Jump to content

Josh "The Panther" Versus Edgarcito "The End3" : A Grudge Match, No Holds Barred


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Joshpantera said:

1) Is god omnipresent or not? This is yes or no. 

Yes, I believe the Bible teaches this.  

 

Make your posts count Josh.  Not one question at a time.  Make the connection.....tell me, explain the relationship you wish me to see.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 121
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

In this corner, weighing in as an agnostic atheist, with several title debates under his belt, the Panther from South Florida.... @Joshpantera   And in this corner, coming on strong as a lon

Yes, we can both do so in light of the mountain of knowledge that will be rising up during the exchange.    The spiritual aspect of this learning for me was intense. I became caught up in wh

Point of Order:   Thou shalt not take the name of the Prof thy Mod in vain.

So here's my question in return for you.....no obfuscation please.

 

Is the gluon amplitude presence described in the video you cite responsible for spiritual feelings across humanity and how.

 

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator
1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

Yes, I believe the Bible teaches this.  

 

Make your posts count Josh.  Not one question at a time.  Make the connection.....tell me, explain the relationship you wish me to see.  

 

I've tried jumping ahead, but that hasn't made it click. So right now I need go back through one point at a time and see if you get what I'm saying if we slow it down and look very closely at each step of the logic that goes into my total overview. 

 

1) Yes, you believe the bible teaches an omnipresent god. 

 

The reason for each question is so that you can make the connections one by one as we proceed. We agree, the concept of god has to span out into something omnipresent, or else we're not talking about something absolute, supreme, ultimate, etc. And also, we're talking about something with an "all-presence." 

 

So the second question is to see if we agree or disagree on the next issue.

 

2) What does "all" mean in the sense of an absolute god? Does it mean everything, or does "all" mean one thing but not another thing?

 

27 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

So here's my question in return for you.....no obfuscation please.

 

Is the gluon amplitude presence described in the video you cite responsible for spiritual feelings across humanity and how.

 

Thanks.

 

If you want the answer, which I will give you, we have to first do the leg work of walking it through. Checking at each point of logic to see if we agree or disagree. We agree that god is considered "all-present" by the bible and also in the Vedic traditions that I've been citing. YHWH and Brahman are omni gods. All of your questions can be answered. But if we jump ahead of you understanding the answers, well, then we've merely jumped too far ahead. 

 

This is about establishing WHY the answers "will be what they will be." 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

I've tried jumping ahead, but that hasn't made it click. So right now I need go back through one point at a time and see if you get what I'm saying if we slow it down and look very closely at each step of the logic that goes into my total overview. 

 

1) Yes, you believe the bible teaches an omnipresent god. 

 

The reason for each question is so that you can make the connections one by one as we proceed. We agree, the concept of god has to span out into something omnipresent, or else we're not talking about something absolute, supreme, ultimate, etc. And also, we're talking about something with an "all-presence." 

 

So the second question is to see if we agree or disagree on the next issue.

 

2) What does "all" mean? Does it mean everything, or does "all" mean one thing but not another thing?

 

 

If you want the answer, which I will give you, we have to first do the leg work of walking it through. Checking at each point of logic to see if we agree or disagree. We agree that god is considered "all-present" by the bible and also in the Vedic traditions that I've been citing. YHWH and Brahman are omni gods. All of your questions can be answered. But if we jump ahead of you understanding the answers, well, then we've merely jumped too far ahead. 

 

This is about establishing WHY the answers "will be what they will be." 

 

 

 

This is why I cuss.  I just asked you not to present your questions one at a time.  Secondly, you've obfuscated.  

 

You would need to demonstrate first how we share the same experience from a physiological standpoint,...knowledge of how the gluons produce the spirituality , to then point out how pantheism is more complete that monotheism.  Science Josh, you underpinned your omnipresence discussion with science.....make it happen please.  

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator
41 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

You would need to demonstrate first how we share the same experience from a physiological standpoint,...knowledge of how the gluons produce the spirituality , to then point out how pantheism is more complete that monotheism.  Science Josh, you underpinned your omnipresence discussion with science.....make it happen please.  

 

You claim, that I claim, that gluons produce spirituality. Go search my posts. Never mentioned by me. No such claim made. So that's off the table right away. And certainly not something that I need to produce in light of the fact that it's claim never made by me, only you. 

 

We are going to cross reference the science. If you answer the questions we can then look at the answers and cross reference how they apply to science. As to where spirituality comes from, I think I can address that two in the process. It's just that I have no claim that it arises from gluons. So keep that in mind. although the question will back around again later. 

 

It's not hard to just answer a question. 

 

Question 2) 

1 hour ago, Joshpantera said:

2) What does "all" mean in the sense of an absolute god? Does it mean everything, or does "all" mean one thing but not another thing?

 

God is omnipresent. Omnipresent means "all-present." And the word "all" means what? 

 

You have to get the point before approaching space, or particles, or anything. All in the context of omnipresence. It either means everything or it has no meaning. The alternative to everything is not-everything. Which then produces not-all. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

You claim, that I claim, that gluons produce spirituality. Go search my posts. Never mentioned by me. No such claim made. So that's off the table right away. And certainly not something that I need to produce in light of the fact that it's claim never made by me, only you. 

 

We are going to cross reference the science. If you answer the questions we can then look at the answers and cross reference how they apply to science. As to where spirituality comes from, I think I can address that two in the process. It's just that I have no claim that it arises from gluons. So keep that in mind. although the question will back around again later. 

 

It's not hard to just answer a question. 

 

Question 2) 

 

God is omnipresent. Omnipresent means "all-present." And the word "all" means what? 

 

You have to get the point before approaching space, or particles, or anything. All in the context of omnipresence. It either means everything or it has no meaning. The alternative to everything is not-everything. Which then produces not-all. 

Lord Josh, I don't know how to help you.  Even if I were to agree that my existence is a manifestation of the Christian God, you can't define how that is the same as spiritualism in the sense that we are a manifestation of the universe.  So fucking what.....that is not apples to apples, and therefore you can't declare one over another....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Everybody doesn't win....the reason for religion/spiritual in the first place.  The incessant hypocrisy of the "knowledge based" drives me to praying that there is MORE UNDERSTANDING than what is presented.  I digress.  Someone please explain to this young man why he is so desperately incorrect.  TIA. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator
5 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Lord Josh, I don't know how to help you.  Even if I were to agree that my existence is a manifestation of the Christian God, you can't define how that is the same as spiritualism in the sense that we are a manifestation of the universe.  So fucking what.....that is not apples to apples, and therefore you can't declare one over another....

You're jumping ahead again. 

 

I promise you that it all comes together. 

 

But we have to look at each step of the way. Understand each step along the way. Then it should be clear. The only problem is that we have one person who has done a step by step series of realization speaking to another who hasn't yet looked at it the same. To communicate the answers to all of these questions, we have to acknowledge each piece of the puzzle. The puzzle itself answers all of the questions when we get it put together. 

 

We're at the second question. You have to answer it in order to get to the next piece of the puzzle. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator

That wasn't so bad. But necessary to collect in order to get to the answers. 

 

1) You believe god is omnipresent.

2) You understand "all" to mean the whole of something. 

 

Which means an omnipresent god has 'presence' through the whole. 

 

11 hours ago, Edgarcito said:
13 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

1) Is god omnipresent or not? This is yes or no. 

Yes, I believe the Bible teaches this.  

 

9 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

2) What does "all" mean in the sense of an absolute god? Does it mean everything, or does "all" mean one thing but not another thing?

 

3 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

All.. used to describe the whole of something.

 

Next question:

 

3) What does the whole consist of? Space, matter, and things which are yet to be discovered? 

 

Yes, or no? 

 

Image: Hubble Ultra Deep field

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator
2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Sure, what’s next buddy..

 

Your god is all of it, all space, all matter, and all everything, correct? 

 

Image: Hubble Ultra Deep field

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Your god is all of it, all space, all matter, and all everything, correct? 

 

Image: Hubble Ultra Deep field

 

 

No, you’re changing the words now.  I see God independently from His creation.  I don’t see me as God, nor me as Jesus, nor me as the Holy Spirit.  I see God’s creation made of whatever specified that we comprehend, but I don’t particularly see God of those same materials.  I am not of that view.  If God is omnipresent, I’m uncertain the mechanism...

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator
7 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

No, you’re changing the words now.  I see God independently from His creation.  I don’t see me as God, nor me as Jesus, nor me as the Holy Spirit.  I see God’s creation made of whatever specified that we comprehend, but I don’t particularly see God of those same materials.  I am not of that view.  If God is omnipresent, I’m uncertain the mechanism...

 

1) God is omnipresent. 

2) Omni means "all".

3) All means the whole of something. 

 

10 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Sure, what’s next buddy..

 

You are agreed up to this point. 

 

Then you contradict yourself when the implications of your own claims begin to take form. See below:

 

7 hours ago, Edgarcito said:
7 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

Your god is all of it, all space, all matter, and all everything, correct? 

 

Image: Hubble Ultra Deep field

 

 

Expand  

No, you’re changing the words now.  I see God independently from His creation.  I don’t see me as God, nor me as Jesus, nor me as the Holy Spirit.  I see God’s creation made of whatever specified that we comprehend, but I don’t particularly see God of those same materials.  I am not of that view.  If God is omnipresent, I’m uncertain the mechanism...

 

I'm not changing anything around, you're not following through with the implications of your own beliefs and claims about your god. 

 

4) How is your god both omnipresent, and also "independent from his creation?" 

 

You are uncertain of the mechanism simply because you're not visualizing what the implications of omnipresence are. 

 

So here's where the science can assist you. We can look back at the nature of space situation again from this perspective. If we just focus in for a moment on what having a "presence" in "everything" would entail. 

 

Present in: 

 

space > sub-atomic particles > atomic matter > animate atomic matter 

 

If not present in "all" of those things, then not "all present." The mechanism that you're missing here is the fabric and structure of existence itself - that which has no beginning or end. That which is necessarily infinite and eternal. Your 'omnipresent god' points you or orients you towards these ultimate conclusions. 

 

But because you are coming from a spiritual tradition that stands to deny these logical implications of it's own claims, you start to close yourself off to embracing those same implications. 

 

If god is omnipresent, then existence itself and god can not be separated into two separate things. All space, all matter, amounts to all life as well. All of creation, basically. But You explain above that you don't see any of it. You don't get the implications of your own claims is what that amounts to. 

 

But these are NOT your claims, they are the claims that you have accepted from bronze age jewish priests, scribes, and mystics that you hardly understand. And their contradictions between one another are the contradictions that you are strapped with having to account for in this debate. This isn't really personal to you. It's their problem. None of these ideas were invented by you. They never managed to come up with a coherent way of dealing with implications of their own claims. And you're now saddled with their problems. 

 

And you can dump them and their problems at any time. That's the biggest takeaway. You don't have to have play party to their inferior ways of stopping short of making the logical connections and pulling it all together into one coherent understanding that is self consistent and follows all the way through with the implications of it's own claims. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

All present is not equal to all of something.  (Be careful, you're about the make a case for communion...)  

 

Within our reality, within our ability to detect and measure, you are placing spirituality within those bounds through your argument.  Yet you are wholly unable to make any speculation that would help that case except anecdotal evidence you have found.  

 

I personally like anecdotal evidence bc it "points to" as you say.  Think I have done it for years on this site.  

 

What do you want me to do now though Josh, make a huge scientific faux pas that you might "win" the argument?

Wouldn't that be synonymous to Jesus and the Cross?

 

If you want to define spiritual as all of space, matter, etc., then you must demonstrate how the physics and chemistry of that/our reality, the steps to produce those feelings or lack thereof for ALL of us....with high certainty.....so that you might then make your claim to "superior"....another scientific Joshism.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator
1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

All present is not equal to all of something. 

 

This is why the debate is very much still alive. 

 

We need to stay with this and see if we can get it cleared up. And to do that we should keep the focus on what exactly an "all presence" has to entail. What omnipresent means is that god present everywhere. 

 

And to be present everywhere, you literally have to be fabric out of which everything in existence can be broken down to. Yes, we could imagine that the fabric breaks down forever infinitely small, and infinite large. That only put's greater perspective on the point, it doesn't change the point. 

 

Everywhere present means present in that which we don't yet perceive or understand. Everywhere present means present in all of the potentially infinite and eternal space out there, and inside here, because that's what everywhere present entails. The realm of the eternal is within you, and all outside of you, simply put. 

 

The Advantan mystics follow through with the logic. No pussy footing, no acting shy to come out call it what it is. They have a tradition that claims that Brahman is immanent and transcendent, infinite and eternal, all of which amount to what omnipresent means, if omnipresent is to have any meaning at all. 

 

Tat Tvam Asi - You Are That

 

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

Within our reality, within our ability to detect and measure, you are placing spirituality within those bounds through your argument.  Yet you are wholly unable to make any speculation that would help that case except anecdotal evidence you have found.  

 

I'm placing spirituality with no bounds whatsoever. Another point you are failing to see and acknowledge. If existence is eternal then existence is necessarily unbound. If has to go on forever without end.

 

It has to include all that we see, detect, and measure, and also have the scope of looking to beyond what we see, detect, and measure, which is what "immanent and transcendent" means. Both inside and outside of the universe or our range of observation. 

 

These philosophical terms and concepts have meanings and implications. 

 

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

If you want to define spiritual as all of space, matter, etc., then you must demonstrate how the physics and chemistry of that/our reality, the steps to produce those feelings or lack thereof for ALL of us....with high certainty.....so that you might then make your claim to "superior"....another scientific Joshism.

 

I have shown you how and why the claim of an omnipresent god has implications. If the god represents existence itself, the totality of anything that possibly exists out to infinity, then any spirituality associated with the omnipresent god follows the same. 

 

How do you get to this god? 

 

What does a relationship to the god which is everything mean? 

 

What is spirituality, mysticism, and religion against the concept of a god which is everything? 

 

According to a few biblical writers you get to the god by opening your eyes to what's always been there all along. "The Kingdom of the Father is spread upon the face of the earth, but men do not see it," according to the Thomas writer.  You're not seeing it, Ed. That verse speaks right to you. Here it is, the kingdom of the omnipresent all around you and all inside of you. Right down to the space between planets. But people don't see the interconnecting factor. They just see their perceptions which are incomplete. These concept preach a message to people to try and open their eyes, and see what's in front of their faces. 

 

The Luke writer sees it as, "The Kingdom of the Father is within you." Same idea. Out of the canon. In the canon. It's all there. 

 

Watt's summary of the mystical realization of the John gospel goes even further. What is the good news? It appears that the good news down in there to be discovered is simply that people are searching for something that hasn't ever been "other." It's never been something else far away in some remote area.

 

You get to the god by understanding that it's existence itself and you exist!!!!!

 

Arrived. Conclusion. Mystery complete. 

 

You can look at the whole thing as a cat and mouse game and the mystery ends when you realize that you have always been the very thing you've been looking for the entire time. 

 

It's all within you and all around you.....

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand, but you still have nothing because you can't demonstrate that the fabric produces spirituality that is common to everyone or uncommon, because you haven't  scientifically demonstrated such.  Our subjectivity is limited to the bounds of our subjectivity outside of "supernatural".

 

Then you say that somehow the "necessarily unbound" outside of our current subjectivity status, is superior without any means to demonstrate it within the current subjectivity. 

 

...but you know it's superior because you speculate "all" inclusiveness?

 

And you want me and everyone to buy this?  You sell used cars man?

 

You should have mentioned from the outset that we were speculating on "necessarily unbound" as part of this discussion.  Big difference sir.  

 

Whatever....I need to go feed my f'n unicorn...   

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can go back Josh to the discussions I had with Keith back in the day.  I was in full woo mode back then.  Particularly after coming back from a Walk to Emmaus retreat.  Thinking Phanta was in the conversation as well.....maybe in the coliseum.  Long story short, we don't have the necessary cognition to adequately consider the ramifications of our actions.  You should be scared and simultaneously thankful for some way out of our inadequacy..... 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator
3 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

I understand, but you still have nothing because you can't demonstrate that the fabric produces spirituality that is common to everyone or uncommon, because you haven't  scientifically demonstrated such.  Our subjectivity is limited to the bounds of our subjectivity outside of "supernatural".

 

This is where people will see an ongoing problem of not having a fixed definition for spiritual. The sense that I use the term is feeling that connection to ultimate reality, which some people personify as a god. It's about ultimate reality and how a person relates to it, senses it, understands it, acknowledges it, and so on. I think christians are doing this but they are doing it through a specific type of focus. Through the bible and christian dogma. And doing so without putting their fingers on what it is that they're actually doing while they do it. 

 

Doing it blind, basically. 

 

4 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Then you say that somehow the "necessarily unbound" outside of our current subjectivity status, is superior without any means to demonstrate it within the current subjectivity. 

 

I'm saying that existence itself is unbound. That it must go on forever, by default. And that could go inward as well. Meaning that the fabric of existence itself is not something that can be bound. It's the very thing people personify with terms like "god." 

 

4 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

...but you know it's superior because you speculate "all" inclusiveness?

 

And you want me and everyone to buy this?  You sell used cars man?

 

I'm saying that seeing ultimate reality for it is is superior to walking around blind not seeing it for what it is. I say this do to having experienced both perceptions - not seeing it as it actually is, and then seeing it as it actually is. 

 

What is it? 

 

Again, it's a situation where I exist, therefore I am formed out of the fabric of existence itself. Which has no fixed beginning to pin point. Which never really dies. And is never limited to any given finite object. It's a totality of interconnected aspects of itself. I see it for what it is. 

 

How do I know that? 

 

Because everything is interconnected in the ways in which Walter and I have already demonstrated several times over. Existence in an interconnected reality = a true identity as the interconnected reality itself. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator
3 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

.....communion puts the Kingdom of God within you.

 

The kingdom of an omnipresence, is the interconnected reality itself, the fabric of that reality, which is always present everywhere, all the time. What could communion be against such a reality? 

 

It's acting out literally the actions of a mythological tale that relates an insight. People who are not understanding any of this, are role playing and taking the god into their body. In other words, more of what the writers of John and Luke must have been trying to use to pussy foot jewish-like people into understanding what Vedic mystics has already understood for a long, long time. 

 

It's all pussy footing!!!!

 

Jesus is god, we relate to jesus in these ways. We are baby stepping our way to understanding that god and man are not two separate things. But the orthodoxy comes down and controls the dissemination of the mystic content. 

 

It's inferior against the much more sophisticated philosophical insights that had already come out long before. No amount of wishful thinking can manage to change it. Apologists try, apologists fail. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

This is where people will see an ongoing problem of not having a fixed definition for spiritual. The sense that I use the term is feeling that connection to ultimate reality, which some people personify as a god. It's about ultimate reality and how a person relates to it, senses it, understands it, acknowledges it, and so on. I think christians are doing this but they are doing it through a specific type of focus. Through the bible and christian dogma. And doing so without putting their fingers on what it is that they're actually doing while they do it. 

 

Doing it blind, basically. 

 

 

I'm saying that existence itself is unbound. That it must go on forever, by default. And that could go inward as well. Meaning that the fabric of existence itself is not something that can be bound. It's the very thing people personify with terms like "god." 

 

 

I'm saying that seeing ultimate reality for it is is superior to walking around blind not seeing it for what it is. I say this do to having experienced both perceptions - not seeing it as it actually is, and then seeing it as it actually is. 

 

What is it? 

 

Again, it's a situation where I exist, therefore I am formed out of the fabric of existence itself. Which has no fixed beginning to pin point. Which never really dies. And is never limited to any given finite object. It's a totality of interconnected aspects of itself. I see it for what it is. 

 

How do I know that? 

 

Because everything is interconnected in the ways in which Walter and I have already demonstrated several times over. Existence in an interconnected reality = a true identity as the interconnected reality itself. 

Ok, let's follow your inward outward thing bc my mind can picture this.  My collection of fabric, a blip between inward eternal and outward eternal is me, is you.  Now what.  This still suggests a potential imbalance, balance, distinction between the fabric and the blip, me.  Am I in harmony Josh with the fabric?  Are you?  Is "figurative" death built into the fabric....certainly?  What's the meaning of my blip?  Lack of harmony/harmony....a dichotomy?  Since I'm conscious, can my blip reform in a harmonious state/wave?  

 

So we are on a round disturbance with a billions of unbalanced blips waiting to potentially reform in harmony with the River of Life, which we already know as Dr. Pepper. 

 

I potentially see it Josh, and I appreciate the effort, truthfully, I just think we are trying to figure out how to reform in harmony and don't get absorbed in a permanent unformed state.  I like the harmonious portions of my coexistence with the fabric.....

 

Maybe we could collaborate on a sci-fi movie....   

 

  

 

  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator
1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

Ok, let's follow your inward outward thing bc my mind can picture this.  My collection of fabric, a blip between inward eternal and outward eternal is me, is you.  Now what.  This still suggests a potential imbalance, balance, distinction between the fabric and the blip, me.  Am I in harmony Josh with the fabric?  Are you?  Is "figurative" death built into the fabric....certainly?  What's the meaning of my blip?  Lack of harmony/harmony....a dichotomy?  Since I'm conscious, can my blip reform in a harmonious state/wave?  

 

If you want to seriously try and understand the mystical realization, I commend your efforts. I can't tell you how many times I've had this very debate with christians online. None of which have even tried to wrap their minds around trying to understand it. They just keep dismissing it. 

 

You threw the infinitely large and infinitely small thing at me earlier, so I'm using it to try and describe things now. You are always in harmony with the fabric of existence itself just by existing. The fact that you do exist. You are here having a conscious experience. And you are an aspect of a totality, a whole, or an omnipresence if you prefer.

 

As to consciousness, we are just now introducing that aspect of it. 

 

Your god is omnipresent, is your god conscious or not conscious? That's rhetorical at this point. We all know the god of the bible claimed as both omnipresent and conscious. So what implications does that introduce? Again, rhetorical. It produces the implication that your god is everywhere present, which requires being everything by default, and it's conscious. 

 

Your god is something akin to the new age notion of a universal mind. It has to be universal, and it has to be a mind. And it has to be you as it goes. Or else none of these things have any meaning. 

 

The science at this point stops. We have interconnection through space itself, which isn't void. But we don't have the nature of space or the universe as conscious through science. This part goes beyond what can be shown and demonstrated as a truth. 

 

But a lot of experimenting scientist's have been pushing the envelope in that direction. And looking at how and why awareness, not exactly consciousness as humans experience it, could also be an inherent, fundamental aspect of the fabric and structure of existence itself. As in awareness in various levels of focus, are always taking place all the way down scale, past the sub-atom scale to be precise. 

 

 

Everything I'm going over gels with pantheistic philosophy but not so much with traditional monotheism. And in each case there's a common theme. The monotheist is taking a short sided view of the whole against the comparison with the pantheist. Both have the same attributes associated with the god concept. Even the consciousness part. Both present the concept of an eternal consciousness of sorts, which is all-present both through the universe and transcending the universe to beyond. But the Brahmanic tradition is straight forward about it. The YHWH tradition is concealed, hidden, shy, given the long way around, and so on. With the YHWH tradition you have to basically figure it out somehow on your own against the will and admission of the designated religious authorities of that tradition. 

 

Psalm 139 : 7 - 18.

 

7 Where can I go from your Spirit?
    Where can I flee from your presence?
8 If I go up to the heavens, you are there;
    if I make my bed in the depths, you are there.
9 If I rise on the wings of the dawn,
    if I settle on the far side of the sea,
10 even there your hand will guide me,
    your right hand will hold me fast.
11 If I say, “Surely the darkness will hide me
    and the light become night around me,”
12 even the darkness will not be dark to you;
    the night will shine like the day,
    for darkness is as light to you.

 

13 For you created my inmost being;
    you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
    your works are wonderful,
    I know that full well.
15 My frame was not hidden from you
    when I was made in the secret place,
    when I was woven together in the depths of the earth.
16 Your eyes saw my unformed body;
    all the days ordained for me were written in your book
    before one of them came to be.
17 How precious to me are your thoughts,[a] God!
    How vast is the sum of them!
18 Were I to count them,
    they would outnumber the grains of sand—
    when I awake, I am still with you.

 

Romans 8 : 38 & 39.

 

38 For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons,[k] neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 

39 neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.