Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No, I'm not completely sure, though I have heard something to the effect that it has something to do with etymology.
So if it's "God" we are stuck on, we'll call Him Abba.
Definitely.I'm wondering something. With all respect, why would an atheist join a forum called Christian Forums? Is it because they are interested in hearing what "the other side" has to say?
Definitely not.Or is it to try to convince someone to renounce God or their faith?
No, but that is not to say that there are no moments where others' arguments have invited ridicule, or the absurdity of their assertions have not been entertaining. YMMV.Or is it just to entertain themselves by ridiculing someones belief?
I'm wondering something. With all respect, why would an atheist join a forum called Christian Forums? Is it because they are interested in hearing what "the other side" has to say? Or is it to try to convince someone to renounce God or their faith? Or is it just to entertain themselves by ridiculing someones belief? I don't ask this in the spirit of anger, I just want to know so that I can better understand the mindset of those I may be conversing with.
I did. Perhaps you missed it.It is remarkable that in a philosophy forum with a rather zealous host of atheistic evolutionists a coherent definition for 'god', is not readily forthcoming.
Clearly seen, yet described as invisible. How does that work?I happen to know why, it's the same reason that the Bible really never defines God.
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. (Romans 1:20}
If you are unable to define your god as something more than a character in a book, then we will leave it at that.There is no definition for God for the same reason Plato couldn't define the 'Good' in Plato's Republic. For me to define 'God' would be to define something less then God and 'God' is both self-existing and self-evident. Even Immanuel Kant when discussing examples of a priori (without prior) reason used 'God' and 'time' as explicit examples of a priori reason in action.
What is far more important, God is not defined by the people who believe in God the least because people already, 'clearly seen' God's, 'eternal power and divine nature'. Otherwise, one would expect them to be driven by undiluted curiosity, if nothing else, to understand the concept. I have yet to see an atheist demand a definition or even offer one, but of course, there is no need for one. God has already shown it to them.
It is my understanding that the growth and development of the brain to the point where the process of what we call 'conciousness' can begin would require complex sensory data. I see no reason why a disconnected brain would reach that point. What did Kant know of 21st century neuroscience? What do you think?I'll continue to monitor the thread in as much as I'm able, in the hopes that a more substantive approach to the subject is forthcoming. I'll tell you what, let's try a different approach. Consider this question. If a person was born devoid of sensory input from 'sight, sound...etc.' yet remained conscious despite the detachment from outside sensory data. Would this person have a single thought in their head? Kant would have said yes, what do you think?
I did. Perhaps you missed it.
Clearly seen, yet described as invisible. How does that work?
If you are unable to define your god as something more than a character in a book, then we will leave it at that.
It is my understanding that the growth and development of the brain to the point where the process of what we call 'conciousness' can begin would require complex sensory data. I see no reason why a disconnected brain would reach that point. What did Kant know of 21st century neuroscience? What do you think?
Yes, I did choose to believe what I read, but I do remain critical when I find something that doesn't add up. That's when I pray for more understanding. I believe the Bible is a collection of books that was "given" through inspiration from God to various people throughout history. The contradictions you mentioned can be explained if you consider the fact that the Bible was written by fallible man. Were there things interpreted differently by different people? Sure. Has their been numerous translations over the years? Of course. The inconsistencies, are of little importance. The "message" of the Bible is what is central, what is important.
The fact is, I read the Old Testament as sort of a "required reading" to gain an understanding of history as it applies to the here and now. And yes there are some great stories in there about how man has been delivered and also great stories of warning about the wages of unrepentant sin. But I spend most of my time in the New Testament since it applies more directly to our current age.
Uh, no. It is as I said to you many pages back: It is not an atheist claim.mark kennedy said:It is remarkable that in a philosophy forum with a rather zealous host of atheistic evolutionists a coherent definition for 'god', is not readily forthcoming. I happen to know why, it's the same reason that the Bible really never defines God.
No. There are many different definitions for God, actually. There's so many different variables and slight attributes loaded into each one that it is almost absurd to insist anyone who doesn't hold true to any specific God concept come up with one.There is no definition for God for the same reason Plato couldn't define the 'Good' in Plato's Republic.
No. God has shown me nothing. I have not seen God's "eternal power and divine nature."What is far more important, God is not defined by the people who believe in God the least because people already, 'clearly seen' God's, 'eternal power and divine nature'. Otherwise, one would expect them to be driven by undiluted curiosity, if nothing else, to understand the concept. I have yet to see an atheist demand a definition or even offer one, but of course, there is no need for one. God has already shown it to them.
God esoterically realized is Oneness... Absolute wholeness/togetherness and Perfect Love....
God is morality....
My preferred question is: how do you not?
I don't, but just because I don't know, doesn't mean I have to accept your claim as true.
So, how do you know?
For the same reason that you know. Because WE are identical with it. How can you deny that you exist, that you are? "I AM." - there is nothing more incontrovertible than this.
We never forgot Who we are: Perfect Love, Oneness, Truth....
Due to our projection of this world as real, by taking the "tiny mad idea" of separation seriously, we currently think we don't know. And that is our problem.
What are you talking about? This post is nonsensical....
I said I don't know, I never made a claim that I do know. I also never claimed that I didn't exist... I'm not even sure where that came from at all?
Your last post is simply bizarre.... the problem is we think we don't know? I think it's quite obvious that we don't know. However, I believe we will progressively know more and more as time progresses.
You are assuming that we are not familiar with the various god concepts out there?No I didn't miss it, nor the other attempts. I'm just a little puzzled why not believing in God doesn't make you intensely curious as to what a prevailing belief system like that includes. Not one of you asked what God would be like. It's the absence of the question that I think speaks volumns.
The problem is you are too trapped in your own mind to grasp the fact that you DO KNOW.
Just embrace this basic truth: Perfect Love cannot be broken. Perfect Oneness cannot be separated from. It follows that we are experiencing now (separation) is an illusion foisted by the mind.
Truth is infinitely simple. Delusion is infinitely complex. I have given you the truth, you may embrace it or deny it. Eventually we will all embrace it, though.
"All will be well" - Julian
The problem is you are too trapped in your own mind to grasp the fact that you DO KNOW.
Just embrace this basic truth: Perfect Love cannot be broken. Perfect Oneness cannot be separated from. It follows that we are experiencing now (separation) is an illusion foisted by the mind.
Truth is infinitely simple. Delusion is infinitely complex. I have given you the truth, you may embrace it or deny it. Eventually we will all embrace it, though.
"All will be well" - Julian
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?