Genesis implies structure. Structure implies genesis. Outside creation lies either God or Sunyata or Ein Sof. If such energies are responsible for creation, they must be within creation as well. Tell me then, is it possible to achieve (re)union with the divine self? Figures from Christ to Buddha have made such claims but modern scholarship lays doubt to the existence of said people. What is your take?
Of course, but there's a limit to how far the human form can take you, although it's still very far and unimaginable to most people
>>754919
>Outside creation lies either God or Sunyata or Ein Sof
Based Chaos coming through.
>being monotheistic
>>754923
Forgot image.
>>754919
Non-historicity of Jesus is a tiny minority position in scholarship.
>>754919
Yes. That's exactly what we mean by being "born again" in the Holy Spirit of God. A union of God and Man. A willing and open collaboration.
>modern scholarship
These are ancient wisdom traditions/spiritual practices, modern scholarship means very little when one can know that God is omnipresent.
>>754925
Where that from? It's cool as fuck
That said
>absolute chaos birthing order
>>754953
>Where that from? It's cool as fuck
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_(cosmogony)
It's the Magnum Chaos. A depiction of the Greek idea of Chaos.
>>754919
>Genesis implies structure
No, why would you think that?
>Structure implies genesis
Even more wrong than the first point.
>Outside creation lies either God or Sunyata or Ein Sof
What makes you think there is anything beyond the world we can observe?
>If such energies...
You're talking shit.
>>754957
Any others of that quality? Sleek af symbols of transcendent concepts are my fetish
>>754976
It's probably the best and oldest depiction of chaos I could find. I love it too, without sounding too pretentious I really want that tattoo over my head but under hair.
>>754971
>what makes you think that?
lol, dude the fact the universe isn't a frothing ocean of particle sludge, c'mon you serious
>>754971
>What makes you think there is anything beyond the world we can observe?
Nothing doesn't exist though, even the state of being nothing is something. An existence containing 'nothing' is simply something we do not understand.
>>754919
If you pay attention in Genesis you realize there is something God did not create, something at least as old if not older than him. That is the water of the Earth.
We know this is a literal water and not a metaphorical water because he describes separating the land from earth by fitments one at the top and one at the bottom.
This is very similar, indeed almost identical the Babylonian creation myth where the primal substance is water, at least as old if not older than the Gods. Marduke/Yawhei separates water by ferments. The top ferment is the sky, when it leaks it makes rain. The bottom ferment is of course the the ground and when that has leaks it creates rivers and streams.
All ancient cultures have such a notion of a primal substance being the root of all creation, for the Greeks it was Chaos.
>>754982
>not believing in the plenum
>the year 1560+456
>>754988
Thats a non-sequitur, with no bearing on your unsubstantiated belief of intangible woo woo beyond the material world
I want the mystics to leave
>>754993
Gee, its almost as if the Jews were just taking Babylonian myths and adapting them to their own religion, but that couldn't possibly be the case
>>754998
>he didn't attempt to refute anything but posted simple ad hom
Thanks.
>>754919
where does the picture come from ?
>>755016
Looks like some fucking anime drawing. Tumblr probs.
fucking hell this thread is a disaster, all of you need to be banned
>>754998
>nuh-uh
great post
No ones positing this outside loves us and doesn't want us to masturbation, we're just saying here's a source, there's something that determined this reality the way it is, because either that or it blipped out of infinite absolute nothing. Why does this trigger you so much?
>>755023
Im looking for more of this, if it exists, I find this drawing very attractive
>>755029
Go check out tumblr, they specialize in these drawings.
>>755028
Concluding that the universe blipped out of absolute nothing is more rational and logically consistent, not to mention it precludes all the dusty volumes of gnostic dick-fiddling you barely literate /x/-files want to entertain.
>B-b-but why did nothing blip into something?
Why not? If it's nothing, there are no rules to stop it from being nothing and turning into something. You can't say that about """ein soph""" or "the sophia" or whatever ridiculous platonic nonsense is hip these days.
>>755032
thanks
>>755041
>the universe blipping out of nothing is more logical and rational
Do you know what nothing means bro
>>755053
Yes, it means "no things". The absence of things. The state in which things are completely, entirely lacking. Non-being.
>>755059
That magically blips into being. But muh muh there are no rules preventing it. "Nothing can blip into something" is a ruleset dumbass. Nothing means NOTHING
>>754993
That doesn't really read well in the Hebrew. You're right about the water being separated and all, the atmo from the earth, but the Hebrew has a "preparation" that isn't really stated. Here's the Young's literal translation:
In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth --
the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness [is] on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters, and God saith, `Let light be;' and light is.
>>755005
Gee, it's almost as if satan took the scriptures and twisted them into a lie.
>>755067
Why is this a hard concept to understand? If there's nothing, there would be no rules to stop the nothing from spontaneously generating rules, matter or energy.
Getting something from nothing is the only time when you can get "something", since once something exists there is no longer nothing.
>>755067
>Nothing means NOTHING
There is your fault, you are using a human idea to attempt to explain something out of our realm. Name one thing where the universe has given an example of 'nothing' and I mean a true example, one we fully understand so black holes do not count.
>>755076
There would also be nothing in the nothing that could spout off rules.
Your nothing has way too much something in it.
>>755079
But there's nothing in the nothing to say that it CAN'T spout off rules. Do you see where this is going?
>>755073
From what I've heard of biblical scholars it's a misconception that Genesis explicitly supports a 'begging of the universe' but rather the begging of a long series of creations.
You actually have the same sort of set up in the Babylonia version.
Most religions presuppose there some sort of meta-divine realm from which magic/Gods can operate out of and the creation stories are always about the non-magical realm.
One of the differences is that Judaism does not have magic, there is divine power, but if magic is defined as separate from God, than it doesn't support it.
>>755100
do you believe no substantial thing can exist because it's logically incoherent for things to come from nothing? if so, then how do we have something?
>>755110
Either there was always something. Or whatever is outside the universe so utterly transcends every category we can dream of, as mysticism posits
>>755115
How is it possible to be "outside" the universe?
>>755110
Alex Kirkeegaard and modern physics tell you that "nothing is a linguistic construct.
> The idea of the "nothing", of the "zero", was created by our distant ancestors when they looked in the air and saw "nothing". But today we can see stuff even in the air, and we know that even in the farthest reaches of space there are "things", and that a perfect vacuum is an impossibility.
"Nothing" is precisely a perfect vacuum
>>755126
How isn't it? I'm not talking spatially, I'm talking conceptually. Matter cannot account for matter.
>>755128
>what is philosophical nothing
Muh quantum foam
>>755147
It's not logically consistent to be outside of everything that is! Unless we have two extremely different definitions of "universe".
There's no reason why matter can't account for itself. What else is going to account for it, energy?
>>755126
If God created the universe, he would have to be outside it.
>>755158
Did matter create matter? Maybe, then what created that matter? Oh, it's self-caused? Then it isn't matter
Interestingly enough, Sunyata and Ein Soph mean emptiness in Sanskrit and infinity in Hebrew so OP's post isn't exclusively limited to a Christian interpretation.
>>755152
You can go back to the maximum past we have readiable in philosophy and you will see the philosophical concept of nothing is also a physical one.
The earliest philosopher to weigh in on the subject were the monoists and atomists of the presocrate times. The monoists actually made the exact same arguement another annon made: that nothing cannot exist.
Your concept of nothing is simply sophistry.
>>755165
How is self-caused matter not matter?
>>755158
too bad energy is matter =D
>>755164
and when the universe is defined as 'all there is' God being outside the universe is just another way of saying he doesn't exist.
>>755165
a "cause" would imply that there was once a time when there was 'nothing' which is not something that can physically exist. So it's very easy to read a conclusion that there cannot be a 'cause' at all.
>>755176
Or that the cause has always been causing, has always been someth
>>755176
But it's more precise to define the universe as the 13.7 billion year old spacetime we inhabit. We don't know whether our universe is all that exists.
>>755184
It's difficult to argue against anything truely "coming into existence at all". The various particles and energy waves of the universe merely change form. We may say "this tree came into existence and the seed no longer exists" but at the miscropic level nothing was added or subtracted.
>>755188
If you define the universe as being all known galaxies than yes this is correct.
However when the universe is defined as "everything that exists" it becomes much harder to justify a point of non-existence. Not only is it argueing that things come from nothing it's argueing EVERYTHING came from nothing. There cannot even be an external cause (because you cannot be external relative to the universe, the universe is all).
It's an absurd position. The safest sentence is "we do not know what the universe was like before the big bang"
>>754919
Of course it is. Read Jean Borella for instance.
>>754919
Not only possible, but its the sole purpose of the most religions.
