28 Sep 09
Originally posted by TerrierJackI'm not even sure I can understand what you're saying.
What is "existed forever?" Another thing bound up with your experience of time.
Likewise you posit the "spiritual" as just "that state outside of everything I have experience of." Don't you see that given that definition someone can (and many do) say anything they like about "that?" You are free to do so (and free to believe that you are not just an ...[text shortened]... ) but please don't call it "thinking." Thinking involves reason - not just feelings.
It sounds alot like an argument. After all, the point I was making was in reply to another's post which was in reply to a post of mine.
So I think your comments are missed directed in that they don't address the original idea in any meaningful way. imo
28 Sep 09
Originally posted by StarrmanEverything-anything-whatever.
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]
You're entitled to your own opinion.
Since you don't acknowledge the existence of God you obviously know nothing at all about God. So how would you know whether or not one could know this much or that much?
28 Sep 09
Originally posted by josephwThat's not consistent with your previous posts. If we're to agree that god lays outside the spatio-temporal realm then I cannot know anything about him and if he lays within it, he is subject to the nature of beginning and end (assuming the universe is finite).
Everything-anything-whatever.
You're entitled to your own opinion.
Since you don't acknowledge the existence of God you obviously know nothing at all about God. So how would you know whether or not one could know this much or that much?
28 Sep 09
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne"The problem is that if the universe "must have" come from somewhere, then under the same line of reasoning, God "must have" come from somewhere. If there is no "must have" for God, then there is no "must have" for the universe either."
Most of the time I've heard such questions, it's been in the context of someone asserting that "The universe must have come from somewhere, so it God must be the creator."
The problem is that if the universe "must have" come from somewhere, then under the same line of reasoning, God "must have" come from somewhere. If there is no "must have" for God, t ...[text shortened]... hat "The universe must have come from somewhere, so it God must be the creator."
Can I ask you a question sir? Do you believe that God can stretch a gnats ass over a telephone pole?
28 Sep 09
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobie"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! "
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 insi ...[text shortened]... was a gluttonous man having friends with tax collectors! yes yes some things do not change.
lol. You really like playing the "slanderous" card. Maybe you also ought to try to read and comprehend what YOU wrote. I was just alluding to YOUR statement.
RC: "actually i am uninterested in 'taking a shot', unless of course it is some famed single malt from yesteryear."
28 Sep 09
Originally posted by KellyJaySeems like you've lost the thread of this discussion. If you care to continue, I suggest you reread from the beginning.
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
28 Sep 09
Originally posted by StarrmanGod is the prime mover. He is subject to nothing. Everything is subject to Him.
That's not consistent with your previous posts. If we're to agree that god lays outside the spatio-temporal realm then I cannot know anything about him and if he lays within it, he is subject to the nature of beginning and end (assuming the universe is finite).
According to the Bible God is everywhere at once. From one end of creation to the other. From eternity past to eternity future. There are no constraints on God what-so-ever.
God is willing to reveal Himself to anyone willing to know Him.
There is a verse that says, and I'm paraphrasing, "draw close to Me, and I will draw close to you."
Look closely. It is on His terms not ours. First the command, "draw close to Me", and then the promise, "and I will draw close to you."
28 Sep 09
1 edit
Originally posted by josephwWell, I guess that's no less rational than for most "salvation by grace" Christians.
[b]"The problem is that if the universe "must have" come from somewhere, then under the same line of reasoning, God "must have" come from somewhere. If there is no "must have" for God, then there is no "must have" for the universe either."
Can I ask you a question sir? Do you believe that God can stretch a gnats ass over a telephone pole?[/b]
28 Sep 09
1 edit
Originally posted by josephwActually, I believe that Jesus taught salvation by righteousness.
Oh that's right. You got salvation by works didn't you?
I guess that means the rest of us Christians expect something for nothing.
After all, Jesus died in vain.
If you want to put it that way, yes, you "expect something for nothing" and not only that, it contradicts the teachings of Jesus. I suspect the concept of "salvation by grace" and all it entails, was introduced and persists today primarily because it is easy to "market". They'd have you believe that all one need do is proclaim, "I believe, I believe". Yet Jesus says different:
Matthew 7:21-23
"Not everyone who says to me,'Lord, Lord,' will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven...Depart from me, you who work iniquity.'"
28 Sep 09
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThe Lord knows how hard it is to market a performanced based system of theology.
Actually, I believe that Jesus taught salvation by righteousness.
If you want to put it that way, yes, you "expect something for nothing" and not only that, it contradicts the teachings of Jesus. I suspect the concept of "salvation by grace" and all it entails, was introduced and persists today primarily because it is easy to "market".
That's why He commissioned Paul to preach salvation by Grace. It gets the riff raff out of the way of you sinless types.
You trample the blood of Christ under your feet putting yourself under the law.
28 Sep 09
4 edits
Originally posted by josephwIn case you missed my edit:
The Lord knows how hard it is to market a performanced based system of theology.
That's why He commissioned Paul to preach salvation by Grace. It gets the riff raff out of the way of you sinless types.
You trample the blood of Christ under your feet putting yourself under the law.
They'd have you believe that all one need do is proclaim, "I believe, I believe". Yet Jesus says different:
Matthew 7:21-23
"Not everyone who says to me,'Lord, Lord,' will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven...Depart from me, you who work iniquity.'"
Why do you place the teachings of Paul above the teachings of Jesus?
Why do you call Jesus "LORD" when it is Paul that you follow? Paul wasn't even a true disciple of Jesus. Why trust what Paul tells you?