quicksand Posted November 14, 2005 Share Posted November 14, 2005 And I do not think that if God is everything, 106369[/snapback] Since when?. We've discussed this in detail Amanda. Since when now, is God not everything THanks/// Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted November 14, 2005 Share Posted November 14, 2005 I believe God is good. 106204[/snapback] so if god says its good to burn a bunch of ppl cause hes says it good to do so, its also good. 106373[/snapback] And since God created the Devil, the Devil is good too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willybilly30 Posted November 14, 2005 Share Posted November 14, 2005 I agree. 106350[/snapback] Willy Billy, fwiw, I agree with you!!! And I do not think that if God is everything, it does not retain great meaning. On the contrary, it retains the most important meaning! Just because I am made of individual parts, does not make my whole body meaningless. Well, I'm sure people might debate me on 'that one'... but let's say I used another body as an example. 106369[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willybilly30 Posted November 14, 2005 Share Posted November 14, 2005 Cool im going to study that. What should I call it then? It does not have a name.Maybe I should not use god though. Using that term might make people think I mean bible-god 106364[/snapback] I think you're becoming a Taoist. Taoism is older than Christianity, and Lao-tzu recognized the same thing. You can't name it. That's the first chapter of Tao Te Ching. Here's part of it: The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal Name. The unnamable is the eternally real. Naming is the origin of all particular things. (my apologies if it's a bad translation) Basically, when you give the mystery of life, existence and everything a name, you immediately have lost the meaning of it. When you give everything a name, you have started to give it a definition, and with it you will start excluding things, and only including some, and eventually you will end up with something that is not everything anymore. 106375[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerise Posted November 14, 2005 Share Posted November 14, 2005 And I do not think that if God is everything, it does not retain great meaning. On the contrary, it retains the most important meaning! Just because I am made of individual parts, does not make my whole body meaningless. Well, I'm sure people might debate me on 'that one'... but let's say I used another body as an example. Bleah. We've gone over this a billion gazillion times before. I don't care to hash it out again. Let's just say that you need to think about what "meaning" consist of. In a literary, if not metanomical, sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willybilly30 Posted November 14, 2005 Share Posted November 14, 2005 What topics have you all talked about these things id like to read them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted November 14, 2005 Author Share Posted November 14, 2005 And I do not think that if God is everything, 106369[/snapback] Since when?. We've discussed this in detail Amanda. Since when now, is God not everything THanks/// 106376[/snapback] Hello Quicksand! Sorry, I don't know how to post two different peoples quotes in one post. I was agreeing with Willy Billy, about God being everything, not everything is god but part of God. If I understood him right. But then Asimov posted this: Sorry I didn’t mean too Not necessary to apologize, willy. You just need to recognize that when you equate God with everything, the term God becomes meaningless. 106356[/snapback] So I posted this: And I do not think that if God is everything, it does not retain great meaning. On the contrary, it retains the most important meaning! Just because I am made of individual parts, does not make my whole body meaningless. Does that make sense now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willybilly30 Posted November 14, 2005 Share Posted November 14, 2005 Why does this take away the meaning of god? Yea sure it maybe against Webster’s dictionary’s version of god But most likely he is using Christian ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted November 14, 2005 Share Posted November 14, 2005 106350[/snapback] Willy Billy, fwiw, I agree with you!!! And I do not think that if God is everything, it does not retain great meaning. On the contrary, it retains the most important meaning! Just because I am made of individual parts, does not make my whole body meaningless. Amanda, your analogy and your statement represents your severe misunderstanding of logic. The Universe is everything, Amanda, by definition. Equating God with the Universe is a fallacy of equivocation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted November 14, 2005 Share Posted November 14, 2005 Why does this take away the meaning of god?Yea sure it maybe against Webster’s dictionary’s version of god But most likely he is using Christian ideas. 106409[/snapback] No, it doesn't take away the meaning of God, it renders the term God meaningless if you equate it with something else. Just like the statement A=B. Suddenly B has no identity except being A. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willybilly30 Posted November 14, 2005 Share Posted November 14, 2005 Im not sure what to do. People I know with similar beliefs use the term god Ill ask them about it. Then try to explain it I don’t know how to fix it Why does this take away the meaning of god?Yea sure it maybe against Webster’s dictionary’s version of god But most likely he is using Christian ideas. 106409[/snapback] No, it doesn't take away the meaning of God, it renders the term God meaningless if you equate it with something else. Just like the statement A=B. Suddenly B has no identity except being A. 106426[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted November 14, 2005 Author Share Posted November 14, 2005 No, it doesn't take away the meaning of God, it renders the term God meaningless if you equate it with something else. Just like the statement A=B. Suddenly B has no identity except being A. 106426[/snapback] Asimov, it is not fair to represent it as A=B It would be more accurate to represent it as similar to A+B+C+D+E+F=G A is not equal to G A is merely part of G Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy-tiger Posted November 14, 2005 Share Posted November 14, 2005 No, it doesn't take away the meaning of God, it renders the term God meaningless if you equate it with something else. Just like the statement A=B. Suddenly B has no identity except being A. 106426[/snapback] Asimov, it is not fair to represent it as A=B It would be more accurate to represent it as similar to A+B+C+D+E+F=G A is not equal to G A is merely part of G 106439[/snapback] Want a bet...? God is good... G=g God is love... G=l God is Life... G=L What is the identity of G? Whatever it's been equated to... God has no meaning by itself in those cases. The only way God could have it's own identity, to have any meaning by itself is in God=God... anything else removes it's meaning. I really think I've been unclear about this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted November 14, 2005 Author Share Posted November 14, 2005 Want a bet...? God is good... G=g God is love... G=l God is Life... G=L What is the identity of G? Whatever it's been equated to... God has no meaning by itself in those cases. The only way God could have it's own identity, to have any meaning by itself is in God=God... anything else removes it's meaning. I really think I've been unclear about this... 106446[/snapback] Hello Crazy Tiger... I think this analogy, would be more appropriate, to explain closer to what I mean. circle = geometry square = geometry line = geometry perimeter = geometry It may all be geometry, however it does not make "geometry" meaningless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike D Posted November 14, 2005 Share Posted November 14, 2005 circle = geometry square = geometry line = geometry perimeter = geometry It may all be geometry, however it does not make "geometry" meaningless. 106463[/snapback] But aren't you also saying: Tree=geometry Sex=geometry Gucci handbag=geometry Jerry Fallwell=geometry barf=geometry Everything is geometry, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniel_1012 Posted November 14, 2005 Share Posted November 14, 2005 AND if one defined God as just good... then how could throwing people into eternally tormenting fire be good? That is a question to ask ourselves, many men have. However... it's a bad idea to be like Eve, and believe a lie that says it's not there. That is, and I'll use this analogy often because it's the best I can think of... Eve may have wondered, when Satan told her she would *surely not die* as God said they *would die* if she ate... Eve had never experienced, or seen death. She could not comprehend it. How could she? Nothing in the garden had EVER died... and yet God, is saying that if she ate of it... she would actually DIE? How can a God that is going to let me die, be good? Surely... God is good... you're right Satan, I won't die if I eat this... God wouldn't let me die. I can't fathom death, it must be horrible. Put yourself in this possition. You have never see death of any kind. You really can not even begin to fathom it, no more than I can fathom hell. However, I know it is there and no matter your definition... I know it is a place nobody will want to be. To wonder, "well, how can a God that is good send people to hell," is a question many ask... but then men that say, "God surely did not say we would die," will die because God surely did say, and to think that He did not... is a lie from Satan. I don't want you, Amanda, or anyone else to end up in a place they don't want to. So, I must confirm what Jesus confirmed. Hell is real, and many will go there. Whether you can fathom an eternal residence or not... doesn't matter. Eve could not fathom death, and yet death is so common place with us now that we have seen. Who can fathom eternity? Who can fathom the eternal residence and power of an all knowing all seeing God? Not I... but if His Word has said, eat and you will die... I believe Him, even though I can't fathom it. Jesus died to save men from the judgment that would pend death, and that is what we preach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willybilly30 Posted November 14, 2005 Share Posted November 14, 2005 Since this topic has become ‘prove what we believe is true.’ Daniel prove the bible is the word of god Prove theirs a hell Prove bible god is the real god Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fweethawt Posted November 14, 2005 Share Posted November 14, 2005 That is a question to ask ourselves, many men have. However... it's a bad idea to be like Eve, and believe a lie that says it's not there. That is, and I'll use this analogy often because it's the best I can think of... This question has nothing to do with Eve. The biblical Hell wasn't even thought of yet. (according to the book) Eve was under the understanding that she would die the very day that she ate from the tree. The serpent explained to her that she would not die and that she would become like god knowing good and evil. What happens next, according to the bible? She eats it. She does not die. Her eyes are opened and she knows good and evil. Then (once again, according to the bible), god pretty much shits his pants when he witnesses the very thing that the serpent said would happen, happening. It seems, the serpent knew more about what the fruit of the tree would do than god did. Why is that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythra Posted November 14, 2005 Share Posted November 14, 2005 God is a man-made invention. Just like a car. Both take lots of money to operate. Except cars are useful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy-tiger Posted November 14, 2005 Share Posted November 14, 2005 Hello Crazy Tiger... I think this analogy, would be more appropriate, to explain closer to what I mean. circle = geometry square = geometry line = geometry perimeter = geometry It may all be geometry, however it does not make "geometry" meaningless. 106463[/snapback] Erm... if circle=geometry than geometry=circle. The equation goes both ways, which I think you missed. To see if the equation holds, reverse it... For example. Circle=a part of geometry. That works, but you have geometry with it's own identity still. (the vast encompassing field that a circle is just one part of) With circle=geometry, you are saying that all of geometry is nothing more than a circle... Geometry has just lost it's identity as that vast encompassing field and become a circle. I'm hoping that you see what I'm getting at now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike D Posted November 14, 2005 Share Posted November 14, 2005 So, I must confirm what Jesus confirmed. Hell is real, and many will go there. 106480[/snapback] Crazy people can confirm anything they want, however stamping the word "confirmed" on a fantasy won't make it real (although it does tend to make it offical sounding, doesn't it?) Shall I "confirm" that the emerald city is somewhere just over the rainbow so you know it's really there? Confirming delusions will never make them real, no matter how many times they are "confirmed" and then "reconfirmed" again! LMAO! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willybilly30 Posted November 14, 2005 Share Posted November 14, 2005 Why are people on here trying to prove everyone wrong? I thought this was a forum for those against Christianity If everyone is against ever religion it needs to be called www.ex-religion.net I have never tried to prove atheists wrong and say bad things about what they believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythra Posted November 14, 2005 Share Posted November 14, 2005 I'm only against the religions that are the results of delusional or fraudulent human beings. Oh, wait. I guess that would be all of em. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted November 14, 2005 Share Posted November 14, 2005 Why are people on here trying to prove everyone wrong?I thought this was a forum for those against Christianity If everyone is against ever religion it needs to be called www.ex-religion.net I have never tried to prove atheists wrong and say bad things about what they believe. 106502[/snapback] No, it's right. This site is for the people that left Christianity. Now a chunk of people are Atheists, and some are Deists, some Pagan, some Wicca and yet some are somewhere between it all. You will get different answers and different responses from different people. So don't judge the whole website from some people's opinions. This is a very mixed group. Just remember that. After a while you learn who believes what, and who doesn't believe etc. Personally, I'm atheist, but I don't have any problem with you having a belief of any kind - which I hope you have noticed, since I even enganged in discussion with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willybilly30 Posted November 14, 2005 Share Posted November 14, 2005 How do you know atheism wasn’t by a delusional or fraudulent person? I tell you what if you can prove with out a doubt there is no god ill convert to atheism. I'm only against the religions that are the results of delusional or fraudulent human beings. Oh, wait. I guess that would be all of em. 106505[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts