Is Reality an Illusion?

[Logikos]

Lovey, I’m not under the law, I’m under grace....therefore there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ.

That doesn't mean you are incapable of being a hypocrite or committing any number of other wrongs.

However, Romans 8:1 (AMPC) declares that ”there is now no condemnation (no adjudging guilty of wrong) for those who are in Christ Jesus,” This means that those who have placed their faith in Jesus as their Lord and Savior are no longer under the judgment of the law.

BY GOD!

It isn't teaching that you aren't allowed to tell your Christian neighbor that he's wrong to be sleeping with another man's wife. Indeed, the very same guy who wrote the passage from Romans that you ripped from its context, tells us specifically not to have anything to do with such a person.

I Corinthians 5: 9 I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. 10 Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11 But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person.​

12 For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? 13 But those who are outside God judges. Therefore “put away from yourselves the evil person.”​

​

Once again, being nicer than God is a bad idea!

 

[Ritajanice]

That doesn't mean you are incapable of being a hypocrite or committing any number of other wrongs.

Tell me who hasn’t been a hypocrite?

BY GOD!

It isn't teaching that you aren't allowed to tell your Christian neighbor that he's wrong to be sleeping with another man's wife. Indeed, the very same guy who wrote the passage from Romans that you ripped from its context, tells us specifically not to have anything to do with such a person.

Listen....the only person that can convict me is the Holy Spirit....you saying I ripped Romans from its context is your own opinion.

I Corinthians 5: 9 I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. 10 Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11 But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person.​

12 For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? 13 But those who are outside God judges. Therefore “put away from yourselves the evil person.”​

​

Again I am under grace not the law....my lovely...trust me when I say this...I listen to no man only God...only he can penetrate my heart to get his message across to me...hope you understand @Logikos ..

Once again, being nicer than God is a bad idea!

Being nicer than God is a bad idea...whatever that means.

 

[Logikos]

Tell me who hasn’t been a hypocrite?

Listen....the only person that can convict me is the Holy Spirit....you saying I ripped Romans from its context is your own opinion.

Again I am under grace not the law....

Being nicer than God is a bad idea...whatever that means.

Unresponsive.

That didn't take long.

Is everything you believe based on this thin a reservoir of substance?

 

[Ritajanice]

Unresponsive.

That didn't take long.

Is everything you believe based on this thin a reservoir of substance?

Listen my lovely.....would you like to continue this in a pm...are we going to highjack Epi thread..we may even get it locked......let’s be grown up children and not throw our toys out of the pram......let us both talk it over in a pm?

 

[marks]

It's pretty much for sure that we are not talking about the same thing.

To me this is simple. It's all about the meanings of words, and assigning plasticity to the word "reality". Make it what you want for the purpose of your discussion, and then go on from there.

Is this real? Of course it is, it's what we mean when we say "real". Is what is important in to this age important in the next age? I should say not!

Much love!

 

[Mr E]

Can science challenge the church? Check out the new podcast.

I've been shouting it from the rooftops...

Life is but a dream.

 

[L.A.M.B.]

In what way is what he's doing different than you telling him that he's not loving and/or not of the spirit?

You "judge not" people sure seem to do a lot of judging!

Welcome to Christianity Boards!

 

[Episkopos]

This question implies that "eternal meaning" is required for the term "real" to apply. This is not so. There are lots of non-enternal things that are very real.


Whether a thing is remembered or not, also does not determine whether it is real.
God has stated that there will come a time when He will remember our sins no more. Does this mean that our sin isn't real? Ask a mother of a murdered child if sin is real and you'll get the correct answer.


Yes! Flight simulators are real things.


Yes. A video game exists, as a video game. It's nature is in the form of a computer program.


In every way! There is no sense in which a flight simulator or video game is unreal. They are both examples of things that simulate actions that aren't actually being done but that doesn't mean that you aren't doing anything at all.


It's pretty much for sure that we are not talking about the same thing.


Is it really a silly notion?

That is a rhetorical question. The intent to try to communicate what it is I'm talking about as apposed to whatever it is you're getting at.


In the past, a couple of centuries ago, science was very often performed because of religious convictions.
Indeed, the two cannot be separated. One's scientific work will always be a reflection of their religious worldview.


Modern cosmology bores me to tears. It's almost entirely question begging nonsense or simple guessing that turns out to be wrong very nearly every time that actual observational data is collected.


There is no such thing as non-temporal reality. The concept is a contradiction. It, in fact, commits a stolen concept fallacy.

Time is not a thing, it is an idea. Time is a convention of language used to communicate information related to the duration and sequences of events relative to other events. It exists only as a concept and does not exist ontologically. (This same point applies equally to space or distance. Neither exists in the ontological sense. They are concepts that exist within a thinking mind.)

The concept of existence implies duration. Any event that has no duration is a non-event. It is an event that didn't happen at all, by definition. Duration is all that time is thus the notion of timeless existence "steels the concept" of existence because it wants to utilize that concept without having to pay the cost of accepting another concept upon which it depends.

You are not getting it. Your thinking is itself based only on a temporal worldview. hence the difficulty of wrapping your mind around spiritual things. You need to break free from your carnal mindset to look upon things that are above.

Assuming you read the bible and have some interest in what Jesus said....He said My kingdom is not of this world. And He also said to seek first the kingdom of God.

1. Do you take both statements seriously?

2. You deny a higher reality...so then where is the kingdom...on another planet within space time as a material world?

 

[L.A.M.B.]

I've been shouting it from the rooftops...

Life is but a dream.

Love it...

 

[Logikos]

To me this is simple. It's all about the meanings of words, and assigning plasticity to the word "reality". Make it what you want for the purpose of your discussion, and then go on from there.

Is this real? Of course it is, it's what we mean when we say "real". Is what is important in to this age important in the next age? I should say not!

Much love!

Reality is all that is real.

Is the next age real or will it be?

YES!

Are there a great many things in this age that will effect and survive into the next age?

YES!!

It's not like I'm suggesting that there isn't any such thing as illusions or fantasy or fiction but even those things exist as those things. Indeed, all I'm really doing is pointing out an inherent contradiction in the premise of the question, "Is reality an illusion?". It's like asking the question, "Do spheres have flat sides and sharp corners?" The answer is no - by definition.

 

[Logikos]

You are not getting it. Your thinking is itself based only on a temporal worldview.

There is no other rationally sound worldview for the reasons I've already explained. You cannot even postulate a timeless existence without contradicting yourself by the very act of postulating it.

hence the difficulty of wrapping your mind around spiritual things.

No. The reason you can't wrap your head around it is because it is self-contradictory.

You need to break free from your carnal mindset to look upon things that are above.

Translation: "You need to break away from rationality and believe the contradictory to be real."

Assuming you read the bible and have some interest in what Jesus said....He said My kingdom is not of this world. And He also said to seek first the kingdom of God.

1. Do you take both statements seriously?

Totally!

2. You deny a higher reality...so then where is the kingdom...on another planet within space time as a material world?

There is only one reality and it includes all things that are real - by definition. This includes the spiritual realm (note the root of the word "realm").

There is no such thing as "within time and space" in the way you mean it here. Both time and space are ideas not ontological things. The concept of time is a convention of language used to communicate information related to the duration and sequence of events relative to other events. Space is likewise a convention of language used to communicate information related to the size and location of objects relative to other objects. Neither exists in the ontological sense but rather only as ideas inside a thinking mind.

And to reiterate the most important part of what I've already stated and that you've so far ignored, the concept of existence implies duration (i.e. time). A timeless existence would be an existence without duration and would thus not be an existence at all. It's a contradiction.

You need to look up what the term "Stolen Concept Fallacy" means. Actually, here. I'll just post it for you.....

A Stolen Concept Fallacy is the fallacy of using a concept while denying the validity of its genetic roots, i.e., of a concept on which it logically depends. A commonly given example of a stolen concept fallacy is the declaration, "All private property is theft." The concept of theft has no meaning outside the concept of private property. The concept of theft is predicated on the concept of private property and so to undermine the concept of private property by using the concept of theft is to "steal the concept" of theft.

The concept of timeless existence makes the exact same rational error. You contradict yourself by stating it. Reality does not contradict itself. The concept of timeless existence is therefore false.

 

[ScottA]

Btw, Our spirits are purified, not our flesh.

That is a Gnostic idea. Jesus had the same flesh as we do.

No...God being spirit--that is a godly idea.

But you bring up a good point regarding Jesus having "the same flesh as we do." That is a major stumbling block, and just about as backward as can be. To the contrary, we should understand that Jesus' being born of this same flesh was Him being born into darkness--"the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it." But He, in addition to being born into the darkness of our fleshly existence, is also the Light that allows us to pass [from] this present darkness to light--this, though apparently not comprehended--is our ticket out--our salvation. Not to remain in flesh or in darkness, in Christ, we pass from darkness to light, from death to life.

If you can receive it--this means we (and Jesus) pass from this sonship to Oneship in Christ, in God--who without flesh is spirit, light, and life (and "perfect" as is).

 

[Logikos]

No...God being spirit--that is a godly idea.

But you bring up a good point regarding Jesus having "the same flesh as we do." That is a major stumbling block, and just about as backward as can be. To the contrary, we should understand that Jesus' being born of this same flesh was Him being born into darkness--"the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it." But He, in addition to being born into the darkness of our fleshly existence, is also the Light that allows us to pass [from] this present darkness to light--this, though apparently not comprehended--is our ticket out--our salvation. Not to remain in flesh or in darkness, in Christ, we pass from darkness to light, from death to life.

If you can receive it--this means we (and Jesus) pass from this sonship to Oneship in Christ, in God--who without flesh is spirit, light, and life (and "perfect" as is).

Another key point that bears on this "flesh" issue is the fact that the sinful, fallen "flesh" as Paul calls it, passes through the father and not the mother. This is why the virgin birth of Christ is of such importance. Jesus had no earthly father and so did not inherit Adam's fallen sin nature. He, being BOTH God become flesh AND a man yet without sin (including that which comes to the rest of us from Adam) was therefore qualified to offer His life in payment for sin.

 

[Episkopos]

There is no other rationally sound worldview for the reasons I've already explained. You cannot even postulate a timeless existence without contradicting yourself by the very act of postulating it.


No. The reason you can't wrap your head around it is because it is self-contradictory.


Translation: "You need to break away from rationality and believe the contradictory to be real."


Totally!


There is only one reality and it includes all things that are real - by definition. This includes the spiritual realm (note the root of the word "realm").

There is no such thing as "within time and space" in the way you mean it here. Both time and space are ideas not ontological things. The concept of time is a convention of language used to communicate information related to the duration and sequence of events relative to other events. Space is likewise a convention of language used to communicate information related to the size and location of objects relative to other objects. Neither exists in the ontological sense but rather only as ideas inside a thinking mind.

And to reiterate the most important part of what I've already stated and that you've so far ignored, the concept of existence implies duration (i.e. time). A timeless existence would be an existence without duration and would thus not be an existence at all. It's a contradiction.

You need to look up what the term "Stolen Concept Fallacy" means. Actually, here. I'll just post it for you.....

A Stolen Concept Fallacy is the fallacy of using a concept while denying the validity of its genetic roots, i.e., of a concept on which it logically depends. A commonly given example of a stolen concept fallacy is the declaration, "All private property is theft." The concept of theft has no meaning outside the concept of private property. The concept of theft is predicated on the concept of private property and so to undermine the concept of private property by using the concept of theft is to "steal the concept" of theft.

The concept of timeless existence makes the exact same rational error. You contradict yourself by stating it. Reality does not contradict itself. The concept of timeless existence is therefore false.

I didn't think you would answer my question. You have no answers just obscurantism....and logical fallacies to defend the carnal mind above the knowledge of God. Very common way to write off the words of Jesus.

 

[Logikos]

I didn't think you would answer my question.

What question did I not answer? I responded directly to your post as written and answered both questions directly!

You have no answers just obscurantism

What is it precisely that you think I've obscured?

Be specific.

....and logical fallacies to defend the carnal mind above the knowledge of God. Very common way to write off the words of Jesus.

This is just you admitting that you have no rational answer to my argument.

The use of sound reason is THE only tool your mind has to tell the difference between was is true and what is false, what is real and what is fantasy. You are not forced to use it but the alternative is to believe in fantasies and to allow someone else who does use it to become your surrogate mind.

The fact is that reality is real and it does not contradict itself. This single statement forms the basis of all knowledge. If it isn't true then the word "true" has no meaning at all.

You believe self-contradictory nonsense if you want. I will stick with that which is consistent both with itself and the rest of reality.

 

[Episkopos]

What question did I not answer? I responded directly to your post as written and answered both questions directly!


What is it precisely that you think I've obscured?

Be specific.


This is just you admitting that you have no rational answer to my argument.

The use of sound reason is THE only tool your mind has to tell the difference between was is true and what is false, what is real and what is fantasy. You are not forced to use it but the alternative is to believe in fantasies and to allow someone else who does use it to become your surrogate mind.

The fact is that reality is real and it does not contradict itself. This single statement forms the basis of all knowledge. If it isn't true then the word "true" has no meaning at all.

You believe self-contradictory nonsense if you want. I will stick with that which is consistent both with itself and the rest of reality.

12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Ghost teaches; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

14 But the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him (or contradictory nonsense) : neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

 

[Ritajanice]

12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Ghost teaches; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

14 But the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him (or contradictory nonsense) : neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Love this Epi...Amen!

 

[Eternally Grateful]

12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Ghost teaches; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

14 But the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him (or contradictory nonsense) : neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

This does not mean what you say is spiritual.

People use this as a go to verse when people do not agree with them.

Your easy to understand.. And what you say is contrary to the word of God.

 

[Logikos]

12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Ghost teaches; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

14 But the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him (or contradictory nonsense) : neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Those verses DO NOT say that the things of the Spirit of God are contradictory nonsense!

YOU SAY THAT! (Caps for emphasis only - not yelling - I'm not going to continue to say this every time, by the way)

On the contrary, the passage itself specifically states that such things are spiritually DISCERNED. There is no such thing as irrational discernment. Irrationality is the opposite of discernment. Discernment is the act of comprehending and understanding something. Self-contradiction is, by definition, incomprehensible and discernment is the very act of rational thought.

Also, notice what door you're opening here. If your use of this passage is correct then what wacky doctrine is out of bounds? If David Koresh had come to you and tried to convince you that his sleeping with the 14 year old girls in his cult was a good and biblical thing and then you rightly told him he was a nut and that the bible teaches no such thing - How would you respond if he then showed up with I Corinthians 2:12-14? How could you respond?

If your use of this passage is correct then there is actually no response! It's the perfect doctrinal trump card. It's the catch-all bin into which any wild-eyed doctrine can be tossed.

Try as you might, you cannot escape reason. Your every attempt to undermine it uses it in the attempt.

 

[Ritajanice]

People use this as a go to verse when people do not agree with them

...I see what you mean though..do you mean they use this verse to support their own doctrine?

And NO...I’m not referring to Epi here.

1 Corinthians 2:12-14

King James Version

​

12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned

​

◄ 1 Peter 1:23 ►

​

Audio Crossref Comment Greek Verse (Click for Chapter) New International Version For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God. New Living Translation For you have been born again, but not to a life that will quickly end. Your new life will last forever because it comes from the eternal, living word of God. English Standard Version since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God; Berean Standard Bible For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God.

.