Wouldn't it be nice is there really was a ? ?
Options
Comments
-
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »alissowack wrote: »people are either walking and talking with ? or...they are ? ..
Delusion on one end, still delusion on the other
...I wasn't trying to separate the two. Both are it. I could be wrong, but I think delusions are brought about in believing they are either privileged over somebody or that they are in control (much like the guy in your signature). I think I said this somewhere...? 's Existence doesn't mean they get what they want. But, that is what people who read (and preach) the Bible think and want everybody else to think. Believe it or not, the Bible speaks out on this. -
You still haven't given me a sufficient answer to the core of this entire debate.
-
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »You still haven't given me a sufficient answer to the core of this entire debate.
Well, I'm not trying to give "an answer". When it comes done to it...it is a matter of trust. I gave the definition of a Christian. You either going to take my word for it or you don't. I have no control over what you do with it.
-
alissowack wrote: »Jaded Righteousness wrote: »You still haven't given me a sufficient answer to the core of this entire debate.
Well, I'm not trying to give "an answer". When it comes done to it...it is a matter of trust. I gave the definition of a Christian. You either going to take my word for it or you don't. I have no control over what you do with it.
But you clog up the thread with post after post challenging others opinions only to state at the end its all about your beliefs? At the end of the day it is beyond ignorant to keep on making pointless points. I for one am not trying to make any believe or not believe. I am just stating facts. Yes, it would be nice to know that there is a ? . It would be nice for the bible Gods rise from the grave to be noted by more than just a book and his few select friends. I mean if there is a ? it is obvious that you will never really be sure until you are with him in death or some other form. You add nothing to the discussion by telling everyone else that they don't know rather ? exists or not and that they are not worthy of wanting proof. You just sound like another person that wants to live in ignorance and fantasy land and be left alone. Lastly, Christians don't own ? if he exists. So, that mess about what a Christian is means nothing in this discussion. -
alissowack wrote: »Jaded Righteousness wrote: »You still haven't given me a sufficient answer to the core of this entire debate.
Well, I'm not trying to give "an answer". When it comes done to it...it is a matter of trust. I gave the definition of a Christian. You either going to take my word for it or you don't. I have no control over what you do with it.
But you clog up the thread with post after post challenging others opinions only to state at the end its all about your beliefs? At the end of the day it is beyond ignorant to keep on making pointless points. I for one am not trying to make any believe or not believe. I am just stating facts. Yes, it would be nice to know that there is a ? . It would be nice for the bible Gods rise from the grave to be noted by more than just a book and his few select friends. I mean if there is a ? it is obvious that you will never really be sure until you are with him in death or some other form. You add nothing to the discussion by telling everyone else that they don't know rather ? exists or not and that they are not worthy of wanting proof. You just sound like another person that wants to live in ignorance and fantasy land and be left alone. Lastly, Christians don't own ? if he exists. So, that mess about what a Christian is means nothing in this discussion.
Did I say anything about people not being worthy? There is nothing "privileged" about Christianity. There is nothing fantastic or secretive. But, it is the belief that the Bible is the Word of ? and it's in the lives of all that can get to one. Unfortunately, those who read it (which includes me) are not going to see it for what it is. Much like the Genesis story, we are not content at taking someone's word for something especially if we think that maybe we are being taken advantage of like Eve with the "talking snake" or feel like they are being made a fool by ? like Moses with the "burning bush". For those who do read it, do so thinking that because they come from a certain bloodline or a tribe, or follow the rules...that they have earned the right to be called righteous to the best understanding of what they think the Bible says...or what they want the Bible to say as they risk taken something out of context.
I'm sorry that you are not content with the points I made, but my intentions were not to clobber you with verses and "force" you to see. It's not my place to do so. -
I would advise that you do not dismiss the idea of an infinite Creator, while I would agree on refuting the characteristics and personality of ? that is portrayed in the Bible, seek to understand/know/accept a Supreme Force of which we are very much a part of. Even with the possibilities of Aliens and other extra-terrestrial life forms, the probability of a divine consciousness should not be refuted.
The proof of ? ’s existence is not found in the Bible or any other religious text, it is in Creation. It is in the mathematical, precise and perfect design. So intelligent, that it can be studied and manipulated by man. If trees, animals, plants, planets and stars are alive, then,...then the entire universe is alive. It is this life...this awareness...this intelligence, which is ? the creator. Things are unfolding as they should, and man is just a part (probable insignificant part) of this cycle of life.
-
I would advise that you do not dismiss the idea of an infinite Creator, while I would agree on refuting the characteristics and personality of ? that is portrayed in the Bible, seek to understand/know/accept a Supreme Force of which we are very much a part of. Even with the possibilities of Aliens and other extra-terrestrial life forms, the probability of a divine consciousness should not be refuted.
The proof of ? ’s existence is not found in the Bible or any other religious text, it is in Creation. It is in the mathematical, precise and perfect design. So intelligent, that it can be studied and manipulated by man. If trees, animals, plants, planets and stars are alive, then,...then the entire universe is alive. It is this life...this awareness...this intelligence, which is ? the creator. Things are unfolding as they should, and man is just a part (probable insignificant part) of this cycle of life.
cosign -
alissowack wrote: »Jaded Righteousness wrote: »You still haven't given me a sufficient answer to the core of this entire debate.
Well, I'm not trying to give "an answer". When it comes done to it...it is a matter of trust. I gave the definition of a Christian. You either going to take my word for it or you don't. I have no control over what you do with it.
The definition of a Christian is not the core argument. Tell me where you observe a supernatural ? -being creating and manipulating in the world around us or either accept that you do not observe such a being and that what you believe is an assumption, either based on the Bible or other influences but nothing grounded in concrete fact or observation -
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »alissowack wrote: »Jaded Righteousness wrote: »You still haven't given me a sufficient answer to the core of this entire debate.
Well, I'm not trying to give "an answer". When it comes done to it...it is a matter of trust. I gave the definition of a Christian. You either going to take my word for it or you don't. I have no control over what you do with it.
The definition of a Christian is not the core argument. Tell me where you observe a supernatural ? -being creating and manipulating in the world around us or either accept that you do not observe such a being and that what you believe is an assumption, either based on the Bible or other influences but nothing grounded in concrete fact or observation
I think I cleared things up in the other thread, but just in case...my point wasn't about whether or not ? can be observed. -
I would advise that you do not dismiss the idea of an infinite Creator, while I would agree on refuting the characteristics and personality of ? that is portrayed in the Bible, seek to understand/know/accept a Supreme Force of which we are very much a part of. Even with the possibilities of Aliens and other extra-terrestrial life forms, the probability of a divine consciousness should not be refuted.
The proof of ? ’s existence is not found in the Bible or any other religious text, it is in Creation. It is in the mathematical, precise and perfect design. So intelligent, that it can be studied and manipulated by man. If trees, animals, plants, planets and stars are alive, then,...then the entire universe is alive. It is this life...this awareness...this intelligence, which is ? the creator. Things are unfolding as they should, and man is just a part (probable insignificant part) of this cycle of life.
Yes, so insignificant that maybe we should not even waste time worrying rather he exists or not because all we can do is come up with theories that can not be proven. Creation is far from perfect IMO. It is certainly amazing the way your body works and you could live from things that the earth produces naturally, but not perfect.
I think the best thing you can take from threads like this is that ? certainly does not need us like some would assert. -
alissowack wrote: »Jaded Righteousness wrote: »alissowack wrote: »
The thing is however...? 's Existence doesn't necessarily mean that we get what we want.
what does it mean then?
It means that we can't think we can rest in our assumptions on who ? is. I can believe that because ? exists, that ? also shares in my perverted perceptions of Him...that ? supports "my" cause. If anything, ? supports His Own Cause; apart from what anybody thinks and if we just happened to be "on board", so be it.
This was your core argument; that we cannot rest in our assumptions on who ? is. With theism, this makes no sense as theism is based on assumptions. Without concrete fact or observation of ? 's existence, there is nothing else but assumptions and imagination. That was my response. You've been dancing around it but haven't brought anything effective to the table. At one point, you contradicted your argument by admitting that your belief in ? is an assumption of who/what ? is. -
-
@JadeRighteousness. Maybe I need to just (only in principe) post a bunch of verses and stuff just so you know that I believe in what the Bible says ? to be. Because you continue to assume that I'm not coming from anywhere with this. The Bible is where I'm coming from but you are not content with it being "evidence". And I'm not trying to convince you that it is evidence for that is not the point. It's more than that.
-
You, yourself, are not content with the Bible being evidence. You said earlier either in this thread or the other that man has no say in who or what ? is. Yet man wrote the Bible. Therefore, the Bible can't be trusted because realistically, all it is, is man writing down his assumptions of what ? is. On top of that, your argument is that we can't rest on assumptions so it's no use to even pull up a Bible verse
-
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »You, yourself, are not content with the Bible being evidence. You said earlier either in this thread or the other that man has no say in who or what ? is. Yet man wrote the Bible. Therefore, the Bible can't be trusted because realistically, all it is, is man writing down his assumptions of what ? is. On top of that, your argument is that we can't rest on assumptions so it's no use to even pull up a Bible verse
I am content in the Bible being "evidence". Just not in the way you want it to be. When I say that man has no say...I mean it in respect to authority. I can't say what ? is or what ? isn't because I read the Bible and it says what it says. I can think that because ? is good according to the Bible, that He needs to conform to what I perceive "good" to be; that ? has to meets my expectations. It's not to say that there is common aspect to doing good and I want to do good, I just can't say what I determine what "good" produces. My "goodness" may be the reason for someone's wrongdoing...or my honesty may produce deception in somebody.
-
alissowack wrote: »I can think that because ? is good according to the Bible, that He needs to conform to what I perceive "good" to be; that ? has to meets my expectations.
did you mean can or can't? -
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »alissowack wrote: »I can think that because ? is good according to the Bible, that He needs to conform to what I perceive "good" to be; that ? has to meets my expectations.
did you mean can or can't?
Can. Uh...I'm typing just to meet the character limit. -
You contradict yourself then by thinking that ? has to meet your expectations. You have no authority, according to what you said earlier.alissowack wrote: »
The thing is however...? 's Existence doesn't necessarily mean that we get what we want.alissowack wrote: »
It means that we can't think we can rest in our assumptions on who ? is. I can believe that because ? exists, that ? also shares in my perverted perceptions of Him...that ? supports "my" cause. If anything, ? supports His Own Cause; apart from what anybody thinks and if we just happened to be "on board", so be it.
-
@JadeRighteousness. I don't particularly see the contradictions for in either case, I was expressing how much I don't have control over the matters of ? .
-
You said that you can think that ? has to conform to your standards of what good is supposed to be but earier you said that you can't rest on assumptions of who ? is, or think that ? supports your cause.
One statement puts you first. The other puts ? first. -
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »You said that you can think that ? has to conform to your standards of what good is supposed to be but earier you said that you can't rest on assumptions of who ? is, or think that ? supports your cause.
One statement puts you first. The other puts ? first.
You read way too much into that statement. I was saying this as an example, not as a claim. Maybe if you read the context of my statement, you would see that. I'm showing that despite putting myself first, ? will still be first. I sometimes play the role of scenarios I draw up and it can easily be made to seem as if I support something I'm really not. -
edwardnigma wrote: »Damn Bro ? ain't no punk ? , you disrespect the lord and find nothing goes your way in your daily life.
You never hoped and wished for things(not money) that came true and was beyond your power?
When I was a kid I would pray for things and I would recieve some of the things I prayed for, as a kid I would be shocked I recieved what I asked for.
Its a good feeling to be in tune with ? .
Your tone is very negative, would you ask your Mother for something then turn around and tell her she's an ? if she doesn't do it or comply with your wishes?
If you want to invoke ? you need to Respect what your trying to invoke. Also realize ? is not your employee, its actually the other way around. So if you get something you ask for you must be respectful and thankful for your blessings.
Not trying to impose just saying
What about all the rich atheists with great lives? -
alissowack wrote: »it can easily be made to seem as if I support something I'm really not.
yeah whatever
-
@JadeRighteousness. Well, why can't I think that ? has to meet my expectations? I'm my own person and despite being either right or wrong, I can make that choice. I just can't think I am making a choice to ultimate determine the fate of a deity (given ? exist).
I think you trying way too hard to catch me in something. I'm not perfect so chances are you will. But, all you want to do is win...then I'll save you the trouble and say that I lost...that I was no match for you. -
I already caught you in something in the other thread and you still haven't acknowledged it. If you want to talk about winning and losing, you lost a long time ago. Most of what you say doesn't make any sense. I just enjoy conversing about spirituality to tell you the truth.
