pacharica
New member
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2022
- Messages
- 60
Most people who leave christ-insanity see the harsh,tyrannical God of abrahamic religions and reject the divine altogether,it is because of this that they can finally be free from such opressive nonsense.more power to them!
I have taken the opposite route,precisely due to my certainty of the divine,I have rejected all established religions in favor of metaphysics,and am finally free from such shackles!
I believe in a unconditioned reality,the conditioner of all existance.
I am a neoplatonist.
I accept the existance of the greco-roman-egyptian-indic gods (as did the neoplatonists)in a sense as the benevolent risen serpent aliens known as 'demons'but I do not worship ANY temporal being as 'that ultimate'principle.
It is precisely because of this that I reject notions of christianity like the following:
1.The Trinity
2.God's wrath
3.Temporal creation
4.God's temporal action
5.multiple actions or multiple proximate effects of God
Let's talk about the trinity,A self-sufficient being with aseity,infinity and absolute power and life cannot be composed of ontological parts,because it would be dependant and a effect of those parts,and thus contigent and not Ase.
If John is a man because he is John,then no other person can share in his humanity.if however he is a man because of a nature he shares in common with Charles,he is composed,namely of a shared aspect or essence and a peculiar essence which differentiates him from Charles,and the compound(John and Charles both)are effects of such a composition,and anything in this category is a restricted,limited ,caused and finite being.
So any unconditioned being's divine essence is peculiar to it alone,and there can be no other.
There is also another argument used by the peripatetic philosophers using individuation in contrast to compsition,but for brevity I may add it later but this suffices for now.
There goes the 'trinity'of Platinga and the protestants and Orthodox.
What about the Latin trinity(Modalism eternally)where the three persons are numerically one intellect and essence?well,the law of identity would mean there can be no distinction between them and they would collapse into one unified being.
To propose that 'God'can be composed of multiple ontological aspects(namely the relative relations of the latin trinity) means,he is both unconditioned and conditioned at the same time,which breaks the law of the excluded middle.any multiplicity is a aspect of contigency.
Anything that is unconditioned is absolutely one in all aspects,including in attributes,and the Catholic theological tradition affirms this in their councils as a de fide doctrine,namely 'divine simplicity'.
Because of this,God cannot 'create'the world in time,because it would mean he is both 'actual'and 'possible'in being,like contigent beings,and thus composed of parts.he would be dependant on a emergent will that is not essential to him,which means he is caused in some aspect.
However since,the will of God to create is essential to him,since he is wholly essential and not possible in being,he has created the creation pre-eternally,as a neccessary effect of his very being,and thus the world is a neccesary effect of his,though through another and not itself like God alone.
The idea of libertarian free will is a non-concept to the concept of God or humans.
Time in peripatetic logic is the measurement of motion, and motion is the transition from potentiality towards actuality, potentiality is privation.Thus anything that exists within time suffers from privation ,the absence of a perfection or good. Something which lacks a perfection or good, cannot be the principle and source of every perfection because something cannot bestow what it does not have.
To posit the contrary (that it can bestow such)implies the existence of that which is nonexistent, and the possession of that which is lacking, and is a contradiction. that which is nonexistent cannot existentiate itself,thus everything imperfect is dependent upon an extraneous cause for its perfection and existance,but even the Bible says God is perfect and the source of all 'being'.
God thus cannot be in time,like the Bible says he is.
Thus Jesus and his father and spirit are not 'that ultimate principle'so to speak.
There are many more logical and mutually coherent arguments in peripatetic philosophy to prove the above premises,but this should suffice I think.
What about theologian Dr.Ryan mullins idea that the 3 beings of the trinity are mutually dependant and caused?
Circular causation entails the conjuction of two contraries , as it entails that the preponderant agent and the actualised agent is same at the same time, that means the same things possess essential existence and does not possess essential existence at the same time given their essential contingency,that they are possible in themselves and not possible in themselves.
Neccesary in themselves and not neccesary in themselves. this kind of mutually exclusive predication is logically impossible as it violates the 1st axiom of logic,the law of identity.
It imports contradiction of potency and act.
An effect is always essentially posterior to it's cause.
Atheism I find equally absurd.
Peripatetic (read:Neoplatonic)philosophy doesn't believe that the world is 'caused'temporally,only essentially and that ultimate condition of those conditions(since a set of infinite and finite conditioned realities alone are impossible because in the former,no condition could have it's conditions fulfilled and nothing would exist,and in the latter the last set of conditioned reality would not be able to have it's conditions fulfilled by another,and thus would be unconditioned) is the unconditioned reality,which by nature must be non-composite to be unconditioned and not a effect of composition,so not form/matter in unison nor fundemental molecules/energy,which are metaphysically composed (of peculiar and shared generic essences)in order to be differentiated spatially and temporally and subject to a mix of actuality and potentiality.
while the unconditioned reality is peculiar alone,and thus absolutely one.
and thus cannot proximately essentially cause a multiplicity of effects(though it does so in a remote matter thru it's sole proximate effect the nous ,or be potential,like energy.
Basically,for any notion of 'divinity'the abrahamic God simply cannot fit.
The idea that the ultimate and unconditioned,felt 'exhausted'and hungry like in the gospels is also more silly when you have a logical view of the divine.
So wether Theist or atheist,we can agree that jesus (and Jehova-allah)is not 'divine'.
it is sad that the 'Christians'exterminated neoplatonism from history and it was only due to Satan's intervention I believe that some heretical satanic occult sufi (realm sufism is satanic)groups(like ikhwan al-safa)preserved and propogated it,the jews executing many of them for 'heresy'against allah and his maternally jewish 'prophet'.
So basically,christians have two choices,theism or atheism,and both mean that Jesus is not possibly in any possible scenario a 'god'.
that doesn't mean he is nonexistant,he is certainly a Advanced Tulpa controlled by the Rabbis,and come to christians in visions and such things,which are propogated endlessly in christian media to 'convert'people to this dying religion noone would do otherwise etc
they can NEVER prove or defend their beliefs through reason like our pagan satanic sages.
The testament of abraham openly says the disciples were Decievers to destroy the Goyim from within.
thoughts?
I have taken the opposite route,precisely due to my certainty of the divine,I have rejected all established religions in favor of metaphysics,and am finally free from such shackles!
I believe in a unconditioned reality,the conditioner of all existance.
I am a neoplatonist.
I accept the existance of the greco-roman-egyptian-indic gods (as did the neoplatonists)in a sense as the benevolent risen serpent aliens known as 'demons'but I do not worship ANY temporal being as 'that ultimate'principle.
It is precisely because of this that I reject notions of christianity like the following:
1.The Trinity
2.God's wrath
3.Temporal creation
4.God's temporal action
5.multiple actions or multiple proximate effects of God
Let's talk about the trinity,A self-sufficient being with aseity,infinity and absolute power and life cannot be composed of ontological parts,because it would be dependant and a effect of those parts,and thus contigent and not Ase.
If John is a man because he is John,then no other person can share in his humanity.if however he is a man because of a nature he shares in common with Charles,he is composed,namely of a shared aspect or essence and a peculiar essence which differentiates him from Charles,and the compound(John and Charles both)are effects of such a composition,and anything in this category is a restricted,limited ,caused and finite being.
So any unconditioned being's divine essence is peculiar to it alone,and there can be no other.
There is also another argument used by the peripatetic philosophers using individuation in contrast to compsition,but for brevity I may add it later but this suffices for now.
There goes the 'trinity'of Platinga and the protestants and Orthodox.
What about the Latin trinity(Modalism eternally)where the three persons are numerically one intellect and essence?well,the law of identity would mean there can be no distinction between them and they would collapse into one unified being.
To propose that 'God'can be composed of multiple ontological aspects(namely the relative relations of the latin trinity) means,he is both unconditioned and conditioned at the same time,which breaks the law of the excluded middle.any multiplicity is a aspect of contigency.
Anything that is unconditioned is absolutely one in all aspects,including in attributes,and the Catholic theological tradition affirms this in their councils as a de fide doctrine,namely 'divine simplicity'.
Because of this,God cannot 'create'the world in time,because it would mean he is both 'actual'and 'possible'in being,like contigent beings,and thus composed of parts.he would be dependant on a emergent will that is not essential to him,which means he is caused in some aspect.
However since,the will of God to create is essential to him,since he is wholly essential and not possible in being,he has created the creation pre-eternally,as a neccessary effect of his very being,and thus the world is a neccesary effect of his,though through another and not itself like God alone.
The idea of libertarian free will is a non-concept to the concept of God or humans.
Time in peripatetic logic is the measurement of motion, and motion is the transition from potentiality towards actuality, potentiality is privation.Thus anything that exists within time suffers from privation ,the absence of a perfection or good. Something which lacks a perfection or good, cannot be the principle and source of every perfection because something cannot bestow what it does not have.
To posit the contrary (that it can bestow such)implies the existence of that which is nonexistent, and the possession of that which is lacking, and is a contradiction. that which is nonexistent cannot existentiate itself,thus everything imperfect is dependent upon an extraneous cause for its perfection and existance,but even the Bible says God is perfect and the source of all 'being'.
God thus cannot be in time,like the Bible says he is.
Thus Jesus and his father and spirit are not 'that ultimate principle'so to speak.
There are many more logical and mutually coherent arguments in peripatetic philosophy to prove the above premises,but this should suffice I think.
What about theologian Dr.Ryan mullins idea that the 3 beings of the trinity are mutually dependant and caused?
Circular causation entails the conjuction of two contraries , as it entails that the preponderant agent and the actualised agent is same at the same time, that means the same things possess essential existence and does not possess essential existence at the same time given their essential contingency,that they are possible in themselves and not possible in themselves.
Neccesary in themselves and not neccesary in themselves. this kind of mutually exclusive predication is logically impossible as it violates the 1st axiom of logic,the law of identity.
It imports contradiction of potency and act.
An effect is always essentially posterior to it's cause.
Atheism I find equally absurd.
Peripatetic (read:Neoplatonic)philosophy doesn't believe that the world is 'caused'temporally,only essentially and that ultimate condition of those conditions(since a set of infinite and finite conditioned realities alone are impossible because in the former,no condition could have it's conditions fulfilled and nothing would exist,and in the latter the last set of conditioned reality would not be able to have it's conditions fulfilled by another,and thus would be unconditioned) is the unconditioned reality,which by nature must be non-composite to be unconditioned and not a effect of composition,so not form/matter in unison nor fundemental molecules/energy,which are metaphysically composed (of peculiar and shared generic essences)in order to be differentiated spatially and temporally and subject to a mix of actuality and potentiality.
while the unconditioned reality is peculiar alone,and thus absolutely one.
and thus cannot proximately essentially cause a multiplicity of effects(though it does so in a remote matter thru it's sole proximate effect the nous ,or be potential,like energy.
Basically,for any notion of 'divinity'the abrahamic God simply cannot fit.
The idea that the ultimate and unconditioned,felt 'exhausted'and hungry like in the gospels is also more silly when you have a logical view of the divine.
So wether Theist or atheist,we can agree that jesus (and Jehova-allah)is not 'divine'.
it is sad that the 'Christians'exterminated neoplatonism from history and it was only due to Satan's intervention I believe that some heretical satanic occult sufi (realm sufism is satanic)groups(like ikhwan al-safa)preserved and propogated it,the jews executing many of them for 'heresy'against allah and his maternally jewish 'prophet'.
So basically,christians have two choices,theism or atheism,and both mean that Jesus is not possibly in any possible scenario a 'god'.
that doesn't mean he is nonexistant,he is certainly a Advanced Tulpa controlled by the Rabbis,and come to christians in visions and such things,which are propogated endlessly in christian media to 'convert'people to this dying religion noone would do otherwise etc
they can NEVER prove or defend their beliefs through reason like our pagan satanic sages.
The testament of abraham openly says the disciples were Decievers to destroy the Goyim from within.
thoughts?
