. Pixels exist on screens not in the reality we share. The world around us is not pixelated, that's not a thing.

+
Not only on screens, in terms of our visual capacities. I think I was careful to say that.

The reason I first asked if you believe that space may be divided infinitely is because surely you are aware that we cannot really account for what exists between atoms, electrons and such. And that at that microscopic level it can be said that there is more "insubstantiality" than substantiality to what appears to us as hard impenetrable matter. But I didnt want to digress there, and thats why I have said well, with what we perceive visually, there are limits, and no I dont think you are right to say its limited to screens.

Nevertheless lets close the arguments in the OP as I have a treatise of my own to make.

DeepSight:
+
Not only on screens, in terms of our visual capacities. I think I was careful to say that.

The reason I first asked if you believe that space may be divided infinitely is because surely you are aware that we cannot really account for what exists between atoms, electrons and such. And that at that microscopic level it can be said that there is more "insubstantiality" than substantiality to what appears to us as hard impenetrable matter. But I didnt want to digress there, and thats why I have said well, with what we perceive visually, there are limits, and no I dont think you are right to say its limited to screens.

Nevertheless lets close the arguments in the OP as I have a treatise of my own to make.

You do realise that at the so called space in the atomic is irrelevant ant the macro level right? Do you realise that are gaps between the threads that make up your suit? Does that make your suit insubstantial? These things don't scale up.

Besides it doesn't mean reality is pixelated because it is made up discrete particles.

LordReed:
You do realise that at the so called space in the atomic is irrelevant ant the macro level right? Do you realise that are gaps between the threads that make up your suit? Does that make your suit insubstantial? These things don't scale up.

Besides it doesn't mean reality is pixelated because it is made up discrete particles.

+
I see your point, even if i think you are being a tad simplistic in this. Still lets move along.

LordReed can you comment on the last two points in my OP so we move along to my own main personal treatise on this matter.

3. The "Processor Speed" (The Speed of Light) Just as a computer processor has a maximum clock speed that limits how fast information can travel across a circuit board, our universe has a universal speed limit: the speed of light.

4. The Mathematical Universe Hypothesis: Max Tegmark, a cosmologist at MIT, argues for the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis (MUH). He notes that the deeper we look into reality, the more the "physical" stuff disappears, leaving only mathematical structures behind. The Argument: If you look at a video game character, they look like a person, but they are actually just a collection of numbers and equations. Tegmark argues that since our universe is perfectly described by math, it may literally be a mathematical structure (or a program) rather than a physical thing that math just happens to describe.

tctrills:
I understand you didn't outrightly say you believe in that but for now, you are the one defending that doctrine.

Now we live and move and have our being in God. Clearly means that it's God that makes us live and move and He created us. It doesn't mean or indicate that we are inside God or His cells.
How did you come to such conclusions?

+
Why are you deliberately reading into the script what is not there? How does "in whom we live and move and have our being" translate to "God created humans?"

DeepSight:
+
Why are you deliberately reading into the script what is not there? How does "in whom we live and move and have our being" translate to "God created humans?"

you are accusing me of what you are doing.
In whom we live = He give us life
In whom we move = gives us the strength to move
And have our being = we belong to Him

triplechoice:
I will come back later to answer your reply up there, but in the meantime, please do me this favour, which will benefit you too..

My replies to Chieveboy are being hidden despite containing no violations of forum rules. I suspect he has weaponised the report button to trigger auto-moderation for obvious reasons: he cannot defend his position and admit he deliberately edited my comments to misrepresent me.

Come on lol. I don't even know that feature exists on here. I was even wondering if you deliberately ignored me for reasons seeing you replying to others.

So please ask him this on my behalf;?

If he claims to be saying the same thing being discussed here, that authentic esoteric traditions teach simulation, then why does he place the words "computer" and "simulation" in quotation marks every time he reference the idea?

This question is part of what my hidden replies contained. I ask him directly but my posts keeps disappearing .

Putting words in quotes like that signals that he is not taking them literally. It means he has a different understanding, one that he won't openly state because he wants to appear in agreement with you while actually holding a different position.

I know what Eckankar teaches concerning the nature of this world because I was once part of the group. They teach that the world was created by Divine spirit as a training ground for souls to attain spiritual maturity and eventually become a co-worker with God. Nothing in their teaching says the world is a computer simulation created by advanced beings


Does he believe this world is literally computer simulation or does he mean something else? And if something else what is it?

I cannot ask him directly myself because my replies are hidden. But perhaps you can.

Thank you.

We both might have studied Eckankar, but what you might not have noticed is Eckankar avoids matters to do with discussing the very nature of the worlds of computer simulation or "lower worlds" as they call it. But if you have your ears to the ground, several Eckankar literature subtly spilled the beans. In one, it describes the antics of the "almighty Gods" who are mere gatekeepers but love to present themselves as "almighty God", likening it to how the Wizard of Oz pulls it off using a booming 'loud speaker' to send their voice tremoring into the 'simulus'. This and many more depending in your range of exploration of the Eckankar teachings for one, and other occult/spiritual materials and of course personal experimentation and exploration.

The above said, I wish to let you know that all advanced spiritual teachings which knows its onions understand the universe (lower worlds) to be a holographic simulation and yes, it works exactly as a human computer does but much more advanced; and by all definitions of a computer, is one. A computer can be made of organic material, I hope you know this?

A guy called billyionare once had a thread on how the physical universe is a recursion of the inner one. But of course you must have read something along this line in Eckankar! Its almost a no-brainer that even advanced physics had now wrapped its head and tools around a fascinating finding that 'reality' is 'idiomaterial' (is a thought/matter duality). This means reality exists as though in its templaic form and most importantly in a templaic region or plane where all exists as though or idea, and this is apt and in tandem with advanced spirituality.

What this means is any material thing is merely a physical representation of Thought or an Idea and they exists in a binary complementary union or what I will call a 'do me I do you' concurrent mirroring of one another from the top mental/idea level to the physical with the shape and form taking effect based on the 'membrane' of the plane that though or idea finds it self till it looks like a Plastic cup on the physical. We built the Hololens off of this and its not the first time we mimic nature.

CC Deepsight

tctrills:
you are accusing me of what you are doing.
In whom we live = He give us life
In whom we move = gives us the strength to move
And have our being = we belong to Him

+
Now this is astonishing.

The script says that you live in someone. It says you move in that person. It says you have your being inside that person.
It is clearly panentheistic and he was quoting a Greek philosopher as I told you already.
And you are writing things it absolutely does [b]no[/b]t say.
This explains alot about the religious.

I mean just look at the bold in yours, the last line. What kind of voodooo magical interpretation is that?

chieveboy:
Come on lol. I don't even know that feature exists on here. I was even wondering if you deliberately ignored me for reasons seeing you replying to others.



We both might have studied Eckankar, but what you might not have noticed is Eckankar avoids matters to do with discussing the very nature of the worlds of computer simulation or "lower worlds" as they call it. But if you have your ears to the ground, several Eckankar literature subtly spilled the beans. In one, it describes the antics of the "almighty Gods" who are mere gatekeepers but love to present themselves as "almighty God", likening it to how the Wizard of Oz pulls it off using a booming 'loud speaker' to send their voice tremoring into the 'simulus'. This and many more depending in your range of exploration of the Eckankar teachings for one, and other occult/spiritual materials and of course personal experimentation and exploration.

The above said, I wish to let you know that all advanced spiritual teachings which knows its onions understand the universe (lower worlds) to be a holographic simulation and yes, it works exactly as a human computer does but much more advanced; and by all definitions of a computer, is one. A computer can be made of organic material, I hope you know this?

A guy called billyionare once had a thread on how the physical universe is a recursion of the inner one. But of course you must have read something along this line in Eckankar! Its almost a no-brainer that even advanced physics had now wrapped its head and tools around a fascinating finding that 'reality' is 'idiomaterial' (is a thought/matter duality). This means reality exists as though in its templaic form and most importantly in a templaic region or plane where all exists as though or idea, and this is apt and in tandem with advanced spirituality.

What this means is any material thing is merely a physical representation of Thought or an Idea and they exists in a binary complementary union or what I will call a 'do me I do you' concurrent mirroring of one another from the top mental/idea level to the physical with the shape and form taking effect based on the 'membrane' of the plane that though or idea finds it self till it looks like a Plastic cup on the physical. We built the Hololens off of this and its not the first time we mimic nature.

CC Deepsight

+
Powerful response. The red-bold particularly resonates with me and I WILL recommend it to LordReed, even if I know it will have no traction with him.

DeepSight:
+
Powerful response. The red-bold particularly resonates with me and I WILL recommend it to LordReed, even if I know it will have no traction with him.

Thank you. If time permits, I will come up with more info on the findings of scientists around reality and how it actually works. Much of this revolves around David Bohm's work who is the unsung hero of all present and future endeavor in physics--the more advanced or serious one.

DeepSight:
+
Now this is astonishing.

The script says that you live in someone. It says you move in that person. It says you have your being inside that person.
It is clearly panentheistic and he was quoting a Greek philosopher as I told you already.
And you are writing things it absolutely does [b]no[/b]t say.
This explains alot about the religious.

I mean just look at the bold in yours, the last line. What kind of voodooo magical interpretation is that?

So just to have a second opinion, I ask chatgpt to give contextual meaning to that verse.

This was the result
Meaning of the Phrase “In Him We Live and Move and Exist”

In context Paul is saying:

1. God is the source of all life

Everything depends on God for existence.

Humans:

live because of God

move because of God’s sustaining power

exist because God created and sustains them

This echoes ideas similar to passages like Colossians 1:17 (God sustaining creation).

It's as if AI was reading my argument.
You clearly do not understand that verse.

Let me try Grok

In summary, Acts 17:28 means that our entire existence—life, activity, and very being—is enveloped in and sustained by God. It's not pantheism (we are God), but profound dependence: God is the source and sustainer of all life. Paul uses Greek cultural touchpoints to make the biblical God relatable, then challenges idolatry and calls for response to the risen Christ. This is one of the clearest New Testament examples of contextual evangelism to a non-Jewish audience.

Just because you want the verse to mean something else doesn't mean it has to.

tctrills:
So just to have a second opinion, I ask chatgpt to give contextual meaning to that verse.

This was the result
Meaning of the Phrase “In Him We Live and Move and Exist”

In context Paul is saying:

1. God is the source of all life

Everything depends on God for existence.

Humans:

live because of God

move because of God’s sustaining power

exist because God created and sustains them

This echoes ideas similar to passages like Colossians 1:17 (God sustaining creation).

It's as if AI was reading my argument.
You clearly do not understand that verse.

Let me try Grok

In summary, Acts 17:28 means that our entire existence—life, activity, and very being—is enveloped in and sustained by God. It's not pantheism (we are God), but profound dependence: God is the source and sustainer of all life. Paul uses Greek cultural touchpoints to make the biblical God relatable, then challenges idolatry and calls for response to the risen Christ. This is one of the clearest New Testament examples of contextual evangelism to a non-Jewish audience.

Just because you want the verse to mean something else doesn't mean it has to.

+
AI is a bad philosopher and theologian.

See the blue bold however in part confirmation.

As per the red bold note that I had distinguished between panentheism and pantheism. Obviously beyond your AI philosophy.

DeepSight:
+
AI is a bad philosopher and theologian.

See the blue bold however in part confirmation.

As per the red bold note that I had distinguished between panentheism and pantheism. Obviously beyond your AI philosophy.

Actually, it is not a bad philosopher and theologian. It has the records and knowledge of all theology and philosophy. And what else would you say when it doesn't favour you?

Below is from Gemini. You know they say in the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses will every word be established.

The Core Meaning
Paul is arguing for Divine Immanence—the idea that God is not a distant, cold clockmaker, but the very "atmosphere" of existence.

Live: Our biological life comes from Him.

Move: Our ability to act and progress is sustained by Him.

Are (Being): Our fundamental identity and existence are rooted in His will.

tctrills:
Actually, it is not a bad philosopher and theologian. It has the records and knowledge of all theology and philosophy. And what else would you say when it doesn't favour you?

Below is from Gemini. You know they say in the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses will every word be established.

The Core Meaning
Paul is arguing for Divine Immanence—the idea that God is not a distant, cold clockmaker, but the very "atmosphere" of existence.

Live: Our biological life comes from Him.

Move: Our ability to act and progress is sustained by Him.

Are (Being): Our fundamental identity and existence are rooted in His will.

+
Don't you know what an atmosphere is?

DeepSight:
+
Don't you know what an atmosphere is?

Now you are pulling on to straws. Even you know that you are using an extremely weak argument.
From the above, it seems like Gemini also did a copy and paste with little variations to what I explained.

Live: Our biological life comes from Him.

Move: Our ability to act and progress is sustained by Him.

Are (Being): Our fundamental identity and existence are rooted in His will.

So don't just hold on to one word, Atmosphere and claim you are in line with the above.
Please let's all be intellectually honest.

Compare Gemini to myinitial comments
In whom we live = He give us life
In whom we move = gives us the strength to move
And have our being = we belong to Him

tctrills:
Actually that's not what he is saying. You can go back and review this thread, he isn't talking about being created in the image of God or that we share His attributes.

I think you're talking past each other. The idea that we're cells in the body of God is a metaphor which you have interpreted literally..

This understanding comes from Vedanta, the ancient spiritual philosophy of India, which teaches that the same divine consciousnesses (Brahman) exist in all beings. So we are not separate from "GOd", we are expressions of it. "God" is not a person but spirit or what science calls pure energy and we are all energy beings occupying a physical body.

Unless Deepsight has another interpretation, the people who use the figurative expression don't recognise a separate invisible being living in an invisible plane, heaven, who created the world and everything in it. They say that each individual, you and I, is an inseparable part of Spirit, "God", divine consciousnesses. This should not be confused with a supreme deity we must worship from a distance. In the words, the God we are worshipping and praying to is the same as us.

The separateness we sense, according to them, is created by the illusion of the physical body we are occupying .We are one with God whether we realise it or not.

Jesus came to this realisation, hence the statement "I and the Father are one". Which Father? Spirit, divine consciousnesses, pure energy. But this truth he taught has been submerged in traditional church teachings.

triplechoice:
I think you're talking past each other. The idea that we're cells in the body of God is a metaphor which you have interpreted literally..

This understanding comes from Vedanta, the ancient spiritual philosophy of India, which teaches that the same divine consciousnesses (Brahman) exist in all beings. So we are not separate from "GOd", we are expressions of it. "God" is not a person but spirit or what science calls pure energy and we are all energy beings occupying a physical body.

Unless Deepsight has another interpretation, the people who use the figurative expression don't recognise a separate invisible being living in an invisible plane, heaven, who created the world and everything in it. They say that each individual, you and I, is an inseparable part of Spirit, "God", divine consciousnesses. This should not be confused with a supreme deity we must worship from a distance. In the words, the God we are worshipping and praying to is the same as us.

The separateness we sense, according to them, is created by the illusion of the physical body we are occupying .We are one with God whether we realise it or not.

Jesus came to this realisation, hence the statement "I and the Father are one". Which Father? Spirit, divine consciousnesses, pure energy. But this truth he taught has been submerged in traditional church teachings.

Deepsight is looking at it from a different angle. He is looking from the angle of us being like a virtual reality playing out or simulations.
I do not necessarily agree with your beliefs but you and Deepsight do not seem to be saying the same thing

tctrills:
Now you are pulling on to straws. Even you know that you are using an extremely weak argument.
From the above, it seems like Gemini also did a copy and paste with little variations to what I explained.

Live: Our biological life comes from Him.

Move: Our ability to act and progress is sustained by Him.

Are (Being): Our fundamental identity and existence are rooted in His will.

So don't just hold on to one word, Atmosphere and claim you are in line with the above.
Please let's all be intellectually honest.

Compare Gemini to myinitial comments
In whom we live = He give us life
In whom we move = gives us the strength to move
And have our being = we belong to Him

Gemini responds based on how you ask. You asked as a Christian, seeking a Christian interpretation, and it gave you exactly what it was programmed to give, a response that aligns with mainstream Christian theology.

If someone with a different spiritual background, say, a Vedanta or a Sufi, asked the same question, they would receive a response that aligns with their understanding.

This is what we call "garbage in , garbage out". Gemini doesn't have direct knowledge of truth. It has been trained on human texts, including theological writings, and it generates responses based on patterns in that data. It will confirm whatever framework you feed it.

That is why people are advised not to treat AI as final authority. It can give different answers to different people asking the same question from different perspectives

tctrills:
Deepsight is looking at it from a different angle. He is looking from the angle of us being like a virtual reality playing out or simulations.
I do not necessarily agree with your beliefs but you and Deepsight do not seem to be saying the same thing

Ok then. Let's wait for him to respond before passing final judgement.