You got that wrong. Dictionaries collect the current usages of a word.Of course there are appropriate ways and inappropriate ways to call things. Otherwise our dictionaries, which are the recognized authorities on proper word-usage, would not be necessary.
Seeing how great the variety of God concepts is among confessing theists, my point should be obvious. Don´t shoot the messenger. (I am, e.g. pretty sure that - were it not for a self-professed Christian like Michael - you would be up in arms for trivializing God as "natural").I addressed your post because you stated otherwise in an effort to trivialize the word God.
If you illogically call a chicken a dog, dag, or dig, then the dictionary would straighten out your illogical usage.You got that wrong. Dictionaries collect the current usages of a word.
And logic hasn´t got anything to do with it, anyway.
Seeing how great the variety of God concepts is among confessing theists, my point should be obvious. Don´t shoot the messenger. (I am, e.g. pretty sure that - were it not for a self-professed Christian like Michael - you would be up in arms for trivializing God as "natural").
I think what you mean to say is "wrongly" - logic isn´t violated at all.If you illogically call a chicken a dog, dag, or dig,
You are mistaken about the function of dictionaries.then the dictionary would straighten out your illogical usage.
Michael is the author of this thread, and he´s the guy whom I addressed in my post.About this Mike you are mentioning, I haven't the faintest idea what you are referring to.
Please explain how it is logical to call a dog a dag and how the dictionary doesn't correct that illogical usage.I think what you mean to say is "wrongly" - logic isn´t violated at all.
You are mistaken about the function of dictionaries.
It is, however, not a good idea to use words in a way they aren´t commonly used in (as is documented in dictionaries) - it is likely to produce more misunderstandings than there are anyway.
Michael is the author of this thread, and he´s the guy whom I addressed in my post.
You seem to be under them impression that the meaning of words is somewhere set in stone.Please explain how it is logical to call a dog a dag and how the dictionary doesn't correct that illogical usage.
illogical
adjective il·log·i·cal \-ji-kəl\
Definition
Definition of ILLOGICAL
- : not showing good judgment : not thinking about things in a reasonable or sensible way
I wonder how much electric current it would take to turn that hole from black to bright.At the risk of getting this thread back on track.....
Here's another bit of evidence that shows that electrical currents play a role in the processes of spacetime:
I wonder how much electric current it would take to turn that hole from black to bright.
With so much electric current we would expect it to be a bright hole instead of a black hole.
This fabrication that you mistakenly call a theory explains nothing,
raises questions that you will not be able to answer,
is not supported by any evidence whatsoever,
and would not be backed by any Christian that I have ever met in my life.
That's not true. It explains why humans have experiences of God on Earth for starters.
That's true of every cosmology theory. Just ask an astronomer where dark energy comes from and how it retains constant density over multiple exponential increases in volume.
That's *laughably* false, but to discuss the evidence, we'd have to discuss published scientific papers, and you just told me that you're not qualified to discuss them. If that's true, then you're not qualified to discuss the "evidence" either.
You're right that Panentheism would certainly be a minority viewpoint within the context of any single religion, but it's actually quite compatible with virtually all of them, including Christianity.
Panentheism - Wikipedia
Your beliefs are not compatible with Christianity and you should change the religion you've listed on your profile.
Christianity
Panentheism is also a feature of some Christian philosophical theologies and resonates strongly within the theological tradition of the Orthodox Church.[citation needed] It also appears in some Roman Catholic mysticism[citation needed] and in process theology. While process theological thinkers are generally regarded in the Christian West as unorthodox, process philosophical thought is widely believed to have paved the way for open theism, a movement associated primarily with the Evangelical branch of Protestantism.[citation needed]
15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.
19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.
20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.
Ya know......
It really would save us both a lot of time if you actually bothered to read the links I've provided for you:
Panentheism - Wikipedia
Panentheism is absolutely compatible with the teachings of Christ.
John 14:15-20
Emphasis mine.
I did read the link. Angels are real in Christianity, and your model has no place for them. Just one of many, many disconnects.
Ok, I'll bite. Where did I say that?
You didn't say that. I did.
But you are absolutely lying when you say that I won't deal with the definition you gave me.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?