Christians

GeoffP said:
Ok, less than omniscient.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that either.

I am saying that omnipotent (all powerful), in my miond, means capable of doing anything that is possible.
In my mind, omniscient (all knowing) means knowing all there is to know.

If, indeed, we have free will (which I think we do, and if we do not then religion itself and this discussion are absurdly pointless) then it is simply not possible to know the future because it has not been determined yet.
Free will and strict pre-determination contradict each other.
The two co-existing is a paradox.
Paradoxes are impossible.
It is impossible to know the future.
God, even if he is omniscient and omnipotent, can not know the future.
He CAN, of course, be able to predict it fairly accurately if he is omnsicient, knows all the variables and knows us all well - but with free will, the future is open.
To say that paradoxes do not apply to God, in my view, makes omnipotent a meaningless word, because then God is entirely undefinable, therefore we can't know anything about him at all (including knowing if he is omnipotent) so it makes the discussing - and even considering - God moot.

So yes, God can be all powerful and all knowing, and still not know what the future holds.
 
Well, I think that's just dumb.

Seriously, though: what about a "God of the gaps". Could that meet both criteria?
 
GeoffP said:
Well, I think that's just dumb.
Click to expand...
lol.gif


GeoffP said:
Seriously, though: what about a "God of the gaps". Could that meet both criteria?
Click to expand...

Please explain.
 
Qa`Dark said:
I swear I was staring at that avatar for five straight minutes, wondering to myself, 'is this shit going anywhere?' I feel like such an idiot.
Click to expand...
no, I think its a loop,

that looks like a fractal
so you were fracmatized

me too, its cool
 
Technically...You believe in more than one God.
If Jesus is SON of God, why is he in the divine light?
If Jesus is God, why are you equating him to a human being?
Then he is Son of Joseph and Mary.
Then, Mary is a Virgin.
Then God is Mary's (not wife) but in a some sort of partnership.
Then God inserts himself in Jesus.
:confused:
Very, very contradictory. Very, very, VERY, very contradictory :D
Astaghfurallah
Trinity?
More like decagonity.
Salams.
 
one_raven said:
The Trinity has nothing to do with Mary - you have been told wrong.
The Trinity is a triune Godhead made up of The Father (God), the Son (Jesus) and the Holy Ghost.

Three different aspects of the same God.
Think of it this way...
You are made up of your Body, Mind and Works - correct?
Three distinct aspects of one person.
Click to expand...

Except that none of those aspects are fully separable from each other with respect to a functioning whole, which is something Jesus apparently succeeded in doing when he came to this realm. Constantly referring to "the Father" would indicate that the two in dialogue (err...I mean in a monologue separated into three different parts...?) are in some way/shape/form distinct and not mere conversing aspects of a particular individual. My works usually don't pray to my mind or body.
 
Constantly referring to "the Father" would indicate that the two in dialogue (err...I mean in a monologue separated into three different parts...?) are in some way/shape/form distinct
Click to expand...

Aye, look at passages such as:

Matthew 24:36
"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father..”

What is being said here using a christians belief in trinity is: "I don't know when the end times are, only I do".

It's absolute, complete, undeniable idiocy. They could only be two distinct entities - one perhaps omniscient, and the other - given his very own statement, not omniscient at all and thus not a god.
 
Celpha Fiael said:
Except that none of those aspects are fully separable from each other with respect to a functioning whole, which is something Jesus apparently succeeded in doing when he came to this realm. Constantly referring to "the Father" would indicate that the two in dialogue (err...I mean in a monologue separated into three different parts...?) are in some way/shape/form distinct and not mere conversing aspects of a particular individual. My works usually don't pray to my mind or body.
Click to expand...

You misunderstand.
I do not believe in the Trinity - I was just defining it in response to the question.
 
1.Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

2....we do not look at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen. For the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal.

The Word of God declares to you what is in fact real...none of it would be what most posters on this site would consider real/tangible. It states catagorically "the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal"...implying the things which are unseen trancend the things which are seen and, therefore, are superior...Any/all attempts to arbitrate personal decisions involving things of this superior realm by means of the inferior realm (say, for example the scientific method) are, at best inadequate. When one considers this fact while at the same time factoring in man's fallibility, one can begin to appreciate the premature nature of atheistic pronouncements as well as how ludicrous demands for 'evidence' are in order to 'believe' or at least grant validity to the real world...it would be as if a man were trying to see/probe/understand the farthest reaches/wonders of the cosmos with merely a pair of binoculars--the tool used is simply incapable of providing what you would be looking for.

How foolish to deny the existence of the real by means/methodologies of the unreal. If you can 'see' it you, don't need faith, and it isn't real... Without faith it is impossible to please God...again faith is the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen...God is invisible, unseen... and so is faith, but the existence/reality of both are made manifest by those you 'see' who possess/are possessed by, faith.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Photizo said:
LOL! :yawn:

1.Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

2....we do not look at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen. For the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal.

The Word of God declares to you what is in fact real... none of it would be what most posters on this site would consider real/tangible. It states catagorically "the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal"... implying the things which are unseen trancend the things which are seen and, therefore, are superior... Any/all attempts to arbitrate personal decisions involving things of this superior realm by means of the inferior realm (say, for example the scientific method) are, at best inadequate. When one considers this fact while at the same time factoring in man's fallibility, one can begin to appreciate the premature nature of atheistic pronouncements as well as how ludicrous demands for 'evidence' are in order to 'believe' or at least grant validity to the real world... it would be as if a man were trying to see/probe/understand the farthest reaches/wonders of the cosmos with merely a pair of binoculars--the tool used is simply incapable of providing what you would be looking for.

How foolish to deny the existence of the real by means/methodologies of the unreal. If you can 'see' it you, don't need faith, and it isn't real... Without faith it is impossible to please God... again faith is the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen... God is invisible, unseen... and so is faith, but the existence/reality of both are made manifest by those you 'see' who possess/are possessed by, faith.
Click to expand...
*************
M*W: Have you ever considered becoming a polititian? You speak out of both corners of your mouth.

In order to read your post, I had to delete the bolds and italics between every other word, but I still think you don't know what you're talking about.

You said:
....we do not look at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen.
Click to expand...
*************
M*W: How can you identify those things that you cannot see but are looking at anyway? We have the sense of vision, so if something exists, we should be able to see it see it by some sort of method. If something cannot be seen, how do you know it exists? Psychiatrists would call this delusional.

Temporary vs. Eternal
Seen vs. Unseen

Please describe what you believe to be temporary. I already know where you're going with Eternal, and there is no basis in fact. Again, it's delusional.

The "word of god" has been proven to be not only temporary but false. That which is not seen cannot be tangible. If something is intangible it is not superior, because you have no way of determining what is superior if you don't have a method to test it. Believing in something doesn't make it so anywhere except in your own mind.

Binoculars are at least a tangible thing. Your mind is not a tangible substance. Humans are fallible. No news here. You make a comparison of the "real world" and the unseen world. The "real world" is valid, and the unseen world is invalid. You believe in the invalid.

The real can be seen. The unreal cannot be seen. It is only real in your own imagination. God is not real, it's an imaginary being. Only people who need a god will believe it exists. Things can only exist within the parameters of our imagination. Sure, we can touch things, taste things, smell things, see things and hear things, and we have a sense of perception of other things to some degree, but none of these attributes can make any god become real.
 
"the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal"...implying the things which are unseen trancend the things which are seen and, therefore, are superior
Click to expand...

Cool, invisible leprechauns are real, eternal and superior to boot.. who woulda thunk it? :bugeye:
 
Celpha Fiael said:
Irregardless of your actual convictions on that definition, it still is a bad one. :)
Click to expand...

Is it an inaccurate one?
It is what they believe, no?

(the word is regardless - don't mean to be pedantic, but it's a pet peeve of mine)
 
Trinity as I understand it:

- God the Father
- Jesus
- The Holy Spirit

I think one goes to hell for damning the Holy Spirit. As a matter of fact if you say or even think "Damn the Holy Spirit" you WILL burn in hell. Sorry about that guys :p

The Trinity is always explained like water: a gas, a solid, a liquid yet all water.

The Trinity is not supposed to make sense. That's part of the power and allure in Christianity. Mary's not part of the Trinity but is part of humanizing the religion.

I think that Christianity taps into some psychology aspects of humans in ways Islam and Buddhism doesn't. Some techniques used in Islam parallels those used in successful personality-beliefs and even used by Communism. Buddhism is probably too difficult for most people to get something out of it without having been brought up in it. Atheisms is never going to compete :bawl:
But Christianity takes the cake.
Even worse it evolves rapidly and successfully. If left unchecked I believe it will overrun all other beleif systems. Basically at the heart of Xainity is the psychological power of forgiveness ... it's really unrivaled. Many many nations have seen the way it takes over and have tried to stop it. Japan and China closed themselves off. Islam practically bans conversion. Hindus have tried to stop it. All of them are slowly succumbing.

Christians are like some sort of Religious Borg.

Michael
 
If you ever read of the hidden Christians in Japan you can see how insidious and enduring it is. I've known Muslims that have converted - actually kind of scary. As some people here can attest - it has a very powerful psychological appeal.
 
It is a rare occurrence when I agree with you, Michael (for the most part, anyway - Buddhsim is perhaps the simplest religion to grasp, if taught correctly).
Christianity, as it is taught and preached in the US, is a religion that doesn't require any real effort.
Eastern religions (hell, most religions) require hard work, sacrifice, virtue, many years of relentless practice, integrity in words and actions...
Christianity, on the other hand, offers automatic absolution (except for the Holy Ghost thing, which most conveniently ignore, anyway) with no hard work in a lazy culture obsessed with instant gratification (or is this a case of the chicken and the egg?).
All you have to say is, "Yes, Jesus", and you are past the velvet rope into the VIP room where you can hang out with celebrities, sycophants and whores who said "Yes, Jesus".
 
one_raven said:
The Trinity has nothing to do with Mary - you have been told wrong.
The Trinity is a triune Godhead made up of The Father (God), the Son (Jesus) and the Holy Ghost.

Three different aspects of the same God.
Think of it this way...
You are made up of your Body, Mind and Works - correct?
Three distinct aspects of one person.
Click to expand...

Trinity in detail, from the bible, Old and New Testament:

Moderator comment.

Huge copy and paste from religious texts deleted.

Plese post relevant links where possible and or add personal discourse.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
one_raven said:
Is it an inaccurate one?
It is what they believe, no?

(the word is regardless - don't mean to be pedantic, but it's a pet peeve of mine)
Click to expand...

Ah so it is, thanks for pointing that out. It might be what their belief, but it is a horrible one. It doesn't even make sense, as we've seen. So poor word choice on my part again, it is an accurate belief in terms of what Christians uphold, but the belief itself is wholly far from truth imo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top