mattteo

Hello, I am Matt! I am mainly interested in history and religion. I also often read books and play games!

[mattteo @Mattmothemoth]

Just because something is partially AI generated (I needed to quickly look up the titles of the Buddhist scripture that describe Brahman [I am not a Buddhist so I don’t know the Buddhist conception of brahman]), doesn’t mean the points are wrong? You should refute the points according to their merits rather than their source

[mattteo @Mattmothemoth]

@Fs05Rkera But is the points wrong?

[mattteo @Mattmothemoth]

Everything in the physical universe is contingent, meaning it does not have to exist, it depends on something else for its existence, and it can be changed or destroyed.

Since all things have Kami, and things can be changed and destroyed, Kami can be changed and destroyed and therefore Kami are causally dependent.

Infinite chains do not exist. Imagine a long train on a track. You look at a carriage and ask, "Why is this carriage moving?" The answer is that it is being pulled by the carriage directly in front of it. You move to that next carriage and ask the same question, it is being pulled by the one in front of it. Imagine this train has an infinite number of carriages stretching backward into the distance, with no engine at the front. If every single carriage only moves because it is pulled by the one ahead of it, and there is no front engine (an uncaused first mover or source of power), none of the carriages can actually move. An infinite string of passive, dependent receivers of motion cannot generate motion on its own. Therefore infinite chains do not exist.

A chain of dependent things cannot go back forever, there must be a foundational reality that is necessary (self-existing and incapable of not existing). necessary (self-existing and incapable of not existing). If God were identical to the universe, He would be contingent, changing, and dependent. Therefore, the source of all existence must be wholly other and independent of the fragile, changing physical world. Attributing a soul or divinity to a man-made object or an inanimate part of nature is a form of idolatry or animism. Glory belongs to the Artist (God), not the canvas (the world) or the tools just as a real artist is credited for his work, not the canvas. This is logically why Kami cannot be worshipped as God is not his creations, creations is not God.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, who dwells within believers and is present throughout the universe, upholding all of creation (Colossians 1:17). I think that what is being sensed is not the spirit of the object itself, but rather the general revelation of God’s beauty, order, and sustaining power in the universe.

[mattteo @Mattmothemoth]

@mine__0 @arthurclaris We literally let Jerusalem sit in Muslim hands until the Seljuk Turks started raping and massacring pilgrims. What are you talking about?

[mattteo @Mattmothemoth]

The decree ordered all Christian padres (missionaries) to pack up and leave the country within 20 days. It also prohibited regional lords (daimyo) from forcing their retainers or farmers to convert.: Hideyoshi explicitly separated trade from religion, allowing Portuguese and Spanish merchants to enter Japan freely for commerce, provided they did not interfere with Buddhist teachings.

This is already a problem because Spanish and Portuguese merchants who were exploiting the populace with the slave trade. Although Toyotomi Hideyoshi executed several Japanese slave traders in Nagasaki as a warning, Portuguese merchants and domestic sellers quickly found loopholes. To circumvent the bans in official ports like Macau and Nagasaki, traders began conducting human transactions on remote islands or using complex system permits, such as labeling permanent slaves as "limited-time bonded laborers", to evade imperial laws and Catholic excommunication threats. The trade exploded exponentially during Hideyoshi’s later military campaigns. When Japanese forces invaded Korea, they captured huge populations of Korean prisoners Rather than banning the practice, Hideyoshi actively endorsed this new influx of human captives, transforming it into a booming wartime industry. Rather than banning the practice, Hideyoshi actively endorsed this new influx of human captives, transforming it into a booming wartime industry. So, the decree expelling the padres actually worsened the slave trade of the local Japanese and profited massively off the slave trade of captured Koreans. I think enslavement of Japanese and Koreans is worse than missionaries preaching the gospel. It’s only because christians were so successful in Nagasaki then did they have this policy in place (they were worried about Christianity spreading in the populace). What hypocrisy! Only wanting to earn money!

[mattteo @Mattmothemoth]

King of Portugal banned it in 1570 and since 1537 the Catholic Church banned the trafficking of indigenous people. However, enforcement takes time due to lack of modern communication technologies and realistic methods to enforce laws on sea travelling merchants. The jesuits out of greed committed a sin and should not be treated as representative of Christianity.

[mattteo @Mattmothemoth]

@SakuramintTea What does sorry I’m making it in time mean? Can you elaborate? But if you are closed off to Christianity regardless of reasons or arguments I may put forth, then God bless you and your family and have a nice day!

[mattteo @Mattmothemoth]

@echo_hat Now you made a claim that we make up creation myth. Please provide evidence.

[mattteo @Mattmothemoth]

There are two types of causes:
1) Cause of Becoming (Causa in Fieri) - a bricklayer builds a house. Once the house is built, the bricklayer can leave or die, and the house remains standing. The bricklayer is only the cause of the house coming into existence.

2) Cause of Being (Causa in Esse) - A musician plays a song, or the sun illuminates a room. The moment the musician stops playing or the sun sets, the music and the light instantly vanish. The cause is required for the effect to remain in existence.

Why the universe cannot be causa in fieri?

the First Cause is the cause of being itself. Matter and energy change form, but they do not possess a metaphysical guarantee of existence. The laws of physics describe how matter behaves, but they do not explain why something exists rather than absolutely nothing at any given microsecond. Because creatures do not own their own existence, they require the First Cause to "sing" them into reality at every fraction of a second.

A common misconception is that existence is like a baton passed in a relay race, once you have it, you own it. Contingent things never actually own their existence.

If your parents caused you to exist (causa in fieri), they gave you your physical form, but they did not give you the intrinsic power to self-sustain. If they pass away, you don't vanish, because your present existence relies on underlying physical layers (atoms, molecular bonds, gravitational fields). However, those atoms and forces are also contingent; they do not have to exist by their own nature. (It is not logically impossible that these forces can theoretically just stop existing)

Hence, the universe is causa in esse and not causa in fieri.

Nothingness requires no explanation, but existence does. When anything exists, it must exist in a specific way (e.g., a specific number of particles, specific physical laws, or a specific shape). These specifics feel arbitrary. Why these laws and not others? Absolute nothingness requires no parameters, no energy, and no maintenance. Because existence introduces finite boundaries, structures, and laws, this asymmetric shift from "nothing" to "something" requires a sufficient reason to explain it. Hence, Nothingness requires no explanation, but existence does.

Because the universe is inherently mutable (it changes, decays, and shifts), it lacks stability in its own right. It requires a continuous influx of "being," just as a musical note requires the musician to keep blowing air through the instrument. The moment the musician stops, the note doesn't fade slowly due to a past cause, it vanishes instantly.

Think of a computer screen displaying an image. The electricity doesn't just turn the screen on once; it must constantly supply power to keep the pixels lit. If the power source cuts off, the image disappears. Every breath a person takes, every neuron that fires, and every heartbeat is actively permitted and fueled by the First Cause. Hence, "interference" is logically proven if there is a first cause (2/2)

[mattteo @Mattmothemoth]

You are making the genetic fallacy - a logical error where a claim is accepted or rejected based solely on its source, history, or origin rather than its actual content or merit. Just because the gods are “old” (actually most aren’t recorded as old as Yahweh who is at least since 1800 BC [Abraham’s time]), doesn’t mean they are the true gods!

I get your concern though. This is an argument why the First Cause must interfere with us.

Every object, person, or particle in the universe has two distinct features:
1) Essence - The blueprint, definition, or nature of a thing (e.g., what it means to be a human)
2) Existence (Esse) - The actual fact that the thing exists in reality.

You can understand the essence of a mythical creature like a dragon, you know it breathes fire, has wings, without it actually existing. Because a creature's definition does not automatically include the act of existing, existence is something a creature must receive.

A fundamental law of logic dictates that nothing can cause its own existence. To cause something, you must first exist. If a tree could cause its own existence, it would have to exist before it existed, which is a logical contradiction.

Because everything in the physical universe has an essence that is separate from its existence, every single object borrows its existence from something else.

From the argument against infinite chains, it shows that there must be a foundational First Cause that does not borrow existence from anywhere else.

For the First Cause to be entirely independent, its essence cannot be separate from its existence. If a thing’s essence (what it is) is separate from its existence (that it is), those two pieces have to be glued together by something else. A blueprint for a house (essence) does not automatically build itself into a real house (existence). A builder must bridge the gap. If the First Cause had a separate essence and existence, it would require a "builder" or an outside force to bring them together and make it exist. If it required an outside force, it would no longer be the First Cause, the force that brought it into existence would be the true first cause (as per my 2 divine sources argument; no limitations allowed for first cause)

Therefore, Its very nature is to exist. It does not have existence; it is existence.

Because the First Cause is the foundational source where existence originates, it acts as the primary power supply for everything else. The universe does not just need a historical "kickstart" to begin; it needs a continuous flow of existence right now. The First Cause is the cause of being itself because it is the unique source providing the raw act of existing to a universe that cannot produce existence on its own. (1/2)

[mattteo @Mattmothemoth]

Pope Alexander VI drew a line of demarcation to prevent a costly war between Spain and Portugal over newly claimed lands during the Age of Discovery.

After Columbus returned from his first voyage claiming western lands for Spain, Spain and Portugal clashed over who owned the rights to explore and claim these new territories. As both nations were major, ambitious Catholic powers, and the Catholic Church feared that an open conflict between them would tear Christendom apart. As the supreme spiritual arbiter of the Christian world, the Pope (Alexander VI) was asked to divide the non-Christian world to keep the peace and reward both kingdoms for spreading the faith. In the papal bull Inter Caetera, Pope Alexander VI drew a pole-to-pole meridian 100 leagues (about 300 miles) west of the Cape Verde Islands. Lands to the west went to Spain; lands to the east went to Portugal. Portugal felt the line was too close and favored Spain too much, cutting into their Atlantic navigation and African routes. Bypassing further papal delays, the two countries negotiated directly and pushed the line further west to 370 leagues west of the Cape Verde Islands. This shift accidentally placed the eastern bulge of South America (modern-day Brazil) into Portugal's half, which is why Brazil speaks Portuguese while the rest of South America predominantly speaks Spanish. So, it was a compromise between 2 monarchs determined to go to war over the new world. The pope wasn’t as powerful as he was in 1000 which could change rulers of nations by his will. So, the pope actually promoted peace between the nations instead of the alternative of a land grab where everyone battles everyone for new land. If not for the treaty we could see major fighting across Asia which may include Japan.

[mattteo @Mattmothemoth]

@wtfsillystepper Am I Japanese? How would I know it means myriads or multitudes? How would I know the eight hundred and eight wards of Edo? How would I know Grok would fail the translation?

[mattteo @Mattmothemoth]

For two or more supreme divine sources to exist, there must be a way to distinguish between them. One source must possess a characteristic or boundary that the other does not. If a source lacks something or is bounded by another, it is no longer infinite or limitless. To be infinite means to be entirely free from boundaries, measurements, or restrictions in power, wisdom, and existence. If the source had a limit, something else would have to define or constrain that limit. Finite things (like humans, planets, or energy) are dependent—they do not bring themselves into being. An ultimate source cannot be dependent on a prior cause; otherwise, it would not be the source, just a middle link in a chain. As the origin of all existence, consciousness, and physical laws, the source must possess being in an unmeasured, non-derived way. If it were finite, it could not generate or sustain a vast, complex universe without being exhausted or bounded by a larger reality. Therefore, neither could truly be the ultimate, supreme divine source. Hence, multiple divine sources cannot all come into being naturally (multiple first causes).

Religion is logical though. There is some aspect of religion that cannot be captured by reason but if religion is not logical, it is not reasonable and ordered. If it is not reasonable, then religion should not be believed. When belief is not anchored in reason, evidence, or sound ordering, a person lacks the intellectual framework to distinguish between truth and falsehood. This makes individuals highly susceptible to 1) authoritarian control which accepts claims purely on the basis of a charismatic leader's authority. 2) Destructive cults which embraces harmful ideologies because there is no internal requirement for the belief system to be logical, ethical, or verifiable.
3) Superstition which confuses random coincidences or emotional impulses with objective truth.

A faith that avoids reason is structurally fragile. Because it is built entirely on subjective feelings, mystical experiences, or cultural conditioning, it faces severe crises when challenged. If feelings change, the entire foundation of the faith can collapse overnight.
Honest questions are often suppressed rather than answered, leading to hidden cognitive dissonance, anxiety, and eventual disillusionment.

Others harms may include Adherents justifying harmful, abusive, or dangerous behaviors under the guise of "pure faith," because they have bypassed the rational duty to evaluate the moral consequences of their actions.
2) Lacking a reasonable defense for their positions, individuals may resort to anger, defensiveness, or tribal isolation when encountering differing viewpoints.

In short religion should be rational for a more grounded deep faith

[mattteo @Mattmothemoth]

@NFQFdNpaMlrribn Grok is not that good tbh

[mattteo @Mattmothemoth]

@5APzNhQKdtvyXcZ @azukiglg I am not Catholic.

[mattteo @Mattmothemoth]

@HBB77E0 How is it? Conquering the entire world requires bloodshed whereas spreading the gospel requires no blood to be shed? Please clarify.

[mattteo @Mattmothemoth]

“It was the Buddha of Buddhism who tried to break free from that infinite chain, right?”

Can you explain to me how died he break free from the chain?

“In Shinto, the world is something that already exists there, not something bestowed by a god (God).”

Modern cosmology shows that to be false though. The big bang shows when all space-time was at a singularity. There was a beginning to time and space themselves. The world is not eternal.

The essence of the eight million gods is a collective term for things that possess power on that board, which might evoke the idea of a creator, but essentially, it's something entirely different.

What is different? Please elaborate.

[mattteo @Mattmothemoth]

@amaterasuchan8m @azukiglg I do not understand your response

[mattteo @Mattmothemoth]

Crusades were a good idea but horrific in execution with regards to the defense of the holy lands. Pilgrims to Jerusalem were being extorted, robbed and raped. No one was safe to enter the holy land. Muslims have conquered most of what was traditionally christian lands in North Africa and the Middle East for 400 years. We managed to stop the Muslims from going past France in the 8th century but the new Seljuk Turks were threatening to annex the Greek Byzantine Empire with the newly established Sultanate of Rome. Piracy came back since the 600s due to the Byzantines unable to patrol the seaways of the Mediterranean after the Islamic conquests. In such a scenario, the Pope calls for Christian unity, for an end to national wars of material greed and for a war to end the annexation of the Byzantine Empire and help pilgrims safely cross to Jerusalem. The theory was a defensive war in design

The execution was horrible for most of the crusades except for the first and the third but that is simply because the Muslims were way too powerful. The Venetians mangled the 4th Crusade and the Egypt crusades went so horribly that we caused the powerful muslim Egypt to rise for close to 200 years with the Mamlukes (who took over the famous general Saladin and his family's Ayyubid dynasty)

As for the massacres, are they England, France, Spain, Portugal or Christianity? This is a rhetorical question.

[mattteo @Mattmothemoth]

@mi1iii1i Idk why you are replying to a post 2 years ago. I am way less knowledgeable than now. If you have any questions about Christianity, please reply in the thread

[mattteo @Mattmothemoth]

Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

I am a christian and I would be posting daily bible verses and my interpretation of them. This marks the first verse of the beginning of the bible and we honestly do not know who god is at this moment. 1/