15 May 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerdon't think he looks like? I thought you said you saw him?
[b]That's not seeing God.
I believe that the God of the Bible is dynamic: He often acts differently; now full of love, then again as avenger. For that reason we may not make images of Him. Because he is the creator, God is totally different from man; He is unrecognizable to sinful man. Logical understanding and intellect of the sinful man cannot ex ...[text shortened]... n and joy. I don't think that he has the exact physical image or appearance that we humans do. [/b]
15 May 05
Originally posted by KneverKnightNay, that's just the cat. We have not been deemed worthy to inhale the Dragonous aromas because the Dragon is the finest of all God's creations. This means that there is absolutely no way to sense the dragon unless God decides to show you. And funnily enough Dragon-viewing rights are few and far between these days.
well, that would explain the odd odour ...
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
15 May 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI literaly only read the Bible. The Holy Spirit is the One that gives meaning to the words that I read. I may find meanig in some words, (which the Holy Spirit reveals) and if read by someone in the flesh it may have no meaning whatsoever.
It seems to me you're interpreting the Bible. I thought you read it literally?
15 May 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungSince God does not have a body, it can not mean that God looks like a man. The image of God is not a physical image, so it must be a spiritual image. And it must be something that differentiates man from animals - they are not made in God's image. I think it is the mind that is the image - the way man can think and reason - that is the image of God. God spoke to Adam and Eve, he gave language to man, and language requires the ability to reason in abstract terms. It is that ability to think logically that is the image of God. Language, word, God created by "saying," Christ is the Logos of God.
That's not seeing God. God looks like humans supposedly. We're made in his image right?
15 May 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ColettiWould you then hold that utilizing reason is a godly action?
I think it is the mind that is the image - the way man can think and reason - that is the image of God. ... It is that ability to think logically that is the image of God.
As such, how do you feel about 'Christians' who adhere to a literal Bible in spite of
what is certainly a contradiction to any reasoning person (I've touched on a few of
these contradictions and you have witnessed the 'mental gymnastics' people are
willing to do in order to deny that contradictions in the Bible exist)?
Here is another question: Do you think that it is reasonable for 'God' to
slaughter 42 children for calling Elisha 'bald-head,' or do you feel that the Bible has
not accurately reported the circumstances of that event (as I do)?
Nemesio
15 May 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThere's no such thing as reading without interpreting. The Holy Spirit is what helps one interprets and reason about the Bible correctly. Interpreting is the fist step in understanding the meaning of any sentence. Then comes logical reasoning. No one know what any sentence means unless one knows what the words mean, and the meaning of the words require understanding the meaning the author intends to convey.
It seems to me you're interpreting the Bible. I thought you read it literally?
15 May 05
Originally posted by NemesioGod is a God of wisdom, not confusion. I think that the Bible is literally true, not that all the Bible is to be understood as literal. The story of Elisha and the killing of 42 young conveys an event that truly happened. It is a report of something that literally happened.
Would you then hold that utilizing reason is a godly action?
As such, how do you feel about 'Christians' who adhere to a literal Bible in spite of
what is certainly a contradiction to any reasoning person (I've touched on a few of
these contradictions and you have witnessed the 'mental gymnastics' people are
willing to do in order to deny that c ...[text shortened]... hat the Bible has
not accurately reported the circumstances of that event (as I do)?
Nemesio
What do you mean by the "not accurately reported circumstances"? I think the report is true, and accurate. I don't know what the circumstances were (the Bible does not tell us), but what the Bible says is reported correctly. I think maybe we assume the circumstance to easily and come to wrong conclusions. For instance - I doubt calling him "baldy" is a simple insult as it is today. And the there are many interesting details before and after that event.
15 May 05
Originally posted by ColettiThere's no such thing as reading without interpreting.
There's no such thing as reading without interpreting. The Holy Spirit is what helps one interprets and reason about the Bible correctly. Interpreting is the fist step in understanding the meaning of any sentence. Then comes logical reasoning. No one know what any sentence means unless one knows what the words mean, and the meaning of the words require understanding the meaning the author intends to convey.
i would argue that this statement is simply not true. but, moreover, it is beside the point. i think the point AThousandYoung was trying to make is that by "interpret" he meant that DJ2 is drawing conclusions from the bible's passages that do not necessarily follow from strictly a literal reading. either the bible is literally true in all accounts, or it is not. if it is literally true in all accounts, then there is no need to draw other outside conclusions, or to "interpret" as it was meant.
16 May 05
3 edits
Originally posted by LemonJelloMUFFY is the BIGGEST CAT, yet even more! SHE is METAGOD, yet not a big god (or cat) any more than God is a big human. Muffy is to God what God is to humans. This is the interpretation this unworthy one has of MUFFY. Maybe telerion, HE WHO HAS HAD REVELATIONS OF MUFFILICIOUSNESS can answer you better.
DJ2,
i am not sure what you mean when you say that you saw god. from what i gather, it sounds like you only saw the beautiful aspects of that which we call 'mother nature'. it seems that telerion could have seen the same views and ...[text shortened]... saw god himself. what is the distinction between the two for you?
(Muffy's an alternative to God. Any argument for God can be used as an argument for Muffy - a being which is superior to God in every sense - I think. It's a way of showing that arguements for God are very weak, since they are also arguments for Muffy or any other being we could possibly imagine. I think. I am not the prophet though).
16 May 05
Originally posted by dj2beckeri see my god in every molecule of every object... every one.. every thing... is a part of The All
[b]Matthew 5:8 - Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
I believe this in the reason why many people cannot see God. I went hiking in the Drakensburg mountains during the weekend. When I looked at the mountains and nature around me, I could only marvel at the handiwork of God.
Psalms 19:1 - The heavens declare the glory of God ...[text shortened]... given you a pure heart that you will see Him. I saw Him this weekend. I saw Him in His creation.