A Working Definition of God

Congrats. You haven't succeeded.You see Mike, your answer is so vague as to be meaningless.To me, love is watching Donald Sutherland movies. Love is kicking ass in whirlyball. Love is breathing furiously and sweating after having sex with my girlfriend. Love is the Chef Boyardee pastas with fun cartoon shapes and imitation meatballs. Love is old issues of Kirby's run on Fantastic Four.To you, love is an entirely different set of criteria. When you throw in six billion other people, the criteria gets even more wrinkly.So what... Love is practically everything? So God is practically everything?Acceptable as a neat little philosophical dealy, I suppose. However, if you're actually talking about the existence of a creator of the universe, then narrow the field. I can assure you there is someone out there who thinks my asshole is love. I can just as readily assure you that their love for my asshole did not create the universe. While I like to think of myself as manly and virile, I don't think I have the energy to treat everybody as I would Eliza Dushku. There are six billion people out there, Mike.This message has been edited by [Dan's Clever Alias], 04-19-2005 09:20 AM

No, you've missed it here Dan. Missed it. You're talking about pleasure/lust and things that make Dan feel good.I'm talking about fire. You're talking about self-gratification.How much would you desire a Sutherland movie? Would you give your life to see it? There's no such thing. Not if you're speaking sexually. If someone wants to save your asshole for your asshole's sake then maybe.The bible speaks of three criteria only, "agape" love, the love of God (giving your life for your friends etc). love for family or a wife and love as friendship. (my memory might be a bit off, but I think those are the three mentioned. More explanation here.
Love of asshole? Me thinks lust of asshole maybe, me thinks self-gratification, maybe. Me thinks love? Me thinks not.clarification courtesy of PBThis message has been edited by AdminPhat, 04-19-2005 10:32 AM

quote:

---

Now treat everybody as you would her (Eliza Dushku), and then you'll see God.

---

Hey Dan, I'd love for you to treat me the way you would treat Eliza Dushku, but I'm married already.Mike, are you sure you want Dan, um, "treating" you like Eliza Dushku?

Which, to me, are part and parcel of love. See how wrinkly this gets with only two people? If you don't feel fire from art, physical accomplishment, sexual union, nourishment of the body, and nourishment of the mind, then I feel sorry for you. What exactly are you doing with your life? To see it? Probably not. To ensure a world where it could exist? Absolutely. Bully for the Bible. What's your point?

I perceive that you have compassion, and Dan has pleasure, but neither of you have the love of God in you. I posted incase you did. You are the natural man Dan, (Romans). The natural man thinks the Spiritual things are foolishness.Now read the bible passage again. For it says those without it are without God. Is that not true? Are you not both without it?It's not pleasure, it's not sentimental, it's not comprehended by you. It's not in you. It could be.It is the fire that burns stronger than the fire for your own baba. It is the fire in me, that loves your baba more than you do. Can you locate it? Can you understand? How can you understand?

I'd offer to fight Zhimbo in a battle to the death. But you'd also have to fight my girlfriend in a battle to the death, and we'd have to hire someone to play the arena theme from Star Trek for the whole thing, buy some floodlights and weapons, acquire some cool homoerotic gladiator uniforms... oy, really it'd just be a whole big to-do. I'm fairly sure he does.

Can I borrow your mind-reading helmet? I figure I'll make a killing at the track.In the meantime, what on Earth makes you think there's nothing spiritual about what I posted?These are the things that give me fire, Mike.Meanwhile, I fail to see how the fire of which you speak, even if I am misapplying it here, is a sound definition for the thing we're talking about. Again... neat little philosophical dealy. Useless to the conversation at hand. So vague as to be meaningless.

But we're talking about what God is remember, all I'm saying is what he isn't, in an effort to help you understand this. I thought I also made it clear what he is, and JC certainly shows this.I'm sure those things make you feel good, as they do everyone, but you've confused yourself if you think all of them spiritual. Maybe a doctrine of men, from a religion - has confused you as to what things are spiritual and natural?

Great. He's also not a telephone. Or the oil-rich coastal lowlands of Venezuela. Or three-toed sloth.We can do this all day. Perhaps you should get cracking on some concrete terms for "is", rather than "is not". What part of "so vague as to be meaningless" was hard to get? Maybe your inability to see how others might receive spirituality from sources other than the ones that work for you is what's got you acting so condenscending?

Remember that book in the bible I quoted? Here's from the same book; Since you boast of worldy things, I know that you speak of natural things and not spiritual, because you speak from the viewpoint of the world.I don't mean to be condescending, I just know that the Spirit must be tested. Any Spirit that concedes that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of true Spirit. Do yur sources concede this?This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 04-19-2005 11:00 AM

Here we have, inevitably, Mike the Wiz showing his true colors when he is asked somethign he can't answer.Dan has him stumped (it must be terribly hard to claim the existence of something that is the center of your life and be unable to define it) so Mike just asserts that his perceptions and knowledge are superior and Dan is incapable of understanding them. You're a real good guy, Mike. A real mensch.

I am not good, don't call me good. But God is good, which means I must give Dan a tough time so that he may come to know truth, even if it is to my own name sake, that I am altogether evil in the site of all men/women here at this forum, that my name is utterly dirty. Then I am evil! So be it, amen.,"Only one is good, that being God" - Jesus Christ.

Bully for you and the Bible. What's your point? So you speak from the viewpoint of God, then?That's very funny when taken alongside the statement, "I don't mean to be condescending". Let me get this straight... it's not real spirituality unless it involves Jesus?Wow.

Magi, Why is everyone trying to define the Christian god? Why not Thor, Vishnu, Loki et al? A definition of god that included Vishnu's actions would exclude the Xian god from being a god, if what you say is true, surely?Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This is the absolute height of condescension. You may rely that I do not need your sort of laughable enlightenment (I am generally able to define those things in which I believe) and I would guess that no one else does either.Oh, you aren't evil. Just annoying.