The Origin of God

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Are you familiar with the concept of non sequitur?

Are you really that desperate to take a shot?

What Hubris! Infact it is YOU that has always been desperate to "take a shot".

You are so desperate that you will use the words of Jesus without saying if ....

a) you believe in Him
b) follow Him
c) are free of sin or
d) believe in his Father.

You take his words out of context and choose to interpret them to mean what you want them to mean and refuse to engage with any challenging discussion on it.

You teach what you most need to learn.

Originally posted by Starrman
Sorry, no. Beyond our finite ability know [b]anything at all, not everything or something. You cannot have it both ways. Either he exists outside spatio-temporal constraints or he doesn't.[/b]

Putting limits on the all powerful God are we?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Are you familiar with the concept of non sequitur?

Are you really that desperate to take a shot?

actually i am uninterested in 'taking a shot', unless of course it is some famed single malt from yesteryear. The matter is perfectly clear, you are one who purports to uphold the teachings of Christ, in fact, you only give credence to the words of Christ elevating these above others, stating that they directly contradict other areas of scripture. It has been pointed out to you that Christ states that God created, are you giving credence to the words of Christ, for your statement seems to betray this quite vehemently.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
actually i am uninterested in 'taking a shot', unless of course it is some famed single malt from yesteryear. The matter is perfectly clear, you are one who purports to uphold the teachings of Christ, in fact, you only give credence to the words of Christ elevating these above others, stating that they directly contradict other areas of scripture. ...[text shortened]... ing credence to the words of Christ, for your statement seems to betray this quite vehemently.

You claim you are "uninterested in 'taking a shot'", yet your posts belie that claim. Your posts are seriously off topic.

Also try reading and comprehending what I wrote. Maybe it'd help if you lay off the scotch.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
actually i am uninterested in 'taking a shot', unless of course it is some famed single malt from yesteryear. The matter is perfectly clear, you are one who purports to uphold the teachings of Christ, in fact, you only give credence to the words of Christ elevating these above others, stating that they directly contradict other areas of scripture. ...[text shortened]... ing credence to the words of Christ, for your statement seems to betray this quite vehemently.

You do of course realise that he is not interested in a discussion , he just wants to pull your pud. He's a crusader on a mission - he has no interest in adult debating.

Originally posted by knightmeister
You do of course realise that he is not interested in a discussion , he just wants to pull your pud. He's a crusader on a mission - he has no interest in adult debating.

KM Sep 23 2009 22:26 GMT
"As I said , you are on a mission , but the problem is so am I. The difference is this time I will battle you with logic and reason rather than personalising it."

Well that didn't last long. But when you have so little by way of logic and reason...

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You claim you are "uninterested in 'taking a shot'", yet your posts belie that claim. Your posts are seriously off topic.

Also try reading and comprehending what I wrote. Maybe it'd help if you lay off the scotch.

ohhh a little Calvinistic streak coming out there. 'drinking and dancing, its the ruination of Scotland!!!'. i very rarely drink whiskey, in fact, there are many bottles that i receive as gifts which are still unopened. I may have a flute of red wine with a meal, and a little dram once in while, but that's it! Therefore what you are trying to insinuate is without foundation and is a contemptible and slanderous remark! Did not the son of man come eating and drinking yet people stated he was a gluttonous man having friends with tax collectors! yes yes some things do not change.

Originally posted by knightmeister
You do of course realise that he is not interested in a discussion , he just wants to pull your pud. He's a crusader on a mission - he has no interest in adult debating.

'pull your pud', Lol, haven't heard that phrase for ages!!!

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Birds? Cows? Apples? Oranges?

Creator? Created?

Your argument is irrational. It presupposes a "creator" and "created".

Evidently you are one of "those steeped in delusion because of a deeply vested interest in protecting their belief system. "

LOL, yes since that is the topic of discussion the one and only God, He
is the only one I care to talk about, and everything else is simply His
creation. What is irrational about that? I don't see anthing irrational
about presupposing a creator or creation it is siimply defining the
terms of the discussion. That isn't any more irrational than your
presupposing you cannot have a creator for all things within the universe!
Kelly

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"The answer is that it isn't. But then, neither is it difficult for the universe."

We're talking about two different things here. God, and the universe. They are not synonymous.

One is material, the other spiritual. Placing the value of eternal onto matter simultaneously with a living being is more difficult. imo[/b]

One is material, the other spiritual

Or, one is fiction, the other non-fiction.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]One is material, the other spiritual

Or, one is fiction, the other non-fiction.[/b]

yes having read 'the origin of the species', it appears to be the greatest work of fiction since the Lord of the rings trilogy!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes having read 'the origin of the species', it appears to be the greatest work of fiction since the Lord of the rings trilogy!

What on earth are you talking about and what relevance does it have to this thread?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
What on earth are you talking about and what relevance does it have to this thread?

random mate, randomness!

Originally posted by TerrierJack
"Eternal" only has meaning in relation to "Time." No time - no eternity. No time - no beginning - no end. Please think.

Maybe you should think about it a bit more.

Eternity is without time, so it has no relationship to time.

'Without beginning and without end' is the only way for us to bring eternity into view because we (humans) exist in a time, space, matter continuum.

The only aspect of time that I can think of that has any relationship to eternity is the 'now' of time.

Originally posted by whodey
The term origins implies a beginning. Of course, a beginning is dependent on the notion that time exists. Of course, time exists only because of the material universe. Time is simply a demension of that material universe. My answer is that God is independent of this and existed before the material universe, thus, he is eternal in this sense. Natrually, w ...[text shortened]... e to this existence simply because we have not experienced it nor have we been able to study it.

I know. I wish I could say it as well as you do. 🙂