Just a question about god

Oh I well it's not that I'm more 'worthy" as you put it, but that I was chosen of the lord. As for how I'm saved, I'm not, but still striving to reach complete perfection. I could not tell you all I believe in one night it would take a multitude of days. But I'm still not getting you to clear do you acually have the holyghost or not, meanig as a witness to others you have spoken in a unknown tongue, and now have power to lie down all sin and understand the things of the spirit?
 
Last edited:
You're a Waterhouse fan, Jenyar? What about Cowper?

Waterhouse got a little - hmm, prosaic? - for me, but I do like him very much.
 
Xev - I don't know Cowper - is he modern? I've probably seen his work without knowing it. What did he paint? Waterhouse can get a bit sentimental, but I like his themes and style. I'm a pre-raphaelite fan, although I think Maud Bailey might not have been considered that beautiful by today's standards ;) She's a bit square-jawed. And of course Art Noveau... Love its stylised beauty.


Binary
Revelation 19:10
... But he said to me, "Do not do that; I am a fellow servant of yours and your brethren who hold the testimony of Jesus; worship God. For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy."

Matthew 13:14
"In their case the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled, which says, '[Is 6:9; Mark 4:12; Luke 8:10; John 12:40; Acts 28:26, 27; Rom 10:16; 11:8] YOU WILL KEEP ON HEARING, BUT WILL NOT UNDERSTAND; YOU WILL KEEP ON SEEING, BUT WILL NOT PERCEIVE;

Romans 12:6
Since we have gifts that [Rom 12:3; 1 Cor 7:7; 12:4; 1 Pet 4:10] differ according to the grace given to us, each of us is to exercise them accordingly: if prophecy, according to the proportion of his faith;

1 Corinthians 12:10
and to another the effecting of miracles, and to another prophecy, and to another the distinguishing of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, and to another the interpretation of tongues.

1 Corinthians 13:2
If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.

Acts 17:27__..._that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;
28___for in Him we live and move and exist...

But this is what you really need to know:

Rom.10:
5For Moses writes that the man who [can] practice the righteousness (perfect conformity to God's will) which is based on the Law [with all its intricate demands] shall live by it.
6But the righteousness based on faith [imputed by God and bringing right relationship with Him] says, Do not say in your heart, Who will ascend into Heaven? that is, to bring Christ down;
7Or who will descend into the abyss? that is, to bring Christ up from the dead [as if we could be saved by our own efforts].
8But what does it say? The Word (God's message in Christ) is near you, on your lips and in your heart; that is, the Word (the message, the basis and object) of faith which we preach,
9Because if you acknowledge and confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and in your heart believe (adhere to, trust in, and rely on the truth) that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
10For with the heart a person believes (adheres to, trusts in, and relies on Christ) and so is justified (declared righteous, acceptable to God), and with the mouth he confesses (declares openly and speaks out freely his faith) and confirms [his] salvation.
11The Scripture says, No man who believes in Him [who adheres to, relies on, and trusts in Him] will [ever] be put to shame or be disappointed.
Click to expand...

You don't have to attain perfection or exhibit the gifts of the Spirit to be saved. That means you are bringing Christ down and lessening the grace by which we are saved. And everybody can be saved, not just those belonging to your church or my church.
 
Binary, you dont know if you are Protostant or Catholic. You said that you witnessed someone rise from the dead. You asked someone if they spoke in another tounge, let me guess, you have, right? You are so secure in your faith, yet you are so confused at the same time. You even said that you are a contracition. How is anyone supposed to beilieve you if your a contridiction. No, I will not stop debating this. Your claims are more absurd than Whatsupyall's. You are the typical theist, trying to explain yourself, and looking foolish. I have come to the conclusion, that you are just plain FULL OF SHIT.



Another thing, that person you witnessed rise from the dead, did he dig himself out of his grave? Or was he lying on a hospital bed, and was "pronounced" dead?
 
I'am not protestant or catholic, I'm christian. Real christians don't debate. Even as the apostales did not debate (look up bebate in the bible). I'm not just another thesis, What I told you, and was willing to tell you, was not for debate or glorying. The testamony of works I have written to you are true. Consider now what I have told you. Is it even possible that I'm lying cocerning salvation? I have said that in order to recieve the holyghost or become apart of this church, you must deal directly with god. Which means if you were to believe me and, even were convinced enough to assemble with one of our churchs, you could not become a member even if you observed what we observed, and were to profess that you believe what we believe, it would not make you one of us, we already have to many sinners that do that in our mist. Unless you repent to god, and seek him with your whole heart, you will not recieve the holyghost. An it would profit you nothing to pretend as though you were one of us, we do not even promote a sinner to try to stop sinning and adhere to our ways before they recieve the holghost, for the holghost come that we might have power. We were also once sinners, we know you can't do it, it's impossible to serve god with a carnal mind. I wish that all men would repent and come to a knowledge of the truth, but I do not compel you as though it where any profit to myself, for I now have a hope unto salvation. I only determined to labor with you that you might know of the grace of the lord.
 
Jenyar and Xev,

I like the pre-raphaelites also. Though I am not very educated in art or art history.

Here is a pretty work by Cowper (Venetian Ladies Listening).

080_6420392.jpg


I have this one on the wall of my hallway--my "gallery" :) of beautiful images I have cut from calendars and bought as small prints or postcards

10002359.jpg
 
Kenresus

Originally posted by Kenresus
I'm interested to know what Whatsupyall's posts look like BEFORE he edits them.
Click to expand...

Hahahaha! Nice one! Whatsupyall...if u dont have anything good/logical or rational thing to say....SHUT UP! Use ur words and brain (if u have one) wisely...ooops...if u dont have a brain...this is an INVALID STATEMENT.
 
Binary,


"Real christians don't debate" (Binary)

You must not be a real Christian, or any other so-called Christian that posts on these forums.



"Consider now what I have told you" (Binary)

I did, and I still dont believe you.


"I have said that in order to recieve the holyghost or become apart of this church, you must deal directly with god. Which means if you were to believe me and, even were convinced enough to assemble with one of our churchs, you could not become a member even if you observed what we observed, and were to profess that you believe what we believe, it would not make you one of us, we already have to many sinners that do that in our mist. Unless you repent to god, and seek him with your whole heart, you will not recieve the holyghost. An it would profit you nothing to pretend as though you were one of us, we do not even promote a sinner to try to stop sinning and adhere to our ways before they recieve the holghost, for the holghost come that we might have power. " (Binary)


Who said that I wanted to be one of you? You sound like a rambeling crack-head.


"We were also once sinners" (Binary)

Are you saying that you no longer commit sin of any kind? According to the BIBLE, everyone is a sinner. Your just a special kind of sinner, I suppose. The sole purpose of the word "sin" is to promote feelings of guilt, and it is used against valnerable people, like yourself.

"we know you can't do it, it's impossible to serve god with a carnal mind." (Binary)

You mean a rational and logical mind. One that does not believe in your superstitious garbage. I dont want to serve your imaginary hero. Grow up.
 
Last edited:
Kenresus and Binary

Originally posted by Kenresus
Binary,

"We were also once sinners" (Binary)

Are you saying that you no longer commit sin of any kind? According to the BIBLE, everyone is a sinner. Your just a special kind of sinner, I suppose. The sole purpose of the word "sin" is to promote feelings of guilt, and it is used against valnerable people, like yourself.

"we know you can't do it, it's impossible to serve god with a carnal mind." (Binary)

You mean a rational and logical mind. One that does not believe in your superstitious garbage. I dont want to serve your imaginary hero. Grow up.
Click to expand...

Now...as intellectuals, we should be respecting each others beliefs, opinions, and ideas. We are posting in order to present arguments that would defend our own beliefs, ideas and opinions, some may have the motive of converting others into their own mentality...but we generally post ideas, fact, opinions, for the sake of the pursuit of knowledge itself. We have our own brains to choose what to absorb in these flood of posts and what to garbage. No need to post that ur garbaging an idea or belief.

In response to Binary...even as a Christian, I do think we are still sinners because of our humanity. We inherited the predisposition to sin. however, the promise of forgiveness and salvation is always there, although it doesn't give us license to commit sin time and again.
 
Gladzic,


I agree with you, I could have chosen my words a little more carefuly. I apologize for the rant, and I apologize to Binary.
Next time I post, I will be more respectful.
 
Grey Seal

Long ago before we knew about the sun and all of that it was thought that...i forgot which god rode a chariot across the sky and that was how the sun moved.
Click to expand...

Apollo--the god of the sun :cool:
 
Re: Re: good question

Originally posted by Grey Seal
History kind of discredits that idea.
Click to expand...
Actually, History provides examples of crackpot science AND crackpot religion. Conversely, it also teaches that sound ideas in both science and religion have to fight upstream against fundamentalist dogma (plate tectonics for example or the inherent resonance of Evolution Theory with Genesis).
Originally posted by Grey Seal
Now we know through science. What I'm trying to get at is, overall, we haven't been a race with organized science all that long. Just give it some time.
Click to expand...
Science regularly changes what it 'factually' knows. One need only consider the search for a grand unified theory to see how many dead ends science can run down and still not reach a conclusion. How much time do I need to give science? I'll die long before science begins to approach explaining the simplest day to day events I’ve experienced. There are truths in my subjective reality for which science is mute. There are true statements in any logical system that can’t be proved or derived within the framework of that logical system. (The fact that Kurt Godel actually proved that tickles me to death) So I must look to subjective modes of knowledge for a more complete apprehension of reality. I demand a fair amount of coherence and internal consistency, as well as reproducible results - but I am free from the limitations imposed by restricting myself soley to rational thought when trying to understand subjective reality. I can use the whole spectrum of gifts that I subjectively know the Creator provided me with. Of course there are problems with subjective modes of knowledge just as there are with objective modes. Dismissing one over the other is unbalanced. Those of you who don’t believe that rational thought is restrictive must answer this question: What are you in the absence of thought? If “Cogito, ergo Sum”, then your stuck in 16th century western philosophy.
Originally posted by Grey Seal
What really pisses me off is that throughout history there have always been "narrow-minded religious fanatics" and there have been scientists (general term
Click to expand...
What, there are no narrow-minded science fanatics? I think this forum routinely challenges that notion. For instance, I'm not thoroughly educated in the basics of reason, but I understand that absence of proof is NOT proof of absence. Yet many people make this error repeatedly. In fact, I will go so far as to posit that science is, by definition, narrow-minded. It only works in the objective mode, not the subjective mode - a valid mode of knowing for which science is singularly designed to avoid.
Originally posted by Grey Seal We've been making progress and the religious fanatics are still in the same damned place. Haven't really made any progress or new "discoveries" and hell, they haven't even seen their "gods" since the damned book was written, which were never really proved to be seen(just happened to be seen by a few people but for some reason hes been away for the past 3000 years). They are just holding onto their same narrowminded points of view
Click to expand...
You and I both have a similar distaste of fanaticism. But you are the one taking a small, unrepresentative sample of vocal extremists and generalizing to the entire population. You appear to have no idea what the current state of Christian thought is – not that I blame you. There is a HUGE variation of thought surrounding a small core doctrine. I had no idea until I became a Christian that Christians weren't all like Jim Baker or Jerry Fallwell. I have observed that many Christian thinkers have absorbed the lessons of true science (which is revelatory of the nature of God). When late 19th century mathematical tools were developed to analyze space in N-dimensions, a minister named Edwin Abbott absorbed the idea and wrote a book called "Flatland", which simply and clearly described by analogy what an 'unseen universe' might look like. Almost a century later Edward Witten, at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, was hammering out the implications of String Theory when he postulated that the universe actually consists of either 10 or 26 dimension. Since we only perceive objectively in 3 dimensions plus time, the other dimensions remain objectively out of reach. Whitten hypothesized an experiment that would prove his theory - it requires converting all of the matter in the solar system to energy in order to create the conditions necessary to observe the phenomena he predicted. In spite of Whittens 'lame' reliance on an 'unseen universe' and your demands for immediate proof, he has not been deterred from his investigations.

At any rate, atheist-rationalist extremists who have been shouting at the theists to prove the existence of God simply either don't know or don't understand science and the scientific method well enough to know what it's limitations are. The problem many religious conservatives have with evolution is not the science behind the theory, but the extrapolation of the theory into broad statements of moral or social doctrine - e.g. "the THEORY of evolution PROVES that there is no Creator, since the universe is mechanistic and self-generated. Because everything is an accident, I'm free from historical moral contraints and can base my morality and behavior on derivative natural laws like 'survival of the fittest' which leads to social Darwinism, Eugenics, forced sterilizations, forced labor, etc etc."
 
Re: Re: Re: good question

Originally posted by Turduckin
In fact, I will go so far as to posit that science is, by definition, narrow-minded. It only works in the objective mode, not the subjective mode - a valid mode of knowing for which science is singularly designed to avoid.
Click to expand...

You have an elegant argument in my opinion and I mean no disrespect, however I think it is fair to add the following to the conversation: The point to science is an objective understanding of the universe. It isn't true that science, or at least lateral reasoning thereof doesn't apply subjectively. For instance the concepts in basic micro-economics like "opportunity cost" and "competition for scarce resources" are constantly at work subjectively in your life.

Further, and this is IMPORTANT for you to grasp: The subjective aspect of science is in the fact that, once presented with the objective evidence discovered via science, the only way for that to mean something is for someone to subjectively observe the data and make interpretations thereof.

It could of course be that I'm completely full of shit.
 
Well we dont know if there is more universes than this one,
and superstring theory tells us there could be 11 dimensions,taking a bit of that into account i could see a god,who didnt create the universe but needs the universe in order to survive,
now try not to think of god as a being,but rather the thing that is made of all the universes and there connected structure is a god,
we could suggest this is a superior being in so far as whatever it is is superior to the human race,but thats probably cos its made up of a network of universes.

When i think of all seeing i think of the 4th dimension(time)
because if you were a 4th dimensional being you would litterly see everything at once at all angles,youd not need to look round a corner to see beyond it.Would be all seeing.

Imagine a higher and higher dimensionaly structured being!

thing is it may not know of our existance even if its existance is the reason we exist,and we cant know why IT exists
alot like the atoms in our body dont know why we exist even though they do there thing.
 
The simple explination is that you are trying to get from point A to point B, God decides what those two points are, you decide how you're gonna get there; if you're gonna take point A to point F to point X to point M to point B or if you're gonna take point A straight to point B. In this way both Free Will of humans and an All Knowing God can exist together.

As for the Christians dont debate statment, I am a christian and I debate. I do it for the sole purpose of helping the other person to consider some new ideas that they maybe didnt know before and to allow them a way to work out their beliefs outloud in a rational way. I also know that many many christians debate with each other in order to help each other to grow in their faith and to understand the teachings they follow.

I understand your drive to show these people about God Binery, and I feel the same drive, but I think some of your comments send the wrong message (ie the christians dont debate portrays us as narrowminded and nieve).
 
Last edited:
God is good all the time. It is His nature. He doesn't change. It is our own free will. Simple...
 
Excellent post Turduckin, and good point wes... as a Christian with an active scientific interest, I think the problem is that the "science" of religion - theology - is based on principles that empirical science does not allow and cannot measure, probably because it requires us to accept a reality greater than ourselves, a spiritual realm.

Doom has made an interesting point, but the universe - along with all it's dimensions - was created by God. Just because we can't see far enough into those mists, doesn't mean God doesn't understand what He has created. We have to look around corners because our vision is limited to the physical dimensions. Science tries to describe this reality, but it is limited to what we can measure convincingly. Of course this doesn't mean that it will never be able to describe it - it will find out more and more. But as I see it, science fills the gap left by religion, not the other way around. God is the ultimate truth, and everything we do is actually in search of that truth. As I said: that's just the way I see it.
 
there are people who have, in some fashion, experienced a spiritual dimension, and those who have not. reading all these posts about god and science and religion reveals quickly those who have had such experiences, and those who have not.

the experience is a subjective one. it cannot be measured. it cannot be observed by anyone but yourself. it can't even be explained with words. but when you experience it, it no longer is a matter of "faith." there are no leaps to be made. you simply "know."
 
Originally posted by Jenyar
Excellent post Turduckin, and good point wes... as a Christian with an active scientific interest, I think the problem is that the "science" of religion - theology - is based on principles that empirical science does not allow and cannot measure, probably because it requires us to accept a reality greater than ourselves, a spiritual realm.

Doom has made an interesting point, but the universe - along with all it's dimensions - was created by God. Just because we can't see far enough into those mists, doesn't mean God doesn't understand what He has created. We have to look around corners because our vision is limited to the physical dimensions. Science tries to describe this reality, but it is limited to what we can measure convincingly. Of course this doesn't mean that it will never be able to describe it - it will find out more and more. But as I see it, science fills the gap left by religion, not the other way around. God is the ultimate truth, and everything we do is actually in search of that truth. As I said: that's just the way I see it.
Click to expand...

My biggest problem with your position is as follows: Isn't the assumption that god made the universe because there is a "spiritual" side of life just as bad as the assumption that evolution indicates that there is no god?

Aren't those equivalently ridiculous statements? The fact is, you may FEEL spirituality... you may FEEL god... but that only makes it real to YOU. Why should it have any bearing on ME (other than the respect you deserve as a human)?

I'm not trying to make it personal, I'm just stuck on the reasoning behind it. I've been down every road I can think of regarding all these issues.. and I find that anyone who tells you they have an answer other than "undecided" has made assumptions that are unnacceptable to me. Maybe I'm just a gigantic ASS, but well, I am what I should be. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top