Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8842 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-18-2018 10:20 PM
239 online now:
DrJones*, edge, Faith, GDR, Pollux (5 members, 234 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: MrTim
Post Volume:
Total: 833,902 Year: 8,725/29,783 Month: 972/1,977 Week: 110/380 Day: 60/50 Hour: 5/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1314
15
16171819Next
Author Topic:   Will The Real God Please Stand Up?
Malachi-II
Member (Idle past 4043 days)
Posts: 139
From: Sussex, England
Joined: 04-10-2006


Message 211 of 285 (381863)
02-02-2007 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by Phat
02-02-2007 8:36 AM


Re: Just The Fax, Ma'am
Jesus Himself said to His Disciples that He was going away to a place they could not follow...

Jesus is also accredited with saying, "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do..." John 14:12

So like, uh, has anyone seen the greater works? And if Jesus was right, as I have found him to be, then how come the table hasn't had to be expanded a hundred fold at least!

(an aside) I enjoy your humour.

I'm warming up to the notion of introducing my candidate named, GOLD.

Serious treatment of the question is giving me a headache.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Phat, posted 02-02-2007 8:36 AM Phat has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 14630
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 212 of 285 (381909)
02-02-2007 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by Malachi-II
02-02-2007 6:29 AM


Deleted double post.

Edited by Ringo, : Got an "Internal Server Error" on the first try, but apparently it submited after all.


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 206 by Malachi-II, posted 02-02-2007 6:29 AM Malachi-II has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 14630
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 213 of 285 (381915)
02-02-2007 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by Malachi-II
02-02-2007 6:29 AM


Malachi-II writes:

God’s dilemma would be: how can he appear to be recognized by one person occupying a chair at the table - in accordance with that person’s preconceived notions - and risk not being recognized by others at the table or causing even greater confusion and disruption.

The real God could easily present Himself to each and every member of the committee (and even the whole human race) simultaneously exactly as each person expected Him to be. Their reactions might be, "I expected you to be taller," or "I didn't picture you clean-shaven," but nobody would question that He was Who He said He was.

Let us assume that God has never been silent, unclear or inconsistent on any issue. What then?

No. Let's not assume that. :)

An omnipotent God could make Himself heard even by those who don't listen. Even a deaf person can "hear" an explosion.

An omnipotent God could explain Himself clearly so that anybody and everybody would understand. I was once told, If you can't explain it to an eight-year-old, you don't understand it."

And an omnipotent God could provide tailor-made messages to every human being so that there were no internal inconsistencies. A Muslim could compare their explanation-from-the-mouth-of-God with a Christian and a Wiccan and they would find nothing to disagree on.

God might say, “Once Life began it was instantly beyond my control. I could not withdraw freewill when it was abused....

So your God isn't even close to being omnipotent?

Creative Love cannot be controlled or controlling, otherwise it could not be eternal.

Sorry, I have no idea what that word-salad is supposed to mean. :)

He knows perfectly well that we now possess the power to destroy our mother Earth, yet He cannot interfere if we used our powers of destruction.

Well, according to the Bible He has interfered before, by flooding the earth, scattering the Babblers, etc. Are you completely ruling out the Biblical God?

I suggest that the simple self-bootstrapping crane is none other than a simple act of Divine Creative Love.

More word salad (and me an omnivore). Your spooky notion of "Divine Creative Love" probably needs a topic of its own. :)


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 206 by Malachi-II, posted 02-02-2007 6:29 AM Malachi-II has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Malachi-II, posted 02-02-2007 3:08 PM ringo has responded
 Message 238 by Phat, posted 02-07-2018 4:10 PM ringo has responded

  
Malachi-II
Member (Idle past 4043 days)
Posts: 139
From: Sussex, England
Joined: 04-10-2006


Message 214 of 285 (381922)
02-02-2007 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by Archer Opteryx
02-02-2007 8:08 AM


Thanks for taking the time to share all that.

Your acknowledgment is greatly appreciated.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Archer Opteryx, posted 02-02-2007 8:08 AM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded

    
Malachi-II
Member (Idle past 4043 days)
Posts: 139
From: Sussex, England
Joined: 04-10-2006


Message 215 of 285 (381924)
02-02-2007 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by ringo
02-02-2007 12:16 PM


The real God could easily present Himself to each and every member of the committee (and even the whole human race) simultaneously exactly as each person expected Him to be. Their reactions might be, "I expected you to be taller," or "I didn't picture you clean-shaven," but nobody would question that He was Who He said He was.

I disagree. God would not need to pander to human expectations. That would be deceptive. Are you saying God has to deceive in order to be recognized?

Are you completely ruling out the Biblical God?

No. Just those parts written by men. If God's signature and fingerprints have been found on any manuscripts then I will have to change my opinion. :)

No. Let's not assume that.

Why not? Most of what is being said here are assumptions on a grand scale!

So your God isn't even close to being omnipotent?

It sounds like you're beginning to understand my messages. But, hey, I hesitate to presume or assume.

Sorry, I have no idea what that word-salad is supposed to mean.

Try a little salad dressing. :)

Your spooky notion of "Divine Creative Love" probably needs a topic of its own.

If you find the notion of God's creative love 'spooky', then I would not wish to frighten you or anyone else more than you already have been. :eek:


This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by ringo, posted 02-02-2007 12:16 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by ringo, posted 02-02-2007 3:54 PM Malachi-II has responded

    
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 1398 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 216 of 285 (381930)
02-02-2007 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Malachi-II
02-02-2007 9:52 AM


Fax from God
Malachi-II:

Please let the rest of the world know if you receive a fax. Be warned, however, you'll have to prove it was sent by God.

Why let the rest of the world know? The fax was sent to me. It's nobody's business who I talk to.

If God wants other people to have the contents, he can send them faxes, too. Everyone can trace the number themselves. Why should I have to prove anything?

A direct transmission to millions of people is as easy for God as a direct transmission to one person. Sleazy telemarketers can do as much. A Supreme Being hardly needs to go roundabout.

__

Edited by Archer Opterix, : HTML.


Archer

All species are transitional.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Malachi-II, posted 02-02-2007 9:52 AM Malachi-II has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by Malachi-II, posted 02-03-2007 3:34 AM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 14630
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 217 of 285 (381939)
02-02-2007 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by Malachi-II
02-02-2007 3:08 PM


Malachi-II writes:

God would not need to pander to human expectations.

I didn't say He would "need" to. I said He could. We are discussing the nature of God - i.e. whether or not He would.

Are you saying God has to deceive in order to be recognized?

There's nothing deceptive about giving everybody their own personalized message. What is deceptive is lurking in the background, letting people come up with their own looney ideas about Him.

(Disclaimer: The above statement is in no way intended to be a shot at the lurkers of EvC. :) )

Most of what is being said here are assumptions on a grand scale!

Even so, we can't have a discussion unless we agree on what assumptions we are making.

The assumption I objected to was:

quote:
Let us assume that God has never been silent, unclear or inconsistent on any issue. What then?

I object to that assumption because it denies the whole purpose of the thread. If God had been forthcoming with His message in clear and consistent terms, then there would be no basis for discussion of His nature.

So your God isn't even close to being omnipotent?

It sounds like you're beginning to understand my messages.

Allow me to refer you to the OP:

quote:
There are four God candidates present. each one seeks to be recognized as God, Omnipotant Creator of all things.

Omnipotence is a given in this discussion. The non-omnipotent need not apply.

If you find the notion of God's creative love 'spooky', then I would not wish to frighten you or anyone else more than you already have been.

Once again, I didn't say "frightening". I said "spooky", as in "ghostly", "intangible", etc.

The term "God's creative love" has no meaning and contributes nothing to this discussion.


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 215 by Malachi-II, posted 02-02-2007 3:08 PM Malachi-II has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by Malachi-II, posted 02-04-2007 10:17 AM ringo has responded

  
Malachi-II
Member (Idle past 4043 days)
Posts: 139
From: Sussex, England
Joined: 04-10-2006


Message 218 of 285 (382074)
02-03-2007 3:34 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by Archer Opteryx
02-02-2007 3:22 PM


Re: Fax from God
Why let the rest of the world know? The fax was sent to me. It's nobody's business who I talk to.

If God wants other people to have the contents, he can send them faxes, too. Everyone can trace the number themselves. Why should I have to prove anything?

BULLS EYE!! Indeed, why should anyone have to prove anything at all to anyone else. We all know what we know, or think we know. Trouble is the majority of people on this rock want to convert everyone else to their way of thinking, often on pain of death. Oh death, where is thy sting?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Archer Opteryx, posted 02-02-2007 3:22 PM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded

    
Malachi-II
Member (Idle past 4043 days)
Posts: 139
From: Sussex, England
Joined: 04-10-2006


Message 219 of 285 (382079)
02-03-2007 4:49 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by ringo
02-01-2007 4:59 PM


A Matter of Courtesy
DIRECT QUESTION TO RINGO:-

If one member of this Forum apologizes to another, but the recipient lacks the grace to accept or acknowledge the apology, do you think the recipient of the apology deserves the respect of other members?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by ringo, posted 02-01-2007 4:59 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by ringo, posted 02-03-2007 11:47 AM Malachi-II has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 14630
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 220 of 285 (382113)
02-03-2007 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by Malachi-II
02-03-2007 4:49 AM


Re: A Matter of Courtesy
Malachi-II writes:

If one member of this Forum apologizes to another....

If it's a "direct question", please be direct about who you're addressing.

Recap: Earlier in the thread, you made an indirect complaint about "somebody" questioning your sincerity. Then you made insulting comments directly to me, for which you were chastised by AdminQuetzal. Then you made an indirect apology "to all concerned".

Even now you don't have the good grace to say who the @#$% you're talking about.

As far as I'm concerned, such back-handed, back-door "apologetic" behaviour doesn't warrant a direct acceptance.

... do you think the recipient of the apology deserves the respect of other members?

I doubt that the respect of the members hangs on the matter.

So, do you have anything to add to the topic?


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 219 by Malachi-II, posted 02-03-2007 4:49 AM Malachi-II has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Malachi-II, posted 02-04-2007 5:26 AM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
Malachi-II
Member (Idle past 4043 days)
Posts: 139
From: Sussex, England
Joined: 04-10-2006


Message 221 of 285 (382290)
02-04-2007 5:26 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by ringo
02-03-2007 11:47 AM


Re: A Matter of Apology
Ringo,

If you read again my direct response (#203) to your message (#197) you might notice the last line, which I quote:

"Please read message 201 and accept my apologies."

Edited by Malachi-II, : Needed to check the facts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by ringo, posted 02-03-2007 11:47 AM ringo has acknowledged this reply

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 10805
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 222 of 285 (382305)
02-04-2007 8:18 AM


Apologies accepted...now move along
On behalf of both of you, all apologies are accepted. Now lets move on. This meeting is no place for personal squabbles. Granted that we all should respect each other more...

Anyway, where were we? Gold has been challenged as a legitimate candidate since it has no hands or feet.

One contention was that the candidate had to possess something called The Holy Spirit. We have not yet arrived at a consensus as to what this is and whether it is necessary. Any comments?


Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Malachi-II, posted 02-04-2007 9:34 AM Phat has not yet responded
 Message 227 by ringo, posted 02-04-2007 1:01 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Malachi-II
Member (Idle past 4043 days)
Posts: 139
From: Sussex, England
Joined: 04-10-2006


Message 223 of 285 (382310)
02-04-2007 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by Phat
02-04-2007 8:18 AM


Re: Apologies accepted...now move along
On behalf of both of you, all apologies are accepted.

Excuse me, Phat, I don't think you can justly accept my apology on behalf of another. If Ringo is gracious enough to accept my apology then I shall be all too happy to move along.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Phat, posted 02-04-2007 8:18 AM Phat has not yet responded

    
Malachi-II
Member (Idle past 4043 days)
Posts: 139
From: Sussex, England
Joined: 04-10-2006


Message 224 of 285 (382311)
02-04-2007 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by ringo
02-02-2007 3:54 PM


There's nothing deceptive about giving everybody their own personalized message. What is deceptive is lurking in the background, letting people come up with their own looney ideas about Him.

Since I joined this 'discussion' about the nature of God, I haven't come across any of your loony ideas about him. Nor have I spotted anyone in the background. I can only read what invisible entities put on the Internet.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are four God candidates present. each one seeks to be recognized as God, Omnipotant Creator of all things.

QUESTION: Do you believe in any of the four candidates and, if so, which one? And Why?

Once again, I didn't say "frightening". I said "spooky", as in "ghostly", "intangible", etc.

No need to repeat yourself. A recognized dictionary definition of "spooky" is 'A strange or frightening person.' It might reduce confusion if we choose words more carefully.

The term "God's creative love" has no meaning and contributes nothing to this discussion.

Perhaps not for you, but there may be many people who clearly understand the meaning of creative love in human and divine terms.

On the other hand if you were elected or appointed as Judge and Jury to this discussion then you obviously have the right to pass final judgment.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by ringo, posted 02-02-2007 3:54 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by ringo, posted 02-04-2007 10:50 AM Malachi-II has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 14630
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 225 of 285 (382314)
02-04-2007 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by Malachi-II
02-04-2007 10:17 AM


Malachi-II writes:

Since I joined this 'discussion' about the nature of God, I haven't come across any of your loony ideas about him.

That's because this discussion isn't about my ideas. It's about the nature of God (unless you're nominating me :D ).

This is a committee action. It seems to me we're looking for a consensus. (Unfortunately, as with many committee actions, we seem to spend a lot of time discussing what we should be discussing.)

QUESTION: Do you believe in any of the four candidates and, if so, which one? And Why?

Irrelevant. We need to look at this case objectively, not with judgement clouded by personal beliefs.

It might reduce confusion if we choose words more carefully.

It might, but in your case I doubt it. ;)

The term "God's creative love" has no meaning and contributes nothing to this discussion.

Perhaps not for you, but there may be many people who clearly understand the meaning of creative love in human and divine terms.

Then roll some of them out and have them explain what it means, because it is meaningless to this committe until somebody explains what it means.

Please present some evidence or testimony that's pertinent to the case.


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 224 by Malachi-II, posted 02-04-2007 10:17 AM Malachi-II has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by Malachi-II, posted 02-04-2007 12:18 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply
 Message 228 by Malachi-II, posted 02-04-2007 4:30 PM ringo has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1314
15
16171819Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018