Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,833 Year: 4,090/9,624 Month: 961/974 Week: 288/286 Day: 9/40 Hour: 0/0


EvC Forum ⇒ Science Forums ⇒ Is It Science? ⇒

A Working Definition of God

Thread ▼ Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Working Definition of God
gnojek
Inactive Member

Normal Thread Display
Message 74 of 332 (200422)
04-19-2005 2:40 PM 		Reply to: Message 16 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
04-18-2005 7:55 PM

Sure, I'll join the fun late
Magisterium Devolver writes:
​
However, since I agree that God the Father cannot be seen directly by any of us, I will interject that we need Christ to preceive the Father by -- and that this perception comes by Holy Spirit.
We've got:
​
God is a Father (not a Mother)
Christ is merely a perception of God and is not God the Father
The Holy Spirit is not God, but a messenger of perception
​
When looking for God by the Holy Spirit you see that Christ is the visible image of the invisible God,
Now we've got:
​
When looking for God by the perception messenger you see that Christ (who is not God) is the image of God.
​
the firstborn over all creation.
???????
​
You also see that he is before all things, and in him all things hold together -- that he is the head of the body, the church; that he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.
So he is before things which are inside him to hold them together.
Yes, makes total sense.
​
And more sense:
He is the head of a body. The body is the church.
​
Wait wait, the rest of it makes so little sense that I can't even make proper fun of it.
​
inally, you also see that God the Father was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
​
Unless all this was tongue in cheek, I see why you call yourself the devolver, since your post devolved very quickly into nonsense.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-18-2005 7:55 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-19-2005 3:00 PM gnojek has not replied
gnojek
Inactive Member

Normal Thread Display
Message 77 of 332 (200425)
04-19-2005 2:44 PM 		Reply to: Message 65 by mike the wiz
04-19-2005 1:39 PM

mike the wiz writes:
​
God says not to murder, and certainly not harm any little ones.
​
Let me guess, you were for the war in Iraq?
​
Soft dino tissue evidences that it survives millions of years, instead of being a falsification of MOY like it really is, which is apparently, logically - more important than a confirmation in science, yet you say "the dino is simply old according to my naturalistic - cell to critter philosophy." Shouldn't your law say that this falsification is much more important than confirmations like so called transitionals?
​
Nice explanation of what God is.
​
Also, the stretchy material inside the T rex bone was not the orignial material that was there mya. It underwent a different kind of mineralization/fossilization.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by mike the wiz, posted 04-19-2005 1:39 PM mike the wiz has not replied
Date format: mm-dd-yyyy
Timezone: ET (US)
  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024