Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Will The Real God Please Stand Up?
Malachi-II
Member (Idle past 6243 days)
Posts: 139
From: Sussex, England
Joined: 04-10-2006


Message 121 of 364 (380170)
01-26-2007 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by ringo
01-26-2007 12:08 PM


Re: I am late but I am here if you chose to have faith
Ringo writes:
Actually, you failed to understand it. If you can temporarily poof yourself legs once, then you can temporarily do it again.
You seem to insist on misinterpreting my words. It might help if you allow your brain to be still and open your mind to my words, which transcend the physical forms you are attached to. Repeat, ”I do not exist in your definition of the word.’ Question: Inasmuch as I Am the primary cause of all and everything, will you free your mind to explore the meaning of Who Am I?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by ringo, posted 01-26-2007 12:08 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by ringo, posted 01-26-2007 3:20 PM Malachi-II has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 122 of 364 (380173)
01-26-2007 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Malachi-II
01-26-2007 3:08 PM


Re: I am late but I am here if you chose to have faith
Malachi-II writes:
You seem to insist on misinterpreting my words.
Well, I insist on using the English meaning of your words.
It might help if you allow your brain to be still and open your mind to my words, which transcend the physical forms you are attached to.
That's yer problem right there. Ain't none of us "transcendent" here, so yer "transcendent" words ain't got no more meanin' than the whistlin' o' the wind.
Inasmuch as I Am the primary cause of all and everything, will you free your mind to explore the meaning of Who Am I?
This proceeding exists to find out Who Is. Who You Are is not a given.
If you care to prove Who You Are, then stand up, as you have been asked, and give your evidence. Otherwise, go whistle.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Malachi-II, posted 01-26-2007 3:08 PM Malachi-II has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Phat, posted 01-26-2007 5:30 PM ringo has replied
 Message 125 by Malachi-II, posted 01-27-2007 4:01 AM ringo has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 123 of 364 (380200)
01-26-2007 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by ringo
01-26-2007 3:20 PM


Where do we go from here?
I am asking the committee to decide where this meeting is supposed to go. We have people here who are claiming to be mouthpieces for God...we have people who claim to speak for God....we have people who presuppose god...and we have people who do not even consider God.
Perhaps God has already stood up and left the meeting! I don't imagine He (or She) would leave us in a lurch like that, but I have received no impartation's or prophetic utterances to indicate otherwise. Have you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by ringo, posted 01-26-2007 3:20 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by ringo, posted 01-26-2007 7:13 PM Phat has replied
 Message 128 by Malachi-II, posted 01-27-2007 4:30 AM Phat has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 124 of 364 (380230)
01-26-2007 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Phat
01-26-2007 5:30 PM


Re: Where do we go from here?
Phat writes:
Perhaps God has already stood up and left the meeting!
That's part of the problem with your approach - you presuppose that God was ever at the meeting.
If you submit four candidates and the premise that only one of them can be God, you imply that three of them must not be God. Unless you deliberately stacked the strawman so that your favourite would win, we have to conclude that any of them might not be God.
And if any of them might not be God, then all of them might not be God.
Bottom line: we have to demand the same standards from all of them (and from any other candidates who step up).
Since the OP refers to "the nature of God", we have to determine what the nature of God is before we can decide Who has that nature and who doesn't.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Phat, posted 01-26-2007 5:30 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Malachi-II, posted 01-27-2007 4:15 AM ringo has seen this message but not replied
 Message 129 by Phat, posted 01-27-2007 6:05 AM ringo has replied

  
Malachi-II
Member (Idle past 6243 days)
Posts: 139
From: Sussex, England
Joined: 04-10-2006


Message 125 of 364 (380383)
01-27-2007 4:01 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by ringo
01-26-2007 3:20 PM


Re: I am late but I am here if you chose to have faith
Ringo: writes:
Well, I insist on using the English meaning of your words. . . .That's yer problem right there. Ain't none of us "transcendent" here, so yer "transcendent" words ain't got no more meanin' than the whistlin' o' the wind.
You are totally convinced that you know myself better than I. Therefore how could you possibly be wrong about anything!
Your use of semantics is as risible as your insistence for proof. If and when you finally realize that nothing can ever satisfy a need for proof at your level of demand, then and only then, will you begin to discover answers for yourself. As it is whistling in the wind is far more enlightening that living in a closed and firmly locked brain.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by ringo, posted 01-26-2007 3:20 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by ringo, posted 01-27-2007 11:08 AM Malachi-II has replied

  
Malachi-II
Member (Idle past 6243 days)
Posts: 139
From: Sussex, England
Joined: 04-10-2006


Message 126 of 364 (380384)
01-27-2007 4:15 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by ringo
01-26-2007 7:13 PM


Re: Where do we go from here?
There you go again:
Ringo writes:
Since the OP refers to "the nature of God", we have to determine what the nature of God is before we can decide Who has that nature and who doesn't.
You HAVE to determine what the nature of God is. When you and others finally acknowledge that your self limiting thoughts are solely responsible for not knowing the nature of God (which has always been the root of everything) you will be amazed at how much you have always known. Don't sweat it. Evolution is a very slow process.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by ringo, posted 01-26-2007 7:13 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Nighttrain, posted 01-27-2007 4:29 AM Malachi-II has not replied

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3993 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 127 of 364 (380386)
01-27-2007 4:29 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Malachi-II
01-27-2007 4:15 AM


Re: Where do we go from here?
Evolution is a very slow process.
A lot slower for some than others. :-p

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Malachi-II, posted 01-27-2007 4:15 AM Malachi-II has not replied

  
Malachi-II
Member (Idle past 6243 days)
Posts: 139
From: Sussex, England
Joined: 04-10-2006


Message 128 of 364 (380387)
01-27-2007 4:30 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Phat
01-26-2007 5:30 PM


Re: Where do we go from here?
Phat writes:
Perhaps God has already stood up and left the meeting! I don't imagine He (or She) would leave us in a lurch like that, but I have received no impartation's or prophetic utterances to indicate otherwise. Have you?
Greetings Phat, On the other hand, perhaps God would never bother to attend a meeting where mortals demand unrefutable proof of His reality. It might just be possible He has more important things to do. It might also be possible that He knows we'll finally catch up (in the next billion earth years or so) without further help from Him/Her/It/Spirit/Thought/Nothing.
PS Can't wait for the next heated exchange of enlightened minds. With 6 billion plus people on this rock who would expect any two minds to be identical in every respect? What?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Phat, posted 01-26-2007 5:30 PM Phat has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 129 of 364 (380391)
01-27-2007 6:05 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by ringo
01-26-2007 7:13 PM


What is the Essence of Sin?
Ringo writes:
Since the OP refers to "the nature of God", we have to determine what the nature of God is before we can decide Who has that nature and who doesn't.
Often in Christian circles, the Bible is used to explain the concept of sin as it applies to humans and their relationship with God. (A presupposition duly noted on the record)
GTU.org writes:
Essentially, sin is any transgression or violation of God's law. This is seen in 1 John 3:4 where John wrote, "Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness." The New American Standard says, "Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness." In other words, any lack of conformity to the perfect moral standard of God is sin.
But our problem with sin goes much deeper than simple acts of disobedience, which are merely outward manifestations of inner fleshly compulsions. The basic inclination and orientation of man toward self-gratification-however religious or moral we may appear on the outside-is directly hostile to God. Even the good deeds of an unbeliever fail to fulfill God's law. Why? Because they are produced by the flesh, for selfish reasons, and from a heart that is in rebellion toward God.
Romans 8:7 tells us that the natural man is at enmity with God-meaning that he has a positive hatred toward God and stands in opposition to Him. Sin seeks to dethrone and depose God, usurp His authority, and put self in His place.
At its core all sin is an act of pride. Pride says, "Move over, God, I'm in charge, I'll do what I want." Therefore all sin at its core is blasphemy because it attacks God. When we come into this world we love sin, and so we love our rebellion and we love our pride and we love our blasphemy. We delight in it and we seek every opportunity we can to manifest it.
Jesus taught that the central demand of God's law is to "love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.' This is the first commandment. And the second, like it, is this: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these" (Mark 12:30-31).
Thus, the essence of all sin is the failure to love God. That is the primary violation. And the essence of sin is most clearly seen in unbelief. This shows up in John 16 where Jesus said He would send the Holy Spirit who would "convict the world of sin . because they do not believe in Me" (John 16:8). In other words, any failure to love and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ is a failure to love God. Thus, the apostle Paul wrote, "If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be damned" (1 Corinthians 16:22).
So, the ultimate sin, the epitome of sin and the summation of sin, is any lack of love for God and His Son Jesus Christ. "And this is His commandment: that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, as He gave us commandment" (1 John 3:23).
I submit this hypothesis to the record and note that the issue brought up by many evangelicals is the issue of Jesus Christ versus humanity. (Odd then that they fail as much or more than many non-believers)
I admit bias in favor of Jesus Christ based on what I have been taught, but I submit the evangelical position as a possible explanation of why Jesus Christ is usually the object of either worship or derision from humanity. It seems evident to me that Jesus never evokes a neutral reaction...in any lineup.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by ringo, posted 01-26-2007 7:13 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by ringo, posted 01-27-2007 11:17 AM Phat has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 130 of 364 (380436)
01-27-2007 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by Malachi-II
01-27-2007 4:01 AM


Re: I am late but I am here if you chose to have faith
Malachi-II writes:
You are totally convinced that you know myself better than I. Therefore how could you possibly be wrong about anything!
At last, some progress.
A "Supreme Being" would not produce such a non sequitur, so we can firmly rule out Malachi-II as God.
If and when you finally realize that nothing can ever satisfy a need for proof at your level of demand....
An embarassment of riches - he gives us two proofs that he is not God. He fails to understand a simple OP.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Malachi-II, posted 01-27-2007 4:01 AM Malachi-II has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Malachi-II, posted 01-27-2007 2:00 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied
 Message 150 by Malachi-II, posted 01-27-2007 4:04 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 131 of 364 (380438)
01-27-2007 11:12 AM


And now for the answer


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Archer Opteryx, posted 01-27-2007 11:44 AM jar has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 132 of 364 (380439)
01-27-2007 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by Phat
01-27-2007 6:05 AM


Re: What is the Essence of Sin?
Pat writes:
Often in Christian circles, the Bible is used to explain the concept of sin as it applies to humans and their relationship with God. (A presupposition duly noted on the record)
Deftly "noting the presupposition" doesn't make it any less prejudicial.
Isn't this proceeding complicated enough without adding extraneous issues, such as "sin", that some of the candidates don't even recognize?
... the issue brought up by many evangelicals is the issue of Jesus Christ versus humanity. (Odd then that they fail as much or more than many non-believers)
The admitted fact that His "followers" fail to follow Him in any meaningful way should count against Him.
It seems evident to me that Jesus never evokes a neutral reaction...in any lineup.
Billions of people **yawning** ask, "Who?"

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Phat, posted 01-27-2007 6:05 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Phat, posted 01-27-2007 11:57 AM ringo has replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 133 of 364 (380446)
01-27-2007 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by jar
01-27-2007 11:12 AM


Re: And now for the answer
What if the real gods are An, Enlil, Inanna, Enki, Nanna and Utu after all?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by jar, posted 01-27-2007 11:12 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by jar, posted 01-27-2007 11:46 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied
 Message 136 by Phat, posted 01-27-2007 11:59 AM Archer Opteryx has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 134 of 364 (380447)
01-27-2007 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by Archer Opteryx
01-27-2007 11:44 AM


Re: And now for the answer
Lots of Christians exiting left.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Archer Opteryx, posted 01-27-2007 11:44 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 135 of 364 (380449)
01-27-2007 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by ringo
01-27-2007 11:17 AM


What are the duties of a God?
Since we are apparently going with the hypothesis that God (the real One, anyway) does not care what people do, what are we to conclude? Are we all voting for Deism? Are we unwilling to embrace an embraceable God? Are we content to build little temples and statues and feed these dumb objects on a daily basis?
Or at the other end of the extreme, are we crafting a God of our own imagination that could be our own collective Ego?
Perhaps I need a cup of water..I need to sit down, I am growing quite faint. (Evidently, I have no desire to attempt to stand up for the real God..whomever that God may eventually end up being.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by ringo, posted 01-27-2007 11:17 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by jar, posted 01-27-2007 12:01 PM Phat has replied
 Message 140 by Michael, posted 01-27-2007 12:13 PM Phat has not replied
 Message 141 by ringo, posted 01-27-2007 12:23 PM Phat has not replied
 Message 151 by Greatest I am, posted 01-27-2007 10:42 PM Phat has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024